Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-L,.- <br /> <br />1. Parking is proposed on the existing ponding eaSeTIt-Llt located on the <br />northwestern tip of the property. It is possible to park on the easerrent <br />but the grades must accorrm:::x:late the required ponding area. <br /> <br />2. 'Ihe proposed location of driveway for the southeasterly lot is located <br />too close to County Road C. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren stated that the Conrnission is not considering the site plan but <br />is reviewing the proposed division of lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Bruce Carlson, representing Fine Associates, owner of the property, indicated <br />that they feel the proposal is similar in quality to the Corrtren developrrent, <br />although smaller in scale. He stated that one of the buildings would be used for <br />a Century 21 regional operation center. Mr. Carlson indicated that the engineer- <br />ing concerns had been brought to his attention this afternoon. He stated that the <br />pond is a holding basin and that it would not have water in it except during a <br />storm. He indicated that the Rice Creek Watershed District had not opposed parking <br />on the ponding easerrent as long as it is graded appropriately. <br /> <br />Mr. Jeff Nielsen, realtor, indicated that the architect for the developrrent feels <br />that the location of theproposed driveways would work. He stated that several <br />other alternatives had been explored and it was felt that this proposal was the <br />best one. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren indicated that because of the concerns raised, the Corrmission could <br />either not approve the division if it was determined to not work properly, or the <br />Comnission could approve the division as proposed with a condition that the <br />questions of the ponding easerrent and driveway location be reviewed and approved <br />by the Public Wo1:ks Director. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Mr. V. Johnson asked Mr. Honchell how it is determined hCM far back the driveway <br />should be located fran County Road C. <br /> <br />Mr. Honchell responded that it was sorrewhat of a judgrrent, however, the amount of <br />traffic on the streets involved was certainly an inportant consideration. He <br />stated that it was his opinion that it would be poor traffic plarming to put a <br />driveway in the proposed location. He said that if the driveway were located <br />where it is proposed, the City may have to again consider a rredian in the service <br />road. He felt that there would be a need for substantial stacking room on the <br />frontage road, especially in the late afternoon, going south to County Road C. <br />Mr. Rukavina asked if relocating the driveway or a rredian strip on the service <br />road would be nvre desirable. <br /> <br />Mr. Honchell responded that the relocation of the driveway would be the best <br />solution. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson indicated that he was sure there was a solution to the proolem. He <br />indicated they are under a tirre problem to get the building constructed. He <br />stated that the developer could rreet with Mr. Honchell before the Council neeting <br />of Septerrber lO, and he was sure that the issues could be resolved. <br />