Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/11/06 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting July 11, 2006 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Fitzloff, Johnson, Larson Members Absent: Barker Also Present: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) June 13, 2006 MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the June 13,2006 Minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Conditional Use Permit to Allow Off-Premise Directional Signs Applicant: Roundbank, Larry Thompson Tamarack Retail Center, Blaine Eggum Roundbank has applied for a CUP for an off-premise directional sign. It will be located at the intersection of209th Street and the private street behind Tamarack Retail Center. The sign is proposed to be 4 ft x 6 ft which is under the maximum size allowed. It will be placed in an easement. The sign should stay 10ft. from the fire hydrant. They will also need to obtain a sign permit. The contingencies include: 1. The applicant obtain a sign permit prior to the installation ofthe sign. 2. The applicant coordinates with all small utility companies that may have services in the easement area to ensure the placement of the sign is not affecting any of those services. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Fitzloffto approve the Conditional Use Permit with contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Vermillion Trail 1 st Addition Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Applicant: Jerry Sauber Mr. Sauber is proposing to divide the property into three lots. A rezoning is required from A-I to R-l and a comp plan designation of low density residential. The developer will submit cash in lieu for park dedication requirements. There will be a 22 ft. wide private drive that will be maintained by a homeowners association. Contingencies include: Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2006 Page 2 1. 2. The satisfaction of any engineering and planning comments. The preparation and execution of the development contract and approval ofthe construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the engineering division. . Ms. Nancy Norberg, 20552 Camden Path, which is lot 6, stated they do not want to see this happen because they do not want a house there, but that is irrelevant. She asked about the location of the outlot which is the new driveway. They were concerned with the type of homes that will be there. It will not be a modular home. Another concern is will the lot be graded higher than their lot behind this and where will the water runoff be. Staff stated there will have to be grading, but they will need to make sure the water does not drain to neighboring properties. This will be reviewed by Engineering. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Fitzloffto approve the comp plan amendment, rezoning and preliminary plat. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Graeve Serrano Addition Preliminary and Final Plat Applicant: Joel Serrano The applicants are requesting a replat of a portion ofthe townhomes in Nelsen Hills Farm. The area is lots 1 and 2 and a portion oflot 9 which is the open space. These lots have an access off of Euclid Path. The applicants want to remove their lots from the townhome association. The association has agreed to this provided they replat and they have a fence professionally installed along the back side. The area meets all the requirements. Lot 9 does have a drainage and utility easement. . Ms. Mary Lebens, 18950 Euclid Path, lot 3, stated there is a large landscaping pile of boulders between her home and lots 1 and 2. She asked if the fence will go on the top of the boulders and not on the bottom because the land is very steep. Staff replied the lot line will run to edge of the boulders, so the fence will have to be on the top of the boulders. Mr. Al Larson, stated regarding the fence, part of the approval is there is an offset on Mr. Serrano's property of 1-2 ft. on the units. The association requested the fence distance not exceed more than 19 ft. of the foundation of 18598 and not to exceed more than 20 ft from the foundation of 18600. They want the fence straight and not have a notch in the fence. Where the boulders are there is also shrubs and mulch. The reason for the distance is they want to keep the fence above the mulch line. Chair Rotty asked if there was a separate agreement between the property owners and the homeowners association outlining where the fence goes etc. Mr. Larson noted there is, so Chair Rotty stated their recommendation would include where the fence is located. . Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2006 Page 3 . MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Fitzlofffor a favorable recommendation for the preliminary and final plat. As there is a separate agreement regarding the fence, this contingency is not included in the motion. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Conditional Use Permit - Townhome Proposal- 621 Elm Street Applicant: Jason Stelter The property is surrounded by single-family residential and is zoned R-D, residential-downtown. The comp plan is low-medium density residential. The property currently is a converted single-family home that used to house a chiropractic office. Mr. Stelter is proposing a 6-unit townhome multi-family structure on the property which is a conditional use under the R-D district. A minimum lot area of 11,000 sq. ft. is required. This lot is 11,922 sq. ft. The building meets the required setbacks, lot coverage, and building height requirements. One access is off ofih Street and the other access is off the alley. There are 15 off-street parking spaces required and the plans meet this requirement. It meets the criteria for a conditional use permit. Contingencies include: 1. The applicant obtain all necessary permits for the demolition of the existing structure located on the site. . Mr. Jason Stelter stated the current building is in very poor condition both internally and externally. His proposed building would be a substantial improvement to what is currently there. They plan on the building having a Victorian exterior to blend in with the neighborhood. These will be sold to owner-occupants, not rental property. . Ms. Astrid Graudins, 617 Elm Street, stated the diagram does not show the adjacent lot. She lives in an older home that sits way back and is very close to the property line. The proposed building would be very close to her house and would make it impossible for her to sell her house. As far as criteria number three it states there should be a harmonious relationship to adjacent properties. 10.5 ft. is very close and she does not think this is harmonious. Criteria number four is an environment consistent with the neighborhood. She stated the nearest multi- family building on the street is at 515 Elm Street and that is next door to a dental office and they are a lot more than 15 ft. apart. Criteria number five addresses traffic. She stated there are a lot of children running through the alley. Another access in the alley could be a safety concern. With cars parked in the alley, it makes poor vision for children and bikes. There is no law requiring anyone to be polite and neighborly. She did not know of Mr. Stelter's plans until June 25, 2006. She understood he presented a preliminary plan on June 13 and she had asked for a copy of the plans on June 25. She and Mr. Stelter had hypothetically discussed purchasing her property to add to the size of his area. The only plans she received are the ones that came with the public hearing notice. Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Justin Markeson, 208 7th Street, stated he lives across the alley. He agreed a . building of that size in the neighborhood does not fit. He also had concerns with the entrance to the alley. There is a lot of traffic because of all the garages in the alley. He can see a problem as far as a sight line coming out from the building to the alley. This would also increase the dust conditions. He cannot open windows on one side of his porch because of the dust. There are also children playing in the alley. He asked what the price of the units would be. Mr. Stelter replied in the low $200,000. Mr. Markeson stated there might be some issues with the type of people you bring in to a very small, dense area. The neighbors are also concerned about property values with a building of that size. His home is from the 1920's and this building will tower over his house. He asked about plans for snow removal. Mr. Stelter stated it would be an association. Mr. Markeson asked where the snow will go and was concerned it would be pushed across the alley into his yard. The neighbors feel a small building, such as a duplex would fit better into the area. Mr. Mike Pederson, 700 Main Street, stated he just built his garage and he had to be 12 ft. offthe property line. He asked why the proposed building only had to be 6 ft. off the property line. Chair Rotty stated he was not aware of the requirement for him to be 12 ft. from the property line. Staffwas also not aware ofthis. As far as the dust problem, he suggested the City pave the alley. He was not in favor of this. He has a nice home and was trying to build it up and make it look nice. As far as selling the townhomes, what is stopping him from buying one and then . renting it out? Commissioner Larson stated he agreed with a lot of what is being said, but the Commission's hands are tied. It is zoned R-D and this is an approved conditional use. He personally does not like a big townhouse going in there, but there is not a lot that can be done legally. City Planner Smick noted there are a lot of people concerned about traffic in the alley. She suggested as a contingency they look at the access to the alley and determine if one access along 7th Street would work. This would be reviewed by staff and the traffic engineer. Commissioner Larson suggested the property owner pay for the property line and the alley for dust control. Mr. Stelter stated he would be open to that. A resident asked why the Commission's hands are tied. Community Development Director Carroll replied there are standards that are specified which the developer has met. By the same token there is a purpose section of the code which does not match what is being done here. He does not believe that the City Attorney believes that the difficulties with the purpose have to stand in the way of the approval of the project. The first purpose is to accommodate existing higher- density single-family and two-family residential development. Which means there are a lot of small houses that are close together. The zoning designation was picked to make sure those houses are consistent with the zoning. The purpose also says promote in-fill, which this is, of high density single-family residential . Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2006 Page 5 . development within the downtown area. This is the one portion that the project does not meet. This is inconsistent with the standards, which Mr. Stelter has met. The options are to deny the conditional use permit in the beliefthe project does not comply with the purpose of the code, or does not comply with the conditions ofthe conditional use permit or alternatively, the Commission could approve it, but impose reasonable conditions on the approval. One condition is that the developer work with the City to either close off the access to the ally unless the access is needed for secondary access or emergency purposes. If that is not possible, then look at paving a portion of the alley. There was also some discussion about making modifications to the exterior architecture or design to comply with the older homes in the neighborhood. The Commission would have to specify what they would like to see and then Mr. Stelter and his architect would have to try to meet those requirements. Staff would need to determine ifhe fulfilled that obligation before a building permit could be issued. To require him to go from three stories to two would not be a reasonable condition, because he is already under the height limitation. Chair Rotty asked if they feel the purpose is not being maintained is that enough reason to deny it. When the Commission made that requirement, it was not their intent to have a six-plex go up around single-family. It would change the character ofthe neighborhood. He would also be concerned just by the magnitude of residents that could be there. He asked if there was any way they could have some time to re-evaluate this and determine if that was the purpose six years ago. He does not believe it was. Community Development Director Carroll noted there are time limits to processing applications of this kind. They need to be approved within 60 days of being received. This time would lapse before the next regular meeting. Mr. Stelter could consent to an extension of the 60 day period. Without that, the Commission could deny the CUP and direct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact. The other option is to approve the CUP and discuss conditions to be applied. City Planner Smick added the Commission could ask Mr. Stelter to extend the 60-day time period or ask him to withdraw his application so staff can review it further. . Commissioner Larson stated the CUP criteria number four states the conditional use shall produce a total visual impression and environment which is consistent with the neighborhood. This is not consistent with the neighborhood. He meets the conditions, but it does not fit. Staffhas discussed this with the City Attorney who said the R-D zoning district supersedes those criteria. Commissioner Fitzloff asked if this could be scaled back. That is his main concern. It will look nice, but it will not fit in. He would like to see the alley closed off and not be an access. . Commissioner Johnson stated his first question at the last meeting to the applicant was has he brought this up to the neighborhood and he hadn't. He did not like it then and does not like it now. When the CUP was changed, he thought they had to meet all the criteria. City Planner Smick suggested he might be thinking of the variance criteria. Commissioner Johnson stated it meets all the regulations, but it Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2006 Page 6 impacts the neighborhood adversely. If this cannot stand up in court, he does not know what the Commission can stand on. He would reluctantly vote in favor of this and will work with the Commission to find conditions that would be more suitable for the residents in the neighborhood. . Chair Rotty questioned whether they are meeting the purpose of the R- D zoning district. He never would have guessed they would build a six-plex in something like this. He addressed Mr. Stelter saying he has a lot of neighbors that are unhappy with the project. The Commission is trying to stick up for the residents as this does not look or feel right. He was questioning the purpose of the R-D part of the code. He asked Mr. Stelter if he was willing to extend this so the Commission and staff and Council can review this further. Mr. Stelter stated he is not interested in extending it. He would be more interested in working on a modification to the plan. The Commission noted they have to extend it in order for him to do that. Chair Rotty stated he would be willing to call a special meeting to do that. If Mr. Stelter is not interested in that, then the Commission and staff need to look at conditions that would be applied. Mr. Stelter wanted the Commission to take action tonight. If the CUP is denied, Mr. Stelter could appeal that decision to the City Council. If he did not appeal it, he could revise his plan, talk to the neighbor about acquiring her property, rearranging the parking, having a lower structure, etc. Ifhe wanted to appeal the decision, he would have 10 days from tonight. There would be time to explore other options before it goes to Council. MOTION by Larson, second . by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to deny the CUP because ofthe dramatic change to the neighborhood. It will put an undue hardship on the neighbors and it does not meet the purpose ofthe R-D zoning district in having such a high usage type of housing surrounded by single-family. That was not the intent to have such a high usage in this area. Commissioner Larson stated he would entertain another project on this property. Chair Rotty would like the Commission and staff to discuss in the future the purpose of the R-D zoning district. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. t) Variance to Minimum Lot Width - 3782 220th Street West Applicant: Gerald Graham There are 23 properties along Ash Street that are zoned A-I and were annexed into the City on September 15, 200S. They have not been rezoned or comp planned, so no action can be taken on this. Staff is requesting the variance application be continued until Council takes action on this on August 21,2006. MOTION by Johnson, second by Fitzloffto continue the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. This motion was later amended as follows: MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing variance to the September 13, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . . Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2006 Page 7 4. Discussion a) Conditional Use Permit - Borrow Pit - Meadowview Elementary School Conditional Use Permit - Grading - Christensen Property Applicant: Independent School District 192 City Planner Smick explained ISD 192 has applied for a conditional use permit to mine sand from its Meadowview Elementary School property and haul the material to the new Farmington High School location west ofPlagstaff and south of200th Street. There is also a second discussion for the Christensen property. The contractors for ISD 192 are proposing to prepare a flat surface for both employee parking and up to six construction trailers to be used for construction of the high school property. . Regarding the Meadowview site, there is a 50 ft. hill and it will be taken down to 10 ft. 60,000 cubic yards and 5.8 acres will be taken down. They are proposing to utilize overland trucks and go northwest to Flagstaff. The school has talked to the SWCD and the DNR as far as crossing the creek and the haul route and have had positive conversations with them. There is also the need to get a permit from Dakota County regarding access onto a county roadway. The haul route will go northwest to Flagstaff and then go south to the high school location. These trucks will have some impact on the condition of Flagstaff, however the road will be reconstructed. Commissioner Larson stated it will not be reconstructed during the construction period. Staff stated there is a requirement for maintenance ofthe road during construction. This will go to the Council on July 17, 2006. The next application is for a CUP for the Christensen property. ISD 192 is proposing just off site of the school district property to grade the Christensen property to a flat surface. The grading plan shows an area where they will flatten out the grade. Currently there is a hill. There will be employee parking with up to six construction trailers. There will be silt fence, dumpsters, power poles, etc. As far as reclaiming this, ISD 192 is in negotiations with the Christensen's on purchasing this piece and/or the possibility of getting this back to farm field after construction is done at the high school. This item will go to the Council on August 7, 2006. Conditions are as follows: 1. The applicant must obtain final approval of the mining operation and the rough grading plan from the City Engineer. 2. The applicant must pay any applicable fees, provide an adequate surety in an amount and form approved by the Director of Public Works and comply with any other reasonable conditions imposed by the Director of Public Works which will include the traffic and maintenance of Flagstaff Avenue. 3. All excavation activities must be consistent with plans submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works. . Mr. David Peterson, Project Manager, stated one of the issues was traffic control as well as road maintenance. The borrow pit and the office complex are part of Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2006 Page 8 the overall grading contract for the high school. So the same contractor that is . doing 800,000-900,000 yards of earth moving on site is also doing these two other projects. It is all one bid and one contractor. The bid documents will very clearly state their responsibilities for maintaining Flagstaff on a daily basis and keeping it in the condition it is now at a minimum, if not improving it. He felt they will end up improving it. The road maintenance will extend from CRSO to 19Sth Street over the course of the project. The bidders will clearly understand what is expected ofthem to keep the neighbors safe and the roadways open. This location was chosen out of necessity. The grading plan for the site is such that every yard of dirt gets turned over once or twice and there is no space on site for an office complex. With a project ofthis size, there will be the need for offices to do their work. They chose this spot in cooperation with the Christensen's and with a lot of discussion with them. They have given the district tentative approval at this point. This will be a betterment for the four acres of their property in that the creation of a high school space creates a very low spot south ofthe property line. This is almost an unplantable space because of the steepness and collection of water. Raising the grades and flattening it out creates more usable farm land should they decide to go back to that at the end of the project. They would remove the class S and install topsoil and create the farmland that was there before. Chair Rotty noted the borrow pit is fairly close to Charleswood and asked what precautions are taken to lessen the impact on those residents. Mr. Peterson stated there is a buffer, some grasslands and an asphalt path. The pit is quite far away. Commissioner Larson asked what kind of grade they will leave there. Mr. Peterson stated there will be a 10ft. rise at the final elevation. They will add . topsoil and restore it to the way it is now. Commissioner Johnson asked about the timeline. Mr. Peterson replied it will be a two-month period to complete the mining and the restoration of the area. Commissioner Larson asked if this would be considered a separate job site from the school and will another NPDES permit be required for this site. Another permit will be filed for this site. Commissioner Larson asked if this should be contingent on Met Council approval. Community Development Director Carroll felt it did not have to be a contingency. It is related to the high school, but as it is on separate property, there is not a connection. Commissioner Larson asked about the timeline for bids. Bid documents will be available next Monday and bids will be opened August 8, 2006. This will go to the School Board on August 14,2006 and also approval of the contract. The start date would be August 21, 2006. Mr. Doug Bonar, ISD 192, stated they are cognizant of the immensity of the Flagstaff project and try to remain sensitive to the impact on this portion ofthe community. MOTION by Johnson, second by Fitzlofffor a favorable recommendation of both CUP's. Commissioner Larson wanted to make sure Engineering pays special attention to Flagstaff. The off-road trucks on Flagstaff do not sit well with him. It could damage the road and cause a hazard. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . . . . Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2006 Page 9 b) McVicker Lot Applicant: Joe Heinen This lot is between Gossips and the Farmington Steakhouse. Mr. Joe Heinen will be proposing a 5700 sq. ft. building in this location. He has come to an agreement for a 60-day Letter of Understanding with the EDA. There is a mural on the north side of the Farmington Steakhouse. There have been discussions to have a walkway along this side to preserve the mural. Mr. Heinen is proposing a mixed- use building which will require a CUP. There would be a 56 ft. wide front and 102 ft. length. There will be retail space and four garages for the apartments on the upper floor. There is a wood stairway off of Gossips into the lot and it does encroach into the EDA property. The second floor of Gossips is being used for storage. Mr. Heinen is reviewing options for the stairway such as keeping the stairway and sell Gossips a strip of that property, have an exit from the second floor of Gossips into the McVicker building, or construct a new exterior stairway between the two buildings and branch it offfrom the second floor of both buildings. Staff showed drawings of the site plan. Contingencies include: 1. Approval of a preliminary and final plat unless the developer and EDA decide to combine the two existing lots and create an easement for the proposed public walkway along the south side of the southerly lot. 2. Approval of CUP for a mixed-use building in a B-2 district. 3. Approval from the Engineering division of a grading and site plan. As far as retail uses, Mr. Heinen would be open to anything, but he would like something that would be compatible with residential uses above. The Commission was pleased with the plans. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Fitzloffto adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, :Jrv~ fr7~e~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved