My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-09-02_PC_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2015 Agendas
>
2015-09-02_PC_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/3/2015 11:48:02 AM
Creation date
9/3/2015 11:40:43 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
243
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, August 5, 2015 <br />Page 7 <br />Purchase Agreement separated out the park dedication issue. Therefore, Mr. Bilotta 299 <br />asked that the Commission add an additional condition that the developer agrees to pay 300 <br />park dedication fees in the amount of $3,500 per unit, the standard rate, as separated 301 <br />from the agreement and in negotiations, and therefore was not following the normal 302 <br />process of the Parks & Recreation Commission making a recommendation. 303 <br />At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Bilotta advised that, at this time, the developer 304 <br />estimated a total of 116 units; and confirmed that the $3,500 park dedication fee was a 305 <br />standard per unit cost. 306 <br />In conclusion, staff recommended approval of the revised Preliminary Plat dated August 307 <br />3, 2015 including Lot 2; based on the conditions outlined in the staff report, in addition to 308 <br />the additional condition as detailed by Mr. Bilotta. Mr. Lloyd suggested that, given the 309 <br />uncertainty with the quantity of trees or another means to accommodate their 310 <br />replacement, Condition C be revised to address tree preservation/replacement as an 311 <br />obligation of subsequent Final Plat approval by the City Council. 312 <br />Chair Boguszewski clarified that, if Condition C remained as currently written in the staff 313 <br />report, and subsequently it was found that getting 365 trees on the site after construction, 314 <br />the applicant could then choose to come forward with a Variance request; to which Mr. 315 <br />Lloyd responded affirmatively, similar to that process used by Pizza Lucé as an example. 316 <br />Given the sensitivity of and interest by the community in tree preservation, and personally 317 <br />as a Planning Commissioner, Chair Boguszewski asked that staff make sure that it is 318 <br />clearly understood by the applicant that any future Variance is not a given, but any actual 319 <br />application to the Variance Board would be thoughtfully considered, and if the Preliminary 320 <br />Plat was approved tonight it should in no way indicate to the applicant or give them any 321 <br />signal that a future Variance application would be granted. 322 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd clarified the location of the replacement storm 323 <br />water easement. 324 <br />At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the identity of the city-325 <br />owned parcel, identified as Lot 2, was addressed as 2668 Lexington Avenue N. Also, Mr. 326 <br />Lloyd confirmed for Member Cunningham that because this subdivision was for less than 327 <br />four lots, it did not meet the threshold requiring that the developer hold an open house; 328 <br />with the proposal involving three lots, but creating two lots under the revised Preliminary 329 <br />Plat. 330 <br />At the request of Member Gitzen, Mr. Bilotta confirmed that current negotiations would 331 <br />determine ultimate ownership of Lot 2; originally a single-family lot, but currently 332 <br />designated multi-family zoning. As part of those negotiations, Mr. Bilotta confirmed for 333 <br />Member Gitzen that easements and access points would be addressed; and any further 334 <br />title and boundary issues would be resolved prior to the Final Plat approval and included 335 <br />in documents and maps filed and recorded with Ramsey County. 336 <br />As noted by Member Gitzen, Mr. Lloyd clarified that his intent was not to indicate any 337 <br />additional dedication required on the north end on Woodhill Drive, but simply to recognize 338 <br />that street with rights-of-way for verification through the process. 339 <br />Member Bull asked for staff to address the characteristics for the driveway on Lot 2, and 340 <br />whether there would be additional hard cover to extend the driveway. 341 <br />Mr. Bilotta advised that, while this is a city lot, as part of the broader look with any and all 342 <br />property acquisition, it was intended as the entry point to serve this area, along with any 343 <br />necessary easements for surrounding properties as part of the larger development for 344 <br />adjacent parcels (e.g. Old Owasso School site). Mr. Bilotta noted that the City would 345 <br />prefer that location as the access point versus the currently controlled access point, 346 <br />based on Lexington Avenue being a county road and grade issues, as well as its location 347 <br />directly across the road from the Fire Station. Mr. Bilotta advised that that preference was 348 <br />to pull access points as far away from that intersection as possible without sliding them 349 <br />further into and creating issues at County Road C and Lexington Avenue to the south. 350
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.