HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-14-1999PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
PRESENT: LENNY LEUER, KATHY COOK, JERRY BROST, CAROLYN SMITH,
FRANK MIGNONE AND SUSIE MACKAY. ALSO PRESENT: CITY
CLERK PAUL ROBINSON, MAYOR JOHN FERRIS AND PLANNING
AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON.
ABSENT: ELIZABETH WEIR AND BRUCE WORKMAN
Chairperson Lenny Leuer called the meeting to order at 6:13 p.m.
Lenny explained that the meeting would begin with the comprehensive plan discussion.
He explained that Paul had put together the information and would go over the 12 items
outlined in the memo from Paul.
#1. Uptown Hamel Area:
Paul Robinson stated that at the public hearing, there were residents there from the 6
homes to the west of St. Anne's Church who requested to be part of the "Uptown
Hamel" area so they would have the flexibility to develop their properties commercially
or residentially. The residents submitted a letter from all 6 residents asking to be guided
as UC1 (attached).
Lenny Leuer said he suggests that conditional use permits are used for commercial
development in this area, so there is some control.
Jerry Brost agreed - traffic could be a problem with a commercial use next to residential
use.
Carolyn Smith said for the record, it is currently zoned commercial (the six homes).
P. Robinson said yes and being in the "Uptown Hamel" zone it would allow the homes
to remain residential and not be non -conforming as they are now.
L. Leuer read the letter from the residents.
MOVED BY FRANK MIGNONE AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO
RECOMMEND THAT THE SIX HOMES WEST OF ST. ANNE'S CHURCH BE
INCLUDED IN THE "UPTOWN HAMEL" ZONING DISTRICT.
MOTION PASSED.
#2. Property south of Foxberry Farms - change from Urban Commercial to Urban
Commercial 1.
1
P. Robinson went over the discussion from the public hearing. He said there were
residents who did not feel there was enough of a buffer between the commercial and
residential areas. He said that the Foxberry residents had asked that this parcel be
guided and zoned UC1 and also had asked for a moratorium be placed on commercial
development until the comprehensive plan was approved. He said that the city attorney
had not rendered an opinion on the moratorium yet. Paul said he recommends looking
at this issue without considering the legal ramifications regarding the current
development proposal at the council level.
Kathy Cook said she felt that if this parcel were zoned UC1, than all commercial
property that abuts residential should be UC1.
There was discussion of UC - UC1 and areas in the city that would be affected.
Problems were discussed that occur with residential - commercial zoning.
J. Brost asked if UC1 zoning had the flexibility to allow UC
P. Robinson said from what we have talked about for UC1 is a larger campus style
development on larger lots, etc.
C. Smith said that they talked about UC1 having increased setbacks and even with
wetlands have talked about larger setbacks - lighting - architectural styling, signage,
noise, etc. besides the larger lots.
J. Brost asked if the berming should be completely the responsibility of the commercial
developer.
C. Smith said that they have talked about when the two zones come together that it is
not fair that everything be put on the commercial developer, that when a residential
developer comes in and the residential property abuts commercial, that larger setbacks
be required and that the residential developer does berming, etc.
There was further discussion of UC1.
Neal Blanchett, representing Rolling Green Business Park, gave the highlights of the
letter that had been presented to the planning commission and city from Linda Fisher.
He said that they are proposing that the zoning be UC1 in the northern portion and
Outlot B of the subject property with the parcel where the building is proposed remain
UC - he said that this proposal had been reconfigured with additional evergreens, etc.
larger and longer buffer, etc. so that the loading docks will not be as visible. He said
that the parcel with the proposed building is 800'+ from the residential zoning.
K. Cook asked if there was any advantage to the developer to keeping the zoning UC.
N. Blanchett said that UC1 had not been formulated yet, but UC allows more flexibility.
2
Kristin Johnson, 905 Foxberry Farms Road, said that in July the residents has asked for
this (zoning) and the developer said it was not possible, but when push comes to shove,
it is interesting that it is now feasible. She said that 800' is not that significant - we still
would be staring at it. She said that visibility is not the only issue, there is the trucks, the
noise, the traffic, etc. She said that tonight the planning commission should be looking
at this parcel as if the applicant was not here. As residents we say what the developer
is proposing does not make sense. She said the planning commission should be
considering this the same way as they did in July - consider the property and not the
proposal. She also talked about what other communities have done with commercial
and residential zoning that abut each other. She said think about what makes sense.
Marc Anderson, representing Lundgren Brothers, said that his 1st reaction to the letter
in response to the applicant and not the issue tonight (the comp plan) is that we should
be looking at the impact of commercial property next to residential property.
Susie Mackay wanted to know if we had received any information from the city attorney.
P. Robinson said because of where the application is at (council level), it is better to
have the planning commission make a recommendation to the city council on the basis
of planning issues - make whatever recommendation and have the council make further
decisions.
John Ferris, Mayor, said we are going to listen to the people who live here - do
whatever you think is best for the city and consider the feelings of the residents.
Poll of planning commission: all agreed that the 40 acre parcel be UC1.
C. Smith said she is concerned with other commercial properties bordering residential
properties (that have not been developed). UC1 is like a PUD - more flexibility
depending on size of parcel - seems the cleanest way to do it - commercial areas that
are not developed, make them UC1 if it abuts residential.
L. Leuer why not add to present UC to deal with properties that abut residential.
6:50 p.m. - Commissioner Kathy Cook left the meeting.
There was further discussion on what the UC1 zone could include.
MOVED BY FRANK MIGNONE AND SECONDED BY CAROLYN SMITH TO
RECOMMEND THE 40 ACRE PARCEL SOUTH OF FOXBERRY FARMS BE GUIDED
FOR UC1 ZONING.
MOTION PASSED.
There was discussion on a moratorium for commercial development.
3
K. Johnson said the point of a moratorium is so things do not get approved that do not
fit into the vision and controls that are being considered.
There was discussion on the comprehensive plan and zoning and how soon it has to be
rezoned, etc.
Bill Cavanaugh did not think a moratorium should be placed on all of the commercial
property, if it would affect his property.
MOVED BY CAROLYN SMITH AND SECONDED BY SUSIE MACKAY TO
RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT NO LAND USE DECISIONS BE MADE
ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT ABUT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY UNTIL
ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN WRITTEN FOR THE ZONES THAT ARE BEING
CONSIDERED.
MOTION PASSED.
#6. Property owned by Elizabeth Sedgwick and Kenneth Bechler along Arrowhead
Drive north of Highway 55:
Elizabeth Sedgwick said she did not understand why one of their parcels would be rural
residential and one commercial. The wetlands on the property would make the northern
parcel unbuildable. She said she does not know what they would like it to be,
residential or commercial, but would like them the same, said they would wait and see
what Mr. Cavanaugh had to say.
Three out of the four neighbors that are to the north of the Bechler property said they
would like to see the Bechler property be residential.
#5. Request to extend sewer along Shawnee Woods Road:
Jeff Pederson, 710 Shawnee Woods Road, said they would like to see the property on
this road zoned Suburban Residential and would like to see a feasibility study done on
the cost to have sewer for their area. He said this would make a lot of sense, as there
had been septic problems in the area.
P. Robinson said that staff is not prepared to say what the implications would be if this
area were zoned for higher density.
F. Miqnone said this area could be added to the `watch' area.
J. Pederson said that all of the residents on Shawnee Woods road would like sewer.
He said they would like this to be put into the comprehensive plan. Based on the cost
per lot, we would like smaller lots or otherwise we could not afford it.
C. Smith said it is important for this area to be a `watch' area, but not for smaller lots.
4
J. Pederson asked the planning commission what they would recommend.
P. Robinson said you have to plead your case to the city council for smaller lots.
C. Smith said she thought that at the last meeting, the request had just been for sewer
for this area.
MOVED BY SUSIE MACKAY AND SECONDED BY CAROLYN SMITH TO
RECOMMEND TO PUT SHAWNEE WOODS ROAD IN THE WATCH AREA.
MOTION PASSED.
7:45 P.M. - REGUALR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS:
1. JEAN DIDIER - 2992 ARDMORE AVE. - VARIANCES FOR REBUILDING A
HOME
Commissioner Carolyn Smith removed herself from this item due to potential interest in
the property.
Sandie Larson went over Loren's memo to the planning commission and put up an
overhead of the area, explaining the setbacks and what was requested.
Jean Didier said that there had been a fire at the home and she has moved to
Wisconsin and wished to get rid of the property. The potential buyer is requesting the
variances noted to rebuild the home.
Sharon Herman, 4580 Pine Street, asked about the dimensions of the house.
J. Didier said about 50 x 28.
Richard Inselmann, 2985 Ardmore Ave., asked about the height and J, Didier said 2
story.
Lenny Leuer said that he had real reservations because there was incomplete
information. He asked if the house would be built on the existing foundation and J.
Didier said yes. Lenny said we need to see that the foundation meets current
ordinances. He said if something is 50% or more destroyed, everything must meet
ordinances. He said he also has reservations when a variance request is over'/2 of
what is required. He said no side setbacks are requested and he felt they should be
starting with a clean slate - He also said he cannot justify meeting up with the current
garage, but he also said he did not feel this could be acted on without all the proper
information - size and height of structure, condition of foundation, etc. He felt that the
applicant should request that this be tabled.
5
Frank Mignone said he agreed with starting with a clean slate - could reconfigure the
placement of the house which might be advantageous to the new owner.
There was further discussionof the foundation, frost footings.
I. Leuer said we should look at a structural engineers report on the foundation. If we act
on this tonight we might deny it, otherwise it could be tabled.
J. Didier said they had brought all the information that had been required of them.
MOVED BY JERRY BROST AND SECONDED BY FRANK MIGNONE TO TABLE THE
APPLICATION OF JEAN DIDIER UNTIL THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS
RECEIVED AND ITEMS TAKEN CARE OF:
1. Details of the existing footings - do they meet state building code
2. Information on proposed house - height, etc
3. If footings do not meet code - reconfigure the house to a 15' front setback
4. If existing foundation is used, there will be no future additions to the house
allowed
5. Lot of debris on lot, scrap iron, etc. needs to be cleaned up
6. Dirt pile at end of Ardmore needs to be taken care of
7. See plans for existing garage - there is a question whether 50% of it is usable
8. See plans for existing shed - looks run down
S. Herman said that since the owners had relocated, couldn't the city purchase the
property.
John Ferris said that the city is not in the land business - it is everyone's money we are
dealing with.
S. Herman said she suggests that it be added to the wetlands in the area.
J. Didier said the property has a very nice backyard, why would you want it a wetland.
MOTION PASSED.
2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 1999
Susie Mackay was inadvertently listed with those that were absent.
MOVED BY CAROLYN SMITH AND SECONDED BY FRANK MIGNONE TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED WITH DELETING SUSIE FROM THOSE
LISTED AT ABSENT.
MOTION PASSED.
6
MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1999
Page 2 - top of page in L. Leuer's comment change -- this this is - - to: - - that the
interceptor is - - ; in Tom Manning's comment, change five to give - in S. Mackay's
comment at bottom of page, change of the residential to - -- of being residential - - -
Page 3 - 2nd paragraph - commissioners considering to - - commissioners consider - - ;
change We are happy - - to - - She said they are happy - - -
Page 4 - L. Leuer's last comment on page - delete last word - more and change to: - -
subdivide into smaller lots and not larger. In J. Ferris comment add - -excessive road
speed - - - and in last paragraph add; asked Loren Kohnen about the amount of land
required for septic systems - - -
Page 5 - L. Leuer's 1st comment change NE to NW - 2nd paragraph - change - - to him
that is-- to him that it - -
Page 8 - 2nd paragraph - L. Leuer's comment - add would like to go to the Met - - -; 3rd
paragraph - and with Medina change to which Medina - -
Page 9 - add after Anderson comment: C. Smith said if trails are prepared by the
developer, the city should complete them in a required time limit.
Page 10 - In P. Robinson comment change the word to, to send and in B. Cavanaugh
comment ; delete "what is now residential" and change he would like it left residential - -
Add to list of concerns: #13 - Straightening of Co. Rd. 19 by Sycamore Trail.
MOVED BY FRANK MIGNONE AND SECONDED BY SUSIE MACKAY TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
MOTION PASSED.
Back to Comprehensive Plan discussion:
#12 - Cavanaugh parcels:
P. Robinson went over the Cavanaugh request - what is has been guided - what it is
zoned - what the draft plan says and what the owners are requesting. The
Cavanaugh's are requesting that the northern portions of their property, on both sides of
Arrowhead be guided RR, with the portion closer to 55 remaining commercial.
Jerry Jubert, owner of the property immediately to the east of the Cavanaugh parcels
that are east of Arrowhead Drive, said that about a year ago there was a proposal for
the northern portion of his property to be residential. Because the Foxberry residents
were against that, it was guided UC1 - he said that a year ago they would have agreed
with multi -residential, but now, both Lundgren Brothers and they have invested money
and land to berm, etc from the potential UC1 - he said he would like his property to stay
UC1 and if Cavanaugh wants to berm for the residential, let them do it.
Reg Pederson, representing RJ Partnership, owners of a parcel just to the west of
Cavanaugh, said they are very much in favor the their property staying UC1. He said if
7
theirs were split between residential and commercial, there would not be enough
commercial left for it to fall into the UC1 category, for `campus' style development. He
said also, didn't we set a precedent with the development of Polaris, M & P, etc. along
Highway 55 -
Bill Cavanaugh said it is a pretty piece of land for residential - 32% of the city is
wetlands - 10-12% parks - you already have `campus' - he said they have maintained
their property for many years - he pointed out on the map where he wants residential
and where commercial. He said that commercial can be along Highway 55, that nobody
wants commercial so far off the highway - he said that they just wanted to use their
land, his family wants to build their homes there and he just wants to be normal.
C. Smith said we are looking at this on a bigger scale - she said that with the wetlands
in the area, there is not much buildable area.
Mark Lamberty, 4250 Arrowhead Drive, said that they support Mr. Cavanaugh's
proposal, to have this residential up on the northern half of the properties.
P. Robinson explained why staff recommended UC1 for the property south of Chippewa
Road and west of Arrowhead Drive.
There was discussion of where a frontage road would go to serve these properties and
where a good split would be for commercial and residential.
R. Pederson said that they had already been in discussion with Hennepin County as far
as the frontage road goes.
J. Brost was clarifying which properties both on the east and west sides of Arrowhead
that Mr. Cavanaugh was talking about. He said he likes to see property owners do what
they would like to do with their property.
There was further discussion on the merits of commercial vs residential zoning in the
area.
S. Mackay said that a lot of thought has gone into these maps and the city had been
working on this for a long time - she said it should be left as proposed - UC1.
Joseph Cavanaugh said that the commercial zone is diminished by the buffering.
Commissioner Kathy Cook arrived back at 8:55 p.m.
Cavanaugh property east of Arrowhead Drive:
MOVED BY FRANK MIGNONE AND SECONDED BY CAROLYN SMITH TO
RECOMMEND THAT THE CAVANAUGH PROPERTY STAY GUIDED FOR UC1. THE
PEDERSON AND JUBERT PROPERTY TO STAY UC1 ALSO.
8
MOTION PASSED.
Jerry Brost abstained for the reason that he likes to help the property owner.
Cavanaugh property west of Arrowhead Drive:
There was further discussion with staff, commission and residents on what would be
best for this property. M. Lamberty said the NE corner of the property west of
Arrowhead had the ability for commercial there.
J. Pederson said, isn't Chippewa the natural divider for residential and commercial.
J. Brost said he did not see a problem with the UC1 line being dropped to the south
both east and west of Arrowhead.
Elizabeth Bechler said that she would like to see their parcels UC1 unless Cavanaugh's
was changed to residential, then she would want to be the same.
MOVED BY CAROLYN SMITH AND SECONDED BY KATHY COOK TO GUIDE THE
LOWER PORTION OF THE CAVANAUGH PARCELS TO THE WEST OF
ARROWHEAD DRIVE FOR UC1 AND THE NORTHERN PORTION FOR RURAL
RESIDENTIAL. THE BECHLER/SEDGWICK PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF
ARROWHEAD DRIVE TO CHANGE TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL (SEE MAP FOR LINE
CHANGE).
There was further discussion if there would be enough property for commercial
development.
Reg Pederson wanted some clarification on what constitutes a berm - are wetlands
sufficient to be considered a berm - he stated that it would be impossible to block the
view with a buffer on their property.
MOTION PASSED
#10 - Upkeep of trails:
C. Smith said that if we require someone to do a trail, we should finish it - this is not a
comprehensive plan issue.
P. Robinson said that the park commission, because of the narrowness of Holy Name
Drive had moved the trail to Tamarack Drive - he said he had not gotten ahold of
anyone at the county to discuss the trail shown on County Road 19.
K. Cook questioned whether property owners need to be notified if a trail is shown in the
guide plan.
9
#4. Concerns about the intersection at TH55 and Willow Drive - request for signal:
Pass on to the city council.
#7. Concept road extending from Cheyenne Trail:
Keep as a concept road.
John Ferris, Mayor, said that he expected to be able to act on the comprehensive plan
at the city council meeting next Teusday.
#8. Hennepin County Biological survey:
Paul said in his memo that he had added this to the woodlands coverage - planning
commission agreed with that.
#9. Agriculture Preserve Versus Green Acres:
Recommend that this information be added as an appendix in the comprehensive plan.
#11 - Extending sewer further south, east of Hunter and west of Brockton Lane:
There was discussion of why this area was eliminated. There was discussion of
dropping the MUSA line south of Navajo - west of Brockton.
MOVED BY CAROLYN SMITH AND SECONDED BY FRANK MIGNONE TO
RECOMMEND THAT THE MUSA LINE BE DRAWN TO THE SOUTH OF THE TWO
PROPERTIES SOUTH OF NAVAJO ROAD ACROSS TO HUNTER DRIVE.
MOTION PASSED.
There was discussion of what to send to the council:
1. Recommendations on the issues raised.
2. Concerns from the planning commission
3 Summarize highlights of the plan and implementations that the city council has to
work on and authorize.
MOVED BY KATHY COOK AND SECONDED BY CAROLYN SMITH TO HAVE STAFF
PUT TOGETHER THE LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH REVIEW BY CAROLYN SMITH AND LENNY LEUER.
MOTION PASSED.
10
It was decided and the planning commission called a special meeting in conjunction
with the city council to meet from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 21, 1999,
proceeding the regularly scheduled city council meeting.
There was discussion on contents of letter to council, implementation of zoning changes
and the pros and cons of either hiring a planning consultant or having the city attorney
write the new zoning ordinances and the changes to those we have.
J. Ferris thought that someone from the outside to do the writing and the city attorney to
review what is written. John also wanted the changes made to map #3-2 before the
council meeting.
MOVED BY JERRY BROST AND SECONDED BY KATHY COOK TO RECOMMEND:
#1 -HIRE A PLANNING CONSULTANT TO DO THE ORDINANCE CHANGES THAT
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR WITH HELP FROM A COMMITTEE, #2 -
HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND #3 -
DESIGNATE A TASK FORCE TO WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT (made up of a few
council members, few planning commission members, residents and staff)
MOTION PASSED.
C. Smith said she did not think we had finished discussing buffers between commercial
and residential properties.
J. Ferris said the UC1 ordinance has yet to be written - can always go easier but want to
provide the greatest amount of control.
Kristin Johnson, 905 Foxberry Farms Road, said it is easier to change to UC1 and then
implement controls rather than put additional controls on current UC zoning.
Add to the recommendation that when the ordinances are implemented, that controls
are added to UC and UC1 zoning that abuts RR zoning for adequate buffering.
Lenny Leuer said that it was mentioned that there was a county plan for rerouting
County Road 19 behind Sycamore Trail - shouldn't it be on our plan if the county has a
plan
Everybody agreed yes it should be.
MOVED BY KATHY COOK AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO ADJOURN.
MOTION PASSED.
Meeting adjourned at 10:31 p.m.
11
Planning and Zoning Assistant Date
12