Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-11-2002PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 11, 2002 PRESENT: JERRY BROST, RON JOHNSON, RANDY BRINKMAN, ELIZABETH WEIR, LENNY LEUER, BILL LOE, DICK PICARD AND SHARON JOHNSON. MARY VERBICK ARRIVED AT 7:23 P.M. ALSO PRESENT: PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR LOREN KOHNEN, CITY ENGINEER TOM KELLOGG AND PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Elizabeth Weir called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. MICHAEL BITTERMAN - 4175 BROCKTON LANE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR # AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES - PUBLIC HEARING Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission and put up an overhead of the site. Loren stated that the Bitterman's have spent a great deal of time and money on the old barn on their property and the neighbors that he has talked to had no problems with the proposal and like the idea that the Bitterman's are keeping the old barn. Mike `Chopper' Bitterman said that they have lived at this address since 1993 on the old `Hatcher' farm. He also said that he grew up in Medina. He said none of the buildings meet the requirement for an animal barn and they have 2 daughters and both would like a horse. He said they really like the Medina area. Dick Larson said that he is an ex -hockey coach for Orono and Chopper is an ex hockey star and is a great guy. Lenny Leuer said when he sees an application for a horse barn several things come into play: # of horses, no boarding and he would also suggest no living quarters. Lenny said that no paddocks or fences were shown on the plan and wondered where they would be. M. Bitterman pointed out on the overhead where the paddock (right by the barn) and fence would be located. He said it would be a 3 rail split fence with an electric wire on top, 10' from the property line. L. Leuer said the maintaining the fence would be part of the conditional use permit. He also wondered if the ROW had been obtained for Brockton Lane. L. Kohnen said that we do not usually deal with ROW on conditional use permit applications. L. Leuer said that we should recognize the existing barn and also suggest that there be no improvements made to the east side of the existing barn. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 1 Dick Picard asked where the wetland was on the property. M. Bitterman pointed out the low area on the map, which is not near the fenced in area for the horses. D. Picard asked how many grazable acres there were. M. Bitterman said about 3 - 4 acres. The public hearing was closed. MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY RANDY BRINKMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 4175 BROCKTON LANE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No more than 5 accessory building for a total of 5600 square feet. 2. The building overhangs at eaves and gables must be a minimum of 12". 3. Any lighting to be down cast only with the light fixture enclosed on all sides except the bottom with the light source not visible. 4. Manure must be removed from the site every 6 months. 5. Manure pile must be setback a minimum of 100' from any wetland on the site or adjacent to the site. 6. Barn to be for private use only - no boarding 7. Maximum of 4 horses 8. All fencing to be maintained. 9. No living quarters in accessory buildings 10. Paddock to be located a per plan submitted. 11. Improvements on east side of the old barn are discouraged. MOTION PASSED. 3. LOCH DEVELOPMENT - 3600 CHIPPEWA ROAD - WETLAND SET -BACK VARIANCE FOR SEPTIC SYSTEM - PUBLIC HEARING CONT'D FROM MARCH Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission and put up an overhead of the area. Rick Vogelgesang said that they purchased the Covey Run development 2 years ago and then discovered that this lot needed a variance for a septic system because of a wetland that had not been delineated at the time of platting. Ken Powell, Kjolhaug Environmental Services, said that the wetland is an isolated Type 1 that is in question. He said it is marginally a wetland, one that is wet in the spring then dries up. Elizabeth Weir asked about the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 wetlands. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 2 K. Powell said that Type 2 is saturated thru most of the growing season. He said in Type 1 you can see where it is wet in the spring and then dries up. E. Weir asked if soil borings had been done and Steve Schirmers said yes. K. Powell said there is silt loam, fine textured soil. Steve Schirmers said that if in the past good farm practices had been used, there probably would not be a wetland today. Randy Brinkman asked if it would be a mound system. S. Schirmers said yes, there was 1' of mottled soil in the area where they have identified for the mound system. Lenny Leuer said that staff recommended using the designated alternate site for the primary site and visa versa. S. Schirmers said as far as a mound system, that would not be a problem. L. Leuer asked if the sites were protected now and if not, they should be before any construction begins. L. Kohnen said they were not now, but would have to be. S. Schirmers said that the areas have been protected since they have done their testing and will be fenced before any construction. Bob Trojan, potential buyer for the site, said that his purchase is contingent on the variance and as far as switching sites, the mound would not be seen as much in the designated primary site. There was discussion on the two sites. S. Schirmers stated that on the original plan, only the larger wetland was identified. Dick Picard asked about the culvert under the road. L. Leuer said that it goes thru his land and then on to Lake Independence. D. Picard said there was a culvert under Pioneer to Peter Lake. L. Leuer said the water flows either way. S. Schirmers said that between the wetlands is where the driveway is and the water has to flow to the north. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 3 D. Picard asked if there were other options, could a different type of system be put in. S. Schirmers said that this is a new lot and it has to have 2 standard sites to be a buildable lot. There was discussion of different systems, variances, set backs, etc. L. Kohnen stated that the PCA requires a 50' setback from a wetland, the City requires 75'. D. Picard said there must be a reason for experimental systems. L. Kohnen said yes, when no other (standard)system will work. S. Schirmers said that this is a type of wetland that years ago would not have been a problem. He said the DNR does not require a setback. R Brinkman asked how long this Type 1 wetland had been here. S. Schirmers said there are 10" box elder trees there, so the area probably had not been farmed for about 10 years. R. Brinkman said so the water does not run out, it evaporates. K. Powel said yes. There was discussion about Type 1 wetlands. Sharon Johnson said that she is most comfortable with switching the sites, as the designated alternate site requires a lesser variance. Jerry Brost said he concurs with that. Ron Johnson said he does not see a hardship here and doesn't know if he can support this. S. Johnson said the turning point for her was the fact that this wetland had not been identified when the division was done.. MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 3600 CHIPPEWA ROAD, LOT 2, BLK 2, COVEY RUN FOR A SEPTIC SYSTEM WITH THE FOLLOWING HARDSHIP AND CONDITIONS: Hardships: 1. Existing parcel 2. No other option available 3. This was not created by the applicant 4. No noticeable impact to neighboring properties 5. Not identifiable wetland until soil borings were done and the wetland is small in area. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 4 Condition: 1. The designated alternate septic site is to be changed to the primary and visa versa. MOTION PASSED WITH 7 YEAS AND 2 NAYS. Ron Johnson - can see no real hardship for such a large variance Dick Picard - no hardship, plus there is an alternate system that could be used. 4. WALTER G. ANDERSON - 4535 WILLOW DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND SET BACK VARIANCES FOR BUILDING ADDITION - PUBLIC HEARING L. Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission and put up an overhead of the proposal. Loren explained that the letter from Twinco is just an agreement and not an easement. He said he had talked to fire chief Herb Koch and they have no problem with it - he said they can use the parking lot to fight a fire with not having an easement across the Twinco property Loren said he has talked to Dan Ribnick at Twinco and he has no problem with this application. Loren explained the wetland, the filling, etc. for the 55/Willow project. Side Set -Back Variance: Wally Gervais, W.G. Anderson, introduced those present for this application. Greg Michael, Olson General Contractors, said that their plan showed that they met the hardcover requirement and wondered where the city engineer had gotten his figures. Tom Kellogg, city engineer, said that he did it off the plans. W. Gervais said they will work with the city and have it (hardcover) in compliance. L. Kohnen said they should get together and it worked out before the city council meeting the first meeting in July. Sharon Johnson said she had questions on `future addition - Phase II'. W. Gervais said that may or may not happen - he said they wanted to do a complete plan. S. Johnson said that the memo of 5/30 says no more additions, so she is confused. L. Kohnen explained Phase II. S. Johnson asked if there were other options - could the addition go south so no variance would be needed. W. Gervais said it could, but it would not be practical. He said we already have an existing warehouse and we want it to blend together. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 5 S. Johnson said that financial alone is not a reason to grant a variance. Mark Anderson, W.G. Anderson, explained `flow'. W. Gervais said it is also a safety factor - if the addition is moved south, it would make the south aisle in the warehouse much too busy. M. Anderson said that the aisles are 5'-6' wide and only a few people use them. Jerry Brost said from the last meeting he got that you need the addition where proposed to have functional use of the space. M. Anderson said we want to maximize our space. W. Gervais said it works, it is functional and the safety issues are important. S. Johnson said she is just having a hard time corning up with hardships other than monetary. She said she also has a problem with the fire road. She wondered how we could identify and legitimize the hardships. Mary Verbick said she thinks because the setbacks are different than when they originally built is a hardship. S. Johnson said rules are changed all the time. Elizabeth Weir said we might want to take into consideration the size of the variance they are asking for. She said we should take the reasonableness issue into consideration. S. Johnson said the mitigation issue is out of the variance issue. Dick Picard said when he visited the site he drove around the building. G. Michael said they wanted full access without having to turn around. W. Gervais said only a fire truck would use the fire road. All of their trucks would remain on their proeprty. E. Weir said let's go ahead with the variance issue. MOVED BY RANDY BRINKMAN AND SECONDED BY DICK PICARD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE OF 30' WITH THE FOLLOWING HARDSHIPS: 1) Major change in ordinance requirements 2) Small addition - minor variance Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 6 MOTION PASSED WITH 8 YEAS AND 1 NAY. Sharon Johnson said she could not see that the hardship criteria was met. Building Material Variance: W. Gervais said it would look too weird with what is currently on the building to use brick, etc. He said they have proposed to make your ordinance thru landscaping, painting, etc. MOVED BY DICK PICARD AND SECONDED BY SHARON JOHNSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE OF 9.1% OF BUILDING MATERIALS REQUIRED WITH THE FOLLOWING HARDSHIPS: 1) Reasonable to allow similar type of construction and materials as existing building 2) With this being the 1st application under our new ordinance, it may be too restrictive noting the location of the addition 3) The applicant had no control of the changing of the ordinance 4) Granting this variance would not confer any special privileges to any other building owners as each proposal is different in scope, size and location. 5) This could be considered a minor variance 6) This variance will not be detrimental to the purpose of the ordinance of any other properties in this zoning district. MOTION PASSED. CUP Amendment Lenny Leuer said there should be discussion on the mitigation along Highway 55. L. Kohnen put up an overhead of the site. L. Leuer said the overhead shows mitigation along 55, but the plan shows excavation into the 55 ROW He said we have a Highway 55 collation working the 55 plan. He said he is questioning the closeness to 55. G. Michael said the mitigation is not in the ROW. L. Leuer said not mitigation, but excavating. G. Michael said they are modifying the grade and we have talked to a couple of people at MnDOT about future ROW concerns. They stated there are no current plans to obtain additional ROW. Greg said that the state (MnDOT) has granted them a permit for the mitigation. Tom Kellogg went over the letter from Tom O'Keefe from MnDOT. W. Gervais said they have; considered moving it 60' north, then they would have an additional setback and would lose almost an acre of land - could we - yes - but do we want to - no. He reiterated how they have worked with the City on the 55/Willow intersection, etc. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 7 T. Kellogg said that everything that Mr. Gervais has said is true. They have been very receptive to working with the city and this is the best option for the city for mitigation of the wetland for the intersection project. W.G. Anderson has worked with us all the way on this. E. Weir asked if it would be feasible if we mitigated only your wetland - if we go along with MnDOT, is it feasible. There was further discussion on the mitigation M. Verbick asked why the agreement changed. L. Kohnen said that Jim Dillman said we only need 5000 cubic yards. M. Anderson said that he has not had time to discuss this with Jim. S. Johnson said if this goes thru and 55 expands in the future, who is responsible. E. Weir said it would be a state issue. L. Leuer asked if Jim Lane had reviewed this and Loren said he had and has no problem with it. W. Gervais said what if we mitigate this 50-60' farther back. Can we get variance in the future for building or the green space and if we could have a binding agreement for the future. L. Leuer said that staff, council and MnDOT would have to discuss that. L .Kohnen said that they can make a recommendation, but the council makes the decision. M. Anderson said that this plan has been sent to be approved by the watershed, MnDOT, etc. and has taken a long time so far. There was discussion of what has to be done if setback for the mitigation changes. T. Kellogg said if we offset the mitigation by 60' it will save taxpayers money in the future L. Leuer said we are talking 15000 cubic yards - how many vehicle trips is that. W. Gervais said about 1200 truck loads. L. Leuer asked the haul route and what will the action be to keep the dirt off the road. W. Gervais said he does not know how may cubic yards the city will take, and he does not know where what they do not take will go. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 8 L. Leuer said one of his recommendations will be to keep the roads clean - it is a very busy intersection there you are. W. Gervais said it can all be tied in together to save time - intersection work, city work and our work. L. Leuer said on the mitigation side his questions are: What is the dump site; What is the haul route and what about the 55 ROW. L. Kohnen said that staff should work with W.G. Anderson and also mentioned that a letter of credit would be needed for the work to be done. E. Weir asked about the cul de sac on the other property. T. Kellogg said the city will obtain drainage and utility easement over it. D. Picard asked why Anderson should be penalized because of the 55 corridor. It doesn't seem to be their problem. T. Kellogg said W.G. Anderson has due diligence in working with MnDOT M. Verbick said it is unreasonable to expect them to make a major change on their plans when they are working with us. MOVED BY DICK PICARD AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) All requirements of the watersheds 2) All requirements of the city engineer 3) Two additional 8' spruce trees added to the screening of the loading docks in the NW corner of the building 4) Outdoor lighting standards be met. All outdoor lighting, existing and proposed, be down cast only with all sides enclosed except the bottom with the lens recessed and light source not visible. Any light standards or lights mounted on building be no more than 20' above grade. Maximum foot candle of lighting be 0.2 at property line. This to be verified by lighting technician in a report delivered to the City. 5) Parking, driveways and fire road be built to a 9 ton standard and be paved. 6) No parking fire lane signs provided on road on west side of the building, both sides and in other critical areas as required by Fire Marshall and Fire Chief. 7) No outside storage is proposed and none is permitted without CUP amendment. 8) Outside storage of vehicles is limited to 4 and each is not to exceed 12,000 GVW. Additional vehicles exceeding 12,000 GVW may be parked in the loading dock and be completely screened from view. 9) Any roof top equipment must be completely screened. 10) Approval from MnDOT for mitigation permit. 11) Letter of credit provided for site improvements and mitigation. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 9 12) Haul routes, etc. to be worked out with staff. MOTION PASSED. 5. GRAMERCY CORPORATION - 5022 COUNTY ROAD 101 - PLATTING OF 2 LOTS TO 1 LOT AND RE -ZONING FROM MR TO MR PUD - PUBLIC HEARING Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission and put up an overhead. He stated that he had met with Hennepin County, Gramercy and the city engineer regarding the 101 construction and access. He said they are trying to time this so there will always be access from 101 for Gramercy, to limit the use of the Cudd roads. Tom Kellogg, city engineer, said that the county schedule is still up in the air. The county suggests that when the city approves 101 to set some priorities to the staging to mesh with the Gramercy schedule. The county does not plan on starting any earlier than this fall. L. Kohnen pointed out on the overhead where the additional spruce trees should be planted. Elizabeth Weir said that we would deal with the plat first. Lou Stocco, executive vice -resident of Gramercy Corporation, said that the plan has not changed since they had been here before, except that the Dorweiler issue has been resolved with the county. He said they will work with Tom Kellogg and they agree with all of the stated conditions. Bob Leistikow, Charles Cudd, said the pine trees by the garage are fine, but there are other areas that will be affected by lights. There was discussion of traffic, lights, etc. for the Cudd development. Lenny Leuer asked what Cudd had done for plantings, etc. for buffering. B. Leistikow said they will be planting on the sites of the townholnes. L. Leuer said there will be no more water dumped on you - Gramercy will be taking all the water. B. Leistikow asked if they were required to do anymore, we were required to do the berming along 101. L. Leuer said he was hoping the two of you (Lou and Bob) would work together on this and not putting it to us to dictate what should be done. B. Leistikow said we will help pay for additional trees. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 10 Mary Verbick said it seems like the two of you could work this out. L. Stocco said that they have already done a few things and pointed out on the overhead what they have done with the parking lot and trees. E. Weir asked if the 2 of them could work this out and Bob and Lou said yes. Liz asked if there were further questions on the replat. Sharon Johnson asked about the memo from MnDOT. L. Kohnen said that it has been looked at since then. He said when the property to the south develops, then Linden Drive would go thru and until then they will keep their access to 55 (1 access for the 3 homes). L. Leuer asked about the easement on the preliminary plat that does not show on the final plat. It was discussed and Lou said they would get the final plat corrected. MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY RANDY BRINKMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PLATTING OF 1 LOT TO 2 LOTS WITH THE UTILITY EASEMENT BEING CORRECTED ON THE FINAL PLAT. MOTION PASSED. Gramercy - Re -Zoning - MR-PUD MOVED BY JERRY BROST AND SECONDED BY RON JOHNSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING OF 5022 COUNTY ROAD 101 FROM MR TO MR-PUD WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1 All and any conditions of the city engineer 2. Park dedication fees be paid as determined by city council 3. Developers agreement 4. Letter of credit amount to be determined by city engineer 5. 4 - 8" spruce trees on property line north of driveway out of lower level garage to protect townhouses from head lights Discussion - Lenny Leuer asked Lou if he had any questions on Loren's 4 points and Lou said no. Lenny said he saw some small changes on the plans. Lou Stocco said that the underground parking was expanded and pointed out on the overhead what they had done. He also pointed out the `domed' units. L. Leuer asked the height of the berm and why it was lowered. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 11 John , said they had dealt with the county and they wanted a flatter area, so we had to lower our road and widened it for the waer garden to slow the water run-off - it was not 3:1 grade. L. Leuer asked Tom Kellogg about the water run-off from the houses to the south. Tom Kellogg said the developer will provide documentation - he pointed out on the plan where the water will flow - he said the houses will get a lot less water than they presently do. L. Leuer said that the water main is buried in the road - he pointed out the low point (catch basin) - he asked if the elevation was higher or lower than existing for the future road. It was pointed out that the road would not be built until the land to the south is developed. MOTION PASSED. 6. LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES - HAMEL ROAD - SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR RE- ZONING FROM US TO MR PUD - PUBLIC HEARING Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission and put up an overhead of the area. He stated that Joe Raskob had purchased this property about 20 years ago and part of the property had been filled and that had been resolved at Elm Creek Watershed. Loren pointed out on the overhead where the wetland was filled and where it was mitigated by the railroad tracks. John Gleason, Lifestyle Properties, said at first they wanted to build office building here, but feel that townhouses are a good use here. He said this is a different site with the RR tracks. Johns aid he feels they have a good fit here and on the east side where they would like to have their office, the building will be the townhouse design and be able to be redone as a townhouse. The office will have a residential look to it. In the front of the property there will be a berm facing the residential homes across the street. Ron Theis, 3482 Elm Creek Drive, asked if the development would be owned or rental. J. Gleason said they would be for purchase. He said they build for sale. R. Theis said if it fills up with little kids, where do they play? He said it would be more of a problem if they were rental units. J. Gleason said some of the units will be affordable which is $170,000. He said their designs appeal more to singles or couples with the 2 bedroom units. He said the center units are 3 bedroom. John stated that almost the entire back of the property is wetland. R. Theis said his concern is a bunch of kids and no place to play. He said they have kids now playing in their yard and don't want any more. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 12 Al Fero, 3485 Elm Creek Drive, asked John what makes him think his other demographics would be the same here, with singles and couples. J. Gleason said that is just what is happening. A. Fero said he is concerned with traffic coming out of the development - what will screen us from the lights and traffic. He said we are looking at 100 or so vehicles coming and going a couple times a day. Mr. Fero said in the winter the lights from the ballroom light up their house. Elizabeth Weir asked Mr. Fero if screening with trees on your property would help. A. Fero said it's the lights and traffic from the development to the south that also lights up their property. J. Gleason said they could stake where the roads would come out of the development. E. Weir said you could work with the neighbors and staff concerning lights, traffiic, etc. R. Theis said he is still concerned with kids and no park - there is nothing for them to do. J. Gleason said they had talked about a trail heading east to the park in Hamel. L. Kohnen said that a trail will be a requirement. He said that possibly there could be a playground in the NW corner. J. Gleason said that is too close to the RR tracks. He said he would encourage the planning commission to come and see some of their other developments. He said they do not disallow children, but the design is not conducive to kids. E. Weir asked if we could ask Mr.Gleason if he could find an area for a play area on the site. J. Gleason said there is a natural green area in the NW corner. Lenny Leuer asked about the lot to the east. L. Kohnen said that was owned by the city and is very low. L. Leuer asked if the city could have something there. J. Gleason said if they could use their park fee to do something there (city property), they would be agreeable to that. Jerry Dykhoff, 552 Highway 55, asked how many units and if the development would be association maintained. J. Gleason said 45 units, 6 per building and 1 is three and yes there will be an association. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 13 L. Kohnen said that in a PUD there are trade-offs - the city may ask for something, maybe even outside the park fee. Dick Picard asked where their other developments were. J. Gleason said they have some in Monticello, Lino Lakes and Ostego. D. Picard asked about screening on the Hamel Road side. J. Gleason explained and also explained the unit design and materials. L. Leuer asked Loren about this site being filled. He said this parcel is designated as a wetland on our comprehensive plan wetland map. L. Kohnen said that it is his understanding that this has been taken care of, but could check with the watershed again. L. Leuer said how about building on top of the `dump' - he asked Tom Kellogg. Tom Kellogg said speaking generically, if concrete is in the fill, it would have to be removed. L. Leuer asked if soil borings could be done thru the fill. T. Kellogg said we typically ask for soil borings down as far as the utilities go or 3'-4' below them. L. Leuer said he did not see borings done where the fill had been placed. J. Gleason said the borings they have done go down 5' - he said when the borings come back, this site may not be buildable, but before we continue the borings, we want to know how the city feels about this development. L. Leuer said he is concerned with settling L. Kohnen said before any building is done, soil borings have to be done - 30'. Randy Brinkman said it seems like we are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole - we have RR tracks, we have an area that is kind of the gateway to `Hamel', we have traffic going in and out, it is a residential development and there will be kids, possible unstable soils, it is a fill site, there may be contaminated soils. Randy says he sees this site better suited for commercial use. J. Gleason said personally he feels the commercial sites that are there don't do much for the city. He said they are looking at something that is designed for downtown areas and they feel this fits in well here and will have a nice appearance. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 14 There was discussion on commercial vs. residential and what is best for the area. E. Weir said that we do need affordable housing in the city per the Met. Council and this proposal helps address that need. Ron Johnson said he is concerned with changing the zoning. It is zoned commercial for a good reason. He said we should bear in mind safety - children and tracks do not mix. Mary Verbick said that she agrees with Ron and Randy, but would like to see affordable housing as part of our community. R. Brinkman says he likes the proposal, he is just not sure if this is the place. E. Weir said this is attractive to the city, affordable and close to Uptown Hamel. She said she considers this a difficult site. A. Fero wondered if affordable housing would lower their property values. E. Weir said she feels the suggestion to keep the east end commercial is spot zoning. She said she is more comfortable with a PUD and not different zoning. There was discussion of having a PUD vs. spot zoning. Sharon Johnson said that in walking the site she thought this was a good plan for a difficult situation, but after this discussion, she does feel safety is an issue. MOVED BY JERRY BROST AND SECONDED BY SHARON JOHNSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT PLAN TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY FROM UC TO MR-PUD AND PURSUE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT . MOTION PASSED WITH 7 YEAS AND 2 NAYS. Ron Johnson - Safety issue is paramount - RR tracks Randy Brinkman - same plus feels this site is more conducive to commercial. CONCERNS FOR CONCEPT PLAN: 1 - Commercial use to be in the east building only 2. Screening on the west side - Lenny Leuer said also the south side - need screening where the development meets Hamel Road to screen the residential to the south. 3. Develop playground in the NW corner of the site and/or the city lot to the east or somewhere centrally located in the development. 2. Screening on the west side - Lenny Leuer said also the south side - need screening where the development meets Hamel Road to screen the residential to the south. 3. Develop playground in the NW corner of the site and/or the city lot to the east or somewhere centrally located in the development. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 15 4. Need documentation of wetland status for the council meeting, 6/18/02 5. Trail, sidewalk, on Hamel Road side. 6. Building materials and landscaping to be approved by staff. 7. Soil borings done before this comes back to the planning commission, if city council approves the concept plan. 8. Lighting on buildings and streets to be approved. J. Gleason said if they start eliminating buildings then the affordability goes away. 7. RICHARD LARSON - 3167 LAKESHORE AVE. - RE -PLAT 2 LOTS TO 1 LOT AND VARIANCES FOR NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION - PUBLIC HEARING Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission and put up an overhead of the site. He pointed out our lift station and where the city is planning a water garden.. He also stated that a road side drainage and utility easement need only be 5' because all utilities are on the other side of the road. He also pointed out the area for native plantings. Richard Larson said there is a new book out on lakeshore development that has been very helpful. He said this will make a better site. Mr. Larson said that he has lived in Minnetonka Beach for 20+ years. He said his architect, Chris Guerrera, has designed a 1 1/2 story home, with single level living. He said in talking to the different regulatory agencies he met Carolyn Dindorf who is very excited about this lakeshore development. Richard Schultz, 3165 Lakeshore Ave., said that when sewer and water went in he had asked for curb and gutter, so water would stay in the street. The curb was never put in far enough down the hill. He said the water garden planned would solve that part of the problem. Robert Franklin, 2819 Lakeshore Ave., said he has lived in the area for 36+ years and is very supportive of this proposal. He said the Independence Beach was platted around 1925 and it has been a nightmare to do things, variances are needed. He said a 1 1/2 story home is environmentally sound, not one of the new huge homes. He said this will be a good improvement for the neighborhood and the lake. MOVED BY RANDY BRINKMAN AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RE -PLAT OF TWO LOTS TO ONE LOT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) Provide all easements on property lines as required by city engineer 2) Any structures built on the new proposed lot; must be elevated above the 100 year flood plain by 1" for any habitable areas. MOTION PASSED. Variances: Lenny Leuer asked about the footprint of the house. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 16 Chris Guerera, architect, said about 3100 square feet, house and garage, up and down. The footprint alone is about 12-1500 square feet. Elizabeth Weir asked about trees. Richard Larson said all will remain. L. Leuer asked about the city engineer's 3rd comment, filling within the flood plain. L. Kohnen said you can be within 2' for a road. He said he had talked to Tom Hovey at the DNR. There was discussion of fill, the 100 year flood plain. It was decided that it would need to be clarified with the DNR if mitigation is required if there is fill put in the flood plain. Robert Franklin said years ago the outlet control structure was replaced and everyone was told there would be no flooding. MOVED BY RANDY BRINKMAN AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A FRONT YARD SET BACK VARIANCE OF 24.25 FEET. MOVED BY RANDY BRINKMAN AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A LAKE SETBACK VARIANCE OF 37.5 FEET. THE MOTIONS ARE WITH THE FOLLOWING HARDSHIPS AND CONDITIONS: Hardships: 1) Topography - no other practical options 2) Setback from lake will be similar to existing house next door 3) These variances are consistent with others granted in the neighborhood. These variances will not grant the applicant any special privileges that have been denied others. 4) This is the smallest variances needed to address the problem and still build a home and garage. 5) There will be very little impact on adjacent properties Conditions: 1) Approved erosion control measure be used and installed before any site work begins or buildings are removed. 2) Buffer be installed 20'-25' in depth with approved plantings before new home is occupied 3) Any conditions of the DNR 4) Any conditions of Pioneer Creek Watershed 5) Any conditions of city engineer 6) A11 minutes and findings be submitted to the DNR within 10 days after council approval 7) Verify with the DNR on flood plain fill and mitigation in the driveway. MOTIONS PASSED. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 17 8. MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2002 MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED. 9. ADDITIONAL ITEMS. Loren Kohnen updated the planning commission on the upcoming planning commission items. - for July Elizabeth Weir suggested that the planning commission ask the city council to change the fenestration ordinance to include `approved metals' in the IP zoning and only for existing buildings. MOVED BY RANDY BRINKMAN AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO ADJOURN. MOTION PASSED. Meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m. Planning and Zoning Assistant Date Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 18