Minutes - Council - 07/12/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

is where remaining comments are addressed and they would have to make sure that between Staff and them they are on the same page and they implement improvements to their plans. Councilmember Riley asked if that was roughly 30 comments. City Administrator Hagen replied roughly yes. Councilmember Riley stated that WMO still has to look at this but that is after the City has given it initial approval that it is good enough to get to the WMO and it is not to that point yet. City Administrator Hagen replied that is correct however in talking to the developer they submitted plans last Friday, City Staff is looking at that, and this Thursday is the deadline of when the plan would have to be in to City Staff. The Lower Rum River deadline is next Thursday. He stated once Staff looks at it, it would be forwarded on and there is a condition in the resolution that the necessary permits must be obtained. Councilmember Riley stated that it was brought up earlier that this is preliminary and final plat approval at the same time and he isn’t used to seeing it that way. He stated the preliminary is where the developer is given the rights to do most of what they want and then there is a final plat later. He asked why this is being combined so it seems out of the ordinary. City Administrator Hagen replied preliminary plat is where a lot of the details occur, most often in the form of public infrastructure including water and sewer lines, stormwater, as well as looking at it overall. In this case there is virtually no public infrastructure being proposed so there isn’t that complexity. He stated the other time Council will see a preliminary plat come separate from a final plat is in residential when there is a phasing aspect to the final plat. Knowing that this isn’t a phased project it makes sense to come at the same time. Councilmember Riley commented that although these plans have come a long way from various meetings, he isn’t ready to move this forward. Councilmember Musgrove referenced a resident comment made about a ten-foot setback versus a five and asked which is required. Planning Manager Larson replied he believed the gentleman was referring to a drainage utility easement as ten feet versus five. He stated typically they request ten feet adjacent to a right-of- way and five feet adjacent to interior property lines. He stated most of the utility easements are there when there is a residential neighborhood that is masqueraded and between homes along common property lines, there is a little drainage spoil that is created. He explained with a property that is more institutional typically there isn’t that masquerading when then they have drainage patterns around. He stated it isn’t as critical unless that it a cut through for utilities which isn’t proposed here. Councilmember Musgrove asked if it is correct that where it is five feet it is good, and if it needed to be it would move into the ten feet for utilities. City Council /July 12, 2022 Page 16 of 22