Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 04-06 PC PACKETCITY OF GEM LAKE, MN City Hall - 4200 Otter Lake Road Gem Lake, MN 55110-3763 Telephone 651-747-2790 E-mail City(a4zemlakeMN.or� To: Planning Commission, City Council, and Mayor Uzpen From: Craig Rafferty, Planning Commission Chair GEM LAKE PLANNING COMMISION AGENDA, April 6, 2010. Place: Heritage Hall 1. Call to Order at 7PM. 2. Review and Approval for March 2010 Meeting Minutes 3. Review 4 Seasons CUP requested Changes 4. Discussion on Final Comprehensive Plan Review and Adjustments for Chapter 4 y and 5 J 5. Additional member for Planning Commission 6. Other Business Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org Page 1 of 3 From: Brass, Mike [MBrass@WelshCo.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 3:07 PM To: bill.short@ci.white-bear-township.mn.us; Riedesel Tom Cc: Craig Rafferty Subject: FW: Gem Lake - Questions See below per our meeting last week Mike Brass Vice President Welsh Companies LLC 5910 Rice Creek Parkway Shoreview, Mn 55126 Cell: 612.750.4312 Fax: 952-541-8054 mikealmikOrass&om ww-w.mkebrass_com From: Eric Anderson [mailto:Eric.Anderson@RyanCompanies.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:52 PM To: Brass, Mike Cc: 'Todd Novaczyk'; Louis De Medici Subject: Gem Lake - Questions Mike, Per our discussion with Bill Short, Gem Lake's contract administrator, he asked us to provide a list of questions we would like some direction on, before we continue to move forward on development plans. This email encompasses the major issues/questions we would have. Please forward these on to the appropriate representatives. If they don't understand any of the questions, please have them call. Development Question: In a difficult financial environment, added uncertainty based on political risk is probably the largest deterrent to moving forward with a development. Based on my review of the Gem Lake Gateway District Development Code, I cannot clearly distinguish: • Whether Sr. Living is an acceptable use; • If it is, whether our required density and height results in an acceptable use (5 acres, 130 units or 26 units/acre, 3-4 stories); and What the acceptable FAR, Setbacks, and other site -planning criteria are In a typical city, developers look at a comp plan and zoning code as a guide to determine whether you have an acceptable use based on the code and then meet with staff to get guidance on the "development particular" criteria to ensure we don't have a situation that will result in a significant number of variances. Once we get this guidance, developers will typically spend the money to develop full architectural and engineering plans that can be used for final approval. The reason to take the risk is that a municipal code has guided us that we have an acceptable use and we strive to create a development concept with no variances. In that situation, the governing board (either planning commission or city council) don't have the ability to deny approval of the development without justifiable reasons based on the the code. What has been represented to us, is that we should present our concept plan to the City Council for discussion ! so we can hear their thoughts to help guide us whether to move forward with the development, change the https://rcmail.co.ramsey.mn.uslJean.Reiter/InboxIGem%20Lake%20PC%202010%20april... 4/6/2010 Page 2 of 3 concept, or move on somewhere else. We were told that this type of discussion with the Council in no way binds them to accepting the development concept. We also heard that once we have completed this step, we will need to spend the money for full architectural and engineering drawings of the site for approval before the Council. This step costs us $250,000-$300,000. We were also told that even if the Council gives us positive guidance to move the development forward in the initial concept meeting, they could turn down the development for a myriad of reasons after we have invested a significant sum of money. 1. While the preamble was "long-winded", does the planning approval process for this site create that kind of risk after spending the money to get the development fully designed and engineered? Infrastructure: 2. What's are the city guidelines for required road/utility infrastructure - size, specifications, required utilities, required streetscape.etc? 3. It isn't clear whether the road will be public or private. If public, who services and maintains the road and at what cost? If private, are there different specifications? 4. In light of the contribution of open space by the existing landowner, are there other city dedication requirements (either park dedication fees, land dedication requirements, etc.? 5. As part of the development, will the Senior Living development be required to provide anything to the dedicated open space (i.e. trees, plantings, maintenance, etc.)? Fees and Operational Expenses: 6. What are the fees associated with the approval of the development.) 7. Describe under what conditions the developer pays for staff review/consultant review of the development? 8. Based on the concept of our proposal (130 units of Senior Living plus new infrastructure), what are the limits of spending regarding the staff review? Is there a cap, what are the various hourly rates, l etc.? 9. Are there additional operating costs for the Senior Living development once it opens? There was mention of additional fire service fees to accommodate the ambulance calls to the development. If so, what are those fees (ranges of numbers are fine)? Any other out -of -the ordinary utility fees, licensing fees, etc.? Tree Preservation 10. We respect need to preserve the character of the treeline to the north of the development (along CR. E). We would like to have the ability to select a mutually agreeable (agreeable to both City & Senior Developer) arborist to examine the treeline and make recommendations to thin out the brush; properly prune the trees; and remove any agreed upon "junk trees" (such as box elder, buckthorn, etc.). In addition, we want the ability to continue to maintain the treeline under an "agreed upon" maintenance guidlelines. Will the City consider such an agreement? 11. In light of the treeline masking the development from view on CR E, we want the ability to place a sign (at a mutually agreeable size and character) at the curb cut from CR E. This most likely would be close -to or in the right-of-way so we don't have to remove trees to install it. Will the City allow such a sign? Ability to move forward with/without other development 12. Under the current plan, the proposal includes a senior living development and ownership- townhomes. We heard in some early discussions that the City would require one of the two to be the https ://rcmail. co.ramsey.mn.uslJean.ReiterlInboxIGem%2OLake%20PC%202010%20april... 4/6/2010 Page 3 of 3 j Master Developer to ensure that both developments move forward. Each developer will have their own financing partner for their respective development. In light of the current economic market, we cannot be held responsible to ensure our neighboring developer will move forward with their development. Will the City require any sort of development guarantee that requires either the senior living or residential developer to develop the entire site? Those are my questions, per Bill's request. Up and above all the questions, #1 is the one that could lead us to look to other development sites. We cannot have significant uncertainty prior to approval if we spend a quarter of a million dollars. Thanks for you review, and please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions. Eric Anderson & Todd Novaczyk Eric Anderson I Director of Development Ryan Companies US, Inc. i 50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55403-2012 612-492-4629 tel 1 612-492-3629 fax WWW.RYANCOMPANIES.COM jxj I !J cid:imageC https: //rcmail. co. ramsey.=. us/Jean.Reiter/InboxIGem%20Lake%20PC%202010%20april... 4/6/2010 CITY OF GEM LAKE, MN 4200 Otter Lake Road i — - Gem Lake, MN 55110-3227 _ �= Telephone 651-747-2790 E-mail City(@gem1a1ieMN.orP, Gem Lake Planning Commission Meeting 2 March 2010 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of Gem Lake was called to order by Chairman Craig Rafferty on Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the Gem Lake City Hall conference room. The following members were present: Chairman Craig Rafferty, Planning Commission members Beth Herzog, and Derek Wippich. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MEETING MINUTES Planning Commission Agenda: Chairman Rafferty asked for any changes, deletions or added agenda items. None was given, so proceeded to move forward with the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes: Chairman Rafferty called to approve the February Planning Commission meeting minutes. The February Planning Commission minutes were discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Herzog and seconded by Commissioner Wippich. The February minutes were approved. Ayes — 3, Nays — 0. NEW BUSINESS Hansen Property (West of Daniels Farm Road): Chairman Rafferty updated the Planning Commission on the status of the Hansen property and with the developers. The developers did not attend the January workshop, but have concerns with Gem Lake not having a zoning administrator and a city planner and would like Gem Lake to pay for the price of the road. Chairman Rafferty feels that they are not interested in going forward with the project. The Planning Commission will discuss options regarding this request. If the project goes forward, Gem Lake will provide a planner at the developer's expense. The road in question will be 200 feet long when developed. Comprehensive Plan Review — Section Three: Chairman Rafferty started the discussion by reviewing section three. Chairman Rafferty discussed having SEH taken off and putting on the Gem Lake logo. Gem Lake Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Page five: Community Development. Chairman Rafferty read "natural features of Gem Lake", he would like it to just report facts and simplify that paragraph. Page six: Chairman Rafferty is not sure where the numbers are coming from. Mayor Uzpen stated the numbers are from the Met Council. Commissioner Herzog stated that she liked the White Bear Township's wording for their numbers and would like to follow their wording as an example to write Gem Lake's numbers. Mayor Uzpen stated that if Gem Lake's numbers go over 500 people in the City, it puts Gem Lake into another category. The households in Gem Lake have changed in the past 10 years and the year 2010 will have lower numbers. The question was raised asking if there will be a 33% raise in 10 years as homes are not being turned over to younger families as the Met Council has estimated a 15% growth in 10 years. Commissioner Wippich questioned the open space, prairie grass is 50% versus trees. Page seven: Tousley Ford and Barnett are the two companies that offer employment opportunities in Gem Lake. The Planning Commission is not sure where the numbers for that are coming from, maybe the 2000 census. Page eight: Development Region. Commissioner Wippich would like to change the first paragraph to reword that Highways has been kept up to date. The second bullet regarding the shopping malls has Vadnais Heights in number three. The Planning Commission feels it's not a regional mall. Table 3.2 reflects households, employment in Gem Lake. The 1960's and 70's had fewer households in Gem Lake. Mayor Uzpen suggested questioning SEH regarding this information. Page nine: Land Development — Chart 3-3. The household single family is correct numbers. Will have to address the number of rentals and medium value from the County which is done annually. Will look at verifying chart, commercial development. Will take out the last sentence of that paragraph. Chairman Rafferty feels the unemployment and industrial development numbers are fine. Page ten: The Planning Commission went through the description on where to connect the trail. There are no open spaces for trails for Gem Lake and surrounding areas. There is a trail in Vadnais Heights that goes south. Need to see if Gem Lake can connect to some of the surrounding trails. The next Planning Commission meeting they will review and discuss section four and section five. Section four will need the maps updated to include the Gateway map. OPEN DISCUSSION Commissioner Wippich questioned the number of building permits and Mayor Uzpen stated that things are moving slow at this time. Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org J Gem Lake Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 ADJOURN Upon motion by Commissioner Wippich and seconded by Commissioner Herzog, the March 2, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:00 pm. . Ayes — 3, Nays — 0. APPROVED: ATTEST: ATTEST: Julie Newkirk Craig Rafferty Recording Secretary Chairman Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org CITY OF GEM LAKE, MN 4200 Otter Lake Road Gem Lake, MN 55110-3227 Telephone 651-747-2790 E-mail City( 'gemlalceMN.org Gem Lake Planning Commission Meeting 2 March 2010 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of Gem Lake was called to order by Chairman Craig Rafferty on Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the Gem Lake City Hall conference room. The following members were present: Chairman Craig Rafferty, Planning Commission members Beth Herzog, and Derek Wippich. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MEETING MINUTES Planning Commission Agenda: Chairman Rafferty asked for any changes, deletions or added agenda items. None was given, so proceeded to move forward with the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes: Chairman Rafferty called to approve the February Planning Commission meeting minutes. The February Planning Commission minutes were discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Herzog and seconded by Commissioner Wippich. The February minutes were approved. Ayes — 3, Nays — 0. NEW BUSINESS Hansen Property (West of Daniels Farm Road): Chairman Rafferty updated the Planning Commission on the status of the Hansen property and with the developers. The developers did not attend the January workshop, but have concerns with Gem Lake not having a zoning administrator and a city planner and would like Gem Lake to pay for the price of the road. Chairman Rafferty feels that they are not interested in going forward with the project. The Planning Commission will discuss options regarding this request. If the project goes forward, Gem Lake will provide a planner at the developer's expense. The road in question will be 200 feet long when developed. Comprehensive Plan Review — Section Three: Chairman Rafferty started the discussion by reviewing section three. Chairman Rafferty discussed having SEH taken off and putting on the Gem Lake logo. J l Gem Lake Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Page five: Community Development. Chairman Rafferty read "natural features of Gem Lake", he would like it to just report facts and simplify that paragraph. Page six: Chairman Rafferty is not sure where the numbers are coming from. Mayor Uzpen stated the numbers are from the Met Council. Commissioner Herzog stated that she liked the White Bear Township's wording for their numbers and would like to follow their wording as an example to write Gem Lake's numbers. Mayor Uzpen stated that if Gem Lake's numbers go over 500 people in the City, it puts Gem Lake into another category. The households in Gem Lake have changed in the past 10 years and the year 2010 will have lower numbers. The question was raised asking if there will be a 33% raise in 10 years as homes are not being turned over to younger families as the Met Council has estimated a 15% growth in 10 years. Commissioner Wippich questioned the open space; prairie grass is 50% versus trees. Page seven: Tousley Ford and Barnett are the two companies that offer employment opportunities in Gem Lake. The Planning Commission is not sure where the numbers for that are coming from, maybe the 2000 census. Page eight: Development Region. Commissioner Wippich would like to change the first paragraph to reword that Highways has been kept up to date. The second bullet regarding the shopping malls has Vadnais Heights in number three. The Planning Commission feels it's not a regional mall. Table 3.2 reflects households, employment in Gem Lake. The 1960's and 70's had fewer households in Gem Lake. Mayor Uzpen suggested questioning SEH regarding this information. Page nine: Land Development — Chart 3-3. The household single family is correct numbers. Will have to address the number of rentals and medium value from the County which is done annually. Will look at verifying chart, commercial development. Will take out the last sentence of that paragraph. Chairman Rafferty feels the unemployment and industrial development numbers are fine. Page ten: The Planning Commission went through the description on where to connect the trail. There are no open spaces for trails for Gem Lake and surrounding areas. There is a trail in Vadnais Heights that goes south. Need to see if Gem Lake can connect to some of the surrounding trails. The next Planning Commission meeting they will review and discuss section four and section five. Section four will need the maps updated to include the Gateway map. OPEN DISCUSSION Commissioner Wippich questioned the number of building permits and Mayor Uzpen stated that things are moving slow at this time. Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org J Gem Lake Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 ADJOURN Upon motion by Commissioner Wippich and seconded by Commissioner Herzog, the March 2, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:00 pm. . Ayes — 3, Nays — 0. APPROVED: ATTEST: ATTEST: Julie Newkirk Craig Rafferty Recording Secretary Chairman Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org