Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Zimmerman stated that a minor subdivision would be appropriate. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting yes: Chairman Zimmerman, Commissioners Howell, <br />Hendriksen, Holm, Shumway, and LaDue. Voting no: None. <br /> <br />Request For Sketch Plan Review_.' Case Of Mr. Art Raud~o And Mr. <br />Gilbert Menkveld: <br /> <br />Mr. Art Raudio showed the Commission a concept plan of Pineview Estates Third <br />Addition and discussed the proposal with the Commission in regards to traffic, <br />drainage, neighboring properties, zoning, etc. Mr. Raudio gave the Commission <br />a map of the drainage ponds and informed the Commission that they will provide <br />a drainage easement through that area. Mr. Raudio showed the Commission <br />alternate versions of the sketch plan. He stated that they would like the <br />Commission's direction on which plan the Commission would be in favor of. They <br />want the project to fit in with the City's overall plans. <br /> <br />Commissioner Howell stated that he has a concern of any more roads accessing <br />onto County Road ~56 and is also concerned about the extension of County Road <br />#116. <br /> <br />Mr. Raudio stated that there is access there at the present time and that can't <br />be denied to them. <br /> <br />Chairman Zimmerman stated that they might have to bear some of the costs to <br />improve the road. The City will probably know more after the airport <br />referendum and can give Mr. Raudio more direction at that time. Chairman <br />Zimmerman also noted comments from Mr. John Stine of the DNR. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Shumway and seconded by Commissioner Howell to proceed <br />with the plat using Plan B. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting yes: Chairman Zimmerman, Commissioners Shumway, <br />Howell, LaDue. Holm, and Hendriksen. <br /> <br />Case #3a: Request For Sketch Plan Review Of Minor Subdivision~ Ca~ Of Mr. <br /> Ha~k Muhich: <br /> <br />Ms. Norris stated that Mr. Hank Muhich appeared before the Commission last <br />month and received approval of a metes and bounds subdivision of his property. <br />Since that time, however, Mr. Muhich's finance company has requested that the <br />subdivision be created by a minor subdivision. Ms. Norris stated that this <br />would probably be better for the City as well. <br /> <br />Chairman Zimmerman stated that he feels Lot 2 should be changed to 0ut!ot A. <br />It should also be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission for their <br />c ommen t s. <br /> <br />Commission consensus was that the subdivision was appropriate based on the <br />Commission's recommendation for the metes and bounds subdivision of that <br />pr ope r ty. <br /> <br />Case f~3b: <br /> <br />R~quest For Site Plan Review_-. Case Of Mr. John Be!inski Of <br />W~k, Inc.: <br /> <br />Ms. Norris stated that the Wa!tek file contains a memo stating that the <br />existing structure does not meet certain requirements of the Building Code and <br />that the building must be brought into conformance with the Building Code prior <br />to any new construction. <br /> <br />Planning & Zoning Commission/September 1, t987 <br /> Page 5 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />