Laserfiche WebLink
Commission[er <br /> <br />~an Scoy asked what the distance was from her property to the right-of-way. <br /> <br />Mr. Kline ifi,.dic~ted probably about 10 feet, then the right-of-way is 33 feet. He suggested the <br />homeowner inay~ want to access her driveway from the new street. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jbhnson noted the developer made a good point about accessing the new road. If <br />the homeow,her {an find a way to hook up to it, it may be better. <br /> <br />Chairperson r[N~ stated he would request the developer contact the Diedrichs on screening. <br /> <br />Mr, Kline s~tedi subdividing Lots 1 and 2 in a north/south orientation relieves the issue with the <br />accessory building, but they will have two double-frontage lots. <br /> ' t J~mkowski indicated usually double-frontage is a good thing from the City's <br />City Engineer <br />perspective, i <br /> <br />Commissioner JOhnson asked if the developer has looked at the Staff review letter. <br /> <br />Mr. Kline st~ed he has no concem with it. <br /> <br />City Engine4r J~jl~kowski indicated there are some comments about the drainage system. He <br />stated they n~ed to firm up the wetland areas. <br />Motion by C~airPerson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the <br /> public <br /> hearing. <br /> <br />Motion Carried.' Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Brauer, Shepherd, <br />Van Scoy an~! W~tson. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Reeve. <br /> <br />Motion by Ciom0nissioner Johnson, seconded by Chairperson Nixt, to approve the preliminary <br />plat contingegt On compliance with City Staff Review Letter dated May 30, 2003, revised to <br />include scree.hing for the property at 16919 Tiger Street, and the applicant receiving a variance to <br />cul-de-sac ler~gthi <br /> <br />Motion Carried. !Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Shepherd, Van Scoy <br />and Watson. yoting No: Commissioner Brauer. Absent: Commissioner Reeve. <br /> <br />Commissione~ Bmuer stated he does not like the cul-de-sac situation. <br /> <br />Case #2: <br /> <br />Case #3: <br />Case #4: <br /> <br />Ro, quest for Preliminary Plat Review of Alpine Acres; Case of Oak Creek <br />Bfiilders <br /> <br />R~quest for Site Plan Review of Alpine Acres; Case of Oak Creek Builders <br />R~luest for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Alpine Acres 2"a <br />Addition; Case of Oak Creek Builders <br /> <br />Planning Commission/June 5, 2003 <br /> Page 5 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />