Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Bill Baker was present. <br /> <br />It was noted that along with the preliminary plat, a petition for a rear <br />service road was ~t~ttted. <br /> <br />Con~nission De~ner of the Planning and Zoning Commission was present and stated <br />that the Planning and Zoning Commission forced initiation of the petition to <br />satisfy the State Highway Depart~nent's request to see plans that will <br />eliminate the t~mporary accesses from Hwy. 10. <br /> <br />CDuncilmember Schlueter noted that the petition is inadequate as it is only <br />signed by Mr. Kovar and not 35% of the abutting property owners. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that Council can receive the petition but no action can be <br />taken because the petition is inadequate and it would require a 4/5 vote of <br />council to 9et the issue to a public hearing. <br /> <br />City Engineer Raatikka stated that the State will allow temporary access <br />provided the City has a plan to r~ve these accesses in the future and that <br />is what the City is doing in requiring rear eas~nents from each of the <br />parcels. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that there were (xm~ents at the Planning and <br />Zoning meeting regarding this service road being in the discussion stage for <br />20 years; there should be a resolution adopted which would firm up plans for <br />this service road. <br /> <br />Mcr. Berg stated that Staff feels it is economically unrealistic to put the <br />service road in at this time because: <br /> <br />1. ~ere is a building located in the roadway. <br /> <br />2. ~hat property is in the urban service area to evenually have services <br /> along that service road. <br /> <br />Councilmm~er Sorteberg stated that the temporary accesses will be there a <br />long time and should be blacktopped. <br /> <br />Mr. Bill Baker stated that Planning and Zoning's motion included that if the <br />service road was not installed within one year's time, the front temporary <br />accesses would be blacktopped. <br /> <br />Mr. Berg stated that he and Mr. Raatikka suggest that as each parcel in the <br />plat develops, each parcel be required to extend it's blacktop parking lot <br />surface to access the next parcel. <br /> <br />0ouncil proceeded to review the petition again. Mr. Baker stated that the <br />intent of the petition was to request service road improvements from Sunfish <br />Lake Blvd. to Cty. Rd. ~56 be brought to public hearing stage. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that the petition, on it's face value, is <br />adequate because the petition only specifies service road improvements through <br /> March 7, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 6 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />