Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-07-Joint WS Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANNING WORK SESSION MEETING MAY 8, 2007 6:30 P.M. CITY HALL --1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, meeting convened at 6:30 pm by Mayor Pro-tern David Grant. Attendees: Dave McClung (DM) David Grant (DG) Brenda Holden (BH) Fran Holmes (FH) Andy Holewa (AB) Clayton Zimmerman (CZ) Elizabeth Modesette (EM) Roberta Thompson (RT) Janet Stodola (JS) Michelle Wolfe (MW) Karen Barton (KB) James Lelmoff (JL) Jeff McMenimen (lM) Chuck Evens Gen McJilton Stacie K vilvang City Council City Council City Council City Council Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission City of Arden Hills City of Arden Hills City of Arden Hills HKGi DFA RRLD Ehlers Absent: Stan Harpstead (SH) Dave Sand (DS) Clayton Larson (CL) City CouncillMayor Planning Commission Planning Commission The following is a summary of the discussion that took place at the Joint City CouncillPlanning Commission meeting held on May 8, 2007: I. General discussion regarding the April 26th Open House I. Over 120 people attended the TCAAP Public Open House on April 26tl'. 2. The majority of the open house attendees were from Arden Hills, but there were several participants from surrounding communities (Shoreview, Mounds View, New Brighton, etc.) and outside agencies (Met Council, Ramsey County, etc.) Michelle Wolfe distributed a map indicating where people came from to the open house. Meeting Minutes - TCAAP City CouncilPlanning Commission Worksession 3. Members of the public actively participated in the open house small group discussion on the 3 preliminary plan alternatives, providing the planning team with their 3 favorite and 3 least favorite plan elements. The public also participated in an exercise where they provided the planning team with design character priorities in the "visual listening" workshop. II. Review of Public Comments received at the April 26'h Open House I. The results of the public comments received at the April open house were provided to Joint Committee members in the following forms: a. Memos including all written comments received on the 3 plan alternatives. b. Plan maps illustrating where the public indicated their favorite and least favorite plan elements (green and red dots) c. Chart indicating the responses of the "Visual Listening" exercise. 2. The following were common themeslcomments received on the 3 plan alternatives a. With a few exceptions, there was general agreement on the need for a mix of land uses and the general land use locations displayed in the three schemes. b. The desire for a continuous central open space with good public access. c. A preference for fronting the central open space with a variety of home types across a parkway. d. Connecting open spaces and community destinations with a comprehensive trail system that serves pedestrians and bicyclists. e. Preserve views to National Guard open spaces, particularly the Kame. f. Provide a variety of housing choices including housing for seniors and affordable options. g. Concern about the design of retail development. h. Preference for small retail shops and services. 1. Concern about large fields of surface parking. J. Concern about need for road connection to County Road I. 2 Meeting Minutes - TCAAP City CouncilPlanning Commission Worksession k. Concern about specific land uses along Highway 96. Some prefer housing while others prefer a mix of commercial uses with some open space. I. Concern regarding through traffic in the TCAAP community, particularly through residential areas. m. Concern about impacts to manufactured home community. n. Concern about higher density housing along wildlife corridor. o. Too much high density housing. Prefer more single family housing. 3. The results of the "visual listening" exercise will assist the planning team with developing design guidelines for future development at TCAAP. The results of this exercise indicated the following design character priorities for development at TCAAP: Highest priorities Community gathering areas Sustainability Design character of commerciallretail areas Mid-range priorities Design of streetscapes Design character of parks and open spaces Design character of residential buildings Design character of officelshowroom Lowest priorities Design character of office buildings m. Review of "Visual Listening" exercise homework for MDAG members I. A more detailed package of the "visual listening" exercise was distributed to each of the Advisory Group members to complete and indicate priorities of design character for the planning team to consider when developing design guidelines for TCAAP. The visual listening homework is due back to the planning team by May IS'h. IV. General Discussion and Comments The following is a summary of the general commentsldiscussion with the Joint Committee members: I. At the next open house, when a draft of the preferred plan is presented for comment, the trails system should be well represented and include lengths of trail segments. 3 Meeting Minutes - TCAAP City CouncilPlanning Commission Worksession 2. View corridors should be considered for future expansion of roads into the existing National Guard property if that ever becomes available for future development. 3. Some members of the Joint Committee agree with the members of the public who feel the residential density included in the preliminary program is too high. 4. Committee members would like to see the financial numbers supporting the need for the range of different land uses, particularly the residential numbers. 5. David McClung and Fran Holmes suggested the planning team illustrate a plan with half the programmed residential units (1100 units rather than 2200 units). 6. Most members agree that a variety of housing types should be included in the development at TCAAP, just not so dense. One member of the committee feels people just don't want to live in higher density housing types such as condominiums or apartments. 7. There was discussion about the aging population base and the desire for baby boomers to down-size their homes, moving from single family homes to townhomes and condominiums, which is consistent with the data provided by Betty HardIe in earlier meetings with the committee. 8. Not all on the committee feel the density range is too high as proposed in the preliminary development program. 9. The group reviewed current land use numbers (acres and percentage ofland use) in Arden Hills and the impact of those numbers ifTCAAP is built out as proposed in the preliminary program. (See attached). The current residential density in Arden Hills is 2 dwelling units per acre. With the addition of the proposed TCAAP program, the city's residential density would raise to 3 dwelling units per acre. 10. It was mentioned that the average range of residential units proposed in the preliminary program is much less than the average range of residential units proposed in the Vision Framework. Not all agreed that the Vision Framework numbers could be relied upon. II. Stacie (Ehlers) mentioned to the group that once a preferred plan is more defined the planning team and financial consultants can get a better idea of the project costs and balance them with needed land use program and residential densities needed to make the development financially feasible. The process will be an iterative one. 12. It was clear from the discussion that a worksession that focused on the financial implications of the development is necessary. 13. Need to define different retail considerations for development at TCAAP. V. Specific comments regarding Roads, Open Space and Land Uses represented on the 3 Preliminary Plans: Roads I. Most (8 people) preferred the roads and open space represented on Concept A. 2. 3 members expressed a desire to eliminate the road connection through the wildlife corridor. 3. Two members stated a desire for the road through the wildlife corridor to provide access to the athletic fields. 4. One member suggested a desire for curvy roads to slow traffic. Another member disagreed that curvy roads don't necessarily slow traffic (citing the speeding traffic around Lake Josephine) 5. No long thoroughfares. 6. One preference for the road layout in Concept B. 7. Consider the use of a few cul-de-sacs to create neighborhoods in the single family areas. 4 Meeting Minutes - TCAAP City CouncilPlanning Commission Worksession Open Space I. A few members expressed a dislike of view corridors, feeling they don't work. 2. Several members preferred the open space configuration in Concept A. 3. A couple members liked the village green connection with access to the Rice Creek Corridor as shown in Concept C. 4. One member did not like the connection to Rice Creek Corridor as expressed in Concept C. 5. A couple of members preferred the open space represented in Concept A, but without the ponds located in the center part of the park space. 6. A few members expressed a desire for neighborhood parks, citing that is what exists in Arden Hills today. 7. Another member expressed a desire for a variety of park spaces from neighborhood parks to large natural open spaces. 8. One member expressed a dislike for rectangular parks. 9. There was a desire for a comprehensive trail system that would connect open spaces. Parks and corridors. 10. There was a goal established in the Vento Plan to include a 25 ac. contiguous park. One member thought the athletic fields may achieve this goal. II. There should be courtyard spaces included within the residential areas. 12. Can the ponds go onto the National Guard property? This may be difficult due to grade conditions. 13. Include mileage of trails on the trails maps. Land Use 1. Retail on Hwy 96 is desired but it must be inviting. 2. Can a park and ride lot be provided in the development? 3. It was pointed out that one exists at the interchange ofCty Rd Hand 1-35. 4. One member expressed a preference for the land use configuration on Concept A. 5. Another preferred Concept B. 6. One member expressed a desire for a mix of uses along Hwy 96, like Concept B. 7. Preference for the higher density housing in the north area - Concept A. 8. One member didn't like the lifestyle center shown in Concept B. 9. Another member preferred the lifestyle center concept, feeling it was more adaptable to future change and it provides an amenity for the community. 10. One member expressed a desire for more residential, less commercial. II. Preference for owner occupied units vs. rental units. ent Planning Work Session Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ili~~t/~<<~ City Administrator 5