Loading...
2002-10-22 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 2002 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 22, 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, Commissioners Friel, Betlej, Hesse, and M. McManus. City Staff present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Those excused: Commissioners B. McManus and Dolan APPROVAL OF MINUTES TOMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24th AS PRESENTED. 5 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #02-38 THOMAS MARKS 3566 VVHITFIELD DRIVE VARIANCE FOR GARAGE EXPANSION INTO STREET SETBACK Mr. Gritl.uian reviewed the application for a garage expansion into the setback on the side yard toward the street. Mr. Grittman presented a site plan of the property showing the existing home. The application is to expand the garage into the side yard to the west. Mr. Grittman said the hardship is difficult to find, as the zoning ordinance requires that single-family homes have a two-car garage, which in this case does exist. Mr. Grittman said the uarcel is not large enough to accommodate the expansion of a third garage. Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 Commissioner Hesse said the shape of the lot could present a hardship, as the northwest corner is curved and difficult to work with. Commissioner Hesse asked the planner if the absence of a hardship was due to the applicant not being allowed to construct a third garage, or was it because of the layout of that particular comer. Mr. Grittman said that the shape of the lot would be the best rationale, however the concern is the third garage, which could be constructed according to code, and it is felt that this is a convenience issue. Commissioner Friel said this was a case where the circumstance is unique because of the shape of the lot, as well as the location of the street. Thomas and Julie Marks said the hardship would be found as being there is a covenant from the builder that the detached buildings are not allowed, and that they cannot park a vehicle outside a garage for any length of time. The Marks have recently lost both their fathers, and their mothers have been staying with them extensively. Therefore, the garage would accommodate the extra parking needed. Mrs. Marks said that in addition, without the extra garage space, there would be no storage available for lawn equipment, bicycles, etc. Mr. Marks said they were told by the builder that an additional third garage could be attached at a later time, and the Marks had already purchased the necessary materials at the time of building to accommodate that need if so desired. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the garage would extend further than other things currently closer to the street. Mrs. Marks said there was a tree line. Chair Lorberbaum said she was trying to find the hardship. Mr. Marks said the hardship was that the covenant would not allow anything else to be constructed in the yard such as a chain link fence, storage shed, etc., and they cannot park additional vehicles outside. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, there being no one present wishing to speak, a motion will be C asked to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE, WHICH THE FINDING OF HARDSHIP IS THAT THERE IS A CIRCUMSTANCE UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THE SHAPE OF THE LOT (BEING AN ADDITIONAL SIDE SETBACK DUE TO THE CONFIGURATION OF THE STREET), AS WELL AS THE COVENANTS IMPOSED ON THE PROPERTY OWNER. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED This recommendation will go to the City Council Meeting on November 5, 2002. 2 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 ■ PLANNING CASE #02 -39 KEITH HEAVER, REPRESENTING SHERWIN AND DIANA SIEDEN 1423 KNOLLWOOD LANE VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO GARAGES FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME Chair Lorberbaum excused herself from the discussion as Mr. Heaver holds the warranty to her home. Vice - Chair Betlej asked the planner for the introduction. Mr. Grittman said the property was currently a vacant lot, in which the Siedens would like to construct a single - family home that would have a garage on the main level facing Knollwood Lane, as well as a garage on the lower level that would face Ivy Lane. Mr. Grittman said the design is to accommodate the parents of the Siedens that would occupy the lower level and give them direct access to their garage. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plait showing the proposed home depicting the locations of the garages and their respective driveways. Mr. Griffinan said the code requirements allow for one garage that totals 1,200 sq. -ft. on one level, and this design does not meet those code requirements. The structure would be built within the 1,200 sq. ft., however the use of the garages being constructed on two levels, the variance is needed to construct anything different than the single -level requirement. Mr. Grittman said this parcel is a typical size for the neighborhood and it would be possible to construct the )ome with a conforming garage. Mr. Grittman said there is an option to construct a four -car garage facing Ivy Lane, but the applicant does not wish to do so because of the aesthetic nature. Mr. Danielson said that during the approval of the plat, these lots are required to conform to a standard of one level homes due to the topography of the land having the ground higher to the east, and it was not desirable to have any multi -level homes constricting the view. Mr. Grittman said this is unique to the neighborhood, but from the Planner's point of view, it is possible to construct this home in conformance with the requirements. Commissioner M. McManus referred to the Planner's report indicating a concern for future use of the lower level. Mr. Grittuian said one of the issues that cities run into when a home is built for additional living quarters, is the possibility of the home being converted into two separate family quarters. Mr. Grittman said it is not uncommon for homes to have multiple living quarters (i.e., separate kitchen, bath), but to construct an additional garage as in this case would move the concern one step further in making this a two- family home. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there is a concern for constructing the four -car garage facing Ivy Lane as far as the aesthetic nature, and fitting in to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Grittman said the City could decide as to whether this would be offensive to the neighborhood. Commissioner Hesse asked if the ordinance would see this proposal as having a garage, and that the additional garage on the lower level would be considered and accessory structure. Mr. Grittman said an accessory structure would typically be detached. The parking of vehicles is an accessory use to a single - family home, the question being whether the vehicle is parked in a garage. Mr. Grittman said the garages are both attached, so would not be considered an accessory structure. 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 Commissioner Hesse asked if the concern of conversion to a two - family home would be an enforcement issue. Mr. Grittman said that there is an enforcement problem when homes are illegally converted in this way. Commissioner Betlej asked if the code allows for "mother -in -law" apartments. Mr. Grittman said the code allows family members to reside in the home to the extent the home is constructed in a way that there is not a separate unit. In this case, there are open stairwells to access both parts of the home. Commissioner Friel referred to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.5(1), which makes it clear that there is a distinction between accessory uses and accessory structures. Commissioner Friel referred to Section 3.2(53) that pertains to private garages. Mr. Grittman said he spoke to the applicant in regards to the single -level garage, but did not address the information of the additional garage. Keith Heaver, general contractor representing the Siedens, is also the developer of the area. Mr. Heaver said another rmique quality of this lot is that this is a one -story home to comply with the covenance, and is compatible with the size of the other homes in the area. Mr. Heaver said there is a 40 -ft. drainage and utility easement on the back of the lot. Mr. Heaver referred.to the landscaping plan, which proposes construction of a retaining wall. Mr. Heaver said a two -story home could be built to accommodate a large garage space on the first floor, but it was decided it was better to use a lower level garage to keep it at a minimal size, thus meeting the requirements of less than 1,200 sq. -ft. of garage space. Mr. Heaver presented a view of the proposed home elevation and explained how the garages would look, versus a concept of the four garages accessing Ivy Lane. Mr. Heaver said this was a comer lot, and the view of the four -car garage would not be very appealing from the( street. Mr. Heaver said the surrounding neighbors have been contacted and shown the plans. Sherwin Sieden, 1010 London Road, said that in the beginning of planning this home, he was told that it was important to have input from the neighbors because of all the restrictions. Mr. Sieden said he received feedback from all the surrounding neighbors that they do not want to have the four -car garage on the lower level, and would like to see the home built as Mr. Sieden has planned. Mr. Sieden said his hardship is the restriction of allowing only a single -level home on the lot, as well as the 40 -ft. drain setback. Mr. Sieden said he and his wife both have elderly parents who will need housing in the near future. Mr. Heaver pointed out those neighbors that have been approached for feedback and approval. Vice -Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. Robert and Michelle Hanson, 1432 Knollwood Lane, live directly behind the Sieden's property. They responded they would very much prefer to have the home built as planned, as they would not like to see the four -car garage on the lower level. They highly approved of the plan and commented the Siedens' did a wonderful job on design, as well of the landscaping plan. Alan Graf, 1424 Knollwood Lane, lives across the street is also in favor of the proposal and does not wish to see the four -car garage concept. 4 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 "OMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CO THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED SSIONER FRIEL, TO CLOSE Vice -Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AS PRESENTED, WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING BASED ON THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT, AS WELL AS THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON THE PROPERTY OWNER. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED This recommendation will go to the City Council Meeting on November 5, 2002. PLANNING CASE #02 -40 IONALD KAMMUELLER 1250 DODD ROAD VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK Mr. Grittinan introduced the application for variance for an existing two car tandem garage which extends to Dodd Road on the front and Somerset Road on the back. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is looking to make some improvements to the property, some of which include remodeling a portion of the existing home as well as adding space to the existing structure. In the Planner's report, the first request for a variance is to add 4 -ft, 3 -in. of width to the garage, encroaching into the side yard. The second variance is to allow the construction of a porch on the Dodd Road side of the house. In regards to the first variance request, Mr. Grittman said there is adequate room to expand the garage within the required setback to gain additional width inside, which is viewed as a convenience and does not constitute a hardship. Commissioner Friel asked about the front alignment of the home in relation to the other homes on the street. Mr. Grittman said the home extends a few feet beyond the line. Commissioner Betlej asked if a two -car garage could be constructed, having one driveway accessing Dodd Road. Mr. Grittman said if the applicant would have proposed this type of structure, the variance request might : iave been viewed differently, resulting in removing the tandem garage and the need for another driveway to 5 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 Somerset Road. Mr. Grilimuan said he doesn't see any other alternative for a garage expansion. Mr. Grittman said that because the tandem arrangement is going to stay as is, it is a convenience for the applicant to have a wider garage; therefore a hardship is not presented. Commissioner Betlej expressed his concern for some existing trees. Mr. Grit Iran said there does not seem to be a significant impact to the trees in this case. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the garage could be expanded toward the house, filling an empty space between the garage and the proposed kitchen addition on the back of the home. Mr. Grittman said this would be possible, but may interfere with other improvement plans for the kitchen addition and the deck addition. Commissioner Betlej said there is a stairwell in this location that enters the basement of the house. Chair Lorberbaum suggested that could be made into the entryway into the garage. Mr. Grittman said he was not sure of the floor plan to say they could in fact do this. Chair Lorberbaum said there is space on the lot to expand in this way, but the applicant chooses not to. Commissioner Hesse expressed a concern for expanding into this area being a fire code concern. Commissioner Hesse asked if there would be any alternate way of addressing the setback requirements if the front of the home would face Somerset Road, as it's main address. Mr. Grittman said he would have to look into the language of the ordinance to answer that question. Ron Kammueller, 1250 Dodd Road, said he went to all the neighbors with his plan and received approval from all but one neighbor, who was not receptive to the concept. Mr. Kammueller said when he purchased the hom he was not aware there were two front yards. Mr. Kammueller said the neighbor closest to the proposed screed- porch was in favor of the porch. Mr. Kammueller said he is proposing to change the flat roof to a hip roof, and cannot do anything with the roofing until the variances are decided. In regards to the porch, Mr. Kammueller said it was to be a screen porch, and the location was chosen due to the factor of the sun's exposure. Mr. Kammueller said the house was built in 1947 with a single car garage, and the other garage was added in 1965. Mr. Kammueller said the porch would not be a nice fit on the back front yard. Mr. Kammueller said he did not want to disturb the trees, as they are quite large and matured. Mr. Kammueller said the new cars have wider doors and the older style garage does not accommodate them as well, and it would be nice to have some extra room for accessing the car. Mr. Kammueller said if the garage is expanded along the kitchen addition/deck, the access to the basement would have to be removed, and the number of windows in the kitchen would be downsized. Commissioner M. McManus said the planner made the recommendation to expand the garage by 2'6" to give more space. Mr. Kammueller said it would not be worth it, as it would not allow a person to walk around the car and it would also be a cost factor in that it would not cost much more to make it a little bit bigger. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, there being no one present wishing to speak, a motion will be asked to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 6 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. Further Discussion Mr. Grit:man said there is a clause in the zoning ordinance, Section 4.6(4)d which states that "Subparagraph 4.6(4)b [Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two intersections, no building shall hereafter be erected to extend so as to project beyond a line drawn between the forward most portion of the nearest building on each side], and Subparagraph 4.6(4)c [In the case of a building to be erected or extended on a corner lot, the minimum front yard depth shall be increased by an amount not less than one -half the depth in excess of thirty (30) feet of the front yard of the nearest building] above shall not be applied so as to require a front yard in excess of one -third (1/3) of the average depth of the lot ", and in this case, the applicant's lot depth is 220 -ft., in which one -third (1/3) of that is 73 -ft., and the proposed setback on the porch is 76 -ft., so it appears there is no need for a setback variance for the porch. Mr. Grittman apologized to the applicant upon finding this information. Mr. Grittman said the applicant still needs the variance for the side yard encroachment. Commissioner Friel said that the hardship presented is the uniqueness of this lot having two front yards. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL THE VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE SETBACK AS PRESENTED BASED ON THE IARDSHIP THAT WAS ESTABLISHED. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED This recommendation will go to the City Council Meeting on November 5, 2002. Further Discussion Chair Lorberbaum asked if the applicant has paid any extra fees for the two variances. Mr. Hollister said the fee is the same no matter how many variances are requested. Mr. Kammueller said he was told that the buildable area was a line drawn from the back of the line, in the back front yard, to the house next door, and in theory, he must build his kitchen addition within that line. Mr. Gritltnan said the rear addition was actually within the buildable area based on the line drawing, therefore he can extend the kitchen toward the back front yard, and the only portion that may encroach is the deck, which would not be a concern. PLANNING CASE #02 -41 RSP ARCHITECTS, LTD )49 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD 7 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PUD, SUBDIVISION, WETLANDS PERMIT ( Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for the proposed St. Thomas Academy hockey arena, which would occupy the eastern half of the property in association with St. Thomas Academy School located across Mendota Heihts Road to the north. This arena will also be operated in part by University of St. Thomas. ' Mr. Grithmn said the purpose of the PUD is to allow the applicant to accommodate a portion of their parking demand throupjh the existing parking lot on the school site north of Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Grittman said it was discussed at the concept level that the area would be designed with 1,000 seats based on the University's demand, however the vast majority of use will not fill that arena or the 274 off -street parking spaces. In utilizing the parking lot to the north on the school site, it is proposed to have a crosswalk designed across Mendota Heights Road to access that parking lot. Mr. Grittman reviewed some modifications such as: • A drop -off lane, making sure this is a PUD that is coordinated with the existing school facility • Provide a lighting plan • Provide a designated loading space • Existing trees are shown to be relocated • Technical plan requirements for engineering site and design for future expansion Commissioner Friel asked how a limited business PUD is on a property that is zoned R -1. Mr. Grittman said that the use is being viewed as an accessory to the school use, and the limited business district and the R -1 district both accommodate school facilities as a permitted or conditional use. Commissioner Friel asked for clarification that the parcel of land is separate from the school, and the accessory use is at least in part not accessory to the Academy. Mr. Grittman said that in regards to the lot issue, there are separate parcels, and a PUD is designed to accommodate different parcels jointly. Mr. Grittuian said other users may use the facility for any school athletic facility, but it is not questioned as to the use of the school as well, therefore, it is viewed that this is commonly considered accessory use of the school. Commissioner Friel asked how to deal with the requirement of the State law that says the zoning shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grittman said that in this case, because the uses are allowed, it seems in this particular case, it is consistent in both classifications. Commissioner Betlej asked what additional improvements would be made if parking was provided across the street. Mr. Grittman said access would be needed to access the entrance area up to Mendota Heights Road, with a pedestrian crossing and improvements to the other side of the street to allow access into the parking lot. Mr. Grittman said that with the separation distance of the street, where the crossing is located by the intersection versus down the road, he would be more concerned with the crossing nearer to the intersection from a visibility standpoint. Chair Lorberbaum expressed her concerns regarding the safety of the crosswalk. Mr. Grittman said there would be markings such as stripes painted on the street, as well as sign markings and flashing lights. Mr. Grittinan 8 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 aid students will most likely cross at the midsection of the roadway instead of walking all the way to the comer and cross at the intersection. Commissioner M. McManus asked about restrictions with the City in doing additional markings for a crosswalk. Mr. Grittman said the City would have jurisdiction over the requirements for a safe crosswalk. Commissioner Friel referred to Zoning Ordinance Section 22.1(C)4, which states "will not increase traffic or parking estimates for the Project Area above the level reasonably estimated for a permitted use for the Project Area's size in the Zoning District in which it is situated" and said this would take the project into the educational facilities parking classification, which would probably be more or less parking than if this were a limited business PUD as a commercial classification. Mr. Grittman said the parking spaces are designed by use, not zoning districts. Commissioner Friel said that by not requiring the change in zoning to the limited business PUD, there is a reduction of requirements for parking. Mr. Grittman said the change in zoning to a limited business PUD is no different than residential use. Commissioner Betlej said the site plan shows an additional sheet of ice, and what would this do to the parking requirement. Mr. Grittivan said it was his understanding that a second sheet of ice would not be a competitive facility and therefore, additional parking would not be anticipated. Chuck Freiberg, Senior Associate of RSP Architects, 1220 Marshall Ave NE. Minneapolis, handed out revised site plans and thanked Mr. Grittman for his recommendations to the project. Mr. Freiberg commented on the blowing changes to the site plan in response to the conditions set forth by the Planner's office: 1. Formal subdivision of the property needs to be submitted, and resurveying is in the process. The subdivision will be called St. Thomas Edition, Lots #1 and #2, and will be filed with the City. 2. The determination regarding accessibility of the proposed adjoining lot - it was the architect's request to use that parking lot since it is already accessible and additional parking would not need to be installed. It is suggested to create a pedestrian lane with flashing lights. It is estimated that 30 to 40 cars will be on the site at any given time as most usage is for practice. Need for additional parking would most like result from events such as tournaments. Considerable lighting will also be provided at the entrances. 3. Two drop -off lanes -one being in front of the building, and another at the rear to be used as a "team entrance ". 4. In an attempt to make the arena integrate into the school campus, materials will be used similar to that of the existing school, and will be similar in design standards. 5. Site Lighting Plan was submitted to the Planner's office and have been instructed that all lights be hooded and directed away to avoid glare. Mr. Freiberg presented an email from the lighting representative with the specifications. 6. Designated Loading Space has been located at the back of the building. 7. Colorado Blue Spruce trees will be moved and relocated 8. Grading, drainage, and utility plans have been submitted to the City Engineer and the applicant is working with them to ensure all plans are approved 9. Future parking - revised drawing shows plans for future additions to the facility and parking needs. The current parking lot has 306 parking spaces, and the applicant is asking for 274 parking spaces. However, if the second sheet in constructed, the parking spaces will come up to 306. The applicant is trying to reduce the amount of parking spaces when there are already accessible spaces to the north. 9 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 10. Trash enclosure - will be constructed with the similar materials as instructed 11. Designated service stall has been provided adjacent to the trash enclosure Chair Lorberbaum said a lot of improvements have been made, and the applicant is working well with the City. Commissioner M. McManus asked how pedestrian safety will be handled, and are there guidelines. Mr. Grittman said the Commission could make any recommendation and instruct the staff to research any particular issues. Commissioner M: McManus said the standards should have the minimum requirement of flashing lights and a designated spot to cross, and would like staff to handle it. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there were any drainage issues. Mr. Grith:nan said it was being reviewed by the City Engineering staff Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant if they agree to the signage requirements. Chair Lorberbaum said it seems there is a lot more signage shown than is necessary. Mr. Frieberg said in conversations with Mr. Grittman, there would be two signs on the building, one facing the interstate, and one facing Mendota Heights, as well as a small monument sign by the entrance on Mendota Heights Road. There may also be an additional sign that will be incorporated with a retaining wall along the back of the hill that would state "St. Thomas Arena ". Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant if the four signs would meet the ordinances. Mr. Frieberg said the signage being requested in on the drawings that have been submitted and have not heard back from Mr. Grittman, and the applicant is willing to make the necessary modifications. Mr. Grittman said he had not had a chance to review the signage in total, and will be doing so. C Chair Lorberbaum said she would like to have the parking increased to 306 for safety reasons. Mr. Gritttnan said the handicap designation is dictated by the State. Chair Lorberbaum said she would like to have clarification on the timing of the lights. Mr. Frieberg said there would be one or two lights on all the time for security reasons. The remainder of lighting will most likely be on a sensor for sunset/sunrise, or a timer could be placed to have the lights turned off by a designated time, for example, 11:00 pm. Mr. Frieberg said that motion detectors on this type of site could be turned on by passing deer, and it would be better with the sensors and timers. Mr. Frielberg suggested using the same system that the school uses in their lighting. Commissioner Betlej referred to the site plan's designation of pylon signs. Mr. Frielberg said this was an error, and all signs should be designated as monument signs. Commissioner Betlej asked for clarification that impervious surface count in an R -1 district is 25 %. Mr. Grittman said that was correct, and that the plans are showing 30.5 %. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, there being no one present wishing to speak, a motion will be asked to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 10 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMNIISSIONER BETLEJ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AS PRESENTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A formal subdivision of the property is pursued to accommodate the proposed division of the property into two separate lots. 2. A determination regarding the acceptability of the proposed joint parking condition be postponed pending the investigation of the following: A) The existing parking supply of the north parking lot (and currently ability to meet existing parking demands). B) The need /ability to coordinate event scheduling. C) The need for pedestrian related improvements (sidewalks) north on Mendota Heights Road to ensure safe and efficient pedestrian crossings of the street. 3. The site plan is modified to include a drop off lane. 4. An attempt is made to integrate the arena building into the Academy campus architecture and reinforce a "theme" if one exists. This can be achieved through the repetition of a design detail found in other school buildings or the consistent use of color. All site lighting be hooded and directed such that the light source is not visible from adjacent properties and rights -of -way. 6. The site plan is modified to include a designated loading space. 7. The Colorado Blue Spruce trees proposed within the illustrated building expansion area are re- located on the site. 8. Grading, drainage and utility issues should be subject to comment and recommendation with the City Engineer. 9. Future parking areas associated with the future building expansion are conceptually illustrated on the site plan. 10. The trash enclosure is constructed of materials consistent with those utilized on the arena building. 11. A designed service staff is provided adjacent to the trash enclosure to ensure service vehicle access. 12. Appropriate traffic signage /markings for pedestrian crosswalk. 13. Signage to meet city requirements. 14. Parking spaces increased to 333 spaces and all impervious surfaces to meet requirements. 15. Hours of lighting to conform to pattern of usage of the school, including minimal amount of 24- hour lighting for security concerns. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 This recommendation will go to the City Council Meeting on November 5, 2002. PLANNING CASE #02 -42 RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION GARRON /ACACL& PROPERTY PRELIMINARY PUD CONCEPT PLAN Mr. Grittman introduced concept plan for a PUD for the Garron/Acacia site. The proposed project is to construct a 165 -unit townhome development. Mr. Grittman reminded the Commission of the previous applications for this site, and the northwest portion is currently zoned B -1A and is guided for high density residential, and the property located to the east is zoned R -3, which is guided for medium density residential. Mr. Grittman said there is a mix of townhome units on the site. In the northern portion, a total of 39 classic style townhomes, and to the east, a total of 126 verandah style townhomes. Mr. Grittman said there are a number of areas where the applicant has asked for flexibility, including right -of- way width, use of private streets, perimeter setbacks, cul -de -sac length, and building separation. Mr. Grittman said the gross project density is 6.5 units per acre; the zoning ordinance specifies density based on building height and bedroom count. Mr. Grittman said there is a series of private and public streets in the project, including Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Grittman said most of the units would be accessed by private streets /driveways. Mr. Grittman said the R -3 zoning district requires setbacks of 50 -ft. from the street, and 40 -ft. from the side area. There is a series of open space areas in the proposed project. Mr. Grittman reviewed the surrounding land uses, and submitted recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Commission, as well as the Airport Relations Commission. Commissioner M. McManus asked about the impervious surface. Mr. Grittman said there is 65% green space on the site, making the impervious surface over 30 %. Commissioner Betlej asked if the designations for parking are consistent with the zoning for those districts. Mr. Grittman said the applicant would clearly request PUD flexibility on a lot of them. Commissioner Betlej asked Mr. Grittman about 10% road grades and entry monuments. Mr. Grittman said a 10% road grade would be at the steep end, and entry monuments on the right -of -ways would have to be accommodated by outlots. Commissioner Friel said private streets often end up as public streets, and the City needs to then deal with conforming them to the public street regulations. Commissioner Friel said that in teiuis of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, how consistent is it to have residential facilities at this site which is exposed almost continuously to aircraft noise, keeping in mind that the Comprehensive Plan presses a concern that involving the community into a matter which is not in consistent with the health, safety, and welfare of the residents. Mr. Grittman said there was a significant amount of discussion on this. Chair Lorberbaum said the Commission's 12 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 .ask is to give the developer some feedback on the project, but this concern can be a part of the feedback if the Commissioners so desire. Commissioner M. McManus asked if this proposal is subject to the Critical Area Ordinance. Mr. Grittman said this area is not listed in the Critical Area, as stated on an old map that was perhaps constructed by the City and the DNR.. Ron Clark and John Uban have worked together to create the plan and will also design the amenities as well as the landscape plan. Mr. Clark gave a brief history of the Ron Clark Construction Company, which has been building upscale townhomes in the western metro area for about 27 years. Mr. Clark also works in conjunction with Minnstar Builders. Mr. Clark said they purchase the land, go through all the approvals, install all the utilities and roadways, construct the homes, and sell the homes. Mr. Clark said most of his company's projects have been in locations with close proximity to major highways. Mr. Clark said there is a great demand for convenience for buyers to be close to the highways. Mr. John Uban, a consultant with Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., reviewed the concept plan layout. Mr. Uban said the property has always been controversial, and the concept plan being presented has been selected for the land use as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Uban said the development being proposed would perform very well on this site to create the gateway, which is desired. Mr. Uban reviewed the contour map of the site, and said there are two drainage patterns. Mr. Uban said the roposal is an assemblage of numerous parcels. Mr. Uban said there are some small pieces of right -of -way that need to be vacated and would like to have the cooperative of the City to accomplish that. Mr. Uban said there is a piece of surplus MnDot right -of -way along Acacia Blvd that needs to be maintained and help keep the trees in place. Mr. Uban said the city also has some vacant lots that could be used as storm drainage. Mr. Uban said all of this land would total about 25.5 acre site, which is larger than past proposals have been. Mr. Uban showed an aerial photo of the property and explained how the development would be laid out. Mr. Uban said there would be two types of housing, one being an upper -scale single level unit, with a cost range of $400,000 to $500,000. The other type of housing will be two -story units with front porches on either side of the building, holding about 8 units per building. Mr. Uban said there would be a homeowners association to maintain the property. There will also be a recreational area where a tot lot could be located, as well as historical markings for the public to visit. Mr. Uban said the total impervious surface would be about 60% to 65 %. Mr. Uban reviewed the brochure of the townhomes proposed to show the layouts of the imits. Mr. Uban said most of the buyers for the upscale models would be empty nesters or young professionals, where there will not be a high concentration of children. Commissioner Friel referred to the noise contour overlays that were provided by the MAC. Mr. Uban said this area is primarily in Area 3, which the noise level is 60 decibels. Mr. Uban said they have not had any discussions with the MAC regarding the noise level, but are aware of the concerns. Mr. Uban said the buildings are being built with more sophisticated technology than when these ordinances were created. Mr. Uban said 13 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 they are not anticipating any MAC contributions to their project. Commissioner Friel said there are times whet( the noise level can go over 100 decibels. Commissioner Betlej said the underlying zoning for part of the site is residential, which requires up to 25% impervious surfaces. Mr. Uban said that was the case for single- family homes. Mr. Uban said they are asking and need to have flexibility on this issue. Mr. Uban said that by keeping under the 25 %, the project would not be feasible. Commissioner Betlej said this project shows too much impervious surface, and would like to have something less dense for the gateway site. Commissioner Betlej said a person driving on Highway 55 would see the gateway/bluff area with rows of townhomes all bunched up together. Mr. Uban said there would be different elevations for these homes. Chair Lorberbaum said she was more comfortable with this proposal than those in the past, however she does not want a residential plan on this parcel. Chair Lorberbaum said if the decision was to build this development as proposed she would like to see some additional changes. Chair Lorberbaum said that it was stated that the areas not visible from the highway would be much denser. Chair Lorberbaum believes that this says the residents living there will be in a dense area, and Mendota Heights sees itself as a quality, premier community Chair Lorberbaum is uncomfortable with the denseness. Chair Lorberbaum said that the City should not accept "typical" situations, as they do not wish to do something just because other cities do. Chair Loberbaum said the project is deemed unfeasible if the denseness cannot be obtained, but because the developer is asking the City to do this, and not the one being asked to develop, the argument remains that if this proposal is not what the City wants, it doesn't make sense to build it. Chair Lorberbaum asked for clarification of the safety issues for turnarounds and private roads. Mr. Uban said a number of the cul -de -sacs are larger than what the city puts in, and explained how their roads were laid out and the effect they will have. Chair Lorberbaum referred MAC's concern regarding people living in the area and spending a lot of time outdoors, and yet the developer has proposed a tot lot. Mr. Uban said it will be noisy, and perhaps a tot lot should not be placed there. Mr. Uban said it is not known what kind of amenities will be placed there. Chair Lorberbaum expressed her concern with the parking and driveways having a zero percent setback, as well as the extended monument within the right -of -way. Commissioner Hesse asked about the marketability of this project. Mr. Clark said he has great confidence in the marketability because they have done a lot of developments in busy areas. Mr. Clark said there is about a 10% of people that look at the model, but decide they don't want it. Mr. Clark said that the convenient location brings in more demand. Mr. Clark said some of the locations: • Gleason Court, Edina - twin home units on the north side of Crosstown • 80 townhome units in Wayzata, some of which sold for $850,000 per unit - located on Highway 101 No. • 56 detached townhomes on Highway 169 - these units sell for $500,000 to $1 million. This project is three years in the making, with about 12 units left to sell. 14 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 .2ommissioner Hesse said the highway noise is not the same as the airport noise. Mr. Clark said he has spent many hours standing on this site, and he has decided that these emits would sell. Commissioner Hesse said the monument for the entrance should have an artistic rendering along Highway 55 that would be fairly substantial. Commissioner Hesse said the land has been proposed for commercial development and asked if the developer had any considerations for what has been talked about regarding commercial development. Mr. Clark said he has done the due diligence for the Acacia site and the Garron site, and has received "no action" letters from the MAC. Mr. Clark said the environmental studies have been done. Mr. Clark said the soil borings show that the soil is not compatible for conventional footings. The proposed verandah homes will have basements; therefore will be dug well beyond the four feet that is required. Commissioner M. McManus said she is concerned about the impervious surface and the run off water drainage. Commissioner M. McManus said the idea was to create as much open space as possible; being consistence with the natural environment, and part of this development is high density. Commissioner M. McManus said' she was not sure she would like to see limestone exterior, and would suggest using materials that better blend in with the natural surroundings. Commissioner M. McManus said she does not see anything that makes this development unique. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Robert Brown, 1016 Douglas Road, said the developer has regarded this area to be a historic public area. Mr. Zrown said the residents there would not see it that way, and would not want people from the general public coming into their neighborhood. Mr. Brown said the view of the historic area would be blocked by the townhomes. Mr. Brown said he is against any type of development in this area because of what it means to the residents and their ancestors. Bruce Hoyt, 662 Cherokee Avenue, is a historian and said that although this property is not protected by the Critical Area Ordinance, it is very close to that area and has a lot of historical importance. Mr. Brown said that Pilot Knob is very important to the Dakota people and the early settlers. Mr. Brown said that 168 years ago, almost to the day, Henry Sibley first came to Mendota as a fur trader and became the first governor of Minnesota. Mr. Brown said that one of the first things Mr. Sibley did was go on Pilot Knob and looked out over the countryside, and he was quoted as saying "when I reach the range of the hill, I was struck by the picturesque beauty of the scene..." Mr. Hoyt said that he would question what the developer says about the uniqueness of the property and what he knows of the historic character. Mr. Hoyt said this property deserves more to be a proper introduction of Mendota Heights by preserving the scenic aspect because the scenery is the history. Dave Kraft, 340 East Street, has been marketing the Garron site for the owners. He has been bringing many prospective developers to the site over the past six months. Mr. Kraft said it is a wonderful piece of property for the community and it deserves a lot of attention to be developed properly. Mr. Kraft said the issues have ranged from the noise to the historical aspect and he believes Mr. Clark's success in history of servicing communities are going to come through in this development. Mr. Kraft referred to the noise issue and said the Hoffman project and Augusta Shores project are a real caveat. Mr. Kraft has spent time in the air force and said the planes are powerful and beautiful, and the majority of the planes make a left hand turn. Mr. Kraft said it is the esponsibility of the marketplace, and construction techniques today present a great opportunity 15 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 Jim Albrecht is a representative Mendota Mdewakaton Dakota Community and said that Mr. Clark and his organization is welcome to come to their tribal meetings and talk about development. Mr. Albrecht said referred to numerous famous people that have come to this site. This area needs to be open to the public in some form, as people will not come to a residential area to see a monument where there is no proper parking and introduction to it. Mr. Albrecht said Acacia will always be there, but there is no open space to give recognition to the State of Minnesota. Mr. Albrecht said that once this view is given up, it's gone. Mr. Albrecht asked the Commission to keep that in mind for all the residents of Minnesota. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, there being no one present wishing to speak, a motion will be asked to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. Mr. Hollister said the concept plan will be presented at the November 5th City Council meeting, then based upo(t' feedback, Mr. Clark and Mr. Uban may make the decision to submit a formal application. Mr. Hollister said upon submitting a formal application, the plan will again come before the City for approvals. Mr. Hollister said that the Planning Commission traditionally plans to cancel the December meeting; therefore this project would not come back until after the New Year. OTHER BUSINESS Critical Area Ordinance Revision Mr. GritLinan reviewed a draft of the revised Critical Area Ordinance. Mr. Grittman said this draft was compiled from various sources, and most of the language is verbatim from the existing city ordinance, particularly relating to permits and establishments, and boundaries. Mr. Grittman said the city processes have been integrated into the last few sections of the ordinance that would not change. Mr. Grittman said there is a significant portion in the center, Section 2.7, information that the DNR added. Mr. Grittman presented some 'lots within the Critical Area, depicting where the owner can build and can't build. Commissioner Friel said there is a lot of difference between zoning where people are guided by what they can make with their property, and this kind of Critical Ordinance prohibits building in an area, which neglects people any reasonable use of their property. Commissioner Friel said that if the Council adopts this, and this 16 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2002 inking the determination, although it's under the pressure of the DNR, the City becomes the condemning authority. Mr. Grittman said the City would be responsible for taking claim. Chair Lorberbaiim said people in this area would need to be notified of the changes. Commissioner Friel said it was difficult to see any changes, as the draft has not been redlined. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO TABLE DISCUSSION OF THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE REVISION UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING TO ALLOW STAFF TO SHOW CORRECTIONS (RED-LINING) AND PROPER NOTIFICATION TO RESIDENTS OF THE CHANGES 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED VERBAL REVIEW - JIM DANIELSON • Planning case #02-34: Robert Bonine - Wetlands permit to allow fill was granted. O Planning case #02-35: Daniel & Jennifer Frank - CUP for detached garage - approved. • Planning case #02-36: David Chapman - variance for front / side setback encroachment - Mr. Chapman amended his application to change the porch to protect the front door. O Planning case #02-37: Paul Wild - Wetlands permit for construction of deck - approved. COMIVIESSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO ADJOURN. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:15 pm. Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 17