2015-08-05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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