Laserfiche WebLink
<br />March 13, 1989 Council Minutes, Page Two <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />intent. Filla described the differences between platting, a registered <br />land survey, and metes and bounds. He suggested that if the developer was <br />going to pursue this as a plat. a public hearing should be held, as <br />indicated by Councilmember Mahowald. Mr. Eibensteiner stated he could <br />file the plat without the triangular piece of property from Lot 9 and that <br />he would have no problem if the homeowners did not want to sell it. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hansen said she would have a hard time considering the back <br />portion of Mr. Goserud's property as a lot and she would not be in favor <br />of considering it as a separate lot, since it does not have street <br />frontage. She noted she would like to see Mr. Eibensteiner plat the <br />property without taking the triangular piece of land from Lot 9 if <br />possible. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Mahowald moved to recommend approval of the minor <br />subdivision of Karth Lake South Second addition with the following <br />conditions: <br /> <br />1. No variances be allowed and the plat be modified to conform with <br />Ordinance requirements. <br /> <br />2. The front yard setback for Lot 1 be established at 60 feet, rather <br />than 40 feet. <br /> <br />3. Approval by the City Engineer of utility easements, site grading and <br />drainage easement in respect to the surface drainage from the rear of <br />Lots 3, 4 and 5. <br /> <br />4. The park dedication requirement for two lots be fulfilled along with <br />issuance of building permits. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />5. The triangular portion of Lot 9 attempt to be resolved by staff to <br />meet Ordinance requirements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone seconded the motion. (5-0). Motion carried. <br /> <br />Mr. Thomas Goserud asked that the Council go back to look at the original <br />plat. He felt that for the Council to say the rear portion of his <br />property is not a lot is not appropriate. Mayor Sather reminded Mr. <br />Goserud that there is no street access and that is one of the requirements <br />of a City lot. <br /> <br />CELLULAR ONE Planner Bergly reviewed the landscape plans for Cellular <br />LANDSCAPE PLANS One, who is requesting approval to install an antennae on <br />the City's water tower. As noted in his report dated <br />March 13, Cellular One will require an easement to enter the site from the <br />east, which would be across a 42 foot wide strip of land owned by Control <br />Data. The applicant will also need easements across Control Data's <br />parking lot drives to the south and east. He noted the only City street ~ <br />access to the water tower site is on Fernwood from the south, abutting the <br />west property line and extending for a 33 foot half street along the <br />westerly property line. <br /> <br />The building is proposed to be 12'x28' and 11 feet high, of pre-cast <br />concrete panels with a washed rock finish, surrounded by a six foot high <br />chain link fence. Cellular One proposes to plant six foot tall evergreens <br />as a screen. Bergly recommended a double row of evergreens and noted that <br />the six foot tall plantings won't effectively screen the building for a <br />number of years. <br /> <br />Mr. Bryan Rogers, representative from Cellular One, was present, and noted <br />that the lease agreement could address the trees. Councilmember Malone <br />indicated that the building should be screened right from the start. <br />Councilmember Mahowald noted that he asked Mr. Rogers to consider planting <br />11 foot tall trees to screen the building. <br /> <br />After further discussion, it was Council concensus to direct Acting City <br />Attorney Filla to prepare a lease agreement with Cellular One after <br />Control Data grants Cellular One an access easement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hansen moved to approve the site plan as outlined, subject <br />to planting larger diameter trees of at least 10 feet on the north <br />boundary to provide effective screening of the building from adjacent <br />residential properties, and subject to access being obtained from Control <br />Data. Councilmember Mahowald seconded the motion. (5-0). Motion <br />carried. <br /> <br />~ <br />