Laserfiche WebLink
Attachment I <br />b. Planninq File 07-006 <br />Request by United Properties for approval of a PRELIMINARY PLAT and PLANNED <br />UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT to allow the proposed senior cooperative <br />residence at 3008-3010 Cleveland Avenue to be developed in two (2) phases <br />instead of one (1) phase as originally approved <br />Chair poherty opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 09-006 at 6:42 p.m. <br />Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd provided staff's analysis of the request by United <br />Properties to allow the senior cooperative residential development approved in 2008 to <br />be constructed in two (2) phases at 3008-3010 Cleveland Avenue, in response to current <br />housing market conditions. Staff referenced Planning Commission meeting minutes <br />dated June 6, 2007 when this issue was previously heard and recommended to the City <br />Council for denial, with subsequent approval by the City Council. <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that the applicant was now requesting that the development be <br />constructed in two (2) phases due to current housing market conditions, and to allow final <br />commitments from prospective buyers, which will determine the number of units to be <br />built as part of Phase I on the east portion. <br />Staff recommended APPROVAL of the request of United Properties for the proposed <br />PRELIMINARY PLAT and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT to <br />facilitate the two-phase development of the senior cooperative residence at 3008-3010 <br />Cleveland Avenue; based on the comments of Sections 4-6 and the conditions of Section <br />7 of the project report dated August 5, 2009. <br />Discussion among Commissioners and staff included location of the proposed phases on <br />the parcels; outlots; status of purchase of the properties; approval of the plat by the City <br />Council, not yet filed until purchase is completed; and proposed construction of Phase I <br />on Block I with approximately one-half of the originally-proposed units to be constructed <br />in the first phase, for a total Phase II build-out not to exceed ninety-five (95) units. <br />Further discussion included a timetable for future development of the western portion <br />(Phase II); up-front costs in phasing the project with infrastructure and roadway <br />construction, increasing the per-unit cost to the developer; amenities of the units and their <br />location facing Langton Lake in the first phase of the project; grading and underground <br />garage access considerations in the developer's rationale for building on the east parcel <br />initially; estimate by the developer for approximately fifty (50) units for potential sale in the <br />first phase; and the process to move forward with the project for PUD phasing and <br />approval of the preliminary plat dividing the lot lines. <br />Additional discussion included exterior elevation samples for both phases of the project <br />(i.e., walls and windows); comparable zoning for each phase; with the City's Building <br />Official ensuring that when this type of construction comes up to the property line, the <br />applicant/developer is required to record restrictions or covenants with Ramsey County <br />for minimum separations based on building and fire codes; landscaping amenities, with <br />submission of a landscape plan for both phases and similar to that previously presented <br />with the PUD; and acceptability of fewer units than ninety-five (95) if the market so <br />dictates. <br />Commissioner Boerigter expressed concern that, if phase II didn't proceed, how that <br />would impact the entire parcel, and pressure to develop the proposed Lot 2. <br />Commissioner Gisselquist noted that the second parcel was awkward to Cleveland <br />Avenue. <br />Further discussion included access to the City's park and lack of current connection, and <br />the developer's agreement to provide a dedicated access to the park. <br />Applicant Representatives, Kevin Teppen and Tom Goodwin, MFRA <br />Mr. Teppen spoke on behalf of the developer, noting that Mr. Alex Hall with United <br />properties was out of town and unable to attend tonight's meeting. <br />Discussion among Commissioners, staff, and the applicant's representatives included the <br />additional cost to the developer in phasing the project with build-out of the common areas <br />