Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-11-2005PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — JANUARY 11, 2005 PRESENT: TOM CROSBY, RON JOHNSON, DICK PICARD, TOM SUPEL, MARY VERBICK AND LENNY LEVER. ALSO PRESENT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR CHAD ADAMS, CITY PLANNER ROSE LORSUNG, PLANNING CONSULTANT SARAH SCHIELD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR JIM DILLMAN, CITY ENGINEER TOM KELLOGG, MAYOR BRUCE WORKMAN AND PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON ABSENT: MARILYN FORTIN 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice chairperson Dick Picard called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. 2. INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Dick Picard welcomed the two new planning commissioners, Tom Crosby and Tom Supel. He said they both were formerly on the city council. Dick also said that they bring with them financial and legal experience. 3. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR FOR 2005 Lenny Leuer nominated Dick Picard for chairperson. There were no further nominations and nominations were closed. MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY RON JOHNSON TO APPOINT DICK PICARD CHAIRPERSON. MOTION PASSED. Tom Crosby nominated Lenny Leuer for vice -chair. Lenny declined. Dick Picard then nominated Mary Verbick for vice -chair. There were no further nominations and nominations were closed. MOVED BY DICK PICARD AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO APPOINT MARY VERBICK FOR VICE -CHAIR. MOTION PASSED. 4. PUBLIC FORUM There were no comments. 5. GRAMERCY Rose Lorsung went thru her memo to the planning commission explaining why we had to look at this again. There were reasons that the plat did not get filed and because of the time lapse the planning commission needed to see this again, so tonight we are reviewing the plat for the formal process. The city council will review it next week. Tom Crosby asked if there were any changes in this plat that were not in the former plat that the city council approved. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 1 R. Lorsung said just a name change. There was a Gramercy person who has passed away, so the only changes are in the title work and the signatures in the plat. Rolf Warden, Gramercy attorney, introduced himself. Tom Supel said people are turning left onto 101 and this exit is supposed to be a right turn only. R. Lorsung said this has been brought to the police department's attention. The public hearing was opened. There were no comments. Ron Johnson asked Mr. Warden about the landscape plan. R. Warden said Rose was the better one to answer that question. R. Lorsung said there is a new landscape plan that the city council has approved. She said plantings will happen in the spring. Dick Picard asked Mr. Warden why the plat had not been filed when it was approved before. R. Warden said there were no excuses. The founder of Gramercy had passed away and when it was founded that the plat had not been filed, he was asked to help. Howie Guest, 62 Highway 55, said his house is on the south side of Gramercy's berm and wanted to know if the city had looked at the plantings between his house and the berm. He said he expected better screening and is a little concerned. R. Lorsung said staff will look into it The public hearing was closed. MOVED BY TOM CROSBY AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR GRAMERCY. MOTION PASSED. 6. CHARLES CUDD, LLC — REZONING TO PUD/GENERAL PUD/ PRELIMINARY PLAT TO ALLOW A 106 LOT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT — PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 2004 Sarah Schield said this had been on the December 14, 2004 planning commission agenda and staff had requested more thorough plans for review so it was continued until those plans were received. She said this was reviewed with the UR zoning standards in mind The reason for a PUD is to allow flexibility in the underlying zoning. The applicant is proposing a public park and preservation of open space. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 2 S. Schield said the proposed development includes 42 developable acres and 82 acres of public right-of-way, wetland, public park, trails and natural features. This results in a density of 2.5 units per acre which meets the intent of the City's Comprehensive plan. This is lower than the Metropolitan council's policy of a minimum of 3 units per acre. The Metropolitan Council notes that with additional development proposals and the City's comprehensive plan for the Uptown Hamel area, the City will likely obtain an overall average density of more than 3 units per acre. S. Schield said the developer is asking for a 5 foot less front yard setback than in the UR zoning and stated that PUD zoning allows flexibility. Staff finds that this is a minimal request and that the request matches the intent of the City's comprehensive plan to promote preservation of open space and allow for design flexibility. She said staff recommends that the setbacks be identified on the site plan. S. Schield stated the developer has submitted HOA guidelines, which in part states that those parts of the dwellings visible from the exterior will be kept architecturally attractive and consistent in appearance. Staff recommends that the architectural guidelines be revised to specifically include 4-sided architecture, high -quality building materials and coordination of exterior colors and a list of builders to be submitted with the PUD final plan. The developer should also provide detailed information about any HOA restrictions. Sarah said the developer has said their will be 5 different home styles utilized in the development. There was discussion on the parking by the tot lot for the park area. The Park Commission will also comment on this. Tom Crosby asked about street parking and if the streets were wide enough for parking and thru traffic. He also asked if the HOA document talked of boats, etc. and where they could be parked. S. Schield said that is something that should be discussed. Sirish Samba, MFRA, said the street is 16' each side with a total of 32' in Bridgewater and most others are 26' total. Mary Verbick said what about parking when there is a party or weekend guests. Will they be able to park on the street and still have traffic going by? Jim Dillman said the streets in Bridgewater will be similar to those in Foxberry Farms. T. Crosby said the HOA documents should deal with the parking issue. S. Schield said accessory parking is dealt with in the document. T. Crosby said he is concerned with permanent parking in the street. M. Verbick said she would be surprised if it was not in the HOA document. Rick Denman, Charles Cudd Company, said they are all good points and he will check into it. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 3 M. Verbick said the parking in the park area should also be addressed. Dick Picard said the HOA document is usually more restrictive than the city. T. Crosby said we are `down zoning' this and does it put the city in a box as far as affordable housing for the city. S. Schield said there is no guide for this property because it was outside of the MUSA. T. Crosby said many suburban communities are being criticized for not having affordable housing. Chad Adams said we have livable community goals with the Metropolitan Council. We have met that goal with Gramercy and Uptown Hamel. We might not have an area set aside after those. M. Verbick said that is an important comment. She said every community should be concerned with affordable housing. Rose Lorsung said the affordable figure goes up every year and it is now over $200,000. she said there would be room in Uptown Hamel to meet some of that. T. Crosby said he would like to know what is expected and who expects what of the City. R. Denman said the architectural renderings they provided are just some of what they do and they will build other plans than those shown. He said our firm is very good at doing good design in both front and rear of homes. Tom Supel asked Sarah about the money for water and sewer and is it coming from Highway 55 or is it just internal. Tom Kellogg, City engineer, said it is estimated that it is about 1 1/2 miles to get sewer to the site from Highway 55. He said the water main will go the length of Arrowhead and hook into Foxberry. Tom also said Arrowhead will be re -constructed. T. Supel asked if the developer would pay for all of this. Staff said yes. Tom talked about the difference in the front yard setback of 25' instead of 30' and since this was a PUD, are there no rules and no variance would be required? S. Schield said that is correct. T. Supel said similar to 50' vs. 60' for the road — no variance. Sarah said correct. Tom then asked about the `public' park. He said from where he reads this, it is a long stretch to call it public. There is no access, no parking and no activities. Why would anyone go there? Tom said it sounds very phony to him, that it seems very private. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 4 S. Schield said that is a good point. Is this an active or passive park? This is more passive. The developers are proposing a floating dock and parking by the tot lot. She said due to the natural environment, staff does not feel it should be changed. Sarah said that when the property to the south develops, there could possibly be an additional access to the park from there. T. Crosby said he felt if someone walked to the park they would want some marked trails. T. Supel said he felt there was an access issue. Would 11-12 parking spaces be enough? He said there is no problem with a natural area, but there should be something minimal there. T. Crosby said kick it over to the park commission. Charles Cudd said they actually had the area laid out into 14 lots, but the neighbors and the City wanted it to stay natural. M. Verbick said this area is a huge concession from the developer. She likened this area to the Wolsfeld area. She said being slightly inaccessible helps keep it natural. Mary said she sees the tot lot area as a potential problem between the residents and the public that comes to use the public area. She said maybe they should consider changing the location of the tot lot. Charles Cudd said he agrees, although the tot lot is not a heavy duty play area. He said we look at it as a focal point in trying to maintain a site line to the open space as you drive in. The public hearing was opened. Bill Freeland, 4290 Arrowhead Drive, said he believes the rules have changed. When we became supportive of the comprehensive plan change and Cudd, I have plans that showed gazebos, lots of ponds, etc. He said he feels there are behind the scenes meetings and once something is presented the rules should not change. He said he came tonight because of the talk of access down our road. Bill said this is a great product, but what happened since the earlier meetings. D. Picard said that nothing was approved when former plans were presented to us. R. Denman said Cudd has met with Mr. Freeland. There are many ponds in the plans and showed him where they were. B. Freeland said he and his neighbors want to stay involved and want to protect our investment and why we moved here. Luann Mosio, 4268 Arrowhead Drive, said the plan looks great. What we care about is Arrowhead and our private road. We just don't want traffic on our private road and don't want people using our private road for park access. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 5 Marilyn Zimmerman, 6201 Butterworth Lane, Corcoran, talked of the sewer and water and Arrowhead Road. She said she originally thought the sewer and water would be connected along Hackamore Road for the Medina residents. T. Kellogg said the water will be extended and tie into Foxberry. He said there is no proposal to serve any other properties other than this development. He said sewer cannot go all the way north, but will be brought up Arrowhead to the site. And the developer will construct the sewer throughout the development. There will be a sewer stub to the north of the proposed development for when the property to the north develops. The water main will also be stubbed to the north for when the property to the north develops. The road will be paved. M. Zimmerman said the road is very windy and dangerous. She wondered if there will be restrictive speed limit and/or speed bumps or any other proposals for our safety. T. Kellogg said the road has not been designed yet. He said we are trying to make improvements for site distances. He said we are trying to make improvements for site distances. M. Zimmerman said she is extremely concerned with safety. Gloria Steine, 20550 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, said the road is terrible and it should be taken care of before there is a dead body. She said the corner should be blended and that 30 MPH was ridiculous. She said the road should be taken care of now and not later. Ms. Steine said it is unbelievable how people don't care how they drive. Chris Sundin, 1525 Hackamore Road, wanted to know if there would be on street parking within the development for park use. M. Verbick said she thinks the 11-12 parking spaces by the tot lot will be plenty. C. Sundin asked the planning commission if they had driven Hackamore. She said there is a steep hill on the west and wondered where the trail was going to be, on Medina side or Corcoran side. S. Schield said the comprehensive plan shows a trail utilized for future development. She also wanted to say on the trail comment for a 2nd access on the private road, that was mentioned in context of if there was future development of the property to the south there could possibly be an access from there. In the transportation plan in the comprehensive plan it does show the private road going to Lake Medina and it shows a future trail. Sarah said we do consider and look at these things for the future. M. Verbick said to Sarah that the residents of the existing private road do not have to be concerned of any changes now and Sarah said that is correct. C. Sundin said when the City worked thru the comprehensive plan, she came to many meetings and they were told then that Hackamore Road was not on the radar until 2020. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 6 Tony Sundin, 1525 Hackamore Road, said they were told if the City is going to build a road, sewer and water would go along with it, so why not now. T. Kellogg said people need to understand that only studies that have been done is a feasibility report, extending services and improving the road. He said they have not started on any designs for a road or utilities. He explained where the sewer and water lines would go and also said when the road is designed a lot of consideration will be given to comments from the residents. T. Crosby said if a resolution goes forward he will add safety issues to be added to the resolution. He then asked if the property to the south wants to develop, it would not be part of this development, so what would they have to go thru? S. Schield and T. Kellogg said a comprehensive plan amendment would be needed and re- zoning. Alan Haggerty, 6200 Butterworth Lane, Corcoran, said he is concerned with traffic. He said it is rather rural now and he is hearing `major collector' road. He said he is concerned with the increased traffic and recommends that the design for the road encourages traffic to go south and not north. T. Sundin said in the mornings, it can be very foggy and you have to be very careful of joggers if the sun is coming up because you cannot see a thing. C. Adams said he did receive a letter from Corcoran and they want to be involved in the road design process. Ron Johnson said the ponds in the development are planned to be used for irrigation. He wanted to know if the developers had thought of the height of the ponds and keeping kids out. S. Samba said the ponds have a 10' wide bench with 10:1 slope. R. Johnson asked if in a dry summer the ponds would be pumped dry. John Sonnec, Charles Cudd Company, said there will be a continuing feeding well to fill the ponds whenever needed. R. Johnson asked staff if the size of the houses will bring them under our new sprinkler ordinance. C. Adams said the building inspector will determine when he sees the plans. R. Johnson said with the houses close together, he wondered if they would be sprinkled internally. R. Denman said they have never done that. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 7 C. Adams said the Fire Marshall and Fire Chief will look into it. M. Verbick asked about lighting. R. Denman said they have not picked out a fixture or location yet. M. Verbick said the placement is very important and it should not be bright. R. Denman said they will take care in planning the location. M. Verbick asked again about the trail on the road. Will it be a protected trail and which side of the road. S. Schield said it depends on the width of the right-of-way. T. Kellogg said it requires further study. M. Verbick asked about the floating dock maintenance. R. Denman said they are paying for it and the material is supposed to be maintenance free. T. Crosby said if it lasts 30 years it should be replaced by the HOA. C. Cudd said it is a public access. J. Sonnec said it is a lifetime plastic that is hollow with air inside. M. Verbick asked if the pond maintenance would be by the HOA and the developers said that is correct. T. Supel wanted to clarify the park, is it a city park, does the city own it, the dock, etc. He said it should be perfectly clear on the maintenance. C. Cudd said we will meet with the Park Commission next week. Lenny Leuer said the streets and right-of-way are 50' within the development. He wondered if Hackamore/Arrowhead would be 50' also. S. Schield reiterated what Tom Kellogg said that the design of the road is not complete. L. Leuer said if we need ROW, how do we obtain it by the private residents and if we don't have it, what is the process? T. Kellogg said the city attorney is researching it now. Tom said before we know the process we need to know what we have. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 8 S. Schield said the issue is the ROW and how much we have to work with. L. Leuer asked if we have the inability to obtain needed ROW would it be a stop gap for this development. C. Adams said that would be a policy decision by the City Council. Bruce Workman, Mayor, said there is a lot of property where easement will have to be granted. C. Sundin said in 1988 this was a minimum maintenance road. She said the City should have notified us of change of status and we never were. M. Zimmerman said they were never notified of any changes in road status. She asked Tom Crosby to add to conditions about putting water lines in road the same time the road is improved. T. Kellogg again said that they have not started the design process. He said there are more limitations on sewer lines than water lines. He said they also do not want to have to tear the road up again in 5 years. L. Leuer asked if this would be a `garage dominated' neighborhood. R. Denman said garages are a fact of life. He said they take care that garage doors are upscale and that there are windows in the garage, etc. He said the house is more dominate than the garage. He said they use garage doors that are consistent with the design of the home. L. Leuer asked if the HOA document called for the parking of boats, RV's , etc not to be outside and Rick said that was correct. D. Picard said the estimated cost of the sewer and water and road is 1 Y2 million. He wondered what happens if the cost goes higher. C. Cudd said we have agreed to pay for it regardless of cost. He did say there was no trail in the estimate. D. Picard said the developer has also agreed to share the cost of a new well up to $50,000 and he wondered how long that offer was good. C. Cudd said it would be in the developer's agreement. D. Picard said if the water usage goes up and a new well is not needed for 3 years, would you still pay. C. Cudd said he figured on paying the $50,000 up front. Jim Dillman said the cost of a new well ranges from $65,000 - $250,000. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 9 D. Picard said the City should review and Tom Kellogg should comment on the proposed access to the park and the floating dock. T. Kellogg said there was some discussion on railings, width, etc. He said the City and the Park Commission should comment on it, how snow sill be kept off, etc. D. Picard asked if the lawns would be sprinkled and Rick said yes. M. Verbick said that is a good idea to use the ponds, it will be less of an impact on city water. The public hearing was closed at 9 p.m. MOVED BY TOM CROSBY AND SECONDED BY LENNY LEUER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING FROM RR-UR TO PUD, THE PUD GENERAL PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHARLES CUDD, LLC FOR THE 124 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 55, NORTH OF CHIPPEWA ROAD AND EAST OF ARROWHEAD/HACKAMORE ROAD WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The plans shall be revised according to the City Engineer comments per attached memo dated January 3, 2005. 2. The site plan must clearly identify the building setbacks. 3. The applicant shall provide revised copies of the HOA documents/covenants for City review. The HOA documents must include 4-sided architecture, high -quality building materials and coordination of exterior colors. The HOA document shall also include parking regulations including prohibition of outside parking of boats, RV's, etc. 4. The HOA documents must also include accessory building/structure and fence restrictions. 5. The developer shall provide a list of builders with the PUD final plan. 6. The developer shall submit garage details. 7. The developer shall revise the plans to provide additional parking or a proof of parking plan for the private park. The plans must include parking details. 8. The applicant must submit signage details. 9. The plans are subject to the review of the Fire and Police Department. 10. The plans are subject to the review and the wetland setbacks of the Elm Creek Watershed District. 11. Drainage and utility easements must be provided over all wetlands and ponds. 12. The applicant must submit lighting details. 13. The street names on the plans must be revised to show Roads, Drives, etc. 14. The developer shall submit details on the trail design. 15. Safety issues related to Hackamore are to be addressed by the City's Public Works Department and the City engineer. The City of Corcoran is to be involved in the design process for the road. 16. Park areas of the development to be referred to Medina's park Commission for review, including review of the walkway, maintenance issues, parking areas and access. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 10 17. In event ROW on Hackamore is not acceptable to the Public Works Department and cannot be obtained, this issue is to come back to the Planning Commission. MOTION PASSED. Planning Commission Minutes—1-11-05 7. DARREL FARR DEVELOPMENT — 185 HAMEL ROAD — SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SENIOR CONDO DEVELOPMENT — CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER Sarah Schield went over her staff report to the Planning Commission. She stated this application required a site plan review and therefore no public hearing was required. The site is zoned Uptown Hamel (UH) and is also guided UH. The surrounding properties are zoned and guided the same. There are no minimum lot size or lot width requirements in this zoning ordinance. The ordinance has a maximum of 90% impervious surface and this proposal is for 72%, so it meets this requirement. S. Schield said the plans appear to meet the landscaping requirements of the UH ordinance. Proposed parking spaces meet the UH ordinance of at least 1 underground parking stall per dwelling unit (18 dwelling units proposed and 23 underground parking stalls), but does not meet section 828.51 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires 2 spaces per unit (18 units proposed=36 parking spaces. Parking within the UH zoning district is flexible and additional on -street parking may be available. The City should consider the use and need for parking for this development. S. Schield said the proposed grade for the underground parking is greater than the 10% maximum that the City prefers. This has been discussed with the applicant. The driveway location should also be discussed, because as shown on the plan it would require a variance from Section 100.1 ld of the City code. S. Schield said the setbacks within the UH zoning district are very minimal There is a maximum distance of 10' that a building can be set back from the front lot line. The lot abuts two streets and is considered a `through' lot and is a through lot. Both streets are considered front lot lines. Staff has required that the site plan must clearly identify the building setbacks; the site plan must identify a rear yard. Since this property has two street frontages, a variance will be required if the front yard maximum set back is not met. Staff is also requiring that the site plan and utility plan identify the sidewalk setbacks. S. Schield said building materials will need to be reviewed and/or required as a condition of approval. She also stated that the lighting met the intent of the ordinance. Signage will need to be reviewed and/or required as a condition of approval. There are a number of additional items that need to be addressed. S. Schield said staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to a number of conditions. Tom Supel questioned the number of parking spaces. S. Schield said the UH ordinance has flexibility in it. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 11 Tom Crosby wanted to know which ordinance supersedes, the UH ordinance or the zoning ordinance parking requirements. S. Schield said she brought forward the zoning ordinance requirements to provide on overview to the planning commission. T. Crosby asked what power the city had. S. Schield said there are no standards in the UH ordinance. Both T. Supel and T. Crosby wondered why the ordinance says `minimum' parking - -. S. Schield said the applicant meets the minimum so we cannot ask for more. T. Supel wondered if it was even worth discussing if the plan meets rules and we have no authority to change that. S. Schield said she did not intend it to be a condition. Dick Picard said parking will come up when we talk about the UH ordinance. T. Crosby said except for #6 (front yard setback) how many regulations are not met of the UH ordinance. He also wanted the building materials explained. Ben Schmidt, Darrel Farr Co., said the exterior building material is a mix of hardi plank siding, brick and cultured stone. He said he thought only part of the building needed to meet the ordinance requirements. Chad Adams said that both the community building and bank came in under the former UH ordinance. T. Supel asked if the proposal met the new UH ordinance and he was told yes. Mary Verbick said it seems there are many construction projects that have materials that appear to be the required product but are a less maintenance product. She said what a building looks like is more important than what it is. T. Crosby asked the price of the units. B. Schmidt said they would average $250,000. Bruce Workman said he was involved in the UH ordinance and said the intent was we did not want to see vinyl siding, cheap siding. He said the hardi siding is used a lot now. He said they worked on the UH ordinance for 2 years and have had only the bank build since then. He said he is very supportive of anyone who wants to develop in Uptown Hamel. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 12 T. Crosby asked how we were out of compliance on this narrow issue. B. Workman said it depends on what we are calling this hardi plank siding product. There was further discussion on siding and building materials. T. Supel asked about the variances that were needed for the driveway, is it the location and not the slope. He also asked about the setback on the south line and that staff said the ordinance says a maximum of 10'. B. Workman said there is no proposal to build thru Mill Drive, but the ROW is there so it is treated as a street. T. Supel asked if the property to the west develops would Mill Drive then be built and Bruce said yes. T. Supel said he is uncomfortable with the variance requests not being handled. He said at a 1st pass thru the ordinance and with looking at these variances, the ordinance needs changing. B. Workman said if the builder would build the building 2' longer there would not be the issue. B. Schmidt said on the back side (Mill Drive), they made the assumption that the road would be there someday and can we make the building 2' longer, yes we can. Ben said they did not look at the building materials needing a variance. He also said yes the grade is in excess of 10% and the grade will have to be approved by the engineer. He said they have also met and discussed the set back of the driveway on the side and he said if the building can be on the lot line, why not the driveway. B. Schmidt then showed some slides, explaining the materials, landscaping, etc. He said the roof will be 40 year asphalt shingles. He had a slide showing the Church of St. Anne's' to relate the height of his proposed building to it. He said it would be more appropriate to have the utilities on the east side, but the plan does show them on the west. He said they have not decided on signage, but will decide in the next couple of days. Whatever the signage is, it will meet the ordinance. Lenny Leuer had a number of issues: 1 — double frontage. He said at the last planning commission meeting he had said Hamel Road is not appropriate for the entrance and that maybe it should be off of Mill Drive. He said he is still concerned and this does not seem to be sticking with the spirit of the ordinance. He said why not access on the south. 2 — He said 1 plan shows 2' setback on the south and one shows 12'. B. Schmidt said if the plan shows 12' and it is supposed to be 10', it will be 10', if it is supposed to be 2', it will be 2'. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 13 T. Supel said the point of the ordinance is to have a common setback. He also said the plan looks like it is angled. L. Leuer said on page T11 there seems to be an error. The floor plan on the 3rd floor shows the same as the floor plan on 2nd and there is supposed to be the step back on the 3rd floor. B. Schmidt said there is a difference on the 2nd and 3rd L. Leuer wanted to know how far under the dirt the water utilities would be. Tom Kellogg said he has met with Ben and one outcome is that they will move the utilities to the east side of the building. He said the storm sewer will be in front on Hamel Road and down the side on the east. He showed on the site plan where the storm water and water lines would go. He said there was 60 ROW on Hamel Road and 30' in the back. L. Leuer said there is a drain at the bottom of the ramp and wondered who would be responsible for the storm water pump to bring water to the line. T. Kellogg said anything on the property including the pump would be the responsibility of the applicant. There was further discussion of storm water drainage, grades, etc. T. Kellogg talked of additional drains in the basement & gravity from the lower level. He said the applicant would still need a back up pump. L. Leuer asked about roof top equipment. B. Schmidt said the center is flat and will hide all the equipment. L. Leuer asked why there was not the 3rd story step back in the rear of the building. B. Schmidt said his assumption was there was not a road there. S. Schield said the setback from the property line is 12'. There was further discussion as to whether there should be a 3rd floor step back on the Mill Drive side of the building and as to whether Mill was a road or not a road or if it was ROW. C. Adams said the comprehensive plan shows Mill as a future road. M. Verbick said she has traffic safety concerns about the driveway coming off of Hamel Road where it is planned. She said the way cars have to swing coming up Sioux Drive, etc. is part of her concern. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 14 B. Workman said Liz Weir's comments to him were more cars coming up from the garage and crossing the side walk to access Hamel Road. He said there are other places, such as the church that cross the side walk coming from their parking lots. B. Schmidt showed on a slide that it is flat where the parking is and when cars come up from the ramp at this point, the cars are on a flat surface and can see the sidewalk. D. Picard said all of his questions have been addressed. He said his concern is for all of Uptown Hamel and the parking. B. Schmidt said yes there is a parking issue and all of the people will have to work together and share parking. We recognize it is a problem and hope to share with others. T. Crosby said Mill Drive is also an issue, is it a road or ROW. He said if we tell the applicant to treat it as a road, the applicant can say then give me a road. He said he is not sure that would be a wise expenditure. Tom said we need to make the distinction and agree if the 3rd floor step back needs to be put in. B. Schmidt said we will look at it. D. Picard questioned the driveway and whether the driveway ordinance and the UH ordinance are in conflict. MOVED BY TOM CROSBY AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 185 HAMEL ROAD FOR A SENIOR CONDO DEVELOPMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant must work with the City Engineer to ensure the safety and usability of the driveway grade. 2. The parking plan/garage floor plan shall have drain tile both inside and outside of the building. 3. The proposed curb radii should be labeled on the plan set and should be a minimum of 20 feet at the access to Hamel Road. 4. The applicant must receive a variance for the driveway location prior to issuance of the building permit to have the driveway consistent with 0' setback for buildings. 5. The site plan must clearly identify the building setbacks. 6. The applicant must receive a variance from the maximum front yard setback requirement for the south side of the property, if the setback is greater than 10 feet, prior to issuance of the building permit. 7. The site plan and utility plan must identify the sidewalk setbacks. 8. Building materials must consist of one or more of the following: natural brick, stucco, stone, wood and glass with hardi plank siding being acceptable. 9. A signage plan must be submitted and approved by city staff. 10. The landscape plan must correctly identify the size of the ornamental trees. 11. The landscape plan must identify one additional over story tree in the front yard along Hamel Road and three over story trees in the front yard along Mill Drive. 12. Retaining wall details and design are required for walls that exceed four feet in height. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 15 13. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan is required. 14. Staff has requested a colored elevation depicting the building height compared to the height of the church steeple across Hamel Road. 15. The Planning Commission requested a front elevation providing driveway detail. 16. The 20-foot drainage and utility easement shown on the utility plan must also be shown on the site plan. 17. The existing elevations and proposed contours on the plans are incorrect. The plans shall be revised. 18. The grading plans should identify contours extending a minimum of 50-feet from the property lines. 19. A geotechnical report, R-value recommendation and pavement design should be submitted for review and approval by City staff. 20. A construction parking plan, including a cement truck clean-up location must be formally submitted and approved by City staff. 21. Further discussion of utilities will need to take place between the applicant and City staff 22. The plans shall meet the requirements of the Fire Department. 23. The plans shall be revised according to the City Engineer comments per attached memo dated January 3, 2005. 24. Applicant to work with staff on step back for 3rd story facing Mill Drive. MOTION PASSED 6-1 Lenny Leuer opposed. His reason being he felt access should be from Mill Drive and not Hamel Road. 8. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2004 Page 4 — 2/3 ways down in Ben Schmidt's comment — should say — `all but 50' - - - MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY RON JOHNSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED WITH TOM CROSBY ABSTAINING (not present at meeting) MOTION PASSED. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 2004 MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY RON JOHNSON TO APPROVE THE PARTIAL MINUTES AS CORRECTED. WITH TOM CROSBY ABSTAINING (not present at meeting) MOTION PASSED. 9. PLANNER'S REPORT Rose Lorsung said there are 5 items for the February meeting: 1. Ryan — Target 2. Dave Truax — 2 lot subdivision at 1475 Willow Drive 3. Dave Moore — 500 Hamel Road — Comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, PUD 4. Ace - Medina Retail — adding to existing building 5. City's water treatment plant. Tom Crosby said his firm represents Target, but not Ryan. He will check and if they are at all involved in this project. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 16 There was discussion of whether he should be involved in this application. Dick Picard asked if we will get through all items in 4 hours. R. Lorsung said Ryan/Target could be at least 2 hours — a couple of the other items have access issues and Truax could also take some time. Chad Adams said he recommends getting the packet to the planning commission a day or so sooner and also limiting staff presentations. There was discussion of having 1 or 2 meetings in February. T. Crosby said he agrees with Chad. The staff presentations should be geared to who is in the audience and be more of a summary of the staff report. A second meeting was set for February 22nd at 7 p.m. MOVED BY MARY VERBICK AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO ADJOURN MOTION PASSED. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Planning and Zoning Assistant Date Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 17