Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />January 12, 1988 <br /> <br />~ated the minimum size lot in New Brighton is 10,000 square feet <br />and that Tract A will have 10,065 square feet and Tract B will <br />have 11,111 square feet. <br /> <br />As there were no further questions or comments from council, the <br />applicant, nor the audience Williams moved, seconded by Brandt, to <br />CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />~otion by Brandt, seconded by Gunderman, to WAIVE THE READING AND <br />ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBDIVISION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY <br />WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON. <br /> <br />Williams asked if Tract A would receive road access from the road <br />easement; Mattila responded there would be a driveway constructed <br />within that 30 foot road easement to the north which then connects <br />with 22nd Avenue. <br /> <br />Williams asked if the property owner immediately east of Tract A <br />is aware of the pending lot split, and if the lot split will then <br />change that personls easement; Mattila stated the private driveway <br />is within the road easement and would not affect the easements of <br />the eastern property. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />Margaret A. Egan, City Clerk, swore in Steve Larson as Councilmem- <br />ber. (8:09 p.m.) <br /> <br />Mattila updated council on what has transpired since the December <br />22, 1987, city council meeting; staff met with City Attorney and <br />prepared a resolution which sites seven findings of fact for deny- <br />ing LP-223; and provided council with four other alternatives as <br />listed in the staff report. <br /> <br />Benke asked, in terms of ~onding, what the prognosis is <br />Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) would or would <br />additional requirements. <br /> <br />that the <br />not put on <br /> <br />Mattila indicated RCWDls consulting engineer stated if it were ex- <br />tended to bituminous, more than likely they would require an on- <br />site ponding area; according to the Minnesota Pollution Control <br />Agency (MPCA) if there was an on-site ponding area, they would <br />want to give this site a particularly close review because they <br />would want to guard against any stormwater percolation and of <br />contaminants. <br /> <br />Benke asked, were we to proceed with approvals, if we might want <br />to look at requirements, other than those already identified, to <br />reinforce the MPCA or the RCWD requirements. Mattila stated the <br />original conditions of approval simply stated "approval of permit <br />by the RCWD" so we may want to expand on that. <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />LP-227 <br />Boemer Building <br />Systems <br />Report 88-16 <br />