Loading...
1999-09-28 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 28, 1999, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Duggan, Koll, Friel, Betlej, Lorberbaum, Kleinglass and Tilsen. Also present were Director of Public Works, James Danielson, Planner Meg McMonigal, Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister and Senior Secretary Linda Shipton. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Betlej moved to approve the August 24, 1999 minutes with revisions. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (FRIEL) PLANNING CASE NO. 99-38: JERRY KOBRIN - 1718 SUTTON LANE VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK Dr. Jerry Kobrin was present to ask approval for a 7-foot side yard setback variance to add a third stall on his existing, attached garage that would be within three feet of the east property line. Dr. Kobrin stated that for the first 19 years that he lived in his home he did not realize that the house is slightly turned in order to be parallel with a curved street and not parallel to the lot line as he thought. Dr. Kobrin stated the rear of the proposed third garage addition would be within 2-feet of code because of the house angle. Dr. Kobrin submitted copies of the final signature of consent that he received from a neighbor that was ill at the time he submitted his original request. Dr. Kobrin commented that after reading Planner McMonigal's report that it seemed that the issue at hand was the need for a hardship. Dr. Kobrin pointed out that the lot line was not straight. Dr. Kobrin stated that as noted in Planner McMonigal's memorandum, the garage could be constructed behind but that would not allow him to have a front entrance plus several trees would have to be removed. Mr. Kobrin commented that one of the points made in the City's definition of hardship there was a decrease or a lack of enjoyment of property discussed, and he felt that the proposed addition would make the house, as well as the neighborhood, more aesthetically pleasing. The fact that the driveway for the proposed garage addition has been in place for a number of years and would attest to the fact that it is a natural extension of the house design. Dr. Kobrin stated that to his understanding the original intent of the 10-foot setback line was to insure a 20-foot separation of homes and even if he builds this addition he will be within those guidelines. Dr. Kobrin stated that there is the possibility of the neighbor building on the other side but that is not in the part of the house that his current neighbor desires to expand. Chair Duggan asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to comment on this application. There was no one in the audience that wanted to comment on this application. Commissioner Koll asked what the size the garage expansion would be. Dr. Kobrin stated it would be 12-feet in width. Dr. Kobrin stated the measurement from the rear of the garage to the side lot line is twenty feet and the measurement from the front of the garage to the lot line is fifteen feet because the property line runs at an angle. Chair Duggan commented that a 7-foot variance would be needed at the front of the garage and a 2-foot variance would be needed for the rear of the garage. Commissioner Koll expressed concern about the possibility of the current neighbor or future neighbor adding on. Commissioner Koll also stated that all the lots on that street are at an angle so she didn't feel that was a legitimate hardship. Commissioner Friel stated that he did not see a hardship and that he felt that the addition would impair the neighbor from adding on. Commissioner Betlej asked how the distance to the lot line was determined and if a survey was done. Dr. Kobrin stated that Administrative Assistant Hollister provided him with a computerized drawing and that he also measured it with a tape measurer. The measurement was roughly accurate, within several inches. Commissioner Betlej commented he doubted the accuracy of the drawing and suggested that before he built Dr. Kobrin should have the property surveyed. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if Dr. Kobrin had considered other alternatives. Dr. Kobrin stated he had considered the alternative of adding on out the back but that would make it difficult getting cars out during the winter and there are two trees that would need to be removed. Commissioner Tilsen suggested to the Planner and Staff that when a case like this comes in front of them, the obvious alternative be given to applicants should be that one neighbor purchase land from another. Commissioner Tilsen stated that in this case the applicants would not need a variance although they would need to come to the Planning Commission for a redefinition of a lot line. Dr. Kobrin stated that staff did encourage him to pursue this option but that his neighbor did not feel it was necessary and felt that it was more trouble than it was worth. Commissioner Tilsen stated that although this may be the case with his current neighbor, that 10 or 20 years from now it may cause a problem with a future neighbor. Commissioner Tilsen asked Dr. Kobrin if he built his house. Dr. Kobrin stated he had built his home. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the ordinance states that a hardship cannot be a situation of your own doing. Commissioner Tilsen stated that Dr. Kobrin should look at taking the option of redefining the lot line and that he felt that the variance was not warranted. Chair Duggan stated this is a public hearing and asked if there was anyone in the audience that had any comments about this application. There was no one in the audience to comment on this application. Commissioner Friel moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel recommended denial of the variance for a seven (7) foot side yard setback. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Duggan commented that Dr. Kobrin could go before Council at their next meeting. Dr. Kobrin stated he would prefer to go to Council on October 19, 1999. Chair Duggan directed Staff to put Dr. Kobrin on the October 19, 1999 City Council Meeting. MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER - INFORMATIONAL MEETING MR. ROSS FEFFERCORN, RMF ENTITIES, LLC •Chair Duggan stated that the meeting is an informational meeting and that no action will be taken by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Mr. Ross Fefercorn of RMF Entities, LLC began the presentation with a brief overview and history of how the proposed development came about. Mr. Fefercorn stated that about a year ago he visited with City Staff regarding the development possibilities within the city. He said he specifically asked about the Dodd Road and 110 site and although he didn't know any of the history of the site he did know that it was historical. Mr. Fefercorn thought that because of the traffic counts on TH 110 and Dodd Road that there was potential for retail and also as a residential developer for some sort of residential mixed housing in with the commercial. Mr. Fefercorn commented that what he had described to staff at that time was some ( sort of a mixed community with sidewalks, green spaces and historical markers that somehow embraced the concept of what Mendota Heights was actually all about. Mr. Fefercorn stated that they had visited with the Mayor and offered some suggestions. They were asked if they could put together a team that could visit with the City Council in a Workshop fashion and bring forth their ideas. Mr. Fefercorn stated that they looked at housing types that have been successful in other parts of the country as well as Minneapolis and St. Paul and also at what type of improvements, such as graphics and signage, make a development like this special . Mr. Fefercorn showed a slide presentation of other areas that have been developed with civic pride. Places that had parks and places that people liked to go to. Chair Duggan read a note that the Planning Commission received stating that in December of 1998 City Council contracted with a planning and design team headed by Mr. Ross Fefercorn to develop a concept plan for the potential redevelopment of the Freeway Road area. The Council adopted guidelines for the planning of this redevelopment site towards the end of last year and they held all sorts of workshops and they have developed with this team a concept plan. The intent of this informational hearing this evening is to fully brief the Planning Commission and to provide the public with an opportunity to review and understand the concept plan. Chair Duggan stressed it is a concept plan for a potential redevelopment. Further meetings with the public will be scheduled and there will be public open houses and meetings, a formal Public Hearing is proposed for either November or December. Ms. Carolyn Kra II from A Studio explained that they looked at how central the site was in Mendota Heights and that the City Council said that they wanted something that would transition from the existing residential area to the commercial nature of Highway 110 and be done with a kind of village character. Ms. Kra II stated that their analysis confirmed that although this is potentially a very successful retail site it is not a big shopping center site. Ms. Kra II stated that they were encouraged by Council to explore a greater mix of uses in retail and a greater mix of housing type. Ms. Kra II explained the concept plan in detail describing a mix of retail, townhomes, and condominiums. home offices, sidewalks and walking trails. Ms. Kra II stated there were about 87 "for sale" housing units, 60 Senior rental apartments, approximately 35,000 to 36,000 square feet of retail and about 24,000 square feet of commercial office space planned for the site. Commissioner Friel asked for a comparison of square footage on commercial retail for the new proposed site vs. the existing site. Chair Duggan advised Mr. Fefercorn to have that information available at the next meeting. Commissioner Tilsen asked how home offices worked with the City's Zoning Ordinance and if there was a zoning that allows for them. Ms. Kra II stated that they assumed that the development would be a PUD and that it would be a negotiated issue. Commissioner Tilsen raised a question about signage and parking. Ms. Kra II stated that there would likely be a need for additional zoning regulation and guideline reviews. Mr. Fefercorn commented that they had had discussions on the relationships between retail, townhomes and condominiums. He envisioned that they would be managed by a master association and sub associations. Commissioner Tilsen commented that he saw a Farmers Market and stated that he felt that that would be a zoning issue that would need to be addressed. Mr. Fefercorn stated that they didn't mean that they would be building a Farmers Market but that it would be a place for seasonal vegetables and flowers and a place for people to gather and meet. Commissioner Tilsen asked about lighting. Mr. Fefercorn stated that there would not be any backlit neon signs. Chair Duggan stated that we are not a lighted community and commented that the concept plan does not show street lighting in the area and was wondering if that was being considered. Mr. Fefercorn explained that lighting was being considered but rather than being street lighting they were considering pedestrian lighting. He stated that if you were going to have sidewalks you need to light the area where people are walking at night. Mr. Fefercorn stated that you do not need 30 or 40 foot street lights but 9 or 10 foot pedestrian lights to knit together with the character of the village. Commissioner Tilsen commented that the density seemed to be quite high. Ms. Kroll stated the senior housing skewed the density numbers dramatically because they are 3 levels, but the type of density that is on the site is similar to the rest of the townhouse developments in Mendota Heights. Commissioner Tilsen asked what kind of population they were looking at. Chair Duggan stated he used 264 persons using 2 persons per unit for the 87 units and 1.5 persons for the 60 senior units. Commisisoner Tilsen expressed concern with traffic. Ms. Kra II stated they would give detailed counts from traffic analysis. Chair Duggan asked if they had looked at the possibility of a circular one way route through the site so traffic would come in on the south and exit on the north. Ms. Kra II said recommendations from their traffic engineers advised against that Commissioner Lorberbaum asked about the pond by the corner of the Senior Housing. Ms. Kra II stated that they had reviewed several options on placement of the pond. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for some explanation on the decision for the placement of the Senior Housing and why it was so far from the transit bus stop. Ms. Kra II stated that the senior housing area is on a high site which is a more appropriate site for apartments than for single family living. Ms. Kra II said that they anticipated a bus stop at the town square just across from the Senior Housing and possibly one at the edge of the village green by the arbor. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the parking at the town square and suggested it be marked clearly on the next concept plan. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked how many floors the condominiums were to be. Mr. Feffercorn said they were to be 2 floors, 4 units on each floor. Commissioner Betlej commented he liked the idea of a wide variety of housing. Commissioner Friel stated he would be interested in looking at market studies. Commissioner Koll commented that if they were trying to create a great place to go there would need to be more retail and less housing. Commissioner Koll stated that if the intent was to attract the community, it should be a space that would be very amenable for socializing, no cars, cobblestone and maybe a fountain and gathering spaces. Ms. Kra II stated that they did look at schemes without any parking and they found that they turned out to be malls or empty places in the city. They felt that their plan was a good compromise. Chair Duggan asked if they would be able to find enough independent commercial businesses to fill the spaces. Mr. Fefercorn stated the commercial is broken into offices and retail such as restaurants, banks, dry cleaners, sandwich shops and possibly a veterinarian. Second floor would be dental offices, legal offices, small accounting and such. Chair Duggan asked the property owners that were at the Planning Commission Meeting if they had any questions to ask. Ms. Shirley Hinsen of the Animal Hospital came forward to state that their letter of notice was sent to the previous owners of the Animal Hospital and she only received a fax from the City that the concept plan was being discussed and that she should be at the meeting. Ms. Hinsen also stated she was informed that their property was going to be appraised and that if this was only a concept plan why was her property being appraised. Chair Duggan told Ms. Hinsen that her question was a legal question and that she would need to direct it to the Council at the October 5, 1999 City Council Meeting during public comments. Ms. Hinsen felt there was a lack of consideration for the property owners and wanted to know where in the concept plan, if any, do they fit in. Mr. Gus Tarr, Real Estate Coordinator for Tom Thumb Food Markets Inc., asked how the City could say it was a concept plan when they talked about how they had to get going on this by December or they were going to lose the money to buy the properties. Chair Duggan told Mr. Tarr that he didn't know the answer to that question and he would have to go to Council to raise the question with them. Mr. Tarr said the other concern he had was that Tom Thumb Food Markets Inc., was never approached about being involved in the planning of this site. Mr. Tarr said that when Walgreens was turned down they approached Tom Thumb about developing that corner. What keeps them from getting their own developer and developing that corner? Chair Duggan suggested they go to the next Council meeting and address all their questions to them. Chair Duggan asked if there were any one else in the audience that wanted to come forward with questions. No one in the audience came forward. Chair Duggan closed the informational meeting. Commissioner Tilsen asked that there be consideration given to the existing businesses in Mendota Heights and how they fit in with the plan. He felt they deserve an answer although the Planning Commission could not answer their questions he felt that RMF Entities, LLC can answer them when they complete the process. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW Chair Duggan introduced the Comprehensive Plan Review by explaining that our first Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1959 and that the Comprehensive Plan is normally reviewed every 10 years and the last official review was in 1985 with the Southeast Area quadrant. Chair Duggan explained they have two major plans to review, one being the general plan and the other being the technical. Mr. Steve Gritmann and Ms. Deb Garross of Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) presented the draft of the Comprehensive Plan and asked for input from the Planning Commission. Mr. Gritmann explained the technical plan is just a compilation of background information, some being technical information and other being memo's and reports that had been prepared as part of the process. The general plan is the actual document relating to land use goals and policies that the city will consider for adoption. Mr. Gritmann stated the comprehensive plan has been sent to neighboring jurisdictions and in draft form and the law requires them to have 60 days to comment on the plan and the plan had been sent out on September 8, 1999. Mr. Gritmann stated that as to date they have not received any comments other than a request for a little more information from Dakota County Planning. Mr. Gritmann stated that the Public Hearing is scheduled for October 26, 1999. Commissioner Friel stated that he was concerned that the consequences of causing the Comprehensive Plan to be the paramount instrument is going to cause the public to be badly misled and when we change the comprehensive plan, most citizens understand pretty clearly that when there is a proposal for a rezoning, they show up for the public hearing. Conversely most of them don't understand that when there is a proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan they should also show up because in the future it will have the same impact as a change in zoning and he felt that that was going to create all sorts of problems. Commissioner Friel felt that receiving the document only a few days before the Planning Meeting and taking into consideration the size of the document, they didn't have ample time to really be able to review the document in depth. Commissioner Friel said as he recalled Rural Residential is something that has not been in the zoning plan before and it sounded like they were trying to put a classification in the ordinance that deals with septic tanks. Mr. Gritmann stated that they were trying to be a little more descriptive in areas where they could be. Commissioner Friel questioned the continued use of the classification PUD and felt it inappropriate because a planned unit development section of the ordinance is designed to permit you to do a PUD in a particular kind of a zoning classification that otherwise limited in a lot of ways that the PUD gives you flexibility. Commissioner. Friel stated that when you classify an area or zone it as a PUD you eliminate some options and the options you eliminated is doing those things which don't require you to do a PUD which you otherwise could do. The PUD doesn't provide flexibility in those circumstances. Mr. Gritman stated that since there wouldn't be a theoretical permitted use everyone would have to go through the PUD process and the idea of the use of PUD in this way is that the increase of flexibility is meant more to increase the options of land use than but tightens the flexibility on the procedural standpoint. Commissioner Friel stated that he felt there should not be a zoning classification of PUD because you can do a PUD without a zoning classification PUD as long as the ordinance provides for PUD's. Mr. Gritmann commented that he thought the intent of that clause was to focus more on mixed use land use aspect rather than to PUD and dropping the reference to the use of PUD would clarify things. Commissioner Friel commented on the inconsistency of the data on the maps used in the plan. Commissioner Lorberbaum agreed. Commissioner Tilsen asked if by adopting a new comprehensive plan if in effect we are actually rezoning properties and if public hearing would need to be held for every property. Commissioner Friel explained that only those properties that will be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan will need to have a public hearing held. Chair Duggan asked if it wouldn't be appropriate to advise those property owners potentially so effected before the fact so they can come back and tell us what they think ( ) of the plan. Mr. Gritmann stated that would be a monumental talk but certainly a good practice. Commissioner Tilsen stated the inconsistency in the maps with regard to churches and synagogue. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she felt that when identifying churches that they be identified as churches/synagogue with consistency throughout the entire plan and also that St. Peter's Church as well as a few other churches are not identified on the map. Mr. Gritmann stated that the Planning Commission knows the city better than he and he is relying on them to identify them for him. Chair Duggan commented on a discrepancy with reference to the location of the fire department. Commissioner Lorberbaum said she was a little uncomfortable that Mr. Gritmann was relying on the Planning Commission for accuracy and she felt that he could count on them to look at it carefully but he should be relying on himself for the accuracy. Mr. Gritmann said he could verify each site but it would take him a lot longer with a very large added expense to the City and that it would be a monumental task to check every site. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that Mr. Gritmann was placing the responsibility on the Planning Commission and she felt that the responsibility should come from him. Commissioner Tilsen commented again on the inconsistency with the maps but with reference to schools. Commissioner Betlej was looking for input on how they came up with the focus areas and how they came up with the changes for the land uses. Mr. Gritmann explained that during the workshops with the city council they went through each of the sites, talked about what the options were on each of the sites and what the impact of each of the land uses might be and also what kind of land use categories should they be using. Mr. Gritmann stated that they specifically did not spend a lot of time analyzing the proposed land uses because the Council said they had a parallel path going on that project area. Chair Duggan stated that it would be advisable for the Planning Commission to meet with the City Council to resolve some of the issues before going any further. Commissioner Friel stated that it seemed to him that if were changing our comp plan . what they need to know and have identified very specifically for them, where are the changes in the comprehensive plan different from the current comprehensive plan and how they may be inconsistent with the underlying zoning. Commissioner Friel stated that he felt that if they are changing zoning they ought to know they are changing zoning and that we ought to notify people of the change. Chair Duggan stated he was surprised to see the Somerset area in the comprehensive plan which was not under the critical areas discussed when they did the seven critical areas. Commissioner Friel stated that NAC needs to know what the current comp plan provides and what the current zoning provides and if NAC needs help identifying that on a parcel to parcel basis, that they zone on a broader areas basis, and they should be going to staff for that information. Chair Duggan stated one of the first essential directives from the Planning Commission is for a comparison of future land use and existing zoning to be done from this comprehensive plan and the existing comprehensive plan. Mr. Gritman said he thought that could be done working with Staff. Chair Duggan suggested that they start with the larger areas that are listed in this comprehensive plan and then the smaller ones and that the Planning Commission could possibly meet with them at another time if need be. Chair Duggan stated that he believed the City wanted this process to be finished by December. VERBAL REVIEW Mr. Danielson provided the verbal review of previous planning cases. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Linda Shipton.