Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 HALL e VO CITY OF ROSEMOU NT 2875 1 ga 0 a P.O. Box 510 Rosemount, MN s i� Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! ptz 55068 0510 4 O, Phone: 612- 423 -4411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes January 9, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, January 9, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson McDermott called the meeting to order with members DeBettignies, Tentinger, Ingram, and Droste present. Also in attendance were Mayor Cathy Busho, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Community Development Director Dan Rogness, and Civil Engineer Doug Litterer. MOTION by Droste to approve the December 12, 1995 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Second by Ingram. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, McDermott, Ingram, Droste. Nays: 0. Mayor Cathy Busho updated the Commission with regards to the number of applicants for the open City Council seat and the number of applicants for the Planning Commission seats. Interviews to take place the end of January Senior Planner Mack apprised the Commission of the upcoming meetings scheduled for the proposed new airport and the process. Chairperson McDermott recessed the Regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:43 p.m. Chairperson McDermott reconvened the Regular Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. to opened the public hearing scheduled at this time. Public Hearing: Rosemount National Bank Site Plan Review Chairperson McDermott reconvened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. for the Rosemount National Bank Site Plan review. Joe McNamara representing the Rosemount National Bank was in the audience requesting approval of an addition to the bank. Planner Pearson presented an overview of the Rosemount National Bank's proposed addition. The existing 9200 square foot structure will be increased to 16,860 square feet. Consideration has been given to the site with reference to landscaping, building characteristics, parking, circulation and access to the anticipated 151st Street West. The property is located in the C -4 II General Commercial District. h Printed on recycled paper 3O% 111 containing 30% IN or post= consumer materials. There being no further comments from the audience Chairperson McDermott closed the public hearing. Overall lot coverage, green space and the ATM creating traffic problems were the foremost concerns of the Commissioners. MOTION by Droste to approve the site plan review for the Rosemount National Bank subject to: 1. incorporation of engineering recommendations relative to circulation, interim improvements, drainage and utilities; 2. modification of the parking "island" and the ATM machine location to be approved by the Planning Staff; and 3. conformance with applicable building and fire code. Second by Ingram. Ayes: Tentinger, McDermott, Ingram, Droste, DeBettignies. Nays: 0. MOTION by McDermott to adjourn. Second by Droste. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision this meeting was adjourned at 7.55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Maryann Stoffel Recording Secretary a e o �y i CITY OF RO S E M O U N T 2875 1 45 th S eet West IV i P.O. Box 510 Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! Rosemount, MN n 55068 -0510 a ye Phone: 612 423 -4411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes December 12, 1995 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, December 12, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson McDermott called the meeting to order with members DeBettignies, Ingram, and Droste present. Also in attendance were Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Community Development Director Dan Rogness, and Civil Engineer Doug Litterer. MOTION by DeBettignies to approve the November 28, 1995 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Second by Droste. Ayes: DeBettignies, McDermott, Ingram, Droste. Nays: 0. The agenda was amended to include item 7.5 MIRTS update. MOTION by McDermott to cancel the Regular Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Tuesday December 26, 1995. Second by Droste. Ayes: McDermott, Ingram, Droste, DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Gordon Sather Administrative Plat Assistant Planner Pearson advised the Commission of a request from Mr. Sather to subdivide his property into two lots. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend approval of the administrative plat for Gordon Sather subject to: (1) provision of a ten foot wide drainage and utility easement along the northern property line; (2) payment of one unit of Park dedication; and, (3) payment of a GIS Fee. Second by Ingram. Ayes: Ingram, Droste, DeBettignies, McDermott. Nays: 0. Chairperson McDermott recessed the Regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:50 p.m. Chairperson McDermott reconvened the Regular Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. to opened the public hearing scheduled at this time. Public Hearing: Rosemount National Bank Site Plan Review Chairperson McDermott reconvened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. for the Rosemount National Bank Site Plan review. 4/11.. Printed on recycled paper 50%,' containing 30°0 posaconsumer materials. Assistant Planner Pearson indicated that the developer has more issues that must be discussed before the review process can continue. Joe McNamara representing the bank was present to answer any questions from the Commission. There being no further comments from the audience Chairperson McDermott closed the public hearing. MOTION by McDermott to continue the public hearing to 7:00 p.m. January 9, 1996. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste, DeBettignies, McDermott, Ingram. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: Greif Bros. Corp. Site Plan Review Chairperson McDermott opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding Greif Bros. Corporation site plan review. Assistant Planner Pearson apprised the Commission of a request from Greif Bros requesting approval of a 30,000 square foot warehouse addition to their facility located at 2750 145th Street West. Mr. Mark Mooney, Plant Manager for Greif Bros. Corporation and Mr. Richard Tendick with Greif Bros. Corp, were present in the audience to answer any questions from the Commission. There being no further comments from the audience Chairperson McDermott closed the public hearing. Commissioner DeBettignies and McDermott expressed concern with drainage from the property, the sprinkler system for fire suppression and the ability of the project and facility to meet the handicap code. MOTION by DeBettignies approve the site plan for Greif Bros. Corp. ware house addition subject to: 1) incorporation of engineering recommendations relative to grading and utilities; 2) conformance with the zoning ordinance requirements for building materials and landscaping with modifications recommended by the Planning Department; and, 3) conformance with all applicable building and fire codes. Second by Ingram. Ayes: DeBettignies, McDermott, Ingram, Droste. Nays: 0. MIRTS Update Senior Planner Andrew Mack updated the Commission regarding a Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Terminal Study MIRTS) being conducted by Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad, CP Rail System, Union Pacific Railroad, MnDot and the Metropolitan Council. The study involves the acquisition of land and the building of a terminal that would have facilites to load, unload and store containers and truck trailers for several railroads. The City of Rosemount has been narrowed down to two of three potential sites in the twin cities due to assessable land area and proximity to existing rail lines. The first alternative location is on the U of M property. the second is along the west side of Koch Industries and the third is near the 3M Chemolite Plant in Cottage Grove. The location of such a terminal in Rosemount would have major land use implications. Planner Mack indicated he would be monitoring the progress of the study and will update the Planning Commision as new changes occur. MOTION by McDermott to adjourn. Second by Droste. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision this meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Maryann Stoffel Recording Secretary City of Rosemount Executive Summary for Action Planning Commission: January 9, 1996 Agenda Item: Summary of City Council Actions Agenda Section: Department Announcements Prepared By: Richard Pearson, Assistant Planner Agenda No: 4A. Attachments: None Approved By: On December 19, 1995, the City Council: Approved the Eastbridge Townhomes planned unit development fmal development plan and preliminary plat and tabled the related rezonings in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendations. Adopted the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance text amendments that shift public hearings to the Planning Commission meetings; Approved the mineral extraction permits for Lance Johnson and Marly Danner; but did not approve the asphalt plant requested for the Danner pit. On January 2, 1996, the City Council: Approved the administrative plat for Gordon Sather at 4063 145th Street West. Recommended Action: No action is requested Council Action: City of Rosemount Executive Summary for Action Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 9, 1996 Agenda Item: Rosemount National Bank Site Plan Agenda Section: Review and Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING Prepared By Richard Pearson, Assistant Planner Agenda No: 7 Attachments: December 12, 1995 PC Review and Approved By. related memos On December 12, 1995, the public hearing for the Rosemount National Bank Site Plan Review was continued January 9, 1996 to enable the developers to meet with City Staff and discuss access and site plan issues. Mike and Joe McNamera, the developers, have agreed to the recommended previously identified conditions of site plan approval with the following summarised understandings: 1) The property will be platted in sequence with the Chippendale Partners (McNamera property) planned unit development which will cause some of the public improvements to be planned or installed in addition to dedication of easements and right -of -way for CSAH 42, Chippendale Avenue and 151st Street West, 2) The southerly driveway access will be built with curb and gutter to the anticipated right- of -way location of 151st Street West. A temporary driveway will be constructed within the anticipated 151st Street right -of -way which will align with the existing intersection at Chippendale Avenue. 3) The driveway access at Chippendale Avenue accross from the H oliday Station already has restrictions in place that were identified at the time of the driveway permit issuance and that further physical improvements may be required or installed by the City for traffic management in this location, 4) The "parking island" will be modified as suggested by Planning Staff and attention will be given to relocating the ATM machine on the island because option "B" is undesirable. Generally, the issues have been worked out between the City Staff and the Developer. Some of the improvements will be coordinated with the development of the larger McNamera property at appropriate construction phases. As well, the Developer expects that some of the traffic management related improvements will be recommended (and justified) as the result of a detailed traffic study. The construction process will involve a temporary structure that will be located on the edge of the existing parking lot and driveway so that drive- through activities will not be interupted by the construction process. Recommended Action: MOTION to approve the site plan review for the Rosemount National Bank subject to: 1) incorporation of engineering recommendations relative to circulation, interim improvements, drainage and utilities; 2) modification of the parking "island" and the ATM machine location to be approved by the Planning Staff; and, 3) conformance with applicable building and fire codes. F CITY OF RO S E M O U N T 2875 CITY t eet W est PO. Box 510 il Everything's Cominl U Ro semount!! Rosemount, MN Coming P 55068 -0510 a l l s alb 9 a Phone: 612.423.4411 Planning Commission Fax: 612-423-5203 ANNUAL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, February 13, 1996 at 6:40 p.m. Chairperson Patrick McDermott called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, William Droste, Jay Tentinger, and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Civil Engineer Doug Litterer, and Mayor Cathy Busho. Mayor Busho swore in Member DeBettignies for his 3 -year reappointment to the Planning Commission and swore in Member Shoe Corrigan for her 3 -year appointment to the Planning Commission. Mayor Busho presented Certificates of Appreciation to Chairperson McDermott, Member Droste, Member DeBettignies, and Member Tentinger for their contributions to the Planning Commission during the preceding year. Mayor Busho revealed to the Planning Commission the plaque that will be presented to Lorrayne Ingram for the years of service she gave to the Planning Commission. Mayor Busho explained to the Planning Commission the responsibilities and the role of the Planning Commission. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Item No. 7A Revised Sketchbook Plan for Carrousel Plaza South should be removed from the agenda. Planning Commission Chair and Vice -Chair Nominations Elections As per Planning Commission Bylaws, nominations for officers shall be taken at the Annual Meeting. MOTION by DeBettignies to nominate Droste as Planning Commission Chairperson. Second by Tentinger. MOTION by DeBettignies to cast a white ballot to elect Droste as 1996 Planning Commission Chair. Second by Tentinger. Droste was elected as 1996 Planning Commission Chair. McDermott turned over the Planning Commission Chair to Droste. 110 MOTION by Tentinger to nominate McDermott as Planning Commission Vice Chair. Second by DeBettignies. Printed on recycled paper S 30%$ containing 30% posaconsumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings February 13, 1996 Page 2 MOTION by DeBettignies to cast a white ballot to elect McDermott as 1996 Planning Commission Vice Chair. Second by Tentinger. McDermott was elected as 1996 Planning Commission Vice Chair. MOTION by McDermott to approve the January 23, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste, DeBettignies, Tentinger, McDermott and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Community Development Director Rogness formally introduced Kelli Grund as the new Planning Secretary for the City of Rosemount. Chairperson Droste recessed the Regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:57 p.m. Chairperson Droste reconvened the Regular Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. to open the public hearings scheduled at this time. Public Hearing: Shannon Meadows Revised Preliminary Plat and Final Development Plan Chairperson Droste reconvened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. for the Shannon Meadows revised preliminary plat and final development plan review. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavits for Mailing Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson related the background and history of this proposed development which is located north of 145th Street West and west of Shannon Parkway. This preliminary plat has been revised several times. The most recent revision shifted the proposed 143rd Street south sixty feet and added a small cul -de -sac. The preservation of existing trees was the driving force for these changes. Mr. Pearson mentioned that a grading plan and landscape plan had been submitted. It is Staff's opinion that this revised preliminary plat is superior to previous submitted plats and recommends approval of the revised preliminary plat, planned unit development final plan modification and rezoning from Agriculture to R -1 Single Family Detached Residential. John Hawkins, 4173 145th Street, was concerned if Hawkins Pond was going to be removed as he could not see it on the preliminary plat. He then located the pond on the plat and was satisfied. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Droste closed the public hearing. The Commissioners questioned whether the barn located on the lot line of Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block 1 would be removed and what the size of the proposed lots would be. It was requested by the Commissioners that the preliminary plat be resubmitted with the width of Lot 16, Block 2 being stated at 80 feet instead of 79 feet. The Commissioners discussed the future of proposed Outlot A and their concern regarding run -off and water drainage from the site. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings February 13, 1996 Page 3 MOTION by Tentinger to recommend approval of the revised preliminary plat to the City Council subject to: 1) incorporation of engineering recommendations relative to grading and utilities; 2) execution of a development agreement to secure public improvements, infrastructure, GIS fees and park dedication as well as guarantee variances; 3) rezoning the property to R -1 Single Family Residential (detached); and, 4) conformance with the applicable subdivision and zoning ordinances for final plat. Second by Droste. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste. Nays: 0. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend approval to the City Council of the revised planned unit development final development plan for Shannon Meadows in conformance with the conditions required for the revised preliminary plat. Second by Droste. Ayes: Tentinger, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, DeBettignies. Nays: 0. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend that the City Council table action regarding the rezoning until final plat approval with written concurrence provided by the petitioner. Second by Droste. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, DeBettignies, Tentinger. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: T. Furlong Cemstone, Inc.- Mineral Extraction Permit Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the mineral extraction permit request of T. Furlong and Cemstone, Inc. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavits for Mailing Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Tom Furlong, land owner, and Ken Kuhn, operator of Cemstone, Inc., have requested a mineral extraction permit for approximately 33 acres of land about 1/3 mile south of STH 55 on the west side of Fischer Avenue. He related that last year a short term mineral extraction permit was granted for this property for Buffalo Bituminous. The current proposal includes a long -term, 3 phase operation. Phase I is expected to last 8 to 10 years and before Phase II may begin, Phase I is required to be restored and revegetated. Mr. Pearson recommended that the proposed grading plan be revised to preserve the existing trees and still keep the 4:1 slope. Staff recommended that this permit be approved subject to conditions. Ken Kuhn was in the audience to answer any questions or concerns. Diane Gabbert and Christina Peterson stated that their homes are situated immediately south of the Furlong property and that their homes look directly at this site. They listed the following concerns with this proposed permit: 1) the potential decrease in home value; 2) noise; 3) pollutants; 4) watershed problem; 5) large piles of extracted material; and 6) increased traffic on Fischer Avenue and STH 55. Mr. Kuhn addressed the majority of Ms. Gabbert's and Ms. Peterson's concerns and questions. Tom Furlong stated that he hauls grain in that area and from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday the roads in the area are busy, otherwise, the traffic level is fine. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings February 13, 1996 Page 4 There being no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Droste closed the public hearing. The Commissioners discussed at length their concerns regarding the increased traffic level on Fischer Avenue, size of the piles on the site, pollutants, and decreased property values. MOTION by McDermott to recommend approval of the Furlong/Cemstone mineral extraction permit including sorting and washing aggregate material to the City Council subject to the draft conditions of operation for 1996. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, DeBettignies, Tentinger, McDermott. Nays: 0. Chairperson Droste excused himself from the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:20 p.m. Tax Increment District- Rosemount Business Park Senior Planner Mack introduced this item. He stated that the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan will support the creation of an Economic Development TIF District for the 80 acres currently owned by the Port Authority located along the south side of CSAH 42 between State Trunk Highway 3 and Biscayne Avenue. This Plan is a financial mechanism to attract and encourage businesses to the community. Mr. Mack mentioned that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, the Planning Commission must provide a recommendation to the City Council by resolution finding that the plan for the proposed new TIF District is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Community Development Director Rogness explained the TIF process and goals to the Commission. The Commission had a concern regarding the timing of this TIF District and hoped that the funds captured by this TIF District would be used wisely. MOTION by Tentinger to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 1996 -1 Finding that Modifications to the Redevelopment Project Plan for the Rosemount Redevelopment District for creation of the Rosemount Business Park Tax Increment Financing District Plan (Economic Development) are in conformance with the Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan. Seconded by McDermott. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. (Droste absent). MOTION by McDermott to adjourn. Second by Tentinger. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ka CS Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary CITY OF RO S E M O U N T 2875 C 1 45 t h i Street West a 0 P.O. Box 510 Rosemount, MN Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! 55068 -0510 Phone: 612-423-4411 Fax: 612-423-5203 Planning Commission REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, February 27, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Patrick McDermott, Mark DeBettignies, Jay Tentinger, and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, and Intern Dean Lotter. Mayor Cathy Busho presented an Appreciation Plaque to Lorrayne Ingram for her three years of service as a Planning Commissioner from 1993 to 1996. All current Planning Commissioners thanked Lorrayne for her time and effort and wished her well. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that there were no additions or corrections to the agenda. MOTION by DeBettignies to approve the February 13, 1996 Annual Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Second by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott. Nays: 0. Senior Planner Mack mentioned that the City Council, at its meeting of February 20, 1996, authorized the Parks Recreation Director to apply for an LCMR Grant for the acquisition of approximately 15 acres of park land on the Kelly Trust property adjacent to Carrolls Woods Park. He stated that this grant would be an extension of a previous grant. New Business: Carrollton Partnership Carrollton Fifth Addition Final Plat Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Don Carroll was here to request approval of the final plat for Carrollton Fifth Addition. He mentioned that this plat consists of 8 single family lots and is located on the corner of 144th Street West and Chili Avenue. All lots exceed minimum standards and no variances are requested. Mr. Pearson related that the plat includes land that was absorbed by the realignment of Chili Avenue, therefore, the right -of -way in that area should be dedicated. In summary, Mr. Pearson stated that the final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat and staff recommends approval with a minimum of conditions. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend approval of the final plat for Carrollton Fifth Addition to the City Council subject to: 1) development and construction of building pads, incorporation of grading practices and erosion control methods according to minimum standards as approved and on file with the City Engineer; 2) provision of landscaping as required by zoning ordinance standards with credit available for preservation of existing significant boulevard trees; 3) dedication of right -of- way for the realigned Chili Avenue; 4) park dedication in the form of cash contribution at the rate Printed on reryded paper •9U�� containing 30% post consumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings February 27, 1996 Page 2 established by resolution; and, 5) payment of G.I.S. fees at the rate established by resolution. Second by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies. Nays: 0. New Business: Adult Uses Land Use Issues Intern Lotter gave an overall summary of the proposed Adult Use Ordinance. He stated that a city cannot regulate adult use businesses based on the nature of the business, but can regulate the negative secondary effects these businesses create. Banning these business is a violation of the First Amendment. Mr. Lotter explained that, according to case law, the City must set aside 5% of the developable land for adult uses. Mr. Lotter then stated that Staff has developed five options for locating adult uses in the City and requested input from the Commission in regards to these options. Mr. Lotter stated that this item was for discussion only and that no motion was necessary. Pursuant to a question from the Commission, Mr. Lotter stated that a moratorium (which protects the City from any adult uses locating in the City until an ordinance has been enacted) is currently in place until May 4, 1996. If necessary, this moratorium could be extended for another 12 months. A discussion occurred during which it was the consensus that the 5% rule was too high. The Commissioners felt that Rosemount was a unique area and having 5% of the developable land in the City being designated as adult uses was extreme. It was mentioned during this discussion that the City of Minneapolis has only 1% of its developable land zoned for adult uses. The Commissioners also discussed the possibility of using overlays, as in Option #4, as a feasible solution to the location of adult uses. Chairperson Droste closed this item at 7 :10 p.m. to open the public hearings. Chairperson Droste reopened this item at 8:25 p.m. The Commissioners discussed the following in regards to this item: 1. Concentrate these types of uses versus disperse these types of uses. 2. 5% was too high of a minimum standard. 3. The ordinance should be very strict and narrow. 4. Possible locations of these types of uses. 5. Negative secondary effect. 6. What other cities in the area have done regarding this issue. In summary, it was recommended by the Commissioners that more research needed to be done on this issue. They requested that Intern Lotter again contact the City Attorney's Office to discuss if and how, it would be feasible to lower the minimum standard of 5% without getting sued. They also requested that research be done to see if adult uses could feasibly be located in a general industrial area as compared to a commercial area. The Commissioners also recommended that the moratorium be extended for another 12 months to give the City time to adequately discuss and research this item. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings February 27, 1996 Page 3 Public Hearing: Spectro Alloys Inc. Administrative Plat and Right -of -Way Vacation Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the administrative plat and right -of -way vacation request of Spectro Alloys, Inc. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavits for Mailing Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson related the history of this right -of -way vacation request. He stated that staff concluded that a replat is necessary because the property is already platted and simple metes and bounds legal descriptions are not appropriate. The building on the site is currently straddling 3 lot lines causing many setback encroachments that are non conforming. Mr. Pearson stated that this is basically a "housekeeping measure" which will solve many of these setback problems by combining the original six lots into one. He mentioned that the City Attorney has recommended this lot combination. Dan Holkus, representing Spectro Alloys, Inc. and the surveying consultant for Spectro Alloys, Inc. were present to answer any questions. There being no comments from the audience, MOTION by McDermott to close the public hearing. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger. Nays: O. Assistant Planner Pearson mentioned that he received one phone call regarding this item. He stated after he explained Spectro Alloys, Inc. request, the caller was comfortable with the request and decided not to attend the public hearing. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend approval of the Spectro Alloys Addition Replat to the City Council subject to conveyance of an easement for overhead power lines that are located in the right -of -way to be vacated and as well as the inclusion of ten foot wide drainage and utility easements along the northwest property line (perpendicular to TH 55) as previously dedicated with the Hollenback Nelson, Inc. First Addition plat. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: Solberg Aggregate/Koch Refinery Company Mineral Extraction Permit Renewals Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the mineral extraction permit requests of Solberg Aggregate. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavits for Mailing Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson explained that Solberg Aggregate was requesting approval of two mineral extraction permits -one located on the northeast corner of the intersection of STH 52 and CSAH 42, and one located on property owned by Koch Refinery on the west side of STH 52 approximately one Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings February 27, 1996 Page 4 mile north of CSAH 42. Mr. Pearson stated that both are renewals for on -going operations that are in the final phase. Staff is recommending, and Solberg Aggregate has agreed, that additional landscaping on the Solberg site is needed. It is recommended that 12 Amur Maple trees be planted along the northwest entrance ramp to STH 52. Mr. Pearson stated that draft conditions for both permits have been provided to the Planning Commissioners. Carl Solberg of Solberg Aggregate was present to answer any questions. A discussion occurred between the Planning Commissioners and Mr. Solberg regarding the additional landscaping requested, whether there enough topsoil to reclaim the area, any possible runoff problems on either site, and additional berming on the Solberg site. Mr. Solberg stated that there is no shortage of topsoil, no runoff, and after the mining is completed Solberg Aggregate will be constructing additional berming around the site. As there was no further public comment, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Solberg Aggregate has been meeting all previous conditions imposed upon them and there has been no traffic complaints in regards to these sites. A discussion ensued regarding enforcement of the mining extraction permits. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend approval of the renewal requested for the Solberg/Koch mineral extraction permit to the City Council subject to the attached draft conditions of operation for 1996. Seconded by McDermott. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott. Nays: 0. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend approval of the renewal request for the Solberg site mineral extraction permit to the City Council subject to the attached draft conditions of operations for 1996. Seconded by McDermott. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment for Supplementary Lot Dimension and Set Back Requirements Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the proposed zoning text amendment for supplementary lot dimension and setback requirements. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavits for Mailing Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson gave a brief history of this proposed zoning text amendment. He stated that the proposed amendment has simplified the structure of the ordinance and commented that Staff feels that the proposed amendment is an improvement to the current ordinance and supports this amendment. Mr. Pearson mentioned that basically the setbacks have been decreased by 10 feet from the previous proposed amendment. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings February 27, 1996 Page 5 Pursuant to a request from the Commission, Assistant Planner Pearson explained the reason for this proposed change to the ordinance and also listed some of the previous concerns of the City Council in regards to the failure to adopt the previous proposed amendment. Reid J. Hansen, 14450 South Robert Trail, stated that his client, a developer, finds this proposed amendment a marked improvement over the previous proposed amendment, especially in clarity. He also requested that a change be made to the wording of the proposed ordinance. Assistant Planner Pearson replied to Mr. Hansen that the City Attorney had reviewed the proposed ordinance and did not recommend any changes. As there was no further comment from the audience, MOTION by Droste to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger. Nays: 0. The Planning Commissioners ensued in a lengthy discussion regarding the enhancement of the proposed setback standards. Some Commissioners felt that there was no need to compromise previous recommendations and even suggested further enhancements. The Commissioners also requested that this item come back before them for their input if the City Council made any changes to the proposed ordinance. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amendment draft to increase lot dimensional and building setback standards along highways and railroads. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste. Nays: 0. MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Seconded by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, A IL R. v (\)\JY,, A.. Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary a p s° `y CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2875 CI45 t HA ee t West P.O. Box 510 Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! Rosemount, MN 55068 -0510 Phone: 612- 423 -4411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Planning Commission REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, March 12, 1996 at 6:37 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Jay Tentinger, and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Intern Dean Lotter, and Civil Engineer Doug Litterer. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that there were no additions or corrections to the agenda. MOTION by DeBettignies to approve the February 27, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed various actions the City Council took at its March 6, 1996 meeting. Community Developer Director Rogness summarized the Council Goal Setting Meeting of March 8, 1996 and stated that he would distribute a memo summarizing the meeting to the Planning Commissioners in the next packet. Senior Planner Mack mentioned that a decision will be forthcoming shortly from the Senate in regards to the proposed dual track airport. He added that a representative for the City of Rosemount will be in attendance at the Senate hearings on this matter. Old Business: Adult Uses Land Use Issues Update Intern Lotter provided an update of his meeting with Jim Thompson from the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Thompson related to Mr. Lotter that even though placing adult uses in the industrial zone appears to be contradictory to the zoning ordinance, the courts use a different standard than planners. Sufficient available land is the main standard that the courts would utilize if the City were challenged in the future. Mr. Lotter mentioned that Mr. Thompson strongly recommended that adult uses be placed in overlays in the General Industrial zone. Mr. Thompson used 5% of the General Industrial area to arrive at 165 acres the City should make available for adult uses. Any less acres would put the City at risk. Mr. Lotter also mentioned that Mr. Thompson recommended that adult uses be dispersed versus concentration. He stated that dispersing these types of uses minimizes the negative secondary effects compared to concentrating them. In closing, Mr. Lotter explained that adopting an ordinance in regards to where adults uses can locate "closes the door" as much as legally possible on these types of uses and that presently, without an ordinance in place, the door is "wide IS Printed on rerycled paper it 30 4 containing 30% posh consomermaterials. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings March 12, 1996 Page 2 open" to these types of uses. Mr. Lotter remarked that he was requesting from the Planning Commissioners a possible public hearing date for this item. The Commissioners asked how Minneapolis was able to only provide 1% of available land for adult uses. City staff responded that the courts looked at the number of available sites Minneapolis made available for adult uses (over 84), not percentage of land available. City staff also related to the Commissioners what other cities in the area are doing in regards to adult uses. A discussion ensued regarding allowing 165 acres for development of adult uses (undeveloped land) versus having 165 acres available for adult uses (developed land). City staff concluded that market forces would dictate and developed land would count in the 165 acres. Some possible locations of the 165 acres were discussed, i.e. Pine Bend area, Hwy 52 and Hwy 42. In summary, the Planning Commissioners requested that City staff prepare a proposed ordinance allowing adult uses in the General Industrial area with overlays. The Planning Commissioners further requested that they review this proposed ordinance at the March 26, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting and a public hearing on this matter be set for April 9, 1996. New Business: Lot Coverage in General Industrial District Assistant Planner Pearson related that currently a 50% maximum lot coverage is allowed in the General Industrial area which City staff feels is excessively restrictive. Mr. Pearson stated that the proposed ordinance amendment would raise the maximum lot coverage to 75% in the General Industrial area in sewered areas. In unsewered areas, the applicant would have to show that they have adequate storm water management before they would be allowed to have the 75% lot coverage. Mr. Pearson stated that the proposed ordinance amendment needs to be refined and a definition for impervious surfaces needs to be added. Civil Engineer Litterer mentioned that the Engineering Department was very conservative when planning the Storm Water Drainage Plan and does not feel increasing the lot coverage to 75% would cause any problems. Generally, the Commissioners felt that this was a needed amendment and would encourage businesses to locate in Rosemount. The Commissions requested that when the proposed ordinance amendment is refined that this item be brought back before them for discussion before a public hearing is scheduled. New Business: Commercial Driveway Separation Requirements from Intersections Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed the background and rational for this proposed ordinance. He reviewed previous controversies in the City in regards to the location of driveways too close to intersections, i.e. Vermillion State Bank. Mr. Pearson mentioned that Intern Lotter had obtained from neighboring cities their ordinance requirements in regards to driveway separations and found Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings March 12, 1996 Page 3 that the majority had a 250 foot requirement and placed the approval authority on the City Engineer. He stated that our City Engineer would prefer a specific standard to follow so that driveway separations do not become an arbitrary process. Mr. Pearson explained that the variance process would become the appropriate appeal process. The Commissioners requested that residential driveway separation requirements from intersections be included in this proposed ordinance. They asked that, before a public hearing is scheduled, this matter be brought back before them for discussion when the proposed ordinance is refined. New Business: Public Hearing Requirements for Site Plan Reviews Community Development Director Rogness reviewed this item. He stated that City staff is questioning whether public input is necessary for a site plan review. Mr. Rogness explained that Staff and the Planning Commission look at design standards and objectives to come to a design decision and that design should mostly meet local standards rather than be based on public opinion. It was mentioned that most cities do not require a public hearing in the site review plan process. Commissioner Shoe Corrigan questioned if design standards would be increased in the future and felt that the public hearing process should be retained until these higher standards are in place. The Commissioners discussed previous site plan reviews and PUD applications. In summary, the Planning Commissioners requested that City staff keep track of site plan reviews for the next six (6) months and then bring this item back to the Planning Commission for review and discussion. MOTION by Tentinger to adjourn. Seconded by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Yb(1, A G(4 Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary R CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2875 ;fi t "�ee tWest P.O. Box 510 Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! Rosemount, MN 55068 -0510 11 Phone: 612- 423 -4411 Asa 3 "l s Fax: 612-423-5203 Planning Commission REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 26, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, March 26, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Jay Tentinger, and Patrick McDermott present. Also in attendance was Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, and Intern Dean Lotter. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that there were no additions or corrections to the agenda. Member McDermott requested that a correction be made to the March 12, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. He requested that on Page 2, under New Business: Lot Coverage in General Industrial District, first sentence, the words "very excessive" be changed to "excessively restrictive MOTION by Droste to approve the March 12, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and McDermott. Nays: 0. Senior Planner Mack updated the Commission regarding the Dual Track Airport planning process. He reported that the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission both recommended to the Legislature that the current airport site be expanded and both entities were against site preservation controls or land banking measures for any possible site in Dakota County. Mr. Mack related that the Legislature is currently reviewing this matter and may or may not act upon this issue prior to the close of this year's session. Old Business: Adult Uses Land Use Issues Proposed Ordinance Intern Lotter reviewed the structure and contents of the proposed adult use ordinance and stated that he was available to answer any questions or concerns. A discussion ensued regarding the appropriate buffer zone for these types of uses from schools, parks and churches. It was discussed whether the buffer zone should be increased from the proposed 500 feet to 1000 or 1500 feet. Intern Lotter stated that he would consult with Jim Thompson, City Attorney, in regards to the feasibility of increasing the buffer zone. The Commissioners and Staff also discussed whether the buffer zone should be calculated from property line to property line or structure to structure. 1 1 Printed on recycled paper 3O 'ontaining 30% Mir post consumer materials Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings March 26, 1996 Page 2 Pursuant to a request, Staff related that a map would be prepared for the next Planning Commission meeting showing, in color, potential sites for an adult use business and the proposed buffer zones around them. Chairperson Droste tabled this item to later in the evening to open the public hearings. After the public hearings, this item was reopened. The Commissioners and Staff discussed the possibility of allowing adult uses only as a special permit. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding extending the moratorium which is to expire on May 4, 1996. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend to the City Council that the adult use moratorium be extended, the duration of which shall be at the discretion of the City Council. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: John Joyce Remkus Zoning Text Amendment Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the zoning text amendment application of John and Joyce Remkus. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavits for Mailing Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that the applicants, John and Joyce Remkus, own 9.99 acres of land in the Agriculture District east of Akron Avenue. Currently, 2400 sq. ft. of accessory structure is allowed east of Akron Avenue in the AG District and 1200 sq. ft. is allowed west of Akron Avenue in the AG District. Mr. Pearson stated that the Remkus' currently have 2940 sq. ft. of accessory structure on their property and are proposing to construct another 2932 sq. ft. Mr. Pearson commented that Staff reviewed the Zoning Ordinance and felt an amendment may be appropriate in regards to the maximum square footage allowed for accessory structures. Staff is proposing a graduated scale whereby the more land an individual owns, the more square feet of accessory structure they are allowed. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff is looking for direction from the Commissioners in regards to this issue. Mr. Pearson further mentioned that he received a letter from Koch Refinery in support of this application; a telephone call from a property owner west of Akron Avenue who is against this application; a telephone call from Koch Refinery (no opinion); and a petition signed by the property owner to the north of the Remkus' property in support of this application. Greg Burgacker, 13080 Akron Avenue, stated that he owns property south of the applicants and he is in support of their application. Mr. Burgacker commented that in the future he too would like to build additional accessory structures on his property to store snowmobiles, equipment, etc. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings March 26, 1996 Page 3 John Remkus, the applicant, reviewed the letter that he sent to the City on March 2, 1996 as to the reasons for this request. He stated that they are open to conditions they just want to live their dream. Mr. Remkus commented that he wants to store some parts, tinker with old cars, raise horses, some farming, etc. and will need more than 3000 sq. ft. of accessory structure to do so. He related that they will hire a contractor to build the structures and the buildings would be aesthetically pleasing. Cathy Busho, 12605 South Robert Trail, felt that the east and west side of Akron Avenue should be treated equally and have the same standards. She requested that any zoning amendment also include the west side of Akron Avenue. Assistant Planner Pearson replied that there currently was a double- standard in regards to standards between the east and west side of Akron Avenue. The only requirement on accessory structures on the east side of Akron Avenue is square footage. Otto Ped, 4992 145th Street East, stated that the ordinances should be fair to everybody. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. The Commissioners then discussed this item at length. In summary, the Commissioners were in favor of Staff's proposed graduated scale for maximum area allowed for accessory structures (possibly even increasing the maximums past 3000 sq. ft.); felt that there should be consistent guidelines throughout the City; and requested that aesthetic standards be incorporated into this amendment. MOTION by Droste to continue discussion on this matter until April 9, 1996 to allow Staff to draft an amendment based upon the Commission's direction. Seconded by McDermott. Ayes: Droste, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Mineral Extraction Permit Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the mineral extraction permit application of Bituminous Roadways, Inc. /Otto Ped. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavits for Mailing Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Otto Ped, property owner, was in the audience to request a mineral extraction permit on approximately 80 acres located at 4992 145th Street East. In 1995, 77,500 cubic yards of screened rock and sand were removed from the site and the 1996 yield is expected to be compatible. Mr. Pearson mentioned that this property would probably be mined for another 7 or 8 years. No complaints were received during 1995 in relation to this property or the mineral extraction. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings March 26, 1996 Page 4 Otto Ped stated that he was available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Ped also mentioned that he has observed the Danner mineral extraction operation operating after 7:00 p.m. and felt that the Danner operation should be required to have a gate restricting access to the property after 7:00 p.m. Mr. Ped was informed that if he notices any violations by the Danner operation, to immediately contact the City of Rosemount so that action may be taken. There being no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. A discussion occurred regarding the alleged Danner operation violations. The Commissioners discussed the need for future mineral extraction permits to include a condition requiring the operator to secure the access to the site during non business hours, i.e. a gate. The Commissioners also discussed that future mineral extraction permits include a condition requiring that a sign be posted stating the hours of operation. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend that the City Council approve the renewal of the mineral extraction permit for Bituminous Roadways /Otto Ped 4992 145th Street East subject to the attached draft conditions of operation for 1996 with the added condition that the access to the site be secured during non operating hours. Seconded by McDermott. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and McDermott. Nays: 0. Old Business: Lot Coverage in General Industrial District Assistant Planner Pearson stated that changes were made to the proposed ordinance amendment since the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Pearson commented that a definition for impervious surfaces was added and he reviewed the other changes for the Commissioners. The Commissioners supported the proposed ordinance amendment and requested that this matter be scheduled for public hearing on April 23, 1996. MOTION by Tentinger to adjourn. Seconded by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary r App a� CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2875 145 t St W 1 t P.O. Box 510 Rosemount, MN gyp: Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! 550680510 10 s g*g r t ar Phone: 612- 423 -4411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Discussion on Metropolitan Growth Options and Rosemount's Comprehensive Guide Plan SUMMARY OF WORKSESSION -MARCH 12, 1996 Chairperson William Droste called the worksession to order at 5:40 p.m. with Members Mark DeBettignies and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also present were Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson and Intern Dean Lotter. Community Development Director Rogness gave an overview of the worksession and reviewed common terms in regards to the worksession topic. Mr. Rogness stated that Rosemount is in the developing area of the metropolitan region as opposed to the fully developed areas. Mr. Rogness explained that the Metropolitan Council has been given a deadline of June 1, 1996 from the legislature to decide on a course of action to control and direct growth in the metropolitan area. He stated that the Metropolitan Council is looking for input from cities, businesses, developers, etc. to help them in their decision making process. Mr. Rogness related that the Metropolitan Council has provided three growth options for discussion: (1) current trend or spread development (based on market trends and moves the MUSA line further out); (2) concentrated development (do not extend the MUSA line and restrict the growth to the existing urban area); (3) growth centers (identify a few areas expected to have sustained growth and encourage mixed uses in these areas). Mr. Rogness mentioned that it is the general belief that the Metropolitan Council is leaning towards the growth center option or a hybrid of the three options. Assistant Planner Pearson discussed and explained Rosemount's Land Use Plan (year 2000 growth scenario). He provided a map to the Commissioners showing them the current MUSA line and future proposed MUSA lines. The Planning Commissioners briefly discussed the proposed role the City would play in this process and questioned the future of the University of Minnesota land (any development Senior Planner Mack mentioned that the major interceptor line running east /west, combined with the proposed Rosemount WWTP phase out, could also influence growth policies for the City. In summary, the Planning Commissions requested that this discussion be continued in the near future. The worksession was closed at 6:35 p.m. Printed on recycled paper a JO%111 containing 30% post- consumerniaterials. s ;1 e: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2875— ;45 t hStee t West wb E P Box 510 4 Rosemount, MN Everything Coming Up Rosemount!! 55068.0510 p lanning Commission Phone: -4411 -423- Planning Fax: 612.4Z3.5Z03 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, April 9, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Jay Tentinger, Patrick McDermott and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Engineer Doug Litterer and Intern Dean Lotter. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that there were no additions or corrections to the agenda. MOTION by Droste to approve the March 26, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and McDermott. Nays: 0. Old Business: Metropolitan Growth Options Senior Planner Mack introduced this item mentioning that the Planning Commission held a worksession on March 12, 1996 to discuss the 3 growth options scenarios. He updated that the Metropolitan Council is in the process of conducting meetings on this topic and will render a decision on Growth Scenarios by the end of June 1996. Mr. Mack stated that, although a hybrid of the 3 scenarios will most likely be approved, Staff's concern is that the "concentrated growth" option will be implemented. This translates into the MUSA line not being extended which would have a big impact on the City. It was mentioned that after the Metropolitan Council makes its decision on this issue and sends out Systems Statements by the end of this year, the City will be required to update all or portions of the Comprehensive Guide Plan consistent with the Metropolitan Council's Policy Statements. The Commissioners and Staff discussed the viability of the Metropolitan Council's options, transportation needs in the future, the importance of agriculture and open space for Rosemount, the revitalization of Minneapolis /St. Paul and other topics related to growth in the region. Public Hearing: Basic Builders/Hawkins Property- Concept Review Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the concept planned unit development application of Basic Builders, Inc. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavits of Mailing Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that the applicant, Basic Builders, is proposing 17 single family lots on 16.3 acres of land currently owned by John and Joan Hawkins. This property is located west of .I Printed on recycled paper 30 containing 30% Mar post- consumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings April 9, 1996 Page 2 Shannon Meadows and north of 145th Street. Mr. Pearson stated that the proposed lots are excessively deep lots with a majority of the lot lines extending into the pond. Therefore, all the land is privately owned. He mentioned that the proposed density of this land is 1.8 dwelling units per acre (without including the pond area). Mr. Pearson stated that 8 of the proposed lots will require a lot width variance ranging from 1.42 feet to 0.98 feet. Staff feels that the variances are justified because of the proposed lower density than the surrounding areas and lot depths exceed the minimum standard. Finally, Mr. Pearson mentioned that Staff is not recommending any parks or trails with the development as the pond is relatively small. Staff and the Commissioners discussed runoff concerns in relation to Hawkins Pond and the future of 143rd Street. Jeff Nivala of Basic Builders replied, in response to Commission Shoe Corrigan's concern, that a house with a 3 -car garage could easily be built on the 8 reduced width lots and still meet setbacks. Mr. Nivala also mentioned that he has no objection to sidewalks being constructed along 143rd Street to align with the sidewalks being constructed in Shannon Meadows. John Hawkins, owner, stated that the pond on the property has been located there for approximately 8 years and that during that time there has never been a problem with the pond holding run -off He mentioned that all the lots will be very nice and that there are many trees on the property and most, if not all, will be saved. There being no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Member Shoe Corrigan expressed her concern that allowing the variances would not be beneficial to this development as the houses would be too close together and only the garages would be seen from the street. She requested that the developer remove one of the lots. She felt that minimum standards are there for a purpose and should be met. A lengthy discussion occurred regarding the lot widths during which Commissioner Tentinger requested that the owner /developer attempt to get the current owners abutting 145th Street and proposed Lot 12 to buy a portion of Lot 12 so that the panhandle is removed. During this discussion, the Commissioners concurred that they were in favor of turnaround driveways on Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend approval of the proposed residential planned unit development concept to the City Council subject to: 1. The Planning Commission found that the lot width variances were warranted consistent with the findings required in Section 12.2 of the Ordinance B, City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance. 2. Conformance with the requirements for PUD final development plan, preliminary plat and rezoning in conformance with the City of Rosemount subdivision and zoning ordinances. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings April 9, 1996 Page 3 Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: Shoe Corrigan. Motion passes 4 -1. Public Hearing: John Joyce Remkus Zoning Text Amendment Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the zoning text amendment application of John and Joyce Remkus. Assistant Planner Pearson related the background of this application and stated that this item was previously continued from the March 26, 1996, Planning Commission meeting so that Staff could prepare a draft amendment. Mr. Pearson then reviewed the proposed draft amendment stating that accessory structures would be allowed based on an incremental system proportionate to land area and that all references to Akron Avenue as a City division line had been removed. John Remkus, the applicant, commented that, after reviewing the proposed amendment, he felt penalized for owning too much land. He stated that it was not fair that a 2.5 acre parcel was allowed 1,000 sq. ft. of accessory buildings and a 10 acre parcel was only allowed 3,000 sq. ft. of accessory buildings. Mr. Remkus recommended he be allowed 5,000 sq. ft. in accessory structures with a limit of 2,500 sq. ft. per building. This would eliminate Staff's concern that someone could build a 5,000 sq. ft. building on their property. Mr. Remkus then explained the uses for the proposed accessory structures, i.e. storing of hay and farming equipment, horses and storing of automobiles and parts. Finally, he mentioned that the proposed building would not be visible from the road and stressed that he really needs 5,000 sq. ft. of accessory buildings. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Staff responded to the Commission's request if a variance would be feasible in this matter to which Staff responded that a hardship would be difficult to find in this matter. Assistant Planner Pearson remarked that if the Commission was considering allowing more than 3,000 sq. ft. of accessory structures that they consider including enhanced standards for any buildings constructed over this 3,000 sq. ft. limit. He mentioned that Staff felt that allowing over 3,000 sq. ft. of accessory structures was not the intent for a rural residential use. The Commission discussed at length the 3,000 sq. ft. limit and whether it was appropriate to extend this limit. The Commission requested that Staff check with other cities in the area to see what their policy is regarding accessory structures. The Commission then discussed the possibility of continuing this matter until the next meeting to allow Staff time to research this issue. Mr. Remkus stated that he was not opposed to continuing this matter and extending the 60 day deadline for a decision to be made in this matter. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings April 9, 1996 Page 4 In summary, the Commissioners: 1. Requested that Staff contact other cities in the area to obtain their ordinances regarding accessory structures. 2. Were possibly in favor of increasing the 3,000 sq. ft. limit (would review at next meeting after Staff researched this item further). 3. Were in favor of setback standards from the principal residence to the accessory buildings to minimize locating all the accessory structures in one location. 4. Were in favor of limiting visibility of accessory structures from the road. MOTION by Droste to continue discussion on this matter until April 23, 1996 to allow Staff time to gather additional information on the subject of accessory structures and subject to the applicant providing, in writing, his acceptance of extending the deadline in this matter for an additional 60 days. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: Adult Use Ordinance Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the proposed Adult Use Ordinance. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Intern Lotter relayed to the Commission that the adult use moratorium would be on the next City Council agenda for consideration. He stated that the moratorium would be extended until July 4, 1996. Pursuant to the Commission's request, Mr. Lotter stated that Staff prepared a color map showing the difference between a 500 and 1,000 foot buffer and possible areas where adult uses could locate. Mr. Lotter expressed his concern that a 1,000 foot buffer was too restrictive and did not leave an adequate amount of land for potential adult use businesses. He recommended a 500 foot buffer to help avoid potential lawsuits in the future. The Commissioners discussed the advantages and disadvantages between a 500 and 1,000 foot buffer. A majority of the Commissioners felt that a 1,000 foot buffer was necessary for public uses such as churches, parks and schools and a 500 foot buffer should be required for residential uses. There being no comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and McDermott. Nays: 0. MOTION by Droste to recommend to the City Council an ordinance that allows adult uses in a new overlay district within the General Industrial Zone of the City Zoning Ordinance subject to the following: (a) a 500 foot buffer from structure to structure for residential uses and (b) a 1,000 foot buffer from structure to structure for public uses such as churches, parks and schools. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. McDermott abstained. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings April 9, 1996 Page 5 New Business: Set Special Meeting U of M Property Senior Planner Mack stated that the Planning Commission has been invited to a meeting scheduled for April 10, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., held by the University of Minnesota in regards to the future of their property in the area. In order to be in compliance with the Open Meeting Law, the City Attorney's Office has requested that the Planning Commission set a special meeting. He mentioned that an agenda has not been provided by representatives of the University of Minnesota. MOTION by DeBettignies to approve setting a special meeting of the Planning Commission for April 10, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemount City Council Chambers. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. MOTION by DeBettignies to adjourn. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \21S: Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary ARM 0111V.. VIO CITY OF ROSEMOU NT 2875 C 1 45 t hS teetWest P.O. Box 510 Rosemount, MN qtr's Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! 55068-0510 tP° .1skiinttff Phone: 6124234411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Planning Commission REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 23, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, April 23, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Jay Tentinger, Patrick McDermott and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Engineer Doug Litterer and Building Official Paul Heimkes. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that there were no additions or corrections to the agenda. MOTION by Tentinger to approve the April 9, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by McDermott. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Old Business: John Joyce Remkus Zoning Text Amendment Assistant Planner Pearson related the background of this request and recapped the two previous hearings on this matter. Mr. Pearson stated that he contacted several cities in the metropolitan area to obtain their ordinances in regards to accessory structures. Pursuant to this research and previous direction from the Planning Commission, Mr. Pearson stated that he revised the proposed zoning text amendment. The current proposal is a staggered system with the maximum aggregate total allowed for accessory structures being in proportion to the size of the parcel. Mr. Pearson mentioned that he received guidance from Building Official Heimkes in regards to the Uniform Building Code requirements, i.e. height of accessory structures. Mr. Pearson felt that a strong point of this amendment was that accessory structures must be compatible with the principal structure and, thus, no "pole barns" would be allowed. The Commissioners and Staff discussed height restrictions; other cities' ordinances; the possibility of "grandfathering" properties in relation to this proposed amendment; and enforcement of this amendment. It was mentioned that this amendment is a "trade -off' whereby, for increased accessory structure square footage, pole barns will not be allowed. Member DeBettignies suggested, and the Commission concurred, that Paragraph E: Exceptions be amended to read "...on 2.6 or more acres..." The Commissioners also discussed whether or not the maximum aggregate total for accessory buildings was now too high. Assistant Planner Pearson replied that he increased the maximum aggregate total pursuant to direction received from the Commission at its last meeting on April 9, 1996. Printed on recycledpa 309e� containing 30% Is or post consumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings April 23, 1996 Page 2 MOTION by Tentinger to recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance amendment for accessory structures in the Agriculture and Rural Residential Districts subject to the modification of Paragraph E: Exceptions. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Public Hearing: Septic Systems Ordinance Amendment Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the proposed Septic System Ordinance amendment. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Building Official Heimkes related that the Metropolitan Council, upon agreement and acceptance of the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, is mandating that the City approve an on -site sewage treatment system maintenance ordinance. Mr. Heimkes stated that this proposed ordinance has been reviewed and discussed at 2 previously held public informational meetings. Since that time, he stated that he has revised this proposed ordinance to include: (1) changes to the definition of "failed septic system" and "imminent public health threat (2) allowing septic system owners approximately 5 years to come into compliance if they have a "failed" system; and (3) adding Paragraph L which requires septic system owners to immediately replace or repair their system if it is causing an imminent threat to public health. ip Mr. Heimkes also mentioned that it is possible to get financial assistance to help pay for required replacement or repairs to a homeowner's septic system. The Commissioners and Building Official Heimkes discussed and questioned how this ordinance would be implemented and the approximate cost to a septic system owner for an inspection and pumping (approximately $80.00). Laxman S. Sundae, 2637 132nd Court West, explained his extensive background in septic systems to the Commissioners. He stated that there is no legal basis for this ordinance amendment and felt that if a system fails, the homeowner if the first to know and will repair the system. Mr. Sundae also stated that there is no necessity for this amendment and felt this was a "nuisance" ordinance. An individual representing her mother who lives at 12391 Dodd Blvd stated that since the first informational meeting many changes have been made to the proposed amendment which she was very appreciative of. She questioned whether having no manhole on a septic system would automatically "fail" the system. Building Official Heimkes replied that a manhole is required and without one the system will be considered "failed." He stated that a septic system owner would have 5 years to bring this issue into compliance. This individual did not understand why, if a system is otherwise working properly, the manhole would be required. Mr. Heimkes explained the purpose of the manhole and the approximate cost ($200.00 to $600.00) to have one installed. Dennis Wippermann, 12538 Danbury Way, mentioned that he supported the concept and principal of this amendment in that if a system is causing environmental concerns, then it should be repaired or replaced. However, Mr. Wippermann believed that all septic system owners were being penalized because of a few owners who neglect their systems. He stated that this ordinance was very intrusive and Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings April 23, 1996 Page 3 the Metropolitan Council was dictating and blackmailing the City into adopting this amendment. Mr. Wippermann requested that Paragraph G.4. be amended to require permits every 3 or 4 years he felt 2 years was too excessive. Mr. Wippermann also requested a modification to Paragraph J to require owners 24 months (instead of the proposed 12 months) to obtain the initial permit. Mr. Wipperman also mentioned that the informational meetings were very helpful and necessary. Marlin Rechtzigel stated that he owns a septic system on a rental property which the renters have "abused." He asked that consideration be given to him and others for "abuse" that others have caused to their systems. William Rohr, 2813 132nd Street West, asked if the City was going to inspect every system to which Building Official Heimkes replied that private inspectors will be doing the inspections. Mr. Rohr further questioned how the City will be made aware if an owner of a septic system does not comply with this ordinance. Mr. Heimkes responded that after an inspection is completed, a form will be sent by the private inspector to the County and the City will obtain a report from the County in regards to who completed an inspection. Anyone who does not comply will be sent warnings and then possibly could be charged with a misdemeanor. Mr. Rohn and Mr. Heimkes discussed the Keegan Lake area. Ted Hammond, 12375 Dodd Boulevard, had questions for Building Official Heimkes in regards to the 4 1 manhole issue. Doug Gustafson, 12310 South Robert Trail East, stated that he has a seepage pit and questioned whether he needed to only replace the manhole or the whole system. He also asked if there were still setbacks required from trees. His final issue was whether the City, sometime in the future, could charge him assessments for installing City sewer and water. Building Official Heimkes responded that Mr. Gustafson would have to replace the whole system, there are no setback requirements from trees, and he possibly could be charged assessments in the future. Vern Rinehardt, 12920 Charleston Court, had questions on the manhole issue and asked what the average lifespan of a septic system is. Building Official Heimkes responded to his concerns. Richard Bland, a resident of 121st Street West, asked what the overall process would be for applying for this permit to which Building Official Heimkes responded. A resident of Chinchilla Avenue raised the issue of replacing and repairing baffles. Building Official Heimkes discussed this issue. Mr. Hammond stated that only a few individuals abuse the system and he did not feel that everyone should be penalized for these few individuals. He believed that owners needed more "slack" to get the systems up -to -date. 0 A resident of Diamond Path Road questioned how the Metropolitan Council was appointed. Senior Planner Mack responded to this question. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings April 23, 1996 Page 4 Dick Lucking felt that if a system was in compliance when it was installed, then it should be considered in compliance until it is replaced. Mr. Sundae asked that the City review the legality of "grandfathering" the current septic systems. A representative of Rich Valley Golf Club questioned why there is a fee for commercial permits and no fee for residential permits. Building Official Heimkes explained the rational for the fee schedule. A resident of 2975 145th Street East asked what would happen if a system had recently been pumped. Building Official Heimkes responded that a system pumped and recorded within 12 months of adoption of the ordinance amendment would be accepted. There being no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. The Commissioners questioned whether the proposed 2 -year interval for the inspections could be increased. Building Official Heimkes stated that he has spent considerable time speaking with the Metropolitan Council on this issue and that the Metropolitan Council will not budge. Mr. Heimkes stated that he does not agree with the 2 -year intervals, however, if the amendment states anything above 2 -year intervals, the Metropolitan Council will not accept it. The Commissioners then questioned increasing the time allowed to obtain the initial permit from 12 months to 24 months to which Building Official Heimkes stated that the Metropolitan Council might agree with this. The Commissioners also discussed whether this amendment has a legal basis (Building Official Heimkes stated that legal counsel has reviewed this amendment); the "grandfathering" issue (Mr. Heimkes stated that the Metropolitan Council would not agree to that); the possible replication of fees for commercial owners; the manhole issue; possible financial assistance; and Staff organizing a packet of information to distribute to septic systems owners regarding this amendment, etc. The Commissioners expressed their feelings that this amendment was very intrusive and that they felt forced by the Metropolitan Council into approving this amendment. The Commissioners also stated that they agreed with many of the comments from the audience. It was discussed at length the consequences the City could face from the Metropolitan Council if this ordinance amendment is not approved. The Commissioners concurred that allowing 24 months for the initial inspection is appropriate and requested that the proposed motion read that they approve the ordinance amendment "on a mandate by the Metropolitan Council." 0 MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend approval, on a mandate by the Metropolitan Council, of the revised draft of the Rosemount Zoning Code, Ordinance Section 14.6, Individual Sewage Treatment Systems, to the City Council subject to revising Paragraph J to allow owners 24 months to obtain the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings April 23, 1996 Page 5 Di initial permit. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Public Hearing: Hanson Addition Administrative Plat Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the Administrative Plat application of Richard Hanson. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavits of Mailing Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Richard Hanson wishes to purchase approximately 10 acres from his neighbor to the north, Mrs. Hart, and combine that with the approximately 2.6 acres that he owns at 12275 Cobblestone Court. Mr. Pearson mentioned that several other alternatives were considered before arriving at the current proposal. Mr. Pearson stated that the main area of disagreement between Staff and Mr. Hanson is the condition that Mr. Hanson dedicate the eastern 60 feet of the Hart acquisition for a public street right -of -way. Mr. Pearson explained that when Cobblestone Lane was constructed it was expected to continue north to provide access to the Hart property and other properties to the north and east with the possibility that Cobblestone Lane would eventually connect with 120th Street. Richard Hanson provided a handout to the Commissioners. He stated that his one objection to Stars 4 01) recommendation is the requirement that he provide 60 feet for right of way. Mr. Hanson stated that this request is premature and there is no development planned for the 10 acres he is acquiring. He stated that he is purchasing this land so that he would have a bigger "backyard" and he fully intends to keep this area in a natural state. Mr. Hanson also stated that it was his belief that if Cobblestone Lane were to continue north to 120th Street it would no longer be a rural residential street it would be a collector street. Mr. Hanson further related his rational for his opposition to the 60 feet of right -of -way. Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed the street layout and the topography of the northwestern part of the City to show why Cobblestone Lane will possibly be needed to continue north in the future. He stated that the City is requesting that the 60 feet of right -of -way be dedicated now so there will not be problems in the future when the area to the north and east is developed. Mr. Pearson stated that it would cost the City money in order to obtain the right -of -way in the future. Carol Albers stated that she was Mrs. Hart's daughter. She stated that Mrs. Hart currently owns approximately 29 acres and that this land has been in the family since 1931. Ms. Albers stated that the Hart family has no desire to further develop on this land and is selling the 10 acres to Mr. Hanson because he too does not wish any of this land to be developed. Therefore, she felt that to require 60 feet of right -of -way was premature and inappropriate as there will be no need for a road to access the Hart property from the south. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. The Commissioners discussed at length the issue of the right -of -way. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings April 23, 1996 Page 6 Commissioner McDermott felt that the property belonged to Mr. Hanson and Mrs. Hart and it was inappropriate to expect them to provide an access for other parcels. Mr. McDermott stated that it should be the responsibility of any future developer to obtain access to any property they acquire and develop. Commissioner Shoe Corrigan stated that she was in agreement with Commissioner McDermott's comments. She also suggested that the Harts and Hansons investigate the use of a conservation easement to stop further development. Commissioner Droste mentioned that when Chelsea Woods was developed it was intended at that time that Cobblestone Lane would be extended. No court or permanent turnaround was ever constructed. Mr. Droste further stated that obtaining the right -of -way would be an additional cost to any owner /developer that developed the property to the east and north. Commissioner Tentinger also stated that it would be too much of a burden for a future developer to obtain access without this right -of -way. He felt that obtaining the right -of -way at this time is a needed protective measure. MOTION by McDermott to recommend approval of the Hanson Addition Administrative Plat subject to: (1) payment of G.I.S. fees as established in the 1996 fee resolution; and (2) provision of easements for drainage and ponding in accordance with recommendations from the Engineering Department. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan and McDermott. Nays: DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Motion fails 3 -2. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend approval of the Hanson Addition Administrative Plat subject to: (1) the dedication of the eastern sixty feet of the Hart property for right -of -way; (2) payment of G.I.S. fees as established in the 1996 fee resolution; and (3) provision of easements for drainage and ponding in accordance with recommendations from the Engineering Department. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Tentinger, DeBettignies and Droste. Nays: Shoe Corrigan and McDermott. Motion passes 3 -2. New Business: Shannon Meadows Final Plat Assistant Planner Pearson related that the preliminary plat for Shannon Meadows was approved by the City Council on March 6, 1996. The Final Plat is needed to create legal descriptions and actual lot dimensions for the purpose of development and sale of property. Mr. Pearson mentioned that one of the previously approved variances has been eliminated and there is currently 4 variances for this plat. It was also mentioned that Outlot A is no longer a separate piece and is part of Lot 14, Block 2. MOTION by Droste to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Shannon Meadows Additions to the City Council subject to the revised conditions: (1) incorporation of recommendations relative to grading, utilities and easements identified by the Public Works Department; (2) payment of required fees including Storm Water Trunk Area Charges of $2,000 per acre, G.I.S. fees of $50 per lot, Park dedication in the amount of $760 per lot; (3) three driveways (2 on Shannon Parkway and 1 on 145th 0 Street) shall be closed and replaced with B618 concrete curb and gutter at the Developer's expense; (4) the gravel driveway on that portion of Lot 14, Block 2, that fronts 145th Street shall be removed, restored and sodded at the Developer's expense; and (5) execution of a development agreement to Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings April 23, 1996 Page 7 0 secure the public improvements. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentiner. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Public Hearing: Splatball Indoors/The Adventure Zone Interim Use Permit Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the application of Splatball Indoors /The Adventure Zone for an Interim Use Permit to allow a commercial outdoor recreational use in the General Industrial district. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson related that Jim Nordberg, owner of Splatball Indoors, purchased The Adventure Zone in 1995 and is requesting an Interim Use Permit to allow a commercial outdoor recreational use in the General Industrial district. Mr. Pearson mentioned that all of the non conforming issues that forced the termination of the previous Interim Use Permit has been corrected. On -site inspections have shown that the site has been cleaned up, the illegal trailer has been removed, the driveway entrance has been improved with pavement, the drainage has been restored with a culvert and the parking area has been regraded and crushed rock imported for a parking surface. Mr. Pearson also stated that Mr. Nordberg has no objections to the proposed conditions on the Interim Use Permit. Cathy Busho, 12605 South Robert Trail, requested that the Commission add a condition to require the owner to post a sign at the front entrance of the facility stating the hours of operation. There being no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Shoe Corrigan to close the public hearing. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend that the City Council renew the Interim Use Permit for Splatball Indoor /The Adventure Zone for 1996 and 1997 subject to the ten conditions previously specified by Resolution 1995 -19 and an added condition that a sign be posted at the front entrance of the facility stating the hours of operation. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Public Hearing: Lot Coverage in General Industrial District Zoning Text Amendment Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the proposed zoning text amendment for lot coverage in the General Industrial district. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that this item was discussed at the March 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the Commissioners suggested revisions to the proposed amendment and requested that this item be scheduled for a public hearing. Mr. Pearson stated that this proposed Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings April 23, 1996 Page 8 0 amendment would increase the lot coverage maximum in the General Industrial district from 50% to 75 He explained that this increase in lot coverage would bring consistency to the Zoning Ordinance in regards to maximum lot coverage. There being no comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend that the City Council adopt the Zoning Text Amendment for lot coverage in the General Industrial District. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. New Business: Set Special Meeting Business Park District Permitted Uses Senior Planner Mack stated that the Port Authority has proposed a joint worksession of the City Council, Port Authority and Planning Commission on April 30, 1996 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The purpose of this joint worksession is to review and discuss proposed changes to the Business Park District permitted uses. Mr. Mack stated that Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a motion to set this worksession. 110 MOTION by Droste to approve setting a special meeting of the Planning Commission for April 30, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in the Rosemount City Council Chambers. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Seconded by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \4ik -p■ Givo4 Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary P,e CITY OF ROSEMOU NT 2875 P.O. Box 510 Everything Rosemount, MN 's Coming Up Rosemount!! 55068.0510 Phone: 612- 423 -4411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Discussion on Business Park District Permitted Uses SUMMARY OF WORKSESSION -APRIL 30, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a special joint work session of the Rosemount City Council, Port Authority, and Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, April 30, 1996, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 2875 145th Street West. In attendance were: Mayor Busho and Councilmembers Anderson, Wippermann, Edwards and Carroll; Port Authority Commissioners Miller, Caspar, Anderson, Wippermann, Edwards, and Carroll; and Planning Commissioners DeBettignies, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, and Tentinger. Also present were City Administrator Burt, Community Development Director Rogness, and Senior Planner Mack. 4 The purpose of the meeting was to re- examine the land usages allowed for the Business Park District zoning designation. Mayor Busho turned the meeting over to staff for discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Thomas D. Burt, Recording Secretary City Administrator 1 Printed on recycledpaper 3O containing 3b% post- consumer materials. a CITY OF ROSEMOU NT 2875- ;4S t ""ee tWest i P. r wp Rose O m ount Box 510 MN viw X 1 Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! 55068-0510 b ee s i Phone: 6124234411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Planning Commission REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 14, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, May 14, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Jay Tentinger, Patrick McDermott and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson and Civil Engineer Doug Litterer. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that there were no additions or corrections to the agenda. MOTION by Droste to approve the April 23, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Ill Upon requests from the Commission, Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed the action that was taken at the May 7, 1996 City Council meeting in regards to the Accessory Structures Zoning Text Amendment and the Hanson Addition. Chairperson Droste opened the Board of Appeals and Adjustments at 7:10 p.m. to hear public testimony for the Public Hearing scheduled at this time. Public Hearing: Splash Enterprises /Jerry Clarke Variance Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the Jerry Clarke Variance Petition. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Jerry Clarke, owner of the car wash located on the southwest corner of Highway 3 and Canada Avenue, is requesting a variance to side yard setbacks to allow an additional car wash bay and driveway improvements. He further stated that Mr. Clarke was willing to "stagger" the building addition by 25 feet in order to reduce the amount of variance requested. Mr. Pearson explained that several years ago an excessive amount of right -of -way was acquired by MnDOT for storm sewer and, as a result, the car wash site has a more restrictive setback compared to surrounding sites. Staff felt that the additional right of way that was acquired created a hardship for Mr. Clarke. It was also mentioned that with the proposed addition the site will have 63% lot Ill coverage (maximum is 85 Printed on recycled paper 30 containing 30% posaconsumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings May 14, 1996 Page 2 As there were no comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. The Planning Commission discussed the circulation on the site, location of the vacuums, possible additional "staggering" of the building, lot coverage, landscape requirements and a possible 2 -way directional driveway on the east side of the building. MOTION by Tentinger to grant the variance to building and driveway side yard setbacks for 15215 Canada Avenue consistent with the required findings of Section 15.2 of Ordinance B, the City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Chairperson Droste closed the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and reconvened the May 14, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Public Hearing: Fire Station Site Plan Review Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the Site Plan for the Fire Station. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson mentioned that Scott Aker, Fire Chief, was present to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Mr. Pearson then reviewed the proposed Site Plan for the Fire Station located on the northeast corner of Shannon Parkway and Dodd Boulevard and showed the Commissioners samples of the proposed brick and tile that would be on the exterior of the building. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff is proposing a change to the Site Plan whereby an additional connection lane would be constructed to allow fire trucks to enter off Dodd Boulevard, go through the north parking lot and back into the station without having to enter onto Shannon Parkway. He commented that Staff felt that this would be an attractive building and exceeds all aesthetic standards. Mr. Pearson further commented that landscaping is proposed and this Site Plan does not require any variances. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. The Planning Commission, Staff and Fire Chief Aker discussed the following: (1) drainage plan; (2) sidewalks; (3) parking; (4) signage; and (5) a warning system to vehicles traveling through the Shannon Parkway/Dodd Boulevard intersection that a fire truck is ready to leave the site. The Commissioners discussed at length lighting options to reduce the impact on surrounding residential areas. The proposed landscaping plan was discussed and the Commissioners felt that the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings May 14, 1996 Page 3 landscaping located by the intersection of Shannon Parkway and Dodd Boulevard should be moved to the northern edge of the site thereby eliminating any possible traffic hazards. MOTION by DeBettignies to approve the site plan review subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire and zoning codes. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Old Business: Driveway Separation Requirements from Intersections Assistant Planner Pearson related the background of the proposed ordinance. He stated that on March 12, 1996, the Planning Commission directed Staff to examine residential driveways as well as commercial entrances. Mr. Pearson stated that an ordinance was drafted; however, the Engineering Department did not have adequate time to review the proposed ordinance and a refined version of the ordinance would be ready for the next meeting. He mentioned that Staff wants to further define driveway widths in residential districts. Old Business: Livable Communities Action Plan Senior Planner Mack stated that the City is now involved in stage 3 of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act whereby a county -wide action plan is to be developed by the Dakota County BRA with each city preparing a local element attachment to be included in this action plan. Mr. Mack briefly reviewed the City's proposed action plan attachment. He mentioned that he recently received copies of other cities action plans and that some were very general and others were much more detailed. Mr. Mack explained that this matter would be before the Planning Commission at the next meeting and at that time a recommendation would be needed. The Commissioners briefly discussed this item. MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Seconded by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, -ak R. (.7,r Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary 411 AO' 3 A CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2875 ;45 t St W IC \r, 211 P.O. Box 510 as VI:m a A b Rosemount, MN 'ttiO P E verything's Coming Up Rosemount!! 55068 -0510 P 4 4 Phone: 612-423-4411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Discussion on Planned Development Residential SUMMARY OF WORKSESSION -MAY 14, 1996 Chairperson William Droste called the worksession to order at 5:45 p.m. with Member Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also present were Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson and Intern Dean Lotter. Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed an enlarged map of the Kelley Trust property. He related that Staff divided this property into 3 separate development areas. Mr. Pearson further stated that the Kelley Trust property contains approximately 510 to 520 acres of varying topography some of which is in the MUSA and some of which is not. Staff felt that the "critical area" was the property north of County Hills and Shannon Elementary and between Shannon Parkway and Diamond Path Road. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff was looking for ways to transfer the density from the "critical area" to another area that does not have as many physical constraints. Mr. Pearson then briefly discussed the PD -R and RL districts, the possibility of clustering units, and mentioned possible street connections throughout the Kelley Trust property. Mr. Pearson concluded by stating that Staff was looking for input, suggestions and direction from the Planning Commission on possible land uses for this property. Commissioner Jay Tentinger arrived at 6:00 p.m. Possible development scenarios were discussed between Commissioners and Staff. It was suggested by Planning Commissioners that the Daly property (the most eastern section of the Kelley Trust property) should contain higher density uses, such as higher scale apartment buildings, with the trade -off being the preservation of the "critical area It was felt that the Daly property had natural buffer zones that would reduce the impact of an apartment building from the neighboring residential areas and will benefit through close proximity to streets which afford sufficient capacity for higher density. Commissioners Pat McDermott and Mark DeBettignies arrived at 6:20 p.m. and 6:25 p.m. respectively. The following were also discussed: (1) the status of the Tree Preservation Ordinance; (2) timeframe for possibly rezoning this property; (3) obtaining citizen involvement in this review process; and (4) dialoging on this subject with the City Council before moving forward with plan implementation and developing a program for public involvement. The worksession was closed at 6:50 p.m. .II' Printed on recycled paper 3O containing 30� posl-consumer materials. m CITY OF ROSEMOU NT 2875- 145 t "�ee tWest 104 P.O. Box 510 a Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! Rosemount 55068 0510 Phone: 612- 423 -4411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Chippendale /42 Partnership Presentation SUMMARY OF JOINT WORKSESSION -MAY 28, 1996 Mayor Cathy Busho and Planning Commission Chairperson William Droste called the joint worksession to order at 5:30 p.m. with all members of the City Council and Planning Commission present. Also present were Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack and Assistant Planner Rick Pearson. Community Development Director Rogness opened the joint worksession by explaining the purpose of this worksession and the worksession scheduled for June 11, 1996. Mr. Rogness then turned the meeting over to John Voss, Consultant for the Chippendale /42 Partnership project. Mr. Voss briefly reviewed the concept plan for this project. He mentioned that a resolution was passed by the City Council in December of 1995 requiring that the applicant have a market analysis and traffic analysis completed for this project. Mr. Voss then introduced Lloyd Graven of Graven Associates. Mr. Graven reviewed and summarized the market study that was completed by Graven Associates covering the following topics: retail market analysis, office market, impact of proposed development and potential alternative locations. He reviewed the process and assumptions that were used in preparing this market study analysis. Mr. Graven opened the floor to anyone who had questions on the market study. Various questions were raised including how the primary trade area was determined, the effect this project would have on the "downtown" area (businesses potentially relocating to this commercial area), and the effect an additional 1,000 residential units east of the railroad tracks would have on this study. Mr. Graven summarized that the type of commercial area that would most likely suit this area is a "neighborhood" store development which includes grocery stores, drug stores, hardware stores and other businesses that would be used on a daily basis. Jim Johnson, Civil Engineer for Bolton, Inc., reviewed the completed traffic study. He stated that the basis for the study used 1995 figures which included 16,000 vehicles a day on CSAH 42 and 4,000 vehicles a day on Chippendale Avenue and Shannon Parkway. Mr. Johnson then reviewed the short- term (2001) and long -term (2016) recommendations in regards to roadway improvements that were stated in the study. Pursuant to a question, Mr. Johnson stated that pedestrian traffic was not considered in the traffic study. The worksession was closed at 6:35 p.m. 11 Panted on recycled paper 30%` containing 30% past- consumer materials. Apr ®a a+a a D eb CITY OF ROSEMOU NT 2875 C 1 45 t h i S t eetWest P.O. Box 510 Rosemount, MN Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! m 55068 -0510 va Phone: 612 423 -4411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Planning Commission REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 28, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, May 28, 1996 at 6:42 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Jay Tentinger, Patrick McDermott and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Civil Engineer Doug Litterer and Intern Dean Lotter. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that there were no additions or corrections to the agenda. MOTION by DeBettignies to approve the May 14, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by DeBettignies to approve the May 14, 1996 Worksession Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 0. Upon requests from the Commission, Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed the action that was taken at the May 21, 1996 City Council meeting in regards to the Accessory Structures Zoning Text Amendment. Old Business: Livable Communities Action Plan Senior Planner Mack mentioned that this item was reviewed at the May 14, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting and is now before the Commission for a formal motion. Mr. Mack reiterated that the proposed county -wide action plan was prepared by the Dakota County HRA and within this overall plan are the local element attachments. He stated that the City took the approach to remain more general in terms of identifying broad housing issues and measures that will be taken to address such needs. It was also mentioned that once this plan is approved by each community, it will be forwarded to the Met Council for its review. Mr. Mack requested approval of this plan. Responding to questions from the Commission, Senior Planner Mack commented that the City was in a fairly good position in regards to achieving our goals and benchmarks for affordable and life -cycle housing. The Commissioners and Staff discussed whether Rosemount will actually see a benefit through the Livable Communities Act or if only inner- cities will; whether recent townhome development is *I Printed on recycled paper 030%11 containing 30% posFCOnsumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings May 28, 1996 Page 2 currently included in the City Index figures; and some possible ways in which to achieve the remainder of the City's goals. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend to the City Council approval of the Livable Communities Act Implementation Action Plan for the Dakota County Cluster. Seconded by McDermott. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Public Hearings: Guetschoff Theatre Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Chairman Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the Guetschoff Theatre Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment application. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Guetschoff Theatre is requesting a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow the parking standards for movie theaters to be modified from the current 3 seats per parking space to 4 seats per parking space. Mr. Pearson reviewed neighboring cities' parking standards in regards to movie theaters. He also reviewed attendance data from January 1, 1996 to the present and car counts for the last three (3) weeks that Staff received from the applicant. Mr. Pearson mentioned that the City's Engineering Department has recently placed traffic counters at the theater and he should have the traffic counts shortly. Mr. Pearson then reviewed a chart he prepared comparing the number of cars to occupancy rates. He concluded that, as Staff and the applicant are still gathering data, that the public hearing be held and that this matter then be tabled to allow time to further review this request. Upon an inquiry from the Commission, Assistant Planner Pearson stated that it was his understanding that Guetschoff Theatre's ultimate intent is to expand and add six (6) screens. In order to expand to six (6) screens, the parking standards will need to be less restrictive. Mr. Pearson then briefly showed the Commission a drawing he received before the meeting from the applicant showing a possible expansion layout. There being no comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. A discussion occurred regarding the chart prepared by Assistant Planner Pearson, the size of the screens for the possible expansion, width of the current parking stalls at the theater, and the desire not to have customers parking in the street or the fire lanes. MOTION by DeBettignies to table action regarding the text amendment until June 11, 1996. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings May 28, 1996 Page 3 4111 Public Hearing: American Portable Telecom Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Chairman Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the American Portable Telecom Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment application. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that American Portable Telecom "APT has requested a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment that would allow a tower for telecommunication in the Agriculture District. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow such towers in the Agriculture District. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff feels that more of these types of applications will be forthcoming in the future and that Intern Dean Lotter is currently researching this issue with the League of Minnesota Cities and is preparing an ordinance to address this matter. Mr. Pearson stated that the proposed ordinance needs some revisions and, therefore, the public hearing should be held and this matter be tabled until June 11, 1996. Glen Wolf of the TEA Group stated that his company is assisting APT in property acquisition. He stated that allowing APT to construct a tower in Rosemount will create more competition in the area for wireless communications. Mr. Wolf stated that the proposed tower is 131.5 feet in height, the base of the tower would be screened and landscaped, and the location was chosen because it is away from residential areas and in close proximity to Koch Refinery which already impacts the sight line. Mr. Wolf requested conditional approval for APT's request as they feel that they meet all current City standards. Mr. Wolf then introduced Craig Green, Manager. Pursuant to a request from the Commission, Mr. Wolf and Mr. Green related the background of wireless communications and analog vs. digital services. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Member DeBettignies commented that the residential areas of the City needed to be protected in the proposed ordinance. He felt that the Commission needed more information before they could make a decision on this application. Assistant Planner Pearson mentioned that conditional approval, as requested by Mr. Wolf, is not feasible as towers for antennas are currently not allowed in the Agricultural District and there are no standards established for this type of use. Intern Lotter asked Mr. Green if another carrier would be allowed to affix to this tower to which Mr. Green stated that if it were recommended, another carrier could affix to this tower. Intern Lotter commented that to lower the number of potential towers in the City, more than one carrier should be Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings May 28, 1996 Page 4 allowed on each tower. He reiterated that this ordinance needs more review before a formal motion could be made. MOTION by DeBettignies to table action regarding the text amendment until June 11, 1996. Seconded by McDermott. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. New Business: Shannon Ponds East Final Plat Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Jim Allen of Hampton Development Corporation was present to request Final Plat approval for the first phase (40 single family lots) of the Shannon Pond East development. The Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat were approved on June 6, 1995. Mr. Pearson briefly reviewed the proposed Final Plat and the proposed eleven (11) variances. He noted that all lots with variances are still buildable. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff is requesting that the lot lines be extended into Outlot A so that the City does not own that piece of land (there would still be an easement over Outlot A). Member Droste asked that if the lot lines were extended would any variances be removed. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that two (2) variances in this phase would be removed. The Commissioners discussed lot line extension, maintenance of Outlot A and park availability. MOTION by Droste to recommend approval of the final plat for Shannon Pond East Addition to the City Council subject to: (1) incorporation of recommendations relative to grading, utilities and drainage /utility /ponding easements identified by the Engineering Department; (2) payment of park dedication in the form of cash contribution and G.I. S. fees at the rate established by the current fee resolution; and (3) execution of a development agreement to secure public improvements. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Public Hearing: Business Park Permitted Uses Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Chairman Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment in regards to the Business Park District's permitted uses. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Senior Planner Mack stated that this item was discussed at a recent joint worksession with the City Council and Planning Commission. He stated that the intent of this text amendment was to create uses in the BP District that are more compatible to one another and consistent with the type of image desired for Business Parks. Mr. Mack reviewed the Business Park areas in the City. He stated that the proposed ordinance amendment was revised pursuant to direction and comments received at the joint worksession. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings May 28, 1996 Page 5 As there were no comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. A discussion occurred regarding the proposed hours of operation. MOTION by Droste to recommend to the City Council approval of an Ordinance Amending Ordinance B- City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance Providing for Revisions to the Permitted Uses within the BP Business Park District. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by DeBettignies to adjourn. Seconded by Tentinger. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, fA, GIUA Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary 0Z2y +'r;. a Air 3 o CITY OF RO S E M O U N T 2875 145th Street West CITY HALL am. �Y� �6 g W -r a a P.O. Box 510 I •,;i94r Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! Rosemount, MN 55068 -0510 Phone: 612 4234411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Chippendale /42 Partnership Presentation SUMMARY OF JOINT WORKSESSION -JUNE 11, 1996 Mayor Cathy Busho called the joint worksession to order at 5:30 p.m. with City Council Member Joan Anderson, City Council Member John Edwards, Planning Chairperson Bill Droste, Planning Commissioner Mark DeBettignies and Planning Commissioner Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also present were Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Director of Public Works Bud Osmundson, Civil Engineer Doug Litterer, Director of Parks and Recreation Jim Topitzhofer and Intern Dean Lotter. Mayor Busho explained the procedure for this worksession and then turned the worksession over to Jim Johnson, Civil Engineer for Bolton, Inc. Mr. Johnson reviewed the short-term (2001) and long -term (2016) recommendations in regards to roadway improvements that were stated in the traffic study. He mentioned that the consultant who prepared the traffic study, WSB and Associates, was hired by the City. Mr. Johnson also briefly discussed various engineering issues such as drainage, water main service and sewer system access. Various Council and Commission members raised the following concerns and questions: possible U- turn problem on Chippendale Avenue if a median is constructed south of CSAH 42; the proposed time table for development on this site; who bears the cost of the recommended road improvements; does traffic flow match the information received in the market study; was the traffic report an unbiased report; pedestrian flow and trails; and ownership of the storm water drainage areas. Planning Commission Member Jay Tentinger arrived at 6:05 p.m. Jeff of Damon Fabor Associates reviewed the proposed landscape plan. He stated that they used landscaping to separate the various land uses on the site and incorporated pedestrian amenities (i. e. trash receptacles, benches, etc.) into their plan. Jeff commented that they have been working with a townhome association in order to provide buffering to the residential uses to the west. Wayne Hilbert of CNH Associates briefly reviewed the architectural design of the site. He stated that the design is consistent throughout yet there is some variety and brick will be used throughout. Wayne reviewed the streetscape as viewed from Shannon Parkway and also discussed proposed signage on the site. Pursuant to a request from Commissioner Tentinger, Wayne discussed the proposed color schemes for the entire site and more specifically, the Walgreens building. John Voss of Urban Planning Design mentioned that several meetings have either occurred or will occur with the neighboring homeowners associations in order to discuss this proposed concept plan. .1 Printed on recycled paper •SO containing 30q po51 consumer materials. Joint Worksession June 11, 1996 Page 2 Mayor Busho opened the floor to questions from the audience in attendance. Questions were raised regarding the stacking distance required and proposed on Shannon Parkway from the Walgreens entrance /exit; pedestrian access throughout the site; and when the park is proposed to be developed. Council Member Edwards requested that City Staff review the costs and benefits associated with this particular development. The worksession was closed at 6:35 p.m. i 41 a 5 r Iii., CITY OF RO S E M O U N T 285 CITY HALL West Or P.O. Box 510 N.Po Rosemount, MN Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! N v h v 55068 -0510 Phone: 612423 4411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Planning Commission REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 11, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, June 11, 1996 at 6:45 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Jay Tentinger, and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Director of Public Works Bud Osmundson, Civil Engineer Doug Litterer, Director of Parks and Recreation Jim Topitzhofer and Intern Dean Lotter. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that there was an addition to the agenda. He requested that Shannon Dodd Fire Station Final Plat be added under New Business. MOTION by Droste to approve the May 28, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. MOTION by Tentinger to approve the May 28, 1996 Worksession Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Upon a request from the Commission, Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed the action that was taken at the June 4, 1996 City Council meeting in regards to the Accessory Structures Zoning Text Amendment. Old Business: Guetschoff Theatre Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Assistant Planner Pearson mentioned that this item was reviewed at the May 28, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting and was tabled in order to allow Staff and the applicant more time to gather parking data. Mr. Pearson stated that since the last meeting he has received traffic counts from the City's Engineering Department and theater occupancy rates from the applicant for the previous two weeks. Mr. Pearson mentioned that after reviewing this data, he found a trend whereby increased theater occupancy correlated to an increase of occupants in an individual vehicle. He further concluded that the parking lot was currently underutilized and stated that Staff felt that the applicant's request was justified. A discussion occurred between Staff and Commission members regarding whether parking at the theater would become a problem in the future with the potential of additional movie screens and the anticipated growth in the community. Printed on recycledpaper 30 °4 containing 30% post consumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings June 11, 1996 Page 2 MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance Amending the City Zoning Code Ordinance B to allow movie theater parking standards to decrease from 3 seats /1 parking stall to 4 seats /1 parking stall. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Chairman Droste recessed the meeting at 6:57 p.m. Public Hearings: Debra Marthaler Agricultural Lot Division Chairman Droste opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. to hear public testimony regarding the application of Debra Marthaler for an agricultural lot division. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Debra Marthaler is requesting an agricultural lot division to create a 2.5 acre parcel for a single family home. This parcel is currently part of her parent's farm located on the east side of Emery Avenue approximately 1 /2 mile south of CSAH 42. This application is exempt from platting requirements because it meets all zoning requirements. Mr. Pearson also mentioned that soil percolation tests have been performed which prove the ability of the site to sustain a private septic system and an alternative location. There being no comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. MOTION by DeBettignies to approve the agricultural lot division requested by Debra Marthaler subject to: 1) rezoning of the 2.5 acre parcel to Agricultural (AG); 2) payment of one unit of park dedication and applicable G.I.S. fees in the amount specified by the current fee resolution; and 3) conformance with applicable ordinance standards for residential use in the Agriculture District specified in Ordinance B, City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend that the City Council rezone the 2.5 acre parcel resulting from the lot division to Agriculture from Agricultural Preserve. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Public Hearing: CMC Heartland Partners Planned Unit Development/Rezoning Chairman Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the CMC Heartland Partners Planned Unit Development/Rezoning application. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings June 11, 1996 Page 3 Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed the application of CMC Heartland Partners requesting approval of a concept Planned Unit Development located on 226 acres north of 145th Street, east of Biscayne Avenue and south of the railroad tracks. Mr. Pearson stated that the applicant is proposing 630 mixed residential units which would be located in 4 distinct neighborhoods on the site. He stated that this a "neotraditional" development with small lots and a large amount of open space. Mr. Pearson reviewed each of the 4 neighborhoods and the densities of each. Mr. Pearson also discussed street access and connections, MUSA issues, park issues, and lot sizes. He stated that after reviewing this proposal, Staff has some concerns such as: 1) snow removal; 2) parking concerns (decreased street width proposed); and, 3) utility infrastructure (curved streets more expensive to connect to utilities). Mr. Pearson mentioned that this is an exciting idea but there are many questions that need to be resolved. He requested that this item be tabled in order to allow the applicant time to address some of Staff's concerns and provide additional information to support the 2nd and 4th Findings required in Section 12.2 D of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Pearson commented that the City received two letters from neighboring property owners in regards to this proposal and that the Planning Commissioners did receive a copy of these letters. Reid Hansen, attorney for the applicant, stated that CMC Heartland Partners and himself are very excited about this proposal and then introduced Tosh Neminsky, a representative of CMC Heartland Partners. Mr. Neminsky related the background of CMC Heartland Partners and stated that this proposal would provide housing for a particular group of homebuyers who would like detached homes and smaller lots. Mr. Neminsky addressed some of Stars concerns in regards to snow removal, street width and small lots. John Urban, Planner for the applicant, reviewed the fine points of this proposal. He stated that this is a "village" concept and mentioned that this site has approximately 90 acres of park, open space, tiny tot lots, etc. which will be owned by the Homeowners Association. Mr. Urban discussed the collector road positioning, snow removal and other Staff concerns. He then showed the Commissioners pictures of various "neo- traditional" areas which they have developed, such as in Minnetonka, in order to show that small lots do work. He mentioned that more information will be forthcoming regarding this proposal as they move through the process. Mr. Urban reiterated that this proposal is very unique and very workable. John Johnson, Engineer, briefly reviewed drainage and traffic flow issues. A lengthy discussion occurred between Staff, Commission members and the applicant regarding the following: (1) density; (2) City of Minnetonka versus City of Rosemount standards; (3) what is proposed to be done with the storm sewer water runoff area; (4) street structure and circulation; (5) homeowners association; and (6) time frame for development/MUSA issues. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings June 11, 1996 Page 4 The Commissioners and Staff discussed the following: (1) possible MUSA expansion and the effect on future development; (2) surrounding land uses; (3) bike trails and walk paths connecting to the downtown area; (4) safety concerns with circular streets and intersections; and (5) setbacks. Member DeBettignies stated that he likes this proposal but is "not sold" that people will buy these small lots. He felt that more information and discussion was needed before a decision could be made. Mr. DeBettignies also requested the name and location of a similar development so that he could either visit the site or talk to the Homeowner's Association. Other Commissioners stated that they too would like this information. Member Tentinger stated that he has a problem with the road system as he believes it is not practical; however, overall he likes the concept. Member Shoe Corrigan stated that she was in favor of the clustering of the homes, life -cycle housing, smaller lots and the open space areas. She would like to visit a similar development and see more pictures and examples of a "neotraditional" development. Ms. Shoe Corrigan also requested that the applicant address Stars concerns and Mr. Leon Flach's concerns which he stated in his letter to the Planning Commission. Chairman Droste stated that he would like to see examples of a flat area of land, similar to the proposed site, that were developed as "neotraditional." Even through he basically likes the design, he stated that he is struggling with some concerns such as the neighboring railroad and the footprints for neighborhood 2 and 3. MOTION by DeBettignies to table action regarding the Concept Plan until the Developer provides additional information to support the second and fourth findings required of Section 12.2 D of Ordinance B of the City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Public Hearing: Render Putnam -Prins Partnership Preliminary Plat/Rezoning Chairman Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the Render Putnam -Prins Partnership Preliminary Plat/Rezoning application. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that the City has received a proposal from the Render Putnam -Prins Partnership to develop approximately 62 acres of land east of Biscayne Avenue north of the Dakota County Maintenance Facility and north of the railroad tracks for 155 single family lots. Mr. Pearson briefly reviewed the Preliminary Plat and noted that there are no variances requested. He also stated that no park land is included with this proposal and the Park and Recreation Committee will meet to provide a recommendation in this regards. Mr. Pearson mentioned that a Planned Unit Development is not required because this Preliminary Plat is consistent with all City standards. Staff and Commissioners discussed the MUSA timeline availability. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings June 11, 1996 Page 5 Dick Putnam stated that he is 1 of 3 partners requesting approval of the rezoning and Preliminary Plat. He mentioned that this proposal meets all standards and is very straight forward. Mr. Putnam stated that he understood the MUSA issue; however, was still hoping to begin development this year. Terry Palmer, a representative of the National Guard, stated that they were concerned with the proposed zoning change. He stated that the OMS Facility and adjacent undeveloped land is west of this proposed development and they foresee this undeveloped land to eventually be used for parking their equipment. Mr. Palmer was concerned that the National Guard's uses be consistent with that of neighboring property owners. A discussion occurred regarding the OMS Facility. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Member Shoe Corrigan commented that this was a good proposal; however, she was very concerned about some of the lots abutting the railroad tracks. She felt this was a serious safety issue. Assistant Planner Pearson mentioned that the lots abutting the railroad tracks do conform to the additional setback requirements for railroads. Member Shoe Corrigan also expressed her concern that this development will not be integrated with the rest of the City. She stated that she would like to see a more creative design approach used for this piece of land. Mr. Putnam addressed Member Shoe Corrigan's concerns. The Commissioners discussed fences, sidewalks and park issues. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Biscayne Point to the City Council subject to: 1) incorporation of recommendations relative to grading, utilities and easements identified by the Public Works Department; 2) incorporation of recommendations relative to the Parks and Recreation Committee for park dedication, sidewalks and trail linkages;. 3) adoption of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to place the 62 acre preliminary plat area in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area; 4) Rezoning of the preliminary plat area to R -1 Single Family Residential (Detached); and 5) conformance with the subdivision ordinance requirements for final plat approval including execution of a development agreement to secure the public improvements, landscaping and potential future phasing considerations. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste and DeBettignies. Nays: Shoe Corrigan. Motion passes 3 -1. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend that the City Council rezone the property to R -1 Single Family Residential Detached. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings June 11, 1996 Page 6 Public Hearing: Wensmann Homes. Inc. Planned Unit Development Amendment Chairman Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the Wensmann Homes, Inc. Planned Unit Development Amendment application. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Posting and Mailing of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Wensmann Homes is requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Development for Wensmann 9th Addition in regards to Outlot A which was dedicated for park use. He commented that the City Council has directed Staff to pursue acquisition and development of the Rosemount Manor Outlot to serve the park needs of the "triangle" area. Mr. Pearson stated that Wensmann Homes has a Purchase Agreement to purchase the Rosemount Manor Outlot and is requesting to "swap" this outlot with Outlot A of Wensmann 9th Addition. Outlot A would become open space and 5 additional units. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff believes this is a "win -win" situation for both the City and Wensmann Homes and has several positive aspects including more park/open space and fewer overall dwelling units in the "triangle area." The Planning Commission questioned what would be developed on the Rosemount Manor Outlot if the City were to acquire it to which Staff responded that a Family Resource Center is proposed for that site. The Commissioners also discussed who would fund the Family Resource Center and density of the overall area. Terry Wensmann of Wensmann Homes related the background and basis of this application. He commented that he heard through a potential homebuyer that Outlot A was proposed by the City to be a Family Resource Center and that therefore she wanted to rescind her Purchase Agreement with Wensmann Homes. Mr. Wensmann stated that he has reviewed the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 1995 in which Outlot A was to be "open green space" not a resource center. He stated that if Outlot A remains a Family Resource Center they are going to have a hard time marketing Wensmann 9th Addition. Mr. Wensmann requested that the "swap" be approved and that it be approved fast as people's lives are "on hold." TJ Adams stated that she has withdrawn her Purchase Agreement with Wensmann Homes because she learned that a resource center would be located in Outlot A. She wants to live in Rosemount, however, will not if the resource center remains in Outlot A. Ms. Adams requested that a decision be made as soon as possible as the closing on her current residence is June 15, 1996. Barb Brown stated that she is buying a townhome in the Wensmann 9th Addition and is very upset about the resource center being located in Outlot A. She believed this area was to be open space and the area would be "quiet." Kermit Troutman stated that he is buying a quad unit and does not want the resource center. He also was looking for a development that would be "quiet." Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings June 11, 1996 Page 7 Jeanine Gorski stated that she too has a Purchase Agreement with Wensmann Homes and is very upset with the proposed resource center being located on Outlot A. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Assistant Planner Pearson explained the sequence of events which led to the Family Resource Center being proposed to be located in Outlot A of this development. The Commissioners discussed the current situation and the proposed solution of the land "swap Various Commissioners expressed their disappointment and frustration that their recommendation last July to leave Outlot A as open space was later overturned by the City Council. Some Commissioners did not feel Outlot A was an appropriate location for a resource center. It was mentioned by Staff that the City Council and Parks and Recreation Committee have the final decision in regards to park issues. MOTION by Droste to recommend approval of the amendment to the Wensmann 9th Addition Planned Unit Development to the City Council subject to execution of an amendment to the PUD agreement to secure the residential density and land transfer. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Public Hearing: SKB Environmental, Inc. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/Rezoning Chairman Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the SKB Environmental Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/Rezoning application. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Posting and Mailing of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Senior Planner Mack briefly introduced this application. He stated that SKB Environmental is requesting approval of a zoning text amendment and rezoning to allow a minor expansion of their operations into the City of Rosemount. The facility is located in Inver Grove Heights on 117th Street approximately 3 /4 of a mile west of Highway 52. Approximately 7 acres of land south of this facility is located in the City of Rosemount (a strip of land 130 wide and 2,300 feet long). Mr. Mack reviewed surrounding uses to this site, permit requirements of Dakota County and the MPCA, and the landfill volume chart submitted by SKB Environmental. Mr. Mack introduced Rick O'Gara, President of SKB Environmental, and Palmer Peterson, property owner. Mr. O'Gara related the background of SKB Environmental and this zoning ordinance text amendment request. He stated that his operation only accepts construction and demolition waste, not trash or hazardous waste. Mr. O'Gara mentioned that his operation meets all setback and MPCA regulations and that SKB Environmental was willing to enter into a "host agreement" with the City who, by law, can charge fees for allowing SKB Environmental to do this type of business in the City. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings June 11, 1996 Page 8 The Commissioners discussed setbacks, fees and the anticipated life of the current and proposed landfill. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend to the City Council approval of a zoning ordinance text amendment providing for a construction demolition waste facility as a permitted interim use in the WM Waste Management District. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend to the City Council approval of a rezoning for SKB Environmental from IG General Industrial to WM Waste Management District. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Old Business: American Portable Telecom Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Intern Lotter related the background of this application. He stated that he recently spoke with the City Attorney who made minor changes to the text amendment that the Commissioners currently had before them. Mr. Lotter reviewed the proposed text amendment stating that towers would only be allowed in the AG Agricultural District east of Akron Avenue. Further, the proposed text amendment states that there shall be a 2 -mile buffer between towers, the setbacks would be related to the height of the tower, and towers shall not be closer than 500 feet to residential uses. Pursuant to a question raised by the Commission, Mr. Lotter commented that the City Attorney felt that the City could not require antennas to co- locate on a tower. MOTION by Droste to recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance Amending the City Zoning Code Ordinance B Regulating Commercial Use Antenna Towers. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. New Business: Shannon Dodd Fire Station Final Plat Assistant Planner Pearson stated that the Final Plat for the fire station needs to be recorded with Dakota County in order for a building permit to be issued. He stated that this platting process will legally divide this property from Wensmann Homes, Inc. Mr. Pearson recommended approval subject to one condition, that being the incorporation of recommendations relative to grading, utilities and easements identified by the Public Works Department. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend to the City Council approval of the Shannon Dodd Fire Station Final Plat subject to the following condition: 1) incorporation of recommendations relative to grading, utilities and easements identified by the Public Works Department. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings June 11, 1996 Page 9 MOTION by DeBettignies to adjourn. Seconded by Tentinger. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, A, GOA Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary 1111 `O an CITY OF RO S E M O U N T 2875 C Street West P.O. Box 510 Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! Rosemount 55068 0510 bey° Phone: 612- 423 -4411 Fax: 612-423-5203 Planned Development Residential (Kelley Trust Property) SUMMARY OF JOINT WORKSESSION -JUNE 25, 1996 Mayor Cathy Busho called the joint worksession to order at 5:35 p.m. with City Council Member Dennis Wippermann, City Council Member John Edwards, City Council Member Kevin Carroll, Planning Chairperson Bill Droste, Planning Commissioner Mark DeBettignies, Planning Commissioner Jay Tentinger and Planning Commissioner Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also present were City Administrator Tom Burt, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Director of Public Works Bud Osmundson, Director of Parks and Recreation Jim Topitzhofer and Intern Dean Lotter. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that the Kelley Trust property is approximately 520 acres, all of which will eventually be located in the MUSA. He stated that this piece of land is a transitional area between urban residential and rural residential and contains many unique topographical features. Mr. Pearson then reviewed a base map of this area and the location of the topographical features. He mentioned that Staff has divided the Kelley Trust property into 3 separate development areas and he 1111 discussed net acreage and density for each area. Staff has concluded that the developer is entitled to 1,020 dwelling units pursuant to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Mr. Pearson also reviewed possible street connections to each of the 3 separate areas. Mr. Pearson mentioned that the Planning Commission discussed this matter at a worksession on May 14, 1996, and that Staff was looking for further direction from the Planning Commission and City Council in regards to possibly transferring density from one area of the Kelley Trust property to another area of the Kelley Trust property in order to preserve some of the land for open space. Director of Public Works Osmundson stated that he had a telephone discussion with Tim Dwyer, a representative of the Kelley Trust, and that Mr. Dwyer stated that he is currently negotiating with 3 potential developers/buyers of the property. Mr. Osmundson mentioned that the area along Shannon Parkway has been assessed to the Kelley Trust property and therefore, the Kelley Trust is guaranteed to develop approximately 200 dwelling units. A short discussion on MUSA issues and timing concerns occurred. Assistant Planner Pearson displayed an older map which showed the Kelley Trust property all developed as R -1 Single Family Residential (approximately 1,050 dwelling units). The majority of the trees, ponds, slopes, etc. were eliminated with this proposal. A discussion took place regarding the following: (1) open space; (2) protected park area and trail system; (3) the possibility of transferring density from the area along Shannon Parkway to the Daly Farm area; (4) tree preservation; and (5) park dedication. I S Printed on recycled paper S30 °a' containing 30% post consumer materials. Joint Worksession June 25, 1996 Page 2 Council Member Wippermann stated that he has 2 objectives: (1) to preserve the natural resources and topography of this property; and (2) remain sensitive to the rural residential neighbors (need transitional area). He seeks to keep the density on all 3 areas as low as possible. Mr. Wippermann felt that 1,020 dwelling units on this site is excessive and the character of the land will be destroyed if this many units are allowed. He felt the City needed to challenge this number and develop another scenario to lower the dwelling units allowed. Council Member Edwards felt that the same issues were being discussed now in regards to this property as were being discussed 6 years ago when the Comprehensive Guide Plan was being redrafted. Mr. Edwards commented that the consensus was for lower density and downzoning. He requested that Staff design language consistent with this consensus and bring that back for discussion. Mr. Edwards stated that he needed to see something more tangible and believed that the City needed to act on this issue expeditiously to mitigate some of the timing issues. Planning Commissioner Shoe Corrigan stated that she was concerned with the future of the wildlife in this area if it were all to be developed. She mentioned that possibly the Kelley Trust would be open to conservation easements. She stated that this was the last open space area left in the western end of the City and would like to see it stay open space (which does not include parks, ball fields, etc. but left as undeveloped land). Ms. Shoe Corrigan also requested that the community have some input in this issue. Planning Chairman Droste felt that the majority of the community would support open space in this area and commented that if this land were all developed as R -1 Single Family Residential the natural features would be lost. It was concluded that Staff would: (1) schedule a bus tour in the near future to allow the City Council and Planning Commission to view clustering developments, multi family developments, etc.; (2) create draft language (with guidance from the City Attorney) for the City Council and Planning Commission to review in the near future; and (3) obtain acreage and total dwelling units of various developments in the City. The worksession was closed at 6:50 p.m. 10 1 P CITY OF RO S E M O U N T 2875 C145 eet West t P.O. Box 510 Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! Rosemount, MN 55068-0510 Phone:612- 423 -4411 Planning Commission Fax: 612-423-5203 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, June 25, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Jay Tentinger, and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Director of Parks and Recreation Jim Topitzhofer, Intern Dean Lotter, Mayor Cathy Busho and Council Member Dennis Wippermann. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that there were no additions or corrections to the agenda. MOTION by Droste to approve the June 11, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. MOTION by Tentinger to approve the June 11, 1996 Worksession Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Public Hearing: Erickson Park Shelter Site Plan Review Chairman Droste opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. to hear public testimony regarding the Site Plan Review application of the City of Rosemount for the Erickson Park Shelter. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson introduced Parks and Recreation Director Jim Topitzhofer and Jack Anderson, architect for the Erickson Park Shelter. Mr. Pearson stated that the redesigned park shelter is to be located in Erickson Community Park, between the northwest corner of the City Hall parking lot and the amphitheater. He stated that the shelter will be surrounded by a concrete apron for pedestrian access and be linked to a network of bituminous paths. The exterior of the building will be constructed of red face brick veneer and contain buff colored horizontal accent bands. The roof will be constructed of green decorative asphalt shingles and have a buff colored soffit. Mr. Pearson reviewed the possible expansion areas and mentioned that this building exceeds all aesthetic standards. Director of Parks and Recreation Topitzhofer stated that the redesign is significantly different from the previously approved shelter and mentioned that this shelter will be comparable to the Jaycee Park Shelter with the same uses. He commented that in the future an open picnic shelter could be located on this site and that the proposed park shelter compliments the downtown architecture. An Printed on recycled paper S 30 containing 30'. post consumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings June 25, 1996 Page 2 Pursuant to a question from the Commission, Director of Parks and Recreation Topitzhofer stated that community education classes and possibly child care and senior citizen programs will be held at the park shelter. Commissioner DeBettignies inquired as to the safety of grass pathways leading to the amphitheater. Director of Parks and Recreation Topitzhofer responded that safety issues were taken into account and commented that the grass pathways are located on gentle slopes. Commissioner DeBettignies inquired as to the parking requirements and parking availability for the amphitheater. A lengthy discussion occurred regarding this matter during which Staff advised Mr. DeBettignies that additional information could be provided at a later meeting regarding this parking issue. Dennis Wippermann, 12538 Danbury Way, inquired as to the status of the Erickson Park Shelter Committee and whether, in the past, downtown businesses had concerns regarding parking for the amphitheater. Director of Parks and Recreation Topitzhofer responded to Mr. Wippermann's questions. There being no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Commissioner Shoe Corrigan stated that she felt this was a great proposal. Chairperson Droste also was pleased with the site plan. MOTION by DeBettignies to approve the site plan review for the new Erickson Community Square Park Facility subject to compliance with all applicable building and fire codes. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Department Announcements Pursuant to a request from Commissioner Shoe Corrigan, Senior Planner Mack reviewed the action that was taken at the June 18, 1996, City Council meeting regarding the zoning text amendment application of APT Telecommunications. Intern Lotter stated that a representative of APT Telecommunications was not available at the last City Council meeting; however, a representative will be available to answer questions at the July 2, 1996 City Council meeting. A discussion occurred regarding the proposed antenna ordinance. Senior Planner Mack reviewed the Wetland Planning Challenge Grant in response to an inquiry from Chairperson Droste. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings June 25, 1996 Page 3 Commissioner Tentinger questioned whether any discussion occurred at the last City Council meeting in regards to the intended use of the Rosewood Manor outlot the City acquired in the land swap with Wensmann Homes, Inc. Mayor Busho responded to Commissioner Tentinger's question. New Business: Tree Preservation Ordinance Intern Lotter related that at the goal setting session held in early Spring of 1996 Staff was directed to draft a Tree Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Lotter stated that Staff has drafted a proposed ordinance and is seeking input from the Commission in regards to this ordinance. He stated that this ordinance is intended to affect larger developments of land on which significant trees and woodlands exist and was drafted to be "homeowner friendly." Mr. Lotter then reviewed the proposed ordinance including the replacement procedure and the 25% removal limit. A discussion occurred regarding exemptions to the proposed guidelines. Intern Lotter stated that Staff attempted to put the responsibility on the developer and not burden the homeowner and that is the purpose of not regulating any grading that affects less than 1,000 square feet of land. Member Tentinger felt strongly that homeowners should not be affected by this ordinance. He believed that if a homeowner wanted to remove a few trees on their property to construct a garden, etc., they should have that right and not have to consult the City. Member Shoe Corrigan stated that she has two goals in the adoption of this ordinance: a) to assist in managing wildlife; and b) to assist in the public care of the landscape. She mentioned several suggestions to Staff including the following: (1) the tree replacement procedure section should be more specific. She felt that some trees can not be replicated as certain wildlife resides in those trees and tighter restrictions are therefore needed; (2) identify "critical tree stands" in the City and include language in the ordinance to protect these tree stands; (3) minor suggestions to revise some of the definitions; and (4) creating a Tree Board. The Commission discussed enforcement of this ordinance, the 25% removal limit and various other issues in relation to this proposed ordinance. Intern Lotter reiterated the changes the Commissioners were suggesting and stated that he would redraft this ordinance pursuant to the direction of the Commission. MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Seconded by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gcu,Ad Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary a a `r CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2875— ;45 t "Aee tWest P.0. Box 510 e. Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! Rosemount 55068 -0 MN 55068 -0510 Phone: 612- 423.4411 Planning Commission Fax: 612. 423 -5203 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 9, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, July 9, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Jay Tentinger, and Patrick McDermott present. Also in attendance was Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Director of Public Works Bud Osmundson and Civil Engineer Doug Litterer. Senior Planner Mack stated that Item 4.C., CMC Project Samples, should be added to the agenda. MOTION by DeBettignies to approve the June 25, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: McDermott, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. MOTION by DeBettignies to approve the June 25, 1996 Worksession Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Chairman Droste requested an update of the Biscayne Pointe preliminary plat proposal. Community Development Director Rogness responded that this item was tabled by the City Council on July 2, 1996, pursuant to direction by the City Attorney who felt that this item should be tabled until the MUSA issues are dealt with. Department Announcements: Growth Options Update Senior Planner Mack briefly reviewed the 3 growth options being considered by the Metropolitan Council. He mentioned that the City has been involved in this decision making process from the beginning and has recently prepared a letter to the Metropolitan Council regarding the City's position on this issue. Mr. Mack commented that the letter states that Rosemount does not support growth in a strictly concentrated growth scenario as this would not allow the City to expand the current MUSA until the year 2020. The letter also states that Rosemount is not in support of rampant uncontrolled growth. He stated that the City Council has reviewed and endorsed this letter and a copy of the letter has been provided to the Planning Commission for their questions or concerns. A short discussion occurred regarding other metropolitan areas and whether they have a Metropolitan Council or similar -type body. �S Printed on recycled paper 30 °re• containing Soy post consumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings July 9, 1996 Page 2 Department Announcements: CMC Project Samples Community Development Director Rogness reviewed the material that CMC Heartland Partners recently submitted to the Planning Commission pursuant to their request at the June 11, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. The material reviews locations and information regarding neo- traditional developments in the metropolitan area. Mr. Rogness discussed possible sites for the Commissioners to tour on their own and stated that the "group" tour that was recently proposed will not take place as it is difficult to get everyone to agree on one date, etc. New Business: Mini Storage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Senior Planner Mack stated that during the past 1 to 2 years, the City has received some interest in locating a mini- storage facility in the City. He mentioned that current ordinance does not define or permit this type of use in the City and that Staff felt that this issue should be brought to the Planning Commission for discussion. Mr. Mack reviewed pictures of mini- storage facilities in other communities. He mentioned that if the Commission feels that the best interests of the community would be served by defining mini- storage and developing standards and permitted districts, then the Commission should request Staff to initiate this zoning ordinance text amendment. A brief discussion occurred regarding on -site caretakers and whether it is required in other communities. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend that Staff initiate preparation of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment which defines mini- storage, permits the use in appropriate zoning districts and creates applicable standards. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, DeBettignies, McDermott and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Chairman Droste recessed the meeting at 6:57 p.m. Public Hearing: Heritage Development Planned Unit Development Chairman Droste opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. to hear public testimony regarding the Planned Unit Development application of Heritage Development. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Heritage Development is requesting a Planned Unit Development for 61 single family lots and 34 twinhome lots on 38 acres on the northwest corner of 160th Street and Chippendale Avenue. Mr. Pearson reviewed the concept plan mentioning that the pond in the center of the development will combine 2 existing depressions and will contribute to the City stormwater management system. Mr. Pearson reviewed the street design, sidewalks and park land. He commented that the Director of Parks and Recreation is recommending that all of the lots adjacent to the park be converted to parkland, approximately 2.25 acres. The developer is proposing Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings July 9, 1996 Page 3 half of the lots be parkland. A final recommendation on this issue will be will be forthcoming from the Parks and Recreation Committee on July 15, 1996. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff had mixed reactions to the twinhomes that are proposed and no consensus could be reached. He reviewed the findings that would need to be met in order to approve this Planned Unit Development and stated that no variances are proposed with this plan. Tom Bisch of Heritage Development concurred that there are a significant number of twinhomes proposed and they are currently trying to locate a builder that would be appropriate for this type of development. Mr. Bisch mentioned that they need approximately 95 lots to be successful. The single family homes will be selling for approximately $160,000 and the twinhomes between $122,000 and $145,000. He also commented that a homeowners association would control the maintenance of the twinhome grounds. Mr. Bisch stated that they have a problem with converting 4 more lots to parkland because the developer pays for the street adjacent to the park, however, fewer homes will be built along this stretch of street to reimburse the developer for this cost. A discussion occurred regarding setbacks, park dedication and stormwater management issues /ponding. John Debates stated that his son owns a 1 acre parcel north of 160th Street which will abut this proposed development and Shannon Ponds East Addition. Mr. Debates had concerns regarding sewer hookup, access to 160th Street and possible development of this 1 acre parcel. Civil Engineer Litterer responded that he had previously sent a letter to the owner of this parcel and never received a response. He stated that this property will be hooked up to sewer and water. A discussion occurred between Staff and Mr. Debates regarding these issues and Mr. Debates will be meeting with Staff in the near future. Joe Gergen, 15731 Cicerone Path, had several questions regarding lot sizes along Cicerone Path, possible assessments for the extension of Cicerone Path, general value of the proposed homes, when this project will break ground, and whether the developer was aware of the pipeline easement along the northern border of this site. Assistant Planner Pearson responded to Mr. Gergen's questions. There being no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: DeBettignies, McDermott, Droste and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 0. Member McDermott stated that the developer should reconfigure the streets because of the park dedication issue. He felt that there was excessive street frontage along the park. Mr. McDermott mentioned that Staff should met with Mr. Debates regarding the access issue. Member Tentinger echoed Member McDermott's statements. He stated that he basically was in favor of the proposed design and believed that the current location of the twinhomes was superior to Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings July 9, 1996 Page 4 intermixing them throughout the development. He was concerned that the pond would be adequate to service the runoff. Member DeBettignies stated that he was in favor of the twinhomes in the proposed location as he felt it was an appropriate transition and belonged along the higher traffic areas. However, Mr. DeBettignies suggested that the twinhomes be located across the street from each other and the single family homes be located across the street from each other. He stated that overall this proposal needs more work but he felt it was laid out well and the streets configure well to the surrounding developments. Chairman Droste commented that he was in favor of the twinhomes in the current proposed location as it would protect the integrity of the surrounding neighborhoods. He felt, however, that the park dedication issue was very important and should be dealt with before moving forward on this proposal. MOTION by McDermott to table action on the Heritage Planned Unit Development Concept Plan to allow the developer time to rework the plan. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: McDermott, Droste and Tentinger. Nays: DeBettignies. Motion passes 3 -1. MOTION by Droste to table the rezoning of the property to R -1, Single Family Residential Detached and R -2, Single Family Residential Attached relative to the proposed housing types. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies and McDermott. Nays: Q. Motion passes 4 -0. Public Hearing: Brenner Construction, Inc. Planned Unit Development/Rezoning Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Planned Unit Development/Rezoning application of Brenner Construction, Inc. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that the applicant is proposing to develop 33 townhomes on approximately 5.7 acres on Outlot A of Carrousel Plaza South. The property is currently zoned BP -3 and the applicant is proposing a rezoning to BP -4. He mentioned that several development proposals have been previously discussed by the Planning Commission. Staff feels that this is a transition area between commercial and residential uses and, therefore, buffering on this site will be needed. Mr. Pearson reviewed the design plan and mentioned that this is the one of the best townhome proposals Staff has reviewed. Mr. Pearson felt that the main issue for the Commissioners to consider is whether residential uses are appropriate on this property. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings July 9, 1996 Page 5 IIII Pursuant to a question from Member DeBettignies, Assistant Planner Pearson stated that the theater is aware of this proposal (and that if residential uses are located on Outlot A that the intermittent lights on the marque will be legal non conforming) and at this point have no comment. A discussion occurred regarding this issue. Tom Brenner, applicant, felt that this development has much architectural appeal. He supports the theater in that the lights on the marque can stay they are not a problem to this development. Mr. Brenner felt that the homes will be sold for approximately $140,000 $170,000. He requested that this proposal be approved with any necessary conditions. Ron Brenner, architect, felt that this proposal was a good transition from Wachter Pond to the south to the commercial district to the north. He reviewed the topography of the site and the rational behind this concept design. It was mentioned that the townhomes will mainly face south, away from the theater, and the applicant will provide additional berming along the northern edge to completely cover the marque from the townhomes. Pursuant to a question from Member Tentinger, Ron Brenner stated that a pedestrian connection from this development to the pond is proposed. Tom Brenner commented that an extensive mix of potential homebuyers will be attracted to this development, i.e. young to mid- professionals, retirees and empty nesters. Dan Huntington, a property owner in the area, stated that this is an excellent project and an asset to the area, however, he questioned if there would be a connection to Highway 3 in the future. Assistant Planner Pearson responded that this issue has been looked at many times and MnDOT states that no access will be allowed unless the access from Canada Avenue is blocked. Tom Brenner stated that he would supports the theater's attempt to gain access to Highway 3, however, this development is not contingent, nor does it need, access to Highway 3. Tom Hegberg, representative of the property owner, stated that the property owner would like MnDOT to review this issue again and would like the City's support and assistance in this matter. He stated that the City is in transition and, therefore, access needs change. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Tentinger, DeBettignies, McDermott and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 0. Member McDermott commented that he believed the current zoning of BP -3 is the appropriate zoning. He stated that this was a nice development but would like to see it further south. Member DeBettignies also wondered what this development would look like further south. He stated III that the access issue should be readdressed by MnDOT and that this was a good development and concept plan. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings July 9, 1996 Page 6 Member Tentinger stated that overall he liked this concept plan. He mentioned that eventually something will be built on this site and this proposal is superior to any previous proposals. Mr. Tentinger mentioned that he had a concern with the access to Chippendale Avenue and the private road to the homeowner to the north. Chairman Droste stated that he had concerns with Findings #1 and #3. He felt there were some positive aspects to the surrounding areas, however, he was concerned with putting the theater's intermittent lights into non conformance. Mr. Droste stated that more information was needed regarding the findings. Tom Brenner mentioned that he also builds commercial buildings and he reviewed this site with commercial in mind, however, he felt that it would not be economically feasible to develop. MOTION by Droste to table action on the concept PUD for Rose Park Village subject to: 1) preparation of findings in support of approval for the PUD concept; 2) rezoning the property to BP- 4; 3) incorporation of extraordinary screening measures within the northern setback area to mitigate the effects of the adjacent commercial use; 4) resolution of access and on -site circulation safety issues for the development; and 5) conformance with Section 12.2. of Ordinance B, the zoning ordinance for PUD final development plan as well as applicable subdivision ordinance requirements for platting. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Droste and Tentinger. Nays: McDermott. Motion passes 3 1. MOTION by Droste to table rezoning of the property to BP -4. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: McDermott. Motion passes 3 1. Public Hearing: SKB Environmental, Inc. Interim Use Permit Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Interim Use Permit application of SKB Environmental, Inc. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Senior Planner Mack related the background of this application stating that a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment was recently approved by the City to permit construction and demolition waste facilities by Interim Use Permit in the Waste Management District. He stated that approval of the Interim Use Permit would enable the applicant to accommodate expansion of their existing site. Mr. Mack reviewed the landfill design and the flow of drainage on the site. He mentioned that no structures will be built on the parcel of land located in Rosemount and that permit reviews by the MPCA and Dakota County are currently in process. Mr. Mack stated that Staff has no issues with this application except for the placement of landscaping on the site once the operation is closed. He mentioned that either the City could enforce this performance or Dakota County has stated that this performance could be included in their permit closure procedures. Mr. Mack stated that Rick O'Gara, President of SKB Environmental, Inc., was present to answer any questions. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings July 9, 1996 Page 7 A lengthy discussion regarding the landscaping occurred. The Commissioners, Staff and Mr. O'Gara also discussed the hours of operation and financial assurances. As there were no comments from the audience, MOTION by Droste to close the public hearing. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 0. Member McDermott raised some questions to the applicant regarding when the site will be closed permanently (1999- 2000), individual testing done on -site (no), monitoring of the wells, and any dust complaints. Mr. O'Gara responded to Member McDermott's questions. MOTION by Droste to recommend to the City Council approval of a request by SKB Environmental, Inc. for an Interim Use Permit to permit a Construction and Demolition Waste Facility in the WM Waste Management District subject to the following conditions: 1. SKB Environmental, Inc. enters into an Interim Use Permit Agreement with the City of Rosemount to comply with all conditions of approval. 2. Preparation and approval of a landscaping plan prior to final approval of the Interim Use Permit which incorporates recommendations of City Staff and the Planning Commission. 3. Incorporation of all recommendations by the City Engineer. 4. A Grading Permit be obtained and all required fees are paid prior to initiating any grading or expansion of the landfill into the Rosemount Corporate Limits. 5. All required approvals are obtained from the City of Inver Grove Heights, Dakota County and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 6. Compliance with all requirements, laws and ordinances of the City of Rosemount, City of Inver Grove Heights, Dakota County and the State of Minnesota. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, DeBettignies, McDermott and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Public Hearing: Well No. 9 Site Plan Review Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the site plan review application of the City of Rosemount in regards to Well No. 9. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that the City Public Works Department is requesting approval of the Y p q g pP site plan for a 1,200 sq. ft. building that will contain a well and pumping station. The building will be Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings July 9, 1996 Page 8 located in the outlot of O'Leary's Hills Fourth Addition on the east side of Shannon Parkway and north of 151st Street West. The building will be constructed of brick and will replicate the residential character of the area. Mr. Pearson reviewed the elevation plans of the building and mentioned that the driveway to this building will include a hammer -head turnaround. This building meets or exceeds all R -1 and Public district requirements and a landscaping plan will be prepared and implemented. Director of Public Works Osmundson reviewed the Comprehensive Water Plan and described the rational behind the location of this building. He showed pictures of Well No. 8 and Well No. 7 and stated that this building will be similar to Well No. 8. As there were no comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: DeBettignies, McDermott, Droste, Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. MOTION by Droste to approve the site plan for the well and pumping station subject to conformance with all applicable building and fire code standards. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: McDermott, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. The Planning Commissioners stated that "they would take on the City" in regards to the Bath Tub Races held during Leprechaun Days, July 25th. MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Seconded by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \6_it A. C7 r uvnl Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary y 4 CITY HALL CITY OF F RO S E M O U N T 2875 145th Street West P.O. Box 510 S Rosemount, MN Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! 55068.0510 Phone: 612- 423 -4411 Planning Commission Fax: 612-423-5203 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 23, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, July 23, 1996 at 6:35 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Jay Tentinger, Patrick McDermott and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson and Intern Dean Lotter. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Item 7.A., Chippendale /42 Partnership Final Planned Unit Development, should be removed from the agenda pursuant to a request from the applicant. MOTION by Droste to approve the July 23, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Senior Planner Mack mentioned that the City Council, at its meeting of July 16, 1996, approved an antenna lease agreement with APT Communications to be located on the Connemara water tower. Old Business: Heritage Development Planned Unit Development Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed the background of this application stating that this item was tabled at the July 9, 1996, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow Staff time to prepare findings in support of this application and to allow the Park and Recreation Committee time to arrive at a recommendation regarding the park dedication issue. Mr. Pearson stated that the Park and Recreation Committee recommended that the land dedication be reduced to a trail connection to the new street and the balance of the park dedication would be in cash. This would allow the developer to keep the 4 lots in question and possibly add an additional 3 lots. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff was ready to recommend approval, however, the Dakota County Plat Commission, at its July 22, 1996 meeting, decided to require 75 feet of right -of -way along 160th Street and wants Chippendale Avenue realigned to the west. Mr. Pearson stated that this obviously raises many issues and Staff is requesting tabling this application so that the developer can negotiate with Dakota County on these items. Pursuant to an inquiry from Commissioner Tentinger, Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Dakota County would like to see Chippendale Avenue realigned to allow more stacking space from the railroad tracks and Highway 3. III discussion occurred regarding the impact Dakota County's recommendation would have on the Shannon Pond East Addition. 11M Printed on recycled paper •30 containing 30% post consumer mateitals. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings July 23, 1996 Page 2 MOTION by Tentinger to table action regarding the Concept Residential Planned Unit Development for Geronime Pond. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Old Business: Tree Preservation Ordinance Intern Dean Lotter mentioned that a draft of the Tree Preservation Ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its June 25, 1996, meeting where several suggestions were made to enhance the ordinance. He stated that since that time he has redrafted the ordinance and is requesting further input regarding how restrictive the ordinance should be and possibly setting this matter for a public hearing. Mr. Lotter reviewed the proposed ordinance, discussing the following: 1) application and exemptions to the ordinance, 2) definition of significant trees; 3) proposed removal rate of 25% (reviewed other cities removal rates); and 4) tree replacement schedule. A discussion occurred regarding the replacement rate and whether a higher ratio should be considered, replacement of trees with similar species, and who would enforce this ordinance as there is limited resources. Chairperson Droste commented that of the 3 options Intern Lotter listed in his executive summary, he felt the Restrictive option was the best. He stated that the proposed ordinance was a basis to work from and was a good first step. Member DeBettignies felt that the City Engineer would need to decide if removal of the trees would effect erosion on the site. He also stated that a disclaimer should be included in the replacement schedule which would state that other species of trees could be approved by City staff. Member McDermott requested that language be included in the replacement schedule that would require a tree to be replaced with a similar species and agreed to by City staff. Member Shoe Corrigan inquired as to whether the City reviewed initiating a volunteer committee to help with enforcement of this ordinance. Intern Lotter responded that at this time it is proposed that one staff member, with other duties, would enforce this ordinance and if this is inadequate, the City would reevaluate at that time. Chairperson Droste closed this item at 7:05 p.m. in order to open the public hearing scheduled at that time. Public Hearing: Cleansoils Minnesota, Inc. Concept Planned Unit Development Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Concept Planned Unit Development application of Cleansoils Minnesota, Inc. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings July 23, 1996 Page 3 Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Cleansoils Minnesota, Inc. has requested to co- locate on 5 acres on the southeast corner of the Continental Nitrogen site. Cleansoils Minnesota is a roasting plant that "cooks" contaminated soil with the end product being sterile soil. Mr. Pearson reviewed the procedure and equipment needed for this process and showed the Commissioners a conceptual diagram showing access and a security fence. Mr. Pearson stated that if the Commissioners were to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development, Staff would prepare findings in support with conditions of operation similar to a mineral extraction permit. He mentioned that Jack Poucher of Cleansoils Minnesota was in the audience to answer any questions. Pursuant to questions from Commissioner Shoe Corrigan, Mr. Poucher stated that the soil is contaminated with petroleum and comes from gas stations and sometimes refineries where spills have occurred. He stated that, pursuant to their permit from the MPCA, that is all that they can accept. Mr. Poucher stated that the fumes from this process go thru pollution control measures and equivalent to emission from 1 diesel truck. Commissioner McDermott asked if they take in any hazardous material to which Mr. Poucher stated that legally they can not process any lead or hazardous material. Commissioner DeBettignies inquired as to how much soil is processed in 1 day to which Mr. Poucher answered that they normally process 30 tons /hour or 20 yards /hour. A discussion occurred regarding potential hours of operation, pad design to combat rain and erosion, screening, anticipated length of business at this location, ownership of the property and liability issues. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies, McDermott and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Chairman Droste commented that he was concerned that since this was a long -term venture that as the eastern area of Rosemount is developed, that berming and screening would be needed on this site. Member DeBettignies was concerned that since the applicant is leasing the site that they would not be as inclined to follow through on screening or berming. A discussion occurred as to the liability that Continental Nitrogen is assuming in this situation and it was requested that Continental Nitrogen be made fully aware of this liability. Staff stated that additional security could be required of the applicant in order to remove the concrete slab or redevelop the site after the applicant's departure. MOTION by DeBettignies to direct staff to prepare findings in support of the General Industrial multiple use PUD proposed by Cleansoils Minnesota, Inc. and assemble draft conditions of operation in accordance with Section 14.9 of the zoning ordinance for recycling operations. Seconded by Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings July 23, 1996 Page 4 Tentinger. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Old Business: Tree Preservation Ordinance (continued) Member Shoe Corrigan requested that language be included in the ordinance which identifies the greenways and wildlife corridors in the City so that they may be protected. She stated that many species of wildlife live in clumps of trees and if these trees are destroyed our wildlife is also destroyed. Ms. Shoe Corrigan also requested that oak wilt contingency language be included which would hold the developer liable for any trees lost to oak wilt. It was felt by some Commission members that the City would be overstepping their bounds on the oak wilt issue as the developer has no control over that situation. Assistant Planner Pearson mentioned that time was of the essence in regards to this ordinance and that this ordinance is better than nothing (which we currently have). He stated that Staff needed something that they can enforce and regulate. A discussion regarding financial guarantees occurred. Member Tentinger commented that he would not support the ordinance as is because it requires the ordinary homeowner to comply with this ordinance and Mr. Tentinger felt that a homeowner has a right to do with his property as he sees fit. He felt the ordinance was too restrictive, especially in regards to the removal rate. Member DeBettignies requested that the word "healthy" be put in the significant tree removal section so that dead trees and underbrush are not included in the 25% of the significant trees that can be removed from the site. A lengthy discussion commenced regarding whether this ordinance applies to individual homeowners and in which situations this ordinance would apply. It was the general consensus of the Commissioners that individual homeowners should not be burdened with this ordinance and that lot splits in the agricultural and rural residential areas should not fall under this ordinance. Staff mentioned that this ordinance is directed towards developers that are developing new sites. It was agreed that Paragraph 3.A. would be expanded to state that individual homeowners are not effected by this ordinance. Member McDermott felt that this ordinance was already restrictive and including no removal of wildlife corridors and greenways would be too much. Member Shoe Corrigan replied that she felt that the Metropolitan Council would eventually restrict the destroying of trees in the corridors and the City should "beat them to the punch." Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings July 23, 1996 Page 5 Assistant Planner Pearson asked Commission Shoe Corrigan if expanding the significant woodlands definition to include wildlife corridors and greenways would be acceptable to her. Member Shoe Corrigan agreed. MOTION by DeBettignies to make revisions per the Planning Commissioners discussion and to set a public hearing for an Ordinance Amending the City Zoning Ordinance B Enhancing Existing Trees by Preserving Significant Trees and Woodlands for August 13, 1996. Seconded by McDermott. Member McDermott withdrew his second. Member DeBettignies made a friendly amendment to include the notification of current developers and potential developers in the City of the August 13, 1996, public hearing. Seconded by McDermott. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Seconded by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ka R. GRAN4 Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary 1 Ce ce r 4' s gr gr a 5 ti` CITY OF ROSEMOU NT 2875 e P.O. Box 510 Rosemount, MN Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! 55068 -0510 a as s ,4� e Phone: 612- 423 -4411 Planning Commission Fax: 612-423-5203 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, August 13, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Patrick McDermott and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, and Civil Engineer Doug Litterer. Senior Planner Mack stated that there were no changes to the agenda. MOTION by Droste to approve the July 23, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by McDermott. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Old Business: Cleansoils Minnesota, Inc. Concept Planned Unit Development Community Development Director Rogness mentioned that the Planning Commission reviewed this application at its July 23, 1996, meeting and at that time the Commission directed Staff to prepare findings and conditions in support of this concept plan. Mr. Rogness stated that since that time the location of this facility on the Continental Nitrogen site has changed. He reviewed the location of the new site and berming issues. Mr. Rogness stated that Staff is recommending approval subject to 6 conditions. It was mentioned that the applicant has concerns with conditions #3 and #4. Mr. Rogness stated that after Assistant Planner Pearson returns from his vacation these conditions will be reviewed and dealt with before this proceeds to the City Council. Mr. Rogness further stated that he has contacted Dakota County regarding this application and was informed that financial security will be required as part of a future closure plan, and the County will complete its permitting after the City's process is completed. Member DeBettignies stated that he was concerned with co- locating Continental Nitrogen and the applicant on the same site in regards to future liability issues. Jim Poucher, a representative of the applicant, stated that they have substantial security with Dakota County, insurance and language in the lease that will cover any future liability problems. A discussion occurred regarding host community fees, runoff issues, and liability for any previous contamination on the site. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend approval of the Cleansoils /Continental Nitrogen Resources multiple General Industrial use PUD subject to: 1) Provision of documentation of required MPCA and County permits specifically for the CNR site; 2) Approval of a grading permit as required by the .It Punted on rec paper it 30°'x• containing 30% post consumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings August 13, 1996 Page 2 Public Works Department; 3) Provision of a liner for the stockpile area including the internal side of the berm to contain runoff from a 24 hour -100 year rainfall event in addition to the sedimentation basins indicated on the plan; 4) Provision of a security in a form acceptable to the City Administrator for the purpose of site restoration to enable future General Industrial redevelopment; 5) Conformance with all applicable requirements specified for Recycling Operations, Section 14.9 including such additional conditions as may be required to ensure compliance with Ordinance B, the Zoning Ordinance; and 6) Execution of a PUD agreement with the operator, property owner and the city to secure the conditions of operations, securities and responsibilities of the parties to the agreement. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, DeBettignies and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Old Business: CMC Heartland Partners Concept Planned Unit Development Community Development Director Rogness stated that this item was discussed at the June 11, 1996, Planning Commission meeting and was tabled at that time because insufficient information was provided to support the findings necessary to approve a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Rogness reviewed the revised concept plan in which the major change was the incorporation of a north -south collector street through the site. He stated that Staff finds this concept plan acceptable subject to further design issues to be worked out in the Final Planned Unit Development process. Mr. Rogness concluded that the main issue at this time is whether the Planning Commission is acceptable to the small lot, open space and narrow street design. Chairman Droste continued this item until after the public hearings, scheduled for 7:00 p.m., were concluded. Public Hearing: Jerry Clark/Splash Enterprises Site Plan Review Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Site Plan Review application of Jerry Clark/Splash Enterprises. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Senior Planner Mack stated that the proposed site plan is consistent with the previously approved variances for building and driveway setbacks. Mr. Mack reviewed the site plan and site elevations stating that Staff is recommending approval subject to conditions. He mentioned that the applicant and his architect were present at the meeting. David Darrell, architect for the applicant, stated that the exterior of the addition would match the existing building and that the proposed landscaping meets all requirements. A short discussion occurred regarding the landscaping along STH 3 and curb cuts on the site. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings August 13, 1996 Page 3 As there were no comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by McDermott. Ayes: Droste, DeBettignies, McDermott and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Member Shoe Corrigan asked if the new location of the vacuum station was satisfactory to Staff to which Senior Planner Mack stated that it was. A short discussion occurred regarding stacking space on the site. MOTION by Droste to approve the site plan subject to: 1) incorporation of recommendations relative to grading, utilities and easements identified by the Public Works Department; 2) collection of a Storm Water Trunk Area Charge of $2,820 per acre of improved (new) impervious surface prior to Building Permit issuance; 3) landscape modifications as discussed in the above summary; and 4) conformance with all applicable building and fire codes. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: DeBettignies, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Chairman Droste opened the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to hear public testimony for the Public Hearing scheduled at this time. Public Hearing: Laxman S. Sundae Variance Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Variance application of Laxman S. Sundae. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Senior Planner Mack stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to enable him to build a house on a lot located at 2055 128th Street West. The variance request includes lot area and both side -yard setbacks. The lot was platted in 1969 and is considered legal non conforming with current rural residential setbacks. Paul Heimkes, Building Official, has found the septic system design and location to be acceptable. Mr. Mack commented that the 5 findings listed in the Staff report and 3 additional standards must be met in order to grant the variance. Mr. Mack further stated that Staff believes the applicant has met all standards and findings and is recommending approval of the variance. He mentioned that Staff has received some inquiries from neighbors and they have a concern regarding runoff and drainage. A discussion occurred regarding the history of the subject lot. Laxman S. Sundae, applicant, stated that the previous owner, Glenn Larson, owned this lot and the lot to the west for 30 years. Last year he sold both lots separately. Mr. Sundae stated that the septic system will work on this site and the low spot on the lot could either be filled or possibly be kept as a pond. Bill Stillwell, 12785 Barcardi Avenue, stated that he lives behind the subject lot. He commented that the neighbor to the east of the subject lot, the Vinjes, did not receive notice of this hearing and could not attend because they were on vacation. Mr. Stillwell stated that because of this he would like to Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings August 13, 1996 Page 4 see this matter continued. Mr. Stillwell further stated that he had several concerns with this variance request such as: trees will be cut down to build a house on the lot, too many septic systems in the area already and what recourse would the neighbors have if it failed, and drainage from and to the site (his main concern). Mr. Stillwell felt that the applicant was trying to squeeze a house on too small of a lot and that rules and standards were established for a purpose. Civil Engineer Litterer addressed the drainage concerns to the best of his ability without a grading plan being submitted by the applicant. Senior Planner Mack related the history of this neighborhood and possible setbacks, etc. at the time this development was platted. Terry Kramer, 2075 128th Street West, stated that he bought Glenn Larson's homestead one year ago and was under the impression that the subject lot was unbuildable. He stated that he had a big concern with the drainage from and to this site and was concerned that if the elevation on the subject lot were changed it could cause problems on his lot. Mr. Kramer asked who would be liable if the applicant built on this lot and he had drainage and runoff problems. He felt it was premature for the Commissioners to decide on this variance. Susan Stillwell, 12785 Barcardi Avenue, questioned if this lot had been surveyed. Mr. Stillwell felt that a grading plan was needed and this item should be continued until such time as one is prepared. Mr. Sundae stated that if a drainage problem were to occur on Mr. Kramer's property, Mr. Sundae would have 28 feet on his property to correct the problem. He stated that he has not seen standing water on the subject lot as his neighbors were claiming. He further stated that only two trees on the subject lot will be cut down and that he has an interest himself in preserving the trees. Mr. Sundae mentioned that he needs to build and move by November 1, 1996. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Droste to close the public hearing. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Member McDermott stated that this property was grandfathered in regarding the setbacks and lot size area, however, he feels that the 3 -car garage is not grandfathered. In response to Member Shoe Corrigan's inquiry, Senior Planner Mack reviewed the previously reviewed Ralph Hanson variance request. Senior Planner Mack mentioned that a Certificate of Survey and grading plan are required at the building permit stage of the process. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings August 13, 1996 Page 5 Member Shoe Corrigan felt that a grading plan and Certificate of Survey were needed before a decision could be made on this application. She mentioned that she looked at this lot when purchasing a home recently and there was standing water on the lot at that time. Ms. Shoe Corrigan stated that neighboring properties have decreased setbacks and she did not see a problem with the decreased setbacks on this lot. Member DeBettignies concurred that a grading plan was needed. MOTION by Droste to continue the public hearing to August 27, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., subject to the applicant providing a grading plan and Certificate of Survey by August 20, 1996, and the Vinges being officially notified of the next meeting. Seconded by McDermott. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, DeBettignies and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Chairman Droste closed the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and reconvened the August 13, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Public Hearing: City of Rosemount Rezoning of Land from Agriculture to General Industrial (Implementation Program Comprehensive Guide Plan) Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the City of Rosemount's application to rezone a parcel of land from Agriculture to General Industrial. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Senior Planner Mack stated that this is a City initiated application which requests that the land occupied by Vic's Welding Service on the south side of CSAH 42 and west of STH 52 be rezoned from Agriculture to General Industrial. Mr. Mack stated that the owners of the subject property are requesting a continuance of this hearing until September 10, 1996, as they were not able to attend the hearing. Joanne Rechtzigel, 14727 Clayton Avenue South, questioned why she was not informed that this hearing was to be continued. She also mentioned that her son, who owns property next to her, was not notified of this hearing until she called the City and then a notice was sent out. Chairman Droste apologized for not mentioning earlier that this item was to be continued. MOTION by DeBettignies to continue the public hearing until September 10, 1996 at 8:00 p.m. for the rezoning of land to General Industrial from Agriculture in the southeast quarter of Section 25, Township 115, Range 19. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Droste, DeBettignies, McDermott and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Chairman Droste recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings August 13, 1996 Page 6 Old Business: CMC Heartland Partners Concept Planned Unit Development (con't) Chairman Droste reopened this item at 8:45 p.m. Community Development Director Rogness mentioned that the City received a letter from Joe McNamara and the Vivant Estate dated August 9, 1996, which states that they do not want a road bordering his property to the east of the applicant's site. Mr. Rogness commented that the revised concept plan does not propose such a road. He also reviewed a map which shows how this proposed concept plan would "fit" with neighboring properties. Tosh Neminsky, Director of Development for the applicant, stated that they were very pleased with the work done so far with Staff on this project. Jon Uban, a representative of the applicant, stated that this was an unique proposal. He reviewed the changes that were made to the concept plan since the last meeting including the north -south collector street through the site. He mentioned that the Comprehensive Guide Plan encourages clustering which this plan consists of. Mr. Uban stated that there is proposed 60 acres of open space and amenities which are environmentally sensitive on this site. He commented that there is also 1 3 /4 mile of trails throughout the site which are all linked. Mr. Uban showed the Commissioners pictures of other small lot developments in the area such as Arbor Pointe in Inver Grove Heights. Mr. Uban stated that they believe that all of the findings needed to approve this planned unit development have been met. Member DeBettignies commented that he visited some similar sites recommended by Staff and the applicant. He stated that he likes the street layout and finds this concept plan workable. He was concerned that this project not have a military base style look to it. Chairman Droste had questions regarding the homeowners association and potential builders. Mr. Neminsky responded that the intent is to have one central homeowners association and that there will be several builders for the site. Mr. Uban also mentioned that the townhomes will all be maintained by the association, single family homeowners will own the lot and all open space will be maintained by the association. Chairman Droste was concerned that with separate builders that the guidelines and type of structures built be controlled. Chairman Droste further stated that his main issue with this application is that the site is void of any natural features which usually precipitate these types of applications. Mr. Uban agreed that this site was lacking any natural features and that they believed that this type of development would help create some uniqueness and ruralness to the site. Member Shoe Corrigan was concerned that the applicant follow -thru on this site to completion so that the vision and dream they are informing the Commission of will come to reality. She stated that she is very excited about this development and the open space, trails, etc. Mr. Neminsky stated that Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings August 13, 1996 Page 7 he does not see why not the applicant will not complete this development. Mr. Uban commented that if the applicant were to "bail the Planned Unit Development Agreement would still have to be followed and any changes would need to be approved by the City. Member McDermott questioned if the concerns raised in Assistant Pearson's June 5, 1996 letter had been addressed in regards to snow removal, parking on streets, setbacks, etc. He stated that he approved of a homeowners association but was worried about deterioration of the site in the future with such small lots. He stated that it appeared that this development was being "shoehorned" into a small space when there was plenty of empty land between this site and the Koch Refinery. Member McDermott's concerns were addressed by the CMC representatives. Member McDermott stated that he had confidence in the applicant; however, he wants them to retain control of this development in order to retain the character that is proposed. Chairman Droste recommended that Staff contact Arbor Pointe in Inver Grove Heights and other cities to see how acceptable narrow streets are to overall maintenance and safety concerns. MOTION by Shoe Corrigan to direct Staff to develop findings and conditions to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 27, 1996, in support of the Concept PUD subject to a letter submitted by CMC (by August 19, 1996) to waive the 120 -day deadline. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: DeBettignies, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Public Hearing: Tree Preservation Ordinance Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Senior Planner Mack stated that the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance is the combined efforts of former Intern Dean Lotter's research and direction by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mack mentioned that Staff has contacted Minnesota DNR in regards to Member Shoe Corrigan's concerns regarding wildlife corridors. Staff was informed that the DNR is currently working on this wildlife corridor concept. Staff will be meeting with the DNR in an attempt to identify corridors and determine whether changes to the ordinance are warranted. Mr. Mack reviewed the changes to the ordinance since the previous meeting. He mentioned that current and potential developers in the area were informed of the public hearing. As there were no comments from audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. Member Shoe Corrigan thanked Staff and Mr. Lotter for all the work that went into this ordinance. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings August 13, 1996 Page 8 MOTION by McDermott to recommend approval of the proposed tree preservation ordinance to the City Council subject to the incorporation of modified language resulting from testimony received at the public hearing and subsequent Planning Commission direction. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, DeBettignies and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. New Business: Rosemount Business Park First Addition Final Plat Community Development Director Rogness stated that the Preliminary Plat for the Rosemount Business Park was approved on October 19, 1993 with the only platted lot being Cannon Equipment. Mr. Rogness reviewed the site plan and stated that the Final Plat conforms to the approved Preliminary Plat. He mentioned that the surveyor made an error in regards to the southerly lot line and commented that this lot line will be moved approximately 15 feet further south. MOTION by Droste to recommend approval of Rosemount Business Park First Addition. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Droste, DeBettignies, McDermott and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 4 -0. MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Seconded by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, U 1/42 PL Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary ai r Anta, CITY OF ROSEMOU NT 285- ;T t "Aee tWest P.O. Box 510 Rosemount, MN 1 Ev erything's Coming Up Rosemount!! 55068 -0510 r Phone: 612 423 -4411 Planning Commission Fax: 612 423 -5203 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 27, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, August 27, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Patrick McDermott, Jay Tentinger and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson and Civil Engineer Doug Litterer. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that John Remkus has requested that his variance application be continued from this evening's meeting (Item 8.B.) to September 10, 1996. Member McDermott requested that a change be made to Page 4, Paragraph 9, of the August 13, 1996 minutes. He requested that the last word of the paragraph be changed from "needed" to "grandfathered." MOTION by Droste to approve the August 13, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended. Seconded by McDermott. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 0. Senior Planner Mack mentioned that the City Council considered the Tree Preservation Ordinance at its August 20, 1996, meeting. At that time, the City Attorney requested some wording changes to improve consistency (not content) within the ordinance. He stated that this matter will be before the City Council again at its September 3, 1996, meeting. Mr. Mack stated that Staff will keep the Planning Commission informed of the progress on this matter. Old Business: CMC Heartland Partners Concept Planned Unit Development Assistant Planner Pearson stated that on August 13, 1996, the Planning Commission directed Staff to prepare findings in support of concept approval. He mentioned that the Public Works Department has several concerns regarding this concept plan including right -of -way and street widths, intersection spacing, and overall street design. Many of the issues can be dealt with through design refinements and revisions through the PUD final development plan process. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff has compiled a list of 19 conditions relative to modification of the concept plan that they are recommending be forwarded to the City Council with the findings and recommended approval of the concept plan. Member McDermott questioned condition #9 regarding street widths. He asked if the Public Works Department endorsed this condition as it seems to contradict their previously stated concerns. Assistant Planner Pearson responded that the City Council will ultimately decide whether or not to endorse the smaller street widths or to require the developer to redesign with standard street widths. h Printed on recycled paper 3O'. containing 30% post consumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Proceedings August 27, 1996 Page 2 A discussion occurred regarding the location of the east /west collector street connection to 145th Street, the overall street design and connections, and private versus public streets. The Commission requested Staff to clarify condition #8 before forwarding to the City Council. MOTION by Shoe Corrigan to forward the attached findings to the City Council recommending approval of the CMC Heartland Partners Site B Concept subject to the attached recommended conditions of approval. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Old Business: Planned Development/Residential Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Assistant Planner Pearson stated that pursuant to a joint worksession, Staff was directed to draft a new residential zoning district in order to protect sensitive areas in the City that include wetlands, trees and unique land forms. It was decided that this could be accomplished by transferring density away from the sensitive areas and into cluster areas within the same contiguous district. Mr. Pearson briefly reviewed the proposed ordinance and showed the Commissioners a picture of a clustered development compared to a conventional development. He stated that the ordinance needed some fine tuning and the City Attorney has yet to review this ordinance. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff is requesting that the Commission direct Staff to schedule a public hearing for this matter. He also mentioned that Tim Dwyer, attorney for the Kelley Trust Property, was invited to attend this meeting but was not present at that time. A discussion occurred regarding the process of this proposed ordinance as it relates to the Kelley Trust Property. It was concurred by the Commissioners that this item be scheduled for a public hearing. Chairman Droste explained the public hearing process for tonight's meeting to the audience. Public Hearing: Chippendale /42 Partnership Final Planned Unit Development Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Final Planned Unit Development application of the Chippendale /42 Partnership. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that the Concept Planned Unit Development was approved by the City Council in December 1995. At that time conditions were laid out which the Final Planned Unit Development must comply with. Mr. Pearson briefly reviewed these conditions and also summarized the 6 pages of recommended conditions Staff has compiled for Final Planned Unit Development Regular Planning Commission Proceedings August 27, 1996 Page 3 approval. Mr. Pearson further reviewed the proposed preliminary plat, phasing plan and the Walgreens site plan. Joe McNamara, a representative of the applicant, reviewed the history of this property and encouraged the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this project. He felt that this was a good, strong project for the City of Rosemount. Peter Coyle, attorney for the applicant, stated that this mixed unit development is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and is supported by the PUD ordinance. He mentioned that the market study reveals that the City needs, and can support, this type of development. Mr. Coyle also mentioned that this development will increase tax dollars to the City. John Voss, planning consultant for the applicant, reviewed the site plan, concept plan and traffic study. He mentioned that the pedestrian accesses will be dealt with as each phase or building is constructed. Mr. Voss emphasized that Walgreens would like to be open for business by Spring 1997 and the first phase of townhomes would hopefully begin construction in 1997. He stated that meetings with representatives of the Wensmann townhome development were held 3 times and the applicant will be providing additional buffering on the west side of Shannon Parkway for these residents. Mr. Voss also mentioned that Walgreens will not be open 24 -hours a day. Mr. Coyle listed several changes that the applicant is requesting in regards to the numerous conditions Staff has compiled for Final PUD approval. The changes were in regard to residential height standards, signs on the Walgreen building, lot dimensions, landscaping, pathway width, Claret Avenue spacing, and if the access to Shannon Parkway is reviewed at a later time the applicant would like another traffic study completed at that time. A resident of December Trail felt that Shannon Parkway would not be able to handle any additional traffic and mentioned that there already were many speeders and trucks using Shannon Parkway. She stated that she took her own traffic study and the numbers are not close to the numbers the traffic study states. She also had a question regarding berming along Shannon Parkway to which Assistant Planner Pearson responded. Terry Carter, 4041 152nd Court West, was also concerned about the traffic issue. She also stated that she did not feel it was appropriate that the Rosemount National Bank is located on the east end of the site and that Walgreens, the first proposed building constructed, would be on the west side of the site. Ms. Carter was concerned with what she considered the "bookend" issue. Wayne Weathers, 15035 Derby Circle, appreciated the concern that the developer was showing to existing residents, however, he still was not in favor of this project. He too was concerned with the additional traffic on Shannon Parkway and the area in general. He was concerned with headlights shining into neighboring homes. Bill Neumann, 15121 Derby Circle, stated that if the City is requesting the alternative to close the access to Shannon Parkway sometime in the future, why even allow the access. He stated that the Regular Planning Commission Proceedings August 27, 1996 Page 4 access to Shannon Parkway is the major issue to the majority of the residents. Mr. Neumann further stated that the density numbers seemed incorrect. Ron Bennett, 3966 Upper 149th Street West, expressed his concern that this development will help define the City of Rosemount. He does not feel that the City should compromise its standards in regards to this development. Mr. Bennett stated that the market study is not accurate as some of the retail space that the City can absorb has been duplicated by the proposed Walgreens. Mr. Bennett is concerned that his development, Carrollton 2nd Addition, does not yet have mature trees, etc. to screen this development. He is also concerned that the developer is not allowing enough space along CSAH 42 for a future possible expansion of this road. Mr. Bennett's final concern regards a potential u -turn problem on Chippendale Avenue, south of CSAH 42, with the construction of a raised median. Kevin McGiven, 15173 Claret Avenue, stated that he never thought that commercial uses would be put on this site. He moved from Eagan to get some peace. Mr. McGivern questioned why his neighborhood was never given a chance to meet with the developer as the Wensmann addition did. He does not want a "big box" business located in this area as it will create too much traffic, etc. He questioned whether Claret Avenue needed to be connected to 151st Street. Steve Warner, 3864 Upper 149th Street, was concerned with traffic issues. Rick Biesman, 4025 151st Street West, stated that the traffic study was completed before most of the development occurred on December Trail. He stated he was not in favor of any commercial development in this area. Mr. Biesman was concerned with the construction of a raised median on Chippendale Avenue. He questioned whether the ditch along CSAH 42 would be removed and stated that he would like to see the proposed park expanded and a swimming pool put in. Kelly Sampo, 152nd Street, stated that she was previously told that office space would be located in the southeast corner of this site and it is now proposed to be retail. She believes that there should be no commercial development south of 151st Street. She questioned what would happen to the hill on the southern edge of this area, was concerned that Claret Avenue would become a thoroughfare, questioned if the proposed townhomes would be 1 or 2 story, and was concerned with the number of townhomes that would be abutting existing single- family homes. Carol Conway, 152nd Street, questioned what the value of the townhomes would be and when the park would be phased in. Due to the length of the agenda and the number of public hearings still to be held, a discussion occurred regarding continuing this public hearing to September 10, 1996. MOTION by DeBettignies to continue the public hearing to September 10, 1996, at 8:30 p.m. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Regular Planning Commission Proceedings August 27, 1996 Page 5 Public Hearing: Dakota County HRA Final Planned Unit Development Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Final Planned Unit Development application of the Dakota County HRA. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed the site plan and building elevations for the senior housing building. He stated that the Concept PUD was approved with conditions of which this proposed Final PUD complies with. Mr. Pearson mentioned that 75% lot coverage is allowed and this proposal has only 27% lot coverage. The applicant is also proposing twice as many trees as required. Kari Gill, a representative of the applicant, stated that this building is part of the Senior Housing Development Program of which 10 such facilities will be located in Dakota County. This building is the 10th facility. She mentioned that there is an extensive waiting list for all of these facilities. Jay Nelson, architect for the applicant, reviewed the circulation on the site and the roof design. He mentioned that he spoke with one of the neighbors while waiting for the public hearing and the applicant has agreed to move the gardens in the northwest corner of the site further away from the neighbor's property line. Steve Heimer, Lower 147th Street, thanked the applicant for cooperation on the increased buffer zone to his property. He felt that this development would be an asset to his property. Mr. Stoffel, 146th Street, had hoped that the applicant would buy his property also. He is happy now that the gardens will be moved further from his property line. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Member DeBettignies congratulated everyone involved in this project. Member McDermott commented that it appeared that all issues raised at the beginning of this process had been resolved and felt this building would be an asset to the community. A short discussion occurred regarding parking availability on the site. Member Tentinger requested that additional parking spaces be added to the above ground parking to which Mr. Nelson replied that a few additional spaces could be added. Member Shoe Corrigan commented that this was a beautiful building and will be an asset to the community. Regular Planning Commission Proceedings August 27, 1996 Page 6 Chairman Droste agreed with previous comments and mentioned that he too was concerned with the availability of parking. Assistant Planner Pearson mentioned that the applicant is already providing double the required amount of parking. Senior Planner Mack also commented that the residents in the area widely agreed that the current wide streets be retained for on- street parking for all. Civil Engineer Litterer requested that since the garden is going to be moved, that the grading plan be reviewed to compensate for this move. MOTION by McDermott to recommend approval of the administrative plat and final development plan for the Dakota County HRA Senior Housing project subject to: 1) incorporation of recommendations relative to grading and onsite utilities from the Public Works Department; and 2) conformance with all applicable building and fire codes. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Public Hearing: Basic Builders Concept Planned Unit Development Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Concept Planned Unit Development application of Basic Builders, Inc. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed the zoning and the comprehensive guide plan designation for this property. He stated that there are restrictions to development on this site such as 2 pipeline easements, the irregular shape of the property and the large stand of evergreen trees. The proposed density is 3.5 dwelling units per acre, half of which is allowed. Mr. Pearson reviewed the access points and street locations and mentioned that this proposal would result in lot depth, width and area as well as front, rear and side yard setback variances. He also mentioned that this property is outside the MUSA. Howard Kyllo, a representative of the applicant, emphasized that this is a conceptual plan only and that no builders as of yet had been determined. He reviewed the 3 types of housing units proposed: twinhomes, townhomes and cottage homes. Mr. Kyllo stated that this development would attract "empty nesters," the value of the units would be $140,000 to $180,000 and would be maintenance provided housing. A discussion regarding MUSA timing, the current zoning for the property, the timing of the tree preservation ordinance and the "look" of the cottage homes from the street occurred. Guy Slach, 14615 Biscayne Way, had questions regarding the tree preservation ordinance to which Assistant Planner Pearson responded. Mr. Slach stated that he would like a buffer between his development and this proposed development. He felt that his neighborhood was very nice with mature trees and new developments are not "cozy" enough. Mr. Slach further stated that the Regular Planning Commission Proceedings August 27, 1996 Page 7 neighborhood children play on this vacant land and allowing this development would take this opportunity away from the children. Rick Cook, 14655 Biscayne Way, stated that he represented approximately 15 people in the audience. He questioned what the time frame of this proposed development would be to which Assistant Planner Pearson answered. Mr. Cook also felt that a buffer was needed and that the developer was trying to squeeze a lot of homes in a very small area. He questioned why single- family homes could not be built on this property and did not believe that this land would support $140,000 $180,000 townhomes. Steve LeVerere, Biscayne Way, was concerned that there was no buffer and very short setbacks proposed between his house and this development (only 17 feet). He stated that this was not acceptable. Mr. Cook asked if this property could be bought by the neighborhood to which Member DeBettignies stated that was a good idea and told him to talk to the owner /developer. Mr. Kyllo stated that he would meet with Mr. Cook to discuss this issue. Gayle LeVerere, Biscayne Way, had further questions on the tree preservation ordinance and felt that it would be impossible to replace the trees and evergreens that are proposed to be removed. She did not like the idea of $140,000 $180,000 townhomes being built next to $80,000 homes and was concerned with young families living next to older, retirement age individuals. Mrs. Peterson, Biscayne Way, stated that her neighborhood was becoming very "closed" with the HRA homes behind them, the CMC proposal and now this development proposal. She felt it was too much and that she speaks for a lot of people. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Member McDermott stated that the townhomes on the southern half of this site "worked however, he did not believe that the northern half of this proposed concept plan was feasible. He felt this development was being "shoehorned" in mentioning the 17 feet setbacks from existing homes. Mr. McDermott was concerned that the public street between 145th Street and Biscayne Avenue would be used as a short-cut for some motorists. Assistant Planner mentioned that the 17 feet setbacks were only in one spot and emphasized that this was only a concept plan. Member Shoe Corrigan echoed Member McDermott's concerns and understands the concerns of the neighbors. She stated she does approve of the multiple family uses in this area; however, setbacks and buffering needs to be met. Ms. Shoe Corrigan was concerned with the continued acceleration of the MUSA and did not feel this was acceptable. She further stated that she would like to see some Regular Planning Commission Proceedings August 27, 1996 Page 8 compatibility between existing homes and this new development. She encouraged a meeting between the developer and the neighbors. In conclusion, Ms. Shoe Corrigan stated that she would support this concept plan but changes would need to be made during the Final PUD process. Chairman Droste stated that he appreciated the neighbors comments. He stated that a positive to this proposal was the decreased density. He was in favor of the multiple family use proposal, however, he suggested that the developer extend the townhomes to the north and keep the center of the site (at its narrow point) as open space. Member Tentinger stated that this is not an easy piece of land to develop. He believed that having higher priced homes on this site could increase the value of the existing neighborhood; however, he did state that compatibility could be a problem in regards to young families in one neighborhood and "empty nesters" in another. He was hopeful that when this proposal goes through the Final PUD process that many of the concerns listed would be addressed. Overall he supports this concept plan. Member DeBettignies strongly encouraged a neighborhood meeting with the developer and told the neighbors to work closely with the developer. He stated that he supported the decreased density and felt this concept plan was very generous compared to potential apartments on the site. MOTION by DeBettignies to direct Staff to prepare findings in support of the Concept PUD proposed by Basic Builders. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: McDermott. Motion passes 4 -1. Public Hearing: Hawkins Pond Final Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Final Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat application of Basic Builders, Inc. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson related the background of this application. He stated that the only change to this plan from the Concept PUD is the realignment of 143rd Street West. This road has been shifted to the north at the western property line in response to a pending residential plat involving portions of the First Baptist Church property. No additional variances are proposed. As there were no comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Member Shoe Corrigan commented that she voted against this Concept PUD previously because of the need for variances. She would still like to see a lot eliminated so there would be no need for variances. Regular Planning Commission Proceedings August 27, 1996 Page 9 MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend approval to the City Council of the PUD final development plan and preliminary plat for Hawkins Pond subject to: 1) incorporation of recommendations relative to grading and utilities by the Public Works Department; 2) provision of a boulevard tree planting plan to be approved by Staff; 3) park dedication in the form of cash in the amount established by resolution; and 4) conformance with requirements for Final Plat including execution of a development agreement to secure public improvements. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend that the property be rezoned from Agriculture to R -1 Single Family Detached Residential. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Chairman Droste opened the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to hear public testimony for the Public Hearings scheduled at this time. Public Hearing: Laxman S. Sundae Variance Chairman Droste opened the continued public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Variance application of Laxman S. Sundae. Senior Planner Mack related the background of this application stating that this public hearing was continued from the August 13, 1996, Planning Commission meeting. He reviewed the 4 primary concerns of the neighbors that were raised at the previous hearing. Mr. Mack stated that since the last meeting, Gary and Kim Vinje were notified of this present hearing, and the applicant submitted a Certificate of Survey and Grading Plan to the City pursuant to Planning Commission direction. The Engineering Department reviewed the Grading Plan and found it acceptable. Mr. Mack also mentioned that the applicant has made a change to the location of the house that will eliminate one of the side yard setback variances and saves more existing trees. The alleged fills on the site consist of fireplace brick and concrete rubble which the City's Building Official states can remain on the site. Mr. Mack stated that Staff is recommending approval of this variance. Gary Vinje, 2025 128th Street West, stated he was concerned how the development of this lot would effect the drainage in the neighborhood. He questioned what the proper percentage of drainage should be to which Civil Engineer Litterer responded should be 1 Mr. Vinje also questioned the front setback requirement to which Senior Planner Mack stated that the applicant meets this requirement. Mr. Vinje and Civil Engineer Litterer discussed the drainage in the area. Bill Stillwell, 12785 Barcardi Avenue, asked where the septic system will be located and questioned the flow of the drainfield to which Senior Planner Mack responded. A short discussion occurred on these issues. Regular Planning Commission Proceedings August 27, 1996 Page 10 Terry Kramer, 2075 128th Street West, stated he was still concerned about the drainage issue and did not feel that it has been properly addressed. Mr. Kramer stated that it was a "cop out" on the City's part if there is any future drainage problem from this development. Senior Planner Mack addressed the liability issue if future drainage issues do occur on this site and the applicant has not complied with the submitted Grading Plan. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Member DeBettignies stated that the applicant was responsible for complying with the Grading Plan. He stated that he was in favor of granting the variance. Chairman Droste congratulated Mr. Sundae on complying with the Commissioner's previous requests in such a quick manner. He stated that he understood the concerns of the neighbors; however, he is satisfied with the information provided by the applicant and Staff. Member Shoe Corrigan questioned whether at final inspection the grading would be reviewed. Senior Planner Mack responded that no Certificate of Occupancy would be issued until the Grading Plan was complied with. Ms. Shoe Corrigan stated she was also in approval of this variance. Mr. Sundae approached the Commissioners with pictures of alleged neighboring uses on his property. Some neighbors requested that they respond to Mr. Sundae. However, Member Shoe Corrigan stated that this issue had no bearing on the variance decision. MOTION by Tentinger to approve the lot area and 13.79 ft. west side yard setback variances requested by Laxman Sundae for Lot 9, Block 2 Jay Simon's Addition subject to: 1. Compliance with all other applicable zoning, building and development requirements; and 2. Review and approval of a detailed plan for connection of the driveway to 128th Street West by the City's Engineering Department, prior to approval of a building permit for the property. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Public Hearing: John and Joyce Remkus Variance Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Variance application of John and Joyce Remkus. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Senior Planner Mack stated that when the applicant became aware of the lengthy agenda for tonight's meeting, he requested by written letter that this item be continued until September 10, 1111 1996. Mr. Mack requested that this public hearing be opened and continued. Regular Planning Commission Proceedings August 27, 1996 Page 11 MOTION by Droste to continue the public hearing regarding the John and Joyce Remkus variance application until September 10, 1996, at 8:00 p.m. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Chairman Droste closed the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Old Business: Planned Development/Residential Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (con't) Senior Planner Mack stated that Tim Dwyer, attorney for the Kelley Trust, was present. Mr. Dwyer claimed that he only just became aware of this item and that he needs time to discuss his concerns with City Staff. He mentioned a few of his concerns. After a short discussion, it was decided that Staff would meet with Mr. Dwyer regarding his concerns and then bring this item back to the Planning Commission for discussion before scheduling a public hearing. If a problem occurs between Staff and Mr. Dwyer, then this matter would be scheduled for a joint worksession with Planning Commission and City Council. It was also reaffirmed that Mr. Dwyer would be kept informed on the progress of this item. MOTION by DeBettignies to adjourn. Seconded by Droste. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, R .Gcu4 Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary s x �e CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2875 C 1 45 thS t eetWest 3 ry S: a P.O. Box 510 4 P ,..evil Everything's C0min Rosemount!! Rosemount, MN �o Coming Up R 55068 -0510 Phone: 612-423-4411 Planning Commission Fax: 612-423-5203 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, September 10, 1996 at 8:00 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Patrick McDermott, Jay Tentinger and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Director of Public Works Bud Osmundson and Civil Engineer Doug Litterer. Senior Planner Mack requested that an item be added under New Business as Item 8.A. to discuss the initiation of a public hearing process to rezone an area from R -1A Single Family Detached to R -2 Single Family Attached. MOTION by Tentinger to approve the August 27, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Chairman Droste opened the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to hear public testimony for the Public Hearing scheduled at this time. Zoning Board of Adjustments: John Joyce Remkus Variance Senior Planner Mack stated that this item was continued from the August 27, 1996, meeting at the applicant's request. He stated that the applicant was requesting a variance to permit him to keep an existing 15' X 36' loafing shed which is in excess of the maximum accessory structure limitations and was built without a building permit. Mr. Mack mentioned that the applicant has submitted a petition with 12 signatures supporting his variance request. Commissioner Shoe Corrigan inquired as to whether the builder of the loafing shed should also be liable for this situation. Senior Planner Mack replied that the City became aware that there was no building permit for the loafing shed and, as there was no building permit, was not aware of who the builder was and could only hold the landowner responsible. John Remkus, the applicant, stated that the issue is not financial but emotional. It is very important to his family to have the horses. He stated that not obtaining a building permit for the loafing shed was not malicious or intentional. He was not aware that a permit was not obtained until 6 months later. Mr. Remkus stated that there are 5 criteria that an applicant must meet in order for a variance to be approved and he feels that they have met all of these. He mentioned that he has addressed the 5 ilk Printed on recycled paper 3 0 °m containing 30% posaconsumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Proceedings September 10, 1996 Page 2 criteria in writing. Mr. Remkus further stated that he has a current petition with 52 signatures supporting this variance. Mr. Remkus presented the petition to Chairman Droste along with pictures of the area, the loafing shed, etc. Member Tentinger questioned why the other shed on the site could not be converted to house the horses. Mr. Remkus replied that it could be converted but at an expense and the other shed is too nice of a building to put horses in. He was also concerned that it would detract from any future sale of the property. Beth Bergacker stated that she was the only neighbor of Mr. Remkus except for Koch Refinery and that she enjoys the Remkus' horses and would hate to lose them. She did not see why this is such a problem as she, the only neighbor, is in favor of the variance. Ms. Bergacker further stated that the other shed on the site would not work as a horse shed and wants to see the family farm atmosphere of Rosemount continue. Joyce Remkus, the applicant, stated that the horses are hers and it had been her dream since she was a child to have horses. She stated that it would tear her apart to remove them from the property. She mentioned that her and her daughter participate in 4 -H and the State Fair with the horses. Ms. Remkus also stated that they have friends that also use the other shed and if the horses would be moved to this shed, their friends would have no place to store their automobiles. Pursuant to a question from Member Tentinger, Ms. Remkus replied that she has no intent to purchase more horses to house on the site. Denise Remkus, daughter of the applicant, stated that she does not know what she would do if she would have to get rid of her horses. They are her friends and she has taken care of them for many years. She mentioned that they will not be getting more horses. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Member Tentinger stated that it was his belief that it was not the applicant's intent to deceive the City by not obtaining a building permit. He felt that it was the builder that should have inquired into obtaining a permit. Mr. Tentinger also stated that he would hate to see the daughter lose her horses. Member Shoe Corrigan stated that she too believed that the builder should also be held liable for this situation. She questioned whether the issue was the horses. Senior Planner Mack responded that the horses were not the issue. The Remkus are allowed to have up to 5 horses on their property and at this time they have 2. Mr. Mack stated that the issue is that the loafing shed exceeds the maximum amount of allowable accessory structure square footage. Regular Planning Commission Proceedings September 10, 1996 Page 3 Member Shoe Corrigan stated that it seemed to be a choice for the applicant between hobbies the auto shed or the horses. MOTION by DeBettignies to direct Staff to prepare findings in support of denial for a request by Mr. John W. Remkus, accessory structure variance. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: Tentinger. Motion passes 4 -1. The Zoning Board will review the findings at its next meeting on September 24, 1996, and make a final vote on the request. Chairman Droste explained the appeal process to the applicant. Chairman Droste closed the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and reconvened the regular Planning Commission meeting. Public Hearing: Chippendale /42 Partnership Final Planned Unit Development Assistant Planner Pearson stated that this public hearing was continued from the August 27, 1996, meeting to allow Staff and the applicant time to respond to the neighboring residents' concerns. He stated that Staff is recommending approval of the Final Planned Unit Development subject to six (6) pages of conditions which will guide the future development of this site. Mr. Pearson concluded that various Staff members and the applicant will attempt to address the concerns of the neighbors raised at the August 27, 1996, meeting. Director of Public Works Osmundson stated that he would address the traffic concerns. He began by reviewing a traffic count map for the subject area and then addressed the following concerns: potential U -turn problem on Shannon Parkway if a raised median would be constructed; accesses into this project; the reasons for connecting Claret Avenue to this project; future signalization on CSAH 42; the future of the ditch along CSAH 42; and the future possibility of removing the Walgreens access from Shannon Parkway. Peter Coyle, attorney for the applicant, reviewed the market study concerns of the neighbors. He stated that they will market this property aggressively; however, they are not advocating a "big box" business in this area as the market study does not support this type of business. He further stated that, pursuant to the market study, this development needs to occur to capture the concentration of buyers which will also bolster the "downtown" development. Assistant Planner Pearson responded to various other issues raised by the neighbors including the construction of a fence, future of the hill and drainage on the south property line, the proposed park, and the number of potential townhomes. Mr. Pearson also reviewed Staff's recommended motions in regards to this item. Rick Biesman, 4025 151st Street West, had the following questions: what the difference is between the tax base if this area was developed as residential compared to commercial, if the environmental study was completed, is our commercial availability already utilized, and what is the accident rate on Regular Planning Commission Proceedings September 10, 1996 Page 4 Shannon Parkway and Chippendale Avenue. He commented that he believes 151st Street should go through to Chippendale Avenue with the construction of the first phase. Keith Maletta, 3751 152nd Street West, inquired as to whether future tax capacity takes into consideration the fact that it takes longer to develop commercial than residential. He asked who the developer of the townhomes would be and commented that the estimated traffic counts on Claret Avenue seemed excessively high (700 cars /day) compared to a normal residential area (200 -300 cars /day). Kevin McGivern, 15173 Claret Avenue, questioned who wanted the "big box" businesses the developer or the City. He stated that he is not opposed to commercial; however, he would like it scaled back. Mr. McGiven also stated that his neighborhood was never given an opportunity to meet with the developer and commented that he would like to do so. He further stated that he does not want Claret Avenue to connect to this project and questioned how many acres will be developed as townhomes. Bill Neumann, 15125 Derby Circle, stated that in regards to traffic along Shannon Parkway, the whole project should be reviewed not just Walgreens. He stated that he does not agree with the traffic study and has severe concerns regarding safety on Shannon Parkway with the increased traffic. He does not want an access to Walgreens from Shannon Parkway. Roger Wharton, 15011 Derby Circle, felt that the proposed berm along Shannon Parkway/Wensmann townhomes will not work. Steve Worner, 3864 Upper 149th Street, questioned if the Planning Commission members received his letter that he recently sent. He asked if the owners of the power lines along CSAH 42 were informed of the proposed landscaping and if it would affect the power lines. He also felt there was a lack of collaboration between the developers and the homeowners regarding this project. Kelly Sampo, 3589 152nd Street, has concerns regarding the traffic on Claret Avenue and asked if this street should be widened if the project is approved. She mentioned that a sidewalk along Claret Avenue should be considered and does not like the idea that Claret Avenue will connect to this development. She likes the proposed park; however, is concerned with the amount of traffic traveling alongside this park. Terry Carter, 4041 152nd Court West, was frustrated that her neighborhood did not have a chance to discuss this project with the developer. She still had a concern with the "bookend" issue as she feels it is not visually appealing with Walgreens on one corner, the bank on the opposite corner and nothing in between. She would like to see the speed limit on Shannon Parkway be lowered. A resident from 15666 Cicerone Path stated that he was concerned with the size of Walgreens, the hours of operation and the lighting for Walgreens. Regular Planning Commission Proceedings September 10, 1996 Page 5 A resident from 153rd Street West stated that CSAH 42 was a good place for commercial; however, only if it is further east of this proposed project. Phyllis Neumann, 15125 Derby Circle, was very concerned with the increased traffic on December Trail and the subsequent safety issues. A resident of 4025 153rd Street West stated that he will lose his easy access onto Shannon Parkway and even from his driveway if this project is approved. He had a safety concern with the backup from the railroad tracks when a train goes by. He felt that Shannon Parkway and Chippendale Avenue will have even more increased traffic when 160th Street is upgraded to 4 lanes. Director of Public Works Osmundson, Community Development Director Rogness and Assistant Planner Pearson responded to the above referenced issues, concerns and questions. Senior Planner Mack addressed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. A discussion occurred regarding the development of the townhomes, how the market study affects the "downtown" businesses, green space on the Walgreens site, and parking issues. Member McDermott felt that 151st Street should be constructed with the first phase of development to help alleviate the traffic from the residential area, that the 250 feet offset of Claret Avenue was very important, that widening Claret Avenue would only encourage more traffic, and that the "bookend" concern was not an issue as a cornfield is presently there. Member Shoe Corrigan would like to see no access from Shannon Parkway into the Walgreens site. She felt that the headlights from the traffic would not be fair to the residents of the Wensmann townhomes. She mentioned that she would like to see "speciality" stores developed in this area or elsewhere in the City. Ms. Shoe Corrigan also commented that she does not like the aesthetic appearance of Walgreens. She stated that this will be the "gateway" to our community and that this Walgreens looks the same as any other Walgreens. She would like to see higher architectural standards for this development. Chairman Droste mentioned that this development plan has changed significantly since the beginning of this process and believes that the neighbors had a lot to do with that. He encouraged the neighbors to stay involved in this process. Mr. Droste stated that the developer has met all 5 conditions that were imposed by the City Council last November; however, there is still more work to do. The Commissioners recommended that the hours of operation for the Walgreens be limited and that a traffic study in 1997 be completed regarding Shannon Parkway. Regular Planning Commission Proceedings September 10, 1996 Page 6 A discussion occurred regarding the monument on the corner of CSAH 42 and Shannon Parkway, additional conditions to this Final Planned Unit Development, the access to Walgreens, procedure and process after this hearing, architectural standards of Walgreens, and the phasing of 151st Street. MOTION by Droste to recommend that the City Council amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan to include the northern 28 acres of the Chippendale /42 Partners property within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Seconded by McDermott. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by Droste to recommend approval of the Chippendale /42 Partnership mixed use PUD and preliminary plat to the City Council subject to the attached recommended conditions of approval with two added conditions: (A) Section I for Commercial Uses shall identify use restrictions for the block west of Crestone Avenue including all auto oriented sales and service establishments and outdoor display of merchandise; and, (B) Section C for the Preliminary Plat shall require approval of the Public Works Director of all utility, grading and drainage plans. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by Droste to recommend approval of the Walgreens first phase to the City Council subject to the attached recommended conditions of approval and also including: (1) hours of operation will be set by the City; and, (2) request that the architectural design be enhanced. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by Droste to recommend that staff initiate the formal review process for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by Droste to direct Staff to request MnDOT to complete a traffic /speed study on Shannon Parkway, south of County Road 42, either in the Fall of 1996 or in 1997. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Chairman Droste recessed the meeting at 11:15 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Public Hearing: City of Rosemount Rezoning of Land from AG to IG (Implementation Program Comprehensive Guide Plan) Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed the background of the subject property. He stated that this proposed rezoning is part of the Comprehensive Guide Plan implementation program which will rezone the subject property from AG Agriculture to IG General Industrial in an effort to acknowledge the actual land use. Mr. Pearson mentioned that the City Council directed Staff to proceed with this rezoning at its goal setting session earlier this year. He stated that he has discussed this rezoning with the property owner who was concerned about the effect the rezoning would have Regular Planning Commission Proceedings September 10, 1996 Page 7 on taxes. Mr. Pearson commented that, to his belief, there would be no change as the County looks at the actual land use when determining taxes not the zoning district. He also stated that this matter was continued from the August 13, 1996 meeting so that the property owner could be present for the public hearing. Bernice Wenzel, 2829 145th Street, stated that the City initially had the wrong property owner for this site and mentioned that they were not notified of this rezoning until a neighbor informed them they had received a public notice. She mentioned that part of the site is still used partly for agriculture. Assistant Planner Pearson responded that the City attempted to notify the correct property owners but was not aware that the business had been sold to the Wenzel's 3 daughters. He stated that he was sorry about the confusion; however, he used the records from the County Assessor's office to obtain the property owner's name. Member Tentinger asked Ms. Wenzel if she is objecting to the rezoning. Ms. Wenzel stated that she was not as the use of the land will not change. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend that the City Council rezone the land from Agriculture to General Industrial in the south east quarter of Section 25, Township 115, Range 19 consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Old Business: Basic Builders Concept Planned Unit Development Assistant Planner Pearson stated that the Planning Commission directed Staff at its August 27, 1996 meeting to prepare findings in support of the Concept Planned Unit Development. He stated that Staff has prepared such findings and is recommending approval of the Concept Planned Unit Development pursuant to 5 conditions. Member Shoe Corrigan questioned whether the compatibility of the neighborhoods had been addressed and the timing of the Tree Preservation Ordinance in regards to this development. Member Tentinger inquired as to whether the applicant was in agreement with the proposed 5 conditions. Howard Kyllo, a representative of the applicant, nodded his head in agreement. Chairman Droste questioned whether the developer had met with the homeowners as suggested at the last meeting. Mr. Kyllo responded that he met with them immediately after the last meeting and will meet with the neighbors again after a preliminary plat has been prepared. He mentioned that the Regular Planning Commission Proceedings September 10, 1996 Page 8 developer is also using the suggestion from a Planning Commission member that the townhomes be added further north on the site and the middle of the site (the narrow part) be left as open space. A short discussion occurred regarding landscaping along the exterior of the site. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend approval of the concept to the City Council for the Basic Builders residential planned unit development subject to: 1. Approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan by the City Council and the Metropolitan Council to include the property in the MUSA; 2. Rezoning the southerly 980 feet of the property to R -2 Single Family Attached Residential from IP Industrial Park; 3. Concept refinement including the provision of buffering or screening along property line adjacent to blocks 1 and 2, University Addition; 4. Reduction of proposed setback variances adjacent to blocks 1 and 2, University Addition; and 5. Incorporation of recommendations relative to grading, street design and utilities by the Public Works Department. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: McDermott. Motion passes 4 -1. Mini Storage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Senior Planner Mack related the background of this item. The definitions in the proposed ordinance are consistent with Minnesota State Statutes. He stated that Staff is proposing that mini- storage businesses be permitted in 3 districts: C -3 Highway Service Commercial District, BP -1 Business Park, and IG General Industrial. Mr. Mack stated that there is proposed certain standards with each district. He then reviewed a map showing where potential mini- storage businesses could locate pursuant to the proposed ordinance. He stated that Staff is recommending that this item be scheduled for a public hearing. A discussion occurred regarding possible locations of this type of business in the City and whether allowing this use in the BP -1 district would contradict the direction of the City Council and Planning Commission at their joint worksession regarding permitted uses in the business park districts. Senior Planner Mack stated that Staff believes that this use in the BP -1 district would be acceptable. The Commission directed Staff to include hours of operation in the ordinance especially if this type of use would be adjacent to residential areas. New Business: City of Rosemount Rezoning of Land from R -1A to R -2 Assistant Planner Pearson stated that a duplex along 148th Street burned down a few months ago. The site is currently zoned R -1A Single Family Detached and was grandfathered in when this property was zoned this classification. The owner would like to rebuild a duplex as the surrounding property is duplexes; however, a variance cannot be granted as this is a nonconforming use. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission initiate this rezoning process. Regular Planning Commission Proceedings September 10, 1996 Page 9 All members were in favor of initiating this process. MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Seconded by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, A. Gr um° Kelli A. Grand Recording Secretary ,WOMPRSP', c °,1, 10 e CITY OF RO S E M O U N T 2875 CITY HALL West A gs P.O. Box 510 O. Rosemount, MN x i; Everything Coming Up Rosemount!! 55068-0510 Pd� Phone: 612- 423 -4411 Planning Commission Fax: 612-423-5203 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, September 24, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Patrick McDermott, Jay Tentinger and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Senior Planner Andrew Mack and Assistant Planner Rick Pearson. MOTION by Droste to approve the September 10, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Senior Planner Mack discussed the action taken at the September 17, 1996, City Council meeting in regards to the Basic Builders, Inc. Concept Planned Unit Development. Chairman Droste opened the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Zoning Board of Adjustments: John Joyce Remkus Variance Senior Planner Mack stated that this variance request was discussed at the September 10, 1996, meeting at which time the Commissioners directed Staff to draft findings in support of denial of this variance. Staff has prepared findings in support of denial and has provided said findings to the applicant along with information on appealing this decision to the City Council. Mr. Mack mentioned that immediately after the previous meeting, he spoke with the applicant and informed him that this variance application was a different type of application than the applicant's previously proposed zoning ordinance text amendment. Mr. Mack stated that he has discussed with the applicant other options to assist the applicant with his needs. John Remkus, applicant, again stressed that he had 100% support from his neighbors. He was intrigued that a little shed could cause such a problem when so close nearby a developer is proposing 600 plus dwelling units on a piece of property. Mr. Remkus felt that the proposed findings prepared by Staff were a stretch and could not believe his variance application failed all 5 findings. He found it humorous that his shed was detrimental to the public health, welfare and safety of the neighborhood. He just does not understand. Member Tentinger stated that he voted against the denial at the last meeting and again will vote against adopting the proposed findings in protest against the City Council action taken on the applicant's proposed zoning ordinance text amendment. Mr. Tentinger felt that other communities are much more liberal in regards to accessory structures than Rosemount is and felt a change to the ordinance was necessary. .S Printed on recycled paper a 304 containing 30% Mir posh consumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings September 24, 1996 Page 2 IP Chairman Droste commented that this decision was not based on having horses on the applicant's property, but instead more of an issue of multiple hobbies and whether the City should have to increase its standards to accommodate this to which the City Council has previously said no by voting against the zoning ordinance text amendment. Mr. Droste stated that the Commissioners are only enforcing the Zoning Ordinance that was adopted by the City. MOTION by Shoe Corrigan to adopt findings of fact and a decision denying a request by Mr. John W. Remkus for an accessory structure variance. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: Tentinger. Motion passes 4 -1. Chairman Droste explained to the applicant that he had ten (10) days to appeal this decision to the City Council. Chairman Droste closed the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and reconvened the regular Planning Commission meeting. Senior Planner Mack mentioned that Staff is proposing a joint worksession before the October 8, 1996, Planning Commission meeting to tour the USPCI facility. He stated that USPCI will be submitting an application to renew their Interim Use Permit and is proposing to make a change to the III cell design. Mr. Mack stated that after the tour a brief presentation would occur at City Hall. He also stated that the joint worksession would begin at 5:30 p.m. All Commissioners were in favor of the joint worksession. Senior Planner Mack also mentioned that Staff is proposing a joint worksession before the October 22, 1996, Planning Commission meeting to tour the University of Minnesota site which would also begin at 5:30 p.m. Chairman Droste recessed the Regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:52 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Mini Storage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment application of the City of Rosemount. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Senior Planner Mack stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not currently identify this type of use and the City has received contacts from this type of business and would like to get some standards in the Zoning Ordinance before an application is received. He stated that this proposed ordinance had been reviewed and discussed at the 2 previous Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Mack reviewed the proposed ordinance and showed areas where this type of business could locate. He mentioned that since the last meeting, he has reviewed other mini storage businesses in the metro area and made a few modifications to the ordinance after reviewing said businesses. Mr. Mack concluded that a Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings September 24, 1996 Page 3 representative was here from Secure Mini- Storage and also Tom Heiberg, who represents a mini storage business. Member Tentinger had a question regarding height restrictions to which Senior Planner Mack responded that there currently is a height restriction of 35 feet in the Zoning Ordinance. The Commissioners and Staff discussed the orientation of the storage space openings in relation to streets. Fred Goldberg stated that he was a representative of Secure Mini- Storage and thanked the City and Commissioners for working on drafting this ordinance. He stated that Secure Mini- Storage was generally in support of the proposed ordinance except for 2 sections. Mr. Goldberg stated that Section 2.8.D. regarding landscaping at the end of drive aisles could be a potential problem for snow plowing and snow removal. He asked for flexibility in approving any potential landscaping plans for this type of use. Mr. Goldberg stated that the other concern regarded Section 2.8.E. regarding planting of trees. He stated that this section was excessive in the amount of plantings required. Member Tentinger questioned Mr. Goldberg whether these 2 sections (2.8.D. and 2.8.E.) would make it too restrictive to locate in Rosemount to which Mr. Goldberg replied no, but that it would be harder to function. Senior Planner Mack stated that there would be flexibility in reviewing the potential site plans by Staff and Commissioners in regards to these items. He mentioned that sections 2.8.D. and 2.8.E. were created to "break up" all the asphalt associated with these types of businesses. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Member DeBettignies felt that the hours of operation were too generous and stated that a closing of 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. would be more appropriate. He questioned whether an 11:00 p.m. closing time meant that all customers would be off the site or if after 11:00 p.m. no further customers would be let into the storage area. Senior Planner Mack replied that the intent is that by 11:00 p.m. all customers would be out of the storage area. A short discussion occurred regarding the hours of operation and Mr. Goldberg's two concerns. MOTION by Tentinger to approve An Ordinance Amending Ordinance B City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance Providing for Changes to the Definitions, Permitted Uses and Development Regulations for Self Storage Businesses (Mini- Storage). Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings September 24, 1996 Page 4 New Business: City of Rosemount Rezoning of Land from R -1A to R -2 Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Rezoning application of the City of Rosemount. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that this application was initiated by the City to rezone 13 lots along Chili Avenue and 148th Street West which are currently zoned R -1A but currently have legal non- conforming twinhomes located on them. He stated that this application was precipitated by the fire damage of the property at 3428 148th Street West beyond the 50% of the value of the structure. Mr. Pearson explained the background of this area stating that the twinhomes were allowed in R -1A districts until 1989 when the Zoning Ordinance was readopted. He stated that the owner of the twinhome that burned was frustrated that he could not rebuild the twinhome, only a single family home, and applied for a variance. However, Staff could not accept his application as state statute prohibits "use" variances. Mr. Pearson also stated that Staff felt that this issue should be decided by the Planning Commission and City Council whether these twinhomes should be legitimized or stay legal non conforming. Mr. Pearson stated that since the public hearing notices were sent out, Staff has received several calls from residents regarding code enforcement issues with the majority of the twinhomes in this area. He requested that the code enforcement issues be kept separate from this zoning application. The Commissioners had several questions for Assistant Planner Pearson regarding the background of this area and the consequences for the owners of the twinhomes if the zoning were to remain or be changed. Robert Calhoun, 3415 Upper 147th Street, requested that this issue be settled quickly as he is in the process of selling his house and the burned down unit is costing him potential buyers. He felt that the City has "dropped the ball" in regards to code enforcement in this area and questioned why the owner had not been cited in violation of the graffiti ordinance as the burned down unit has had graffiti on it for several weeks. Mr. Calhoun felt that he was being held hostage until this burned down unit is demolished. Gene Stiles, 3515 147th Street, also was concerned with the graffiti located on the burned down unit. He also asked for quickness in letting the owner obtain his building permit so the unit can be rebuilt. Lee Ostertag, 14749 Chili Avenue, stated that he owns 1 of the 13 twinhomes (not the burned down unit) and can not believe that he can be told by the City what he can and can not build on his property. He stated that the twinhomes have been there a long time and anyone that moved into the area knew what they were getting into. He stated that code violations should be enforced by the City. Mr. Ostertag also stated that if the owner has to rebuild a single family residence on that lot, no one will buy it. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings September 24, 1996 Page 5 Mike Ford, 3295 149th Street, commented that the owner should have to build a single family residence on the lot and move in himself and see how he likes to live in that area. He stated that the twinhomes "look like hell." A resident of 3427 Upper 149th Court, stated that he moved into the neighborhood in December of 1995 and was not aware of the code violations and the maintenance state of the twinhomes until the spring. He stated that he does not see any pride of ownership with the owners of the twinhomes as you would in single family residences. He felt that the zoning should be left as -is. Chuck Fischer, 14809 Chili Avenue, stated that he owns 1 of the twinhomes (not the burned down unit) and is requesting that the zoning be changed to R -2. He stated that graffiti has been getting on his twinhome and he has had to repaint. He was very concerned with the code violations in the area. Another resident of 3427 Upper 149th Court mentioned that she has awakened in the middle of the night to smell bonfires coming from the twinhome area and that the police do not do anything about it. She felt that another duplex should not be allowed to be built on this lot as it too will not be taken care of. Neil Jacobson, 3370 Upper 147th Street, felt that it would be a mistake to rezone to R -2 as there will be even more problems if this occurs. He appreciates that 2 or 3 of the twinhomes are taken care of by the respective owners but felt that the owner of the burned down unit, if given an inch, would take a lot more. Deb White, 3441 149th Court, stated that her property backs up to the burned down unit and felt that if the property was rezoned to R -2, that the City would be condoning the actions of the owner. She stated that by keeping the zoning R -1A, eventually this area could be transformed into something better. It would be a slow transition but would still make more sense than rezoning. Jennifer Slyvestra, 14785 Chili Avenue, stated that she owns 1 of the duplexes (not the burned down unit) and also is concerned with code enforcement in the area. She stated that she has seen drug deals occurring in the street and she is not the only person concerned. Jerry Goodrich, 148th Street, stated that single family homes were originally to be on this site; however, Broback began to build twinhomes and the City did nothing about it. He stated that, at the time, neighbors complained but nothing was done. He would like the zoning to remain single- family. Dan Decker, 3305 148th Street West, questioned if the owner of the burned down was here (he was not). Mr. Decker stated that it showed no pride in ownership that the owner would not attend. He believed that these twinhomes should not be legitimized and requested that the area not be rezoned. A resident of 3350 Upper 147th Street stated that he was against the rezoning and was concerned with the numerous code violations. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings September 24, 1996 Page 6 A resident of 3295 149th Street West felt that if another twinhome were built it too would become an eye sore in time. She stated that she does not see any code enforcement occurring in regards to these twinhomes. A resident of 3355 148th Street stated that she will not be able to sell her house in the future because of the maintenance problems with the twinhomes. She felt that code enforcement issues were not a separate issue in this matter and asked that the City "get on top" of code enforcement and put the pressure on the owner. Holly DeVogt, 148th Street, asked that the rezoning be denied and labeled the owner of the burned down unit an "absentee landlord." A resident of 3433 Upper 149th Street also requested that the rezoning not be changed. Assistant Planner Pearson addressed the concerns of the neighbors. He asked for patience and help from them in regards to the code violations by calling the City when they notice a violation. Mr. Pearson stated that he knew they were frustrated but that the City is too as the court system generally does not support cities in regards to code enforcement. A discussion occurred between the audience and Assistant Planner Pearson in regards to this rezoning and code enforcement issues. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 0. Member Shoe Corrigan requested that Staff initiate strengthening the ordinance which states that 50% or more of the value of a structure must be destroyed before a non conforming structure cannot be rebuilt. She would like to see this number be 30% or more of the value of a structure. She too has been aware of the code violations in the area. Ms. Shoe Corrigan commented that the twinhomes have traditionally been rentals not owner occupied and was adverse to the rezoning as this, in her opinion, was not a transitional area. Member McDermott and Member Tentinger stated that they were in agreement with Member Shoe Corrigan's comments. Chairman Droste applauded the owners of the twinhomes that were taking care of their property; however, noted that some of the owners of the twinhomes were not keeping up their property. He stated that his major concern was the code violations and felt very strongly that the area should remain zoned R -1 A. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend that the City Council not rezone lots 1 -13, block 2, Edwin Rahn Seventh Addition to R -2 Single Family Attached Residential. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 0. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings September 24, 1996 Page 7 MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Seconded by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary Ill II e. VI CITY OF RO S E M O U N T 2875 C 1 45 t h iSSt Street West j P.O. Box 510 Rosemount, MN Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! 55068 -0510 Phone: 612 423 -4411 Z Planning Commission Fax: 612-423-5203 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 8, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, October 8, 1996 at 7:39 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Patrick McDermott, Jay Tentinger and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson and Civil Engineer Doug Litterer. Assistant Planner Pearson requested that item 7.B. Comprehensive Guide Plan Implementation and item 7.C. Rose Park Village Issues be added to the agenda. MOTION by McDermott to approve the September 24, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Community Development Director Rogness discussed the action taken at the October 1, 1996, City Council meeting in regards to the Chippendale /42 Partnership project and in regards to the Rahn's 7th Addition rezoning. Public Hearing: Heritage Development Concept Planned Unit Development Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Concept Planned Unit Development application of Heritage Development. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that the Planning Commission indefinitely tabled action on this item on July 9, 1996, in order to allow the developer to respond to the Dakota County Platting Commission's requirement that Chippendale Avenue be realigned 375 feet to the west. Mr. Pearson stated that the applicant has redesigned the site to accommodate this requirement which now includes 46 single- family lots and 25 twinhome lots for a total of 96 dwelling units. Mr. Pearson reviewed the revised concept plan. He stated that Staff is recommending 3 changes to this concept plan: 1) the number of twinhomes be reduced so no twinhomes are across from single family; 2) the "eye brows" be eliminated; and 3) develop lots on the corner where the pond is currently fronting. A discussion occurred regarding the future of Winds Park, the possible elimination of twimhomes so none front single family homes, and the future of the area southeast of the newly realigned Chippendale Avenue. Printed on reryded paper 9 U containing 30% post consumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings October 8, 1996 Page 2 Tom Bisch, a representative of the developer, thanked Staff for their work on this project. He stated that he respectfully disagreed with Staff in regards to reducing the number of twinhomes so that none are across from single family. Mr. Bisch stated that twinhomes make sense along 160th Street and Chippendale Avenue. He stated that 3 builders have been picked to develop the twinhomes that have better architectural style than most. He mentioned that the twinhomes would sell in the $140,000 range. A discussion occurred between Mr. Bisch and the Commissioners in regards to possibly moving the pond and the cul -de -sac so that the pond becomes a natural barrier between twinhomes and single family. Dan McNulty, 15670 Cicerone Path, stated that he was informed by the Parks and Recreation Department that part of the park dedication fee paid by the applicant would help improve the ball fields at Winds Park and the rest would go into the general fund. Mr. McNulty requested that all the park dedication money received by this applicant go into improving Winds Park as it is a very busy park. He also questioned who bears the cost for moving the sewer when Chippendale Avenue is realigned and the difference between a twinhome and a townhome. Assistant Planner Pearson responded to Mr. McNulty's questions. Joe Girgen, 15731 Cicerone Path, asked what the frontage widths for the lots would be in the northwest corner of the site, the pipeline location, and who would pay to have the temporary cul -de- sac removed at Cicerone Path. Assistant Planner Pearson responded. Phil Sterner, 15666 Cicerone Path, felt that if twinhomes are to be in this development that they be "upscale" twinhomes. He also stated that the single family homes in this development should be consistent with the neighborhood to the north with the price range being between $150,000 and $190,000. Mr. Sterner also mentioned that the park was "maxed out" and needed either to be expanded or additional amenities constructed. Assistant Planner Pearson mentioned that the Parks and Recreation Committee makes recommendations regarding park issues and these recommendations would be forwarded to the City Council for final review. Robert Geronmie stated that this land was owned by his father and he discussed the history of the pipeline across the property stating that the pipeline is not in use and that it would be taken out when development occurs. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Droste to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Member DeBettignies requested the applicant to take a hard look at moving the cul -de -sac and pond to separate the twinhomes and single- family homes. He stated that he generally was in favor of the concept plan as it was a good flow to the other developments in the area. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings October 8, 1996 Page 3 Member Tentinger agreed with Member DeBettignies in regards to the developer redesigning the pond and cul -de -sac. He mentioned that he would like to see single family lots where the pond is currently abutting the street and believed that twinhomes along 160th Street were more appropriate than single family. Member Shoe Corrigan agreed with Members Tentinger and DeBettignies. She did not want to see twinhomes across from single family homes. She commented that Winds Park was not adequate 7 years ago when she lived in the area and recommended to the Parks and Recreation Committee that it be expanded. Member McDermott stated that the neighbors to the north of this site expressed concern to him about twinhomes being located in this area. He stated that the twinhomes need to be high quality and maintained. He felt that twinhomes should be located where the pond currently is abutting the street. Chairman Droste suggested to the developer that the 4 twinhomes along 160th Street (which Staff is recommending be eliminated) be kept, the area where the pond is currently fronting the street be made 2 single family lots and then the park could be expanded by eliminating 2 single family lots along the northern edge of the site. He stated that there appeared to be consensus among the Commissioners that the twinhomes are appropriate along 160th Street and that the cul -de -sac could be moved to the west and the pond redesigned so that the twinhomes and single family homes are more separated. MOTION by Droste to table this item until October 22, 1996. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies, McDermott and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Public Hearing: Wensmann 10th Addition Preliminary Plat /Final PUD Amendment Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Preliminary Plat/Final PUD Amendment application of Wensmann Homes. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that on June 18, 1996, the City Council approved an amendment to the Wensmann 9th Addition PUD that would exchange land for park use. As a result, Outlot A of Wensmann 9th Addition would be developed for private open space and residential use. Mr. Pearson stated that Wensmann Homes is proposing to develop 5 additional units on Outlot A. He reviewed the driveway system in the area and the landscape plan. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff is recommending additional landscaping on this site. A discussion occurred regarding the additional landscaping needed. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings October 8, 1996 Page 4 Terry Wensmann, the applicant, stated that they agreed with adding more trees along Cobalt Avenue and either keeping or spreading out the clump of trees currently located on Outlot A. Mr. Wensmann's main concern was to install the utilities for these units yet this Fall. He asked that if the City can not do the improvements yet this Fall that they be allowed to install the utilities themselves. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Tentinger, DeBettignies, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by Droste to recommend approval of the Wensmann Tenth Addition Planned Unit Development Amendment and Preliminary Plat subject to: 1) Conveyance of 1.23 acres of land in Rosemount Manor to the City for Park purposes; 2) Rezoning of Outlot A to R -2, Single Family Attached Residential; 3) Incorporation of recommendations relative to easements, grading and utilities made by the Public Works Department; 4) Approval of Final Plat as required by the Subdivision Ordinance; 5) Execution of a PUD Agreement for the Wensmann Ninth Addition Planned Unit Development Amendment; 6) Enhancement of the landscaping as recommended by the Planning Commission; and 7) Conformance with all applicable building and fire codes. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by Droste to rezone the property consisting of 1.23 acres in Rosemount Manor to Public /Quasi Public. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by Droste to rezone Outlot A, Wensmann Ninth Addition to R -2 Single Family Attached Residential. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Public Hearing: AAA Auto Salvage Final PUD /Administrative Plat Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Final PUD and Administrative Plat application of AAA Auto Salvage. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that at noon today he received more information regarding this item and, therefore, an exhaustive review could not be done. He stated that on November 7, 1996, the City Council approved the Concept PUD which is necessary because of the multiple businesses located on the property and the applicant's desire to expand the site for a new business related to the auto salvage yard. The site will be expanded by 10 acres and a 34,500 sq. ft. building will be located east of the existing structure. Mr. Pearson stated that in order for the applicant to start grading this Fall the Administrative Plat needs to be approved. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff is recommending that 2 motions be made: 1) a motion approving the Administrative Plat which will combine the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings October 8, 1996 Page 5 current 20 acres with the additional 10 acres subject to incorporation of recommendations by the Public Works Department and the Park and Recreation Committee; and 2) table action until October 22, 1996 on the Final PUD in order to give Staff time to examine the site plan details. Jerry Anderson, the applicant, stated that the Parks and Recreation Committee already ok'd this development. He anticipates that the groundwork would be done this Fall and the building would be constructed in the Spring of 1997. He mentioned that it was only 2 weeks ago that they decided to add a building to this site. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to continue the public hearing to October 22, 1996, in regards to the Final Planned Unit Development. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies, McDermott and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing in regards to the Administrative Plat. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, DeBettignies, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend to the City Council approval of the Administrative Plat. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Member DeBettignies requested to amend his motion. Member Tentinger withdrew his second. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend to the City Council approve of the Administrative Plat subject to incorporation of recommendations by the Public Works Department and the Parks and Recreation Committee. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Chairman Droste recessed the Regular Planning Commission meeting at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:25 p.m. New Business: State Planning Conference Update Assistant Planner Pearson stated that he attended the State Planning Conference in St. Cloud from September 25 27, 1996. Mr. Pearson briefly reviewed some of the seminars he attended at the conference and offered to provide the Commissioners copies of some material he received in regards to the main street program. Chairman Droste stated that he too attended the conference and discussed the main street program. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings October 8, 1996 Page 6 New Business: Comprehensive Guide Plan Implementation Assistant Planner Pearson stated that at the October 1, 1996, City Council meeting, during a discussion on the mini- storage ordinance, an issue arose regarding the zoning of Brockway Glass. Mr. Pearson stated that this property is part of the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan Implementation Plan and should be zoned BP Business Park not the current IG General Industrial. He asked whether the Commissioners would be in favor of initiating this rezoning process. The Commissioners were in agreement to initiate this process. New Business: Rose Park Village Issues Assistant Planner Pearson stated that if the proposed Rose Park Village is developed south of the movie theater, that the running and chasing lights on the movie theater's marque would become non- conforming. He stated that Staff feels that it might be fair to reexamine this part of the sign ordinance as it is anticipated the movie theater will be expanding in the near future and the non conformance occurs through no fault of their own. The Commissioners and Staff discussed this issue at length whereby it was decided to have Staff prepare a draft amendment of this ordinance and bring it before the Commissioners for discussion and deliberation of whether a public hearing would be scheduled. Old Business: Tree Preservation Ordinance Community Development Director Rogness stated that the City Council requested that the Planning Commission review this ordinance before final action is taken as several changes have occurred. Mr. Rogness reviewed the changes made to this proposed ordinance since the last time the Commissioners reviewed it. He mentioned that he spoke with Commissioner Shoe Corrigan regarding wildlife corridors, oak wilt and whether the City has a shade tree disease ordinance (the City does not). Member Shoe Corrigan stated that she has recently talked with the Department of Natural Resources and was informed that a few years ago the State required cities to have a tree disease ordinance. Since that time it has become an option whether to have this ordinance or not. She stated that she was curious whether the City still had that ordinance on its books. Ms. Shoe Corrigan also stated that she had a contact for Staff to talk to about wildlife corridors. She stated that this individual worked with the cities of Apple Valley and Eagan on their tree ordinance and would assist our Staff if needed. Chairman Droste had a concern regarding who determines whether a tree is healthy or unhealthy to which Member McDermott suggested that since there is a definition in the ordinance for "healthy" a definition for "unhealthy" also be drafted. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings October 8, 1996 Page 7 Member Shoe Corrigan requested that, in light of the significant tree definition being changed, that the size requirements for replacement trees also be increased. She wants trees that are removed to be replaced with trees of comparable size, etc. She felt that replacing an 8 inch in diameter tree with a 2 inch tree in diameter is not adequate. Member Tentinger stated that he was still concerned with a private homeowner being held to this ordinance. Chairman Droste recommended that language be included that would ensure that the developer would be responsible for replacement trees for 1 year from the date of installation. Assistant Planner Pearson commented that the City receives financial security from the developer when the Development Agreement is executed that could be used for landscape replacement. Community Development Director Rogness stated that this item would be brought back before the Commissioners after changes are made. MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Seconded by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r r Ltivy j Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary 11111 510 CITY OF RO S E M O U N T 2875 °fi HALL West e P.0. Box 510 Rosemount, MN Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! 55068 -0510 Phone: 612- 423 -4411 Planning Commission Fax: 612-423-5203 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, October 22, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Patrick McDermott, Jay Tentinger and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance was Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Civil Engineer Doug Litterer and Intern Troy Bonkowske. MOTION by Tentinger to approve the October 8, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Assistant Planner Pearson discussed the action taken at the October 15, 1996, City Council meeting in regards to the John Remkus variance appeal, CMC Heartland Partners Concept Planned Unit Development denial, and the Rahn's 7th Addition rezoning decision. Old Business: Heritage Development Concept Planned Unit Development Assistant Planner Pearson stated that on October 8, 1996, this item was tabled in order to provide the developer an opportunity to revise the design pursuant to suggestions from the Commissioners. The following 3 items have since been incorporated into the design: (1) the cul -de -sac has been moved so that the pond separates the single family homes from the twinhomes; (2) the pond area that fronted the street is now a large single family lot; and (3) the "eye brows" have been eliminated. Mr. Pearson stated that the changes have increased the dwelling units on the site from 95 to 106 units and therefore puts the density over the maximum 2.5 d.u. /acre. He mentioned that the Comprehensive Guide Plan allows increased density if the PUD offers enhancements which justify the increased density. Mr. Pearson also stated that the isolated "triangle" parcel east of the relocated Chippendale Avenue should be addressed. Mr. Pearson commented that John Dobbs, a representative of the applicant, was in the audience to answer any questions regarding this item. A discussion occurred regarding the possibility of shifting the cul -de -sac so that it connects to Crystal Path in the Shannon Ponds East Addition; capacity of the ponding area; and housing mix (the Commissioners do not want any more twinhomes on this site than is already proposed). A lengthy discussion occurred regarding the increased density on the site. The Commissioners concurred that they are not in favor of the proposed 2.7 d.u. /acre and that they would either like to see the density at 2.5 d.u. /acre or see enhancements (i.e. additional landscaping along 160th Street and Chippendale Avenue, enhance ponding area, a park area, open space, etc.) which would justify the additional density. Printed on recycled paper S 3O containing 30% post consumer materials. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings October 22, 1996 Page 2 MOTION by Droste to recommend approval of the revised concept for Geronomie Pond to the City Council subject to: 1) approval of a density bonus in exchange for enhanced landscaping performance for screening purposes along Chippendale Avenue and 160th Street West; 2) the southeast corner isolated by the relocated Chippendale Avenue will be designated for Business Park use; 3) adoption of findings provided in the 10 -8 -96 PC review in support of the Planned Unit Development; 4) Park dedication and sidewalk improvements as recommended by the Parks Committee; 5) incorporation of recommendations relative to grading, utilities, easements and public infrastructure as recommended by the Public Works Department; 6) Developer must make payments to the City at the time of final plats for: a. 1996 storm water trunk area charges of $2,000 per acre which is estimated to be $60,500 (30.25 acres X $2,000); b. Preliminary payment for street improvements to Chippendale Avenue estimated to be $55,920 at this time; c. Preliminary payment for street improvements to 160th Street West estimated to be $48,000 at this time; d. Escrow for 8 ft. wide bituminous bike trail on Chippendale Avenue and 160th Street West (which will be contracted with b. and c. above) estimated to be $21,650 at this time; e. 1996 G.I.S. fees of $50 per single family lot paid at the time of final plat estimated at this time to be $5,300; 7) conformance with Section 12.2 of Ordinance B, the zoning ordinance for PUD final development plan requirements as well as applicable subdivision ordinance requirements for platting; and 8) 2.5 d.u. /acre with exclusion of the isolated "triangle" area or demonstrate enhancements which justify the increased density. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by Droste to recommend that the City Council rezone the property to a combination of R -1 Single Family Residential Detached and R -2 Single Family Residential Attached relative to the proposed housing types and that the outlot east of the relocated Chippendale Avenue shall remain Agriculture until the Comprehensive Guide Plan is amended. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies, McDermott and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Chairman Droste opened the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Public Hearing: Dean Doty Variance Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Variance request of Dean Doty. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Mr. Doty is requesting a variance to the side yard setbacks for an existing shed which is located 2 feet from the property line and encroaches into the 5 foot setback minimum. Mr. Pearson stated that this shed was existing when Mr. Doty purchased the property and no building permit was required when built because it is less than 120 square feet. He further stated that this shed is difficult to move because it is located on a concrete pad. Mr. Pearson commented that this shed is not encroaching into any easements and the City became aware of this situation through a complaint. He concluded that the City had received a letter in support of this variance request from Mr. Doty's neighbor to the north. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings October 22, 1996 Page 3 Dean Doty, applicant, stated that when he purchased the property he was not aware that the shed was encroaching on the side yard setback minimum. He is now making improvements to the shed and stated that he would answer any questions that the Commissioners had. A discussion occurred regarding the possibility of moving the shed to make it conform to the side yard setback standards. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Tentinger, DeBettignies, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Upon an inquiry from Commissioner McDermott it was learned that Russ Lockhart, Mr. Doty's neighbor to the south, was present in the audience. Mr. Lockhart stated that he was in support of this variance request. MOTION by DeBettignies to direct Staff to prepare findings in support of the variance request for 14590 Danbury Avenue West. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: DeBettignies, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Chairman Droste closed the Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments and reconvened the regular Planning Commission meeting. Public Hearing: Richard J. Thorvig/Henry Broback Rezoning Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Rezoning application of Richard J. Thorvig and Richard Broback. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that the applicants are requesting to rezone the vacant lots in the Broback Industrial Park from IP Industrial Park to R -1 Single Family Detached. The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this area for urban residential use. He stated that 1 lot is occupied by a cabinet shop called "Rosemount Woods." An outlot containing a ponding area is located immediately to the south of this cabinet shop. Mr. Pearson stated that he has spoken to the owners of the cabinet shop and they stated they have no plans to move and are happy with their location. The owners stated that they are planning an expansion in the future. Mr. Pearson stated that if the cabinet shop lot is rezoned then it would become a legal non conforming use and no expansion could occur. Henry Broback, one of the applicants, stated that years ago he petitioned for sewer and water which was put in. He mentioned that industrial uses are not interested in locating in this area. Mr. Broback stated that they are now looking at residential uses as that is the designation of the Comprehensive Guide Plan and they are trying to do what the City wants. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings October 22, 1996 Page 4 The property owner at 14715 Delft Avenue asked if he would be informed of the platting process. He stated that most of the property owners in the area are in favor of the residential use and also mentioned that the cabinet shop is a very good neighbor. Kevin Meyer stated that he lives at the corner of 148th Street and Delft Avenue. He questioned if the City has reviewed the traffic impact this residential use would have to the area and would there be road access from this new residential area to 148th Street. Assistant Planner Pearson responded to these questions stating that it was too early to predict the traffic impacts and access points as the Planning Commission is only discussing the land use at this time. He stated that in the future, if the property is replatted, the neighbors would be informed. Mr. Meyer then questioned why this property is being rezoned now to which Mr. Pearson responded. Charles Stoffel of Delft Avenue stated that he has no problem with the cabinet shop staying where it is. He requested that the cabinet shop's zoning not be changed so they can expand their business. Mr. Stoffel stated that they are very good neighbors. Diane McCloskey, part owner of Rosemount Woods, stated that they do not bother anyone and are a low profile business. She requested that her lot not be rezoned so they can expand in the future. Steve Hunter of Upper 145th Street questioned that if, in the future, they do not like the potential replat, would the neighbors have recourse. Assistant Planner Pearson responded. Mr. Broback stated that he intends to build 9 homes on this site and keep the lots "as is A property owner on Upper 145th Street asked if Upper 145th Street would change with this new development to which Assistant Planner Pearson stated that it was too early to answer. The property owner then commented that he was not in favor of this rezoning. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Member McDermott stated that residential uses on this site would be a better use than what it is currently zoned. Member Shoe Corrigan concurred with Member McDermott and felt that Rosemount Woods should not be rezoned. A discussion occurred regarding the Rosemount Woods zoning and the ramifications if this business were to be rezoned. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings October 22, 1996 Page 5 MOTION by McDermott to recommend to the City Council to rezone the Broback Industrial Park, excluding Lot 5, Block 1 and Outlot B, to R -1 Single Family Detached. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by McDermott to recommend to the City Council to rezone Outlot B of the Broback Industrial Park to P Public and Institutional. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies, McDermott and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Public Hearing: City of Rosemount Rezoning/Comprehensive Guide Plan Implementation Program Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Rezoning application of the City of Rosemount. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson stated that the City is continuing its efforts to bring zoning into conformance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that the area requested to be rezoned is the Wintz Trucking warehouse (previously the Brockway Glass plant) and the Brockway Golf Course. Currently this entire site is zoned IG General Industrial and the golf course is legal non- conforming. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff is requesting that the golf course be rezoned to P Public and Institutional and the Wintz Trucking site be rezoned to BP -2 Business Park. As there were no comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, DeBettignies, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. MOTION by Droste to recommend that the City Council rezone the Wintz Trucking site to BP -2 Business Park and that the Brockway Golf Course site be rezoned to P Public and Institutional. Ayes: DeBettignies, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Public Hearing: SBA, Inc. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment application of SBA, Inc. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson related the recent history of the antenna ordinance which was originally initiated by APT, Inc. and then withdrawn. He stated that SBA, Inc. has reactivated this process and the proposed ordinance prepared by Staff differs in 3 ways from the previously proposed ordinance: (1) this proposed ordinance excludes the Agriculture District entirely; (2) the height of the tower has increased from 200 feet to 230 feet, the setback to residential structures equals the height of the tower, and a 2 mile separation between towers is required; and (3) this proposed ordinance requires Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings October 22, 1996 Page 6 that all ground equipment be enclosed by an accessory structure which would be subject to aesthetic requirements of the district. Deb Garros, a Zoning Specialist for SBA, Inc., stated that her client is Sprint Spectrum and that she had followed APT, Inc.'s application very closely. She stated that SBA, Inc. currently has an agreement with APT, Inc. in which APT, Inc. would locate on SBA, Inc.'s tower. Ms. Garros then reviewed personal communication services in detail and potential sites within Rosemount. She stated that they would like to locate a tower on the Vic's Welding site. Ms. Garros reviewed the site dimensions, elevation, etc. for the Vic's Welding site. She stated that her client needed a tower 230 feet in height in order to support the weight of the equipment and to have adequate spacing between SBA's equipment and APT's equipment. Ms. Garros also discussed adequate spacing between towers and reviewed the antenna ordinance that the City of Woodbury adopted. A discussion occurred regarding the maximum height that should be allowed for antenna towers. Bernice Wenzel, 2829 East 145th Street, stated that she had no objection to the tower. She mentioned, however, that she does not want excess landscaping around the tower as it would interfere with visibility to her business and the ability to move around the site. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. A lengthy discussion occurred between the Commissioners, Staff and Ms. Garros during which the Commissioners concurred that the antenna towers should not be allowed in the Agriculture District, the 500 foot buffer from residential structures should be kept, the maximum height of the towers should be 250 feet, there should be aesthetic requirements for all towers and additional landscaping required if a tower is located within a certain distance from an arterial roadway, and adding a requirement that when a tower is applied for the applicant shall show how many towers would be required to cover the entire City. The Commissioners also requested that Staff review the possibility of mandatory colocation. MOTION by Droste to recommend that the City Council adopt a zoning ordinance amendment to permit commercial antenna towers subject to standards in the General Industrial District and subject to the Planning Commission's recommendations. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies and McDermott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Public Hearing: SBA, Inc. Site Plan Review Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Site Plan application of SBA, Inc. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings October 22, 1996 Page 7 Assistant Planner Pearson briefly reviewed the site plan of SBA, Inc. to locate a 230 foot high antenna tower on the Vic's Welding property. As there were no comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Tentinger, DeBettignies, McDermott and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. A discussion occurred regarding landscaping, security fencing and alarms. MOTION by DeBettignies to approve the site plan review for the commercial antenna tower subject to: 1) Adoption of a zoning ordinance text amendment to permit commercial antenna towers in the General Industrial District; 2) Compliance with all applicable zoning standards of permitted commercial antenna towers in the General Industrial District; and 3) Compliance with all applicable building, fire codes and FAA rules and permits as required. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, DeBettignies, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Public Hearing: Continental Nitrogen Final Planned Unit Development Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Final Planned Unit Development application of Continental Nitrogen. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed Continental Nitrogen's request for a Planned Unit Development to permit the construction of a 22,450 sq. ft. building that will be leased by Barrel Reconditioning Industries, Inc. The parking requirements for this size of a building is 75 spaces; however, only 6 employees are anticipated. Mr. Pearson stated that a proof of parking section will be part of the PUD Agreement to guarantee that enough space will be available for the building if a less automated use is established which demands more parking. Mr. Pearson also reviewed the landscaping for the site. Jack Matasovsky, a representative of the applicant, stated that the applicant agrees with Staff's recommendations including the landscaping. He stated that they anticipate expanding this building in the near future and request that they be allowed to install crushed rock in the area reserved for the future addition instead of blacktopping this area. Member McDermott inquired as to where the barrels are coming from. Brad Malecha, a representative of Barrel Reconditioning Industries stated that their major, and only, contractor is 3M. In response to an inquiry regarding truck traffic, Mr. Malecha stated that they anticipate 2 trailers per day. Mr. Malecha then mentioned that they are more of a storage facility than a reconditioning facility. He stated that the anticipated addition would enclose the trucks and loading dock area. As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: DeBettignies, McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 0. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings October 22, 1996 Page 8 Pursuant to an inquiry from Assistant Planner Pearson, a lengthy discussion occurred regarding whether the building could be shifted in order that the loading dock area not face the roadway. It was determined that it would be difficult for the applicant to do this. Another discussion occurred regarding putting language into the PUD Agreement that crushed rock could be utilized in the future addition area instead of blacktop for a certain period of time decided by Star MOTION by Droste to recommend that the City Council approve the multiple use PUD subject to: 1) the execution of the PUD Agreement that secures the required proof of parking, landscaping and paving requirement as well as incorporation of recommendations made by the public works department relative to grading and utilities; 2) compliance with all applicable building and fire codes; and 3) the PUD Agreement shall include language which allows crushed rock on the future addition area instead of blacktop for a certain period of time decided by Staff. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: McDermott, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Tentinger and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5 -0. Chairman Droste recessed the regular Planning Commission meeting at 10:15 p.m. and then reconvened the meeting at 10:20 p.m. 40 New Business: Accessory Structure Setbacks Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Intern Bonkowske stated that Paul Heimkes, Building Official, has found that the current side setbacks for accessory structures in the R -1 and R -1A districts are extremely cumbersome and unenforceable and the current rear setbacks in these districts are extremely excessive. Mr. Bonkowske reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment. The Commissioners discussed "relaxing" the setbacks and concurred with changing the side yard setbacks for accessory structures. However, after a lengthy discussion, the Commissioners felt they did not have enough information to support a change to the rear yard setbacks for accessory structures. The Commissioners requested that this item be brought back before them at the next meeting for discussion. They requested that Staff provide them with more information and possibly pictures to support this ordinance request. MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Seconded by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kelli A. Grund, Recording Secretary el... y eR CITY OF RO S E M O U N T 2875 C 1 45 t h i Street West ao P.O. Box 510 Rosemount, MN s Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! 55068 -0510 `lit .ii'i iii Jiigr Phone: 612-423-4411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes November 12, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, November 12, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson Droste called the meeting to order with member Mark DeBettignies, Patrick McDermott, Jay Tentinger, and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Intern Troy Bonkowske, and Civil Engineer Doug Litterer. There were no additions or corrections to the agenda. MOTION by McDermott to approve the October 22, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Second by Shoe- Corrigan. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott. Nays: 0. Community Development Director Rogness discussed the action taken at the November 5, 1996, City Council meeting in regards to the Heritage Development PUD, and the CMC Heartland PUD. Zoning Board of Adjustments Dean Doty Variance Findings Chairperson Droste closed the regular Planning Commission meeting and opened the Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the continuation of Dean Doty request for variance to side -yard setback reduction. Assistant City Planner Pearson reviewed the findings for the granting of this variance. MOTION by Tentinger to adopt the findings in support of the variance requested by Dean Doty for 14590 Danbury Avenue. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies. Nays: None. Chairperson Droste closed the Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments and reconvened the Planning Commission at 6:40 p.m. The agenda was amended at this time to accommodate the presentation of Item 6B. Old Business: Accessory Structure Setbacks Intern Bonkowske presented an overview of the current setback zoning regulations and the proposed changes. Discussion ensued by the Commission in regard to sideyard and rear yard setbacks. It was the consensus of the Commission that additional information would be needed for clarity. Staff was directed to survey surrounding communities for comparisons, clarify proposed changes, and bring hack to the Planning Commission at the November 26, 1996 regular meeting. Public Hearing: Rosemount Development Co Rezoning III Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time for the Rosemount Development Company Rezoning. 1 Printed on recycled paper it 30 containing 30% post- consumer mateitals. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 1996 Assistant Planner Pearson presented the request from Rosemount Development Company for the rezoning of 2.08 acres of land from Agriculture to R -1, Single Family Detached Residential. The parcel is located between Shannon Pond and Westridge Second Addition, east of Danville Avenue and was originally created for the purpose of locating a storm sewer pipe that drains water from Westridge Third Addition to a ponding area. Mr. John Broback from Rosemount Development indicated that it was his intention to build just one single family dwelling with the approval of rezoning for this parcel. Chairperson Droste called for any public comment regarding this rezoning. A letter from Richard and Susan Kullberg was distributed to the Commission. It is their contention that they are opposed to the rezoning of this property and requested that it would remain a natural area. Fred Soop of 15698 Crystal Path voiced concern with the path and inquired to any future plans for the development of the pond into a park area. Mr. Pearson indicated that the walking path is a drainage area and there are no plans for the development of a park in this ponding area. MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing for Rosemount Development Company. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger. Nays: None. Chairperson Droste opened the floor for Commissioners comments. Discussion ensued by the Commissioners relative to the possibility for development of this parcel for more than one housing unit. Reiteration by Mr. Broback that it is his intent to build one single family dwelling on this parcel. The Commission continued discussion of ownership and original design of the developments. Mr. Pearson explained that the proposed rezoning would establish permitted land uses rather than define the lot layout. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend that the City Council rezone the property from Agriculture to R -1, Single Family Detached Residential. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste. Nays: Shoe Corrigan. Motion carried. Public Hearing: USPCI Interim Use Permit Consultant Andrew Mack reviewed with the Commission a request from USPCI for a new Interim Use Permit for renewal of their current operating landfill permit. Design modifications of cells include an increase in landfill volume and height. This increase would triple the capacity/volume of the landfill to over 6 million cubic yards and extend the life of the landfill to 90+ years. Jeffrey Ubl, representing Barr Engineering Company, presented the Commission with Barr's review comments for USPCI. Major changes included: increasing the fill area acreage from 60 acres to 78 acres; the height of the facility would increase 40 feet; the grade of the side slopes would increase from 7% to 25% slope; and the operating life of the facility would increase from 38 year to 90 years. Mr. Ubl continued with his review of nine significant findings relative to this site. Don Chapdeline and Rex Kraft, representing USPCI were present in the audience to answer questions PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 1996 regarding their application. Chapdeline sited changes in the market and the ability to remain competitive as the primary reasons for this request. Chapdeline's request includes an increase in cell height; the moving of the berm style to utilize space; and the utilization of current land space. Chairperson Droste opened the floor for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioners expressed concerns with the possible increase in leachate, the facilities's ability to accept ash, the classification of asbestos and the acceptance of it at this facility, the fill cover process within each subcell, and the scale of this facility compared to others. Chairperson Droste opened the floor for public comments. Brenda Sugii, 13701 Courthouse Boulevard, had several questions and concerns to be addressed. These included: what is MSW ash; what will and can asbestos do to ground water; how long is this permit valid for; who is watching USPCI; how are they addressing dead tree replacement. Mr. Burger, identified as a neighbor on CR 38 and HWY 55, questioned the end use of the land and is opposed to extending the life of the landfill. Community Director Rogness indicated that he had received a telephone call from Mr. Otto Ped residing on the south side of CR 42. Mr. Ped indicated he was concerned with the proposed height of the facility. Chairperson Droste asked if there were any further comments from the audience. Being none, Droste closed the public comment section of this public hearing. Consultant Mack responded to public inquiries indicating that the permit will not allow hazardous waste disposal. Rex Kraft indicated there is no intention to take hazardous waste and it is not a profitable entity. Mr. Kraft indicated that MSW ash must test non hazardous. MOTION by DeBettignies to approve a continuation in the Public Hearing to November 26, 1996. Seconded by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: MeDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan. Nays: None. MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend directing City Staff to notify the applicant that the City's right for invoking an additional 60 days for project review will be authorized due to project timing and the need for additional information from the applicant. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott. Nays: None. Chairperson Droste closed the public hearing and recessed the Planning Commission at 9:33 p.m. Planning Commission reconvened at 9:45 p.m. Old Business: Tree Preservation Ordinance Director Rogness presented the Commission with revisions made to the tree preservation ordinance based upon his conversation with Ken Brackee, forester for the City of Apple Valley. Mr. Pearson indicated that he had faxed to the DNR the proposed ordinance but has need heard hack from them with their recommendation. Discussion ensued relative to the requirements for tree replacement. It was the consensus of the Commission that there is a need to re- evaluate Section 9. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 1996 MOTION by DeBettignies to table action on the tree preservation ordinance and to bring it back to the Planning Commission at the November 26, 1996 meeting for the last review. Second by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe- Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies. Nays: None. New Business: Running /Chasing Lights Zoning Text Amendment Director Rogness revisited the Sign Ordinance Text Amendment with the Commission. A re- evaluation of the regulations for running and chasing lights was presented. The proposed changes include a minimum distance of 250 feet from the lights to the residential zone or use and a maximum lumen of 0.5. MOTION by Tentinger to call for a public hearing to consider an amendment to Section 10.1.D.1.a. of Ordinance B as recommended by city staff. Second by Droste. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger. Nays: None. New Business: Met Council Regional Growth Strategy Mr. Rogness presented an overview of the Met Council's proposed growth options for the City of Rosemount. According to the proposal Met Council will continue to oversee operations related to transportation, aviation, water resources and recreational open space. A regional blueprint was discussed indicating the Council's action plan for the region with short and long term strategies. Regional growth patterns indicate the population of Rosemount will double by the year 2010. Discussion ensued regarding the projections made by the Met Council. MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Seconded by Tentinger. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 11:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i Maryann Stoffel Recording Secretary 0 4410R1 CITY O F RO S E M O U N T 2875 Street West l P.O. Box 510 e �J Rosemount, MN AV Everything's Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! 55068 -0510 Phone: 612- 423 -4411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes November 26, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, November 26, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Patrick McDermott, Jay Tentinger, and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Assistant Rick Pearson, Intern Troy Bonkowske, and Civil Engineer Doug Litterer. A edited executive summary for Item 6A and a letter referencing Item 7C were distributed. There were no further corrections or additions to the agenda. MOTION by Droste to approve the November 12, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Second by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. ID Community Development Director Rogness reviewed the action taken at the November 19, 1996, City Council meeting in regards to the Arlan Cope PUD, and the Met Council Growth Strategy. Rogness announced the resignation of Ms. Kelly Grund from the Planning Department staff. Commissioner McDermott took his chair at 6:38 p.m. Old Business: Tree Preservation Zoning Text Amendment Assistant City Planner Pearson revisited the Tree Preservation Ordinance with the Planning Commission. Two major changes, criteria for measuring the caliper of a tree and replacement criteria, were proposed. Discussion ensued by the Commission clarifying these two issues. It was the consensus of the Commission to make the requirements for this ordinance above and beyond the current development requirements. MOTION by DeBettignies to direct staff to add a sentence to the tree replacement section that would not allow a developer to replace trees as part of other tree planting requirements. Second by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies. Nays: 0. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend that the City Council adopt the revised Tree Preservation Ordinance. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger. Nays: 0. III .1 Printed on recycled paper a 3 containing 30% post consumer malerials. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 1996 Public Hearing: USPCI Interim Use Permit Chairperson Droste continued the public hearing scheduled at this time for the USPCI Interim Use Permit. Director Rogness reviewed USPCI's request for an interim use permit. Staff is requesting Planning Commission to continue this public hearing to enable USPCI more time to complete its application, allow more time for the EAW process to be initiated, and allow more time for Barr Engineering to review information related to these items. No comment from applicant at this time. Chairperson Droste called for any public comment at this time. No public comment. Commission requested the classification of ash. Don Chapeline representing USPCI stated that ash must test as non hazardous which is based on testing rather than classification. Commissioner DeBettignies questioned the definition of a P -cell. Rex Kraft from USPCI indicated that the rating of "P" is the most stringent standard of design for a cell. MOTION by DeBettignies to continue the public hearing to December 10, 1996. Second by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment Non Hazardous Waste Containment Facility Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time for a Zoning Text Amendment Non Hazardous Waste Containment Facility. Community Development Director Rogness reviewed the proposed Zoning Text Amendment for non hazardous industrial waste containment facilities. The proposed amendment would allow for an existing Interim Use Permit to continue to be valid during the review process by other governmental agencies. Chairperson Droste opened the floor for public comment. Don Chapeline representing USPCI indicated that the approval of this amendment would allow USPCI to continue to operate until approval from other governmental agencies are received. Otto Ped, 4992 East 145th Street, voiced concerns with USPCI cell capacity, proposed height of cells, and would like to wait for the result from the Barr Engineering study. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 1996 Director Rogness clarified that this text amendment is separate from the interim use permit by allowing USPCI to continue operating at its present state of practice and not at its proposed state of practice. MOTION by DeBettignies to continue the public hearing to December 10, 1996. Second by Tentinger. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: Agricultural Lot Division Rechtzigel Raak Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed a request from Marlon and JoAnn Rechtzigel for the proposed agricultural lot division on the southeast corner of 140th Street East and State Trunk Highway 52/56. Mr. Pearson felt that it would be appropriate to propose a continuation of the public hearing because of the impacts on State and County road frontage. Mr. Pearson felt that further review of these impacts is necessary. No public comments. MOTION by McDermott to continue the public hearing until December 10, 1996. Second by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal Johnson Freidges Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time for the Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal for Johnson Freidges. Planner Pearson presented the Commission with Mr. Lance Johnson's request for the annual renewal of his mineral extraction permit. No complaints resulting from the mineral extraction permit for 1996 were received. There was no public comment. MOTION by Tentinger to close public hearing. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Commissioner concerns were hours of operation, access to the property via gates, and what type of processing if any were taking place at this site. MOTION by Droste to recommend that the City Council renew the mineral extraction permit for Lance Johnson subject to the attached draft conditions for 1997. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger. Nays: 0. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 1996 Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment Sign Ordinance Commission Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time for a Zoning Text Amendment Sign Ordinance. Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed the proposed amendment to incorporate a minimum distance factor of 250 feet from lights to a residential zone or use and a maximum lumen of 0.5 at the property line. No public comments. MOTION by Droste to close the public hearing. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste. Nays: 0. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend approval of an Ordinance amending the City Zoning Code Ordinance B related to running and chasing lights for signs at movie theaters. Second by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Chairperson Droste recessed the regular Planning Commission meeting at 7:55 p.m. Chairperson Droste reconvened the regular Planning Commission meeting at 8:00 p.m. Old Business: Kelley Trust Property Status Update (discussion) Planner Pearson provided an update for the Kelley Trust property. The representatives of this trust are looking at the possibility of dividing this large parcel into sub -areas for development. The attorney for the Kelley Trust feels the need for a land use professional to assess development for this area. Kelley Trust has agreed not to actively market the property until an assessment has been made for appropriate land use. Kim Shoe Corrigan expressed an opinion that more citizen involvement would be beneficial in order to address preservation and development concerns. Planner Pearson reviewed the extensive review process during the 1993 Comprehensive Plan revisions that resulted in the PD -R designation. New Business: Wensmann Tenth Addition Final Plat Mr. Pearson presented the final plat for the conversion of Outlot A, Wensmann Ninth Addition from public park use to a combination of private open space and five townhouse units. MOTION by Droste recommend approval to the City Council of the final plat for Wensmann Tenth Addition subject to: 1) Incorporation of Engineering Department recommendations for PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 1996 construction, grading and utilities; 2) Lot 1, Block 1 will be incorporated into the Cavanaugh Run Condominium (CIC No. 171) and that all future times a termination of the CIC must have approval of the City of Rosemount; 3) Payment of park dedication in the form of cash contribution, in the amount of $760 per dwelling unit totaling $3,800; 4) Execution of the Wensmann Tenth Addition Development Agreement to secure required improvements; 5) Payment of Geographic Information systems fees for five dwelling units at the amount of $50 per unit, totaling $250; and, 6) Payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges of $2,530 per acres totaling $3,500. Second by Shoe Corrigan. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott. Nays: 0. MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Second by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Maryann Stoffel rY Recording Secretary Al■ CITY OF F RO S E M O U N T 2875 C 1 45 t h i Street West P.0. Box 510 Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! R 5 5mou0 MN 55068 055 10 0 Phone: 612-423-4411 Fax: 612- 423 -5203 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes December 10, 1996 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held on Tuesday, December 10, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson Droste called the meeting to order with members Mark DeBettignies, Patrick McDermott, and Kim Shoe Corrigan present. Also in attendance were Assistant City Planner Rick Pearson, and Civil Engineer Doug Litterer. There were no additions or corrections to the agenda. Commissioner McDermott indicated he took his chair at 6:38 p.m. versus 7:38 p.m. as indicated in the draft minutes. MOTION by McDermott to approve the November 26, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended. Second by Droste. Ayes: DeBettignies, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott. Nays: 0. Assistant City Planner Pearson indicated that he has not received any feedback from the DNR in regards to the tree preservation ordinance. New Business: December 24, 1996 Regular Meeting MOTION by DeBettignies to cancel the Regular Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for December 24, 1996. Second by Droste. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies. Chairperson Droste recessed the Regular Planning Commission Meeting at 6:35 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. for the public hearings scheduled at that time. Chairperson Droste reconvened the Regular Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. with all members present. Droste opened the six public hearings scheduled at this time. Public Hearing: Geronime Pond Preliminary Plat and Rezoning Assistant Planner Pearson presented a brief overview for the Geronime Pond preliminary plat. The preliminary plat consists of 101 dwelling units, (45 single family units and 28 twin homes [56 units]). Printed on recycled paper containing 30% post consumer materials. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 10, 1996 Mr. Bisch, representing Heritage Development, was present in the audience to answer questions. Commissioner Tentinger questioned the final elevations when the resurfacing of 160th Street occurs. A representative from Paramount Engineering indicated that the elevation at 160th Street for the proposed development would be similar to what it is now. Chairperson Droste opened the floor for public comments. E.B. McMenomy, 15872 Chippendale Avenue West, distributed a letter he had composed relative to the proposed development. Mr. McMenomy would like to proceed with developing his property which is located in the southeastern corner of the proposed development. He would like the realignment of Chippendale to be part of the development process, preferably in the first phase. Mr. Bisch indicated that all grading would be done at one time; but the installation of the streets were dependent on variables. MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Second by Droste. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste. Nays: 0. Commission's concerns included the realignment of Chippendale Avenue, the timing of this realignment, the elevations for the resurfacing of 160th Street, the landscaping for the development, and the enhancements provided for the increased density. Mr. Bisch indicated Heritage Development would try to accommodate the walkway access area to be 30' in width by a realignment of lots; enhancements provided for an increase in density would include 2 trees per lot; 85 evergreens, plus deciduous plantings, a total of 165 trees; uniform mailboxes; and higher quality street lighting. Mr. Pearson stated that the realignment of Chippendale Avenue is a City /County issue and not a developer issue. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Geronime Pond to the City Council subject to: 1) enhancement of landscaping as appropriate to support the density bonus; 2) Dedication of .71 acres of land for park development with the balance of required dedication in the form of cash contribution at the rate established by the fee resolution at the time of final plat; 3) Incorporation of recommendations relative to sidewalks and trails as approved in the concept plan; (4) Incorporation of recommendations relative to grading, utilities, easements, PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 10, 1996 ponding, streets and public infrastructure requirements as recommended by the Public Works Department and including items 5 a -e of Resolution 1996 -99; and, 5) That the twin home lots must be governed and maintained by a homeowner's association with responsibilities including maintenance of landscaping and building exteriors. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste. Nays: Shoe Corrigan. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend that the City Council rezone the property from AG Agriculture to R -1 Single Family Detached Residential for the single family detached lots and R -2 Single Family Attached Residential for the twin home lots. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: USPCI Interim Use Permit Mr. Pearson reviewed a letter received from USPCI requesting a continuation of the public hearing until January 14, 1997. MOTION by McDermott to continue the public hearing to January 14, 1997. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment Non Hazardous Waste Containment Facility MOTION by McDermott to continue the public hearing to January 14, 1997. Second by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Endres Processing Ltd. Planner Pearson apprised the Commission of an interest from Leon Endres in purchasing a 70+ acre parcel of land north of Highway 55 currently zoned General Industrial. The petitioner requested this land to remain industrial to enable him to relocate his business on this parcel and to amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Agriculture to Industrial. Chairperson Droste opened the floor for public comments. JoAnn Rechtzigel, Clayton Avenue, indicated that this business emitted no fowl odors. The odors emitted into the air were similar in nature to that of a bakery. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 10, 1996 MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Second by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste. Nays: 0. The Commission was concerned with an increase in truck traffic in the area and questioned the type of business associated with Endres Processing. Mr. Ryan, representing Endres Processing, indicated that approximately 125 trucks a week would visit the site and Endres Processing is a feed supplement processing facility. MOTION by Droste to recommend that the City Council adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan to change the land use designation for the 73 acre property between STH 55 and Pine Bend Trail to General Industrial. Second by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste. Nays: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott. motion carried Public Hearing: Agricultural Lot Division Rechtzigel Raak Mr. Mrs. Rechtzigel were present in the audience requesting a lot division for an agricultural lot with frontage on both CSAH 42 and STH 52/56. 411 Mr. Pearson indicated that both the county and the state had been notified of the pending division. The County had responded and was not requesting any additional right -of -way for this parcel. MnDOT wants a 30 day comment period. The Commission was concerned with future division of the proposed parcel, access to the property, the State right -of -way, road frontage and the configuration of such. There was no public comment. Jim Sheldon, representing Mr. Raak, voiced concern with recommendations of park dedication fee, GIS fee, and State comment period. Mr. Sheldon would like an indication of the dollar amounts needed to meet the park dedication and GIS fees. He wishes to reserve his rights with respect to these issues. Staff indicated that a close approximation of fees would be available at the City Council meeting on December 17, 1996. MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Second by Tentinger. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott. Nays: 0. 4111 MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed lot division requested by Gary Raak and Marlon and JoAnn Rechtzigel subject to: 1) Incorporation of PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 10, 1996 recommendations regarding easements for streets, drainage and utilities by the Public Works Department; 2) Payment of park dedication fee and G.I.S. fees in the amount established by the current fee resolution; 3) Incorporation of comments or approval of the Minnesota Department of Transportation as necessary prior to recording by Dakota County; and, 4) Conformance with requirements of individual sewage treatment systems. Second by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: Agricultural Lot Division and Rezoning Knodt Assistant Planner Pearson informed the Commission that while preparing for the proposed lot division/rezoning for Mr. Knodt, he discovered many variance issues. Therefore, staff is recommending a continuance until January 14, 1997. There was no public comment. MOTION by Droste to continue the public hearing to January 14, 1997. Second by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste. MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Second by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Maryann Stoffel Recording Secretary 11111