My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-08-2002 Planning Comm. Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
08-08-2002 Planning Comm. Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2008 12:05:00 PM
Creation date
7/23/2008 11:52:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MIN UT1/S <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />AUGUST 8, 2002 <br />Roycraft asked if the pipe would be shut down during construction. <br />McDonald replied that it would remain active. <br />McDonald also noted that the developer has the ability to move the road <br />location near McMenemy Road north more, thus bringing the road <br />pavement further away from the pipelines. <br />Keis asked if the easement extended roughly about 50 feet on either side <br />of the pipeline. <br />L,iz Babcock, Williams Pipeline, reported that historically Williams has <br />blanket easements through pipeline areas. As parcels where sold in this <br />area, Williams obtained parcel-specific easements and condensed <br />easement widths. As a result, there are varying easement widths in the <br />area, some being 80 feet in width, others 100 feet, and the blanket <br />easement still exits on some parcels. Babcock reported that Williams will <br />not permit anything that will hinder their operation or maintenance of the <br />pipeline. "They review all proposals on a case-by-case basis. <br />McDonald indicated that they have just recently submitted a full set of <br />plans to Villiams Pipeline, and Williams has a 90-day review window. <br />Knudsen asked if the developer can re{'use to comply with the <br />recommendations made by Williams Pipeline. McDonald replied that the <br />developer does not have that option. <br />McDonald indicated that they are seeking Preliminary Plat approval at this <br />time, contingent upon a number of factors, one being compliance with the <br />recommendations made by Williams Pipeline as noted in the City <br />Planner's report (recommendation #'I ). McDonald went on to comment <br />on the other items listed by the City Planner in his report. Ile noted that <br />Lot 13, Block 1 has been enlarged to meet Shoreland regulations <br />(recommendation #2). He also noted that enlarging this lot allows enough <br />room for a house pad without intertering with the MN DO"f easement that <br />runs through the lot. The City Planner indicated that if a house can be <br />constructed on this lot without interfering with MN DOT's ability to <br />service and repair drainage pipes, then his concerns would be addressed. <br />McDonald indicated that in constricting a house on Lot 13, they would <br />stay out of MN DOT's easement at all times. Keis suggested that the City <br />F..ngineer would have to review Lot 13 and determine if it is possible to <br />develop a house on this lot withot~it impacting Che easement. <br />McDonald indicated that they are agreeable to recommendations #3 and <br />#4. With regard to recommendation #5 ~- alteration of building pad <br />locations to meet the 30-foot front yard setback ~-~ McDonald indicated that <br />-5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.