Loading...
CC Minutes 1-9-06 City Council Meeting - January 9,2006 GALPIN CROSSING, NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 & GALPIN BOULEVARD, RICH RAGA TZ: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA TION OF CONCEPT PUD FOR A 10 UNIT TWIN HOME PROJECT AND A 66,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. Roger Knutson: There's two ways you can do it. I mean it's one, formally until you move to reconsider there's nothing to discuss. So if you want to have a discussion, you could. Mayor Furlong: We could have an informational discussion. Roger Knutson: You could, I think the normal way you would do it is, is ask for presentation and then ask if there's a vote to reconsider. And you get to there, a vote to reconsider brings it back in front of you for action. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Do you need a 4/5 vote on reconsideration like we needed to approve? Roger Knutson: No, not to reconsider, no. To reconsider it's a simple majority vote. The action on the main item still requires a simple majority. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Ms. Aanenson, why don't you give us an update on the request and the applicant is here, we'll certainly provide him time as well to address the council. Kate Aanenson: As you stated this item appeared at your last City Council meeting. The staff at that time was going for conceptual PUD. Staff recommended conceptual PUD with a couple of caveats, that the applicant, Epic Development is requesting reconsideration, specifically the reconsideration of the setback for a neighborhood business district and the number of pads, and that development not be proceed until the retail study, retail market study comes back. We have started the retail market study process. It's our goal to have that done in April, but again the reason we did that is this property is guided residential and we have a lot of requests to build commercial and we're very careful about the consideration of where we place that and we want to do our due diligence too and make sure that it's appropriately located. Clearly the way it's located we believe is some smaller kind of more typical box that we really try to discourage along the Highway 5 frontage, so we want to get additional input through the retail study on what needs may be out there and look at some of our options as far as if we were to rezone some other sites, based on traffic and those sort of things, where would those best, those sites be best suited. So with that we stand by our original recommendation of the conditions of approval. So 1'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Okay, any questions at this point for staff. No? Okay. Is Mr. Ragatz here this evening? Good evening. Would you like to address the council? Rich Ragatz: Yes please. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. 29 City Council Meeting - January 9, 2006 Rich Ragatz: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, my name is Rich Ragatz, Epic Development, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. I was here last time and when it was tabled I ended up leaving. You guys voted on, that's why I'd like you reconsider these three points. I guess the first one, I just think the setbacks for neighborhood business are more appropriate than what you're looking at. 15 and 35 feet instead of the 50 and 75 feet from Highway 5 and Galpin. I think we could work things, move things around to make those other additional setbacks work if need be. Secondly the number of buildings, I think our market research is telling us that people want to have their own identity. Have smaller buildings. Their own building if possible and so we think, we hope that you'll see the same thing. Thirdly, the market study. We just think ideally we'd like to move forward with our preliminary plat before the market study is completed. We're looking to do office, mostly office and office service on the site and there's been two sites that have been taken out of the office industrial zoning, the Madsen piece and the Bernardi piece and we're only looking to rezone 8 acres versus about 200 acres that's been taken out of that zoning designation. So we think that's appropriate for us to get that rezoned hopefully through our preliminary plat process. If you don't see it that way, maybe we could look at it with just the preliminary information so it doesn't set us back several months, additional months. And just I'm here for comments. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. I guess a question, couple questions. Being raised here. With regard to the setbacks, I'm just going back and looking at our staff report from the prior time. This was a concept PUD that was approved. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So that is, is here's what we'd like to do. Yeah, we give some feedback and look at it but ultimately when the preliminary comes forward is the issue. I'm trying to understand here or take a look for sure. What was the, under the concept plan, what was the proposed rezoning? It's residential right now. What was it? Just a PUD-R? Kate Aanenson: PUD-R, yeah. And the use on it was neighborhood commercial, although. ..and actually industrial was what we were looking at. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Just to kind of step back and typically how we've done rezoning, if someone comes in for a significant rezoning for example, when you did look at the Bernardi piece which is now Town and Country, you had a project in front of you. Typically to get a rezoning this city has a history of looking at a project to say, that makes sense as a use. We don't have that. That's again the question...to say well maybe we need to see a little bit more. We're replacing industrial land. To us it looks very typical. We have other people look at that, that that's really a typical retail layout so we just have some concerns about that, so if it's going to be retail, we'd like to have a grouping. If you look, what we spent a lot of time doing on the north side of West 78th between Powers and going down to Kerber, you know we've really got some nice layout there. Kind of mutifying all those projects and that's where, if were to do something like that and I think we're just premature. 30 City Council Meeting - January 9,2006 Mayor Furlong: The issue of a number of smaller buildings versus fewer larger buildings. Is that an issue that we've dealt with before and give us some history there? Kate Aanenson: Well I think you know. . . function. You set yourself up for certain expectation of a use and that's our concern and I think we've learned the history of that when we've had opportunities to subdivide into smaller lots or we've lost an opportunity to land a larger use and if we're trying to get industrial, typically those are a little bit bigger footprint. So if it's office, again I'm not sure who that would be because we've been working, we know who all the office people are looking so a lot of them, so we're just kind of concerned about what that would be too. Again, when someone comes in on this kind of a project to look at a rezoning, typically there's a lead. You've got a use that's ready to go. I believe there is one. The rest I think may be a little bit more, we don't know and that's a concern. I think it's, we have to be careful about what we've done to our core which is why we've done the retail study. Looking at that rezoning to say, if we're going to rezone some property, where would that best be? .. . some other market needs. Where do we want to capture some of those? We're careful about not doing strip along Highway 5. That's always been our goal and I think that's why we have what we have in the downtown so just being really careful about that decision. There's no rush, in my opinion. Take our time and make a good decision. Mayor Furlong: I know we've had requests on other sites along Highway 5 for a number of smaller buildings. Multiple parcels versus sticking with larger buildings. The Steiner development where Lifetime Fitness is currently located I think was one of those where we had some, call it an opportunity if you will but a proposal to break that up into a number of smaller lots so. Okay. Councilman Peterson: And then the market study Kate, I can't recall, when do we estimate that it'd be done again? Kate Aanenson: April 1 st, yeah. So we kicked that off so we're underway. Pretty good about that process. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff on this. Any discussion or comment on the issue? Councilman Peterson: I don't see anything that's changed since we last voted on this so. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I think that the council, you know I think it's, I'm glad that we had a chance here to think about these issues but again I think based on what we've heard this evening, I'm comfortable with the action that we took at our last meeting. Unless there's anyone else that would like to at this point make a motion for reconsideration. Councilman Lundquist: No. Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, I agree on waiting for the market study. I think it will be.. .make better decisions for the rezoning in the future. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I think that's, that is a, you raise a good point Councilwoman Tjornhom 31 City Council Meeting - January 9,2006 about the marketing study and the value that that's going to have across the entire city, especially in the.. .like this where we are looking at rezoning and location so. Thank you. I guess with that, if there's no motion by the council we'll just look forward to receiving the additional information in the time that we've discussed and allow the approval of last meeting to stand. Okay, thank you. ORCHARD GREEN. 2611 & 2621 ORCHARD LANE. PETER KNAEBLE: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. Public Present: Name Address Steve Lynch Matt Pavek John Dragseth Jacqueline A. Dorsey 5225 Park Avenue 7110 Plymouth Avenue No, Golden Valley 2600 Forest A venue 311 So. Water Street, Northfield Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant is requesting to subdivide 2.02 acre parcel into 4 single family homes. Just so you know when it originally came in with an additional lot, the staff did work looking at house sizes and reduced it down to 4. This item did appear before the Planning Commission on December 6th to review the plat and the Planning Commission voted 5- o to approve the request. I believe there's a little bit of controversy regarding dispute on the property line and why that condition was removed. It's stated right here in the staff report, typically the city does not, because we're not the interested party in this property line dispute, would not make that a condition of approval because in our opinion based on the amount of property in dispute, the lot, the plat would still go forward with the additional right-of-way being removed, and I'll just show you that real quick here... If we were to lay this out the same, this is the area in red that's in dispute. So even if that property was removed from the plat itself, the lots would still meet all the minimum requirements of the setback so if there is a dispute, and that property was to go away, you could still meet all those standards of the one part of the plat could be added administratively later so it's really a civil matter that, so we addressed it in the cover memo. It was a Planning Commission item. Again we don't hold up a plat for that so that's why we moved, removed and put to the front of the agenda on the cover memo so we did address it. It wasn't dropped. We just explained how we did that. With that I'll just go through the plat quickly. There's no street improvements for existing streets for the property so the 3 lots will have access via Orchard and the other one off of Forest. The average lot size is 22,000 so again kind of moving in that direction of little bit bigger lots for executive homes. There are no wetlands on the site. With this plat we're looking at providing some additional easement for ponding in the future. There is some water issues in the area so with that we're not putting a pond in at this time but we're accommodating a drainage easement so in the future as we work through those issues, we can accommodate potentially a future pond, so they will be paying some ponding and quality fees through the subdivision. Again there are services in the area. Existing lots. It needs to be additional service line but that would be accommodated. Parks and trails, there is a park in the immediate vicinity so we'll just be taking park and trail fees. There will be some tree replacement and approximately 19 trees to be replaced. All the lots do meet 32