Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br /> The Commission representative sent around the copy of the revised plat <br /> 2 the developers presented at the Commission hearing and pointed to the <br /> 3 second ponding area which they indicated the resiting of the buildings <br /> 4 allowed. The Commission's greatest concerns continued to be the <br /> 5 provision of a larger sideyard setback as well as vegetation screening <br /> 6 between Building #1 and the west property line and screening of the <br /> 7 railroad tracks from the project which the developers had assured would <br /> 8 be included in the Final Plat. <br /> 9 Proponents: <br /> 10 Vern Hoium, Evergreen President and Ursula Sheehy, Vice President and <br /> 11 marketing person. <br /> 12 when Ms. Sheehy indicated the marketing of the units was going very <br /> 13 well, Councilmember Ranallo told her that when the developers had moved <br /> 14 another building so close to the unit he had reserved, he had decided <br /> 15 not to purchase that residence. <br /> 16 Mr. Hoium told Councilmember Makowske the developers planned to use <br /> 17 maintenance free vinyl siding on most of the exteriors and the only <br /> 18 brick which was planned would be decorative. <br /> 19 Councilmember Enrooth commented that he perceived the platting now <br /> 20 provided the type of project the Council had wanted in the first place. <br /> Mayor Sundland agreed, saying he perceived that by extending the street <br /> to the southern edge of their project, the developers were leaving open <br /> 23 the possibility of expanding the project into the undeveloped lots to <br /> 24 the south. <br /> 25 Staff Report: <br /> 26 A copy of the City Manager's October 10th memorandum to the Planning <br /> 27 Commission had been - attached to other pieces of documentation which <br /> 28 had been provided the Commissioners in their October 19th agenda packet. <br /> 29 Mr. Soth suggested the Council plat approval state that final plat <br /> 30 approval would depend -upon a signed Redevelopment Agreement. <br /> 31 Ms. VanderHeyden confirmed that there was no need to reference the <br /> 32 location description to St. Anthony and that the notation of Ramsey <br /> 33 County had been checked out as correct by the City Manager. <br /> 34 Council Action <br /> 35 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Makowske to approve the revised Prelimi- <br /> 36 nary Plat dated September 9, 1988, for the 37 unit townhome project <br /> 37 proposed to be constructed by the Evergreen Development Corporation on <br /> 38 the parcel legally described as Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 4, Mounds View <br /> 39 Acres, Ramsey County, MN and Block 2, Mounds View Acres, Ramsey County, <br /> ep MN generally described as vacant parcel 4.85 acres in size, located east <br />