09-17-96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zisla stated the proposal makes sense, but he felt the three issues should be considered. Izraelev said the construction would take place over a two-year period and should lessen the impact on traffic and noise. The concrete work must go forward on a schedule decided by the nature of concrete construction. Zisla said that was the sort of information he would like to see in black and white. Schiferl stated the routing of the traffic is a problem for him. He would like to see some options on truck routing. Zisla said he would like to see something about the relative height of the reservoir in relation to the proposed landscaping. Zisla said he would like to know about the size of the proposed trees at the time of construction, not 40 years from now. Livingston asked for a vote on the motion to continue the public hearing. The vote was 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Livingston abstained because he is an employee of the City of Minneapolis. Motion Carried. Livingston said the public hearing would be continued to the October 15, 1996, Planning Commission meeting. Seward asked if the residents in the area were notified of the public hearing. Mattila said residents were notified. Seward said the notification was pretty vague. Mattila said the City of New Brighton went farther than was legally necessary. The law requires the city to publish the notice in the city’s legal newspaper. As a courtesy, New Brighton notifies people within 350 feet of the project by mail. New Brighton also notified people within 350 feet in Columbia Heights. Zisla asked if the City should encourage applicants to hold neighborhood meetings before they come before the Planning Commission. Mattila said the City did encourage neighborhood meetings but, typically, for a project of this magnitude, the public hearing is probably the best setting for the meeting. Schiferl stated that the developer of Wexford Heights put on several neighborhood meetings. Blomquist asked, if the applicant develops these plans before the date of the public hearing, could they be made available at City Hall for residents to study. Mattila said that was always part of the public hearing notice. LP-318/NC-104 9:05p.m.–9:20 p.m. Robert Osterbauer Mattila reviewed the case report concerning a request for a site plan review and nonconforming use permit to construct two garage buildings on an existing apartment site. Mattila showed slides of the site. Zisla asked what the garages would look like. Mattila said the garages would have vinyl siding with steel doors. Mattila introduced Dr. Robert Osterbauer, the owner of the apartment complex. Vernon Hoium, attorney for Dr. Osterbauer, said he would represent Dr. Osterbauer this evening. Schiferl asked about the location of the tool shed and the playground area. Osterbauer said the playground was on the property of the adjoining apartment complex. A chain link fence divides the two properties. Livingston asked for comments from the audience. There was no response. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1996\09-17-96.WPD 7