Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Administrator Ulrich asked if the Council would like to bring a discussion of a <br />comprehensive community survey to a work session discussion. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that he would be interested in pursuing that. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated that a question can be put on the ballot without the City spending <br />money for surveys. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen suggested that this be discussed at the upcoming strategic planning <br />retreat. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen returned to the Council Chambers at 8:33 p.m. <br /> <br />Case #5: <br /> <br />Request for Site Plan Review of Mundt Commercial Building; Case of Tri- <br />Star Homes, LLC <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaInes stated that this is a redevelopment project at 14220 Basalt Street NE. <br />She stated that the existing buildings have been demolished and Tri-Star Homes is proposing a <br />14,143 sq. ft. office/warehouse facility that would house a law firm and the warehouse portion <br />would be leased by a satellite dish company. She stated that the lot is triangular and presents <br />some challenges for the loading area access. She stated that the applicant is proposing a <br />reinforced soil area with a recessed curb along the north side of the lot, which would allow trucks <br />to drive on the grass and back into the loading area. She stated that staff would like alternatives <br />for this to be re-examined. She stated that staff is also recommending that the trail and <br />associated easements be constructed, but the applicant would like to discuss this with the <br />Council. <br /> <br />Dan Mundt, 21000 Kerry Street, Cedar, MN, stated that in regard to the reinforced soil area, they <br />would plan to put in material so the soil would not erode even if trucks had to drive over it. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated that right now the City doesn't know about the outside storage, the <br />architectural standards, trash enclosure locations and the trail construction issues. He asked if by <br />approving this, the City ran the risk of all of these unknown issues getting out of hand. <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaInes stated that other than the trail issue, staff considers the remaining <br />details to be minor. She stated that the applicant does not want to construct the trail and if they <br />do, would like to seek some compensation from the City. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that in looking at the lot configuration, he does not see a better <br />alternative for the layout than what has been presented. He stated that he would like to take a <br />look at the outside storage issue at a work session, so the City isn't seeing fencing requirements <br />of 6 feet high with the stuff behind the fence still being seen because it is 15 feet high. He stated <br />that with regard to the trail issue, all projects require trails and he doesn't understand why this <br />one should be treated any differently. <br /> <br />City Council / January 8, 2008 <br />Page 14 of23 <br />