Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> i <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />Case #7: <br /> <br />Request for Site Plan Review of Birch Hill Lodges; Case of Orrin Thompson <br />Homes <br /> <br />Community Development Assistant Wald said that Orrin Thompson Homes has applied for site <br />plan review of a townhome development that is proposing to construct 84 multi-family units. The <br />site plan contains several outstanding issues and additional information needs to be provided in <br />order for Staff to be able to determine if City requirements have been with. The <br />applicant has stated reluctance to spend money on revisions to the site the Planning <br />Commission and City Council has reviewed their proposals for a change from <br />commercial to residential. Therefore, it is Staffs recommendation be tabled· <br />The developer will be able to gain their requested direction plan, <br />rezoning, and sketch plan review conducted by the Planning ~ission Council. <br /> · . . . ~?~'. . <br />When the C~ty has recmved a s~te plan that prowdes the re ~nformat~on <br />the net denmty on the property, Staff will be able to bnng.~ s~te plan back to <br />Commission for their full review. ~'i~:!'::~': ~. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by to table the Request for <br />Site Plan Review of Ramsey Lodges until further <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: <br />Watson. Voting No: None. Absent: <br /> <br />son, Brauer, Sweet, and <br /> <br />Case #8: Request for a Sketch Plan <br /> Oakwood Land,~e~elot <br /> <br />Community Development'D~rector F~0[ik <br />the sketch plan th~k::.~;~presente&.5:m the <br />submitted an appliCafi°h to the <br />prope~y is located <br /> <br />5th Addition; Case of <br /> <br />new sketch plan, as there was an error in <br />Oakwood Land Development has <br />be named River Pines 5th Addition. The <br />immediately north of the existing Apple <br /> <br />Ridge/River Pines nm The Planning Commission reviewed a sketch plan in <br />Septemberi"th~'.~f0.po~sed t¢ ~gbd. ivide the property into 13 single family residential lots with <br />urba~.s~C~"~hd4t:~unci ether the plat acreage included the existing homestead to the <br />ea,5~;!~d if it dian--t, ~h4~4efutu;~i c access to the east also be a consideration. The Planning <br />C~ission tabled appi;iS~l of thO'%ketch plan and recommended that the Developer provide <br />oP'fii~S:,for future public ~ss to the north and verify the status of the existing homestead. The <br />plat ~ is:9.7 acres. The::ibrbperty owner of the homestead adjacent to T.H. #47 is joining in the <br />plat and':{f/e".number o,ff'I~ have increased from 13 to 18. The gross density reflected in the <br />sketch plan':isii:i49 uni~; e'er acre. Currently, 158t~ Lane dead ends on the west boundary of the <br />proposed plat :~nd '}~'% a public safety concern since the length of this dead end is greater than <br />600 feet. This stl;e~t will be extended into the plat and intersect with Lithium Street. Lithium <br />Street N.W. would be extended from the south to the north boundary of the plat. A cul-de-sac <br />would extend east off of Lithium to service the remainder of the lots. The existing homestead <br />will have access to the new cul-de-sac, The-plat will be forwarded to MN/DOT for review and it <br />is expected that they will suggest that the two existing driveways onto T.H. #47 fi.om the existing <br /> <br />Planning Commission/November 5, 2001 <br /> Page 17 of 20 <br /> <br />-35- <br /> <br /> <br />