Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2005 PAGE 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 25, 2005. Acting Chairperson Terry Zurn called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. with Commissioners Humphrey and Powell present. Chairperson Messner and Commissioner Schultz were absent. Also in attendance were City Planner Rick Pearson, Assistant City Planner Jason Lindahl, Project Engineer Anthony Aderhold, Water Resource Engineer Chad Donnelly and Recording Secretary Amy Domeier. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Additions to Agenda: City Planner Pearson added Item 7B under New Business relating to the land use at the Highway 3 and County Road 46 area. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda 4A. Approval of the December 28, 2004 Minutes. 4B. CASE 04 -83 -FP Connemara Crossing (Basic Builders) Final Plat. 4C. CASE 04 -84 -FP Glendalough 5 Addition (U.S. Homes) Final Plat. 4D. CASE 04 -88 -SP Independent School District #196 Site Plan Review. MOTION by Powell to approve the Consent Agenda Items 5A, B, C and D. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Zurn, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Public Hearing: 5A. Case 04 -85 -ME Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal for Danner, Inc. City Planner Pearson reviewed the Staff Report. Marlon Danner requested renewal of the mineral extraction permit for his property on the south side of County Road 42, 1 1/4 miles east of U.S. Hwy. 52. The application is a routine annual permit renewal as required by ordinance. Acting Chairperson Zurn asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson. Acting Chairperson Zurn opened the Public Hearing. MOTION by Humphrey to close the Public Hearing. Second by Powell. Ayes: Zurn, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Acting Chairperson Zurn turned the meeting over to Chairperson Messner at 6:35 p.m. Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up discussion or questions. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2005 PAGE 2 MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council renew the Danner Mineral Extraction Permit for 2005, subject to the standards outlined in Section 12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance and the 2005 Conditions for Mineral Extraction. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Mr. Pearson indicated the item will go before the City Council on February 15, 2005. Public Hearing: 5B. Case 04 -80 -ME Stonex, LLC Mineral Extraction Interim Use Permit in the Agriculture District. City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report. Stonex, LLC applied for a mineral extraction permit for a new sand and gravel mining operation located a 1 /4 mile south of 135 Street East (County Road 38) and 1 /4 mile west of Blaine Avenue (County Road 71). Mr. Pearson indicated that in the 2005 Conditions in the last sentence of Paragraph F that a reference to County Road 38 should be added as a requirement of the haul routes and easement acquisition. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson. Chairperson Messner requested that Mr. Pearson repeat the modification for Paragraph F. Mr. Pearson stated that he wanted to expand on Paragraph F to include County Road 38 in case the haul route would go through the Vesterra Property. Commissioner Powell questioned the EAW comments referring to an additional well on the site and wondered if it had been addressed on site or through the conditions. Mr. Pearson stated there is a farmstead on the site and it may be connected with the house. Mr. Pearson stated he believed that someone would be occupying the house. Commissioner Powell also questioned the conditions for the roadways to accommodate the traffic. Mr. Pearson stated that as part of the EAW process the County looked at the capacity of the road for the weight of the trucks and discussed the turning bays and the condition was added in case the county would object. Mr. Powell also questioned the hours of operation. Mr. Pearson stated the City Council has adjusted the hours under specific conditions in the past in the Zoning Ordinance. Chairperson Messner questioned the future alignment of Connemara along the southern edge of the property and if that is the area where the water main goes through. Project Engineer Aderhold stated that the water main that went in last year as part of the east side water main extension is approximately 20 feet south of the property Iine. Chairperson Messner asked if there was anything in the conditions regarding the Vesterra pit to the north stating if the two operations operate as the same entity or is there a concern about two different entities. Mr. Pearson stated they are two separate entities and 40 treated as two separate permits. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2005 PAGE 3 Chairperson Messner asked if the applicant would like to come forward. Jonathan Wilmshurst, 12741 Shannon Parkway, stated the ownership is the same structure in both entities. Mr. Wilsmhurst explained his reasoning for an end use plan. Mr. Messner asked about the setback requirement with the slopes along the property lines. Mr. Wilmshurst stated the individual permits to do have a setback requirement and the end use plan would dictate what the slopes would be. Mr. Wilmshurst also explained the haul routes. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. MOTION by Zurn to close the Public Hearing. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion. MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council approve the Stonex Mineral extraction permit for 2005 subject to: 1. Conformance with the attached conditions for 2005. 2. Approval of the reclamation plan is predicated on the developer meeting final road grades for Connemara Trail and County Road 38 which may differ than the submitted plan dated January 13, 2005. 3. Conformance with all of the Mineral Extraction permit standards in Section 12.4 of the zoning ordinance. 4. The Mining Interim Use will expire on December 31, 2018. 5. The applicant submit a large size plan of the conceptual end use plan. Second by Powell. Ayes: Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Public Hearing: 5C. Vesterra, LLC Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal. City Planner Pearson reviewed the Staff Report. Vesterra, LLC applied for a renewal of the mineral extraction permit originally granted in 2003. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any questions for Mr. Pearson. Commissioner Powell stated that in the 2005 Conditions, Paragraph AA references a memorandum which has not been attached. Mr. Pearson apologized for the over sight and stated it would be attached to the conditions. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. MOTION by Powell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2005 PAGE 4 Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion. MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council approve the mineral extraction permit renewal for Vesterra, LLC subject to the attached conditions for 2005. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Mr. Pearson indicated this item will be on the February 15, 2005 City Council Agenda. Public Hearing: 5D. Ames Construction (Otto Ped) Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal. City Planner Pearson reviewed the Staff Report. Ames Construction has requested that the mineral extraction permit for the Otto Ped property located at 4992 145 Street East be renewed for the 2005 season. Ames intends to introduce the Solberg Aggregate Co. as a subcontractor that will operate in the pit area on a day -to -day basis. Chairperson Messner asked the Commissioners for any questions for Mr. Pearson. Commissioner Powell questioned since the permit is to Ames Construction and that the subcontractor is Solberg if for some reason that changes would the permit still be valid. Mr. Pearson stated the permit would still be valid. 411 Chairperson Messner questioned the on -site crushing operation and recycled bituminous operation and how they are handled. Mr. Pearson stated that the specs do expect some recycled material that is brought into the site and crushed as needed. Loren Howard of Solberg Aggregate Company stated there would be some concrete rubble crushed along with the recycled bituminous. Mr. Howard stated the operation will be similar to what they do on the Flint Hills Resources property. Project Engineer Aderhold stated the process is similar to when the crushing of the concrete was done at the Brockway Glass site. Commissioner Zurn asked if there is a size limit for the stock piles. Mr. Pearson stated there is no height restriction but there is a slope standard. Mr. Howard stated the stock piles would be screened out. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Zurn, Messner, Humphrey, and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion. Commissioner Powell clarified that material can be brought on site, crushed, stock piled and brought off the site all under the Mineral Extraction Permit and that would be PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2005 PAGE 5 consistent with the permit conditions even though it does not technically involve the material coming from the ground. Mr. Pearson stated it is an accessory use in the Zoning Ordinance under Section 4. MOTION by Zurn to recommend that the City Council approve the mineral extraction permit renewal for Ames Construction Otto Ped subject to the conditions of operation for 2005. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Mr. Pearson indicated this item will be on the February 15, 2005 City Council Agenda. Public Hearing: 5E. Case 05 -01 -TA Nonconforming Buildings, Structures and Uses Zoning Text Amendment. Assistant Planner Lindahl reviewed the Staff Report. This item was Staff generated as a result of recent statutory changes by the state legislature related to nonconforming uses. Chairperson Messner asked the Commissioners for any questions for Mr. Lindahl. Commissioner Powell created a situation where there were two lots that had improvements and an assessment put in place against the property. Mr. Powell questioned if after a certain amount of time the lots would be considered one lot what would happen if there were unpaid assessments. Mr. Lindahl replied that when drafting the language they didn't consider such a scenario and this would be addressed with the City Attorney before taking this item to Council. Chairperson Messner wanted to confirm this text amendment would bring our standards in compliance with statute. Mr. Lindahl stated he was correct and pointed out that the draft text includes the statutory language. Mr. Lindahl added that the amendment also addresses the issue of existing non conforming lots of record. The new text would prohibit the development of non conforming lots of record if: 1)they are under common ownership; 2) are contiguous; and 3) do not meet all area or dimensional standards for the zoning district. As a result, no portion of a non conforming lot could be used, sold, or subdivided in a manner that lessens compliance with the applicable area or dimensional standards. Commissioner Powell asked about easements for when two lots become one lot. Mr. Lindahl stated if a property owner had this situation, City Staff would work with the applicant to vacate the easements if that is what they preferred to do to make the lots essentially one piece. Mr. Lindahl stated it would operate as one site even though it is platted as two separate properties. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2005 PAGE 6 MOTION by Powell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson asked for any follow -up discussion and questions. MOTION by Zurn to recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance replacing Section 13 of Ordinance B, the Zoning Ordinance with new standards relating to Nonconforming Buildings, Structures, and Uses. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Zurn, Messner, Humphrey, and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Mr. Lindahl stated this item will be on the February 15, 2050 City Council Agenda. Old Business: None. New Business: 7A. Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Amendment. Water Resource Engineer Chad Donnelly reviewed the Staff Report. Staff is looking for the Commission to provide feedback on the draft Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any questions for Mr. Donnelly. Commissioner Zurn questioned how the document will be made available to the public. Mr. Donnelly indicated the document is available at City Hall for review and when the draft plan is revised a public hearing will be held in early March. Chairperson Messner questioned what the rules were regarding wetland replacement. Mr. Donnelly stated the first one would be on -site on the property, the second in the sub watershed, the third in the minor watershed, and the fourth in the major watershed. Chairperson Messner asked what happens if the City would impact the wetlands. Mr. Donnelly stated the City is actually their own agency and the City fills out their own permits. Chairperson Powell stated that WCA does allow for appeals to LGU decisions. Mr. Powell also commented that Mr. Donnelly did a fine job of incorporating the Task Force's comments in the policy. Mr. Powell encouraged a notice be put on the website so the information is available for review prior to the public hearing. Commissioner Zurn thanked Mr. Powell for serving on the Task Force and stated he was impressed with the work Mr. Donnelly did on the project. 7B. Land Use Discussion at Highway 3 and County Road 46. City Planner Pearson asked the Commission to review the memorandum and maps that were handed out. Mr. Pearson stated that a work session on the item will be held on February 8, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the possible land uses for the area. 110 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2005 PAGE 7 Reports: City Planner Pearson updated the Commission on the items acted on by the Council on January 18, 2005. There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by Chairperson Messner, and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, (yvvi d 1 Amy Domeier Recording Secretary III III Meeting Summary Planning Commission Work Session February 8, 2005 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Work Session Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 8, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Humphrey, Powell, Schultz, and Zurn, present. Also in attendance were City Planner Rick Pearson and Assistant City Planner Jason Lindahl. Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Pearson to present the information included in the work session packet regarding potential land use changes for the Highway 3 and County Road 46 intersection area. City Planner Pearson reviewed the information contained in the work session packet. This presentation described the land use and zoning classification for the area around County Road 46 and Highway 3. Mr. Pearson explained that staff would like direction from the Commission regarding possible zoning and land use changes for this area. III The Commission then had a discussion regarding possible zoning and land use changes for this area. That discussion focused on the following topics: access standards along both highway 3 and County Road 46, existing land uses in the area, existing zoning standards, the amount of available land, future development and access to the Business Park, and potential commercial uses. After some discussion, the commission directed staff to prepare draft maps and zoning district standards for this area focusing on commercial uses. These commercial zoning districts should be divided between service uses and retail uses. They also directed staff to research the market potential for commercial uses in this area. There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by Chairman Messner, and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitt-d, ason Lindahl, A.I.C.P. Assistant City Planner. III PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PAGE 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 22, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Schultz, Zurn, Humphrey and Powell present. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Kim Lindquist, City Planner Rick Pearson, Assistant City Planner Jason Lindahl and Recording Secretary Amy Domeier. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Additions to Agenda: None. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda 4A. Approval of the January 25, 2005 Minutes. 4B. CASE 05 -05 -FP Meadows of Bloomfield (Centex Homes) Third Addition Final Plat. Item 4A was pulled per Commissioner Humphrey's request in order to show that she was in attendance at the January 25, 2005 Minutes. Chairperson Messner noted the correction to the minutes. MOTION by Powell to approve the Consent Items 4A and 4B. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Public Hearing: 5A. Case 05 -07 -SP Celtic Crossing, LLC Site Plan Review. Assistant Planner Lindahl reviewed the staff report. Celtic Crossing, LLC requests site plan approval to allow the construction of a 7,920 square foot multi -tenant retail center. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Lindahl. Commissioner Schultz questioned Mr. Lindahl about the existing signage and striping of the drive thru if there is concern about the potential of the traffic. Mr. Lindahl stated that currently the black top area between the existing Shenanigans site and the Walgreen's area functions as a drive lane or an alley for the two sites. The width does meet the 24 foot drive lane standard criteria although it narrows in the northern section. Other than striping out of the Walgreen's area to guide traffic to the south, there is no additional striping or signage. Mr. Lindahl stated an option to implement should there be traffic problems is to add striping showing a more solid turn south out of Walgreen's and a sign to on- coming traffic to keep right. IP Commissioner Powell asked about the minimum width that the driveway would have to be, his concern being if it was narrowed it would be more apparent to Walgreen's PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PAGE 2 customers that it is a one -way coming out and they wouldn't be tempted to turn into it. Mr. Lindahl clarified that Mr. Powell's concern was in relation to the width of the coffee drive -thru. Mr. Lindahl stated that the minimum width is based upon the required fire access which is 12 feet for one way traffic. Chairperson Messner questioned if the temporary trash enclosure would be enclosed at the south end of the building. Mr. Lindahl stated the applicant would meet the minimum screening requirements with fencing on three sides and one side would be a door that could close. Mr. Lindahl further explained that currently there is wood fencing around the trash enclosure in what is proposed to be the permanent location. Chairperson Messner asked if the applicant would like to come forward and address the Planning Commission. Jeff Wrede, Tushie Montgomery Architects, stated he would answer questions and would explain the exterior elevations. Chairperson Messner asked for an explanation of the exterior elevations. Mr. Wrede started with the drawings from three to four years ago and compared to the new drawings for the second phase. Mr. Wrede further explained the needs of tenants today with using more glass for flexibility for door placement. Mr. Wrede stated they still intend to use the same color brick as the original building and as far as the design elements not matching the existing building that he is trying to upgrade the look of the new building as compared to the previous approval. Mr. Wrede then asked the Commission to reconsider the elevations. Commissioner Zurn questioned if it would be detriment to the building by making it a gable roof versus a flat roof and take away from the roof of the building. Mr. Wrede explained that the building is the length of a football field which would be an expansive gabled roof. He is also worried over time shingles will start to ripple and he is trying to hide the roof top units. Chairperson Messner stated he understood the flexibility with the glass; however, bringing in brick would tie the buildings together. Mr. Messner asked if brick across the bottom could be added. Mr. Wrede stated that the doors in the bays are moved around significantly and he is trying to make a flexible product. Ed McMenomy, 4122 143` St., Rosemount, stated his family has an ownership interest in this project. He questioned if there was a way to structure a motion that when they are closer to building permit time they can discuss inclusion of the brick. He stated that maybe one tenant would be open to the brick since it would be a professional use more than a retail use. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PAGE 3 11111 MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up discussion or questions. Commissioner Powell stated that the roof on the end of the new expansion may look good from 42 but looking at it straight on it tends to look more like a hut and he would like to see an end that is more complimentary to the main Shenanigan's entrance. He was also concerned about the coffee drive -thru and would like to examine the one -way nature of the drive -thru. He also clarified that it is Papa Murphy's next to Shenanigan's and not Papa John's. He is also in support of the proposed recommendations. Mr. Messner stated that he would prefer to see something different on the corner of the building and a brick band along the bottom of the structure. Mr. Messner was also in agreement with Condition 3. Community Development Director Lindquist stated she agreed with the Commission regarding Condition 3. However, since there is no further review by the Council, she would like a summation in terms of the areas they would be talking to the developer with. If the applicant chooses not to make all of the changes, it would come before the Planning Commission again. Ms. Lindquist stated there would be a priority for the brick wainscoting on the bottom, changing the northern feature to more closely mimic the Shenanigans entrance and then also staff had talked internally about literally elevating the parapet area to match the Papa Murphy's area and sign band and then raise the other side to mimic the archways. Her preference was for the Commission to give some direction as to where they want to go with this so there are no surprises in the end. Ms. Lindquist stated to modify Condition 4 and strike out the beginning of the first sentence regarding the traffic conflicts. Ms. Lindquist also asked the Commission to modify the points under Condition 3 to point out elements they would like to have met. Chairperson Messner questioned Mr. Wrede regarding how high the parapet is and Mr. Werde stated the heights of all the peaks. Ms. Lindquist asked how high the Papa Murphy's sign band is. Mr. Wrede stated it was about 18 feet and also showed the artist's rendering of what the corner will look like showing the curving arches and the roof on top of the coffee shop area. Mr. Wrede stated they could fix the elements the way Ms. Lindquist directed by redesigning it with new columns and a new curve and no archway. Commissioner Zurn asked if further down the mall the signage would be lower like Papa Murphy's. Mr. Wrede stated he was trying to match the cornice that is on the corner of the building and to step it down so it is symmetrical. Chairperson Messner questioned if the change would be 18 or 20 feet? Mr. Wrede stated it would look best at 21 1 /2 feet. Mr. Messner understood the need to match up the cornices and he does like the idea of taking the center area and matching it up to the Papa Murphy's height. Ms. Lindquist asked Mr. Wrede to do the corner more like the entrance of the Shenanigan's building. Mr. Wrede stated he was trying to do more detail. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PAGE 4 Ed McMenomy stated that this architectural firm has done various projects in Lakeville and they are very expensive and they know what they are doing. Chairperson Messner stated the colored rendering is easier to understand. He retracted his previous comments regarding the corner but still wants to raise the parapet area in the center to match the Papa Murphy's area. MOTION by Powell to recommend approval of the site plan for Celtic Crossing, LLC to construct a 7,920 square foot multi -tenant retail center as an addition to the existing Shenanigan's Liquor Store and Papa Murphy's building, subject to the following conditions: 1. Issuance of a building permit. 2. Relocate the existing temporary trash enclosure to the south side of the existing building until the proposed building and permanent trash enclosure are complete. Once construction is complete, the applicant shall remove the relocated temporary trash enclosure. 3. Redesign architecture and exterior building materials of the proposed expansion to more closely compliment the existing building prior to issuance of a building permit including an archway to mimic the Papa Murphy's archway and the brick wanes coating toward the bottom. 4. The applicant will be required to install signage and/or striping to mitigate cross traffic between the proposed drive -thru and the neighboring Walgreen's site. 5. Provide plan set that shows accurate depiction of existing conditions, e.g. the Cub Foods driveway location. 6. Provide storm sewer calculations for pipe design for review. Also, water and sewer services shall be depicted on plans. 7. If the site is disturbing greater than one acre, developer is responsible for acquiring NPDES permit and submit documentation to the City. This will require the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Second by Zurn with the change of Papa John's to Papa Murphy's in the initial recommended action. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PAGE 5 Public Hearing: 5B. Case 05 -12 -PUD and 05 -08 -PP Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, Inc. PUD Master Development Plan (with Rezoning) and Final Site and Building Plan and Preliminary Plat. City Planner Lindahl reviewed the staff report. Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, Inc. requests Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan and Final Site and Building Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals for the Hawkins property located at 4101 143` Street West. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Lindahl. Commissioner Powell questioned whether it is known which of the four utility services is connected to the existing house and whether a utility easement is required. He wanted to make sure there wasn't service connection crossing over on to another lot. Mr. Lindahl stated he would confirm that with the engineering department. Mr. Powell also asked staff to follow through if the approval confines runoff from Lot 2 be to Lot 2 and doesn't cross over to Lot 3 or a drainage easement may be needed if it can't be confined to that single lot. Chairperson Messner asked if the applicant would like to come forward. Kathy Trimble, 1566 Wexford Court, Eagan, stated the brief history of her company and her interest in the Hawkins' site. Ms. Trimble said she intended to work with the City on the driveway issues. Ms. Trimble also stated she plans to save as many trees as possible and the current driveway plan would only cause the loss of two trees. Her intentions are to create something the neighbors and the Hawkins can be proud of. Chairperson Messner asked the applicant if she knew with the existing home which of any existing services is tied into the home. Ms. Trimble stated that Ed McMenomy believes the utilities on the west side of the property were the ones that were brought into the house. The four utilities were requested by the Hawkins thinking that some day this property may be developed. Commissioner Humphrey asked which of the houses shown in the materials will be built on Lot 2. Ms. Trimble stated she was hoping to move the lot lines as shown in the artist's rendering so the rear lot would be 148 feet wide which would give a nice yard once built on. Chairperson Messner wanted clarification if she has switched the lot lines between Lots 1 and 2. Ms. Trimble stated that line pretty much has to stay there in order to meet the side yard setbacks. Ms. Trimble also stated she was not opposed to the staff proposed 80 foot lot setback but that she wanted to save as many evergreens as possible. Chairperson Messner asked City Planner Pearson if the preliminary plat portion would be approving the lot lines as drawn. Mr. Pearson talked about shifting the lot line across the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PAGE 6 lot and stated this would come back as a final plat and would solidify the final location of the property lines. Chairperson Messner had a question about the specific location of the house on Lot 2. Mr. Pearson stated if it is a PUD they have the ability to influence the location of the house. With the PUD process, the City can require conservation easements and deed restrictions. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. Ed McMenomy, 1422 143" Street West, Rosemount, stated that Kathy has done a wonderful job to meet the land topography. Mr. McMenomy questioned if there would be a retaining wall by the driveway based upon the slope. Mr. McMenomy suggested there be a condition that would include landscaping to make the driveway work. Mr. McMenomy would like the plan to stay the same and didn't approve of the 80 foot frontage. Mr. McMenomy would like to see all the evergreens in a conversation agreement. Vicki Goplin, 14106 Dearborn Path, Rosemount, stated she has been in the area for 15 years and is pleased to see the intent of Kathy to keep the trees as is and encouraged the Commission to pass the item. Dan Huberty, 4212 143`" St., Rosemount, was concerned about the house and existing property being tied in with the continuity of the neighborhood. Mr. Huberty was glad to see the trees would be preserved. Mr. Huberty questioned the driveways not being far apart and suggested all three homes share one driveway. Michelle Huberty, 4212 143 St., Rosemount, was concerned about the setbacks of the current homes and the setback of proposed Lot 3. Ms. Huberty also questioned how close the house would be to the evergreens on Lot 3. Mr. Pearson stated that setbacks are 30 feet from the property line which makes them about 45 feet back from the curb. Mr. Pearson stated that on Lot 3 the minimum front yard setback is 30 feet and the evergreens appear to either straddle or are just inside the property line. Dan Huberty, 4212 143 St., Rosemount, expressed concern about the setbacks in Hawkins Pond and if Lot 3 is going to be too close to the street. Chairperson Messner stated that using a rough scale it suggests that there are other lots which are not setback much more than 30 feet. Mr. Pearson stated a fairly consistent setback is shown at about 35 feet. Dan Huberty, 4212 143 St., Rosemount, again expressed concern about the setback with the lone house not architecturally tied into the development. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PAGE 7 Kathy Trimble addressed the concerns about the driveway. She explained as far as setbacks, she prefers to show more home than garage. Chairperson Messner asked Ms. Trimble to answer the question about the architecture of the current home. Ms. Trimble stated it was not her plan to change anything with the existing home. The existing home is white with maintenance free siding and black shutters with the large pillars in front with a colonial feel. Ms. Trimble feels the home is relatively attractive. MOTION by Humphrey to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion. Chairperson Messner asked if a tree preservation plan will address the tree conservation easement. Mr. Pearson stated that the grading plan shows a lot about the impact of the property and that grading follows the driveway to get it to a manageable grade. Mr. Pearson suggested that everything downhill of this line can be preserved and that restrictive covenants or conversation easements could be recorded against the property to require preservation of the trees. Community Development Director Lindquist stated three conditions of approval the Commission could add if they so desired. One would be to shift the northern lot line on Lot 3 to provide more backyard space which would address Ms. Trimble's proposal. A Condition 8 could be that the applicant would dedicate a tree preservation easement over the coniferous trees over the front property line. Ms. Lindquist stated the condition could then address the concerns brought forward tonight. Ms. Lindquist also suggested that Mr. McMenomy's concern be addressed stating the applicant install additional vegetation south of the retaining wall or within the graded area necessary for the construction of the driveway on Lot 1 regardless of the tree preservation requirements. Commissioner Powell questioned the shifting of the north line of Lot 3 and if there was a specific dimension or amount. Ms. Trimble stated she did it based it on the trees in the rear corner and she wanted to retain a significant amount of the backyard. Commissioner Powell suggested a Condition 7 to shift the northern lot line on Lot 3 consistent with the alternate lot line identified on the Trimble drawing. MOTION by Powell to recommend the City Council approve the Master Development Plan (with rezoning) and Final Site and Building Plan and preliminary plat approval for the property located at 4101 143 Street West to allow subdivision of the existing 1.84 acre property into three single family lots, subject to the following: 1. Issuance of a building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PAGE 8 1 2. Execution of a Planned Unit Development Agreement between the applicant and the City. 3. Submission of a detailed landscape and tree preservation plan illustrating all new and preserved plants and retaining walls prior to City Council action. 4. Redesign of all access driveways to meet the performance standards outlined by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal. 5. Dedication of cross access easements and recording of a maintenance agreement for shared access to Lots 1 and 2. 6. Payment of all applicable development fees including 2 units of park dedication calculated using the current fee schedule at the time of Final Plat. 7. Shift the northern lot line on Lot 3 consistent with the alternate lot line shown on the Trimble drawing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: Messner. Motion approved 4 -1. Mr. McMenomy questioned if there was anything in the motion about the conservation easement. Chairperson Messner stated there was not. Public Hearing: 5C. Case 05 -06 -LS City of Rosemount Lot Split (Rester Property). City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report. The Bester property consists of about 40 acres of land in the Agricultural Preserve District along Bacardi Avenue and on the south side of Gun Club Road (120 Street West). The eastern edge of the Bester property extends east of Bacardi Avenue. The City is requesting lot split approval to acquire the portion of the Bester land that lies east of the centerline of the road, aligning with the Aina Wicklund property. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any questions for Mr. Pearson. There were no questions for Mr. Pearson. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. MOTION by Powell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PAGE 9 MOTION by Messner to recommend approval of the lot split with no conditions. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Public Hearing: 5D. Case 05- 04 -AMD Meadows of Bloomfield (Centex Homes) PUD Major Amendment.. City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report. Centex Homes has requested an amendment to the Meadows of Bloomfield PUD to introduce a new housing style to the development called the "Freedom" series. The new housing type is a two -story single family detached house that will fit on a 56 ft. wide lot. The 26 new units will replace 33 townhouse units originally approved for the site consisting of approximately 8 acres on the north side of the intersection of Connemara Trail and Autumn Path. Chairperson Messner asked the Commissioners for any questions for Mr. Pearson. Chairperson Messner asked for clarification if the minimum setback for Autumn Path is 75 feet or 80 feet except for Lots 1 through 6 or only Lot 3. Mr. Pearson stated that Lot 3 is the lot that has the least amount of flexibility. Mr. Messner then asked if they are just changing it from 80 feet to 75 feet and Mr. Pearson said that was correct. Mr. Messner asked if the applicant would like to come forward. Chad Onsgard, Centex Homes, 14136 Atwood Court, clarified a couple of items. Mr. Onsgard stated that for Condition 6 normally they record a landscape easement and he also proposed a 20 foot landscape easement. A landscape easement would follow the slope to the easement line and continue on to a 20 foot landscape easement which would take care of Condition 6. Mr. Messner asked Mr. Onsgard if he was suggesting that the landscape easement would go up to and include the pipeline. Mr. Onsgard stated it does come to the easement line and in the landscape easement they would not allow any sheds, fences or similar. Mr. Messner asked Mr. Pearson if that was a restrictive covenant or a requirement that they dedicate a landscape easement. Mr. Pearson stated it can accomplish the same goal although the landscape easement should include the restriction for sheds and fences because it's not clear and staff doesn't have a copy of that language. Mr. Pearson did not see a problem adjusting the language to acknowledge the landscape easement as long as it includes the restriction of sheds and outdoor storage and can be reviewed by the City Attorney. Community Development Director Lindquist stated that Condition 6 precludes it being in the landscape easement and the City just wants to make sure those covenants are addressed. If Centex puts the restriction in a different document, that would be fine. The PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PAGE 10 City is not privy to their landscape documents. Whatever legal vehicle they do is fine as long as it meets Condition 6. Mr. Onsgard also wanted to clarify that on Page 3, Item 9, regarding the home owner's association and stated the Freedom homes in the area would belong to the same association as the single family homes. The association would maintain all the landscape easements. Mr. Messner questioned the 56 foot wide lots and the placing of the homes with the possibility of anyone obtaining a third stall garage. Mr. Onsgard stated the homes are basically centered and brought to the front setback. Centex does not have an option for a third stall garage. Mr. Pearson stated that only two to three lots that would potentially have enough room for a third garage stall. Mr. Messner was concerned about the potential variances. Mr. Pearson stated that we cannot stop people from applying for variances but it could be said that the Planning Commission discussed this and would not be in support of any additional variances. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. MOTION by Zurn to close the Public Hearing. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey, and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion. Commissioner Powell offered to make a motion. Mr. Powell noted the changes on the report. On Condition 5 the setback minimum of 30 feet from the pipeline easement except on Lot 9 which is 25 feet. Mr. Powell said the second bullet setback a minimum of 75 feet of Autumn Path. He proposed to leave Condition 6 the same. MOTION by Powell to recommend the City Council approve the major amendment to the Meadows of Bloomfield PUD subject to the conditions noted including the six in the Staff Report. Mr. Messner offered an amendment to the Motion allowing the applicant the opportunity to address the same conditions within their landscaping easement rather than have a separate restrictive covenant recorded against the Lot. Mr. Powell suggested adding to the end of Condition 6 "or approved equal." Mr. Messner thought that would be satisfactory. 1. Execution of a PUD Addendum agreement for the amendment area in a form subject to approval of the City Attorney. 2. Lots shall be a minimum of 56 feet wide measured at the front yard setback line. 3. The principal structure setbacks for the lots shall be: 25 feet for the front yard. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PAGE 11 10 feet for both side yards. 30 feet minimum for rear yards. 25 feet minimum for street -sides on corner lots. 4. Lot 16, Block 1 shall have the building envelope shifted to the 10 -foot side yard setback to eliminate potential conflicts with the driveway and the park entrance trail. Further, there shall be a minimum of 10 feet separating the driveway from the trail. A restrictive covenant shall be placed on the property with this requirement. 5. The rear setback of the houses on Block 1 shall be: Set back a minimum of 30 feet from the pipeline easement except for Lot 9 which is 25 feet. Set back a minimum of 75 feet from Autumn Path. 6. Restrictive covenants prohibiting sheds and outdoor storage shall be recorded for the portion of the lots west of the pipeline easement or approved equal. Second by Schultz on the original Motion as amended. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Public Hearing: 5E. Case 05 -02 -SP Flint Hills Resources (Proposed biodiesel storage tank) Site Plan Review. City Planner Pearson reviewed the Staff Report. Flint Hills Resources is requesting site plan approval to construct a storage tank in the northeast portion of the refinery area, near U.S. 52. The storage tank will be located approximately 500 feet west of Clark Avenue, the former frontage road along the west side of U.S. 52. Chairperson Messner asked the Commissioners for any questions for Mr. Pearson. Chairperson Messner asked if Clark Road is the frontage road to Highway 52 and about where the plantings would be located. Mr. Pearson stated it was a frontage road but then turned back to the City as part of the Highway 52 improvements that closed off some access points and it functions as a City street. Mr. Pearson stated the plantings would be on the Flint Hills property. Chairperson Messner asked if the applicant would like to come forward. The applicant stated only if there were questions. The Commission had no questions for the applicant. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson asked for any follow -up discussion and questions. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PAGE 12 Chairperson Messner had a question regarding the dike system and the clay soils in the area. Ms. Gorham's response was inaudible. MOTION by Zurn to approve the site plan review for Flint Hills Resources subject to planting 8 boulevard trees along the Clark Avenue right -of -way. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey, and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Mr. Pearson stated this item does not require City Council approval unless it is appealed. Old Business: None. New Business: None. Reports: Community Development Director Kim Lindquist updated the Commission on the items acted upon by the Council at the February 15, 2005 meeting. Ms. Lindquist further updated the Commission on the Port Authority developer interviews for the Downtown Rosemount Redevelopment Project. Ms. Lindquist also gave an update of the 42/52 Study open house meetings and plans to bring the proposals to the Planning Commission. Staff is also planning a Planning Commission Workshop for March 8, 2005. There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by Commissioner Humprey, second by Commissioner Zurn, and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, (0A Amy Domeier Recording Secretary Meeting Summary Planning Commission Work Session March 8, 2005 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Work Session Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 8, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Humphrey, Powell, and Zurn present. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Kim Lindquist, City Planner Rick Pearson and Assistant City Planner Jason Lindahl. Commissioner Schultz arrived at 7:00 p.m. Interested parties in the audience included: Charles Koehnen 12255 Rich Valley Blvd. Rosemount, MN 55068 Gary R. Ista 12131 Rich Valley Blvd. Rosemount, MN 55068 Mary and Guy Courteau 2704 Mesa Verde Ct. Burnsville, MN 55337 Amy Berglund 12131 Rich Valley Blvd. Rosemount, MN 55068 Don Kern Flint Hills Resources John Hoflal Flint Hills Resources Paul Curtis Spectro Alloys Corp. Joe Eschenbacher Wayne Transportation Ken Tummel Continental Nitrogen Dave Bednar Continental Nitrogen Joe McArdem Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Pearson to present the information included in the work session packet regarding the Highway 3 and County Road 46 Land Use Study and the Draft C -3, Highway Service and C -4, General Commercial Zoning Districts. City Planner Pearson reviewed the information contained in the work session packet. He explained that his information was in response to the direction given to staff during the Commission's February 8, 2005 work session. Mr. Pearson stated that staff was working to re -guide the study area from GI, General Industrial to C, Commercial. In addition, staff was also working on amending the C -3 and C -4 Commercial zoning districts to focus on more auto oriented and service oriented uses. Staff and the Commission agreed that zoning text revisions should also include refined performance standards especially in the areas of architecture and outside sales and display. Ms. Lindquist summarized by stating that staff would revise the C -3 and C -4 districts and bring them back to the Commission for further review and comment later. Next, Community Development Director Kim Lindquist introduced the Commission to the City's Conceptual Future Land Use Plan. She explained that staff has been working with a committee comprised of property owners, planning commission members, and a city councilmember to review and update the City's Future Land Use Plan. Ms. Lindquist provided an overview of the concept) plan and outlined the issues raised throughout the planning process. These issues included: 1. MUSA Limits. 2. 42/52 Interchange. 3. Business /Commercial Development vs. Residential Development. 4. Flint Hill Land Use Planning. 5. Dakota County Technical College Planning Potential Dorms and /or Conference Center. 6. University of Minnesota Land Use Study Potential of Land Sale for Development. 7. Potential Air Cargo Facility in Southwest Quadrant of 42/52 Interchange. 8. Adding Categories to the City's Land Use Plan (Mixed Use Industrial and Medium Density Residential). 9. New Sewer Interceptor in 2006. Ms. Lindquist talked generally about how these issues could compliment and contradict each other. She emphasized the need for the plan to balance the competing development needs within the community. She concluded by stating that the land use planning process will continue by allowing the community to formally review the final draft plan at a public hearings during Planning Commission meetings this spring before final action by the City Council sometime this summer. After adoption by the City, staff will forward the plan onto the Metropolitan Council for approval. Next, City Engineer Andy Brotzler presented the City draft Transportation Plan and explained it in relation to the draft Future Land Use Plan. His presentation described each of the road classification types (Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Major Collector, and Minor Collector) and explained the traffic volume and intersection spacing standards for each. Planning Commission Chair Jason Messner asked for comments or questions from the Commission for staff. Commissioner Powell made several comments, including: 1. Development of the University of Minnesota property seemed far in the future and the City's planning efforts should focus on the western two thirds of the City that will be developed in the next 20 or so years. 2. The Land Use Plan should incorporate more medium and high density residential housing as a buffer and transition to commercial land uses. 3. Mr. Powell would like to see an analysis of the City's future park needs and have that incorporated into the Future Land Use Plan discussion. 4. Mr. Powell would like staff to identify the location of the proposed sewer interceptor on the Future Land Use Plan and plan for higher density uses adjacent to the interceptor to fully utilize this public investment. 5. Staff should plan for and identify standards for cluster development. 6. Mr. Powell supports the corporate campus plan for the Mississippi Critical Corridor area east of Highway 55. 7. Regardless of the City's plans and policies, individual property owners still control the development of their own property. After Commissioner Powell concluded his comments, Chairperson Messner asked if there were any more comments from the Commission. Hearing none, he asked if there were any other comments from staff or other members of the Land Use Planning Committee. At that time, Councilmember Mark DeBettignies summarized his experience with the land use planning process and thanked staff and the other members of the committee for their work. After Councilmember DeBettignies concluded his comments, Chairperson Messner asked if there were any other comments from the commission or staff. Hearing none, Chairperson Messner opened the meeting to comments from the public. He reminded members of the audience that this was not an official public hearing and that the Commission will be holding an official public hearing for this item in the near future. However, the Commission was interest in hearing any comments that citizens may have after this informal review of the Future Land Use Plan. John Hofland of Flint Hill Resources stated that his company would like to be closely involved throughout the planning process. He stated that Flint Hills concerns focus on insuring the area around the refinery has compatible land uses and he emphasized the need for creative solutions to these compatibility issues. He also stressed the importance of emergency management planning when considering the land uses around the refinery. Harvey Radke, a realtor from Hastings, stated he has many clients interested in the 42/52 corridor. These clients are most interested in hospitality, auto sales, and veterinary uses. He stressed that rail access and a buffer around Flint Hills were also important to his clients. Paul Curtis of Spectro Alloys stated that he represents the Pine Bend Area Industrial Group which includes many of the businesses in the Highway 55 Corridor. This group would like to stress the importance of a buffer around Flint Hills Resources and industrial businesses located on the east side. An adequate buffer would prohibit residential uses east of Akron Avenue and north of 155 Street. However, this group is in support of the air cargo facility. Hearing no other public comment, Community Development Director Lindquist offered to summarize the direction she noted during the meeting. She stated that staff would take the following action to address the issues and concerns from the Commission and public: 1. Review the housing vs. commercial balance at the Akron /42 intersection. 2. Revise the map to illustrate the major land owners including Flint Hills Resources and the University of Minnesota. 3. Provide an assessment of the City's future park and recreational needs and include it in the plan. 4. Direct the Public Safety Director to review and comment on the Conceptual Future Land Use Plan and the City's emergency plans. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission to confirm this direction for staff. Without a formal vote, the Commission acknowledged that this was the correct direction for staff. Ms. Lindquist stated staff would bring the requested changes and information back to the Commission during their March work session. There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by Chairman Messner, and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Jason Lindahl, A.I.C.P. Assistant City Planner. Meeting Summary Planning Commission Work Session March 29, 2005 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Work Session meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 in Rooms 214 and 216 of the Rosemount Community Center. Chairman Messner called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. with Planning Commissioners John Powell, Laurie Humphrey, Valerie Schultz and Terry Zurn present. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Kim Lindquist, Police Chief Gary Kalstabakken, City Engineer Andy Brotzler and City Planner Rick Pearson. There were also approximately 15 audience members in attendance. Director Lindquist provided a brief overview of the agenda items including the land ownership map and 3 alternative land use maps for the Akron Avenue and County Road 42 area. Director Lindquist explained that the land ownership map was fairly accurate; however there may be a couple of parcels that were not labeled properly due to slightly different names of the owners or recent changes in ownership. The Commissioners had no questions regarding the land ownership map. Director Lindquist proceeded to explain the 3 land use options. The options focused on the distribution of commercial and residential land uses on the north side of County Road 42. It was assumed that there would be little change in the land use scenario for commercial and high density residential associated with the Dakota County Technical College and the University of Minnesota properties. All options included less commercial land than was included in the earlier land use concepts. Land Use Option I offered the least amount of commercial land overall, and converted some land south of the Connemara Trail alignment from commercial to high- density residential. Option II with the most commercial land (155 acres) included larger commercial parcels along County Road 42, and the largest contiguous block of land of 80 acres for high density residential use. Option III suggested a commercial edge along County Road 42 about 600 feet deep, but extending farther to the east. In all options, the day -care building and ballfield north of County Road 42 remained public. Chairman Messner asked about the potential for access along County Road 42. City Engineer Brotzler explained that the Dakota County intersection spacing standards allowed for full- movement intersections with 1/2 mile spacing and right -in, right -out intersections at 1/4 mile spacing. With a full- movement intersection and a signal at Akron and County Road 42, there would potentially be a right -in, right -out intersection 1/4 mile to the west along the commercial area on 42. Director Lindquist added that there would be more access along Akron Avenue, with driveways or streets extending east and west, between Connemara Trail and County Road 42. Connemara Trail would have a full movement intersection at Akron Avenue, and there would be other intersections, perhaps with more limited access along Akron Avenue. Connemara Trail will act as an east -west "reliever" north of County Road 42. Commissioner Powell asked about the property owner's, Arkon, preference? Director Lindquist explained that initially, Arkon would have accepted about 15 acres for commercial, and have since been more agreeable to about 30 acres of commercial land. Commissioner Powell mentioned that he prefers Option III, with more commercial land along County Road 42. Commissioner Schultz agreed. Director Lindquist explained that the preferred Option III with Planning Commission direction would become the map that would be circulated as the process continues. The disadvantage of Option III is the large amount of contiguous high- density residential land. Chairman Messner suggested that the high density area could be modified, shifting it along the north side of the commercial land oriented along County Road 42. The other Commissioners indicated agreement with the suggestion. Director Lindquist moved on to discuss the Parks memo provided by Dan Schultz, Director of Parks and Recreation. Director Lindquist explained that her discussions with Director Schultz resulted in a projected need for about 310 acres of additional park -land based upon the draft 42/52 land use maps with typical residential densities of 3 dwelling units per acre overall. There currently are no community parks specifically designated in the area. The Parks and Recreation staff is working with the City Council on the facility planning process, and an athletic complex is part of the discussions. Commissioner Zurn asked if the athletic facility was included in the University's long- term plans. Director Lindquist explained that discussions were ongoing with both the U of M and Flint Hills Resources concerning a variety of goals and Director Schultz is examining all options. Commissioner Zurn asked how the athletic facility might compare with the Blaine sports complex. Director Lindquist stated the Rosemount facility would be smaller, requiring about 60 to 80 acres. The Commissioners had no more questions regarding parks. Director Lindquist distributed maps depicting the Flint Hills Refinery area that include concentric rings radiating from the center and southwest corner of the refinery area. Police Chief Kalstabakken was introduced as the Emergency Preparedness Manager for his presentation regarding emergency services in Rosemount and specifically, the refinery area. Chief Kalstabakken explained that he had checked to see if there were any federal, state, county or other relevant standards for guidelines for spacing residential land uses from potentially hazardous areas such as a refinery. The results of his survey were that there are no such standards, that cities have complete authority over local land use decisions. It is of course good planning to consider how hazardous materials are processed and where and how they are transported to an from processing areas. Hazardous materials are found in many locations besides the Pine Bend area, and are transported across town by railroad and trucks. For example, cities and schools have chlorine for water treatment and swimming pools. Chief Kalstabakken researched the web for other refineries across the country for comparisons of residential land use proximity. Carson, California (near Los Angeles) has a BP refinery that has an output of 260 million barrels per day, comparable with FHR. There is a residential neighborhood near the refinery and another within 1,000 feet. It is unclear where the actual processing occurs within the refinery for specific measuring of separation. Philadelphia, PA has a Sunoco refinery that is the seventh largest nationally, and has adjacent residential uses. Again, it is not certain how close the actual processing occurs with the residential use. It was noted that this is likely to be an older, more densely populated area. Wood Rover, Ill. Has a Conoco Phillips refinery that is ranked 10 in the nation. It has residential that borders the refinery. The available map seemed to show single family and medium density (townhouse) zoning in proximity to the refinery. Commissioner Powel remarked that in some of these cases, especially in older ones, much of the nearby housing was probably for workers of the refinery areas. Director Lindquist mentioned that she had contacted administrators from St. Paul Park and Newport concerning their impressions of the Marathon refinery in St. Paul Park. In this case, residential uses are located next to holding tanks and residential streets are next to the refinery. Most of the complaints identified concern things like dust and fumes that cannot be traced directly to the refinery. Chief Kalstabakken added what he knew of the Texas City explosion of March 23. He understood that the product related to the explosion was different from that refined at FHR. All of the injuries associated with the event were contained within the refinery. The impact was felt up to Y2 mile away resulting in broken windows. Chief Kalstabakken went on to explain the map with concentric circles radiating at 1 -mile intervals from the center and southwest corners of the refinery. The rings were used to illustrate various evacuation procedures. For example, some events might require evacuation of residential uses within one mile of the refinery. However, some events could require evacuation of residents up to 4 miles away. There are already residential uses established in the 4 mile range west and north of the refinery. As previously mentioned, the presence of some chemicals elsewhere in the community could just as likely require evacuation, such as spills from de- railed railroad cars. An alternative emergency management strategy would be to shut down homes and buildings keeping people inside. The concentric circles originating in the refinery could just as well be transferred to other locations such as Dixie Petro- Chemical or Spectro Alloys. Hazardous materials are just one aspect of the process of land -use analysis. Director Lindquist had spoken with the City Attorney concerning the potential for City liability resulting from land -use decisions. The City Attorney explained that cities have extensive latitude in the process of land use planning. Solid land use decisions are normally based on things making logical sense. Transitions from one land use to another and buffers separating incompatible land uses often are the result of many influences and situations. Chairman Messner asked if the prevailing winds had an impact on emergency management planning, and if the winds are predominately from the northwest? Chief Kalstabakken explained that wind patterns are considered, and that the winds are often from the southwest and southeast. Commissioner Zurn asked about the nature of complaints received by St. Paul Park regarding the refinery. Director Lindquist explained that the complaints received by the Administrator can't be traced to an individual site. Commissioner Zurn asked the Chief if more complaints originate from the east side (Pine Bend area)? Chief Kalstabakken indicated that the police do receive more complaints regarding the east side, but they do not have a method of tracking the specific source of the complaint. Chairman Messner then thanked Chief Kalstabakken for his time and efforts responding to the Commission's concerns. In conclusion, Chairman Messner observed that the correspondence received from the Pine Bend Area Industrial Group identifying concerns over residential growth east of Akron Avenue and north of the 155 Street alignment. He said, "That would pretty much be everything that we are talking about." Chairman Messner asked the Commissioners if there were any other issues that needed to be discussed. Commissioner Schultz requested further information describing the densities of residential uses near the various other refineries. Chief Kalstabakken responded that he didn't know, other than most of the maps seemed to suggest single family residential. Chairman Messner speculated that the other refinery areas were in older neighborhood areas were development had already "pushed in." Commissioner Powell made the assumption that LA and Philadelphia in particular have a higher density of residential relative to land values and are a more urbanized context. Chairman Messner and Commissioner Zurn both commented on the likelihood that the adjacent housing provided housing for workers associated with the adjacent refineries and other industrial uses. Chairman Messner then offered the audience members opportunity for comment. Before doing so, he reiterated that the expected process for the land use discussions will include at least one more work session, for Planning Commission discussion. That would probably be scheduled on April 12, prior to the first possible public hearing, which could occur as soon as April 26 Charlie Koehnen,12255 Rich Valley Blvd., said that the refinery was boosting production up to 300 million barrels per day, making them the 8 largest refinery in the country. He said that his brother built a house in St. Paul Park, which he is now unable to sell. He then made comparisons with undesirable residential property adjacent to the airport. Mr. Koehnen also commented that "Koch has cleaned up the area a lot so that people wouldn't complain." He added that his experience with his wind generator was that 80% of the winds were from the southeast. He also added that the Texas refinery explosion was felt 5 mile away. He supports some residential, but not high- density residential like apartments. He concluded that the area between Akron Avenue and U.S. 52 should all be commercial on the north side. Arlene Dohling, 2051 145 Street East, commented that the University of Minnesota was the source of chemical fallout dating back to the 1960's. People living east of Coates had to be evacuated, and that included her family members. Joan Schnieder, 12255 Rich Valley Blvd., asked about the nature of complaints received by the other refineries. She was concerned about the City setting itself up for complaints. "The last leak was a bad one it lasted for days." She wanted to know what the refinery's position was. Director Lindquist explained that Flint Hills Resources had previously provided a letter that was included in the previous work session packet. Chairman Messner added that there will be more discussion about Flint Hills Resources as the process continues. Director Lindquist also stated that the other refineries had residential uses next door. In contrast, the proposed land use plan shows the nearest residential uses a mile away from the southwest corner of the refinery. Joan Schnieder asked how close was the high density residential shown? She also commented that she was a member of a citizen's advisory committee since 1998 and that they had a lot of data regarding emissions from the refinery. The committee meets the 2 Monday of every month, and City officials are invited. John Chadwick, 11430 Zion Circle, Bloomington, a partner /owner with Jonathan Wilmshurst of Vesterra, Stonex and other properties east of Akron Avenue explained his views. He felt that a transition makes sense, and that their 153 acres of property (the former Groth farm) would be suitable for residential. It is undulating, and would be behind a Business Park land use area. He felt that it's good for people to live near where they work, and that as the business park develops, there will be a need for more residential. He and his partner intend to work with everybody. Myron Napper, 3381 145 Street East, agreed with Charlie Koehnen. He said he was concerned about the other industries in the Pine Bend area, and that Spectro Alloys is #1 on the list with Endrus being the next. He suggested that if the City does not do anything, there would be a class- action suit that would involve Rosemount. He went on to say that Jeff Wilkes of Flint Hills Resources has done a good job and that FHR will not put anymore holes in the ground. Instead, they will use treated water even though it costs more. Mr. Napper then asked about what is going to happen with the Air Cargo terminal and Coates. "Developers are putting things together and scaring people he said. He further stated that the previous meeting process should have been set up by staff to allow people to ask questions. Mr. Napper then asked if the guidelines for the refinery were set in stone? Chief Kalstabakken responded that they were only a reference. John Hofland of Flint Hills Resources asked if there would be some methodical analysis of data regarding the buffer zone around the refinery. Chairman Messner asked if there were was anything else that needed to be discussed. Director Lindquist reiterated the intended process. Another meeting will be scheduled for informal comments. FHR and other businesses will be invited for comments and questions. It would also give another opportunity for further questions by the Commissioners. Chairman Messner asked the other Commissioners if they had any preferences. Commissioner Powell indicated he approved of another meeting for comments. Commissioner Zurn added that he likes the informal format of the work sessions, and that he would prefer to wait until the end of April for the formal public hearing. Director Lindquist said that the public hearing on April 26 would benefit from another worksession on April 12 and the final maps that will be put together in support. Commissioner Zurn asked if additional detail could be provided about the distance for complaints from the other refineries. Chairman Messner asked that more information concerning complaints were available, such as the source of odors, if the direction of particles is being monitored and other wind data from FHR. Charlie Koehnen mentioned that there was an explosion in 1978 that killed a couple of people. His tractor was covered with soot, and that the neighbor Benson kids were sick. The soot blew towards Eagan and that it was real nasty. Chairman Messner revisited the comments from the Pine Bend Area Industrial Group (PBAIG). He emphasized that PBAIG wanted to control practically all of eastern Rosemount. He explained that he wanted to see a counter proposal with a reasonable approach besides the exclusion of residential uses east of Akron Avenue and north of 155 Street. Joan Schnieder asked about the land use concept previously offered by Flint Hills Resources. That concept included a park as part of the buffer area surrounding Flint Hills. She felt that she should have a park since she had to put up with all of the industrial land use in the area for so long. Arlene Doehling cited O'Hare airport near Chicago as an example of land use patterns if the air cargo terminal is built. She stated that when the airport was originally built, it was surrounded by cornfields. As time went on, the area was filled with warehouses. Air cargo would create a buffer zone of warehouses. Director Lindquist attempted to wrap -up with a reminder of the next work session scheduled for April 12 at 6:30 in the Council chambers, and some people will be invited for comments. Myron Napper then asked about the expected timetable for highway improvements and the air cargo terminal. Staff explained the status to the two projects. Chairman Messner repeated the workshop process and need for the City to locally plan land use. He then asked if there were any other concerns that should be brought up. Commissioner Powell suggested that there would be another chance to examine land use before anything is built. Director Lindquist explained that the land use area around Akron Avenue would be the first area looked at in terms of comprehensive plan amendments. The 42/52 area would be second because of the moratorium that is currently in effect in the east side MUSA. Eventually, all of the east side would be included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm. Respectfully submitted Rick Pearson, AICP City Planner Planning Commission Work Session April 12, 2005 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 in the Council Chambers. Commissioners present included: Jason Messner (Chair), Valerie Schultz, Laurie Humphrey and John Powell. City staff included: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director, Andy Brotzler, City Engineer and Rick Pearson, City Planner. Chairman Messner called the meeting to order at 6:31 pm, asking for additions or corrections to the agenda. Director Lindquist noted that a new agenda had been provided with a presentation scheduled for Arcon Development at 7:30 pm. Director Lindquist summarized the efforts of the Highway 42 52 study group and the work session process to date. She also outlined the anticipated balance of the process including the Planning Commission public hearing, depending on the outcome of the Planning Commission discussion. The intent is to finalize the draft land use plan based upon tonight's discussion. Public Comment on the 42 52 Land Use study concept Chairman Messner explained to the audience that 5 presentations had been scheduled for public comment. They were limited to 15 minutes each. PBAIG (Pine Bend Area Industrial Group) Paul Curtis representing the Pine Bend Area Industrial Group (PBAIG) and president of Spectro Alloys made the first scheduled presentation. He reiterated the previously stated concerns, primarily that the proposed residential zoning would be much too close to the industrial base. He stated that the two land uses are clearly incompatible. The concerns result from the potential for nuisance issues such as smoke and noise, and the possibility of failed processes such as power failures. Mr. Curtis also explained concerns about potential public safety issues. Hazardous materials are often part of the various processes in the industrial area. There are risks associated with the industrial area and the City should take into consideration the various risk management plans that have been required of the industrial group. He commented further on the cooperative working relationship between the companies and that there should be more opportunities for industrial development for compatible industrial uses. Mr. Curtis summarized his comments with a request to prepare a plan that prevents a "collision" with incompatible land uses. Chairman Messner asked Mr. Curtis what he would recommend as a safe distance between the residential from the industrial areas, for example, 1 or 2 miles? Mr. Curtis responded that the risk management plans prepared for the different companies would have a variety of recommendations for radius of separation to residential uses. Commissioner Powell asked if the existing residential uses north of County Road 42 would be included or excluded. Mr. Curtis responded with an observation that there had already been some problems affecting existing residential areas. Chairman Messner suggested that the next scheduled presentation by Flint Hills Resources could start if there were with no more questions for Mr. Curtis. Flint Hills Resources Jeff Wilkes, the Refinery Manager for Flint Hills Resources (FHR) introduced himself, indicating that he had been working at the Rosemount refinery for 6 years, and had been employed in the industry for 31 years. Mr. Wilkes stated that FHR had been a participant in the study group and was very sensitive to the needs of the City and its management of growth. FHR supports the current Comprehensive Plan, but has a concern about the area north of County Road 42, east of Akron Avenue. Flint Hills opposes the potential inclusion of 6,000 new residents in this area. There are three areas of specific concern: 1. Increased exposure to the various nuisance issues common in the refinery area. FHR has worked hard to reduce events such as the "flair ups" that occur with occasional power outages and equipment failures, but incidents still occur. The regular turnarounds for maintenance and repairs also cause nuisances. The closer the residents are, the more likely they will be affected. An example is the St. Paul Park refinery recently experienced a lightening strike on a tank affecting the neighbors close by. 2. Potential exposure of residents to a major event. FHR has a call -up zone 41 around the refinery to notify neighbors in the event of a major situation that may require action such as evacuation. Barr Engineering, a consultant was hired to prepare a study that examined the impacts of several serious events such as explosions or releases of toxic vapors. There are similarities with the Texas City event that resulted from the combination of an ignition source with a vapor. Such an event can break glass 3 miles away and the noise heard up to 6 miles away. Toxic release of Chlorine and Hydrogen Sulfide are two agents of particular concern. Under some atmospheric conditions, a vapor cloud of Chlorine might not disperse as far as 3 miles away. Hydrogen Sulfide might not disperse up to 4.5 miles away. If FHR drew a 3 -mile line around the refinery, Akron 42 is right at the 3 -mile line. There are a lot of things that have been done to prevent incidents, but they still happen about every ten years or so. 3. Railroad storage and traffic of hazardous materials. The Union Pacific is constructing a railroad yard directly south of the refinery. He estimates that incidents occur more often than one in ten years as a result of railroad accidents. Based upon the latest land use map, medium density residential is 1.1 miles away, urban residential is 1.2 miles away and high density residential is 1.7 miles away. Our studies show that these proposed land uses are too close. Flint Hills often receives 2 questions: 1. Why didn't we buy all of this land? Answer: Sticker shock over the increase in the price of land, and we would have to buy another 800 acres. We just can't continue to keep buying land. 2. Why is FHR trying to influence the value of other people's property? We are not trying to do that at all. Our plan would offer alternatives. Our position is that we are against residential land use north of 42 and east of Akron Ave. Flint Hills Resources sees the need for a study of what the appropriate buffer would be. We already have a call -down area for properties near the refinery and any new residential land north of 42 and east of Akron would have to be on that call -down list. Chairman Messner asked if there were any more questions. Hearing none, the next group was introduced. Mary and Ann Courteau, who grew up on a farm east of Akron Ave. and north of County Road 42. The two parcels of land they represent are about 145 acres. Mary Courteau Mary Courteau started the presentation explaining that her parents moved to Rosemount 50 years ago, and raised four healthy children. Her mother taught at the Rosemount schools. When Mary went to college, she used to bring friends home, who enjoyed the area. Her father raised Holsteins and lived until the age of 90. During all that time, the refinery was not even on their radar, it was a "non- factor." Now it seems like the area is being presented as so dangerous, that perhaps all of the students of Dakota County II/ Technical College should be fitted for gas masks. Ann (Courteau) Day added that for 50 years, the refinery was a great neighbor. Now, they want to have it both ways. Drawing a comparison to David and Goliath, she questioned the true motive of FHR. She added that there is no odor from the refinery given the prevailing winds. The only ones to benefit from keeping residential growth away are Flint Hills Resources. The draft land use map shows the Courteau properties to have about 15 acres of Commercial, 45 acres of medium density residential and about 80 acres of single family residential. Rosemount needs commercial development, and needs more residential land to get the commercial development it needs. Chairman Messner asked for questions. With none, he introduced the next speaker, Jonathan Wilmshurst. Jonathan Wilmshurst Jonathan Wilmshurst representing the interests of Vesterra, Stonex (mining) and Minnova, LLC, collectively own approximately 320 acres of land east of Akron Ave. He has lived on Shannon Parkway for 14 years and participated on the study group. He added that he believed that the process was very well done, and that a lot of input was provided on the various trips. Apple Valley has had rampant development, and that the Metropolitan Council has made several hundreds of millions of dollars in public investments to facilitate growth in the area. The property east of Akron Avenue has been available for years, and that the City should not have to maintain all of that as a buffer. Mr. Wilmshurst stated that they (Veserra, Stonex and Minnova) agree that industrial land should be beyond the "fall line" of the Rich Valley area. Development and the mining process in particular can create the trails and berms needed to create the buffer. Industrial uses could capture the materials for berms and so forth. The refinery has improved over the years, but it is still their job to mitigate the nuisance. Rosemount has 2 very large tracts of land that are "sterilized" by the refinery and U -More Park. More development is needed to justify all of the investments on the east side of Akron Ave. If the east side is dangerous, this information should be public. Otherwise, resistance to development seems to be "scare- mongering." Mr. Wilmshurst added that there are 2 railroad tracks that run through town as it is, and that the producers of hazardous materials should be responsible for mitigation, not the City. He and his partners have purchased the Darsow and Kraft farms and anticipate mining for 15 -18 years. They have also purchased the Groth farm, but have no plans to mine it. He briefly summarized his opinion regarding the availability of aggregate material, some on the Bester farm, and the north end of the Courteau properties. Mining would change the landscape with stripping of material off of the top of the aggregate and using that material for trails and landscaping. Chairman Messner asked if there were any questions. There were none. Arcon Development Scott Johnson, President of Arcon Development indicated that his company owns about 300 acres of land north of County Road 42 and west of Akron Ave. They started buying land several years ago with the 80 acres on the northwest corner of Akron 42. At that time, the land was guided for residential use. Much of the land previously planned for residential use has been changed to commercial on the draft plan. He has significant concerns relative to the market for the commercial land. Arcon has hired Bill Gorten of the McCombs Group to analyze the market with so much land taken up by Flint Hills Resources and the University of Minnesota. Flint Hills and the University take up too much land to allow for enough "rooftops" to support the market area. "Our request is to sit down with the Planning Commission and plan the area." Bill Gorton of the McCombs Group provided a report that summarized his experience and credentials, and projected the anticipated market supported commercial growth based upon the latest land -use plan. He described all of the Arcon land proposed for commercial land use. There is a total of 193 acres of commercial land including the University. This is much larger than the Hwy 3 and County Road 42 area. Commercial development depends on four things: 1. How viable is the land to support development. 2. The location of the land is extremely important. 3. What is the available ingress and egress or accessibility of the development? 4. The traffic counts on the adjacent highways. Mr. Gorton continued with an observation of the surrounding commercial areas that are competitive. Those areas are continuing to grow, and have better connecting highways that go places. Akron Avenue does not really connect to anything either north in Inver Grove Heights, or south in the U of M property. He then made projections about the level of development that could be expected in the proposed commercial area in five -year increments. His findings were: 2010: Small convenience stores in the retail categories highlighted in the report. 2015: With the additional 6,000 households (east of Akron Ave.), by this time, all of the available residential land is used up. Therefore there would be 30 to 50,000 sq. ft. of additional retail, service, office and possibly some medical clinic space. 2025: The amount of commercial space would double, similar to the Cub Foods area. Mr. Gorton added that if the market does not support development, the land would otherwise remain dormant. The University land should have the largest amount of commercial land available in case it is ever developed. The University land has the greatest potential market that would support commercial land. Mr. Groten listed several challenges to the development of commercial land: 1. The Akron Ave. and County Road 42 area is isolated from the surrounding population by Flint Hills Resources, and the U of M. These large landowners create an "hour- glass" shape, with the Commercial area in the middle. 2. The ability to develop is further limited by the MUSA, and efforts by Flint Hills Resources to prevent further development. 3. Lack of adequate freeway access to surrounding communities for big boxes and category killers that require "main on main" intersection locations. Akron Avenue does not fit in that intersection category, as it does not connect with other highways beyond Rosemount. When discussing other developments in Rosemount, Mr. Gorton said that development is going to be out there, but then it's going to stop. Apple Valley, Eagen, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville with Cedar Dodd, Farmington and Coates are all going to add commercial. The bottom line is that the Akron Ave. and County Road 42 area does not support 185 acres of additional commercial land. As a result, the land will sit vacant. Chairman Messner asked if there were any questions. Hearing none, he asked for more detail about the Cedar Dodd area in Lakeville. Mr. Groten explained that the commercial area was 20 acres in size with the primary area that includes Cub consisting of about 13.5 acres. Another 6 acres is designated for retail use. Chairman Messner then asked what influence student housing would have on changing commercial demand? Bill Groten responded with "numbers change demand." If 42 and 52 develops, the numbers would be reduced because of the competition. If the U of M gets developed, then that would change the plan for significant commercial land south of 42, were the viability increases. Therefore, the majority of the land designated for commercial use should be on the University land. Chairman Messner then concluded the public comment period of the agenda. Properties affected by the 42/52 Land -Use Amendments Director Lindquist requested Planning Commission direction concerning properties that may potentially become non conforming with implementation of the 42 52 land use recommendations. City Planner Pearson explained that the list contained many residential properties, but the primary concern were the Rich Valley Lutheran Church, the trucking terminals in the vicinity of Highways 52 and 42, and Vic's Engineering (Crane) area southwest of the intersection. The Commissioners discussed the impact on the uses with the following recommendations: 1. The church at Blaine Ave. and County Road 42 would become part of the Business Park area and recommended to be a conditional use similar to the Church of Our Savior at 145 and Biscayne Ave. Related City Council discussions identified concerns with the limitations of the Public and Institutional district. The Commissioners felt that the Business Park strategy for the church and cemetery was preferred rather than the Public Institutional "spot zone." 2. The trucking terminals would stay industrial. The land use lines would extend east along County Road 42. Much of the Solberg property would be needed for the intersection improvements. What remains would be commercial, and that land use boundary would also be extended along 42. 3. The crane property did not have significant improvements. Rather, it was a storage and staging area for generally mobile equipment. Therefore, a change in land -use as compared to the draft plan was not advised. The Commissioners had no concerns about the County Road 42 and TH 55 area. It was pointed out that a minimum of 15 -20 years would elapse before development would occur, and the intersection improvements would have a lower priority than the 42 52 intersection. Chairman Messner asked the Commissioners for comments regarding the Akron Ave. and County Road 42 intersection area. Commissioner Powell observed that the group went through a good process. He said that the group did not have much to begin with, but much information came to light throughout, including tonight's presentations. Commissioner Powell added that he felt more work needed to be done and that he wanted give more thought to the area. He commented on a need to "face reality" concerning the U of M, and placing more of the commercial land on the University property. Chairman Messner agreed that some more time would be needed for adjustments. He asked the other Commissioners if they needed another work session or if they are prepared to proceed with the public hearing. Commissioner Schultz indicated that more time was needed and that another work session was appropriate. Commissioner Powell added that the previous work session included examples of refineries with residential uses next door. There was no quantitative analysis to be applied to the northeast corner of Akron Ave. and County Road 42. Chairman Messner suggested that the Commissioners provide comments to Director Lindquist prior to the next work session. Director Lindquist suggested that with some specific direction, there could be another work session on May 10 with adjustments to the map. She added that staff had some concerns about the McCombs study that could be written up. Commissioner Powell indicated he would be comfortable with the work session on May 10 Commissioner Humphrey asked of there would be maps available with circles indicating distance from the refinery? A web site was mentioned: "pinebendcac.org." Director Lindquist confirmed that the public hearing would be moved back to May 24 or even June. With no other comments, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm. Respectfully submitted Rick Pearson, AICP City Planner PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 26, 2005 PAGE 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 26, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. with Commissioners Schultz, Zurn, Humphrey and Powell present. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, City Planner Pearson, Assistant City Planner Lindahl, Project Manager Aderhold, Code Enforcement Official O'Brien and Recording Secretary Domeier. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Additions to Agenda: None. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: 4A. Approval of the February 8, 2005 Work Session Minutes. 4B. Approval of the February 22, 2005 Minutes. 4C. Approval of the March 8, 2005 Work Session Minutes. 4D. Approval of the March 29, 2005 Work Session Minutes. 4E. Approval of the April 12, 2005 Work Session Minutes. 4F. Continuation of Case 05 -15 -ZA GlenRose of Rosemount (Dean Johnson) Rezoning and Case 05 -16 -PP GlenRose of Rosemount (Dean MO Johnson) Preliminary Plat and PUD Master Development Plan. 4G. 05 -17 -FP Harmony 2 Addition (CPDC) Final Plat. 4H. 05 -18 -FP Highlands of Hawkins (Kathy Trimble) Final Plat. MOTION by Humphrey to approve the Consent Agenda Items. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Public Hearing: 5A. Case 05 -19 -FP Glendalough 6 Addition (U.S. Home) Final Plat and Case 05- 20-AMD Glendalough Phase II (U.S. Home) PUD Major Amendment. Assistant Planner Lindahl reviewed the staff report. The applicant, U.S. Homes (Lundgren Brothers), requests approval of a Major Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment and Preliminary Plat for the second phase of the Glendalough neighborhood in Evermoor. Overall, the PUD amendment and revised preliminary plat eliminates private streets within the development, rearranges private open space, and divide several outlots into individual single family lots. Mr. Lindahl concluded his presentation by stating that there was a type -o in condition 1.b. This condition should read "35 percent" rather than "30 percent." The Commissioner noted the change. In addition, the applicant requests final plat approval for Evermoor Glendalough 6 Addition to plat 42 single family lots and two outlots for private recreational space. Glendalough is the "Traditional Housing Neighborhood" section of Evermoor. As part of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 26, 2005 PAGE 2 the original PUD, this neighborhood has reduced setbacks in exchange for enhanced architecture, front porches, and recessed or side loaded garages. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Lindahl. There were no questions for Mr. Lindahl. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION by Zurn to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson Messner asked if the applicant would like to come forward and address the Planning Commission. Jay Liberacki, Lundgren Brothers Construction Company, stated that staff summarized the changes well and he'd take any questions from the Commission. Chairperson Messner asked the applicant if there were any changes in the housing product. Mr. Liberacki stated the current housing plans have been successful. He has been pleased with the results and is ready to build more homes. Commissioner Powell questioned staff as to why the roads were private in the first place. City Planner Pearson stated the original plan was to have one -way loops; however, this tends to be a burden on the HOA. With this plan, the roads will be more exclusive and the streets will meet the City standards. MOTION by Powell to recommend the City Council approve the Major Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment and Preliminary Plat for the Evermoor Glendalough Phase Two, subject to the following conditions: a. Redesign the lots along Connemara Trail to have at least 135 feet of depth to provide area for earthen berms, buffer yards or planting strips as required for lots adjacent to Collector Streets prior to City Council action on this item. b. Establishment of a 35 percent lot coverage standard for all lots in Evermoor Glendalough Phase Two. c. Review and approval of a grading plan for all of Evermoor Glendalough Phase Two prior to City Council action on the PUD Amendment, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat. d. All lots adjacent to an intersection but not on a corner shall position the driveway and curb cut so it is not directly aligned with the on- coming road. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 26, 2005 PAGE 3 MOTION by Messner to recommend the City Council approve the Final Plat for Evermoor Glendalough 6th Addition subject to: a. Approval of the Major Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment and revised Preliminary Plat. b. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement for Glendalough 6 Addition to secure public infrastructure and private improvements including landscaping. c. Payment of all applicable development fees. Second by Powell. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Mr. Lindahl indicated the follow -up for this action will be staff presenting the recommendations to the Council on May 17, 2005. Public Hearing: 5B. Case 05 -14 -LS City of Rosemount Lot Split (Wiklund Property). City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report. The requested lot split is part of the process to facilitate the preservation of open space. Aina Wiklund is donating part of her land for public use as permanent open space with a conservation easement. Parcel A will contain Ms. Wiklund's residence and Parcel B will be donated to the City for open space. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson. Commissioner Powell questioned since the property is donated will the City be paying for the easement. Mr. Pearson stated payment for the conservation easement was made possible with grant money from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Dakota County and the City of Rosemount. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION by Humphrey to close the Public Hearing. Second by Powell. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion. MOTION by Zurn to recommend that the City Council approve the lot split request for the Wiklund property at 12110 Bacardi Ave. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Public Hearing: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 26, 2005 PAGE 4 5C. Case 05 -13 -TA Requirement of Building Address Numbers Zoning Text Amendment. Code Enforcement Official O'Brien reviewed the staff report. Code Enforcement staff was asked to assist the Police and Fire Departments with increased enforcement of the requirements for the display of building address numbers. There had been a noticeable increase in properties that officers were having difficulty locating due to a missing or improperly displayed building address numbers. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any questions for Mr. O'Brien. Commissioner Zurn questioned if this ordinance requires existing residents to change their address numbers. Mr. O'Brien stated this ordinance will only affect those properties he receives complaints on or homes that have no numbers at all. Commissioner Powell asked if there is an increase of problems in the older or new properties. Mr. O'Brien stated that comments he received from the Police and Fire Departments include the older homes where numbers are faded or trees shade the numbers. Chairperson Messner questioned how long new construction homes have to display the numbers. Mr. O'Brien stated the plan is to address the issue upon passage of a building permit. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. There were no public comments. MOTION by Humphrey to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion. MOTION by Humphrey to recommend that the City Council approve the zoning ordinance text amendment relating to address numbers on structures. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Public Hearing: 5D. Case 05 -21 -TA Transient Merchant and Sales Lot Zoning Text Amendment. Code Enforcement Official O'Brien reviewed the staff report. City staff has received more requests for transient merchant licensing, especially related to recently legalized consumer fireworks sales as allowed by Minnesota Statute and city code. Review was previously administrative. The amendment provides a public mechanism and ordinance standards for review of transient merchant sales. Chairperson Messner asked the Commissioners for any questions for Mr. O'Brien. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 26, 2005 PAGE 5 Commissioner Zurn asked if this was a standard ordinance in most communities. Mr. O'Brien stated it is standard and using the IUP is the best way to handle it since you have an end date. Chairperson Messner questioned if there was a definition for Transient Merchants. Mr. O'Brien responded that there is a definition in the City Code and State Statute and that a definition will be added to the zoning code. Discussion was held regarding what type of businesses would be affected by the ordinance. Community Director Lindquist said this process will require applicants to pay a fee and a public hearing would be held. The City could regulate the location and parking and review it on an annual basis. This ordinance is for the longer term sales not incidental sales like the farmer's market. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION by Powell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey, and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion. MOTION by Zurn to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments relating to transient merchants. Second by Powell. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Old Business: None. New Business: None. Reports: 42/52 Land Use Study Community Development Director Lindquist updated the Commission on the changes to the draft land use map for the 42/52 area. Chairperson Messner commented that at the last work session he asked the Commissioners to take the time to absorb what was said and to contemplate the changes before the next work session. Commissioner Zum stated he liked the changes made to the Akron and 42 areas. Mr. Zurn commented he would like to see an industrial mixed use for the Blaine and 52 areas so it's more attractive to the users rather than the Business Park zoning. Ms. Lindquist pointed out that there is four classifications for the Business Park and each contain different architectural and outdoor storage standards. Chairperson Messner was confused with the Business Park and Industrial Mixed Use zoning classifications and would like staff to interpret the differences. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 26, 2005 PAGE 6 Commissioner Powell stated he would like a full dialog from Flint Hills Resources of how their plans would benefit the City. Ms. Lindquist stated that Flint Hills Resources has submitted a concept plan and market study which the Commissioners already received. Mr. Powell stated he would like to see what Flint Hills proposes to do since they don't like what the City is proposing. Ms. Lindquist stated if Flint Hills is invited to give a presentation that would mean that other property owners will want to do the same. Commissioner Powell said he would like to hear what Arcon and UMore are planning if they want to give presentations. All Commissioners were in agreement that the revised map was fine and should be posted on the City's webpage. Downtown Redevelopment Process Community Development Director updated the Commission on the meetings regarding the Downtown. A meeting will take place this week with the where roles and responsibilities will be defined. There is a fairly vigorous schedule planned. In an attempt to relocated existing businesses within the Downtown during the redevelopment process, local representatives have been lobbying to purchase the land near old Highway 3 in the excess R -O -W and other remnants from when the highway was relocated. Since the parcels are out of the TIF district, TIF dollars can not be used to purchase the land. If this bill passes, the City would be able to use the TIF money from the Brockway TIF district to purchase the 4.5 acres. The bill passed through senate today. There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by Commissioner Zurn, and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, u 'DA Amy Domeier Recording Secretary Planning Commission Worksession May 10, 2005 Draft Meeting Minutes Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 10, 2005. Chairperson Jason Messner called the meeting to order at 6:31 pm. with Commissioners John Powell, Laurie Humphrey, Valerie Schultz and Terry Zurn. Also in attendance were City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Community Development Director Kim Lindquist and City Planner Rick Pearson. Chairman Messner briefly described the recent work sessions as opportunities for interested property owners to speak regarding the 42 52 land use study. Community Development Director Lindquist outlined the packet items, which included a summary of the proposed land uses with overall acreages. Director Lindquist noted that the acreage for the air cargo land was in addition to the Business Park and Urban Residential acreage within the Air Cargo study area. Director Lindquist added that one of the objectives for the work session was the Planning Commission's direction concerning proposed expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The MUSA expansion would align with the first phase of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. The entire study area would be implemented in phases, but the question remains how far to the east should the first phase be extended. The direction from the City Council is to provide enough of an inventory of vacant land for the City to continue to move forward with development. Director Lindquist also provided clarification regarding the Dakota County's system of estimating property value for tax purposes. Dakota County bases valuation on existing land use, and not zoning. For example, farm property might have increased in value because of its being within the MUSA, it would still be valued as an agricultural use if it was actively being farmed. Director Lindquist then introduced City Attorney Charlie LeFevere. Chairman Messner asked if he had a presentation. Attorney LeFevere indicated he was present to answer questions if needed. Director Lindquist reiterated a point made at a previous work session that the Commission's recommendations should be based upon land use issues. Chairman Messner noted the memo provided by City Planner Pearson regarding Business Park and Mixed -use Industrial uses. Planner Pearson outlined the memo, providing a brief discussion concerning proposed amendments to the Business Park and pending Mixed Use Industrial Districts as part of the implementation of the 42 52 study process. With the concurrence of the Commissioners, the next steps include processing of the previously discussed amendments to the C -3, Highway Service and C-4, General Commercial Districts and the Business Park and Mixed Use Industrial Districts. Chairman Messner then indicated that there were three presentations requested for the work session. Mary McAndrews Eustice, a member of the McAndrews family owning approximately 140 acres of farmland north of the Dakota County Technical College was the first to speak. She started with how development of her family's property could support City Council goals for providing retail opportunities and moderating the tax base. She added that 4 developers had made offers on their property with Ames Construction Company chosen as the buyer of the properties. Ms. Eustice went on to say that they were disappointed that the northern half of their eastern property was now recommended for Mixed -use Industrial. She requested that the Planning Commission reconsider the property for residential use. She then introduced the representative for Ames Construction. Shawn Dahl, Director of Real Estate for Ames Construction explained his company's preference for land use. He suggested that the northern 40 acres of the eastern property should be medium density residential, so that Connemara Trail could be the border to industrial on the north side. He added that the road and the highline (high -power electrical transmission line) should be the edge between residential and industrial land uses. Mr. Dahl also stated that the hardships created by the 2 collector streets, the power -line and the sewer interceptor would be more easily be overcome by the flexibility of medium density housing than larger industrial uses. He also stated that residential development would pay for the collector streets. Otherwise, as industrial, the land would remain vacant for many years and the city would have no way of funding construction of the streets. Mr. Dahl finished with a summary of the proposed land uses and his assumption of the resulting tax revenue that would be generated by the various scenarios. Chairman Messner asked if there were any questions for Mr. Dahl. He then acknowledged Flint Hills Resources. John Shardlow of Dahlgren, Shardlow Uban, planning consultants for Flint Hills Resources presented their land use concept. He opened with a comparison of commercial acreage. The current plan has 160 acres of Commercial land near Akron Ave. Rosedale is only 60 acres, and he could not conceive of a demand for that much commercial land. Mr. Shardlow then outlined his firm's land use concept that shows no residential land east of Akron Ave. Instead, his plan would have an 80 -acre athletic complex, 150 acres of commercial at the northeast corner of Akron 42, a hybrid business park and light industrial edge next to the commercial. The refinery would have an expansion area to County Road 71 and 140 Street, then new general industrial land for compatible industrial uses west of CR71 and south of 140 Street. Then there would be a green space corridor separating the industrial from the business park, which would allow for storm water ponds and a trail. Chairman Messner asked for questions. With none, he allowed the representatives of Arcon Development, Inc to make their presentation. Bill Gorton of McCombs Group presented a land use concept for all of their land starting east of Bloomfield to Akron Ave. and extending 1 /2 mile east to include 80 acres they have optioned across from the Dakota County Technical College. He explained that Arcon is mostly a residential developer, but they have also done some mixed -use combining with commercial /retail. Mr. Gorton's primary point is that "it takes bodies to generate retail development." The available residential land will not generate enough of a market to justify the amount of commercial land recommended by the study group. The big question is the University of Minnesota's intentions. If the University land develops for residential, then the market would be much more supportive of commercial land appropriately located at the southwest corner of Akron Ave. and County Road 42. Without the University land developing, only about 15 -20 acres of commercial land would be justified. Mr. Gorton explained his plan with a commercial edge along 42 that extended about 600 feet north along Akron Ave. From there on, Akron would be high density residential, and then transitioning to low density residential. The Arcon plan suggests an area of 9 -10 acres east of Akron Ave. between the commercial and residential as "transitional" that could go either residential or commercial. His plan was illustrated in detail, including suggestions of building footprints, parking and circulation and "minor collector streets." Scott Johnson, President of Arcon Development suggested that the transitional land use idea was acceptable to other cities and it allows the market to be the ultimate determiner of how the property develops. Chairman Messner asked the Commissioners for discussion. Commissioner Zum asked for a brief overview of the commercial land in the latest land use plan. Director Lindquist explained that there was about 80 acres on either side of Akron Ave., then another 20 acres east of the old City Hall site. The commercial land on the U of M site amounted to about 59 acres. Commissioner Powell observed in response to the McAndrews Ames Construction comments that the Met Council interceptor would not be a detriment. Most developers would design around it, and it is a source for urban services. Chairman Messner thanked the various groups for their comments, and that they will be taken into consideration as the process moves forward. He added that unless the Commissioners had strong suggestions for specific changes, he felt the draft land use plan was ready for public hearing. He also suggested that Commissioners provide comments to staff as soon as possible. Commissioner Zurn asked if the plan would be "tweeked" as the process moves forward. Director Lindquist explained that the plan was needed as a basis for the public hearing process. Chairman Messner summarized that there had been about 5 work sessions leading up to the plan in its current form. Commissioner Powell observed that the plan was "squeezed" between the "black hole" created by the U of M and trying to respect the concerns of Flint Hills Resources. He was concerned that the plan was not providing enough roof -tops as suggested by some of the comments. He drew a comparison the Cedar Ave. and County Road 42 in Apple Valley of 25 years ago, with most of the commercial on the north side. The concern is how to get more roof -tops without getting too close to FHR. Chairman Messner commented that there seems to be a 100 -year supply of Business Park, but that there needs to be enough for a transition of land uses. Commissioner Humphrey commented that it made sense to split zones with major streets such as Connemara Trail. The road works as a buffer. Commissioner Schultz recalled the Council discussion points at a previous work session. She wanted to relate the land use plan to the context for the Council's vision for Rosemount. 'What do we want to look like in 5 years Will we become another Maple Grove or something else? Director Lindquist explained that the Council will be meeting again, and subsequent discussions have illuminated a difference of opinion of what is a small town. Are Targets and Kohls found in small towns, yet, that's what many people want to capture the retail dollars currently lost to other places. The Council wants to have land available for opportunities. One of the incentives for doing the comp planning process was the Pahl's unwillingness to develop their land. That creates a need for more Business Park land elsewhere. Commissioner Schultz asked if there was a responsibility to include the school district in the planning process. The pace of development might be contributing to overcrowding in the schools. Director Lindquist explained that the school district was a totally separate entity, but generally, the district just need to know what the plans are and they react to them. New construction usually brings more value, resulting in higher tax value or revenue. Chairman Messner commented that part of the planning process with plats and PUD s will have to maintain the small town character via the development process. Commissioner Zurn added that developments will have to somehow include a "small town feel." Chairman Messner made a recommendation to move forward with the current land use plan for a public hearing. Director Lindquist indicated that the public hearing notice had just been sent into the paper for the May 24 regular Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Messner added that the plan was still just a draft plan. Commissioner Powell asked City Attorney LeFevere if he had any concerns about the decision process. Attorney LeFevere responded saying that he had no concerns, but was present if the Commissioners had any questions. Commissioner Powel indicated he would not be present for the May 24 meeting. Commissioner Schultz also indicated that she would also be out of town. Chairman Messner offered that the public hearing could still be opened and that it could be continued into the following month. He emphasized that a lot of information has been brought to the work sessions and that the public hearing process will take time. Director Lindquist identified the need to define the MUSA boundary that is also part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. The question remains how far east of Akron Ave. the MUSA should be extended for the first phase. Chairman Messner suggested that it should be extended as far enough east to connect with the 42/52 industrial MUSA area. Commissioner Powell concurred, preferring the 2 MUSA areas connected. Chairman Messner commented that there might be an open area left east of Blaine Ave. and wondered if there might be problems caused be pressure differentials. He added that he thought the MUSA should step -down along Akron Ave. from the line 1 /2 mile south of 120 Street on the west side to 135 Street on the west side of Akron. Director Lindquist suggested that the MUSA would "step- down" east of Akron in the Blaine Ave. area following the bluff -line or gray land use area and that the pressure issues are engineering considerations that can be accommodated. Chairman Messner announced the next Planning Commission is scheduled for May 24 and adjourned the meeting at 7:50 pm. Respectfully submitted Rick Pearson City Planner PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY 24, 2005 PAGE 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 24, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. with Commissioners Zurn and Humphrey present. Commissioners Schultz and Powell were absent. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, City Planner Pearson and Recording Secretary Domeier. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Additions to Agenda: None. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: 4A. Approval of the April 26, 2005 Minutes. 4B. Approval of the May 10, 2005 Work Session Minutes. 4C. Continuation of Case 05 -15 -ZA GlenRose of Rosemount (Dean Johnson) Rezoning and Case 05 -16 -PP GlenRose of Rosemount (Dean Johnson) Preliminary Plat and PUD Master Development Plan to June 14, 2005. 4D. Continuation of Case 05 -25 -TA C3 and C4 Zoning Text Amendments to June 28, 2005. MOTION by Humphrey to approve the Consent Agenda items. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Humphrey, Zurn, and Messner. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Public Hearing: 5A. Case 05 -27 -CP 42/52 Corridor Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. Community Development Director Lindquist reviewed the staff report. The 42/52 Land Use Group and the Planning Commission have been working on developing a future land use plan for the eastern two- thirds of the City, generally east of Akron Avenue. The Planning Commission will be holding the public hearing on the draft plan soliciting input on the draft, which has been slightly modified from the Land Use Group's recommendation. Ms. Lindquist indicated that what staff is proposing tonight is for the Planning Commission to take public comment regarding the draft plan and continue the public hearing to the next meeting. If after the testimony there are modifications the Commissioners feel should be warranted, the changes will be made available for viewing by the public and can be discussed at the next meeting. This plan will set the development tone for the community for the next 5 -7 years once adopted by the City Council and staff wants everyone to have an opportunity to make comments. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Ms. Lindquist. There were no questions for Ms. Lindquist. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY 24, 2005 PAGE 2 Beth Bergacker, 13080 Akron Avenue, Rosemount, stated she talked to the County Assessor and was told if her property's zoning changed that her land value would change causing taxes to increase. Based on the presentation tonight, she feels she's hearing two different stories. Ms. Bergacker sees no reason to change her 10 acres to Urban Residential when it wouldn't be developed and the refinery is all around the property as a buffer zone. Ms. Lindquist stated this is a land use plan which shows the future land uses and the zoning is a separate issue. When Ms. Lindquist spoke to the assessor it was to change the land use. Changing the land use will not change the zoning classification automatically. Ms. Lindquist stated certain areas will be zoned before others. There is not a definite answer as to when properties will be rezoned but rezoning will occur as to what make sense as far as the extension of utilities and development. Marlin Rechtzigel, 14727 Clayton Avenue East, Rosemount, questioned the final date of the moratorium. Ms. Lindquist stated the moratorium is directly related to this action that is being taken and when the Council approves the plan that would be the trigger to release the moratorium. Mr. Rechtzigel asked to be notified when the moratorium is removed. Margaret McAndrews Eustice, 13768 Tross Trail, Savage, stated her family owns two parcels along County Road 42 totaling 145 acres directly across from Dakota County Technical College and UMore Park. Ms. Eustice requests to change the land use designation of the rear 40 acres of the family's most easterly parcel to medium density housing. She feels multi- family housing would seem to provide the best transition to the business park in the east and industrial to the north. The family endorses the March 29 Option 3 revision as presented and hopes the Planning Commission will revisit and reinstate that plan. Tim McDonnell, 1150 124t Ct. W., Rosemount, stated he was curious about the traffic management study on the City's website and asked when it will be discussed. His main concern was the traffic impact along Akron and the proposed collector route. Ms. Lindquist stated the traffic study is a concept and isn't part of what would be adopted at this point. She further added they are trying to set up a traffic plan so that future developers would know where collector and minor arterial roads would roughly be located as development occurs. Scott Johnson, President of Arcon Develoment, stated Arcon owns substantial land around the Akron Avenue area and he wished to comment on the report. Arcon feels the amount of commercial at the intersection is an over supply by 4 -5 times. As far as timing, the market study was based on 20 years. Arcon took the ponding and the streets into account when buffering the residential from commercial. Arcon based traffic projections on the proposed uses not what the current uses are. They understand the City is interested in getting some big box retailers; however, they feel the area doesn't have the characteristics to attract those uses. Mr. Johnson understands that staff wants more commercial on hand but believes the City is going 4 to 5 times beyond the need. One option brought up at the last meeting is the possibility of a flex zoning to help with proper planning and Arcon is willing to work with the City on some type of flex zoning or overlay. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY 24, 2005 PAGE 3 Shawn Dahl, Ames Construction Company, reviewed the letter Ames sent out to the Planning Commission. Ames has acquired the McAndrews /Corteau property and would like to review specifically the northern land use on the eastern parcel. Ames feels the land use plan is moving in the right direction. The future extension of Connemara Trail will serve as an excellent separation point to transition from industrial on the north side of Connemara Trail to the Medium Density Residential Use on the south side. Ames proposes to return the classification to include 40 acres of Medium Density on the north half of the eastern McAndrews /Cocteau property in place of the industrial zoning classification that has been most recently applied. It is their understanding that the future extension of Connemara Trail will fall on the property line of the McAndrews property and if the industrial land remains undeveloped (the northern side of the power lines) for several years how will the road be extended without the development driven funds. Mr. Dahl further stated some obstacles in the plan in regards to the City's wish for commercial retail area in the eastern area stating commercial in the area is driven by the rooftops. They envision the farm as a mixed use community with shops, restaurants, and housing that would have similar characteristics to that of Evermoor or Cobblestone Lake. Dennis Ozment, 3275 145 Street, Rosemount, questioned the difference between the proposed MUSA boundaries and the 2020 MUSA boundaries. Chairperson Messner asked that staff clarify the map MUSA lines. Ms. Lindquist stated the red is the existing line, the orange is the proposed expansion and the yellow is the 2020 line on the MUSA map. The orange line of expansion is proposed to occur when this comp plan is approved. 410 Kayla Ross, 317 Cannon Street West, Cannon Falls, represented Continental Nitrogen and Resources, and questioned where the trail was located in the area being reguided from industrial to residential (the McAndrews eastern parcel). She questioned if the northern area would remain industrial. Chairperson Messner stated according to the Ames request, that area would be designated Medium Density Residential; however, the trail will be located between the two land use areas. MOTION by Messner to continue the Public Hearing to June 28, 2005. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Zurn, Messner and Humphrey. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Public Hearing: 5B. Case 05- 22 -AMD Rudy's Redeye Grill (Rosemount Crossing) PUD Major Amendment. City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report. The requested PUD Amendment concerns the proposed restaurant for the Rosemount Crossing commercial development on the northwest corner of County Road 42 and South Robert Trail. The reason for the amendment is because the free standing building will not share the same architectural character as the rest of the development PUD. However, it is still part of the PUD and is integral to the entire development with circulation and shared parking as was approved with the original PUD. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY 24, 2005 PAGE 4 Commissioner Zurn had a concern about the appearance and location of the trash enclosure. Mr. Pearson stated the trash enclosure would be made from the same material as the building per ordinance requirements. The design of the building places the enclosure extending beyond the kitchen as seen in the northern elevation. Chairperson Messner questioned what the western elevation looked like. Mr. Pearson stated the enclosure facing from the western elevation shows gates between stucco walls and a red door. The gates are a heavy, cortex steel. Chairperson Messner questioned the crossing of the sidewalk and how it would be extended based on where the trash enclosure is located. The plan stops the sidewalk at the trash enclosure. Mr. Pearson stated one option would be to zigzag the sidewalk around the trash enclosure with paving and striping in front so you would have the pedestrian link. Chairperson Messner asked if the location to the north is set or if can shift east or west. Mr. Pearson stated it is set and it should remain perpendicular to the sidewalk. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. David Harchanko, Truman Howell Associates, stated he was the architect on this project representing the Axel's group. He added that in addition to signage on the building they intend to use the pylon sign. They are more interested in a freestanding monument marker versus all the signage on the building. The monument will be located between Starbucks and the southeast corner. Phillip Baum, Steiner Development, stated he was a partner in the project and hoped Steiner met the goals and criteria set forth in the beginning of the project. Steiner is excited about the addition of the restaurant to the center. Chairperson Messner commended Steiner for moving forward and for bringing a quality restaurant to Rosemount. MOTION by Humphrey to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Zurn, Messner and Humphrey. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion. Commissioner Humphrey asked if the Commission had to approve the pylon sign. Mr. Pearson stated all freestanding signs were approved with the original PUD. MOTION by Zurn to recommend approval of the PUD Major Amendment for Rudy's Redeye Grill subject to: 1. Execution of an amendment to the PUD Agreement. 2. Conformance with applicable building and fire codes. 3. Additional landscaping for parking lot screening is required at the edge of the parking lot adjacent to South Robert Trail within the parking lot setback as specified in Resolution 2004 -130. 4. The sidewalk link between the restaurant and the Cambrian Ave. entrance must be maintained by either going around the dumpster enclosure or another alternative found subject to approval by City Staff. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY 24, 2005 PAGE 5 5. Conformance with the conditions of Resolution 2004 -130. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Zurn, Messner and Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Mr. Pearson stated this item will be on the June 21, 2005 City Council Agenda at which point there will also be a public hearing for the liquor license request. Public Hearing: 5C. Case 05 -23 -LS Great River Energy Lot Split. City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report. Great River Energy has purchased six parcels of land from Pine Bend Development Company. Ehlers Path crosses two of the parcels, isolating smaller fragments east of the bend in 140 Street East, south of the SKB landfill. The lot split applications will separate the parcels north of Ehlers Path from the bulk of the two lots, to be retained by Pine Bend Development Company. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any questions for Mr. Pearson. Chairperson Messner questioned what the minimum lot size requirement would be for the remnant parcels. Mr. Pearson stated the minimum lots size for industrial parcels is typically five acres and the northerly one here is a little bit less than that. The zoning is Agricultural and the minimum lot size is 2.5 acres. Discussion was held regarding minimum lot size requirements, replotting and development of the property. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. There were no public comments. MOTION by Humphrey to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Zurn, Messner and Humphrey. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion. MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council approve the lot splits requested by Great River Energy subject to: 1. Payment of G.I.S. and Park dedication fees at industrial rates as established by the current fee schedule. 2. Provision of a 20 feet wide trail easement along the north side of the Ehlers Path right -of -way. 3. Approval of the Dakota County Plat Commission as needed. 4. Recording of restrictive covenants for the two parcels south of Ehlers Path to limit the potential for dwelling units to a maximum of 2, ensuring 1 per 40 density. 5. Dedicate right -of -way for Ehlers Path if not previously recorded and standard drainage and utility easements per the Subdivision Ordinance.. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Zurn, Messner and Humphrey. Nayes: None. Motion approved. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY 24, 2005 PAGE 6 Old Business: None. New Business: None. Reports: In addition to the City Council proceedings update, Community Development Director Lindquist also updated the Planning Commission on the Downtown Redevelopment Process. The Port Authority approved the Preliminary Development Agreement with CPDC. The City Council would like to hold joint meetings with the Planning Commission to discuss the redevelopment issues and performance standards for the land use, design and phasing. There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by Commission Humphrey and a second by Commissioner Zurn, and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 00/ 10 Amy Domeier Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 14, 2005 PAGE 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Special Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 14, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. with Commissioners Schultz, Zurn, Humphrey and Powell present. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, City Planner Pearson, Project Engineer Aderhold and Recording Secretary Domeier. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Additions to Agenda: None. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: 4A. Approval of the May 24, 2005 Minutes. Commissioner Schultz noted a correction to the minutes in the consent agenda, item 4D. Commissioner Schultz's name should be removed from the voting since she was absent from the meeting and replaced with Humphrey's name. MOTION by Messner to approve the Consent Agenda items. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner and Humprhey. Nayes: None. Abstain: Powell. Motion carried. 410 Public Hearing: 5A. Case 05 -15 -ZA GlenRose of Rosemount (Dean Johnson) Rezoning and Case 05 -15 -PP GlenRose of Rosemount (Dean Johnson) Preliminary Plat and PUD Master Development Plan. City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report. This review concerns the preliminary plat and planned unit development master plan and rezoning for Glen Rose, a 76 -unit townhouse development proposed for the vacant 10 acre site between Rosemount Woods and the St. Joseph's Cemetery on the east side of South Robert Trail. The property is currently zoned Public Institutional and the appropriate zoning for the townhouse project would be R -2, Moderate Density Residential, PUD. The City Council granted concept plan approval in February 2005. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson. Commissioner Powell questioned the MnDOT letter included in the packet. His concern was if the current plan is consistent and responsive to the comments outlined in the letter. Mr. Pearson indicated the plan is consistent and follows recommendations from conversations with MnDOT that pre -dated the letter. Commissioner Zurn asked for clarification on the size of the trail behind the row houses. Mr. Pearson indicated it would be an 8 ft. trail per the Parks and Recreation Committee's recommendation. Chairperson Messner asked the applicant to come forward. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 14, 2005 PAGE 2 John Bergh, Loucks Associates, represented Dean Johnson Homes. Mr. Bergh commented on the grading issues that were discussed. To accomplish the grading needed for the 100 year flood and the property to the north he showed a larger plan to the Commission. Two problems include the amount of water that goes through the cemetery and also the property to the north that is higher also drains down to the project so they had to create an outlet for the water and raise the grades in the development and created an emergency storage area. The issues for the trail, ponding, snow storage and 100 year flood mark was to move the hill back and align the trial to create a drainage way from the north to the ponding area and created some holding areas for the stormwater. They resolved it by grading into the park area. By grading, they used the additional dirt to raise the buildings a foot and a half to deal with the ponding issues. There are a number of small things that can be accomplished when doing the final plans. Mr. Bergh is worried there might be an issue with the Erickson Park plan with the trailway /passage way from Erickson Park to the Community Center. What will happen now is if the trail is extended under Highway 3 you end up in the storm pond under the Community Center. They are not for sure where the tunnel will be placed. All the rest of the issues can be accomplished as for the rest of the requests. There were no questions for Mr. Bergh. Chairperson Messner questioned Dean Johnson if he would be willing to add more face brick to some of the buildings. Mr. Johnson had no objections to adding the brick to buildings or any other enhancements. Chairperson Messner asked how the top elevation faces on the northwest comer building and if the mammoth long look could be changed. Mr. Johnson offered adding columns between the garages, adding gables and some shake siding. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. Todd Franz, owner for 14 years of South Metro Auto Brokers, Rosemount, stated he is having a hard time understanding how two years ago the property had to be rezoned for the Met Council even though all the owners north of the property objected. Now, a short time later, the property is being rezoned again. Mr. Franz feels it is not fair and does not understand why the land owner is being screwed. He thinks the project is a crime and should've been a park or a civic use. He doesn't understand the road is moved and not lined up where it should've been as originally planned. Mr. Franz's opinion is that the townhouses look cheap and are a dime a dozen. Beyond that, he has not heard one thing about accessing city water to the properties to the north or how they are going to deal with the storm sewer, draining and sanitary sewer lift station. Mr. Franz stated these items will directly affect his property since he does not currently have access to city water at his property and he is worried he will not get access. Mr. Franz asked for his property to be rezoned back to commercial. Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Franz where his property is located. Mr. Frantz replied it is located directly north of the proposed project. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 14, 2005 PAGE 3 MOTION by Humphrey to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Chairperson Messner asked if there some other plan regarding the alignment of the road. Mr. Pearson stated that scenario would've covered up a storm water pipe that takes storm water from the big pond at the Community Center and routes it through to the park. That pipe follows a drainage and utility easement and is owned by Rosemount Woods. Chairperson Messner asked where the current closest water and sewer is located. Project Engineer Aderhold stated the closest sewer is 300 feet north of the driveway access and is the line servicing the Community Center. The closest water is on the west side of Highway 3. Community Director Lindquist stated that the City Council will be holding a work session on June 15 to discuss the extension of sanitary sewer to this project. The project could stand on its own with the use of a lift station; however, a property owner to the north with a failed system has indicated he would like city sewer which would require a modified project for this site only and would potentially impact the Franz property if he's interested in getting City sewer and water. Some of it is a policy issue because we're getting more pockets where people have rural septic and they are having problems with their septic and what are we going to do with properties adjoining them that don't need City services. Those items will all be part of the conversation on June 15 Commissioner Zurn was concerned with the row houses that are the tuck under style by 140 Circle and South Robert Trail. When you come in the development and take the first right there would be no sidewalk. Commissioner Zurn feels a sidewalk along that strip would help prevent any safety issues. Commissioner Powell had a few comments including whether the private roads have been reviewed for emergency vehicle access and also proposed condition 11 should include "roadway alignments. Commissioner Powell asked staff if in the past homeowner associations have been asked to contribute towards stormwater pond maintenance. It is also his understanding that the trail alignment recommended by staff is not included on the current plans. Mr. Powell commented about locating a road over a trunk storm sewer and would like to know what the challenges are for doing so. Questioned the forced mains in the project and how it would affect the property owner to the north. City Planner Pearson summarized the alignment of the road. Rosemount Woods is not a party to this development so the ROW of would have to be acquired from Rosemount Woods. Community Development Director Lindquist stated the ROW is platted up until the north property line so that road will be extended to north when the Rosemount Woods property would be redeveloped. Ms. Lindquist also stated the Fire Marshal did review the plans for emergency vehicle access and is comfortable with the plan. Again, Ms. Lindquist stated they are proposing a forced main to the north and those properties would not be able to access the force main and that will part of the discussion at the June 15, 2005 City Council work session. The trail alignment is part of the packet but it is a revised plan. The Parks Commission has not taken action on that revision but will the changes will go to the Parks Commission at the end of the month. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 14, 2005 PAGE 4 Commissioner Powell questioned the contribution by the HOA regarding the stormwater pond maintenance. Is there adequate funding to maintain the facilities? Community Director Lindquist stated the HOA would be the property owner and the City would have a public easement. The City maintains the inlet and outlet and ensures it functions correctly. The HOA physically maintains it. Commissioner Powell stated he wants to strengthen the HOA requirements for funding the facilities. Ms. Lindquist stated she will talk to the City Attorney about the issue. Commissioner Powell stated he places a high value on maintenance on storm water ponds and wetlands. He also questioned if the City has explored to connect the driveway immediately to the north and take it out to 140 instead of Highway 3. City Planner Pearson stated that was a suggestion only from MnDOT. Commissioner Powell feels Highway 3 will be the single biggest challenge to the City in the future in regards to developments and connections and we should start looking at it now. Further discussion was held regarding road alignments with 140 Circle in regards to lining it up to the Community Center driveway and Commissioner Powell asked the issue to be explored. Commissioner Schultz questioned the developer in regards to parks and sidewalks and what age group this development is targeted at. Dean Johnson stated the cliental is young people before they have children, empty nesters, and snowbirds. Mr. Johnson stated a tot lot is something that would not be used in the development. The biggest amenity in the development will be the overlook to the pond. Commissioner Powell asked if staff was comfortable with the trail alignment and since the Parks Commission's concerns are in the report it's covered. Community Development Director Lindquist stated there have been a fair amount of modifications made to the plan and that a new set of plans will be required for the Council. Commissioner Powell asked the applicant if he was comfortable with the conditions set forth. Dean Johnson stated they are very comfortable with the conditions. MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning of the property to R -2, Moderate Density Residential PUD. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat and PUD master development plan for Glen Rose subject to: 1. Execution of a PUD agreement. 2. Conformance with the requirements for final plat including execution of a subdivision development agreement to secure public infrastructure. 3. Incorporation of recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission, prior to City Council approval, including: All public trails and sidewalks shall be designed and built to current standards. Sidewalks shall be made of concrete and a minimum of 5 feet wide. Trails shall be made of asphalt and are 8 feet wide. The placement of the trail on the north side of 140 Circle should be PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 14, 2005 PAGE 5 identified as being a potential /proposed trail connection to the north when future development occurs. Consideration of a potential tunnel underpass for State Highway 3 on this site shall be investigated by the developer. Payment of park dedication fees in lieu of land dedication. The developer could receive parks dedication credit for the construction of the trail in Erickson Park as shown on the plans with the credit to be determined by staff and developer based upon variables including trail cost. 4. Plan revisions as needed to eliminate setback variations prior to City Council review and approval: Building Scaled dimension Standard Correction 3 35 feet from buildings 7 and 8 40 feet 5 feet 3 13 feet from private street 20 feet 7 feet 5 18 feet from private street 20 feet 2 feet 6 18 feet from private street 20 feet 2 feet 8 17 feet from private street 20 feet 3 feet 8 14 feet from private street 20 feet 6 feet 9 9 feet from private street 20 feet 11 feet 5. 6 additional 2 -inch caliper deciduous trees or 6 -foot tall coniferous trees shall be installed in conformance with the tree replacement requirements prior to City Council review and approval. 6. Revision of the landscaping and other plans as necessary based upon reconciling the driveway locations between the plans and the building elevations prior to City Council review and approval. 7. Additional screening landscaping along the eastern property line to mitigate the effects of the athletic field lighting in Central Park prior to City Council review and approval. 8. Conformance with the attached housing garage standards for minimum size and storage space. 9. The developer add a brick or equivalent materials wainscoting along the front facade of each building which wraps around the side for 4 feet. For building #1, a brick or equivalent material wainscoting will be included on all four sides of the structure. Plans complying with this standard should be submitted prior to City Council review and approval. 10. The monument sign shall conform to sight triangle requirements. 11. Incorporation of recommendations by the City Engineer regarding drainage, easements, grading storm water management, roadway alignments, and utilities prior to City Council approval 12. Conformance with all of the conditions of Resolution 2005 -11. 13. Approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and all permits necessary relative to State Highway 3 access and improvements to serve the development. 14. Homeowners association covenants and documents shall be approved by the 4111 City Attorney and Recorded at Dakota County at the time of final plat. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 14, 2005 PAGE 6 15. Submit a wetland replacement plan application and receive City approval prior to City Council approval for PUD master development plan and preliminary plat. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Commissioner Messner asked for follow -up information on the item. City Planner Pearson stated this item is expected to be on the July 5 City Council agenda. Old Business: None. New Business: None. Reports: None. There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by Chairperson Messner and a second by Commissioner Schultz, and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ��f j( i Amy Domeier Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 1 410 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission g g was held on Tuesday, June 28, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Zurn, Humphrey and Powell present. Commissioner Schultz was absent. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, City Planner Pearson, Assistant City Planner Lindahl, City Engineer Brotzler and City Attorney LeFevere and Recording Secretary Domeier. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Additions to Agenda: None. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: 4A. Approval of the June 14, 2005 Minutes. 4B. Continuation of Case 05 -25 -TA C3 and C4 Zoning Text Amendments to July 26, 2005. MOTION by Humphrey to approve the Consent Agenda items. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Public Hearing: 5A. Case 05- 25 -LS /LC Weierke Lot Split (Marthaler Property) and Lot Combination. City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report. Roger Weierke intends to combine additional land purchased from the Marthalers with the original one -acre to bring accessory building setbacks and the well location into conformance with the ordinance requirements. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson. There were no questions for Mr. Pearson. Commission Messner asked the applicant if he would like to come forward. Mr. Weierke had no comments. Commissioner Messner opened the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Chairperson Messner questioned the number of accessory structures. Mr. Pearson stated that with the existing structures on the property and the ones on the proposed plan brought in, the amount of structures is at the maximum 2,400 square feet. MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council approve the lot splits and recombination of land requested by Roger Weierke and Rosemary Marthaler subject to: 1. Payment of G.I.S. fees 2. Applying for a building permit for the 315 sq. ft. accessory structure near the northern property line. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 2 3. Recording of drainage and utility easements as required by the City Engineer. 4. Recombination of the parcels approved by the split with the Weierke property and recording with the Dakota County office of property records. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Mr. Pearson indicated this item is set to be on the July 19, 2005 City Council Agenda. Public Hearing: 5B. 05 -27 -CP 42/52 Corridor Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Community Development Director Lindquist reviewed the staff report. The proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment is to change the future land use plan and timing for Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) or public utility availability for properties generally located in the eastern 2/3 of the community. Ms. Lindquist touched on the issues raised at the May 24, 2005 Planning Commission Public Hearing for the item. It was noted that in the staff report the moratorium start date should be November 20, 2004. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Ms. Lindquist. Chairperson Messner wanted the record to show that the Planning Commission received a letter on June 14, 2005 from Bruce Minea and Jill O'Rourke. In regards to the letter, Chairperson Messner questioned the amount of commercial development shown on the plan at County Road 42 and Akron Avenue and how the expansions of utilities would take place if the area is not developed. City Engineer Brotzler informed the Commission and audience on the sewer plan, the sewer interceptor and City trunk expansion, the timing and process of extending the sanitary sewer and the policy. The phasing of expansion is to extend to contiguous development and not to leap frog over vacant property or property not developed. From a phasing standpoint, our intention would be that the sewer extension would occur with the development of the Arcon property and be extended north as it's available. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. Dan Herbst, Pemtom, and partner with Scott Johnson on the Arcon property stated he shares the concerns with wanting enough land for the commercial and office market for future needs. Mr. Herbst wants the City to look at the long range growth and feels the amount of commercial land is excessive. Mr. Herbst gave a brief history of the development in Burnsville he worked on and also touched on Eden Prairie's overlay district. Mr. Herbst feels it will be of no benefit to the City or to Arcon to have vacant land. Pat Mason, Ames Land Company, and representing the McAndrews Courteau family, discussed the detail of the two parcels east of Akron Avenue and the 40 acres zoned for Industrial /Mixed Use. Mr. Mason requested that the 40 acres be reguided to Medium Density. Given the future extension of Connemara Trail to the east, Mr. Mason thinks Industrial to Medium Density Housing will be a good transition. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 3 Jeff Wilkes, Refinery Manager for Flint Hills Resources, Rosemount, stated their concern about the residential land north of County Road 42 and east of Akron Avenue. Flint Hills would like a study done for compatibility of having residential so close to heavy industrial given the odors, noise and any major industrial incident that may arise. Mr. Wilkes stated Flint Hills is willing to help with the study and is interested in hearing the Commission's perspective and thoughts about a study. Mr. Wilkes resubmitted Flint Hills' March letter and map recommending minor changes uses for their land for consideration. Bruce Minea, 1903 Winslow Court, West St. Paul, owner of 86 acres between the Meadows of Bloomfield and Akron Ave. commented that he wanted higher density for his sites on the south side closest to the railroad tracks because of the vibration of the trains. Mr. Minea also touched on the extension of services if there would be a delay with Arcon's development. He asked the Commission to entertain the idea of moving the trunk line either into the right -of -way of Akron when its upgrade or shifting it slightly west if something caused a delay in the future. Larry Frank, Landscape Architect and Project Manager with Arcon Development, stated the number of acres designated for commercial on Akron is too much and he recommended there only be 40 acres total so there won't be as much empty land. John Chadwick, 11403 Zion Circle, Bloomington, representing Stonex, Vesterra and Minnova, stated the properties he is representing are the "middle men" in the mix. Mr. Chadwick stated that Jonathon Wilmshurst was glad to be a part of the study. Overall, they have been happy with the staff, the democratic process and support the plan. MOTION by Humphrey to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Chairperson Messner asked Ms. Lindquist to clarify the differences between Urban Residential as it's envisioned, Medium Density and High Density zoning districts. Chairperson Messner also asked if it was possible to include townhouses and detached housing within Urban Residential zoning. Ms. Lindquist explained the different zoning classifications and what options are available when having an Urban Residential classification. Commissioner Humphrey stated she supported the McAndrews' property being changed to be reguided to Medium Density. Commissioner Zurn was in agreement. Commissioner Zurn also supported the idea of the City looking at the plan on an ongoing basis as enumerated in the report under Option 2. There was a consensus among the Commissioners regarding both of those requests. Chairperson Messner asked for clarification on the Flint Hills' requests and Ms. Lindquist provided clarification and pointed out their requests on the land use map. Chairperson Messner stated he would be O.K. with the General Industrial guiding on the two parcels north of 140th. Commissioners Humphrey and Zurn were in agreement. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 4 Discussion was held regarding the parcels owned by Flint Hills Resources. Don Kern of Flint Hills Resources stated he would like General Industrial or Agricultural designations for their property. He further stated that the Business Park was not in their plans. Mr. Kern stated they are working on development plans. Ms. Lindquist pointed out that the ridge line functions as the dividing point of the Flints Hills property and is ultimately the visible corner as the entrance to the City. Chairperson Messner asked Ms. Lindquist to summarize the distinction between BP and Light Industrial /Mixed Use and she stated the aesthetic types of issues in terms of building materials and outdoor storage. The buildings along County 42 would have a better appearance and higher standards. Ms. Lindquist stated the thoughts of the Corridor Study when the map was created and Commissioner Powell shared comments from the study group as well. Commissioner Powell stated he was open to all three of Flint Hills' requests. The Commissioners discussed the zoning for Flint Hills and the MUSA boundary. Chairperson Messner suggested the two 10 acre parcels should be guided Rural Residential and the remainder owned by Flint Hills be reguided to Agricultural. Commissioner Powell suggested leaving the corner Urban Residential. Chairperson Messner suggested moving the MUSA line to follow Akron and County Road 38 squaring off the MUSA line. The Commissioners were in agreement with shifting the MUSA line. It was a consensus that the area south of Flint Hills Resources and east of 71 be designated Industrial /Mixed Use. MOTION by Powell to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment with the following changes: 1. That the Ames Construction Parcel (the 40 acres) is designated as medium density residential; 2. That the language be added to the plan which recognizes additional residential vs. commercial may be considered at the intersection of 42 and Akron consistent with Item 2 of the Staff Report; and 3. That referring to the Flint Hills letter, copies of which were distributed this evening, regarding Item 1 that for the property on the east side of Akron, north of County Road 38, that that be guided as Agricultural as shown, aside from the two parcels that are designated Rural Residential (as shown on the screen) and that the MUSA line be shifted to follow Akron and County Road 38. Additionally, regarding Item 2 of the Flint Hills letter, that the property north of 42, west of the proposed MUSA boundary, south of the ridge line, and east of County 71, be guided Industrial /Mixed Use. Item 3 of the letter, the property east of 52, north of 38, that be guided as General Industrial again as shown on the screen. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Public Hearing: 5C. 05 -29 -TA Self- Service Storage Facilities Zoning Text Amendment. City Planner Pearson reviewed the Staff Report. Staff is proposing amendments intended to provide clarity and enhanced standards for both leased and now, condominium self storage. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 5 Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson. There were no questions for Mr. Pearson. Commissioner Messner opened the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion carried. MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendments to zoning ordinance for Self Storage Facilities. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Old Business: None. New Business: None. Reports: Pearson commented on the approval on the Rudy's Redeye Grill at the Council level and noted the changes made to the pedestrian links. There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by Chairperson Messner and a second by Commissioner Humphrey, and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Domeier Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Work Session of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 28, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 8:12 p.m. with Commissioners Zurn, Humphrey and Powell present. Commissioner Schultz was absent. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, City Planner Pearson, Assistant City Planner Lindahl, and Recording Secretary Domeier. Discussion: 1A. Case 05 -25 -TA C3 and C4 Zoning Text Amendments. Assistant City Planner Lindahl reviewed the staff report and highlighted the changes proposed by staff to Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance related to uses and performance standards for the C -3 Highway Service Commercial and C -4, General Commercial Zoning Districts. There was discussion regarding Automotive Repair and the amount of damaged or unlicensed vehicles awaiting repair and cars that never leave. Mr. Lindahl noted they are setting forth more rigorous standards compared to what the current standards are and that Section 4.9 eliminates the storage of junk vehicles. The language suggested still allows reputable automobile services. Mr. Lindahl noted he would check with the City Attorney regarding the distinction of damaged, junk or unlicensed vehicles vs. inoperable vehicles waiting repair or repaired vehicles awaiting pick up. Chairperson Messner questioned the drive through facilities for restaurants, banks and other similar uses as to what constitutes a street in between and adjacent to residential. Chairperson Messner felt a road as wide as County Road 42 would be a sufficient buffer. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the proposed standards for Outdoor Display. Mr. Lindahl was asked to expand on the display area and the opacity screening. The main concern was gas station islands and hardware stores. Ms. Lindquist noted that most cities do not allow any exterior storage. Commissioner Powell said he was not opposed to outside storage. Commissioner Humphrey stated she would not mind music being played while people are pumping gas as long as neighbors could not hear it. The Planning Commission also discussed the Design Standards in the C -3 District in relation to the downtown standards and building materials. Chairperson Messner noted that offices were not allowed in the C -3 District and though that might create potential problems and asked that they be allowed in the C -3 District. Discussion was held regarding the office uses, drive -thru restaurants and outdoor seating of restaurants including their limits, buffer zones, and other requirements in the C -4 District. Community Development Director Lindquist indicated this would be back before the Planning Commission as a work session item on July 12th. The work session was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, itfi i Amy Domeier Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 12, 2005 PAGE 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 12, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Zurn and Powell present. Commissioner Schultz was absent. Also in attendance were City Planner Pearson, Assistant City Planner Lindahl, Project Manager Aderhold, Fire Chief Aker and Recording Secretary Domeier. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Additions to Agenda: None. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: 4A. Approval of the June 28, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes. 4B. Approval of the June 28, 2005 Work Session Minutes. MOTION by Zurn to approve the Consent Agenda items. Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Public Hearing: 5A. Case 05- 25 -LS /LC Weierke Lot Split (Marthaler Property) and Lot Combination. City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report. The City of Rosemount will construct a fire station on the north side of Connemara Trail, north and east of the Biscayne Pointe housing development. The site is directly west of the new park area of the Centex Meadows of Bloomfield development. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson. Commissioner Powell asked staff to describe what support facilities are included it the non bay areas of the building. Mr. Pearson stated there will be a dispatching office, equipment, lockers, first aid, restrooms, and a meeting room. Fire Chief Aker also stated that there will be an officer work area. Commissioner Powell asked if there is room for future expansion. Mr. Aker responded that a third bay was added and the meeting room area could be expanded. However, if the City had a need for further expansion it would be at a different location. Discussion continued regarding Azalea Avenue and the location of the water tower. Commissioner Powell stated he did not feel parking should be allowed on Azalea Avenue to allow adequate access to the fire station. If an event is held at the park there may be overflow parking on Azalea Avenue. Mr. Aker commented that it is an excellent safety concern. Commissioner Messner opened the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 12, 2005 PAGE 2 MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. MOTION by Powell to Motion to approve the site plan for the Rosemount Fire Station No. 2 subject to: 1. Elimination of the "restrictive parking" within 30 feet of the Connemara Trail right -of -way. 2. Permission by Northern Natural Gas Company for the parking lot and driveway encroachment into the pipeline easement. 3. Post no parking signs on Azalea Avenue north of Connemara Trail. Old Business: None. New Business: None. Reports: Mr. Pearson updated the Commission on the items listed on the Agenda. Commissioner Powell asked what would be going on next with the 42/52 item. There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by Chairperson Messner and a second by Commissioner Zurn, and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, p itly4 L Amy Domeier Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 26, 2005 PAGE 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 26, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Schultz, Zurn and Powell present. Also in attendance were City Planner Pearson, Assistant City Planner Lindahl and Recording Secretary Domeier. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Additions to Agenda: None. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: 4A. Approval of the July 23, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes. 4B. Approval of the July 12, 2005 Work Session Minutes. 4C. Approval of Case 05 -32 -FP Harmony 3rd Addition (CPDC) Final Plat. 4D. Table Case 05- 33 -PUD Rosemount Self- Storage, Inc. Planned Unit Development. MOTION by Powell to approve the Consent Agenda items. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Public Hearing: 5A. Case 05 -25 -TA C3 and C4 Zoning Text Amendments. Assistant Planner Lindahl reviewed the staff report. Mr. Lindahl indicated the amendments reflect the discussions of the June 28, 2005 and July 12, 2005 Work Sessions as well as the City Attorneys comments. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Lindahl. A brief discussion was held regarding the building materials and architectural changes added to the C -3 and C -4 Districts. Commissioner Messner opened the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. There was no follow -up discussion. MOTION by Zurn to recommend that the City Council approve the amended C -3, Highway Commercial District and C -4, General Commercial District performance standards. Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Mr. Lindahl indicated this item will be on the August 16 City Council agenda. Old Business: None. New Business: None. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 26, 2005 PAGE 2 1111 Reports: Mr. Pearson updated the Commission on the items listed on the Agenda. Discussion was held regarding the outcome of the 42/52 Corridor Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by Commissioner Powell and a second by Commissioner Schultz, and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 111 titt Amy Domeier Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2005 PAGE 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 25, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Schultz, Zurn, Schwartz and Powell present. Also in attendance were City Planner Pearson, Assistant City Planner Lindahl and Recording Secretary Domeier. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Additions to Agenda: None. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: 4a. Approval of the September 27, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes. MOTION by Zurn to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Public Hearing: 5a. Case 05-40 -PUD Endres Properties 2 Addition Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan. Mr. Pearson reviewed the staff report. Endres Rosemount Holdings LLC owns over 50 acres of land for the Endres processing plant along the east side of State Highway 55 across from the SKB landfill. Leon Endres has applied for concept PUD approval and a preliminary plat to subdivide the property and sell two lots for industrial use along State Highway 55. The property currently has a conditional use permit for The Adventure Zone, a commercial outdoor recreational use for paintball games located west of the Endres facility. If approved, the City should take formal action to rescind the conditional use permit in light of the future uses of the property. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson. Chairperson Messner inquired if there has been a proposed alternative to the stormwater issue at this point as opposed to running it through the gully. Mr. Pearson replied at present there isn't but that staff would be looking for a revised grading plan with more detail before bringing this back to the Planning Commission. Chairperson Messner also questioned the issues related to building coverage and said could the applicant just as easily come in and propose five acre lots since its un- developable areas and reduce the lots sizes or configuration and so the buildings could meet the coverage. Mr. Pearson stated for an example that it was possible by running a lot line bisecting the bluff area. Commissioner Powell stated his comments regarding the erosion and that it appears a ravine has been eroded from the bluff setback. In keeping with the spirit and intent of the bluff setback it could be excluded. The setback should be from the naturally occurring bluff line. The Commission agreed with Mr. Powell's comments. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the plan would come back as a smaller, five acre lot then what would happen to the rest of the land and would it become inaccessible. Mr. Pearson PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2005 PAGE 2 410 stated that lots 1 and 2 could become smaller, but a much larger Lot 3 would be the result. Another alternative would be to create oudots, but generally, outlots are not recommended. Lot 3 would still be much larger than the developable area of the lot. It is a preexisting condition and it's easier to deal with the one lot as a non conforming condition then to create two new non conforming conditions. Staff wanted the Commissioners to provide comments regarding the use of the PUD process for the minimum building requirement. Staff would prepare specific findings based upon Critical Corridor requirements to ensure that a precedent is not created that could cause problems elsewhere in the General Industrial district. Chairperson Messner questioned the stormwater runoff plan. Mr. Pearson stated that at this point most of it is in Lot 1. DNR is looking for some evidence of best management practices. Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward. Leon Endres, 1411 Ridgewood Court, Hastings, Minnesota, stated he has hired Benshoff to analyze the traffic, Brown has done two additional perk tests and James R. Hill is going to modify the stormwater plan. Mr. Endres plans to have all information submitted to Mr. Pearson in the first part of November for the presentation on November 22 Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. MOTION by Schultz to continue the Public Hearing until November 22, 2005 so that the Applicant can provide additional information including: 1. Provide Septic system detail for the secondary site on lot 1 that does not impact the protected bluff area or an alternative design relocating the drain field area. 2. Flow projections from the conceptual office warehouse uses on Lots 1 and 2 to verify adequacy of the drain fields. 3. Provision of trip generation information as requested by MnDOT for the preliminary plat area and SKB site to determine the need for roadway improvements to Highway 55. 4. Revisions as needed to the grading and utility plans to respond to storm water concerns and demonstrate implementation of best management practices. 5. Provision of additional information to support the storm water management design and provide for the relocation and sizing of easements. 6. Additional detail or design refinement regarding street "A" to respond to turning conflicts. 7. Drain field information regarding the existing Endres facility to ensure compliance with current standards. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Public Hearing continued. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any additional follow -up comments or questions. Chairperson Messner stated since this is a PUD process and given the drain features of the site, the standards can be met potentially by creating the smaller lots because PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2005 PAGE 3 of the issues. The plan can be set out by the PUD process as to why this situation is unique. The existing Endres facility does not meet the requirement. All Commissioners concurred with the comments. Public Hearing: 5b. Case 05 -45 -SP Tan Vo Properties (151 St. and Cimarron Ave.) Site Plan Review. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the staff report. The applicants, Tan Vo Properties, requests site plan approval to allow construction of a nine bay 16,886 square foot multi- tenant retail center as part of the Chippendale 42 Partnership Planned Unit Development (PUD) approved by the City in 1997. This item is a re- submittal of an identical project that was last before the planning commission on August 12, 2003. During that meeting, the commission held a public hearing and moved to approve the proposal. The project is back before the Commission because Section 12.3.K requires site plans be re- approved if the applicant has not substantially commenced construction or filed for an extension after one year. Chairperson Messner asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Mr. Lindahl. Commissioner Zurn questioned if there was berming along 151s only. Mr. Lindahl replied there is no berming associated with this particular site. There will be some slope away from the building elevation along the back line near the sidewalk to where the street starts. That sloping will contain a mixture of landscaping. Chairperson Messner questioned the evergreen landscaping in Condition 2 and where it is located. Mr. Lindahl noted it should be the northeast corner of the site. Commissioner Schwartz questioned if awnings would be located on the building. Mr. Lindahl stated the awnings are shown below the signage on the elevation plan. Commissioner Schwartz inquired if canvas awnings become a maintenance issue as awnings become less attractive by fading over time. Mr. Lindahl stated the City does not a have a standard related to the maintenance of awnings other than the typical nuisance and aesthetics standards listed in the ordinance. Commissioner Powell wondered if the City enters into a development agreement for specific site plans in relation to asking for the landscaping guarantee. Mr. Lindahl stated that the site plan criteria give the City the ability to require financial guarantees for all outside improvements. In this case, there is also the catch that this is part of the Chippendale /42 PUD Agreement and staff is unclear as to what guarantees the City still holds as part of this PUD. Staff wanted to include at the very minimum the landscaping guarantee. Commissioner Powell noted on page 4 of the report it should state "concrete sidewalk" on the fifth line down. Commissioner Powell also asked since the engineering report is from two years ago why haven't any of the conditions been addressed in the past two years. Mr. Pearson stated this is a different applicant from the previous project. Chairperson Messner asked if the applicant would like to come forward. Brian Johnson, Architect and Planner with Reprise Design, Burnsville, stated they were the architect and PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2005 PAGE 4 planner with the last applicant. Mr. Johnson stated the canvas awnings will give a variation along the front of the building. He agrees that the canvas is the first thing to wear and whether and that about every seven to ten years colors change and it's an opportunity to freshen the look of the shopping center. Tan Vo is ready to accept the conditions of approval. Mr. Johnson questioned Condition 5 since Oppidan is no longer is associated with the project and Chippendale Partnership did the original PUD. Mr. Lindahl stated the most significant items are the ones mentioned tonight and are mentioned in the original PUD Agreement. Mr. Lindahl stated he would provide the applicant with copies of the documents. Mr. Johnson commented about that the sidewalk along the eastern edge and that he was under the impression that what had been asked for two years ago was an extension from the edge of the sidewalk to the street. This is the first that Mr. Johnson had understood that the sidewalk along Cimarron Avenue needs to be installed as well. Mr. Lindahl stated the improvements were put upon the individual lots in this case it's the sidewalks, curb and gutter. Mr. Messner clarified that the sidewalk is located on a public right -of -way and that it shows up on the landscape plan. Mr. Johnson stated it's a City rendering and wasn't included on Tan Vo's landscape plan. Mr. Lindahl stated that the landscape plan he used was submitted by the applicant and is not a City rendering. Mr. Johnson also questioned if landscaping items on the northeast are they to be extended to the private drive past Cimarron Avenue. Mr. Lindahl stated the City is looking for screening with evergreens to shield headlights and that the evergreens could stop at the stop sign. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION by Powell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Chairperson Messner asked for any additional comments. Commissioner Schultz inquired where the signage is to be located. Mr. Johnson stated that a monument sign is going to be located on Cimarron Avenue and there will be signage on the building. Commissioner Powell suggested revised wording for Condition 2. Mr. Powell recommended adding "guarantee for landscaping" at the end of the Condition, in addition to changing "northwest" to "northeast Mr. Lindahl stated he was fine with the modification. MOTION by Powell to approve the site plan request to allow construction of a 16,886 square foot multi- tenant retail center for the property legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, Rosemount Village Center, subject to the conditions outlined below. 1. Review and approval of a detailed trash enclosure drawing illustrating that the materials to be used on the enclosure are same as the principal building prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Review and approval of a revised landscape plan adding evergreen landscaping in the northeast corner of the site screening the off -street parking area from Cimarron Avenue and the adjacent residential uses and submission of a landscaping guarantee. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2005 PAGE 5 3. Submit a comprehensive sign plan for separate approval. This plan shall conform to the sign standards outlined in the C -4, General Commercial District and the original Chippendale 42 Partnership PUD Agreement. 4. Review and approval of detailed Cut Sheets for each lighting fixture to verify their design prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Coordinate with Oppidan Investment Company and the Chippendale 42 Partnership to install sidewalks and concrete curb and cutter per the construction plans dated 9 -17 -2002 and the Subdivision Agreement dated 7 -16 -2002 for Rosemount Village Center. 6. Payment of all applicable development fees including, but not limited to, $18,900 for park dedication. 7. Conformance with all requirements outlined in the Project Engineer's memo dated August 5, 2003 with fees updated to meet the fee schedule at the time of building permit. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Mr. Lindahl stated for site plan review the Planning Commission is the final approval. The applicant can apply for building permit and sign permits, subject to meeting all conditions outlined in the recommendation. Public Hearing: 5c. Case 05 -46 -TA Decorative Fences Text Amendment Mr. Lindahl reviewed the staff report. This item was initiated by the City Council directing staff to create a definition for the term Decorative Fence. During the review and updating of the C -3 and C -4 Districts, the City Council felt it was necessary to create a new definition for the term Decorative fence. With this direction from the City Council, staff researched the term in other communities. Based on the direction from the City Council and the information from surrounding communities, staff created the following draft definition for the term Decorative Fence. Decorative Fence A fence as defined by this Ordinance made of high quality, long lasting and ornamental materials including finished aluminum, wrought iron, brick and the like but not including wood, unfinished metal, vinyl, PVC, chain link, wire, barbed wire or like materials. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Lindahl. Ms. Schwartz questioned what the reasoning was for PVC to not be considered acceptable. Ms. Schwartz stated PVC is very durable and maintenance free. Mr. Lindahl responded that the City Council asked that PVC not be included. The Council was looking for higher quality and a longer lasting material. Mr. Lindahl also pointed out these standards are applicable only in the commercial districts. Mr. Powell added that over time PVC will become deformed if not installed properly. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2005 PAGE 6 Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION by Zurn to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. MOTION by Messner to recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section 3.2- Definitions creating a new definition for Decorative Fence. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Mr. Lindahl stated this item will go before the City Council on November 15, 2005. Public Hearing: 5d. Case 05 -47 -TA Off Street Parking and Loading Text Amendment. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the staff report. This item was initiated by staff to update Section 8 Off -Street Parking and Loading. After updating the C -3 and C -4 Districts, staff noticed three minor changes where needed to insure consistency between the new C -3 and C -4 standards and Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance related parking and storing of trucks, parking requirements, general standards for car washes, drive through restaurants, banks and gasoline stations. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Lindahl. There were no questions for Mr. Lindahl. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. MOTION by Zurn to recommend to recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section 8.1.D (Limitations on Use) Section 8.1.H (Off -Street Parking) and Section 8.1.I (Drive Through Facilities for Restaurants, Banks, and Other Similar Uses) to insure consistency between these sections and the amended C -3 and C -4 Districts. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Mr. Lindahl stated this item will go before the City Council on November 15, 2005. Old Business: None. New Business: None. Reports: Mr. Pearson gave a brief recap of the Council items approved on October 18, 2005. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2005 PAGE 7 There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by Chairperson Messner and a second by Commissioner Schwartz, and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 3 4 E ,1 f> t 1 "L_ i` Amy Domeier Recording Secretary III PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2005 PAGE 1 411 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 22, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. with Commissioners Schultz, Zurn, Schwartz and Powell present. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, City Planner Pearson, Assistant City Planner Lindahl and Recording Secretary Domeier. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Additions to Agenda: None. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: 4a. Approval of the October 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes. 4b. Continuation of Case 05 -40 -PUD Endres Properties 2 Addition Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan. 4c. Continuation of Case 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project) Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, PUD Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. Ms. Lindquist stated that items 4b and 4c would be continued to December 27, 2005 if there would be a quorum. All Planning Commissioners stated they would be in attendance for the meeting. Items 4b and 4c will be continued to December 27, 2005. MOTION by Zurn to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Public Hearing: 5a. 05 -55 -CP Evermoor Comp Plan Amendment. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the staff report. The Comprehensive Plan Amendments were initiated by staff to bring the future land use designation for the subject properties listed below into compliance with the applicable existing land use and zoning designations. The subject properties and the proposed future land use designation changes are: 1. Lot 9, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, Block 2 of Evermoor 3` Addition (AKA Innisfree) from PO, Parks and Open Space to TR, Transitional Residential (Change #1 on attached maps). 2. Outlot B, Bards Crossing, Outlot G, Evermoor 2 Addition (Shannon Park Elementary School) and Outlot C, Evermoor Clare Downs from TR, Transitional Residential to PO, Parks and Open Space (Changes #2, #3, and #4 on attached maps). These proposed changes represent "house keeping" items to bring the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map into compliance with the existing land use and zoning designations for the given sites. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2005 PAGE 2 Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Lindahl. There were no questions for Mr. Lindahl. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. MOTION by Powell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Public Hearing closed. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any additional follow -up comments or questions. MOTION by Schwartz to recommend that the City Council approve 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Lot 9, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, Block 2 of Evermoor 3` Addition (AKA Innisfree) from PO, Parks and Open Space to TR, Transitional Residential. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nayes. None. Motion approved. MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council approve 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Outlot B, Bards Crossing, Outlot G, Evermoor 2n Addition (Shannon Park Elementary School) and Outlot C, Evermoor Clare Downs from TR, Transitional Residential to PO, Parks and Open Space. Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion carried. 410 Public Hearing: 5b. 05 -56 -CP Bards Crossing Comp Plan Amendment. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the staff report. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment application was initiated by staff to bring the future land use designation for the Bards Crossing properties into compliance with the existing project's design and zoning designation. The site is currently guided TR, Transitional Residential. Transitional Residential is a relatively low density land use category typically used as a temporary holder for properties until they develop. By contrast, the site is zoned R -4, High Density Residential and will soon contain 2 three -story condominium buildings. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Lindahl. There were no questions for Mr. Lindahl. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. MOTION by Zurn to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Public Hearing closed. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any additional follow -up comments or questions. MOTION by Schultz to recommend that the City Council approve a 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Bards Crossing properties legally described PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2005 PAGE 3 as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Bards Crossing Addition from TR, Transitional Residential to HD, High Density Residential. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Public Hearing: 5c. 05 -54 -ME Shafer Contracting Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal. Mr. Pearson reviewed the staff report. Scott Spisak of Shafer Contracting applied for the annual renewal of the mineral extraction permit for their property located one mile north of 135 Street East and 1 /4 mile west of Rich Valley Blvd. (County Road 71). Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson. There were no questions for Mr. Pearson. Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward. The applicant, Scott Spisak, did not have any comments. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. Charlie Koehnen, 12255 Rich Valley Blvd., Rosemount, stated that Shafer has been a good neighbor and operates its business at decent hours. Joan Schneider, 12255 Rich Valley Blvd., Rosemount, stated she attended the public hearing because of the haul back provision but learned earlier in the evening the modification was removed. MOTION by Powell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any additional follow -up comments or questions. MOTION by Schwartz to recommend the City Council. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Mr. Pearson stated this item will go before the City Council on December 20, 2005. Public Hearing: 5d. 05 -58 -TA Total Construction (Furlong) Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal. Mr. Pearson reviewed the staff report. Tom Furlong applied for the annual renewal of the mineral extraction permit for property located on the west side of Fisher Avenue, 1 /4 mile south of Highway 55. With the renewal, the operator responsibilities will be reassigned from Ames Construction to Total Construction and Equipment. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson. There were no questions for Mr. Pearson. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2005 PAGE 4 Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. Willie Krech, 9574 Inver Grove Trail, Inver Grove Heights, stated that Total Construction is a growing business and they are happy to be working with Tom Furlong. The pit will be used as needed. Mr. Furlong will maintain the road. Mr. Krech invited questions from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did not have any comments or questions for the Mr. Krech. MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any additional follow -up comments or questions. MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council approve the Mineral Extraction Permit for Tom Furlong and Total Construction for 2006 subject to the attached 2006 Conditions of Mineral Extraction. Second by "turn. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved. Mr. Pearson stated this item will go before the City Council on December 6, 2005. Old Business: None. New Business: 7a. Rosemount Interpretive Corridor Trail Plan. Ms. Lindquist reviewed the staff report prepared by Director of Parks and Recreation Schultz. For the past several months staff has been working with land owners to try and identify a corridor that creates a scenic and educational trail connection from downtown Rosemount to the Mississippi River /Spring Lake Park. Multiple stop -off locations and interpretive sites are being proposed for the trail corridor. The importance of having involved and informed land owners is to gain support of having the trail near their property. Ms. Lindquist indicated that the Parks Commission is interested in comments from the Planning Commission. Chairperson Messner inquired if the trail will be included as part of the park dedication fee. Ms. Lindquist stated he was correct. Chairperson Messner questioned how the trail would lay out with the adoption of the recent changes to the comp plan for the area. Ms. Lindquist noted that the trail drawing is just a basis and will become more formalized in 2008. Because this is a long term plan and will most likely take many years to complete, we are expecting changes to take place with regards to the final placement of the trail. Commissioner Schultz questioned how many residents were at the open house. Ms. Lindquist stated about 15 people attended the open house. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2005 PAGE 5 Reports: Ms. Lindquist updated the Commission members on the status of the downtown redevelopment, Genz Ryan negotiations and the Air Cargo Facility. There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by Commissioner Powell and a second by Commissioner Zurn, and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 7:09 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, r l itt4) Amy Domeier Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2005 PAGE 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Work Session of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 22, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. with Commissioners Schultz, Zurn, Schwartz and Powell present. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, City Planner Pearson, Assistant City Planner Lindahl and Recording Secretary Domeier. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the staff report. The item was brought to the Commission for discussion purposes only and was initiated by staff to update and simplify the City's industrial zoning districts. Currently, the City has seven industrial districts: Business Park 1, 2, 3, and 4, Industrial Park, Waste Management, and General Industrial. Staff is proposing changes to the Business Park, Industrial Park, and General Industrial Districts. Over the next few meetings staff will recommend the following four changes to the industrial districts: 1. Merge the Business Park 1, 2, 3, and 4 Districts into one streamlined Business Park District. 2. Replace the Industrial District with a new Light Industrial District. 3. Update and consolidate the permitted, accessory, interim, and conditional uses for each district. 4. Modernize and simplify the performance standards for each district. Ms. Lindquist added another reason for the text amendments was implementation of the 42/52 Comprehensive Plan expansion. Chairperson Messner questioned what the different business park classifications represent. Mr. Pearson responded that they include a combination of different performance standards and uses. Mr. Lindahl added BP -1 tends to be the least restrictive while BP -4 is the most restrictive and carries uniqueness by including residential uses. There was a brief discussion held regarding the different business park uses. Mr. Lindahl highlighted the proposed changes in the business park table. Mr. Lindahl further noted staff is looking for consistent terminology and to offer some flexibility. Chairperson Messner questioned if Menards, Lowe's or Home Depot would be allowed in the business park district. Mr. Lindahl stated those types of uses would currently be found in the commercial districts but staff is looking for direction from the Commission regarding the appropriate amount of commercial uses within the industrial districts. Chairperson Messner questioned if there is some overlap between the light industrial district and the highway commercial district. Mr. Lindahl stated he was correct. It was also noted that motor and recreational uses were new to the light industrial and general industrial districts. The Commissioners held a brief conversation regarding the location of recreational uses. Commissioner Schwartz suggested removing motor freight terminals from the light industrial district. Commissioner Zurn questioned why adult uses would be located in an industrial district. Mr. Lindahl responded that the Federal Constitution requires each community to allow for these uses somewhere in the City. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2005 PAGE 2 Mr. Lindahl stated this item would be before the Commission again on December 27 There being no further business to come before this Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, LE 1 Amy Domeier Recording Secretary