Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council for clarity on River Park land sale; staff outlines steps to develop former drain-field outlot
Summary
A resident urged the city to subdivide and sell River Park outlot lots individually; city staff explained the former wastewater tank and drain-field infrastructure was removed per MPCA guidance, that only a small lift‑station parcel remains deed-restricted, and that development would require replatting, geotechnical review and stormwater upgrades.
During public forum and a subsequent planning discussion, a River Park resident urged the council to sell the city-owned outlot inside River Park as individual residential lots rather than to a single developer, saying listing lots publicly would likely maximize proceeds and produce homes consistent with neighboring lots.
“My hope would be that it's lots that are similar to what is there now,” the resident said, asking the council to avoid townhouse or dense spec‑home developments.
City staff provided a technical briefing describing the site’s history and redevelopment constraints. Staff said wastewater tanks and treatment components were removed and disposed of in accordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency guidance; the drain‑field tile grid remains below grade except for access points. A lift station constructed with clean-water revolving loan funds carries a deed restriction limited to the lift station parcel (staff estimated the restricted area as roughly a small square around the lift station). The remainder of the outlot is not covered by that restriction and may be developable following standard municipal steps.
Staff recommended practical next steps for council consideration: an owners-and‑encumbrance report to verify whether recorded covenants apply to the outlot, a survey and replatting if development is desired, a geotechnical review to verify foundation suitability where drain‑field tile existed, and a feasibility or concept plan to estimate costs for water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure that new lots would require. Staff said stormwater rules are stricter now than when the original development was built; any new construction would likely require on‑site stormwater features or other mitigation.
Council and staff emphasized that no developer had formally approached the city and that no decisions had been made. Council asked staff to research recorded covenants and prepare options for future council consideration.
Next steps: staff will check county records for covenants and ownership, evaluate whether the city wants a survey or feasibility study and return with options, costs and timelines for council review.
