2015-08-05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 5, 2015 Page 9 recognized that the project itself would need to meet design standards of current City 403 Code, with the proposed front facing Lexington Avenue in accordance with that Code, 404 thereby identifying access off Lexington Avenue versus off the back of the building site. 405 However, if the applicant and City ultimately determine that a better way could be found 406 to address traffic concerns, even against City Code, Chair Boguszewski clarified that this 407 was something that would and could come before the Commission for a Variance to 408 adjust that issue. 409 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Bilotta further reviewed traffic volume calculations in 410 this area, currently and with the addition of 116 units for assistant living housing; and 411 compared this development with that of the Lexington Apartment complex immediately to 412 the north with approximately 258 general occupancy units (e.g. multiple vehicles per 413 unit). While not in any way attempting to defend or make insignificant concerns and 414 potential issues with traffic, Mr. Bilotta did note that any time a vacant lot developed with 415 a large building, it was intimidating and created some fear. 416 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the process for Preliminary 417 Plat approval: with the public hearing before the Planning Commission, followed by City 418 Council action on the Preliminary Plat based on the Commission’s recommendation; if 419 approved, the applicant proceeds to the Final Plat (intended to be the finalized version of 420 the Preliminary Plat) that would return to the City Council for their final review and action 421 for approval or denial; and eventual recording of the Final Plat with Ramsey County for 422 perpetuity. 423 At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the property was currently 424 zoned HDR; and since the actual development plan had yet to be reviewed or approved, 425 the number of units and size of the area with or without Lot 2 was not yet done. 426 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Bilotta was charged with drafting appropriate 427 language for an additional condition requiring a traffic study as part of the Commission’s 428 recommendation to the City Council. 429 Applicant/Developer Representative, Mark Nelson, United Properties 430 Mr. Nelson addressed questions raised by commissioners from the developer’s 431 perspective. Specific to Lot 2, Mr. Nelson suggested this not be a major concern at this 432 time, as the developer negotiated on a broader front and based on the long-term vision 433 for the access to Lexington Avenue for this parcel and location of the bike shop on the 434 corner and potential access further to the south. In that overall context, as noted on the 435 displayed preliminary plat and general site plan, Mr. Nelson advised that during 436 discussions with Ramsey County Engineers, it had become apparent that access on Lot 437 2 was their preferred location as alluded to by Mr. Bilotta; and equidistant between the 438 two lots and as shown on these preliminary drawings. Technically, Mr. Nelson noted that 439 the plan works without that access and could work on Lot 1; but it was the intent of the 440 developer to accommodate the broader vision. 441 In focusing on just this development and not the overall plan for this block, Mr. Nelson 442 noted and displayed the current tree preservation plan, noting that some on Lexington 443 Avenue and others on Woodhill Drive were not included for saving due to their species 444 and whether considered significant under current city code language. Since this was 445 moving into more detailed information than necessary or currently available at this time 446 under a preliminary plat approval, Mr. Nelson advised that the developer was happy to 447 reasonably accommodate city code as it relates to tree preservation. 448 As to why the site plan was laid out as shown, Mr. Nelson advised that they ran into fill on 449 the eastern portion of the site, directly in half on Woodhill Drive – apparently consisting of 450 road debris which they had attempted to address through the site plan, as it would prove 451 a herculean effort to completely remove it from those parcels. As previously mentioned 452 by Mr. Paschke, Mr. Nelson noted that current city code design standards call for the 453 front door of the development on Lexington Avenue, so the intent was to not make that 454