07-05-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

JULY 5, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, PAGE FOUR parking spaces required. (City Attorney should possibly draft a document that applicant can execute to assure needed parking spaces will be available). Commissioner Piotrowski seconded the motion, adding a friendly amendment to include additional plantings along Fernwood and Building "E". The friendly amendment was accepted. Chair Probst reiterated the motion for the audience: noting recommendation of approval of the PUD concept plan for Phase I subject to receipt of an EAW, completed traffic study, additional landscaping along Building "E", and assurance by the City Attorney that the additional parking spaces would be available if the adjacent property is not available. He also felt this approval should be subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Commissioner Zehm suggested amending the motion to separate Phase I from the motion and to require the traffic study, Rice Creek approval, parking assurances and the EAW for Phase II of the Concept Plan. Voting on the suggestion to amend the original motion: Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 • Commissioner Zehm moved, seconded by Commissioner Piotrowski, to recommend approval of the site plan for Phase I, but to require a traffic study, Rice Creek and engineering approvals and EAW prior to submission of the concept plan, which should be within the next six months. Voting on the revised motion: Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PROPOSED Planner Bergly reviewed his July 5 memo regarding a LOT SPLIT, proposed lot split for Tom and Jerry Weaver and Geraldine WEGLEITNER Cuff, for property located three lots east of Hamline (WEAVER) Avenue on the south side of Amble Road. Bergly noted there is a rather large drainage easement in the center of the property. The applicants were asking for consideration of variances to the lot width and area requirements. The parcel contains 37,488 square feet and could be divided into two lots, one being 85'x132' and the other being 199'x 132' . Without variances, the lots could be divided into two parcels with one lot being 178' wide and the other 106' wide. As noted by Mr. Wegleitner, realtor representing the property owners, the owners would prefer a plan that includes both the variance and a partial easement vacation, as opposed to a plan that would include just an • easement vacation. It was also noted that the lots would be low and have a wetland area but could be filled somewhat to create a home pad. Mr. Wegleitner noted that RCWD felt this was too small an area for them to address and suggested the City decide how to proceed.