Laserfiche WebLink
MINt1TCS <br />PLANNING COA~MISSION <br />AUGUST 8, 2002 <br />Dr. Allan asked the property owner abutting the proposed Preserve Trail <br />how they felt about their properties becoming corner lots. Brausen <br />pointed out that the development will result in streets on three sides of his <br />property, and he would be boxed in by streets. Dan Arcand, 443 Vikint; <br />Drive, stated that he was not happy about his property becoming a corner <br />lot. <br />Steve Brausen noted that V>/illiams Pipeline clear cuts their easement, <br />therefore, any landscaping should be planned for outside the easement <br />area. <br />EIIy Lomark, Sunrise Drive, felt that all contingencies should he removed <br />prior to the Commission and City Council voting on the preliminary plat. <br />Keis pointed out that many times there are contingencies to be resolved <br />behveen action on the preliminary plat and the final plat. He noted that at <br />the preliminary plat review level, the City is lookin~~ to ensure that all <br />codes are being complied with. <br />I~he City Planner indicated that an approval of a preliminary plat does <br />confer some rights to the developer even if the approval is subject to <br />compliance with certain conditions. <br />Knudsen pointed out that issues related to Williams Pipeline could result <br />in signiticant changes to the preliminary plat, and he was not prepared to <br />act on the plat at this time until more information was forthcoming from <br />Williams Pipeline. Keis agreed that action on the preliminary plat should <br />be tabled pending A~illiams Pipeline's review. 1-Iowever, at this point ICeis <br />asked for other issues of concern that the neighborhood might have. <br />MaryAnn Simmons, Brooks nvenue, was concerned about increased <br />traffic on Viking llrive and pointed out that there is a curve in the road at <br />the point That Preserve Trail is proposed to intersect with Viking Drive. <br />1'erese Pojar, McMenemy Sheet, read a prepared statement that pointed <br />out that development changes the landscape of an area. Pojar felt it would <br />be a shame to lose this land to development. Pojar indicated that Little <br />Canada is saturated with development. She felt the best use of this <br />property would he to let ii be, and felt that the development proposal was <br />not smart growth, but greed growth. Pojar urged the Commission to <br />preserve what little is left of Little Canada, <br />George LeTendre, attorney representing the Palmas's, pointed out that <br />conceptual approval was granted for the development of this property in <br />1999. That concept included a I,S00 foot cut-de-sac. Because of <br />- I .; - <br />