Laserfiche WebLink
City Engineer Steve Jankowsld stated it is anticipated that a sound wall will be required. <br />a report was expected to arr/ve by now, and it hasn't. <br /> · <br /> <br />Commissioner Sweet reverted to the issue of too many variables. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Brauer stated his concern was the 10-foot setback. He <br /> even if all the other pieces fell into place, th/s issue would remain. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Johnson questioned whether the wetland proh/bits a~e,.in <br /> th~(~tback. <br /> <br /> Mr. Solintrop explained the plat cannot handle the storm wa~!~ounts if*~e setback cannot be <br /> changed. He smd he would like to max~mxze the amoun~ d~dm back ~ards. A hardslxip would <br /> Occur in iosing units if they had to comply 'with the ordr~:pe. He sub&ed it may be better to <br /> move as many as possible around to meet the code, a~d~:~'si a varian¢~:~:nte few that carmot <br /> meet the ordinance. ~i!:i:!:~,. :::~;~i:~:' <br /> <br /> Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Chairperson ~i~i::~o reco~end that City <br /> CounciI approve the preliminary plat for Evergeen Point contingent upa~:~ <br /> <br /> 1. Compliance with City Sta~?i:b;~i~i:~'~e~:a, ated March 27, 2002;:~ing that the actual <br /> number of units allowed:~::~i~bj~: to the'~;~'~;b;f~e site Plan a'~lS~,~bval process · <br /> 2. Applicant mitigation of Vh'ianc~!~d City cotmi~ili.~b~al ~?l:hat effort <br /> 3. Consideration of open space reqd~f~ent an~:~'3~on <br /> 4. Subject to internal traffic generatid'~'kal~:: :: ~}):~?~ <br /> <br /> Motion ChairpersOn Commissioners Johnson, K:°ciscak. and Reeve. <br /> Voti,g E issioner ¢ uer, Sweet. Absent: No,e, <br /> <br /> PLAN~ COMMISSI0~:!BUSINESS ' ~;~ <br /> Case#4: ':~_~ue~;?:}f~7::':;~:i~¢:,i' j~*~view of Evergreen 'Po~t; Case 'of Ed~a <br /> D~db~ent ' <br /> <br /> Co~u~W~elopmen~D~i;f~Ctor Frolik stated ~at the CiW received an apPlication from Edina <br /> Development f6~.mte pl~ revmw to develop 112 tow~omes on ~e prope~ located west of <br /> Highway ~7 ~:no~ of ~pine Drive N.W. ~e prope~ is approximately 24.11 acres in size <br /> ~d cu~ently ~d. R-3 Urban Residential, w~ch allows for medium densi~ residential <br /> development:~' densi~ not to exceed 7 u~ts per acre. ~e net densiW (subtracting Alpine <br />'~ Drive an&~". ~7 road fight-of-ways and wetl~ds) is 6.9 u~ts per acre. ~e proposed <br /> ~0~.em~:aonsist of ~o, four, and six unit structures. In accordance with ~e newly adopted <br /> stree~;P~dicy for multiple residential developments ~d suggestions from City Staff, Pla~ing <br /> Co~ission and City Council, the units will receive access from a combination of public streets <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 4, 2002 <br /> Page 6 of 14 <br /> <br />I <br />i <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />