Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pipestone County commissioners deny plan for six driveways along Eighth Avenue over safety concerns
Summary
Pipestone County Board of Commissioners on June 10 rejected a developer request to place six individual driveways onto County Road 15 (Eighth Avenue), saying the permit raised traffic‑safety and pedestrian‑route concerns.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pipestone County Board of Commissioners on June 10 rejected a developer request to place six individual driveways onto County Road 15 (Eighth Avenue), saying the permit raised traffic‑safety and pedestrian‑route concerns.
County Engineer Nick Bergman recommended denying the permit after reviewing the proposal and consulting two Minnesota Department of Transportation traffic engineers, saying the configuration “may have a negative impact on the city's Safe Routes School project,” Bergman told the board. Bergman said he denied the permit for those reasons before the developer sought the commission’s action.
The recommendation came during a presentation by developer Jeremy Whipple, who described a phased housing plan that would begin with 18 lots served in part by the six driveways under review and could expand to as many as 80 lots over time. Whipple told the board the developer’s design aimed to use existing water and sewer infrastructure and keep home prices and lot sizes lower than other local developments. “The state isn't paying our property taxes. The state doesn't help us develop our communities,” Whipple said, arguing the project would expand housing choice and increase local tax base.
Why it mattered: Commissioners said the decision balanced two priorities — enabling housing development and following engineering and state traffic guidance to protect pedestrians, including students who would use the Safe Routes to School pathway planned in the boulevard along Eighth Avenue. Several commissioners voiced support for the engineer’s recommendation and for following MnDOT guidance; others emphasized the economic benefits Whipple described.
Details of the proposal and debate - Whipple said phase 1 would include 18 lots on the hill, with later phases adding more lots; he estimated those 18 houses would generate about $60,000 a year in property tax and said construction costs for the 18 homes would be in the $6.3 million to $7.2 million range. He described planned house sizes of roughly 1,000 to 1,500 square feet and said proposed lots on the initial phase would be about 93 by 150 feet. - Bergman said the configuration requested — six separate driveways onto County Road 15 — raised spacing and safety concerns and could conflict with the county’s Safe Routes to School plans for a sidewalk or pathway in the boulevard. Bergman told the board he had obtained reviews from two MnDOT traffic engineers who concurred with his concerns and provided guidance used by MnDOT. - Commissioners and staff discussed alternatives raised during the meeting, including routing traffic into a new internal road to the east rather than creating direct driveways onto County Road 15. The city indicated it would install sewer in the boulevard to enable the development; commissioners noted that building an internal road would increase developer cost and could affect housing affordability.
Board action and next steps Commissioners voted on a motion to allow the six driveways onto Eighth Avenue. The motion was seconded, discussed and called to question; the motion failed on the voice vote. The transcript does not record a roll‑call tally of individual votes. After the vote failed, the meeting moved on and the developer thanked the board for its time.
What was not decided or remains unclear - The county engineer noted the Safe Routes to School routing was not yet finalized but indicated the planned path would lie in the boulevard adjacent to the road. The precise effect of the six driveways on the final Safe Routes alignment and on any required city improvements was not specified in the discussion. - No formal amendment or alternative approval (such as permission subject to design changes) was recorded during the meeting.
Context The issue arose under an agenda item presented by the county engineer on the board’s regular June 10 meeting. Commissioners said they want to support development but also must follow engineering standards and state guidance on driveway spacing where pedestrian routes and school pathways may be affected.

