10-10-2002 Planning Comm. Agenda

Home Browse Search

A9INIITGS PLANNING CO[\'INiiSSION' AUGUST 8, 2002 Dr. Allan asked the property owner abutting the proposed Preserve Trail how they felt about their properties becoming corner lots. Brausen pointed out that the development will result in streets on three sides of his property, and he would be boxed in by streets. Dan Arcand, 443 Viking Drive, stated that he was not happy about his property becoming a corner lot. Steve Btausen noted that Williams Pipeline clear cuts their easement, therefore, any landscaping should be planned for outside the easement area. )illy Lomarl<, Sunrise Drive, felt that all contingencies should be removed prior to the Commission and City Council voting on the preliminary plat. Keis pointed out that many times there are contingencies to be resolved between action on the preliminary plat and the final plat. He noted that at the preliminary plat review level, the City is looking to ensure that all codes are being complied with. The City Plamier indicated that an approval of a preliminary plat does confer some rights to the developer even if the approval is subject to compliance with certain conditions. Knudsen pointed out that issues related to Williams Pipeline could result in signiticant changes to the preliminary plat, and he was not prepared to act on the plat at this time until more information was forthcoming from Williams Pipeline. Keis agreed that action on the preliminary plat should be tabled pending Williams Pipeline's review. However, at this point Keis asked for other issues of concern that the neighborhood might have. MaryAnn Simmons, Brools Avenue, was concerned about increased traffic on Viking Drive and pointed out that there is a trove in the road at the point that Preserve Trail is proposed to intersect with Viking Drive. Terese Pojar, McNlenemy Street, read a prepared statement that pointed out that development changes the landscape of an area. Pojar felt it would be a shame to lose this land to development. Pojar indicated that Little Canada is saturated with development. She felt the best use of this property would be to let it be, and felt that the development proposal was not smart growth, but geed <~rowth. Pojar urged the Commission to preserve what little is left of Little Canada. George LeTendre, attorney representing the Pahman's, pointed out that conceptual approval was granted for the development of this property in 1999. That concept included a 1,500 foot cul-de-sac. Because of _I;_