1988-01-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1988 site plan winds up being and that may affect the city council's action. LeFevere stated another option would be to place a moratorium with an effective date which would not apply to this application. With regard to discussion about the uniqueness of the site, Benke stated it is because this site is unique in our city and it does have direct and indirect impacts that this council wants to be very cautious and extremely careful of what it approves. Further, Benke noted over the years there have been occasions when the city has disagreed to some extent with the conclusions, processes, and procedures of the RCWD; and, if they require a large ponding area, depending on the size and drainage, the pond could become an in- trusion on the neighborhood. Based on the previous comments, Benke preferred to continue the matter. Brandt disagreed with Benke; believes this is a situation where we have a business willing and eager to come into the city to invest $1/2 million to develop marginal land; they are willing to meet all conditions; concerns, which council mayor may not have re- garding the long-term development of Old Highway 8 corridor, can be allayed because this site is set back off the corridor and will be adequately screened; believes the Conditions (#4 and #5) listed in the proposed LP-223 are adequate to assure substantive review by both the MPCA and the RCWD Board. Motion by Brandt, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION AP- PROVING LP-223 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. As there was no second, the motion died. Benke stated, while the site is set back from Old Highway 8, one of the criteria for an industrial zone is the amount of truck traffic to and from as well as what is on the site. Williams inquired about what a typical traffic day would be on and off the site; Ellis stated there would 15 to 30 vehicles moving onto and off of the site per day. Williams asked if the city staff had seen a landscape plan that meets Condition #7 (screen along the south and west edges of the development site); Mattila indicated he had not, but has added Condition #10 to be sure the site is adequately screened. Mattila explained he specifically did not include a height requirement for the trees, pending council IS direction. Williams asked if the intent of #10 is for trailers on the site to not be visible from any property to the south or west of the site, and whether or not the developer agrees with that. Mattila stated that was the intent. Ellis stated there would be a problem because the park on the west is elevated; their intention is to berm and plant trees that would \ Page 12