Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-11-2005PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — OCTOBER 11, 2005 Meeting held at the Hamel Community Building PRESENT: TOM SUPEL, DICK PICARD, LENNY LEVER, MARY VERBICK AND DOUG DICKERSON. TOM CROSBY ARRIVED AT 8:12 P.M. ALSO PRESENT CITY PLANNER ROSE LORSUNG, PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON AND JANET OLSON. COUNCILOR ELIZABETH WEIR WAS PRESENT AS COUNCIL RESPRESENTIVE. ABSENT: MARILYN FORTIN 1. Chairperson Dick Picard called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Before the meeting began, Sandie Larson introduced new Planning and Zoning assistant Janet Olson. 2. PUBLIC FORUM There were no comments. 3. PRC, LLC —1400 BAKER PARK ROAD (DAIRY QUEEN SITE) — SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT — PUBLIC HEARING Rose Lorsung went over her report — put up map of site and proposal. She mentioned that the square footage mentioned in her report for the proposed building was in error and she had changed it to read 6,654 square feet. Rose said this property is within the UC zoning district and must meet the requirements of this zoning district's provisions The request is for a site plan review, variance from parking and building setbacks and impervious surface coverage and a Conditional Use Permit amendment to continue the use of a drive-thru at the site. R. Lorsung went over what has transpired so far with this application including meetings with adjacent property owners, MNDOT, Hennepin County. This property abuts County Road 29, is just north of Highway 12, just east of Maple Plain and close to Maple Plain and Independence. She said staff will recommend letters of support and eventually easement agreements from the north residential property and the commercial property to the east for the road. R, Lorsung said the proposed one story retail building is less than 10,000 square feet and thus does not need a CUP for that request. The proposed uses are approved in the district. This is an existing lot of record and is slightly larger than one acre. The property to the north is urban residential and staff has consulted with the owners, the Barretts, and they have been involved in the meetings with respect to the access road that will encroach upon their property in the future and also regarding the drive-thru and overall site plan. They are amicable to the development as there is an existing six foot fence and several trees that have buffered them from the previous commercial business (Dairy Queen). Planning Commission Minutes 1 October 11, 2005 The proposed retail building does meet all requirements of the UC district and the applicants have requested several variances. Rose stated that the applicant, Mr. Palm, has accommodated the need, with road easements, of not only his development, but future needs for the commercial property to the east and the Holiday to the south. The variances are: 1. Parking setbacks on the west — should be 25' and 15' is shown 2. Parking setbacks on the north — should be 25' and approximately 1' is shown (the setback is agreed to be measured from the inside edge of the proposed road easement) 3. Building setback on the north side — should be 75' and approximately 51' is shown. 4. Impervious surface coverage — should be a maximum of 60% - 80% is shown (it is agreed the new road easement will be future impervious and therefore must be included in the calculations... (Staff will only support this variance if the storm water requirements can be met. R. Lorsung said staff recommends not allowing a drive-thru business at this site as the parking provided falls dramatically short of what our ordinance requires. Rose also said that our ordinance also requires 10' of landscaping around the perimeter of the building and this is not shown on the proposed plan. This will need to be incorporated into the site plan or additional mitigation for this requirement will be needed. Tom Supel asked where the setbacks were measured from for the building and parking. R. Lorsung pointed out where it was measured from — the inside edge of the future road ROW and therefore kicks in some of the variances that are needed. Rose said that tonight we are looking for site plan approval. The current CUP allows for a drive thru, so this will need to be amended to continue to allow it. She also went over the variances again. R. Lorsung said signage would also have to be looked at, especially the off -site sign that currently exists. She said water would be from Maple Plain. Staff has not heard from the Mayor Sweeny of Maple Plain since plans were sent to him. R. Lorsung again mentioned the residential property to the north and said staff sees this property becoming commercial in the future. She said when and if it does, the city will look at the rest of the ROW needed for the frontage road. Larry Palm, applicant, said he had no comments at this time. Steve Oliver, Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group, said they have been given flexibility in reshaping the storm water pond by Holiday. He said Holiday has been very cooperative and because of the reshaping there will be a little more earth work by Holiday. Doug Dickerson asked who owned the fence and the tree buffer to the north. Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 11, 2005 R, Lorsung said the Dairy Queen put the fence up and the trees are on the Barrett's property. Bev Barrett, 1432 Baker Park Rd (Co. Rd. 29) said a new fence was put up last year and it was put in backwards, with the `good' side facing the DQ, but they did not care. She said they were thankful for the fence. R. Lorsung said the future road location is preliminary, but if it stays where shown, the fence and some of the trees would have to go. D. Dickerson wanted to know if one of the conditions could be that the fence be maintained. R. Lorsung said yes, we could do that. D. Dickerson asked if the fence was enough of a buffer. Bob Barrett, 1432 Baker Park Rd, said the fence served well with the Dairy Queen. He said lights were the major problem, but the trees and fence helped. R. Lorsung showed where the drive-thru would be (if allowed) and where the traffic would go. D. Dickerson asked about the trail from the east that goes into Holiday. B. Barrett said it is not a designated trail, but hikers, bikers and snowmobilers use it. L. Palm said snowmobilers cut across Baker Park property from the park to get to Holiday, etc. There was some discussion of water, impervious coverage, etc. D. Dickerson asked if the garbage truck would be able to get in and out and L. Palm said yes. Mary Verbick asked why the parking regulations for the drive-thru are so much higher than the rest of the building. R. Lorsung said staff is concerned about the requirements in Section 828. The drive thru requirements are pretty excessive. S. Oliver said we calculated the parking at 1 for 3 seats. He explained how this is figured in other areas. Tom Supel said if this was all retail, 40 parking spaces would be correct. Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 11, 2005 R. Lorsung said it is impossible to make the parking on a 1 acre site, but we are stuck with what the ordinance says, so the parking spaces proposed would be a variance. She did say staff would be more comfortable with a drive thru with more parking spaces. L. Palm said a 1500 square foot sandwich restaurant wants the spot and is interested in a drive thru. If 100 spaces are required, where would they all go in a 1500 square foot restaurant? R. Lorsung said there is some work to be done on the ordinance. There was more discussion on parking regulations and the city ordinance. L. Palm said by limiting the size of the restaurant will limit the # of people going in there. He said the site currently has a CUP for a drive thru and we are significantly improving what is there. R. Lorsung said at the very least the CUP would need amending. M. Verbick asked what the advantage would be for the applicant to amend the current CUP. R. Lorsung said the CUP has to be amended when a new owner is applying for a new use. It (the CUP) can be revoked if property owner can't follow the guidelines in it, so therefore it needs amending. There was discussion about the trees on the lot and what the landscape plan was showing. Rose said there needs to be a 1:1 replacement. L. Palm said he wants to maintain the sign that is south of Holiday. R. Lorsung said that will have to be talked about and there was further discussion about signs. L. Palm said he is willing to work with the city, but the city has dramatically changed his property. Lenny Leuer asked Rose about the property in Maple Plain. Norberg Development said the frontage road issue has been dropped for now. L. Leuer said you will be compensated for your property. R. Lorsung said staff is aware that by us taking ROW from Mr. Palm there is no guarantee it (future road) will go there. She said when the development pressure becomes great the frontage road will more likely happen. Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 11, 2005 L. Leuer said his 2nd point: Private or public (future road). R. Lorsung said the city will hold the easement for ROW purposes. Tom Crosby said it could be private with the city having easements for emergency and public use. L. Leuer said #3 — drainage from this site to Baker to Holiday. S. Oliver asked if the drainage and utility easements were in place. L. Leuer said he does not know if we took it on the Baker plat. R. Lorsung said there is to be a 10' Outlot on westerly side (Baker) and Mr. Baker knows he has to create the Outlot and deed to Holiday and the DQ property. L. Leuer said this is the first time he has seen a lot with a road on all four sides. He said we should consider that when we deal with the setbacks. R. Lorsung said we have talked to our attorney and setbacks are measured from the edge of the ROW, whether it is a public or private road. L. Leuer wanted to know if the drive thru sandwich shop was also a sit down and L. Palm said yes. Lenny then asked about the square footage of the drive thru and said looking at this from a restaurant issue, the DQ had more square footage than what is proposed, so he is hesitant to make an issue of the drive thru. He said the existing drive thru is 20' from the lot line and the proposed is 70'. L. Leuer said there is a fence and trees on the north side now. What will be in place to put back in when a road goes in? R. Lorsung said the road would not go in until the residential property to the north gets rezoned to commercial. If and when the property sells and gets changed to commercial, that is when the road and additional ROW would be given. There was further discussion of the road, easements, etc. B. Barrett said the original DQ did not have a good exhaust, it wasn't high enough, then they extended it and it was better, the trees didn't get quite so much grease on them! He said it did impact us, but we learned to live with it. S. Oliver said that a Quizino's that we are working on elsewhere there is no exhaust. L. Leuer asked how the noise level would be controlled from the loudspeaker for the drive thru. Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 11, 2005 S. Oliver said the menu board faces east on the back side — 70-100' range from where it is now. L. Leuer wondered about the decibel level at the lot line. R. Lorsung said there is nothing in our ordinance, but the nuisance ordinance would cover it. She did say there were requirements in the UC ordinance about loud speakers, etc. T. Supel said he has concerns about granting variances at anytime. He said there are 4 requests before us. R. Lorsung said we might not need the green space variance, it is dependent on the calculations. T. Supel said the # of parking spaces and green space variances, the staff recommends denial? R. Lorsung said that is correct, unless further information is provided by the applicant. T. Supel said he is very uncomfortable with the arrangements for parking. He also said the setback variances for parking and the building seems justified because of the road easement. He said the problem is that leaves open our criteria for variances. We do not have the analysis of the 6 criteria before us. Tom said the road easement in itself is not grounds for a variance. He said it seems we have little basis for granting variances. T. Supel said he was under the impression when the Baker property develops, the road would be constructed and now we are saying the road will not be built until the Barrett property to the north sells and the property is developed commercially. Therefore Baker would use the existing road. We are not going to make it happen so it seems like we are trying to fix this without the details being worked out. M. Verbick said it occurs to me if Maple Plain already has a concept, if it were shifted a little bit up and be entirely on the Barrett property (when they sell and/or develop it), it would be better. R. Lorsung said she was told that Maple Plain has been planning for many years and we wanted to make sure the Palm and Barrett property shared equally. She said we have an applicant and Maple Plain does not. M. Verbick said she does not understand why it (road) has to stay where it is shown. R. Lorsung said the location is based on standards from the state, distance from the stop light, etc. Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 11, 2005 M. Verbick said it seems unjust to have Palm property bound on all four sides with a road. She wondered if the plan would change dramatically if the road was not there. R. Lorsung said not all aspects would change. She said the proposal is either too large for the property or our ordinance (parking) is too strict. She recommended that the applicant come up with shared parking with the Baker property. She said with an additional 15-20 parking stalls; staff would be more comfortable with a drive thru. L. Palm said he has been down the road' with shared parking and it has cost me several thousand dollars and I will not go there again. M. Verbick asked Rose what other municipalities do with parking requirements. R. Lorsung said staff would like to look at that. There was further discussion of parking as it relates to the application before the planning commission. L. Leuer said our most recent drive thru is the DQ on Highway 55. He asked what parking regulations we applied to it. R. Lorsung said Sarah handled that application and she would have to check. L. Leuer said the former owner of the DQ on Highway 55 had a drive thru as does the current owner. The former owner of the Palm property had a drive thru so what is different here. R. Lorsung said the Highway 55 one was a DQ and stayed a DQ with minor modifications. Here the use is changing. Tom Crosby said he will pass on comments as he came in late. Dick Picard said as a resident who drives by this site daily and seeing an outdated and closed DQ, whatever we do is an improvement. He said there are many things the applicant is not responsible for: new road to west with no timetable; parking restrictions; new zoning in the future; and the future Baker development. He said he thinks the City should go ahead with this but he would like to see: more landscaping; storm water management; amount of impervious surface confirmed and erosion control. He said there are other things in the future and out of our control. Dick said we need 4 motions on the variances.; parking setbacks; building setbacks; impervious surface and # of parking spaces. L. Leuer asked, when we are talking impervious cover are we talking without the ROW. R. Lorsung said staff included the future ROW. Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 11, 2005 D. Dickerson asked if the storm water pond was owned by the property owner and how the road tied into it. R. Lorsung said it is regulated by our city engineer and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed. D. Dickerson asked who owned the storm drainage. L. Palm said we would maintain and have easement over it. L. Leuer asked if the problem with the hardcover is that staff is calculating with road and applicant is not. R. Lorsung said staff is pretty sure the road will go in and in location shown, even though in the future. She said we take it into consideration for the calculations. L. Leuer said at the time the road goes in, wouldn't it be stated the city would require to take care of run-off when it happens. R. Lorsung said future run-off to the Baker property and to the future commercial to the north. S. Oliver said the storm water system is taking care of up to the shaded area on the site plan. L. Leuer said he still questions why this applicant has to take into consideration for the future. S. Oliver said the size of the Baker property could more than take care of run-off of shaded area on site plan. There was further discussion of the applicant taking on the future aspects (run-off; roads, etc. ) L. Palm said all this conversation on how to justify the hardships. The County and State are the ones who say this is where the road will go. He said he did not want it there, but it is going there because of what others say. You are looking at one to solve others' problems. R. Lorsung said this is all developer driven, Maple Plain, Baker, Palm, etc. There needs to be road improvements. WE are not asking him (Palm) to exclusively solve it. We have Barrett, Baker, etc. The public hearing was closed at 9:25 p.m. Lenny suggested a straw pole of the planning commission on the variances. Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 11, 2005 1 — Parking setback: 5 yeses; 1 no 2 — Building setback: 4 yeses; 1 no 3 — Impervious surface: 3 yeses; 1 no and 1 undecided 4 - # o parking spaces; 4 yeses; 2 no MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ALL 4 VARIANCES BASED ON CRITERIA AND HARDSHIPS AS STATED IN STAFF REPORT. MOTION PASSED WITH 1 NO FROM TOM SUPEL. Tom Supel stated there was no basis for hardships. The easement itself is not a reason for the variances and there are other reasonable uses for the property. MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY TOM CROSBY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO AMEND THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW A DRIVE THRU AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ADDED TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 20. The well on property to be abandoned 21. Storm sewer on Baker property 22. No outside loudspeakers 23. Cooking odors to be regulated 24. Existing fence to be maintained MOTION PASSED. MOVED BY MARY VERBICK AND SECONDED BY LENNY LEUER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN. Tom Crosby wanted to know what happens when Baker comes in, does approving this impact them. R. Lorsung said they are well aware of what we have been discussing. MOTION PASSED. 4. SIGN ORDINANCE — PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED Rose Lorsung said this discussion has been continued from a previous meeting. She said we do not have to rush, but taking care of this is on the front burner. She said there are two main points: 1 — When the city created a new zoning district (Uptown Hamel) they did not take sign ordinance into consideration and 2 — What to do with an outdated sign ordinance. Rose said the City of Minnetonka has a very good sign ordinance with some very good graphics. Tom Crosby asked if it was clear to Target and adjacent properties what our sign ordinance is. Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 11, 2005 R. Lorsung said their PUD calls it out. Rose said staff looked at several larger cities' sign ordinances for multi tenant buildings. Lenny Leuer said we need an inventory of current signs. R. Lorsung said she could do that. She asked if we want to be more or less restrictive than our current ordinance. She pointed out some concerns: Portable signs are not allowed in our current ordinance — there are a lot of them out there; temporary signs should be discussed, banners, balloons, window signs, etc; There was discussion of what needs to be done, what notice was given to residents, businesses, etc. Tom Supel suggested rather than randomly touch on items, why doesn't Rose draft an ordinance and then the planning commission will have something to comment on. R. Lorsung asked for some direction on important items. Dick Picard said we should get rid of conflicts, clarify the ordinance and illustrate what is allowed. He also said there should be something in the ordinance about enforcement. Elizabeth Weir said as a citizen she is interested in being more conservative. Mary Verbick said if we are truly trying to have a rural culture we don't want to get more generous. She said lighted signs are a big issue. Portable signs, like for the flea market have been there forever. Doug Dickerson said he is concerned with Mr. Palm with signs because we don't have anything. Minnetonka has regulations based on frontage and also they have consistency. R. Lorsung said that works for general `strip' `malls, but would not work for an area like `Uptown Hamel'. Dick Picard said we should make it simple. R. Lorsung said she will put an ordinance together in draft form for the next meeting or at least get the areas ready for each district. Both Tom Supel and Dick Picard said we need an enforcement clause. R. Lorsung asked if there should be a sunset clause. T. Supel said there should be a general provision to be in compliance by a certain date. This was continued to the next planning commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 10 October 11, 2005 5. REPORT FROM COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE — ELIZABETH WEIR Elizabeth Weir, councilor, gave a brief review of the last city council meeting. Bids were approved for the renovation of city hall Ace Phase II (Co. Rd. 101/Evergreen) — lack of landscaping in back did away with drive thru and was granted 100 additional square feet of building Moratorium will be discussed again at next meeting — it might not be applicable to all current applicants. She said she would like to see the moratorium for those that have not been before the planning commission, so Musich and Leuer would excluded from the moratorium She said she is prepared to vote against including those two applicants. Tom Crosby said since Petrucci is no longer involved he can comment. He said the city will have some problems if Leuer is included in the moratorium. Lenny Leuer asked what the city council hoped to obtain by a moratorium. E. Weir said this is the 1st time we have seen a proposal with 3 homes lined up in a row. Open space planning in a development saves natural features in a permanent conservation easement, and then we can allow an extra unit. T. Crosby said it is very difficult in Medina because of the soils. L. Leuer in light of those that spoke against Leuer, what would an extra unit do? Tom Supel said he was at the city council meeting and the council implied that the planning commission did not weigh the verbage of the comprehensive plan. E. Weir said you dealt with the ordinance and there was 1 council member who mentioned the comp plan. T. Supel said we clearly weighed all the wording and it is clear to me there was no recognition of what we did and clear it was a waste of our time. L. Leuer asked since Mr. Palm's drive thru on 101 got canned, what is his chances on #29? E. Weir said there is a different situation. On 101 we were working with the Ryan and Palm's also was a PUD. The one on #29 in a straight site plan. R. Lorsung said there was one thing that did not make this planning agenda — the Wetland protection ordinance. I should be back at the November meeting. 6. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 There were a number of grammar and spelling errors corrected. MOVED BY MARY VERBICK AND SECONDED BY LENNY LEUER TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. Planning Commission Minutes 11 October 11, 2005 MOTION PASSED. 7. PLANNERS REPORT Rose Lorsung said Hopper has asked to drop his variance request and has mentioned asking for a CUP. She has said she is responding to the council and will send him a letter telling him he has two weeks to take down the structure. R. Lorsung said the wetland ordinance will be at the next planning commission meeting along with the sign ordinance. There are also 3 subdivision requests although 1 of them might be included in the moratorium. Lenny Leuer asked about the `right to farm' law as it relates to the wetland ordinance. R. Lorsung said she will check with our attorney. Dick Picard said Plymouth has extensive wetland rules and he also wondered what happened to the request at the Lysne property. R. Lorsung said she has not heard from the prospective new owner. 8. ADJOURN MOVED BY MARY VERBICK AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO ADJOURN. MOTION PASSED. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Planning and Zoning Assistant Date This is my last meeting for minutes — Thank you one and all for 20+ very interesting years!! Planning Commission Minutes 12 October 11, 2005