08-26-1986 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes 8/26/86 Chairman Tra11e closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BARRETT MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL 01' '!'HI zen CWGIl REQUEST BY GERALD SMITH, SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION OF THE NORTHERN LO~ L!NI BY THE CITY ENGINEER. COMMISSIONER FUCHS SECONDED THE MO~10N. '!'HI MOTION PASSED 6-0. 10. '~@liminAry Plat Review for M-Vale Subdivision/Public Hearing Mr. Taylor explained that the approximately 202 acre subdivision is located 1-1/2 miles west of County Road 1, south of County Road 32, and north of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of~ay. He further explained that the plat will consist of 71 lots. 2-1/2 acres and larger in size. Mr. Taylor stated that 192nd Avenue would connect with Ogden Street to connect with the Peterson Addition, and also that the plat would be accessed on the north by Meadowvale Road(County Road 32). In addition, Outlot A between Lot 17 of Block 1 and Lot 1 of Block 2 could provide access for future development to the east. Chairman Tra11e expressed his concern with the 2,000 foot dead-end street, as listed in Item 3 of the Building & Zoning Administrator's memo to the Planning Commission dated August 20, 1986. Mr. Taylor stated that he did not see a way to loop a road around the plat. Chairman Tra1le opened the public hearing. MS. Debra Rock expressed her concern for adequate access for fire and emergency vehicles. She stated she is a resident of Be1gin Acres where there is only one railroad crossing and that the same situation would be created of this plat if developed. Mr. Rohlf explained that with the development of this plat, the Peterson Addition would be opened up on the north, thereby connecting County Road 35 with County Road 32. Herb Adolphson of 13935 Meadowvale Road expressed his concern with Traffic congestion, location of proposed access onto Meadowva1e being directly across from his driveway. and also felt that the steep grade of the access would cause head lights to shine into his house at night. Mr. Nord questioned what would happen with the mutual fence1ine maintenance agreement of the plat if developed. Mr. Smith stated that any fenceline problems or discrepancies would be taken care of when the property is staked. Mr. Nord stated that he was referring to the conditions of the fence due to natural deterioration through the years and who would be responsible for any repairs or replacements. Mr. Smith answered that he could understand Mr. Nord's concern but did not feel the future neighboring property owners would probably not want to see the fence there at all and it would be doubtful that they would help maintain it.