Loading...
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