HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-10-2001PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 10, 2001
PRESENT: LENNY LEUER, ELIZABETH WEIR, DICK PICARD, SHARON
JOHNSON, JERRY BROST, SUSIE MACKAY, MARY VERBICK AND
TOM SUPEL. ALSO PRESENT: PLANNING AND ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR LOREN KOHNEN, ADMINISTRATOR -CLERK PAUL
ROBINSON, COUNCIL LIAISON CAROLYN SMITH AND PLANNING
AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON.
Chairperson Lenny Leuer called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. He said that there
had been requests to alter the agenda. One request was for the Renier application and
they had another commitment to get to and asked if they could go before the Bennis
application and Mr. Bennis agreed. The second request was to have the lighting
presentation before the public hearings. The planning commission and planning
commotion chair agreed to have the public hearings as scheduled.
1. JAMES AND CHRISS RENIER - 3392 HAMEL ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TOTALING IN EXCESS OF 3000
SQUARE FEET - PUBLIC HEARING
Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission and put up an overhead of
the site, explaining the request.
Chriss Renier said that their letter made no reference to the lean-tos, that they were not
part of this proposal. She stated they were only filling in the square.
Tom Supel asked Chriss her point on the lean-tos
C. Renier asked that the condition listed in the staff memo not be attached to the
conditional use permit, that it is not relevant to what they want to do. She said the
problem with removing them is that they protect and help with the drainage.
T. Supel said it is quite common to attach conditions.
Mary Verbick asked Loren what the objections were to the lean-tos.
L. Kohnen said that it was his understanding when he met with the applicant that they
would be removed.
Jerry Brost said he read it as a trade-off.
L. Kohnen said the square footage would have to be increased by 2400 square feet if
the lean-tos are left.
1
C. Renier said that the one lean-to faces Hamel Road and the other one is on the back.
Both are extensions of the roof and they have planted significant trees on the Hamel
Road side.
Susie Mackay said that she does not want any misunderstanding, that is it o.k. to leave
them.
Lenny Leuer said that when he viewed the site he noticed that the northern `machine
shed' was set up for horses. He asked Chriss the number of horses that they had.
C. Renier said that there would be 10 stalls, so no more than 10 horses.
L. Leuer said the one marked machine shed on the site plan is really a stable and the
one closest to Hamel Road is an inside riding arena. He stated that our ordinance is
very specific about animal structures and how far they have to be from the property line.
He said the one closest to Hamel Road is entirely within the 150' setback area. He said
he has no problem with it being a riding arena, but no stalls. Lenny said he had no
problem with this, with the Reniers living here, but someday there may be someone
else, so he would suggest that one condition be that it states that this is for private use
only and no boarding.
T. Supel said if it is in the ordinance, why do we need to put it in as a condition.
L. Leuer said that this needs to be a clear as conditional use permits go with the land.
J. Brost said say no commercial use.
Elizabeth Weir said we cannot control that and Lenny said yes with a conditional use
permit.
J. Brost asked Chriss if she had any intent for commercial use or boarders.
C. Renier said that when they inherited the property it was being used commercially and
we have reduced the number of horses on site by as much as 85%. She said she may
watch someone's horse for a week or so and her daughters may have friends over who
will leave their horses overnight.
The public hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m.
MOVED BY JERRY BROST AND SECONDED BY ELIZABETH WEIR TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL THE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 3392 HAMEL
ROAD FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO EXCEED THE 3000 SQUARE FOOT
LIMIT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2
1. Recognize that the building closest to Hamel Road is only to be used as a riding
arena and not to be used as a stable
2. A maximum of 10 horses be kept for personal use only with no commercial boarding
3. Manure removal to follow PCA regulations
4. Maximum square footage be 15,000 square feet.
PASSED
2. DISCUSSION OF VARIANCE FACTORS
Lenny Leuer said it felt it was relevant to discuss this before our next item dealing with
a variance request.
Tom Supel said he did not recall Al2 being part of their discussions and does not know
the relevance of this.
Lenny Leuer said there were 2 elements we talked about: 1 - Landscaping in residential
and berming, thus Al2 - the property has been enhanced.
T. Supel said we frequently deal with setbacks - the condition of the land is what we
should focus on.
L. Leuer said that Al2 compliments #3
Mary Verbick said #12 is an opportunity to improve the city.
L. Leuer said the key words to remember are `I want' and this helps counter that.
Elizabeth Weir called attention to the more likely' factors and the `less likely'. She
stated what is listed here is not absolutes.
T. Supel said we need to be very careful in understanding where this document fits in
with the ordinance. He said the city council needs to define very clearly what this is for.
Loren Kohnen said isn't this a guide to help us.
M. Verbick said it is to help the planning commission and guide what factors should be
considered so we don't judge a case completely different than 2 years later.
L. Leuer said policys are not always clear. He said the title of this should be Variance
Factors to be Considered When Applying Ordinance #825.45
MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST THAT THE
VARIANCE FACTORS BE USED AS A WORKING DRAFT WITH CHANGE IN TITLE
AS NOTED.
3
MOTION PASSED.
3. DANIEL BENNIS - 2185 HOLY NAME DRIVE - VARIANCE REQUEST FOR
GARAGE ADDITION - TABLED FROM THE JUNE P.C. MEETING - PUBLIC
HEARING
Loren Kohnen went over his memo stating that Mr. Bennis wishes to pursue as
presented last month. He put up an overhead of the area and explained the side yard
setback variance request.
Daniel Bennis said that he has lost the ability to wear his artificial leg and has been in a
wheelchair for the last six months. He said he has looked into a handicapped van and
the van takes up more room inside the garage. He said all that could be in the garage
is the van and his wife's car would have to be outside and the lawn mower cannot be in
the shed in the back because he cannot get to that. The pool equipment goes in the
shed in the winter. He said that his daughter was born with cerebral palsy and has
been in a wheel chair. She has an electric car to get around the yard and that is in the
garage, so with the van, his wife's car, the electric car, the lawn mower and some stuff
in the driveway that I would like to get inside. He said the pool is great for his daughter
with her cerebral palsy. He said he wants to build another stall on the garage, it could
be a few feet less than what is shown. He said all of his neighbors are o.k. with it.
Sharon Johnson wanted to know how Mr. Bennis arrived at this being the best plan.
D. Bennis said that with all that needs to be in the garage and not being able to use the
back shed and it is no good to put up a pole shed somewhere else and with where the
house and garage are now, this seemed to fit the best.
S. Johnson asked if it was a load bearing wall that would be removed and Mr. Bennis
said no.
L. Kohnen said it is 22' from Lakeview on the north side.
Elizabeth Weir asked if the garage could be a little smaller.
D. Bennis said the handicap van is a full size van and may someday need two
wheelchairs. Could maybe put it back to 12'.
Jerry Brost asked how big the ramp was and what is the minimum variance you could
work with.
D. Bennis said the driveway is already over 14'.
Tom Supel said we just adopted a policy and said he is having difficulty following how it
fits into this discussion.
4
L. Leuer said lets get back to that land to the south, who owns it.
D. Bennis said Bennis Investment Properties, which is my parents, my brothers and
myself.
L. Leuer showed how a lot line re -arrangement could work which would eliminate the
need for a variance.
D. Bennis said it sure looks workable. There was discussion of the replatting,
easements, etc.
Susie Mackay said she would suggest that Mr. Bennis withdraw this application tonight
and staff give him a list of what he needs to follow up on replatting the property.
D. Bennis requested withdrawal of this application.
L. Kohnen said that the replatting would take approximately 3 months.
Dick Picard said Mr. Bennis will get to build his garage so why go thru all this when we
have granted variances in the past in this area.
S. Mackay said we have been lax in the past and are trying to get away from that.
4. STEPHEN SPRAUNGEL - 822 TOWER DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE - PUBLIC HEARING
Loren Kohnen went over his memo and stated that we should discuss having 1-2 street
trees and also the fenestration - modulation of the building. He said city engineer Tom
Kellogg's issues are being handled with the engineers. He said that meetings will be
set up with the applicants engineer and Tom. He put up an overhead of the floor plan,
the landscape plan. He said he agrees with the 2 maples trees and pine/spruce trees.
They will hide the overhead doors. He showed the front of the building and the back of
the building and said that it (the back) is not visible to too many people. He showed
another overhead with the building/parking, etc.
Steve Spraungel showed a colored drawing of the proposed building and said it is kind
of `old time brick' to give a main street feel.
L. Kohnen pointed out where building lighting would be.
S. Spraungel said this is back quite a distance from anybody, they are going for a
historical look.
There were no public comments.
5
Elizabeth Weir said the trees on the west side are shrubs, what about pines to break up
the wall.
S. Spraungel said the landscape plan is generic and they are going for the natural,
prairie type look.
Mary Verbick said it sounds like the applicant is agreeable.
S. Spraungel said they just need some direction,
S. Mackay said she would encourage the applicant to go with natural vegetation.
S. Spraungel said there is already Aspen and Willow creeping up.
L. Kohnen said this is a difficult lot to deal with and that there has been many questions
about it over the years.
Lenny Leuer had the following comments: 1 - Wetlands - supposed to be unimproved
and someone talked about landscaping - how can we do that with our ordinance; 2 -
NURP - on KNR property it runs under Ditter's driveway and I have several concerns
about the drainage; 3 - using up a great deal of the property; 4 - portion of building
being built in the 100 year flood plain - where is the mitigation_
L. Kohnen said they are trying modulation in the rear with the plantings - he can leave it,
but the modulation was such a concern with the planning commission.
L. Leuer asked if the building would be visible from highway 55 - how does it compare to
the Ditter building.
L. Kohnen said this building is lower and does not think it would be visible from the
highway.
L. Leuer said the engineer put quite a memo together.
L. Kohnen said that Tom Kellogg feels it can be taken care of with meetings with the
engineers.
L. Leuer - the 100 year flood plain?
L. Kohnen said they are raising the building up high enough.
S. Spraungel said he met with Ali from the Hennepin Conservation District and he has
to approve the plan.
S. Mackay said the building fills every square foot of the upland - are we setting a
precedant?
6
L. Leuer said we are telling the applicant upfront that there will be no variances.
There was further discussion of NURP ponds, off -site drainage, etc.
Paul Robinson said we do regulate the water velocity and in the engineering standards
it tells when a NURP pond is required.
T. Supel said with this discussion of drainage issues, how can we approve this.
S. Spraungel said Tom's letter addressed a lot if issues - he pointed out one area on the
overhead and said it was not changing.
T. Supel said you are creating a great deal of drainage with your building.
L. Kohnen said the engineering questions must be resolved before going to the city
council.
T. Supel said he appreciates Lenny's comments about not granting any variances.
The public hearing was closed.
L. Leuer asked Loren about the rental space and Loren said each space that could be
leased does not exceed 5000 square feet.
MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TO SEND
THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN THE ENGINEERING CONCERNS ARE
RESOLVED AND WITH LOREN'S THREE CONDITIONS:
1 No outside storage
2. Lighting to be checked by city staff before occupancy
3. All landscaping to be maintained.
MOTION PASSED.
5. LIGHTING PRESENTATION - 8:47 P.M. TO 9:19 P.M.
Carolyn Smith introduced Tine Thevenin from Lake City. Ms. Thevenin gave a
presentation on lighting and how it can be done so that light is not cast on surrounding
properties and is less offensive.
6. CHARLES CUDD COMPANY - 5240 COUNTY ROAD 101 - REZONING OF 27+
ACRES FROM URBAN RESIDENTIAL & MULTI -FAMILY TO RESIDENTIAL
PUD AND SUBDIVISION FOR A 68 UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT -
PUBLIC HEARING
7
Loren Kohnen went over the application and put up an overhead of the site. He
mentioned plantings instead of a berm in the SW corner and also questioned the
number of park dedication fees. He stated that a letter had been received from the
county today and it says that the 101 entrance is wrong - they had okayed what is
shown and now they are saying something different.
There was discussion of the 101 entrance.
Mike Gair, landscape architect representing the Cudd company, introduced the others
present tonight: Mike Waldo, general manager Charles Cudd company and Rick
Denman with Charles Cudd. Mike put up overheads of the site stating that this was a
27 acre parcel and also said that the wetlands would remain to the south. He
mentioned the reason for the location of the 101 access, less glare to the residents to
the west. He said that they would work with the county on the access issue. He then
put up an overhead of the proposed plan and said that it was essentially the same as
the concept plan that they had presented. He pointed out the NURP ponds on the
overhead and stated that the plan was at the watershed for review. He then put up an
overhead of the landscape design and also an overhead of the area to the south
adjacent to 101, showing the landscaping, etc. He stated that all of the sites would be
lookouts or walkouts except for may for 4 sites and they will still have full basements.
Rick Denman, Charles Cudd, says this is what the company does best, luxery move up
homes with attention to the exteriors and streetscape. The units will have side loaded
garages and porches and/or decks will be standard on each unit. He then showed an
overhead of the interior floor plan - each will be between 1700-1750 square feet with
100 square feet finished in the lower level for a total of 250002700 square feet. The
units will be in the $385-425,000.
M. Gair reviewed the staff reports from the city engineer and Loren. He said: 1 - there
was a technical error on their ( Cudd) part to be corrected and 2 - stated that the site will
require lots of fill. He said the fill will come from the NURP ponds, etc. He said in
regards to the county on this: we will work with them. He said they are all excited about
this project - Cudd is a great builder.
The public hearing opened at 9:50 p.m.
Julius Dorweiler, 5022 County Road 101, said this looks like a fantastic development
and is nice to look at from my property. He said he is concerned about the road issue
and full access to my property. It impacts the development of my property. He said he
has had full access for 67 years an all properties should have full access. He sad he
doesn't like where the city is taking action that locks in a certain development of his
property.
Planning commission comments:
8
Tom Supel questioned the drainage from Julius' at the concept stage. Mike Gair put up
an overhead.
J. Dorweiler said as long as they take care of the drainage.
M. Gair explained the drainage. Julius said if you eliminate the drain tile, it will affect my
property. Mike said that they do not adversely affect drainage on someone else's
property. He said that he and Julius would meet with Cudd's civil engineer before the
week is out.
Lenny Leuer asked if the ponds have normal and emergeny outflows. Mike said yes.
There was further discussion of the ponds. Mike discussed the emergency overflow
and if it happened the overflow would be between houses to 101.
J. Dorweiler wanted to know if the elevation of the bottom of the wetland to the cut in the
ROW had been established.
L. Leuer said above.
M. Gair said we cannot destroy a wetland.
L. Leuer wanted to know how we get by without the county blaming the developer and
visa versa.
There was further discussion with Lenny and the developers regarding the drainage -
water from the wetlands - county ROW, etc.
R. Denman said they will be mitigating some wetland on the west - can this not be
addressed then.
L. Leuer wanted to know why the Evergreen intersection was off -set and not lining up.
M. Gair said that they do not have ownership of the property to the north.
L. Leuer asked if the landowner had been approached for an easement and who is
taking the initiative to square up that intersection. He said he is very uncomfortable with
both intersections. He said he did not think it was a good idea not to have a squared up
intersection even if it was temporary. He said his second concern was the 2nd
intersection - if it does not go north, how much will things change. Mike said he did not
know yet.
Paul Robinson said in talking with the county, he pointed out on the overhead the
additional changes that may be required.
9
Carolyn Smith said it is difficult for the planning commission to o.k. this without
questions being answered.
Mike Waldo, Charles Cudd, said we would maybe ask to eliminate the access.
L. Kohnen said this is too big of an impact for the planning commission to recommend
moving this to the city council.
There was further discussion of the accesses.
C. Smith said that this was unfortunate that this discussion did not take place sooner
with the county. The planning commission is in a very awkward position.
L. Kohnen said that staff recommends that you give us a letter to table your application.
He said all questions need to be tied up.
L. Leuer said paramount is the access to 101.
Plymouth resident asked about the driveway to the existing house and Mike Gair
showed him where it would be.
M. Gair then questioned the city engineer's letter - page 1, paragraph 2. He said he did
not think Tom (city engineer) had the time to do this review - he said the cut and fill will
be worked out. The 2nd sentence starting with "The proposed grading - - -, Mike
explained that we overlooked this and will take care of it.. He also said that we do show
the easements that the city engineer was questioning.
Dick Picard said the streets do not look like they are meeting the 30 MPH design.
M. Gair said we are trying to create a neighborhood and one of the things is creating
small avenues and road design is to slow people down. We will provide design speed
information to your city engineer.
L. Kohnen said that we could do the rezoning and table the rest of the application.
P. Robinson said the rezoning should be contingent on executing a developers
agreement.
M. Waldo said to table them both, rezoning and subdivision.
If all information is provided and this is heard at the August 14th planning commission
meeting, it then could go to the city council on August 21 st
Julius Dorweiler asked to be represented at all meetings that are held concerning this
development. The developer will coordinate with Julius about meetings.
10
MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO TABLE
THE CHARLES CUDD APPLICATION FOR REZONING AND SUBDIVISION UNTIL
THE AUGUST 14, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, PER THE
APPLICANTS REQUEST.
MOTION PASSED.
7. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LIGHTING ORDINANCE - 10:45 P.M.
Pat Hunt, lighting consultant, brought samples of fixtures . She stated that the
residential portion of the proposed ordinance had been changed, made simpler, but the
rest is unchanged. She said the term use might be simpler to use than property.
Tom Supel wondered why a use would be treated differently (like a church in a
residential zone).
P. Hunt said a church would be more of an impact, parking, building lights, etc.
T. Supel said if the purpose is to protect me, why would it be different with different
uses.
P. Hunt said there are two issues - looking at the source and light at the property line.
Paul Robinson told the background, that this ordinance started with a problem at the
Holdiay station and then the lighting concern grew into the residential areas.
Carolyn Smith asked how existing violators would be dealt with in the residential areas.
Loren Kohnen asked about Hennepin Parks.
Elizabeth Weir said when we looked at this before we felt that the residential portion of
the ordinance was too heavy. She questioned whether this was a good compromise.
There was discussion on how to make the ordinance easier. The ordinance was gone
thru page by page:
Page 2:
Subd 8 - change 0.1 to 10
Subd. 10 - add - up to 5% of light may shine above the horizontal
Page 3:
Add a definition of Residential Property - that it is the use no matter what zone it
is in.
Page 4:
Subs. 31 - change 6 months to 12 months
Page 5:
11
1st paragraph - add glare
Subd 2 - Change last sentence: Measurements are taken by holding the light
meter at 5'0" above the ground in a vertical position in the direction of the light source.
Page 6:
Subd 1 - add - refer to Section 829.12
Subd 2 - change to the same as Subd. 2, Page 5
Page 7:
Subd 2 b) - change Section 829.06 to Table 2
Page 8:
Delete Table 3 and add to Subd 3 that signs shall be turned off at 10 p.m. or
when the business closes, whichever is later and turned on at 6 a.m. or when the
business opens whichever is later.
Add that lighted signs with a colored background or a light background are not
permitted in Zone E1
Page 9:
Subd 1 g) - add that measurements are taken 5' above the ground in the vertical
position aimed in the direction of the light source
Subd 1 i) - delete Tables 3A or 3B
Subd 3 - delete Tables 3A or 3B and change to Section 829.07, subd. 3
Subd 4 - Change Tables 1A and 1 B to Table 1
Page 11:
Subd 1 e) - change section 829.13 to 829.09
Carolyn Smith said that the City should set a standard
Paul Robinson said it could be done a little at a time because of cost. The public
hearing on this ordinance will be at the August planning commission meeting.
8. MINUTES OF JUNE 12, 2001
Page 2 - y2 way down, L. Kohnen - change not to no;
Page 3 - S. Deters - change: said that is probably wouldn't.
Susie Mackay - add asked the Deters - - -
Page 4 - 2/3 down the page - E. Weir change the to a
Page 5 - Tom Supel delete the s to read - - the ordinance does not
L. Kohnen said access to - - -
1/3 of the way down, Tom Supel - - is a legislative ADA disability - - -
2/3 down - Paul Robinson - change city's to cities
Page 6 - fix spelling of two words in Sharon Johnson's comment
Change out to our in Jerry Brosts' comment
Change it to if in L. Kohnen's 2nd comment
Page 7 - 2/3 of the way down, change Bill to Buck
Page 8 - in motion change changed to changes
Page 9 - 1st paragraph - change ups to up
In L. Leuer's comment add current ordinance - -
Page 11 - Liz Weir comment, change it to if
12
MOVED BY JERRY BROST AND SECONDED BY ELIZABETH WEIR TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED
MOTION PASSED.
MOVED BY MARY VERBICK AND SECONDED BY SHARON JOHNSON TO
ADJOURN.
MOTION PASSED.
Meeting adjourned at 12:37 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Assistant Date
13