Loading...
2005-01-25 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting January 25, 2005 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 2005 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:30 pm. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Miller, Betlej, Dolan, Hesse, and M. McManus. City Staff present were City Engineer Sue McDermott and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Approval of November 23, 2004 Minutes Commissioner Betlej asked that friendly amendments be boldfaced. Page 8, last paragraph should read: "Chair Lorberbaum said she would rather see the larger house with the driveway access to Dodd Read Ivy Hills Drive with a variance of the 5 -ft. Chair Lorberbaum said the City must be sensitive to the fact that the Alvarezes may not always live there and need to look at this case long -term. Mr. McKinley said that the house would be position is such a way that they would be compatible to each other and would accept either variance." "Chair Lorberbaum said she would agree with Commission M. McManus that she would much rather see a variance for the front yard along Dodd Road and keeping with this plan. Chair Lorberbaum said she will not support this motion but would rather see a motion with the same plan, with the alternative plan for the garage area, and with the access to Dodd Read Ivy Hills Drive with the 5 -ft. variance." COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 2004 AS AMENDED. 6 AYES 0 NAYS 1 ABSTENTION (Commissioner Dolan) MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #05 -01 Rossbach Construction / Smookler, Richard and Diane 682 Ivy Falls Court Wetlands Permit for Deck/Porch Expansion Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a wetlands permit for the existing home at 682 Ivy Falls Court. Mr. Grittman said the permit is necessary due to the location of the creek and wetland area to the rear of the property. Mr. Grittman said the new deck would be an expansion of the existing deck and a porch would be constructed on a portion of the existing deck. Mr. Grittman said the improvements would not encroach any closer to the edge of the wetland nor will they significantly increase any impervious surface on the property. These improvements would not have any affects on the existing landscaping and it's Staff s opinion that water quality will not be affected. Commissioner Miller complimented the applicant and City Staff for their excellent preparation on this project. Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2005 Commissioner Betlej said he likes to see the "findings of fact" in the Planners Report. Mr. Grittman said this information is being supplied on advice from the City Attorney. Commissioner Dolan asked for an example on how the water quality would be affected. Mr. Grittman said that would occur if there were any uncontrollable runoffs or changes in the vegetation (i.e., fertilizer, etc.) In this case, the home is far enough away and there will be no changes in the vegetation. Mr. Will Rossbach, VP of Rossbach Construction, is the applicant and representing Dr. and Mrs. Richard Smookler, the owners. It is noted that the owners were also in attendance. Mr. Rossbach shared some pictures of the back of the house and said that the existing deck is supported by posts. The entire back yard of the Smookler's property is undeveloped. Mr. Rossbach said all the work will be done by hand and there will be no large machinery which would affect any of the wetland area. Mr. Rossbach said that the proposed addition will not be a three- season porch and will, in fact, be an addition to the home. This addition will be taking over the area of the existing deck, which will require that the existing deck be removed and framing will be done to accommodate the addition. This will all be pier - construction and no foundation will be constructed. Commissioner B. McManus asked how large the addition will be. Mr. Rossbach said the room would be approximately 12' x 20'. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS PROPOSED BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED HOME ADDITION AND DECK EXPANSION WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE WETLAND BUFFER OR LANDSCAPE COVER. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -02 Melvin Koppen 1316 Victory Avenue Lot Split Mr. Grittman reviewed a survey map indicating where the applicant proposes to split the existing parcel located at 1316 Victory Avenue. The applicant currently resides in the single family home and garage that exists on the property. The applicant wishes to split the lot and build a new home on the new parcel. The new building site would have an equal amount of frontage, but access would have to be gained over a private driveway extending to the current termination of the street surface. Mr. Grittman said this subdivision was proposed several years ago. At that time, there were some power poles along Victory Avenue in that location and the applicant has proposed to construct a driveway, requireing use of this property to access the new building site. Since that time, the applicant has worked with the utility company to remove the power poles and is proposing to extend improvements that provide access to this parcel. Mr. Grittman said it may be the City's wish that Victory Avenue is not fully extended the entire street to Lemay Lake, but only far enough to be able to access the proposed lot. Mr. Grittman said the Council was concerned about a driveway from the new building site extending across the existing homesite, therefore would negotiate the extension of the street. Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2005 Commissioner M. McManus asked if the new building site would comply with current ordinances and guidelines. Mr. Grittman said the Code Enforcement staff will review plans to make sure buffers and setbacks will be adhered to. Mr. Grittman said Victory Avenue is currently a right of way and not a paved street. Commissioner Dolan asked if it is the intention to have this right of way paved. Mr. Grittman said that is part of the discussions with the engineering staff and City Council. The question is: how far would Victory Avenue need to be paved to gain access to the proposed lot? Mr. Grittman said the City Council may also approve a driveway crossing over the undeveloped right of way. Commissioner Dolan asked if the applicant will pay for all the costs for constructing the portion of Victory Avenue that the City Council deems necessary. Mr. Grittman said that would appear to be correct. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there needs to be a resolution that the owner will pay for the street extension so this will be clarified for all those concerned. Mr. Grittman said this would be recommended. Chair Lorberbaum asked City Staff to find out who owns the property to the north of the right of way because any road improvements would most likely affect that property owner as well. Mr. Hollister said the City owns this right of way by fee title, and that at some future date, if the City decides to vacate a portion of that street, it becomes relevant who this property has been exacted from in term of returning it to whomever the land was taken from in the first place when the neighborhood was originally platted. Mr. Grittman said the 100' of frontage for the proposed home would be along the right of way which extends down to the lake, even though there would not be a constructed road there. Commissioner Betlej said this survey map does not seem to reflect the actual delineation of the wetland and the applicant would need to present a wetland delineation map to the City. Commissioner B. McManus said it appears that if the City declares that there is a right of way there, they don't have to have an actual constructed street. Mr. Grittman said the City acquires a right of way either by purchase or by dedication, and Victory Avenue is not a declared street by record. Commissioner B. McManus said it appears that as long as a lot has a right of way that has been designated by the City, there does not need to be a street there. Mr. Grittman said the parcel needs to be a public right of way dedicated for street purposes and the code does not require that a full and complete public street be built along that entire area. The code says to qualify for a buildable lot there needs to be 100' of frontage on a dedicated public street, but not necessarily a constructed public roadway. Then the City makes the decision on how much of that roadway needs to be constructed. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the property owner to the north has any say to having this right of way changed. Mr. Grittman said that property owner should have been informed of this public hearing. Mr. Grittman said the property owners assume all risks should the City decide to make upgrades. Mr. Hollister said that all notifications are sent to the property owners, whether or not they actually reside at the address indicated on the map. Therefore, some of the properties listed on the notification lists are not necessarily the addresses where the notices were sent. Mr. Melvin Koppen, 1316 Victory Lane, said he has been working with Excel Energy to take care of the power poles and the street is now open. Commissioner M. McManus asked the applicant if he has agreed to pay for all costs for the roadway and if the applicant has had any discussions on how the road would be constructed. Mr. Koppen said that he is willing to pay the costs, and that the only discussions with the City were concerning the steepness of the hill. Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Koppen how far he would like the road to go back. Mr. Koppen said he only wants it far enough to gain access to the proposed lot and would keep up the maintenance of the right of way to the lake. Mr. Koppen does not want to have to access the lot through the current lot. Chair Lorberbaum said there are set standards that the City uses to construct streets and asked the applicant if he knew what the costs would be. Mr. Koppen said he did not. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Koppel if that worries him. Mr. Koppen said that water needs to be brought down there, and the sewer is already there. Chair Lorberbaum suggested to Mr. Koppen that he makes sure he knows all the costs involved before going forward. City Engineer McDermott said that Mr. Koppen provided the City with a petition for the improvements, and it is the impression of the City Administrator that the road is not extended with an entire 30' wide street just for one Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2005 home, and feels that a driveway would be acceptable. Ms. McDermott said if the City accepts the petition, a feasibility report would be prepared to inform the applicant of all the costs. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the driveway would have to be paved. Ms. McDermott said it would have to be to comply with the ordinances. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Rita Corrigan, 1309 Furlong Avenue, asked where the new home would be located and if trees would be removed. Mr. Koppen referred to the survey map and indicated where the home would be laid out and that there would be no tree removal involved. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AS PROPOSED, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT IF THE PUBLIC STREET IS EXTENDED, THAT THE APPLICANT PAYS FOR ALL CITY COSTS FOR THE EXTENTION OF THE STREET AND THE OWNER IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR SEEKING ANY WETLAND PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -03 Stanley and Nicole Genadek 716 Third Avenue Wetlands Permit Mr. Grittman said this request is for a wetland permit that would result in a substantial alternation of an existing wetland and that the applicant currently does not have significant information that was needed for the staff to properly review the application. After the public hearing notice was sent to the newspaper, City Staff decided that the application was incomplete and notified the applicant of this. City Staff requests that this hearing is continued and to table action until the next meeting, at which time it is hoped to have sufficient information. Chair Lorberbaum asked how it was determined that this was complete enough to have a public notice and then decided that it was not complete enough for the Commission to discuss. Mr. Grittman said the notice needs to be published at a certain date in order to meet the publication requirements, but Staff needed to spend some time working on what was submitted and to find out whether or not there would need to be additional information to complete the package to allow Staff to make a decision. Chair Lorberbaum said it appears that the City needs to publish a notice before it has the chance to make sure the application is complete because of deadline issues. Mr. Grittman said that is correct. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there were any costs incurred to publish this information. Mr. Grittman said there is a cost that needs to be paid by the applicant. Mr. Grittman said that if this hearing in continued, it will not have to be re- published. Commissioner Betlej asked if the Commission follows the recommendation as stated, when will the timeframe start in terms of the approval of the application? Mr. Grittman said that the 60 -day notice start time will be determined when the application is complete. Chair Lorberbaum said that even if the Commission talks about this case, the clock does not actually start. Mr. Grittman said that is correct. Chair Lorberbaum asked for feedback from the Commissioners on this case. 4 Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2005 COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO TABLE ACTION ON THIS APPLICATION AND CONTINUE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. Chair Lorberbaum reminded the Commission that a motion to table does not allow for further discussion. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum said this application will be tabled until the February 22nd meeting with the understanding that the clock does not start until the application is complete. PLANNING CASE #05 -04 Moen Leuer Construction Mendota Heights Road PUD Mr. Grittman showed a map indicating the location for a proposed office condominium project on the northeast quadrant of I -35E and I -494, on the south side of Mendota Heights Road. The City previously reviewed a concept plan for this request and the applicant is now seeking a preliminary development plan approval for a PUD as well as a preliminary plat and variance that would apply to the minimum acreage standards for a PUD. The site is triangular in shape with Mendota Heights Road, running along the north boundary of the property. Access to the property would be from the northeast corner of the property. Mr. Grittman said there are four building, with a total of 10 individual office condominium units that would be sold separately.. There is also a ponding area on the southeast corner. The plan that is being presented at this time is a slight revision to the plans that are before the Commission, primarily in relation to a few civil engineering issues that the applicants have been work with City Staff on. Mr. Grittman said that the layout is essentially the same otherwise. Mr. Grittman said Staff reviewed the project against the zoning ordinance requirements as well as the comments that were made by Staff, Planning Commission and City Council members during the concept review. Mr. Grittman said PUD's are applied to base lots of at least 10 acres in size, and the ordinance has a process for considering whether or not the City would accommodate a reduction to a 5 -acre size PUD as a minimum threshold. Mr. Grittman said this lot is just over 2- acres and as a result, the applicant is asking for a variance from that 10 -acre or 5 -acre threshold. This property is zoned B -IA but is identified in the Land Use Plan as LB -PUD. The Comprehensive Plan has identified this as a PUD site despite the fact that it does not meet the 10 -acre threshold and Staff believes that without considering the variance for the PUD size, the size of the development will have difficultly complying with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan. The LB portion of the land use designation and the B -IA are designed to coordinate with each other. When the City Council updated the Comprehensive Plan they applied the PUD designation in the Land Use Plan to specifically allow for a heightened level of review on one of the remnant sites. City Staff feels that this plan meets the threshold for variance here because without utilizing the PUD, the City would be in violation of the Comprehensive Plan in regards to this site and that the PUD approach is the recommended way to proceed. Mr. Grittman said with regard to the PUD, development planning is more thoroughly reviewed under that section of the ordinance and provided in the staff report a number of considerations: ➢ Parking is more than adequate to accommodate the amount of office space that will be on this site. ➢ Applicant is looking for some flexibility to the extraordinary setbacks in the B -lA. ➢ Building architecture — applicant has provided several drawings showing cultured stoneibrick in a wainscot design with lap siding and shake material. City Council has requested that more commercial building materials be used to avoid the residential look. Staff has suggested that the applicant make some revisions to meet those standards. ➢ Landscaping plan could be intensified more and more screening along the east side would be appropriate. Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2005 ➢ Signage — free standing monument sign has been shown which is located near the entrance. There are no other plans indicating more signage detail as required for a PUD request. If applying the B -1 standard for setbacks, the signage must meet the B -1 standard as well. Staff recommends this application be tabled until revisions have been made for building architecture, landscaping and signage. Commissioner M. McManus said she would be in favor of tabling this application in order to review more information, and is concerned with setbacks and traffic circulation as it relates to emergency vehicles. Mr. Grittman said the size of the parcel is the biggest issue and there are not many other options to develop this piece and the City is constricted by the boundaries of this site, and that is probably why this site has been zoned as it has. Mr. Grittman said the pond is constructed for storm water control. Commissioner M. McManus asked for Planner's preference on the location of the trash area. Mr. Grittman said he would prefer indoor trash collection because there would not be the trash enclosure buildings on the site and would look better, and feels that it would be appropriate to move the trash collection to the corner of the site. Commissioner Hesse said he would like to see more revised plans to address these concerns addressed by the Planner. Commissioner Dolan said MnDOT most likely has their own specifications for the closeness buildings can be to the right of way, and asked if the City can waive those requirements. Mr. Grittman said he is not sure if there are specific requirements for this, but they have some other standards they will impose depending on the nature of the usage of the land. Chair Lorberbaum said it seemed that the applicant did not get a copy of the Planner's report and asked Staff to follow up on the reasoning behind that. Chair Lorberbaum expressed concerns regarding several topics: • Applicant had chosen a 9' x 18' parking space and expressed her concern with the length of the parking spaces being shorter, thus allowing for more parking spaces, versus the City's requirement of 20' in length. Chair Lorberbaum has a concern about the snow removal in the wintertime. • Standard procedure requires that the applicant provide hours of lighting, and there has been no information in the application regarding this issue. • It seems as though it is the Planner's preference to have this parcel developed as a PUD, even though the parcel does not meet the thresholds of the 10 -acre and the 5 -acre. • The application does not contain information regarding signage, and asked if there will there be signage on each of the buildings. Mr. Grittman said he is assuming that there will be some type of signage on the buildings. • There is a need for impervious surface information. • Request to have the fire department review the revised plans before they come back to the Planning Commission. Chair Lorberbaum said that the 60 —day start will start on January 11th, which means it finishes March 0' which gives time on February 22 °d to deal with this application and then March I" could go to the City Council Meeting, and can be extended if needed. Commissioner Betlej asked what the zoning was on the land to the east. Mr. Grittman said this was an R -1 district (St. Thomas Academy). Commissioner Betlej said the B -1 zoning on the proposed parcel would be a heavier use relative to the R -1 zoning. Mr. Grittman said there could be a potential conflict. Commissioner Betlej asked what the City Council's reaction was to the building design. Mr. Hollister said the concept plan went to the City Council on December 7, 2004 and because it was a concept plan, no official vote was taken. According to the minutes, there are no formal indications from the group, but only individual comments, which reflect their comfort with processing this as a PUD. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there were any comments regarding the look of the siding? Mr. Hollister referred to the Klingelhuts development, which is at the intersection of Highway 13 and Highway 55, in which the applicant has had some involvement with. About a year ago, Councilmember Kresbach was the most vocal councilmember with that development, saying that Mr. Terry Schneider's original concept drawings appear to be too residential in nature and wanted to see something more commercial, given the environment. Mr. Hollister said that according to the December 7th minutes, Councilmember Kresbach wished to see this project more substantial in nature as opposed to residential. Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2005 Commissioner Betlej said he brought up the comment during the preliminary PUD and knows it was also brought up at the City Council meeting. Commissioner Betlej said this plans look like the same plans that came before the Planning Commission previously, and did not see any reaction to the comments that were made. Commissioner Betlej said there seems to be plenty of room for a landscaping buffer along the back side of the property. Commissioner Betlej asked if the City needs to send notices to MnDOT for this project. Mr. Grittman said MnDOT receives notices about the plat when it's adjacent to their property. Ms. McDermott said a copy of the concept plan and the preliminary plat was sent to MnDOT for their review. Ms. McDermott said the applicant also needs to obtain a permit from MnDOT to discharge the stormwater into the right of way. Commissioner Miller said the applicant has already received comments from the City Council and the Planning Commission, and have seen some progress in the plans. Commissioner Miller reminded everyone that this is a process that needs to be taken in approving these types of projects. Commissioner B. McManus said this was an eccentric piece of land that is small, and he does not know any other way to use this parcel otherwise, and believes the City should be willing to work with the developer to make something that is useful to them and the City as well. Commissioner B. McManus complimented the Planner for the work that has been done on this project so far. Mr. Todd Mohagen, Mohagen/Hansen Architectural Group, addressed some of the comments and concerns of the Planning Commission. Mr. Mohagen reviewed the elevation plans and described how the building materials would be used. Mr. Mohagen said he has some confusion on the comments from the City Council and the Planning Commission on what exactly is desireable on this project. Mr. Mohagen said he would not like to see this project tabled and if there are any recommendations that could be made to him, he will work to come to an agreement. Mr. Mohagen said he is also willing to work with City Staff on landscaping and doesn't feel this is a valid reason to table this project. Mr. Mohagen said the trash enclosure is located in the area as indicated has been placed there because the applicant feels this is the most unobtrusive place to have it. This trash enclosure would contain a 90 -yard trash dumpster. Mr. Mohagen said they use a computer program to determine the turning radius clearance for emergency vehicles, and would also be willing to have the fire department review this project and give their feedback to the City. Commissioner M. McManus said she likes to view this parcel as special, and 10 units are not a lot of units when considering the size of this parcel, and would also appreciate the developer adding more brick and stone to the design. Commissioner M. McManus said she likes the architecture of the buildings. She would like to see more substance to the landscaping design. Commissioner M. McManus asked how far the buildings are spaced apart as she doesn't see any information regarding this issue. Mr. Mohagen said the building code requires a one -hour wall if it's less than 10 -ft. to assumed property line. Mr. Mohagen said the site plan shows 20 -ft. to 21 -ft. between the buildings. Mr. Mohagen said with a one -hour fire wall, it's very difficult to get windows, and windows are very important to these units for the viability of selling them. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there would be any adverse affects to the occupants of being located so close to the highway. Mr. Mohagen explained how the land slopes and the traffic should have no affect on the occupants. Mr. Mohagen said it's more likely that the occupants would rather be closer to the highway to be more visible, and it will be written into the covenants that there would be no signage along the freeway. Commissioner Hesse reviewed the conditions for approval that are outlined in the Planner's report and get feedback from the applicant. Commissioner Hesse said it seems the applicant is in agreement with all the items, except Item C as the developer feels it's better to have the placement in eastern side of the property, away from the buildings and feels that the St. Thomas Academy property serves as a large buffer; and Item G because the applicant would have to come back before the Planning Commission first, which would delay their progress. Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2005 Mr. Mohagen said he will provide a full signage plan for review. Commissioner Betlej said that, at this point, those plans will go directly to the City Council. Commissioner Betlej reminded the applicant that he made the comment at the last Planning Commission meeting that he would vote to table this discussion if the signage plans were not provided to the Planning Commission at the January 25`h meeting. Mr. Mohagen said he understands that the wording on Item G to be if the Planning Commission is willing to look at this project as a PUD, the difficulty with this project is how do you deal with this piece of property that is zoned to not allow much of a structure if you go by the letter of that ordinance. If you use a PUD as a vehicle, it opens up to more options. Mr. Grittman said if the Planning Commission would pass this project on to the City Council with conditions, the applicant would be required to update their plans and have a final approved set of plans on file with the City. Mr. Mohagen said he would be able to have a final set of plans filed by the next City Council meeting. Commissioner Dolan asked who these units will be marketed to and how do these units compare in size to others in the area? Mr. Mohagen said they would be attorneys, real estate, brokerage firms, etc. Mr. Mohagen these units are very status quo to the area. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Mohagen about the time line for construction. Mr. Mohagen said these units will be developed all at one time over a one year period, beginning in the Spring of 2005. Commissioner Betlej said he has a concern about the visibility of the trash containment when people will drive into the parking lot of the proposed project. Commissioner Betlej also expressed his concern regarding the visibility of the trash containment area from St. Thomas Academy. Mr. Mohagen explained that there is no other location on the site that would be workable as far as gaining access to it for trash removal trucks. The trash enclosure will be designed with the same materials that the building would be. There was a concern regarding the trash containment that if placed in this area, it would be next to the St. Thomas Academy property and may need to be screened better at some future time. Commissioner Miller asked if a roof could be placed on the structure. Mr. Mohagen said that would not be a good idea as a roof would contain the smell more, and that the trucks would have a more difficult time in getting the dumpsters out. Commissioner Miller asked how visible the project would be from the road. Mr. Mohagen explained how it would be coming from different angles. Commissioner Miller asked how the marketing is being handled / progressing. Mr. Mohagen said eight out of ten projects that his firm as worked on, they are occupied in full before the construction crews leave the site. Commissioner Miller asked if the software program used to determine emergency vehicle simulations are accepted by most municipalities. Mr. Mohagen said it is, and that they welcome the fire department's input as well. Commissioner B. McManus said this is an interesting and unique site and has wonderful characteristics, as well as being an architectural challenge. Commissioner B. McManus suggested changing the three different types of materials on an all -ready busy building to one or two types of materials only. Commissioner B. McManus asked that the applicant check to make sure all the fire hydrants are sufficiently located on the site, as one seems to be missing. Commissioner B. McManus asked that more vegetation be placed around the trash containment. Mr. Mohagen said the project has exceeded the parking space requirement by 2 spaces. He is willing to give up one parking space to allow for more landscaping around the trash containment. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Chair Lorberbaum said if the Commission decides to table this discussion, the public hearing needs to stay open. Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2005 Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant what would happen with his timetable should the Commission decide to table the public hearing. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant could be before the City Council by March 1St if the Planning Commission recommends approval at their February 22nd meeting. Mr. Mohagen said it delays their process and means that they will not be in the ground until mid- summer instead of late spring as they had hoped. Commissioner Miller said a concern could be that the applicant would not be finished with the outside construction until the winter as opposed to late fall, and then the inside work would be done. Commissioner Betlej said these building could be ready in about four months. Mr. Mohagen said it would take about 6 to 8 months. Chair Lorberbaum said if the Planning Commission recommends approval by March 1 St, construction could be started by the end of March and have everything enclosed by November. Mr. Mohagen said the critical date is April 15th, and the closer they are to that date, the better. Mr. Mohagen said March 1St they would have the complete documents, but then they need to get all the bids in place, and hopefully have a start date for mid - April. Mr. Mohagen said it would have been better had these discussions taken place earlier. Mr. Mohagen said that after meeting with the City Council, there were no issues, and apologized for any confusion on his part. Mr. Mohagen said to get finality to this would be better for the developer. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval this evening, the applicant is will to have deadlines placed on the process, and if those deadlines are not met, then the City can table further discussions. Chair Lorberbaum said she believes these issues were brought up previously, and it's unfortunate that the applicant did not get a copy of those issues ahead of this meeting. Chair Lorberbaum said she recalls someone at the City Council meeting stating that they did not like the lap siding. Mr. Hollister said Councilmember Krebsbach who said that "she does not like the concept and does not think the development is substantial enough for the buildings around it like the Ryan structure and Patterson Dental ". Mr. Hollister said this seems to imply that Councilmember Krebsbach would like to see a more institutional look. Mr. Hollister said that there are also members of the City Council that expressed approval of the architecture. Mr. Hollister said at the preliminary phase, it's individual people giving individual opinions and not a collective decision. Commissioner B. McManus said the applicant might be able to agree to material changes on the spot. Mr. Mohagen said the structure up to the eaveline was brick or stone, and in this case (for technical reasons) brick would be used to the eaveline, and that would take case of some apprehension. Mr. Mohagen said that in the rear, the suggestion would be to bring it up to a point and then the hardy board at that point. Commissioner Hesse asked if this is tabled, would it come back to the Planning Commission? Chair Lorberbaum said that it would, and asked the Commission if they feel there is enough information to go forward. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO TABLE DISCUSSION UNTIL THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO FURTHER DEVELOP THE ARCHITECTURAL, LANDSCAPING, SIGNAGE AND LIGHTING PLANS. AYES NAYS (Commissioners Miller and Hesse) MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AYES NAYS (Commissioners Miller and Hesse) MOTION CARRIED VERBAL REVIEW— Sue McDermott PLANNING CASE #04 -43 Dennis Galligan - Critical Area Permit Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2005 • City Council tabled this case to allow City staff to meet with applicant. The case is scheduled to come back at the March 15`h City Council meeting. The applicant has been instructed to remove 50 cubic yards of material the front of house, which means part of the driveway has to be removed, as well as removing one of the retaining walls. PLANNING CASE #04 -44 Robert Alvarez - Variance • City Council denied this request and deemed this was a rear yard setback. PLANNING CASE #04 -45 Frank Matthews — Variance • Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #04 -46 Garret - Variance • Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #04 -47 Joseph Juliette — Critical Area Permit • Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #04 -48 David Newcomb — Minor PUD Amendment • Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Other Business Mr. Hollister said the Planning Commission will be discussing the Property Maintenance at the February 22, 2005 meeting. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:50PM. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 10