Loading...
1995-11-28 Planning Comm Minutes199TM, The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 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: Dwyer, Koll, Friel, Betlej, Lorberbaum, Duggan and Tilsen. Also present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson, Planning Consultant John Uban and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. Commissioner Tilsen moved approval of the October 24, 1995 minutes with corrections. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 2, FRIEL, DUGGAN CASE NO. 95-30: MENDOTA HOMES - PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE DEVELOPMENT OF FIVE TWIN HOMES IN THE TUMINELLY ADDITION UNDER A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Chair Dwyer explained that Mr. Mathern was before the Planning Commission in August with his original application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Subdivision. Dwyer stated that this application was declared incomplete by the Planning Commission and the public hearing was closed which concluded the application. Dwyer explained that Mr. Mathern has submitted a new application under which he proposes to develop the Carmen Turninelly Addition (located at the northeast quadrant of Highways 110 and 35E) as five twin homes under a Planned Unit Development approach. Dwyer explained that Mr. Mathern's application is to proceed forward under the guidelines of Sections 22.4 and 22.5 which control Preapplication Conferences and the submittal of a Concept Plan. Dwyer stated that a preapplication conference requires a submittal of a Concept Plan. He explained that a public hearing is not required for the submission of a Concept Plan. However, he stated, City staff has mailed public notices regarding this conference because of the promise to the Crown Point neighborhood that they would be kept informed of each step of Mendota Homes" process in developing the Turninelly Addition. Mr. Mathern explained that he has been designing a plan that will work on this property for quite some time. Mathern stated there are limitations with the site due to the proximity of the highways and terrain constraints. He stated that the site is not well suited for single family development. Mathern explained the concept plan and site pad locations, open space areas and driveway locations. Mathern explained that the driveway 'locations were designed to preserve the evergreen trees near the front of the development. He informed the Commission that he intends to preserve most of the trees. Mathern stated that he is proposing to construct the five twin homes under the planned unit development process Which would allow most of the open space to be controlled under strict association guidelines. Chair Dwyer inquired about the design of the homes. Mr. Mathern responded that the main floor will be approximately 2,000 square feet with a large double attached garage. The price range is anticipated to be between $250,000 and $350,000. Commissioner Duggan inquired about the difference between this pre - application conference meeting and the past request for preliminary approval. Mr. Mathern stated that he is looking for ideas and suggestions from the Commission and City Council. He explained that he is only inquiring if the planned unit development concept is an appropriate process to develop this properity with five twin homes. Commissioner Duggan stated that ten acres or more of land is required to process a planned unit development. He stated that Mr. Mathern's request consists of only 3.38 acres. He stated that the City will need to grant a variance. Duggan noted his concern for setting precedence in allowing a PUD that does not meet minimum acreage requirements. Duggan stated he is very disappointed that Mr. Mathern has not presented a concept plan different from the last application process. Duggan also inquired why it is assumed that townhouse owners seem to be less bothered by freeway noise than single family homeowners. Duggan stated that 95 percent to 100 percent of the Crown Point neighborhood is against the development of townhomes. Duggan stated he had walked the site with Mr. Tuminelly and that he informed Mr. Turninelly that units could be constructed on this property similar to that of the Ivy townhomes. He stated that Mr. Mathern's proposal is not consistent with neighboring developments. Commissioner Duggan was excused from the meeting at 7:50 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Tilsen stated he too is concerned with spot zoning. He stated that the process of a PUD development is to create open space, "Park like" atmosphere. He stated that by clustering one building on this property would create a large, open space area and that Mr. Mathern could achieve this by using the PUD concept. Commissioner (Coll noted her concerns for aesthetics. She stated that recent townhouse developments within the City are not aesthetically pleasing in their exterior design. She inquired how the proposed association will be different than other townhouse associations established within the City. Mr. Mathern responded that other established townhouse developments have more land controlled by individual property owners. In response to a question from Commissioner Lorberbaum, Mr. Mathern stated there will be two general categories of townhouses, one and two level townhouses. Commissioner Lorberbaum inquired about the pad distances and that the ordinance specifically regulates distances. between homes and garages. Planner Uban'stated that using the PUD process, the distances can vary. He stated that the normal side yard distance is fifteen feet. He stated the driveway location dictates building angles. Commissioner Lorberbaum pointed out that Lots 1 and 2 building pad corners seem very close in proximity. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that Mr. Mathern seems too optimistic in saving the trees on the site. She stated that construction of the driveway may cause damage to tree roots. She noted her concerns for spot zoning. She inquired with Mr. Mathern as to what proof Mr. Turninelly has that the lots cannot be sold as single family lots especially if the prices of the lots are lowered. Mr. Mathern responded that he feels this site is best suited for townhouses and that there is a mature base of clientele who support this idea. He stated that he does not see this concept as a detriment to the neighborhood since he is proposing to construct the units close together and maintain strict control of the perimeter through the use of a strong association. Mr. Mathern inquired about what the Planning Commission would like to see constructed* on this site. Chair Dwyer stated that the City needs to decided whether granting of a variance to the PUD ten acre requirement is justified. He stated that conceptually he agrees with Mr. Mathern that this type of development will not impact the surrounding area. He noted his concern for the driveway design and inquired if Mr. Mathern intends to adjust the driveway design, as per Planner Uban's suggestion, by creating an interior loop design. Dwyer stated that this is a difficult property to develop and he noted his concerns regarding spot zoning. Commissioner Betlej inquired if there are any other ideas for developing the property. Mr. Mathern stated the terrain of land, as it slopes away from the freeway, is ideally situated for multi family development. He explained that Lots 1, 2 and 3 front and back yards are exposed to the freeway. Mr. Mathern stated that if the PUD process is unacceptable, then would rezoning to an R-2 designation be a better scenario. Commissioner Betlej stated that with the PUD process, a variance would be required. He further commented on how the noise from the freeway is a problem and that the size of the lots dictates the design of a home. Mr. Mathern stated that with the PUD process, the City has more control with the design and variation of the lots. Commissioner Betlej stated that the issue of whether or not the lots can still be sold as single family lots should be resolved. Betlej noted his concern for approving a concept plan and then finding out at a later date that the house pad locations have been changed. Mr. Mathern stated the house pad locations would not be changed.' Betlej inquired if the townhouse design will be similar to that in Lilydale (Mr. Mathern's development known as Lilywood). Mr. Mathern responded yes. He also stated that he is unclear as to the type of exterior materials that will be used in this particular development. Commissioner Betlej noted his concern for leaving a development half complete. He stated that he would like to see -plans that are more specific which indicate that the development, will be completed. He stated he would like information regarding exterior building materials. Betlej inquired about hardship. Mr. Mathern indicated that the site and location of the land is considered a hardship. He stated that the highway location limits the usage of the property. He stated that the property cannot be used for single family homes. Commissioner Lorberbaurn inquired why the land cannot be developed as a single family development. Chair Dwyer stated that Mr. Tuminelly has originally platted the development for single family lots. Commissioner Lorberbaum inquired if Mr. Tuminelly has considered lowering the prices of the lots. Mr. Mathern stated that past City history indicates that townhouse developments have been used as a buffer between single family developments and highways. Chair Dwyer inquired about the market for townhouse developments in the City. Commissioner Friel noted his objections to assuming that townhouse owners do not object to highway noise. He further inquired why Mr. Mathern feels the comprehensive plan is outdated. He stated that the highway system was contemplated years ago and that no significant changes have occurred since then. Mr. Mathern responded that there is a market demand for multi family developments and that the general acceptance of townhomes have changed since the comprehensive plan was developed. He stated that people want to stay in this community. Commissioner Friel stated he sees numerous single family developments along the highway system. In response to a question from the Commission, Planner Uban explained that there are two small parcels directly north of the Turninelly plat that have no access and that this could be added to the Tuminelly plat to include as open space. Uban explained that these parcels are undersized and have steep slopes. He stated that these could be assembled for density purposes. Commissioner Betlej inquired about the frontage road width. Public Works Director Danielson stated the frontage road is undersized. Commissioner Friel inquired if the driveways will, be private. Mr. Mathern . responded yes. Friel stated that this development does not meet the density requirements for a PUD. He inquired if there will be private sewer and water, as indicated on the engineering plans. Mr. Mathern responded the development will have public utilities. Commissioner Friel stated that Mr. Mathern is asking for a liberal decision from the City to grant a variance to the PUD. He stated that no hardship has been indicated. Mr. Mathern' stated that he does not know if there is a more reasonable use for this property. He inquired if an R-2 zoning designation is appropriate. Commissioner Friel stated that Mr. Mathern would need to demonstrate a change in circumstances that would give the Council credence to rezone the property from R-1 to R-2. Chair Dwyer stated that changes occurred with the construction of the Crown Point neighborhood. Planner Uban concurred and stated that the Crown Point area developed as an isolated development.. He stated that a number of circumstances have changed since the comprehensive plan was amended. Commissioner Friel stated that neighborhoods rely on the City to enforce its comprehensive plan. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the comprehensive plan was reviewed fifteen years ago.' He stated that he does not agree that everything has not changed. He inquired about what changes have occurred to make a zoning amendment viable. He stated that thirty years ago the Ivy townhouses were constructed using a PUD approach and that this development created a nice, wide open space. He suggested that Mr. Mathern should pursue a development concept similar to that of the Ivy townhouse development. Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public. A resident in the Crown Point neighborhood stated that the lot is one story lower than Mr. Tuminelly's property. She noted her concerns for aesthetics and that she wants the character of her neighborhood preserved. She noted her confusion as to the process of this application. She stated that it would not be obsolete to build single family homes in this development. She stated that the lot prices are too high. She stated that this is a nice site and the she does not feel that noise is a problem. She noted traffic safety concerns and stated she is dismayed that Mr. Mathern has not put an effort forward in suggesting ideas to help control traffic increases. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Rick Marshall, real estate agent, informed the Commission that the Mr. Tuminelly's lots are priced at $62,000, $76,000 and $82,000. Ms. Shawn O'Gara, Crown Point resident, stated that this is her sixth time she has been in attendance to discuss what will happen to this property. She stated that the developer seems to be motivated by greed. She stated that the lots seem to be obsolete because the prices are too high. She stated that homes could be built similar to that of the Crown Point neighborhood. She stated that this process is becoming frustrating especially because nothing new has been presented. Chair Dwyer stated that the required size for a PUD is ten acres with the ability to reduce the size to five acres upon a project meeting five standards. He stated that this site could meet the five standards but is only 3.38 acres in size. He stated that no hardship has been presented and that the Planning Commission cannot support granting a variance. He further stated that the neighborhood is strongly opposed to multi family development on this parcel. 30i JXRTV611561�.-111111 let's] ITI I ITJ 1 r• LIN jj I =1 =11 111 The Planning Commission was of the consensus to cancel its December planning as several Commissioners will be unable to attend due to the holiday season. There being no further business, the Planning Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 9:15 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary