Laserfiche WebLink
property, this would limit the project to 108 units which would be a five story building. He <br /> questioned why this project was getting special treatment with the added buildable acreage <br /> and unit density. He reported the easement density was for a "parking area" for parking <br /> purposes. He recommended the easement area not be included in the total buildable area. He <br /> explained if the easement area were excluded from the project area, this project density would <br /> be 71 units per acre. He noted PRD's are not subject to a maximum buildable height but are <br /> allowed to go up to 60 units per acre. He stated this project was over 60 units per acre when <br /> considering the actual buildable acreage of the site. He recommended the developer reduce <br /> the number of units within the building and that the building height be lowered. <br /> Andrea Stevens, 1278 Robin Lane, stated she has written letters to the Planning Commission <br /> and the City as well. She explained she was concerned with traffic and how the additional traffic <br /> would impact her section of Robin Lane. She believed the City needed to discuss what was a <br /> reasonable amount of traffic that should be allowed on a residential road. She indicated most <br /> residential roads have 150 to 200 trips per day and Robin Lane would now have 500 to 800 trips <br /> per day. She reported she did not oppose to building on this site or having high density <br /> residential on this property. However, she indicated she did oppose this project moving forward <br /> without addressing the long-standing issues to this small stretch of Robin Lane. She wanted to <br /> see a more equitable solution as to how traffic in this area was impacting the existing residents. <br /> She requested that if this project moves forward that the City include a plan on how traffic in <br /> the surrounding area will be addressed. <br /> Joann Morris, 1405 29th Ave NW, stated if the number of units per acre was truly 71, she <br /> questioned how the City would follow up on this issue. <br /> Motion by Commissioner McQuillan, seconded by Commissioner Biedenfeld to close the <br /> Public Hearing. <br /> Approved 6-0. <br /> Chair Nichols-Matkaiti recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 8:10 p.m. <br /> Chair Nichols-Matkaiti reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 8:15 p.m. <br /> Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola responded to the questions <br /> that were raised by the public. He reported the berm area would not be opened nor would <br /> Palmer Drive and Robin Lane be opened. He explained the building height could not be <br /> increased and the plans could not be changed. He stated if the PRD plans are approved by the <br /> City Council, the building would have to be constructed per the approved plans. He indicated all <br /> garbage would be collected on the interior of the first floor of the building. He stated staff <br /> would work with the developer to stage all construction vehicles and building materials once <br /> the project received approval. He commented staff could work with Ramsey County to address <br /> the traffic signals timing. He explained on street parking was allowed throughout the City and <br /> noted there was no plans to changes this. He reported up to 14 units within this project would <br /> be affordable at 60%AMI, but noted this would be discussed by the Council next month. He <br /> stated the proposed building plans were routed through public safety and the height of the <br /> 7 <br />