pm_080509 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 05, 2009 Page 3 Additional discussion included exterior elevation samples for both phases of the project (i.e., walls and windows); comparable zoning for each phase; with the City’s Building Official ensuring that when this type of construction comes up to the property line, the applicant/developer is required to record restrictions or covenants with Ramsey County for minimum separations based on building and fire codes; landscaping amenities, with submission of a landscape plan for both phases and similar to that previously presented with the PUD; and acceptability of fewer units than ninety-five (95) if the market so dictates. Commissioner Boerigter expressed concern that, if phase II didn’t proceed, how that would impact the entire parcel, and pressure to develop the proposed Lot 2. Commissioner Gisselquist noted that the second parcel was awkward to Cleveland Avenue. Further discussion included access to the City’s park and lack of current connection, and the developer’s agreement to provide a dedicated access to the park. Applicant Representatives, Kevin Teppen and Tom Goodwin, MFRA Mr. Teppen spoke on behalf of the developer, noting that Mr. Alex Hall with United properties was out of town and unable to attend tonight’s meeting. Discussion among Commissioners, staff, and the applicant’s representatives included the additional cost to the developer in phasing the project with build-out of the common areas and amenities during the first phase to ensure a quality building as marketed and to garner public interest; and confirmation on the width of the cul-de-sac street (twenty-six feet) with a turnaround for the park, with that design still pending, and connection to the park, all at the expense of the developer, with minor design issues still being negotiated at the staff level. Chair Doherty opined that this created a very motivated developer to market and complete as many units as possible, when all the fixed costs and infrastructure was an up-front cost for them, providing incentive to complete Phase II of the project as well. Mr. Teppen advised that United Properties would prefer to build the entire ninety-five units at this time; however, they are proposing the two phases recognizing recent changes to requirements for HUD loans, and anticipating that more interest would be generated by the public and potential unit owners once construction begins. Commissioner Wozniak noted that the project had been denied at the Planning Commission level the last time it was heard, with subsequent approval by the City Council. Commissioner Wozniak noted that a the major reason for denial was based on the scale and height of the building, with several Commissioners feeling there was inadequate transition between the proposed building and neighboring single-family homes to the north, including solar access and building height impacts to those properties. Commissioner Wozniak asked the developer if, given the apparent difficulty in filling the units, whether any consideration was given to building a shorter building rather than phasing the same number of units. Mr. Teppen advised that he was unable to answer that question for the developer. Tom Goodwin, MRFA Mr. Goodwin, on behalf of the developer, advised that the project’s unit calculation was based on HUD requirements, which have recently changed, and that their financing requirements were driving the overall number of units. Public Comment John Komula, 3775 N Dunlap Street, Arden Hills, owner of Transwestern commercial property to the SE Mr. Komula advised that he was the owner of the warehouse building(s) on the south side of the proposed project; and clarified that there was written access agreements for the City to access Langton Lake Park through the north parking lot, at the front of their