Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />June 28, 1994 <br /> <br />~~~i~lw~rrt:@ <br />U~\gJ V lb~ <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />HEARING AS FINDING OF FACT. APPROVAL IS RECOMMENDED WITH THE <br />FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN STAFF'S MEMO DATED 6/21/94: <br /> <br />1. CONTINGENT UPON PLAT APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL. <br /> <br />2. A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE PREPARED AND APPROVED <br />PRIOR TO RELEASING THE FINAL PLAT. <br /> <br />3. A "DEVELOPMENT PLAN" OUTLINING THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT BE <br />APPROVED. THIS PLAN SHALL INCLUDE: <br /> <br />. SITE PLAN <br />. LANDSCAPING PLAN <br />. GRADING PLAN <br />. SETBACK PLAN <br />. COMPLETE SIGN PACKAGE <br />. WRITTEN NARRATIVE OF PROJECT STANDARDS <br /> <br />4. APPROPRIATE PERMITS BE OBTAINED FROM MN DEPARTMENT OF <br />TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZING GRADING AND IMPROVEMENTS IN RIGHT <br />OF WAY. <br /> <br />5. ALL DEVELOPMENT PLANS BE REVISED ACCORDING TO CONDITIONS AND <br />APPROVED BY STAFF PRIOR TO OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />6. <br /> <br />ALL COMMENTS MENTIONED IN THIS REPORT AND THE REPORT TO THE <br />PLANNING COMMISSION DATED JUNE 21, 1994, BE INCORPORATED INTO THE <br />REVISED PLANS AND BE MADE PART OF THIS APPROVAL. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER KREGER AMENDED CONDITION #3 TO INCLUDE THE TERM <br />"COMPLETE" DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE APPROVED, AND ADDED CONDITION #7 and 8: <br /> <br />7. FENCING AROUND THE ENTIRE POND BE ADDRESSED WITH STAFF PRIOR TO <br />THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. <br /> <br />8. THE NUMBER OF SEMI TRUCKS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE NUMBER OF LOADING <br />BERTHS. <br /> <br />Commissioner Eberley asked staff about the hours of operation of the recycling <br />area in back of the building. Steve Ach responded that the cardboard storage <br />and recycling area is enclosed. Also, trucks will not be allowed to be stacked in <br />the loading area. One suggestion is limiting the number of trucks to the equal <br />number of loading docks. Discussion ensued. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1, <br />CHAIRMAN TVEITE VOTED AGAINST THE REQUEST. Chairman Tveite explained that <br />he felt this proposal was incomplete and lacked the necessary information to <br />make an informed decision. Further, he questioned whether the developer could <br />provide the information required prior to the City Council meeting. <br /> <br />. <br />