2015_0608_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Exhibit A Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Page 2 �5 that these homes would be considered "move-up" homes anticipated at a price of over 4�� $350,000, helping the City meet the goals of its strategic planning efforts, and allowing for 4; availability of more affordable homes opening up for first-time home buyers. 4�; Mr. Lloyd noted that, due to the subject property's location abutting County Road B under 49 Ramsey County jurisdiction and MN Highway 36 under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota 5o Department of Transportation (MnDOT), comments had been solicited from both 5� agencies and their respective engineers. Mr. Lloyd advised that earlier today, staff had 5<y received a response from MnDOT addressing discrepancies in the width of the right-of- 5� way, outlining their conditions for approval, and future potential sound barrier provisions 5Q along this corridor; this letter will be included as part of the public record to be reviewed 55 by the City Council. 56 As noted in the staff report, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff was recommending approval of 57 the proposed Preliminary Plat of the property at 311 County Road B, based on the 5�; comments and findings detailed in the report and subject to the conditions as noted. 5� Commission/Staff Discussion 6o In noting the MnDOT right-of-way, Member Stellmach asked if since the right-of-way is 6� larger than depicted on the plat, could it affect minimum lot sizes for those lots, especially 62 those on the northern most portion. 6�; Mr. Lloyd clarified that the MnDOT letter appeared to address the 10' discrepancy in the 6� total length of the right-of-way line, not in its width to the highway. 65 In reviewing that area, Member Bull questioned if the current construction activity he 6E observed was on this site or on the adjacent property. 6z Mr. Lloyd clarified that the current construction was occurring on the adjacent property, 6�> addressed as 297 County Road B. As noted in the background review detailed in the staff 6:; report, Mr. Lloyd advised that, due to the denial of the last preliminary plat, that property 7� now remains a separate parcel. 7� Member Bull noted the substantial ravine on Farrington Street at the bend onto 7�� Sandhurst Drive, and asked Mr. Lloyd what the plans were for wetland access on Lot 1. 73 Mr. Lloyd displayed the grading map related to that specific lot; reviewing the existing 7� easement and how it corresponded to the ravine and lower areas for stormwater 75 drainage and proposed relocation of the future easement driven more by drain 7�, infrastructure versus overland drainage further east. 7�' Member Bull sought assurance, confirmed by Mr. Lloyd, that the Engineering Department 7�� would look hard at the cover area on the corner to ensure it didn't impede stormwater 79 drainage as part of the City Engineer's review throughout the planning and building 8o permit application process. 8 i Member Gitzen questioned if part of tonighYs approval for this Preliminary Plat should 82 include a condition vacating the existing 20' easement. 8: Mr. Lloyd stated that while it may be appropriate to include such a condition, it was 8 r something the City would pursue as a matter of course, since the vacation would be in 85 place for the benefit of future property owners and part of the new easement yet to be 86 drafted. In his discussions with the City Engineer, Mr. Lloyd advised that he would prefer 8 t to handle the easement vacation as part of the process after final plat approval to ensure 8� replacement of the easement was in place before vacating the existing easement. 8� At the request of Member Gitzen, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the Outlot dedication would be 9c deeded to the City. 9` At the request of Member Gitzen as to whether or not the access easements for the 9� Outlot would be granted at the same time, Mr. Lloyd clarified that they would be part and �3 parcel of the future drainage and utility easements. Page 18 of 22