Laserfiche WebLink
Item No. 9 states that it is unclear from the plans whether or not Lot 1 wraps around Lot 2 to encompass <br />the Huelers' driveway or if a portion of the lot is to be sold/transferred to the Huelers. <br />Vogstrom stated they will create a more accurate plan. <br />Thiesse noted Item No. 10 stated that the current plan appears to remove the driveway connection from <br />2709 Walters Port to Walters Port. The property address will need to be changed if there is no connection <br />to Walters Port Lane for this property. It is unclear from the current plan what is to happen with the <br />underlying land of the existing connection of Walters Port Lane to the property. <br />Curtis stated technically they have a connection to Walters Port. <br />Thiesse stated more clarification on that would be helpful. Thiesse stated he does not think they can have <br />two roads come together and three driveways coming together and claim that is meeting the intent of what <br />the City requires. <br />Item No. 11 requires that the emergency response people involved. Thiesse stated getting it on the plans <br />is one thing and getting it approved is completely different and that it is a process. Thiesse stated just <br />because the police chief and fire chief indicate they like it does not mean it will be approved. <br />Thiesse asked whether there are any other issues the Planning Commission should discuss. <br />Curtis stated the Planning Commission has provided feedback on the issues Staff has raised but that they <br />could address the second back lot more if they would like. Curtis noted the applicants have heard similar <br />direction before on the second back lot. <br />Thiesse commented the City does give flexibility from time to time typically on minor items but not <br />major items. <br />Curtis stated the City is interested in a solution that eliminates the pressure on Walters Port and create <br />something that would be functional and supportive to the properties on Pence. Curtis stated she is not <br />sure if two side-by-side roadways is necessarily the best option. <br />Thiesse stated he would like to emphasize that they are proposing a subdivision with a house that is no <br />longer there. Thiesse requested the developer work hard at making something that fits the requirements <br />of the code closer now that the property has been combined. <br />Hauri stated one item they would like to propose is to show the impact of what the code says will work <br />but the problems that that would cause. Hauri stated in theory they can widen the road and create a big <br />asphalt turnaround, which would result in more hardcover coming to this driveway and the other <br />driveway, but the visual impact and the hardcover impact that this big turnaround would really incur on <br />the whole project and scope should be taken into consideration. <br />Hauri stated they would like to minimize the asphalt and make the turnaround work, especially with the <br />wetland and Lake Minnetonka. Hauri stated in his view this plan would be far better from a landscape <br />point of view and how it can be buffered from the wetland. Hauri stated their proposal fits better with the <br />character of the lot and everybody involved and would result in a lot less hardcover. <br />Curtis stated Staff has been and would be supportive of an alternative that would meet the intent. <br />Hueler asked if the cul-de-sac would still allow for a I -acre lot. <br />Thiesse stated that would be the question. <br />Hueler asked if that solves the view setback problem. <br />