Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9B - Jeffers Pond Process CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: August 20, 2001 AGENDA #: 9B PREPARED BY: Frank Boyles, City Manager AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT SUGGESTING A PROCESS FOR ADDRESSING THE JEFFER'S PROPERTY CONCEPT PLAN. DISCUSSION: History: Representatives of the Jeffer's Pond development were present at the City Council forum on August 6th. The development team is diverse, consisting of Mr. Paul Oberg (executor and attorney of the estate of Mr. Bob Jeffers), Warren Jeffers (Bob Jeffers nephew), Kelly Murray (representing Wensmann as one developer), Jim Deanovich (the other developer on the project). Also present was the development team's architect. The development team shared some concept plans with the City Council. They indicated that the total property for development is 348 acres of which 122 acres are wetland and 50 acres are forested. The property is to be developed as a multiple Planned Unit Development consisting of up to 1000 dwelling units including multi-family for seniors, town homes and single-family. The petition will involve re-zoning the property and, because of the size of the development, is likely to involve significant environmental examination. Part of the property is to become an interpretive center possibly operated by the County park system. The developers to date have discussed the project with Scott County, the Watershed District, Department of Natural Resources, City and Scott-Hennepin Parks. Current Circumstances: The developer has prepared very general conceptual drawings of the proposed development. For example, they do not identify structures, utilities or streets. The developer has asked the City Council a series of questions about the development. The Council did not provide responses both because of the general nature of the information provided, and the time available to discuss the matter. The staff was directed to propose how these questions can be answered so the developer can proceed knowing the expectations of each party. Conclusion: The proposed Jeffers Pond project is potentially more complex and environmentally sensitive than either The Wilds project (580 acres and 656 dwelling units) or Deerfield (222 acres and 540 dwelling units). The proposed housing is diverse and density considerable. The nature center proposal raises policy questions the City Council has not considered. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 1:\COUNCIL\AGNRPTS\2001\JEFFERS PON~~L OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ----.-~._~.." '--r--"t 7' I recommend that the City Council appoint two Council members (I suggest Mayor Mader and Councilmember Gundlach) who will work with the City's Development Review Committee from concept through final plan for this development. Two Councilmembers cannot speak on behalf of the Council. Nor is it appropriate that they assume the staff's role. But, the two Councilmembers could monitor and communicate the status of the project and clarify policy issues as appropriate. By being present at the DRC meetings, they will be familiar with the project in detail. This familiarity will facilitate a better decision-making process. I believe the first step toward moving this project forward is for the City to convene a single meeting involving all parties. At the meeting the developers could review their concepts and respond to questions from the various agencies. At the conclusion of the meeting, each agency can then identify for the developers the minimum information they require to address the policy issues raised by the developers. Once the developers respond to such information requests, the respective bodies can consider the questions posed and in a subsequent meeting, share their responses with the developers. With these key questions answered, the developer can then decide if they wish to complete and submit a petition for development. ISSUES: Given the size, complexity and questions raised by this development, all parties are best served if the Council and staff work together to address key policy issues. In addition to expediting the process, a better development will be possible and the land can be better protected. ALTERNATIVES: (1) Appoint a City Council subcommittee to work with the Development Review Committee on the Jeffer's Pond project. (2) Direct the staff to convene a meeting of all parties to identify information which is needed to address the policy issues raised by the developers. (3) Take no action and direct the staff to prepare other alternatives. RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: I :\COUNCI L \AGN RPTS\200 1 \JEFFERS PON D. DOC