Loading...
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