2009_0817_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

and amenities during the first phase to ensure a quality building as marketed and to : garner public interest; and confirmation on the width of the cul-de-sac street (twenty-six : feet) with a turnaround for the park, with that design still pending, and connection to the : park, all at the expense of the developer, with minor design issues still being negotiated : at the staff level. : Chair poherty opined that this created a very motivated developer to market and E complete as many units as possible, when all the fixed costs and infrastructure was an E up-front cost for them, providing incentive to complete Phase II of the project as well. Mr. Teppen advised that United Properties would prefer to build the entire ninety-five units at this time; however, they are proposing the two phases recognizing recent changes to requirements for HUD loans, and anticipating that more interest would be generated by the public and potential unit owners once construction begins. Commissioner Wozniak noted that the project had been denied at the Planning Commission level the last time it was heard, with subsequent approval by the City Council. Commissioner Wozniak noted that a the major reason for denial was based on the scale and height of the building, with several Commissioners feeling there was inadequate transition between the proposed building and neighboring single-family homes to the north, including solar access and building height impacts to those properties. Commissioner Wozniak asked the developer if, given the apparent difficulty in filling the units, whether any consideration was given to building a shorter building rather than phasing the same number of units. Mr. Teppen advised that he was unable to answer that question for the developer. Tom Goodwin, MRFA Mr. Goodwin, on behalf of the developer, advised that the project's unit calculation was based on HUD requirements, which have recently changed, and that their financing requirements were driving the overall number of units. f Public Comment f John Komula, 3775 N Dunlap Street, Arden Hills, owner of Transwestern f commercial property to the SE f Mr. Komula advised that he was the owner of the warehouse building(s) on the south f side of the proposed project; and clarified that there was written access agreements for f the City to access Langton Lake Park through the north parking lot, at the front of their f building. Mr. Komula noted that he was supportive of the project, noting that Langton f Park Drive would now become the primary access to the park, with "soccer mom's" no f longer charging through their parking lot. f Tim Kotecki, 3078 Mount Ridge Road � Mr. Kotecki sought clarification as to the number of units sold to-date for Phase I, the � projected timetable for construction, and impacts to assumptions of purchasers of units in � Phase I if Phase II is not built, or if something else was built in its place; and whether the � City would experience any liability for the original proposal not being accomplished, � should a factory (as an extreme example) be built on the Phase II parcel instead. � Chair poherty responded that anything built on the parcels that was different than what is � approved in this PUD Amendment would need to go through the approval process again. � Mr. Paschke advised that any liability for marketing and/or foreclosure risks would be � borne by the developer, not the City, and that zoning would preclude anything other than � the proposed residential use. 1C Chair poherty noted that the developer had seventy-four (74) verbal commitments to- 1C date for the units; based on the developer's experience, they anticipate that fifty percent 1C (50%) of the verbal commitments would become actual sales, providing for thirty-seven 1C (37) units with current commitments. Chair poherty closed the Public Hearing at 7:34 p.m.