My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL AGENDA 04191988 (2)
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Agendas
>
1988
>
PL AGENDA 04191988 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 3:13:49 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 3:13:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
15
SP Name
PL AGENDA 04191988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the neighborhood and probably would be a requirement <br /> 2 of the Rice Creek Watershed District; <br /> 3 reiterated that because of the parcel' s proximity to <br /> 4 the railroad track and because of major soil correc- <br /> 5 tions which would be necessary, single family resi- <br /> 6 dential- development on the site would be economically <br /> 7 unfeasible; <br /> 8 reported the proposal met the 1980 Comprehensive Plan <br /> 9 which showed medium density residential in this area; <br /> 10 pointed to the fact that developed lots to the west <br /> 11 are 300 feet deep which would leave a major separation <br /> 12 between the development and those homes; <br /> 13 explained how Tax Increment subsidy of soil correction <br /> 14 costs would make the project feasible; <br /> 15 reported staff had received four calls related to the <br /> 16 project - one from the New Brighton City Planner who <br /> 17 reported receiving calls from New Brighton residents on <br /> 18 Oakwood; the second from a New Brighton resident who <br /> requested copies of the plan; and two from Silver Lane <br /> residents; <br /> 1 Mr. Oertwich, who lives on Silver Lane adjacent to the <br /> 22 property, who had questions about the landscaped buffer <br /> 23 of his property and another from another resident who. <br /> 24 didn' t seem to have strong objections but had questions <br /> 25 about how his property would be affected; <br /> Zb told Commissioner Werenicz a Tax Increment District <br /> 27 would have tobe formed to provide soil correction <br /> 28 money for the project and that was somewhat up in the <br /> 29 air because the legislature was just that day con- <br /> 30 sidering changes which might change how Tax Increment <br /> 31 Districts work. <br /> 32 Proponents: Vern Hoium, Evergreen President <br /> 33 Ursula Sheehy, Vice President and responsible for mark- <br /> 34 eting <br /> 35 Jim Hill, Planning and Design who had made the prelim- <br /> 36 inary drawings presented that evening <br /> 37 Steven Yurick, planning consultant. <br /> 38 Mr. Hoium reiterated some of the information related to the project <br /> 39 which had been contained in the Evergreen memorandum attached to their <br /> 40 Petition for Rezoning. He and Ms. Sheehy emphasized the perception <br /> they had gained from focus groups and marketing that a number of <br /> prospective buyers in the 55 and over age range had indicated a desire <br /> to have bedrooms on the first level rather than on multi-levels as in <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.