Loading...
1995-03-28 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28, 1995 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 28, 1995, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Koll, Betlej, Dwyer, Lorberbaum, Duggan and Tilsen. Commissioner Friel was excused. Also present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson, Planning Consultant John Uban, Administrative Assistant, Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Tilsen moved approval of the February 28, 1995 minutes. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 HEARING: CASE NO. 95-03: HEAVER - SUBDIVISION Chair Dwyer explained that Mr. Keith Heaver, of Heaver Design and Construction, has made application for a Subdivision on the Logan and Hughes properties to create nineteen (19) single family lots for development. He explained that this property is located east of Cherry Hills Addition and south of Knollwood Lane. Dwyer explained that a public hearing notice was published which announced a public hearing for this subdivision for tonight's meeting. He explained that Mr. Heaver was unable to submit the required site plans in time for City Planner Uban to review the proposal and prepare a planner's report. Dwyer explained that City staff informed Mr. Heaver that the public hearing would be postponed until April 25, 1995. He also explained that a letter was sent to all property owners within 350' of the subject property informing them that this item would be carried over until the April meeting. Chair Dwyer stated that the Planning Commission will conduct an informal discussion tonight and allow the public to briefly comment on the proposed subdivision. 1 Planning Commission March 28, 1995 Page 2 Dwyer stated that Mr. Heaver's request is to create nineteen single family lots with lot sizes between 15,500 to 24,000. He explained that the development will be accessed by extending Knollwood Lane in a southeast direction and forming a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Tilsen inquired about drainage. Mr. Heaver responded that engineering work had been delayed as he had been in the process of acquiring the Hughes property. He briefly reviewed the proposed street elevations and how the water will runoff in this area. Commissioner Tilsen stated that water will need to be retained somewhere. Mr. McGinley briefly reviewed concepts of how water will be retained. Commissioner Duggan inquired if Mr. Heaver has considered other development plans for this area. He suggested that Mr. Heaver consider developing twelve lots instead of nineteen. He stated that this number of lots will be in keeping with the character of the area. Mr. Heaver stated that he has reviewed other concepts. He explained that originally the Logan property had only been acquired for development. He explained that with the acquisition of the Hughes property, the development will consist of larger lots and houses. He stated that this proposed development will be in character with the homes on Knollwood Lane and that all the lots exceed the minimum requirements. In response to a question from Commissioner Duggan regarding the excavation process on Lots 2-5,. Mr. Heaver responded a retaining wall will be constructed on the Logan property to minimize grading. Commissioner Lorberbaum informed the Commission that she had spoken with Mr. Don Whitney, 1432 Cherry Hill Road, (house directly behind Lot 18 of Mr. Heaver's development) and he had informed her that he is very concerned about how this development will increase traffic in this area. Mr. Heaver responded that the original Cherry Hills Addition plat allows for a street extension. Mr. Heaver stated that traffic will be screened. He further stated that he plans to construct an entrance monument with landscaping. Mr. Heaver stated that his proposal meets City Ordinance requirements. He stated that the proposed lots are larger than most residential lots. Commissioner Duggan noted his concern for the character of the existing neighborhood. Mr. McGinley briefly reviewed proposed traffic circulation which included a 500 foot cul-de-sac. Planning Commission March 28, 1995 Page 3 In response to a question from Chair Dwyer, Mr. McGinley stated the site is about 9 acres. He stated that the development may include 21 homes (19 new lots plus 2 existing homesteads - Logan and Hughes). Commissioner Betlej inquired if Mr. Heaver intends to construct all homes within this development. Mr. Heaver stated yes. Commissioner Betlej noted his concerns for drainage and especially how the grading will be completed for Lot 9. He further inquired if there will be a more detailed survey available soon. Mr. McGinley responded yes. Mr. McGinley stated that they are aware of the tree moratorium. He reviewed a draft tree survey which indicated significant trees on the property. In response to a question from Commissioner Betlej, Mr. Heaver stated this development will be similar to the Brookside development with homes ranging from 1,800 square feet to 4,000 square feet. Commissioner Betlej stated that marketing of the lots would improve if the lot sizes were larger. Commissioner Koll stated that she would like to see a map which indicates square footage of adjoining lots. She noted her concerns in maintaining the character of the area and that she would like to compare neighboring lot sizes. Commissioner Duggan inquired about an existing shed on Lot 13. Mr. Heaver responded that it is a garage and that it would be removed along with other items on the property. In response to a question from Commissioner Duggan, Mr. McGinley stated he does not know, at this time, what amount of earth will be moved. Commissioner Duggan stated that the City will need to be made aware of this number. Chair Dwyer informed the public that this is not a formal hearing but that the Commission would be willing to listen to any comments from the public. Bob McMonigal, Second Avenue, inquired about the retaining wall location and who will be responsible for maintaining it. Chair Dwyer responded that Mrs. Logan will be responsible as it will be constructed on her property. Commissioner Duggan inquired about the type of material used to construct the wall. He stated that natural material should be considered. Mr. Heaver agreed and stated that they are considering a boulder retaining wall. Planning Commission March 28, 1995 Page 4 Resident at 690 Second Avenue inquired about property elevations on Lots 9 -11. He also inquired about how the grade /elevation will affect specific house types proposed in this development. Rhonda Simonson, First Avenue and Clement Street, noted her concerns for a row of spruce trees and stated that they are the best natural asset of the property. She further stated that the lots in the Brookside development are larger than the ones proposed in this development. She also noted concerns about increased traffic levels. Mr. Heaver stated the row of spruce trees is not within the proposed development but north of the property line. He stated he is not sure how close the spruce trees are to the property line. Elizabeth Holm, Knollwood /Emerson, noted her concern for increased traffic. She further suggested that a cul -de -sac be considered to help alleviate traffic. Resident, 1440 Cherry Hill Road, stated her property is located behind the proposed Lot 17. She inquired about drainage and noted her concern for ponding water. She stated that she purchased this house during the summer and that they have had water in their basement. A resident from Knollwood /Emerson, stated she has enjoyed the nature and wildlife for many years. She stated that it would be shame to construct such large houses on such small lots. Stan Linnell, Cherry Hill Road, stated that the basic layout of the proposal seems reasonable. He stated it does make sense to construct fewer houses on larger lots. He further stated that ponding water already occurs in the Cherry Hill area. He further noted concern for increased traffic by stating Cherry Hill Road is in poor shape. He stated a cul- de -sac is a good idea. He further suggested that trail access be considered for this new development. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated that with any new subdivision, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviews park dedications. Richard Holm, Knollwood /Emerson, noted his concerns about drainage and density. He further inquired about ownership of a drainage pond. He also inquired about its proposed size and depth. Mr. McGinley responded that drainage ponds are not designed to be deep. Commissioner Duggan stated the developer needs to submit soil analysis. Commissioner Duggan moved to continue the public hearing to April 25, 1995 at 7:45 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Planning Commission March 28, 1995 Page 5 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 HEARING: CASE NO. 95-02: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ATHLETIC STADIUMS Chair Dwyer explained that the Planning Commission has been discussing appropriate changes to the Zoning Ordinance that would provide additional controls and standards for athletic stadiums at their December, January and February meetings. He stated that at their March 7, 1995 meeting, City Council directed the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing to review the ordinance amendment. Chair Dwyer stated that the City Council was given the opportunity to submit any comments or concerns in writing prior to the public hearing. He stated that no comments have been received. Chair Dwyer explained that there are two specific items the Commission should consider tonight before recommending the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance amendment. He explained that Commissioner Friel has suggested that item 21.6(9) be inserted. He explained that this proposed addition would make all existing stadia in the City subject to the requirements of the new Ordinance. Also, the Commission needs to discuss how this Zoning Ordinance amendment will apply to each zoning district. The Commission reviewed the definition of an athletic stadium. Chair Dwyer suggested that any reference to stadiums within the ordinance should be referred to as "stadia". The Commission concurred. Commissioner Tilsen stated that under the current definition, because hockey rinks and tennis courts are lit, they could be considered an athletic stadium. He stated that these outdoor hockey rinks and tennis courts should not be included. The Commission was of the consensus to add the following language, as underlined, to the definition of athletic stadiums: "For purposes of this Ordinance, an Athletic Stadium is an outdoor facility associated with a school, institution or commercial enterprise that is used for athletic competition or training and has spectator seating and is, a) lit by artificial means, b) uses a public announcement system to communicate to spectators or c) has a spectator seating capacity of 50 or more. Planning Commission March 28, 1995 Page 6 The Commission discussed which districts will allow athletic stadiums as conditional uses. It was the consensus that Districts R-1 and District I allow athletic stadiums as conditional uses. The Commission directed staff to address this by adding the following: Section 7.2(11) should be added those uses listed as Conditional Uses in Section 7.2 of the "R-1" - One Family Residential District to read as follows: 7.2(11) Athletic Stadia when in conjunction with a school as per the provisions in Section 21.6. and Section 19.2(14) should be added to those uses listed as Conditional Uses in Section 19.2 of the "I" - Industrial District to read as follows: 19.2(14) Athletic Stadia when in conjunction with an institution or commercial enterprise as per the provisions in Section 21.6. Regarding Section 21.6(1) Location - Athletic Stadia shall be located no closer than 600 feet from a residential district, Chair Dwyer suggested that "district" be changed to "structure". The Commission agreed. Regarding 21.6(2)e Lighting License Required - the Commission was of the consensus to change the following, as underlined,: e. The application for the yearly lighting license shall be submitted not later than June 1 in each year on forms provided by the City. In addition to demonstrating compliance with the foregoing standards, the application shall set forth with particularity the dates, times, hours of operation and nature of all events during the ensuing year (October 1 to September 30) for which it is proposed to use lighting or the public address system or the expected attendance is 500 or more. The application shall be placed on the Council agenda for consideration not later than the first Council meeting in July or it may be referred to the Planning Commission on or before that date for consideration by the Planning Commission so that the City Council can give consideration by the City Council so that the City Council can give consideration to the application not later than its first meeting in August. Regarding Section 21.6(3) suggested that this section stalls. The Commission was following, as underlined: 21.6(3) Parking. One (1) three seats or six feet bicycle parking stall for shall be provided. Planning Commission March 28, 1995 Page 7 Parking, Commissioner Tilsen provide requirements for bicycle of the consensus to include the automobile parking stall for every of bench shall be provided. One every 30 seats or 60 feet of bench Regarding Section 21.6(5) Landscaping and Architecture, the Planning Commission discussed requiring submittal of a landscape plan for Planning Commission and City Council review. The Commission was of the consensus to include the following, as underlined: 21.6(5) Landscaping and Architecture. All accessory buildings shall be architecturally designed so as to be compatible with the general architectural intent of the area in which it is located. A landscape plan, building materials, color and design plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Regarding fence location and how the fence line location should be defined, the Planning Commission was of the consensus to include the following, as underlined: 21.6(8) Fencing. The stadia shall be fenced by an eight foot vinyl clad chain link fence, or approved substitute. The fence line location shall define the stadia edge for purposes of measuring 600 foot distance as provided for in Section 21.6(1). The Planning Commission was of the consensus to add the following language, as per Commissioner Friel's suggestion. This language is being added to make all existing stadiums in the City subject to the requirements of the new ordinance, in particular the annual licensing requirement. 21.6(9) Applicability. This Ordinance shall apply to all stadia within the City now in existence and to those which by reason of construction or alteration after the date hereof fall within the definition of stadia herein provided. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if security personnel and safety officers should be included as part of Other Conditions, Section 21.6(10). The Commission was of the consensus to add the following, as underlined: Planning Commission March 28, 1995 Page 8 21.6(10) Other conditions. The City reserves the right through its police powers to apply other conditions to the Conditional Use Permit including but not limited to number of security personnel and safety officers, seating capacity, number of events, hours of operation, and number of night events. Such conditions may be imposed at the time that yearly license is renewed. Chair Dwyer suggested that St. Thomas Academy, Visitation and Henry Sibley High School be informed of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Commissioner Koll suggested that under Section 21.6(2)e, that the application process be removed from the ordinance. She stated that this information is redundant and that specific timelines have already been established within the first part of this section. The Commission concurred. Therefore, the following information has been stricken from the Section 21.6(2)e, as underline: e The application for the yearly lighting license shall be submitted not later than June 1 in each year on forms provided by the City. In addition to demonstrating compliance with the foregoing standards, the application shall set forth with particularity the dates, times, hours of operation and nature of all events during the ensuing year (October 1 to September 30) for which it is proposed to use lighting or the public address system or the expected attendance is 500 or more. The application shall be placed on the Council agenda for consideration not later than the first Council meeting in July or it may be referred to the Planning Commission on or before that date for consideration by the Planning Commission so that the City Council can give consideration by the City Council so that the City Council can give consideration to the application not later than its first meeting in August. Commissioner Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the Athletic Stadium Ordinance which amends Zoning Ordinance No. 401. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. Planning Commission March 28, 1995 Page 9 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 VERBAL REVIEW Public Works Director Danielson updated the Planning Commission on City Council action regarding recent planning cases. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 10:00 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary