03/06/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I Chairman Pe~erS~n replied that if Mr. Rekucki feels his rights have been violated, h~ can address Council regarding certain eyesores or safety hazards. Mr. Rekuck~Wii~ not have to give up any rights. Mr. Raatikka stated that it would be possible to restrict the speed on the MSA street to 30 m.P.h. I I i ! I I I I I Chairman Pe~ers~n referred to Item #9 of Mr. Raatikka's letter of February 3, 1984 regarding 50' building setback. It was no,ed that the PUD setbacks are from 20' to 30'. Mr. Raatikka stated that PUD setback requirements can be relaxed, but a minimum should be set ~long the MSA street. Commissioner D~emer noted that most of the parcels with a 20' setback are not facing the MSA street. The Commission idiscussed sidewalks and bikeways at this time. Mr. Carson Sta~ed that he has no strong reaction either way. He does feel that a trailway or bikeway would get more use than a sidewalk, but it makes no difference to ~he developer because the sidewalks would be paid for by MSA funds. The concept ofcreating a bikeway, with allowances for parking, was discussed. Commissioner Hendriksen noted that allowing parking on this street would defeat the purpose or'the acceleration lane. Commissioner Deemer stated he has no problem with allowing parking as long as the homeow~ierslunderstand that when the street becomes a through street, no parking will be invoked. Mr. Berg state~ that bikeways should be segregated from roadways. He also pointed out that the City would be responsible for maintenance costs on sidewalks. I ! Commission oonSensus is not to require sidewalks. Commissioner Deemer suggested that Barium St. N.W. not link into the business property to the south of the PUD; there is no need to when Argon accesses that busiDess.property; it is creating a possible situation of through traffic to the busineSS property. I I I I I Mr. Berg Neco~mended leaving that stub of Barium to the south, that the vacant property ~uld develop as residential as well as business and then that stub would be an advantage. The stub can be vacated if the property develops otherwise.' Hr. CarsOn~sta~ed, from a developers view point, there would be no problem in ending Barium as a bubble. Mr. Schnel~e ~tated that he received a call regarding play areas for residents of the PUD and that the adjacent park has very wet soil and tot lots are needed in the iPUD; the homeowners association would be responsible for maintenance of those tot lots. P & Z/February 7, 1984 Page 4 of 9