Loading...
1993-06-03 Council Planning Comm WorkshopCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA MINUTES OF THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL /PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP HELD JUNE 3, 1993 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a special meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission, City of Mendota Heights, was held at 7:30 o °clock P.M. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:30 o °clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto and Councilmembers Huber, Koch, Krebsbach and Smith. Planning Commissioners Dreelan, Friel, Koll, Duggan and Hunter. Planning Commission Chair Dwyer was excused. Commissioner Tilsen was absent. Staff members present were City Administrator Tom Lawell, Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder and Planning Consultant John Uban. City Administrator Lawell stated that the Planning Commission had opened a public hearing on March 23, 1993 to discuss proposed changes to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Section of the Zoning Ordinance. Lawell stated the Planning Commission, Planning Consultant Uban and staff had been working the past several months to draft appropriate amendments to the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. Lawell stated the proposal for a new PUD Ordinance, if enacted, would represent an extensive change to our Definition, Purpose and Process for PUD's and it was felt it would be appropriate to discuss all of these issues in a joint City Council /Planning Commission workshop. Lawell stated that before getting into the details of the proposed PUD Ordinance, City Council and Planning Commission should clarify the intent, purposes and goals of the PUD's in Mendota Heights. Planner Uban briefly discussed the concepts and intents of PUD ordinances. Uban stated the review began with the Mazzara Plat which raised several issues: 1. Should PUD's be for something other than single family developments; and 2. Should PUD's be for mixed uses only or only in cases where land uses contrast with the Zoning Ordinance? Uban stated a PUD ordinance has to be carefully put together to balance flexibility with control. Uban stated if only extra controls are desired then maybe the City should not have \ a PUD Ordinance and only focus on zoning controls with more Joint Workshop Minutes Page 2 environmental regulations. Uban stated the City Council and Planning Commission in discussing the intent and purposes of PUD's should consider if the City is attending to all possibilities in the future, as to what the City wants the PUD's to be used for. Uban stated there are not a lot of big acreage lots left in Mendota Heights and the City would be seeing more redevelopment and in -fill type development proposals in the future and that many of these parcels are less than ten (10) acres in size. Uban stated PUD's can help make unique developments on these type of in -fill projects. He stated the PUD Ordinance needs to be put together with Comprehensive Plan so that the goals in the Comprehensive Plan spill over into the PUD Ordinance and that the two documents work together. Mayor Mertensotto stated the group should first discuss goals, intents and purposes of PUD's. Mayor Mertensotto stated PUD's do not have to sell development in Mendota Heights and the PUD Ordinance should be available to work in the City's best interest. Mayor Mertensotto explained if the PUD Ordinance is stated appropriately, the developer will come with a plan and tell the City why it is good for the City. Mertensotto stated the PUD Ordinance can work in benefit of the City instead of a situation where the developer and the City are battling over the Zoning Ordinance. Mertensotto stated, that in his experience, it always boils down to the streets and utilities with the developer wanting private streets and shorter utilities. Mertensotto stated the City will soon be getting commercial pressure in the Highway 55 area. He stated the PUD Ordinance should be designed so that the developers cannot insist on rights. Mayor Mertensotto stated he was aware that Dale Glowa and United Properties are planning campus type developments in the industrial park and that this type of development should not be eliminated under the PUD Ordinance and that it must work in the benefit of the City. He stated that in the case of the Superblock, a PUD may not be necessary for every development, but the Ordinance should not prevent us from using it if it is in the City's best interest. Commissioner Friel explained he had looked at 20 or 30 municipal ordinances and that he discovered there were many variations in the statement of purpose and definitions. Commissioner Friel stated that all of the PUD ordinances he reviewed have statements of goals and objectives but that when you cut away the chaff a PUD is really a mechanism to grant variances with a mechanism of proving hardship. Friel stated a PUD guides you to a mixed use context that allows the granting of variances to zoning standards and allowing other Joint Workshop Minutes Page 3 uses in the zoning district. Planner Uban stated the City, through a PUD ordinance, gets the chance to get something back from the developer. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated staff had reviewed the proposed ordinance and had some comments regarding some specific provisions. City Council, Planning Commission and staff began a discussion about the specific provisions proposed in a PUD Ordinance amendment. Planner Uban stated that often the most sensitive portion of PUD's are where it abuts other land uses and that the perimeter of any planned PUD is an important consideration. Uban stated land use transitions have to be carefully designed. Mayor Mertensotto requested that we strike the reference to "facilitating adequate and economical provisions for streets and utilities ". Mayor Mertensotto stated the City of Mendota Heights has always insisted on proof of parking plans and this has worked as a good tool in Mendota Heights. The definition of a PUD was discussed. Commissioner Friel explained this proposed ordinance required an applicant to have to be proposing a use which is a conditional or prohibited; or the project area is in two or more zoning districts. Commissioner Friel stated if the use is permitted you do not need a PUD and that any development can rely on variances and proof of hardship. City Administrator Lawell stated an industrial zone campus type development would not meet the eligibility requirements under this draft ordinance. Commissioner Friel stated a hardship is necessary for variances with permitted uses. Planner Uban stated many commercial or industrial planned unit developments have all one permitted use. Uban stated many times these development schemes rely on zero lot lines, common parking lots and skyways linking the buildings. Mayor Mertensotto stated United Properties has always had their own control package and that the use of the PUD provides overall flexibility. The Council and Commission discussed whether industrial zoned replatting would work versus PUD's. Councilmember Krebsbach stated she would prefer to avoid segmented industrial developments and would like to deal with the industrial park as a cohesive unit. She inquired what would be the best approach for the City to get cohesive plans. City Administrator Lawell stated a PUD can help Mendota Heights by requiring the extras instead of simply meeting minimum subdivision requirements. He stated a PUD can help us insist on quality above these minimal regulations. Joint Workshop Minutes Page 4 The City Council and Planning Commission directed Planner Uban to propose a Paragraph C to provide for commercial /industrial flexibility in the definitions of the planned unit development within Section 22.1. The City Council and Planning Commission discussed the ten acre size requirement. They briefly discussed how many sites are left in Mendota Heights that are ten acres or larger and discussed infill and redevelopment projects. Commissioner Friel stated it is a condition to have ten acres in order to have the right to a PUD. Friel stated less than ten acres there really is no flexibility and no purpose for using the PUD project. Mayor Mertensotto stated the City of Mendota Heights wants to have flexibility to use PUD's when it is in their best interest. Councilmember Smith stated PUD's should be allowed if they are compatible to the City's goals. The City Council and Planning Commission discussed mixed uses. The City Council and Planning Commission discussed variances within a PUD and agreed that the variances would be specified in the developer's agreement. The City Council and Planning Commission directed Planner Uban to provide some language specifying conditions in which the ten acres requirement for PUD can be varied in Section 22.1 under the following condition less than ten acres but no more than five acres. The City Council also directed staff to establish a fee of $150 for the pre - application conference for the concept plan under the new PUD ordinance. This fee would then be applied against the larger fee for the preliminary development plan. Councilmember Krebsbach stated she would like to see the only exception to the ten acre requirement be for commercial /industrial or mixed use PUD's. The City Council and Planning Commission discussed underlying zoning and rezoning in conjunction with PUD's and agreed to leave the language as proposed by Commissioner Friel in Section 22.2. The City Council and Planning Commission went through the Ordinance item -by -item and making minor revisions to language. The City Council and Planning Commission discussed a 15 percent maximum for impervious surfaces in residential PUD's and directed Planner Uban to review whether this was a reasonable standard. Other items that were discussed were the statement of financing provided by an applicant and calculation of net acreage. The process for planned unit development applications was discussed. There was a consensus to allow proof of parking through the PUD process. There was a consensus that no votes would be necessary for the concept plan and that this stage of the process was simply advisory in Joint Workshop Minutes Page 5 nature. The City Council and Planning Commission discussed City involvement in neighborhood covenants and desired the City Attorney to look at the provisions of the ordinance where the City is in close relationship with associations and private covenants. The City Council and Planning Commission discussed the relationship of development agreements with the planned unit development. Following the discussions of the specific provisions of the proposed planned unit development, the City Council and Planning Commission directed staff to incorporate the changes that had been discussed and place this on the July Planning Commission for public hearing at which time amending the Planned Unit Development Ordinance would be considered. ki III% MOP �A k) I � There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10: 15 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant