Laserfiche WebLink
F <br />MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 <br />ZONING FILE #1366-BOTTERPIErD CONTINUED . <br />Objective was to discourage any further crossing of the Luce <br />Line. <br />Kellev asked whether it was the concensus of the Planning <br />commission to have Out lot B combined with Lot 1, and combine <br />oS^lot i with Lot 2. Hanson asked Mr. Butterfield why Outlot B <br />Sid not go with Lot 2. Hr. Butterfield replied that he wanted <br />maintain access to Lot 2. Gaffron observed that Outlo^ A <br />only briccessible by foot, given that the crossing <br />easement would not be within the new lot. Mabusth asked the <br />?om«is^^^^ to consider whether there were « ny <br />Alternatives to this proposal. Kelley recollected an application <br />2h«racJ«s was allowed through a wetland area. Mabusth <br />reminded Kelley that the Dim would not *1^°“ ^2^2alternatives were available. Kelley commented that Outlot A was <br />landlocked. Brown mentioned that the building enve ope <br />Outlot A was severely limited. <br />Planning Commissioner Hanson commented that after thorough <br />eonsideration# he had no problems with this application, ^^th the <br />««ption^orsetting fofth a specific provision pertaining to <br />access. <br />Setback requirements were another issue to <br />Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission should <br />.Sthacks from the Luce Line, since the lot configuration both <br />SidM of the Luce line made questionable the interpretation of <br />which Is the "rear" lot line. The other setback concern <br />the fact that the greenhouse would be located only 1' from Outlo <br />C. <br />Kelley observed that the Luce Lire Trail was staked <br />considerably wider than the trail that is actually <br />Bellows added that the Trail was actually 100 ft., . <br />travelled oortion was only 10 ft. Cohen believed that <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 />to resolve the problem with the greenhouse location. <br />The remaining Planning Commissioners agreed that would solve the <br />^oblem. Gaffron stated that such a <br />^he citv with any access for future development of adjacent lots. <br />Sllwe^noted that this was a special condition and «here Outlot <br />C coold normally be considered a driveway easement, it »h®u^d be <br />designated as an^outlot only for future planning considerations. <br />Gaffron stated that technically a 10* lot <br />would be required due to the property not meeting the <br />IdditlSS* thJ city Enlin.mr had sogg.ated that tha «*i*ting <br />IAmm wh.A Out l2t C and Watertown Road intersect may need to be <br />?2 ”*gn2d so It would be perpendicular to Watertown Road.