Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-08-2001PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 8, 2001 PRESENT: LENNY LEUER, ELIZABETH WEIR, DICK PICARD, TOM SUPEL AND MARY VERBICK. ALSO PRESENT: PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR LOREN KOHNEN, PLANNING CONSULTANT BILL THIBAULT, ADMINISTRATOR -CLERK PAUL ROBINSON, INTERN TODD LARSON AND PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON. ABSENT: SUSIE MACKAY, SHARON JOHNSON AND JERRY BROST. Chairperson Lenny Leuer called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 1. Robert Raskob - 2295 Holy Name Drive - Variance to Required Lot Size and 2 Lot Subdivision of 9+ Acres - Public Hearing Todd Larson presented the application and put up an overhead of the area. He explained that the hardship for the variance was that the applicant had paid 2 % road assessments. Robert Raskob stated the paid 2 % road assessments and that he had lived here or in the area for many, many years. They now wanted to divide their property and sell the lot and also their home. The public hearing was opened. There were no comments from the public. Lenny Leuer asked if there was additional right-of-way needed for Holy Name Drive and Todd said no, it was all there. Dick Picard asked if we knew where a new residence would be located and Todd pointed out on the overhead where it could be. L. Leuer asked if one access would be Holy Name Drive and one Lakeview and Mr. Raskob said that is correct. The public hearing was closed at 7:07 p.m. Tom Supel said that he would recommend denial to the city council of the variance request. He said based on the 2'/2 road assessments it sounds reasonable and being allowed to develop only one site could be seen as unjust or inequitable. However, to be fair to all the citizens of the City, there must be more substantive reasons than a personal opinion about the reasonableness of the story told in any particular instance. Fairness requires a framework for making decisions that is known to the community and consistently followed by the City. That is presumably why the City has adopted code section 825.45 which defines the criteria for granting a variance. The section lists six 1 criteria and requires that all six criteria must be satisfied to grant the variance. There is nothing in the six criteria that I interpret as clearly pointing to a prior assessment as a reason for granting a variance. On the other hand, it does seem clear that some of the criteria are not satisfied. This would, for example, grant a special privilege to the applicant that is denied others which conflicts with (d) in the list. Also granting the variance would make it difficult to deny other applicants and thereby be detrimental to the soil requirements of the ordinance which conflicts with (f). It is my view that fairness to the entire community is best served by consistently following the criteria of the ordinance. This means that the proper action of the planning commission is to recommend that the council deny the request for the soils variance. If the council wishes to grant variances such as this one, it would seem that the proper course of action is to amend the criteria of the ordinance and communicate the new criteria to the community. ( this was transcribed from a written statement by Mr. Supel). MOVED BY TOM SUPEL AND SECONDED BY ELIZABETH WEIR TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE SOIL REQUIREMENT - REASON BEING THAT TH CRITERIA DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED. Elizabeth Weir said that she understands Tom's thinking, but it is hard since a variance like this has been granted in the past and it compromises us for denial. Mary Verbick said that she is not clear on the ordinance requiring the 5 acres - she asked of there was any concern for septic failure on either of the proposed lots. - she said she hates to see it denied and then maybe a new owner being able to subdivide it in the future. Loren Kohnen gave a history of Lakeview, their septic systems, failure, etc., but noted that these are all very small lots. He said there has not been any failures to the north of Lakeview which includes the Raskob property. He said there was room for two septic sites on both proposed lots. L. Leuer said that over the years the lot size requirement has escalated up - in 1999 it went from 2 '/ acres to 5 acres. T. Supel said the issue is precedence - there is 1 prior case and staff recommended denial and the city council overrided the recommendation. He said the ordinance should be changed if we are going to continue granting variances. Vote on the denial: 1 - Aye 4 - Nay - MOTION FAILED MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SOILS REQUIREMENT VARIANCE OF 1.37 ACRES, THE HARDSHIP BEING THE DOUBLE ROAD ASSESSMENT. 4 - AYE 1 -NAY - MOTION PASSED. 2 MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE 2 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Park dedication fee for Lot 2 2. Easement provided if any drain tile on the property. 4 - AYE 1 - ABSTAINED MOTION PASSED. 2. GLEN LINCOLN PARTNERS - 780-790 TOWER DRIVE - RE -PLAT 2 LOTS TO 1 LOT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE AND VARIANCE TO SETBACK FOR PARKING AREA - PUBLIC HEARING Todd Larson explained the request and put up an overhead of the area The public hearing was opened at 7:24 p.m. RE -PLAT: Elizabeth Weir gave a little history of the area - small lots and in the past lots have been combined and variances have been granted because the lots were unbuildable as they were. Lenny Leuer asked if there were any easements to be abandoned. T. Larson said there were none and all new drainage and utility easements were shown on the plat. L. Leuer asked about ROW and Todd said there were none needed. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY DICK PICARD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RE -PLAT OF THE 2 LOTS TO 1 LOT WITH THE EASEMENTS AS SHOWN. L. Leuer asked Jack Day if there were 2 more lots to the west and Jack said yes, they were owned by Mr. Cavanaugh. Tom Supel asked if the lots were individual, if the use would be no different than on the larger lot. Loren Kohnen said the use would be the same but the smaller lot would be restricted as to the size of the building. MOTION PASSED. VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 3 T. Larson put up an overhead and explained the variance request for parking. He stated that a few of the parking spaces had been removed because of hardcover, so the variance area is not as wide. L. Kohnen said that additional landscaping would be required and it should be mostly on the front - according to ordinance 38 landscaping units would be required and could be a combination of trees and shrubs, with the trees in the back and shrubs in the front. T. Larson put up an overhead of the exterior of the building. L. Leuer said this is our first application under the new Urban Commercial zoning ordinance and there are new standards and one of the standards is a site plan review. He said he did not see in the packet all the elements for the site plan review. He said he saw information on both the variance and the conditional use permit but that there is not information that is required by the site plan review ordinance and he is at a loss as to how to proceed. Lenny read the headings on the site plan review ordinance and said there were parts that were not in the packet. He asked Loren what should be done. L. Kohnen said all he could see that was missing was the landscape plan and he had discussed the landscaping with Mr. Day. L. Leuer said there was high visibility from Highway 55 and he did not see any modulation on the building wall. L. Kohnen said that the modulation would be done with the landscaping. E. Weir said she agreed, it was very blank (the building). She wondered if this should be tabled until we received further information. L. Leuer said this was the first time with the new ordinance and the application did not seem complete. J. Day wanted to know what was missing. L. Leuer said that it was spelled out in the new ordinance what was required L. Kohnen said that the site plan review is done at the same time as the conditional use permit. Carolyn Smith, council member, said that the site plan is part of the application. Mary Verbick said that if this went to the city council it would be tabled anyway because of lack of information. L. Kohnen said that in the UC zoning ordinance, there is no modulation requirement. 4 L. Leuer said that is correct, but there are trade-offs and adjustments for the view. Building materials were discussed. C. Smith said that we are in a transition period from the old ordinance to the new ordinance and she apologized for the confusion. L. Leuer said there is a limitation on warehouse space and it looks like this plan does not meet the warehouse space criteria. There was discussion with the Day's on what is needed to complete the application. Dick Picard said it is a good point that there is a series of buildings in the area that similar variances, etc. have been granted. M. Verbick said there is no problem with what we have, it is just not complete. E. Weir said she would renew her motion to table, but leave the public hearing open. L. Leuer said from a legal standpoint, we should ask the applicants if it is o.k. with them to table. J. Day said yes. L. Leuer said we can look at tonight as a sketch review. He said from the variance standpoint, the building next door received a variance for parking, but a berm was required. J. Day said that Loren said they did not need a berm, just landscaping and a few of the landscape units were missing. T. Larson said that ordinance 828.09, our existing performance standards, requires 38 units of landscaping. L. Leuer said the 2nd letter from the city engineer on drainage - add that to your plan and also be more specific on the exterior - it sounds like it meets the standards of the ordinance. E. Weir said that she has a problem with the blank wall on the west, but was o.k. with it after the explanation. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO TABLE THIS APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON JUNE 12, 2001 MOTION PASSED. 5 Tom Supel said it felt it was very important not to make mistakes early in this process of a new ordinance. He would ask that staff include in the planning commission packet a reference to the ordinance (or a copy of the ordinance) and an analysis of the site plan section and if there are trade-offs that we are dealing with. 3. CHARLES CUDD LLC - 5240 COUNTY ROAD 101 - PUD CONCEPT FOR TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT OF 68 UNITS ON 27+ ACRES - PUBLIC HEARING Todd Larson explained the request and put up overheads of the area. He stated this was 27.74 acres with a proposal of 68 townhomes, 34 buildings. The northern part of the property is currently zoned Urban Residential and the southern portion is zoned Multi -Residential. In this concept plan, the property would be rezoned to PUD- Residential. Mike Gair, Charles Cudd, Signature Homes, said he was here to present the application and answer questions. Lenny Leuer clarified that this application was for concept approval. M. Gair, said the applicants intent was 1 - concept approval, 2 - preliminary plat stage, which would be more detailed and 3 - final plat. He pointed out the area in question on an overhead - he put up a 2nd overhead showing the rest of the Bendickson property which is in Plymouth. L. Leuer said that all of the property needs to be sewered and he asked about Plymouth. M. Gair said they are not asking Plymouth for sewer now. When the Elm Creek Interceptor design is done, we will deal with Plymouth then - we are only interested in Medina for sewer and water for this development. Mike put up another overhead showing 2' contours. He said this will help them with their initial design and it also shows the 2 designated wetlands. He talked of the topography of the land and said that Cudd wants to capitalize on the open space on the property. He then put up a colored overhead of the concept plan and said that Kathy O'Connell, the landscape architect helped with the design of the plan, the streetscape. He said that she recommends various species of trees and that a list had been provided to Loren. He said that she likes seasonal color in her plans. Mike showed that the buildings would have side loaded garages so that you will not see garage doors from the street. L. Leuer asked about trails and if the internal trails would be for the homeowners or would they connect to other trails for public use. M. Gair said that the internal trails would be on private open space, for use by the homeowners in the development. 6 T. Larson said that when 101 is reconstructed, there is a trail proposed on the west side of 101. Bob Leistikow, Charles Cudd, said that they had met with Hennepin County today and they (the county) felt it was safer to have the trail on the west side. M. Gair showed on an overhead the new proposed right-of-way for 101. Elizabeth Weir asked about wetlands and the ravine. There was discussion of 101 access and B. Leistikow said that in their meeting with Hennepin County, it was felt where the 101 access is shown is the safest place for it to be. Paul Robinson arrived at 8:22 p.m. There was discussion on utilities, water, sewer, storm, ponding, etc. M. Gair said that the plan is for 34 buildings with 68 homes, with 55% of the site being open space owned by the homeowners. Rick Denman, Charles Cudd, talked of the buildings, the design, etc. He put up an overhead on how a building would look from the street, saying that it will look more like one large home instead of 2 units. He also showed a side view, a back view, etc. He said that about 80% would be 1 level with walkouts or lookouts. He said that there would be a few 2 story buildings. He also showed the floor plans of the units that would have about 2500-2800 finished square feet in the $380-$450,000 range. He said they expect that about 60% of their buyers will be `empty nesters'. L. Leuer asked about height. R. Denman said that they have incorporated the City's height ordinance into their plans. E. Weir asked if the walkouts would need a lot of grading and Mike said no. Tom Supel said he would like to know what is going to happen to the south of this property. B. Leistikow said there is 10 acres to the south, zoned MR and there could be 7-9 units per acres with the present zoning. T. Supel said he realizes that development for the property to the south is farther in the future, but wanted to know if there was any conflict with this concept. E. Weir wanted to know if there had been a thought to berming, etc. on the southern line of the proposed development. 7 M. Gair said that they are providing landscaping along the southern line and when the property to the south develops a solution can be figured out. B. Leistikow stated that land is too expensive to get to the affordability housing. T. Supel said that one of the things he is concerned about is the property to the south and he did not see any screening in the concept plan. Dick Picard asked when Elm Creek would review the plans and Mike said when we submit the preliminary plans. Mary Verbick asked if what we see in the plans for trees, is what will stay. M. Gair said it will be more detailed in the preliminary and final plans. D. Picard asked about the current poplar trees that line the driveway and he was told that they will go. There was further discussion of buffer zones, etc. M. Verbick said she thought that the homeowners association dues should be enough to cover the maintenance of the ponds. L. Leuer had a few questions: How did you arrive at the total density and the NURP pond to the south, he said there is a deep cut on Julius' property for the driveway cut and how will you keep the pond from draining to that and he would like to see what will happen in the Plymouth portion of the property. There was discussion of all the Lenny's concerns. Bob said that Plymouth depends on what happens to the golf course. R. Denman said the original plan was for luxury single family in Plymouth but can't tell you what will happen. L. Leuer continued with his concerns: There is a natural swale to the north that goes to the property to the north - M. Gair said that the engineers will design the system to meet all criteria of the City and the watershed. L. Leuer said how to handle that run-off will be a question. He said his next concern was the `hammerhead' turnaround at the south end of the development. B. Leistikow said that both Loren and Jim had reviewed it and said it would work. 8 Dorothy Anderson, 100 Navajo Road, said isn't it easier to plow a hammerhead than a cul-de-sac? L. Leuer said that is Jim's call. He said his next concern was the property to the south and how to separate the development from this. Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, asked the applicants if they owned the property to the south and if the property to the south developed would the hammerhead continue into this property. M. Gair said that the hammerhead terminates on our development, but the cul-de-sac just to the east might possibly go thru to the south. B. Ciora questioned the `private' trails and also asked what the potential was for Evergreen to go thru. M. Gair said that Bonestroo had done a traffic study of the area and one of their recommendations included the Evergreen connection to our development and that was the best place for a 4-way intersection and the ultimate intent would be for Evergreen to continue into Plymouth. Julius Dorweiler, 5022 County Road 101, wanted a definition of MR zoning. Paul Robinson said 15 units per acre - townhomes and multi -family was higher density, J. Dorweiler talked about drainage and said that approximately'/2 of his drainage goes to that wetland - about 10 acres. He said he has lived here for 67 years and that the pond drains to the south, tile comes out thru a rise inlet pipe , full flow, onto my property. He said that access is close to his driveway. He said that developers he has talked to won't look at developing my property if they have to go thru another development for access. He said he has no problem with the Cudd plan, but he is concerned what the impact will be on his property. He said no one is interested in my property except Cudd. He said he is not opposed to them developing the Bendickson property - he said we need to know about 101 - the county is planning on a retaining wall in my front yard - He said it seems like he has no choice but to get out - he said the city does need to consider my property when dealing with this proposal. There was further discussion of 101 plans, etc. T. Supel wanted it clarified that the internal streets would be public streets and he was told yes, they would be. M. Gair said there are no plans for trails in the southern part of the development - he said when drainage is calculated, all property in the area is considered and that several engineers will be reviewing the plans. 9 P. Robinson said that the existing drainage is all that is required in the concept. There was further discussion of trails, the extension of the 2 dead ends on the south, the maintenance of the ponds, etc. P. Robinson read from the ordinance what is required of concept review and that a report shall be forwarded to the city council. The concerns are: 1. Maintenance of wetlands areas - ponds. 2. Drainage issues 3. Plan for land in Plymouth 4. Buffer to the MR area to the south 5. `Hammerhead' 6. Easements (to the south) 7. Connections to the Dorweiler property 8. Potential pedestrian traffic - public vs private - maybe sidewalks on the roads 9. Potential redesign of 101 10. Crossing 101 to the trail on the west side of 101 J. Dorweiler said that 68 units is a lot to access out to Evergreen and then south. M. Gair again mentioned the traffic study that had been done. B. Ciora said that in prime traffic time there are cars that are waiting to get out of Foxberry. Michael Klotte(?), owner of Elm Creek golf course, said that sewer will go thru his property and there is access to 55 from his property - so developers have to be patient until the sewer comes. T. Supel said he thinks the city council should be re -asked for the Dorweiler property to have access to the east. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO FORWARD THIS CONCEPT APPLICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ALONG WITH THEIR 10 CONCERNS NOTED ABOVE. MOTION PASSED. It was asked that the planning commission be given copies of the traffic study. 4. PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND SECTION 825.07, SUBD. 29 - DEFINITION OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES This item will be heard at the next planning commission meeting. 10 5. PUBLIC HEARING TO ADD SECTION 834 TO THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW ZONING DISTRICT - UPTOWN HAMEL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - UH-PUD Bill Thibault, planning consultant, gave a quick overview on what the discussion had been over that last few months and what had been arrived at. He stated that the new ordinance would include text and illustrations. He said this was a public hearing on the text and the guide plan and also on the re -zoning of the affected properties. He said a council vote of at least 4 was needed for each of them to pass. He went on to highlight the changes that had been made in the text since the last meeting and also on the guide plan and illustrations. The public hearing was opened at 10:19 p.m. Dorothy Anderson, 100 Navajo Road, owner of property in `Uptown Hamel', asked if they should show up at the city council meeting also. Jim Tiller said he was here representing Dorothy and Dino DesLauriers and he wanted to support that their property be included in this zoning district. He stated that in the NE corner of the guide plan it shows a pond and makes it appear that it is entirely on one piece of property and it creates an presumption of where the pond should be (Mr. Tiller was also representing that property owner). Mr. Tiller said he liked the work that had been done on this ordinance, the concept, the 0 setbacks and the look. Dennis Hedtke, 3522 Sioux Drive, said that he liked how the illustration is shown. He wanted to say that the property to the east is 8' lower than his and that there was a tree line at the west edge of the pond, all mature trees. He said you should try and maintain the hill and that the pond was shown where it should be. He said he also liked the concept, where the road is shown and the 0 lot lines. J. Tiller said his response to Dennis: His clients property is lower, but there is no pond there now. He said one solution would be to sell all of the property to one developer. D. Hedtke said he has had his business there for 21 years and there has been no standing water. 11 Shorty Dorweiler, Hamel Bank, said that he appreciates the work that has been done - it has been very easy to come to the meetings and he also likes the 0 lot line. He said a couple of things to look at: 1. storage of vehicles - when you start saying no to motor homes, etc. outside it is a real problem for people; 2. He said he hoped that the planning commission and city council bear in mind there is flexibility and what it could look like isn't something everyone can afford to do. Paul Robinson, said the main reason for the outside storage provision was for the single family homes. S. Dorweiler said there is no concern for the bank, but there are people who live in the Uptown Hamel area that have recreation vehicles and if they cannot park them, it puts a strain on the people. D. Hedtke asked if the outside storage, if ordinance is passed, does it include existing? P. Robinson said it would be a non -conforming issue and if they came in to do anything they would then have to bring it into compliance. B. Thibault said to keep in mind the 0 lot line and also the joint use of parking. S. Dorweiler said speaking from a residential viewpoint and that is where the concern is, a garage takes up more room. L. Leuer said let's go thru the ordinance and see what changes/corrections are needed. CHANGES/CORRECTIONS: Page 11: Letter should be on file from the watershed district saying that ponding would not be required on each lot. Page 13: 1st paragraph to be reworded to merge the intent into one thought. Page 17: line 34, delete inside and substitute `involved' Page 18: line 8 - delete `as'; line 22 - comma after berming; line 23 - comma after appropriate Page 19: line 10 after accept add for review' Page 20: line 25, after providing add `technical' Sheridan Adams, 3482 Sioux Drive, said that this house has a driveway in front of the house and wanted to know if it could stay that way - it is a single family use B. Thibault said yes it can continue. He said there was nothing in this ordinance to require the single family uses do anything unless they change the use. Julius Dorweiler, 5022 County Road 101, said he was glad the talk of color palates went away - he said a city gets involved with zoning but shouldn't get involved in colors, etc. 12 Dorothy Anderson said there is a plan for the water to go down the road and isn't that good enough. D. Hedtke said that the water from the streets come thru his property and under 55 to Elm Creek. P. Robinson said he wanted everyone to know that once the planning commission sends this ordinance to the city council, it doesn't necessarily mean it will get adopted that night - it might and it might not. The public hearing was closed at 11:17 p.m. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE UPTOWN HAMEL ORDINANCE WITH THE CHANGES AS NOTED. MOTION PASSED. 6. PUBLIC HEARING TO RE -ZONE THE AFFECTED PROPERTIES TO THE NEW ZONING DISTRICT TO UH-PUD MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO RECOMMEND THE REZONING OF THE AFFECTED PROPERTIES AS SHOWN ON THE GUIDE PLAN TO UH-PUD. MOTION PASSED. Paul Robinson thanked Bill Thibault for his assistance. Paul also mentioned that we were in the waning moments of Todd's internship and that Todd was starting the next day as a planner for Brooklyn Park. 6. DISCUSSION OF THE RURAL COMMERCIAL HOLDING ZONE Paul Robinson explained. Lenny Leuer said he thought we would go thru the ordinance. P. Robinson said he thought Ron would come up with a very short ordinance and say like `UC' except - - Tom Supel asked if we wanted to delay this conversation until Ron and Paul come up with a shorter ordinance. 13 P. Robinson said the only reason he hates to see this delayed is that there is someone who wants to do a golf course in the area. Elizabeth Weir said lets go thru what we have. COMMENTS: Page 2: Delete #16 - top of page; delete Subd. 10 Page 3: Under Section 8xx.06 - add system must be upgraded if there is change of use, change of owner or if there is a failing system, whichever comes first. Page 10: under (u), 4th line down add, and at the end of that line; under (v), 6th line down, add a comma after 24 feet long Page 12: under (dd), 3rd line from the bottom - / between and or and change cm -out to cut Page 17: delete section (q) P. Robinson said if there is a way to pare this ordinance down, is it o.k. and the planning commission agreed it would be. The public hearing on this ordinance will be at the next planning commission meeting. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY DICK PICARD TO ADJOURN. MOTION PASSED: Meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Planning and Zoning Assistant Date 14