My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005.09.08 PC Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2005 PC Minutes
>
2005.09.08 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2015 2:23:13 PM
Creation date
2/20/2015 11:49:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
9/8/2005
Document Type
Minutes
Commission Name
Planning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
Planning Commission Minutes — September 8, 2005 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />McRoberts asked if they were donating parkland and the Planner informed him they would be <br />paying cash in lieu of dedicating land. <br />Sam Ashkar, 16011 Woodland Circle, Minnetonka, introduced the development team. Present <br />were Gary Mulcahy, Greg Chaffin, Rick Harrison, and Mark Kretschmer, Passe Engineering. <br />Schumann questioned whether there would be a homeowners association and Ashkar stated that <br />there would be one for the bay homes. Schumann was concerned about the sidewalks crossing <br />the streets. <br />Kretschmer explained that the remaining 67 acres of the total site would be platted as an outlot <br />for future development. He talked about the proposed 175 foot setback from the tower and the <br />sewer access across the wetland eliminating the need for a lift station. <br />Ashkar noted that the pipeline is a gas pipeline and it was possible to prohibit play ground <br />equipment to be located within the easement. <br />Harrison added that a sign could be posted in each yard indicating where the pipeline was and <br />outlining what could and could not be done within the easement. He explained the coved <br />neighborhood design and said coved neighborhoods are PUDs under State law. The 24 foot wide <br />one way lane around the cul-de-sacs would result in less pavement and snow removal, and would <br />look better. <br />The Commission had concerns about emergency vehicle access, parking on public streets, and <br />indicated the importance of having the trail connection to Wilderness View. <br />McRoberts asked how the City would benefit by granting the PUD and asked the developer to be <br />prepared to convince the Planning Commission that there were some real reasons to grant the <br />PUD. <br />Rosenquist suggested enlarging the park area and constructing a gazebo there. <br />Weidt pointed out that the pipeline easement took up too much space in the backyards. <br />Bailly suggested locating the homes on the other side of the street, away from the pipeline. She <br />liked the meandering streets but felt the sidewalks should be constructed closer to the road <br />instead of through the front yards of the bay homes. She said she would like to see more gazebos <br />and the trail connection to Wilderness View. <br />Kevin Peltier, owner of the property, said he was going to be retaining the remaining 67 acres for <br />future development and there was no trail easement through to the Wilderness View <br />Development stating that the previous developer had no legal right to grant the trail easement. He <br />showed on the plan where the field road was and said he maintained it as such. He indicated that <br />he was opposed to the idea of a trail on his property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.