2015_0608_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Exhibit A Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Page 4 i4E� 14l Member Daire questioned if the burden of providing sound mitigation and shielding the development from existing highway noise fell to the developer. 14�; Mr. Lloyd responded that only to the extent that something was determined needing done 149 to address highway noise; with the applicant then possibly needing to pursue a 15o public/private partnership of some kind and depending on what was available in order to 15 i protect nearby homeowners. 152 153 15� 155 156 157 158 159 160 16� 162 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd clarified that there were no sound walls on the back of the homes, but confirmed that current owners had already stated their issues with noise from Highway 36 prior to this redevelopment proposal. Based on his recollection of previous discussions, Member Daire opined that inquiries had been made by property owners encouraging the City to have a role in encouraging MnDOT to improve existing sound structures; and questioned the status of that request. While unable to recall that previous discussion at this time, Mr. Lloyd opined that there may have been an initiative to that effect, but since the previous project didn't come to fruition, he was not aware of any formal action by the City to pursue the request. With these new homes projected at a price point of $350,000 plus, Chair Boguszewski questioned if that was comparable to existing home values in the neighborhood. 16:; Mr. Lloyd opined that his sense was that the values would be a little above existing 16�°- homes, but he was not sure of how much of a variable there would be. Mr. Lloyd noted 16:> that the balance of the increased home values would include the work grading and 16�> drainage required to the property on the north side, while still being able to produce a 16-�' housing product that was not too far above comparable market values in that area that 16�z would make them unsellable. 169 Regarding the drainage area at the back of Lot 6, Member Stellmach expressed curiosity 17o about the maintenance aspect of that and how it would be maintained and whether the 17� proposed language for a motion would need to address that: whether through a 17�� homeowner's association or by the City taking responsibility. 17� Mr. Lloyd stated that staff would have no preference for responsibility beyond standard 17�? operating procedures for a case such as this and the general desire suggested by the 17�; City Engineer to address regional stormwater coming from the west. Mr. Lloyd noted that 17�; the potential to address drainage from a broader area beyond just this development 17�' made the City an interested participant in the project while work was underway anyway. 17�: Mr. Lloyd opined that, if it was eventually found that the regional drainage plan would not 17s work, a private public works/infrastructure agreement would be amenable to the City as 18o with other developments. 18" 182 Member Stellmach questioned how that determination would be made and eventually implemented, whether on the City Council or staff level. 18:; Mr. Lloyd advised that it was ultimately up to the City to approve stormwater 18�� management plans for this development as well as a system operating for regional 18 j stormwater treatment. Mr. Lloyd referenced comments from the City Engineer included in 18h the staff report and addressing details of a private system and information needed to 18�� formalize such a system in coordination with the developer. Mr. Lloyd clarified that it 18� would be up to the City's Public Works and Engineering staff to determine if something 18�; larger is worthwhile and then negotiate that with the developer, watershed districts and/or 190 other agencies as applicable. 191 19? 19:, 19�: 195 Page 20 of 22 With the proposed homes falling under the City Council's definition for "move-up" housing, Member Cunningham expressed her curiosity about the actual prices range involved for the plus amount beyond $350,000 in order to put things in perspective. Mr. Lloyd advised that he was not aware of the City Council establishing an accepted upper value under their current definition in its preliminary stated, and suggested they