2015-09-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 5, 2015 Page 6 Murphy left the bench at 7:09 p.m., and observed from the audience through completion 245 of the case. 246 In his review of the staff report and attachments, Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd noted the 247 Preliminary Plat included was inaccurate as it had omitted in its entirety the city-owned 248 parcel on the southern most edge, and with the updated August 3, 2015 as displayed at 249 this time, was shown as Lot 2. Furthermore, Mr. Lloyd noted the original 33’ easement 250 dedication and information provided in the meeting agenda packet, had been reviewed 251 and corrected that the actual distance required is 49.5’, as also shown on the updated 252 plat as displayed. Mr. Lloyd briefly revised that city-owned parcel and the applicant’s plat 253 not conveying ownership rights to the applicant (United Properties) with negotiations 254 ongoing as to whether the applicant will be able to access property from another access 255 point or by crossing the city-owned easement; or if the parcel would be transferred in part 256 or whole to the applicant. Mr. Lloyd clarified that Preliminary Plat approval does not affect 257 property ownership, with ultimate approval of those negotiations by the City Council at a 258 later date. As part of the Preliminary Plat approval, Mr. Lloyd further noted that High 259 Density Residential (HDR) zoning designation for this property did not address lot sizes 260 or shape diameters as part of the Subdivision Code and would be reviewed as a separate 261 process; with only property boundaries addressed as part of the Preliminary Plat approval 262 as shown on the displayed plat, and ultimate right-of-way dedication corrected as dictated 263 by Ramsey County during their review of this parcel adjacent to Lexington Avenue, a 264 county roadway. 265 Mr. Lloyd reviewed the existing storm sewer easement and infrastructure on the property, 266 and subsequent proposed vacation and dedication of a new easement and storm sewer 267 line as part of the new plat. Mr. Lloyd noted that the Public Works/Engineering 268 Department indicated it was proper to hold off on the vacation element until negotiation 269 and completion of a Public Improvement Contract ultimately approved by the City Council 270 to address any easements if and when needed. 271 As indicated in the staff report, Mr. Lloyd noted the preliminary tree preservation plan, 272 and advised that the City’s consulting arborist was in the audience to address any 273 questions with the preliminary calculations based on required tree plantings on the site, 274 which he noted would change some with the extension of the right-of-way by an 275 additional 16.5’. Mr. Lloyd noted that, under the current tree preservation ordinance, the 276 obligation for replanting was quite extensive and would be a challenge on this parcel. Mr. 277 Lloyd note this further served to indicate the need for revised language as coming before 278 the Planning Commission and City Council for discussion in the near future in considering 279 replanting on site, funding the cost of tree planting elsewhere in the city versus on site 280 and at another location if impractical on a given site; and other potential considerations 281 moving forward. In this instance and under current City Code for tree preservation, Mr. 282 Lloyd advised that the applicant may need to apply for a variance when the final tree 283 calculations are determined. 284 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff would be recommending an additional or revised condition for 285 approval as part of their recommendation, since at the time of the staff report; there had 286 been no recommendation from the City related to a park dedication. 287 In context, Community Development Director Paul Bilotta noted that this application was 288 for an easy subdivision. However, Mr. Bilotta noted that this project developer was also 289 the controlling developer for the former Owasso School site, location of the Owasso 290 ballfields; and noted that active negotiations were still in play at this time, and therefore 291 remained confidential, but clarified that some of those elements were in play with this 292 project on adjacent land as well. Mr. Bilotta advised that Lot 2 was part of that discussion 293 for possible inclusion as part of this project, but whether or not it occurred remained in the 294 negotiation process. Either way, Mr. Bilotta noted that the City ended up with a platted 295 parcel and in bringing it forward separately was part of the desire not to hold up this 296 project allowing it to get in the ground this fall. Mr. Bilotta noted that the remaining 297 project, the former Owasso School site had many complexities; and the latest draft of a 298