Loading...
2002-02-26 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2002 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum and Commissioners Betlej, Friel, and, and Dolan. City Staff present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman of NAC. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Excused: Hesse, B. McManus, M. McManus APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Lorberbaum announced that due to a variety of reasons, the approval of minutes for the January 22nd and 24th meetings would be postponed until the March meeting. Chair Lorberbaum has made some changes and asked the Commission members to also add their comments as these changes will be forwarded to the Recording Secretary for a revised version. The Recording Secretary was then instructed to resubmit this version with the notation "Revised Version ". Elections for the positions of Chair and Vice Chair were held. With unanimous balloting, the following positions have been filled for the year 2002 - 2003: Chair: Sally Lorberbaum Vice Chair: Commissioner Joe Betlej PLANNING CASE #01 -39 INHERITABLE WORLD LLC 1744 DODD ROAD VARIANCE, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RIDDER PROPERTY CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 Mr. Larry Severson, representing Loucks and Associates, asked to have their presentation postponed to the next meeting. Chair Lorberbaum stated that the applicant requested that this be continued at the last meeting, and gave a 180 -day extension until May 5th. If it is postponed at this meeting, the presentation would have to take place on March 26th, and would give the City Council two meetings to hear the application before May 5th. This was confirmed by Mr. Severson. He referred to the letter to Director Jim Danielson from City Attorney Dan Schleck, regarding easements. Mr. Severson stated that he was of the understanding that there was some type of agreement regarding easements. In this letter, the City Attorney asked for a copy of the easement agreement between the owners, Mr. Mohler and Mr. Fields. The applicant will be meeting with the City Attorney. If the applicant can obtain an opinion from the City Attorney that the easements are as indicated, then the new access will probably proceed down Lot 9 unless some type of agreement from the Mohlers and the Fields in respect to this issue can be found. If these issues cannot be worked out, the applicant will come back to the Commission as they will force them to compromise on one of the lots, and although the applicant does not wish to, a compromise on the access onto the Dodd Road. Commissioner Friel asked how this would change the highway access. Mr. Severson stated a house had been bought and moved to have the land to straighten the roadway (Stanwich Lane) entrance onto Dodd. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO TABLE THE MATTER AS REQUESTED ALONG WITH THE HEARING OF THE MATTER TO THE MARCH 26TH MEETING. 4 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. PLANNING CASE #02 -02 TIM CURLEY 1044 DAKOTA DRIVE AND 1045 MARY ADELE AVENUE REZONING AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Mr. Grittman presented this case requesting subdivision with a lot line adjustment between a parcel located on Mary Adele Avenue and a commercial parcel currently occupied by Curley's Furniture. The applicant would also rezone the piece being transferred to the appropriate zoning district to allow the commercial use of that site. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan. The current residential lot is in line with a number of other residents along Mary Adele Avenue, however, it is currently being encroached on by a certain amount of commercial use, i.e. paving area for a truck turn- around in the rear of the furniture store. The applicant is seeking to subdivide the 2 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 property, moving a portion from the residential lot to the commercial lot, which would be in the form of a plat. The remaining residential lot is the issue that needs attention as the subdivision will restrict the buildable area on the residential lot. The applicant provided a drawing of the proposed building, a single family home and attached garage, which would fit within the setback. The lot would continue to be conforming according to the zoning ordinance requirements. Conditions proposed by Mr. Gritmman: • Restrictions on the buildable area of the lot are communicated to any future buyers. • Landscape buffer to be created along the edge on the commercial side of the property line that would buffer the residential uses from the loading /commercial activity. Commissioner Dolan asked if the combined property is to be platted. Mr. Grittman stated the two parcels would be combined into a new plat. Commissioner Dolan asked if the motion to re -zone was before them at this meeting. Chair Lorberbaum asked if notice was given of a possible re -zone sent to the area. Mr. Hollister replied there was a public hearing notice for both a lot line adjustment and a re- zoning to all the neighbors within 350 feet from the Curley property. He also confirmed that the motion to re -zone was before the Commission for this meeting. Commissioner Dolan asked what the plans were to inform future buyers of the restrictions on buildability. Mr. Grittman stated they would be relying on the owner and/or his representatives to make that communication. The plat would be filed as public record. Chair Lorberbaum asked how this house compares to the size of the other houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Grittman stated it was a bit smaller, given the width of the buildable area, but it would probably not be that noticeable from the street. Mr. Danielson stated that the applicant has been discussing the sale of the lot to the developer of the homes on new lots to the west. Commissioner Betlej asked if Curley's was the owner of both parcels. Mr. Grittman stated that they were. Commissioner Friel stated his concern about the restrictions of the buildability on that lot. A variance would not be granted on the rear yard setback on this property merely because of the change in the lot lines. There isn't any effective way that this can be transmitted from this property owner and future property owners, because other property owners who buy after the house is built, want to do some things in the back yard, and can't because of the setback requirements. Mr. Grittman stated that at some point in the future, this would probably happen. Commissioner Friel stated that this creates a problem for future planning and for the neighborhood by approving this adjustment. He asked how the asphalt driveway was made, and why is it important to keep it there, instead of making the adjustment by removing the drive area. It is Mr. Grittman's understanding that the driveway is utilized for turn- around. Its removal would make it difficult to access the rear of the property with delivery trucks. Commissioner Dolan asked that if, instead of adjusting the lot lines, the owner of the proposed Lot #2 gave an easement to Lot #1, would that allow the owner of Lot #2 to construct something in their backyard where they 3 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 couldn't if this application was approved? Mr. Grittman stated this would be true as this would keep the rear line in the existing location and the city typically measures the setback from the property line. Commissioner Friel asked if the presence of the driveway meant that the property owner has a commercial function in a residential neighborhood? Mr. Grittman stated that this was true. Commissioner Dolan stated that it would then prohibit the granting of an easement. Commissioner Friel stated that his point was that although the driveway was in violation of the existing ordinance, the driveway is older than the ordinance so existence has technically has been grandfathered in and not considered a violation of the ordinance.. Chair Lorberbaum stated that this proposal seeks to correct this violation. Mr. Tim Curley, owner of Lot #2, said that he purchased this property about 6 years ago from the bank. He reviewed the original plat he obtained from the bank and gave a brief history of this lot. He was told by his father, and John Siedel, President of Dakota Bank, that the black driveway was not encroaching on the neighboring property. Upon final plat, sale of property, and transfer, he was told by Mr. Siedel that the water line went through the middle of the lot, underneath the driveway. NSP had an easement going through the middle of that lot which they have since corrected, and now have it running to the building from the north side of Highway 110. The Curley Furniture building is owned in a Trust managed by Mr. Curley's mother, who resides in Arizona. The driveway has been used by Ethan Allan (previous owners) for the last 27 years before Mr. Curley occupied the building. Mr. Curley's mother wishes to finalize some outstanding issues, and Mr. and Mrs. Curley had to purchase the property in order to stay in the business because they need to allow trucks access the back of the building. He has no intention of building on this lotand wants to leave it zoned residential. He may sell it to people interested in building a home there. He provided a list of homeowners due south of the property that he notified in person, showing drawings and plats. Among those homeowners, he found no opposition. He could not get a hold of Mr. Kunz (out of town) and Mr. Hunter, whose wife is in a nursing home. Mr. Curley tried to call Mr. Elkins three times. These people have not responded back to Mr. Curley. The original size of the lot was 22,511 sq. ft. Deducting 5,866 -sq. ft., the lot size would be 16,645 -sq. ft.. He believes 15,000 -sq. ft. is considered a buildable lot. Commissioner Dolan stated it is his assumption that Mr. Curley is doing this in order to sell off the remainder of that lot, and that instead of adjusting the lot lines, Mr. Curley could grant an easement. Mr. Curley stated he controls only one property. His mother controlled the first property (the furniture property), which is now held in trust and therefore, makes all decisions relating to the trust. Commissioner Dolan stated that Mr. Curley could give an easement to his mother instead of adjusting the lot lines. Mr. Curley stated he met with Jim Danielson and Patrick Hollister and the idea was that the homes that were built on the existing Lots 2, 3, 4, and the group home, were all the same square footage. Mr. Curley said that the proposed home_site example on the plan on Lot #2, is the same size as other nearby homes in keeping with the last three homes that were built. Chair Lorberbaum clarified that Commissioner Dolan's point was that the person who buys that lot would have more flexibility if an easement was granted. The concern from a few people on the Commission is that although Mr. Curley may do the appropriate thing and pass information such as the Planner suggested about the 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 restrictions of that lot on to the next owner, would that owner pass it on in the future. Chair Lorberbaum said that it is not the City's responsibility to pass such information, and asked how the City can be guaranteed that people will have the information they have the right to know. By creating an easement, that problem is eliminated and a future homeowner would have more flexibility_to use the land. Mr. Curley was unclear of what the advantage of an easement was. Commissioner Friel stated a concern is that the location of the building proposed for Lot #2 leaves no ability to construct anything behind it. The rear yard setback requirement is 30 feet, and that line runs along the house line. Mr. Curley stated the topography shows this portion as the highest point of that lot, and if there is a lot of run -off from rainstorms in the spring, there is a tremendous amount of water that goes through the back side of that lot. There is a storm sewer and at time, there could be up to 6 inches of water there. The water from the surrounding properties runs down the driveway. If a house would be built, it should be built as close as possible to the west side of the lot, and still have the setback in front. If a shed were built, it would be good to keep it as far away from the backyard as possible. Mr. Curley said that although he moved the lot line 15 feet back from the driveway, the city code was actually 10 feet. In discussions with Administrative Assistant Hollister and Director Danielson, it was felt that an extra 5 feet would allow for snowplowing. Also a fence may be placed to have a barrier between the commercial use and the residential use. Chair Lorberbaum stated that if Mr. Curley granted an easement, he could do everything he talked about and still use the driveway. Commissioner Friel stated this was a "grandfathered" driveway as far as the zoning is concerned. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. Further Discussion • Commissioner Friel stated that Mr. Curley showed little reaction to the motion of the easement. Mr. Curley stated this was the first he heard about this option and that he will be consulting with his legal representation and family. • Commissioner Friel stated that if, in the future, the owner of the property wanted to expand their house, or put up a fence, an easement would be better than the proposed lot line adjustment. Commissioner Dolan added that the way the lot line would be now, they would need a variance to put up a fence where they want, whereas they probably would not if the easement were granted. Mr. Curley stated he was under the impression from City Staff that a fence could run along the lot line. Commissioner Friel stated it depended on the height of fence. • Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Hollister and Mr. Danielson to inform the Council that the Commission recommended against the application and ask the Recording Secretary to put in the minutes that they recommend an easement. Chair Lorberbaum asked to give Mr. Curley time to talk with his family, and then come before the City Council and either go forward with his current application or go for an easement. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Hollister if, based on gaining further information, could he then switch to the easement solution? Administrative Assistant Hollister stated the Commission can recommend denial of the 5 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 application on the basis that it should be handled by an easement, and the Mr. Curley can discuss that matter with the Council, and the Council will have the benefit of the recommendation and rationale of the Commission. If Council concurs with the Commission, they will probably deny the application and instruct Mr. Curley to get an easement. He does not need any approval from the City for the easement agreement. • Mr. Curley stated that would take care of any future homeowner, but asked what does that do to insure the use of the turn- around on the backside of a residential lot. Commissioner Friel stated that this was "grandfathered in. Commissioner Betlej stated that if something were to happen with the use of the property, and the turn- around needed to be rebuilt, the Commission would not allow them to rebuild it. Commissioner Friel stated that if the driveway for the furniture store needed to be rebuilt some time in the future, there would be a problem. • Commissioner Betlej explained the easement issue and that the Commission is trying to work around the driveway or simply tell the owner to get rid of it. Commissioner Betlej stated that this was not the proper thing to do. He suggested to move the lot line back 5 -ft. to make this lot easier to work with. • Commissioner Betlej stated that when the seller conveys this information to a potential buyer, it would be clearer if they see both the property description and a landscape buffer across the back. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED TO APPROVE THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT SPLIT AND REZONING OF THE LAND TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE B -3 PARCEL FROM THE R -1 PARCEL, WITH THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION TWO OF THE PLANNERS REPORT. Chair Lorberbaum added to this motion, (as stated in the Planners Report), "And future owners of the residential parcel are on notice that no setback variances will be approved for the property as a result of the proposed lot configuration." HEARING NO SECOND, THE MOTION FAILED. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN TO DENY THE REZONING AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND TO RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICANT GIVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO AN EASEMENT. Further Discussion • Commission Friel stated that Mr. Curley may not be able to get this worked out with the rest of the family, and he does not want to stifle the opportunity to correct this situation. Eventually, if an Easement Arrangement cannot be worked out. Mr. Curley should come back if the Council denies it and then start the application process all over again. Commissioner Friel hopes that in the event that Mr. Curley is unable to go forward with an easement, and he has to come back again for a lot line adjustment and rezoning application, he will not have to go through a double fee process in connection with the application. AYES: 3 (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners Friel and Dolan) NAYS: 1 (Commissioner Betlej) MOTION CARRIED 6 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 Administrative Assistant Hollister stated that the Council is meeting on Thursday, March 7th as precinct caucuses are being held on the 5th. Mr. Curley could be at the March 7th meeting, or he may want to be at the March 19th meeting as the meeting of the 7th has a full agenda. Chair Lorberbaum recommended the March 19th date to give the applicant time to learn about what an easement was and talk to his family and other advisors. Mr. Curley stated the date did not matter to him. It was agreed to have this application be placed on the Council's March 19th agenda. Commissioner Betlej stated that it should be recognized that with the recommendation of denial of the Commission, Mr. Curley still has the issue of non - conforming use in terms of the zoning. PLANNING CASE #02 -03 TERRY RUSSEL SUBDIVISION APROVAL OF 754 WOODRIDGE Mr. Grittman showed a survey drawing of the property in question. The proposal is to subdivide this parcel (west parcel),. which is a portion of the larger property, and add to the property on Maple Park Court. This subdivision would facilitate a more usable back yard for the east property and would also fix the encroachment on the west property that the east parcel owner is already making use of. The issue that is a concern is the way in which that subdivision and re- combination would occur. Because these are properties of different subdivisions, Dakota County will not approve a simple re- combination due to future property tax issues. City ordinance would allow this by simple meets and bounds description if that were possible. Mr. Grittman recommended to have the property re- platted similar to Case No. 02 -02. Commissioner Friel asked for confirmation that if the meets and bounds parcel is sold off to the platted parcel owner, would this create two tax parcels. Mr. Grittman stated that was correct. Commissioner Friel continued by saying that in this particular configuration there is a taxed parcel that has no access to the street, and it's a fairly good -sized piece of property. This property cannot be sold in the future because there is no access. Mr. Grittman stated that since this is a separate parcel of record, theoretically it could be conveyed. Commissioner Betlej referred to Mr. Grittman's previous comment that land use law does not allow one to create a buildable lot without access, and so one essentially deems access across one of the two lots. Commissioner Friel stated that he believes the property could not be sold separately. Chair Lorberbaum asked if someone could buy that remainder of the unplatted parcel. Mr. Grittman stated that parcel has its own separate house and frontage to the northwest of this site. This property could be sold in the future, or subdivided. Commissioner Dolan referred to the letter from Daniel S. Schleck, dated February 26th, 2002,which points out that Section 11.31 of the subdivision ordinance seems to be saying that this is in conflict because one of the parcels is meets and bounds. Also in Mr. Schleck's letter, it was pointed out that "one of the lots is platted, and 7 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 one is described by a meets and bounds description. Therefore, the Russell's would need to obtain a variance to move forward with the administrative subdivision process ". Mr. Joseph Christensen introduced himself as the attorney representing Terry Russell, the property owner that wishes to acquire the west parcel. Mr. Christensen argued that a registered land survey is a subdivision. The lot on which the home is located (RussellRussel property), is part of Ivy Falls Addition. The Reardon property is part of Registered Land Survey No. 7. Mr. Christensen stated the problem lies with Dakota County's property tax system. This is a mechanical feature /failure of the property tax system of the County that for property tax purposes they can't combine two parcels that are not in the same subdivision. Proposed conditions submitted with his application included that anytime the applicant was adding another piece of property from within the Ivy Falls subdivision, he would still describe the little piece that will be added to his lot as a meets and bounds portion of that lot. In that way, the County can't merge them for tax purposes. By recording on the title of this property agreement, the applicant would propose to subject it permanently to a series of restrictions that would include that the property could not later be subdivided. That is something the applicant would not have to do if this were re- platted. The applicant could come in with a plat and combined the two lots into one. That lot would dramatically exceed the minimum lot size, and if the applicant could get access, or separate lot out of this, they could replat a platted lot later if they can get access to it, creating a separately buildable lot. He assured the City, however, that his client has no intention of subdividing this property at a subdivided later_date. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman to comment on the attorney's letter. Mr. Grittman stated that the section of the subdivision ordinance, that the City Attorney is referring to is a section that exempts certain subdivisions from inappropriate procedural requirements of the ordinance: In the case of a request to divide a lot, which is part of the recorded plat, where the division is to permit the adding of the parcel of land abutting the lot and the new created property line will not cause the remaining portion of the lot to be in violation of the ordinance. T,hen the lot division may be exempted from various administrative or procedural requirements. In this case, the City Attorney highlights "the request is to divide a lot that is a recorded plat, and the problem the City has with this one is that part of this parcel is not a recorded plat. Mr. Christensen stated that a registered land survey is synonymous with a plat; they are basically the same thing. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. Commissioner Betlej referred to the Planner's report, page 2, item 3 which states "If the RussellRussel's failed to pay the taxes on the new parcel, the City would have the right to impose a levy against the existing lot for the tax, penalty and interested owed ". Commissioner Betlej asked if that was feasible to do, and has it been done 8 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 before, and is it something that is supportable by law. Mr. Grittman stated he was not aware that had been done before, that it's probably supportable, and that it's an administrative mechanism that could be applied. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPLIT AS REQUESTED. Further discussion • Commissioner Dolan stated his reluctance to vote to recommend approval of this application without requiring a replat as it appears as though this agreement may impose on the City's administrative burdens, merely to save some money for the applicant. Commissioner Dolan said that it seems the ordinance requires a replat here, and the costs of replatting are being avoided. He is not persuaded by that. AYES: 2 (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioner Friel) NAYS: 2 (Commissioner Betlej, Commissioner Dolan) This will go forward as a split decision to the City Council and it is preferable for the applicant to attend the March 7th meeting of the Council rather than the March 19th meeting. PLANNING CASE #02 -04 ERIC HANZEL 1970 KNOB ROAD REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE. Mr. Grittman presented this case and showed a drawing of the proposal by the applicant to expand an existing two -car garage that is located behind the home. The applicant proposes to remove the existing shed located to the side of the garage and expand the garage to create a larger storage structure on the property. This requires a conditional use permit, and a variance is required due to the size of the structure. Total square footage of the new garage would be 960 -sq. ft., and the City has a requirement that no garage can be over 750 sq. ft. Mr. Grittman said that Staff is not recommending approval of the variance as they see no hardship as required by the zoning ordinance. Chair Lorberbaum asked for the square footage of the shed. Mr. Grittman replied that the shed was approximately 160 -sq. ft. Chair Lorberbaum stated that if Mr. Hanzel currently has 160 -sq. ft. of shed, in addition to the 590 -sq. ft. of the existing garage, that still comes to a total of 750. If expands the garage to the 750 -sq. ft. limit of the conditional use permit he would not be gaining any additional storage space. He would simply be moving the space to the garage. 9 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 Commissioner Friel asked what the sq. ft. limit would be if the garage were attached to the house. Mr. Grittman stated the ordinance allows up to1,200 sq. ft. and up to 1,500 -sq. ft. by Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Friel said that this is discriminary. Mr. Eric Hanzel, owner of the property at 1970 Knob Road, stated his agreement with Commissioner Friel, that that the difference in size limits between attached and detached garages is discriminatory. Mr. Hanzel said that he could go with the 1,200 if it was attached, but he is working with a existing house on the property and due to the configuration of the house, it's not possible to have an attached garage. Mr. Hanzel showed the Commission a drawing of the layout of his property, and showed why he could not build onto the house. Chair Lorberbaum stated that in order to approve the variance, there needs to be a hardship. Commissioner Dolan stated Mr. Hanzel has 61/2 more feet while keeping within the 750 -ft. requirement, and asked if the Conditional Use Permit was granted, but not the variance, would Mr. Hanzel still build? Mr. Hanzel stated that the benefits would be minimum he would probably not make the change buthe would like to get rid of the shed because it's in disrepair and store more of his equipment inside a shelter. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Mr. Dan Lynch of 993 Ottawa, said that he is a friend of Mr. Hanzel and helped him draw up the plans. He pointed out some reasons why the house could not have the garage attached. Mr. Hanzel has a big lot, and needs a tractor, plow, and other lawn equipment, and a 24' x 24' garage to hold it all. Service doors are allowed on a 750 -sq. ft. garage, but Mr. Hanzel cannot fit his tractor or plow through a service door. Mr. Hanzel stated his hardship is that he is limited in space to store his lawn equipment, and that he has a garage, but cannot park in it because he his equipment is in his garage. Newer homes in the area do not have 750 sq. ft. garages, but larger ones. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. Commissioner Friel commented on the hardship issue. This is a house which cannot have a garage attached to it, and the property can clearly accommodate a garage of the size the applicant is requesting. The applicant cannot accommodate a garage on this property without a variance that is consistent with the size of the structure that ordinarily would be built on properties today if built from scratch. Mr. Hanzel is working with an existing home, and that demonstrates a hardship, in addition to the discrimination of the ordinances, when it's applied to homes that have been constructed some time before this ordinance was adopted. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE VARIANCE. 10 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 Further discussion • Commissioner Betlej stated this was a reasonable use of the property. • Chair Lorberbaum asked Commission Friel if he would like to recommend a discussion with the City Council regarding the ordinance of garage sizes. Commissioner Friel said that he would like to address issues of the older homes that were built before the ordinance went into effect. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED This recommendation will go to the City Council on March 7, 2002. PLANNING CASE #02 -05 JOEL AND JULIET BENNET 2295 APACHE STREET REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR A HOME ADDITION Mr. Grittman presented this case and stated that the applicants are looking for a variance to construct an addition onto the rear portion of their property. The existing distance is 45 ft. from the rear of the house to the rear lot line, and the applicants are proposing to construct a living room addition onto the rear that would encroach into the required 30 -ft. setback by 5 ft. In regard to the hardship, Mr. Grittman stated that there are some unique conditions of the property. Staff does not recommend the variance as they feel there is room to make reasonable use of the property while adhering to the 30 -ft. rear yard setback.. The applicant noted that a number of other properties with small lot sizein the neighborhood have had building additions and other enhancements. The size of their lot makes it more restrictive for them, and that is part of their rationale for the variance request. Staffs response is that a 15 -ft. addition would still allow for some expansion as well as consistency with the 30 -ft. rear setback requirement. Commission Dolan asked how Staff would respond to the argument that there is a hardship here, that given the current structure of the home and location of the chimney to do it any other way would minimize the addition because it creates water problems with a flat roof. Mr. Grittman stated it was his understanding the location of the chimney would be encompassed by the proposed building addition in any case. He illustrated the way the room could be set up on the drawing submitted by the applicants. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the cantilevered bay extension is counted in the five -foot encroachment. Mr. Grittman replied that there is an allowance for cantilevered bay extensions and that they do not count in the setback encroachment. Chair Lorberbaum asked for clarification of the roofline. It is Mr. Grittman's understanding that the idea the applicant rejected was an addition that was more laterally attached to the back of the building, that he doesn't understand why they rejected this idea. Mr. Grittman stated the applicant may be able to clarify better. 11 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 Commissioner Friel referred to the mailing notification site map and pointed out an encroachment into the setback in the adjacent property to the north. Mr. Bennett indicated on the map what the other buildings on adjacent properties were. Commissioner Friel said that the purpose of the setback was to maintain some distance from adjacent buildings on adjacent properties, and the adjacent property behind the house in this case is a huge lot that extends up to Pagel Road, with a very steep angle so that. Commissioner Friel said that the purpose of setbacks is met in this case because of the distance from the other buildings on adjacent lots. In addition, in the past, there has been some degree of flexibility given to residents in the Friendly Hills area for variances because of the lot sizes. Mr. Grittman stated this was not taken into consideration when making his recommendation. Joel and Julia Bennett were present to explain their position. By denying this request, the Bennetts are restricted in the reasonable use of their property. The hardships they feel that apply are based on the Planner's recommendation of the long and narrow room. First, the cost: it would cost more money to add a room that is long and narrow because it goes against the back of the garage. Mr. Bennett presented pictures of the property and explained the problems he would have under Mr. Grittman's scenario. In addition, the city has granted variances for other neighbors in the area for similar proposals. Mr. Bennett said that this neighborhood was platted in the 1950's and the lots are not very large. There are several homes in the neighborhood, which the Bennett's reviewed to give them an idea of how to use their lot the best way. According to their designer, the chimney needs to be enclosed to prevent water problems. It was pointed out that the neighbor to the north has an inground swimming pool with a 6 -ft. privacy fence, and the lot behind it is on Dodd Road, and is more than 100 ft. away from the Bennett's house. There is the steep hill behind the house and the neighbors to the south have an easement which places their house 70 ft. from the Bennetts. The Bennetts have a petition signed by the neighbors in support of the project. Commissioner Dolan asked if the Bennetts received consent for this addition from the owner directly behind them. Mrs. Bennett replied that they did. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACK BASED ON THE HARDSHIP OF SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED 12 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 This will go to the City Council on March 7, 2002. PLANNING CASE #02 -06 TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT NORTHERN END OF PILOT KNOB ROAD PUD CONCEPT PLAN Mr. Grittman presented a copy of the preliminary concept plan from Tollefson Development and Pulte Homes. The property is commonly referred to as the "Garron/Acacia" property, and is bounded by Highway 55, Highway 110, and Pilot Knob Road, with Acacia Cemetery to the west. The property is currently zoned a combination of BlA and R3. The applicant is seeking a review of the concept Plan, with a series of townhomes (total of 197 units) that are served by Pilot Knob Road as well as a public street, which will be in the center of the project. The entire property encompasses 24.4 acres. The project has a density of 8.07 units per acre, which includes all of the streets. A net density calculation would be about 9.3 units per acre excluding the dedicated public street area. The building design consists of two types of residential units, a combination of row style and back -to -back townhouse units. Mr. Grittman said there are a number of issues with this concept plan: • The Comprehensive Plan refers to this site as one of its primary focus sites. It is an area that has been identified as having a significant impact on the aesthetic impression of the city, in that travelers from the Mendota Bridge as well as the other surrounding highways have a lot of visual exposure to the site. The City's Comprehensive Plan calls for it to be developed to take advantage of the prime visibility. The site also has significant views of its own toward the north and west, out of the river valleys, and toward the bluff areas. • The zone that would provide guidance to the site for high- density residential development would be R -3. The R -3 zone regulates density on a building height and bedroom count basis. The proposed project is about 55 to 57 units in excess of the allowable density under the R3 district, assuming two - story, two - bedroom units. • Setback issues are also raised by the proposal. There are a number setback requirements that will be strictly applied in the district. Mr. Grittman stated a general overview of the setbacks in this proposal. The PUD is requesting some flexibility on both density and setback issues. • There is a concern for the amount of open space. Except for perimeter open space around the street areas, the only other open space is in the center of the development. The impervious surface calculation on the site is near 45 %. The residential PUD standard is 25 %. Mr. Grittman said that the developer is seeking direction at this stage. Staff does not recommend the concept plan due to non - consistently of the design and unit, as well as density. Commissioner Friel stated that the applicant is requesting variances to the requirements of the PUD section of the ordinance. Mr. Grittman stated the PUD section is set up to allow a certain amount of flexibility, but it has some basic standards, one being impervious surfaces. Also, the development would have private streets. 13 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 Commissioner Friel asked if the fire department had a problem with private street access. Mr. Grittman said that he did not have that information at this time. Commissioner Dolan asked if there were any current plans to bring the zoning of this site in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grittman stated that it is a requirement of the state law and that the city recently received MET Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Dolan referred to the 9.33 units per acre calculation that excludes dedicated public streets. The developer came up with 8.07, which includes public streets. Can pubic streets be included for the purpose of the density calculations? Mr. Grittman replied that according to the city's standard, typically public land would not be included as part of the density calculation. Commissioner Dolan referred to Commissioner Friel's comment about a variance to depart from the zoning standards regarding private street access. He asked what the requirements were. Mr. Grittman stated the requirement typically is public street access for all units. The PUD would allow for consideration of private streets. Commissioner Friel stated that the state does not require the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance comply with each other, but require one to be consistent with the other. The term "consistent" gives the applicant more flexibility. Matthew Wieland of Tollefson Development introduced himself as the applicant, along with Denny Grisnow of Pulte Homes. Mr. Wieland stated that they've looked at several options for developing this site. It was decided to develop a high- density housing project. Mendota Heights' Comprehensive Plan calls for up to 10 units per acre for part of the project, and the other part of this site is 6 units per acre. Tollefson Development is working with Pulte Homes to develop high - density, medium priced project. Price range is $140,000 to $160,000 for the Coach Home units, and $160,000 - $180,000 for the Manor Home units. Mr. Wieland stated that in order to get this type of medium priced housing, which all communities have a market for, high density is needed. And with high density, there is a lot of impervious surface. Mr. Wieland noted that putting only 140 units on this site would limit the options for this property, and that the zoning on this property is very inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Wieland added that even if the city wished to rezone, the property doesn't have a designation with higher density. One of the options to save impervious surface would be building a high -rise. Mr. Wieland stated that an R -3 location would be a great place to have this kind of housing, as it is close to jobs in the area, available transit/buses and transportation systems. Mr. Wieland also commented on the incredible amount of open space near the site, referring to the cemetery. The development will also have trail connections from this project to other areas. Mr. Wieland stated that this development proposal is a proven concept and that there are other similar developments around the Twin Cities, such as in Woodbury, Eagan, Shakopee, Chaska, and Chanhassan. Mr. Wieland also stated that Mendota Heights needs to provide housing for all types of people, incomes, and age levels. If less density were developed, the homes would most likely be much higher in price. Mr. Wieland passed around the layout of elevations for row housing and back -to -back units. Mr. Wieland stated that from a 14 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 distance, the area will seem very dense, but as one drives closer, with the hill setting the building back, the homes will not be seen as much. Chair Lorberbaum stated that the Commission would not be voting on this, but will be giving feedback to the developer. Chair Lorberbaum asked where the closest public transportation access was. Chair Lorberbaum said that she didn't believe Mendota Heights had a nearby public transportation site. Mr. Wieland stated there are buses running along Mendota Road and Pilot Knob Road. Commissioner Betlej stated it was not feasible for people living in the Garron/Acacia site to use this public transportation for Mendota Heights. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Wieland to identify the other similar developments in the Twin Cities to allow the Commissioners to visit those sites if they so desired. Mr. Grisnow gave a brief over view of those projects with street locations: • Chaska - Pioneer Point - located at the corner of Huntermark and Pioneer Trail • Chanhassan - Arboretum Village - located on the corner of Highways 5 and 41 • Apple Valley - Regatta - located at 160th and Flagstaff • Woodbury - Bailey Road and Woodlane (still in process) Mr. Grisnow stated that the two products are extremely popular and there is a high demand for them. Right now, Pulte has an over 300 -unit backlog, and two - thirds of those are these two products. They work well together. Some statistic provided by Mr. Grisnow: It was noted that the Manor Home is more expensive and has more square footage and its style is more customized. Chair Lorberbaum asked what will people see when they drive past the area along the Mendota Bridge. Mr. Weiland stated they will see a mass of buildings from a distance. Mr. Wieland said that it's possible to do some photo manipulation to get a better idea of what they will look like. Chair Lorberbaum asked how many homes are going to get the "spectacular view ". Mr. Weiland suggested that people are moving there for a variety of reasons, not only the view, but because it's a well -built home in an area that's near transportation. Mr. Weiland said that, in fact, only the first row of homes will have the view. Mr. Grisnow stated that the primary benefit from this site is the location in the overall context of the Twin Cities. He added that there are some good benefits and some disadvantages, such as the proximity to the airport, and that they will balance out each other. In regards to the airport, the buildings will be meeting the current base 15 Coach Home Manor Home Square Footage 1,260 to 1,350 sq., ft, 1,200 to 1,600 sq. ft. Number of Bedrooms 2 or 3 2 or 3 Price Range $140,000 to $160,000 $160,000 to $180,000 It was noted that the Manor Home is more expensive and has more square footage and its style is more customized. Chair Lorberbaum asked what will people see when they drive past the area along the Mendota Bridge. Mr. Weiland stated they will see a mass of buildings from a distance. Mr. Wieland said that it's possible to do some photo manipulation to get a better idea of what they will look like. Chair Lorberbaum asked how many homes are going to get the "spectacular view ". Mr. Weiland suggested that people are moving there for a variety of reasons, not only the view, but because it's a well -built home in an area that's near transportation. Mr. Weiland said that, in fact, only the first row of homes will have the view. Mr. Grisnow stated that the primary benefit from this site is the location in the overall context of the Twin Cities. He added that there are some good benefits and some disadvantages, such as the proximity to the airport, and that they will balance out each other. In regards to the airport, the buildings will be meeting the current base 15 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 sound insulation requirements, and typically, Pulte Homes goes beyond these requirements. Also, air conditioning is standard, so people will not need to have windows open. Chair Lorberbaum stated there have been previous applicants for development on this property, and that two issues always come up. The first one is trails. People like access to the trails, not just the residents of the development, but residents of Mendota Heights, and other people as well. The previous applicant that was denied their application talked about having some trails there that will connect to other trails, making it open and having some signage on the trails. Mr. Weiland stated that there will be a trail down to the Big Rivers Trail System, and possibly connecting to Pilot Knob Road. Chair Lorberbaum stated that the second issue concerns the fact that Mendota Heights also is sensitive to the historic nature of this site and that there are people within the Mdewaketan community that feel a strong attachment to the area. Mr. Weiland stated that discussions have come up with City Staff on the historical meaning to the Pilot Knob site. Mr. Weiland said there could be some creative things to do on the site, such as an overlook with a historical marker. Chair Lorberbaum informed Mr. Weiland that no matter what the feedback he gets from the Commission, when he goes to the City he should give more thought to the historical question in order to have a clearer answer at the City Council meeting. Mr. Weiland stated he would like more direction from anybody that can provide more information on these issues. Mr. Weiland added that he could talk with the Historical Society, archeological groups, etc. Commissioner Betlej asked what the landscaping would be like at the site. Mr. Weiland referred to the landscaping plan. Mr. Grisnow stated that as far as the landscaping is concerned, the total green space would be irrigated and sodded and the plant material would be a mixture of evergreens and insidious plantings. He added that the "view" from the side will be a filtered view as there will be some trees along that line. Commissioner Betlej asked for more information about storm water retention on the site. Mr. Weiland referred to the concept plan to explain how the system will work. Future engineering plans must be drawn and submitted to give a better idea of the storm sewer routing and the sanitary sewer. Commissioner Betlej commented that there needs to be some sensitivity to the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers. Mr. Danielson stated there is currently a trunk provision right now, and there is a sanitary sewer and a manhole on the western portion of the site to serve the sewer that goes into Mendota. There is a Joint Powers Agreement with Mendota and there is water drainage that runs at the site and down to the service area. Commissioner Friel asked if the sizing was adequate. Director Danielson replied the sizing was adequate for sewer and water. Commissioner Betlej made the suggestion that the developer pay special attention to hooking into the trail system, as there are a lot of people that use it. Commissioner Dolan stated he was troubled by the density shown. The Comprehensive Plan makes it clear that this is a unique site and the reason why it's residential as opposed to commercial is to preserve the existing landscaping and trees. Commissioner Dolan questioned whether the concept plan was doing a good job with this. He stated that this was no different than an office building, and he will have a hard time supporting this unless the density comes down and somehow ties into the historical aspects of the site. 16 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 Chair Lorberbaum is very concerned about the density, and had previously talked to another Commissioner who could not be at the meeting who also had concerns about density. The Planner said that a PUD is intended to increase the quality of a development. She asked Mr. Weiland what special things would they be bringing into this development by making it a PUD that makes it special. Mr. Weiland stated that he would not agree with the certain requirements of the PUD provisions for high- density zoning as they relate more to high rise buildings. Mr. Weiland said that what would be special would be a high- density project at affordable / medium income level, as well as trail connections with what's around it. Mr. Weiland said that the concept plan feels to be very compatible with the land use in the area. Mr. Weiland said that the site is not butting up to a single family, making this an ideal location. It's also located right next to an office and industrial park. Mr. Weiland stated these are high quality buildings, and would be an amenity for the area as the project will take advantage of the views. Mr. Weiland added that the trail connections are important. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Mr. Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, shared his views of this proposal. He was speaking with respect to his knowledge of issues, many years of experience, public policy and guidelines. He stated that the MAC has been wrestling with noise mitigation and environmental programs for approximately 40 years. Mr. Hamiel gave a brief overview of his educational and professional background. Mr. Hamiel said that the MAC has not taken an official position regarding this specific property. This is said on the behalf of the overall commission policy regarding concerns about environmental issues and impacts on residential communities near the airport. Mr. Hamiel said that the MAC is very much aware of the fact that an airport, which include noise and other environmental factors, impact all the communities around the airport, and there are some communities that have direct adjacent property lines shared with the MAC. Mr. Hamiel said that the MAC has to be sensitive to the fact that it cannot expect communities to keep these properties vacant and open space. But there is a joint responsibility shared amongst the various users of aviation facilities. For example; traditionally, the airline industry itself is responsible for developing environmental procedures and acquiring the most environmentally sound equipment available, trying to reduce noise as technology improves. The airlines also work on procedural arrival and departure programs and a variety of patterns to minimize the overall impact of noise in residential areas. In addition to the airline industry, the airport is responsible to the community and this is where MAC struggles most. This is where the community is most concerned about appropriate noise and environmental mitigation. They need to try to work with the MAC in recognizing that developing residential units within 1.5 miles of the 7th largest airport in the United States and the 12th largest airport in the world, off the end of its primary runway configuration is going to cause environmental concerns. This property resides within the 65 DNL contour as published by the MAC, and over the next five to six years, it will move outside the 65 DNL contour to a 60 DNL, which is still defined by the MAC and federal authorities as being in the noise impacted zone. 17 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 Mr. Hamiel showed runway maps, flight patterns, and the proximity of the proposed development to the airport. He added that airplanes that fly directly over proposed development would be in the vicinity of 1,500 feet above ground level. The overall decibel noise level on a permanent basis is in excess of 97 decibels. Normal conversation between two people talking three feet apart is about 60 decibels. Because of the logarithmic nature of the decibel unit of noise measurement, every five- decibel increment is a doubling of noise energy. The MAC feels that the land use proposed is not compatible with the aviation guidelines and the metropolitandevelopment guide. They define this property as being property that is not appropriate for residential in -fill. The MAC is asking the Commission to consider opposing development that will cause stress and concern for the operational growth of Mpls — St. Paul Airport and Mendota Heights residents, and present the city with the opportunity to develop this property in consistent and appropriate manner that will not affect the lives of people who reside there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the MAC feels it is not appropriate to construct any residential buildings in this location. Mr. Hamiel replied that was correct. He added that the noise is not going to go away. Although aircraft will be quieter in the future, they will never be quiet enough. The vibration will penetrate these properties and exterior noise levels will be unacceptable. There is nothing the MAC can do to change the departure procedures, the pilot procedures and the performance of airplanes. This is what the people who reside in this development will experience from the day they purchase their property until the time they either move, or decide to tolerate the noise by keeping their windows closed and stay mostly indoors. Any home built after 1998 in an identified zone is no longer eligible for financial support and mitigation from the MAC. Commissioner Friel asked what kind of building, from the MAC standpoint, would be appropriate for this site. Mr.Hamiel stated that the MAC would look for a development that would be commercial or business land use. Mr. Hamiel encouraged the Commission to look at some business development with some very limited daytime outside use, and tie this into the trail system. Commissioner Friel asked if there were any issues from a safety standpoint. Mr. Hamiel stated that anything in close proximity to the airport where aircraft are descending and ascending does pose potential problems, but the frequency of such accidents is extremely low. Commissioner Betlej stated that in addition to in -flight aircraft, there is also the noise from the ground when engines are being tested and when other normal daily operations occur. Commissioner Dolan asked for clarification that the decibel level of the proposed site has registered 97.2. Mr. Hamiel said that this is correct. Commissioner Dolan asked if the MAC at some point in the future would be responsible for providing further insulation. Mr. Hamel stated the MAC has no liability or financial obligations if the homes are built on this site, but has community concern. 18 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 Stan Linnell, Commissioner of the Parks and Recreation Commission, commented on the importance of a connection to the trail system, building an overlook, and being sensitive to the historical aspect of the site. Chair Lorberbaum stated that the developer is looking for a general feeling from the Commission about the proposal and asked each commissioner to state their reactions to this proposal: • Commissioner Friel stated that based on the failure of the proposal to comply in a number of respects to the PUD ordinances, he is not impressed with the proposal. After hearing from the MAC, Commissioner Friel, he has serious misgivings about this or any other residential proposal for this site. • Commissioner Betlej echoed similar comments about density, particularly in regards to storm water issues. Commissioner Betlej does not think this is a good residential site because of the sound generated by the airport. If the proposal were to come back to the commission, he would expect to see more green space and better quality to be more in line what the ordinance talks about. • Chair Lorberbaum agrees with the comments from Commissioner Friel and Betlej. The density is a concern. The uniqueness of the property does not seem to match the uniqueness of the development. Chair Lorberbaum said that she is doubtful that residential is the right option for this site. Chair Lorberbaum said that this development doesn't seem to be special enough to make it worth considering it as a PUD. • Commissioner Dolan agrees. He is looking for a unique design for a unique piece of property. This looks like a lot of other development in the area. Commissioner Dolan said he doesn't think this concept plan is something that anyone from the City had in mind for this site, and there is a need to change it. Mr. Wieland said that he appreciates the comments, and that he wishes to work with the City to develop a project that is appropriate for the site. PLANNING CASE #02 -07 ROSEVILLE PROPERTIES CONCEPT PLAN FOR A PUD Mr. Grittman reviewed the Concept Plan for a PUD for the remaining undeveloped parcels of the Centre Pointe Business Park, near the southwest corner of Highway 110 and Lexington. Those parcels are Lot 4 and Lot 5 of the original project. Lot 4 currently has a parking lot that supported an adjacent business. The applicant is considering the resubdivision of those two lots into three parcels. The applicant would be required to re -plat to accommodate this proposal and would also require a PUD approval due to the use of a common driveway. The use of PUD would require the impervious surface standard for commercial PUDs which is 70 %. This is not a standard in the commercial zoning district. If a PUD were to be used, there will be a need to address the impervious surface coverage. The applicant is interested in getting some feedback on this Concept Plan. 19 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 Commissioner Friel stated that it was hard to give a response to a Concept Plan regarding impervious surface issues without knowing the extent of the issue. Mr. Grittman replied that the applicant was not aware of the impervious surface issue when they prepared the original concept plan, and Staff is confident that the layout is more an illustration than an actual development plan. Commissioner Friel stated that the PUD process is designed to provide some flexibility, but doesn't provide enough to allow for variances from the provisions of the PUD. Doing it without a PUD presents its own set of variance issues. Mr. Grittman stated that doing this particular layout without a PUD would require some variances. Commissioner Betlej asked if there could be some improvement on the entry drive in terms of its location as it comes into Centre Pointe Drive. Mr. Grittman stated the existing parking lot comes into Centre Point right at the corner. If the two lots were going to be developed separately under the original scheme, that would affect the placement of the driveways. Commissioner Betlej stated that there are also concerns with the width of the drive and traffic issues. Mr. Grittman stated the plan shows the driveway in a 44 ft. strip of property out to Centre Pointe, and the east side of that is lined with some median landscaping. Mr. Grittman said that he would expect that there would be some interest in turn lane opportunities. Commissioner Dolan asked if the utilities would be relocated with the vacation or are the utilities not located there. Mr. Grittman stated the proposed vacation is for some easement areas, and there is not a change in existing utility locations. Mr. Hugh Cullen of Roseville Properties introduced himself as the developer of Centre Pointe Business Park. The applicant is just getting into the final phases of the development. The issue is how to do it, and is tenant driven. In order to accommodate the tenants potentially lined up for the next phase, it was felt that rather than a big building, it would be better to keep with the consistency of the other buildings in the park, keeping it a campus type development. Mr. Cullen stated that when he originally came to the City with these thoughts, it was thought that a PUD was the way to go. After further consideration, Roseville Properties would rather do a lot split, create three lots, and get one variance for the private road. In regards to the impervious surface coverage, he added that right now, he was in B -1 zoning which allows 75% impervious surface. Under the PUD, he would only have 70 %, so he would lose 5 %. Mr. Cullen said that he needs that extra 5 %. Mr.Cullen said that he will need to come back with a different proposal at a later date, and would like to get some feed back from the Commission to better prepare a revision. Commissioner Dolan asked if Mr. Cullen went forward with the PUD, but didn't meet the cover ratio, he could receive a variance to that in the process of getting it approved for the PUD. Mr. Hollister stated that if Roseville Properties' plan showed 75% impervious surface and in the PUD chapter of the zoning ordinance, it says there is a maximum allowed 70% impervious surface coverage, Mr. Cullen would have to get a variance to the PUD ordinance for the extra 5 %. Commissioner Dolan asked if he would need a variance anyway if he goes the other route. Administrative Assistant Hollister replied that was true. 20 Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2002 Commissioner Friel stated there is a problem, in that with a PUD, there is an ordinance provision that removes the need for variances. When granted variances to the provisions of the PUD ordinance, then it becomes variance- stacking and it's entirely inappropriate. Chair Lorberbaum directed her comment to Mr. Cullen, stating that she seemed to recall the last time he was before the Commission, Mr. Cullen had a clear idea of what he would do with the remaining parcels. His reply at that time was that he would not need any variances. Now Mr. Cullen is coming back for some variances. Mr. Cullen stated that the variance is only for the impervious surface coverage. The new proposal is a design to do what is best for the park. He was not aware he needed a variance until he came to this meeting and spoke with Mr. Hollister. Commissioner Betlej commented that Mr. Cullen brought a proposal that was consistent with the quality of what was done, and feels this should continue. Mr. Cullen said he would reconsider his request for a PUD based on the impervious surface issues. VERBAL REVIEW Director Danielson gave a review of the past cases. • Planning Case #02 -01 - Brian Vogel. City Council denied this request for a variance . Mr. Vogel was instructed to bring deck and gazebo into compliance. • Planning Case #254.04 - 02.02 Xcel Energy request for CUP - was not acted on yet, but it appears there are three votes leaning towards approving the request for the tower construction. Staff was instructed to prepare a resolution of approval and one of denial, and bring them back to the next council meeting for final action. Commissioner Betlej added that these draft resolutions are open to the public for review. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ TO ADJOURN. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Meeting was adjourned at 11:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 21