pm_810506 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-3- easement, but at this time, he was not aware of the outcome of those talks. Further, it had been suggested the applicant attempt to seek a better solution for these two lots even if the arrangements with Northern States Power cannot be made. Mr. Dahlgren suggested the challenge in this case would appear to be one of achieving a more workable lot division on lots 5 and 6. Discussion Mr. David Westlund, representing the applicants, indicated he had talked with Northern States Power and could not get them to agree to allow any building on the easement. Mr. Rukavina asked if this changing of the lot lines with the buildings as presently proposed would be o.k. given smaller lot sizes. Mr. Dahlgren indicated that making the lot smaller would not necessarily be abnormal for multiple unit development such as this. Recommendation Mr. Matson moved and Mr. Moeller seconded, that the Solie-Westlund Partnership request for division of platted lots at 2400-2402, 2401-2403, 2411-2413, 2419- 2421 and 2420-2422 Brenner Court be recommended for approval to the City Council with the condition that the lot lines on lots 5 and 6 be redrawn in a manner acceptable to the City staff. Roll Call, Ayes: Cushing, Dressler, Mastel, Matson, Moeller, Rukavina, Johnson. Nays: None. Planning File 1309 - Sam Cave request for preliminary plat, rezoning from R-l to R-6 and special use permit (PUD) at 2496 Fairview Avenue Presentation Chairman Johnson opened the presentation by indicating it was his understand- ing that Mr. Cave had come in with some new plans regarding the property and that he had, in fact, requested the Commission continue this matter until some future meeting. He indicated to the audience that even though the Commission would not be acting upon the request at this time, it probably would be useful to discuss the overall concept of whether the property owned by Mr. Cave and other property to the south should, in fact, be residential or whether the neighborhood wanted to eventually go commercial in that area. Mr. Dahlgren then explained the property in question was, at this time, pro- posed to be developed as single family lots with the exception of the far westerly portion of the property which was requested to be zoned R-6 for development of townhouses. He explained Mr. Cave had come in with a proposal concerning the westerly portion of the property and he was considering the possibility of having that parcel rezoned B-1 for sale to an individual for the construction of an office building. He explained this application hasn't as yet been made, but it was expected it would come up before the Planning Commission at their next meeting. He reiterated Mr. Johnson's statement that the Commission would not be taking action on this since a new proposal was in process, but that a discussion of the concept of residential vs commercial development of the entire area would probably be useful at this time.