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