Laserfiche WebLink
Request for Action <br />Cty <br />Elk — <br />River <br />To <br />Item Number <br />Mayor and City Council <br />7.2 <br />Agenda Section <br />Meeting Date <br />Prepared by <br />Public Hearings <br />October 19, 2020 <br />Zack Carlton, Planning Manager <br />Item Description <br />Reviewed by <br />Preliminary and Final Plat: Elk River Crossing <br />Peter Beck, City Attorney <br />Reviewed by <br />Eighth Addition, Wash N Fill Properties of <br />Minnesota, LLC — 18296 Zane Street NW <br />Cal Portner, City Administrator <br />Action Requested <br />Approve, by motion, the Preliminary Plat for Elk River Crossing <br />Eighth Addition, with the condition that ingress/egress easements <br />providing perpetual access to the Zane Street for both parcels be <br />recorded with the plat. <br />Adopt, by motion, a resolution approving the Final Plat of Elk River <br />Crossing Eighth Addition and direct the city attorney review and <br />approve the ingress/egress easement prior to releasing the plat for <br />recording. <br />Background/Discussion <br />The plat of Elk River Crossing Second Addition placed the existing <br />gas station and oil change use on one parcel — Lot 1, Block 1, Elk <br />River Crossing Second Addition. Establishing two uses on one <br />parcel was permitted at the time as the area was regulated by a PUD <br />Agreement for the larger Elk River Crossing development. The <br />applicant, owner of the parcel with both uses, is now requesting to <br />split the lot into two, allowing them to separate the two uses onto <br />their own parcels. <br />CR 33 <br />3 <br />S <br />RR <br />Hwy 10 <br />CR 12 <br />The access and general layout of the parcel remain the same, but the <br />plat does limit access to the public street (Zane Street). To address <br />this concern, the applicant will record a perpetual ingress/egress <br />Figure I <br />easement over both parcels. <br />Planning Commission <br />The property owner outlined the project during the public hearing and requested support for the project. <br />The Planning Commission did not have any questions or comments and unanimously recommended <br />approval of the preliminary plat. <br />p a w E R E U 6 Y <br />NaA f RE] <br />