Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/10/2004 P&Z Minutes CITY OF L I NO LAKE S PLANNING & Z O NING BOARD MINUT E S DATE : March 10, 2004 TIME STARTED : 6:46 P.M. TIME ENDED : 11:31 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Lane, Pogalz , Rafferty, Root, Schaps (arrived at 7:52 p.m.), and Tralle. MEMBERS ABSENT : Hyden. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff S m yser; Michael Grochala; and James Studenski; Tanda Gretz I. CAL L TO ORDE R AND ROL L CAL L Vice Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:46 p.m ., March 10, 2004. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 11, 2004 Ms. Lane made a MOTION approve the Fe bruary 11, 2004 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4-0. IV. OPEN MIKE Vice Chair Rafferty declared op en m i ke open at 6:47 p.m . Dan Kvinge, 201 W oodridge Lane, asked if a nyone had any knowledge regarding the 49 Club. Mr. Smyser replied it was closed and that was all the City knew. Mr. Tralle m a de a MOTION to close Open Mi ke at 6:49 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 4-0. V. ACTION I TEMS A. Final Plat for Century Farm North 2 nd Addition Chair Schaps arrived at 7:52 p.m . Vice Chai r Rafferty turned the m eeting over to him . APPR OVE D MINUTE S Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated the preliminary plat for Ce ntury Farm North was approved by the City Council on April 28, 2003. The approval includ ed a phasing plan as required by the growth management ordinance. The final plat for phase 1 (56 units) was approved in July. The developer has submitted the final plat for phase 2. Staff stated the submitted final plat included individual lots for units in phase two of the approved phasing plan. This included 65 un its: 22 single family detached townhomes, 42 single family lots, and one single family lo t for an existing house. This existing home was not expected to remain when the phasing plan was approved. In order to comply with the approved phasing plan, this lot must be counted as a new unit. Staff presented their analysis and noted the P&Z included as a condi tion of approval that the building exteriors should be reviewed wh en the final plat for these townhomes is considered. Building materials on townhomes is an important issue, and was discussed during the consideration of the preliminary plat last year. The zoning ordinance was adopted March 10, 2003. The preliminar y plat was approved on April 20, 2003. Additional attention to building exteriors is needed regarding the materials. Staff indicated the title commitment must be approved by the City Attorney; the homeowners association decl arations must include city enforcement authority; development agreement; and power line easemen t issues must be resolved, including the park trail. Staff recommended tabling this item a nd return it to staff with direction. Mr. Tralle asked what was resolved with respect to the dedicated parkland. Mr. Smyser replied that was a long negotiation and discus sion. He stated the land dedication was sufficient and they met the requirements. He noted the land that was shown previously was 10 percent for land dedication on the pr oject, with no cash dedication being made. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. John Johnson, on behalf of Mr. Uhde, stated it was their intent to meet the exterior requirement. He stated the title docum ent would be resolved. The homeowners association had no problem making the change. With respect to the power line, he had a letter from the power company, Great Rive r Energy, approving a partial release and the improvements as proposed. He stated the document from the power company would be finalized in a few days. He handed the Board a copy of the letter. Mr. Smyser replied this would need to be review ed by the City Attorney. Mr. Johnson stated in the original plans, they had not included th e existing homestead on the property, assuming it would become part of some park usage and after discussion with the Parks Board, it was determined it wa s not feasible. He stated the existing homestead would be improved and sold and as a result they had another unit. He noted taking one of the townhomes and adding it to the next phase would resolve the phasing issue. He indicated they would end up with 250 units, rather than 249 units. He asked the Zoning Board which phase they wanted that unit to be placed in. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps asked if staff had discussed this and what was their opinion. Mr. Smyser replied this was a tricky issue and it came up in process along the line and if applicant really wanted to put this into this phase, this might be a reason to table this, but it could also be deferred to the next phase, which might be preferable to applicant. He stated he was not comfortable adding it to this phase and he was not prepared to make a recommendation on this at this time. Mr. Johnson stated they were prepared to show the exterior materials used on the building tonight. Trudi Breuninger, Avalon Homes, Inc., stated they did not have a problem adding brick to the sides of the buildings. She stated the brick would meet the requirements. She showed samples of the siding they were proposing to use. Mr. Johnson stated they wanted to be in the fall preview and therefor e, they needed plat approval in order to accomplish this. He stated if this w ould be continued for another month, it would be difficult to make the fall preview. Chair Schaps asked if Avalon Homes had any other developments with the same exterior materials and colors. Ms. Breuninger replie d there was a development in Hugo that was similar, but not the exactly the same. Mr. Tralle asked if all of th e townhomes would be identical to the one next to it. Ms. Breuninger replied that was up to the associ ation and associations usually wanted the same materials used for maintenance purposes. Mr. Tralle expressed concer n that all of the townhome s would look the same. Ms. Breuninger replied she would like to keep the colors neutral. Mr. Tralle stated he did not wa nt to see 50 homes that looked identical to each other. Ms. Breuninger replied within the different phase s, they would have different colors. Chair Schaps asked for the approximate square footage of these units. He asked if they were all three-bedroom units. Ms. Breuni nger replied there were both two and three bedroom units, but she did not have the information on square footage at this time. Mr. Root asked what was the intent of mixing up the colo rs of the buildings. Mr. Johnson replied the issue was that the Board di d not want it too look unattractive, but at the same time, they wanted them to be aesthetically acceptable. Mr. Root stated he wanted them to break up the colors so it was not so uniform and he was hoping for a more definitive, stronger an swer. Ms. Breuninger replied they could change the color every other building and they would do whatever the Board recommended. Mr. Johnson stated they could make each buildin g a different color. Mr. Root replied he would like to see a variety of colors, so it was broken up. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Tralle stated he would also like to see a variety of colors. Mr. Johnson stated they were trying to us e texture to differentiate the colors. Ms. Breuninger stated they wanted to give each unit an identity. Mr. Johnson stated he did not know if they c ould come up with 8 separate colors within the same color scheme. Mr. Tralle asked if they could put some ot her color into the buildings. Ms. Breuninger replied the developer wanted to keep the colors neutral. Mr. Tralle stated there was a lot of products and colors in the market, and not everything needed to be neutral. He stated he did not wa nt to see them all look alike. He noted they were nice buildings and he did not see why they could not have multiple colors. Ms. Breuninger replied she agreed with Mr. Tralle and that they could mix in some other colors. Chair Schaps suggested they alternate between a couple of different colors. Mr. Johnson replied that was a possibility. Mr. Pogalz asked if they used more colo r, would the brick also be changed. Ms. Breuninger replied she would ch ange the brick color also. Mr. Johnson stated the Board wanted two colo rs, varying the shake, siding, and brick and then varying those between the 8 buildings. Chair Schaps asked if staff wanted to review this. Mr. Schaps repl ied they did want to see it and he requested color drawings be presented to Council at their meeting. Ms. Lane stated she liked the original pr oposal and she believed adding more colors would just make it too “dizzy”. Mr. Rafferty stated he believed the developer threw things on the buildings to meet the minimums and he was not for this development at all. He objected to the full brick on the front and that it was “overkill” and would look atrocious. He believed there was a way this could be done better. He stated the colo rs and tones could be used as accent. He noted he was not intrigued by what was being imposed, and he agreed with Mr. Tralle that two-color selection was what they wanted. He stated he wanted to see more colors, with more variety of brick and shingles. He stated he did not want everything to look the same. He asked them for some creativity be yond what was being presented. He stated he was not for or against the lap siding. He stated he wanted to see this proposed development in a color rendering. He indica ted color was extremely important in his opinion in order to move this development through. He expressed concern that this development would have a 1950’s look if they did not mix up the colors. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Johnson asked if they were objecting to having brick on the front façade. Mr. Rafferty replied he wanted to see some creativity. He believed they could use the brick to an advantage, and right now the proposal was too boring and st raightforward. He requested they to go back to the dr awing board and be more creative. Mr. Johnson stated he would lik e to go forward with criteria that they could agree they could address, rather than coming back and still not presenting what the Board wanted. Mr. Root asked for a summary of the four st aff items in the recommendation. He asked what yet has to be dealt with. Mr. Smyser replied the building elevation fulfilled the requirements and the color recommendations made tonight were fine. With respect to the title commitment, and townhome association, th ese were standard items to be resolved with the City Attorney. He stated the power line easement and development agreement would also need to be review ed by the City Attorney. He stated if P&Z wanted to approve this, he was okay with this, but the title documents would have to submitted to the City Attorney in sufficient time for hi s review to give staff a report to make recommendation to Council. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend tabling this item to allow color diagrams to be presented and allow staff sufficient time to obtain further information. There was no second. Motion failed. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to approve the Final Plat, Century Farm North, with the following conditions: 1. Developer shall use 2 shake colors, 2 si ding colors, 2 shingle colors, and 2 brick colors. 2. Developer shall add additional architectural changes. 3. Developer shall alternate the use of color. 4. The unit in Outlot C will be in a later phase 5. Developer to comply and resolve all ot her issues in staff’s March 10, 2004 report 12 business days prior to a City Council meeting. and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4-1 (Mr. Rafferty). B. PUBLIC HEARING for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat/PUD for Oakwood View, 125 Ash Street (Rice Creek Covenant Church) Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Staff stated applicant had submitted an applica tion to further develop its current site at 125 Ash Street. The application includes seve ral elements. The goal is to create ten single-family detached home lots on the north part of the property as well as a lot for a duplex on the southern part of the property. The duplex is intended for a group home for people with disabilities. Staff noted this pr oject includes an odd mix of actions because of the existing land use category and zoning. He indicated certain approval were necessary to accommodate the proposal including amending the comprehensive plan to change the site from Public Semi-Public to Low Density Sewered Residential; rezoning Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES of the southern portion from R-1X to Pla nned Unit Development (PUD) for mixed uses; the existing church and the group home; a nd PUD development stage plan/preliminary plat. Staff stated a conditional use permit (CU) was approved by th e City in 1996 to provide for building the church. That CUP approva l included a three-phase plan. Each new building must undergo a site plan review, but would not require a CUP amendment review. However, the CUP did not include a residential facility, as is being proposed now. Therefore, the CUP is not relevant here inasmuch as no additions to the church building itself are being proposed. Staff noted the zoning ordinance provides fo r two different types of PUD. If only residential uses were include d in the project, the PUD w ould require only a conditional use permit. However, the church and the gr oup residence is a mix of uses. A mixed use PUD requires a rezoning to PUD. Staff presented its analysis and reco mmended approval based on the following conditions: 1. The comprehensive plan amendment must obtain the approval of the Metropolitan Council prior to any further City project approvals. 2. The project shall be final pl atted in two phases. The group residence duplex may be final platted in 2004. The ten single-family lots shall not be final platted until 2005. 3. The relocation of sanitary sewer and wate r services may occur with the 2004, phase one final plat because these utilities already existed. Howe ver, the construction of the Oakwood Lane street extension shall not occu r until final plat approval of the single family lots in phase two in 2005. All lots and units shall connec t to city sanitary sewer and water. 4. Park dedication of $1,665 per unit shall be paid. Park dedication for the group residence, two units, shall be paid when that lot is final platted. Park dedication for the ten single-family lots shall be paid with that final plat. 5. The new plat must obtain approval by the Ri ce Creek Watershed District prior to final plat approval by the City Council. 6. Drainage and utility easements around all wetlands must be large enough to include at a minimum a ten (10) foot buffer exte nding outward from the delineated wetland boundary. 7. The applicant must submit geotechnical information on existing groundwater levels and soils in adequate time for review pr ior to City Council consideration of the application. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES 8. Prior to consideration by the City Coun cil, the applicant must demonstrate the adequacy of the driveway to the group residence duplex in regard to emergency vehicle access, visibility, and ot her safety and practical issues. 9. Information on the grading plan is unclear in the area of the south end of the property. This must be clarified prior to City Council consideration of the application. 10. The adequacy of the water service must be determined prior to City Council consideration of the application. 11. Issues discussed in the C ity Engineer review memo of February 26, 2004 must be addressed to his satisfaction. 12. Lots shall be adjusted to ensure they have suffici ent area without the wetland easement. 13. The preliminary plat shall be revised to pr ovide for a future street connection to the west. 14. A revised preliminary plat showing the required changes shall be submitted for review prior to City Council consideration of the application. 15. The City seeding mix must be used for ponds and wetland areas. This must be noted on the plans. 16. The property owner must obtain approval from the City Council to vacate the existing ponding and flowage easements. 17. The applicant must submit a tree preser vation plan showing the grading plan superimposed on the tree inventory prior to a City Council co nsideration of the application. 18. Site plan information for a group residen ce duplex shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. This shall includ e architectural elev ations, floor plan, landscaping, and site lighting. 19. There must be a shared driveway easement to allow the new lot to use the existing driveway on Ash St. This easement must be submitted for review and be in order prior to final plat revi ew by the City Council. Chair Schaps inquired about the parking sta lls. Mr. Smyser replied he had not spoken with the applicant about this , but they were in attendance tonight for the Board’s questions. Mr. Root stated traffic flow through nei ghborhood was very important and a 1000’ cul- de-sac in a heavily populated area was not appropriate. He stat ed he would like to see an extension to the west, but he wanted to see how this would look. He indicated he would not approve this with a 1000’ cul-de-sac. He expressed concern about the number of Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES conditions, and believed it was not realistic to have the issu es resolved prior to the Council meeting. He asked why the PUD porti on could not be zoned as two separate parcels and zoned accordingly. Mr. Smyser stated what they were proposing was a separate lot for the group resi dence, but what they have r un into was that they were creating a flag lot, which was not allo wed under normal zoning and because of the narrowness of the property on th e road, there was no way they could create a separate lot that would have the minimum road frontage. He noted this was an institutional use and would not have the normal traffic going in and out of it. He indica ted because the uses were so different, the potential conflict was mi nimal. He noted the church did not know if they would own and operate the group home , but these were not conflicting uses and the PUD was the only option to make this work. Mr. Root asked why does the western most line run north/south, why is it so narrow, and why could it not be shifted over. He asked if there were any other features of the lot that would not fit into an R-2 zoning. Mr. Smyser replied there was nothi ng that would not fit into an R-2, or even an R-1 zoning. With respect to the line, they were trying to minimize tearing up their parking lot, but potenti ally they could move the driveway over. However, they did not need a 90-foot widt h, which was what the minimum requirement was in that zoning. Mr. Root asked how many residences woul d the group home accommodate. Mr. Smyser replied there were four on each side, which w ould be a total of 8 residents, along with 2 live-in counselors. Mr. Tralle inquired about the two-stall garage. He aske d why was it not a four-stall garage. Mr. Smyser replied he had not pick ed up on that and a pplicant should answer this question. Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 8:30 and reconvened the meeting at 8:46 p.m. Mr. Smyser stated it was pointed out to him at the break that the reason they did not expand the lot line to the west was because th at was where the future expansion was to go. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Tim Yantos, member of the Rice Creek Chur ch and Chair of Development Task Force for the church, stated they were looking at the possibility of ex panding their sanctuary and building additional classrooms. He stated in order to afford to do this, they needed to sell some of the land. He stated it was also the mission of the church to aid residents in the area who had light to moderate disabilities. Chair Schaps asked what light to moderate di sabilities meant. Sharon Penner, member of the Church and Chair of the Committee looking at developing the residence, replied the residents would be adults and would ha ve people who needed support to live independently. She stated there would be live in staff on site. The residents could have varying levels of physical disabilities, in addition to possibly autism and other forms of Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES mental retardation. She stated some resi dents would hold daytime jobs. She did not anticipate they would need significant medical care, but it was a possibility. Chair Schaps asked if the residents would dr ive vehicles. Ms. Penner replied they would not be driving vehicles. Chair Schaps asked about their parking needs. Ms. Penner replied they were flexible on this, and the existing parking would be us ed for visitors, staff meetings, etc. Mr. Tralle asked if the group home would be maintained by the church. Ms. Penner replied their church had a mini stry that had group homes in other states called Covenant Ministries and that ministry would provide the support. She stated the home would be run by a Committee that were members of thei r Church. She stated the only issue they had right now was if the land was to be turned over to Covenant Mini stries, or if it would be a lease proposition, but it would s till be connected to the Church. Mr. Tralle asked where were the residents coming from. Ms. Penner replied they would be coming from the Anoka County area through the Social Services program. She noted the County was very excited about this project . She indicated they already had residents they were interested in living at the home. William McCully, stated the driveway location was chosen where it was because if they moved it over, they would be impacting an existing retainage pond even more than they already were. He stated the area they currently had the driveway in, was the best area for it to be located. Chair Schaps asked if there had been a neighborhood meeting and had it been well attended. Mr. Yantos replied there had b een a meeting and he believed it was well attended. Ms. Meilke, lives in middle lot, asked how far away was the parking lot from her land. Chair Schaps asked if she had attended the neighborhood meeting and had she got her questioned answered. Ms. Meilke replied she had attended th e neighborhood meeting and her questions were not answered. She st ated she was concerned about the closeness of the wetland. She asked if trees would be removed and noted trees were already marked on the property. Mr. McCully replied the building was 85 feet from her property line. Ms. Meilke asked if the trees would be left, or would they be leveled. Mr. McCully stated it was their intent to save as many trees as they could realizing that trees would need to be removed fo r the driveway and parking lot. Chair Schaps stated there would be a survey of the property to determine the species of the trees and that could be why the trees were marked. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. VanDeWerken, 156 Woodridge Lane, expre ssed reservations a bout the expansion. He stated they purchased their home because it was a private area with a lot of trees and wildlife. He expressed losing that privacy w ith this development. He expressed concern about an increase in traffic and the sa fety of the children in the area. Chair Schaps pointed out that unless he ow ned the land, there was always the possibility that adjoining land w ould get developed. Mr. VanDeWer ken replied he understood that. Chair Schaps asked if he had attended the neighborhood meeting. Mr. VanDeWerken replied he was not aware th ere was a neighborhood meeting. Chair Schaps asked if the area at the farthe st northwestern porti on would remain as it currently was and not be developed. Mr. McCull y replied that was intended to remain as an open space area and would not be developed. Mr. Tralle inquired about th e 1000’ cul-de-sac and asked if that was feasible. Mr. McCully replied it was feasible. Mary Ann McDougal, lives northwest of the proposed development. She asked about the group home and if that development would put this land back on th e tax roles. Mr. Smyser replied he understood it would be owned by a nonprofit entity and therefore, there would be no taxes paid. Ms. McDougal asked about the open space to th e north of the group home and inquired if that would at some point connect the landl ocked piece of land. Mr. McCully replied there was no intenti on of connecting this. Mr. Smyser stated there was no proposal to connect this and they had not even thought about it. Ms. McDougal asked if they could make larger lots with fewer homes and still make the same amount of money. She asked th e developer to consider this. Ms. McDougal expressed concern about the 1000 ’ cul-de-sac and stated she believed it was too long. Dan Kvinge, stated he was a neighbor, but this was not in his back yard. He thanked the Board for watching for future development to the west. He asked if there was anyway that the group home would turn into some other kind of gr oup home. He stated he did not have any major issues with this developm ent. Mr. Smyser replied the City had some control over a group home, but he did not have the knowledge to say if a different type of group home would be controlled by the City. He stated he would resear ch this and obtain information from the City Attorney. Allan Payne expressed concern a bout moving this to the west a nd the increase of traffic. He asked what would happen to the value of their homes if the group home was built in the area. He expressed con cern about the group home cha nging from a mental health home to a criminal rehabilitation facility. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Yantos replied the type of facility that they were propos ing was the type of facility Covenant Ministries ran and he did not see th is changing at anytime in the future. He stated he understood that the City might impos e restrictions on the type of group home. He stated they were in the midst of res earching how a group home would impact property values. Richard Olen, member of Rice Creek Church a nd resident of Shoreview, stated Covenant Ministries currently operated four group home s with the oldest one operating since 1996. He stated the residents in the homes had a criminal background check performed before they were accepted into the home. He noted Covenant Ministries al so operated hospitals and other facilities and ha d an excellent record. Mr. Yantos stated the church hoped th e lots would sell for between $100,000.00 to $125,000.00 and therefore, any loss of a lot was a great impact, but they were open to looking at options. Chair Schaps asked if a garage was attached to the duplex. Mr. McCully replied there was no attached garage because there would be no drivers. Sue Bomgard, 165 Ash, stated she wanted th e group home only used for the types of disabilities as outlined at toni ght’s meeting. She expressed concern about the parking and the lights from headlights coming into her home at night. She asked if there were any plans for additional group homes at anytime in the future. Mr. Yantos stated they were not looking at any additional facil ities at this point in time. He pointed out that their othe r group homes were not located within the same area. He stated they were negotiable with respect to parking. Jan Darrow, 175 Ash, asked if the rezoning wa s approved, would it be open to any other type of development within those parameters , unless restrictions were put on it per the City Attorney. Mr. Smyser replied the southern portion would be a Planned Unit Development and what would be allowed th ere would be what was allowed for this project only, and any changes would need to be approved by the City. Ms. Darrow asked why the duplex could not be moved into other areas of the property. She asked why the City chose that particular location. Mr. Smyser stated he did not believe the City told them where they coul d put it, but there he believed there were possible concerns about the driveway access. Ms. Darrow asked if the land would have to be raised to put the duplex on it. Chair Schaps replied that would not be a factor, a nd they had chosen one of the higher spots to put the duplex on. Mr. Smyser pointed out that the area Ms. Darro w was referring to was the future parking area for the future expansion. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Darrow asked if the only barr ier would be trees. She sugg ested fencing or other type of a barrier be put in. Chair Schaps asked her to keep in mi nd that they were not referring to a corporation, but a church. Mr. Pogalz suggested maybe putting in a berm, but noted trees would need to be removed if a berm was put in. He asked her if she woul d prefer to looking at the duplex instead of the parking lot. Ms. Darrow stated she woul d like the entire project moved to the north. Chair Schaps asked if they really needed a bu ffer if there were significant trees there. Ms. Darrow replied they did not kno w which trees would be removed. Chair Schaps pointed out that 60 feet of trees at the back of the lot would remain and this was a very heavily wooded area. Mr. Smyser stated they could look at the pa rking lot and see if they could point the southern most spaces pointing in the other direction. Mr. Olen stated if they moved the property or parking lot further up, there were two lots there that would be impacted. He indicated they wanted to accommodate the concerns, but they were also restricted as to how ma ny trees they could be removed. He pointed out that the church might not receive the $100,000 to $125,000 per lot because of the development costs involved. Mr. McCully stated he believed the parking lot could be angled in such a way to eliminate lights being directed into the residential area. Chair Schaps noted they would need to provide sufficient handicapped parking and possibly larger stalls to accommodate larger vehicles. Sherry Gibson, RN, stated she worked with de velopmentally disabled children as well as being the parent of a developmentally disabled adult. She pointed out that disabled adults make excellent neighbors; they do not have part ies; they are not loud; they do not drive; they are pleasant and happy adults who love life very much. She stated her property value had not decreased because a disabled adult lived in the home. She indicated disabled adults lived into ol d age and there was a shortage of homes for adults with developmental disabilities. She pointed out it was important to have good, nice places for developmentally disabled adults to live. Chair Schaps stated he believed they needed to continue the public hearing until the next meeting for further information from the developer. Mr. Smyser asked for feedback regardi ng the connection of Oakwood Lane to the property to the west. Mr. Root stated he does not like the 1000’ cul-de-sac and the traffic flow in the neighborhood, but he did suppor t connecting to the west. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Lane stated the extra connection was not to increase traffic, but it was a safety issue for allowing emergency vehicles into the area. Mr. Tralle stated he was in favor of connecting. Mr. Pogalz stated he understood the concerns of connecting the road, but he was in favor of it for the same reasons as the other Boardmembers had mentioned. He believed this would not be as intrusive as it seemed. He stated the connection could work and the benefit would outweigh the negatives. He noted there was no guarantee that it would develop to the west, but they needed to plan for it. Mr. Rafferty stated in this situ ation it was important for the C ity to look to the future and he agreed the road would be best suited by continuing on. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the April meeting for further information and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5-0. C. PUBLIC HEARING for Rezoning and Condi tional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development/Preliminary Pl at for Highland Meadows East 2 nd Addition, south of 79 th Street and Nancy Lane intersection Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. Staff stated applicant has re quested approval of a prelimin ary plat for Highland Meadows East 2 nd Addition. The project involves develo ping Outlot A of the Highland Meadows East development, approved in 1999. Staff noted the comprehensive plan guides the site for medium density residential use. The applicant requests a rezoni ng to R-3 Medium Density. The request also includes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to allow for a private road and other departures from standard zoning requirements . The project also requires a site plan review for the townhomes. This typically is an administrative review . However, it is an inherent part of the PUD, so it will be discussed here. To accommodate the proposal, staff indicated it would be necessary to have a rezoning from R-1 single family residential to R-3 medium density residential; Conditional Use Permit for a residential Planned Unit Development; and devel opment stage plan/preliminary plat. Staff presented its analysis of the proposal and indicated approval of the project should include the following conditions: 1. The project shall not be final platte d until 2005, as dictated by the growth management policy. 2. Issues discussed in the C ity Engineer review memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. 3. Drainage and utility easements shall cove r the ponds and stormw ater facilities. Easements also shall be platted al ong the external property lines. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES 4. The applicant must submit geotechnical information on existing groundwater levels and soils in adequate time for review pr ior to City Council consideration of the application. 5. Sanitary sewer and water utilities in the priv ate drive shall be City facilities, just as they would if it were a public street right of way. 6. Park dedication of $1,665 per unit shall be paid: 20 units for a total of $33,300. 7. A revised landscaping plan shall include: screening on the north and south property lines and specific sod or grass seeded areas . City wetland seeding shall be included and noted on the revised landscaping plan. 8. The project must obtain approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to preliminary plat review by the City Council. 9. New building elevations shall be submitted to demonstrate an exterior finish of brick, stucco and/or natural or artificial stone to meet the requirements in the ordinance. Staff recommended continuing the public hear ing and return to staff with direction because there is so little room provided fo r buffering and screening on the periphery of the site, that it may not be po ssible to provide it with the ex isting layout. On the south, additional drainage work is needed as well, and this will affect the screening options. Additional addition to bu ilding exteriors is needed as well regarding the materials. The retention of trees is a good goal, and the pr oposal probably retains some additional open space compared to normal standards. Howeve r, the proposal does not clearly justify the planned unit development flexibility. Ms. Lane expressed concern about emergency ve hicle access. Mr. Studenski replied they had spoken with the Police Department and Fi re Department and the cul-de-sac was of appropriate width for them to turn around in. Chair Schaps stated he was seeing a lot of big buildings in a small space. He indicated he was not opposed to large building, but he wa s opposed to having them up against lot lines. He asked if they shortened up the cul-de-sac would that solve the lot line problems, or reduce the amount of buildings. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Steve Schmitt, President of TSM Development, stated they were currently building this same development in Coon Rapids. He stat ed he took the plan and added a three-car garage, which was very well received. He i ndicated they had the same issues with exterior design with the City of Coon Rapids. He stated all of the building he was proposing to build would have a different fr ont on them. He noted he was having a difficult time with the 25% brick on the fr ont though because of the third garage. He stated it was his intent to bring in co lor pictures at the next meeting. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps stated he believed there were too many building on the property, or they were too big. Mr. Schmitt replied they were attempting to save some of the trees on the property. Chair Schaps pointed out the build ings may not need to be this large. He noted instead of a variance for exterior, they might need a variance in size. Mr. Schmitt pointed out that the Environmental Board was concerned about the impervious surface and the amount of parking available. He noted there would be no parking on the street. He stated he was not opposed to making a couple of the buildi ngs double units, instead of triples, which would shorten the cul-de-sac. He stated he wa s also not opposed to taking out one or two units if he had to. He stated he wanted to leave the trees in place. He indicated he was more concerned with moving this forwar d so he could start building in 2005. Mr. Root stated it was more than just ta king out a unit or two to make him happy, it was what he needed to do to make it comply with the R-3 zone. He asked for the number of trees and the significance of them. Troy Li vgard, stated there was a tree preservation plan in their packet with this information in it. Mr. Livgard stated they could make this fit, but they would be losi ng all of the three-car garages. Ms. Lane believed this would look nice to ha ve seven sets of duplexes with three-car garages. Chair Schaps asked approximately how much would the units sell for. Mr. Schmitt replied from $179,000 to $229,900. He indicated it appeared these units sold well for newly married and people 55 and older. Mr. Rafferty asked what were the issues with Met Council if this stay ed R-1. Mr. Smyser replied they would have to go through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Rafferty stated he liked Ms. Lane’s sugge stion about putting in duplexes. He stated he liked the three-car garage and additiona l parking. He asked this development look nice in the end. He asked for more cr eativity in the architectural design. Mr. Pogalz stated there were positives and negatives to this plan. He expressed concern about the lot lines. He stated he wanted to see guest parking. Arch itecturally, he did not mind it. He stated he would like everything to fi t in a little better, even if it means taking out a unit or two. Chair Schaps invited those in attendance to make comment. Mr. Smyser noted they had received a letter from Arlene and Gary Averbeck, 7855 Lake Drive, who were in opposition to this pr oposal they did not want a multi-family development at this site. They expressed concern about the pond, wildlife, and the soil. Eric Engelbretson, Lot 3 on 79 th Street, stated they have b een in their location for three years and expressed concern about the wildlife in the area. He stat ed they did not know Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 16 APPROVED MINUTES there would be a development in the area. He stated he had built a nice deck on his home, which would now be facing a large building. He expressed concern about emergency vehicle access. Chair Schaps stated he was guessing th e building would be no larger than Mr. Engelbretson’s home. Mr. Engelbretson asked if there could be tr ees placed between the building and his home for a natural barrier. He expressed concern about the lights from the parking lot. Joe Lacroix, 720 79 th Street, asked for clarification on the property line. Mr. Smyser stated the side lot line setback was normally 10 feet and the rear setback was 30 feet, but what was a rear or a side lo t line on this property was diffi cult to determine because of the odd shape of the property. He stated they tried to maintain a 20-foot setback. Mr. Lacroix expressed concern about the numbe r of buildings on the site. He asked for an explanation as to why this needed to be rezoned. Mr. Smyser explained why it was necessary to rezone this from R-1 to R-2. Mr. LaCroix asked if this was approved, the bui lding have a variety of architectural style, materials, and colors. Amy Brandl, 706 79 th , stated there was already a traffic issue on 79 th Street and expressed concern about having more traffic on their street with this developmen t. She stated they were told when they bought their property th at this area was inte nded for single-family homes. She expressed concern when they were digging up the property that she would have another problem with mice and garner sn akes. She asked they limit the amount of residents in this area because of the increase of traffic. Kirk Nelson, 7010 79 th Street, stated there were too many buildings and they were too close to the lots. He stated he was told the drainage easement would not be developed and he was told this by the developer. Mr . Smyser stated what was being proposed was to reconfigure the drainage easement throughout the lot. Mr. Nelson expressed concern about a building being too cl ose to his lot line. He expressed concern about the loss of trees to the side of the development. He stated he would put his house up for sale if this devel opment went in. He indicated he was not opposed to some type of a development on this property, but he did not want this development. Chair Schaps stated as much as everyone wanted to have open space around their backyards, it did not happ en unless they owned the property. Mr. Nelson stated he would lik e to see the trees remain; un it 15 not be so close to his property line; and the drainage easement retained. He stated if they did not impose on the drainage easement, he would not object to th e development. He noted the developer had not done the best at maintaining the pond they created either. Teri O’Connell, 1000 Main Street, stated she was on the Environmental Board. She indicated the Environmental Boar d’s biggest concern was the cul-de-sac. She stated they Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 10 , 20 04 Page 17 APPROVED MINUTES were surprised to find out that this was cons idered open space. She stated they did not have an issue with the parking spots, but recommended they put in net lawn. She noted Mr. Schmitt’s people had dug the large hole while he was out of town. She asked if they could do this in a more gradual process. Mr. Smyser stated he would reexamine the open space calculation. Mr. Schmitt stated the hole that was dug was done when he was out of town and he was initially told that only three feet would be removed, but more dirt was taken out than he anticipated and they had the proper grading permit to do this . He stated they were working on getting the dirt to fill this. With respect to the easement issue, the plat was done by North Suburban Development and the dr ainage easement was never graded. He noted they had dug this out many times to allo w for drainage. He anticipated they would lose two units (possibly units 16 and 19), whic h would allow them to deal with the guest parking areas and move some of the buildings away from the lot lines. Mr. Rafferty stated he was not in favor of only removing two buildings and he wanted the density to be less. Mr. Schmitt stated they were under the moderate density requirements and this was an economic issue. Chair Schaps asked them to consider removi ng unit 4 and the two units when they first drove in. Mr. Nelson asked them to consider r ezoning this to R-2 instead of R-3. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend continuing the pub lic hearing to the April meeting to allow applicant the opportunity to revise the plans and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 5-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Process to Address Temporary Signs/Banners Ms. Lane asked if they should a ddress this at a special meeting. Chair Schaps agreed they should address this at a special meeting dur ing the later part of the in May or June. VII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lane made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 11:31 p.m ., and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .