Still making their way in. I remind everyone, both up here and down there, please silence your cell phones.
And, reminder to commissioners that this meeting is audio recorded, so please speak into the microphones when you speak.
So, do we have anyone willing to set the order of agenda?
So moved. Second.
All right, commissioner, Sam. This is made a motion commissioner good murder seconded.
Any discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
The motion carries unanimously.
Consent agenda item.
Meeting minutes from the February 10, 2016.
Meeting any discussion commissioners.
One edit on the Singatory line.
My name is listed when it should be Mr. Walter's name. Who is the current chair?
Anything else?
Move approval with correction.
We have a motion and a second any further discussion.
Hearing none, all those in favor please say aye.
Aye. All those opposed please say no.
The motion carries unanimously.
Moving on to item D reports and recommendations.
Type 2 design modification number R-2016-002-DM to be known as Candlewood Suites by Rochester
lodging ventures.
The applicant is requesting to increase the allowable height for the building, from
proposed building, from 40 feet to 41 feet and 34007 inch.
The property is located in the B4 General Commercial Zoning District and is located at 1630
Broadway staff.
Hello, Commission. The applicant for this request is
Rochester lodging ventures. They're located in Aberdeen, South Dakota. Their
consultant is Dacey Holmes with LSA and she's located in Fargo, North Dakota.
The property is located south of County Road 25. I'm also sorry that was not
corrected. It's located south of 16th Street, Southeast and East of Broadway
Avenue.
The property is zoned before. It is surrounded with M1 zoning district and some R1 zoning district as well.
The request is actually for a height of a maximum of 55 and a half feet. The tallest point of the
a pair of pit would be about 44 and a half, 44 feet and 3 quarters or so inches.
The east-west elevations of the proposed hotel are similar, they've mock each other.
The north-south elevations also mock each other and that just gives you the elevations
of the north-south.
So as you can see, the parapets are on either side and the mechanical units would be located in the middle.
This is just the aerial view coming from the south of the existing property.
You can see to the north, there's a mixture of uses.
There's a forest story, a three story building in the corner.
There is a two-story building here, and then there's some single-family dwelling units here.
There's also some single-family dwelling units to the south here, and then another business right on the corner.
And this is just another view of the current hotel, and this hard-ealer ship will also go away as part of the project.
This is a street view of the existing hotel,
and a street view of that three-story building that was down the street.
And then this is the street view of the north of the south side of the building.
On the top of the roof trepses are 41 and 3 quarters inch, the parapets as I said range from 44 and 6 to 7 eighths inch to 55 and a half feet.
Since the portion of the adjacent east property is on R1, the height may increase by 50%.
And the maximum height proposed would be an increase of 39%.
Your action is a type 2 application and the planning commission is the decision-making body.
A public hearing has not been paid for, therefore if a public hearing is requested,
this item must be table. As of yet, we did not receive any written requests for a public hearing,
so therefore you can make a motion to approve, approve with conditions, deny, or table the request.
And you must also make findings to support your decision.
The staff recommends to approve the application.
We did notify you of a change of a finding for number three.
We had apparently stated that the shadow effect would be in the summer.
There would be some increase in shadow effect made occur on adjacent properties, primarily
with the settings on in the winter months.
And with that, I'll take any questions.
Missionaries any questions?
This is not a public hearing, so commissioners any discussion.
I'm move approval staff staff's revised findings.
Missionary Sims is made a motion.
Commissioner Meek has made a second.
We have a motion on the table.
Is there any further discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor, please say aye.
Aye. All those opposed? Please say no.
That brings us to continued items. Type 3 Phase 2 Incentive Development Preliminary Plan
R-2015-034CUP and Design Modification R-2015-014 by I-Red Properties. The applicant is proposing to construct
a two-four-story 404 unit total apartment buildings
along the ground parking.
The property is within the R3 medium density residential
and B1 restrictive commercial zoning districts,
and is located at the northwest corner of Superior Drive, Northwest,
and Badger Hills Drive, Northwest.
So in the packet, we included two items for this.
The first item is a memo.
The second item is an email we received from the applicant.
I don't know if they really know where they're at on this project yet,
and they are requesting that the item be table,
then they have agreed to weigh in the 60-day rule.
Our department occurs.
We would recommend tabling it as well.
Mr. is any questions?
Do you need a motion for that?
Correct.
For legal counsel, is it unusual or is it problematic in any way to just table something
indefinitely so that they can bring it back up years from now if they wanted to?
Well, there are still timeframes that I'm sure the point part of the advice them, but typically
they just want to better product to bring before you, and you're not sure how soon that
I'll have to.
Okay.
Commissioner, is there any further to table?
Commissioner Meek has made a motion. Commissioner Wilson is seconded. There's a motion on the table. Any further discussion.
Hearing none. All those in favor. Please say aye. All those opposed. Please say no.
Motion carries unanimously.
So now moving on to public hearings.
We will begin with items F1, F2, and F3 will all be considered together because they
concern the same piece of land.
We're talking about special district R-2016-001 SD, general development plan R-00335GDP,
and preliminary plaid R-2016-003 PLAT.
To be known as Windermere Woods by Windermere Woods, LLC.
The applicant proposes to rezone from the applicant proposes to rezone from interim zone to a special district.
The general development plan designates the location of the proposed single-family dwelling lots and street layout.
The preliminary plat proposes to subdivide 34 lots on 48.38 acres.
There is located east of 18th Avenue southwest south of 28th Street southwest and west of 15th Avenue southwest.
Staff.
Thank you.
The applicant for this three applications is winter mirror woods, LLC, the owner is winter mirror woods, LLP.
You stated the location that is an aerial map.
That shows roughly where it's outlined the subject side area.
The applicant has submitted three applications.
As you stated the special district proposal, general development plan and a preliminary plan.
It's currently zone in the interim zone, it's been that way ever since it was annexed into the city.
The land use plan designation is low density residential and I have some maps to show that very quickly.
This is the land use plan map, as you can see, such as the entire area, the subject site, the neighboring neighborhoods are low density residential, this is the land use plan map.
This is the zoning map and zoned eye for interim.
You can see the zoning into the south is R1 and then the zoning across the streets on the west and the east are RSA.
This is a general development plan that was submitted by the applicant, also included in the packet with our analysis of the findings.
This is tilted, the left side would be north, so you can see that we're posing a connection there would be the east side and then on the south side essentially a extension of Sherburn to the north, anything in the cul-de-sac.
This is the preliminary plat that's basically slightly more detailed than what I just showed you.
The show's a lot of acreageers. This also shows slopes and tree lines on it.
These are photos I took. I visited the site. The left photo is looking south.
This would be along 15th Avenue southwest, looking south.
The photo on the right is looking north. This is from what currently is a dead end or called a sack on that Sherburn.
And then the photo on the left, that's actually the same place.
I was at that dead end called the sack on Shurber, and I just took a photo of South
just because that's roughly a rural cross section street.
And then that photo on the right, that's on the northwest corner, where 28th street means
the county road, 147, which is also 18th, Avenue Southwest.
And so their property would be on the left on that photo.
Planning Commission action required.
The Planning Commission must make a motion to recommend approval approval with conditions
or denial of the requests.
Three separate motions should be made, starting with the special district and the general development
plan and funding the preliminary plan.
Planning Commission must also make findings to support the recommendations.
The recommendation will be for the city council and her to the later public hearing.
On the special district, findings are listed in the report.
The staff recommends approvals, the special district of one condition.
The easement subsection shall be struck from the proposed language.
I've talked to the applicant about that.
I think they're in agreement.
I think they'll get a chance to discuss that later in the meeting.
And then the applicant just recently submitted some language.
I had a language in my report that analyzed the project as it
It was in relation to physical features on the site.
Slopes, tree line, decorant, and the applicant
did submit some additional language.
I have several copies.
I'll press them all very quickly.
I was going to read it instead of a, I was actually going to read it.
So this is available at the planning department.
If anyone wants to look at it, but I will read it very quick.
This is an addition to, so this is the proposed
or an ensling which, and this is in, I believe in response to my report comment that discussed
regulations concerning protecting environmental and physical features.
So Section 64W.210, Sublimision 3E, we propose the following state.
This first sentence is existing right now.
It says the location of Windermere Woods is unique, and that it is surrounded by developed
lands with difficult terrain on the west and north sides, in addition, the applicant proposes
the following. The terrain is a mixture of steep slopes, drainage channels, the core edge
soils, the core edge features and mature woods. The design of the street, sanitary
sewer facilities and water distribution lines, avoid disturbance of the steep slopes in
the core edge, as well as minimizes deforestation and mass creating. It's from water treatment
will focus on low-impact development design to enhance unsight infiltration, up slope of
the core edge features. That is what they've added. Again, this is available this is
and yesterday by email from the applicant, anyone wants to see it's available at the planning
department.
Recommendation on the general development plan.
Again, staff's findings are in the report, staff recommends approval subject to the conditions
listed in the report, as well as the preliminary.
The staff recommends approval subject to the conditions that we have in the report.
Can I take any questions?
Mr. Chairman, any questions?
I had one, and I'm trying to find the page in our report where it was, but I seem to recall, unless I'm
mistaken, something about like 13 years ago, a special district was requested in the same area.
I was considered inappropriate then or something to that effect.
I don't know if it was necessarily considered inappropriate.
So I don't know all the history for the site, but just very briefly.
So this was annexed and forgive me.
I might be off a year or two.
It was either in 2000 or 2001, I believe.
And at the time, they debated what it should be zone.
Normally when properties come into the city,
the default is the R1X, though I can't say for sure
if that's what it was in 2001.
I don't know if R1X would have been amended since then.
But at the time, they just got several options, RSA, R1, R1, R1x, special district.
I don't know if at the time they were opposed to it, I don't think the applicant was ready to move forward with that, though.
Because it does take some time and thought to propose a special district. Does that respond to your question?
It does, I might just be remembering the comments.
I don't believe though. I don't believe that that was recommended against. In fact, I think at the time the memo said that
they were thinking some type of underlying R1 that the special district would be desirable.
Page 9 of this report page 31 of the packet overall.
R-sa was already found unacceptable when annexed in 2001 due to the land use plans goal of encouraging compact and smart development that officially uses
efficiently uses city utilities such as sewer and water.
So maybe it wasn't that it was applied for.
It was just one of many, many options.
Correct.
And we wound up with the zone that it is.
Correct.
I think they, right, putting it in the interim, the idea was,
it has to be revisited as it is right now.
It has to come back for public hearing and be revisited.
Commissioner, any other questions?
All right.
So hearing none, let's go ahead and open the public hearing.
the public hearing is now open, traditionally an applicant or applicants representative is the
first to come forward, so if there's anyone who fits that description.
Good evening Gordon.
I'm Chef Griffin with GQ Delta Chapefield, name represent an applicant, the C.V.
Plunk and family have owned this property for over 50 years and back when we're talking
in 2000 when it came in, extend, they just weren't ready for development at that time, and
So as Carl pointed to, it was just kind of put into a holding panel, pattern, however correctly
and is report on page 26 of your packet, you can note that it was suggested in the memo
at that time that they suggested a special district zoning with underlying R1 zoning underneath
the special district.
When we met with the Plutton family early on, we did a typical R1 development for this.
And it was almost twice a loss that we're proposing.
They indicated, you know, it's been in our family for 50 years.
We know a lot of these neighbors.
We're not comfortable with that.
We want something that blends in better with the neighborhood.
And we want to share the neighborhoods what we're getting.
And so, through about four or five iterations you have what you see here now.
and really the special district what we're applying for is to assure the neighborhood what you see is what you get.
That's really what we're doing here. We're saying we're telling you we're going to have 34
lives max and that's it if we're going to have more than 34 we're going to have to come back into the whole process over.
We're talking about having you know our one has 6,000 square foot minimum we're talking about half acres.
You know, that's over 20,000 square foot, and so really that that's important to the
pump and family to assure the neighbors what they come forward here is what they're going
to get.
We went through the staff report and in all honesty, we agree with almost the entire staff report.
On the special district, I'd like the one change that Carl brought forward the language
that we did to further clarify his concerns on the on the trees and the slopes regarding the
general development plan. There's one condition that I'd like to address and that is
on
page.
It looks like 37 of your packet. In addition, nine, the last sentence of condition nine
is North West's most parcel appears to be non-buildable and shall be combined with existing
single family dwelling on the lot.
I would rather not have it forced to be combined with that lot.
The lot they're talking about combined with this large lot that Mr. Plunkets lives on.
The reason why I'd like to have greater flexibility is there's a chance that we may
come back and plant that as an outlot and keep that open space for the whole development.
There's also a chance we're finalizing the wetland delineation right now.
There's a chance that there might be a stormwater feature on it.
And so all I'm saying is it might be a little premature to say
the only option for that is to combine it with that existing parcel.
And so I'd appreciate it if we could address that last sentence.
But other than that, we agree with staff's report and we agree.
We went through the traffic portion.
We agree with that also.
That I'm here to answer any questions that anyone may have.
Okay, commissioners, does anybody have any questions?
Um, I was wondering, I noticed in the neighborhood meeting, um, some complaints about the,
a joining neighborhood having a six foot walking path, like you're proposing, and all the markings had,
died off.
Uh-huh.
Um, would you be supportive of any kind of added condition, something just to the effect of,
you know, saying something like minimum standards, I guess, for making sure that it's painted.
And I know eventually it becomes public works is not to keep it that way, but would you be okay with something like that?
We would.
The mission is any other questions?
Thank you.
And people are always welcome to make.
In your own words, if you can, why is special district?
Really, the special district is, we felt, and we discussed this in detail at the neighborhood meeting.
If we came in and went with R1 or R1X like typically done when properties brought into the city
Right now the plunk of family plans. I'm being the ultimate developer and they feel like they know the neighborhood
They know their neighbors and they want to treat their neighbors. Very late. They felt that they wanted to share their neighbors that if if we went for our one zoning
We go through a general development plan
We go through the, or we go through the reason to our one, very light, there's a chance that another developer could come and buy the property from them and end up coming in with something at two or three times the density.
And the plugins didn't want that. They wanted to share the neighborhood that 34 lots is what they're going to get, and not, and not anymore.
I
want to certainly welcome to make multiple trips to the podium or something else comes up.
So, this is a public hearing.
If there's anyone who wishes to be heard on this topic, please come forward.
Could you please state name and address for the record?
Kathy Coleman, which of these guys?
Okay. Okay.
I'm Kathy Coleman, 1429, 2023 Southwest.
I'm a member of Bamberwood, neighborhood.
And I'm speaking tonight, and behalf of the Bambroid and Lamar, Nikolay, and I'd like to just
before we start just acknowledge the people who are in audience from Bambroid and Lamar.
He has put hands up.
I just want to acknowledge them.
And I don't know if this matters, but this was a little bit of the topic.
But you talked about the Special District for the 2002 Craft Hill, and that was denied.
And 2002, the council denied it because of, and it's he has much more expertise than the reasons, but that was denied and then the GDP was denied.
So it was a whole different, whole different reason than this. It was different town homes and things like that.
So anyway, we are not taking addressing that, but I just thought I'd add that.
So, thanks for, as being able to speak with you guys tonight.
And you'll see in the agenda packet that we submitted, we have documents that we have shown
to the city and to the developer.
It's a letter to the developer as well as our the Bamboo Wood will more comments about
this property.
So sorry there I'm sure you guys have looked at it.
So I will just give you a brief summary.
And so, in BambarWids, Lamar, we prefer no roadway connection to BambarWids, or we
prefer an 18th Avenue only connection, serving all of the wind a mere traffic, or limited
roadway connection to BambarWids for emergency vehicle use only.
But we also understand that those options are unlikely ones, and that a roadway connection
at 30th Street and 15th Avenue will be favored. And then we will expect that the city of Rochester
makes certain that improvements are made to our roadways, improvements stipulated in past findings
on this very same issue. All those are spelled out in your pocket. We also request a condition in the
away access from any of the abutting properties onto 15th Avenue into Bamboyad and that per
earlier assessments by the city of Rochester are roads not used for any halt traffic.
The city's traffic engineers cemented a traffic analysis in their review of the Windermary
GDP, estimating the amount of traffic generated and how that traffic would be distributed
and traffic patterns in an out-of-winter mirror.
Since that analysis is in your packet also,
from the Rochester instead planning transportation group,
I don't need to cite specific details,
but I want to point out a couple of conclusions
made by the ROPD Transportation staff that
retained directly to this 2016 GDP in front of you.
And I quote,
The key finding in this assessment is to note that 20A street, West of 15th Avenue, both streets in Bamberwood, is not currently constructed to the recommended standard for rural residential street, in terms of actual roadway width.
Under future traffic volumes both 28th Street and 15th Avenue would be substandard in terms of actual roadway with when compared to guidance from the comprehensive plan.
They go on to say, in their summary, the information brings us back to the same debate that was conducted when the Stonewood development was before the city for consideration in 2007-2008.
With no changes having been made to the streets in Bambarwood, in the Bambarwood area, the same
sub-standard street conditions exist as existed at that time, again, based on guidance found in the Comprehensive Plan.
The recommendations made and adopted at the time of Stonewood development are still valid,
I end quote. Again, those are the summary statements of the Rochester-Omsted client
department traffic engineers for this GDP. I just want to conclude that as residents
of Rochester and neighborhoods that will be directly impacted by a wind and wind development.
I think you guys are going to review all the aspects of this and the impacts both on and off
Thanks.
Thank you.
Miss Coleman.
Thank you.
Good question.
Stepping back a little bit to your statement.
You said that the neighborhood would ask for no driveways to enter in a 15th Avenue
is that correct?
Looking at the map, it does appear that the properties to the east of 15th do have driveways
onto that road is that correct?
Right.
And so your reasoning is the extra volume?
Right.
Okay.
Do you know what's the postage speed on 15th?
you know. That's probably what it would be, Tony. I think. Okay. But just that, I think
just the fact that it's, it is a development that is in wind and air, so it makes sense
to have those driveways access the streets within that development and not access the streets
and backward. I think having a connection on 30th is in and of itself is something, but if
You add traffic coming out from, I believe, it's six homes, six potential, lots on 15th.
Already subsandered 22 foot wide roadways, and even if it was increased,
we would prefer
that not happen.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
So in that sense, you don't, so I'm a little bit busy subsandered in that it's too narrow,
But you don't want it widened?
No, no, we do.
All of that is in.
But I think you're open, I understand what the staff was saying.
No, our opinion is all in your pocket.
That, yes, if anything, if the connection is going to be made,
that, yes, the...
So if the streets were wide and you'd be okay with the driveways?
Absolutely. Well, maybe the driveways. But definitely any traffic that comes through on to 15th.
And as you can see in what we've submitted before and what the city has studied before,
there's piles of paperwork,
that you can probably look at assessments and matrixes and stuff like that.
Anything that would increase traffic on that street and 28th would need to result in widened roads
Right now, that's 22 feet right the 15th
Connection and
28th street where all pores down the hill is 20 to 21 feet wide going down the hill with no walkways
Nothing on the side
So it's it's a little outside of our purview because we don't have the power
to change 15th Avenue, the powers higher than us can do that. But when you say that you
want 15th Avenue improved and made bigger, are you saying that you want sidewalks
at or are you saying you want a four lane road there?
No, we're talking, we have a 22 foot wide section right now period, right? So the past studies
that have been done in our neighborhood have said the road wide ways should be widened to
24 feet with two-foot walking sections on each side.
So it needs shoulders.
You saw it?
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
As I said, everyone is welcome to make a second trip to the podium
of something that comes up.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to be heard on this topic, please come forward.
My name is Vega.
My address is 3-1-0-sharbon place.
So we are right in the Cardi-Sec,
where the Sherbon place is going to join this development.
We have been living there for about 12 years and over the 12 years there are three problems
that we have seen which are gradually becoming really difficult to drive on a daily basis.
Getting out of this subdivision from grace stone to 18th Avenue, or when you are coming to turn left into grace stone.
Over the last three years particularly has become very difficult and accident prone and I will tell you why.
The 18th Avenue when it comes from the other side, it is a pretty downhill slope and when the traffic comes which usually at about 55 miles they come.
They suddenly appear for people who are going to turn left into the subdivision.
So, when you think there is nothing and when you think it is safe and you make it turn
suddenly a car comes at 50, 55 miles and this one has become particularly a big problem
in the last two years once the accourage has completely filled up and we found it a problem
and barren words is getting occupied but once the accourage has come which is about three years
this is getting very difficult to go in and out with more traffic that is going to get even
words and certainly accidents are going to happen there and the second thing is once you enter into
graystone
we are the 30 seconds straight
then the lane curves
before it comes to Sherbourne and that's the main becoming a very difficult area for people
I don't know how many people are here from graystone and I encourage so you would probably
to realize that. And just where Sherber enjoys the Greystone is the Park, which serves a
courage, Greystone, and Barrenworks. And even some kids from outside come there too. Because
Sherber directly goes into it, and in the 6, 5, 6 months that the families and kids come,
The traffic is getting very dangerous and in the last two, three years, there have been
some near misses there.
So these are the three things that we are already having problems and if the Shurban joins
into this, we have serious concerns that these problems may become even more and even at
this stage, we are very much worried about turning into it and out of it.
So, that is the biggest concern and I have a second question, maybe I think come.
Maybe you can, you just want to also know where the stormwater, you know, the this whole thing goes.
And is there any problem and there's too much water and where is that problem going to be?
This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak to these topics? Please come forward.
My name is Amit Gosh. I'm from 312 to 412.
I'm a neighbor of Shanti Wage. The way the whole thing is set up right now.
I know one thing, being in this country for 23 years, citizen for the last 16 years, Americans
don't want to be told what to do.
They have choices about food, clothing, shelter, everything, but there is one thing they always
show up for, they show up for work, and if you give them one road, they will use that work.
They get divorced, they parents die, but they still show up for work.
Right now, the way the map is lined up.
There is only one road which I see, which is connected to the Sherbourne place, which shows us a direct traffic with 34 houses there.
If we say, we can't go to the 15, 3, 20, 3, they are too small, too ill-developed.
This road is going to be taken day in day out.
911 ambulances will be flying.
We cannot assure that people won't get pregnant, and they won't get dead, and they won't die in that area.
that will happen, that what happens in every house. There is no other way out right now
which I see, which is going during the winter time or the summer time. So the traffic
as my neighbor said, Shanti Wage, you have to live there to see how some of the neighbors
right in the corner of Grace Stone, they park their car here, so we have to negotiate our way
in, around the car. There are some high school kids there who park their houses there.
So my main thing is, if you go ahead with this plan, without developing what our other
neighbours have said, the other roads, the entire traffic will be flowing through our street.
Our street is used by elderly couples who walk with their dogs and walk with everything else.
I just dread to think what can happen if there are no other avenues given to the fine people
who are going to use all their mortgages and going to use all the savings to move to the
locality.
We don't want to pitch one group of neighbors against the others, but this has to be thought
far.
Thank you very much.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak to these topics?
Please come forward.
Good evening.
I also have traffic concerns in addition to the ones just my trust first please.
Oh, my name is Dan Levich.
I love that 1315 with Lowell Lane, which is in Gristown.
In addition to the traffic concerns that my neighbors just brought up, I also have some
concerns about the additional traffic that's going to be in Pozdaan 18th Avenue and heading
down towards the mail would road intersection and also for mail would road to 16th street.
Both those intersections seem to be growing in congestion and adding more density to the
neighborhood areas just going to exacerbate that problem.
So that's it.
Thank you.
come forward.
I am the Kaviki. I live in Patuantan Sharban place. And as my name everybody
has pointed out from my place. I just want to say that place is not right now. It takes
more than approximately 100 homes which have the same exit entry point into 18th Avenue where
that dip my husband was telling. And now with addition of 34 homes and making Sharban place
as a continuous road would increase the traffic, there is a single road at 30 seconds
to it, which joins 18th Avenue. That's one thing. And I was just going on,
Chris may have a road near Bamber Valley School. And there is this Mayor Wood Lane, which
has got 30 homes there. And they have two exit points in that neighborhood. And then there
is this Abigail Lane. And then Bamber Lane and Mayor Wood Common Court, they're all within
A mile or two of Bambarwal School, I think a mile of Bambarwal School and they all have different exits into
Mayabudraud, Mayabudraud is flat and straight.
Whereas 18th Avenue is winding road with Hili and Slope Road.
So there to have 32nd street, which is a common entrance of gracestone to all the three neighborhoods,
which is happening now and which my neighbors also have described.
It would be very dangerous in the future, and so in order to do that, the development looks fine.
The only thing is on the left side.
If you have another road to the road which is facing the east side, I think it would cut down the sharpest place
and the base stone having a common exit for four neighborhoods.
And this windmill neighborhood can have its own.
But two ways where ambulances like, or any vehicles,
can 9-11's enter install.
And then also, develop the 28th Street,
which can become bigger now, make it wider.
So that with 18-thav ainu, will not have just one place
where all the neighborhoods are staggering
to enter the 18-thav ainu.
So that it is based out.
There is hot farms.
And there is a stone, which development.
And there is one more development, which I think
in the works, just opposite the grace stone. So I just think the entrances or exits into
18th Avenue need to be staggered because of the nature of the road and just went on May
of a road and it's so well planned which each neighborhood has having its own exit. So that's
what I'd like to submit to the book. Thank you.
This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak
to these topics please come forward.
Anyone including anyone who's spoken already is certainly
You can have double speakers, that's no problem.
Once again, Jeff Griffin, with GQ, got a chat field representing the applicant.
I just wanted to address a couple of comments.
As you heard, there's conflicting things between what the graystone folks want,
and what the BAM River folks want.
Staffs report on page 29 pretty much makes it clear the second paragraph.
They talk about the secondary access as identified in the proposed GDP and pre-liminary
plat.
It's both required by ordinance standard and as high a desired promote public safety and welfare.
Like some of the graceful people said, you know, having that second way out really solves
a lot of problems for those folks.
And so that's why we put it there.
Regarding the construction traffic, we have no problem with that at a night condition that
our construction, none of our construction traffic will go out to these. We don't have a
problem at all with that.
Guiding the storm water, a gentleman talked about storm water, we're actually going to
divert probably 90% of our storm water. It's all going to run to the north. We're going to
build a storm water pond at the northern end of the property and so there's going to be no
location where our off-site storm water is going to be greater than pre-existing conditions.
So we're going to make it better for everyone around us.
The last thing I wanted to touch base was to control access on 15th.
The neighbors, we already eliminated a whole row of housing along 15th.
Our previous layout had, you know, a whole, another row of lots that all those lots about it,
15th only. And so every one of them were taken access off of 15th.
To make the lots next to the neighbors a little bigger and to not have nearest many on to 15th, we did it this way.
We feel that most of them are going to come off of our new call to second there, but to dictate that they can have no access, we think that that's a hardship.
I mean, I can and a lot this size we I can barely see that someone would maybe put garage in the back and to tell them that they have a garage in the back, and they they can't go in there to access it, it just seems to be a burden other than that to any other questions for us.
Is it this may have been included, but is it the geography and topography?
on the US Senate's property, they would make it not feasible to connect directly to 18th.
That's exactly correct. It's very steep. If you look at it, there's no way that we can meet
design standards going up there. And we also run through a decor, share, share,
lens also.
Thank you.
Our sewer route is coming from the south, right on Grace Stone, our connection there.
and our sewer is all going to drain towards it. If you see on the northerly called a sack,
you see a large ball with an island in the middle of it. We're going to put a
sanitary lift station in that island in the middle. So it's all going to drain there and then
be pumped back to Graceville.
Exactly, correct. Nope.
We're going right through the connecting right on the road system.
We're looking at right now and we're still finalizing with public works.
But right now, we're looking at the connection coming off of a graystone all the way up to the northern
called a sack with the island and that all to be a rural section. And then also the east leg
going over and connecting to the subdivision to the east, that also is going to be rural section.
The only thing we're looking at have an urban section would be the two called the sex to the west.
No, it's mostly because there's some really nice trees in there. And if you go to a rural section
by the time you put an in slope, a ditch bottom and a back slope, we're taking out another 30 feet
trees, and we really want to preserve those nice trees in there.
So how, approximately, how wide?
29 foot.
And so public, how we understand the policy, public works, doesn't require an urban
section for a development like this.
They still have a rural section of the mix.
Absolutely.
Negotiating between the two of you, what works best?
Exactly.
And you're not proposing any of these to be private in the streets.
Um, it would have been our preference to have them all be public, but public works is indicating if we don't put sidewalks on both sides and it has to be private and we're looking at, we really don't want the sidewalks because we, we like the rural setting, we like what Grace don't set for a theme and we don't want the sidewalks.
It's also another thing to work around with removing some more oak trees and so we may end up those two call the sex of the West may end up being private so we can save the trees.
Thank you.
very similar to what Commissioner Goodberg asked about the topography and the decor on the west side, similar considerations went into the north side, they need to accept that both the topography, yeah exactly correct.
Any other questions?
Thank you.
This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on these topics? Please come forward and state name and address for the record.
I have a call in 1429-203 Southwest, remember what they want to say is that
Jeff does our friend something about grace, don't, and remember what having
incompatible goals, that is not true. We're not saying, don't come through
remember word, we're just saying, if you make a connection, widen the roads, bring them
up to what every study has said since 2002 in our neighborhood. So I just want to
the third saying or vice versa.
Just out of curiosity, have you approached your city councilman about maybe talking with public
works or trying to orchestrate some kind of meeting other minds there?
I've been in touch with I was at a councilperson and we have talked to the developer in this
case and since 2002.
If you guys look back, I mean I know there's a lot to go through, but there is stuff from
Council hearings from 2002 and studies that have been done and finding saying what needs
to happen on our streets to add any more vehicles. That's how we're asking. So I just want
to make that clear that we're not at opposition with Grace Stone, we're totally open for access,
but we want our roads to be preserved and safety in the neighborhood. Maybe to follow up on
have you spoken to your city council representative in particular on this project this year not
1,000 and 1,000 do project and the response you've got regarding you know potential work public
works is it we've also on that with public planning and public I mean in quite a public work so
Everybody knows where we're at with this.
So we've been very open.
We've talked to this young man right here.
And many people.
So yeah, we've been a real open in the developer, too.
So yeah, we'd love to get this connect, you know,
worked out before it goes in further.
It certainly, and it seems like you have a fair concern.
And unfortunately, the road widths outside of this development
are outside of also the purview of this body, too.
But keep in some way, so I mean we can't.
I'm pinched pointing to the plate, though.
It's just that the road is half and half.
I mean it's half in this development and half in your development.
I mean, just so that ultimately saved roadway improvement is petitioned for and accepted assessments
would likely crumble sides of the road for lots that are on both sides.
So, and what was found before, which we chose not to get into tonight to not give you guys a two hour review of what we've been through, but is the 2007 Stonewood development that was coming through, and the month of traffic that they added, the city has well documented the upgrades that would need to be made on our streets, so it's already there.
that has not changed. The Bambarwood Street has not changed. The one thing that's different
is the name of this development.
So I guess what I'm saying and what our comments have said
in our letter to Mr. Plankett, which is in your pocket, is that we would expect the same thing
that the city's out is found to apply here.
And I appreciate you sharing that historical information with some of us.
Okay, yeah.
You don't mind taking back, actually.
Yeah.
I'm not in question.
And I'm sorry.
Could you remind me, I know you already said it.
Do you live on 15th or do you live on 30th?
I don't know.
20th.
Do you live further back into the road?
The reason I ask is because I'd be curious to hear either you or someone who lives on 15th.
These road issues are definitely very, very real and they've existed for a while.
But when we talk about widening roads, we all know that people don't obey signs, speed limit signs.
You widen a road, people start driving faster and I'd be curious to hear if there'd be objections from within your neighborhood of people who have to watch the cars go whizzing by their front doors if that road does get widened.
We've met several times as an neighborhood and we are all, you know, I did on what we're asking.
We've been, again, we've had these meetings since 2002.
And we've talked about it again. We know what is entailed. We know what widening entails.
It means taking out some people's mailboxes. It means moving some trees.
It means moving power lines. We know what it means.
But it's a very well-traveled traffic-wise and pedestrian-wise neighborhood.
It's a rural neighborhood.
And there's always people walking dogs, walking, running bikes.
So all we ask, I guess, is that, I don't guess.
All we ask is that our neighborhood is not left, last safe, then it is not because of another
development going in. My main point was just saying that as a grace tone we're that we don't want
to be at odds and we're fine with the connection but we want to make sure safety is considered.
So I'll just add I'm kind of continuing on this Mr. Walters said it looks like and any staff other can correct me if I'm wrong
But any roads really outside of this development
And things that said just a little bit outside of a purview have or it does appear that if this development were
Approved tonight that that would trigger some
Studies on different roads. I know in public words comments they would say that I
Can you read 147 I would assume that once again if this is approved that would trigger some review of surrounding roads to make sure everything is functioning properly
Is that I don't know what all your body has to consider for the offsite transportation issues, but it's all been studied really in detail before so I think you can go back and and see I guess my point is that the wheel doesn't have to be reinvented
because these same roads have been studied and have been proposed to have access to other
development in the past and they've been studied geometric speed assessments, traffic analysis,
and the conclusions have been, our roads are subsandered and need widening.
At least.
Any other questions?
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
What do you think?
Hello, my name is Xigot.
I live 27.05 bar record.
It's just a little bit off the corner of 15 and 28.
Next to Katty.
And I use 15 a lot.
My 9 year old son and I do sprint laps around that track.
So we use it a lot in summer.
And so, the position safety is a concern, but I think I've been through a couple of those development.
Not as many as Kathy, but so I'm familiar with a little something that I want to mention,
is we're talking about developing the street and I heard the word assessment, and that's why I got up.
Because I don't want to be assessed, or I don't think anyone on 15 wants to be assessed, for something that does not improve their property value.
Remember, what is a little different than the, about in property, we're on, we're on
setting and well. So, so our value proposition to the potential buyers are a little
different. So, we're, we're saying, you know, you kind of, in a country side, you've got
property, you have, well, in water, but you have quiet streets. Now, we're talking about
adding traffic. It does not input a property value. So, we just don't want to be assessed
on any kind of real constructions. And I was looking into plan, and I heard you guys mention
that you can't be talking about anything else of the development. Well, 15 and 28 and vote
about the properties. So I think it's well-winner purview to consider the impact and the changes
to be made to those roadways. Is that fair assessment? Okay, thank you.
Okay, this is a public
hearing. Anyone wishing to speak to these topics? Please come forward.
One more question.
If you don't mind, I'd like to just address a couple of things to help move your conversation
along.
One is there was a question about whether urban or rural section streets are kind of by choice
within the city, the urban section street with public sidewalk on both sides of each side
of the right away is the standard design, not rural, rural is an exception, so consideration
of role design in this location, and this geographies a unique exception, okay, and
grace on to the south was an exception to the standard.
So I just want to put that on record.
The other topic of discussion that came up was whether or not improvements off-site are
really within the purview of consideration within GDP, and they are because we have to evaluate
adequacy of the public facilities to serve a development. Those facilities may be on or off site
the development. So potential improvements needed to maybe widen the road or correct site
distances on property outside the development are with them for you. If you look at page 37 of your
packet, recommend a condition number 16, identifies that there are some inadequacies with the
an off-site public facilities that the prescribed solutions and the negotiated cost sharing
for that need to be worked out and that will have to happen before the final plot.
But that is their acknowledging that those are some issues that so many of you resolve.
That's all I have.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak to these topics please come forward.
Before I consider closing the public hearing commissioners,
do you wish to voice any good evening, name and attitude?
My name is Randall Goss.
I live at 3-1-1-5.
We're a more lane-south west in the grace of development.
Two items at the topic that I have for you to consider being it on the public safety issue.
A concern in our houses with the only access, major access coming through graystone off of the 30th street and 18th Avenue, and with the might I'll put through the Beringwood, has the police and public police and fire public safety, will they be weighing in on this in case there is a drastic emergency in the neighborhood, where you're trying to get the emergency vehicles into the neighborhood.
I can tell you that we receive referral agency comments, and I'm looking at page 68 of our packet,
where it says, fire department February of 2016, there are no comments from this agency at this time.
So, they were, in my...
They held.
The consideration of access for emergency vehicles is already integrated into the standard requirements for
to have an access that would stop at the North property line for the continuation into the
pocket property. So that the area as a whole would meet those minimum access,
in circulation standards. So the area is not left with one single access to 18 back then.
I understand that we're talking about adding with the proof of construction companies.
Information about additional 320 vehicle transit through the neighborhoods,
and I'm wondering when Sherburn was put into place, since that time, 18th Avenue has been completed to connect with 40th, and the traffic north south on that has been drastic, and the exit out of the Great Stone Echo Ridge Baronwood communities is at the top of the hill.
And traffic, as said by one of Council members, people don't abide by the speed limits.
You come up in their blind spots to where people are flying up over that hill.
And we're adding that many additional egresses and egresses into the community.
And with the addition since this Sherburn was in place, the opening of 40th Avenue to 18th,
development self with target in that center and the access to that commercial
area. Adding these additional 320 potential traffic variations for the safety
of getting on and off 18th and through our neighborhood is that going to be
addressed because that is a big concern right now even as it is it's very
getting very difficult with all the other developments that are going in and not a traffic that
has increased on 18th regardless. And I think having an additional egress into the new community
off of 18th would probably benefit everybody in the long run. I guess the comments from the
of 30 seconds or dangerous, because of sight lines, and so they have looked at that certainly
and excited from an endurance standpoint that there's no safe access to anything.
Okay, then are they going to consider a stop or something at the top of that hill to allow
safe ingress in Agra, egress into our place?
I mean, I mean, since I've moved into the community over 10 years ago, 16th Avenue, and
Mayowwood has been talked about getting a traffic light put in, and that's been kicked around
for a decade now.
And now we're, you know, the traffic's increased there.
It's very difficult.
I'm going to say if there you put in that elderly community, not to digress.
But since that time, you've opened the 18th all the way down to 40th, the communities in
that area have drastic, I don't know if anybody have it's driven there, the council
has driven up and down 18th in the last six, seven months or so.
But it is pretty much very high flow traffic on that street, and then you're adding these
this number of many of homes and you're getting to the point where traffic on 18th is getting
pretty fluid and you know the safety of getting in and out of our own community with the
addition of the new community is certain be a big concern.
Thank you. This is a public hearing.
very quickly Santi Vega 310 along the same lines of discussion that has been flowing for the last one year.
Some of us have been talking about this problem of getting in and out which is becoming very troubled some dangerous.
Of course, we haven't done anything besides talking we have been talking about going to the city and you know talking to the traffic people to stop like it, taste that and all that.
So that's much before even we got to know about this, so I just wanted to say it has been a real problem.
Thank you, Jeff Griffin with GQB to represent an applicant one more time. I just wanted to bring your attention similar to what Missy did.
condition number 16 on page 37, which we've agreed to, which acknowledges that there's some
substandard problems and that we're going to be working with public works to address those.
I think it's important that you know that that conditions already present and we have agreed to
it. The other thing is I want to remind you one more time that add in the second access
gives another option both for emergency vehicles and to alleviate that pressure that these folks
we're talking about on a grace note. Thank you.
Before you step down, I wanted to ask about, it's a little bit addressed in your email.
So, when we consider a special district, we can only grant it if we find substantial public interest
in protecting either the existing physical character or unique geological, ecological characteristics.
And I appreciate this email that came in today that spells it out a little bit more what your position is on that.
But how do you respond to the criticism that when you look in the Southwest Rochester, South, you know, that whole area is a whole.
There's a lot of these really beautiful, pristine pieces of land that have to core at edge that have old forest.
Why should we find that this piece of land is special for a special district, as opposed to just it could,
passes in R1.
Well, this is a, it's kind of the last piece out there.
I mean, if you look at it, it's a donut hole out there.
Everything else is developed around it, and in this particular case, I mean, we have, it's
not like a small portion of this property that we have this decorous shell.
I mean, this, this property, it's run on the west side, on the north side, and a large
portion of that bottom area is all there and we just felt it's important with our layout
and put in special district language that we're going to work to do everything in our
power to avoid it. I mean there's different ways to skin the cat that would have been cheaper.
You know we could have didn't like Lindsay talked about sewer. There's other options but we're
going to put a pump and we're going to send it all back up hills so we don't have to go in and
to drop that. And we just thought it was important that I had that language.
Thank you.
the condition, noted regarding offset transportation improvements will be
just through development agreement and the improvements of the 15th Avenue will be made in that
during that phase. The connectivity is addressed through the two entrances and
splitting up traffic as best can be.
I would agree as well as I think two entrances are crucial based on how the surrounding
properties are set up. It's very important that the graystone area only has one entrance
into it. It doesn't seem to follow our comprehensive plan, so I think it's critical that
this development has the two entrances. I'm typically a little dubious of special districts,
but I think this one, because of the social characteristics, which is, which is, I believe one
task findings, this idea of keeping large lots that's fit in with the other developments
and I think that limiting to 34 lots would also be reassuring to this rounding area, is
that you're not going to see any higher traffic volume on these roads than what do you see
before you today?
I'd like to agree with that.
I think the special district zoning is most appropriate.
Yeah, I agree. So I am personally in favor of this, the all aspects of this proposal.
I agree the only difference I would have is I think it's the ecological or geological characteristics
that's justified. This is more than the social characteristics, but thank you.
Sure. Thank you.
You know, a great stone, it looks like down towards the east end, that thatiest road southwest
is a dead end that would have a potential to connect. Some day down to the front and
And the road, I suppose, is that where do we even off the road?
Right.
Forward in the center.
That is a road to down towards east,
really end of the grace and development of wick lowland.
It would be taken down toward valley wood.
It's not like there is a potential plan.
I mean nice.
Right, there's no ball of built out of the end of that.
You can see that if you've seen here.
Somebody there may be a second maybe.
Great, don't I guess.
There's just a surprising amount of properties there now for one access point.
So I agree with the previous comments, and I want to say I think this was a very good and respectful discussion on the part of everyone who was here, and I definitely appreciate and agree with Commissioner Meek when she talks about how it says it's as connected as it can be in the cul-de-sax or put in there only because they have to dead and keep going. We can talk about that, but they can't. It's just not topographically possible.
I will make a motion to recommend approval of the special district with our one underlying zoning
district concept with two modifications proposed by staff as well as I'll also thank
Yesterday February 23rd.
No second.
Commissioner Meek has made a motion.
Commissioner Sims has seconded.
I would note that the applicant did say they were also
an animal to two extra conditions.
One of which would say,
avoid taking a construction traffic through the east on the road that's too small for it.
And another one,
saying something to the effect that the six-foot pedestrian walkway
will be adequately marked to the note that it is for pedestrians.
I'm just not sure that fits under special district language, however, if it does,
I feel like I would just pass that along perhaps to the council as more of a, I just would
kind of, I'll just leave my motion as it is.
You're right.
That's better for others.
Yeah.
Okay.
So commissioner, me, because made a motion commissioner seems to second live.
Is there any further discussion?
Excuse me, Chair.
I'm just making a quick clarification, please.
So the motion was for, with staff findings, and then the staff recommended modifications
one and two, and then in addition to the proposed text from the applicant for February 23rd.
Okay, I just wanted to make sure, thank you.
I'm going to say, what was there any further discussion?
Hearing none.
All those in favor, please say aye.
All those in most please say no.
Motion carries unanimously.
We still have to address general development plan.
I think we'll be next on our plate.
And in the conditions I was about 30.
30.
And in the 30.
20.
We don't have any proposed modifications.
No.
Wow.
That was the applicant I suggested.
Mission 9.
The one that was where I made the applicant.
So the reason why I added that there are two reasons, one, if you look at the GDP in the preliminary
plat, they both call out 34 lots, but if you actually look at their counting, there's only 33.
So it's going to be some type of discrepancy.
And that was the only place I could find where there was a discrepancy.
and we weren't sure if that line going through the middle
from east to west was a,
oh, I apologize, I apologize.
So what we're talking about,
we're talking about this right here.
And on the preliminary plat and on the GDP,
the O's only one number for both of these.
And this line right here, that runs east to west.
We're not really sure what that is.
That's not a section line.
So one reason for that condition is that
more clarification. So such a 34 last, but we're only number 33. The other thing is, and this is
John Hartford, who's kind of the wetland and that Accora Edge expert at our office. He pointed
out to me that this green here, all of this is the Accora Edge feature. Therefore, he suggested,
and I don't think he suggested this with them definitively, but that it appears to be non-villable
because of that fact that it was all to encourage,
wasn't that therefore he recommended that I write a condition
that that should be combined with one property.
So I'm gonna assume, that was the one
he mentioned as a possible outlier, wasn't it?
I believe that the one, the one you're pointing at
is the 33rd line, and then the one directly to the
South is the 34th line.
I don't believe that label was in that line.
So this is the 300-metered plight.
So number is right here on the plat I believe it's kind of, it's kind of hard to, yeah, I mean I'm looking at the GDP, there's a number on the far northernly lots, no number on the southern one directly south.
To have the existing property.
But the reason I included the condition was that John Hartford had recommended it, and I think that
just if it was because the entire parcel is mostly to quorum each week.
But the applicant is suggesting that the decor and the union is not complete.
So, and I'll turn it for the commission to consider, would be to leave that sentence, but just simply add it to the end of that, or to label.
The residual is an outlaw acknowledging that it's not intended for the building line.
We're going to make a motion to recommend approval of the gentlemen's development plan with the staff, conditions 1 through 24 with the added to number 9 indicating that the North's parcel should either be labeled as two separate lots with one being and a lot.
Oh, that was interesting.
And I offer a friendly amendment to include two additional conditions, one, per the applicant,
stating no construction traffic, will be translating the site to the east, and a second
condition regarding the application of road striping,
delineating the walkway on the road on the adjacent streets
as agreed to by the applicant.
You know, I certainly don't argue with those ideas in the concept,
but I'm just not sure it's fitting with energy.
He's danger and will come from that would be taking care of in the development
of your moves.
So I will withdraw that.
Commissioner Meak has made a motion. We have the Canadian. It has been seconded. There is a motion on the cable to approve the general development plan with these staffs
Conditions with a minor amendment to condition number nine any further discussion. We're dealing with the sidewalks in this. Here
The bro versus urban
Well, I think that was more interesting
It looks like on one of the conditions 19,
we've got still of a GDP finally.
Yeah, I don't know if the streets must start with a server site.
But it sounds like they're hearing for the building of this rural section anyway, so this is just the guessing and thing to do,
select urban section for some of them, that would include a sign block.
And I believe that they were African was okay with that condition.
Oh, I just wanted to make sure.
And just for the audience awareness development agreement does go through the city council group process.
Yes, it does take a consolation.
So there's opportunity to provide input.
When I talk about this development agreement and things like traffic and the right thing,
there's other opportunities for those things to come up with different phases such as the development agreement,
which it comes forward back to the city council at a later time.
There is a motion on the table to approve the general development plan.
Any further discussion?
Was it seconded?
Sure.
And the second.
The motion is properly before us to approve the general development plan.
Any further discussion?
Hearing none.
All those in favour please say aye.
All those opposed please say no.
The motion carries unanimously.
move approval of the Plumberaire plat with the same 24 conditions and the aforementioned
modification of the condition number 9.
I believe there are findings that need
to be done at the age of 301.
That's
kind of as a hand.
The findings are on page 36.
Those are the findings that are not satisfied but are satisfied through the conditions.
that are recommended. The criteria themselves are conditions for approval, which are behind
our after the report in conditions. So Commissioner Goodberg has made a motion. Commissioner
Simis has seconded. There's a motion on the table to approve the preliminary
plan with staff's conditions. Any discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor, please say aye.
Hi, I'm all those opposed, please say no, the motion carries unanimously.
So, do we make a general
development plan?
R00334GP and preliminary platform R26GP.
Guys, it's 0202 PLAZ.
To be known as Stonebrook, third edition is by Stonebrook, a Rochester LLC.
The general development plan designates a location of single-family detached dwelling lots,
town hall lots, public streets, and open space.
The preliminary platform is to subdivide approximately 95 acres into 20 single family lots and 2 outlots.
The property is located south of county-stated highway 9, also known as college U-rodees.
East of Sunnydale Lane, southeast, and adjacent to Stonebrook's second division.
The applicant is also requesting a substantial land alteration permit to allow for grading more than 10 feet of cut and fill on the property.
The property is located south of County State Aid Highway 9, also known as College View Road.
East of Sanidel Lake, and adjacent to Stonebrook's second division.
Okay, so yep, the applicant is Stonebrook for our Chester, and the consultant is GQed.
And everything you said about the property, the located south of State Aid Highway 9, east of
Sanidel Lane, and adjacent to Stonebrook's second subdivision.
The property is on a mixture of R1 and R2.
It is right at the edge of the city limits,
and so it is also adjacent to agricultural zoning district
to the cell.
There is some M1, and then to the cell's west is MRD,
which is a mixed redevelopment designation
for public services and schools.
This is the GDP that they are proposing.
It was originally approved in 2002 and amended in 2005.
It has not been enacted on in the last two years.
And so in order for them to go forward with their preliminary plan, they needed to reaffirm
the GDP.
There's a mixture of single-family dwellings and town homes.
There's a proposed park area.
There is trails throughout the proposed GDP.
There's some wetlands.
Primarily to the west side.
Sorry.
North East Southwest.
I have to go.
I have some mine.
This is the preliminary plat.
So as you can see right now, the majority of the property of the property is an outlot bead.
The reason that they wanted to plat the whole thing is because of the complicated legal descriptions throughout the parcels
and allowing it to be an outlot but just simplify those legal descriptions and they wouldn't develop it until later.
The main focus for the preliminary plat is along Sunnydale to complete the lots out to Connie Road 9.
This is just the rest of that out lobby.
And this is just a rendition showing the proposed preliminary plat over the aerial photo.
This is the showing the substantial land alteration.
They would be removing 10 plus feet of fill in the store that only portion and fill in up to 10 or more feet across these few locks to even amount.
As I said, the GDP was originally proved in 2002.
All proposed roadways would be local.
The proposed rows contain sidewalks, and the proposed GDP shows mid-block connections.
And there are wetlands and the property.
Primarily, excuse me, that should say E-side and updated wetlands,
the lineations would be required.
Your action is required.
We must make a motion to recommend approval or denial of the request.
Three separate motions should be made, starting with the general development plan,
then the preliminary plot and the substantial land alteration. Staff recommended
bindings and conditions can be found in your staff report. We did recommend approval
of all three requests. There was five conditions tied to the general development plan seven
conditions with the preliminary plot and no additional conditions with the substantial land alteration.
Are there any questions?
All right.
So with that, we will open the public hearing.
This is a public hearing.
Traditionally an African representative speaks first.
Name an address please.
Thank you.
Mark Welch, GQ Engineering, 1407.
Highway 52 Southeast, Chapfield, Minnesota.
Representative developer.
Yes, this project's been out there for quite a while.
And finally get to get back to working on it.
The night there are corny lots that are shown along the sunny deal actually had services put in that street was reconstructed back in like 2002
In the services were put in so this is a pretty straight forward project
Since then
The county is now looking at redo in that road so we're actually only getting on up with 19 lots not 20 lots because we're gonna lose one up at the intersection of college view drive
And we will continue working with Elm said county public works to
We're going through the details because there was some assessments that were previously paid for the services that were brought in.
What's shown on that one up there?
So, essentially the conditions, other than noting that we'll be working with Amsterdam City County in public works.
We're able to reable to the five conditions in GDP, seven conditions of an employment plat,
and they substantial end alteration on the southerly side that one is because of the topso stockpile that was left there from prior development.
And because of the development up on the north side, it was never graded anywhere along that stretch of sunny delo at Lane.
We now have to grade that and there's going to need to be filled to bring it up to a buildable lot.
So, really here to answer any other questions you have.
No objections to the conditions.
The 40th is on far east side and going south.
That would be a future phase.
Sometime in the future of development, not this phase.
Well, there's no actually, so I'll let B have the remaining 80 sum acres.
The reason we're going to plant a lot B as one large outlot is because it's torn property and is a night mirror legal description.
And so next time we come in with a subdivision, we'll be subdivising outlot B into X number of lots.
and kind of start whittling that a lot me down as we do each phase.
So at a later date 40
is on the very far south kind of south
that will be dealt with at a later date.
The one is always welcome to make multiple trips to the podium that's necessary. This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak to this topic? Please come forward.
My name is Larry Kerr and I live at 3-6-2 Brookstone Rives Southeast and some of the areas that we're talking about.
I have no objection to because it's been in place for a long time.
I've got the original plan here.
My question and concern is about the drainage area that is in the older one because of flooding.
I've lived out there six years now, and two years out of that, this whole area has been flooded.
So whatever they do above us, around us, I want to make sure it's noted now that we have
rejection to something in a later.
Reason is, I was chairman of Plains Only in our Norko for 10 years, so I understand if you don't
know it, do it now, or do it earlier, it comes back to Hotsham.
So otherwise, I have no objection, because as long as we keep this wet area back down through
a year and get the park.
And if they do have trucks and so on, that they not come through our area but go out
on the count of nine,
is it just sunny bail or through the road they have already in their
proud previously?
I'm on Brookstone.
Oh, the first house in the corner of the Brookstone.
The other thing is...
I'm going to get my thoughts back here.
Is that they'd like to say to go out to either through the gravel road, they've provided some data. I miss the meeting, I'm kind of denying. So I don't know what the improvements are going to be at college or road. He said there's going to be some red doing of that corner, the college or roads on. And then I don't know about the road comes through there on books, tone, drive. When it comes back up through the top, they're going to
some revamping of that. That's something we should be looked at down the road. How's the
copper number of years? And I know sometimes in your nearest normal collect. Same with the
copdes. Because we don't pick up the pieces. So that's my concerns.
Any questions from you all?
Thank you. Thank you. As I said, something else. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to
speak to this topic? Please come forward.
It's like this will be a quick one. Mark Wellz,
GQD engineering again to address his concerns traffic for construction will actually be
it's on a gradient plan that has to come off of the gravel entrance which is further
to the east off kind of road 9 and so there won't be traffic running through the streets
so Brooks known that he mentioned so he can kind of see it there it's the right along
that stretch there that equipment will be coming in there plus there's very little equipment
going to be coming in for the grading, a couple of excavators, and there's really nothing else
that has to be held in.
It'll be more when they're coming in to build houses, but, and then the hydrology lady, if
I can get five minutes your time, after this meeting, I just want to make sure that there's
an a problem out there.
We're not aware of so.
Excellent.
Any questions?
Thanks.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
Good evening.
Name an address, please.
I don't know, but at least I'm 14,
sheffield lanes of east, and I didn't get to know it's about your means.
But anyway, does happen.
A couple of questions.
Number one, they're supposed to be walking past,
put in, and I don't see that up there.
Can you point that out to me?
Right, I have to go to the gym.
You have one person at the podium at a time,
perhaps you're asking to help you to leave us.
In the GDP, it shows proposed walking path.
It's in the portion that's not developed yet.
It's just getting a little line, you know, roping around.
It's this new development family.
The proposed, the proposed finished lots are this line right here.
It's right here.
Okay, so that should be connected up there.
Yeah, this road, Sunnydale Lane, exists all the way up to county nine.
I mean, I was talking about the walking path.
Do those mid-block connections just above where the mouse is now,
or those part of the walking, or are those?
Well, that's what I was asking, because it was,
it was supposed to be connected up so that people
from there all the way down to the bottom,
where it was swamped, basically.
That was like,
on the original planet,
it was a matter of fact, you look back in a minute to the meeting.
That was definitely included.
It's not a board.
But I don't believe it's set up on the board.
It's included.
It's a time limit.
Yeah.
There's a right in here.
There's an outlet for that interconnectionness.
So it is included in the plan.
Right?
I'd make sure that.
One other thing, I think it was mentioned very well in this regard.
That is the entryway for construction vehicles to that area.
Right now that road is a complete disaster and the trucks don't come up there,
they come up my street.
On the black top road, which is getting pounded, that's got to be changed somehow.
And number nine, I think they're going to do a lot of revamping on that, and I don't know
when that's going to occur.
Anybody know?
They're supposed to cut down it over the hill.
But I'm sure that will affect it.
But that road definitely's got to be upgraded, and then somehow direct the construction traffic
They're coming up.
Not up our public streets and pulling them in the pieces.
I mean, we're playing enough taxes already.
You don't need a roof, surface of streets right away.
And that's the only two points I have to make.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak to these topics?
Please come forward.
I'm Jim Bock, and I live 242 Brookstone Drive for Southeast, right next to the
gravel road, the excess road.
And the problem I'm having is a gravel road they do not plow it, so you can't use it.
Maybe six months out of the year, went slowly and then they plow kind of road dying.
And they block the other ends so you can't get on or off the kind of road dying to the gravel road.
So the construction equipment cannot even use that road in the winter time.
So somebody's going to have to start maintaining it and plowing it.
Because like you said, the road is a disaster.
They haven't done anything with it.
And when it rains out, the mud runs down off the hill and down the street.
And it is a concern.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak to these topics?
Please come forward.
The commissioners wish to voice any thoughts or issues that might be helpful for the public to speak to,
public hearing going once, public hearing going twice, and the public hearing is now closed.
Commissioners, any discussion?
And
we'll make a motion to recommend a table on the gentleman's development plan for some of their initiatives.
Mr. Eek is made a motion.
Mr. Wilson has seconded. There's a motion in the second down the table. Any discussion?
No discussion. Hearing none then, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say no.
The motion carries unanimously.
believe we must still address the plats.
The approval of the plenary plats with the seven
conditions outlined by staff. Mr. Goodberg's made a motion. Mr. Meek has seconded.
Sir, any further discussion commissioners? Just a clarification. So with the approval
of these conditions any kind of flooding concern would be addressed.
The applicants going to
to have show that they're going to be able to handle any of the water on sites.
And I'll have to get reviewed by the appropriate city office to make sure.
There's a motion on the table to approve the preliminary class.
Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye.
I was opposed, please say no.
The motion carries unanimously.
We need to address the alterate of the land alteration permit.
It
is just that one location that you outlined.
Commissioner Meek has made a motion.
Commissioner See what was seconded.
Any further discussion?
Hearing none.
All those in favor, please say aye.
All those opposed, please say no.
The motion carries unanimously.
Yeah, let's do that, we'll take five minutes right now.
You know what I'm talking about, you know what I'm talking about, you know what I'm talking about.
I don't know if you can just cover this, but I don't know if you can just cover this, but I don't know if you can just cover this.
So let's reconvene here from our recess.
I will begin by saying, while we were out, for the record, a email written by Brian Law,
concerning transit planning and transit services at the Canotia Drive and Valley High Road
site that we're going to be discussing later.
That was distributed.
Can I get confirmation from the commission that everybody got and received that memo?
Yep.
All right.
So everybody's responded in the affirmative to that.
So with that, let's call the next hearing.
Land use plan R-2016-001 LUPA zoning district amendments R-2016-001 ZC and Type III Phase II General Development Plan R-00333GDP by Joseph Development to be known as Valley Hype.
The applicant is proposed to change the land to use designation on approximately 2.6 acres from low density residential to medium density residential.
The applicants has proposed demanding the zoning district on the property from the R2 low density residential to the R3 medium density residential.
The proposal includes 2.6 acres to be developed for one multi-family residential lot.
The property is located at the northwest corner of Valley High Road, Northwest and Kenosha Drive, Northwest and this item covers F1 Agenda items F6 F7 and F8 because they all describe the same land.
staff.
Thank you.
First of all, I'll just restake with the chair, I'll restate it.
I believe that the transit comments somehow do not get included in the report.
Therefore, I printed them off and distributed one copy to each of you.
It is from Brian Law.
They are comments related to available transit with the development.
If anyone in the audience or anyone wants to review this, this is available at the planning
department. I guess I will ask is anyone here in the audience for this development that's
not related to the development team, are there any neighbors here? Okay, I'll just have the
record reflect that there's no one here. I would ask the commission, do you want me to
proceed with my presentation? Real quick, can we make sure the door isn't locked, sometimes you
can't open it if it's closed.
We can maybe ask you to do it in a little bit if we find it's necessary after hearing after opening the public hearing.
So, with that, let's go ahead and...
Okay, it's on some questions.
All right.
Yes, let's go ahead and let's do that first.
There's similar requests for the properties that, you know,
so the properties are three.
So the property...
The property to the east...
I don't know exactly.
It was very recent.
I mean, I'm thinking within the last six months, maybe.
It was the same applicant, I believe, as a Joe Biden project as well.
The only difference is that this proposal, eventually, they say they're going to do some of
a multi-family development. Of course, that goes through a type one, staff approved site development
plan. One of the east is going to be some type of senior citizen or a congregate style housing.
But they both went through, they both had to go to the medium density, manages plan amendment,
they both had to be rezoned to R3, and there was both the GDP that's triggered as a result of
those
are we open the public hearing?
Hearing none, the public hearing is now open. Anyone wishing
to speak to this topic may come forward, traditionally an applicant's representative
comes forward first.
Good evening, Chris Soka, a 21 Douglas Avenue Minneapolis. Here on behalf of Joe's
development, I guess it's a pretty straightforward request. Like Carl said, I'm super
I've said it's very similar to the request across the street, so at this time, I'd just be happy to answer any questions you guys have specific to the project.
Yes, and I will tell you we actually sent out the requirement is 50 letters and we sent out 90 because we included the same neighborhood attendees.
or we included the neighbors that were distributed for the east parcel to ensure that they were
also notified it is seen your house and yep it actually goes to the owner of the building
I think I'm speculating, but I think that a general who wrote the report for this did get a call from someone in that building that was a tenant, but I don't know that for sure.
But you are correct, I wish you remember, week that the individual tenants or the individual
people who live in the units there, do not actually receive a notice that just goes to the
property. No, we could put sign up. I visited the site, the signs were up. They were for sure
up, I visited the site. And we have kept them pretty good contact with ASI, they're the group
that runs that property,
yeah, we figured between the sign and the notices that was adequate.
Mr. President, do you have any other questions for Mr. Stolen?
I assume you're in agreement with the 12 conditions on the GDP?
Yes, those were pretty straightforward.
Okay, thank you for your time.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone who shouldn't speak to these topics, please come forward
and announce any other concerns.
So public hearing, going once, public hearing, going twice, and the public hearing is now closed discussing commissioners.
I'd like to make a motion to approve the land use plan based upon staff listed findings.
Second, Commissioner Wilson has made a motion. Commissioner Goodenberger seconded at first.
We have a motion in a second now on the table.
Any further discussion?
Hearing none.
All those in favor, please say aye.
All those opposed, please say no.
The motion carries unanimously.
I believe we need to address the zoning, now that we've addressed the land use plan.
I will also make a motion based off of the staff findings.
to approve the zone change requests to zone the 2.6 acres of the R3 medium density.
I'll just do it.
Okay.
And I'll second that with just the note that we're recommending and promoting that.
Commissioner Wilson has made a motion, Commissioner Meet has seconded it.
Thank you for the discussion on this motion.
Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye.
All those opposed, please say no.
The motion carries unanimously.
And I believe we still have a GDP to address.
The motion
to approve the general development plan based off staff's findings and conditions.
Commissioner Wilson has made a motion, Commissioner Meet has seconded it.
There's a motion in a second on the table, there's any further discussion on this motion.
Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye.
All those opposed, please say no.
The motion carries unanimously.
For my two cents, I'd like to say the lack of discussion just meant that the applicant followed the rules.
And that's just to be commended.
So, on to other business, do we have a city council recap?
We have very little city council recap in front of the coast.
I'm covering up for you and I was never meeting.
I don't know what your protocol and expectations are over the recap.
Usually the day after the council meeting, the actions are all listed online.
And I don't know if you've got to look at that.
to see what actions were taken, in terms of discussion, the one thing that John called
out to my attention was that there was an incentive development. It was in 2015-15
by the 501 first. It's an outstanding project that was, and that failed 33 under both the
should approve him sit and I so that'll go back to council and they have four men, seven
members of President, so they'll be a type rate. So that's the one piece that I have
to report to you and I'm sorry, I don't have one more.
I did approve one, I mean there was a, I meant to approve CUP and send it on it for the
all of our LSA that was approved.
They approve the, yes,
thank you, that's great, thank you.
You're okay with that.
Yep, that's so I thought we usually see it.
Any other business members?
I got something.
I bring a little interest in here.
So I would like to discuss our zoning ordinance a little bit
with the updates of the comprehensive plan coming this year.
I've mentioned this before.
I do think it's very important that we begin discussion of updating our current zoning
ordinance once that comes into play and I would like to use the minimal but still advisory
powers of this body to try to move the conversation on that forward so I wrote this
dance so it's it's clearing it cover everything and so I'm making this as a motion with the
recognition of the planning and zoning commissions advisory role in formulating preparing and
proposing for adoption plans, programs, and policies relative to the present or future
physical development in planning of the city and in light of the upcoming completion
of the update to the conference of plan, I move to request the plans that have begun a
similar process to analyze the necessary steps involved in preparing and update to the zoning
ordinance that would better reflect the forthcoming conference of plan and all other planning
related documents adopted by the city since the January 1 1992 implementation of the current
ordinance and for staff report back its findings to the plan commission at the March 24th
And the session's at a little bit, I'm not looking for the like put together an entire plan
for redoing things.
I'd like to begin the, I'd like to look at those steps I would take in to update the
conference of plan and apply those to an update for the zoning ordinance and hear back
from the plan department if it's feasible to follow a similar plan action to begin updating
the zoning ordinance.
I can address that right now.
Okay.
Is there already a plan?
We have to.
Wonderful.
So I'm going to leave the motion on the table.
And if it is already planned, that's great.
And I'd love to get an update on at the next.
We have a motion on the table.
Does anyone wish to second it?
Okay.
So commissioner Goodberg has made a motion.
Commissioner Meek has seconded.
But before we discuss it further, let's hear.
Yep.
And I will tell you, I'm not planning to spend a lot of time.
developing a document to formalize this to share with the planning commission. I'll tell you
exactly what we're doing. We already have the full intention of asking for council to
allocate dollars for consulting services so that we can get through that process as quickly as
possible. My intent is to approach the council this spring. We have to get further with the
of plans first, but my hope is to have a budget approved and to have RFPs out before the
COT plan is approved so that we're ready to move on to that next step very quickly and
I've been in conversations with city administration about this and this last fall and we're
just strategizing our time around that so that we have enough work done on the COT plan
first.
You know that the COT plan sets the stage for what your policies from the Minister, we need
get a cop plan approves that we can have a zoning in land development strategy that aligns
better with that so that has to we have to do some sequencing.
Can't the discussion of budget allocation and any potential consultants begin right away?
Do those that need the conference and plan to be fully approved to move forward?
No, I said that I'd like to pursue that before the comp plans approved.
Sure.
You said this spring and why not next council meeting happy to discuss that with you offline
Okay, just trust that there's a strategy. Okay
My I know only reason I say that is my biggest concern all this is that it's gonna draw on and
There'll be
Discussion and it'll get continued or table for a couple months where I think it's we're already behind the app all what comes as an ordinance
So it needs to in my opinion it needs me move forward as soon as possible
But I guess, Mitzi, a lot of trust that you have a plan in place, and that hopefully we can see something move forward here very soon.
I guess with that in mind,
I
guess I would just amend my motion to include recognition that the plan director has a plan in place, but that we are still endorsing as a body moving forward with an update to the zone where it's as soon as possible.
Yes,
since I'm not privy to the back story on all this can I vote present or recuse myself in the vote
I
So we've been
conversations with the group to come in and do some training around the planning commissions
role and this is something that the group does in different parts of Minnesota so we're
hoping that they can capture some of the uniqueness of Minnesota statutes and planning
expectations by using BAM instead of somebody who's more on a national scale and
talking more generically. It looks like we're targeting Thursday, April 14th at 5 p.m.
We will be providing dinner to the commission members who are able to attend.
And I will let you know there's been interest from some others in coming and in listening in on that session.
I'm learning from it as well. So, the probably folks who represent some other interest in the community who will be part of that too.
Just a 14.5. Yes.
Can we get just like an email? Just for confirmation on that?
Yes. I believe Dave or someone he did.
We didn't give any final confirmation until now.
We can do that via email.
And then, just a question of procedure, how does that work for, since if all of us are going to be,
if a quorum of us are going to be there, does that to be like advertise as a public meeting or anything?
To be advertising as a special meeting.
Okay.
Right, no big pause.
Just curious.
I appreciate that, you know, we've, I know we're at the end of the talk,
but we're trying to get to a class that doesn't come into the city,
and it's just taking time off for us to do something like that,
and then, you know, it's just a use of our resources,
to raise a window here to capture all of us at one time.
Yeah.
The other thing that we can look at doing, and I think it would be helpful if we can
do it kind of stagger throughout the year, is the American Planning Association offers
some webinars and some DVD-based sessions that might be informative enough that we could take
even, whether it's an hour or 45 minutes even on a light agenda night, that we can sprinkle those in.
So we'll be looking at opportunities for that too.
Okay.
Can you get those for free?
There's a charge.
Okay.
Appreciate that.
Any other business owners?
I have two items that I can state very quickly, Chair Mayer.
Firstly, Commissioner Meek had asked that we follow up with getting more comments
from Brian Law.
I did relay that to him with Rochester Public Transit.
I didn't print off, I should have printed off what he told me, I have to paraphrase it.
Basically, he said, I'll try to add more, because he has to be a little careful about predicting
where bus stations will go.
I think he said there in the middle of updating the plan, and I think he also said partially
that there are some extent reactive to development, to some extent the proactive, to some extent
they're reactive.
But I thought as work I did for those comments to Mr. Law, and then the only other thing
I'll say it's just in regards to just feedback on some of the text members that we approve.
This commission reviewed a text amendment regarding post on site signage.
There's little yellow signs that pop up around the city now.
I don't have quantitative proof, but just anecdotally I think they're having an impact
because we get a lot of calls from people before notifications even go out saying, hey,
this sign would up what's going on.
Because I know questions already came up tonight about, you know, if people were seeing a notification or not
So I just forward as far as I think the signs are having somewhat of an impact. That's all. Thank you
We do not normally normally it's the way it was approved the applicant is responsible to installing them and maintaining them
You
know, we've I've
I've tried to get them back because we're supposed to reuse them so we don't have to pay for new ones
Correct
That's all I had. Thank you.
Any other business?
I'll just say thanks to the commission for bringing up the notion of moving as quickly as we can on the zoning and development policy updates.
Do you think that's a very important priority for us?
And I'll tell you what I've told you when I've told Council over the last year is the way of a limited capacity to respond to them, right now.
And if we delay the priorities we're focused on right now, it'll take longer to get
a compliment on them.
It'll take longer for us to resolve some of the transportation solutions we're really trying
to do.
We had to wait about the council needs to offer us the money for you guys.
I know.
We had this discussion last year about adding staff and what kind of role that my
and Christian might have in making those kind of advisory things.
And basically it's not much.
That was pretty limited.
I would say there are constant, we've done fairly well, we were able to add three more
staff, three more planners and staff in the last three years.
That's a pretty big deal.
The problem is that we have vacancies, because we have not been up to our court staffing levels that
The case of the vacancies we have.
Don't get me ideas, guys.
There's a few months we will get back from the office and people will stop her
and we'll stop her.
We'll move the gun.
Do you have a home attack tonight?
We've been on a side of the bus for about a year, but we've been on a side of the bus.
We've been on a side of the bus for about seven or eight years.
That's a side of the bus.
We've been on a side of the bus for about ten years.
Yeah, we've been on a side of the bus for a long time.
time when we really didn't have capacity to take on text amendments, but I don't know if
there's any typical thing, we really need to take a bigger approach to looking at other
stuff that we can have together. So I think we've got the first close opportunity to do something.
Now I think what we have to do is we can initiate them. We want to have the ability to respond to them.
We focused on the last year our corrections and things that are clarification to help remove
conflict and friction in the process and hopefully we have done enough of those now
where it starts to see some litigation from the friction that those were causing.
I think that those were really good news,
but we will acknowledge just more we can.
Any other business?
No children.
Second.
You have a motion and a second to adjourn.
Any discussion?
All those in favor please say hi.
Hi.
I was both please say no.
The motion carries unanimously.