Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />• <br />Excer�t from 3/7/2007 Planning Commission meeting minutes Attachment G <br />PLANNING FILE 07-006 <br />United Properties Update regarding their planned mixed residential development for the 6.2 acres <br />at 3008 and 3010 Cleveland Avenue. <br />Community Development Director John Stark introduced, Mr. Alex Young, 1519 Central Parkview, Eagan, <br />MN, representing United Properties, and their preliminary concept proposal for properties located at 3008 <br />and 3010 Cleveland Avenue, of which they have an ownership interest. <br />Via bench handout (no copy available) Mr. Young presented two (2) site plans for senior co-op housing <br />and/or twin homes. <br />Considerable discussion ensued regarding existing access to the City park and no formal access <br />agreement over private property; proximity to industrial property; concerns of the Parks and Recreation <br />Commission regarding park access; potential exchange of City land to the east of the wetland to maintain <br />density and make financial sense of the proposed project, while ensuring access for the City park; public <br />comment to-date during informal conversations with neighbors to the north; traffic and noise concerns; <br />lack of support from residents for extending Mount Ridge Road to vehicular traffic; reconfiguration of <br />parking lot and access; pedestrian access; status of Mount Ridge Road as a concept road approved by <br />the City Council in 1986, with no right-of-way acquired and the parcel remaining unplatted with no access <br />rights or plans at this time; rationale by staff that it would be expensive and environmentally unsound to <br />develop a roadway through a wetland; unrealistic road alignment at this time, given subsequent Wetland <br />Conservation Act adoption in 1991 and additional City Code restrictions regarding buffers and setbacks; <br />and other potential access points for the park. <br />Mr. Young sought Commissioner direction for which of the two proposals presented would be most <br />preferred to pursue development. Mr. Young advised that they hoped to complete due diligence by early <br />June, or lose control of the land, and were under several time constraints, thus sought quick direction <br />from the Planning Commission and City Council as to their preference. <br />Commissioners reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of both plans, with access off Cleveland <br />being a point of consideration, and whether the City Council would be receptive to a land exchange. <br />Overall, Commissioners saw advantages in both plans. <br />Discussion included the developer's need to poll additional neighbors for their initial reaction; additional <br />renderings of buildings; sun/shade study and impacts over the year that would impact existing residential <br />properties; number, placement and direction of proposed town homes; sensitivity of the issue given <br />recent Twin Lakes Development Project history; and designation of the area as park and open space, as <br />per zoning district, with drainage easements held by the City over the wetland in that area; private and <br />public nature of traffic flow and perceptions of residents. <br />Mr. Young advised that, as a developer, either option was palatable; however, noted that time involved for <br />a land swap was of concern if numerous public hearings were required. Mr. Young noted that if land <br />were swapped, a positive result was of direct benefit to the park itself, even though the public may have <br />an issue. Mr. Young advised that a major amount of road activity could be blocked through effective use <br />of trees and berming, but as a developer, he was looking for the path of least resistance. <br />Commissioner Boerigter opined that, while there were certain advantages with each plan, securing real <br />access to the City park seemed important and prudent. <br />Ms. Bloom noted her concerns if higher density traffic were generated and introduced into a residential <br />neighborhood. Ms. Bloom further noted that Cleveland was a County Road, considered as an arterial, <br />and would create tra�c flow from one major road to another major road, a much more receptive proposal. <br />Acting Chair Bakeman concurred with Commissioner Boerigter on both alternatives having advantages; <br />however, noted the negative public perceptions related to potential park land swaps. <br />Mr. Stark noted that he and Mr. Young would be having similar conversations with the City Council. Mr. <br />Stark advised that he would have additional conversations with Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie <br />Brokke regarding formalizing an agreement for park access with the current property owner. <br />