My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-23-2000 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
02-23-2000 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/12/2014 1:07:39 PM
Creation date
6/27/2012 12:01:09 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
140
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
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />FEBRUARY 10, 2000 <br />The City Planner indicated that sideyard setbacks are being met. <br />He noted that typically cities look for path connections from the <br />ends of cul -de -sacs to parks. However, given the common area for <br />the townhomes, the residents of the units could walk out their <br />backdoors to access the park. The Planner felt that the pathway <br />did not serve a large public purpose and it would be possible to <br />eliminate it. <br />Gordie Howe indicated that he would prefer if the path were <br />eliminated. He noted that the path is very close to the adjacent <br />units, and there would be windows on these sides of the units <br />looking out at the path. <br />Knudsen felt that the existence of the pathway would depress the <br />values for Units 10 and 11 and that the owners of these two units <br />would probably prefer not to have the path. The Planner stated <br />that that has been his experience with paths of this nature, <br />The Deputy Clerk noted that the pathway has been recommended <br />for access to the park by the Parks & Recreation Commission. <br />Montour felt a path connection was more appropriate for a larger <br />development than the one proposed tonight. Montour felt that the <br />path served a very limited number of homes. <br />Keis pointed out that the pathway is an issue for the Parks & <br />Recreation Commission and not the Planning Commission. <br />Carson pointed out that when the path is plowed, snow would be <br />pushed toward Units 10 and 11. Duray asked how far the path <br />would be from the units. The Planner pointed out that there is a <br />20 -foot separation between buildings. The path easement would <br />be 10 feet wide with an 8 -foot path down the middle. <br />The Public Works Director pointed out that another option is <br />accessing the park via the proposed sidewalk on Little Canada <br />Road and then walking down Jackson Street to the park. <br />Keis noted that the applicant is requesting that the eastern 5 feet of <br />the Jackson Street right -of -way be vacated. The Planner reported <br />that the City requires a 50 -foot right -of -way for residential streets. <br />Jackson Street has a 60 -foot right -of -way. Therefore, he would <br />recommend approval of the 5 -foot vacation. <br />Page 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.