pf_02824 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

When reviewing a PUD, the City typically reviews the proposal against the ordinance standards which nonnally would apply in the nonnal zoning district which would apply. Attached is a chart that compares the proposal to the 1-2 and B-4 zoning districts. Ryan's proposal meets or exceeds all current standards in each district. ED&ioeeriol. CQDsidel'itioos: The Engineering Department has reviewed the above mentioned project. The following is a list of concerns: 1) BRWandtheCitystaff.~~:.~~~~!I~:,~~~~J?IQ~~~(~\g~.H~1q1p1mgCi feasibility study in order to solve two. iss~~s{regardmgj'tlie"TWiit'L~~~',:~~~~i The first issue is the long tenn, fU.tili'(.mQ~~Jiqp.:,Qf.j[(mnillfaJ{~&/J~wkway. It is desired to line up the future Twin Lakes Parkway with on-ramps to northbound 1-35W. During past discussions, MnDOT has indicated that the ramps for I-35W could not be moved as far north as would be necessary to line up with Twin Lakes Parkway in its currently proposed location. As part of the feasibility study, BRW approached MnDOT to detennine whether the ramps to 1-35W could be moved to the north in the future and, if so, how far. Current indications are that MnDOT may allow the relocation but will not fund it or provide additional wetland for mitigation. The City may have to fund these costs in the future. The resolution ofthe Twin Lakes Parkway location will have an effect on the proposed site. The second issue surrounds $tQffii{water:'cle(epti9ti:~cl:tfea;tment( The ponds which currently exist on MnDOT right-of-way between northbound 1-35W and Cleveland . Avenue serve as regiopal stonn water ponds. These ponds were identified in the City's previous plans as the area for expansion to serve the west half of the Twin Lakes development. This would eliminate the need for a series of small ponds on each site and create a more regional pending situation. 2) In past discussions with the developer, two options for handling stonn water have been generated which are contingent on the findings of the feasibility study. The developer will CQIl$truCli~eII\Porary 4eterttiQnxpQ~.~:QII~!4~i.!;1.RrQ.e~~~~~th~ "40 foot setback area ~dj~q~l1tto~~IopaLaneright';c:>f.i.WCiy:,('IMinEtUCes'R8tkWay). The temporary ponds will remain until the modification of the ponds on the west side of Cleveland Avenue is completed. The temporary pond would then be eliminated. If the regional pending issue cannot be resolved, the temporary pond could become a pennanent solution to handle stonn water. Both options have been addressed in the current proposal. The developer will be required to obtain~rIJ,ti~;trQm:;RaiIl$~y;j~Q\lJl.ty;:~qeCreekWatershed District, atld,:JylnDOT inorder.to'd,isPh.a.I'g~'~tc:>rtJlJiWater'iI1tQtp,~.'B9.J)JI~ontbe, west ,side of Cleveland ,,'Avenue. 3