CC 11-10-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, November 10, 1986 Page 5 , Planner commented the Planning Commission motion recommended approval of the 3% coverage variance and we are required to identify this to the DNR. Hansen asked Planner if it is a lengthy process to notify DNR and receive approval. Miller stated he did not feel there would be a problem with this particular request, however it is a lengthy process and could restrict initial construction at this time. He felt it might be best to reduce construction at . this time or until DNR has given approval. Hansen asked Johnson what could be done by City when sewer interceptor goes thru to help alleviate the burden of reconstructing that portion of the improved parking lot. Johnson advised it would help if the area was graded to the same elevation after construction of the sewer line. Treasurer asked if the contract authorizing removal of the improvement at no cost to the City would be honored by future owners of the land if the road were constructed at a later date. Miller advised if would only be honored if it were attached as a covenant to the property. Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve Case No. 86-35, Minor Subdivision and Amended Site Plan, Minnesota Diversified Products, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant provide a written agreement to remove the parking area improvement which encroaches on the street right-of-way, if the street is extended at a future time, at no cost to the City. 2. City receive DNR approval. in writing, for the 3% Coverage Variance. 3. Provision of plantings along the southwest edge of the property as approved by the Planner. 4. Treatment for dustproofing insure that there be no pollution of run-off , waters. 5. Materials used for seal coat be approved by the Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed. 6. Applicant coordinate parking lot improvement with Engineer's proposed sewe~ interceptor improvement plan for that area. Hicks moved to amend the motion to add: a) Contingent upon the applicant granting the City all necessary easements for the sanitary sewer. b) Planner reviewing the registered survey and finding it in conformance with the application. c) The Lot Split and Consolidation approval contingent upon Naegele granting the City all necessary easements for construction of the sanitary sewer. Amended motion fails due to lack of second. . In discussion, Hansen asked if Planner felt the contingency regarding Naegele granting easements to the City would help with the negotiations for obtaining the easements. Miller stated that Naegele is a party in the lot split/consolidation and although legally such a condition could be made a part of the approval he was unsure if it would speed the negotiations. Hicks advised that after discussion with Clerk Administrator she stated the Attorney advises this is not an unreasonable request. Hansen withdrew the original motion, Peck withdrew second.