Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-14-2001PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 14, 2001 PRESENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS RANDY BRINKMAN, JERRY BROST, ELIZABETH WEIR, LENNY LEUER, MARY VERBICK, TOM SUPEL, DICK PICARD AND SHARON JOHNSON. ALSO PRESENT; ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK PAUL ROBINSON, CITY ENGINEER TOM KELLOGG AND PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON. ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONER SUSIE MACKAY Chairperson Lenny Leuer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Lenny introduced and welcomed new planning commissioner Randy Brinkman. 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON ADDING SECTION 829 TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE REGULATION OF LIGHTING WHICH AFFECTS THE NIGHTTIME ENVIRONMENT Paul Robinson gave a brief introduction stating that this ordinance started at the council level quite some time ago. The first talk was regulating the commercial districts especially where light was cast onto residential properties. After looking into it, it was decided to regulated the entire city. Paul then introduced Pat Hunt. Pat Hunt, senior lighting designer with HGA Architects, said that the City had hired her to work on a lighting ordinance with the primary goal of controlling light trespass and pollution. There are two parts to the ordinance; residential and non-residential. Pat said there is basically one page that deals with residential properties, page 5. She stated that lumens is the quantity of light coming out of the light bulb, wattage is the energy going into the light . She said that bulbs that are sold state the lumens on the package. In the residential areas, fixtures that produce more than 5000 lumens must be shielded (down cast). Pat then explained the map showing the different lighting districts. The ordinance states that existing lighting that does not conform to the ordinance would be type C non -conforming. The public hearing was opened at 7:16 p.m. Rebecca Bastiaens, 1585 County Road 24, thanked the commission for addressing the lighting. She said it is good to do this for the energy and she said that our rural area shouldn't be lighted like a suburban area. She felt that it should be more strict for existing lighting. Ken Weir, 1262 Hunter Drive, said that he supports that comment - there should be tighter standards for existing lighting. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2001 1 Rosanne Eppel, 1462 Willow Drive, did not think that existing residential lighting should be exempt to compliance of the ordinance. Lenny Leuer read a written comment from Ted Smith of 2752 Hamel Road: Proposed ordinance states that for residential lights that don't comply - must be changed when even a bulding permit is issued. Please let's be definite with a time limit for change - example - 2 years. Elizabeth Weir said how about when property changes hands, to then have them come into compliance. Tom Supel asked how big a deal is the 5000 lumens for the homeowners to have to fix if they do not comply. P. Hunt said a new yard light is about $200-$250. To add a shield maybe in the $25- $50 range. A rural resident may have more than one yard light, but not usually. The big yard lights are usually owned by the utility company with a monthly charge to the resident. Paul Robinson said we could ask the utilities what they have in the city. Jerry Brost asked what percent of the yard lights were connected to the power company. P. Hunt said that rural property that stands alone, usually about 90%. J. Brost said he is hearing from the public not to grandfather any existing lighting in. Mary Verbick said she is concerned with new buildings/ new owners adjacent to existing Farm/resident that has non compliant lights - what happens when neighbors cannot work together. E. Weir said a time limit - how would it work. J. Brost said the most troublesome is farm lights and if they are mostly owned by the electric company, they (the utility company) would have to do it. Randy Brinkman asked about the lumens. P. Hunt said those over 5000 lumens would have to be shielded. R. Brinkman asked how they are shielded. P. Hunt said when they are shielded no more than 5% of the lumens can be above the horizontal line of the fixture.. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2001 2 R. Brinkman asked if they can be designed so that it still allows them to light up the yard. P. Hunt said there are two issues: 1 - light you can measure - foot candles and 2 - visual, seeing the light - lumens (shielding helps this). A consensus was taken of the commission to see how they felt about existing lighting: Jerry - he said it should be two steps; 1 - any building permit would trigger compliance and 2 - grandfathering existing and giving them 2 years to comply Mary - commercial is essential - this is a marvelous opportunity or why are we addressing it Sharon - critical how we present his - we should encourage voluntary compliance A straw vote was taken on residential compliance with a two year time frame: Sharon - yes; Dick - yes; Tom - maybe 3-4 years; Mary - yes, Lenny abstain; Liz - yes; Jerry - yes; Randy - with building permit, yes, shorter time limit with others Steve Jacobson, 2482 Bobolink Road, said instead having to comply all lighting with permits, , have it be any new building must comply and all the others have a time limit. He said he is happy to hear the city is considering restrictions. He commented that he did not think Medina Morningside should be in E3, it is more likely E2 zone. He is concerned with the 10 acre parcel to the east of Willow that a church owns He asked if there were elevation limits on light poles and if there is any regulation for lights on steeples and wondered if Medina Morningside being in the E3 zone would allow the church to be lighter. P. Robinson said that the church would be regulated under the E1 zone with commercial regulations, curfews for the lights, etc. P. Hunt said the height limitation including base is 32 1/2 feet. She said that more light is broadcast with shorter poles, than higher poles with shielded lights. There was further discussion of pole height. P. Robinson said maybe we should consider looking separately at residential and commercial for existing lighting being brought into compliance. L. Leuer wanted to know if the planning commission was to forward this onto the city council with the enhancements and changes noted, or if the ordinance should come back to the planning commission. P. Robinson said it was your choice. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2001 3 Page by page thru the ordinance: Page 1: Dick Picard said we should keep in mind the second sentence on what the intent of this ordinance is; Page 5: 2nd line, 1st paragraph, change 829.02, subd. 31 to 829.02, subd. 33; Page 6: In Notes to Table 1 - ttil should be moved to a different location and also say commercial to residential; There was discussion of dense neighborhoods and which zone they should be in, E2 or E3. Jack Clifford, 2825 Cabaline Trail, said he is concerned about the `Holasek' property - he said he sees no logic for the part of the property that is south of the MUSA to be in the E2 zone. He said he would ask that the southern boundary of E2 should match the property to the west or at least conform to the MUSA boundary. P. Robinson said that the bottom part of the property is in a wetland so it is a moot point. The public hearing was closed at 8:22 p.m. Discussion: Tom Supel wanted the time limit clarified, that the current draft said nothing about non- conforming non-residential complying, he suggested adding that non-residential should also have the two year time limit to come into compliance. Discussion regarding non-residential and maybe the sunset should be 5 years for compliance. P. Hunt said that she wanted the commission aware that it would be a significant impact on the commercial properties by requiring upgrades, signs, etc maybe would have to be changed. M. Verbick said we can control light trespass and that is what we need. She said the city council could give businesses a longer time if it is a hardship to do it in the required time frame. E. Weir said she fears that we could force businesses out - she is concerned with the amendment. L. Leuer said that without hearing from the commercial area, it is hard to deal with it. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2001 4 T. Supel withdrew his amendment. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY RANDY BRINKMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ADDING SECTION 829 TO THE CITY CODE WITH THE CHANGES OUTLINED ABOVE, PLUS ADDING A TIME LIMIT OF TWO YEARS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, PLUS BUILDING PERMITS TRIGGERING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND THAT STAFF MEMO SHOULD REFLECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERN WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL NON-COMPLIANCE. MOTION PASSED WITH LENNY LEUER OPPOSED. Lenny entered into the record a written statement on why he opposed this ordinance. 2. KEVIN MOXNESS - 4622 PINE STREET - COMBINE/DIVIDE - REPLAT OF 5 LOTS TO 2 LOTS - PUBLIC HEARING Sandie Larson went over Loren's memo to the planning commission and city engineer Tom Kellogg put up an overhead of the site. Sharon Herman, 4580 Pine Street, said that she is pleased with new housing going in and she wondered if there was any information on where the houses would be placed on the lots and how big they would be. Erwin Moxness said that they were not sure where the houses would be, but they would both be two story, with one being about 2000 square feet and the one on the west side perhaps a little larger and both with double garages. S. Herman said she liked the look of garages not being out in front, but away from the street. E. Moxness said they had been looking at designs like the house to the east. S. Herman said this would be very nice. E. Moxness said he would live in one house and his son in the second. Elizabeth Weir said she could not find a well head. E. Moxness said that they have not found a well, that the house is currently on city sewer and water. Lenny Leuer said a lot of times in older homes they are under a stoop. He also asked if the right-of-way had been obtained for Pine Street and Tom Kellogg said the plat shows that it has been. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2001 5 The public hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m. L. Leuer asked about the embankment in the back and if there would be any filling. E. Moxness said there may be some in the back. L. Leuer asked Tom Kellogg if a drainage easement would be needed in the back and Tom said there was nothing indicated that it would be necessary. E. Weir asked if all the debris would be cleaned up and Mr. Moxness said yes. MOVED BY JERRY BROST AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR KEVIN MOXNESS AT 4622 PINE STREET - 5 LOTS TO 2 LOTS. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. House and garage removed before plat is filed with Hennepin County. 2. If any wells exist on the property, they must be properly abandoned 3. One sewer and water service must be paid before any building permits are issued. MOTION PASSED. 3. GLEN LINCOLN PROPERTIES - 780-790 TOWER DRIVE - VARIANCE FOR PARKING SETBACK AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE - CONTINUED FROM MAY 8, 2001 - PUBLIC HEARING Sandie Larson went over Loren's memo to the planning commission and Tom Kellogg put up an overhead of the site. There were no public comments. Jerry Brost asked about the berming issue on Tower Drive Lenny Leuer said there are several berms there now on tower Drive - when variances were given for their parking, the berms were required. He said he felt that it should be the same for this application. Jack Day said that Loren said landscaping could be used instead of a berm. L. Leuer said his comment stands, there should be a berm. Tom Supel asked Jack to explain the number of trees. J. Day said 1/2 of the landscaping in trees is way too many trees. He said he felt 8-10 trees would be enough with the rest in shrubs. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2001 6 Paul Robinson said Loren's feeling is less trees would work with shrubs for the rest. Elizabeth Weir said the 8' arborvitae would break up the north wall facing Highway 55. Tom Kellogg said that Loren's intent was that between the railroad tracks and the building full size trees would not work because the railroad will trim them when they bush out over the tracks. The arborvitae will grow tall and not bush out. E. Weir said that was an acceptable exchange. T. Kellogg said the 60/40 hardcover was right on, the corners of the parking lot have been nipped, so there is less hardcover than the previous plan. J. Day said he still did not see why so many trees were required. Carolyn Smith said because you are building such a big building. J. Day explained the exterior building materials and where they would be. P. Robinson said that the `brick' is more of a decorative block. He said that was o.k. in the UC zone, but probably would not work in the BP. He said he wanted the commission to be aware that the same language was in both the UC and BP zoning ordinances for building material. There was considerable discussion on the exterior building material. Randy Brinkman said that painted block on the sides, especially the west, are very hard to keep painted. He said the painted block was hard for him to swallow. J. Day said they were trying to blend in with the other buildings in the neighborhood, some of which are 20+ years old. He said he could use the rock face block instead of the smooth on the sides. P. Robinson said that in drafting the UC ordinance we wanted to give more slack than in the BP and these materials are an upgrade of what is on the existing buildings. The consensus of the commission was not to use the smooth block on the sides, but use the rock face, but they should be dyed and not painted. L. Leuer asked about modulation on the north wall and could more brick be used there. T. Kellogg put up an overhead and pointed out what Lenny was talking about and also that in Loren's memo he talked about having the brick go up over the doors or windows on the front of the building. J. Day said it would add to the cost of the building. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2001 7 E. Weir asked if we were accepting the `concrete brick'. There was discussion of the concrete brick, the painted smooth block and the painted rock face block. Straw votes were taken: Using the concrete brick with painted break off block: 2 abstain, 2 o.k. and 4 no's. Using the concrete brick with professionally colored break -off block: 7 o.k. and 1 abstain. The public hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m. L. Leuer said let's deal with the variance request. J. Brost said the lot shape is a fudge factor. E. Weir said this is a good use of a difficult lot. L. Leuer said the exchange is that they berm to be consistent with others in the neighborhood. T. Supel said that this is a minor variance so he could defend granting it. L. Leuer went thru the variance factors in favor of granting a variance; this is consistent with other is the area; irregular lot size and shape; lack of options; smallest variance needed; lot size/shape not caused by the applicant; minimal impact on the neighbors; and berming. J. Day asked if there could be hedges instead of a berm and Lenny said not as far as he is concerned. T. Kellogg put up an overhead and pointed out where the berms would be. E. Weir said it would not be a very big berm. J. Day said the building to the east does not have a berm and Lenny said the majority of the buildings in the area do. Jack then agreed to the berm. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY SHARON JOHNSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A 9' FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE PARKING TO BE 16' FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THERE BE A BERM IN FRONT. STATED HARDSHIPS: LOT SIZE AND SHAPE, MINIMUM LOT DEPTH AND THIS IS CONSIDERED A MINOR VARIANCE. MOTION PASSED. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2001 8 MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY RANDY BRINKMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 780-790 TOWER DRIVE FOR AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE/MANUFACTURING WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Brick and dyed rock face for exterior building materials. 2. Brick on the front of the building to be positioned and installed to break the long, flat appearance. 3. 4 - 2 1/2" boulevard trees be provided 4. The 3 ash trees in the back to be replaced with 8' arborvitae 5. All engineering recommendations to be met. 6. Any roof top equipment to be screened. 7. All tenants for anything other than office/warehousing/manufacturing require an administrative conditional use permit. MOTION PASSED. 4. CHARLES CUDD - 5240 COUNTY ROAD 101 - REZONING AND SUBDIVISION OF 27+ ACRES - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 12, 2001 MEETING PUBLIC HEARING Sandie Larson went thru Loren's memo to the planning commission and stated that the one big concern was the entrance to County Road 101. Tom Kellogg put up an overhead of the site and said there had been a meeting with the City, Hennepin County and the applicants and the plan shows the compromise that was arrived at. The entrance has been moved to the north. He then read from the county's memo. Tom said he thought the issue was not resolved, the plan shows Linden Drive only 60' from the 101 entrance which would only allow the stacking of 3 cars. He also said that the Dorweiler property to the south, when developed, will only have a right in - right out entrance, so there will be traffic from there coming thru the Cudd development which will add to the stacking problem. Jerry Brost asked if one ways had been looked at. T. Kellogg said that with this size development, it would be a problem. Tom Supel asked about the interior intersections, that they were not squared up. T. Kellogg said that it was better the way they were shown, because it would be a bigger problem squared up with having only 60' from 101. Tom said that Evergreen will be full width all the way back. Mike Gair introduced those here for the applicant: Rick Denman, Bob Leistikow, civil engineer Dave Nash and himself, all from Charles Cudd. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2001 9 M. Gair said that at the July meeting there were concerns about Evergreen Road and the other intersections, including the Dorweiler entrance. He said all the concerns have been taken care of - the property owner to the north has dedicated right-of-way for the Evergreen intersection so it can be squared up and it will be a full movement intersection. He said the number of units remain unchanged. Randy Brinkman questioned the stacking issue. Rick Denman said it is a better than the original plan. Dave Nash said that cars will stack and others will let cars in. There was discussion on the stacking, entrances, etc. It was mentioned that a traffic study had been done. Sharon Johnson said it will be tough on traffic going south on 101. R. Denman said it will be nicer now that there are two exits. Tom Supel asked if the Dorweiler right in -right out was temporary and would it change when the property developed. Paul Robinson said it is full access now and when the property develops it will change to a right in -right out entrance. Lenny Leuer questioned the driveway for the house to the north and where it would enter Evergreen. He said on the plan it looks like it is too close to 101. Bob Leistikow said that with their conversation with the property owner, they are going to develop their property and then they will be putting a road into their property. L. Leuer asked about the retaining walls that are now shown on the plan. B. Leistikow said they are driven by the design of 101. L. Leuer wanted to know how tall they were. D. Nash said 4' or so. T. Kellogg said they are babies compared to Holiday's retaining wall. L. Leuer asked Tom if he knew why Holiday's had failed.. T. Kellogg said he heard it was service trench settlement. Carolyn Smith said it was put up wrong, engineered wrong. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2001 10 L. Leuer said he understood it to be related to ground water flow and the ground water pushed it out. What about if the bottom of the wetlands (on the Cudd property) breaks and the water flows out. D. Nash said that by putting the utilities around the wetland will help keep that from happening. He said the 101 cut is lower than the utilities so it will be bermed. The watershed and the corps of engineers will all see the plans and have to approve them. He said there will also be a mitigation plan. P. Robinson said that the Elm Creek Interceptor might go right along 101. T. Kellogg said that if the retaining wall is over 4', we require signed engineered plans. L. Leuer said we should address the engineer's concern of earth balance. T. Kellogg said in his 2nd response, he has taken this memo to a higher level and addressed items that normally would be taken care of at the time of the final plat. D. Nash said that they are very close to an earth balance. T. Kellogg said he is not too concerned. L. Leuer said another issue is sewer capacity and we need phasing. P. Robinson said that he had talked to Bob about this and if they do a few homes this year, 35 in 2002 and the rest in 2003. B. Leistikow said he had discussed this with Paul and they agree to 1/2 of the units each year. He said they may want to do a model home yet this year. T. Kellogg said there is 1 basement that needs adjusting and D. Nash said they would take care of it. REZONING: MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING OF THE CUDD PROPERTY AT 5240 COUNTY ROAD 101 FROM MR AND UR TO PUD. MOTION PASSED. SUBDIVISION: MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AT 5240 COUNTY ROAD 101 Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2001 11 INTO 68 LOTS FOR 68 TOWNHOMES(34 BUILDINGS) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. All requirements of city engineer to be met. 2. Street lighting to be approved by the City. 3. Approval by the City for planting or wall in place of berm at the SW portion of the plat adjacent to County Road 101 where the area is limited. 4. No building permits until the Public Works department approves the streets and 1st lift of blacktop is provided (applicant says they will pave the Linden loop and do homes in that area and applicant will ask for permission to do a model home) 5. 68 park dedication fee's to be paid. 6. Proper permits be obtained for filling the wetlands. 7. Proper road easements be provided for Evergreen Road or right-of-way 8. Black Hills spruce be provided to the property owner to the north at the direction of that property owner - the number of trees will be worked out between the property owner and the developer 9. Placement of driveway off of Evergreen for the property to the north to be worked out with the Public Works director. 10. Developer to provide phasing information to the city council and to be part of the developer's agreement. 11. Evergreen Road paved to the east property line in the center of the road right-of- way. MOTION PASSED MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO ADJOURN. MOTION PASSED. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2001 12