Loading...
2002-03-26 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 26, 2002 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 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 B. McManus, Friel, Betlej, Dolan, and M. McManus. City Staff present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Alan Brixius of NAC. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Excused: Commissioner Hesse APPROVAL OF MINUTES Revised minutes of January 22, 2002. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE REVISED MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2002 AS PRESENTED. 5 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. Revised minutes of January 22, 2002. Commissioner M. McManus referred to page 17, last paragraph, third sentence. This should read "While living in Duluth some time ago, there were serious questions raised about the health impacts from the tailings from the taconite processing at Reserve Mining Company at Silver Bay and into the Lake Superior." Commissioner B. McManus referred to page 11, third paragraph from the bottom, first sentence. This should read "Commissioner B. McManus stated that unless Xcel has two discrete separate numbers (n's), a valid comparison couldn't be made, as they overlap." Commissioner B. McManus referred to page 14, 5th bullet, which says "He is concerned that EMF's are part of a cult for human beings to survive in enough quantity and enough proximity ". He asked to have that item removed from the minutes. 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 Commissioner B. McManus referred to page 14, 3rd bullet, first sentence. This sentence should read "Commissioner B. McManus hopes that Heidi Benedict's analysis of the research on electromagnetic fields is right and if we have nothing to worry about." COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ACCEPT THE REVISED MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2002 AS CORRECTED. 5 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. Minutes of February 26, 2002 Chair Lorberbaum referred to page 12, second paragraph, third sentence. At the end of this sentence, "so that" should be removed. Chair Lorberbaum referred to page 14, fifth paragraph, second line. This sentence should read "Can public streets be included... ". The word public was misspelled. Commissioner Betlej referred to page 6, third bullet from top, last sentence. This sentence should read "He suggested to move the lot line back only 5 -ft. to make it easier to build a home with a larger footprint. Commissioner Dolan referred to page 3, third paragraph from the bottom, second sentence. This sentence should read "The lot from the south is owned by Mr. Curley, and the lot to the north is held by a trust controlled by Mr. Curley's mother." Commissioner Dolan referred to page 4, first paragraph, third sentence. This sentence should read "Commissioner Dolan stated that it would not prohibit the granting of an easement ". COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 2002 AS CORRECTED. 5 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. PLANNING CASE #01 -39 INHERITABLE WORLD LLC 1744 DODD ROAD VARIANCE, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RIDDER PROPERTY CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 2 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 Mr. Paul McGinley, L.S. Principal Surveyor, requested continuance of this matter to the next Planning Commission meeting and grant the extension of the review period by 30 days. Chair Lorberbaum acknowledged receipt of the letter from Mr. McGinley for this request. The original letter was given to Mr. Hollister for the record. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO TABLE THE HEARING OF THE MATTER AS REQUESTED TO THE APRIL 23RD MEETING. Further Discussion Chair Lorberbaum said that she felt bad that the residents in the audience have come to the previous four meetings and were sent home without having the discussion on the floor. She stated that it is the applicant's right to ask for postponement, and notice to the residents of tabling discussion is not possible, as the Commission is not aware of the applicant's intent until the meeting. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Danielson if the applicant could continue to request extensions. Mr. Danielson replied that there is a 60 -day rule in which City must act upon whether to grant or deny extension. The City does have the option to extend to 120 days, and then action should be taken. Extensions greater than 120 days must be requested by the applicant. Mr. Danielson added that as long as the Commission grants the requests for extension, the applicant can continue to request further extensions. For confirmation, Chair Lorberbaum asked if the Commission must then accept the motion as requested for extension. Mr. Danielson confirmed that the Commission has the right to deny the motion. Mr. McGinley gave a brief update of the project. • Applicant has been negotiating with several parties surrounding the property. Two of the three negotiations have been settled with certainty. The third is moving along well and its expected to be settled within the next few weeks. • Negotiations have resulted in some positive changes to the development that will satisfy the surrounding neighbors and improve the development, and the applicant would like to have every party involved to be satisfied with the results before coming back to the City. It is felt this will be next month. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there was a website that people could access to get updated information. Mr. McGinley said that the website is www.hiddencreeksestates.com. Mr. McGinley expressed apologies to the City and the residents for the frustrations and delays. 5 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. PLANNING CASE #02 -08 JOHN AREHART 1305 KENDON LAKE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 Mr. Brixius stated that this application was also requested to be tabled for one month as there is a consideration for this project to be for an attached garage rather than a detached garage, therefore there will be no Conditional Use Permit required. Mr. Danielson stated there was written confirmation of the request received by the City. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ TO TABLE THIS CASE UNTIL THE APRIL MEETING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED. PLANNING CASE #02 -09 THOMAS MCELLISTREM 1007 WILLIAM COURT VARIANCE Mr. Brixius introduced the request for a variance to construct an addition to the home at 1007 William Court. This property is zoned R -1, however it was noted that the setback is significantly larger than the requirements for an R -1 setback. In this case, the City requires the setback to be equal to the averages of the adjoining structures. The proposed addition would encroach into the average setback approximately 20 -ft. Mr. McEllistrem's letter states that he is concerned with the noise from I -35 and would like to protect the rear yard as much as possible as it's more valuable to him than the front yard. Therefore, Mr. McEllistrem is proposing an extension to the front of the home. Mr. Brixius said that in this case, the argument for hardship is the proximity to the freeway and the noise consideration. Additionally, the unusually deep setback is unique to the R -1 property. Mr. Brixius said that there are opportunities to the north and south sides of the property for a house expansion that would fully comply with the width that is required. In this respect, the City has the option of two actions. One being to grant approval of the front yard setback variance, based on the finding that a reasonable use of this parcel justifies the variance; or two, the denial of the front yard setback variance, based on a finding that the conditions do not constitute a hardship, since there is adequate room on either side, or the rear yard, to accommodate significant building additions. Mr. Brixius stated that the Planner's and Staff s recommendation is that there is little argument that the significant setback requirements applying to this parcel are extraordinary, and the freeway interferes with the applicant's enjoyment of the property. However, there are several alternatives to expanding the home within full compliance of the code. Mr. Thomas McEllistrem, 1007 William Court, said that his application is for a variance for the setback. He understands that Mendota Heights' requirement for a typical housing situation has a 30 -ft. setback from the roadway. He said that due to the configuration of William Court, the road is up against the interstate and his home is approx. 100 -ft. from the road. He would like to expand the house to add a great room, kitchen area and 4 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 mud room. Mr. McEllistrem said that the options for expanding to the north would not be possible, as he would have to remove an existing bathroom and bedroom, causing considerable cost increase. He would like to keep those rooms in place. To go to the south side, there is an existing garage and raised driveway. He would have to reconstruct a new garage and reconfigure the driveway. Again, that would incur additional costs. Mr. McEllistrem stated he had met with all 6 neighbors directly surrounding him and they have expressed their support. Mr. McEllistrem said that his hardship was the noise impact from the freeway. By building onto the front of the home, he would be better buffered from the noise, and his main outside use is in the back yard. He is also landscaping his back yard by constructing a Japanese garden, along with other valuable plantings. He believes that by building into the back yard, this would devalue the property. Mr. McEllistrem said that the character of the homes in his section of William Court all have good separation between the homes. If he built north or south that would make the homes seem closer together, disrupting the character of that area. Also, some of the homes are set back further from the road than others. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the ordinance provision, in which the required average setbacks of the two neighbors' setbacks are greater than that which is being requested, does this apply to the neighbors to the north and south only? Mr. Brixius stated this was correct. Commissioner M. McManus commented on the configurations of the different homes along William Court. She believes some of the homes are really close to the street and from that aspect, she is in favor of granting the variance because the home is not that large, and she understands the spacing difference between the neighbors. She does not see a problem in moving the home closer to the street and preserve the back yard. Commissioner M. McManus feels that the rationale of a hardship being Mr. Ellistrem's having to reconstruct to the side, that because this is a deep lot, the applicant would be able to maintain the 30 -ft setback. Commissioner Dolan said that cost is not justification for a variance and does not establish a hardship. He asked Mr. McEllistrem if there was a significant noise difference between the front yard and the back yard. Mr. McEllistrem stated there is a significant difference. He added that the land configuration in the back yard, with a dropped off level and the yard being more "hollowed ", the noise is considerably more buffered. Commissioner Dolan referred to the Planners report, regarding the applicant's argument against a side yard location. The immediate neighbor to the north has a setback of 15 -ft., and the neighbor to the south has less than 10 -ft., where Mr. McEllistrem's detached garage would have to be placed, therefore not being able to preserve the spacious building separation. Chair Lorberbaum referred to Mr. McEllistrem's comments regarding the character of the area in that he does not want to have the homes closer to each other, and so to have his home set closer to the street, this would allow the house to comply with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. McEllistrem stated that the setback that exists from the house to the street is approximately 105 -ft. Some of the neighboring homes have only at 60 -ft. to 75 -ft. setback from the road. However, the spacing of homes side to side is more consistent. Chair Lorberbaum stated that having a setback of 100 -ft. is very different from most homes. (It was noted that Commissioner Friel arrived at this time). 5 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 Commissioner B. McManus said asked the applicant if his goal was to add space to his residence, which he pointed out was approximately 100% increase in square footage, and was it Mr. McEllistrem's intent to make his home more useful and satisfying to him and his family. Mr. McEllistrem replied that this was correct. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDING THAT A REASONABLE USE OF THE PARCEL JUSTIFIES THE VARIANCE, INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED, AND THE HARDSHIP BEING THE NOISE FROM THE FREEWAY. CHAIR LORBERBAUM ADDED AN ADDENDUM TO THE MOTION TO RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUE HARDSHIP OF THIS LOT BECAUSE OF THE DEEP SETBACKS REQUIRED OF THAT AREA. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED. PLANNING CASE #02 -10 ROSEVILLE PROPERTIES / CENTRE POINT BUSINESS PARK 2055 CENTRE POINTE BOULEVARD VARIANCE AND SUBDIVISION Mr. Brixius introduced the request for a variance and subdivision relating to the Centre Point Master Plan. The property is currently a single lot, and the applicant is asking for a subdivision that will create a lot less than 100 - ft in width within a B -1 district. The frontage of the land is currently 500 -ft., and a standard subdivision would give a 100 -ft. frontage for each lot. The variance is requested to allow the creation of three (3) 45 -ft width frontage lots. This would allow for building placement, shared parking and access. In respect to the hardship criteria, it is Staff's opinion that three lots meeting the width requirement would result in a less efficient building and parking layout. Mr. Brixius lists the options for action as follows: 6 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 Subdivision 1 Approve the subdivision as submitted based on the finding that the proposal meets the general intent of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances 2. Approve the Subdivision based on the following conditions: a. The City approves the requested lot width variance. b. A preliminary plat must be submitted which specifies lot and block numbers, and fulfills the submission requirements specified in the City Subdivision Ordinance. c. The proposed lot descriptions are found to be acceptable by the Dakota County Recorder. d. The recommendations of the City Engineer relating to easement establishment are satisfactorily met. e. The recommendations of the City Engineer relating to utilities are satisfactorily met. 3. Deny the Subdivision, based on a finding that the proposed lot widths do not meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Lot Width Variance 1. Approve the requested variance on a finding that: a. A hardship exists in putting the property to reasonable use b. Adherence to the minimum lot width requirement will result in a less efficient site design c. The essential character of the area will be maintained by granting the lot width variance 2. Denial of the variance as submitted. Mr. Brixius said that while technically it is possible to create three lots that meet the minimum width requirements, Planning Staff believes adherence to such requirement would result in a less efficient site design. Commissioner B. McManus asked if this site is currently occupied by a building? Mr. Brixius replied it was not. Commissioner B. McManus asked if this site is currently occupied by a parking lot? Mr. Brixius replied it was not. He added that on the southerly lot, a conditional use permit was granted to allow installation of some parking. Commissioner B. McManus asked what number of parking spaces would be constructed, and what would the impact be? Chair Lorberbaum stated it would be better to hold these questions for the applicant. Commission Dolan asked where the current 500 -ft. of frontage is measured. Mr. Brixius referred to the site map depicting those two points. Commissioner Dolan asked how the lots would be shaped if strict adherence to the ordinance was required. Mr. Brixius stated they would be long and narrow, but straight. Mr. Hugh Cullen introduced himself as a representative from Roseville Properties. Mr. Cullen pointed out that the property was actually two lots now. One of the properties had been previously subdivided to accommodate extra parking for one of the existing tenants. By granting the proposed subdivision and variance, this parking lot will not be impacted. Mr. Cullen stated that construction on Centre Point #6 would begin during 2002. It is planned to begin Centre Point #7 shortly afterward, and the last building to be built would be Centre Point #8, which will only be built is adequate parking is provided. Commissioner Betlej asked if there would be signage to direct people to the Centre Point #7 building. Mr. Cullen stated there would be some directional signage that will be consistent with the rest of the Business Park. 7 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 Mr. Cullen said that Roseville Properties looked at this site for some time, and trying to figure the best way to develop it. It is an unusually shaped piece and in trying to develop it, they have looked at constructing buildings to accommodate the length of the site. They felt it would be a detriment to the tenants as they could find themselves without street frontage. And by building a series of smaller buildings, this would be consistent with the buildings already developed in the Business Park. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Cullen that the hardship be identified. Mr. Cullen replied that the hardship is the configuration of the lot. Roseville Properties did not create the parcels, and purchased them the way they are. They are trying to work with what is there to come up with a reasonable arrangement for these buildings. Economically, the applicant needs to develop 100,000 -ft. to make it profitable for Roseville Properties and the tenants. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment, COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION TO CREATE THREE LOTS FROM THE TWO EXISTING LOTS; AND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE DUE TO THE CONFIGURATION OF THE CURRENT LOTS FORCING THE BUILDING OF A LARGER SIZE BUILDING RATHER THAN KEEPING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AS IS WITH THE THEME OF SMALLER BUILDINGS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: a. The City approves the requested lot width variance. b. A preliminary plat must be submitted which specifies lot and block numbers and fulfills the submission requirements specified in the City Subdivision Ordinance. c. The proposed lot descriptions are found to be acceptable by the Dakota County Recorder. d. The recommendations of the City Engineer relating to easement establishment are satisfactorily met. e. The recommendations of the City Engineer relating to utilities are satisfactorily met. Further Discussion • Commissioner Dolan asked to have the conditions as outlined in the Planners Report (Subdivision #2, a through e) added to the motion. • Commissioner B. McManus stated he is convinced that Roseville Properties knew what the shape of the lot was when they purchased it. When talking hardship, this is something of the applicant's creation, because the property was bought as is. On the other hand, because of the character of the neighborhood, this may enhance the project. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 8 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 MOTION CARRIED. Verbal Review Mr. Danielson presented the verbal review. • Planning Case #02 -02 —Tim Curley, Rezoning and Subdivision Approval. Mr. Curley has requested to subdivide a portion of property that adjoins his to the north. That property is currently held by a trust controlled by Mr. Curley's mother. Mr. Curley wishes to subdivide that portion in order to accommodate his driveway at the furniture store, which is on his property. The Planning Commission suggested that he consider establishing an easement so that he will not have to complete the subdivision. Mr. Curley is still discussing this option with his family and has not yet concluded that discussion. • Planning Case #02 -03 — Terry Russell, Approval of Subdivision. Mr. Russell, who resides on Maple Park Court, has requested a subdivision of the parcel known as 754 Woodridge, in order to purchase this property which adjoins his back yard. The owner of the lot on Woodridge is planning to move and would like to sell a part of his property to Mr. Russell, whereas Mr. Russell would be able to expand his small backyard. The Planning Commission, on a split vote, with no recommendation, forwarded this to City Council. The Council agreed to allow Mr. Russell to accomplish that with a simple lot division subject to his attorney and the City Attorney to come to an agreement to work on a plan that meets Dakota County's requirement that does not allow the combination of two separate parcels from separate subdivisions. • Planning Case #02 -04 — Eric Hanzel, Request for Variance and CUP to construct a detached garage. The Planning Commission recommended approval of both and forwarded to the City Council. The Council approved this request. • Planning Case #02 -05 — Joel and Juliet Bennet, Request for Variance for a home addition. The proposal was to extend their home into the back yard with a 5 -ft. variance. Council approved this request. • Planning Case #02 -06 - Tollefson /Pulte Homes, PUD Concept Plan for northern end of Pilot Knob Road. This was a pre - application PUD proposal to develop back -to -back townhomes on the Garron/Acacia site by the Mendota Bridge. The Planning Commission did not give favorable comments to the City Council. Tollefson Development then went to the City Council with an amended plan to construct a lesser density townhome project. Mr. Hamel, from MAC, appeared before the Planning Commission and the City Council to request denial of this development due to the impact from the air traffic patterns. The City Council denied the concept plan. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the City Council was looking into possibly rethinking the designation for that area away from residential. Mr. Danielson stated they have not given any instruction to staff. The developer 9 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 has hired a planner, and the planner has contacted Staff to arrange a meeting in the next few days to discuss options. PLANNING CASE #02 -11 LANDFORM - TOWN CENTER SUBDIVISION, WETLANDS PERMIT, AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PUD. DODD ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 110 Mr. Brixius reviewed the application submitted by Landform, on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights and R.M. F. Entities for a mixed use PUD project at Dodd Road and State Highway 110. This application also includes approval of the design guidelines, preliminary plat, and a wetland permit. This plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 27, 2001, and by the City Council on January 3, 2002. The PUD includes 91,000 -sq. ft. of commercial space (50,800 -sq. ft.) and retail office space (40,200 -sq. ft.). This is 21,000 -sq. ft. larger than what was originally proposed in the concept plan. The project includes: • Residential units: 136 total units • Senior multi -story rental housing: 60 total units • Townhomes: 40 total units (20 units on the eastern portion, 20 units on the western portion) • Two condominium buildings: 36 total condominium flats Issues and Concerns of the Planner: Residential density: • The overall density of the residential area, including open space areas and exclusive of right -of -ways, will be 15.37 units per acre. • Without the senior housing, the density would be 10.48 units per acre. • With an R -3 zoning district without a PUD, the density would be allowed 8.5 units per acre, however within the MU -PUD zoning district, the City Council has the authority to determine density based on quality of the components of the PUD, and this density is consistent with the concept plan. Setback violations: • The site plan indicates there are a couple of setback violations pertaining to the western townhomes as they do not appear to meet the requirements as listed below. These need to be corrected. -+ 30 -ft. setback from the Dodd Road right -a -way -* 15 -ft. setback from public street right -of -ways. Impervious surface: • Residential PUDs are required to provide no more than 25% impervious surface. • Commercial PUD's are required to provide no more than 70% impervious surface. Open space: 10 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 • Overall, a maximum open space of 8.6 acres would be required. The developer is providing 9.2 acres of open space, and are in excess of the PUD requirements. • Changes have been made along the frontage road where open space has been proposed. In the southwest corner, there is a ponding area where it was suggested to have some additional landscaping provided. • A number of amenities that were originally proposed in the concept plan have been removed, such as the gazebo and the walking trail along the south side of the frontage road. • Within the open space areas, between the townhomes and senior area, these areas are going to be a combination of manicured lawns and taller grasses. • Mr. Brixius said that the Commission may want to comment on open space amenities and what is being provided as far as recreational opportunities. • An issue has been raised as far as the open space management and maintenance, ie. what will be the responsibility of the association and the responsibility of the individual tenants. Retail /Commercial Parking: • City of Mendota Heights requirements: - Retail Space: 7 spaces per 1,000 gross sq. ft. retail space - Office Space: 1 space per 200 gross sq. ft. of office space • Findings of the survey completed by The American Planning Association (APA): -+ Retail Space: 1 space for every 200 to 250 gross sq. ft. of retail space - Office Space: 1 space for every 250 to 300 gross sq. ft. office space • Staff's recommendation: -* A parking supply of 1 space per 200 gross sq. ft. of retail space, including both off - street and on- street parking, is reasonable. 254 parking spaces would be required for the retail area. - A parking supply of 1 space per 250 gross sq. ft. of office space, including both off - street and on- street parking is reasonable. 161 parking spaces would be required for the office area. • Based on these standards, a total of 415 parking spaces would be required for the proposed commercial area. This is 59 spaces more than what is proposed. • The applicant has made a comment that there are provisions made to consider shared parking to reduce the actual demand. Mr. Brixius asked that the traffic engineer provide comment or the applicant provide a basis for that flexibility. Residential Parking: • The parking requirements associated with the residential properties was evaluated. It appears that the developer has met or exceeded the parking requirements with 2 spaces per unit, providing both underground parking and on- street parking in access of that requirement Other Issues / Concerns: • All lighting will be uniform. Issues have been raised regarding the maintenance of lighting. • Loading areas are being provided for some specific sites. Otherwise, service vehicles will be accessed by the front doors of most of the retail shops. • Staff is making suggestions that the area around Outlot A not contain any loading areas. 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 • All trash enclosures will be located within the building. • There are some traffic visibility issues at various intersections. • Vet Clinic: - Vet Clinic is an exception to the PUD. - There is some concern as to the significant coniferous trees located at the back of the clinic; however, the tree preservation plan did not extend to those areas. It's important to make sure those trees are protected. -* Slight encroachment into the proposed street area. The City is working with the Vet Clinic on this matter. - Setback issue in regards to the parking in close proximity to the Vet Clinic – needs to be shifted. Mr. Brixius said that the Commission may consider one of the following actions: 1. Approval of the PUD Preliminary Development Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Wetland Permit with the conditions as laid out in the Planner's Report on Page 9. 2. Denial of the PUD Preliminary Development Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Wetland Permit. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Brixius to explain the difference between the Preliminary Approval and the Final Approval. What can the Commission do now versus what do they assume will be approved later? She also asked for the designations of the Buildings A, B, C, D, etc. Mr. Brixius replied that this part of the development stage and preliminary plat approval process is the time to hold a public hearing for input, and to work through all the mechanics and various construction components of the drawings. Once the preliminary plat is approved, the developer has the design approval to go ahead and final plat. This would then be the time to interject any changes or propose conditions as to improve the site design as well as the preliminary plat design. Mr. Brixius said that PUD performance stage has similar characteristics of a preliminary plat. This is the time when everything needs to come together as far as grading, utilities, site design, and design guidelines. Once approval is given, the final approvals are more about technical issues such as contracts, incorporating and implementation. Mr. Bruxius also pointed out the building designations for clarity purposes. Commissioner Friel said that, based on Mr. Brixius' comments, he understands that this is the critical decision making for recommendations. Commissioner Friel said that he noticed an increase in the amount of commercial space by 34,000 -sq. ft. from what was in the concept plan. When looking at the traffic report, it tells him that the previous reports analyzed the operation of the intersection of Dodd Road and Highway 110. It was determined that traffic volumes generated by the initial concept were higher than the traffic volumes generated by the currently proposed development, thus how can 34,000 -sq. ft. of commercial space be added while making the traffic volume less than the concept plan? Mr. Brixius replied it was his understanding that the increase is an additional 21,000 over concept. Mr. Brixius suggested that the traffic engineer answer that question. Commissioner Friel said that under the ordinance, specifically commercial use, the requirement is 558 parking spaces. The APA requirements would suggest 415 parking spaces, and the applicant is proposing 356 spaces. The applicant's proposal is one third less than the ordinance requirement. Commissioner Friel asked Mr. Brixius if any one has suggested that the ordinance be amended because its requirements are unreasonable. Mr. Brixius replied that only in the staff review, was the parking requirements of the City deemed to be much higher than industry standards. 12 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 Commissioner Friel asked if anyone has suggested, during the long process of this development plan, that the City's parking requirements are so outrageous as to requiring an ordinance amendment. Mr. Brixius replied that it should be considered. Commissioner Friel said he was not aware of anyone suggesting this matter. Commissioner Friel asked Mr. Brixius if he considered the APA requirements to be the reasonable ones. Mr. Brixius replied that he did. Commissioner Friel said that the extra 59 spaces are to be made up by shared parking, and asked Mr. Brixius to explain how the shared parking is considered. Mr. Brixius referred to the Planner's Report on page 3, which outlined the criteria for shared parking. He added that there is question as to whether that criteria would be sufficient from Staff s point of view, and asked the applicant to provide additional information, and in addition, have the traffic engineer provide testimony as to whether these are valid concerns. Commissioner Friel said he was unclear as to exactly how many parking spaces are required with respect to the residential areas, but it seems to him that 2%2 parking spaces are required with respect to all residential areas because of the fact it is zoned R -3. Mr. Brixius stated this was correct. Commissioner Friel said that it appears to be, with respect to the senior projects, less than half of what is required. The town home units and the road design seems to be alright, but the project is about 18 spaces short with respect to the condominium buildings. It is unclear on the shortage with respect to the townhomes, but it seems to be less than 50% of what's required. Commissioner Friel stated that there is no designation in the report regarding "home offices ", which may have a different parking requirement. Mr. Brixius said that in looking at the required parking for senior projects, based on APA studies, it is usually found that the demand is far less than market rate units. Commissioner Friel asked what APA requires. Mr. Bixuis replied that the requirements are generally 1 space per unit, plus staffing and guest parking. Commissioner Friel stated that again, the ordinance appears to have unreasonable requirements, and there have been no requests to make it reasonable. This project has been in process for a couple of years. Mr. Brixius said the applicant is probably looking for that type of flexibility through a PUD, instead of going through a serious of amendments. Commissioner Friel stated that the PUD requires parking be up to the R -3 standards. Mr. Brixius replied that there could be certain flexibilities that could be accommodated in conjuction with the site design. Mr. Brixius said that in respect to the townhomes, there is underground parking and visitor parking that is sufficient to meet the requirements. The west townhomes have 2 underground parking spaces per unit plus 21 parking spaces both on- street and off - street from that location and meets City ordinance. The condominium flats have 72 underground parking spaces, being 2 per unit, plus 20 off - street parking spaces. Commissioner Friel asked what the requirement is for home offices. Mr. Brixius replied it was his understanding that it is the same standard as residential — 2 parking spaces per unit plus 21 additional spaces (located on public right -of -ways) for residential, and only six of those units will be providing home offices as there is a limit of applications. Commissioner Friel referred to Mr. Bixius' computation which showed residential density to be 15.37 units per acre, which is slightly less than twice the requirement of the ordinance. Mr. Bixius added that this included the open space areas, which are common open spaces available to anyone in the association. Commissioner Friel said that at the last Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Grittman stated that public open spaces were excludable when computing density. Mr. Bixius replied he was not aware of what Mr. Grittman said previously, but these computations are his understanding. Mr. Bixius said that this was important that it is determined how these 13 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 open spaces will be owned and maintained, and how they will be shared. Commissioner Friel said that this was his point in that this is not clear. Commissioner Friel said that, for density purposes, the computations do not include the senior apartments, the numbers are only two over the requirements. Commissioner Friel stated his concern regarding the parking rows being close together, having a 20 -ft. turnaround area. Commissioner Friel said he had a feeling of claustrophobia with this plan, and this parking layout accentuates this in that 20 feet is very limited space in which to back out of a parking space. The parking spaces are also 20 -ft. long and 9 -ft wide, with the exception of a number of spaces designated for compact cars and are smaller. Chair Lorberbaum stated there are no designations on the plans depicting which spaces are for compact cars. Commissioner Friel referred to the Fire Chief's recommendation to increase the driveway widths to 24 -ft., and has identified those driveways. Mr. Bixius stated that these are fire lanes. Commissioner Friel asked if the impacts of those requirements have been made aware of. Mr. Bixius stated they have not. Commissioner Friel said that there are some ordinance requirements regarding adequate parking in retail and commercial establishments, and will these requirements have any impact on the availability of parking. Mr. Bixius said there would be an impact, and there is a shortage of 59 spaces, and therefore, not confident that what is being suggested as shared parking will address that shortage. Commissioner Friel referred to the traffic report which indicated an existing development, which generates 2,400 — 2,900 vehicle trips per day. It is his presumption that when it refers to existing development, it refers to the development as it existed before the Tom Thumb, the dry cleaners, and the Oasis shut down. Commissioner Betlej referred to page C2.1 on the plan, there is a reference on the southwest wing of what he thought was exclusively senior housing, but the plan shows it as retail. Mr. Bixius stated that question should be referred to the applicant. Commissioner Betlej said that if that is the case, he doesn't agree with the analysis that parking is provided. Mr. Bixius stated that the ramp across the street would have to be relied on as well as some very limited on street parking. Commissioner Betlej asked if the parking for home offices is similar to residential. Mr. Bixius stated that was true, and that his understanding is that home offices provides for home occupation opportunities which would be similar to anywhere else in the city. Commissioner Betlej pointed out a potential conflict of information regarding the parking for the senior housing in which one place he read that there is 1 space per unit, and he saw somewhere else where it stated .75 per unit. Commissioner Friel asked what was the correct proposal, 1 or .75. Mr. Bixuis stated the .75 is sufficient for this parking. Commissioner Betlej said that in the Town Center commercial district, it spoke of 6 -ft. setbacks along the new frontage road. However, it referred to 8 -ft. sidewalks in that area. This seems to be a conflict. Mr. Bixius stated there was a potential conflict. Chair Lorberbaum stated these questions would be better addressed to the applicant. Mr. Bixius said that there were some plans received since the Planner Report was made. 14 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 Commissioner Betlej asked what the allowable height is for R -3 zoning. Ms. Krall referred to page 57 of the Zoning Ordinance, provision 12.4 which states "Lot and Building Area and Building Height Requirements and Limitations ". Commission Dolan asked if the R -3 standards are being applied for variance purposes as well. Mr. Bixius stated that in cases of density, they are doing a comparison with a previous R -3, but because it's a PUD, they are establishing performance standards within that district. Commissioner Dolan asked what standards are being used for the streets. Mr. Bixius indicated that there are some setback violations, and dimensions were approved as part of the concept plan as the required setbacks of the public streets are 15 -ft., the setback from Dodd Road is 30 -ft., 8 -ft. front yard porch encroachments will be allowed. These were parts of the initial concept plan. Commissioner M. McManus stated there was a recommendation to have the Parks Commission take a look at a lot of the changes that pertain to open spaces and trails, and asked if that has occurred. Mr. Bixius replied he did not believe the Parks Commission has reviewed this plan. Commissioner M. Manus stated that there were a lot of questions related to the density, parking, changes with commercial, etc. Her overall comment is from a concept that was originally presented, looks and feels very different to her. Commissioner B. McManus said that it's been indicated where a number of areas that differ from the planners that revised the plan. In the areas of conflict, how will these areas be resolved? Do these detailed differences have to be resolved at this time? Or can it be assumed that the routine differences will be resolved routinely. Mr. Bixius said that these differences will be resolved routinely, but there are a number of issues that need to have additional information on. Staff has identified conditions recommended as part of the approval; most of those are adjustments in the plan to bring them into compliance. Staff is not comfortable with element of parking information the way it is right now, and the applicant has to provide evidence that a shared parking arrangement does work. The discrepancy between the industrial standard and what's being proposed right now is 59 spaces in a fairly tight development pattern. Mr. Bixius feels that the other elements can be worked through, such as design changes, visibility issues, traffic concerns. He feels that if the Commission approves recommendation with these conditions, the differences can be worked through routinely. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there are things the Commission would like to see changes, they can recommend approval with the understanding that these changes will be made with the implicate understanding that these changes are not made, it goes forward with the recommendation of denial. Mr. Glen VanWormer, from SEH, said that this development has generated some traffic concerns. One of the things that is possible is to review the site plan to review the traffic system and transportation system around it to come up some estimates or indications of what the magnitude of the concerns are. Mr. Van Wormer stated that traffic that is generated by development can be estimated. Mr. VanWormer presented some information as follows: 15 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 • This proposal is for 135 dwelling units comprised of multiuse buildings, and it is estimated that they will generate approximately 765 trips per day. (example: if you leave your home to go to work, that is considered one trip, and when you return at night, that is a second trip.) • Look at the destinations of a whole trip, (employment, retail, entertainment, etc.) so there are quite a number of trips plus any service trips such as deliveries, that are being made to your house. • In the retail area, there is 51,000 -sq. ft. of retail space, which will generate about 3,100 vehicle trips per day. • Being it is not a big box development in the retail area, there will be less trips generated versus having a big box store or a fast food restaurant. • There is also office space on the second floor that has a low generation rate because it's generally a service type office. It is estimated that would bring approximately 600 trips a day. • In the initial proposal, there was no office space, but there was 6,100 -sq. ft. of retail along with 144 residential units. When looking at the total between the two, in the original concept there was 3,650 trips plus the 144 dwelling units, generating 4,500 total trips. • One of the considerations that must be taken is when there is a mixture of office /retail and residential in the same development. This would generate a lot of internal trips. Someone who may live in the development would choose to visit one of the retail establishments, or an office worker to lives in the development, or frequent the restaurant or retail shops. • In the initial proposal, the plan was for only retail and residential, and it was felt there was no enough interaction to have a deduction. The total trip can be reduced by 10% which comes to 4,000 trips a day. • For a comparison, Mr. VanWormer stated that McDonalds, on the south side of the freeway, probably generates about 2,500 vehicle trips a day. At SuperAmerica, those are generating about 1,500 trips a day. • When referring to existing businesses on site in terms that they are there and healthy, and as an example, the Oasis was not a healthy or profitable business. If Holiday, Freedom, or SuperAmerica took it over an run it, they would generate a significant number of trips. It is not fair to look five years ago and use the Oasis or the Tom Thumb store as an example now, but what could be done if those were healthy businesses. It is estimated that there could be about 2,700 to 2,800 vehicles a day. • In summary, the proposed development will not generate a high volume of traffic, but there will be some additional traffic. One of the concerns is how this contributes to the streets and what does it do on site. Traffic can be distributed out onto the streets by looking at destinations, such as employment and entertainment. By seeing where the traffic flows, traffic can be sent in areas strategically by peak hours, types of traffic, and referring to other studies that have been done which allow for estimates. • It is estimated that the proposed site would generate about 480 p.m. peak hour trips (4:30 pm — 6:00 pm). • Mr. VanWormer pointed out two significant figures. 480 trips generated on site, which would generate the traffic considerations; but traffic on Highway 110 or Highway 49, there is only about a 130 increase. • It is estimated that 10% of the residential traffic from the proposed site would go north. An estimated 20% of the commercial traffic would be to and from the north. • An area of concern would be the west -bound traffic at the south access point, which lines up with Ridgeplace. It is estimated that traffic from the development, plus the existing traffic coming from the frontage road, the total volume at this location would be about 130 west -bound left turns in the peak hours. 130 means about 2 left turns per minute. North -bound traffic is very platune from the traffic signal with the exception of the west -bound right turn. South -bound traffic has a meter coming from the 4 -way stop. There is alittle more problem finding a south -bound gap than a north- bound, but with a volume of about 2 cars per 16 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 minute on average, there will not be long lines of delays on a daily basis. There is not a big concern regarding heavy backups. • Mr. VanWormer said that when talking about average, that means only one hour, with the heaviest concentration, in the pm peak hours. He added that there are a number of studies that come out periodically where it talks about specific locations. There is also a two- volume book which combines all these studies. • Mr. VanWormer stated there is traffic volume information for this particular intersection, and traffic counts on the different streets were made along with observations of the intersection, and the trip rates used were similar to an office if it were located on this site. • The additional traffic on Dodd Road at Highway 110 is probably heaviest because of the commercial / office traffic exiting in the afternoon, along with some residential as well. There would be approximately 50 additional south -bound vehicles in the pm peak hours, and that's 50 about what Mr. VanWormer refers to as the existing. • There are also some changes in routes because of the change in the street system. • Chair Lorberbaum said that she heard it may be possible to put in a traffic light between the access and Highway 110. Mr. VanWormer does not believe that is necessary, and there would probably not be enough volume to justify a traffic signal. • Some considerations are being looked into with re- creating the existing system as a frontage road, traveling around to Freeway Road. Sibley students and neighbors use this route frequently. When the system is in place, there will be a frontage road which will take traffic directly to Dodd Road. The change will have two impacts. One is anything on the frontage road will have more direct route, and the second impact is that it will also create more distance for a few trips in the area. (Mr. Van Wormer referred to a map of the area as he described the different traffic routes.) Mr. VanWormer also referred to a "slip ramp" at the Delaware Avenue intersection. • Mr. VanWormer's comments regarding office parking: —> General guideline is 1 space per 250 -sq. ft. of building space - Upstairs offices will not have a lot of visitors to generate the need for parking spaces - Employees can be instructed to park in a designated area -* Visitors will not want to park below grade. The exception would be in downtown areas, and centers such as the Mall of America • Mr. VanWormer's comments regarding retail parking: -* General guideline is 5 spaces per 1,000 -sq. ft. of building space. Many shopping centers want to take this down for 4, most places require 4Y2 to 5 spaces as a minimum • Mr. VanWormer's comments regarding shared parking: -* Office prime time is late morning or early afternoon - Retail peak is mid afternoon. Mr. Van Wormer noted that this is based on observation, he does not have any studies to back this fact up. -* Restaurant — depending of the type desired for this location, peak is a noon and after 5:00 pm. - There is some type of overlap of the demand, but a mixed use can justify a 10% reduction in traffic. - Another justification, as an example, is an office worker parking in the office space, and walking to retail or restaurant. Instead of having 1 parking space each, the two are combined for the need of 1. Commissioner B. McManus asked if it is the opinion of Mr. VanWormer that the Planner feels there is adequate amount of space provided for parking. Mr. VanWormer stated it was his opinion that this not true. 17 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 He added there are some things that need to be considered, and compared to other developments with shared parking. He said he did not have a detailed enough study completed to be as confident with the parking as he is with the traffic study. Mr. VanWormer believes that the Commissioner should seriously look at two things: 1) APA recommendations which is lower than the City requirements, and 2) shared parking components. Commissioner Friel asked if the traffic count included the Vet Clinic. Mr. VanWormer said the Vet Clinic was factored in as an existing space. Commissioner Friel said Mr. VanWormer felt comfortable based on the developer's proposal with the traffic analysis. Mr. VanWormer replied that he was. He said that the type of development of any shopping center that could generate more traffic than anticipated can not be guaranteed. There will also be some that will not perform as well. The report given to the Commission tonight is going to be correct most often, and the variations will not be a huge percent. Commissioner Friel said that he believed that traffic studies conducted by the State of Minnesota and Met Council, assigned various numbers to traffic conditions at intersections. Mr. VanWormer stated that these studies used the alphabet, and F is failure. E is one where you are close to failure, and occasionally it will fail, but not all the time, and a D is usually a design. Mr. VanWormer had run through some calculations for the Highways 49 and 110, and he said the results showed a D, it was satisfactory, and no major change was made on it. Mr. VanWormer said that in the metropolitan area: -* A means you can drive like it is 3:00 am -* B means you are going to be restricted a little bit - C means you have traffic around you and you have to be aware of the conditions - D means you are on the edge of problems. -* F means you should have turned around Mr. VanWormer said that MnDOT has committed to the approval of the access in/out west -bound Highway 110. Regarding the concern of the 20 -ft. parking space, Mr. Van Wormer said that wherever there is a turnover for parking space, a 9 -ft. width is recommended. Employee parking can go down to 8'10". It is goes down to 8' /2 -ft, it should almost be valet parking or professional. If there is a 20 -ft space up to a curb, usually there is 18 -ft, plus 2 -ft hangover, this should give you 24 -ft in the middle. The new minimum standard calls for 57 -ft between, and the developer is providing 50 -ft. with a 9 -ft stall. Space between rows of cars, or the turnaround area, is a 20 -ft minimum today, and if there are curbs on parking for either side, cars are actually taking up 18 feet which will give 24 -ft. in the middle. Exceptions are long bed pickups, crew cab pickups. Large SUV's seem to be about 18 -ft. long. Most of the spaces in the surface parking seems to be up against the sidewalk or a curb of some sort. Commissioner B. McManus asked that in Mr. VanWormer's opinion, will the traffic scene get only marginally more busy, and that roads along that corridor of Highway 110 stay clear of traffic jams. Mr. VanWormer stated there is a volume of about 8,500 vehicles per day on Dodd Road, north of Highway 110. That comes out to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 vehicles during the peak hour, with an 18 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 additional 50 vehicles after the development is constructed, so it is a small percent increase. Commissioner B. McManus said that the experts that know these traffic patterns say there is adequate roadways to tolerate this new development. Mr. VanWormer said that was correct. He added that the traffic forecast that is normally done is for 20 years. These forecasts that are done are based on full development of the areas. Commissioner Dolan stated he has trouble at this intersection when he is going east on Highway 110, and take a left to go north on Dodd, he sees the left hand turn lane backing up. He asked how easy it would be to coordinate lights to avoid long backups. Mr. VanWormer said that most of the traffic signals have detectors, and this intersection does have that. Ms. Carolyn Krall, Landform, passed out color renderings and said she would wait until the public hearing is over to allow residents in the audience to ask questions and make their comments. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Mary Ann Ryan, 684 North Freeway Road, asked why no one addressed the traffic on Freeway Road. She is concerned that there will be additional traffic on this road. Mr. VanWormer said that North Freeway Road is very isolated and traffic volume is small, therefore should not be impacted. Ms. Krall introduced herself as the representative for the City of Mendota Heights, and the developer, RMF Entities as Landform put together the drawings and applications. Commissioner Friel said parking is about one -third short based on the ordinance. As no one suggested that the ordinance is unreasonable, Commissioner Friel said that if a conclusion was reached that the parking was adequate, that may conclude that the ordinance is unreasonable and the Commission should not have been applying it to everyone else that has been before the Commission over the last several years. It is proposed to provide 50+ spaces to reach the 415 total on a shared basis and would like to know where the sharing occurs. Ms. Krall said this would be an amendment to the ordinance for this particular development and would hopefully be used as a standard for other mixed -use developments. Landform pointed out that the ordinance, in regard to retail, is probably unreasonable and not to be amended. It is not necessary for this particular project because of the mixed use point of view. The City Ordinance is higher than most communities are. Guidelines suggest the adoption of a compact parking approach, but the drawings have not allowed for that, and also handicap spaces have been figured in. Ms. Krall said that there was no retail space within the senior housing. Commissioner Betlej pointed out that it says "retail" on the C2 -1 map. Ms. Krall said this was an error in building labeling. Ms. Krall referred to some of the diagrams and reviewed the parking situations and gave some comments: -+ It is suggested that a standard of 2 parking spaces per unit for residents and 1/4 space per unit for guests. -* Much of the guest parking will be on the street. -* The streets are designed to be notched in some areas to accommodate parking. - Home offices, (there are five at this point), are listed in the design guidelines and are restricted to offices for the residents only. They cannot be leased or sublet, nor can they be retail businesses. These units exceed 3 spaces per unit to allow for one guest. -* Senior housing will have 1 space per unit underground, plus staff and visitor parking of 16 more spaces. 19 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 -* The commercial parking spaces are 50 spaces short of the recommendation based on 5 spaces per 1,000 -sq. ft. retail and 4 spaces per 1,000 -sq. ft. for office. Many cities allow for 1 or 2 spaces for the first 2,000 -sq. ft. for retail store because they acknowledge that very small retailers don't tend to have as much need for spaces beyond their immediate employee spaces. The developer is not making that exception, but it's one to think about. - One of the challenges faced is that if this was a smaller and a private development, Landform would be looking at architectural plans that would be much more detailed at this stage. The plans being reviewed tonight are much more broader because development as a whole is much more conceptual in terms of the way the City Council has approached it and because they are still in the process of negotiating detailed development agreements. What takes the place is the design guidelines, and when those guidelines are approved at this stage, that then forms the standard against what the final approvals come in and are measured against. A mixed used PUD such as this should have different standards. -* Commissioner B. McManus asked if this was an experiment in that no 2 mixed use PUD's are the same, so that the wheel is being re- invented. Ms. Krall said that the standards being used will be a compilation of other standards that have been used in the past in other communities. -* Ms. Krall said that as the final development plan is being created, the developer should be required to show the detailed calculations that Mr. VanWormer spoke about to demonstrate Mr. Brixius's requirement of detailed justifications of the shared parking. -* Chair Lorberbaum referred to Section 2 of the guidelines of the Master Plan, No. 4.D. states the possibility of reducing the spaces to 8.5 for compacts. Chair Lorberbaum would like to have that taken out of the Master Plan as this will not be relevant anymore. Commissioner Friel asked Ms. Krall if she would suggest the Master Plan design standards are going to be a substitute for the City's zoning ordinance. Ms. Krall replied that was correct except for the places where it specifically refers to the ordinance as governing. Commissioner Friel stated that the ordinance that was adopted to accommodate this proposal, not with the blessing of the Planning Commission, and indicated that the R -3 zoning district standards will be used as a guide for this development plan. This is not something different from that. And to the extent that this Master Development Plan and Design Standards are at odds with the R -3, there are inconsistent with the ordinance. The only place in respect to the R -3 area there was any discretion given when this ordinance was adopted was with respect to density. Commissioner Friel has previously suggested that the manner in which the Council has gathered unto itself discretion without standards does not pass muster. Ms. Krall stated that they do not vary or disagree, or in conflict with the R -3 standards, except that they recommend a height limitation, which an R -3 does not have, and the only parking requirements not met are the senior housing. Those are the only two places where the residential is a variance of R -3 and the commercial is a variance of B -2 which is the standard they believed would be held to. Commissioner Friel said that the ordinance states 21/2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit for R -3. All of these are in R -3, and Ms. Krall interjected that they are meeting all standards but the senior standards. Commissioner Friel asked where the proposal stands under the existing ordinance. He believes that for 135 units, that makes 337 spaces and the ordinance does not permit on- street allowance for parking, and because on- street spaces are offered, they do not comply with the ordinance and they don't reduce the required minimums required under the R -3 provisions of the ordinance. 20 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 Commissioner Friel stated that no one has any idea of what kind of retail is going to be there, as well as the commercial. All these figures are being projected on some sort of average, but it really is not known as there have not been any tenants signed up. Density is estimated at twice the number of what the ordinance provides for. He stated that the City turned down a previous applicant because their density was 9. Commissioner Friel said that he continues to have claustrophobic reactions to this proposal. Commissioner Friel said that in his experience dealing with 20 or 30 traffic studies suggest to him that where his common sense differs with the expert analysis, he relies on his experience and if there was someone else who was not satisfied with this proposal and the traffic issues, there is no entire agreement what the consequences would be on this site. Ms. Krall stated that SEH is reasonably satisfied with this is because they have been involved from the very beginning and a number of counts on the traffic was performed and the developer has constantly responded to them with concerns. The developer uses the ordinance as a guide and believe the right approach is starting from that point and make sure the documents are as accurate as possible with the intention of making additional changes. Chair Lorberbaum asked that page numbers be on the proposal before it goes to the City Council. Mr. Danielson said that MnDOT will not give the formal approval until they receive the final plan. Ms. Krall said that there is quite a bit less of driveway areas because a lot of the parking is underground. The beautiful green space for residents is probably not a whole lot different, in fact it may be more in this plan than in this plan. Ms. Krall asked the the Commission look beyond just the numbers and look at the amenities in that space. Do the residents have adequate light and view, are they looking immediately into someone's front door, wall. Commission B. McManus asked if people would know to use the access from the north freeway road, between the two townhome buildings, to get to the driveway. Ms. Krall said that Staff will provide comments from the Commission and they will make sure these considerations are put in the plans. There are some trails which will be reduced. In the discussions between Landform, the developer and the City, there were some questions about access and who would own certain parcels and what would be common space versus residential space, such as trails in someone's back yard. Ms. Krall hopes that the Commission will continue to provide comments so she can follow up on them. Commissioner B. McManus said that he believes this project is developing nicely and the Commission is concerned about traffic. He added that he is satisfied that somebody knows more than he and that Commissioner Friel has had more experience than he has, so he will have to listen to the experts and the standards that are given. Commissioner B. McManus said that he is disappointed that this development seems to not plan to have children living here. Commissioner B. McManus asked if there were plans for a children's play space. Ms. Krall replied that the tot lot came out from the original plans because there was uncertainty as to what recreational amenities should be provided based on who actually purchases these units. It was suggested that the association would provide the required recreational amenities as buyers come to this development, and would purchase play equipment if they sell to a certain number of families. 21 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 Commissioner B. McManus asked if there were designated spaces for where these amenities would be placed. Ms. Krall replied that there have been boundaries definded in the space which constitutes recreational amenities and how it gets defined. Commissioner B. McManus said that while there are many elements of excellence here, the kids need a place to play. Ms. Krall said that the gazebo was removed from the plans because there is no City budget, nor has the City expressed a need for it. Commissioner B. McManus asked Ms. Krall if the requests from the Fire Department have been addressed. Ms. Krall replied that they reviewed the Fire Department's list in detail, and only have one area of concern. They will be working with the department in more detail on the request to have two internal driveways within the parking ramp area widened to 24 -ft. instead of 22 -ft., however they will adhere to the 24 -ft request if that is necessary. Commissioner B. McManus asked if there would be a lawn sprinkler system installed. Ms. Krall replied that the association would be taking care of that. Notation of this item will be updated in the development plan. Commissioner B. McManus said that he was concerned about having too many people and too many things jammed into this area. He asked Ms. Krall if there is some pressure to get as much in the way of sellable or rentable square footage in this space as possible, and is this space being filled because of financial needs. Ms. Krall replied that this site is not being maximized, and that the developer could certainly place more on this site. The commercial space is the exception and the limit is being pushed. Ms. Krall said that when preparing the final design, the density will come down slightly from that amount. Ms. Krall said that the underground parking is planned because of the market place and making sure there is enough parking available. Commissioner M. McManus said she had a concern that the "village" feeling and the "human dimension" be kept, and hopes that this project will be successful. Mr. Ross Feffercorn of RMF Entities, Inc. is the real estate developer of both residential and commercial properties. Mr. Feffercorn said that he is confident that this will be a good fit as there is a marketing demand for this kind of development. Mr. Feffercorn shared some of his observations about the project as being both pragmatic and feasible From a traffic and parking standpoint, care is being made to conduct the analysis to be cognizant of that, and he believes the economics of the project and the feasibility are carefully woven together. The reality is that the city acquired the project and there are cost considerations for this type of construction. In the beginning of the planning stages, there was a lot of on grade as it was fairly inexpensive. However, with the idea of creating more green space in a multiple type community, underground parking, although more expensive, has been incorporated. These costs are comparable to most developments of this nature. There are specifically more ornamentals in the commercial area. The developers have the ability to pay the city at the market rate for the land with considerations for the added cost of architecture and the sign elements. Mr. Feffercorm feels this is an appropriate balance of commerical, retail, and office space. Mr. Feffercorn said that this balance will work based on the timing of both uses and the type of residents buying the homes, which would be primarily active empty nesters and retirees. There will be very few families in this development as the average price of the townhomes are $400,000, and the 22 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 condominium units are about $350,000. With these prices ranges, families would typically buy a single family home. Chair Lorberbaum asked if someone can legally be denied for a restaurant and wait for someone that wants valet parking. Mr. Feffercorn replied that valet parking is unique and is done more often and is not tremendously expensive. Ms. Krall said that RMF will own and manage the property, and will have the right to exclude usages as they hold a lot of limited uses for businesses. Commissioner M. Manus asked for confirmation of all the plans as to which ones were old and which were the new updated versions. Ms. Krall said the old plans show the gazebos and has more trails than the updated one. She added that there are some concerns with MnDOT and Dakota County about how the trails will be mapped. Commissioner M. McManus would hope to see some more connection with walkways as that was part of the integration of residential and commercial and there needs to be ways to move around and would rely on the Parks Commission to take a look at that. Ms. Krall reviewed that plan that depicted changes to the wetlands and drainage plans. Commissioner Dolan said that he has a concern about parking and traffic, and feel as though the experts should be relied on. Commissioner Dolan asked if there would be a prohibition on exclusive parking for tenants. Mr. Ross replied that in some cases, this would be true. It depends on the type of tenant, and these requests must be addressed by the lease and the type of use. Commissioner Dolan asked if there was room for an additional underground ramp. Mr. Feffercorn stated that would very difficult and probably will not be necessary. Commissioner Dolan asked what the plans were for the Vet Clinic. Ms. Krall stated there has been different feedback that it would more desireable to have it incorporated into the development. Chair Lorberbaum asked about the soil borings. Ms. Krall replied that those results were provided in the Commission packets and referred to the map in explaining what was conducted. Chair Lorberbaum asked Ms. Krall if she feels comfortable building where the soil boring results suggest. Ms. Krall stated that was correct. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the plans are for pole signs. Ms. Krall stated there were no provisions for pole signs. The only free standing sign will be a monument which will allow to identify the Town Center greeting at the entryway. Chair Lorberbaum asked that it be noted there should be no pylon signs on the plans. Ms.Krall stated that in the Master Plan, as signage plan is to be submitted as with the landscaping plan as required. It is planned to have a committee work on a detailed plan before the guidelines are completed. This group will be comprised of staff, two city council people, and the developer. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the lighting will be on 24 -hours a day. Ms. Krall stated the security lighting will be on a motion detector, but there are no guidelines on other lighting. Chair Lorberbaum would like to see that addressed, and the lightpole height be less than 20 -ft. and the hours of lighting be less than 24 hours. Ms. Krall would like the Commission to give a recommendation on what hours the lighting should be set. Chair Lorberbaum said she would like to see some community involvement in naming streets in and around the development. 23 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 Chair Lorberbaum asked what the status is of the grant. Ms. Krall said the grant was not awarded. The first four grants were awarded, and Landform came in 5th. There is a TIF shortfall due to changes, and there may be some of that money left that would be awarded. Chair Lorberbaum said that this project needs to be financially responsible and if funds are not granted, what would the changes be. Ms. Krall said that is one of the reasons there is no gazebo, and other trails, and other more streamlining will be done. Ms. Krall said she is confident that they will receive the grant sooner or later. Chair Lorberbaum asked about the two tower features. Ms. Krall said these towers were ornamental and will be arches on the walkway. Ms. Krall commented on the concerns with the parking notches on the street as they are working to get some additional parking spaces. Ms. Krall confirmed that there are proper setbacks to create some additional spaces. There will be significant dirt moving, but Ms. Krall is now sure of how that will be moved. She referred to the site plan showing which trees will be kept and which will be removed. Ms. Krall said that in regards to the retaining walls, these are placed around the areas where there is underground parking and also to protect some of the wetlands. Mr. Feffercorn thanked the Commission for allowing them to present this concept. He said this will be an attractive development. Chair Lorberbaum asked when they would be coming back, on the assumption the City Council approves. Mr. Feffercorn said it will probably be in the mid part of the summer to late summer. Chris Moeller, 1730 Dodd Road, asked about bus routes, pedestrial and bicycle traffic. Ms. Krall reviewed the trail maps. In reply to the question regarding snow removal, Ms. Krall said that roads will be plowed and the snow will be transported to another location. Mr. Moeller asked about sound levels. Mr. Feffercorn commented on the soundproofing from the noise on the freeway. He stated that glazed windows and quality construction materials will be used. Ms. Krall stated that there was no more done further than that to provide a soundproofing as with the homes in the air traffic paths. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS„ THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN BASED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT: 1. THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNER ARE IMPLEMENTED INTO THE PLAN, 2. ADDITIONALLY, THE FIRE CHIEF'S RECOMMENDATION ARE INCLUDED, INCLUDING THE WIDENING OF THE STREETS, 24 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 3. THAT THE SETBACKS ARE CORRECTED ALONG DODD ROAD AND OTHER STREETS WITHIN TOWN CENTER, 4. THE CLARIFYING OF THE PLANS FOR THE ENTRANCE FROM ROAD A TO THE UNDERGROUND PARKING IN THE NORTH TOWNHOUSE THAT THEY MEET THE STANDARD OF 415 RETAIL PARKING STALLS, 5. THEY DELETE SECTION TWO FOR PARKING B. (COMPACT AREA), 6. THAT PARKING FOR THE WEST NEIGHBORHOOD BE DESIGNATED, 7. THAT THE LIGHTING POLES BE LESS THAN 25 -FT AS SPECIFICED, 8. THAT WE IDENTIFY WHO IS MAINTAINING THE LANDSCAPING, 9. THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLANS INCLUDE INFORMATION ON THE BOULEVARD TREES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE FRONTAGE ROAD, 10. SNOW REMOVAL BE CLEARLY SPECIFIED IN THE PLAN. Further Discussion Commissioner Betlej asked for clarification of the parking requirement. Chair Lorberbaum stated it is 415 stalls as recommended by the APA. She asked for what the Planner said, plus an extra 59 stalls. Ms. Krall asked if this could be phrased as not an absolute number, but in terms of relationship to square footage so if the amount of the building goes down, the amount of parking goes down with it. Chair Lorberbaum is asking that the calculations where used for the 415 be used consistently. Commissioner Friel said that noise from the freeway does in fact penetrate homes, even with triple glaze windows and six inch walls. Commissioner Friel stated that in all his years working with the City, he has never seen a project that was so offensive to the ordinance requirements of the City. He said there have been many projects in the community where the density that have been proposed at levels 8 and 9 have been turned down in R -3 district during his tenure on the Planning Commission. He said he cannot think of any place where the City has exceeded to some many violations to the ordinance provisions, and it appears the Commission will be ready to do that. He believes that this proposal is an afront to this community and he said he is terribly disappointed in that it's proposed, and the Commission is entertaining it, and that the Commission is dealing with this project as if it were in concept stage. The time for suggestions to be made in connection with planning process was the last meeting that this issue was before the Commission. This meeting is the time that all the information should be available in order to make a reasonable decision, instead the Commission is still making suggestions and have no real assurance that any of those things will be in the final plan. Commissioner Friel believes that the project is so inconsistent with the ordinances of this community that it violates the public health, safety, and welfare and to recommend it or to improve it would be arbitrary. Commissioner B. McManus asked Commissioner Friel if he is suggesting that this project be turned down, or is he suggesting this project be amended in a tolerable, achievable fashion that could be done in the next month or so. He asked Commissioner Friel if he is suggesting that this is such a bad plan for public safety and health that the Commission is supporting that will hurt our citizens. Commissioner Friel stated that he is saying this, and he doesn't mean to suggest that it isn't possible to do this plan in an appropriate fashion. Commissioner Frield said he does not think that with the density and lack of adequate parking, there are just too many buildings. Commissioner Friel said this can be done appropriately, and it's not being done because the Commission always 25 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 gets caught in the pressure from the developers that it is not marketable unless you do it the way they want. It can be done so that it complies with the ordinances, and it should be done that way. Commissioner B. McManus asked Commissioner Friel if he was suggesting that they will eliminate some of the housing or business facilities that are in the plan. Commissioner Friel said to get the densities down to where they comply with the ordinance and parking requirements which meet those densities. He said this project has been in process for several years and if the ordinances that relate to this project are unreasonable, the Commission has had plenty of time to think about that, and undertake the process to amend them. The fact that this has not been done suggests to Commissioner Friel that this project is being "shoehorned" and it should not be. Commissioner Betlej said he thinks that there is too much density and it needs to be reduced, probably a reduction of building on the site. He does not want to see another 59 spaces. Commissioner Betlej thinks the developer needs to be complimented in terms of how much underground space is being provided, and compared to the previous option before the Commission, this has a lot less impervious parking and more green space. Commissioner Betlej said he is willing to give this project a little more flexibility. Chair Lorberbaum said that everyone on the Commission says there is too much density and asked Ms. Krall to have that reduced. Commissioner B. McManus said the Commission is giving the developer too much vagueness as they have received from the developer. Chair Lorberbaum said that the Commission is also sending a message to City Council. Commissioner B. McManus asked how to recommend to the City Council and the developer, that in a practical way, the developer or the City Council can decide to decrease the overly dense population, for example, remove a building, increase the scope of the commercial space. Chair Lorberbaum said that historically, the Commission is not supposed to do the design and they are supposed to come up with the solutions to solve possible problems. Mr. Bixuis said that the ordinance is written to give discretion to the City Council for flexibility on density based on the quality of the components of the PUD. He asked the Commission needs to think about the tradeoffs in regards to comparing what is important to have in the community. Commissioner M. McManus said it has been her understanding that there was to be flexibility with this PUD and Commissioner Friel stated several concerns about the ordinances, which have not been addressed. Commissioner M. McManus said she was dismayed to get the packet of information with so many unanswered questions. She said she feels uncomfortable with it, and there are a lot of expectations that the Commission is relying on a lot of work either before the City Council meeting or the next Commission meeting to have these questions answered, however there is some kind of trust factor in terms of flexibility of the PUD. Commissioner M.McManus is concerned about the density and it truly does not seem to fit with some of the original design concepts. Commissioner M. McManus said she is prepared to move forward with the understanding there will be more detail coming back. 26 Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2002 Commissioner Dolan said this is a unique site which makes it difficult to apply standards. He thinks it needs some flexibility and that is why the ordinance was amended to come up with the language for mixed used PUDs. Commissioner B. McManus said he thinks the Commission took a deliberate step to amend the ordinance and he is not bothered that a relatively free hand was given to the City Council. Commissioner B. McManus is worried that it is perceived there is too much density with too many people wandering around on too small of a space. Commissioner Friel said the concern that the Commission has the kind of discretion to grant this is fundamental to a democratic society and a government of law that has some ordinances to abide by instead of discretionary decisions by people who are in powerful places. Commissioner Friel suggested that if the Commission wants to send something forward to the City Council about density, the Commission could try to exercise that same kind of ad -hoc discretion and he suggests to amend the motion to limit the density to ten units per acre overall residential. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1 (Commissioner Friel) MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ADJOURN. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:30AM MARCH 27, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 27