Loading...
1999-07-27 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 27, 1999 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 27, 1999, 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: Duggan, Friel, Koll, Lorberbaum, Tilsen, Betlej, and Kleinglass. Also present were Meg McMonigal of MFRA, Public Works Director Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Mr. Hollister took the minutes. MINUTES Commissioner Friel moved to approve the June 22, 1999 minutes with revisions. Commissioner Kleinglass seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABS: 1 (Betlej) PRELIMINARY COMMENTS Chair Duggan noted the large gathering of people at the Planning Commission meeting in regards to the Burow Farm subdivision and said that the Planning Case this evening for the Burow Farm referred only to a subdivision of one single lot for a single-family home, not to a senior building or other development. Chair Duggan continued that the Planning Commission had not received any information regarding a development of a senior building on the Burow farm, and that the Planning Commission could not answer any questions regarding such a development. Chair Duggan also held up a copy of the most recent Southwest Review and noted that there was an article in that publication explaining that tonight's hearing was only about a single-family home. PLANNING CASE #99-20 LYNN BUROW, 1219 VICTORIA ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE Chair Duggan said that Ms. Lynn Burow of 1219 Victoria Road was present at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss her application for a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage which would be 24 x 24 feet in size. Ms. Burow introduced herself and said that the garage would be twenty-four feet by twenty-four feet in size and would be in the northwest corner of the lot. Ms. Burow continued that she was unable to build an attached garage. Chair Duggan asked Ms. Burow if she had discussed her application with any of her neighbors. Ms. Burow responded that she had not. Chair Duggan remarked that Ms. Burow already had a shed on her property of ten feet by fourteen feet. Chair Duggan asked if any of the other Commissioners had any questions. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if a detached garage was considered an accessory structure. Commissioner Friel said that a detached garage was not considered an accessory structure. Chair Duggan remarked that the new garage will match the existing house in color. Chair Duggan asked if there was anyone in the audience to comment on this application. There was no one in the audience to comment on this application. Commissioner Betlej moved to close the public hearing on this application. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage as presented to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Duggan instructed Ms. Burow to appear before the Council at their next meeting to discuss this application. 2 PLANNING CASE #99-22: BRIAN SMITH, 1875 VICTORIA ROAD (BUROW FARM) SUBDIVISION Chair Duggan introduced the next Planning Case, a Subdivision of one single- family lot from the Burow Farm at 1875 Victoria Road. Chair Duggan acknowledged Mr. Keith Heaver, who was present to represent applicant Brian Smith. Commissioner Lorberbaum recused herself from discussion of this application, citing the fact that Mr. Heaver was currently building a house for her. Commissioner Lorberbaum then left the table. Chair Duggan noted that the lot to be subdivided from the Burow Farm would be 1.375 acres. Chair Duggan also noted that the Burow farm had received recent publicity in the Southwest Review and the Star Tribune. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Heaver to present the application. Mr. Heaver said that Mr. Smith wished to subdivide the southern most 100 feet from the Burow Farm to build a two-story home. Chair Duggan asked how large the home would be. Mr. Heaver said that the home would be about 2600 - 2700 square feet in size and would be a two-story home. Mr. Heaver said that the home would be a walkout with a driveway to the home from Victoria Road. Chair Duggan asked what impact the development would have upon the pond on the Burow property. Mr. Heaver said that he didn't believe that there would be any trees on the property that would be affected by the house but if there is a new landscaping plan would be prepared around the site. Mr. Heaver stated that for protection, silt fencing would be put up during construction within a close distance to the house so that they didn't destroy any of the other property adjacent to it. Chair Duggan noted that this application met the requirements for a Preliminary Plat and the R-1 zoning requirements. Chair Duggan asked if any other Planning Commissioners had any other questions. Commissioner Tilsen said that he thought it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to address the entire site. Commissioner Tilsen said that the neighbors to the Burow Farm wanted the City to preserve the entire site. Commissioner Tilsen said that the City was remiss in not taking the opportunity long ago to preserve the whole site. Commissioner Friel said that the Planning Commission was constrained by the zoning ordinance from talking about acquisition or preservation of the entire site. 3 Mr. Heaver said that he disagreed with Commissioner Friel, and that the Planning Commission should ask the applicant to submit a plan for the entire parcel. Commissioner Tilsen said that the ordinance requires that future plans be shown for the entire parcel and that was what the community would demanded as well. Commissioner Tilsen said that by subdividing off this one lot, the owners of the property were limiting their options as to what could be done with the rest of the property. Commissioner Tilsen said that the owners of the property could subdivide it as they wished as long as they were following the ordinance. Chair Duggan said that the Planning Commission processes applications as they come in. Commissioner Friel said that the Planning Commission was not faced with an application for a change in the zoning. Commissioner Friel said that the Planning Commission is bound to react to plans presented to them. Commissioner Friel added that the Comprehensive Plan did not call for anything on this site except single-family residential development. Chair Duggan asked if any other Planning Commissioners had any questions. Commissioner Koll asked what the provisions were for providing sewer service to the lot. Commissioner Tilsen said in order to connect to sewer in the street, the applicant had to lift sewage up by a pump to a pipe that then utilizes gravity. Commissioner Tilsen said that this is a long-term maintenance issue and takes electricity to run. Commissioner Tilsen added that he was not necessarily against a sewage pump. Commissioner Tilsen said that chopping off 100 feet of this parcel limits options for the rest of the parcel. Commissioner Tilsen said that the City should try to limit driveways on Victoria, which is a County Road. Commissioner Tilsen said that he lived on Victoria Road and that driveway accesses are an issue. Commissioner Tilsen asked at what point the current agricultural use of the property would be considered a non-conforming use. Chair Duggan declared the public hearing open and invited members of the public to speak. Chair Duggan asked individuals who speak to please avoid repeating what someone else said. Mr. Mark Frenz of 1843 Rolling Green Curve said that he bought his house in 1982. Mr. Frenz said that he disagreed with Mr. Friel that the Planning Commission was only concerned with the application before them. Mr. Frenz said that the Planning Commission had an obligation to obtain the Concept Plan for the senior building. 4 Commissioner Friel said that there is a procedure to go the Planning Commission first with a Concept Plan, but that the Concept Plan was presented directly to the Council instead. Mr. Hollister explained that the Concept Plan had been presented to the Council first because the applicants were seeking TIF financing. Mr. Hollister said that the Council had informed the applicants that they were not interested in rezoning the Burow farm to accommodate this development nor in providing TIF financing for this development. Chair Duggan said that the Planning Commission should have been given a copy of the Concept Plan. Mr. William Price of 1869 Eagle Ridge asked who currently owned the Burow Farm. Chair Duggan noted that Mr. Tom Burow was in the audience and asked Mr. Burow if he had signed any papers transferring any proprietary interest or development rights for the farm to any other party. Mr. Burow said that he had signed no such agreement. Commissioner Friel said that the Planning Commission should have the benefit of the Council minutes from the discussion of the senior building Concept Plan. Chair Duggan said that the primary function of the Planning Commission is to review applications. Mimi Weinberger of 1869 Eagle Ridge Drive said that she had come to the meeting at five minutes to eight and that the discussion of the Burow Farm was already in progress when she arrived. Ms. Weinberger asked if someone could summarize the discussion of the Burow Farm up until eight o'clock. Chair Duggan apologized for starting the discussion early and summarized the discussion thus far of the Burow Farm. Jerry Caulfield of 1870 Eagle Ridge said that he would like to share some history on this farm issue with those present Mr. •Caulfield said that the City turned down the purchase of the Burow Farm years ago. Mr. Caulfield said that the same plan to purchase the Burow Farm should be put before the taxpayers of Mendota Heights. Mr. William Saeks of 1805 Eagle Ridge said that he had worked out with Mr. Burow's attorney a price of $200,000 for the farm to make it into an agricultural museum for children. Mr. Saeks said that the museum would have been used by the school system. Mr. Saeks said that the vote at the Council level was close but that it was defeated. Mr. Saeks said that the City could have had a museum for children. 5 Chair Duggan said that one neighbor had sent him background materials on the Burow Farm from four years ago. Mary Roszak of 988 Stratford Road said that communication had been lacking on this issue. Ms. Roszak said that she and her team partner Eric Salverda had talked to Dr. Greg Lee of Dodge Nature Center about being involved in the preservation and use of the farm. Ms. Roszak said that her plans included accommodation for Mr. Burow to stay in his home if that was his wish. Ms. Roszak said that unlike the ponds in Copperfield, the lots around the Burow pond do not extend into the pond itself. Ms. Roszak said that the pond lies entirely within the Burow property which makes the impact of any development upon the pond especially critical for homeowners around the pond. Ms Roszak said that Mr. Ron Smith was demoralized after his plans for the Burow Farm were rejected by the City and that he wanted to come back and present that plan to the City again. Ms. Roszak said that splitting off one lot like this would still allow the farm to be preserved. Ms. Roszak invited any one in the audience who was interested in preserving the farm to call her. Ms. Roszak said that if the City had foresight they would preserve the farm, even though Eagan did not preserved a farm. Ms. Roszak concluded that the farm presents a unique opportunity. Mr. Bob Monson of 1900 Victoria Road asked what the impact of the new lot and house would be on the pond. Claire Eldredge of 1805 Eagle Ridge Drive also asked what the impact of the new house and lot would be on the pond. Mr. Heaver said that there would be no impact whatsoever on the pond, that he would not be changing the pond in any way and would not be building within 100 feet of the pond. Mr. Heaver added that the house location shown on the Preliminary Plat is not finalized, just proposed, but is approximately correct. Ms. Mary Widman of 958 Strafford Road asked who currently owned the Burow property. Chair Duggan said that presumably Mr. Burow still owned the property, but that anyone could come forward with a subdivision application if they wanted to. Commissioner Tilsen agreed with Chair Duggan saying that anyone could come in with a development plan, and that if they do not have the proper development rights, the application is meaningless. Mr. Mitch Berg of 964 Stratford Road said that the area of the wetland extends beyond the mere area of the pond. Mr. Berg asked if a wetlands delineation had been performed on the pond. 6 Mr. Danielson said that wetlands delineations are up to private landholders, but that the City had a drainage easement that extends considerably beyond the edge of the pond. Mr. John Thul of 970 Stratford Road said that the drainage easement would continue to exist after the development. Mr. Danielson said that as a matter of course the City Engineering Staff would review the grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for this house for any impacts upon the pond. Chair Duggan asked if there were any more questions that pertained to the lot. Mr. John Daubney of 1869 Eagle Ridge Drive said that the City should require as a condition of creating this one lot that the applicant commit to a specific plan to subdivide the rest of the property into single-family lots. Mr. Daubney stated that although he would love to have the view continued, Mr. Burows owns the property, it's single family, it's zoned for development and Mr. Burows and his contract buyers has the right to develop it but that the City should have Mr. Burows contract representatives show a specific plan as to what they do plan on doing with the rest of the property. Chair Duggan said that most of the neighbors wished for the farm to remain intact, but that would require somebody's money. Chair Duggan closed the public hearing. Commissioner Friel said that he agreed with Mr. Daubney except for one point, that every lot created starts out as a piece of a larger property. Commissioner Friel said that nothing authorizes the City to reject a plat because there is no plan for the remainder of the property. Commissioner Friel said that therefore the Council was bound to grant the subdivision application. Commissioner Tilsen disagreed with Commissioner Friel, saying that in this case there is a single owner and a well-defined parcel, and that the City could require the applicant to show a plan for the rest of the property. Commissioner Koll said that the Planning Commission should table the this application to the next meeting because of both the lack of a plan for the rest of the property and confusion over ownership of the parcel. Commissioner Koll said that she hoped that Mr. Smith would be present at the next Planning Commission meeting to clear up some of these issues. To provide the applicant time to submit a delineation of the wetland on the property, a clarification of the ownership of the property, and an indication of how the rest of the property is to be disposed of Chair Duggan moved to table this application to the August meeting of the Planning Commission. 7 Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 1 (Friel) ABS: 1 (Kleinglass) RECESS Chair Duggan then declared a 15 minute recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. with Commissioner Lorberbaum returning to her seat. PLANNING CASE #99-23 CONVENT OF THE VISITATION WETLANDS PERMIT FOR PARKING AREA Architect Gary Ostberg introduced himself and Mr. Davern of the Visitation School. Mr. Ostberg clarified that the school is seeking a wetlands permit for Option A in their submission, a 60-stall parking lot. Mr. Ostberg said that the parking lot would be used during the soccer season and might be used during the year for overflow parking for plays. Mr. Ostberg asked if the Planning Commission had any questions. Chair Duggan asked why the parking lot was not engineered to drain toward Visitation Drive. Mr. Ostberg said that the school is proposing curb and gutter for the parking lot and that there would be three openings for the water to tunnel down. Mr. Ostberg said that the water would not sheet drain. Commissioner Lorberbaum said that she is a "soccer mom." Commissioner Lorberbaum said that sometimes the games run late, and asked if the parking lot would be lit. Mr. Ostberg said that there were no plans to light the field at this time. Mr. Davern said that the school would entertain the idea of lighting the parking lot later if it were shown to be necessary. Commissioner Betlej asked what the boundaries of the wetland were. Commissioner Betlej said that he attempted to step off the wetland and it seemed to end where the reeds ended. Mr. Ostberg said that the school had determined that the wetland ended at the 888 contour line. Mr. Ostberg said that the north part of the parking lot is the closest to the wetland, and that part is about 55 to 60 feet from the wetland. Commissioner Betlej asked if it would be possible to drain towards the street. 8 Commissioner Tilsen said that draining through a pipe more quickly does not automatically mean higher water quality. Commissioner Tilsen said that if there were no wetland it would be better to drain the water more quickly, but that with a wetland it would be better to let the water filter without concentrating it. Commissioner Friel asked what the exact distance was from the parking lot to the wetland. Mr. Danielson said that the wetlands ordinance dictated that the distance be measured from the high water mark, which in this case is 886.5 feet Ms. McMonigal said that using that measure, the concrete spillway would be 70' from the wetland and the parking lot would be 110' from the wetland, but that during construction grading would occur within 100 feet. Commissioner Friel said that therefore the Wetlands Permit was actually needed for the construction process. Commissioner Friel said that if the City were writing the ordinance today, they would measure the edge of the wetland from a delineation mark, thus requiring a wetlands delineation. Commissioner Tilsen said that State and Federal laws measure distances from delineation marks, but that the City's use of the high water mark had served the City well thus far. Commissioner Koll asked if there was much variation in the water level of the intermittent pond. Mr. Davern said that there was not. Chair Duggan asked if anyone in the audience had any questions about this application. There were no questions. Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Tilsen asked Mr. Danielson if it were absolutely necessary to install the curb in this parking lot. Mr. Danielson said that the zoning ordinance requires curbs for parking lots, but that in this case it would probably be better for the wetland if there were no curb. 9 Commissioner Friel said that there was a good example of ill-advised curb along Highway 149. Commissioner Tilsen said that the Council and the applicant should consider not providing curb for the parking lot, and that the Westwood consultant would probably know what would be best for the wetland. Chair Duggan suggested that that recommendation be moved and sent to Council. Commissioner Tilsen moved to recommend that the Council approve this wetlands permit on the conditions that the stormwater flow from the parking lot not be concentrated, and that the parking lot not have curb. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 PLANNING CASE #99-25 ROSEVILLE PROPERTIES, CENTRE POINTE VARIANCES FOR TWO MONUMENT SIGNS Mark Rancone introduced himself. Mr. Rancone said that Roseville Properties was proposing two monument signs for Centre Pointe business park on Highway 110 and Lexington Avenue. Mr. Rancone said that Roseville Properties had completed 4 buildings and have three other buildings planned in the near future. Mr. Rancone said that Roseville Properties was seeking four variances, two for each sign. Mr. Rancone said that the variances were for both the setbacks for the signs and the size of the signs. Mr. Rancone said that the size variances derived from the fact that the pillars for the signs are included in the size of the signs, but that larger pillars would make the signs look nicer than smaller pillars. Mr. Rancone showed the Commission pictures of what the signs would look like. Mr. Rancone said that the variances to the setbacks are requested because adhering to the variances would force the signs down the slope where they would not be visible. Commissioner Friel said that the City had discussed in great detail a few years ago whether the support structure for a sign was included in the total size of the sign and had concluded that it was. Commissioner Friel asked what the total size of the signs including the pillars were. Mr. Rancone said that if the size of the pillars are included the total size of the signs would be 80 square feet each. Commissioner Koll asked about the lighting of the signs. Mr. Rancone said that the letters of the signs would be internally lit. 10 Commissioner Betlej asked what Mr. Rancone's hardship would be requiring the variance for the larger signs. Mr. Rancone said that his hardship would be visibility, and that larger signs were better than smaller signs. Mr. Rancone said that scale for the message was also important, and that if these signs were shrunk down they would look odd and out of scale. Commissioner Tilsen asked how many building the two signs would serve. Mr. Rancone said that the two signs are intended to serve all eight buildings at Centre Pointe. Mr. Rancone said that Roseville Properties did not want to clutter up the development with more signage. Commissioner Tilsen said that he was fine with the scale, size, and location of the signs, except that he thought the signs should be placed one foot from the property line instead of on the property line. Commissioner Tilsen said that the ordinance addresses sign size per building, and that looking at the big picture, Mr. Rancone should get credit for eight buildings when totaling square footage for signs. Commissioner Tilsen said that if a hardship were needed, the applicant should site the large right-of-ways on both sides of the development. Commissioner Tilsen cited Section 21.5 of the zoning ordinance regarding signs in "B" and "I" districts. Chair Duggan said that two large signs would be better than eight small signs. Chair Duggan asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak about this application. Marilyn Hayes of 2080 Patricia Street said that the Centre Pointe development has too much lighting and that extra light from signs is not necessary. Ms. Hayes said that the lighted signs would not be attractive. Ms. Hayes said that she moved into the Curley neighborhood when it was surrounded by farms, and that the Centre Pointe development is now encroaching on her side of Lexington. Ms. Hayes said that trucks are delivering sand at 6:30 at night and 6:30 in the morning. Ms. Hayes said that the City should adhere to the ordinance and insist on small signs that turn off at night. Ms. Hays said that the Centre Pointe development has brought trucks, noisiness and dirtiness to the neighborhood, along with more cars and more people. Ms . Hayes said that the lighting from the development bothers the neighborhood. Mr. Mark Asher of 2061 Patricia Street said that the lights from the GNB building are on all night. Mr. Asher said that Roseville Properties has moved into his life and that traffic on Lexington has quadrupled since the Centre Pointe business park began. Mr. Asher said that he is against the proposed signs. Chair Duggan said that the City would be able to determine whether or not light was spilling onto Mr. Asher's property from the Centre Pointe development. 11 ( Mr. Asher added that the supposedly temporary real-estate signs have been on the premises for over one year. Mr. Rancone said that when Roseville Properties built their most recent building they put up their signs for lease. Mr. Rancone said that he has now asked for those signs to be removed. Mr. Rancone said that Roseville Properties is sensitive about lighting, but that lighting is necessary for security. Mr. Rancone said that the parking lot lights are shoebox style lights that shine down. Mr. Rancone said that a measure of Lumens would show that light is not spilling up the hill across Lexington. Mr. Rancone agreed that GNB is not an attractive building, but that he had no control over the GNB building. Mr. Rancone said that he is trying to make a business park that is attractive to the neighborhood. Mr. Rancone said that as for the dirt trucks, he would call them to tell them not to run over fill at 6:30 in the morning. Mr. Rancone said that the fill operation is a short duration project anyway. Mr. Asher said that Mr. Rancone should tell his contractor to use an alternate route to Lexington to deliver the fill. Mr. Rancone said that he would tell his contractor to use an alternate route. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Danielson what the City's policy was on early morning construction and truck traffic. Mr. Danielson said that he thought the restriction was no noise before seven or eight o'clock. Commissioner Betlej moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the Council approve the setback variances for the two signs, with a request that the signs be at least one foot from the property lines. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Chair Duggan asked if the signs would cause traffic visibility problems Mr. Rancone said that they would not. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 12 Commissioner Betlej said that according to Section 21.5(13)c of the zoning ordinance, this application would be in compliance with the sign regulations if it is submitted as the comprehensive sign plan for the entire Centre Pointe business park. Mr. Rancone said that this application does represent the comprehensive sign plan for the Center Pointe business park. Commissioner Betlej moved to recommend that the Council accept this application as the comprehensive Sign plan for the Centre Pointe business park per section 21.5(13) c of the Zoning ordinance. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. Commissioner Lorberbaum offered a friendly amendment that the signs be turned off at 10 p.m. at night and that they be no brighter than the signs at City Hall. Commissioner Betlej accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner Friel offered a friendly amendment that the signs conform to the 50 square foot size maximum. Commissioner Friel's amendment was not accepted and died for lack of a second. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Friel) PLANNING CASE #99-24 ROBERT B. KRUEGER, 646 BROOKSIDE LANE FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Mr. Krueger said that he was applying for a front yard setback variance for an addition to his home. Mr. Krueger said that at one time he signed over the street to the City and that he now regrets that because it means he needs a variance. Chair Duggan asked if there was a vacated street in front of Mr. Krueger's Home. Mr. Krueger said that yes, there was. Commissioner Betlej noted that the house appeared to rest on two lots, and asked if the two lots needed to be combined. Commissioner Tilsen said that the County had already combined the two lots. Chair Duggan asked for clarification of the setback variance needed for this addition. 13 Planner McMonigal said that the addition would be 20 back from the front property line, although it would be 31 feet back from the street. Commissioner Betlej commented that the addition would be 7' further from the property line than the rest of Mr. Krueger's house. Commissioner Koll asked if the plans submitted by the applicant were sufficiently accurate. Chair Duggan said that the City inspectors would measure the distances precisely. Mr. Danielson said that in addition the grading and drainage would be checked by the Engineering staff. Commissioner Kleinglass moved to recommend that the Council approve the 10' front yard setback variance for the addition as proposed. Chair Duggan seconded the motion • AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 PLANNING CASE #99-26 TONY FEFFER CONCEPT PLAN FOR AN OFFICE PUD LEXINGTON AVENUE Tony Feffer introduced himself and his partner, Bruce Everly. Mr. Feffer said that he was submitting a concept plan for an office development on Lexington Avenue south of Turners Gymnastics. Mr. Feffer said that the office development would consist of three separate buildings on one parcel. Mr. Feffer said that the parcel is 2.24 acres in size. Mr. Feffer said that Staff suggested that they submit a Concept Plan for a PUD for the three buildings. Mr. Feffer said that the three buildings would be residential in style, similar to City Hall. Mr. Feffer asked if the Planning Commission had any questions. Chair Duggan said that he was concerned about the number of buildings, the setbacks, the parking requirements, the garages, the proposed trail and whether a PUD could be done on this site. Commissioner Friel said that per Section 22 of the zoning ordinance, this site was too small for a PUD. Commissioner Friel said that a PUD is allowed on a parcel of 10 acres or more, or a parcel of between 5 and 10 acres under limited conditions. Commissioner Friel said that since this parcel is even less than 5 acres, a PUD cannot be developed on this site. Commissioner Friel added that this development would not meet impervious surface requirements. 14 Mr. Feffer said that his development would exceed green area requirements. Commissioner Friel said that the Planning Commission had no calculations to that effect. Chair Duggan said that Planner McMonigal had calculated the parking required by ordinance at 113 spaces, but that the proposal did not include that many spaces. Mr. Feffer said that Ms. McMonigal's calculation is based upon treating the total development as one building larger than 6,000 square feet. Mr. Feffer said that if one were to consider the fact that two of the buildings are 6,000 square feet in size, they do meet the minimum parking requirements. Mr. Feffer said that he computed parking requirements based on Section 21.1(4) k of the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Duggan said that a 30 foot setback from the Turner property is required, and that the applicant needed more spacing between the two 6,000 square foot buildings. Mr. Feffer said that the purpose of a PUD was to deviate from the norm and that he wanted a nice-feeling development. Chair Duggan said that the main problem with doing a PUD for this site was that the site was less than 5 acres. Chair Duggan said that Mr. Feffer should adhere to setbacks. Chair Duggan added that the City may want to see any access agreements with Turner's Gymnastics. Mr. Feffer said that Section 13 of the zoning ordinance provides for a waiver of the minimum size for a PUD. Mr. Feffer supposed that in any event the 10 acre minimum is in place mainly for residential PUDs not office PUDs. Commissioner Friel said that following Mr. Feffer's line of reasoning on Section 13 of the zoning ordinance would render the Section 22 size limitation meaningless. Commissioner Friel said that there is no waiver to the five acre minimum for a PUD size. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked Mr. Feffer about landscaping. Mr. Feffer said that he believes in heavy landscaping for his projects and that the more landscaping accompanying the project the better. Mr. Feffer said that he would like to screen the development from Interstate 35E. Mr. Feffer said that he would try to save as many trees as possible and add more. Mr. Everly concurred, saying that trees and berms can help screening greatly. 15 Commissioner Tilsen asked what typical tenants would be in this office development. Mr. Feffer said that the 6,000 square foot buildings would be owner-occupied and that many companies like a 6,000 square foot building such as Insurance, Real Estate, Doctor, Dentist, etc. Commissioner Tilsen said that it sounded like parking was important because these were businesses that the public visited. Mr. Feffer said that he was confident that he was providing enough parking. Commissioner Tilsen said that he liked the concept, but that the site was too small for a PUD. Commissioner Tilsen suggested connecting the buildings with a walkway to make it one building. Commissioner Tilsen said that he did not think this development had 30% green space. Commissioner Tilsen added that it would be good to have ponding for this site and that Mr. Feffer had to consider the sound insulation issue due to airplane noise. Commissioner Koll said that her main concern was that this site was too small for a PUD. Commissioner Koll said that this development would not generate a lot of traffic. Commissioner Koll asked where in the Twin Cities area could she look at a similar development. Mr. Feffer showed pictures of similar developments in Shoreview and Little Canada. Mr. Feffer said that the buildings would be similar in appearance to City Hall. Mr. Ever ly said that their own office is a good example, which is east of Flying Cloud Airport. Mr. Ever ly said that these buildings would be 100% office use. Commissioner Koll said that she was concerned that the clustered effect of the buildings would look out of place. Commissioner Koll said that if the buildings were not clustered the development could have more greenspace and a shorter walk to parking. Chair Duggan said that the development did not have 30% green space. Mr. Feffer said that Mr. Everly is an engineer and that he calculated by technology that there is sufficient greenspace. Mr. Feffer said that he assumed that Mr. Everly's calculations were correct. Chair Duggan said that the impervious surface calculation needs to include paths, walkways, and any other solid surface. Mr. Feffer said that the problem is that although the Commission is saying that the parcel is too small for a PUD, his proposed development cannot be built under B-1 zoning. 16 Commissioner Tilsen said that this project could be built in the B-1 zone with variances. Mr. Feffer said that a single-building development that would be small enough to comply with parking regulations would not be feasible on this site. Commissioner Betlej said that he liked the concept plan for this site. Mr. Feffer said that the three buildings would have three separate owners and that a variance would not be needed. Commissioner Betlej asked why an office condominium would not be allowed in the B-1 zone. Ms. McMonigal said that the B-1 zoning only allows one principal building on each lot. Mr. Feffer said that the development would be one property with one association. Mr. Feffer said that in a condominium situation all owners have interest in the entire property. Commissioner Tilsen suggested connecting the three buildings with a walkway. Mr. Feffer said that parking would become an issue if he were to connect the buildings. Commissioner Friel said that the Council may not agree that connecting the three buildings with a walkway would constitute one building. Commissioner Friel said that the real problem with this development is density, and that the purpose of the zoning ordinance is control of density. Mr. Feffer said that apart from the size issue for a PUD, his proposal would be in complete conformance with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Feffer said that there should be flexibility on the PUD size. Commissioner Tilsen said that the purpose of a PUD was for a give-and-take between the developer and the City, specially in regards to dedication of open space. Commissioner Tilsen said that that this site is not larger enough for this to occur. Commissioner Betlej asked if Mr. Feffer was aware of the proposed trail along Lexington. Mr. Feffer said that he was, and that he was fine with the trail. Commissioner Betlej said that this is a tough site and needs some flexibility. 17 ) Chair Duggan said that he thought that two buildings on this site would work beautifully. Chair Duggan said that when the applicant comes back to the Planning Commission he should provide larger maps for the Commission to view. Chair Duggan thanked Mr. Feffer and Mr. Ever ly and suggested they appear before the Council at their next meeting. VERBAL REVIEW Mr. Danielson provided a review of the status of previous planning cases. ADJOURN Motion made to adjourn by Kleinglass and seconded by Betlej. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Patrick C. Hollister 18