CC_Minutes_2010_0712 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 12, 2010 Page 7 Roll Call Ayes: Roe; Pust; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing. Nays: None. c. Consider Planned Unit Development Amendment for the Wellington Redeve- lopment at 2167 Lexington Avenue Economic Development Associate Jamie Radel provided a brief review of the re- quest of Wellington Development, through PUD Agreement No. 1385, identified as "Attachment B" to the Request for Council Action dated July 12, 2010. MS. Radel noted that this agreement was for redevelopment of 1126 Sandhurst Drive and 2167 Lexington Avenue from asingle-family home and former TCF Bank building into a professional office building. Ms. Radel noted the request for a one-year extension to the agreement in a letter dated June 17, 2010; identified as "Attachment C" to this request; based on the developer's ongoing marketing ef- forts to secure a secondary tenant, delayed due to the current economic climate, and not requiring the developer to go through a land entitlement process a second time. Ms. Radel presented a draft Amendment to the PUD Agreement, prepared by staff and the City Attorney; granting this extension, while acknowledging that all other terms and conditions of the PUD Agreement dated July 13, 2009, remain in place; and requiring the developer to pay the fee to record said amendment with Ramsey County. A representative of the applicant was present. Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of an Amendment to PUD Agreement No. 1385 dated July 13, 2009 and identified as "Attachment D" to the RCA dated July 12, 2010); granting a one (1) year extension to the development schedule subject to the terms and conditions identified in Attachment D. Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern with cone-year extension should the ad- ditional tenant not be one originally anticipated; noting her objections to the addi- tional parking on site, preferring to leave options open to allow adjustments on impacts. Councilmember Roe noted that the amount of parking required was based on use not specific tenants, as per the PUD, and further noted that if a new tenant was something other than office use, and the developer determined all of the parking was not needed, that could be adjusted. Councilmember Ihlan, recalling her perception of previous discussions, offered that the developer sought more parking than required; and noted the desire to re- duce asphalt coverage, thus her desire to negotiate that at the City Council level.