2015_0723_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Exhibit B b. PLANNING FILE No. 15-011 Request by Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) for approval of a PRELIMINARY PLAT for properties addressed as 2325 and 2335 Dale Street, and 657, 661, 667, and 675 Cope Street '� Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for Planning File 15-011 at 8:07 p.m. � Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized this re-plat, approved in different form �7 approximately one year ago; and now revised from 25 to 18 units. Mr. Lloyd advised that � the GMHC proposes to demolish the decommissioned fire station and replat into 18 lots �� for development of one-family, attached and detached townhomes (Attachment C). �o Mr. Lloyd advised that rezoning had been accomplished with the previous preliminary plat f i submission; and noted that staff had received no additional public comment since the -2 previous review and recent open house. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff recommended `3 approval as conditioned and detailed in the staff report dated July 1, 2015. a� At the request of Member Gitzen, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that no easements were required c� along the street; nor vacation of any existing utility easements; and additional Dale Street ':<, right-of-way addressed by the existing Metropolitan CounciPs easement. o r' As indicated in the tree preservation plan provided in materials, Mr. Lloyd advised that ��; the City of Roseville was now contracting with S& S Tree Services for planning review �9 and field monitoring for tree protection and construction activities; with representatives 2o available in tonight's audience. Mr. Lloyd advised that most trees on the site would be 2 � removed other than a handful if at all possible and as identified on the survey; and 22 subject to tree replacement per City Code. �� Chair Boguszewski noted the open house meeting notes from May 14, 2015 addressed �� some concerns about a privacy fence or natural buffers to screen this more densely �5 occupied mini-community; but noted that did not appear as a condition of the Preliminary 2.e Plat, and questioned if that should be addressed as a condition or would be 2.7 accomplished in some other way. 2& Mr. Paschke advised that it was not part of this request specific to dividing and replatting 2� property; but recognized all were amenable to providing screening between this dense .,., development and the rest of the neighborhood. 3 � Mr. Bilotta advised that this project was a coordinated project done in cooperation with 32 the GMAC; and for anyone with concerns with site development issues, suggested they 33 e-mail those comments to staff and suggest any mitigations they'd like to see as staff 3� reviewed and analyzed the final project and other applicable code requirements as part of 3� the approval process. s� Chair Boguszewski asked that that provision be entered and noted as an area of 3:' concern, as addressed all along by the Planning Commission in past presentations; and 3�; the Commission's desire to protect the culture and feel of the existing neighborhood �� adjacent to this development, by providing a protective barrier. Chair Boguszewski asked �� that staff ensure that request remain part of the discussion process moving forward even � � though not part of formal plat approval. �':7_ With the City being involved, Mr. Bilotta noted there were additional controls available �t3 and in place; and as suggested by Mr. Paschke, encouraged submission of any concerns �� to staff. Mr. Bilotta advised that the normal building permit process, as well as the �� pending Development Agreement as part of the application process, allowed the City �� Council the ability to review and approve those plans. As part of the process, Mr. Bilotta <: r assured all that staff would bring forward any outstanding issues that could be added to :� the Development Agreement. Given the reality of this case, Mr. Bilotta noted that the �� developer is in a joint venture with the City Council; and expressed his assurance that ��o reasonable mitigation requests would be agreeable to pursue. 5! With the exception of the one single-family unit, Chair Boguszewski questioned if the 52 townhome units with shared internal walls would be considered by the City Council to be Page 1 of 2