Laserfiche WebLink
The Commission noted that streets were platted at a 60 foot fight-of-way rather than the <br />required 66 feet. Mr. Peterson noted that he has developed in many metro communities <br />and Ramsey is the only one that requires 66 feet street fight-of-way. <br /> <br />Commission Deemer stated that he believes the sewer trunk is aligned along the east side of <br />the wetland, within 100 yards of Chestnut Hills and suggested that the City Engineer <br />review whether extending services to Chestnut Hills from that point would be a better <br />alignment. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Bud Sauter is willing to provide easements for an access south <br />of Hunter's Hill to Cty. Rd. 4/57; the problem area to be resolved is who will be <br />responsible for street construction costs through the Sauter property. <br /> <br />Mr. Banwart stated that the proposed park area and trails have been addressed by the Park <br />Commission; the Commission does want to see an aggregate of the parks and trails for all <br />three developments (Windemere Woods, Chestnut Hills and Cedar Hills). <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner LaDue and seconded by Commissioner and seconded by <br />Commissioner Bawden to recommend preliminary plat approval of Chestnut Hills with the <br />following conditions: <br /> <br />Receipt of a favorable response from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's regarding <br />the considered park area. <br /> <br />° <br /> <br />Developer resolving street access to Sunfish Lake Blvd. via Sunfish Lake Drive in <br />the northwest portion of the plat and access via the proposed Cedar Hills Addition <br />to a major thoroughfare out of the southwest portion of Cedar Hills Addition. <br /> <br />0 <br /> <br />Developer complying with the City Engineer's report dated July 17, 1989; <br />especially Item 2 (75' water frontage requirement), Item 3 (90' width on corner <br />lots), Item 4 (66' street right-of-way) and Item 7 (easement and maintenance <br />agreement for common driveway). With regard to Item 3, the Commission does <br />not recommend granting variances to lot widths with the exception of those lots <br />abutting the bike/pedestrian way. <br /> <br />Further, that the Park Commission should have an opportunity to view the entire parks <br />scheme for the Cedar Hills, Chestnut Hills and Windemere Woods Additions. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Zimmerman, Commissioners Bawden, Deemer, <br />LaDue, Hendriksen and Terry. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Shumway. <br /> <br />Case 4/7: Request For Preliminary Plat Approval Of Cedar Hills <br /> Addition; Case of Mr. Wally Anderson of ARADCO, Inc.: <br /> <br />Mr. Wally Anderson was present requesting preliminary plat approval of Cedar Hills. <br /> <br />The Commission proceeded to review the preliminary plat and the City Engineer's report <br />dated July 18, 1989. <br /> <br />Mr. Anderson referred to Item #2 of the City Engineer's report and indicated that lot lines <br />will be redrawn so that the lots meet the 80 foot width requirement. <br /> <br />Planning & Zoning Commission/July 18, 1989 <br /> Page 3 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />