2021_0222_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

would ask the applicant about this as well. He did think that moving the setback 49 would be fine and is probably practical. 50 51 Chair Gitzen asked regarding the controlled access, which will get the Conditional 52 use, if the Commission is allowed to put some conditions on that. 53 54 Mr. Lloyd indicated that was right, as with any Conditional Use consideration, 55 approval can include any conditions deemed necessary to prevent adverse impact, and 56 protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. 57 58 Chair Gitzen explained there is a trail dumping out onto McCarrons and then across 59 there is the park area so he wondered if there was anything that the City could do to 60 require the developer to put a crossing in there to protect the public. 61 62 Mr. Lloyd indicated staff has been working with the developer on that and in fact, 63 there are reason why Public Works Staff is reluctant to recommend flashing lights or 64 some sort of larger improvements like that. The Rice and Larpenteur Vision Plan 65 does promote certain street painting designs at intersections, crosswalks and so forth. 66 This being a sort of public pedestrian way/multi-use path, in that vision plan area, that 67 would do some sort of crosswalk, painting would need to be done. They are working 68 with the designs in that vision plan to not only call attention to a pedestrian crosswalk 69 there but to elevate it in light of its location in this vision plan area. 70 71 Mr. Roger Anderson, applicant, addressed the Commission about the proposed plan. 72 73 Member Kimble indicated it was really helpful to understand the addition of the extra 74 lot because she did wonder about that and in a way adds a complication for the zoning 75 request. She thought it helped to understand the reason for the zero-lot line request. 76 77 Chair Gitzen agreed and also liked the comment that the HOA was not going to be 78 responsible for maintenance of the homes but there will be required access easements, 79 which could be a condition for the variance. He would be comfortable with the zero-80 lot line as long as there are access easements, which he has not seen before but 81 thought they probably existed in other communities. 82 83 Public Comment 84 85 Ms. Susan Love, homeowner on , west of the development. She 86 explained the StarTribune quoted Ms. Gundlach saying the idea behind the tree 87 ordinance is to motivate people to redevelop in a way that preserves the big trees. 88 She indicated this plan instead destroys twenty-six of twenty-eight heritage trees and 89 162 or 197 significant trees. There is a tug of war here, as has been pointed out, 90 medium density zoning could allow up to forty-eight units. She noted on line 126 of 91 the report, essentially tells them that if they argue to save trees and if they argue for 92 fewer homes they could essentially and inadvertently be arguing for fewer buildings 93 of greater density instead of single-family homes, which she and neighbors she has 94 spoken with definitely do not want. The surrounding residents do want single family 95 homes, just not so many. She explained she has previously made clear her views 96 about limiting development in order to mitigate climate change, which affects public 97 RCA Attachment D Page 2 of 51