Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-04-2005 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 4, 2005 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. May 4, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: None Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planning Associate Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case PD2005-001. Public Hearing and Consideration of the General Concept Plan for a Proposed Residential Planned Unit Development at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 Applicant: Integra Homes 2 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case PD2005-001. Public Hearing and Consideration of the General Concept Plan for a Proposed Residential Planned Unit Development at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 Planning Associate Prososki explained that Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, is requesting City approval of a general concept plan to construct 21 townhouse units at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10. The proposed development would also include a portion of the rear yard of 8060 Groveland Road. Planning Associate Prososki advised that the general concept plan is the first stage of the planned unit development process. The advantage to this stage is that the developer is allowed to bring a general site plan for City review and consideration without the need to have all of the other components prepared. If the City approves the concept plan, the developer would then submit additional detailed information for City consideration, which is referred to as the development stage of the PUD. Planner Prososki indicated that the biggest thing to look at is the relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and this is designated as mixed use PUD with a mix of residential and commercial uses. She asked the Commission to consider if this proposed development would fit into the area or cause a negative impact. Planner Prososki indicated that the Code requires 6,500 square feet of land area per unit plus 10 percent density bonus for a PUD and they are planning for 21 units. City Code would allow up to 22 units. She said that the setbacks are listed in the Staff report and briefly reviewed those for the Commission as well as the parking requirements indicating that the proposal does satisfy the parking requirements. Planner Prososki indicated that the plan would need to be amended to include visitor parking as the streets are too narrow to accommodate on street parking. She said that the roundabout in the center of the development is sized adequately for emergency vehicles and noted that this development would increase the traffic on County Road 10 but not enough to cause any real issues. Planner Prososki indicated that the City would need better details for the building types, landscaping, drainage, trailways, snow storage, signage and buffering should this plan proceed. She also indicated that should this plan move forward there would need to be a development review as well as a major subdivision. Planner Prososki indicated that Staff received many public comments concerning this proposal. One of which is that this is too intense for the area. She said that some residents felt that the layout was poor and that it caused privacy issues as well as concern for loss of trees, the need for screening and privacy fences. She further commented that two residents felt that County Road 10 should be developed with commercial uses. Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Planner Prososki explained that Staff developed an alternative plan to address some issues of the neighbors but the applicant did not support the alternative plan. Planner Prososki pointed out that the Staff proposal is a loss of 3 units and reorients the buildings so that all units would be facing in and not facing into backyards and allows for additional buffering. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the Applicant has agreed to address the front of the units looking into existing backyards. Planner Prososki indicated there are things that can be done but where there are two story units looking into backyards even a privacy fence would not work. She then said that this is a concept plan and can be changed but she is not sure how far the applicant is willing to modify the plan. Commissioner Meehlhause commented that the City has had issues in the past with private streets and asked why this development proposes them. Planner Prososki indicated that if the private streets are not maintained properly they can cause issues but a public street requires 60 feet of right of way and there is not room to do a public street. Chair Stevenson asked if there are concerns with the fire department with not having an emergency exit. Planner Prososki indicated she would need to check with the fire marshal. Commissioner Miller asked how many townhomes can be together per City Code. Planner Prososki indicated that if this is zoned PUD that would be consistent with an R3 district of medium density and that district does allow townhomes up to 6 units. Chair Stevenson asked how much of this property would have to be rezoned to meet R3. Planner Prososki explained that a PUD is a rezoning and it is consistent with R3. She then said that right now one of the parcels is B3 and the other two are R1 so they all need to be rezoned to PUD. She further explained that there would need to be a major subdivision because it is not one parcel right now. Commissioner Miller asked what happens with the Comprehensive Plan and future design to have the area as a mixed use PUD with business fronting on Highway 10. Planner Prososki indicated that in the mixed-use designation the Comprehensive Plan states that it would be a mixture of commercial and residential uses. Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson commented that in 2003 when a similar project was proposed, a major issue was not just the fact that the earlier proposal contained less than 3 acre minimum, but that it was removing the middle section of a future PUD that went from Steve’s Appliance all the way to the residential homes on the other side of the gas station. He noted the proposal before the Planning Commission tonight is not that much different, other than having more property in the back and does not take into consideration that the idea was to have a mixed use PUD for the entire block. He said that if this were to be approved, it would narrow the scope of the Comprehensive Plan, and that the Commission needs to discuss whether the City wants to accept a smaller project, which would prevent achievement of the goal of a mixed use PUD for the area. Brian Bourassa from MFRA Engineering, representing Integra Homes, addressed the Commission and explained they have been working on this project for a few years. He also said that the private street is an issue because they do not have the room for the required 60 foot right of way for public streets, but they did meet with the fire department on emergency access and agreed to do a turn around for the main entrance and also talked about the potential for sprinkling the units but they have not committed to doing so. Mr. Bourassa indicated that they met with Staff concerning the type of development after realizing that with the required setbacks from a commercial development to a residential property makes the B3 zoned parcel not very usable for a commercial development but they did look at a mixed use PUD. Mr. Bourassa indicated that the proposed development is less dense than would be allowed by Code. He then reviewed the Staff plan and noted that they like their plan better than staff’s plan as it provides for more green space and more of a buffer from Highway 10. He further commented that they feel their plan works better aesthetically as well as from an engineering standpoint for drainage. Mr. Bourassa indicated that they are willing to do some screening and/or privacy fences to enhance privacy and are willing to meet with residents privately to discuss what each would like to see for screening. He suggested flexibility with rear yard setbacks within the PUD to squeeze the buffer and allow ample room for backyards and allow a little more buffer and greater room for privacy fencing and plantings. Mr. Bourassa indicated that they would be open to working on neighboring properties to do landscaping and screening if residents are interested but they would not push that. Commissioner Zwirn asked how the developer plans to accommodate visitor parking. Mr. Bourassa explained that they are considering the entrance road on the west side or west of lot 10 for additional parking as well as making the entrance street wider to allow for on street parking. Commissioner Hegland asked if there is a snow removal plan. Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Bourassa indicated there is no formal snow removal plan as that would go along with the landscape and lawn maintenance plan. Commissioner Zwirn asked about adding a secondary access. Mr. Bourassa indicated 8060 Groveland is a nice house and there is no option for going past it out to Groveland Road for another access point. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether eliminating one townhome would allow for the secondary access. Mr. Bourassa indicated that Groveland and Sherwood are the access possibilities and those are developed parcels. Commissioner Miller asked about a provision for garbage. Mr. Bourassa indicated they envision that it would be a requirement of the association that everyone has garbage service and each resident would have their own container but one hauler would be allowed. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Cindy Johnson of 2865 NE County 10 and 7980 Groveland Road said she strongly opposes the townhomes going in. She said that her husband fought this proposal two years ago and she will continue to fight it now that he is gone to ensure the value of their property. She further commented that the biggest issue is that it does not follow the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Johnson commented that the tax base would be better if left commercial and it would be in the best interest of the City because to allow this plan, the City would have to downzone a portion of the property from B1 to R3, which would cause loss of tax base. She then said that she does not like the idea of only one access nor does she like that six of the proposed townhomes would look directly into her backyard and are two story homes which means a privacy fence would not be tall enough. Ms. Johnson indicated that she found that the City paid $12,000 to remove the gas station and to clean up the property next door to make it more appealing for commercial development. She further commented that putting this in the middle of the proposed PUD limits the chances on either side that the area can be developed as commercial property. Chair Stevenson noted that Ms. Johnson had provided a letter to the Commission outlining her points. Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Mark Schnor of 2949 Highway 10 addressed the Commission and said that he agrees the developer did not do his homework for this project and if you put townhomes in that area he questions what they will do to the houses in the area. He added that he was not approached about being bought out and wonders why. He further commented that this is commercial but if you put the townhomes in there you cannot get another business in there unless you take out some houses. Mr. Schnor indicated he does not like that there is only one access to the development. He further stated that he does not think this will work because he is right in the middle of this and would rather have a drainage ditch than townhomes. Cindy Johnson clarified that they were not formally approached to be bought out but a realtor brought over a card and gave it to her son a month after her husband passed away and told him to have his mother call when she is ready to sell. Stan Meyer of 2812 Sherwood said he would strongly oppose any development taking out the house and putting a road there because that is not an acceptable alternative and there should be no access onto Sherwood Place. He added that there is already enough traffic on Groveland and asked the Commission if they would be willing to state in writing there would never be a development with access onto Groveland. Chair Stevenson indicated that this is a concept plan and the access points would be discussed if the developer comes with an actual plan for approval. He further clarified that the City cannot state that they would never put an access point in that location at some point. Mr. Meyer indicated he is against the whole project. Grace Thomas of 8040 Groveland Road indicated she is very concerned with the obvious potential of putting an access road out to Groveland Road. She said that she understands the developers wish to pack as much as possible onto a parcel for monetary purposes but that does not make sense for the neighborhood. Ms. Thomas indicated that she understands they are not proposing an access at this time but she wanted to make sure the City knows the residents have fought to keep access off of Groveland Road as they have a lot of traffic and they have tried to keep it single family homes and fought to do so. She then said that they have little enforcement with traffic issues to lower speed on Groveland Road. Ms. Thomas indicated that packing this many people into that small a space with one access point concerns her. Fred Peterson of 2825 Sherwood Road said he is strongly opposed to going out to Groveland as they use it for a racetrack now and he knows they are going 50 plus miles per hour. He said this Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ plan does not make sense and it should have another access into this development in a different location but not out at Groveland. Fern Arvidson of 2833 Sherwood Road said she is opposed to this as it is too much for the area. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that the developer has done some work to purchase more property to obtain the necessary three acres for the PUD but, after hearing the testimony of the neighbors, they have all talked about the access situation and that is the primary concern is for traffic flow and to make this viable he thinks the developer needs to address an additional access or eliminate some of the housing to appease the community and address the concerns about privacy with the way the townhomes are laid out so they are not looking into peoples’ backyards. He added that he thinks this would be a good development in this area but it needs to have another access. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the developer is amenable to addressing those issues. Mr. Bourassa indicated they are willing to work on the privacy issues and can meet with City Staff and/or neighbors individually. He said that with respect to the access issues what he heard is for a potential access onto Groveland through that lot on 8060 but they are not proposing that. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there is a way to work this so there is an additional access. The developer indicated the only access that he could see would be on Groveland. Commissioner Scotch commented that this is difficult because if you put commercial on Highway 10 a lot of people do not want commercial backed up to residential. She believes there is too much for this site and maybe there could be some other options. Mr. Bourassa indicated the original plan considered commercial on that piece in the SE corner of the parcel but with the required setbacks the potential for commercial development is the size of a twin home and after working with Staff on this they thought a residential PUD would be more amenable. Commissioner Scotch suggested removing some townhomes to make more space on the inside of the development and suggested looking at some type of access on the other side of the pond. Chair Stevenson said he does not see how this is in conjunction with plans for the Comprehensive Plan that the City has had all along. Commissioner Miller agreed that this would really shut off any other possible commercial developments along Highway 10 and some of the residents have indicated that going back to the Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ original plan having commercial along Highway 10 would not happen if this plan were to go through. Ron Lillestrand, the developer, said they made an attempt to buy the Johnson property to the right and his real estate people were going back and forth with offers and the price on that property all the way to the corner and back a couple of houses was more than he could afford to pay. He added that it is his understanding that if they had three acres they could do a PUD and that is why he went this route and now he hears comments that the City and residents would like to have this whole thing from the corner commercial. Chair Stevenson asked whether the developer approached others for purchasing property. Mr. Lillestrand indicated he had not done so recently but unless the price goes down from what it was he could not make this work, as it is not economically feasible. He asked how he could use the property he has without purchasing more. Commissioner Scotch suggested fewer units and commented that he could make as much money and get the dollars out of the development. Mr. Lillestrand indicated he is willing to work with anybody on this but if it is not economically feasible he cannot do it. Commissioner Scotch suggested using the front as commercial and the rest as residential. Mr. Lillestrand said the idea of having everything commercial for the City would be the best and that they would go back to the drawing board and come back with an amended plan. He inquired if the Johnson property would qualify for a PUD. Chair Stevenson indicated that the Johnson property would be short of the requirement as well and that is why the City is suggesting this be done as a whole piece. Planner Prososki explained that a commercial PUD would require five acres. Chair Stevenson suggested the developer enter into discussions with other property owners and City Staff. Mr. Lillestrand indicated that it may be difficult to get all the property owners to agree to do this at one time. Planner Prososki asked for direction on this matter. Chair Stevenson indicated the Commission would like to see a Resolution recommending denial for the proposed plan. He acknowledged that the developer has agreed to review the plan and provide an amended one. Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: May 18, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.