Loading...
2001-11-27 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 2001 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum and Commissioners Betlej, B. McManus, M. McManus, Hesse, Dolan, and Friel. City Staff present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman of NAC. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Lorberbaum asked for corrections to the minutes of October 23, 2001. Chair Lorberbaum referred to page 4, 5' paragraph should read: "Commissioner Betlej asked if plans were in place to provide materials to deter land erosion. The contractor for Dr. Kang said he would put these plans in place to minimize erosion." CHAIR FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. McMANUS, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 23, 2001 AS CORRECTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #01-38 JOSEPH & LEANN NOEKER, 1257 DELAWARE FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Mr. Grittman presented and reviewed the proposed front yard setback variance request. The property is currently occupied by a single-family home with an existing attached single car garage. The applicant is seeking to construct a new garage forward of the existing single garage. The new garage would be 22 ft. x 22 ft. structure, and would extend towards the street to be approximately 38 ft. setback from Delaware. This would be in compliance with the R1 setback Page Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 standards; however there is an additional requirement that construction is not to exceed the setback of those properties on either side. After staff review, it was found that without the variance, the applicants cannot make reasonable use of their property. Two-car garages are included in the definition of reasonable single-family use and required under the current zoning ordinance. A neighbor is asking for a window in the structure to help add to the aesthetics to the building. Commissioner Friel stated that according to the ordinance, the applicant must have a two-car garage to be in compliance with zoning requirements. Joseph and LeAnn Noeker, 1257 Delaware Avenue, approached the Commission to address any questions or offer any comments. Mr. Noeker stated that he had no further comments. Commissioner Hesse stated that several neighbors were identified who had signed off on the petition and asked for the location of these neighbors. Mr. Noeker explained where the neighbors were located. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the recommendation to put a window in the garage would be a problem. Mr. Noeker stated it would not be. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. After seeing no one, COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. McMANUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. McMANUS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED This goes to the City Council on the first Tuesday in January. PLANNING CASE #01-39 INHERITABLE WORLD LLC 1744 DODD ROAD 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 VARIANCE, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BIDDER PROPERTY Mr. Grittman presented and reviewed the proposed development known as Hidden Creek, with is a 19-lot subdivision. There are two different zonings in this area — on the west is R1 and east is Rla. The property consists of approximately 34 acres; some portions are heavily wooded and contain a number of wetlands. One of the lots is currently occupied by a single family home. Part of the application is also for a lot with variance for the existing home, which would have approximately 50 ft. of frontage on the new public street. This lot sits on the Rla district, which requires 150 ft. of frontage. Currently, that lot shares a driveway with two other properties to the north of the plat area (which is not part of the subdivision. This driveway leads to Dodd Road. The plat design consists of a new public street with intersections at Dodd Road and Marie Avenue. Hidden Creek Trail will replace the need for the driveway easement that is currently being used by these two driveways. Mr. Grittinan presented the issues of concerns: • The configuration of the lots, which are of significant size, could be redesigned to avoid the variance requirement for the existing structure. It is recommended that the design be attempted to incorporate 150 ft width. • Impact on the wetlands. It was noted that a number of areas where building pads would be located would encroach to within the wetland areas. • Entrance monument and divided island at each entrance from Marie and Dodd, along with some fencing. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this aspect of the project and recommended against the fencing with the concern that the fencing would have give the impression of a "gated" community and is not the image the city would want to project. • Tree preservation — there is a significant amount of tree cover in portions of the project and further discussion and review is needed to determine the impact of those trees. • Park Dedication — Park and Recreation Commission has recommended a portion of land be given in the northeast portion of the plat of about 3.4 acres in lieu of money consideration. It was noted that comments were received prior to the public hearing from neighbors and prospective buyers requesting the City require a cash fee. o The preliminary plat would show easements around lot lines and the City should discuss as to whether it should request easements over the wetland and storm water ponds. In summary, the plat meets zoning requirements with the exception of the lot with the existing home with the stipulations as stated in the Planner's request memo. Present was Stan Linnell, Chair of the Park and Recreation Department as well as representation for the project that included Mr. Paul McGinley, Loucks McLagan; Mr. Bill Makens, Inheritable Work LLC, Mr. Dick Braun, Coldwell-Banker/Bumet; and Mr. Michael St. Martin, Loucks McLagan 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 Chair Lorberbaum stated that it was brought to her attention that property notification was placed in the newspaper, but not mailed to all the neighbors within the required area. She addressed the audience by stating this is not a public hearing, and a final recommendation would not be made at this meeting. As this is just a discussion session, Chair Lorberbaum opened the floor for questions for clarifications for the Planner. Commissioner M. McManus referred to the wetland issues and asked what kind of buffer zone would be intended. Mr. Grittman replied that the structure of that idea would be to look at each building pad location and additional information of the lot to determine where an appropriate buffer and setback area would be, and then establish some parameters for construction of homes on lots in this plat, and then not require the prospective homeowner to come back later to apply for specific wetland permits. It is Commissioner M. McManus' concern is to allow a "blanket approval" not be given so that recommendations would come back for review. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there have been other situations, other than individually that the Commission looks at buildings and try to save certain trees. Mr. Grittman suggested getting that information from staff Administrative Assistant Hollister stated there is no specific tree ordinance in place. At various points over the last five or six years, the City has contemplated the idea of adopting one, and so far has not decided to do so. Anytime there has been a subdivision or other development on a site that had considerable desirable tree cover, it's been common for the City to require a tree preservation plan from the developer and very often, discussions get into which trees go and which trees stay. Commissioner Dolan asked if it was the belief of the planner most of these lots are not buildable if the Commission insists upon a 100 ft. buffer, as the Commission will probably have to concede some of the buffer on most of the lots. Mr. Grittman stated that probably at least 6 to 9 lots would not be buildable if the developer is held to the 100 ft. buffer zone. Each lot will have to be determined separately. In referring to Lot 5, Commissioner Dolan asked why it would be important to have 100 ft. frontage on the right -of -way. Mr. Grittman stated that the Rla district is designed as an estate lot district where the wider lots are a requirement of the district to be compatible with other similar housing that is expected to be developed in the neighborhood. It would be a hardship for the developer to make reasonable use of the property and create a lot intentionally with that width rather than being affected by some outside pre- existing condition. It is also presumed that the existing home would stay, and lot lines could be redrawn to allow for consistency in the lots. Commissioner Dolan asked if it was a concern, with the way the zoning is done, and the line that separates R1 and R1a splits a couple of lots in half, that one lot may have two separate zoning designations. Mr. Grittman stated that it appears that the way they were developed; it would not be a concern. If there is adequate frontage, what was predominate zoning on the property and where the houses will be built, the setbacks will not be an issue at all. If there were a future desire to subdivide a lot, then the zoning issue would have to be re- addressed. 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 Commissioner Hesse asked for clarification of the two options suggested. The first option is to take each lot as it's built, and determining what wetlands permit issues is appropriate. Rather than doing everything upfront, the Planner would lay out the properties and associated wetlands and as each house is proposed, there will be a separate wetland permit for each. The second option assumes that there will be a buffer zone that would be acceptable in quite a few areas, and the City would come up with a general requirement that each lot would have to meet when building within that buffer zone. Mr. Grittman added that the perimeters would be established at in the beginning of the plat approval, and they may vary lot to lot, but it would be preferable to do as much on the front end. Assuming that the builder complies with these perimeters, they would not have to return to the City for a wetlands permit. Commissioner Hesse referred to mitigation plans and what actions would the City take in having that approved before anything else is proceeded with. Mr. Grittman stated it would be good to add that to the conditions of the approval. Commissioner Betlej stated that it would be good to ask the City Engineer for any comments. Commissioner Friel stated that it would seems inappropriate to be approving plats until agreements regarding wetland buffers /zonings have been made. Mr. Grittman stated it would be imprudent to approve a plat that obviously had no buildable area as a result of the wetlands. Commissioner Friel added that while the planning ordinance requires the Commission to review footprint of the proposed homes on these lots, under the planning ordinance he does not see these footprints are cast in stone by plat approval and therefore could not logically expect wetland approvals to be given on building sites on each of those lots at this time. Commissioner Friel stated that although there is no tree ordinance, the Planning Ordinance has a requirement by plat submission to indicate which trees are to stay and which are to be removed. He added that the inclusion of utilities, lot easements, and trail easements should be included in the actions that are required of the Commission at this meeting. He suggested tabling the hearing until the next meeting of the Planning Commission so those inclusions could be made Commissioner Friel stated that the Parks Commission issues have not been addressed. Mr. Grittman replied that the recommendation of the Parks Commission will materially affect the layout of the plat, and it would be worthwhile to talk about what the impact would be and send that information to the City Council. Mr. Grittman added that the Parks Commission has indicated the land that would be appropriate for dedication without doing any analysis or discussing anything with the developer. It is expected to be one or two fewer lots in the plat if a park is dedicated in lieu of a money donation. Commissioner Friel stated there is no mention of the fencing there is no application for a Conditional Use Permit and that is a requisite of any such approval. 5 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 Commissioner B. McManus stated the from the indications of the Commissioner's opinions, it would be wise to make a decision on the wetlands in mass, but to give a general approval with subsequent approval of each design which would come before the Commission on a lot to lot basis. Is there any precedent to that in other developments? Mr. Grittman replied that this is the most typical approach because most of the wetland patinits reviewed are for individual property owners asking to construct something on their property that impacts the 100 ft. buffer, thus approvals have been made at the building stage. In this case, approving a plat that is inferring that each of the lots are going to be buildable and at least some of the lots there will be wetland peimits that will have to be approved. It seemed one of the options to consider would be to try to draw some perimeters at the plat stage that future builders would have to comply with. Mr. Michael St. Martin, Loucks and Associates, presented a revised site plan to the Commission and reviewed the revised setbacks. Mr. Paul McGinley, Loucks McLagan commented on the park dedication. The northeast corner, as suggested from the Parks Commission, would have a severe negative effect on the development. He feels it does not fit within the neighborhood platting of five other developments. If the City chooses to require a money dedication fee, the developer will donate double the fee. Discussion was held regarding the drainage issues in which Mr. St. Martin stated there were two ponds; one to treat the storm water, and the second is for grade control. Discussion was held on the fencing and entrances of the development. It was the consensus of the Commission that the City would not like this development seen as a "gated community" and the gatehouses at the entrances were not desirable. Some type of monument could be suggested in its place. Commissioner Betlej asked if the driveway easement, which is located on Lot 5 and the two homes adjacent to the north, has been worked out. Mr. McGinley stated that one of the landowners to the north is very interested in the project and the private easement from the road back to Lot 5 would be replaced by the public street access. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the timetable for the development would be. Mr. McGinley stated it was the goal to go through the approval process over the winter and begin construction in the spring. Chair Lorberbaum informed him that this would probably be tabled until January. Chair Lorberbaum stated she would have difficulty in granting a variance, showing a hardship when the hardship is of the making of the developer because of unjustifiable requests for lot placements. 6 ) Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 Chair Lorberbaum asked to have the developer prepare a tree preservation chart, showing the trees that are to be removed. Also, she would like a detailed landscaping plan and easement design. It was the consensus of the Commission to require a monetary park dedication in lieu of land. Mr. St. Martin stated they were in the process of preparing an application for wetland mitigation and has not yet submitted. Commissioner Dolan asked for clarification as to whether it was decided to retain the Ridder property on Lot 5, a decision has not been made, but most likely will stay. In regards to the preliminary site plan, in order to comply with the front yard setbacks, the wetland setbacks are more important and would like to see them pushed forward more. Regarding the park dedication issue, Mr. St. Martin stated that the location of the recommended park was not acceptable and no other areas have been considered. They did however, suggest to the Parks Commission to consider the southeast corner of the site. The Park Commission did not agree with that location. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification regarding park dedication in other developments. Mr. McGinley stated that there were no parks on the plats where any land was dedicated. Stan Linnell, Parks Commissioner, stated that no plans of the previous developments were brought to the Parks Commission for review. Commissioner Friel stated there is no park proposed in the plat. Commissioner Linnell stated that the he had seen a park plan that showed this area to be a desirable place for a park. Director Danielson stated there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that refers to this particular area. Mr. McGinley reviewed the trail access locations on the plan. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Sara Maas, 1730 Dodd Road • Stated her concerns regarding Pine Creek and drainage problems. Bill Thon, 699 Stanwich • Alignment of present right of way driveway onto Dodd Road in connection with Stanwich, and the potential safety issues. • Monuments and fencing concerns. • Drainage impact to his property. Ted Weyerhouser, 610 Wentworth • Serious encroachment on wetlands and wildlife. 7 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 Holly Brod-Farber, 625 Marie • Would like to see creative ideas from the developer about the park. • Would like to have a park because there are no other parks in the neighborhood close by. Vern Edstrom, 637 Marie • Adequate diameter of culvert under road to prevent water from backing up. Morton Field, 1738 Dodd Road • Left letter with the Commission outlying concerns. • Support development of land, but wants City to be more sensitive to the character of the block. A gated community is not an appropriate character of the area Fencing would also impair wildlife. • Would like to see a transition of the density of the development to the outlying properties. • Park would invite the public into private property. Stan Linnell, Park Commissioner • Roadway systems are important to consider. • Trail systems, park — envisioning open space resources, low impact, and low use. • Suggested using trees that are native to the area such as oaks, maples, etc. in the street plantings. Bruce Coppock, 1698 Dodd Road • Gatehouse makes him nervous about the architectural quality of the developer. Encourages the developer to be sensitive to the other kinds of properties in the area and try to stay away from the "mansion" style designs. Tim Ober, 1707 Delaware • Proper flowage of the holding ponds and creeks. Concern that the developer may not have accurate readings from this past year as the year as been atypical. Mr. St. Martin further explained the drainage studies in process. Chair Lorberbaum asked if spring runoff occurrences were studied in that area, or were done in the summer. Mr. St. Martin replied that the studies were started mid-summer. He added that in working with staff, the developer tried to come up with the design based on trying to be sensitive to the wetlands while developing the property. Chair Lorberbaum stated that the Commission would like to see as large a setback as possible. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS PROPOSAL TO THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THAT THERE WILL BE PROPER NOTIFICATION TO SURROUNDING LANDOWNERS. 8 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #01-40 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL, 2020 CENTRE POINTE BLVD. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCTION A DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING Mr. Grittman presented and reviewed the site plan to allow the construction a detached accessory building for a semi-enclosed smokers shelter for the employees of Gopher State One Call. It is noted at this time that the applicant was not present at the meeting. Findings from reviewing the variance shows that the variance is not considered a convenience, but are necessary to alleviate some undue hardship. In this case, Staff recommends this variance not being approved, as the smoking shelter is not a component of a reasonable use of the property. Because the property has already been developed, the applicant cannot find a location for a structure that would meet setback requirements. Staff suggested that the applicant could consider areas on the site that could accommodate an attached structure, but would take considerable alterations to the existing building. Commissioner M. McManus asked how many employees are to be accommodated by this shelter. Commissioner Hesse stated why the applicant was not available. Chair Lorberbaum stated that it has been her experience that sometimes when someone reads something the Planner has done, that says the Planner has recommended denial, they get disheartened by it and does not bother to show up. It is her hope that no matter what the outcome is, a call be made to the applicant to encourage them to come and make their case at the City Council. Chair Lorberbaum stated that if there is construction on an attached shelter, parking space will be lost, and the applicant already has minimum parking. This is not something that is necessary to make good use of the land, and she does not believe they could make it attached either without doing some creative work. Commissioner Betlej stated the loading dock area would be a good alternative location. Commissioner B. McManus observed the building for approximately 15 to 20 minutes and noted the smokers standing outside the door. He stated it could be possible to construct a slight shed roof and electric heater put by the door. He did not see a large number of people standing there smoking. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. 9 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 Mr. Mark Rancone, Roseville Properties, Lexington Ave (neighboring company), was in the audience and stated that although he did not see what the design was prior to the meeting, he stated that his partners are less excited about the proposed shelter. They would like to see more information before making any comments, as their wish is to be a good neighbor. Roseville Properties developed the applicant's building and want to continue in that spirit. He stated that it is an existing problem at numerous locations where people stand in front of the buildings smoking cigarettes. The question is therefore, "where do you hide them?" He suggested if they have an attachment to the building, then there is nowhere to screen them. It may be a solution to place them across the street. Also, a higher level of plant screening around the proposed enclosure could help. He pointed out the two "unsightly" transformers, and suggested placing a shelter there, with a half wall and plantings to screen. Mr. Roseville stated there are six buildings in the campus and three more could be placed. Commissioner Friel asked if a separate building could be constructed and shared by all the buildings on the campus. Mr. Roseville stated his company has no regulatory ability on that building, as they don't own it. Chair Lorberbaum stated that until a building owner comes forth and offers to provide space, it ) would be an interesting outcome. Commissioner B. McManus stated the Commission should note that the proposed building is not to be in front of the building, but on the side near a service entrance. Where the transformers are located, the property is surrounded by berm. He stated from that angle, he could not see the transformers, as there is quite a drop. He doesn't believe it is very obtrusive if smokers stand outside that particular door, and would not be obtrusive if a shelter, be it attached or detached, be constructed. He just does not see the reason to do it. He believes that they could, with little trouble, add a small attachment to the building on that side. ) COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE. 10 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum asked Administrative Assistant Hollister to contact applicant and share the discussions of this case. OTHER BUSINESS PLANNING CASE #01-35 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - FENCE Mr. Grittman presented the case by stating the City Council and Planning Commission recently held a workshop regarding a number of items, one of them being potential amendments to the fence ordinance. There was some direction to Staff to follow-up on in providing some changes to the current ordinance. These changes have been summarized as follows: 1. Change the allowable residential fence height to 5 ft. 2. Require all fences to be at least 30% open. 3. Add additional maintenance language to the ordinance. 4. Measure fences at the posts, rather than everywhere along the fence. Exhibit A — Proposed Fence Ordinance Amendment was reviewed as presented. Commissioner B. McManus referred to Section 4.8(1)d. How would one address the issue of an alternative board fence? Mr. Grittman replied that Staff made the determination that these fences meet the 30% requirement. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the amendment could be more specifically stated, is that just an operational decision. Mr. Grittman replied that is would be possible to write a description of this type of fence, and if incorporated into the ordinance, it would be better to use some graphics to depict this kind of fence. Commissioner Betlej stated that if the ordinance worked in the past, not to make changes and add any excess language. Commissioner B. McManus added that if this is just an operational procedure, it's fine as is. Otherwise, if it needs to elaborated, that is the decision of Staff. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the cost is for a Conditional Use Permit for a fence. Mr. Grittman stated it was $350.00. Chair Lorberbaum stated that an applicant would be to pay this fee to change from a 5ft. high fence to a 6 ft. high fence. Commissioner M. McManus asked for confirmation as to why is there a change from 6 ft. to 5 ft., except for the open conditions and the discussion of keeping fences in good repair. She is in favor of the amendment except to decrease the height of the fence to 5 ft. 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 Commissioner Friel stated that there are existing 6 ft. fences in the community, and to make new applicants build at 5 ft., there would be non - conformity of new fences. Commissioner Betlej stated his agreement to Commissioner Friel's comment, and referred to Section 4.8(2)b. He requested to have this section omitted in its entirety. Commissioner Dolan asked if the same would apply to open fences as opposed to the already existing closed fences in the community. Commissioner Friel replied that in that case, there are a variety of fences in the community, some of which are like that, and some aren't. There is not the impact with those variations, as a 6 ft. fence next to a 5 ft. fence would not look right. Commissioner Betlej asked how this would pertain to swimming pool fencing. Mr. Grittman stated that this type of fencing is currently required to be 5 ft. and not higher than 6 ft. Chair Lorberbaum stated the purpose of this discussion is to come up with an amendment page to go to the City Council for passage. Commissioner Dolan referred to Section 4.8(1)c. • The sentence "The requirement for maintenance ... and function as effectively as at the time of its construction." may call for a more general statement and say "and functions effectively." • The sentence "Any fence which falls into such a state shall be considered to be a violation .." He does not believe the tern "such a state" should be used as it implies the fence is in disrepair. He suggested using "Any fence which is not in compliance with the requirement to this ordinance shall be considered to be a violation of this ordinance." Commissioner Friel's comments on Section 4.8(1)c: It does not make sense to have reference to "Function" in the paragraph at all and is unnecessary. He would like to take out the portion that reads "...and functions as effectively as at the time of its construction." Commissioner Dolan stated the last sentence could be omitted. Mr. Grittman stated that this sentence pertains to fences that talk about whether or not there is a nuisance or danger. Commissioner Dolan suggested changing the sentence to read "Any fence which is not in compliance of the requirements of this ordinance or which is or has become dangerous to public safety. Mr. Grittman stated that the function of the language was intended to refer to fences that, while they might be still structurally sound, might have boards missing so that the fence is no longer enclosing something properly. Commissioner Betlej stated that this language is reflected in the first few lines of the paragraph adequately. 12 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 Commissioner Friel referred to Commissioner Dolan's suggestion on the sentence "Any fence which is not in compliance with the requirement to this ordinance shall be considered to be a violation of this ordinance." Take out "consider" as the fence is in fact in violation. Mr. Grittman clarified that the first part of the section refers to fences not being painted, for example, and become a public nuisance. The intent is to enforce on fences that were not necessarily dangerous, but in disrepair. Commissioner Friel suggested using "...any fence which is in violation of this ordinance, or has become dangerous to the public safety, health or welfare is a public nuisance." Commissioner Dolan referred to Section 4.8(1)d. For clarification purposes, should this sentence read "All fences shall be constructed in such a manner that thirty percent (30%) of the plane ..."; should this read "no less than 30%"? Commissioner Dolan referred to Section 4.8(2)f. The sentence "Notwithstanding the other requirements, ... no greater than five (5) feet and less than thirty percent open..." should that be "greater than" thirty percent? It was concurred that this portion of the sentence should remain, as it reflects "no greater than five (5) feet and no less than thirty percent open." Commissioner Dolan added that if it is recommended to strike the five-foot requirement, then the thirty percent requirement should also be struck. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FENCE ORDINANCE WITH THE CONDITION TO STRIKE CHANGE NO. 1, LEAVING THE REQUIREMENT AT FENCE HEIGHT TO BE SIX (6) FEET. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED TOWN CENTER CONCEPT PLAN Chair Lorberbaum clarified that this is a discussion of the Town Center Concept. This is not a public hearing or a preliminary approval. This project will be presented to the Commission again at either the January or February meeting. The intent of this discussion is to provide feedback to the developer. Mr. Grittman presented for consideration of a concept PUD for a mixed use planned development known as Town Center, located at the intersection of Highway 110 and Dodd Road. 13 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 The issues for discussion are as follows: 1. Land Use/Parking: • Commercial area will require most of the parking area. • Plan suggests a range of 300 to 330 parking spaces, based on the developer's estimate for shared parking. Code requires approximately 435 spaces based on the amount of commercial space. 2. General Layout and Transportation: • Access points • Bus / Parking 3. Open Space: • Incorporation of three primary areas • Trail connections • Passive Space (trails and seating areas) 4. Management: • Responsibilities for maintenance Commissioner M. McManus asked for an analysis of having residential areas connected to commercial areas. Mr. Grittman stated that from a conceptual planning standpoint, the idea of the Town Center concept is a mixed-use project where people are going to intentionally move to a place that has those kinds of connections. In terms of land use, the plan is laid out so that there is a visual connection between the commercial clusters and the residential clusters. Commissioner M. McManus asked what the estimated total population would be. Mr. Grittman replied that 350 — 400 people would be a good estimate in the residential population. Commissioner M. McManus asked how the vet center would be incorporated into the plan in regards to the design standards. Mr. Grittman stated it was not the intention to require the building to be remodel to match the development. From a functional standpoint, shared access and parking space may be something that would be worth consideration. Commissioner M. McManus asked where the site of the original town hall stood. Director Danielson stated the township hall was located in the portion of the site that now holds wetland at the intersection of Dodd Road and Highway 110. Commissioner Dolan asked about planned improvements at the intersection of Highway 110 and Dodd. Mr. Grittman stated there were. Commission Dolan referred to the play area and the driveway to the south. Is it the intent to have people park there? Mr. Grittman stated the driveway is designed to open up the space visually, and not to allow parking. 14 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 Commissioner Friel asked for clarification of the density. Mr. Grittman replied that if the area that is devoted to commercial out of the gross number, the residual density is about 10'/2. Thirteen is if you don't include the open space. The density limitation is assigned by the City Council. There is no specific standard for assessing density. Commissioner Friel clarified for the record that this is subject to the Council's discretion. Chair Lorberbaum reiterated that Commission Friel's comment was received. Commissioner Friel stated that elsewhere in the community, the maximum density is 8 units per acre, and is there any property in the community where there are 8 units per acre? Administrative Assistant Hollister stated that Lexington Heights apartments would come very close, and even slightly over. The apartment complex holds three separate building, each on it's own parcel, with 75 units per building. Director Danielson stated it might be over 10 units per acre in this case. Commissioner Friel stated that required parking is 435 spaces; the provided parking is 335 spaces. Does shared parking mean the same space is counted twice? Mr. Grittman stated that this would be correct. Commissioner Friel referred to the discussion of the entrance from Highway 110. Mr. Grittman stated he did not know if this was approved yet. Director Danielson stated there was a recent meeting with MnDOT and discussed the off ramp. There is no official document, but MnDOT told the City it was approved or will be approved. ( ) Commissioner B. McManus referred to Page 3 of the report, sixth line down which states: "The computed density would typically be judged ... but the usable open space would be counted." Does this mean that all the open space in the entire PUD has been used to justify this ratio? M. Grittman stated he used the gross acreage in that particular area minus what appears to be commercial area. Commissioner B. McManus stated his concern that a lot of units will be jammed into a limited space, and this may affect the quality of life for the residents. Commissioner Betlej asked about shared parking situations, how is the relationship of the on- street parking as well as off-street parking. Mr. Grittman stated the estimates are for total parking demand from a particular land use, and it's up to the City to decide on-street/off-street combination. Shared parking between residential and commercial is not expected, as they are different land uses. In reply to Commissioner B. McManus's question, Mr. Grittman stated he was comfortable with these parking spaces. Ms. Carolyn Krall, Landform, is a consultant retained by the City to develop a master plan for this project and was present to address questions from the Commission. She stated there is no final approved developer for this project yet. Dakota County will be developing the senior portion of the plan. She handed out detailed exhibits such as parking summary, and density coverage. 15 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 Ms. Krall commented on the balance between how inter - connected it is and how buffered the residential is. There is a lot of visual connection based on the topography of the plan. Trail connections have been provided so there are walking connections. It is envisioned that the residents will range from senior housing, condominiums (retirees and empty- nesters), town homes (young couple /professionals), Hoffices (business within the home), larger town homes (families). The commercial area is expected to house coffee /food businesses, service professionals, video chains, and banks. No one is currently set to lease, or are there any major anchor tenants lined up. These are for smaller retail uses. Signage limitations are being developed in accordance with the City signage ordinance. The signage in this project will more restrictive in terms of lighted signs. There will probably be one pylon sign. Commissioner Hesse asked at what stage is it appropriate to think of environmental due diligence. Director Danielson stated this is being done case by case. Commissioner Hesse referred to budget numbers being put together as far as how this project is to be funded. There is a significant amount of money, about $1.4M, that is still out there and the City is hoping to get another grant from Met Council. Ms. Krall stated that application is currently in front of them, and are in Phase II of the process and down to day to day as to whether the project will get bumped out. The current application is for about $600,000 and it is hoped to get some part of that. If not, possibly next year. Official results are announced on Dec. 15 '. If funds are not available, land negotiations with the developer will play a part, and some compromises may take place. Ms. Krall feels comfortable with having the developer prepare and present a plan and budget. Assessments will be coming from business associations, and homeowner associations as well. Chair Lorberbaum requested a more defined chart of parking spaces that include the number of units and how many counting spaces. She would also like to see parking spaces large enough to accommodate SUV's and larger cars. Ms. Krall stated a 50 ft. buffer has been maintained for wetland setbacks. Chair Lorberbaum asked to not have pole signs. Also, have the lighting wattage and hours of operation presented. Also, she would like to have trash enclosures inside the buildings and not on the outside. Commissioner Betlej would like parking more accurately reflected on the plan. Bus maneuverability plans should also be reflected. Determine the routes more specifically. All visitors parking will be designated to the freeway roads, and there should be some 16 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 landscaping/edging done along Dodd Road. He also does not believe there should be a lot of signage, but a more subtle signage would be better. Also, include bicycle parking. Ms. Krall stated underground parking for commercial area is necessary to rent the second floor space, plus allow for overflow parking. Commissioner Betlej questioned the materials of the building. Ms. Krall stated all buildings should be wrapped around except with individual porches, which require a minimal 4 ft. around each corner. Commissioner Friel asked for clarification of private streets. Ms. Krall replied there was a determination of what is a private vs. a public street and explained the layout. Ms. Krall was asked to provide current traffic levels on Dodd Road. SHE can supply the actual numbers. Commissioner B. McManus stated he would endorse the recommendation with the following guidelines: • More mixture between commercial and residential • Population density is a concern • Significant number of old and young resident, but there are no play areas • Does not want any gawdy signs ( ) • Lots of green space. How will the sprinkler system be done? CANCELLATION OF THE DECEMBER 25, 2001 MEETING It is deemed that there is no urgent business requiring attention at this time, Staff will be directed to inform the City Council of this decision. COMMISSIONER M. McMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO CANCEL THE DECEMBER 25, 2001 MEETING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED VERBAL REVIEW — JIM DANIELSON 1. Case No. 01-36: Joe Filhart, Conditional Use Peimit and Variance— was approved. 2. Case No. 01-37: Dr. Eul Kang, Wetlands Peunit for Deck — was approved. 17 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2001 OPEN DISCUSSION • None COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 12:30 AM ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2001. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED