Agenda Packets - 2007/08/13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Abiding Savior Report Aug 13, 2007 Page 3 Public Notice Staff sent notices to all property owners with 350 feet of both parcels and a few have contacted staff in person or by phone to ask about the request. It has been explained to everyone that the present request satisfies all City requirements and does not represent an incremental step toward subsequent development of the land. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request on July 25, 2007 and took action that same meeting by approving Resolution 871-07, a resolution which recommended approval of the requested preliminary plat for the Abiding Savior major subdivision. Deadline for Action This application was accepted on June 27, 2007 and in accordance with MN Statute 15.99, a decision will need to be made within 120 days of application acceptance. The deadline for action for this request is October 25, 2007. (Planning applications have a 60-day window for approval while Minnesota Statutes allow 120 days for subdivision requests.) Summary. The proposed major subdivision of the 8184 Eastwood Road and 8211 Red Oak Drive is requested to create additional land which would be combined with the Abiding Savior property at 8211 Red Oak Drive (Lot 1). The remaining single family lot on Eastwood Road (Lot 2) would be consistent with all setbacks and subdivision code requirements. Recommendation: Discuss the major subdivision request submitted by Abiding Savior Lutheran Church to plat and subdivide the parcels located at 8184 Eastwood Road and 8211 Red Oak Drive. The following options may be considered: Option 1. Approve the requested preliminary plat subject to satisfactory review of title documentation by the City Attorney’s office. Based on staff review and the Planning Commission’s recommendation, staff supports this option. As such, a resolution of approval with stipulations as noted has been prepared for the Council’s action if it concurs with the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Option 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the major subdivision request based on reasons articulated at the hearing. However, staff is not aware of any conditions to justify denial and thus would recommend against taking such action. Option 3. Table action on the request pending receipt of additional information deemed necessary before a decision can be rendered. If a tabling motion is supported, staff or the applicant will need clear direction as to the additional information required of the City Council.