Laserfiche WebLink
<br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF <br />JANUARY 13, 1999 <br /> <br />Planning File 3092 RIC COX - OFFICE P.D.D. AND VACATION OF PARTIAL <br />RIGHT-OF-WAY AT S.E. CORNERFAIRVIEW AND CO.RD.D <br /> <br />6a. Plannine; File 3092. Ric Cox is requesting concept development plan <br />approval for a planned unit development to allow the redevelopment and <br />expansion of an existing commercial use. The applicant is also requesting <br />vacation of the southern 12 feet of County Road D west to allow the addition to <br />an existing structure, which is located partially within the right-of-way of <br />county Road D West. The property is located at 3116 Fairview Avenue North <br />(Co. Rd. D West and Fairview Ave. No.) <br /> <br />Chair Harms opened the hearing. Dennis Welsch explained the project as per <br />the staff report of]anuary 13,1999. <br /> <br />Member Olson asked about impervious surface (70% approximate); She asked <br />for the right-of-way vacation location dimensions. <br /> <br />Member Wilke asked if curbs would be matched (rolled asphalt curb). <br /> <br />Chair Harms asked if comments had been received from Arden Hills and the <br />County. Deb Bloom explained the communication with Arden Hills. <br /> <br />David Seaberg, adjacent duplex property owner, stated he was concerned about <br />coverage ofland and drainage to the site from his property. There is water <br />standing in this location during the year. The spacing is difficult. The building <br />is on the right-of-way. He explained the dedications he was required to provide <br />in the past for residential subdivisions. He noted that no access could be <br />provided from Fairview Avenue. He expressed concern about the setback and <br />meeting the current city codes for a B-3 zone.. <br /> <br />He expressed concern about location of the entry. The old oaks would not <br />survive. He complained about the surface of the road pavement (poor). He <br />asked that the right-of-way be vacated in front of his property also. There is no <br />setback match with parcels to the south, especially on the corner lot. There is <br />not room to do this on a 15,000sJ. lot. The building does not fit. <br /> <br />Member Klausing asked what is the problem with a setback different than those <br />in area. The Cornerstone concept brings the building closer to corner, and more <br />human scale. Seaberg said this would create a blind corner - the old building <br />does not justify a new building. <br /> <br />No additional comments were offered. <br /> <br />~rt\ <br />"\ \.~. <br />