CC 11-10-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, November 10, 1986 Page 4 Planner advised Council one of the Planning Commission members requested that we receive minutes of the Architectural and Environmental Committee of Hunter's Park meetings, rather than just a letter of approval or denial. Council concurred this would be helpful. Case No. 86-36, Minor Subdivision and Amended Site Plan Review, 1901 13th Street Northeast, Minnesota Diversified Products Planner reviewed the request for Lot Split/Consolidation and Amended Site Plan to allow the construction of a parking lot, which also requires reconstruction . of the existing drainage facility on the site. Miller explained the portion of land to be split from Naegle property was identified as an outlot on a previously approved preliminary plat (since abandoned) of the area. because it could not be attached to any lot conveniently, except the Diversified property. He recommends consolidation as a logical use of the land. Planner described the use of the land for truck parking and advised that although screening is not mandatory, he recommends plantings along the southwest edge of the parking lot to reduce visual impact. Miller explained that construction of the additional parking lot area not only increases coverage of the land and exceeds maximum coverage by 3%, but also requires the enlargement of the ponding area for run-off. Rice Creek Watershed has approved the enlargement of the pond pending Naegele's approval for an outlet onto their property (Planner has received such approval from Naegele). Planner suggested that due to possible future development of the Naegele property it was his opinion that the City keep the option open for the potential development of a road in the future by either; 1) obtaining a written agreement from Diversified to remove that portion of the parking lot improvement which encroaches on the street right-of-way at no cost to the City, if the street is developed at a future time. or 2) reduce that portion of the parking lot that encroaches in that area, which would also eliminate the need for a coverage variance. Miller advised the applicant would like use of the land now and would prefer to submit the written agreement and reduce the parking area at a different location to eliminate the need for the coverage variance if necessary. Miller reviewed the Planning Commission conditions for approval and advised the registered ~urvey has been submitted; he explained the other conditions (see Planning Commission minutes 11-5-86). In reference to the dustproofing, Planner stated the Engineer has recommended a seal coat and Planning Commission was concerned about pollution of the run-off waters by the seal coat material used. Miller has spoken with John Panuska. Rice Creek Watershed, who advised there are skimmers built into the pond and he sees no problem with the seal coat recommended by the Engineer. Planner noted the applicant's concern as to when the sewer line would go thru the property and he therefore suggested the applicant coordinate the parking lot improvement with the Engineer's plans for the sewer interceptor in that area. . Reed Johnson, Minnesota Diversified, stated he would like to complete the improvement prior to freeze up and was concerned about his contractor having to come back to redo the portion of the parking lot where the sewer line goes thru. He stated he was willing to exclude the portion of the lot discussed by Planner, which would eliminate the need for the 3% coverage variance. Hicks asked if easements would be required from Diversified as well as Naegele if the lot split and consolidation is approved. Miller stated it would be necessary and this was the proper time to obtain such easements. He suggested this should be discussed by the applicant and the Engineer, as well as the parking lot improvement coordination with the sewer interceptor.