CC_Minutes_2012_0521 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,May 21,2012 Page 18 Mr. Lloyd advised that it did not come as a combined Preliminary and Final Plat process, as development of internal roadways was involved and more questions needing to be addressed in platting the area and matching existing and proposed roadways and infrastructure. Mr. Lloyd noted that there was usually a lot of de- tails to be worked out between Preliminary, or conceptual, Plat. By compari- son, Mr. Lloyd advised that this plat was relatively simple, with many others representing simply a reconfiguration of internal property boundaries that don't involve extensive public infrastructure. While the Final Plat document will have a different title, Mr. Lloyd advised that it would look similar to the Prelim- inary Plat, and be essentially consistent with the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Lloyd opined that, in such instances, it was common practice to address the Prelimi- nary and Final Plats at the same time (e.g. Meritex Plats) Councilmember McGehee sought a simple explanation of the terms "Prelimi- nary" and"Final"Plats. Mr. Lloyd advised that it was based, in some sense, on the level of detail, with more detail provided in the Preliminary Plat, and including existing easements that may be vacated, but identifying them. Mr. Lloyd noted that the Preliminary Plat may also involve roadways, individual parcels combined, and in concept, any changes necessary to property boundaries or rearrangement of a portion of those boundaries. Once those numerous details are addressed, Mr. Lloyd ad- vised that the Preliminary Plat could then be approved, at which time the Final Plat in a simpler format could be formalized that would provide the final picture once those details of the Preliminary Plat were addressed and allowing a formal view of the Plat. Mr. Lloyd advised that the Final Plat was exactly the same thing approved as the Preliminary Plat with all those conditions applied. Pust moved, McGehee seconded, contrary to staff recommendation and as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), that the City Council grant the citizens' petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). As the maker of the motion, Councilmember Pust opined that there were a lot of good reasons to pursue an environmental review, since if consideration of this project had occurred in the future, or four (4) months from now when the AUAR was due for a five (5) year update, the City would be required to per- form that review. Councilmember Pust opined that this development represent- ed a very big change in what the neighborhood had been expecting and what the community had been hoping for. Councilmember Pust opined that her ques- tions about traffic had been answered sufficiently by staff, and while MnDOT's correspondence included in the meeting packet materials had backed off their original concerns, the fact remained that there was now too much traffic and while recognizing that the area may be inundated with traffic, the City Council could wait and see and deal with it later. However, Councilmember Pust further opined that this did not represent good planning. Councilmember Pust advised that she was also concerned with the reduction of green space from 25%to 15%