Loading...
1991-07-23 Planning Comm Minutes) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 23, 1991 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 23, 1991, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. Chair Mike Dwyer called the meeting to order at 7:35 o'clock p.m. The following Commission members were present: Friel, Dwyer, Duggan, Tilsen. Commissioner Koll arrived late at 8:10 p.m. Excused members were: Krebsbach, Dreelan. Also present were City Engineer Klayton Eckles, Planning Consultant Tim Malloy, and Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Duggan moved approval of the June 25, 1991 minutes with corrections. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 91-24: RUBLE WETLANDS PERMIT Mr. Kim BeauClair, representing the Rubles of 629 Hampshire Drive, was present to discuss the requested Wetlands Permit to allow construction of a deck and porch in the back yard. Mr. BeauClair explained that the exact distance to the pond was 77 feet. Commissioner Friel moved to waive the requirement for a public hearing. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. • AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that City Council grant the requested Wetlands Permit to allow construction of the proposed deck and porch to within 77 feet of high water line of the pond. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 91-25: STEHR - VARIANCE Mr. and Mrs. Stehr, of 6 Dorset Road, were present to discuss their request for a side yard setback variance of 4.2 feet. Mr. Stehr stated that he desires to add a second garage stall adjacent to their existing one car AYES: NAYS: CASE NO. FLYNN - garage and that this requires an 8.6 foot expansion. Commissioner Duggan inquired if 8.6 feet of additional garage was sufficient space for a second car. Mr. Stehr replied that it was. Mr. Stehr stated that the area of the proposed expansion has an existing concrete pad where their second car is currently parked. Mr. Stehr stated that his neighbors had signed signatures of consent. Chair Dwyer moved that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that a side yard variance of 4.2 feet be granted to allow the garage addition as proposed. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. 4 0 91-26: WETLANDS PERMIT Mr. Flynn, of 1299 Laura Street, was present to discuss his plans to install a post and beam porch to the rear of his home. Mr. Flynn stated this porch is proposed to be 14' by 14' and will come within 94 feet of Ivy Creek, which flows along his rear property line. Mr. Flynn stated he had the signatures of consent from his neighbors. Commissioner Friel moved to waive the requirement for a public hearing. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 AYES: NAYS: Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that City Council grant the requested Wetlands Permit to allow the proposed porch to be built within 94 feet of Ivy Creek as proposed. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. 4 0 CASE NO. 91-28: JA HOMES - LOT DIVISION Mr. John Mathern, of JA Homes, appeared to discuss his proposal to alter the Victoria Townhomes PUD by changing the last building from a three unit townhome to a two unit townhome. Mr. Mathern stated that the same building pad would be utilized and that the two unit design would have larger townhomes. He stated that the Townhome Association had signed a letter of consent. Commissioner Duggan commented that it appeared that the previous conversion of a three unit townhome to a two AYES: NAYS: unit townhome had worked well. Duggan stated he was happy to see this reduction in units, that in this case less is more. Commissioner Tilsen commented that it was nice to see this project nearing completion. Commissioner Duggan moved to waive the requirement for a public hearing under Section 11.3(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance and to recommend that City Council grant the requested lot division of a three unit townhome to a two unit townhome as proposed. Chair Dwyer seconded the motion. 4 0 CASE NO. 91-29: CATHOLIC CEMETERIES - SIGN VARIANCES AYES: NAYS: CASE NO. KAYOUM - Mr. Dave Kemp, Operations Manager for Catholic Cemeteries, appeared to present the request for sign variances to allow a new sign system at Resurrection Cemeteries. Mr. Kemp stated that they are requesting size variances for nameplate signs at each entrance of the cemetery and two informational signs inside the entrances. Chair Mike Dwyer stated that the correspondence indicated that the signs are temporary in nature and only intended for five years and inquired if the appearance of the signs would deteriorate due to their temporary use. Mr. Kemp responded that the new signs are part of a new policy to enhance the appearance of the cemetery and its entrances. Mr. Kemp stated that it is in the cemetery's interest to keep the sign's appearance as high in quality as possible. Commissioner Duggan stated that the Commission should consider a five year limit to the variance. Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that the City Council grant a variance to allow a total of 113 square feet for the four proposed signs subject to a five year time limit with City Council review after 3 1/2 years. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. 4 0 91-27: FRONT YARD VARIANCE Mr. A. Kayoum, of 706 First Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to request a front yard variance of four feet and three inches in order to construct a garage addition to his house. Chair Dwyer stated that Mr. Kayoum's request also included two housekeeping variances on each side yard setback at staff's suggestion. Mr. Kayoum explained that his garage was replaced by a kitchen expansion and that he had been represented by a builder, Mr. John Schwab, who had instructed him that no variances would be needed to complete his home improvements in which the garage addition would be built after the kitchen expansion. Mr. Kayoum stated this advice had left him with an unfinished kitchen and the need to replace his garage. Mr. Kayoum stated that he had submitted the required signatures of consent except for the Strebigs, his neighbors who had been out of town. Mr. Kayoum submitted the signatures of consent from the Strebigs for the public record. Commissioner Duggan stated that he had visited the neighborhood and found the request to have no adverse impact on the neighborhood and to be of a scale and scope that would fit into the neighborhood. Duggan stated that the neighbors gave their support to the project. Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that the City Council grant the requested front yard variance of four feet, three inches and a variance of one foot (1') to the east side yard setback and a variance of two feet (2') to the west side yard setback to bring the house into conformance. Commissioner Dwyer seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 CENTEX HOMES KENSINGTON PUD - PHASE II Chair Dwyer stated that Commissioner Friel would not participate in this public hearing as he is professionally employed by a law firm that represents Centex Homes. Commissioner Friel left at 8:00 o'clock p.m. Chair Dwyer stated that there was a lack of a quorum with Mr. Friel's absence. Chair Dwyer read the Planning Commission by-laws into the record and asked Administrative Assistant Batchelder if any Commissioners had stated they would be late. Batchelder stated that Commissioners Krebsbach and Dreelan had phoned in to be excused. Chair Dwyer instructed staff to phone the absent Commissioners and called a five minute recess. At 8:10 o'clock p.m. Commissioner Koll arrived and announced that she had experienced car trouble. Chair Dwyer opened the public hearing at 8:10 o'clock p.m. Chair Dwyer asked Administrative Assistant Batchelder to provide a background summary for the audience of the Kensington PUD since it was denied a rezoning by City Council in August 1990. Batchelder stated that the Planning Commission was reviewing the negotiated settlement plan for Centex's proposed Kensington Planned Unit Development - Phase II. Batchelder provided a background history of the case by describing the failed attempt for a rezoning, the alternative plan in November 1990, the lawsuit served on the City, the City's scoping document to amend the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan, the settlement negotiations with the developer during April, May and June and City Council's acceptance of a conceptual settlement plan at the July 2, 1991 meeting. Batchelder stated the City Council had accepted the concept plan only after the developer had met all the criteria that Council had established for an acceptable plan. Batchelder stated that City Council had ordered public hearings for the consideration of the more formal, technical plans required for rezoning and that an open house had been conducted by staff the previous week to inform interested residents of the settlement plan. Chair Dwyer inquired about the Developers Agreement, if the Commission was reviewing it that evening as stated in the Planner's Report. Batchelder stated that the developer's agreement usually is processed after a development has received planning approvals and includes any conditions City Council may have placed on the project and the details for engineering. Batchelder stated that staff had not yet received a proposed developer's agreement. John Bannigan, Attorney for Centex Homes, stated that a draft developer's agreement had been sent to Attorney Jim Golembeck, representing the City of Mendota Heights, but not yet to the City. Chair Dwyer stated that the developer's agreement was not part of the Planning Commission's review and also stated that the final plat was usually not reviewed by the Planning Commission either. John Bannigan stated that Centex is before the Planning Commission this evening because the developer and the City Council had negotiated a settlement to the lawsuit. Bannigan stated that the original July 8, 1991 court date had been laid over indefinitely pending the outcome of the settlement discussions. He stated the developers were soliciting the Planning Commission's recommendations tonight and were present to discuss the details of the design. Bannigan encouraged the Planning Commission to go through the staff reports, hear the public's comments and make suggestions that the developer and staff can address and prepare for the August 6th City Council hearing. Chair Dwyer stated that an open house had been held by the City staff on July 18th for residents to view the plans and then he explained the public hearing process for the audience. Chair Dwyer stated that this would be the public's opportunity to ask questions and make comments for the public record which City Council would review prior to their public hearing. Dwyer stated that the City Council had approved the settlement plan in concept and that it was the Planning Commission's job to fine tune the details with the public's assistance. He again stated that this was the audience's chance to let the City and Centex know your ideas and feelings about the project. Chair Dwyer stated that the planning reports would be used as a guide and the first order of business was to allow each Commissioner to address their concerns and question the developer. Commissioner Duggan stated that he was hoping for a more detailed presentation by Centex, but that he was prepared to proceed. Duggan stated that this area had been a concern of his for four and one half years and that the numbers in the project are finally down to a level that he is comfortable with. Duggan stated he had a number of concerns regarding the Council's compromise plan and was concerned that some of the compromises could lead to future problems. Commissioner Duggan stated he had concerns with the size of Lot 22, Block 3 and the narrow necks of Lots 32 and 30, Block 3. Duggan stated that Lot 1, Block 4 could be combined with Lot 2, that he felt this lot to be too small to be on the entrance to Mendota Heights Road. Commissioner Tilsen stated that there is room for adjustments, for instance Lots 1 and 7 could be made equal by moving all the lot lines slightly that lie between them. Commissioner Duggan stated that Lot 17, Block 4 was small and against the power line and should be massaged upwards towards Lot 13. Duggan pointed out that the Parks Commission had questioned the size and location of the proposed park dedication. Duggan stated that Lot 3 and Lot 6 in Block 1 could be equalized in size. Duggan stated one of his main concerns is that 31 of the 98 single family lots needed Wetlands Permits. He questioned if the square footage of the pond lots included water, that one of the Council's criteria was that the developer could not include water in the land mass for the pond lots. Dan Blake, of Centex, answered that the maps that the Commission had included total lot square footage including water, but that the pond lots meet Council's criteria for dry, buildable land. Blake stated that in working with the City Council during the negotiations, only the land was counted towards the pond lots. Commissioner Duggan asked Planner Malloy for a lot by lot accounting of square footage for land on the pond lots. Planner Malloy stated that he had measured all the pond lots and their dry, buildable land mass and categorized them according to the Council's criteria. He stated them as follows: LOT Square footage - Dry, buildable 8 35,200 9 20,460 10 20,305 11 17,360 12 19,220 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24 all over 15,000 25 17,000+ 26 13,900 27 15,000+ 30 16,275 31 13,500 32 14,700 35 15,000+ 36 15,950 37 13,200 38 14,900 39 16,500 40 17,900 41 21,700 Planner Malloy stated that the lots that have less than 15,000 sq. ft. of dry, buildable land mass have been included in the counts toward meeting the established criteria for lot sizes. Commissioner Duggan stated that a concern to him is what will happen to the trees around the pond with the construction of the pond lots. Duggan inquired what safeguards will be taken and what value are the trees on the pond lots? Duggan stated that members of the Planning Commission should be involved in a review committee that monitors the construction occurring on these pond lots. Duggan stated that too often he has heard promises of saving the trees by developers only to discover that they have been cut. Duggan stated that it is possible to build around trees and save them. Duggan stated that instead of relying on promises, the City should take an active role in determining what is happening during construction. Duggan stated he is searching for an extra measure by the City for leverage. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he had relayed many of his concerns, which were predominantly of an engineering or technical nature, to Mr. James Danielson, Public Works Director, and that most have been addressed in the staff report. Tilsen indicated that engineering has reported that they can handle these concerns during acceptance of final grading and utility plans. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the grading plan submitted only address spot elevations and not contours. Tilsen stated that many of the grade elevations shown for housing pads would need correction. Tilsen stated that he suggests a maximum grade for the first 20' of driveways to be 3% as a standard. Tilsen stated that Lot 9, Block 5 rose 6% in 40 feet and that this is too extreme for a driveway approach to the garage. Tilsen stated that the intersection of Abbey and Haverton has a 5% grade at the approaches. Tilsen stated that Haverton Circle, at a 6% grade, was too steep for a cul-de-sac. Tilsen suggested a maximum 3% grade and inquired what the City's grade standards are. Klayton Eckles, City Engineer, stated a 10% grade for streets is the maximum City standard, but that this is allowed only in extreme cases. Eckies stated that the City imposes a 6% grade limit in most cases. Eckies stated that at stop intersections they allow a 2% grade at the approach. Commissioner Tilsen suggested a standard for this project be a 3% maximum grade for driveway approaches, cul-de-sacs, and intersections. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the grading plan had no special provisions for Lots 4, 17, 18, and 22 of Block 1 where trees and grades could be protected with better designs, for instance front walk outs. Tilsen stated that Lot 8, Block 3 has two wetland permits proposed, one for the front and one in the rear. Tilsen stated this is acceptable, but could be disastrous as the drive impacts the south pond. Tilsen stated that there may be no trees left after the house and that design and construction must take care to preserve Wetlands. Tilsen stated he is concerned with blanket approvals of Wetlands Permits, that this allows no individual reviews for houses to preserve trees and ponds. Chair Dwyer inquired of Commissioner Tilsen what he would desire to recommend to City Council. Tilsen responded that a true tree survey on the land for species, type and quality could be conducted. Tilsen stated he realizes this is a large expense prior to approval. Tilsen stated that a tree survey would allow the City to individually review each lot for the Wetlands Permits. Commissioner Duggan agreed with Tilsen's concern and suggestion. Tilsen stated a four inch caliper as a standard for trees to be included in a tree survey. Commissioner Tilsen inquired about Outlot B and if it was a bargaining chip for the developer to throw in later. Mr. Tom Boyce, of Centex, stated that in discussions with Council, they had not indicated they desired this land for parks. Tilsen inquired if Mr. Boyce was willing to pay taxes on Outlot B. Mr. Boyce responded, yes. Tilsen stated that Outlot B made no sense except as open space and that it would be a maintenance and liability near the park, someone would have to bear the responsibility. Commissioner Tilsen stated he agreed with the staff report that Outlot A should be denoted as a right of way with provisions for utility easements. Tilsen stated that any buyers of adjacent lots would then have a clear indication of the future potential of the outlot. Commissioner Duggan stated that Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 could be shaved to make the outlot bigger. Tilsen suggested that the outlot be moved one lot west. Klayton Eckles stated that the City originally considered this location for access to the south, but that the grades were too steep, that they would be over 10%. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if the storm sewer computations indicated the nature of the pond that is proposed for the northern park area. Klayton Eckles stated that this pond always had been envisioned as a holding pond but that it had not been determined if this was to be a wet pond or a dry pond. Eckles explained to the audience that a wet pond always held water and that a dry pond only held water during or immediately after storm events. Tilsen stated that he also had a concern about needing more detailed landscaping plans. Commissioner Koll stated that she wanted to identify five issues. Koll stated that she was a little disappointed in the loss of an opportunity to provide affordable housing, her concept of Mendota Heights was one of spaciousness and that this proposal was a large development with multifamily. Koll stated that the issue was decided. She stated that the first issue was the size of some of the single family lots particularly Lot 4, Block 1 and Lot 22, Block 3. Koll stated that lots on Mendota Heights Road should all meet the minimum size. Koll stated that her second issue was that lots 46 through 49, Block 3 and Lot 17, Block 4 were adjacent to the power lines. Koll stated that she had a concern for the homeowners and for future liability of the City. ) Commissioner Koll stated that her third concern was the same as stated before about the preservation of trees on the pond lots. Koll stated that she wants to see a proposal to save the vegetation in this area. Koll stated that her fourth concern was that there was no street lighting allowed for in the plan. Mr. Boyce stated that the City doesn't allow street lighting so it was not included and that this is consistent with the rest of the City. Koll stated that the fifth concern was in regards to the back to back townhomes and their price levels, were they consistent with others in the area? Mr. Boyce responded that the carriage homes would be similar in price structure to the manor homes. The townhomes are the same as the previous plan of last year. Mr. Boyce stated that the single family homes would range from $160,000 to $400,000 and that this would be consistent with Hampshire. Mr. Boyce stated that some single family may be less than $160,000. Chair Dwyer stated that there were some larger picture issues that he felt, as an attorney, were important to the City in his discussions with the Mayor and members of the City Council. He stated that this settlement plan is much preferred to a long term litigation battle that could be very costly to the City. Dwyer stated Centex has proven they are good neighbors and it is in the City's best interest to proceed with this plan. Dwyer stated the City Council had unanimously accepted this plan as a concept. Dwyer stated he felt this was a good plan compared to earlier plans, the number of units had been reduced by 170, this provided a better buffer between neighborhoods where the transition is either single family homes or park and the quality of homes will be similar. Dwyer stated this plan has no detached garages. Dwyer stated he is sorry that the pond will not be public domain and the trade off for single family reduced the size of the park dedication, but that this is what happens in a compromise. Dwyer stated he would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council subject to the list of concerns generated by the Planning Commission and the public. Dwyer stated that the fine tuning of the plan was the Commission's responsibility. Chair Dwyer opened the hearing for comments from the public and requested that each speaker approach the podium and give name and address so all the comments could be accurately relayed to the City Council. Mr. Joe Melzarek, of 2545 Concord Way, stated when he had purchased a manor home he had been assured that only manor homes, not barracks, would be constructed by Centex. He stated he first found out about this plan at the City's Open House last week. Mr. Melzarek stated two realtors have instructed him that his home's value would be reduced by 15% with the added traffic and density in this new plan. Mr. Melzarek stated the developer had designed this plan without any input from the people most affected by the plan, those people in the manor homes. He stated the manor home owners bargained for something that they are not getting. Mr. Melzarek stated there were three choices. He stated the first choice was a lawsuit against the City and the developer, the second choice was compensation for lost housing values and the third choice was compromise. Mr. Melzarek stated this new plan was twice the density he bargained for and all the density was being shoved up against the manor homes. He stated the manor home owners had bargained for an area of manor homes and are now getting back to back townhomes. Commissioner Duggan stated the same issues were the concern of the Hampshire residents last August. He stated the present concern is that they have bought manor homes with an indication of what would be in the area based on a representation by a sales person. Duggan stated he felt this was a legitimate issue. Mr. Melzarek stated all the density was shoved down by the manor homes by the demand for single family lots. Chair Dwyer inquired if the Phase I was all manor homes. Mr. Boyce responded that yes it was 136 manor homes, but Phase II will replat Phase I, so there are now only 80 manor homes proposed with back to back townhomes (carriage homes) and townhomes replacing the coach homes, or condominiums that had been originally proposed for the area immediately east of Phase I. Mr. Melzarek requested that the Planning Commission not forward this project until the input of the manor home owners is put into the development. Mr. Boyce stated this the purpose of the public hearing and they would be working with staff to fine tune the plan based on tonight's input. Chair Dwyer asked the audience if they shared Mr. Melzarek's concern with the carriage homes and traffic and density. Fourteen people indicated they agreed. Mr. Mike Kluznik, 1057 Chippewa Avenue, stated he agreed that the City Council has an unreasonable attitude in demanding all the single family lots in this project. He stated he is concerned with the level of intolerance in the community to anybody with less than a $300,000 home. Mr. Kluznik stated he disagreed with the compromise solution. He stated it was a travesty that the demand for single family only had shrunk the park dedication and there would be no public access to the ponds. Kluznik stated the City Council had whittled away at the park dedication that had been included in the referendum approved by all the voters in the community. Mr. Kluznik stated that a lawsuit had been mentioned earlier and that lawsuits come in all manners including one over the referendum promises. He stated there was more than one issue and potential lawsuit. Mr. Kluznik stated he was a member of the Citizen's Parks Review Committee that helped design the referendum and this park had been intended as a flagship park for the City, but it is no longer. Mr. Kluznik asked Centex the difference in park land between the two proposals. Mr. Boyce stated the last dedication would have been 26.8 acres and this proposal was 13.4 acres. Mr. Kluznik asked Mr. Boyce what the community has gained. Mr. Boyce responded, that was for the community to decide, but that they now had an acceptable plan. Mr. Kluznik inquired if more park land could be gained by the City, could Outlot B be dedicated also? Mr. Boyce responded that the plan meets the criteria established by City Council. Mr. Kluznik stated that with the unorthodox pass vote last August people were not getting what they bargained for in the parks referendum. Mr. Kluznik stated that 16 years ago he moved into Mendota Heights and there was a lot on his block that was too small to build on until the City granted variances and now a small "barracks like" house existed there and that these kind of things happen. Kluznik stated he had two goals for any further proceedings, one, that more park lands be added to this project, and, two, is it necessary for the City to take such a hard line stance against anything that is not a $200,000 home. Ms. Barb Schmidt, of 2195 Heritage Way, stated she moved in with the understanding that only manor homes would be in her area and she was shocked to find out at the City Open House the density proposed. She stated the new plan creates traffic and parking problems. Schmidt inquired what assurance there would be that this will be owner occupied and not rental. Schmidt stated that parking was already a problem and stated that fire protection and snow removal would also be problems. Chair Dwyer inquired if any Hampshire residents were present to speak. Mr. Don Pazdernik, of 2472 Hampshire Court, stated he has been involved in the public hearing process for this project all along. He stated that the comments he has listened to tonight are similar to those heard from Hampshire last year. Pazdernik stated something worked, the City Council addressed the concerns of the Hampshire residents who are now happy with the new plan. He stated he has spoken with his neighbors, who are familiar with the new plan, and they are very pleased with the transition, buffers and the street design. He stated this plan may need some fine tuning. Mr. Jerry Morson, of 1442 Wachtler, stated he had been following this issue for over four years and this plan began with 576 proposed units with detached garages and heavy objections to density. He stated many improvements had been made to the plan and he urged the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council. Ms. Julie Schreader, of 594 Watersedge Terrace, stated she is concerned about tree preservation around the ponds and she felt the Outlot B could be included in the park dedication. She inquired if Centex could include access to the pond area and Outlot B. Mr. Boyce stated the previous plan had park around Owens Pond, but he can't provide both single family and park /pond. Ms. Schreader stated the small lots on entrances to Mendota Heights should be enlarged if possible. Ms. Jane Ryan, of 2547 Concord Way, stated she had moved to the manor homes from Fargo, ND and had been given assurance of manor homes and four - plexes. She showed Chair Dwyer a copy of the Phase I plat. Mr. Olson, of the Manor Homes, stated he agrees and disagrees with his neighbors. He stated he had known the area east of Phase I would include carriage or coach houses and he thought they were nice units. He stated he thinks the carriage homes are charming houses and are not "barracks ". He disagreed that the carriage homes will become tenant occupied. Mr. Olson stated that the carriage homes may be better to have across the street from the manor homes because you will only face half the units. He stated he would like to see the 12 unit buildings reduced to 10 unit buildings and the 10 unit buildings reduced to 8 unit buildings. Mr. Olson stated he is a satisfied Centex customer and is confident Centex will do the homes right. Mr. Olson stated he disagrees with comments about tenements, barracks and falling property values. He stated $60,000 is only the starting place for units and when extras are added the prices go up appreciably. Commissioner Tilsen asked Mr. Boyce about the market or buyers that would be interested in the carriage homes. Mr. Boyce stated buyers would primarily be first time owners out of apartments or those coming down out of large homes. Mr. Boyce stated they would be similar buyers to the manor homes, but not as many elderly because of the second level in the carriage homes. Chair Dwyer inquired if Centex would care to comment on the sentiment expressed that people were misled. Mr. John Bannigan stated the City has had a very thorough review process. Bannigan stated he would comment on people left out of the process. Bannigan stated the City Council had an obligation to the general welfare of the residents, not particularly to the welfare of a certain group. He stated the City Council has to balance the interest of constituents, parks and tree preservation. Mr. Bannigan stated the developer had given up 170 units. He stated this was a plan that could be fine tuned prior to the Council meeting and he recommended that the Planning Commission include all the concerns that were raised tonight so they can be addressed for the City Council. Mr. James , of 747 Keokuk, stated that Mr. Tilsen's comments should not be glossed over and that highway noise considerations and quality of construction should be considered. Ms. Barb Schmidt inquired about square footage in the carriage homes vs. manor homes. Mr. Boyce stated the carriage homes are 1100 to 1300 sq. ft. Ms. Schmidt stated her manor home is 1430 sq. ft. and that a carriage home only opens one side to the outdoors. Mr. Olson stated he had lived in some extremely nice apartments around the Twin Cities and all of them opened on only one side. Mr. Regan , of 2546 Concord Road, stated he shared the concerns mentioned by the manor home owners about density and design layout. He stated he wished to see a tree barrier along the I -494 corridor to protect the neighborhood from sound. Ms. Agnes , of 2502 Concord Way, inquired what the carriage homes would look like, what exterior materials they would be built with. Mr. Boyce showed her sketch elevations. Chair Dwyer stated he would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Tilsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. Commissioner Duggan stated he wanted the Centex attorney to address the concern about the original developer's agreement and the change from 136 manor homes to 80 manor homes as proposed in the replatting of Phase I before the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Duggan inquired if the developer's agreement addresses the concern of the manor home owners. Duggan inquired if the developer had considered these concerns prior to proposing the replat. Commissioner Duggan inquired if the switch in units is addressed in the agreement. Mr. Boyce responded that Phase I and Sketch Plan A and C are exhibits to the developer's agreement and this is being changed as a result of the negotiated settlement. Mr. Bannigan stated the developer had worked within the spirit of negotiations and that none of the terms, conditions or criteria were established by the developer, but by the City. Mr. Bannigan stated the developers are of the opinion there is no adverse impact on the manor home owners. Chair Dwyer called for a vote on the motion to close the public hearing. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Chair Dwyer stated he would like to make a recommendation to the City Council that included all the conditions, suggestion or concerns the Planning Commission wishes to attach to any recommendation for the developer to address prior to the City Council meeting. The Planning Commission listed their conditions as: 1. Consider adjustments to address the transition area between the manor homes in Phase I and the carriage homes in Phase II. Consider manor homes on both sides of Heritage Way. 2. The Planning Commission has a primary concern for protecting trees on the single family lots, especially around Owens Pond and Haverton Circle. They suggested a Tree Preservation Committee of Planning commissioners and citizens to work closely with the developer throughout construction and provide a quarterly report to City Council. Perhaps document the trees with videotape. 3. A number of specific lot adjustments, or fine tuning were recommended as conditions. They are: Block 1, Lots 3 and 6 Lot 3 is only 13,600 sq. ft. and Lot 6 is 24,800. Suggest a balance in this cul-de-sac. Block 1, Lots 4, 17, 18, 22 Grading and front walk outs considered for these lots to protect trees and lot grades. Block 3, Lot 22 Too small for Mendota Hts. Road. Block 3, Lots 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32 Block 3, Lot 8 Block 4, Lot 1 and 7 Block 4, Lot 17 Block 5, Lot 9 Narrow necks and the close proximity of driveways needs adjustment or response. Front and rear wetlands setbacks needed for this lot. Tree and pond preservation plan for the grading and construction of this lot. Lot I too small for Mendota Hts. Road. Possible balance with Lot 7 adjustment. Possibly made bigger by massaging lot lines up to Lot 13. 6% grade on driveway too steep. 4. Address the lots listed in the July 23, 1991 Planners Report that are not in compliance with the established criteria. Particularly, Block 1, Lots 5 and 6; Block 3, Lots 7 and 26; Block 4, Lot 14, as well as the flag and neck lots. 5. Consider adjustments to and screening for parking provisions in Carriage Home/Manor Home transition area. Also, Block 5, Lots 4 and 8. There was not consensus on the Planning Commission on this item, however, it was discussed. 6. A condition established was to provide a more detailed landscaping plan. Particularly to show the berming and screening along the 1-494 corridor. Standards for the berm were suggested to be a berm as high as possible with a 3:1 slope and a four foot top. The intent is to have the berm above window level. There should be trees on the berm to provide additional noise protection from the highway. 7. Address lot elevations and high water lines in Block 7 and work with engineering staff for a report on grades and elevations throughout the project. 8. Consider reducing back to back townhomes in density by changing 12 unit buildings to 10 unit buildings and 10 unit buildings to 8 unit buildings. 9. Consider changing Claremount Drive to a public right of way. Address snow removal plan on all private drives, especially Block 5. Mr. Boyce stated the owner's association would be responsible for contracting for snow removal. The Planning Commission requested to receive a report from the Fire Department on the site plan and emergency access. Commissioner Duggan inquired if any other measures were taken, besides the City's Noise Attenuation Ordinance, to mitigate air noise. A manor home resident stated that the highway noise is worse. Commissioner Duggan inquired if the State Codes could be exceeded during construction and stated Centex should evaluate if the noise attenuation standards are being met. 10. Noise measurement tests should be conducted on existing buildings completed to test compliance with the City's Noise Attenuation Ordinance. 11. Outlot B should be considered for inclusion into the park dedication. 12. Dr. Owen's homesite should be included in the platting as an outlot. 13. Consider moving Outlot A one lot to the west. Consider platting Outlot A as a right of way with larger than normal utility easements and possible side yard setback variances. 14. Submit a driveway plan for Langford Circle, particularly Lots 30, 31 and 32. 15. Provide a minimum 30 ft. separation between multi-family buildings, particularly Block 7, Lots 1 and 2. Provide a 30 ft. setback to roads, particularly Block 5, Lots 6 and 12. 16. Throughout the project, meet a suggested standard of 3% maximum grades for the parking/driveways of the carriage homes; for intersection approaches; and for all cul-de-sacs. 17. Consider tuck under design, or other designs to most strategically save trees and lot grading; particularly Block 1, Lots 4, 17, 18, and 22. Consider setback variances as a method to better design building pads for individual lots. 18. Storm water computations provided to engineering staff for analysis. Of particular concern, is the nature of the pond in the northern park dedication area. The Planning Commission also recommended the developer address any concerns listed in the staff and planner's reports. Chair Dwyer inquired if there was consensus on the Commission for a recommendation based upon the conditions and suggestions that had been discussed and agreed upon by the Commission. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the Commission somewhat has their hands tied on this issue, there may be better plans in the long run, but you cannot go backwards. Tilsen stated he would support approval. Commissioner Koll commended Centex for the compromises that have been made. Koll stated the 1985 City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan allowing 570 units in this area and there now has been a reduction of 46% to 385 units. Koll stated she believes Centex will do an overall quality project and she will pass approval on the project. Commissioner Duggan asked for the conditions to be read aloud by the secretary. The conditions were repeated. Chair Dwyer inquired if Centex would donate Outlot B to the City as park. Mr. Boyce stated he would consider it prior to the City Council meeting. Commissioner Koll suggested another condition should be to address the Police Chief's concern about the street names, Langford Circle and Sutton Court. The Commission added this as a condition. Commissioner Tilsen suggested a minimum of 30 ft. separation between buildings be maintained as outlined in the Planner's Report. Tilsen suggested the walkouts in the front be considered for Block 1, Lots 4, 17, 18, and 22. Mr. Boyce responded that tuck under garages are not a good idea with the winters in Minnesota and not many buyers like front walkouts. Mr. Boyce suggested that variances to setbacks might be a better way to address specific layouts for these lots. Commissioner Duggan inquired if the properties would be rental or residential. Mr. Bannigan stated the City Attorney had opined on this issue last year and the City cannot prevent owners from renting. Mr. Bannigan stated Centex agreed that these should be owner occupied but there is no legal way to stipulate this. Duggan stated Centex advertising should focus on "residential" in order to discourage renters, as homeowners have more care and more pride in their homes. The Commission did not support this suggestion. Commissioner Duggan inquired about capped wells on the property. Mr. Boyce stated that to his knowledge there were no capped wells on the site. Duggan inquired about the quality assurance plan. Mr. Boyce explained the HOW program. Mr. Boyce stated this is the largest HOW program in the U.S. and is 10 year warranty. He stated it primarily provides warranty if there is defective work according to a set of building standards, if the builder won't fix it and it meets the standards then HOW fixes it. Boyce stated that HOW provides specifications that determine warranty repairs. He stated the homeowner can request HOW to inspect if they are in dispute with Centex and there are arbitration provisions. Boyce stated HOW gives the homeowner peace of mind and provides standards for warranty. Boyce stated the provisions are one year for workmanship and materials, 2 years for mechanical and 10 years for structural warranties. Boyce explained Centex Homes' quality assurance program. Boyce stated Centex inquires of each owner at 30 days about any warranty requests. Commissioner Duggan stated he would like to see Centex keep the site clean during construction for the surrounding neighborhoods. Commissioner Duggan moved that the City Council approve the settlement plan with the list of conditions generated by the Planning Commission, including rezoning, CUP for PUD, Preliminary Plat and Wetlands Permit. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 VERBAL REVIEW ADJOURN Administrative Assistant Batchelder provided a verbal review of last month's planning actions taken by City Council. There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:52 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Ass