CC Minutes 5-22-06
City Council Meeting - May 22, 2006
Kevin Clark: I just want to thank you mayor and council, and it really has truly been a joint
effort throughout this whole process. Both at Bluff Creek and here at Creekside and I guess
mostly we thank you for your patience with us. It seems like we've been.. . going to school on
this and I think we've benefited and we appreciate your input, your time spent with us and you
know your investment so we're looking forward to moving forward.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and we look forward to your successful developments for our city.
Very good, thank you.
GALPIN CROSSING TWINHOMES, LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET
AND WEST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, EPIC DEVELOPMENT XVI, LLC,
PLANNING CASE 06-13: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-
R), PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CREATING 13 LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT
WITH A VARIANCE FOR A PRIVATE STREET AND MORE THAN 4 HOMES
ACCESSING A PRIVATE STREET; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item appeared before the Planning Commission on May 2nd.
They recommended, they took their motions separately. Voted 3 to 3 to, the motion was to
approve the rezoning. It was 3 to 3 so basically in effect that died. They also voted a negative 1
to 5 for the approval of the preliminary plat with the variances, and then also 1 to 5 against the
conditional use, so therefore they recommended denial and the findings of fact in your packet
reflect that motion for denial. What I'd like to do is take some time and go in your staff report is
the background, is take a few minutes and walk through the background of how this project came
about. And as you stated mayor, the subject site is located on West 78th. If you go in the
background and on page 3 of the staff report it talks about how this property got severed and that
was the creation of West 78th Street, severed the property into two parcels, and at that time sewer
and water was provided. Shortly thereafter in 2003, can you zoom out just a bit? Thank you.
The owner of the property, Mr. Pryzmus appeared before the, a conditional, or concept, excuse
me, concept approval for a plan and that was in 2003. That included the recreational fun center
and some town houses. Multi family on the north side and that included approximately 18.
There was a letter that was put out by the city at that time talking about kind of the concept had
not standing, so that sat for a while and then in December of 2005 a concept was brought
forward to the City Council. Maybe you can zoom in a little bit on that. So we're looking at
again the entire PUD which included at that time office industrial or commercial, and then
residential on the north side. The council at that time gave conceptual approval but then based
on specific recommendations specifically regarding that retail study we completed, which to date
we haven't gotten the final draft yet on that either so we haven't given any standing on the retail
study and at a minimum, only twin homes be considered to be consistent on that north side. So
that was the marching orders that was given again when that appeared on the December Ith,
2005 conceptual approval. So with that to date the applicant has come forward with a twin home
plan. Just I'll make another point. On this plan here there was shown 10. Then when it came in
it went to 12, and they came in requesting a PUD. The purpose of the PUD allows for the
flexibility in the ordinance. It also is a tool that we used before this property is in the overlay
district. If you look at the original plan that I showed you that had the 16 units on, all those units
27
City Council Meeting - May 22, 2006
were backed up against the creek itself and since we got the overlay district, we had that
buffer.. .and that's what's shown in green. The overlay district. Again in looking at the PUD, the
staff evaluates how that tool is used. Specifically in this case we're looking at the green space
and the applicant to get that number of units, 12 we would have to do a private street. Ijust
wanted to show as an example, this blue line here would be, which is the private street. If you
went all the way up to the front of the houses, that's the 50 foot setback so if you used a public
street, you'd actually would be back into the homes up in, approximately where the front door is
to get, that would be a 60 foot street. So if you used a public street, or certainly eliminate, it
pinches in. You'd be up against the setback line of the Bluff Creek. So in evaluating this, where
we are to date, the Planning Commission, if you looked at, as the staff went through these
exercises, looking at the different zoning applications and balancing the PUD. What benefits
was the city getting out of doing the PUD. Certainly there's the preservation of green space.
When we looked at this overall PUD, when you go back to the original concept, one of the things
that we've always looked at is, and we've used the same application on the other side of the
street where we've preserved all this green space on the north side of West 78th and we've got
the impervious surface. So you had more hard cover. On the south side. This is one of the
applications we originally told the developer.. .and that preserves all that space on that, looking
across the view shed of the wetland. They chose to go forward with this application itself, so in
the staffreport in the executive summary, what I'd like to do is just kind of walk through the
zoning options based on the fact that the Planning Commission did recommend denial of the
application. And obviously the first one is that you deny the application and that would be based
on the findings of fact and I know one of the questions that came up, because we spent 2 years
just talking about the project and most recently talking about architectural renderings. At this
point the applicant doesn't know who the final builder is. To our knowledge they don't know so
we don't have, we did put design standards in there but we're not tying it to a specific project but
to just sometimes unusual. And to be clear, and as city code, when you do a single family it
doesn't require architectural guidelines and also in a traditional twin homes, but because this is a
PUD...request architectural standards and the staff did develop some but we don't have a
specific product or project to look at these to tie it to. So that would be an issue, and then going
back to, if you wanted to look at this in a holistic sense, it'd be another issue. It talks about
whether that be considered green space for the other piece, or how that would be approved.
Then the other option that we put in there, again I'm on the second page of the executive
summary. It'd be approve subject to the staff report eliminating.. .so you actually include
architectural renderings but approve it the way it is. And then on C, would be to approve it for
just the 10 units. Not the 12, which would be eliminating 2 of the, spreading the units out.. . open
space. The property in the back of the subdivision is a traditional, what we call straight zoning.
10,000, each lot has to have 10,000 square feet. Again because this is a PUD, it's clustered so
again if you put that public street in, which Vasserman has a public street, 60 foot right-of-way,
you'd certainly get significantly less units and how do you balance that, plus the appropriate,
based on the... So at a minimum the Planning Commission wanted less units and what zoning
application would apply for that. And then the other option would be to send it back to the
Planning Commission and let them review, and give you better direction on which ever way you
wanted to go on that. There isn't, they're at the 60 days, just.. .you have 120 days so there is
additional time to.. .45-50 days to evaluate that. The one concern I do have, if you remand it
back to the Planning Commission, they've got a full agenda on the second one in June, and then
the 4th of July is a Tuesday...so it doesn't give a lot of time to try to meet that, if the Planning
28
City Council Meeting - May 22, 2006
Commission. I just want to point that out. If you did want to do that, then we would have to ask
for additional time. ..second meeting in June. So with that, if you had specific questions on the
project itself, I can go into more details.. .comments from the Planning Commission. And again
the findings of fact are in the staff report so I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Questions for Ms. Aanenson. Kate you mentioned different types of, .. .choose
my words correctly. Different types of zoning that will be available based upon the current
guiding. Looking in the staff report, single family residential, low density residential. R-4, or R
low and medium. Did we take a look at this site in terms of each of those types of zoning with
the guiding, and what would be available and would this meet any of those plans?
Kate Aanenson: I think in fairness, the fact that you're pinched between the Galpin Boulevard
and the twin homes, I know we kind of felt the twin homes, it's the application of twin home and
what allows you to get the most units.
Mayor Furlong: Are twin homes, the twin homes are allowed within one or all of these.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. It is, but so is single family for that matter. The difference is
the application and doing that PUD with a private street it does allow for more units. If you were
to do a straight 10,000 square foot lot with a public street, that would certainly eliminate some of
the units because you are required one more lot area per unit. But this takes the opportunity of
kind of spreading that green space around. And secondly, it requires more dedication of right-of-
way.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it would be about, based upon the ordinance without the PUD there'd
be 8 units you think or 6 or?
Kate Aanenson: 6 to 8 maybe. Yeah, we laid this out this way. Again this incorporates a
private street so you could probably get 10 but if you use the public street, which is what
Vasserman did, so just to compare equal here, equal there. But again and the fact that it was
pinched.
Mayor Furlong: You're saying there's some reason to believe that a private street in this area.
Kate Aanenson: Well you've got a large public street here. Then to do another one, it creates a
lot of asphalt. But having said that, then it's always the challenge of the trade of what did the
city get, and we don't really know of the exact product yet. It's a little bit more challenging.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. The other question that I think you addressed is that, when the twin
homes were presented and approved as a part of the concept plan, that was part of the concept
plan for the entire north and south parcels currently, correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. It is kind of a universal plan and the developer, they're trying to put
something together that's a little bit more challenged on that so we want to proceed with a
known quantity in their mind on the north side.
29
City Council Meeting - May 22, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, is the
applicant here this evening? Good evening.
Perry Ryan: Good evening. Good evening Mayor Furlong and members of the council and staff.
Thank you Kate for going through that. I think Kate did a fine job of laying out all the facts.
This is just simply the graphic showing the overall as well as showing the twin homes on the
north side. The 12 units. What I guess I wanted to kind of go through a little bit here was, she
went through the history a little bit on there. We did gain concept approval from City Council on
December 12th. We went through at that, I believe there were 33 conditions that were
recommended in the letter we received from the city on December 13th. And we went through it
and as Kate pointed out, we were waiting for the market study. Our understanding was, that we
could move forward, that twin homes were at least conceptually agreed upon so we did move
forward. Submitted March 17th originally. Meeting all 33 of the conditions and just, she did
have, this is the concept plan. You can see the difference between the 10 units and the 12 units.
And I did want to do, if I can, was go through. We did move forward with the 12 units. It
wasn't something that we've done. This overlay is doing, if we can zoom in just a little. Okay.
That's fine. What this shows, and apparently one of the biggest challenges that the Planning
Commission was the number of units and we realized at the, it looks blurry because we've got
two overlays there so Ijust wanted to explain that. We didn't understand that there was a
challenge with the number of units. We discussed with staff about going with planned unit
development. They gave us the 33 conditions as well as giving us some guidelines that may go
into the planned unit developed, as far as setbacks from West 78th Street. Setbacks from the west
side and all the particulars. What this is pointing out is, this lighter building here that's kind of
shaded is the concept which was approved in late 2005. And the darker buildings are the... plans
which are conforming to the PUD standards as were set out in the staff report. In the May staff
report. What we wanted to point out, and again this is just kind of how we kind of went down
this road. As you can see on the concept PUD we have 3 buildings in this location almost
exactly as they were approved in the concept, and it's quite clear what we did is we added this
building 11-12 and that was simply just by geometrics that we are able to accommodate the
concept plan. The concept plan didn't have some of these setbacks in it. ... photo on the wetland
as you can see where building 3-4 and building 5-6, and so basically from geometrics we are able
to accommodate this. We did look at the Vasserman Ridge project to the west. We looked at the
distances between these buildings and tried to do similarly the distances between these buildings
and there was room for one more building and that was simply the magic behind it being 12
units. As you can see, the view from the Vasserman Ridge neighborhood has, does not really
change from the approved concept plan. They wouldn't really know that this building 11-12 is
in there. And then you go back to here, I'm looking on the overall layout. Again the area on the
cul-de-sac being the same as the concept. You know they're still on...about 2 units per acre. It's
12 units on 6 acres so we.. . substantial change. We're certainly open. We went down the road
with staff. A good planned unit development on this parcel. We thought that was the direction.
I believe we've met all the conditions. There was additional conditions, they've got it up to 62
conditions and we're comfortable with those conditions with the current layout so you know it's
a matter of do we leave it as a planned development. Do you remove units 3-4. I believe the last
graphic that Kate had up was actually a graphic that we had given to Mr. Generous, do you want
to zoom in just a touch. This is the R-4 layout that we did actually, which meets the R-4
requirements except for the private drive. And as it points out, you know we are in a little bit of
30
City Council Meeting - May 22, 2006
a challenging situation. Now we are on West 78th Street. A street which does not allow direct
access to these units and so we've got a significant amount of street frontage that we cannot
access, which is really one of the main issues which is requiring us to do a private drive so with
that we're simply looking for direction. Obviously we thought we were meeting all of the
directives which we received from staff. From City Council on the concept to build the 12 units.
It was something that we just did because we were able to do it and meet the guidelines. And so
this is, this is meeting the guidelines of the R-4 standards which is what the approval of
Vasserman Ridge was. We do have a couple different builders that are looking at this. The
architectural style would be very similar, almost exactly like what you see at Vasserman Ridge
kind of elevations. But that's what we're looking at and I'd be more than happy to provide that
as soon as we nail that down so. With that we're just, we're simply looking I guess for direction
on which way to zone it but I just wanted to go through how we kind of got to that point.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? What's your, you had it
under your concept plan there, I think you had still the number on the south side of West 78th.
You still have the 5. I think that's what you were pursuing. Is that what we had for that concept
or not, or did we reduce?
Perry Ryan: That was, when it came before the council staff was still looking for, staff was still
looking for, there were two kind of major things that staff was looking or recommended. And
one was the reduction in the amount of buildings. I don't know what the exact total was. It
escapes me now. And the other one was meeting those setback requirements and this, which was
I think increasing one from.. .on the west side and the current layout does now meet all of those
setback requirements but we have not changed the number of buildings yet. We're again kind of
waiting for that study to come back.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And there were traffic studies and everything else with that?
Perry Ryan: That's been completed and submitted as well and I believe, correct me if I'm
wrong, I believe that shows that one of the things that this traffic doesn't show the detailed plan
is that there's a median in here and it does anticipate a right-inlright-out at this location.
Mayor Furlong: Out on Galpin?
Perry Ryan: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Is all the north and south of West 78th, Ms. Aanenson, is that all
guided the same?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is it currently zoned agricultural?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: And what's the guiding then?
31
City Council Meeting - May 22, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, low density residential, and again what 1 wanted to point out was how we
got to this point of looking at commercial to begin with is when Mr. Pryzmus wanted that
concept for the recreation center. It seemed to lend some credence that there's carte blanc could
be used for commercial. And it was our understanding that was kind of a continuation of the
golf course, kind of that recreation sort of thing but that was really not the intent a long term use.
To go to something completely different, we felt we needed more information on that. So that's
why we recommended against, as Mr. Ryan just pointed out, those conditions that really...
recommend reduce the number of building sites because it looks like kind of your traditional
commercial center.
Mayor Furlong: My recollection was that it was also, not commercial but office.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: It was staff's recommendation for all these...
Kate Aanenson: Yes, and we have given him some guidance on if they wanted to pursue office,
then we'd look at that, because again looking at that as being the low density, single family.
Again if you went to twin homes, that could be consistent and how you apply the twin homes is a
separate issue but could you do twin homes on the south side? Certainly. That could be another
rezoning option too.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, any other questions for the applicant? No? Okay, appreciate it.
So bring it to council for thoughts. Comments. Discussion.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor 1 think that...1 don't recall the last time that we approved a
project, PUD...real challenge being able to rezone based upon... The retail market study, we
approved this sometime 1 think in December as 1 recall and that was one of the things we all kind
of wanted to wait and see what's going to happen with that. There were some... And then lastly,
when 1 look at the concept of this, 1 looked at it as one project, not two separate parcels and
that's probably the biggest challenge that I've got is, is now we're trying to separate it and 1
don't think we really want to do that. 1 really would like to see both of them, especially what it's
going to be because I'm being asked to rezone. Having 12 townhomes, 10 whatever ultimately
that go in there, just because there's 12 townhouses that we think are going to look like
something isn't really... 1 don't want to use that term probably too much but it's appropriate in
this case is that in the PUD we're asking for something that has higher standards.. .and once we
approve the north side, that makes the south side less...so 1 think it's premature.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjomhom.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yeah, 1 going to be brief because 1 guess for me it's, 1 can't vote on
something 1 can't see or don't know what I'm voting for or against. It wouldn't be fair to you.
Especially after Town and Country... they spent hours 1 think trying to get me to vote for their
development. 1 think there's too many. 1 think that they're kind of crammed in there. 1 have to
agree with the Planning Commission on that. The first concept plan didn't have as many. The
32
City Council Meeting - May 22, 2006
layout was different and this is not what I saw at that time and so I too think that it's premature.
I don't agree with splitting it up. I think it should be consistent in whatever does go in there, it
needs to be well thought out and needs to have some sort of...It's hard to vote on something I
really don't know what it's...
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I would concur with comments, especially around the, when we looked
at this as a concept, that we looked at it, I looked at it as a concept north and south of West 78th
Street and would concur with Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom on, I have a
difficulty looking at one without the other and so being that that's what we looked at as a
concept, you know I certainly understand, given market conditions why the developer would
look that way but if we want to split it up, then let's, you know I think we're back at ground zero,
at the starting point and if we want to split it up, let's go back and look at it that way versus a
split right down. And when this came through Planning Commission, I was surprised that we
were looking at two separate pieces so I would, I think given the approval of the concept to
where it was, that this is something different and whether it be, call it premature to approve
where we're at now, or a totally separate concept, I think it's semantics at that point but, that I'm
not ready to go forward right now. I'm not in favor of remanding back to the Planning
Commission because I think we've got more work to do than just sending it down so to speak,
but this is clearly, I consider it clearly different than what we looked at in December.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, and my thoughts are consistent. There are a number of little
component, little pieces with regard to this application that I have trouble with but the biggest
component is the inconsistency with the concept plan that we approved just a few months ago,
and that we did look at a single concept plan across the entire property, both north and south of
West 78th. And this is not inconsistent with what we've done in the past as a council. There
have been other concept plans. Advance Fitness I think comes to mind where there was a
concept plan for a fitness center as well as some other retail. I think there was a bank. There's
got to be a bank everywhere. But there was a bank. There was a restaurant. There was a hotel I
think, and when it became clear to the property owner, the developer that the fitness center
wasn't going to go forward, as I understand it they requested can we go forward with the other
part anyway and the answer was no. We looked at it in it's entirety when it was approved and I
think we need to be consistent here as well. I think I would be hesitant to even to suggest
splitting them up because of reasons presented in the staff report and presented to the council
back in December, as well as again in this staff report, that until you know what's going on the
southern piece, you don't know the best use for the northern piece. I think this is the northern
piece is more the tail wagging. It's the wrong end that you lead the horse with, let me put it that
way. We wanted the southern part, that's where the bridle is, and we want to look at that and
make sure that we're not, I think keeping this open to the extent we can makes a lot of sense. So
I think to your point Councilman Lundquist, I agree with you. This is not what we had in mind.
It's not what we spent a lot of time looking at but I think at this point, given the four options, I
agree with you. Sending this back to the Planning Commission I don't think would provide
value at this point. Would just cause more troubles and delay likely what I'm hearing here. I
can't see either options B or C, which is some form of approval this evening, going forward. So
from lacking the, what I consider the view of the entire north and south development, I don't
33
City Council Meeting - May 22, 2006
think we have enough motivation to go forward and change zoning at this point on the PUD so,
and I'm hearing that pretty consistently here as well. Any other thoughts or comments or points
of clarification?
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I would just, I mean I know Kate talked about time
constraints but I would be open to allowing the developer some latitude to bring back a,
something similar to the concept approval, but being cognizant that that would deviate from what
went through the Planning Commission so I think we're kind of walking an interesting line there.
And then I'd be willing to take a look I guess but you know if we come back with something,
you know if we would opt to table and come back with something significantly different, I would
have an issue with that just being that it wouldn't have gone through the entire public hearing
and planning process as that piece so.
Mayor Furlong: You're saying versus tabling tonight versus denial this evening?
Councilman Lundquist: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Yep.
Councilman Lundquist: But you know with that caveat that we've got to be, I personally would
be not leave a lot of latitude for something significantly different. You know just out of respect
for the process and the public hearing and the Planning Commission.
Mayor Furlong: I guess what I was hearing Councilman Peterson you were saying it was the
overall project.
Councilman Peterson: ...the issue and to your point is, which one's first? And then I think I'm
leaning towards the south has got to be first and then offer your rezoning to the north. Just
because of all the... bottom line is it's premature so.. .denying things. That seems to be the more
prudent way to go.
Councilman Lundquist: I could get there too but you know, there's been a significant amount of
effort on the developer's part and the staff part as well. Rather than you know cut that off, I'm
willing to allow some latitude but I think we need to be careful how far we go deviating from
this without going, you know starting back and going through the planning process again.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess my only comment there is, well we haven't talked about the details
here. You know the density. Lack of architectural views, designs. I mean there's been some
feedback and certainly at the Planning Commission I would hope they've reviewed those
Planning Commission meeting minutes. You know they dealt with it honestly and objectively
and I would think that staff and the developer would take those comments to heart if this comes
back as part of an overall development with the southern part, so I don't think it's a waste oftime
by any means and hopefully there'll be some efficiencies gained. Okay. Any other thoughts or
comments? If not, is there a motion?
34
City Council Meeting - May 22, 2006
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I recommend we deny the proposed development as submitted
by staff, subject to the findings of fact...
Kate Aanenson: Can I make a clarification on the motion? So that would be the PUD, the
preliminary plat, the CUP, findings of fact and then more specifically the two other items you
just addressed as would be the rezoning. The fact that there's no architectural standards, and that
you saw the project as an entire concept added to the findings of fact.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, proceed
with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
deny the request for rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Planned Unit
Development-Residential (PUD-R), Preliminary Plat creating 13 lots and one outlot with a
variance for a private street and more than 4 homes accessing a private street, and
Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, subject to
the findings of fact listed in the staff report and clarified by the Community Development
Director. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
Perry Ryan: Just a small piece of direction. It was our understanding with the direction on that
study was supposed to be done April! st. What I'm hearing from you guys is we can't come
forward unless we come forward with the whole thing.
Mayor Furlong: That's a, there's a question. Where are we in that process?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. I guess the direction we've given the applicant is they wanted to pursue
industrial office. That's a use that you've given us direction. We're identified that. That they
can certainly pursue that. Is if they wanted to go for commercial, we would not support that until
we spent more time and analysis but we certainly directed Mr. Ragatz that if he wanted to look at
industrial zoning application.
Mayor Furlong: And I know we received some preliminary results back from that market study
but we haven't received the final report.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is that, have we shared that with them on the preliminary information?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Has that been shared with you?
35
City Council Meeting - May 22, 2006
Kate Aanenson: I talked to Mr. Ragatz on some of that, yeah.
Perry Ryan: Is the current concept layout.. . following industrial office as you suggest?
Kate Aanenson: No. It still has too many buildings. How that's laid out and the footprint so.
Perry Ryan: ... think of commercial with the southern part?
Kate Aanenson: Well we should be getting that this week but then the goal of that then to sit
down and let the staff kind of direct what, where we think we're going. Then how we're going
to implement and where we should go once we get that data. So if we say we're going to rezone
another piece of property along Highway 5, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon for
that. I think what we're trying to do is kind of pick out those target areas that we want to maybe
specifically put into a study area and do a more specific analysis on that. That would be my
recommendation and then come back to you and we just haven't had a chance to sit down and go
through all that.
Councilman Lundquist: Given that we just said we want to develop the south before we move
forward, I mean Kate when do you think that we'd at least have enough information to give, I
mean out of fairness to.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think clearly right now the market study and Mr. McCombs said that that
really for more strip commercial along Highway 5, we're just getting the same sort of thing as
we already have. Do we need that? No. It'd be, you know I think what we're looking at is to try
other opportunities for different types of retail and that would end up probably somewhere else
in the city. We do need more office. I think clearly that's what he said is that we need to hang
onto our office, and we identified this since we knew this piece of property was in flux when we
looked at that 2005 area, we certainly, the staff identified this as an appropriate use for some
office. We always considered, based on it's location, that'd be a nice medical, dental, those sort
of things in this location and while we would support a zone change, it wouldn't be to just add
another, more strip center where we get kind of the same, the day to day things we already have.
That's one thing that was pointed out in the study that we have a lot of already those things that
meet the daily need and those other uses may go somewhere south of 5.
Mayor Furlong: So with regard to the preliminary information we have, there's nothing that I'm
hearing that has changed your mind based upon what you.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: What you thought for this particular property. Not maybe perhaps elsewhere in
the city there might have been some other things but based on the preliminary information from
that study for this property here.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
36
City Council Meeting - May 22, 2006
Perry Ryan: So where you ended there, did I hear you correctly, you did say that you would
support office use?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Perry Ryan: You would? Okay.
Kate Aanenson: We said that. We said that, no.
Perry Ryan: ... you said industrial.
Kate Aanenson: No. Office, well office yes.
Councilman Lundquist: It's 01.
Kate Aanenson: It's 01. Office or industrial.
Perry Ryan: Because I mean with all due respect we've been waiting 5 months and so if we're
not doing a detailed analysis on the site, we really need to move forward with something and if
we are to get some office, then we move forward with that concept plan.
Todd Gerhardt: Well Mayor, if I may. We started the retail study oh 3 months ago and we're
looking for results from that. They gave some preliminary results and made some broad
statements and council had asked for some direction here. I think Kate gave that and as a part of
his preliminary presentation he recommended to staff and to the chambers that we shouldn't be
adding more of what we already have in the downtown. Nothing against our dry cleaners or
things like that but that was one of the examples. You're just going to continue to get more of
what you already have. You should try to get more uses that would support the current retailers
in the downtown, and he recommended trying to do more office and bringing users to your
current restaurants, to your dry cleaners and to your other establishments. I think he referenced a
study that they had done that most of those users during the noon hour, 60% of them go shopping
so they would go to the clientele in the downtown area and support the downtown area and make
it stronger.
Perry Ryan: So those ancillary deals like the cleaners and what not, which was actually added on
as possible additional amenities to the office use, which we talked about in the December City
Council meeting, not those additional uses but probably just the office use.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Kate Aanenson: And just to be clear.
Perry Ryan: We're looking for direction.
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
37
City Council Meeting - May 22, 2006
Mayor Furlong: I would encourage you to set up a time and meet with staff because it'd
probably be easier outside of a council meeting to have the back and forth questions.
Kate Aanenson: And for the record, I've had this complete conversation with your partner so I
don't know where the miscommunication is but he was in my office.
Perry Ryan: I just want it for the record.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good, thank you.
ARBORETUM BUSINESS CENTER; 2970 WATER TOWER PLACE (LOT 1. BLOCK
1. ARBORETUM BUSINESS CENTER 5TH ADDITION); STEINER DEVELOPMENT.
PLANNING CASE 06-16: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 25.300 SQ. FT.
OFFICE-SHOWROOM-WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 2.69 ACRES OF LAND ZONED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. Planning Commission held a
public hearing on this project on May 2nd and they voted 6-0 to approve the project. The project
is kind of filling up the last few lots on the Arboretum Business Park. This property actually has
access facing, or excuse me, faces 41 while it has access off of Water Tower Place. Eventually
that street will go when 41 gets lowered, will have access to that street itself but right now it has
to come internally. The site plan itself, I'm not going to put up the big one. Here's the material.
What we did have, and change to some of the entrance. If you look at the original one, this, can
you zoom in on that. A little bit more articulated on the views. The back of this building has
loading docks. It actually backs onto the other building so you've got back to back loading
docks, so there's just a few questions on the sidewalk. Then the other issue that the Planning
Commission did spend some time on was, the roof top screening. Because of the elevation they
decided that that probably was, that's something that we always make an evaluation on when
we're looking at projects is sometimes trying to screen something so that it doesn't need to be
actually, because it's more of a kind of a visual and kind of as opposed to just leaving it natural
so they decided to use the charcoal gray painted, low profile HV AC equipment and that should...
So with that, what they're asking for is site plan approval and the PUD standards were put in
place here a number of years ago. So unless there's specific questions, I showed the materials.
The rock base block. It's pretty articulated. It's a nice looking building and the staff is
recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report, and I'd be happy to answer any
questions you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, this is not, this is not retail is it? This is just a showroom?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, office showroom. It's similar to some of the other ones we have up
there. It's mostly warehousing space.
38