2015-05-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Page 4 Member Daire questioned if the burden of providing sound mitigation and shielding the 146 development from existing highway noise fell to the developer. 147 Mr. Lloyd responded that only to the extent that something was determined needing done 148 to address highway noise; with the applicant then possibly needing to pursue a 149 public/private partnership of some kind and depending on what was available in order to 150 protect nearby homeowners. 151 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd clarified that there were no sound walls 152 on the back of the homes, but confirmed that current owners had already stated their 153 issues with noise from Highway 36 prior to this redevelopment proposal. 154 Based on his recollection of previous discussions, Member Daire opined that inquiries 155 had been made by property owners encouraging the City to have a role in encouraging 156 MnDOT to improve existing sound structures; and questioned the status of that request. 157 While unable to recall that previous discussion at this time, Mr. Lloyd opined that there 158 may have been an initiative to that effect, but since the previous project didn’t come to 159 fruition, he was not aware of any formal action by the City to pursue the request. 160 With these new homes projected at a price point of $350,000 plus, Chair Boguszewski 161 questioned if that was comparable to existing home values in the neighborhood. 162 Mr. Lloyd opined that his sense was that the values would be a little above existing 163 homes, but he was not sure of how much of a variable there would be. Mr. Lloyd noted 164 that the balance of the increased home values would include the work grading and 165 drainage required to the property on the north side, while still being able to produce a 166 housing product that was not too far above comparable market values in that area that 167 would make them unsellable. 168 Regarding the drainage area at the back of Lot 6, Member Stellmach expressed curiosity 169 about the maintenance aspect of that and how it would be maintained and whether the 170 proposed language for a motion would need to address that: whether through a 171 homeowner’s association or by the City taking responsibility. 172 Mr. Lloyd stated that staff would have no preference for responsibility beyond standard 173 operating procedures for a case such as this and the general desire suggested by the 174 City Engineer to address regional stormwater coming from the west. Mr. Lloyd noted that 175 the potential to address drainage from a broader area beyond just this development 176 made the City an interested participant in the project while work was underway anyway. 177 Mr. Lloyd opined that, if it was eventually found that the regional drainage plan would not 178 work, a private public works/infrastructure agreement would be amenable to the City as 179 with other developments. 180 Member Stellmach questioned how that determination would be made and eventually 181 implemented, whether on the City Council or staff level. 182 Mr. Lloyd advised that it was ultimately up to the City to approve stormwater 183 management plans for this development as well as a system operating for regional 184 stormwater treatment. Mr. Lloyd referenced comments from the City Engineer included in 185 the staff report and addressing details of a private system and information needed to 186 formalize such a system in coordination with the developer. Mr. Lloyd clarified that it 187 would be up to the City’s Public Works and Engineering staff to determine if something 188 larger is worthwhile and then negotiate that with the developer, watershed districts and/or 189 other agencies as applicable. 190 With the proposed homes falling under the City Council’s definition for “move-up” 191 housing, Member Cunningham expressed her curiosity about the actual prices range 192 involved for the plus amount beyond $350,000 in order to put things in perspective. 193 Mr. Lloyd advised that he was not aware of the City Council establishing an accepted 194 upper value under their current definition in its preliminary stated, and suggested they 195