2014_04_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Thursday, April 10, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Lloyd clarified that it was inherent that the suggested motion would include those 92 items as detailed in the staff report dated April 10, 2014 as presented, along with the 93 recommendations in Section 9 specifying those conditions. 94 At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the preliminary tree preservation 95 plan and percentage of trees and buffer zones; noting that the trees were identified per 96 caliper size based on those scheduled for removal. In current calculations, still in a 97 preliminary stage, Mr. Lloyd noted that it appeared that approximately one quarter of the 98 trees would be removed, with many focused in front and in the immediate vicinity of the 99 infiltration pond, as provided on the displayed map. 100 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the majority of the trees were 101 proposed for removal within the easement areas and dedicated rights-of-way, in an effort 102 to realign the storm water drainage infrastructure improvements (e.g. infiltration pipes and 103 basin). 104 Member Daire questioned if the Public Works Department had determined that the 105 proposed drainage pond would be sufficient to hold the additional water coming off the 106 adjacent streets. 107 Mr. Lloyd advised that he Public Works Department was continuing to work with the 108 developer to make sure storm water drainage is handled on site according to City Code 109 and Watershed District requirements, whether it was coming from the site itself or flowing 110 onto the site from elsewhere. 111 At the prompting of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that any runoff from the street 112 would be intercepted by catch basins and diverted through pipes into the infiltration pond. 113 Mr. Paschke noted that, at this preliminary stage of the proposed development, no final 114 plans for drainage had been submitted, with staff at this point reviewing details on the 115 preliminary plans, and then following through as the process continued. 116 Applicant representatives were present, but had no comments beyond the staff 117 presentation and report. 118 Public Comment 119 Mike Metz, 320 County Road B West (across the street from subject property) 120 Mr. Metz observed that it appeared 90% of the trees on the tree preservation map 121 appeared to be marked for removal; and while he had no problem since other than those 122 directly around the dwelling were not necessarily worth saving. 123 Mr. Paschke clarified that only certain species and/or sizes counted toward tree 124 preservation requirements, as the removal of some species was preferred and not 125 required to be saved. 126 Mr. Metz opined that, depending on the remaining tree coverage, it would be nice to see 127 a re-vegetation plan to accommodate future reforestation. 128 Regarding drainage, Mr. Metz suggested this may be a prudent time to incorporate 129 drainage solutions from a broader area, such as the MnDOT area’s drainage developed 130 as part of the highway system. Mr. Metz suggested including that mitigation as part of this 131 development if possible. 132 Mr. Paschke, clarifying that Mr. Metz was suggesting co-mingling ponding on this 133 development site with that of MnDOT property, and expressed his doubt, based on past 134 discussions and experience, that MnDOT would be receptive to that. Mr. Paschke noted 135 that MnDOT had very little land in some of their rights-of-way; and while in some cases 136 co-mingling could occur, in this case he didn’t see that possibility. Mr. Paschke noted that 137 it was worth asking MnDOT, but he felt they would not be receptive to the suggestion. 138 Mr. Metz questioned his understanding for the rational in moving from LDR-1 to LDR-2 139 zoning, expressing his concern as well as several neighbors that this may create an 140