02-14-2013 Planning Comm. Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2013 Howe reported that he did not like the road connection proposed by Brausen and he preferred the ghost plat option. Howe pointed out that either option results in the same number of lots. Maleitzke asked why the Brausen option would be more expensive. Howe reported that the street length appears longer, therefore, there would be additional costs for street, water, and sewer. Howe also pointed out that the Pinetree Pond plat would have to be re- engineered as drainage goes around the perimeter of the project. Howe further stated that he does not like the appearance of the layout Brausen proposed. The City Planner stated that it appears the road under the Brausen option would be 30 to 40 feet longer than the road in the ghost plat. Knudsen asked Brausen for a summary of his primary concerns with the Pinetree Pond plat as proposed. Brausen stated that the Pinetree Pond plat absorbs the 33 foot road easement that has existed for many years and was dedicated to provide for future development of the area. Brausen expressed concern that Howe would utilize the land from this road easement for part of his lots. Brausen stated that the property owners to the east would like to utilize the road easement which, again, was dedicated to provide future access for their properties. Brausen stated that the reason he has submitted his option is to show that there is another way to develop the area and still maintain the same number of lots. Brausen asked that the road easement remain so that the properties to the east can use if even if Howe loses a couple of lots. The City Engineer stated that in future reviewing the Brausen option presented, it appears that Howe would lose one lot. The Engineer noted that the Brausen option would require that Howe obtain a triangle of property from Acosta to maintain the same number of lots as proposed in the Pinetree Pond plat. Brausen felt that may not be an issue as Acosta would need a portion of the road easement. The City Engineer reviewed the February 14, 2013 letter submitted by E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc. indicating that if the road easement is vacated, it was their opinion that the property would accrue to the 2966 LaBore Road property and would not be divided equally between abutting properties. The Engineer pointed out, however, that the final determination would be made by Ramsey County. The City Administrator reported that the goal of the ghost plat is to provide a development option for the three properties to the east. The Administrator noted that City staff has met with these property owners to review the ghost plat. There appears, however, to be some disagreement on how to provide for future development of the three properties to the east. The Administrator pointed out that the Gordie Howe has indicated -6-