01-06-1988 PTRC Meeting Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, January 6, 1988 Page 3 CASE #88-01(Cont'd) Chairman Curtis questioned if the Engineer had reviewed a drainage plan for the site as yet. IsBergly advised that the Engineer had reviewed the site drainage plan, but had not • received the calculations from MnDot. The Planner also suggested that Commission may stipulate that the applicant be requested to appear before the Commission for review of the building plans for the proposed metal building to be constructed at a later date. Commission questioned if the site should be considered under a Rezoning, rather than Site Plan Review, and, also if the Village has jurisdiction over State owned land. The Deputy Clerk was instructed to contact the Village Attorney for an opinion on both matters. There was discussion as to zoning status of the land directly north of the site, which would be Shoreview property; Commission requested the Deputy Clerk contact the City of Shoreview to determine the zoning district adjacent. It was noted that the land may be a designated wildlife preserve. Member Thorn stated he was not opposed to the proposal, however, he preferred to have the landscape plan submitted for review since the facility is operating in and possibly adjacent to a residential zone. A representative from MnDot advised that the County Road I improvements will eliminate most of the right-of-way and that caused the delay in submission of the landscape plan; he stated that since the improvement plans have been projected for a longer time span, MnDot would be willing to submit the landscape plan at • this time. Member McGraw commented that the neighboring property should be considered when hearing variances for landscaping and driveway width; he preferred the driveways be kept within the current requirements and agreed that the landscape plan should be submitted now. There was discussion of the placement of the landscaping further south on the property; MnDot advised that driveway entrances, gas pump placement, and underground tanks prohibits placement further south on the site. MnDot representatives advised that the State is considering removal of the tanks in conjunction with the proposed site modifications; no decision has been made to date. Member Probst questioned if there was a need to retain the existing driveway entrance and if there were any traffic concerns. He also asked if any mature trees would be removed in conjunction with the expansion. MnDot representatives advised that retention of the existing driveway would help maintain traffic flow, and the new entrance would allow heavy equipment easier access to County Road I. They advised that only two Burr Oak Trees would be removed; noted the two trees are not in good shape at this time. The Planner commented that two access points would not be a problem in this area; • traffic in the area is not excessive and two driveway entrances may help trucks • gain safer access to County Road I.