1-31-2006 Special meeting regarding NWQ

Home Browse Search

Approved building’s 46, 47, and 48. They will be doing site plan revisions for the northern entrance to accommodate the realignment of the road and the storm water retention pond. Zisla inquired if there was any additional information regarding public art. Fernelius replied that Steve Rymer, Director of Parks and Recreation, has been working with Ingraham and Associates on the Strategic Parks and Trails Plan and public art is a sub-category in the plan. It is very early in the process, in terms of where public art will go, however there are several opportunities with in the current site plan, to incorporate public art, but there are no specific plans as of yet. Zisla asked where the public art would go with in the current site plan. Fernelius stated that the main park area and public right-of-way are just two of the areas that can accommodate public art. Greenfield added that they are willing to work with the City in incorporating public art through out the site. Zisla wondered why the City and the Developer do not have more specifics within the site plan. He is concerned that once the preliminary site plan has been approved, the Developer will not follow through with the ideas that have not been written into the plans. Fernelius responded that while public art is an important topic the specific decisions have not been made. Baker stated that the concern is that there is nothing stating who will be making the final decisions on what the public art is. Fernelius replied that the topic of public art is fairly new and the City would like to hold community meetings about what they would like to see for art, so the City is not ready to give specifics. Schiferl asked staff to clarify if this is an approval of the site plan and a preliminary plat or a preliminary site plan. Fernelius replied that it is a preliminary PUD, which has a two-step process, which requires the Developers to come back for a final approval of the plat, the PUD and the site plan. Schiferl stated that on the Resolution for Approval, under the Be It So Resolved, Item 2 states “Approval of Site Plan Submittal,” it is does not state preliminary site plan. He added that if this site plan has to come back before the Commission it will make a big difference in some of the concerns that the commissioners have. Fernelius responded that this is a preliminary site plan and that the Developers understand that. The Commissioners can direct Staff to change the wording in the resolution to read preliminary site plan. O’Keefe inquired what a preliminary plat means for the City and the Developer. Fernelius replied that the preliminary plat defines the legal boundaries of the site, where the right of way easements will be located, and where they will construct the town homes. It becomes the basis for the final plat which will be recorded with the county. Zisla asked staff if the Developers or the City fail to get the right of way access for the trails will the trails no longer be part of the plan or will the whole development be thrown out. Fernelius replied that the City is not anticipating any problems, in fact the Minnesota Commercial Railroad and MT Properties have seen the proposed site plan and they have indicated a willingness to work with the City. He added that if the right of way is not secured, then the City would not be able to offer the access to the trails, but the development would not be in jeopardy. Baker proposed adding a number 24 to the Resolution of Approval requiring street and trail easements on the final plat. Zisla asked the Commission if any one else had an issue with making the residential streets private, yet asking for an easement to allow foot and bicycle traffic. O’Keefe replied that the Commission would not be asking for a traffic easement, but an easement for utilities and drainage. He also stated that he doesn’t see why the association would not allow foot and bike traffic, and that they would have a difficult time regulating it. O’Keefe recommended to staff that in Item 22 the word “should” be changed to “shall”. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\1-31-2006 Special meeting regarding NWQ.doc