Loading...
2006-11-28 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 2006 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 28 31, 2006 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:30 pm. The following Commissioners were present: Acting Chair Hesse, Commissioners McManus, Lally, Povolny, Dolan, and Harms. Excused were: Chair Lorberbaum. Also present were Mendota Heights City Engineer Sue McDermott, Mendota Heights Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, and Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. ADDrOval of October 24. 2006 Minutes Page 6, first paragraph, first sentence should read as follows: "Commissioner Dolan said that given the Court's decision, the City has both won this case but lost where the owner has been led to a different course of action, and that the City's legal counsel believes this would be successful and there is no risk." Page 7, seventh paragraph should read as follows: "George VaRnis Battis, 758 Batchelor Avenue, asked the City to take time to assess all their options. Page 7, eighth ith paragraph — speaker's name should be replaced with correct spelling: Correcting Raston with Roston: "Howard Roston, 1728 Trail Road, said he plays golf on this course and from an emotional standpoint, he would love nothing more than to see this property remain a par 3 golf course. Mr. Roston said the City should buy this property and the residents should pay the taxes to support this purchase, but as an attorney representing the property owner, he said these property owners have the right to develop this property to its fullest potential consistent with what are reasonable regulations. Mr. Roston said the government goes too far when it says to a private property owner that they cannot use their property for a reasonable development use and a reasonable profit. The citizens of this city who oppose a re- development will be the first ones to come to the City in complaint should regulations come forth and tell them they can't do something on their property. Mr. Roston said that is morally wrong and not the way the government should function. Mr. Roston said he encourages the City to explore ways to acquire this property and to maintain it as a public park. That's the right thing to do. Mr. Roston said he agrees with Commissioner Dolan's comments regarding keeping this action separate from the other golf courses. Mr. Roston said he would much rather pay money now to keep this property as green space /golf course owned by the city than to spend money later in litigation costs in the future." Page 9, under "Annoucements" Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 Chair Lorberbaum encouraged residents to support our Firemen each year by buying tickets to the Annual Fireman's Ball, and to attend the Ball since it's a really fun event. COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LALLY, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2006 AS CORRECTED. 06 AYES Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 0 NAYES MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #06 -37 Ned Rukavina 1704 Vicki Lane Setback Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of 1704 Vicki Lane, which is a single family property in the R -1 district. This property is occupied by a single family home and the applicant is seeking approval of a variance to provide for the construction of an 8' x 12' storage shed that would be within the required building separation setback of the code. The applicant has indicated that because of the existence of a large pine tree, the shed cannot be moved farther from the home than the required 5 -ft setback. The applicant is asking for a 2 -ft. setback, resulting in a 3 -ft. variance request. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has a number of other locations that the shed could be constructed without the need for the variance. The applicant has indicated that the proposed location has been selected because it avoids removing the tree or put the shed in an area that would be less aesthetically appealing to the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance does appear to argue against the aesthetic aspects of the variance need, and finds no hardship to justify the variance request. Mr. Grittman explained that the separation requirement in the code has been put in place to ensure that there is adequate room between buildings for maintenance and fire code issues. Staff recommends denial of this variance for lack of hardship. Acting Chair Hesse asked if the Fire Department has had any input on this case. Mr. Grittman said to his knowledge, there have been no direct conversations with the Fire Department. Commissioner Lally asked Mr. Grittman to indicate other site options that the shed could be placed without the need of a variance. Commissioner Lally asked if there is any room on the garage side of the home to accommodate the shed. Mr. Grittman said there was plenty of room. Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 Mr. Ned Rukavina, 1704 Vicki Lane, reviewed his site plan and explained how the trees on his property and problems with the topography of the land hinder his choices of location for this shed. Mr. Rukavina also explained that there is decking on the home as well as the extensive landscaping he has completed. Mr. Rukavina said he does not wish to place a shed next to the garage as he has some other investment plans for that area. Mr. Rukavina said he selected the proposed location because the shed would be well hidden from site, and explained how he wishes to place the shed so it is not obtrusive to his neighbors. Mr. Rukavina said a smoke detector will be placed in the building as he intends to store gasoline for his lawnmower and snowblower in this shed. Mr. Rukavina said he also has steel siding on the existing home, and will also use the same materials for the shed, using a high protection rating to protect from any possible fire. Commissioner McManus asked how the applicant will conduct maintenance between the home and the shed because it's very narrow. Mr. Rukavina said the steel siding will be very durable. Commissioner McManus suggested other areas of the applicant's very large property that this shed could be placed without the need for a variance. Commissioner Lally asked the applicant to identify a hardship. Mr. Rukavina said he has no other hardship except for aesthetics for the neighbors. Commissioner Povolny said he has a hard time with the closeness of the shed to the house, and two feet is way too close. If the lot was small, he would see the necessity, but the lot is large and has a lot of opportunities to place this shed. Commissioner Povolny said the siding will not provide that much protection from fire. Mr. Rukavina said he would take this into consideration, but does not wish to change his proposal. Acting Chair Hesse asked if aesthetics can be considered as a hardship. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance does not preclude aesthetics as a factor, but does say that the uniqueness of the situation needs to be identified as well. Acting Chair Hesse said he has concerns with the fire issues and asked that the Fire Chief be included on this review to get his feedback and concerns. Commissioner Harms said this spot is ideal for keeping the shed hidden and commended the applicant for considering the neighbors concerns. Commissioner Harms said she feels the idea of using the neighbor's concerns as a hardship is clever and feels this presents a good argument. Commissioner Harms said she does have safety concerns with the storage of the gasoline in the shed. Acting Chair Hesse opened the public hearing. Joe Morgan, 1707 Vicki Lane, said he strongly supports this application because of the aesthetics. Mr. Morgan said he feels safer if the gasoline is stored in this shed than in the applicant's garage. Brian Vogel, 1705 Victoria Road, said he's the neighbor that the applicant is being considerate of. Mr. Vogel said this shed does not need to be in this proposed location as there is plenty of room in the back of the home (216 feet). Mr. Vogel said a variance needs a hardship and there is no hardship presented here as the applicant has the room to put this shed anywhere else. Mr. Vogel said he thinks the 2 -ft between the buildings would also Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 present difficultly in maintenance and feels that putting gasoline in a shed that is next to a pine tree is not a good idea. Mr. Vogel said this is clearly a variance issue and this case should not even be in existence as there are obviously plenty of alternatives for this location. Mr. Vogel said sheds, country homes, and barns are supposed to be pleasant to the eye and the area as there are paintings depicting these things; sheds should not be viewed as ugly outbuildings. Pat Kaplan, 1710 Vicki Lane, said the applicant has put a lot of time and money into his landscaping, which is very beautiful and supports the variance request. Ms. Kaplan said a shed is not a thing of beauty and should be located out of view. Nancy Stanton, 1713 Victoria Road, said she can see this whole area and would not like having to look at a shed. Mrs. Stanton said the applicant's yard is beautiful and she enjoys looking at it all summer long, and is in support of the variance request. Mrs. Stanton asked how tall the shed would be. Mr. Rukavina said the shed would be approximately 10 -ft. to 12 -ft. Mrs. Stanton said this shed would be higher than the existing fencing along the property line: the fence would not hide the shed from her view. Mr. Vogel said the Stantons and the Kaplans have sheds in their back yard that they have to look at all the time, so why would they oppose to looking at the applicant's shed as well? Seeing no one come forward to speak, Acting Chair Hesse asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HARMS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LALLY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYES MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST AS PRESENTED BASED ON THE FACT THAT NO HARDSHIP HAS BEEN PROVED; AND THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER ACCEPTABLE LOCATIONS THAT THIS SHED COULD BE PLACED AND BE AESTHECIALLY PLEASING WITHOUT THE NEED OF THE VARIANCE. Further discussion Acting Chair Hesse said he has not visited the site and asked if the other Commissioners feel there is adequate space. Commissioner Povolny said the space between the house and the proposed shed is too close and presents a safety issue. Commissioner McManus said the shed is too close to the home. Commissioner Lally said there are other options to place this shed so that the applicant can save the pine tree, permit the shed and avoid the variance. Commissioner Harms said she did not look sufficiently look around the yard to find alternative spots. Commissioner Povolny said if there are soffits on the house, and on the shed, the distance between the two buildings may be less than 2 -ft., and that steel siding does not give that much of a higher rating for fire protection. AYES Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 1 NAYS (Commissioner Harms) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #06 -38 Henry Sibley High School Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed a site plan for a portion of Henry Sibley High School property in which the applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to allow grade and fill operations in excess of 400 yards. The purpose of the filling operation is to allow for renovation of the tennis courts on the west side of the school building. The proposed project involves demolishing six tennis courts and refurbishing three existing tennis courts, and adding nine new courts. Mr. Grittman said it appears that all the conditions listed in the ordinance are being complied with and Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Dolan said there is no lighting currently proposed, and asked what the process would be should the applicant come back in the future to asked to have lighting installed. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance has standards for light glare but does not believe any particular zoning reviews would have to be conducted as the applicant would be able to install lighting within these standards. Commissioner Lally asked about screening requirements. Mr. Grittman said that does not apply in this case. Glen Heino, Wold Architects, and Dave Rey, AJA, are the applicants representing Henry Sibley High School. Mr. Heino talked about how the replacement would take place and how the dirt would be moved around. Commissioner McManus asked when the job will be done. Mr. Heino said the work will be done next spring. Commissioner Dolan asked if these courts are open to the public. Mr. Rey said he is not sure, but the gates are not locked and would believe the courts would be accessible to the public. Acting Chair Hesse opened the public hearing. Brian Marshall, 623 Callahan Place, asked for clarification of the project. Mr. Heino and Mr. Rey gave Mr. Marshall a recap of what will happen. Seeing no one come forward to speak, Acting Chair Hesse asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER POVOLNY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HARMS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYES MOTION CARRIED DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS REPORTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH INCLUDE ALL GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PLANS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT STORM WATER CALCULATIONS OF THE SITE AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #06 -35 City of Mendota Heights Comprehensive Plan Amendment — GC, Golf Course Acting Chair Hesse said the agenda reflects the comprehensive plan amendment, but did not mention the zoning change. Staff has indicated that the zoning change should be added to the agenda and discussion as the actual proposal includes this zoning change. Mr. Grittman said this application was tabled from the October Planning Commission Meeting and the request has been to create an amendment to the comprehensive plan that would allow the City to correct an incompatibility of the current comprehensive plan land use designation for the Par 3 Golf Course and the zoning of the course which is R -1 —Single Family. The result of the court case that came out of litigation on this property within in the last few years was that it was found that the City's zoning designation and land use designation of this property were in conflict and the City is required to take action to correct that conflict. Mr. Grittman said the proposed method of correcting this conflict is to amend the comprehensive plan and the City also wants to rezone this property to the R -lA Single Family designation. The amendment that was considered by the Planning Commission in October was one that would basically amend the language of the golf course class (GC) in the current comprehensive plan by adding an option for landowners with this designation to pursue single family housing development with a series of PUD standards applied to the design of the proposed housing. Mr. Grittman said there was a concern that the changing of this section of the comprehensive plan would probably affect the potential land use on the Somerset Golf Course and Mendakota Golf Course. The City Council's direction was to deal with the court order in the most expeditious way and without attempting to raise the issues with these other two golf courses. Mr. Grittman said an alternative amendment has been developed as a result of this and submitted to the Planning Commission for review at this time. Mr. Grittman said that rather than amending the current golf course designation in the comprehensive plan, this version would be a separate golf course designation dubbed "Golf Course — Small" which would pertain to those courses less than 20 acres in size, applying this designation to the Par 3 Golf Course. This designation would allow for the same type of PUD process as the previously proposed language, and apply design standards to any housing that may be proposed for only a small golf course such as the Par 3. Mr. Grittman said there is one other amendment to this text that was requested by the owners of the Par 3 property in which they objected to Item #4 "Common open space areas in the residential project shall be owned by a homeowner's association consisting of all of the owners in the development, and shall also be covered by a Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 conservation easement in favor of the City The property owners' concern was that this would preclude them from developing a housing development that they felt would be otherwise successful (using the Hidden Creek development as a model) by shrinking the lots and holding a lot of the property's common space to be owned by a homeowner's association. The property owners were concerned that they would not have the opportunity to develop under that model, which may give them some change of success. The new language would therefore say "Open space areas in the residential project shall be owned by a homeowner's association consisting of all of the owners in the development, and shall also be covered by a conservation easement in favor of the City. In the alternative, a development may provide for open space meeting the requirements of this classification through preservation of privately owned areas subject to a conservation easement in favor of the City of Mendota Heights. Under this alternative, a proposed development shall demonstrate that the open space design and intent of the land use category will be maintained through individual private efforts without reliance on a separate association ". Mr. Grittman said with these changes, the City will have a manageable way to maintain portions of the land with the conservation easements in place to ensure adequate open space. The following is a paraphrased discussion of the case from the Commission: Commissioner McManus I think what you've done has taken care of most of my concerns and I'm not one to deny private property owners from disposing of their land in some way in which they want to do, however I am concerned that if we recommend passage of this, and the City Council follows up on that, what's to stop the owners from immediately selling this to a developer? Steve Grittman I don't think there is anything that would stop them from selling it to a developer immediately, at least from the standpoint of what this amendment says. I will note that the applicants have been in discussions with the City to allow the City to pursue the City's purchase of the property. I think that's basically a handshake deal right now as far as I know, but there is nothing in here that would preclude them from selling. Commissioner McManus I am concerned that the citizens of this city have the opportunity to at least recommend to the City Council to consider acquiring the property at a fair market price, and it might be pretty high, to use that land to serve as either a central park or for a golf course. I'm concerned that we somehow guarantee that the citizens have an opportunity for a referendum and how could that be achieved under the current recommendation? Steve Grittman I think that the only way to guarantee that the City would have that opportunity would probably be separate from any amendments that we might be doing, and consider some kind of development moratorium that would affect a proposal of this type. Commissioner McManus In your opinion, can that be done? Steve Grittman I believe so. Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 Commissioner McManus That is really my only concern, that the City and the citizens of the city have an opportunity to buy this property at a fair market value for a park or for green space, before it is developed. I would like to see some way of ensuring that this concept gives a fair opportunity to be pursued by the City Council. Commissioner Lally I have a question about whether there was a notice of this amended proposal sent to the same notice area as was last month, or is the practice not to give special notice? Steve Grittman The practice is to typically not give additional notice once the proposed amendment has been noticed. If we would be operating in a way where we were proposing a different zoning or something that was significantly outside of the bounds of what the original notice would have provided for, there probably would have needed to send notification, but not in this case here. Commissioner Lally I asked because there were maybe a dozen people (in the audience) last month. The landowners are here now, but other than that, there are no other residents (in the audience). Maybe you can talk about the change because as I look at the three different spaces where the word "common" is struck from the phrase "common open space" in the proposal. I understand what the difference was between "common open space" and "private residential lots" are, but if they are all private residential lots with the conservation easement, Item #5 makes sense because it's both open space and private residential lots — what's the difference if the open space is part of the private residential lots.? Steve Grittman I think we were only intending to distinguish between areas that would be part of the project that were being designed into the project to provide open space for aesthetic reasons. With this revised language, it would be done in a way that an individual property owner would own that land. We want to try to retain the idea that this particular area is being provided for that open space purpose and the ownership aspect is hopefully irrelevant to the goal. Commissioner Lally Isn't open space land that doesn't have a building on it? With the R -IA designation, part of the open space preserved is where the lot size has to be 40,000 sq. ft. because of the setbacks. With this requirement, the house would not take up the entire lot. Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 Steve Grittman Commissioner Lally Steve Grittman Commissioner Lally Steve Grittman I think that certainly is one of the landowners' arguments in favor of eliminating the association concept here, and I think that one of the objectives that we have had when we first came up with the concept was that we control where houses were located by the common open space idea pushing houses away from perhaps Dodd Road as an example, or a little bit away from Batchelor in certain areas, or away from adjoining houses in certain areas. I think that's an achievable goal whether we use the common open space idea or whether we apply that design concept under a PUD to a private property. I think we did not want to rely just purely on the building setbacks because then we could have a pretty much standard subdivision so to speak even albeit large lots and we're trying to jiggle things around to have those concentrateable open space areas to preserve the greatest benefit. How many lots would be available under the proposal? Our estimate is that there would be 19 lots available. Is there 19 lots with the common open space but the PUD still permits the smaller lot size? Yes, that's correct. Commissioner Lally So it goes from a 40,000 sq. ft. lot to a 24,000 sq. ft. lot. The last time you were able to show these cluster lots and other lot sizes with a common open space designated. How would this proposal differ from the pictures that you provided last time and I understand this is only an example, not the landowners proposal. Steve Grittman I think if we just use that as a model, one way that would differ would be that they would expect to extend the lot lines. Instead of ending it at the common open space they would just extend the side lot lines out to the perimeter of the property and I think if I can speak for the owners, their argument in that case is that they felt that they would be able to sell some large lots that way that would retain higher value then they would get if they were selling 24,000 sq. ft. lots plus some common right in the association parcel. I don't have an opinion on that from a marketing standpoint. I think our objective was trying to preserve the open space concept as part of the development whether there are private lot lines running through that space or not. Acting Chair Hesse I presume, based on your last line of the writeup, that the City Council is working with the property owners and there has really been nothing finalized in terms of timelines. I think Commissioner McManus had the same concerns, but wanted to clarify that for myself. The City Council is working with the current property owners to determine if it's possible for the City to purchase the property from them. Being that they are working on it, there really are no specific timelines or plans at this point, but just an open -ended "give us a chance" kind of thing. Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 Steve Grittman I don't know what formal steps have been taken at this point, if any, beyond discussions between the representatives of the City Council, Staff, and the landowners to work out an informal timeline. I know it is part of the owners' interest that they've expressed to not have this to drag on forever and I think the City Council is trying to respect that in exchange for the idea that the owners will give the City some time to work this out. It's my understanding that there is no formalized agreement right now, but everybody expects that is the direction they are heading, and I assume that from Commissioner McManus' point of view, that something more firmed up more than that would be the preference. Acting Chair Hesse It appears that we've run the race and ended up back where we started from. It appears to me that we were encouraged at some point by the City Council to move ahead with going to court on the issue in the first place, and at the same time, we come back to the end of this. It's their recommendation that to comply with the court order, we don't create a golf course zone in our zoning ordinance but rather we create a residential designation in the comprehensive plan, which to me seems like what we should have done in the first place. How many levels did we go through, two or three? Steve Grittman We went to the State Supreme Court. Acting Chair Hesse That's three — and each one of those times we could have decided to pull out or just except our fate and move on. We're spending the League of Minnesota's money and it seems to me that a lot of effort has been taken to end up where we are. I have a hard time with the concept of going through this and I realize that the City Council has made a decision to go and pick another direction and that's why you've been asked to do this, and in turn, we have been asked to comment on this particular document, and they were not soliciting the comments that I've been offering. Those are my thoughts, and right or wrong, they are going to influence just how I vote on this. Commissioner Dolan I think what's changed is that we received a Supreme Court decision and even though I think they've ruled in our favor technically, I think the City Council has decided to provide some kind of road map for the owner to make a different claim that our City Council thinks will be successful. So I think things have changed. I think the City has followed the Supreme Court decision and this is the direction they have chosen. I have the same comments as Commission McManus, it seems odd that we're here making a decision which decision may be made by the City Council in a week and a half, when we are still considering ar referendum. I just don't know how that plays into the timing and I'm assuming the City Council has a handle on that, and it seems that we should be providing some time for that to play out rather than making this decision. With respect to the change in the comprehensive plan, would it be easier instead of providing for a new district, to simply guide the property R -1A, or some residential, and then impose the PUD on the zoning end? to Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 Steve Grittman I'm not sure we would have the ability to impose the PUD without some kind of policy document saying that we have to. If we guide it at R -IA, and zoned it R -IA, theoretically they could come in a do an R -IA plat that would meet all those requirements without the need for the PUD. Commissioner Dolan We couldn't zone it PUD in any sort and have a PUD district that would be appropriate here. It seems to me that it would be more straight - forward that we impose restrictions on the zoning side instead of changing into a new comprehensive plan designation. Steve Grittman We probably could do something like that and based on where we've ended up, it might be some place we would have gone sooner and it's probably more the trip that we've made. Commissioner Dolan With respect to the conservation easement, the idea is that this would be filed against the property once it was platted and then be part of the plat. Then the owners would buy the property subject to that easement, it would be negotiating separate conservation easements of individuals. Steve Grittman No, it would be required as part of the plat. Commissioner Dolan Following up with some of Commissioner Lally's comments on the language, I had the same comment he did, and that's if we're changing this so that we are not creating an obligation to create this common area, and if we're going to allow them to include the open area within the particular lots, it seems like a lot of this language would drop out. In addition to that, for instance, the second paragraph that says the lands designated to the GC — Small, Golf Course use shall be intended to be preserved for the operation of small golf courses, and then you want to say however, such lands may also accommodate limited residential development according to the zoning district in which they are located — aren't we assuming that will be R -1A? Steve Grittman We are certainly assuming that right now. Commissioner Dolan So according to the zoning district in which they are located, shouldn't we just say R -I A? Steve Grittman I would say there wouldn't be another alternative, at least in practice, and I'm always a little reluctant to be that descriptive in a comprehensive plan document. I can see us eventually ending up with some thing else, and having some difficulty that we've been too specific Commissioner Dolan So this is just to provide us some more flexibility in the case we change our mind. M Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 Commissioner Dolan Item #4 says that open space areas in the residential project shall be owned by the homeowners association. If we agree with the developer concept, would that idea just fall away and would there not be homeowners association at all? Steve Grittman I guess the intent of our change here was actually to say that this option may still be out there and an eventual developer may decide that the homeowners association concept is something they may want to pursue, so I did not want to drop that homeowners association idea altogether, instead appended this section with what is in the alterative. Commissioner Dolan What about in item #6, this language was in there before. We are allowing them to go to a smaller lot size in order to preserve open areas. If we are allowing them to put that open area within the lots, are we allowing them to reduce the size by 40 %? Steve Grittman I think we are still allowing for flexibility for lot size because we may have some lots that are 50 -, 60 -, or 70 -sq. ft. and some that are still down to the lower size. Rather than saying all the lots might be shrunk down to some 24,000 sq. ft. level, and then we'll have 33% owned in an outlot, we might have some at 24,000 sq. ft. and some at 70,000 sq. ft. lots. Acting Chair Hesse asked if the landowners had any comments. The landowners declined comment. Acting Chair Hesse opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward to speak, Acting Chair Hesse asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HARMS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LALLY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYES MOTION CARRIED 12 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 Commissioner Lally I read the Supreme Court case and what jumped out most to me was the historical account in that Mendota Heights adopted a comprehensive plan before it was even required to by statute in 1960. In the comprehensive plans of 1960, 1979, and 2002 — all of them mention open space. In 2002, it talks about green space, open space and recreational opportunities. It seems that this has been a consistent factor in development plans of the City and in the comprehensive plan. It seems to me that if we are talking about an amendment to the comprehensive plan we should be looking comprehensively, we should be looking not just at one piece of property and one property owner, but at the whole. It seems to me that the open space and green space that is the Par 3 Golf Course is something that the City values and I don't know whether part of our recommendation to the City Council would be to include some sense of the value that we see in that open space, and would they consider that in their discussions? I wanted to bring up that fact of consistent commitment to open space and green space and recreational opportunities in all comprehensive plans that the City has. Acting Chair Hesse I think that's probably reiterated since this whole thing started and it's curious to me that there is not one resident in attendance as there has been a lot of interest at every other meeting we've had on this issue. I have not seen anybody from the Parks Commission here, I don't understand that and maybe I've not been close enough to this in the last month or so than I should have been, but it seems odd to me. Commissioner Povolny Part of the thing is the green space, the park issue, and the owning of the property is a sales issue to the landowners. I think our issue is to deal with either approving or not approving. The landowners have invested a lot of time and money in this thing, and all the things we've discussed. I like the green space but I also like the project. The landowners want to do the project and they claim it's not economical as a golf course, it's not our place to decide whether it is economical. We should either approve it or not approve it, and all the other things are the City Council's issues. I liked it as a golf course, but it has a better economical use, they own it and we should just do it or not. Commissioner McManus I respectfully disagree because I think we also represent the taxpayers in this community and I think we should at least ensure that the people from this community get an opportunity to make a reasonable offer to purchase that space for a fair market price to preserve that as open space either as a park or as a walking trail, or a golf course. If they can't make it pay as a golf course, I don't know how we could. On the other hand, there may be other uses for that land that people of this community will value to the point where they say "let's raise the taxes and buy the thing ". I think we can, while cooperating with the owners of the property, ensure that the citizens of this community get an opportunity to review that option. Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 Acting Chair Hesse I don't disagree with that, but I think that decision is obviously not ours and we can certainly make the recommendation to the City Council on top of either approving or not approving this that they pursue that with vigor. We have no idea how far they've gotten and it doesn't sound like too many people have any idea as well. It would be the preference that the City be given the opportunity but I think that's entirely up to them to push it or not push it. It's between them and the owner. Commissioner Povolny The City has had a change over the last couple of years while this was in court that they want to buy the property, there are several different ways of doing it. If it's that important, which I think in some aspects it is, this not a good place to be if you are against it, or for it, but the reality is if the City wants it, they should buy it. That's not our place. I understand where Commissioner McManus is coming from. These gentlemen bought the golf course many years ago, and they claim that the price they bought it for is not economical for them. If the City buys it at today's price, how economical would it be? Commissioner Harms I don't believe what we are being asked to do today rules out the possibility and maybe puts a little more pressure on the City Council, but the City Council has to step up and try to resolve it. Based on the discussion last month, the court has demanded that we reconcile these documents and we cannot not take action. If we don't take action, we risk further action which I understood to be not in the City's best interest in terms of cost expense and further time delays. I agree with Commission Lally that we need to take action here and the City Council will have to pursue parallel discussions. COMMISSIONER POVOLNY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HARMS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CREATING A NEW GC, GOLFCOURSE (SMALL) LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, RE- GUIDING THE PAR 3 GOLF COURSE PROPERTY TO GC- SMALL, AND REZONING THE PROPERTY TO R -1A. Further Discussion Commissioner McManus asked if it would be appropriate to have an advisory to the City Council that would encourage the City to work on getting a referendum together to allow the City to purchase this property at a fair market price. Commissioner Dolan said he agrees and finds it hard to believe that the Planning Commission cannot get more information on this issue than they have. City Engineer Sue McDermott said the City Council had recently held a workshop before the last City Council meeting with the property owners to discuss the potential referendum and they have set some tentative dates for finalizing negotiations on purchase price. The City Council could potentially hold a referendum in April. A negotiating team has been established consisting of two City Council members as well as Joe Betlej, a former member of the Planning Commission. Ms. McDermott said a referendum process cannot be put into place until an agreeable purchase price has been established. Ms. McDermott said there is also talk about forming a 14 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 referendum committee and believes Chair Sally Lorberbaum may be on that committee Commissioner McManus said he expects the property owners will act in good faith, but good faith may not require that they not sell the property right out from under the City. Ms. McDermott said that is a possibility. Commissioner McManus said there is no way to ensure that the people of this community get a shot at this. Mr. Grittman said the only way he knows of would be to enact a development moratorium that would preclude any development from happening. Mr. Grittman said he does not know how the City would preclude the property owner from selling the property at any time. Commissioner McManus said if there was a development moratorium, then the property owners could go ahead and sell the property to a developer, but the developer would be taking a risk in starting the development should the City choose to condemn the property. Commissioner McManus said it seems to him that the City has absolutely no way to protect itself. Acting Chair Hesse said he understands that this is really in the hands of the City Council and the Planning Commission is only trying to send the best message to them to work as quickly with the property owners as they can. Commissioner Dolan said the applicant is the City of Mendota Heights, and it seems odd that the City is forcing their hand when there is no need to. Commissioner Dolan feels that the City may be hurting their negotiating power by passing this before anything is negotiated. Mr. Grittman said he is not sure this will affect their negotiation. Commissioner Dolan said since this is approved by the City Council, the property owners can sell it to someone else for development. Mr. Grittman said the legal counsel that was received so far was that whether we do this or not, somebody is going to be able to push a development of the property because the court has told us that this is what could happen as a result of the existing designation and the conflict in the language. Commissioner Dolan said the timing seems odd. Mr. Grittman said the timing was not set by court order, but the City has to reconcile the issue and at some point, if it's not done, somebody will most likely accuse the City of failing to comply. Mr. Grittman said given the action of the court, the timing of the City's reconciliation issue is not going to have an impact on the valuation of the property. Commissioner McManus said the Supreme Court said that this needs to be fixed and the City has to make their written documents consistent, but they did not say that the City needs to permit instant development of the property. So the City can then say they are making the proper decision as the court ordered, and it will be done on a prompt basis, but that the City will not permit the development of that property until the City gets a chance to see if its residents are interested in purchasing the property. Mr. Grittman said that would go back to the development moratorium concept and the City wants to take a specific action to preclude any potential development of the property for some term that was legally enforceable. Commissioner Dolan asked if the moratorium could be broader than just this property? Mr. Grittman said not necessarily, and the moratorium could be tailored to protect the planning process and could have a moratorium that could affect only one property at a time. Commissioner McManus said if the Planning Commission could at least get some consensus to the City Council that it is recommended to give residents a shot at a referendum and at the same time, meet the direction of the Supreme Court, it may be possible to do both. Commissioner McManus asked to add a friendly amendment to recommend that the City Council move ahead with negotiations with the owner expeditiously on an acceptable purchase price and begin the referendum process. Commissioners Povolny and Harms have accepted the friendly amendment. Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2006 AYES NAYS (Commissioner Lally) MOTION CARRIED OTHER BUSINESS December Planning Commission Meeting ACTING CHAIR HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HARMS, CANCEL THE DECEMBER, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECONVENE ON JANUARY 23, 2007. AYES NAYES MOTION CARRIED VERBAL REVIEW Jake Sedlacek PLANNING CASE #06 -34 T- Mobile Zoning Ordinance Amendment • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. EPLANNING CASE #06 -33 T- Mobile Conditional Use Permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering EIPLANNING CASE #05 -42 Betty Schuster Lot Split - - Formatted: Bullets and Numbering • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. This case was tabled due to a city- wide moratorium for residential lot splits. The Schusters have since changed their original request and only split into two lots, and not the three lots they originally wanted. a'LANNING CASE #06 -32 John and Melanie Morgan Variance • There was a 2 -2 vote on this case to approve this variance; motion failed. This case has been tabled for the next City Council meeting for a tie splitting vote. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:25 PM. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 16 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering