Laserfiche WebLink
•f <br />MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 <br />ZONING FILE «1366-BOTTBRFIBLD CONTIN1 <br />objective was to discourage any further crossing of the Luce <br />Line. <br />Kelley asked whether it was the concensus of the Planning <br />Commission to have Out lot B combined with Lot 1, and combine <br />Outlot A with Lot 2. Hanson asked Mr. Butterfield why Outlot B <br />did not go with Lot 2. Mr. Butterfield replied that he wanted <br />to maintain access wO Lot 2. Gaffron observed that Outlot A <br />would only be accessible by foot, given that the crossing <br />easement would not be within the new lot. Mabusth asked the <br />Planning Commission to consider whether there were any <br />alternatives to this proposal. Kelley recollected an application <br />where access was allowed through a wetland area. Mabusth <br />reminded Kelley that the DNR would not allow such an access since <br />alternatives were available. Kelley commented that Outlot A was <br />landlocked. Brown mentioned that the building envelope for <br />Outlot A was severely limited. <br />Planning Commissioner Hanson commented that after thorough <br />consideration, he had no problems with this application, with the <br />exception of setting forth a specific provision pertaining to <br />access. <br />Setback requirements were another issue to be considered. <br />Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission should determine <br />setbacks from the Luce Line, since the lot configuration both <br />sides of the Luce line made questionable the interpretation of <br />which is the "rear" lot line. The other setback concern involved <br />the fact that the greenhouse would be located only 1* from Outlot <br />C. <br />Kelley observed that the Luce Line Trail was staked <br />considerably wider than the trail that is actually travelled. <br />Bellows added that the Trail was actually 100 ft., though the <br />travelled portion was only 10 ft. Cohen believed that the <br />setback from the Luce Line should be 100 ft. All other Planning <br />Commissioners concurred. <br />Johnson suggested designating Outlot C as a driveway <br />easement to resolve the problem with the greenhouse location. <br />The remaining Planning Commissioners agreed that would solve the <br />problem. Gaffron stated that such a solution would not provide <br />the City with any access for future development of adjacent lots. <br />Bellows noted that this was a special condition and where Outlot <br />C could normally be considered a driveway easement, it should be <br />designated as an outlot only for future planning considerations. <br />Gaffron stated that technically a 10' lot width variance <br />would be required due to the property not meeting the width <br />requirement at a point 100' back from the right-of-way. In <br />addition, the City Engineer had suggested that the existing <br />access where Outlot C and Watertown Road intersect may need to be <br />realigned so it would be perpendicular to Watertown Road.