Agenda - Council - 12/12/2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Community Development Director Gladhill reviewed the staff report and noted that the Planning Commission restated its recommendation for approval of this project at its November 2, 2017 meeting. He stated that the Environmental Policy Board recommends that the conveyance of the corridor for the Lake Itasca Greenway is sufficient public benefit for a Planned Unit Development approval. He stated that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the conveyance of the corridor for the Lake Itasca Greenway is sufficient public benefit for a Planned Unit Development approval and recommends that Park Dedication and Trail Development Fee obligations be satisfied through a cash contribution. Mayor Strommen noted that there was a problem with the live broadcasting, which has been corrected. She asked staff to take note of the issue because it has happened more regularly in recent times. Councilmember Kuzma stated that this has come before the Council a number of times and he is troubled that they cannot seem to get this done right. He stated that the developers are asking for the zoning change, ordinance change, and yet further definition of the greenway still seems to be needed. He stated that he believes that this should go through the typical process and the City should not be granting these approvals ahead of the plat submission and therefore he will not support this item. Mayor Strommen asked for further definition of the property borders and specifically the four - acre parcel. Community Development Director Gladhill provided further clarification. He stated that while the four -acre parcel will not be used for park, any cash obtained from the sale of the parcel would go into the park trust fund. Councilmember Shryock asked for additional details on the density transitioning that would occur near the existing homes. Community Development Director Gladhill stated that they have worked to obtain wider and deeper lots near the existing homes, noting that there would be a 45-foot buffer area that would be encumbered by easement. He stated that the lot depth for the proposed homes would be 15 feet short of the required depth. He noted that a berm could be used for density transitioning but noted that, with that option, the depth would still be short five feet. He stated that aspect could be negotiated through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) should the Council view the public benefit to be adequate to support that variation. Val Kruger, 15210 Kangaroo Street, asked the Council to think about what they are doing. She stated that the residents desire the rural aesthetic and feel of the community. She stated that there is already a huge development that received approval, and this would be another large development in the area, which would go against the desires of the community. She stated that the City should pause and wait for the right development, as this developer is requesting a lot of concessions. She stated that the elementary school already cannot support the children in the community and this would add more children. She stated that they have spoken with a realtor that has stated that her property value will drop with this development. She stated that her City Council / November 28, 2017 Page 6 of 12