Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.09.14 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION September 14, 2006 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Bailly, Hoffbeck, Kleissler, McRoberts, Rosenquist, Schumann, Weidt ABSENT: NONE ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Michele Lindau, Planning Commission Secretary Rachel Simone, Community Development Intern (CD Intern) Minutes of August 10, 2006 Weidt made motion, Bailly seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 10, 2006 as submitted. Ayes: Bailly, Hoffbeck, Kleissler, Rosenquist, Schumann, Weidt Abstain: McRoberts Motion carried. Kellison Addition- Preliminary Plat and Variance The Commission held a public hearing to consider the application of Jim Kellison, 4394 1291h Street North, for a preliminary plat to be known as Kellison Addition and a variance for the setback of the existing home on the site. The property consists of 4.9 acres located in the Large Lot Single Family Detached Residential Zoning District where the minimum lot size is one acre. The plat would consist of three lots on 4.9 acres. The applicant currently resides in the home on the property which, if platted, would require a variance to allow a 19 foot rear yard setback where ordinance requires 30 feet. The CD Intern explained the developer would need to extend the City sewer and water services to the property as well as make improvements to 129th Street North which would include paving a portion of Elmcrest Avenue. The applicant was also proposing to fill 399 square feet of wetland and was working with the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). The applicant also needed to address building elevations because the plan showed them to be two feet above the 100 -year flood elevation where three feet was required. McRoberts asked if there was a way the lots could be configured to avoid the variance for the setback. Kellison said he didn't think they would be able to meet the setback; the home was built prior to code, and it was likely the next owner of the home would tear it down and rebuild. The CDD informed the Commission that it currently complies because it is considered a side yard Planning Commission Minutes — September 14, 2006 Page 2 setback, but if it is platted as proposed it would become a rear yard setback and a 30 foot setback would be required. Rosenquist asked if the neighboring property owners had been contacted regarding the improvements and if the owners had any opposition to them. The CDD stated there had been neighborhood meetings and the assessment was being discussed with them. There had been no opposition to the improvements. McRoberts asked if the sewer would still be extended if the Kellison property was not developed. The CDD responded that the applicant is providing a majority of the funding. Schumann asked if the time deadline for filing final plat after the preliminary plat was approved could be extended if necessary. The CDD answered that it could, and the Council should be able to order the road project in advance of the deadline. Schumann opened the public hearing. Debbie Anderson questioned if there was going to be a replacement for the wetlands he proposed to fill. The CDD told her mitigation of the wetlands would be required but was uncertain where it would be done. There were no other comments and Schumann closed the public hearing. McRoberts asked how many property owners were involved in the assessment and at what cost. The CDD said there were eight property owners including Kellison, and the amount assessed would depend on the level of improvements, around $30,000 per lot. Kellison's share would be significantly more. Bailly asked if the neighbors were in favor of the improvements. The CDD said the neighbors seemed supportive; he had heard no objections. McRoberts made motion, Bailly seconded, to recommend approval of the variance and preliminary plat for Kellison Addition. All Ayes. Motion carried. Rural Preservation Program Ordinance Amendment The Commission held a public hearing to consider revisions to the Rural Preservation Program Ordinance. The CDD explained the ordinance was adopted in April, 2005 and there had been two developments that received preliminary plat approval under this ordinance. Numerous discussions, meetings and a listening session had taken place regarding the ordinance. At the last meeting in June of 2006, the City Council had directed staff to prepare revisions and hold a public hearing on the ordinance. Revisions focused on density bonuses, development standards, and the calculation of density. The total allowed density remained the same but it was more difficult to obtain the 50 % bonus. The CDD gave examples of how bonuses were calculated. Management plans for open space and shared septic systems were proposed requirements. Additions were made to development standards to require architectural covenants (but not a theme) with the preliminary plat, a landscaping plan prepared by a landscape Planning Commission Minutes — September 14, 2006 Page 3 architect, open space buildable land increase from 25% - 40%, individual septic systems be on a minimum of 2.5 acres, and an endowment fund for open space. The calculation of bonus density were changed to allow bonuses if there were third party holders of conversation easements, for providing additional open space above the required 50 percent, for creating a protected wetland buffer of at least 100 feet, and for construction of a community well serving the development. Also deleted from the existing ordinance was the stated purpose of maintaining the rural character of Hugo. The CDD said neighbors had suggested that change as well as a change in the title of the ordinance. Schumann opened the public hearing. Jim Laumer, 12623 Homestead Drive, suggested changing the name of the ordinance to the "Cluster Development and Open Space Program" because the ordinance does not promote a rural environment. Laumer commented on several areas of the ordinance saying if you consider the gross land area, it would look like low density, but the appearance of cluster homes is not low density housing. He questioned why shared septic systems are not a requirement, why existing homes and outlots are considered to be part of the plat, and why public access is required to public trails and open space only `where possible'. He also had a problem with the City dictating architectural standards to the builders because they don't always reflect rural Hugo; people want to put in custom homes. He also said he felt the landscaping plan should be consistent with the existing area. He commented on the minimum land area requirement saying someone on one acre could subdivide it under the ordinance by combining it with other lots to increase the density. He suggested changes to require the minimum lot size to be one acre and the setbacks be changed to require a 35 foot side yard setback and an 50 foot setback from streets. He questioned why a bonus was given, and it was not a requirement, for a conservation easement to be held by a third party land trust. Dale Good, 12581 Homestead Drive North, had concerns about the ownership of open space and what could be done on it. Would the City be adding amenities there in the future? The CDD said the open space plan and easements would outline what would be permitted. Good commented that it should be noted if it is intended for sewer and water purposes. Good said a public park should not be considered rural space and asked if there was any data showing community septic systems were better than individual sewage treatment systems. The CDD said there had been extensive discussions and there was a lot of information available regarding water quality and shared septic systems. Good disapproved of existing homes being included as part of the development and had concerns about allowing the public on private grounds. The CDD explained the ordinance would require the developer to provide access where possible to existing or proposed public land. There was no intention to require access be provided to private open space. McRoberts clarified that `where possible' pertained to amenities not part of the development. If public amenities were part of the development, they `shall' provide access. Planning Commission Minutes — September 14, 2006 Page 4 Good said land used for access should not be included in the total acreage. Bailly said she disagreed. Good stated he had problems with the architectural covenants and said preserving natural resources should not include agricultural operations since chemicals were used in farming. He also said he would like to see all open space in a land trust. Schumann said land trusts do not accept all land. Hoffbeck added that the MN Land Trust is only one organization; there were many others. Good said there should be a minimum lot size of one acre and a requirement that changes in the Homeowner's Association needed to also be approved by the holder of the conservation easement, not only the City. He asked what would happen should the HOA not keep up with the payments. Schumann said the County would take over the land if the taxes were not being paid on it. Helen Anderson, 15624 Jeffery Avenue North, was concerned the ordinance encouraged development and would like to see a moratorium put on rural development. The CDD pointed out the Council had decided there was no need for a moratorium and an ordinance amendment could take place prior to future development applications being acted on. Rosenquist commented there was no protection for on-going farm operations. Anderson pointed out there were sounds, smells, odors, and flies from existing farm operations. McRoberts said agricultural uses would be protected by current ordinance and it could be required that developers inform buyers of the surrounding land uses. Anderson asked that more thought be given to a moratorium. Jan Good, 12581 Homestead Avenue North, felt a 100 foot buffer around a wetland should be a requirement, not a bonus incentive. The CDD informed the Commission there were no requirements in any other ordinances requiring a buffer around wetland. Sue Bragg, pointed out the water in the ponds was very low and asked how the wetland were determined. The CDD explained the role of the Technical Evaluation Panel and how the wetlands are delineated. Bragg said she would like to see an acreage minimum and would like to see a requirement for community water and sewer with a backup system. Kathy Scobie, 7676 120th Street North, said that some don't think `rural' should be included in the title because `rural' means something different to everyone. She agreed with the additional bonus for open space and community septic systems and that there should be a wetland buffer. She also said she would Planning Commission Minutes — September 14, 2006 Page 5 like to see existing farming operations be protected from future complaints. There were no other comments and Schumann closed the public hearing. Schumann made motion to strike the entire ordinance and rezone the rural and agricultural districts to Long Term Agricultural which required a 40 acre minimum lot size. Motion died for the lack of a second. Hoffbeck was concerned that the City Council would not accept the recommendation and would act on the revised ordinance without the Commission's input. The Commission took a short break. When the Commission reconvened, McRoberts asked Schumann to put the motion back on the table. Schumann made motion, McRoberts seconded, to rescind the cluster (Rural Preservation Program) ordinance and recommend all properties in the Rural Residential and Agricultural Zoning Districts be rezoned to Long Term Agricultural. Hoffbeck was concerned the Council would made a decision on the ordinance without including the Commissions recommendations. Weidt made motion, Bailly seconded, to table the ordinance amendment until the next meeting. Ayes: Bailly, Kleissler, McRoberts, Rosenquist, Schumann, Weidt Nay: Hoffbeck Motion Carried. The Commission agreed to hold the next meeting on Thursday, September 21, 2006. Dragonfly Group Site Plan for Kidzy1ace Childcare The Commission considered the application of Dragonfly Group, 24990 Greenway Avenue North, Wyoming Township, for site plan approval for property located at 5448 140th Street North for a 8,200 square foot building to consist of a childcare facility and two attached office spaces. The CD Intern provided background on the site. At its June 8, 2006 meeting, the Commission had approved a site plan for the property owner, Mike Fleischhacker, for two office condominium buildings totaling 9,216 square feet. There were two blighted buildings located on the site that had been demolished. The project did not happen and the owner currently had a purchase agreement with the Dragonfly Group. The site plan for the daycare and offices complied with all ordinance requirements. The childcare facility would include a fenced -in play area in the rear of the building. The applicant proposed to add on to the existing fence. McRoberts asked about the location of the fence and Bailly asked about the condition of it. Planning Commission Minutes — September 14, 2006 Page 6 The property owner, Mike Fleischhacker, showed where the fence was located and where he planned to add on to it. He said it had been installed approximately 3-4 years ago and was in good shape but needed paint. Hoffbeck had concerns about security issues for the play area. Don Rhuby, from the Dragonfly Group, explained the fence was six feet high and would be cut to be shorter in the front. The play area would be enclosed by the fence and the only access would be through the building. Rhuby also requested stone not be required along the back of the building since it would not be visible from the street or adjacent properties and would be a financial burden. He agreed to add stone to the east elevation to be consistent with the south elevation. Schumann asked what the timeline was on construction. Rhuby said they would like to be open around March, 2007. Hoffbeck asked what the age group would be. Rhuby answered it would be infants to twelve years of age. Hoffbeck asked about the vacant area to the east of the building and Rhuby said it was for storm water. A lift station was located on the parcel to the west which was owned by the City. Rhuby asked to delete the condition in the resolution requiring the applicant dedicate an access easement for the benefit of adjacent property owners. They did not want to dedicate an easement if not necessary. The CDD explained the desire for the property to the north to be able to share the access off 140th Street North. Hoffbeck pointed out the north parcel could be very busy, cause wear and tear on the parking lot, and too much traffic around the daycare children. Schumann said as long as the property owner was not ready to develop, the applicant should not be required to provide access, and there should be a cost to the north property owner if access was provided. Hoffbeck pointed out the applicant would be paying expenses and there should be some type of cost to the benefiting users. McRoberts suggested a land swap to provide room for an additional access. Weidt suggested an additional curb -cut but pointed out they would lose parking spaces. Schumann suggested staff talk to the north property owner on what his intentions were. Hoffbeck made motion, McRoberts seconded, to recommend approval of the of the site plan without the requiring the applicant dedicate an easement for adjacent parcels. The Commission agreed to the columns with the shorter brick and not putting stone around the back of the building but adding it to the east elevation. Planning Commission Minutes — September 14, 2006 Page 7 All Ayes. Motion carried. Adjournment Schumann made motion, Weidt seconded, to adjourn at 9:51 pm. All ayes. Motion carried Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission