PC Minutes 1-4-05
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Lillehaug: We know what this is going to generate. I mean there's 54 residences there. It's
going to generate between 10-14 trips per day so we're looking at 600 to 700 trips a day from
this development, either going north or south so split down the middle. You're looking at 350
going north and 350 south. I mean it's a reasonable number on a local street in my opinion. And
so I don't think, in my opinion, I don't want to give staff direction to do that because in my
opinion it's reasonable on the local street. On Gunflint Trail to the south as well as Highover to
the north. I think the traffic levels that would be distributed on those streets are still going to be
within the local 750 to 1,000 maximum. I know that's high but that's city, what's in the city
comprehensive plan.
Slagle: Well you're within your rights to reject the friendly amendment.
Lillehaug: And I reject it.
Slagle: Fair enough. So we have a motion on the floor to table this with direction to staff to re-
work, if at all possible, the northeast quadrant. Invite the Park and Rec Director to speak to us at
our next meeting. Anything else I'm missing? Okay.
Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission table the rezoning and
subdivision request for Yoberry Farms with direction to staff to re-work the northeast
quadrant and to invite the Park and Rec Director to speak or provide written comment
regarding the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
Slagle: We're going to take a 5 minute break.
Chuck Alcon: Question. Tabled until?
Slagle: Well.
Aanenson: We can turn it around.
Slagle; Sounds good. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL.
OFFICE AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 22 ACRES
OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF L ¥MAN BLVD AND
THE FUTURE REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101. SAND COMPANIES. INC.. PLANNING
CASE No. 05-01.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Jamie Thelen
366 South 10th A venue, Waite Park, MN
37
I,
~'
r
i'
Planning Commission Me~ting - January 4, 2005
Jim Sand
Al Klingelhutz
Richard A. Hennings
Christopher Hol
Keith Collins
Patty & Craig Mullen
April Halbe
366 South 10th Avenue, Waite Park, MN
8600 Great Plains Boulevard
366 South 10th Avenue, Waite Park, MN
8687 Chanhassen Hills Drive North
7420 Coventry Way, Edina
611 Summerfield Drive
9151 Great Plains Boulevard
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Lillehaug: .. . and then can you comment on the very northerly parcel, parcel number 5. I think I
missed it. Why is that odd shaped right-of-way skewing down? What's the deal with that?
Aanenson: Yeah. That's Qwest has a building there. Qwest, a switch station.
Lillehaug: So the City's going to maintain permanent right-of-way over that whole entire area?
Aanenson: That's not our's. It was sold to Qwest so yeah. See you've got this whole triangle
piece here. What it does is.
Lillehaug: Can you show that in outline, just to make sure we're talking about the same thing.
Aanenson: Can you zoom in? You're talking about this piece right here.
Lillehaug: Right. I mean it's approximately 60 feet plus or minus wide for you know that entire
stretch and is that, so you're saying that's not going to be city right-of-way?
Aanenson: There will be right-of-way in front of it, but what I'm saying is that, if you look at
this is a picture superimposed over. There's a restricted median right here. So you can come in
right but how do you get out? There's a median.
Lillehaug: I don't think we're on the same page. Looking at this, it's this whole area right here.
Aanenson: Yeah, I don't...
Saam: It's not right-of-way Steve. I think you think it's right-of-way. It's not right-of-way.
Lillehaug: That's the question. Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Any other questions of staff? No? With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come
forward to give us your presentation. The short version if I may ask for it.
Jim Sand: Agreed. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, city staff. My name
is Jim Sand and I'm the Vice President of Sand Companies. Vice President of Development and
I have with us tonight part of our team. Our senior architect, Richard Hennings is here with us
and our company President Jamie Thelen. And I don't have a lot to add to Kate's comments
38
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
other than we did hold a neighborhood meeting on December 16th. We had approximately 30
neighbors and one of the commission members attend. We had a lot of good feedback. A lot of
good questions and felt that it was a real good chance to meet our neighbors. With that I'll turn
it over to Richard who has larger renditions of what we're proposing and go through that.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Richard Hennings: I think in the interest of time I would just cover, I think Kate did an
admirable job of explaining our project to us so I'll just cover a few of the things that I think are
pertinent. The issue of the.
Sacchet: Excuse me. Do you mind directing the microphone towards you a little bit?
Richard Hennings: Close enough?
Sacchet: Yeah, thank you.
Richard Hennings: Speaking to the issue of the median on Lake Susan Drive, and you may have
more current information than I did. When we first started the project we were told that that
meeting was going to be there. I contacted, and I don't remember the name but I contacted the
engineer and he told me at that time, he thought 115 feet, and so he was encouraging me to say
it's okay to put driveways off. I understand though on the other hand you had a conversation as
recently as yesterday so.
Aanenson: No. All plans, just to be clear, as in the previous one, all plans go to affected
jurisdictions so obviously this plan went up to MnDot. We met with Jon Chiglo who is in charge
of this whole project for 212 and he was aware that they're trying to draft or look at how we
solve the problem because he's aware of the conflict so.
Richard Hennings: I think the other thing I just want to bring up, we had talked earlier about the
roadway through the southern parcel and right now the drawing that we had prepared is, I'm not
a traffic engineer but I try to reflect what I thought would be kind of a traffic calming road here
and so I portrayed the road as not terribly wide and with intentional fairly sharp corners. As
ways of slowing the traffic and not encouraging it as a cut through. So kind of a fine line
between a convenient to get here but not so convenient that it's a better way than going through
the intersection at Lyman and I guess that's the direction we would give to civil engineers when
we're talking to them and see if they can translate that into real engineering, but so right now it is
intentionally drawn with 90 degree corners that would have a fairly tight radius I guess I'd
describe it, so that that's one ofthe points you'd have to slow down, and that the roadway would
not be very wide and so that we wouldn't have passing lanes and all those kinds of things. And
the one other piece of information I thought we should share. The local watershed district is
developing a wide area, an area wide project for purposes of water clarity on Lake Riley and
some other things. And they have contacted us in regard to utilizing part of the wetland here as
part of that project and what they're suggesting that they may excavate part of that wetland and
create more open water as a holding pond, a fairly deep holding pond so they get quality control.
That's what they're looking for. Not quantity control but quality control, and we would
cooperate with them in that our other ponds would have to do with quantity control and their's
.
..
39
~
I
f
-
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
would do with quality control so I would think as our project moves along we'll probably see
some more information on that develop there. And then the last thing about affordable housing.
Sand Companies is an active developer of tax credit housing. We have done a dozen projects
over the last 8-10 years. Currently we'll have one more townhouse project in St. Joseph,
Minnesota that will be constructed this year, so we are interested in that. Obviously you know
it's a competitive process and just because we can all say we're interested doesn't mean that the
Minnesota Housing Finance Corporation will see fit to do that. But it would be of interest to us
to explore using tax credit financing for one of the buildings on the north side, and particularly
the apartment building. So while we have designated a 3 story apartment building, we have to
admit that we don't have a clear market for that. We have also given consideration to developing
a senior cooperative on that site the same way because we think that's an interesting market here,
so the usage we really haven't clarified there yet but I think you can safely assume that we will
explore the tax credit housing automatically and to the extent that it is possible so. With that I
guess I would just turn it over to see if there are any other questions.
Sacchet: Excellent. Any questions from the applicant? No? Thank you very much. Appreciate
it. With that, this is a public hearing. I'd like to open this for comments from anybody here
who'd like to address this item. Please come forward at this time, if you want to address this
item. And state your name and address for the record please. Let us know what you have to say.
Patty Mullen: My name is Patty Mullen. I live at 611 Summerfield Drive. I'd like to start by
saying unfortunately I wasn't able to make the neighborhood meetings and I wonder if there's
another opportunity to get a little more input before I maybe start addressing concerns that might
not be. And my biggest concerns would be that the development stay consistent with the things
that are already developed in the area so as not to jeopardize the integrity of those. And I need a
better understanding of buffering.
Aanenson: We can certainly facilitate a meeting where we can come in and go through that
specifically what the PUD buffering is and all that. We'd be happy to do that.
Patty Mullen: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Are there any other residents? Yes, if you want to please come
forward and state your name and address and what you have to share with us.
Chris Hol: My name's Chris Hol. I live at 8687 Chanhassen Hills Drive North so I'm on the
very north end of this project. Now my concern is first of all apartment buildings. I mean you
know if it's a two level building, that's fine. But I think 3, you know we moved out this way for
the beauty of it and now I don't want to be looking out my back window at apartment buildings.
Thankfully I'm not as affected as some of my neighbors are, but the other concern I would say is
now, 101, is that going to be cul-de-saced?
Saam: Yeah.
Chris Hol: So that will be down there. There won't be any way to cut through?
40
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Aanenson: Yeah, at the end of this, the old 101 will be cul-de-saced...also towards the end
where the creek is.
Chris Hol: Right. Okay.
Aanenson: It would not be for cut through traffic either.
Chris Hol: Yeah, because the only other thing I would, my concern is, and I know it's been
brought up is the Lake Susan Drive. You know people that don't want to come all the way up
here are now going to maybe cut through and it's going to cause a lot more traffic for us.
Aanenson: Yeah, that was one of the things we talked about with the traffic study.
Chris Hol: Good, okay. That's all I want to say. Thank you.
Sacchet: Anybody else want to address this item? Yes, AI. Please.
Al Klingelhutz: Chairman, Planning Commission members. I'm Al Klingelhutz and in 8600
Great Plains Boulevard and most of the land we're talking about here tonight was land that I
farmed for 60 some years. Was in my family since 1862 and I guess the one concern I have is
this piece here.
Aanenson: It's a connection, as I mentioned before. This is Mr. Klingelhutz' property. The
original farmstead. Is how do you get access to these pieces.
Al Klingelhutz: Through this property right here. And the median on Lake Susan Drive which
we talked about. Kind of eliminates pretty much of the access to this 7 or 8 acre piece here. And
I have a concern about that. And Kate and I have, and my two sons who plan on developing this
property. It's going to be a family development. It's been a family farm. It's going to be a
family development. Neal has been in construction for many years now. Our house on Lake
Susan was the first house he built on his own. Before that he was working for some other
developers. But that was the first house he built on his own and he's been building homes ever
since that time and that's 21-22 years ago that he built our house. So anyway, I'm just saying
this so you don't have to worry that he's.
Sacchet: He knows what he's doing.
Al Klingelhutz: He knows what he's doing, let's put it that way. But I do feel that there should
be an access to this property somewhere on Lake Susan Drive. It could be up on this end. I
know they don't want to go any closer than 600 feet from a major intersection so it'd have to be
up here quite a ways, and I think there wouldn't be any problem with that.. . family development
because they would like to have access to that same Lake Susan Drive at some point because
they're going to have a small development on the north side of that, on Lake Susan Drive.
That's what I was complaining about...we've known this is going to happen for a long time. As
the zoning's been there for this property and for the rest of my property plus the piece on the east
side of the road. It's been pretty well publicized that some of these things are going to actually
k
~
41
k
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
happen in this area. So that is my, our main concern is the fact that we sure would like an access
to Lake Susan Drive.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Al Klingelhutz: That isn't to say we're going to go out through Chan Hills but we thought this
way we could get onto 101, in and out. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much.
Slagle: Quick question if I may to staff.
Al Klingelhutz: Any questions?
Sacchet: For staff.
Slagle; I'm just curious is, Kate why wouldn't we, to Mr. Klingelhutz' property, access it off the
cul-de-sac to 101?
Aanenson: We could come off this way, but you know again when you're putting additional
trips on the backs of these homes, it'd be nice if we didn't have to do that. Because then you
could actually build a buffer along here. If you follow what I'm saying there. That'd be the best.
But that may not happen. You know certainly, when this is a private development, a PUD. A
private street. Typically we don't connect two specific, so you know, can we force it to be a
public street, so we're really trying to work with both properties together to make it work the
best for the layout, but again then you're just forcing more trips around. Could it happen that
way? Yeah, but.
Slagle: Do you have a preference Mr. Klingelhutz?
Al Klingelhutz: Do we have apartments?
Slagle: No a preference as to, could you access?
Al Klingelhutz: I would prefer if we could get right onto Lake Susan Drive and circle up to Lake
Susan Drive here and then come out to get over to the new 101.
Slagle: Alright.
Sacchet: And that's somewhat in line with what you presented in the beginning, isn't it?
Aanenson: Yep. That's what we're working on.
Sacchet: Okay.
Al Klingelhutz: Keep that in mind because it really is a big preference.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Sacchet: And it looks like staff is already pursuing that from their angle as well. Thank you.
Anybody else wants to speak up to this item. Seeing nobody, I'm going to close the public
hearing. Bring it back to the commission for comments, discussion. Want to start this item?
Lillehaug: Sure. I'll rattle mine off. It's a concept PUD. I do want to make a note that in the
developer's letter to us they indicate heights of buildings and some of the parameters that at this
point I don't plan on reviewing and I expect them not to hold us to those elevations. Work with
staff on developing the PUD to make sure it fits. So I just want to make sure that you have those
parameters in there but we shouldn't be adhering to them at this point. Number one comment,
and this is my major comment is, the two north parcels there and the Lake Susan Hills Drive.
I've expressed my concerns previously regarding the cut through traffic and I know staff's aware
ofthat but we really need to get a handle on. Not the traffic that's being generated from these
two north parcels but the potential for all the cut through traffic that can go through on Lake
Susan Drive because I see that as a very large potential, and if I live on Lake Susan Hills Drive,
it's a very direct connect without having to go through the numerous signals and I would use
that, so it's, I have great concerns there so we really need to take a look at doing something there
and making sure that we're not introducing cut through traffic so extreme that everyone of them
residents are going to be very upset with what happened here. The parcel 5 to the north,
somehow you know it split off from the parcel across from Lake Susan Drive to the south. It
really needs to be worked in with something to the north, and I'm assuming that they have
similar zoning or guidances. Okay, good. Berrning. We talked, staff talks about landscaping and
screening but I want to make sure that we're including berrning in addition to landscaping as
screening. Traffic study, reiterate that. Be very clear that I would like to see a traffic study for
the Lake Susan Drive connection as well the other road through the southerly site. And then
definitely it needs, this site needs to work with the developer on the Klingelhutz property and
access to the property to the north there and I think I have all my comments.
Sacchet: Good comments. Thanks Steve. Dan, anything to add?
Keefe: My only comment would be, at least from where I sit, it seems like the developer's really
doing a nice job of kind of engaging with the city and everybody else and I commend them on
that and that's it.
Sacchet: Thank you. Kurt.
Papke: Nothing to add.
Sacchet: Rich. Yeah, I think everybody's expressed very clearly. I mean it looks like, it's very
encouraging that the direction that staff is exploring matches what the concern is from the
Klingelhutz property to the north. To line up that access and I support it. I think we're on a
good track with it. With that I'd like to have a motion.
Papke: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends, approves the concept
PUD with the recommendations as outlined in the staff report.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Lillehaug: Second.
Sacchet: Are there any friendly amendments?
Lillehaug: The amendments as I indicated in my comments.
Sacchet: Okay. Is that acceptable?
Papke: Acceptable.
Papke moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the concept PUD Planning Case No. 05-01, Sand Companies, Inc., with the
recommendations as outlined in the staff report and Commissioner Lillehaug's comments.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
Sacchet: Now it is 10:00 at night. I do want to just pose the question to the commissioners. We
will go beyond curfew but I think we can get through them all. Are you willing to stay beyond
curfew a little bit tonight? Alright.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW FOR FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION
WITH VARIANCES ON 3.36 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RSF). LOCATED AT THE END OF CRESTVIEW DRIVE. (SHIVLEY
ADDITION). CRESTVIEW. APPLICANT LECY BROS HOMES. PLANNING CASE
NO. 05-02.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Pam Johnson
Paul & Rachelle Tungseth
Andrew Johnsrud
Alan Nikolai
Dick Herrboldt
Tim Larkin
Peter Knibble
2050 Crestview Drive
2051 Crestview Drive
Lecy Bros Homes
6282 Cartway Lane, Excelsior
6464 Murray Hill Road
Terra Engineering
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Rich, questions?
Slagle: I just have two. Bob, you refer to the, and if we can put the plat up of the, and then the
southern connection. Yeah, there we go. So I am to assume that in hearing you the City Council
44