Laserfiche WebLink
515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 <br />(651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 <br />www.ci. Ii ale -can ada. mn. as <br />May 21, 2004 <br />Ms. Janet M. Shetka <br />1455 Alameda Street <br />St. Paul, MN 55117 <br />Mr, & Mrs. Edward L. Krueger <br />2879 Nadeau Road <br />Little Canada, MN 55117 <br />Re: Hidden Acres Subdivision/Potential Nadeau Road Improvement <br />Dear Ms. Shetka & Mr. & Mrs. Krueger: <br />MAYOR <br />Michael 1. Fahey <br />COUNCIL, <br />JIm LaValle <br />Matt: Anderson <br />Rick Montour <br />13111 Blesener <br />ADMINISTRATOR <br />Joel R. Hanson <br />As you are aware, Masterpiece Homes is proposing an 11 -lot subdivision on the property north <br />or yours. Attached are three diagrams depicting the possible development layouts. The first <br />diagram (labeled Option 3) is what the developer initially proposed. It connects Burke Lane and <br />Yorlcton Ridge to the new development, but provides no direct access to Condit Street. This <br />caused concern among the neighbors on Yorlcton Ridge and Burke Lane due to concerns <br />regarding increased traffic being routed through their neighborhoods due to the new <br />development. The City Council also was concerned with this approach, as it did not meet the <br />objectives of the thoroughfare concept plan they approved for this area in August of 2000. <br />The second diagram (labeled Option 2) provides a connection to Condit Street via Nadeau Road. <br />It makes use of the existing 30 feet Nadeau Road right -of -way located just north of your <br />properties. It also requires an additional 20 feet of right -of -way from the developer and the <br />owner of 2883 Condit. (Note: It does not require any property from you.) The property owner <br />at 2883 Condit does not support this option and the City Council will have to decide how they <br />want to proceed in this regard. <br />The third diagram (labeled Option 1) provided a connection to Condit through the middle of the <br />new development. However, it is not a financially feasible option to pursue as I have delineated <br />in the attached memo to the Planning Commission dated May 7, 2004 (attached). <br />The Planning Commission has recommended Option 2 to the City Council. Should that option <br />prove feasible, then Option 3 (no connecting street) would be pursued. I am enclosing the <br />Planning Commission minutes of May l3t relative to this topic for your review. The City <br />Council will consider this matter at their meeting of May 26th <br />