HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission
was held on Tuesday, January 10, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at
6:33 p.m. with Commissioners Schultz, Zurn, Schwartz and Powell present. Also in
attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, City Engineer Brotzler,
Project Manager Dawley, 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 November 22, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes.
4b. Approval of the November 22, 2005 Work Session Meeting Minutes.
MOTION by Powell to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Schultz. Ayes:
All. Nayes: None. Motion carried.
Public Hearing:
5a. 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project) Comp Plan
Amendment, Rezoning, PUD Concept Plan and Final Development Plan and
Preliminary Plat. Mr. Pearson reviewed the staff report. The Dakota County Community
Development Agency "CDA has submitted applications to construct a 30 -unit townhouse
development on a site located on the northwest corner of Connemara Trail and STH 3,
South Robert Trail. The townhouses will be owned and maintained by Dakota County
CDA. The discussions and recommendations concerned a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan. City Engineer Brotzler
highlighted the engineering comments regarding site access, grading, and stormwater issues.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson.
Commissioner Schultz questioned the proposed urban residential land use for the site and
what other sites had the same land use designation. Mr. Pearson summarized other areas in
the City where the Urban Residential zoning is located and further noted this request is
similar to the Evermoor Roundstone and Waterford projects done in the past.
Commissioner Schultz inquired if stop signs would be placed on the Connemara
intersection. Mr. Brotzler stated the traffic at the intersection will not warrant the placement
of stop signs and that the extension of the median is a possibility.
Ms. Lindquist stated that staff received several emails and voicemails. Ms. Lindquist
explained that in light of the interest in the project, it would be beneficial to the residents to
understand the issues that are facing the Planning Commission and potentially the Council
on this item. The land use designation is moving from Transitional Residential to Urban
Residential. It was not changed in the Evermoor project, it was kept Transitional
Residential. The Commission's job is to review the project based on the land use impacts
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 2
associated with the project. The Commission should not consider ownership versus rental
or affordability versus high end housing for residential projects. The land use impacts are
the same for either scenario. When the City makes a determination that this project is a
project they want to see in the community they must find land use impacts for denial and
not solely because it's a rental versus home ownership project. Similarly, the City cannot say
since it is affordable housing versus a million dollar home that we can deny the project. The
City needs to consider the appropriate land use for the site whether it be a mutli- family,
single family or a high density residential site. Then there will be a myriad of issues regarding
the site plan. The project does meet the goals set by the Council to offer a variety of
housing in the community.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward. Kari Gill, Dakota County
Community Development Agency, gave the background on what the proposed
development. There is significant demand throughout Dakota County for affordable
housing. Ms. Gill stated the units are targeted to people earning around 50% of the median.
The average income in the developments is about $28,000. There is a minimum income
requirement and it is geared towards families that are working in modest paying jobs. Ms.
Gill stated the ownership of the project is a public private partnership with 99% of the
development owned by a private partner. The Dakota County CDA has 1`)/0 ownership.
The CDA does its own property management and its own staff to maintain the property and
individual units. Ms. Gill shared pictures of similar developments. The proposal is for 30
units, a small office, tot lot and a gazebo area. Ms. Gill commented that as development
moves forward the CDA would work closely with the City to meet and exceed any
landscaping requirements. Ms. Gill was happy to answer any questions regarding the
development.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
Gene Rusco, 3553 Couchtown Path, respected the comments on the land use issues but still
feels his comments are important based on the stated need for low income housing. Mr.
Rusco quoted Professor Gary Painter of the USC School of Policy, Planning and
Development by stating low income housing programs negatively impact labor force
participation. He further suggested that City staff refer to the Journal of Housing Research
published by the Fannie Mae Foundation, Volume 12, Issue 1, published in the year 2001.
Mr. Rusco stated that studies show the only beneficiaries of low income housing are really
high income builders and investors. He further referred the Commission to the work of
Ron Feldmen of the Minnesota Fed who is critical of the government's pretence of helping
poor people by subsidizing builders. He urged the Commission to realize the cultural impact
on the community of this project. He asked the Commission to vote no on this project.
Dean Smith, 3548 Cromwell Trail, urged the Commission to look at its policy manual. Mr.
Smith believes that public input should be solicited at an earlier time in the process. He
spoke about the potential crime issues. He further urged the Commission to slow down the
process to allow for more input and consideration.
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
411 JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 3
Gary Anderson, 3418 Cromwell Trail, stated he is not convinced why this site was picked for
the CDA project given the amount of undeveloped land in Rosemount. He further stated
this project will deflate his property value. He added CDA projects elsewhere have a higher
police rate.
Joel Weiss, 13579 Crossmoor Avenue, said he is sympathetic with low income people. He
suggested though that job skills should be offered and not subsidized housing stating a
better choice for location would be near the technical college.
Leonarad Burridge, 13431 Cormack Circle, commented that many more people would be
here tonight to give comments if notice of the public hearing was given. Mr. Burridge stated
his reasoning for choosing to live in Evermoor. He asked the City to explore other options
but if this is the only site chosen that Evermoor residents receive better notice of the
process.
Kelly Henson Evertz, 13113 Crolly Path, questioned the noticing of the public hearing. Ms.
Henson Evertz stated her concern with the high density housing and the traffic issues. She
believes there has to be a better location for the project somewhere else in Rosemount.
Barbara Harvey, 3566 Crosslough Trail, stated she would like the City to explore other
options and stated she had concerns over traffic.
Nancy Frosig, 3703 Crosslough Trail, stated she left the City of Richfield because of low
income housing and the crime. She asked the Commission not to change the neighborhood
feel.
Lori Stormoen, 3474 Crumpet Path, stated she is curious about what other specific parcels
of land were entertained by the CDA. Ms. Stormoen was also concerned as to how this
parcel was chosen. Chairperson Messner commented that the site in question is what the
Planning Commission is looking at tonight. No Planning Commissioners are aware of what
other sites were entertained.
Darrell Pavelka, 3505 Couchtown Path, stated his concern about the land use issue in regard
to the intended designation for the property north of this site. Mr. Pearson stated the
property to north is guided Transition Residential and zoned Rural Residential. The City has
not entertained any development applications for that property. Mr. Pavelka stated his
concern about potential trespassing at the pool and park in the Glendalough neighborhood.
MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All.
Nayes: None. Public Hearing closed.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any additional follow -up comments or
questions.
Ms. Lindquist addressed the crime concerns raised. Police Chief Kalstabakken compiled
information from Hastings, Mendota Heights and Eagan who have CDA projects. Police
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 4
representatives stated they do not consider CDA projects a police problem area.
Additionally, Police Chief Kalstabakken stated the low income housing project at 145t and
Biscayne Avenue is not a problem property in the City.
Mr. Pearson stated development at the Technical Colleges would be a few years out given
the availability for urban services in that area.
Commissioner Powell questioned if there is a right -of -way platted from the cul -de -sac west
of the side coming from Glendalough to the east to make a connection. It should be noted
it's a through street and not a cul -de -sac.
Commissioner Powell questioned how far in advance the development signs were placed at
the subject property. Ms. Lindquist responded the signs for development were installed
approximately two and a half months ago. Ms. Lindquist further clarified the City noticed
the area within 350 feet of the subject property. The notice the residents are referring to is a
notice distributed by the neighborhoods.
Commissioner Powell questioned if this property was ever included in the Evermoor project.
City Planner Pearson stated this parcel was not planned or platted out as part of Evermoor.
Commissioner Schultz asked Ms. Lindquist to address the public in regards to the rules for
noticing a public hearing. Ms. Lindquist stated the City adopts the same rules the State law
has in terms of public notice and notification requirements. The City is required to notice
public hearings in the official newspaper by publication 10 days prior to the meeting date.
The City is also required to notice property owners within 350 feet within the subject
property.
Mike Vipond, 3445 Couchtown Path, asked if Lundgren Brothers was notified of this
project. Ms. Lindquist stated that Lundgren Brothers was aware of this project several
months ago.
Commissioner Powell asked the City Engineer to again review the roadway alignments
proposed because of the access issues. Mr. Brotzler again showed Alternate A to the
Commission including the public street access proposed to the site from the future
Glendalough street system. Staff is recommending a public street extension to the north to
provide for a secondary access as well as a continuous street extension to connect to Dodd
Road in the future. An alternate that is being reviewed would provide a separate public
street access to the proposed project site separate from the Glendalough development. Mr.
Brotzler stated the alignment is concept only. Chairperson Messner stated an obvious
Alternative C would be to extend the cul -de -sac out to Connemara. Mr. Brotzler stated that
in 2005 when the Glendalough grading plan was developed by Lundgren's engineer it was
reviewed by the developer, its engineer and City staff. The developer had incurred costs to
lower the pipeline through the easement to accommodate the construction of Connemara
Trail as it is today. Due to the grades that were proposed on the grading plan there would've
been modifications to the grading plan and the proposed street to make a connection to
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 5
Connemara Trail. It would have required the pipeline to have been lowered and the
developer elected not to lower the pipeline trail.
Commissioner Schwartz asked the theory behind collector streets. Mr. Brotzler stated
collector streets are designed to carry a higher volume of traffic and by design are built to
support access from local streets. When the Evermoor development was planned, which
included the extension of Connemara Trail to Highway 3, there was access to the subject
property.
Commissioner Schwartz questioned why the project is allowed to have single car garages.
Ms. Lindquist stated through the PUD process they are able to address the concern. When
first working with the CDA several years ago, there was discussion with the Council about
amending the ordinance to allow single stall garages for affordable housing. It was felt at
that time the PUD process would allow that variation, should the City wish to approve the
project. Mr. Pearson stated the site plan allows for 20 foot setbacks of the garages to the
public street. When this site plan comes back again, there will be two and one half parking
spaces for each unit. Commissioner Schwartz stated her concern about parking because the
Roundstone area has a parking problem and it has caused a great deal of strife in that
particular community.
Commissioner Schultz asked staff to explain the landscaping requirements on the west side
110 of the property. Mr. Pearson responded that the landscaping plan shows a variety of trees,
but shrubs should be added between the trees. There might be some other potential areas of
landscaping on both sides of the street.
Chairperson Messner stated the Commission looks at land use plans and at what is an
appropriate use for property along Highway 3, along a collector street. The Commission is
not necessarily looking at the end use. Chairperson Messner apologized if the public
thought the Commission was only going to talk about the CDA and what they are proposing
for the site. He stated he understands the public's concern, but the Commission is looking
at the land use.
Commissioner Powell shared his position. He has significant concern with the unresolved
access to the site. He did not favor direct access from Connemara Trail. Commissioner
Schwartz concurred with the access issue. Commissioner Schwartz feels there does not need
to be more density in that area of the City.
Chairperson Messner stated that given the access concerns, does the Urban Residential land
use designation seem to fit with this site located along Highway 3 and Connemara Trail.
Commissioner Powell stated he could support the motion to reguide the property but the
following three motions he could not support. Ms. Lindquist stated staff typically wouldn't
support reguiding the property if the Commission is not interested in rezoning at this time.
If the access issue is resolved, would the Commission be comfortable with a medium density
project or a single family project. Ms. Lindquist said staff could get the access issue wrapped
up by the next Commission meeting in two weeks, but if the Commission isn't going to
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 6
support the project regardless of the access issue, then the CDA would prefer the
Commission deny the project so it could go to the Council for discussion.
Commissioner Messner stated that other than the access issue that needs to be resolved, this
is the type of site that is suited for medium density housing. Commissioner Schwartz stated
that both sides of Highway 3 have significant density and doesn't support high density in
that area. Commissioner Powell believes the number of units could be routed through the
cul -de -sac at Glendalough. He does not support a connection at Connemara or taking the
access to the north. Commissioner Zurn agreed with Commissioner Powell to resolve the
access issues and reduce the number of units. Commissioner Schultz personally is for
changing the Comprehensive Plan and agrees with the access issues raised.
Ms. Lindquist suggested continuing the item to the January 24 meeting to bring back the
access information.
MOTION by Messner to continue this item to January 24, 2006. Second by
Powell. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion carried.
Public Hearing:
5b. 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. The Endres facility occupies about 10 acres of the site. The
balance of the property is undeveloped except for "The Adventure Zone a commercial
outdoor recreational use for paintball games. 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. Mr. Pearson added that an additional condition for prohibition of
outdoor storage of Lots 1 and 2 is suggested by staff.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson.
Chairperson Messner asked if the applicant would like to come forward.
Leon Endres, 1411 Ridgewood Court, Hastings, stated he opposed the addition of
Condition 16 regarding the prohibition of outdoor storage. Based upon not knowing the
end use of the parcels, he preferred the restriction not be placed on the parcels. Chairperson
Messner noted on page 8 of the staff report that the prohibition of outdoor is referenced.
Chairperson Messner asked what process the applicant would have to do to amend the
condition. Mr. Pearson explained that there is an amendment procedure and the scale of the
amendment determines if a public hearing is required.
Carol Eiden, attorney for Endres Properties questioned if the outdoor storage issue could be
addressed at the Master Development Plan level rather than an outright prohibition.
Chairperson Messner stated he understood the concern.
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
O JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 7
Leon Endres further added that the turn lanes will be a substantial improvement already in
turn for the PUD.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Powell 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. Chairperson Messner stated he supports the addition of Condition 16 simply
because based upon the concept plan the type of use proposed is not determined and there
is the ability to amend the plan.
MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council approve the Concept PUD
and Preliminary Plat for Endres Second Addition subject to:
1. Final development or recording of the final plat of any parcel is contingent of City
approval of a site plan, PUD Master Development Plan and execution of a PUD
agreement.
2. After approval of the PUD Master Plan and recording of a PUD agreement,
conformance with the requirements of final plat including recording of a subdivision
development agreement.
3. Approval of the Minnesota Department of Transportation including the following
detailed in the December 27, 2005 correspondence:
The plans shall be revised in conformance with design and dimensional standards for
the westbound and eastbound approach to Street "A
The developer shall be responsible for all MnDOT required permits and the costs
associated with the required improvements to the highway.
4. Plan revisions to Street "A" and the entrance to Lot 1 may be required to reduce
conflicts resulting from left turning movements to Lot 1 causing traffic to back up
into TH 55.
5. An association shall be formed for the 3 lots to share maintenance and replacement
responsibilities for Street "A located on Lot 3. Street "A" shall be located in a
driveway easement with cross access rights for Lots 1 2 and a joint maintenance
agreement for Street "A" recorded in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
6. Prior to the recording of plats, the conditional use permit for the "Adventure Zone"
commercial outdoor recreational use shall be rescinded. Any costs associated with
the rescission shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
7. Incorporation of comments by the City Engineer regarding drainage, easements,
grading, streets and utilities including:
Wetland requirements shall be met in accordance with the City's Comprehensive
Wetland Management Plan (CWMP). This includes but is not limited to the
following:
a. Approval of wetland delineation report.
b. Preparation of a RoseRAM function and value assessment.
c. Establishment of wetland buffer in accordance with CWMP.
d. Conservation easement for wetland buffer area.
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 8
Detailed storm sewer information shall be shown on the plans including size, type
and elevations.
Provide appropriate drainage and utility easements for stormwater conveyance and
ponding system.
Development charges will be required as follows with a final plat:
a. Trunk Water Area charges for Lots 1 and 2 at a rate of $4420 /acre.
b. Trunk Storm Water Area charges for Lots 1, 2, and 3 at a rate of $6200 /acre.
c. GIS Fees for Lots 1, 2, and 3 at a rate of $120 /acre.
The storm water management plan for the site shall be developed in accordance with
the requirements of the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan.
8. Variances from the MRCCA Bluff setback requirements are not permitted for the
parking lot on Lot 1. The PUD Master Plan shall clearly indicate the edge of paving
and the MRCCA protected bluff area for verification of the required setback.
9. The proposed hydrant locations must be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal.
10. The PUD Concept does not guarantee building size, land uses or any reductions of
General Industrial or MRCCA setback or lot dimensional standards.
11. The PUD Master Plan will have to provide sufficient parking based upon ordinance
standards for industrial uses through plan revisions, building size reductions or
proof -of- parking.
12. Incorporation of comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
relative to the regulations of the Mississippi River Critical Corridor District.
13. Park dedication as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Director shall be in
the form of cash contribution for Industrial subdivisions as established in the current
fee schedule.
14. The Lot 1 drainfield will accommodate up to 2,460 gallons per day and the Lot 2
drainfield will accommodate up to 2,530 gallons per day of water suitable for a septic
system. Process water that increases the amount or is not suitable for septic systems
must be treated separately and shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner.
15. Additional plantings will be required to include the tree preservation replacement
requirement in addition to the boulevard plantings shown on the preliminary plat,
those additional plantings shall include parking lot pavement edges, the
"panhandle" area of Lot 2 and stabilize slope bluff areas as appropriate.
16. Prohibition of outdoor storage on Lots 1 and 2.
Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Pearson noted this item is tentatively scheduled for February 7` City Council agenda,
but revisions to the plans are recommended prior to placement on the agenda.
Public Hearing:
5c. 05 -59 -ME Vesterra, LLC /Stonex, LLC Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal.
Mr. Pearson reviewed the staff report. Jonathan Wilmshurst applied for the renewal of the
Vesterra and Stonex mineral extraction permits. The sites are contiguous on the south side
of 135 street, 1 /4 mile west of Blaine Ave. (County Road 71). Mr. Wilmshurst and John
Chadwick own both properties and intend to have one operator for both properties.
Therefore, staff recommended a single set of conditions that would regulate both properties.
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 9
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson.
Commissioner Powell questioned if the conditions were the same on both sites. Mr.
Pearson stated that is correct.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward. The applicant, Jonathan
Wilmshurst, did not have any comments.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Powell 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 Powell to recommend the City Council approve the mineral
extraction permit for Vesterra and Stonex subject to the attached conditions for 2006
which shall be approved by the City Attorney.
Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Pearson stated this item will go to the City Council on February 7
Assistant Planner Lindahl asked the Planning Commission to suspend the Planning
Commission meeting and to call to order the Board of Appeals for the variance request.
MOTION by Schwartz to recess the Planning Commission Meeting.
Chairperson Messner called the Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting to order at 8:51
p.m.
Public Hearing:
2a. 05 -61 -V Kendhammer (13604 Birnamwood Trail) Variance. Clay Kendhammer,
of 13604 Birnamwood Trail, requested a street sideyard setback variance from 30' to 12' to
allow the construction of an accessory building (detached shed). The proposed accessory
building would be approximately 16' by 10' or 160 square feet in size. According to the
Zoning Ordinance, no accessory building may be placed within 30' of any front, street side,
or rear yard property line. According to the applicant's survey, the proposed building would
be located approximately 12' from the northern (136 Street) property line.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Lindahl.
Commissioner Schultz inquired if City staff conducted a site visit to examine the issues
present and the soil problems. Commissioner Schultz further questioned if the applicant
were to expand the current garage would there be a drainage problem. Mr. Lindahl stated if
applicant would expand the third stall of his garage to provide additional storage space, the
area would have positive drainage from the house. He added the area is relatively flat.
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 10
Chairperson Messner asked if the applicant would like to come forward. Clay Kendhammer,
13604 Birnamwood Trail, addressed inaccuracies in the report. Mr. Kendhammer stated he
did come up to to City Hall's Building Department desk and explained what he was looking
to do and was referred to two handouts for sheds over and under 120 square feet. He read
the handouts and felt he had a solid understanding of the project. At no time did he try to
slip anything past the City Council. Mr. Kendhammer is aware that Staffs opinion of
reasonable use of property is a home and a garage and they do not consider storage sheds to
be part of that reasonable use. He noted that in Mr. Lindahl's staff report it says
homeowners are entitled to build an accessory building of up to 1,000 square feet. If
exercising that right to build that building is not unreasonable then he would submit that the
opinion of reasonable use being limited to a house and a garage is at least someone based on
staff interpretation. Mr. Kendhammer gave a brief history of why he proposed to put the
shed in the current location. He stated he discovered sink holes in his backyard that stay wet
for weeks and never dry out. The applicant has called Thorsen Builders and Heritage
Development to find a solution to the problem. A Heritage Development representative did
not know what caused the sink holes. A soil engineer concluded it was not a drainage
problem and that it may be a spring coming up underneath or a clay shell may have been cut
through. Mr. Kendhammer also addressed the purpose of the 30 foot setback is to limit
visual density in the neighborhood. If the variance application is denied, he urged Council to
take a look at the 30 foot setback to reduce the restrictions on the residents. The suggestion
of expanding the garage would not impact the wet soil but noted the cost difference between
building a small shed or the expansion of a garage. Mr. Kendhammer added that Jason
Lindahl was a tremendous help with the application.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for the applicant.
Chairperson Messner suggested that an alternative to expanding the garage would be to place
the proposed shed behind the garage. By doing so, the setback requirement would be met
and there would be a three foot clearance between the shed and the house. Mr. Lindahl
stated the minimum standard for a regular shed with a plywood wall and vinyl siding
matching the house would be six feet between the shed and the house. The fire rating on
this shed can be increase by adding sheetrock. Commissioner Zurn questioned if the fire
rating is only required for the side of the shed abutting the house. Mr. Lindahl stated he
would have to check with the building official. Mr. Kendhammer said by moving the shed
closer to the house he would be blocking two windows on the house and it would affect the
slope grade from the house. Discussion regarding the contours ensued.
Commissioner Zurn questioned the setbacks. Mr. Lindahl stated there are different
permitting requirements but the setbacks on any street side remain the same. Mr.
Kendhammer stated that he would make the shed 6'4 in order to reduce the visibility.
Mr. Lindahl added a point of clarification regarding the reasonable uses by referring the
Commission to page 3 of the staff report, Finding 4. He further stated it wasn't his intent to
imply that the applicant didn't follow the standards, the reaction was to the existing slab on
site and there being no building permit on file. Staff received one call regarding the
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 11
application in which a neighbor addressed concerns regarding the height of the structure and
exterior materials, but indicated the setbacks were not an issue.
Commissioner Powell mentioned he visited the site and does not believe that the constraints
on this lot are unique. Commissioner Powell does not support the variance and would
recommend denial.
Mr. Kendhammer stated that it is unknown what the lot will consist of at purchase and you
are at the mercy of the developers.
Chairperson Messner echoed Commissioner Powell's comments.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Powell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All.
Nayes: None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Messner to deny the 17.5 foot sideyard setback variance request from
Clay Kendhammer permitting the construction of a 16' by 10' accessory building on
the property located at 13604 Birnamwood Trail based on the findings outlined in
the staff report dated January 10, 2006. Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nayes:
11) None. Motion approved.
Mr. Lindahl explained the appeal procedures to the applicant and the Commission.
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. and the Planning
Commission reconvened at the Planning Commission at 9:27 p.m.
Public Hearing
5d. Case 05 -48 -TA Industrial Districts Zoning Text Amendment.
Mr. Lindahl reviewed the staff report. This item was initiated by staff to update and simplify
the City's industrial zoning districts as part of implementation of the 42/52 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. 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. Mr. Lindahl
noted the changes to the zoning districts were based upon Commission comments and staff
also developed continuity in appearance and standards.
Mr. Lindahl highlighted the changes to the business park district.
Chairperson Messner questioned the definition of manufacturing, processing, and assembly
uses conducted entirely within an enclosed building (as a permitted use) and manufacturing,
custom and limited. Mr. Lindahl stated the current zoning ordinance has specific definitions
for manufacturing limited or manufacturing custom. The gist of the differences is the higher
standards for certain manufacturing processes such as producing can good versus or refining
oil. The qualifier of "within an enclosed building" would be staffs intent that in the
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 12
business park district there would be no outdoor storage. Chairperson Messner stated that
he feels manufacturing should not be permitted in the business park and that office
warehouse and showrooms should be a permitted use. Discussion continued regarding
office and retail uses and assembly within a building. As uses are shifted around, it could
have an effect on current users in the business park district. Staff was directed to restructure
and update the definitions for limited and general manufacturing; move office warehouse
and office showroom to permitted uses; and move warehousing, wholesaling and
distribution to conditional uses.
Mr. Lindahl highlighted the changes to the light industrial district and stated the differences
from the business park district. Chairperson Messner questioned the difference between
office warehousing and warehousing. Staff was directed to determine a definition for office
warehousing. Commissioner Schwartz stated she would like motor freight terminals moved
to a different district.
Mr. Lindahl reviewed the changes and additions to the general industrial district.
Chairperson Messner asked for clarification on asphalt plants versus cement and concrete
production. Mr. Pearson stated asphalt plants tend to have more odors while cement plants
have more dust. Both uses generate noise and truck trips. Chairperson Messner suggested
that both uses should be treated as interim use permits.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Zurn to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All.
Nayes: None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Messner to table the action to February 28, 2006.
Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved.
Old Business: None.
New Business: None.
Reports: None.
There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by
Commissioner Zurn and a second by Chairperson Messner, and upon unanimous decision,
the meeting was adjourned at 10:34 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier
Recording Secretary
1110
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2006
PAGE 1
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 24, 2006
PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held
on Tuesday, January 24, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with
Commissioners Schultz, Zurn, Schwartz and Powell present. Also in attendance were Community
Development Director Lindquist, City Planner Pearson, City Administrator Verbrugge, City
Engineer Brotzler, Police Chief Kalstabakken and Deputy Secretary Jentink.
Additions to Agenda: None.
Audience Input: None.
Consent Agenda: None.
Old Business:
05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project) Comp Plan Amendment,
Rezoning, PUD Concept Plan and Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat.
Community Development Director Lindquist noted this item was continued from the Planning
Commission meeting held January 10, 2006. Ms. Lindquist provided additional information from
staff and a compilation of letters and e -mails received from Evermoor residents. Ms. Lindquist
indicated staff had met with the Dakota County Community Development Agency (the "CDA to
discuss options, but no conclusion had been reached. Ms. Lindquist responded to the list of
variances stated in a flyer distributed by Evermoor residents and pointed out that several of the
points were not variances but allowed by ordinance or under the Planned Unit Development
process. Ms. Lindquist stated a Master Development Site Plan will address many of the more
detailed issues as plans are developed.
Chuck Rickart, Traffic Engineer, WSB Associates, Inc. gave an overview of three alternative
access plans and pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. He indicated he
preferred Alternate 2, but Alternate 1 would be feasible as well.
Chairperson Messner noted the Public Hearing was closed on January 10; however, he would allow
additional comments from residents. He requested those speaking to take into account this is a
land use issue such as zoning, land guiding, and access.
Gary Anderson, 3418 Cromwell Trail, thanked the Commissioners for allowing additional
comments. He stated there were far too many variances for this site. The master association and
individual associations of Evermoor have enacted many covenants to protect the residents. He had
visited six CDA developments and none of the projects were built next to single family residences.
Gene Rusco, 3553 Couchtown Path, requested a show of hands from the audience to indicate if
they are opposed the CDA development at the site near Highway 3 and Connemara Trail. The
audience displayed a majority were opposed to the project.
4111 Maureen Bartz, 13566 Crompton Court, questioned the overall appropriateness for the project to
be considered a PUD. In meeting existing ordinances, she believed the variances allowed in this
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2006
PAGE 2
project exceed what should be allowed. She added that at the previous meeting it was stated the
Evermoor residents should have known about the access point to the neighborhood. She agreed
that anyone who researched the property should have known about the access but also would have
sent eh property was zoned rural residential. Ms. Bartz noted that in Ordinance 7.2 A -1 b. a high
standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility is required with surrounding properties to
ensure that will not adversely impact the property values of the abutting properties. She stated the
development does meet the ordinance requirements.
Paul Essler, 13800 Claredowns Way, stated he moved to Rosemount 18 months ago and planned to
install a swimming pool that required a variance. Mr. Essler added he was told by City staff not to
waste his time asking for a variance. Mr. Essler was trying to reconcile the difference between his
one needed variance and the nine variances requested for this project.
Marsha Regan, 13330 Cranford Circle, stated she had no problem with moderate income housing,
but focused on the physical structure of the housing development. Ms. Regan had concerns with
the traffic and parking impacts on the Glendalough neighborhoods. She also questioned the zoning
regulations which state that for town homes a maximum of six dwellings may be attached per
building except for when adjacent to R -1 zoning districts.
Jay Liberacki, Development Director for U.S. Homes, handed out a packet with maps and
presentation notes. Mr. Liberacki showed the site in relationship to the Glendalough
neighborhood. He noted that this is not a flat area of ground and pointed out the slopes on the
plat. Mr. Liberacki stated the average person looking at the site and its access would not have
4111
envisioned 30 town homes off the end of the cul -de -sac. He questioned where else the City would
have entertained an idea like this in Rosemount. He reviewed the different access options. The
first alternative would require bringing the site up to road grade. The second option has some
hidden costs with the moving of a water line, lowering the pipeline and lowering the grade. The
third option would allow continuity into the project. Mr. Liberacki stated a couple of weeks ago he
met with the CDA in hope of arriving at a compromise where the CDA project would have its own
dedicated access; not through Glendalough. Mr. Liberacki would like the dedicated access idea set
on the table and stated it would be cheaper than lowering the pipeline. Mr. Liberacki added he and
Arcon Development are co- owners of a parcel of land at Akron and County Road 42 and would be
willing to talk to the CDA about a parcel in that area.
Darrell Pavelka, 3505 Couchtown Path, stated his concerns with the density change to this parcel
and what effect this project, if approved, would have on the marketing of the adjacent properties to
the north. He assumes those properties will also be considered for medium density residential. He
stated he feels the traffic issue will become worse with the development of the other properties.
Mr. Pavelka stated this project will not broaden the tax base.
Scott Rohr, 3964 154t Street West, stated some people in this town want this project. Mr. Rohr
stated this project is needed in Rosemount and asked people not to judge others based upon their
income.
Ross Allen, 13539 Crompton Court, was disappointed that the previous speaker indicated the issue
seems to be about race, ethnicity or financial bearing. He stated the neighborhood concerns relate
only to the land use.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2006
PAGE 3
Commissioner Zurn asked that the variances referred to in the neighborhood flyer be addressed by
City staff. Ms. Lindquist stated the flyer listed nine variances; however, the PUD process allows a
development to vary from the standard ordinance requirements. In this case, the project is assessed
based upon the R -2 zoning district although not held to those standards necessarily. There is a
slight increase in density from that expected in the R -2 district. The ordinance requires 6 units /acre
and the density is 6.25 units /acre. There is a variation from the normal garage requirements;
however, there was previous discussion with the Council to allow for single stall garages in
affordable housing projects. Thirdly, the variation from drainage to drain off site is not a variance
and is allowed by the ordinance and this site will pay an off site ponding fee. The change of the
street access and utility easements, variation of storm water management, relaxation of setback
requirements, and payment of cash rather than the normally required set aside park land are not
variances but rather typical outcomes related to development. The parking stall variance relates to
the single -stall garage issue. Ms. Lindquist added the PUD process allows developers to meet the
intent of the ordinance without meeting all ordinance conditions. In staff's opinion there are
mitigating circumstances relating to the plan that allow some flexibility. Ms. Lindquist noted one of
the 10 acre exceptions for a PUD is when property is located in a transition area between different
land use categories or on a collector or arterial minor principle street as defined in the
comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Schultz noted that Glendalough has smaller lots then allowed by ordinance. Mr.
Pearson responded that Glendalough is a classic example of a PUD that had a lot of open space
buffering the outer edges of the lots so the preliminary plat had a variety of lot shapes that were not
the typical rectangular lots. Most of the lots are smaller, more shallow, and have reduced setbacks
to allow maximum flexibility to the developer. The setbacks in Glendalough are not typical of
those in an R -1 district and a PUD allowed the flexibility.
Commissioner Schultz questioned if the developer of Evermoor had the opportunity to work with
the property owner to purchase the property. Ms. Lindquist stated the developer did not want to
expand further due to the financial concerns.
Commissioner Zurn questioned who would bear the cost of lowering the pipeline. Ms. Lindquist
stated that it is something to be worked out between Lundgren and the CDA. It appears the
pipeline will need to be lowered under several of the different access scenarios.
Chairperson Messner questioned the wetland to the north and where the potential connection to
the north was drawn in. Mr. Rickart stated the alternative was just a concept based upon how the
development could occur to the north.
Mr. Liberacki asked for a change in the access design for Alternative 2 and requested the thru street
be to the town homes and the turn movement into the single family. Mr. Liberacki added he
prefers as many turns as possible to discourage short -cut traffic in the single family neighborhood.
Commissioner Powell questioned the Tara Commons Court right -of -way. Ms. Lindquist stated the
continuation to the east was part of the preliminary plat. Commissioner Powell noted his concern
with the access to the north with the existing development and how access would be gained. He
further questioned the long term disposition of the CDA project in particular if the project is
owned or sold after a period of time.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2006
PAGE 4
Mark Ulfers, Executive Director of the CDA, 3771 Denmark Trail, Eagan, stated the CDA enters
into a for profit partnership. There is a limited partnership with a corporate partner. The last
several partnerships have been with US Bank. The partnership exists for 15 years and the CDA has
the option of purchasing the project. It is in the CDA's interest to own the property and they are
making provisions to purchase in the future.
Commissioner Powell asked staff to compare and contrast the CDA project with the Roundstone
development to visualize the future improvements. Ms. Lindquist stated the density at Roundstone
is about eight units per acre and is a different housing style. The back -to -back unites have access
on both sides and there is more pavement area. Both projects use private drives internal to the
system.
Commissioner Schultz questioned if the roads will be public or private in the CDA development.
Ms. Lindquist stated staff is interested in having a public road system so there is a through access to
the north to access all the rural residential parcels. The road from the cul -de -sac would be public
and up to the north, internal roads would be private similar to other townhouse projects.
Commissioner Powell clarified that police and public safety have reviewed the project and possess
no strong objections. Ms. Lindquist stated he is correct.
Commissioner Zurn questioned how many CDA projects abut up to single family projects. Mr.
Ulfers stated the Oak Ridge project in Eagan is next to single family homes as well as having
detached town homes literally on the property line.
Commissioner Schwartz stated her concerns about the access and density issues. She added the
recent City survey stated residents moved to Rosemount for the small town atmosphere and that
the overwhelming opinion of tax payers should be taken into consideration.
Commissioner Schultz asked Police Chief Kalstabakken to discuss crime considering the flyers
circulated in the neighborhood stating this was an issue. Police Chief Kalstabakken noted that
general comments are not only from the Rosemount Police Department but are also from other
police departments throughout Dakota County. The CDA is regarded as a very responsible
property manager. The CDA is concerned with the long -term out come of their projects. The
CDA is reactive to tenant and police issues brought to their attention and does not focus on turning
out a profit on their projects. Mr. Kalstabakken referred the Commission to the 20 unit townhouse
project located at 145 and Biscayne and noted it is not a problem property. The police department
does track the problematic properties in the City. The CDA has the lower average of calls for
service.
A woman in audience questioned if the crime report was compared to single family or rental.
Police Chief Kalstabakken noted his comparison was against other rental projects in the City. He
listed the different variables that may cause the information to be distorted for rental projects.
Chairperson Messner stated he viewed this site as being suited for town home or medium density
development based upon the location subject to working out access issues. In his mind, there is
not a clear indication whether Alternative 1 or 2 would be a preferred access solution. Between the
two concepts, one of the alternatives will work out given the number of units and traffic
projections.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2006
PAGE 5
MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council adopt an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan changing the land use designation for the site from Transition
Residential to Urban Residential subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council. Second
by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, and Powell. Nays: Schwartz. Motion approved
4 -1.
MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning
the site from Rural Residential to R -2, Moderate Density Residential PUD. Second by
Schultz.
Commissioner Powell stated based on the surrounding land uses, medium density zoning is
appropriate and the access issue previously raised has been significantly addressed and he could
support the remaining actions.
Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, and Powell. Nays: Schwartz. Motion approved 4 -1.
Commissioner Powell is comfortable with the access alternatives presented but hesitates to
handcuff future discussions by going with a specific alternative.
MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat
subject to:
1. Dedication of right -of -way for the public street consistent with access alternative 1 or 2
as found in the WSB traffic study and in conformance with local street design
requirements.
2. Dedication of appropriate drainage and utility easement subject to approval by the City
Engineer.
3. Approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation as needed.
4. Conformance with the requirements for final plat including execution of a subdivision
development agreement as needed for installation of public infrastructure.
Second by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, and Powell. Nays: Schwartz. Motion
approved 4 -1.
MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Unit
Development Concept subject to:
1. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Rural Residential to Urban
Residential by the Metropolitan Council.
2. Final development of the parcel is contingent of City approval of a site plan, PUD
Master Development Plan and execution of a PUD agreement.
3. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer regarding drainage, easements,
grading, storm water management and utilities including:
The street entering the development shall be public and located within a 60 ft. right -of
way and included on the plat.
The applicant shall secure all permits agreements necessary for the proposed crossing
or grading of the pipeline easements.
The applicant will grade the future northern road connection as part of their project and
provide a cash deposit to the City to pay for its future construction.
No parking will be permitted on the streets and turning radius information shall be
provided subject to approval by the Fire Marshal.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2006
PAGE 6
Additional storm water management detail is required including:
a. Infiltration calculations.
b. Outlet elevations from ponds and control structures as noted.
c. Maintenance plan for the rain gardens.
Payment of connection and trunk fees required.
4. Park dedication in the form of cash in lieu of land in the amount of $90,000. (30 units x
$3,000 per unit) based upon the 2005 fee schedule.
5. Approval and receipt of permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation as
needed.
6. Seventeen common parking spaces shall be provided, based upon 15 for the 30 units
and 2 for the office.
7. The applicant provide at a minimum, a setback of 20 feet between the units and the
private streets which will be sufficient for driveway parking. This requirement is in
recognition of the single stall garages proposed for the individual units.
8. The northwest building must be re- oriented to create a more acceptable setback to the
anticipated public street right -of -way, as well as increase the distance to the southerly
building cluster inside the street loop.
9. Additional screening landscaping shall be installed along the Highway 3 right -of -way
and along the western edge of the development, including both coniferous and
deciduous trees and shrubs.
10. The Scotch Pines specified in the landscaping plan shall be relocated elsewhere on the
site, and conformance with sight triangle standards for visibility at intersections will be
required for all public and private intersections within the development.
11. The applicant provide an acceptable public street access to the site consistent with
alternative 1 or 2 as defined in the WSB traffic study.
12. The applicant obtain final building elevation approval including brick detailing on the
front facades.
Second by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, and Powell. Nays: Schwartz. Motion
approved 4 -1.
Ms. Lindquist indicated this item will be on the February 7, 2006 City Council Agenda.
Public Hearing:
05 -11 -CP County Road 46 and Highway 3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report. Staff is initiating an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to designate land for commercial use at the County Road 46 and State
Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) intersection. The Planning Commission had previously discussed
the concept at work sessions in February and March of 2005. At that time, the Planning
Commission directed staff to update the C -3 Highway Service and C -4 General Commercial zoning
district standards. With that task now complete, the Comprehensive Plan amendment process can
proceed. The area consists of approximately 92 acres on either side of Highway 3 north of County
Road 46. It includes seven different parcels; some are portions of right -of -way associated with the
old alignment of Highway 3.
Mr. Pearson shared the concerns of SemStream, the owner of the southwest corner, who
commented by letter about the existing infrastructure (handed out to the Planning Commission
earlier). Car Nav Five, AAA, and Mr. McMenomy appear to be in support of the amendment. Mr.
McMenomy had hoped his portion of property on the west side of the railroad tracks could be
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2006
PAGE 7
included but staff informed Mr. McMenomy it would require a new public hearing to consider the
property.
Mr. Pearson asked the Commissioners to discuss the matter of whether the SemStream property is
included in the project.
Ms. Lindquist added that Gary Pahl is fine with the change in land use.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson.
Chairperson Messner questioned if by reguiding the SemStream property to commercial and
creating a nonconforming use are the tanks considered permanent structures. Mr. Pearson stated
the property has been in the general industrial category since the 1960's. Above ground fuel tanks
and the apparatuses have been considered part of the general industrial district. The tanks require
permits for expansion. This type of use is a permitted use; however, we might want to take a look
at the general industrial district to look at the specifics of the property.
Commissioner Zurn questioned if SemStream added more tanks would their taxes increase at that
time. Mr. Pearson stated the Dakota County Assessing Department would handle that type of
question. Ms. Lindquist stated staff does not know how they would value the addition of tanks as
any improvement would add value. If the property is rezoned, SemSteram would be a
nonconforming use and not allowed to expand.
Chairperson Messner asked for an explanation of the law relating to nonconforming uses in regards
to the amount of gallons or volume of materials being stored on site. Ms. Lindquist stated there is
no way to know how much is being pumped through the site. The real rule of thumb would be if
they wanted to add a building or do an addition onto a building instead of the actual amount of fuel
running through the system. The issue is do you want to allow them to continue, grow and
maintain that facility or would your rather make them nonconforming and they redevelop where
other land is zoned general industrial.
Chairperson Messner expressed his concern to work around that property and his preference to
look at the area in a whole and not sandwich the property.
Commissioner Zurn stated he understood the value of the land would be higher as commercial land
than as general industrial land. Ms. Lindquist said at some point it may be a higher value.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. There were no public comments.
MOTION by Powell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
There were no follow -up questions or concerns.
MOTION by Zurn to recommend that the City Council adopt an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation for 92 acres along both sides of
State Highway 3 and north of County Road 46 to Commercial. Second by Powell. Ayes:
All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2006
PAGE 8
Mr. Pearson stated this item would be scheduled for the February 21, 2006 City Council Agenda.
Old Business: None.
New Business: None.
Reports: Ms. Lindquist updated the Commission on the status of the downtown redevelopment
proceedings. CPDC is tightening up some final offers and reviewing the location costs for the
various businesses to obtain a full picture of the final settlement.
There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision,
the meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Linda Jentink
Deputy Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held
on Tuesday, February 28, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with
Commissioners Schultz, Zurn and Powell present. Commissioner Schwartz was absent. Also in
attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, City Planner Pearson, Assistant City
Planner Lindahl, City Engineer Brotzler, Project Engineer Dawley and Recording Secretary
Domeier.
Additions to Agenda: Mr. Pearson noted a correction to the agenda. Item 5.h. 06 -11 -FP
Harmony 4t Addition (CPDC) Final Plat should be removed from Public Hearings as it is a part of
the Consent Agenda.
Audience Input: None.
Consent Agenda:
4.a. Approval of the January 10, 2006 Special Meeting minutes.
4.b. Approval of the January 24, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes.
4.c. Approval of 06 -11 -FP Harmony 4 Addition (CPDC) Final Plat.
4.d. Continuation of 05 -48 -TA Public Hearing for Light Industrial and General
Industrial Districts Zoning Text Amendments to March 14, 2006.
4.e. Continuation of 05 -62 -CP Flint Hills Resources, LP Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to March 14, 2006.
4.f. Continuation of 06 -07 -PP Evermoor Crosscroft 3rd Addition (DR Horton)
Preliminary Plat, 06- 08 -AMD Evermoor Crosscroft 3' Addition (DR Horton)
PUD Major Amendment, and 06 -09 -FP Evermoor Crosscroft 3' Addition (DR
Horton) Final Plat to March 14, 2006.
MOTION by Powell to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All.
Nays: None. Motion carried.
Public Hearings:
5.a. 05 -48 -TA Business Park Zoning Text Amendment. Assistant City Planner Lindahl
reviewed the staff report. Mr. Lindahl noted if the Commission recommended approval of the
amended Business Park District, staff would forward it on to the City Council on March 21 for
formal approval. In conjunction with the approval, staff will be presenting rezoning and
Comprehensive Plan amendments for the residential portion of the Business Park to the
appropriate residential land use and zoning categories. Staff will come back to the Commission at
the March 14 meeting with similar amendments to reguide and rezone the Business Park 1, 2, 3,
and 4 districts into the new BP Business Park District. Staff anticipates bringing the Light and
General Industrial Districts back to the Commission in April. In the interim, the City Council
placed a moratorium until May 1, 2006 on developments with outdoor storage within the existing
Business Park zoning district. Staff plans to complete the text amendments, Comprehensive Plan
amendments, and rezoning within the term of the moratorium. Mr. Lindahl stated additional
information from Business Park property owner's Vic's Crane and Dakota Fence has been
distributed for Commission review.
Commissioner Zurn questioned whether commercial indoor recreation is unchanged or eliminated.
Mr. Lindahl apologized for the typographical error causing the confusion and responded that
commercial indoor recreation has been amended to be a conditional use permit in the district.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
PAGE 2
Carol Hickman, 29370 Randolph Boulevard, Randolph, representing Vic's Crane and Towing,
stated Vic's Crane has been a part of the community since 1951. With the unexpected restrictions,
Vic's Crane feels like it is intentionally being forced out of Rosemount. Vic's Crane is the largest
crane company in Minnesota and is the primary crane provider for Flint Hills Resources and
Marathon. Ms. Hickman respectfully requested that the Planning Commission forego the outdoor
storage ban.
Bruce Rydeen, 16421 Gunflint Trail, Lakeville, representing JJT LLC, owner of the Wachter parcel,
presented his concerns with the outdoor storage limitation. Mr. Rydeen stated JJT LLC has
promoted the Wachter parcel by stating outdoor storage is allowed per the size of the principal
structure. Mr. Rydeen requested that Office Showroom /Warehouse become a permitted use.
Assistant City Planner Lindahl clarified that Office Showroom /Warehouse is a permitted use.
Jay Karlovich of LeVander, Gillen Miller, P.A., representing Dakota Fence, 15953 Biscayne
Avenue, Rosemount, confirmed that the Planning Commission received his letter regarding the
item. Chairperson Messner confirmed receipt of the letter.
Dennis Ozment, 3275 145`'' Street East, Rosemount, stated he is concerned with the changes to the
Business Park district with the elimination of outdoor storage.
MOTION by Zurn to close the Public Hearing. Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Public Hearing closed.
Chairperson Messner directed staff to address the outdoor storage issues. City Planner Pearson
showed the Commission a zoning map and pointed out the Business Park areas. Mr. Pearson
stated that outdoor storage was allowed in the BP -1 District and BP -2 District by PUD.
Chairperson Messner confirmed that the revised Business Park zoning would prohibit outdoor
storage from all of the Business Park. Mr. Pearson stated that is correct.
Chairperson Messner questioned if the current zoning for Vic's Crane area is General Industrial.
Ms. Lindquist stated it was part of the 42/52 Land Use Plan that was adopted by the Council is July
2005; the zoning remains general industrial and the guiding is commercial in the north and business
park in the south.
Mr. Lindahl expanded on the comments by stating that Business Park is a broad category for the
Comprehensive Plan reguiding. Ms. Lindquist added that while a property is guided Business Park
it may not become zoned Business Park. Ms. Lindquist noted the flexibility under the 2020
Comprehensive Plan land use designations. The changes proposed tonight do not affect Vic's
Crane. If Vic's Crane is rezoned to Business Park without changing of the ordinance, Vic's Craine
would not be a permitted use. The issue should have been discussed more in depth when the
reguiding took place to see if the use was appropriate in the Business Park or in a Light Industrial
area. The text changes proposed tonight, changed or not changed, Vic's Crane would still not be a
permitted use in the Business Park.
Commissioner Schultz asked for an explanation of accessory uses that are incidental to principal
uses. Mr. Pearson stated accessory uses are intended to be supportive of the principal or primary
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
PAGE 3
use of the building. Accessory uses are incidental and are interpreted to be limited to an area less
than the footprint of the building.
Commissioner Powell questioned if proper legal notice was given regarding the item. Ms. Lindquist
stated it was published and most recently a copy of the proposed ordinance was sent to property
owners with land zoned Business Park.
Commissioner Zurn questioned if the cart is in front of the horse in looking at the proposed text
amendment and moratorium. Ms. Lindquist stated the moratorium was put in place to allow time
to finish the Business Park zoning text amendment and relates to outdoor storage. The intent is to
allow enough time to address the outdoor storage issue.
Commissioner Schultz echoed the comments of Commissioner Zurn. Chairperson Messner
questioned the concerns. Commissioner Zurn stated his concerns regarding the City Attorney
allowing Light Industrial within the Business Park. Ms. Lindquist stated the land use would be
Business Park but the property would be zoned Light Industrial. The land use is broad enough that
it could encompass industrial uses. Commissioner Schultz stated her concerns lie within outdoor
storage being either incidental or accessory and not wanting to hinder Rosemount businesses. Ms.
Lindquist stated that whether outdoor storage is incidental or accessory in the Business Park
District is inconsequential as the amendments proposed is to eliminate outdoor storage in the
Business Park. If you want to have outside storage, staff needs to know which way the
Commission is heading. Chairperson Messner stated given the types of uses either permitted or
conditional, he doesn't see how most of those uses with, the exception of maybe one or two, would
ever request or require outside storage. Based upon the Business Park zoning and the type of uses,
we do not necessarily need incidental or accessory outdoor storage.
Commissioner Powell stated his viewpoint in relation to how the existing businesses will be
affected. It appears other property owners would be interested in voicing their concerns related to
the prohibition of outdoor storage. Commissioner Powell recommended continuing the action to
March 14 to allow additional business and property owners a chance to voice their opinions.
Commissioner Zurn echoed Mr. Powell's comments.
MOTION by Powell to continue the Public Hearing to March 14, 2006. Second by
Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion carried.
5.b. 06 17 ZA Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of Claret Springs East
Townhomes. Ms. Lindquist reviewed the staff report and spoke to the next three items. The
items are part of the zoning text amendment to the Business Park. The three projects are
residential uses within the Business Park as part of the last Comprehensive Plan. It is likely,
regardless of some of the other issues that are the outcome of the Business Park district, that most
people will support the removal of residential uses in the Business Park. The neighborhoods have
been notified of the change. Staff recommends approval of Items 5.b., 5.c., and 5.d.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion carried.
MOTION byZurn to recommend approval of regarding Claret Spring East Townhomes
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
PAGE 4
from Business Park to Urban Residential and rezone the property from BP PUD to R -2
PUD subject to Metropolitan Council review and approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion carried.
Ms. Lindquist stated this item will go the City Council on March 21, 2006.
5.c. 06 -18 -ZA Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of Wachter Lake
Condominiums. Community Development Lindquist stated this item was addressed with Item
5.c.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Powell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion carried.
MOTION by Schultz to recommend approval of reguiding Wachter Lake Condominiums
from Business Park to Urban Residential and rezone the property from BP PUD to R -3
PUD subject to Metropolitan Council review and approval of the Guide Plan Amendment.
Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion carried.
5.d. 06 -19 -ZA Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of Carrousel Plaza Townhomes.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion carried.
MOTION by Zurn to Motion recommend approval of reguiding Carrousel Plaza
Townhomes from Business Park to Urban Residential and rezone the property from BP
PUD to R -2 PUD subject to review and approval of the Guide Plan Amendment by the
Metropolitan Council. Second by Schultz. Motion carried.
5.e. 05 -60-SP Dakota Enterprises, Ltd. Expansion Site Plan Review. Community Development
Director Lindquist reviewed the staff report. Dakota Enterprises, Ltd. has requested site plan
approval for an expansion of their building and outdoor storage area located on 10 acres of land on
the northwest corner of Biscayne Avenue and 160 Street West (County Road 46). Staff is working
with the applicant on modifications of the site plan and recommends this item be continued to
March 14, 2006 so the details can be worked out.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward.
Jay Karlovich of LeVander, Gillen Miller, P.A., representing Dakota Fence informed the
Planning Commission that the plan is within the next two weeks the applicant and staff will reach a
compromise.
Tom Engelmeier, 1810 Faber, South Saint Paul, stated he plans to meet with Ms. Lindquist to draft
a "Plan B" for the project to move the current 2.1 acres of storage to the north facility and not
increase the outdoor storage. Mr. Engelmeier will look for approval of the new plan in two weeks.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
PAGE 5
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
Dennis Ozment, 3275 145t Street East, Rosemount., stated he did not remember discussing a
moratorium on outdoor storage during the 42/52 meetings. Mr. Ozment believes the moratorium
should have been addressed front and center during the 42/52 meetings.
MOTION by Powell to continue the Public Hearing to March 14, 2006. Second by
Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion carried.
5.f. 06 -03 -PP JJT Business Park First Addition (Appro Development) Preliminary Plat
and 06 -04 -FP JJT Business Park First Addition (Appro Development) Final Plat. Assistant
City Planner Lindhal reviewed the staff report. Jack Matasosky of JJT LLC requested preliminary
and final plat approval of the JJT Business Park First Addition to allow the subdivision of 44.72
acres of land into two buildable lots and an outlot for future subdivision. The site is currently
vacant land and guided and zoned for Business Park use.
It was noted that should the City approve the subdivision, MRCI WorkSource has requested site
plan approval for a 20,600 square foot office /assembly building for Lot 1, Block 1 of JJT Business
Park First Addition. By ordinance site plans within the Business Park district, if meeting all the
performance standards, can be administratively approved and therefore would not require Planning
Commission or City Council review.
Chairperson Messner questioned the ownership of Outlot A. Community Development Director
Lindquist stated the outlot is owned by the Port Authority; however, the applicant plans to
purchase the outlot from the Port Authority.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward.
Bruce Rydeen of Cerron Properties commented on three items. First, the applicant requested that
the park dedication fees on the outlot be deferred until the time the outlot subdivided. Second, the
applicant requested that they not be required to pay for the right -of -way necessary for the road
which is currently under current City ownership. Lastly, the applicant requested that they only be
required to pay for the cost of constructing the half of Boulder Avenue which abuts their property.
Mr. Rydeen thanked the Commission and staff for their help and consideration.
Ms. Lindquist stated that in conversations with Parks and Recreation Director Schultz about park
dedication fees, the intention is the fees will be listed in the Subdivision Agreement. The fees for
the park dedication may go up depending upon when development occurs. Ms. Lindquist indicated
that she told Mr. Rydeen to get his comments on the record since it is a Council decision regarding
road construction and right -of -way costs since the City owns the outlot to allow the road to go on
the City property. There is a value associated since the City did expend funds to obtain that
property. The Council will be made aware of the applicant's concerns.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Zurn to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary and
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
PAGE 6
final plat for JJT Business Park First Addition to allow the creation of two buildable lots
and an outlot for future subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval and meeting of conditions of the Dakota County Plat Commission.
2. Dedication of right -of -way for County Road 42 and Boulder Avenue and Boulder Court
rights -of -way.
3. Payment to the City of Rosemount for the City owned land necessary for the extension
of Boulder Avenue at a rate of $1.85 per square foot.
4. Compliance with all Engineering comments regarding changes to the project's Storm
Water Management Plan prior to final grading permit approval.
5. Submission of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and
approval by the City prior to final grading plan approval.
6. Payment of the following development fees:
1. GIS Fee 9.4 acres $120 /acre $1128
2. Trunk Sewer Area Charge 9.4 acres $1075 /acre $10,105
3. Trunk Water Area Charge 9.4 acres $4420 /acre $41,548
4. Trunk Storm Area Charge 9.4 acres $6200 /acre $58,280
7. Payment of Park Dedication in the amount of $217,350 or the applicable amount at
the time of final plat.
Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion carried.
Mr. Lindahl stated the item will go before the City Council on March 21, 2006.
5.g. 06 -06 -SP Celtic Crossing, LLC Phase 3 Site Plan Review and 06- 15 -AMD Celtic
Crossing, LLC PUD Major Amendment. Assistant City Planner Lindahl reviewed the staff report.
Celtic Crossing, LLC requested site plan approval to allow the construction of a 15,603 square foot
multi- tenant retail center and a major PUD amendment to allow the construction of a larger ground
sign. The property is located on the southwest corner of County Road 42 and Crestone Avenue. It is
the third and final phase of the Celtic Crossing Center. Mr. Lindahl noted the sign amendment
portion should be continued to March 28, 2006 to allow the applicant time to finalize sign plans.
Commissioner Powell inquired if there has been any concerns raised with the set up of the drive thru
in the Phase II portion of the project. Mr. Lindahl responded that to date, staff is not aware of any
issues with the Dunn Bros. drive thru.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward.
Jeff Wrede of Tushie Montgomery Architects thanked staff for the good working relationship.
Chairperson Messner questioned if the applicant was in agreement with the suggested conditions of
approval. Mr. Wrede responded that they will work with staff to meet the conditions.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
PAGE 7
Joe Wendling, 15109 Crestone Court, Rosemount, stated his concerns related to landscaping and
screening along 151st Street, additional traffic, adding another exit in front of Kindercare and the
lighting along the back of the proposed building. Mr. Wendling added he would like to see
additional boulevard trees along the boulevard similar to those behind Cub Foods and next to
Walgreens.
Mr. Wrede responded to the public comment and stated a portion of the berm along 151 Street,
about three feet in the center, would have to be removed for drainage purposes. He further stated
that evergreen trees for screening will be planted every 10 feet.
Ed McMenomy, 4122 133` St. W., Rosemount, added that the swale will align with the centered
green space to limit its impact on residential uses on the south side of 151 Street on the berm.
Mr. Wrede further commented that an additional driveway will be added out of the Kindercare
parking lot and noted the lights will be set at 12 feet on the building for security purposes and
directed downward.
Mr. Wendling questioned if there would be air conditioning units on the top of the building. He
again asked if trees could be planted by the boulevard, similar to the trees behind Cub Foods. Mr.
Pearson stated the trees were planted as part of the Cub Foods project.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Powell to approve the site plan for Celtic Crossing, LLC to allow the
construction of a 15,603 square foot multi- tenant retail center, subject to conditions:
1. Issuance of a building permit.
2. Redesign of the front building elevation to include a three foot brick base along the
entire elevation consistent with the design of phases one and two, prior to issuance of a
building permit.
3. Submission of a share access easement for the drive lane on the west side of the site
prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. Redesign of the trash enclosure to meet the 50 percent brick requirement of the
principal structure prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. Submission of a revised landscape plan relocating the foundation plantings on the east
side of the building into planters along the front elevation.
6. Submission of a landscape security equal to one hundred and twenty five percent
(125 of the cost of the plantings.
7. Submission of cut sheets for the proposed exterior lighting fixtures to demonstrate their
consistency with the existing lighting prior to issuance of a building permit.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
PAGE8
8. Conformance with all conditions of the City Engineer as outlined in this report prior to
issuance of a building permit.
9. Redesign of the site to the extent possible to reduce the amount of impervious surface
coverage while maximizing green space, prior to issuance of a building permit.
Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Messner to continue the major PUD amendment to allow the consolidation
of the ground signs shown on the original concept PUD into a larger ground sign along
County Road 42 to 3 -28 -06 to allow more time for the applicant to design the sign. Second
by Powell. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Lindahl stated the Site Plan has been approved and the next step in the process for the
applicant is to apply for a building permit. Mr. Lindahl stated the PUD Major Amendment
application for the sign will come before the Planning Commission on March 28, 2006.
5.h. 06 -10 -SP Harmony Clubhouse (CPDC) Site Plan Review and 06 -11 -FP Harmony 4th
Addition (CPDC) Final Plat. City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report. Contractor
Property Developers Company "CPDC requested Site Plan review approval to construct a
clubhouse in the Harmony development. The clubhouse is included as part of the Planned Unit
Development as an amenity for all of the various housing areas.
Commissioner Powell questioned how Condition 4 would be enforced. Mr. Pearson responded it
could be addressed in the homeowners association covenants or the site plan could be amended.
Commissioner Powell stated he would like the condition referenced in the HOA documents.
Chairperson Messner agreed with Commissioner Powell's request.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicants to come forward.
Dave Hempel of CPDC, 3030 Town Centre Drive, Roseville, thanked staff and the Planning
Commission for their support of the project. Mr. Hempel stated the clubhouse will be a nice
amenity to the Harmony Development. Mr. Hempel also touched on the preservation of trees
from the Brockway Site.
Commissioner Powell questioned the timetable of construction. Mr. Hempel stated CPDC plans to
break ground on the project as soon as possible.
Tim Whitman of Rottlund Co. stated the second level of the clubhouse is an attractive option and
falsl within ADA requirements. Mr. Whitman presented colors and examples of the siding and
stone for clubhouse.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Powell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Powell to approve the Site Plan for the Harmony Clubhouse subject to:
1. The building will be constructed in conformance with elevations received February 21,
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
PAGE 9
2006.
2. Recording a proof -of- parking agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for
up to 25 additional spaces.
3. Additional landscaping with shade trees and evergreens in the gaps along the south and
west property lines to provide additional screening to the future high- density housing.
4. Applicant shall ensure that at least 50% of the main floor exercise area is reserved for
meeting purposes and that any activities or functions programmed for the second floor
area are also available on the first floor in accordance with ADA requirements.
5. Conformance with applicable building and fire codes.
Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Pearson indicated the Planning Commission has the approval authority for the project. The
next step in the process for CPDC is to apply for a building permit.
5.i. 06 -12 -IUP Flint Hills Resources Relocation of Existing Trailer Complex Interim Use
Permit. City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report. Flint Hills Resources "FHR requested
an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to relocate a trailer complex within the refinery complex. The trailers
are currently located approximately 700 feet west of U.S. 52 and 700 feet south of the
Administration building. The trailers will be moved to a new location 2,500 feet west of US 52;
2,750 feet east of County Road 71, and 800 feet north of the intersection of County Road 71 and
135t Street East. The IUP will enable FHR to continue to utilize the trailers for two pending
construction projects that will be located deep within the refinery complex. The site is not likely to
be visible from the outer edges of the refinery, either from County Road 71 or U.S. 52.
Chairperson Messner invited the application to come forward. The applicant, Gary Schumann of
FHR, did not have comment.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Powell Motion to recommend that the City Council approve an Interim Use
Permit for the relocation of the contractor trailer complex to the new 2.5 acre location on
the west side of "C" street and north of 8th Street in the Flint Hills Resources Refinery
subject to:
1. The date of the expiration of the IUP shall be December 31, 2009.
2. Each building and trailer requires a separate building permit.
3. The permit is limited to the area shown on the attached drawing CBD -2006 titled Crude
Unit Revamp Office Trailer Complex 2006.
Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
5.j. 06 -02 -CP Rosemount Transportation Plan. Due to professional conflict, Commissioner Powell
stepped down and left the room for the item. City Engineer Brotzler reviewed the staff report.
The City has been working towards the completion of a comprehensive transportation plan over
the past several years. With the recent adoption of the 42/52 Land Use plan in 2005 which
included transportation, a final draft transportation plan has been prepared. The final draft plan has
been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with the Met Council's requirements
for a 60 day comment period. Following the end of the public review and comment period, a final
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
PAGE 10
plan will be presented to the City Council for adoption.
Chaiperson Messner directed Mr. Brotzler to highlight the 2025 classification for eastern
Rosemount. Mr. Brotzler referred the Commission to Figure 5.2 and reviewed the different
classifications of the roads. Mr. Brotzler added that where roads are shown may not be the exact
area of location of the road. The location will be based upon development.
Chairperson Messner questioned if there are foreseen changes in 20 years to the designations of the
roads and upgrading of the roads given the project growth. Mr. Brotzler stated that Highway 3 is
an unknown change and MnDOT has no intentions of upgrading it from a minor arterial
classification. Highway 3 may have improvements as growth continues for safety purposes. The
Transportation Plan will have to be reevaluated in five to seven to ten years again.
Commissioner Zurn directed Mr. Brotzler to discuss Figure 5.1 for the benefit of the viewers at
home. Mr. Brotzler reviewed the enumerated capital improvements.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Zurn to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn,
Messner. Nays: None. Abstain: Powell. Motion approved.
MOTION by Messner to recommend approval of the Transportation Plan as part of the
City's Comprehensive Plan. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner. Nays:
None. Abstain: Powell. Motion approved.
Old Business: None.
New Business: None.
Reports: Chairperson Messner thanked Rick Pearson for his many years of service to the City and
wished Mr. Pearson all the best in his new venture. Chairperson Messner also thanked
Commissioner Powell for his service to the City as a Planning Commissioner and as a member of
the 42/52 Corridor Study group.
Ms. Lindquist reported that on February 21, 2006 the City Council approved the County Road 46
and Highway 3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon
unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier, Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 14, 2006
411 PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held
on Tuesday, March 14, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. with
Commissioners Schultz, Zurn and Schwartz present. Also in attendance were Community
Development Director Lindquist, Planner Lindahl, Project Engineer Dawley and Recording
Secretary Domeier.
Additions to Agenda: None.
Audience Input: None.
Consent Agenda:
4.a. Approval of the February 28, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes.
4.b. Continuation of 05 -48 -TA General Industrial Districts Zoning Text
Amendments to April 25, 2006.
MOTION by Schwartz to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All.
Nays: None. Motion carried.
Public Hearings:
5.a. 05 -60 -SP Dakota Enterprises, Ltd. Expansion Site Plan Review. Community
Development Lindquist reviewed the staff report. Dakota Enterprises, Ltd. has requested site plan
approval for an expansion of their building and relocation of their outdoor storage area located on
10 acres of land on the northwest comer of Biscayne Avenue and 160 Street West (County Road
46). The Plan has been modified from that provided in the February 28, 2006 packet that was not
supported by the Staff. The applicant has modified the outside storage area to be consistent with
the area currently used for outside storage and has revised the landscaping and building elevations
to address previous areas of non compliance. The one area remaining non compliant is the
requirement for foundation plantings. Because the majority of the addition is located within the
fenced area and will contain paving, it does not seem appropriate to require foundation plantings
and staff supports a variance from that standard.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward.
Jay Karlovich of LeVander, Gillen Miller, P.A., representing Dakota Fence, 15953 Biscayne
Avenue, Rosemount, thanked City staff for working with Dakota Fence and offered to answer any
Commissioner questions.
Chairperson Messner questioned if the applicant was in agreement with the three conditions placed
on the application. Attorney Karlovich stated they were in agreement with the conditions.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Schultz recommend approval of the site plan with variance from the
foundation plantings landscape requirement for Dakota Enterprises, Ltd. at 15953 Biscayne
Avenue subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 14, 2006
PAGE 2
1. The applicant submits a final grading and drainage plan and stormwater calculations for
staff review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit.
2. The applicant submit revised building elevations to bring the west and north building
facades into compliance with ordinance standards for staff review and approval prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3. When development or construction occurs in the northeast portion of the site, additional
landscaping consistent with the ordinance will be required.
Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Ms. Lindquist stated the item would go before the City Council on March 21, 2006.
5.b. 05 -48 -TA Business Park and Light Industrial Zoning Text Amendment. Planner
Lindahl reviewed the staff report. The item was initiated by staff to update and simplify the City's
industrial zoning districts as part of implementation of the 42/52 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. The Commission had reviewed this proposal during its November, January, and
February meetings. At the February meeting, staff incorporated comments and direction from the
two previous meetings. These changes included a new definition for Light Manufacturing as well as
restructuring some uses by moving Office Warehouse and Office Showroom to permitted uses
while moving Warehousing, Wholesaling and Distribution and Light Manufacturing, Processing and
Assembly to conditional uses. Mr. Lindahl noted that 250 notices were sent out to property owners
either zoned or guided Business Park. Mr. Lindahl asked the Commission to review the six
proposed changes on page 2 of the staff report.
Commissioner Schultz questioned if the amount of outdoor storage in the Light Industrial area is
45 Mr. Lindahl explained that outdoor storage is a conditional use under the Light Industrial
uses and allows a square foot area of 45% of outdoor storage per the gross floor area of the
principal building.
Commissioner Schwartz stated her concerns with amount of distribution and semi truck traveling
that would be allowed under #5 of the proposed changes on page two of the staff report. Mr.
Lindahl stated there could be substantial truck traffic but the change to make the use permitted was
based upon Commission direction.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
Carol Hickman, 29370 Randolph Boulevard, Randolph, Minnesota, representing Vic's Crane, stated
her concerns with the limitation of outdoor storage in the business park text amendment and felt
she has received little indication of Vic's Crane being safe from the limitation. Ms. Hickman
requested that the parcel remain General Industrial. Vic's Crane cannot fund a million dollar move
and with the intersection interchange at 42/52 the parcel would be landlocked losing its access to
County Road 42. Ms. Hickman stated Vic's Crane needs the outdoor storage and asked the
Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council allow the outdoor storage in the
business park or to allow the parcel remain General Industrial.
Jack Matasosky, 21476 Grenada Avenue, Lakeville, Minnesota, representing JJT LLC, stated they
have been marketing their parcel of land to potential users and is concerned about the outdoor
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 14, 2006
PAGE 3
storage ban and how it affects their property. Mr. Matasosky stated the concern with distribution
and warehousing becoming a conditional use.
Mark Hebert, 2605 160 St., Rosemount, stated in reviewing the proposed changes he has several
concerns. Mr. Hebert added the facility is an incubator building for smaller businesses and was
designed to conform to the current uses.
Bernice Wenzel, 2829 145 St., Rosemount, stated she lives in the proposed business park area and
handed out five questions to the Commissioners. Ms. Wenzel was concerned if her property is
considered non conforming. Ms. Lindquist stated the property is conforming to the current
zoning. If the property would be rezoned to business park or light industrial the property would
then become non conforming. Ms. Wenzel can maintain the status quo. The property may be
rezoned as development occurs. Ms. Wenzel read her five questions to the Commissioners.
Gloria Pinkert, 3275 145 Street, Rosemount, representing Dennis Ozment, stated she spoke with
the Met Council regarding the amendments to be reviewed. Ms. Lindquist indicated there are two
separate amendments the Met Council is reviewing: 1) 2,000 acres in the Industrial MUSA area; and
2) the Business Park area on the east side of town.
Myron Napper, 3381 145 St. E., Rosemount, questioned why he didn't receive notification of
tonight's meeting. Mr. Lindahl explained the public notice requirements and added the item was
published in the paper per state statute.
MOTION by Zurn to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
Chairperson Messner responded to Ms. Wenzel's questions. Chairperson Messner noted the
answer to questions 1, 3, 4 and will have no effect upon her property until it is rezoned. It was
noted that Ms. Wenzel could live in her house as long as she wished. For question 2, if the
property would be used for Ag purposes, there would be no change. Ms. Lindquist added there is
no set timetable to rezone the property.
Elroy Sell, 2975 145t St. E., Rosemount, stated he would be in limbo on the sale of his property.
Chairperson Messner stated Mr. Sell could live at his property and long as he wanted and as
currently existing.
Tom Schiltz, 2583 145 St. E., Rosemount, questioned how his property would be affected once
the area around his home is developed. Chairperson Messner noted there is a chance his property
value could increase. Chairperson Messner added this is just a text amendment to the business park
district and not a rezoning or reguiding of any particular property.
Chairperson Messner addressed the six proposed changes outlined on page two of the staff report.
The Commissioners were all in agreement with the changes proposed in item 1, 4 and 5. The
Commissioners were also in concurrence with the change suggested in Item 2.b directing staff to
add outdoor storage of finished products as a conditional use similar with the limitation as listed in
the LI -Light Industrial district. The Commissioners were in agreement that item 3 be changed
from limiting retail sales of products manufactured, fabricated, or assembled on site from 30% to
15
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 14, 2006
PAGE 4
MOTION by Schwartz to recommend that the City Council adopt the attached draft
Ordinance amending the BP Business Park and creating the new LI Light Industrial
District, subject to the suggested six changes. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays: None.
Motion approved.
Mr. Lindahl indicated this item will go before the Council at its work session on March 22, 2006.
5.c. 06 -22 -ZA Business Park Classification Rezoning. Planner Lindahl reviewed the staff
report. The City has initiated a rezoning process to bring the four Business Park zoning
classifications into compliance with the new single classification Business Park district. The new
single classification Business Park district was created as a result of the Business Park text
amendment. The proposed rezoning would reclassify all properties with one of the four distinct
Business Park zoning classifications (BP -1, BP -2, BP -3, and BP -4) to the new common BP
Business Park classification.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Zurn to the close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance
Rezoning All BP Business Park 1, 2, 3, and 4 District to BP Business Park. Second by
Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Lindahl indicated this item would go before the City Council on April 4, 2006.
5.d. 06 -07 -PP Evermoor Crosscroft 3 Addition (DR Horton) Preliminary Plat, 06- 08 -AMD
Evermoor Crosscroft 3` Addition (DR Horton) PUD Major Amendment, and 06 -09 -FP
Evermoor Crosscroft 3 Addition (DR Horton) Final Plat. Community Development
Director Lindquist reviewed the staff report. D.R. Horton requested approval of a major
amendment to the approved planned unit development (PUD) for the Crosscroft area of
Evermoor. Crosscroft is a detached townhouse area intended for seniors. The portion of
Crosscroft was to be developed for 67 additional senior or "lifestyle" detached townhouse units.
Approval of the amendment will reduce the number of new lifestyle units to 12 and introduce 35
conventional single family lots. The result will be a net reduction of 20 dwelling units from the
Crosscroft area. The requested approvals also include a preliminary plat for the design revisions to
grading, lots, streets, storm water and utilities; and a final plat for the resulting lots and easements.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward. Bob Erickson, Division Vice
President of D.R. Horton Minnesota, gave the rundown of D.R. Horton homes built in the
Evermoor project. Mr. Erickson stated there will be a change of a connector street at Connemara
Trail to allow for another entrance to the single family properties. Mr. Erickson held a meeting
with the association and residents were in favor of the reduction in units. In February, a meeting
was held with the master association and there were no objections to the project. Mr. Erickson
gave Ms. Lindquist credit for the idea of a housing style change.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 14, 2006
PAGE 5
Roxann Duffy, 13962 Dallas Avenue, Rosemount, questioned if the association dues will be
changing due to the changes in the project. Bob Erickson assured Ms. Duffy and the
Commissioners that a budget has been in place and it would work appropriately with the single
family participating financially. The HOA documents are being prepared and will be submitted to
the City Council with the final plat.
Pat Medlin, 13749 Crosscroft Avenue, Rosemount, questioned the amount of landscaping to ensure
there is a significant screening to shield the current units from the single family units. Mr. Erickson
showed a copy of the landscape plan illustrating where the landscaping will be located and the
amount of screening that is being provided.
MOTION by Zurn to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Schultz to recommend that the City Council approve the PUD Major
Amendment and Preliminary Plat for Crosscroft 3` Addition subject to:
1. Execution of a PUD amendment agreement.
2. Incorporation of comments from the City Engineer regarding drainage, grading,
easements, storm water improvements, streets and utilities including:
A conservation easement shall be provided over Outlot D.
A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted with
3. the final grading plan.
Extending the sidewalk along Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 to the intersection of Crosscliffe
Path and Crossmoor Avenue South.
Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Schultz to recommend that the City Council approve the Final Plat for
Crosscroft 3` Addition subject to:
1. Execution of a subdivision development agreement to secure the installation of
public and private infrastructure.
2. Approval of homeowner's association documents by the City Attorney to ensure the
maintenance and replacement of the private streets and amenities serving Crosscroft
3"' Addition.
3. Recording of a conservation easement for Outlot D.
4. Approval of the Crosscroft 3Td Addition PUD major amendment and revised
preliminary plat (Cases 06 -07 -PP and 06- 08 -AMD).
Ms. Lindquist indicated this item would go before the City Council on April 4, 2006.
5.e. 05 62 CP Flint Hills Resources, LP Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Community
Development Director Lindquist reviewed the staff report. Flint Hills Resources requested
approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to include several parcels of land into the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Three separate parcels along the eastern and southern
edge of the refinery area are included in the request. The impetus of the request is to provide urban
sanitary sewer service to these specific sites. Currently, 197,225 gallons of sanitary waste is removed
from the refinery and trucked to the metro wastewater treatment plant in St. Paul. The trip
generation for the sanitary waste removal is estimated at 50 trips per month.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 14, 2006
PAGE 6
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
Myron Napper, 3381 145 Street East, Rosemount, questioned the uses and locations of the two
proposed buildings. Ms. Lindquist responded by showing Mr. Napper a site map indicating the
location of the proposed buildings. Ms. Lindquist added Parcel 2 is an intended pump -out station
and Parcel 3 would be a warehouse and maintenance facility.
MOTION by Schultz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
Chairperson Messner questioned if the property is brought into the MUSA would it affect the
allocation of services to other areas. Ms. Lindquist stated it should not affect the other areas.
MOTION by Schwartz to recommend that the City Council approve the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for Flint Hills Resources to include approximately 65.4 acres of general
industrial land in the Industrial Metropolitan urban Service Area for sanitary sewer service,
subject to approval of Met Council. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion
approved.
5.f. 06 -01 -ME Danner Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal. Planner Lindahl reviewed the staff
report. Marlon Danner is requesting 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. This is a routine annual permit
renewal as required by ordinance.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
Frank Knoll, 4322 145` St. E., Rosemount, stated two trucks in association with the Danner property
use jake brakes that are noisy and a nuisance by his home. Mr. Knoll also added that he hears loud
explosions and doesn't know if the noise is from the Danner pit or the refinery property.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
Mr. Lindahl stated the public comment will be forwarded to City Council. He directed Mr. Knoll
to contact City staff when the noise problems are occurring for documentation and enforcement of
the City Code.
Motion by Messner to recommend that the City Council renew the Danner Mineral
Extraction Permit for 2006, subject to the standards outlined in Section 12.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance and the 2006 Conditions for Mineral Extraction. Second by Schwartz. Ayes:
All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Lindahl indicated the item would go to City Council on April 4, 2006.
New Business: None.
Reports: None.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 14, 2006
PAGE 7
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon
unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier, Recording Secretary
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
MARCH 14, 2006
PAGE 8
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments was held on Tuesday, March 14, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to
order at 8:39 p.m. with Commissioners Schultz, Zurn and Schwartz present. Also in attendance
were Community Development Director Lindquist, Planner Lindahl, Project Engineer Dawley and
Recording Secretary Domeier.
Public Hearings:
2.a. 06 -20 -V Eigner (12465 Blanca Avenue) Variance. Planner Lindahl reviewed the staff
report. Trent Eigner requested a south side yard setback variance from 30 to 14.5 feet to allow the
construction of a three stall attached garage along with two north side yard setback variances from
30 to 21 feet and from 30 to 12.7 feet to allow the expansion of his existing single family home
located at 12465 Blanca Avenue. The expansion on the east (front) side of the existing house
includes a new bedroom, office, foyer, mud room, front porch, and a three stall garage while the
expansion on the west (back) side of the home would add a foundation under the existing
porch /deck and redesign this area into three new bedrooms and a new dinning area. The applicant
cites several reasons for granting both side yard setback variances. First, the neighboring property
to the south was granted a rear yard setback variance to allow a similar expansion. Second, the
subject property was subdivided and the house was constructed prior to adoption of the current
setback standards. Third, the subject property and most of the lots in the surrounding
neighborhood are too small to accommodate a reasonable signal family home and still meet the
required building, septic and well performance standards. Finally, that the variances would allow
construction of a three stall attached garage eliminating the need for two existing non conforming
sheds.
Chairperson Messner invited the application to come forward.
Trent Eigner, 12465 Blanca Avenue, Rosemount, started by thanking Mr. Lindahl for being so
helpful during this application review. Mr. Eigner stated his lot is not on City sewer or water. He
stated he has a practical design proposed and has the support of his neighbors. Mr. Eigner added
he is in the remodeling business and would like a three stall garage so he has a place to store his
construction trailer.
Chairperson Messner questioned if the applicant researched the setbacks before purchasing the
home. Mr. Eigner stated he bought the home three years ago and did research the setbacks but
didn't know to what extent the challenge would be to do any additions to the property.
Chairperson Messner noted that clearly this zoning is something staff will need to review. He
suggested the applicant wait on building the third stall until the standards have been addressed. Mr.
Eigner stated it would be hard to wait on constructing the three stall garage because of the roof
trusses.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
Mark Oster, 2660 West 125 Street, Rosemount, stated he supported his neighbor's requested
variances. Mr. Oster is also intending to make improvements to his property and would not want
any hindering of the neighborhood done by not allowing the variances requested. He asked that
the variances be granted.
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
MARCH 14, 2006
PAGE 9
Linda Rohrenbach, 12485 Blanca Avenue, Rosemount, stated she was the property owner granted a
variance six years ago. Ms. Rohrenbach loves the neighborhood and the Eigners are wonderful
neighbors. She is proud of the project the Eigner's brought forward and would support the
variances.
Jim Bohn, 12445 Blanca Avenue West, Rosemount, stated he is the Eigner's neighbor to the west.
Mr. Bohn stated a two stall garage would be too small for the Eigners and supports the variance for
the construction of a three stall garage.
Phil Hailing, 2640 125 Street, Rosemount, stated the requested variances would raise the property
values of the neighborhood. Mr. Hailing would like to see the Eigners stay in the neighborhood.
Brian Rohrenbach, 12485 Blanca Avenue, Rosemount, stated he received a variance for his
property years ago for home improvements. Mr. Rohrenbach would like to maintain the
neighborhood pride. He asked the Planning Commission to allow variance for the three stall
garage.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
Discussion ensued regarding the setbacks for the neighborhood. Commissioner Schultz questioned
what the time frame would be for the City to review the standards. Ms. Lindquist stated it could
possibly take five months.
MOTION by Messner to approve the two north side yard setback variances from 30 feet
to 21 feet and from 30 to 12.7 feet to allow the expansion of the existing single family home
located at 12465 Blanca Avenue. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion
approved.
MOTION by Schultz to approve the south side yard setback variance from 30 to 14.5 feet
to allow the construction of a three stall attached garage. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All.
Nays: None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Zurn to direct staff to review the Rural Residential classification fro the
Oakwood Estates and adjacent neighborhoods and report back to the Planning
Commission at a subsequent date. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion
approved.
Planner Lindahl explained that decisions made by the Board may be appealed to the City Council
by the applicant, the Zoning Administrator, a member of the City Council or any person owning
property or residing within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the property affected by the decision.
All appeal requests must be filed with the Planning Department within ten (10) working days of the
action by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments.
SET PUBLIC HEARING
3. Set Public Hearing for Dakota Enterprises, Ltd. Building Permit Appeal for April 25,
2005. Community Development Director Lindquist reviewed the staff report. Dakota
Enterprises, Ltd. had applied for site plan approval for an expansion of their building and
relocation of their outdoor storage area located on 10 acres of land on the northwest corner of
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
MARCH 14, 2006
PAGE 10
411/
Biscayne Avenue and 160 Street West (County Road 46). Dakota Enterprises, Ltd. applied for a
building permit on February 16, 2006 and submitted plans for the Dakota Fence building expansion
and fence installation. Since the City had not completed processing of the site plan application, the
building permit application and construction plans were denied and returned to the applicant.
Subsequently, Dakota Enterprises, Ltd. has requested an appeal of the building permit denial.
MOTION by Messner to set the Public Hearing for Dakota Enterprises, Ltd. Building
Permit for April 25, 2006. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon
unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier, Recording Secretary
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 28, 2006
PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held
on Tuesday, March 28, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. with
Commissioners Schultz and Schwartz present. Also in attendance were Community Development
Director Lindquist, Planner Lindahl and Recording Secretary Domeier.
Additions to Agenda: None. Planner Lindahl stated two items that were noticed, the Miller
Variance request and the Celtic Crossing Phase 3 PUD Major Amendment were withdrawn by the
applicants and removed from the Agenda.
Audience Input: None.
Consent Agenda:
4.a. Approval of the March 14, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes.
4.b. Continuation of 06 -23 -PP Rosewood Estates (Progress Land Co.) Preliminary
Plat to April 25, 2006.
MOTION by Schwartz to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All.
Nays: None. Motion carried.
Public Hearings:
5.a. 06 -21 -ME Ped Kuznia Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal. Planner Lindahl reviewed the
staff report. Otto Ped requested renewal of the mineral extraction permit for his property located
4992 145 Street East. This is a routine annual permit renewal as required by ordinance. Solberg
Aggregate Company took over operation of the pit in 2005 from Ames Construction and will operate
the mine on a day -to -day basis. In 2005, approximately 66,250 cubic yards of aggregate material was
extracted from Phase One of the site. The applicant plans to extract approximately 80,000 cubic
yards of material from Phases One and Two of the site during 2006. It should be noted that a
portion of Phase Two encroaches onto the Kunzia property to the East. However, Lauren Howard
of Solberg Aggregate does not anticipate mining activity on the Kunzia property during 2006.
Regardless, staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to revise the Phasing
Plan to only cover mining within the Ped 80 acre property.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward.
Otto Ped, 4992 145 Street East, Rosemount, stated he is the owner of the property and is available
to answer any questions.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
Myron Napper, 3381 145t Street East, Rosemount, questioned why Otto Ped was required to front
money in order to obtain the permit. Mr. Napper stated the City should be billing the contractor, not
the property owner.
Planner Lindahl explained to the Commission and Mr. Napper that the application fee for the permit
renewal is $1,425. The fee is listed in the City's fee schedule that has been adopted by the City
Council. The fee is intended to cover the costs and time involved with reviewing the application.
Mr. Lindahl added there is also a $370 mining fee that is listed in the 2006 conditions for this
application. It is the property owner's responsibility to bring the application forward. Deciding how
the fee is paid is between the owner and the contractor.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 28, 2006
PAGE 2
Chairperson Messner asked if Solberg were to write the check, could the City accept it. Community
Development Director Lindquist stated the City requires the property owner to sign off on the
application. The payment for the application can be made by whomever.
Lauren Howard of Solberg Aggregate stated that Solberg is under contract with Ames Construction
Company. The lease between Ames and Solberg does not expire until April 1st. Mr. Howard stated
it was decided it would be best for Mr. Ped to pay for the application since Solberg is still under
lease with Ames Construction Company until April 1, 2006.
MOTION by Schultz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
MOTION to recommend that the City Council renew the Ped Mineral Extraction Permit
for 2006, conditioned on conformance with the standards outlined in Section 12.4 of the
Zoning Ordinance and the 2006 Conditions for Mineral Extraction, subject to the following
condition:
1. Submission of a revised Phasing Plan illustrating mining within the boundaries of the
Ped 80 acre property prior to action on this item by the City Council.
Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Reports: Community Development Director Lindquist stated the Port Authority plans to meet in
April for discussion on the Downtown redevelopment project. Ms. Lindquist noted there will be
new information on eminent domain.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon
unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier, Recording Secretary
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held
on Tuesday, April 25, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. with
Commissioners Schultz, Schwartz, Palda and Howell present. Also in attendance were Community
Development Director Lindquist, Planner Lindahl and Recording Secretary Domeier.
Additions to Agenda: None.
Audience Input: None.
Administer Oath of Office: Mayor Droste administered the oath of offices to Dianne Howell
and Jay Palda. Mayor Droste congratulated the new Commissioners.
Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson:
Motion by Schultz to nominate Messner as Chairperson. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Abstain: Messner. Motion carried 4 -0.
Motion by Messner to nominate Schultz as Secretary. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion carried.
Consent Agenda:
a. Approval of the March 28, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes.
b. Approval of 06 -25 -FP Glendalough 7 Addition (US Homes) Final Plat.
c. Continuation of 06 -23 -PP Rosewood Estates (Progress Land Co.) Preliminary Plat
to May 23, 2006.
d. Withdrawal of 05 -48 -TA General Industrial Text Amendment.
Chairperson Messner stated the General Industrial Text Amendment has been pulled from Public
Hearing status. Ms. Lindquist added the formal process for the Text Amendment will begin when
the Planning Commission is ready to take process to the public. At that time, the text amendment
will be re- noticed. Mr. Lindahl stated staff is suggesting withdrawing the current proposal as listed
on the Consent Agenda to stop the process where it is right now. Because of the length of the
process and to allow for proper notice the decision was made to stop the process and in a work
session look at the general industrial district and consider ideas as to how to amend the district.
With proper notice, everyone would have a chance to give their input. Before the Commission
takes any action, the Commission is willing to take public comments. Chairperson Messner stated
that alternatively comments may be provided to Mr. Lindahl who would submit all comments to
the Commission as they move forward with the process.
MOTION by Messner to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All.
Nays: None. Motion carried.
Reports: Ms. Lindquist stated the items on the agenda the Council has taken action on at previous
meetings were passed with little or no modifications. On the status of the Downtown, staff is
waiting for further legislation on eminent domain. The next Port Authority meeting is scheduled
for May 16` with the expectation that the legislation on eminent domain will be firmed up. The
Genz Ryan site has had some lease negotiations proposed from a variety of businesses.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 2
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon
unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier, Recording Secretary
IIII
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Work Session of the Planning Commission was held on
Tuesday, April 25, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:48 p.m. with
Commissioners Schultz, Schwartz, Palda and Howell present. Also in attendance were Community
Development Director Lindquist, Planner Lindahl and Recording Secretary Domeier.
DISCUSSION
a. 05 -48 -TA General Industrial Text Amendment.
Ms. Lindquist summarized the staff report. The item was initiated by staff to update and simplify
the City's industrial zoning districts as part of the implementation of the 42/52 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. Staff is proposing to update the GI District by creating a new HI -Heavy
Industrial District which would contain refinery uses as well as related office and warehouse uses.
Ms. Lindquist explained the need to include an additional zoning district the HI -Heavy Industrial
district. Staff is looking at modifying the general industrial zoning districts to raise the bar for
existing businesses; however, not all existing businesses would be able to meet the performance
standards. The performance standards are relaxed from the Business Park and Light Industrial
districts.
Ms. Lindquist questioned if the Planning Commission would be comfortable with the addition of
the heavy industrial district and where location wise the new district would fit in. Ms. Lindquist
pointed out on the existing zoning map where the general industrial areas are located.
Chairperson Messner questioned if any uses east of Highway 52 would fall into heavy industrial
category. Ms. Lindquist stated that Continental Nitrogen may fall into the district. Mr. Lindahl
stated the types of uses staff is looking at include petroleum and refinery uses and to see what kind
of boundary this would create.
Chairperson Messner stated that trying to modify the general industrial districts to include places
like Flint Hills would be rather hard. His preference is to have a heavy industrial district. Ms.
Lindquist added that staff has been in contact with Flint Hills regarding the new zoning district to
find out the needs of Flint Hills Resources. Chairperson Messner inquired if Flint Hills would
become part of the new district would that eliminate IUP requests for Flint Hills. Ms. Lindquist
responded that it could be an accessory use to move buildings and to have some general guidelines.
Chairperson Messner questioned where asphalt plants would fall. Mr. Lindahl stated asphalt plants
and cement plants are interim uses in both districts. Ms. Lindquist stated while it can be a long
term use we still have an end date when requiring an IUP for those uses.
Chairperson Messner stated it would be beneficial to walk through the GI and HI districts. Mr.
Lindahl referred the Commissioners to the draft zoning ordinance. The changes to the general
industrial district include site and building standards and formatting changes to the districts to make
the sections more consistent throughout the ordinance. Staff will be doing more research regarding
adult uses. Ms. Lindquist noted that by law, the use has to be allowed in some district so staff
would need to access how much land would be available for an adult use. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the
draft zoning ordinances outlining the additions, deletions and various changes.
Chairperson Messner questioned if any uses were added that currently would not be permitted in
the general industrial district. Mx. Lindahl stated any items that were underlined were new uses
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 2
added to the district or uses were changed to be read consistent throughout the ordinance.
Commissioner Howell questioned if any business would be eliminate due to the ordinance changes.
Mr. Lindahl stated that under the draft ordinance Refinery and Storage of Crude Oil, Refined Oil,
Alcohol and Other Liquids and Including Fertilizer Storage uses would be eliminated from the GI
district. Ms. Lindquist stated staff is looking to raise the bar in the general industrial district.
Ms. Schultz questioned what professional services would fall under the general industrial district
that wouldn't fall in the business park district. Ms. Lindquist responded there would be no
difference in the professional services allowed.
Mr. Lindahl continued to review the draft ordinances updating the Commission on changes to the
existing ordinance. Mr. Lindahl specifically noted that vehicle sales were added to the general
industrial district. Chairperson Messner questioned if performance standards for screening would
be different in the GI as opposed to the commercial areas in relation to outdoor storage. Mr.
Lindahl stated that auto related uses, motor vehicle and recreational vehicle sales, and services
stations would include the typical higher screening and site designs standards as in the C -3 district.
From staff's perspective, consistency in those standards would make them easier to administer.
Staff's concern is having industrial uses that are close to residential uses and would the Commission
like the standards to be more specific in relation to residential districts. Mr. Lindahl added the
performance standards could be added that would provide built in buffers for residential areas.
Mr. Lindahl reviewed the site and building standards. Chairperson Messner questioned if those
standards in the GI are different from the BP standards. Mr. Lindahl noted the changes in building
massing. Chairperson Messner questioned the permitted materials. Mr. Lindahl stated the 360
degree architectural standards and screening are carried through the district. Mr. Messner recalled
the building materials did not have to be uniform. Mr. Lindahl stated specific material percentages
were required in the commercial districts. Ms. Lindquist stated she is interested in maintaining the
360 architectural standards. Mr. Messner stated he is fine with the permitted materials but
questions using the 360 standards in the general industrial district. If the property is not along the
public right of way, then building architectural standards may be different. Ms. Lindquist stated
that part of the ordinance would be restructured in relation to if a property is not along a public
right -of -way.
Mr. Lindahl reviewed the heavy industrial district draft ordinance. Commissioner Schultz
questioned if adult uses need to be kept in both the general industrial and heavy industrial districts.
Ms. Lindquist stated it is a requirement to allow the use and to have land available for the proposed
use. However, staff would favor limiting them to either the GI or the HI district, not both.
Mr. Lindahl stated that there is uniqueness to the district in relation to site and building standards.
The site and building standards may be waived by the Community Development Director. Should
an office use be proposed in a portion of the refinery, there are criteria to waive the requirements
for site and building standards based upon the determination of the six enumerated conditions
listed in the draft ordinance.
Commissioner Schultz was concerned with the conditional use permit that would allow "other
similar uses Mr. Lindahl stated the conditional use permit is standard language also used in the 410
commercial districts. It is a mechanism to allow various uses that staff may not have considered to
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 3
be allowed if they are compatible with the district.
Chairperson Messner questioned the outdoor storage area requirements. Mr. Lindahl stated that in
coordination with the heavy industrial district, staff is proposing a heavy manufacturing definition.
Ms. Lindquist stated the concern with facilitating the amount of additional outdoor storage allowed.
Ms. Lindquist's additional concern was if the Commission wishes to encourage businesses that have
outdoor conveyor belts or ready mix plants. Ms. Lindquist stated this will depend upon where the
zoning districts will be applied and being able to still accommodate the existing businesses. Ms.
Lindquist stated the next step is to talk about the location of districts.
Ms. Lindquist stated on May 9 there will be variance before the Commission and that immediately
after the meeting a bus tour of the east side of town would take place to observe the general
industrial areas.
Chairperson Messner stated his preference is to hold a public hearing and hold another work
session based upon the public input. He preferred hearing public feedback earlier in the process.
Members of businesses in the audience including Flint Hill Resources, Spectro Alloys, CF
Industries and Continental Nitrogen offered tours of their facilities to the Commissioners. The
preference of the Commission was for staff to initiate the group tours of the facilities by the end of
May.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon
unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier, Recording Secretary
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments meeting was held
on Tuesday, May 9, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. with
Commissioners Schultz, Palda and Howell present. Commissioner Schwartz was absent. Also in
attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, Planner Lindahl and Recording
Secretary Domeier.
Additions to Agenda: None.
Public Hearings:
3.a. 06 -26 -V Heyman (14626 Danville Ave. W.) Variance. Planner Lindahl summarized the
staff report. Richard Heyman, of 14626 Danville Avenue is requesting a street side yard setback
variance from 30' to 14' and a driveway setback variance from 30' to 14' to allow the construction
of an accessory building (detached garage) and associated driveway. According to the Zoning
Ordinance, no accessory building in the R -1A District may be placed within 30' of any front or
street side yard property line. The applicant's site plan illustrates the proposed building and
driveway would be located approximately 14' from the northern (146 Street) property line. Staff
recognizes the open space preservation and economic concerns of the property owner. However, it
is staff's opinion that these concerns do not demonstrate a hardship or unique condition that
prevents the applicant from meeting the setback requirements.
Commissioner Howell stated she noticed a fence on the side of the garage towards 146t Street and
questioned the difference to where the garage would come to in meeting the setback. Mr. Lindahl
responded the fence is an enclosure on the side of the house which is approximately the same
distance as the proposed garage.. The fence in question is allowed to be at the property line and up
to six feet in height. The setback standard is for the accessory building which requires a 30 foot
setback.
Chairperson Messner questioned since this is a corner lot do the front yard setback requirements
apply to both streets. Mr. Lindahl stated he was correct.
Ms. Schultz questioned the condition of the current garage. Mr. Lindahl stated the applicant could
better answer the question.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward. Richard Heyman, 14626 Danville
Avenue, Rosemount, stated the current garage is in need of repair. He noted that all properties in
the neighborhood are closer to the street than the required 30 foot setback.
Commissioner Schultz questioned the use of the existing garage. Mr. Heyman stated it was for
personal use. Commissioner Schultz also questioned if the applicant would consider building a
garage further back. Mr. Heyman responded the garage may not be big enough at that point for
two cars to be parked in the garage and he wanted to maintain the rear yard.
Chairperson Messner considered moving the garage in a few feet closer to the house. Mr. Heyman
stated the run off from the garage would go unto the deck and mentioned a person could bump
their head on the overhang while standing on the deck.
Chairperson Messner questioned adding another curb cut to allow different access to the property.
Mr. Lindahl stated staff prefers to limit homes to only one access point. Ms. Lindquist stated the
curb cut could be put in the existing location and the garage could be turned to 146 Street to allow
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 2
for more width. The Board, staff and the applicant described different scenarios for positioning the
garage based upon access to the property. Mr. Lindahl stated the engineering department has been
receptive to moving curb cuts.
Chairperson Messner stated another option is to build two feet closer to the home and reconfigure
the deck. Mr. Heyman stated the garage would have to be moved back a couple feet to allow for it
to be built closer to the deck.
Commissioner Palda requested Mr. Lindahl to review the map and the dimensions and area for the
proposed garage. Mr. Heyman stated he was concerned with the cost of building a new driveway.
Commissioner Palda stated the removal of a driveway is much cheaper than the installation of a
new garage.
Chairperson Messner clarified that the setback requirement is 30 feet and currently the garage is
setback is 18 feet. Ms. Lindquist stated that if a 20 foot wide garage isn't reasonable and 22 feet is
better, then the applicant could stay at the 18 feet and move it in or give the applicant a two foot
variance to get to the 22 feet.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
Robert Olson, 14590 Danville Ave. W., Rosemount, stated he resides just north of the Heyman
residence. Mr. Olson stated that current driveway was approved by City in 1970. He has no
objection to the Heyman's receiving a variance to replace their garage.
Harry Willcox, 14674 Danville Ave. W., Rosemount, stated that when the Zoning Ordinance
passed in 1989 it was not passed to cause problems for people living in the older portions of
Rosemount. He sees no problem in expanding the garage. He believes the Commission would be
proper in granting the variance due to the request not being abnormal and that it would add the
neighborhood.
MOTION by Schultz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
Commissioner Palda questioned if the situation is relevant in other older subdivisions in
Rosemount for corner lot setbacks. Mr. Lindahl stated staff has not conducted a detailed analysis
of the older developments in town. It has not been a consistent issue where residents are
continuously asking for variances. Ms. Lindquist stated the lot does conform to the R -1A lot area
and width standards.
Chairperson Messner noted that cost is not a reason for the Board to grant a variance. There are
options available to work out a deal to by either moving it two feet closer or pulling in two feet on
the width of the garage. Chairperson Messner stated he would vote to deny the request based on
the options available. He suggested the applicant and Mr. Lindahl meet to consider an alternative
plan. Commissioner Schultz concurred.
Chairperson Messner questioned if the applicant would rather act on it tonight and accept the vote
or continue the public hearing for an alternative solution. Mr. Heyman stated that by turning the
garage sideways there would be two large trees to remove but would be open to moving the garage
two feet. Chairperson Messner stated he could maintain the current orientation without having to
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 3
tear out the existing driveway and cutting down any trees. Commissioner Schultz questioned if the
applicant can get two vehicles in the current garage. Mr. Heyman stated no based upon the other
items stored in the garage. He preferred to have his items all in the same building.
Chairperson Messner stated he supports a variance to maintain the existing condition but does ont
support granting a variance greater than the current 18' setback, which could allow a 22' wide
garage if the garage was moved 2' closer to the house. Mr. Lindahl stated as he understands
Chairperson Messner's preference that the 18 foot wall can be extended to the east with taking into
the consideration the lot coverage standards. Ms. Schultz stated she prefers that Mr. Heyman be
granted the entire four foot variance. Ms. Lindquist stated if the basis for granting the variance is
the existing conditions of neighborhood then further staff investigation should take place.
MOTION by Messner to continue the item to May 23, 2006. Second by Schultz. Ayes:
All. Nays: None. Motion carried.
Chairperson Messner directed Mr. Heyman to follow -up with Mr. Lindahl regarding options for the
location of the garage and driveway. The item will come before the Board for further discussion
and action on May 23, 2006.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon
unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier, Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 2
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Work Session of the Planning Commission was held on
Tuesday, April 25, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. with
Commissioners Schultz, Palda and Howell present. Commissioner Schwartz was absent. Also in
attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, Planner Lindahl and Recording
Secretary Domeier.
Ms. Lindquist stated she had spoke with Flint Hills Resources and they provided staff and the
Commission with a map illustrating the uses of their property. Based upon previous conversations,
they want the most flexibility of their land holdings to dispose of them as they see fit.
BUS TOUR
a. 06 -33 -TA General Industrial Text Amendment.
The Planning Commission and staff took a brief bus tour of the area that included a majority of the
east side businesses such as Flint Hills Resources, Spectro Alloys, CF Industries, Endres, SKB
Environmental, Pine Bend Paving, Continental Nitrogen and the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
DISCUSSION
a. 06 -33 -TA General Industrial Text Amendment.
Planner Lindahl summarized the changes to the draft ordinances. Staff has initiated a text
amendment to amend the current general industrial zoning district as well as to create a heavy
industrial zoning district.
Ms. Lindquist noted the hard surface coverage in the general industrial district is 50 If the
Commission chooses to allow more outdoor storage, the hard surface coverage might need to be
increased. Staff suggested finding out the amount of hard surface coverage for various east side
businesses. The Commission instructed staff to evaluate the hard coverage surface areas for the
east side businesses. Chairperson Messner stated he preferred the coverage be based upon the size
of the lot and not the size of the building.
Ms. Lindquist stated the heavy industrial district was specifically set up for the limitation in scope of
use. The concept was to address concerns that could not meet the current ordinance criteria. Right
now, Flint Hills and CF Industries would be included in the heavy industrial district.
Chairperson Messner expressed his concern to talk about boundaries. Staff was instructed to
develop recommended boundaries for the districts. Chairperson Messner suggested making part of
Continental Nitrogen heavy industrial zoning district and discussed researching further the type of
businesses occurring at Continental Nitrogen.
Chairperson Messner stated he would prefer office uses to be a conditional use in the general
industrial district. Ms. Lindquist explained the difference between accessory and conditional uses
for office buildings.
Chairperson Messner stated another item to review is building materials. Mr. Lindahl highlighted
the changes made to the building materials in the ordinance. The Commission directed staff to
reduce the 70% metal coverage provision. The Commission also suggested removing fiberglass as
an option for exterior materials. Commissioner Schultz stated that 70% metal for a building is
excessive. She suggested starting at 50% as a starting point. Commissioner Howell stated she
preferred a 60/40 option. Commissioner Palda and Schultz agreed with the 60/40 concept.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 2
The Commission directed staff to find out the uses at Continental Nitrogen, figure out the outdoor
storage numbers, change the text on building materials, decipher ownership of the parcels on the
east side and to develop a boundary for the heavy industrial district. Ms. Lindquist stated that Flint
Hills Resources prefers to use the demarcation of a road as a boundary line. For example, the
creation of the new 140t street would be a good cut off line.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon
unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier, Recording Secretary
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS MEETING
11 MAY 23, 2006
PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments meeting was held
on Tuesday, May 23, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with
Commissioners Schultz, Howell, Schwartz and Palda present. Also in attendance were Community
Development Director Lindquist, Project Engineer Dawley, Planner Lindahl, and Recording
Secretary Domeier.
Public Hearings:
2.a. 06 -26 -V Heyman (14626) Variance. Planner Lindahl summarized the staff report. The item
was before the Board Appeals and Adjustments during the May 9, 2006 meeting. Copies of the
minutes from that meeting were given to the Planning Commission for reference. During that
meeting, the applicant requested a street side yard setback variance from 30' to 14' and a driveway
setback variance from 30' to 14 feet. Staff recommended denial of this request based on the
findings that the applicant had not demonstrated a hardship and that the subject property had
sufficient area to accommodate the proposed garage without the need for variances. After hearing
staff's recommendation as well as from the applicant and two neighbors in support of the request,
the Board tabled this item to May 23, 2006 and directed Mr. Heyman to work with staff on an
alternate plan.
Chairperson Messner asked for clarification of the motion. Mr. Lindahl stated the difference
between the setbacks.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward. Mr. Heyman stated it would be hard
to move the deck closer to the home. By moving the garage closer to home it would be too close
to the deck. Commissioner Howell questioned if Mr. Lindahl measured the surrounding properties.
Mr. Lindahl stated he and the applicant measured the surrounding properties. While measuring
three garages on corner lots the nearest garage had a setback of 13 feet.
Chairperson Messner commented that since are options available although not all options are ideal,
the Commission is still dealing with a zoning ordinance that has been passed and approved. He did
not see any hardship given the options available. Chairperson Messner is willing to support the
motion as stated based upon the flexibility to work around the current issues.
MOTION by Messner to approve a resolution approving 12 foot street side yard and
driveway setback variances to allow the construct of a detached accessory building with
associated driveway 18 feet from the 146 Street property line for the property located at
14626 Danville Avenue. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Lindahl stated the requirements for appealing the decision as outlined in the staff report.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before the Board and upon unanimous
decision, the meeting was adjourned at 6:44 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier, Recording Secretary
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 23, 2006
PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held
on Tuesday, May 23, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:44 p.m. with
Commissioners Schultz, Howell, Schwartz and Palda present. Also in attendance were Community
Development Director Lindquist, Project Engineer Dawley, Planner Lindahl and Recording
Secretary Domeier.
Additions to Agenda: None.
Audience Input: None.
Chairperson Messner acknowledged and welcomed Derrick Hudeyma, Administration Department
Intern, to the Planning Commission meeting.
4. Consent Agenda:
a. Approval of the April 25, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes.
b. Approval of the April 25, 2006 Planning Commission Work Session minutes.
c. Approval of the May 9, 2006 Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting minutes.
d. Approval of the May 9, 2006 Planning Commission Work Session Minutes.
MOTION by Schultz to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Palda. Ayes: All.
Nays: None. Motion carried.
Public Hearings:
5.a. 06 -35 -CP Old County Road 38 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Community
Development Director Lindquist summarized the staff report. As part of the Old County Road 38
project public utilities will be made available to eighteen properties. Because these sites will
ultimately hook -up to city sewer and water, staff is recommending that the properties be reguided
to Urban Residential. The reguiding of the sites is staff generated based upon the infrastructure
upgrades that are occurring in the immediate area. Old County Road 38 (132n Street West) will be
rebuilt to an urban section and sewer and water will be introduced within the right -of -way. Ms.
Lindquist added that rezoning of the property will be brought before the Commission in June.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Messner to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
for the 18 properties from Rural Residential to Urban Residential subject to Metropolitan
Council approval. Second by Palda. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
5.b. 06 -39 -IUP Flint Hills Resources, LP Interim Use Permit Relocation of an Existing
Temporary Warehouse Building. Planner Lindahl summarized the staff report. Flint Hills
Resources, LP, requested an Interim Use Permit "IUP to allow the assembly of a temporary
"sprung steel" building to be used for warehouse /cold storage for two capital projects within the
Refinery site. Flint Hills is currently using two similar buildings as office and warehouse space as part
of the Utlra Low Sulfur Diesel "Hydrocacker" construction project. Those structures were also
approved through an IUP in 2004 (Planning Case No. 04 -67) which is scheduled to expire on
September 1, 2006. Should the City approve this request, Flint Hills would remove one of these
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 23, 2006
PAGE 2
buildings and relocate the other for this warehouse use under a new IUP. The new IUP would expire
on May 1, 2010.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward.
Don Kern ofFlint Hills Resources was available for any questions from the Commission. Mr. Kern
added that the project is basically for storage in conjunction with the current expansion projects.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Schultz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Schultz to recommend approval of an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow the
assembly of a temporary "sprung steel" building to be used for warehouse /cold storage for
two capital projects within the Refinery site until May 1, 2010, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Issuance of a building permit.
2. Conformance with all conditions outlined in the attached Interim Use Permit for
2006 through 2010.
Second by Howell. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Lindahl stated the item will proceed to the City Council on June 20, 2006.
5.c. 06 -36 -IUP Adventure Zone Interim Use Permit. Planner Lindahl summarized the staff
report. J C Nordberg, Inc. (DBA: The Adventure Zone) requested renewal of its existing interim
use permit (IUP) to allow the continued operation of the Adventure Zone paintball field. The
renewal also modifies the properties the business will be operated on. Currently, Endres is located
on one parcel that has received preliminary plat approval. The Adventure Zone can continue to
operate in its current condition which is over two preliminarily platted lots. The subject property is
zoned and guided GI General Industrial. Paintball fields are classified as commercial outdoor
recreational uses which are allowed through an interim use permit in the General Industrial District.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Messner to recommend renewal of the Interim Use Permit (IUP) for J C
Nordberg, Inc. to allow the continued operation of the Adventure Zone paintball field,
subject to conditions.
1. Conformance with all conditions outlined in the attached Interim Use Permit for 2006
through 2009.
2. Approval of Endres Properties Second Addition, prior to action by the City Council.
Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 23, 2006
PAGE 3
5.d. 06 -31 -CUP Lift Station L74 (Met Council) Conditional Use Permit and 06 -32 -CUP Lift
Station L75 (Met Council) Conditional Use Permit. Community Development Director
Lindquist summarized the staff report. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services requested
approval of conditional use permits to allow construction of two lift stations which are integral to
the construction of the interceptor project now underway. One of the lift stations in located on the
Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant (L74) site and the other is located along County Road 42,
west of DCTC, on property owned by UMORE (L75).
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward.
Jim Roth of the Met Council addressed the Commission. The Met Council is constructing an
outfall treatment pipe in association with this project. Lift Stations are required to accommodate
the flow. L74 is designed to serve the eastern third of Rosemount. L75 will receive flow from L74
and will serve the central part of Rosemount. Mr. Roth described the building design and materials
for the L75 building. L75 is designed for a residential area and meets the requests of the personnel
at UMORE. Mr. Roth also described the building design and materials for the L74 building. The
structure is designed architecturally to be more compatible with the industrial district.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Schultz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nays:
None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Schwartz to recommend approval of a conditional use permit for L74 Lift
Station subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant set the fire hydrants consistent with City standards for review and
approval by the Fire Marshall.
2. The applicant provide a sample of exterior material associated with the proposed
building.
Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Schultz to recommend approval of a conditional use permit for L75 Lift
Station subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant set the fire hydrants consistent with City standards for review and
approval by the Fire Marshall.
2. The applicant provide a sample of exterior material associated with the proposed
building.
3. The applicant provide foundation plantings around the building and irrigate areas to be
maintained as shown on the landscape plan for staff review and approval.
4. Should development occur surrounding the site, the applicant will realign the driveway
so there is no direct access unto County Road 42.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 23, 2006
PAGE 4
5. The applicant provide a utility plan showing extension of the watermain under County
Road 42 for staff review and approval.
Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Ms. Lindquist stated this item will proceed at the June 20, 2006 City Council meeting.
Old Business: None.
New Business
7.a. 06 -34 -CON Pulte (McMenomy Site) Concept Plan. Community Development Director
Lindquist handed out additional information for the project to the Commission. Ms. Lindquist
summarized the staff report. Pulte Homes has started to explore development of the McMenomy
property. The property is located north of Old County Road 38 and reaches up to the northern
border of the City. The property is part of the area recently approved for a MUSA expansion by the
Metropolitan Council. Currently the City is conducting an environmental review of this site, along
with other residential properties, called an AUAR. While that process is on- going, developers have
expressed an interest in starting the approval process so plats could be ready for approval when the
environmental analysis is complete.
Ms. Lindquist explained the different development and transportation options for the Rural
Residential and Urban Residential properties in reviewing the concept plan. Ms. Lindquist also
shared the concerns of the Parks Commission relating to preserving open space as well as
development of neighborhood parks.
Ms. Lindquist showed the Commission the site map showing the right -of -way from the older
neighborhood into the newer parcel for secondary access. Staff is prefers to have more than one
access point to the neighborhood.
Ms. Lindquist explained the hand out for Chaska's greenbelt area relating to the dedication of the
northern 80 acres of the Pulte project. This project is similar to Chaska in allowing for the
clustering of the space.
Chairperson Messner stated the Commission is to consider and discuss the north area clustering vs.
larger rural residential type lots, the connection to 126 a connection to the north cul -de -sac
through the existing rural residential neighborhood, 61 foot wide lots and multi- family housing.
Ms. Lindquist asked the Commission to consider the density of the project in relation to the open
space of the northern parcel.
Chairperson Messner stated he prefers the clustering option to the north given the benefits to the
City. Commission Howell concurred. Chairperson Messner suggested having a restricted covenant
to ensure the open space. Chairperson Messner also stated his concerns regarding the access
options with the cul -de -sac to the north.
Regarding the connection to the west, Ms. Schultz questioned when the new neighborhood is
developed and the ghost plat is not, would the collector street be installed. Ms. Lindquist stated the
street would need to be installed. Chairperson Messner stated his desire to connect to 126 Street.
Ms. Lindquist stated as you move west, 126 Street is not a collector street.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 23, 2006
PAGE 5
The width of the 61 foot lots was also discussed. Ms. Lindquist noted that in the Harmony
development there are some similar sized lots that range from 65 to 75 feet. The lots still meet the
required setbacks for the density requirements. Commissioner Schultz questioned if Pulte has other
neighborhoods in the metro that have the smaller lots. Chairperson Messner stated he is not
opposed to the 61 foot wide lots but would like to the see the product and how it would fit the lot.
Ms. Schwartz directed staff to find out the lot sizes at the Cobblestone Lake development in Apple
Valley for comparison to this project.
Reports: None.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon
unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier, Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 23, 2006
PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Work Session of the Planning Commission was held on
Tuesday, May 23, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 7:56 p.m. with
Commissioners Schultz, Howell, Schwartz and Palda present. Also in attendance were Community
Development Director Lindquist, Planner Lindahl and Recording Secretary Domeier.
DISCUSSION
2.a. 06 -33 -TA General Industrial Text Amendment. Chairperson Messner directed Planner
Lindahl to highlight the status of the text amendment to date. Mr. Lindahl summarized the status
of the project and staff report. To this point, staff has proposed updating the GI District and
creating a new HI Heavy Industrial District that would contain refinery uses and the like as well
as related accessory uses. Planner Lindahl reviewed the latest versions of the GI and HI Districts
and drew attention to the changes and additions.
Chairperson Messner stated office accessory uses go hand in hand with industrial uses. He would
like to see some component of office uses mixed in as an accessory use. Ms. Lindquist added that a
permitted use is most generally the principle use of the site.
Community Development Director Lindquist stated the differences between outside storage and
hard surface coverage. Commissioner Schultz questioned where Wayne Transport would fall under
the calculations. Ms. Lindquist stated Wayne Transport is in the General Industrial district.
Ms. Lindquist also added on the industrial map the south end of the refinery portion there is a road
depicting a demarcation point where the road would be constructed. Concept road plans will be
given to the Commission at a later date.
Chairperson Messner invited comments from the audience.
Don Kern with Flint Hills Resources thanked the Commission for touring their property on May
16t Mr. Kern appreciated the opportunity to comment and provide feedback. John Shardlow of
DSU Architects stated his appreciation for being allowed to present his comments and suggestions
for the proposed ordinances. A general comment was to be clear on the purpose and intent of a
zoning district and amendment. He described the relatively compatibility of the zoning districts.
Mr. Shardlow presented Flint Hills Resources' suggested changes to the Heavy Industrial districts as
follows:
Section B. Permitted Uses: Removal of "Public Buildings and Uses: from the list of
permitted uses and to modify B.4. to more accurately describe the integrated operations and
products of the refinery business.
Section C. Accessory Uses: Modification of C.2. to allow overnight sleeping facilities for
Safety Personnel; deletion of Section C.3. and move it to a permitted use; and the creation
of a new C.3. to read, "Office Uses for Heavy Industrial Facilities."
Section D. Conditional Uses: The addition of setback controls for outdoor storage in
D.1.c. to eliminate the need for extensive or expensive screening and in D.1.d. requiring the
storage area to comply to PCA rules. Deletion of D.1.f and D.3 and modifications to D.1.k.
to allow for the use of safety alarms and sirens.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 23, 2006
PAGE 2
Chairperson Messner stated with approving the sprung steel building as part of two different
construction projects are there any longer range plans as to why that area identified should be part
of the HI District instead of the GI District. Mr. Kern stated there is no current plan for that area;
however, there is currently continuous increasing of the facility and projected increases within the
next 10 years. Additional storage and process facilities will be needed and the tanks are needed to
fuel the refinery.
Ms. Lindquist showed the 42/52 land use plan in relation to the Flint Hills parcels and explained
the current MUSA expansions. The current land use plan does have Agricultural land in the
refinery area. The Commission should discuss process in relation to zoning of the property in the
areas in the 42/52 area and the space in between the areas that went before the Met Council. It
should be considered a separate process due to the change in zoning.
Mr. Shardlow stated Flint Hills has been in the mode of purchasing land to ensure compatibility.
The desirable outcome is to figure out the amount of the land needed for expansion. Chairperson
Messner would appreciate a better understanding of the long term goals of the refinery related to
determining the boundary changes. Mr. Kern stated right now the refinery prefers to expand down
to 140` Street.
Leon Endres of Endres Processing thanked the Commission for touring the Endres plant. He
stated he believes that Endres is a heavy industrial use. Mr. Endres is concerned with the recycling
uses in the conditional use area of the general industrial district.
Mike with Spectro Alloys wondered if the Commission is considering its area as heavy industrial.
Chairperson Messner stated no further discussion has taken place since the map of heavy industrial
areas was distributed. Mike requested a copy of the heavy industrial map. He asked if the
Commission identified any similarities with any of the uses in the dark brown area of the map.
Chairperson Messner stated the Heavy Industrial district was created for the refinery uses. Mike
stated his concerns with complying with the general industrial codes.
Leon Endres added the reason for heavy industrial uses is because of outdoor tanks and pipes. He
reminded the Commission he has a tank farm and overhead conveyors and outdoor piping going
back and forth through the tanks. There are also outdoor stacks and a large amount of truck traffic.
Ms. Lindquist stated for the public buildings and uses there will need to be specific language
drafted. Public buildings do not include schools. For Accessory uses, crude oil should not be a
permitted use. By making it permitted, it would then make it the principle use of the property. For
the outdoor storage area, currently some of the uses are allowed in the general industrial district.
Language should be drafted to allow the conveyor belts and grain elevators and is not necessarily
outdoor storage. It can be allowed but not be the overriding use of the property. For setbacks, it
depends upon what is trying to be screened. Not all outdoor storage can be screened. The
Commission needs to determine what outdoor storage consists of. The Commission should
consider the hard surface coverage and understand the surfacing of outdoor storage. That may be
different but the trucking firms should have been hard surfaced. Staff will work with the comments
but needs to get a better handle on outdoor storage. The Commission may want to allow outdoor
storage but it should also be limited to some extent. Chairperson Messner statedwould like to see
the draft one more time before the public hearing given the issues with accessory uses, outdoor
4110
storage and screening.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 23, 2006
PAGE 3
Chairperson Messner suggested talking further about the Land Cover map. Chairperson Messner
preferred it would be 70% hard surface and 30% green space in the general and heavy industrial
districts. Commissioner Schultz stated the hard surface coverage for General Industrial should be
less than the Heavy Industrial district. The Commission discussed various outdoor storage and
hard surface options. Chairperson Messner is fine with up to 30% of the site being outside storage.
Mr. Shardlow stated to take a hypothetical site plan to figure out the coverage issues. Mr. Lindahl
stated that suggestion is similar to the map and calculations brought before the Commission
tonight. The Commission directed staff to draw up examples of various site plans with what the
70/30 ratio figured into the calculations.
For screening, Ms. Lindquist stated it's good to screen articles that are not always outside storage.
The public views would be good to screen with an example being a parking area. The Commission
should decide if the point is to screen along the front of the properties and towards neighboring
businesses. Screening should also be required in the industrial districts.
The Commission's final direction included:
Increasing the hard surface coverage;
Having an outdoor storage site to be 30
Provide a comparison to the map given out tonight on how to proceed with the numbers
for hard surface and outdoor storage in the general industrial area;
S Work on the screening standards to reflect burming and landscaping seen along public
ways; and
Based upon the comments and changes provided by Flint Hills Rerouses, work with Flint
Hills Resources on incorporating some of their changes into the ordinance.
Ms. Lindquist stated the trucking company (Fleet) discussed tonight has 44% green space. It
would be able to have paved over another 14% of its site under the 70/30 option. Mr. Lindahl
added with screening requirements businesses would focus its green space in the areas where it
would be necessary to have the screening.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon
unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier, Recording Secretary
11111
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2006
PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Work Session of the Planning Commission was held on
Tuesday, June 13, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. with
Commissioners Schultz, Schwartz, Palda and Howell present. Also in attendance were Community
Development Director Lindquist, Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl and Recording Secretary
Domeier.
DISCUSSION
2.a. 06 -33 -TA General Industrial Text Amendment.
Community Development Director Lindquist stated the goal for the evening was to address the
Commission's comments from the last meeting and to receive additional feedback to prepare draft
ordinances for the public hearing in July. Staff intends to mail the drafts to all the properties guided
or zoned general industrial. Property owners would have an opportunity to review the drafts of
both districts and make comments on the ordinances. The Commission would also determine if
the draft map should be included in the mailing.
Ms. Lindquist stated some comments from Flint Hills Resources were included but other
comments were not incorporated due to staff preferring to have the Commission give further
consideration and direction on the drafts. Ms. Lindquist stated the Commission should discuss the
differences between outside storage and outside equipment. Staff drafted language that allows
equipment to be stored outside if it is ancillary to the work performed at the site.
Ms. Lindquist noted that at the last meeting conversation was generated regarding refineries being
an accessory use with office and warehousing. The City attorney advised Ms. Lindquist prior to the
meeting that if the accessory use is tied to the use it wouldn't have to be listed; however, if the use
could function independently then it's an issue of whether it's permitted or accessory. The City
attorney further suggested that in the General Industrial district under permitted uses that it covers
all categories. In the General Industrial district office use is accessory and the warehousing and
showroom would fall under permitted uses.
Planner Lindahl reviewed the definition for heavy manufacturing. Staff attempted to include Flint
Hills Resources' comments related to the storage of raw and unprocessed materials. The
warehousing and distribution components are accessory uses.
Mr. Lindahl added that the outdoor storage definition identifies the items allowed as outdoor
storage and key standards which characterize the areas. Most notably, the definition separates
required parking areas from vehicle storage areas.
Commissioner Schultz questioned the outdoor storage limitations for Flint Hills Resources. Mr.
Lindahl stated that Flint Hills Resources voluntarily places most of the contractor equipment in
their interim structures. Don Kern of Flint Hills Resources added that a small percentage of their
overall equipment is located outside and that more sensitive equipment is stored inside. Ms.
Lindquist stated in the general industrial district for outdoor structures and equipment there wasn't
anything that seemed to exempt structures. Currently, the outdoor structures and equipment
section is a conditional use but the Commissioners may prefer to have it under accessory structures
and uses. Chairperson Messner questioned if you have outside structures and equipment it would
automatically trigger obtaining a conditional use permit. Mr. Lindahl stated that requirement
applies only to the General Industrial district. Ms. Lindquist noted that most of these buildings
would go through a site plan review and would require commission approval. Mr. Lindahl added
the requirements are an attempt to accommodate businesses like Endres, Spectro Alloys and CF
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2006
PAGE 2
Industries as they stand today. While all new standards cannot be met by the existing conditions,
staff is willing to adjust language to accommodate the existing uses. Mr. Lindahl stated some
communities do allow outdoor tanks next to the building associated to the use. The standards can
be set that the tanks not be the main focus and be in a neat and orderly condition. The
Commission could require high quality and long lasting materials for the construction.
Commissioner Schultz questioned if the 15% minimum building size standard and 25 feet building
height requirement were consistent with other communities. Mr. Lindquist stated the 25 feet seems
rather low. Chairperson Messner stated that it should be that not everything triggers a conditional
use permit. He suggested it should be set up where if you exceed a certain limitation then you
could trigger the need for a conditional use permit. Chairperson Messner further added there
should be enough flexibility that we could require equipment to be at the rear side of the building
without requiring a conditional use permit. He suggested the terms of 15% and 25 feet is the
trigger mechanism. Commissioners Howell and Palda concurred with Chairperson Messner's
comments.
Chairperson Messner questioned if the medium manufacturing definition should include all the
examples. Mr. Lindahl stated the examples are provided to give more guidance and that the
definition was previously approved by the Commission.
General Industrial:
Mr. Lindahl stated that Mr. Shardlow's comments were incorporated into the purpose and intent
statement. In comparison, the heavy industrial language separates the districts from other uses to
make a clear distinction. Commissioner Schwartz questioned if the Heavy Industrial district has to
include combustible materials in the definition. Ms. Lindquist stated the ordinance right now only
has the general industrial district so the assumption is all uses can meet the standards. However,
Flint Hills Resources would not be able to meet the standards with the refinery uses. The purpose
was to recognize uses that could not meet performance standards in the General Industrial district.
Ms. Lindquist added the goal of the ordinance update was to bring in higher standards for
manufacturing and have the heavy industrial standards fairly restrictive. Mr. Lindahl added if staff
is operating under the assumption in trying to update the General Industrial standards then the
standards as they are changed really affected the refinery uses. Mr. Lindahl added that staff chose
the heavy industrial term but if it's confusing the district name can be changed. Commissioner
Schwartz had no problem with keeping the heavy manufacturing term but the question lied in the
last sentence of the definition and does combustible and explosives materials really need to be a
part of the definition. Chairperson Messner stated that right now we are not talking about a lot of
area being potentially zoned Heavy Industrial. Ms. Lindquist said the General Industrial uses also
generates the noise, etc. but it's just a matter of the degree. Mr. Lindahl said staff attempted to
address the scale in comparison of medium and heavy manufacturing definitions. The difference
between the qualifiers for the definitions lies in the second sentence of medium manufacturing and
being acceptable to adjacent uses. The heavy manufacturing definition states the noise will occur.
Mr. Lindahl further addressed Flint Hills Resources' claims and explained the changes made to the
districts. Ms. Lindquist stated concerns relating to general repair and that staff prefers to have the
uses in the General Industrial district rather than a Commercial or Business Park District. Staff did
not take Flint Hills Resources' recommendation and Chairperson Messner agreed with not taking
that position.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2006
PAGE 3
Mr. Lindahl added the change to the Warehousing /Wholesale and Distribution uses were changed
to include fertilizer storage and distribution to accommodate CF Industries.
Ms. Lindquist stated concerns with removing machinery sales or rental equipment, motor and
recreational vehicles with having those in the retail districts because currently the uses are only
allowed in the C -3 District. Chairperson Messner stated most of those uses are low volume
generators. Commissioner Howell thought Ag equipment and machinery would be a good fit in the
general industrial district. Chairperson Messner suggested eliminating "motor" from the definition.
Mr. Zweber asked for clarification regarding construction vehicles and backhoe. Chairperson
Messner suggested having agricultural or construction vehicles.
Lindahl reviewed the building standards that changed in the GI district.
Mr. Lindahl discussed the outside display storage and sales and that Flint Hills Resources suggested
changes to eliminate the retail components. Since staff didn't go along with changing the regular
uses they didn't go along with the outside changes. Ms. Lindquist talked about the lot coverages
based on numbers discussed by the Planning Commission. She reviewed the map showing the lot
coverages and the maximized lot coverages in regards to what companies can have under those
provisions. There is a need for increasing the hard surface coverage but pointed out that CMC had
66% hard surface coverage already and would be allowed additional hard surface. Ms. Lindquist
added that on that site and the site to the west, once they meet their setbacks that would take up a
majority of their green space. Ms. Lindquist noted the parking setbacks are not all that strenuous.
She compared the different maximized lot coverages and noticed the percentages worked fine for
the larger sites, but for the smaller sites the numbers didn't work as well. Chairperson Messner had
no problem with increasing the lot sizes since the uses are bigger and stated there should be an
analysis of existing right -of -ways.
Ms. Lindquist suggested a 70% hard surface coverage with 30% outside storage standard. The
Commission decided the 70% hard coverage and 30% outside storage percentages were reasonable
numbers. Chairperson Messner added he would like to see a 10 acre minimum.
Heavy Industrial:
Planner Lindahl reviewed and highlighted the changes for the Heavy Industrial and incorporated
the comments received from Flint Hills Resources.
Mr. Lindahl noted the changes to the permitted uses and accessory uses. The outdoor storage
standards were changed to include ratio screening resulting from the amount of setback factored in.
Staff looked at adding a significant setback given the large areas and the amount of raw materials
being stored. Screening then comes from any public right -of -way vs. surrounding uses. The
setback requirements were discussed in relation to masonry walls.
Chairperson Messner stated he was in agreement with the new exemptions added for topographic
conditions but noted the 1 /5th of mile requirement seemed to be a large setback. Mr. Shardlow
distributed a map showing the current setbacks on Flint Hills' property. Mr. Shardlow stated the
intent was to avoid non conforming status upon adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Lindahl stated that
with the large setback there would be no screening around the Flint Hills Resources' site. However,
the situation could be accepted by the community since it's a large site. There may be a number
that is more appropriate than 1/5 mile. Ms. Lindquist stated there should be a number as a starting
point to begin the discussion and the standard can be changed based upon Commission direction.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2006
PAGE 4
Commissioner Schultz suggested having language that would make smaller properties in the district
to have other standards to follow. Chairperson Messner suggested keeping the 100% opacity
screening language and keeping the masonry wall language in the ordinance. Commissioner Palda
questioned if storage tanks should be excluded. Mr. Lindahl stated the removal would make things
clearer and added the language needs some tightening up. Chairperson Messner struggled with the
masonry wall requirement and stated at the site plan approval level the Planning Commission could
decide if burm would work just as well.
Mr. Lindahl requested feedback for the lot sizes and what parcels should be included in the HI
district. He added the Commission should be mindful of how setbacks could affect properties
based upon their size. Commissioner Schultz suggested using Flint Hills Resources as the gauge
but questioned if other property owners can be held to that exact same standard. Ms. Lindquist
suggested trying for more burming and landscaping with a scaled version of opacity moving further
back. Chairperson Messner's preference was to leave it at 100 opacity screening but not to be as
specific on how it is achieved. The Commission was requested alternatives between the two
extremes of the suggested setbacks and opacity requirements. Commissioner Schwartz suggested
removing topographic conditions as one of the exemptions. Ms. Lindquist stated staff wanted to
be clear on the type of topographic conditions.
Mr. Lindahl noted the setback changes generated by Flint Hills Resources' comments including the
lot area increasing and the setbacks for principal structures. Don Kern stated there may be some
equipment within the 300 feet but it would not include larger equipment or towers.
Ms. Lindquist added that outdoor display and storage is a conditional use and the equipment was
moved to accessory uses in the general industrial. Mr. Lindahl stated a CUP would require a longer
process for the applicant and would require Council approval as well. Lindquist stated that outside
storage is allowed but this would require a different process so it wouldn't need to be governed
through a CUP. Commission suggested moving it an accessory use.
Chairperson Messner invited public comment.
John Shardlow thanked the Commission for the changes made to the drafts and added that Flint
Hills Resources was happy with the direction the Commission is taking. A thought shared included
the issue of compatibility with the public. Flint Hills Resources wants the opportunity to do
screening with burming instead of masonry walls. He further suggested that Section G under Heavy
Ind. standards he would prefer to see the word "may" changed to "shall Lindahl stated "may"
doesn't provide the City control to parking requirements, loading, trash, etc. Ms. Lindquist stated
all the conditions may not be waived based upon the standards. The paving of storage areas is
already a requirement as an acre of pavement generates more runoff than general ground. Ms.
Lindquist stated that general ground would create runoff as well. Don Kern added that a storage
area on the Flint Hills Resources' property will be set up in a neat and orderly fashion and that
remote areas should have a different standard.
Ms. Lindquist stated in the General Industrial district some uses will not abut heavy industrial uses.
The Commission discussed compacted materials and that surfacing all the area would make a
difference. Mr. Kern stated that lay down areas may be for different materials and storage and
would be graveled or vegetated. Ms. Lindquist questioned the lay down areas. Mr. Kern responded
the lay down areas and outside storage are probably considered one in the same.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2006
41) PAGE 5
Spectro Alloys voiced concerns with the General Industrial height requirements at 25 feet. Their
outdoor equipment is 70 -100 feet high and could not function properly if it was lowered to 25 feet.
Spectro Alloys requested further definition for recycling operations. The main concern is 10 years
from now would it be considered strictly a recycling operation and be considered a conditional use.
CF Industries was concerned with the height requirements since their biggest structure height is
closer to 50 feet. Their surge hoppers and tanks are about 70 feet tall. CF Industries also has
onsite hazardous chemical storage. They further questioned if the would they would fall into the
Heavy Industrial district.
Dan Tyson represented Endres Processing. Mr. Tyson requested a copy of the report and the
drawing discussed. Due to the subdivisions of the property and the change of the zoning currently
being considered by staff, Endres would request an opportunity to submit something based upon
review by a planner. The outside storage being a conditional use for the General Industrial district
may cause property owners to incur additional costs as changes occur on the site. Mr. Tyson was
also concerned about the definition of the recycling operations. Endres will try to deliver a letter to
the Commission before the next meeting.
Myron Napper requested that any further information related to the text amendment be sent to
him.
Walter Rockenstein stated agricultural and construction vehicles would be good uses in the GI
district but was concerned about car, boat and recreational vehicle sales generating more public to
the area.
Chairperson Messner questioned what height restrictions the Commission would be comfortable
setting. Commissioner Schultz suggested setting the restrictions at 100 feet and set the building
footprint at 15% to require the conditional use permit. Chairperson Messner suggested making the
restriction at 70 feet and anything higher would require a CUP and to hold steady with the 15%
requirement and require a CUP as well.
Chairperson Messner requested further information on fertilizer storage and the definition for
recycling operations. Based upon the Commission's request to see the draft language one more
time, Ms. Lindquist suggested having discussion following the June 27 meeting. At that time, the
Commission should decide what should be included on the map so it can be included in the draft
ordinance sent to property owners in the district. Chairperson Messner was in agreement with Ms.
Lindquist.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon
unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier, Recording Secretary
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2006
PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held
on Tuesday, June 27, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. with
Commissioners Schwartz, Palda and Howell present. Commissioner Schultz was absent. Also in
attendance were Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, Project Engineer Dawley, and Recording
Secretary Hanson.
Additions to Agenda: None.
Audience Input: None.
Consent Agenda:
a. Approval of the May 23, 2006 Board of Appeal and Adjustments Meeting minutes.
b. Approval of the May 23, 2006 Work Session Meeting minutes.
c. Approval of the May 23, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes.
MOTION by Schwartz to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Palda
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion carried.
Public Hearings:
5.a. 06 -35 -CP County Road 38 Reg uiding. Senior Planner Zweber reviewed the staff report.
As part of the Old County Road 38 project public utilities will be made available to several
properties on 132 Street West. Because these sites will ultimately hook -up to city sewer and water,
staff is recommending that the properties be rezoned to R -1 Low Density Residential from RR
Rural Residential. Additionally, staff is recommending a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
permit expansion of the MUSA to encompass these properties. In May, the Planning Commission
recommended approval to reguide the properties from Rural Residential to Urban Residential.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward. None present.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
No public comments.
MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Chairperson Messner asked if Commissioners had any questions. There were none.
MOTION by Schwartz to approval of the rezoning from RR Rural Residential to R -1 Low
Density Residential and amend the Comprehensive Plan to extend the MUSA for the 18
listed properties with the MUSA expansion subject to Metropolitan Council approval.
Second by Howell.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Zweber stated the item would be on the Council meeting on July 18, 2006
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2006
PAGE 2
5.b. 06 -38 -LS Greif Paper Packaging Services Administrative Plat.
Community Development Planner Lindahl reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Colliers Turley
Martin Tucker, requests Administrative Plat approval for the Greif Brothers site located at 2750
145 Street West. Approval of this request will allow the subdivision of the existing 15.65 acres
parcel into two separate parcels legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Greif Addition. As proposed, Lot
1 would be a vacant 5.94 acre parcel for future development while Lot 2 would be approximately
9.18 acres in size and contain the existing Greif Brother manufacturing building. The site is
currently zoned and guided BP Business Park.
Chairperson Messner asked Commissioners for any questions.
Chairperson Messner requested clarification of Page 3, business park lot and building standards
with respect to lot coverage requirement of 75% and proposed 15 Lindahl explained the
percentages and what is allowed. The green space requirement is 25% and that the current green
space the Applicant is providing under the current plan submitted is 15% so there is a 10%
adjustment that needs to be made and they are trying to accommodate that.
Chairperson Messner invited the Applicant to come forward. John Stainbrook, Progress Land
Company, 6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100, Savage, Minnesota 55378, developer of Rosemount Estates,
Rosemount Village and Rosemount Village 2n which are adjacent to the proposed lot. They are
the contract buyer for the lot and are working with Greif on the configuration to accommodate the
30 They made a recommendation to angle lot line to eliminate the 90 degrees which allows them
to accommodate a road more efficiently to access the lot and there should be no net gain or loss on
the green space.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
No public comment.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Chairperson Messner asked if Commissioners had any questions. There were none.
MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council approve an administrative plat
allowing the subdivision of the existing 15.65 acre Grief property into two separate parcels
legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Greif Addition, subject to the following conditions:
1. Redesign of the plat to conform with the requirements for Administrative Plat approval
including, but not limited to, conformance to the parking and green space standards prior to
action on this item by the City Council.
2. Elimination of the existing western access to Lot 2 and creation of a separate access for Lot
1 from 145 Street West. The access to Lot 1 shall be a minimum of 150 feet from the
adjacent railroad.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2006
PAGE 3
3. Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer including, but not limited to,
dedication of all required right -of -way for 145 Street West and all existing drainage
easements, drainage utility easement, or other type of permanent easement across the
existing parcel shall be shown on the plat and be recorded to exist as they do today across
the two new lots.
4. No development fees will be required with the creation of the new lot, however all
appropriate fees shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance. The fee rates
shall be as set forth in the Schedule of Rates and Fees for the current year of building
permit issuance.
5. Creation of restrictive covenants over Lot 1, Block 1, Greif Brothers Addition and Outlot B
of Rosewood Estates requiring payment of all development fees for both property if either
property is developed separately.
Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Lindahl stated the item is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on July 18, 2006.
In the interim, Staff will be working with Applicant to resolve the access and green space issues.
5.c. 06 -39 -SP Frana Wall Plant Addition Site Plan Review. Senior Planner Zweber reviewed
the staff report. The applicant, Frana Sons, requests site plan approval to allow the construction of
a 9,700 square foot addition onto their existing 20,700 square foot wall plant. The property is located
at 2785 160 Street West. The applicant states that addition is not an expansion of the business, but
is to enclose manufacturing that currently occurs outside. Frana Wall manufactures pre- fabricated
wall sections for various type of construction. They are normally 8 foot tall wall sections of 2' by 4'
or 2' by 6' lumber with one side of drywall attached. These wall sections are trucked to the job site
and installed usually with a crane. This pre -fab construction allows building be constructed faster,
particularly enclosed faster to allow for the building to be heated and the get the various sub-
contractors working on the mechanicals.
Chairperson Messner asked Commissioners for any questions. Commissioner Palda inquired as to
how much parking for employees currently existed. Mr. Zweber set forth what they have existing,
and how much they would have if they would expand.
Chairperson Messner asked what operations are on the north end of the building. Mr. Zweber
explained the loading docks, where the pavement ends and where they would provide additional
parking. Chairperson Messner asked if there is sufficient truck movement space between parking
and the building. Mr. Zweber stated that trucks usually do not come into the parking area, but
simply park alongside the building and a forklift accesses the material.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward. Justin Noah, Frana Companies,
Project Engineer, 633 2n Avenue, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343. Wall Plant address 2785 160th
Street West, Rosemount, MN 55068. Mr. Noah stated they basically want to move a few workers
outside to indoors for manufacturing and some additional storage for lumber that is treated and
weather sensitive.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2006
PAGE 4
Chairperson Messner asked Applicant if a portion of the building would be used for storage and
warehousing. Mr. Noah confirmed that was correct.
There were no other questions for the Applicant.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
No public comment.
MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Chairperson Messner asked Commissioners if there were questions.
MOTION by Schwartz to approve the site plan for Frana Sons to allow the
construction of a 9,700 square foot addition onto their existing Frana Wall building at 2785
160 Street West, subject to conditions.
1. Issuance of a building permit.
2. Submission of a landscape security equal to one hundred and twenty five percent
(125 of the cost of the plantings.
3. Conformance with all conditions of the City Engineer as outlined in this report
prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. Submission of a separate administrative sign permit application for any proposed
sign changes.
5. The applicant install proof of parking consistent with the Plan submission should
the City indicate that a parking shortage has been observed on the site.
Second by Palda Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Zweber stated that since there is a site plan there is no further council approved needed, only
administrative monitoring to get the building permit and see that conditions are met.
5.d. 06 -40 -ME Shafer Contracting Mineral Extraction Permit Amendment. Senior Planner
Zweber reviewed the staff report. Scott Spisak of Shafer Contracting has applied for a change to the
2006 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). The proposed change would allow for deeper
mining and replacement of the extracted material will clean "haul- back" material from Mn /DOT
projects. Mr. Zweber reviewed the proposed changes to the existing mining permit relating to the
haul -back provision.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2006
PAGE 5
Chairperson Messner asked the Commissioners if they have any questions. Commissioner Palda
questioned the testing by Shafer Contracting and inquired why the City couldn't be in control of the
testing. Mr. Zweber stated that testing would be paid by Shafer but would be done by American
Engineering Testing. Project Engineer Dawley further explained about the testing that would be
undertaken. Commissioner Palda further stated his concern that the City should control the testing,
not Shafer. The City should do the hiring of the company to do the testing.
Chairperson Messner questioned Item E on the reclamation and final grading plan and whether it
would be revised at this time to show proposed grade changes. Mr. Zweber stated the permit will
be up for review in 2007 during the annual permit review process. A recommended condition of
the permit requires a revised reclamation plan for the 2007 annual permit review.
Commissioner Palda asked if the fill coming in would be strictly from MnDot only, and not from
the Metropolitan Airport Commission. Mr. Zweber stated it is more specifically pointed out in the
American Testing Protocol that they've included, but it states in there that the fill would only come
from MnDot projects.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward. Scott Spisak from Shafer Contracting
Co., Inc., stated that if approved, what they would accomplish between now and the renewal in
December for next year would be basically a hole in the ground. They may haul some material in,
but it will take some time just to dig a hole. Staffs recommendation to do reclamation plan
revisions at year end is timely because changes to any approved grades would not happen before
that. Mr. Spisak addressed Commissioner Palda's concerns on testing. He stated Shafer felt it
wasn't the City's business to pay for something a private property owner would be doing.
Commissioner Palda restated the City would hire their own consulting firm with testing run
through the City and billed back to Shafer as part of the permit process. Mr. Spisak stated they
would leave it up to the City whether the City would be in charge of the testing process or Shafer.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
Charles Koehnen, 12255 Rich Valley Boulevard, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068. Mr. Koehnen
owns the property adjoining the pit. He has had numerous discussions with Scott Spisak. Mr.
Koehnen is concerned about timing of the mining and would like the existing pond filled and
relocated so there would be less chance of contamination to their well due to it not being very deep.
Mr. Koehnen stated he has had no problems with Shafer mining; they've done a tremendous job
compared to other companies. Mr. Koehnen would like to see the pond moved back into what
would be Phase 4, as far away from his property as possible and any top soil on the property now
could be used to fill the current pond.
No other public comment.
MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2006
PAGE 6
Chairperson Messner expressed concern about possible relocation of the pond. He questioned
given the phasing of the project and initial intent and placement, would filling the pond and moving
it require an immediate regrading of the site for runoff. Mr. Zweber indicated Shafer has moved
into Phase 4. It would take a little time to move the pond, and in order to get the City's input on
where to relocate the pond, it would be best to be part of the reclamation plan review in 2007. The
City will work with Shafer when they revise the plan for next year's permit and will discuss moving
the pond at that time.
Chairperson Messner stated that on condition of approval, it is recommended to attach a condition
of a revised grading plan as part of the 2007 renewal. Chairperson Messner addressed
Commissioner Palda's concern regarding testing and stated that it shouldn't matter who is doing the
hiring and paying of the testing. Chairperson Messner's preference is rather than put the City in the
middle of it, let Shafer pay the bill. Commissioner Palda agreed that Shafer should pay the bill, but
restated his concern that the City should control the testing. Chairperson Messner stated it was up
to the City engineer. Project Engineer Dawley stated that copies of the reports would be coming as
the testing is performed and if something appeared amiss then they would be able to address it at
that time.
MOTION by Messner to recommend approval of the Revised 2006 Shafer Contracting,
Inc. Mineral Extraction Permit to include "haul- back" activities with the condition that a
revised Reclamation Plan is developed and approved as a part of the 2007 Shafer
Contracting, Inc. Mineral Extraction Permit, subject to the above condition regarding the
review of the reclamation plan in 2007.
Second by Palda
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Zweber stated the item is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on July 18, 2006.
Staff will be working with Shafer to redefine the 13 acres and meet various conditions. A review of
the reclamation plan will be scheduled at the end of the year.
Old Business: None.
New Business: None
Reports: Planner Lindahl highlighted the items on the agenda.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Chairperson
Messner made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Schwartz seconded. Upon unanimous
decision, the meeting was adjourned at 7:24 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
June 27, 2006
PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Work Session of the Planning Commission was held on
Tuesday, June 27, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. with
Commissioners Schwartz, Palda and Howell present. Also in attendance were Senior Planner
Zweber and Planner Lindahl and Recording Secretary Hanson.
DISCUSSION
a. 06 -33 -TA General Industrial Text Amendment. Community Development Planner Lindahl
summarized the staff report. This is a continuation of the GI General Industrial district review
which occurred during the April 25 May 9t May 23` and June 13t Planning Commission work
sessions. During the last meeting, the Commission reviewed copies of the latest GI and HI
Districts, examined draft copies of the Industrial Districts map and Land Cover map and table, as
well as heard comments from land owners that may be affected by the proposed text amendment.
During tonight's meeting, staff will present modified GI and HI district text.
Changes to the text are focused on the outdoor storage standards for both districts and the outdoor
structures standards in the GI district. The outdoor storage changes offer greater flexibility in
screening materials and setback standards as requested by the property owners. The outdoor
structures standards were revised to allow structures up to 70 feet tall and to permit taller structures
through a conditional use permit as directed by the Commission. In addition, both of these uses
were relocated from conditional to accessory uses at the Commission request.
Staff also made changes to three of the conditional uses. First, Landscape and Horticultural
Services and Lumber and Construction Material Businesses were revised to be "wholesale"
operations in the GI district. This change was made to eliminate the possibility of "retail"
operations that could attract significant amounts of people. Second, Motor and Recreational
Vehicle, Trailer, or Agricultural Machinery Sales or Rental was modified to eliminate "motor and
recreational vehicles" and add "construction machinery." This was also done to eliminate the
possibility that this type of operation could attract significant amounts of people. Third,
Warehousing, Wholesaling, and Distribution uses in the heavy industrial district were limited to
"non combustible or explosive materials." This change is designed to allow other warehouse,
wholesale, and distribution activities as long as they are not combustible or explosive. Also, it
reinforces that storage of combustible or explosive materials is included under Heavy
Manufacturing, which is a permitted use.
In staff's opinion, the remaining issues for discussion are setback and structure height standards in
the heavy industrial district. Flint Hills has indicated that the standards proposed by staff are too
limiting but have yet to offer alternatives. Staff requests direction from the Commission regarding
these issues and plans to meet with Flint Hills and any other interested property owner prior to the
public hearing on this item which is tentatively scheduled for July 25, 2006.
Mr. Lindahl opened the floor to any questions.
Chairperson Messner requested a highlight of the existing general industrial zoning requirements
for storage area and paving. Mr. Lindahl stated the ordinance does not have current specific
requirement for storage requirements and states generally regarding paving and accessing
requirements. Staff would add language relating to specific surfacing standards for outdoor storage.
Chairperson Messner asked if there was a distinction between the surfacing standards for general
industrial storage and heavy industrial storage. Mr. Lindahl stated that was correct. The distinction
was made by one of the applicants who is concerned about the cost and run -off of adding a hard
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
June 27, 2006
PAGE 2
service in the general industrial areas. Staff has tried to allow for flexibility in the surfacing
standards. In the general industrial district, the standard is set higher under the current draft text
than the heavy industrial district. The larger property areas in the proposed heavy industrial area,
Staff acknowledges paving requirements could be problematic. Property owners should make
arguments as to the importance of these issues.
Mr. Lindahl further highlighted that it is Staff intention to come back with text that to a public
hearing July 25, 2006. Staff would distribute the proposed text to people who are zoned or guided
industrial.
Chairperson Messner inquired as to what are the current screening requirements within the general
industrial zoning. Mr. Lindahl stated there are no current specific screening requirements for
outdoor storage. Adding the requirements would be one of the major components for the district.
The amendment would provide clear standards for all applicants rather than working on a case by
case basis as currently practiced.
Chairperson Messner inquired about Item G in general industrial regarding outdoor screening for
storage areas and the difference between No. 1 and 2. Mr. Lindahl stated Staff was trying to create
a more staggered approach to screening. He further explained the difference between the current
screening and the text amendment. Mr. Lindahl further discussed exemptions from screening
requirements in previous text.
Chairperson Messner asked if there were any comments from the public.
Walter Rockenstein, Faegre Benson, 2200 Wells Fargo Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
representing Flint Hills Resources. Mr. Rockenstein first stated his appreciation with the Staff
working with them. The No. 1 issue is the map. The No. 2 issue is with the ordinances with
respect to the height limitation and setback requirements. Said limitations and requirements would
result in non conforming uses for several of their existing structures. Mr. Rockenstein suggested
that in the first 75 feet, do not allow anything over 40 feet which would essentially be a 31/2 4 story
building depending on the floor to floor heights. Another suggestion was the structure should be
as far away as it is tall from any property line. All of the tall structures at Flint Hills would
currently meet that requirement. Another issue is with respect to the uses in the GI ordinance and
how to differentiate those research facilities that make sense in a heavy industrial area, and those
that do not. The last issue Mr. Rockenstein discussed was the conditional use for trailer, boat,
motor vehicle, construction and agricultural uses. Chairperson Messner responded to Mr.
Rockenstein's last issue regarding conditional uses in that he does not see trailers as a problem for
generating a lot of traffic. He would entertain the idea of removing boats, but probably not trailers
and recreational vehicles had already been eliminated. Mr. Rockenstein stated that should be
acceptable and would confirm with Flint Hills for their approval.
Chairperson Messner responded about the 200 foot height requirement and asked for confirmation
regarding the allowance of going over if a conditional use permit is applied for. Mr. Lindahl stated
that provision is currently only in the general industrial district and the Staff is still working on the
heavy industrial district height requirements.
Scott Doman, Plant Manager, CF Industries, Inc., 5300 Pine Bend Trail, Rosemount, Minnesota
55068, stated he would like an opportunity to meet with Staff regarding the heavy industrial
ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
June 27, 2006
PAGE 3
Todd Phelps, Leonard Street Deinard, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300, Minneapolis, MN
55402, representing CF Industries, Inc. His client's primary concern regarding the staff report is
the use issue. Under either use classification, CF Industries runs into problems. Under the GI
district, CF Industries goes from permitted use to a conditional use, at worst they become a non-
conforming use. They do not see anything under permitted uses for heavy industrial that would
permit CF Industries uses.
Paul Curtis, Spectro Alloys, 13320 East Doyle Path, Rosemount, MN 55068, commented that
under the General Industrial ordinance, recycling operations would be a conditional use. In past
conversations with Community Development Director Kim Lindquist, she has stated that she does
not see Spectra as a recycling operation, but that it should be defined on how that will be
determined for future City staff.
Daniel R. Tyson, Plaza VII, Suite 3300, 45 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402,
representing Endres Properties, LLC. Endres Properties was brought into the City as part of a TIF
district in 1987. They wish to continue that. They are concerned that recycling is perhaps part of
their operations even though the proposed definition does not include recycling. The other issue
they have is regarding the height standards.
Dave Schindeldecker, DPC Industries, 12800 Pine Bend Trail, Rosemount, MN 55068. 55 Pine
Bend Trail, Rosemount, is the trucking facility. They do manufacturing in oxide gas and chloride
gas and consideration in the wording should include hazardous materials. Chairperson Messner
questioned exact location of plant. Planner Lindahl asked for clarification of DPC Industries' plant.
Mr. Schindeldecker responded they are a chemical treatment and waste water treatment plant; they
process, package, distribute and manufacture bleach which is nonflammable. DPC Industries feels
that because of it is a chemical, they would like consideration in alternative wording. Planner
Lindahl discussed the definition of heavy industrial manufacturing and stated it is helpful that DPC
Industries is here. Staff would like an opportunity to meet DPC Industries to further discuss
wording.
No further public comment.
Chairperson Messner asked for the current recycling definition. Mr. Lindahl read the current
working definition of recycling operation that is in the current code. Discussion took place
regarding the definition and how current properties are included.
Chairperson Messner inquired about the definition of testing labs and research. Mr. Lindahl stated
Staff is interested in working with Applicants towards a working definition. Chairperson Messner
suggested adding so many persons per square feet of building area as a qualifier in density of use.
Chairperson Messner stated that Staff will be working on the setback issue to fine tune that text.
He would prefer either to set a height limitation with a conditional use permit above that height and
with respect to existing structures exceeding that limitation, we should look at case by case and
issue variances for those locations rather than raising the overall height limit. 200 feet may not be
the right number. Mr. Lindahl gave more background on comments from applicants. Discussion
followed regarding current general industrial height standards and what steps would be taken to
change to a new standard.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
June 27, 2006
PAGE 4
Chairperson Messner asked about the differences in permitted use of fertilizer storage and
distribution provisions in general industrial and heavy industrial ordinances. Planner Lindahl
discussed the proposed zoning for heavy industrial district for heavy manufacturing. Discussion
followed whether or not CF Industries would be included under the definition as it is currently
worded. Chairperson Messner expressed that the terms "refinement and storage" should maybe
read as "refinement and /or storage." Planner Lindahl stated that it was possible to make that
change. Further discussion took place with CF Industries about the type of manufacturing their
business consists of.
Planner Lindahl asked the Commission direction on the setbacks with respect to the businesses
located next to the Hwy 55 and the Hwy 52 split and other properties owners in the area.
Chairperson Messner responded that he is comfortable with the working definition. All other
Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Schwartz stated she feels good with the 300 foot setback
given the type of product being dealt with. Commissioner Palda agreed with the 300 foot, but also
stated that the Commission should work with CF Industries and DPC Industries to make sure they
are conforming for buildings within the 300 foot setback depending on if they're general industrial
or heavy industrial districts. Discussion took place about whether or not 300 feet is the right
measurement for the setback requirement. Staff will meet again with property owners to further
discuss the requirements.
Planner Lindahl questioned the Commission if they feel the ordinance with the proposed changes is
ready for public hearing or if it should come back to a Commission work session. Chairperson
Messner stated that subject to some additional modifications, it should go to a public hearing.
Planner Lindahl stated Staff will set up a public hearing for the Commission meeting on July 25
Map discussion followed regarding what is currently zoned industrial. Chairperson Messner asked
the public if there were any comments.
Walter Rockenstein, Faegre Benson, 2200 Wells Fargo Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
representing Flint Hills Resources, presented a map with cross hatched portion showing property
not currently zoned that they would like to have included because of future expansion.
Todd Phelps, Leonard Street Deinard, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300, Minneapolis, MN
55402, representing CF Industries, Inc. stated their site also includes a very large portion that is not
zoned heavy industrial that is used for barge traffic. They wish to have that area included in the HI
district. They also wish the area to be expanded to the south and east so they will not be non
confirming with respect to setbacks.
There was no further public comment.
Chairperson Messner addressed Flint Hills request that, at this point, we will not deal with rezoning
and guide plan amendments. Further discussion took place with Flint Hills and CF Industries
regarding barge dock areas and current uses. Chairperson Messner stated his overall preference was
to limit heavy industrial to those areas that are currently utilized. A property can possibly be
rezoned in the future. Commissioner Howell agreed with Chairperson Messner the Commission
should only deal with property zoned as industrial right now.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
June 27, 2006
PAGE 5
Todd Phelps, Leonard Street Deinard, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300, Minneapolis, MN
55402, representing CF Industries, Inc. restated their concern with setbacks.
Planner Lindahl stated this issue should be brought in a public hearing at the July 25 meeting.
Additional discussion took place with respect to the definition of "heavy" and whether or not there
was a better word to use.
There were no further questions or comments.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon
unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
July 25, 2006
PAGE 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held
on Tuesday, July 25, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. with
Commissioners Schwartz, Schultz, Palda and Howell present. Also in attendance were Community
Development Director Lindquist, Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, and Recording
Secretary Hanson.
Additions to Agenda: None.
Audience Input: None.
Consent Agenda:
a. Approval of the June 13, 2006 Work Session Meeting minutes.
b. Approval of the June 27, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes.
c. Approval of the June 27, 2006 Work Session Meeting minutes.
MOTION by Schwartz to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Palda.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion carried.
Public Hearings:
5.a. 06 -33 -TA General Industrial Text Amendment. Planner Lindahl reviewed the staff report.
As a result of studying the uses and development standards in the GI General Industrial district,
staff initiated an examination of these standards by the Planning Commission. The Commission
reviewed the existing standards as well as suggested changes from staff during Work Sessions held
in April, May and June of 2006. During the last meeting, the Commission found the draft
ordinance prepared by staff to be ready for distribution and review by the public. As a result, the
Commission directed staff to mail the draft text to all property owners either zoned or guided GI
General Industrial. The only property owners not notified were those properties recently reguided
to commercial from industrial that have not had their properties rezoned. The thought being that
this was a new change to the property's land use and the City had no intention of changing those
properties back to industrial. The properties are in the Hwy 3 /County Road 46 area but do not
include the current industrial uses along County Road 46. In addition, the Commission directed
staff to notice and schedule a public hearing to review this item and receive public comment during
the regular July 25, 2006 meeting.
For the Commission's review, Staff attached draft copies of the revised GI General Industrial
District, a new HI Heavy Industrial District, and a map illustrating how the current GI District
could be reallocated based on the uses and performance standards outlined in these districts. These
texts are the same documents reviewed by the Commission at the June 27 meeting and approved
for distributed to the public. The map includes recommended changes to the potential boundaries
of proposed daft Heavy Industrial district. As a reminder, in this text new language is underlined
while delete language is strickcn through.
Mr. Lindahl further reviewed the five main issues: inclusion of three major businesses in the heavy
industrial district; setback standards; height standards; map changes; and definition of a recycling
operation. Mr. Lindahl also reviewed a map illustrating an Industrial District Zoning
District /Comprehensive Plan Comparison.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
July 25, 2006
PAGE 2
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
Don Kern, Flint Hills Resources, 12555 Clark Road, Rosemount, Minnesota, expressed his thanks
to the Staff and the Commission. Mr. Kern reviewed the issues set forth in his letter sent to the
Staff on July 25, 2006, and distributed to the Commission. The issues consisted of the heavy
industrial zoning district boundaries, setbacks, height standards, outdoor storage and inconsistent
uses.
Chairperson Messner commented that the proposed changes may determine conforming and non
confirming issues and questioned if Flint Hills would conform with the current GI zoning
standards. Mr. Kern responded that even minor modifications may result in a non conformance
and they want to remain in conformance.
Chairperson Messner asked for clarification of the difference between accessory uses and principal
uses with respect to the heavy industrial setbacks. Mr. Lindahl responded that principal uses are
those listed as "Permitted Uses" while accessory uses are those listed as "Accessory Uses." Both
categories have corresponding setback standards which vary from the current standards and are
detailed within the ordinances.
Carol Hickman, 29370 Randolph Blvd., Randolph, Minnesota, commented that the storage area
requirement to have concrete surfaces and dust control causes financial and storm runoff concerns.
She agrees with the comments of Flint Hills and would like flexibility from that standard.
Todd Phelps, Leonard, Street Deinard, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300, Minneapolis, MN
55402, representing CF Industries, Inc. approached the Commission and discussed three primary
concerns of CF Industries, Inc.: that current operations remain a permitted use on the property;
the possibility of creating non conforming uses with respect to height requirements and screening;
and the ability to remain flexible in current operations with respect to use.
For clarification, Ms. Lindquist reported to the public that there has not been any changes to the
previous draft of the ordinances or the map.
Daniel R. Tyson, Plaza VII, Suite 3300, 45 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402,
representing Endres Properties, LLC., approached the Commission and reviewed the letter Endres
Properties provided to the Staff and Commission. The Company's main concern is that portions
of their site may become non conforming if the current draft is approved and inquired as to the
process for bringing the site into compliance if the ordinance changes are approved.
There was no further public comment.
MOTION by Commissioner Howell to continue the Public Hearing to the next Planning
Commission meeting scheduled for August 22, 2006. Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Chairperson Messner asked if Commissioners had any questions.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
July 25, 2006
PAGE 3
Staff indicated they plan to provide a revised definition of heavy industrial and recycling. The
Commission continued to discuss the following main issues.
1- Height limitation. The Commission discussed the 70 foot height limitation within general
industrial zoning for outdoor structures and 200 foot standard for heavy industrial zoning.
The 70 foot and 200 foot height standards were found acceptable by the Commission, given
that taller structures may be approved through a conditional use permit.
2- Setbacks. Commission reviewed the setback map and discussed how industries would be
affected if the 300 foot setback is approved. The possibility of a more flexible, staggered
setback was discussed and agreed upon. Future discussion will be needed on the
parameters in setting the staggered setback.
3- Outdoor storage. The Commission discussed the requirement of paved surfaces with
concrete or equivalent thereof to control dust. Mr. Lindahl clarified that the existing
standard is what the ordinance presently requires. This does not reflect a change in
standards. The Commission upheld this standard.
4- Map. Ms. Lindquist clarified that no rezoning are being done at this time and that future
discussion will be made on a piece by piece basis on zoning issues with respect to the
Comprehensive Plan. The comments made with respect to zoning requests are on record.
The Commission did, however, agree with the area proposed by Flint Hills to be zoned
heavy industrial located between Highway 52 and the Mississippi River.
5- Boat dealers. Mr. Lindahl confirmed again that the text as it is currently written was the last
revision approved. However, it was determined after the last revision that boat dealers be
deleted from the text.
Todd Phelps, Leonard, Street Deinard, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300, Minneapolis, MN
55402, representing CF Industries, Inc., again approached the Commission and further stressed the
corporation's barge area, similar to Flint Hills, should be zoned heavy industrial and requested no
setback requirement along the riverfront.
Follow up on this matter: Public Hearing has been continued to August 22, 2006.
Old Business: None.
New Business:
7.a. 05-40 -PUD Endres Properties 2 Addition Final Plat. Planner Zweber reviewed the staff
report. Leon Endres has applied for PUD Concept Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat approval
to subdivide the Endres property located at 13420 Courthouse Blvd. At the January 10, 2006
Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD
Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat. At tonight's meeting, Leon Endres seeks a recommendation for
411 Final Plat approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
July 25, 2006
PAGE 4
The Endres Properties 2n Addition will create three lots, one for the existing Endres facility and
two new lots for industrial use along State Highway 55. The applicant could not commit to a
detailed Master Development Plan approval at this time, until future owners and businesses for the
new lots are identified. Prior to development of the two new sites, Master Development Plan
approval is required, with the expectation that the protected bluffs, bluff setbacks, Concept Plan
conditions, and the traditional General Industrial standards apply.
PUD Concept Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat approval will all come before the City Council
at one time.
The Commission addressed the outdoor storage issue raised by the owner and the difficulty to
review the matter since there is no proposed site plan available. It was agreed that the condition
should be kept as originally proposed.
Daniel R. Tyson, Plaza VII, Suite 3300, 45 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402,
representing Endres Properties, LLC., approached the Commission to further stress that the
language prohibiting outdoor storage is too strong and stated their request to keep future
discussions on this matter open.
MOTION by Schwartz to recommend that the City Council approve the Final Plat for
Endres Properties 2n Addition subject to the following conditions:
1. Development charges will be required as follows with a final plat.
a. Trunk Water Area charges for Lots 1 and 2 at a rate of $4420 /acre.
b. Trunk Storm Water Area charges for Lots 1 and 2 at a rate of
$6200 /acre.
c. GIS fees for Lots 1 and 2 at a rate of $120 /acre.
2. Park dedication as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Director shall
be in the form of cash contribution for Industrial subdivisions as established
in the current fee schedule at the time of payment. The applicant may pay
the fees prior to release of the final plat or upon receipt of a building permit
for Lot 1 and Lot 2.
3. The recording of temporary Drainage and Utility easement in place of the
vacated Endres Properties Addition Drainage and Utility Easements.
Second by Howell.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
All three items, the PUD Concept Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat, are scheduled to go before
the City Council at the August 15, 2006, meeting.
Reports: Ms. Lindquist reviewed the items that were approved at the July 18, 2006, City Council
meeting. A reminder was mentioned of the joint meeting with City Council before the next
Planning Commission meeting on August 22, 2006, at 5:30p.m. to review the 2008 Comprehensive
Plan process.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
July 25, 2006
PAGE 5
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Commissioner
Schwartz made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Palda seconded. Upon unanimous decision,
the meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
PAGE 1
CaII to Order:
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held
on Tuesday, September 26, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
with Commissioners Schwartz, Schultz, Palda and Howell present. Also in attendance were
Community Development Director Lindquist, Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, and
Recording Secretary Hanson. The Pledge of Allegiance was read.
Additions to Agenda: None.
Audience Input: None.
Consent Agenda:
a. Approval of the August 22, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes.
MOTION by Schwartz to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Howell
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion carried.
Public Hearings:
5.a. 06 -05 -TA Manufactured Home Park Ordinance Revisions. Senior Planner Zweber began
the presentation with the statement that staff has not received any indication that the mobile home
park closing. Staff was approached by a resident to revise the ordinance to better protect the
residents in the event the park is purchased. To staff's knowledge, no one has indicated that the
owner desires to sell.
Mr. Zweber reviewed the state statute and requirements in the event a mobile home park would
close, including relocation reimbursement, park conversions, resident buy -out provision, and
noncompliance. The state statute is what the City is using to base the City ordinance on. The main
part of the City ordinance that needs revision regulates the closing of the manufactured home park.
The state statute defines a manufactured home but is silent with respect to accessory uses. Relocation
costs include crane services, but do not include axles, wheels, etc. It also does not include items
being stored in accessory uses. Hook ups for electricity and plumbing are reimbursable but upgrades
or repairs to bring a property up to current code are not reimbursable. The City can withhold
building permits to the Developer until all residents are paid amounts owed for reimbursement.
The zoning ordinance amendment provides minimum lot requirements and setbacks, as well as
provisions for manufactured home park closings. The conditions of manufactured home park
closings include the noticing of residents nine months in advance of the closing, the conducting of a
public hearing to evaluate the impacts of closing of park, and the requirement that the park owner
pay the relocation costs of the resident or providing another form of compensation. The
compensation provision includes paying the full relocation costs (as defined with the proposed
ordinance) for moving the home to another park within 25 miles, the payment of the average
relocation costs if a resident moves the home to a park farther than 25 miles, or assessed value of the
home if the resident cannot move to a park within 25 miles and renders the tide to the park owner.
The maximum total compensation that a park owner is required to pay is 20% of the assessed value
for the entire park as currently drafted.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
PAGE 2
The property maintenance ordinance provides maintenance standards for street surfaces and snow
and ice removal, trash collection that includes recycling opportunities, and the removal of accessory
structures when a home is removed for a park.
Some residents have expressed concern that the proposed ordinance amendments do not go far
enough in protecting the rights of the Rosemount Woods residents. An exhibit was provided to the
Commission of an e-mail sent by LaVonne Woodruff, a Rosemount Woods resident, which
expressed some questions, raising practical concerns about implementation of the State Statute and
proposed ordinance. Mr. Zweber reviewed the questions raised by LaVonne Woodruff and discussed
the answers thereto.
Staff has reviewed the State Statute and other ordinances from other communities regarding
manufactured home park closings. Based on previous direction from the City Council, staff has
prepared an ordinance text amendment that is generally based on Apple Valley's ordinance. The
proposed ordinance addresses many, but maybe not all, of the concerns raised by Rosemount Woods.
Staff requests a motion from the Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council
approve the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance regarding manufactured home parks. The
proposed revisions to the Property Maintenance Ordinance are for review only because the
amendment is not housed in the City's zoning ordinance; no recommendation is needed. Any
comments that the Planning Commission would have regarding the Property Maintenance
Ordinance will be provided to the City Council.
Chairperson Messner opened the floor to discussion by the Commissioners.
Commissioner Schultz questioned how accessory structures are dealt with in the ordinance and Mr.
Zweber replied that the state statute is silent with respect to accessory structures.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if mobile homes can be moved on a flatbed without an axle or
whether or not the axles can be rented. Community Development Director Lindquist replied that
the City's building official stated there are places to rent the equipment needed to move the mobile
home.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
Ricky Hawke, 2764 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned the letter he
received proposing rezoning of Rosemount Woods for different purposes and inquired as to the
status. Ms. Lindquist replied that the City is changing the ordinance which is a zoning text
amendment; there will not be a change in the actual zoning. Staff has not received any request for
anybody to purchase the mobile home park. The owner has expressed he has no intention of
selling the property.
Barb Stanley, 13955 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned if the individual
home owner has to provide the initial money needed to relocate and then get reimbursed, or is the
money provided up front. Mr. Zweber replied that there is an "or" in the ordinance. The park
could move the owner directly or could reimburse the owner after the move is made. This
particular matter would be directly addressed at the public hearing in the event the park would be
closed.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
410 SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
PAGE 3
Ms. Stanley also stated that the wheels and axles to the mobile homes were taken away by the park
owner when they were set in the park. The homeowners do not feel like they should have to pay
for the axles and wheels when the park owner took them away.
Pat Sivert, 13995 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, read from an undisclosed local
newspaper which stated that the Governor has declared this week manufactured home park week.
Ms. Sivert further stated that she feels the park could be recommended as one of the quality parks
in Minnesota. She also commented her belief that $6,600 for relocation costs is a ridiculous
amount and should be considered carefully by the Commission.
Lynda Thurstin, 2913 Upper 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned how
many parks allow pets and garages should she decide to relocate. She also asked if she could get a
second opinion on the estimate of her home outside of the County Assessor, and further asked if
the park owner could pay her for her trailer if she doesn't want to move it and simply get an
apartment.
Dean Peterson, 13965 Brianboro Avenue, Rosemount Minnesota 55068, stated that the ordinance
requires a trailer to be broken down to an 8 foot width and stated that this would be impossible
since a trailer can be broken down to a minimum of 16 feet.
Ray and Tammie Kopatich, 2934 138t Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, expressed their
frustration with the whole process and how difficult it is to relocate deaf residents.
Lila Dalton, 2764 158 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated she has health issues and
works at Arby's, which is enough to pay for her medical expenses so she has a loan to pay for her
double -wide trailer. She would not receive enough in relocation costs to move her not to mention
pay off her loan.
Terry Berger, 2702 138t Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned the information
provided about the 44 available parks within a 25 mile radius and whether or not the lots in these
44 parks are empty lots. He stated it is not possible to relocate 182 mobile home residents and it
doesn't make sense to discuss relocation.
Leah Lund, 2775 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, has lived in the park for seven
years, is a single parent, has a 1 1/2 stall garage and stated that there are not a lot of parks that will
accept a used home.
Sharon Schonhardt, 2813 Upper 138t Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, just bought a double
wide trailer in the park. She stated she would never get what she paid for it and questioned why the
City doesn't leave the park alone. Mr. Zweber responded that the City is not looking to get rid of
the park.
Ms. Lindquist reconfirmed that there is state statute that governs this matter and the City is not
making up an ordinance. The City wants to be more specific because the statute process is a little
vague. If the City takes not action on the ordinance, the residents will still be governed by the State
Statute. What the City is trying to accomplish is set up a process so in the event the park would
close, everyone would know what the process was. The City would appreciate assistance from the
residents in providing information helpful in completing the revision of the ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
PAGE 4
Ricky Hawke, 2764 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated that to have a flatbed
come to haul a doublewide trailer would range from $2,000 to $8,000. After that cost, how does
the City expect people to pay for the remaining 20 Mr. Hawke asked if it would be fair to
require the park owner to pay more than 20% of the assessed value of the home. Mr. Zweber
stated that the Planning Commission could certainly review that matter.
Robert Phaff, 2825 138t Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated that if a developer has
enough money to buy the entire park, it should have enough money to relocate the home owners at
the developer's expense and this should be included in the ordinance.
Lynda Thurstin, 2913 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned in the event
51% of the home owners want to go together and purchase the park, how much would each person
have to pay and could lot rent be put towards the money to purchase park. Chairperson Messner
stated that the purpose of the public hearing was not to decipher the exact economics of the event,
but has heard of homeowners jointly purchasing parks.
Lori Weeks, 2900 Lower 139 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated that if the City is
going to rewrite the ordinance, then it should be rewritten to make it impossible for anyone to buy
the park instead of providing loopholes. The ordinance should be rewritten to protect the
homeowners.
Lavonne Woodruff, 2884 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, speaking to the
audience stated there are different ways to get an assessed value of the home: county assessed
values, independent appraiser value, and market value that a real estate agent provides. She stated
that homeowners have two options: approach the legislature in the next session, and there is the
opportunity to buy out the park if 51% of homeowners approve the buy -out.
Dennis Ozment, 3275 145t Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, State Representative, stated that
this is an issue to take to the State Legislature and he will make an effort this next legislative session
to get the statute regarding this issue upgraded.
Terry Berger, 2702 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned why the City of
Rosemount would tell 182 homes in the community to get out. Chairperson Messner clarified that
the City does not own the park and does not have the legal authority to tell the owner he cannot sell
the property. The City is trying to clarify the rules to protect the homeowners and is not
encouraging a sale of the park. The City is trying to look out for the best interests of the
homeowners.
Judith Breyer, 2872 Upper 138` Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned if there is any
type of government assistance to help homeowners in the event the park is sold since the housing
market is tough right now and she would desperately need a helping hand.
Craig Sundt, 2824 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated he loves living here and
believes the park is doing good if the homeowners stick together and make their voices heard. If
there are no loopholes left in the new ordinance, everyone can make it work.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
41) SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
PAGE 5
Vikki Marshall, 2812 138t Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, a hearing impaired resident,
questioned if residents had to move and whether or not there was any way to stop it. Chairperson
Messner confirmed that no one is asking the residents to move. The change in ordinance is to
protect residents in the future in case someone would want to sell the property.
Jesse Nanoff, 13970 Broughshane Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated it was his
understanding that this matter was brought to the City by a resident to help protect the residents
and that the City cannot modify the state statute. Mr. Zweber responded that the statute cannot be
modified by the City but the state has left some items up to the City to be more specific on. Mr.
Nanoff questioned that since the statute is silent on accessories, is that something the City can
modify or adopt? Mr. Zweber replied that the City Attorney is researching that issue and the part
of the statute that states other "parties" can satisfy remaining relocation costs. The City Attorney is
also looking into whether or not one of the "other parties" can be the current park owner, but we
do not have a final determination yet. Mr. Zweber also stated that he does not expect the assessed
value to decrease. Mr. Nanoff stated that it is also his understanding that the City of Lakeville was
also approached with this same ordinance and their Council turned it down. In addressing the
residents, Mr. Nanoff stated that the City of Rosemount is looking out for the residents that live in
this park.
Leah Lund, 2775 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the Commission
with another question. She expressed her appreciation for Mr. Ozment's attendance at the meeting
and wondered how she could get involved in changing the legislation.
Ray and Tammie Kopatich, 2934 138t Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, expressed their
disappointment that no hearing impaired interpreter was provided. They do not understand why
the City wants to kick them out.
George Jansen, 2865 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned if the amount of
$6000 was to move the trailer out. Mr. Zweber replied that $6,600 is a figure estimated for
relocation based on 20% of the value of the park and that amount could change. Mr. Jansen
responded that relocation costs cannot replace his alarm system of his neighbors and his daughter
cannot get the education in Lakeville as she can in Rosemount.
Annette Kessler, 2853 Upper 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, was one of the first
5 residents to live in the park. When she received the letter from the City, she checked with
different parks and found that you cannot move a trailer if it was built before 1980. She
questioned what will happen in 5 or 10 years when a trailer park won't accept trailers because they
are too old. There should be a provision in the ordinance to protect the older trailers in the future
when they are longer movable.
Vikki Marshall, 2812 Upper 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, single mother of two
with a low income. She questioned whether kicking all of the residents out justified having more
office space? Mr. Zweber replied there is no developer interested in the property at this time.
Larry Schmitz, 13985 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, asked if there are any
examples of a draft ordinance. Mr. Zweber replied that there is a copy on the website, but it is
generally the Apple Valley ordinance and that the City plans on using the assessed value of homes.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
PAGE 6
Jesse Nanoff, 13970 Broughshane Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, asked when the City
Council will be voting on this issue. Mr. Zweber replied that it would be scheduled for October 17,
2006, unless the Planning Commission continues the item.
Judith Breyer, 2872 Upper 138 Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the Commission
again and stated that in Bloomington, they have closed 3 trailer parks already within the last 3 years
and there will be more from what she has heard.
Jesse Nanoff, 13970 Broughshane Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the
Commission again and asked if the residents will be notified when the item goes to City Council.
Kris Hutto, 13960 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, asked how the ordinance
amendment is going to affect the street maintenance. Mr. Zweber quoted the ordinance stating that
snow removal shall occur as necessary curb to curb and completed within 12 hours of the snow
event. If this is not followed, it becomes a code enforcement matter and residents can notify the
City to report the non compliance.
George Jansen, 2865 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the Commission
again and asked if the park would happen to get sold before the ordinance amendment is
completed, is the process terminated. Mr. Zweber stated there is a time period where you cannot
change the ordinance in a certain time period if someone came in to buy the property. Ms.
Lindquist responded that approval of an ordinance amendment typically takes 60 -90 days to
complete.
The public hearing was closed at 8:02p.m.
Chairperson Messner stated there are definitely some issues to investigate and clarify before we can
move this item to the City Council.
Commissioner Schultz commented to all the residents of Rosemount that it is important to
understand that the City of Rosemount is are trying to work with them. She further stated that by
having State Representative Ozment in the audience, it is important to note that we are confined by
state statute. It is important that the residents go to their state legislature to express their concerns.
MOTION by Chairperson Messner to table this public hearing to allow for additional
comment. Second by Schultz.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
This matter will be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on October 24, 2006.
5.b. 06 -46 -ZA General Industrial District to Heavy Industrial District Rezoning. Mr.
Lindahl presented this item. This item was initiated by staff for the purpose of rezoning selected
parcels from GI General Industrial to HI Heavy Industrial in coordination with the industrial
districts text amendment process. The selected properties are located north of 140 Street, south
of 120 Street, east of Blaine Avenue (County Road 71) and west of the Mississippi River.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
PAGE 7
Mr. Lindahl explained that the Planning Commission previously held public hearings to review the
text amendments during their July and August meetings. At the conclusion of the August hearing,
the Commission unanimously recommended the City Council approve these text amendments. In
coordination with the text amendment, staff now recommends rezoning selected properties from
GI General Industrial to HI Heavy Industrial. Mr. Lindahl showed the Commission the
selected properties on the map included in the staff report. The boundaries for this rezoning are
consistent with those that were reviewed by the Planning Commission during the August meeting
with the exception of the inclusion of the CF Industries barge terminal area. While the barge
terminal area is located within the Floodplain of the Mississippi River, staffs finds it plays an
essential role in the operation of the CF Industries and warrants inclusion in the Heavy Industrial
district.
A copy of a letter from Joe and Julie Simones was provided to the Commission for their
information. It contained concerns with respect to land use change, which was not part of this
public hearing.
Chairperson Messner asked for questions or comments from the Commission. There were none.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m.
Joan Schneider, 12255 Rich Valley Boulevard, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, with husband, Charles
Koehnen, approached the Commission and protested the hearing. She stated she was not given any
notice of the zoning changes or text amendments and their property is located across the road from
Koch Refinery. They found out about the hearing by the public notice that was published in the
Rosemount Town Pages. She quoted City ordinance and objected to the proceedings because in
her opinion no bona fide attempt was made to provide her notice. Mr. Lindahl responded that staff
published the public notice and mailed notices to residents within the area.
Mr. Koehnen stated that this was not the first time they had not been noticed on City proceedings.
Chairperson Messner stated that their objection was noted. Ms. Schneider stated that they were
objecting to the public hearing and the proceeding could not continue unless proof was provided
that a bona fide attempt was made to provide notice. Chairperson Messner requested to review
what ordinance Ms. Schneider was referring to. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff followed procedure in
providing notice. Ms. Lindquist reviewed the ordinance and stated there was a bona fide attempt.
Ms. Schneider replied that she wanted her objection to the public hearing to go on record and she
would follow up on any future violations of giving proper notices.
Chairperson Messner stated again that her objection was on the record and duly noted. He also
stated that he did not have any records in front of him of what notices were provided. Ms.
Schneider demanded that Mr. Lindahl retrieve the file from his office. Chairperson Messner stated
that if in fact a bona fide attempt had not been made, then the public hearing would have to be
rescheduled. In the meantime, the Commission intended to continue with the current public
hearing.
Commission Schultz asked Ms. Schnieder if she had received any notices in the past, and Ms.
Schnieder replied that she had but not for many years.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
PAGE 8
It was later determined that Ms. Schnieder and Mr. Koehnen did not receive a public notice of the
meeting because their property is outside the required 350 foot notification area.
John Hofland, Flint Hills Resources, 12555 Clark Road, Rosemount, Minnesota, approached the
Commission to express his thanks for the text amendments and rezoning going to City Council
together and explained the reason for his company's desire to have their property zoned heavy
industrial with respect to future expansion plans.
Todd Phelps, Leonard Street Deinard, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55402, representing CF Industries, Inc., together with Tom Mollet of CF Industries,
Inc., approached the Commission and requested that the entire CF Industries campus be rezoned
heavy industrial and presented a diagram to support his request. Mr. Phelps stated that large
portions of land would be unuseable if not rezoned heavy industrial. He also stated that at the City
Council work session, it was indicated that all of the CF land would be rezoned heavy industrial, but
this current hearing showed only part of the land being rezoned. Mr. Phelps requested that the
rezoning procedure be set aside until the 2008 Comprehensive Plan was finalized. He stated that
CF Industries is an outstanding corporate citizen that purchased acreage within the City of
Rosemount with the intent to use it, not to leave large spaces of land unuseable.
Staff responded to Mr. Phelps by apologizing if there was confusion during the work session
regarding this item but disagreed with the statement that staff indicated during the work session
that all of the CF land would be rezoned to Heavy Industrial. Staff presented the same map at the
work session that they did during this meeting and it illustrated only a portion of the CF site being
rezoned to Heavy Industrial
There were no further public comments.
MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:41 p.m.
Chairperson Messner requested any follow up discussion on the item from the Commission
members.
Chairperson Messner reviewed the areas owned by Flint Hills Resources that they would like zoned
heavy industrial and compared these areas on the comprehensive plan map, the 42/52 comp plan
map, and the zoning map. One area in question is not actually zoned industrial but was guided
industrial in the 42/52 land use study. Chairperson Messner stated that it was originally the
Commission's intention to only discuss land zoned industrial, which doesn't preclude anybody at a
later date from requesting a rezoning. He stated that delaying this process until the comprehensive
plan is completed could be a two year delay.
Mr. Todd Phelps, Leonard Street Deinard, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55402, representing CF Industries, Inc., approached the Commission again and stated
CF Industries' entire site is currently zoned general industrial and a portion is inconsistent with the
current comprehensive plan. He then wondered if it was any more inconsistent to rezone the
property heavy industrial at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
PAGE 9
Chairperson Messner further reviewed CF Industries' property and how it related to the current
comprehensive plan and zoning map. Ms. Lindquist stated that the rezoning did not extend far
enough to include all of CF Industries' property because a portion of it is designated as flood plain.
Walter Rockenstein, Faegre Benson, 2200 Wells Fargo Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
representing Flint Hills Resources approached the Commission and stated that it is important that
the Commission forward this matter on to the City Council and not wait until the Comprehensive
Plan is complete.
George Psihos, President of Technical Erectors, Inc., 3130 Excelsior Boulevard, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, and also located on Doyle Path in Rosemount, approached the Commission and stated
he is interested in marketing his Rosemount property. One of his concerns is whether or not the
property will be zoned GI or HI as there are certain restrictions to each classification. Mr. Psihos
stated he would appreciate the opportunity to discuss options with the City in the future.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any questions or comments. Commissioner
Schultz moved to make a motion. Chairperson Messner first wanted to say that he thinks the small
portion by the railroad owned by Flint Hills Resources could be included in the rezoning.
MOTION by Commissioner Schultz to recommend the City Council approve rezoning portions
of the properties owned by CF Industries, Continental Nitrogen, Dixie Petro Chemical, and Flint
Hills Resources from GI General Industrial to HI Heavy Industrial as illustrated on the
attached map, subject to the following condition:
1. City Council Approval of the Zoning Text Amendment Creating the New HI Heavy
Industrial Districts.
Second by Howell.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Lindahl stated that this item will be moved to the City Council on October 17, 2006, for
approval. Chairperson Messner will follow up with Mr. Lindahl the morning of September 27,
2006 on the objection that was raised by Joan Schnieder.
Old Business: None.
New Business: None.
Reports: None.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Commissioner
Messner made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Schultz seconded. Upon unanimous decision,
the meeting was adjourned at 9:OOp.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
411 OCTOBER 24, 2006
PAGE 1
CaII to Order:
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held
on Tuesday, October 24, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. with
Commissioners Schwartz, Palda and Howell present. Also in attendance were Community
Development Director Lindquist, Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, and Recording
Secretary Hanson. The Pledge of Allegiance was read. Commissioner Schultz was absent.
Additions to Agenda: None.
Audience Input: None.
Consent Agenda:
a. Approval of the September 26, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes.
MOTION by Schwartz to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Palda
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion carried.
Public Hearings:
5.a. 06 -05 -TA Manufactured Home Park Ordinance Revisions. This is a continuation from the
public hearing on September 26, 2006. Senior Planner Zweber explained that staff has made a series
of changes to the Ordinance revisions since the last meeting. When revising the Ordinance, staff has
interpreted the limitations of the State Statute, with the City Attorney's assistance, in the following
way:
1. The intent of the Statute is to relocate the manufactured home to another park and that other
payments are limited to only purchase the home if the home cannot be relocated.
2. The "reasonable" standard within the Statute limits the types of expenses that can be
reimbursed and encourages a maximum total (or "cap paid to relocation costs.
Mr. Zweber reviewed the proposed changes since the last meeting including a definition of an
appurtenance of a manufactured home; inclusion of tire and axle rental as well as repairs to move a
mobile home are eligible relocation costs; that the park owner is responsible to pay contractors
directly unless the resident chooses otherwise; that each household is eligible to an equal share of the
maximum relocation costs; the requirement of an appraisal of a mobile home cannot be moved; and
that the maximum relocation costs are capped at 25
Mr. Zweber reviewed the changes requested by residents of Rosemount Woods to be made to the
proposed ordinance and explained which changes were added to the Ordinance and which ones
were not added to the ordinance. Requests for payments beyond relocating the actual
manufactured home and personal property within, or the removal of a cap, were not be included in
the ordinance
Staff received two correspondences on October 24, 2006, copies of which were provided to the
Commission. One was email correspondence from the City Attorney Charlie LeFevere regarding
relocation costs and what the state statute authorizes with respect to a cap for payments. The other
411 letter was from the attorney for All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC). Mr. Zweber reviewed the
content of these letters.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 24, 2006
PAGE 2
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if there were any questions. Commissioner Schwartz
asked what was all included within the cap fund. Mr. Zweber replied that the cap includes all
relocation costs and purchases of trailers that can be moved which total cannot exceed 25
Therefore, if there was money available to move the trailer and still be under the cap, the
homeowner would get the full value. Only if there was no money available in the fund, would the
homeowner not get their full share. Any amount not used would go back into the pool for others
to use.
Commissioner Howell asked for clarification on the definition of personal property and what is
included in relocation costs. Mr. Zweber replied that items that are separate and distinct from the
mobile home are not included. If someone sells their mobile home and separates the personal
property, that property is not included in the mobile home and not included in the relocation costs.
Commissioner Palda asked if it is known how many lots are actually available within the mobile
parks within the 25 mile area. Mr. Zweber replied that the number of lots currently available is
unknown.
Commissioner Schwartz stated she is uncomfortable with the term "displaced resident" and stated
that "displaced owner" may be more suitable. She also stated that on page 1.c. in the required
conditions, "guest register" would be better as "attendant register" or "owner register
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 7:01 p.m.
Barb Stanley, 13965 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated the ordinance in
Roseville does include the difference for rent. Ordinances from six different cities do not have caps
and some have caps on the sale of the property, but not on estimated value. The residents of
Rosemount Woods would like to have sheds and garages included in the relocation costs. Ms.
Stanley also stated that if a mobile home is older than ten years, most parks will not take it.
Alias Damon, 13940 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, reported to the
Commission that people can only own homes in the park, not rent. He asked who "third parties"
would be as stated in the statute. Mr. Zweber replied that the statute is unclear as to who third
parties would be.
Lavonne Woodruff, 2884 138''' Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated she would like to
have an opportunity to review the information given tonight before any decision is made. She has
lived in a mobile home park for much of her adult life and has found that mobile home owners are
treated like low income home people. None of the owners can afford to give away their homes for
pennies on the dollar.
Pat Sivert, 13995 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated that mobile home parks
are desperately needed. The City of Rosemount needs more affordable housing. The homeowners
should receive more than 25% and the City should reconsider this percentage. The landowner
should be able to contribute more money to the homeowners.
Vanessa Curtis, 13950 Broughshane Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated that if the
owners are only given the max of $8,300 and some people are retired and do not have the best
credit, it is impossible to get a new home. Poor credit or lack of income should be considered in
the market value.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 24, 2006
PAGE 3
Charlie Koehnen, 12255 Rich Valley Blvd., Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the
Commission and stated that a person cannot build a two car garage for $8,000. The people in the
mobile home park are going to be in the street and the City needs to stand up for them.
Bruce Einarson, 2812 138t Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated he feels the City is
wasting their money. Money should be saved for a better community. Mr. Zweber replied that the
relocation money is not from the City or taxes; it comes from the developer.
Community Development Director Lindquist stated that the state statute already deals with
relocation costs. The City is trying to come up with an ordinance to specify the process and how
the relocation procedures would work. If the City left the state statute alone, the residents would
still be allowed relocation costs per state statute. She again confirmed that there is no interested
developer at this time.
Bernie Sivert, 13995 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota, asked if the park was zoned for
mobile homes and wondered what it would require for the City to not approve a change in the
zoning ordinance. Mr. Zweber stated the park has a PUD approval; it was zoned for single family
units in 1985. Ms. Lindquist explained how the zoning ordinance allows for single family units in
the park.
Sharon Schonhardt, 2813 Upper 138 Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, is Bernie Sivert's
daughter. She stated that the word "trailer" is offensive and there is no compassion remaining. She
does not understand the report of 844 lots within a 25 mile radius. She does not believe there are
that many mobile home parks or units available.
Chairperson Messner told the residents that the chance of Rosemount Woods home park being
sold is no greater today than five years ago to the City's knowledge. What the City is try to do in
changing the ordinance is not increasing the changes of the park being sold. He asked for
understanding that the City is trying to make it more difficult for the potential relocation of
Rosemount Woods.
Walt Doerfler, 2781 138t Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, requested the City use the
homeowners' proposals and complete the process.
Judith Breyer, 2872 Upper 138t Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, also requested that the City
consider the homeowners' proposals and to think of the mobile park as an investment to the City.
Commissioner Palda asked if the City has looked at other areas of land to purchase for relocating
the park in the event it closes. Mr. Zweber replied that the PUD does allow another mobile home
park to be developed. The ordinance does not include any provisions for this but the City Council
could possibly develop a plan of their own if they so desire.
There were no further public comments.
MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:28p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 24, 2006
PAGE 4
Commissioner Schwartz asked what the state statute would provide if the City did not modify the
ordinance. Mr. Zweber replied that a closing statement would need to be issued by anyone nine
months before the park is redeveloped. A 45 day period would be allowed for 51% of the mobile
home park owner to purchase the park at the same price. If this does not happen, the City would
hold a public hearing. If there is no ordinance in place at that time, the City would determine the
relocation costs at that meeting.
Commissioner Palda stated the City should find out how many lots are available within the 25 mile
radius before the Commission acts on this. He would like more information in relation to the 25%
cap such as comparison with other cities. Mr. Zweber replied that Staff could possibly call all 44
parks within the 25 mile radius to see what units are available. With respect to the cap, there isn't
much information available. There is only one lawsuit on the cap and it showed reasonable
relocation costs.
Commissioner Schwartz stated she's interested in knowing what the values are of the homes on the
tax rolls. She wondered if the cap should be based on the taxable value of the home or the total
sale price. Chairperson Messner stated that if someone is going to redevelop this property, the
purchase price is not going to be based on the value of the homes, but on the underlying tax base.
He stated that doing a survey of current availability in other parks may not do any good if the sale is
way in the future, if ever. The cap should be tied to the sale value or the potential purchase price
as opposed to a percentage. Subject to that change, Chairperson Messner stated he would be in a
position to approve the ordinance amendment.
MOTION by Chairperson Messner to recommend that the City Council approve (subject
to change in the cap) the revision to the Zoning Ordinance regarding Manufactured Home
Parks.
Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: 2.
Nays: 2. Palda and Howell.
Commissioner Howell stated she doesn't think the 25% cap is enough to avoid devastating the
homeowners. She would like to know the value of the homes. Mr. Zweber stated that the County
Assessor does not individually assess units; they base it on the year, of bedrooms, etc. The
assessed value is probably way under what it is worth and the only way to get an accurate value is to
have the home appraised. The City does not have the funds to provide individual appraisals.
Commissioner Howell asked if a third party could be the seller of the mobile home park so they
could be assessed to pay a certain percentage to the homeowners. Chairperson Messner replied
that the buyer of the property is going to pay a certain amount of dollars so effectively the money
comes from the seller because they would be getting that much less of the sale price.
Ms. Lindquist pointed out two issues: One, the APAC letter is correct. Often redevelopment is a
partnership with the City and the City often times invests money. The third party mentioned in the
statute is most likely the municipality. Two, if the Commission wishes to continue the items, Staff
would arrange for the City Attorney to be present at the next meeting.
There was no further discussion.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 24, 2006
410 PAGE 5
MOTION by Chairperson Howell to recommend that the City Council approve (subject to
change in the cap) the revision to the Zoning Ordinance regarding Manufactured Home
Parks.
Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: 3.
Nays: 1. Palda.
Mr. Zweber stated that this item will go before the City Council on November 21, 2006. Before
that date, Staff will make changes to the ordinance for their adoption. Ms. Lindquist stated that no
further notices will go out and instructed residents to make note of the next meeting date. The
material will be posted to the website so the public can access the information before the meeting.
5.b. 06 -52 -IUP Rosem ount Lions Interim Use Permit. Planner Lindahl presented this item. The
applicant, the Rosemount Lions Club, requests an Interim Use Permit "IUP to allow the operation
of a seasonal sales lot for Christmas trees. The Rosemount Lions Club has operated a Christmas tree
sales lot somewhere within the community for the past 20 years and at the proposed location for the
last seven years. Until now, they have operated without the need for an IUP. However, changes to
the City's commercial zoning standards enacted by the City Council in November of 2005 classify
temporary outdoor sales lots as transient merchants requiring an Interim Use Permit.
Should the City approve the IUP, the Lions Club would operate the sales lot in the northwestern
corner of the Rosemount Market Square Shopping Center (see attached map) located at 3408 150`
Street West. This is the parking lot for the now vacant Knowlan's Grocery Store site. The Lions
Club would operate the sales lot from November 17 until December 23` or until all of their 300
trees are sold, whichever comes first. The lot would be staffed by one member of the Lions Club and
open from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekends.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any comments or questions. There were none.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward. The applicant was not present.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m.
There were no public comments.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz to recommend the City Council approve an Interim
Use Permit (IUP) to allow a Seasonal (Christmas Tree) Sales Lot in the North portion of
the Rosemount Market Square Shopping Center Parking Lot, subject conditions outlined in
the Interim Use Permit for 2006 through 2008.
Second by Howell.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Follow up: Mr. Lindahl stated this item is scheduled to go to City Council for approval on
November 7, 2006.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 24, 2006
PAGE 6
5.c. 06- 49 -PP, 06- 50 -FP, JJT Business Park 2" Addition (Industrial Surplus) Preliminary
Plat and Final Plat. Planner Lindahl presented this item. The applicant, Jack Matasosky of JJT
Financial, LLC, requests preliminary and final plat approvals for the JJT Business Park Second
Addition to allow the subdivision of 35.35 acres of land into one 2.26 acre buildable lot and one
33.09 acre outlot for future subdivision. The site is currently vacant land and guided and zoned BP
Business Park. Industrial Surplus has also requested site plan approval for a 36,239 square foot
office /warehouse building on Lot 1, Block 1 of JJT Business Park Second Addition. By ordinance,
if the site plan proposal conforms to all of the BP zoning district performance standards, it can be
approved administratively and therefore would not require Planning Commission or City Council
review. Staff is working with the developer to bring the Industrial Surplus proposal into
compliance with the BP standards prior to final action on the plat applications by the Council. Mr.
Lindahl reviewed the project with the Commission with respect to the proposed site plan, and
colored proposals of the building with respect to elevation changes.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for questions or comments. There were none.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward.
Heidi Windsor, Appro Development, 21476 Grenada Avenue, Lakeville, Minnesota 55044,
approached the Commission. Also present are Jack Matasosky from Appro Development, Peter
Glasnagel is the Civil Engineer Jacobson Engineer Surveyors, and present from Industrial Surplus are
David Kuretsky, Howard Kuretsky, Peter Kuretsky, and Tim Boles who is a resident from
Rosemount.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m.
There were no public comments.
MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:05p.m.
MOTION by Commissioner Messner to recommend that the City Council approve the
preliminary and final plat for JJT Business Park Second Addition to allow the creation of one 2.26
acre lot and one 33.09 acre Outlot for future subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. Drainage and utility easements shall be incorporated into the final plat as deemed necessary
upon review of the final grading plan, including a drainage and utility easement over Outlot A,
at the discretion of the City Engineer.
2. Easement vacation for the drainage and utility easement over JJT Business Park 1 Addition
Outlot A shall be applied for through submission of petition. Applicant will need to provide
legal description of the easement to be vacated.
3. The developer shall submit a lighting plan for installation of decorative street lighting along
Boulder Avenue subject to staff review and approval. Approval of the lighting plan and a
Letter of Credit in an amount adequate to cover the cost of installation of said lighting shall be
required prior to final plat approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 24, 2006
PAGE 7
4. Hydrants shall be installed to meet minimum fire protection per the City's Fire Marshall.
5. Estimated fees for the 2.26 acres site are as follows, the remaining fees shall be obtained upon
future development or subdivision of Outlot A:
o Trunk Sewer Area Charge 2.26 acres $1,075/ac $2,430
o Trunk Water Area Charge 2.26 acres $4,420/ac $9,989
o Trunk Storm Area Charge 2.26 acres $6,200 /ac $14,012
o Sewer Connection Fees SAC units are calculated by MCES
MCES Fee $1,550 /SAC
City Fee $1,200 /SAC
o Water Connection (WAC), 1" Meter $6,700
o Storm Connection (STAC) =2.26 acres $2,065/ac $4,667
6. Payment of Park Dedication Fees in the amount of $19,210 (10% of 2.26 acres multiplied by
$85,000 per acre) which is based on the City's 2006 Fees and Fee Policy. The applicant will pay
the remaining park dedication fees for Outlot A upon development or further subdivision.
Second by Howell.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Lindahl stated the follow up on this item would be the preliminary and final plats will move on
to City Council at the meeting on November 21, 2006. In the meantime, Staff will continue to
work with the applicant for site plan approval.
5.d. 06- 53 -LS, Lot Split of Outlot F, Meadows of Bloomfield. Planner Lindahl presented this
item. The applicant, the City of Rosemount, requests a Lot Split Administrative Plat to allow the
creation of a 22,121 square foot parcel from Outlot F, Meadows of Bloomfield. The site is
currently vacant land and the new lot will serve as the future home to City Well Number 15. It is
anticipated that the remaining portion of Outlot F will be included in a future phase of the Centex
residential development. The property is zoned R -1 and guided Urban Residential. The proposed
lot meets the minimum performance standards of the zoning ordinance and staff recommends
approval of the lot split administrative plat.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for questions or comments.
Chairperson Messner asked about the future development of the remaining portion of Outlot F.
Mr. Lindahl explained the development around Outlot F, but stated there is not a plan for Outlot F
at the time.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
John Ruter 13720 Atrium Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, asked what the well house will
look like and whether or not Centex Homes gave the property to the City for park purposes. Mr.
Lindahl explained that the current application only addresses the lot subdivision. Once plans for
the well house are made, the City will be required to go through site plan review. Until that time,
there is a similar well house on Shannon Parkway south of County Road 42. Community
Development Director Lindquist addressed the second question regarding the park. She explained
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 24, 2006
PAGE 8
that Centex has always intended to use the subject property for a future phase of the Meadows of
Bloomfield development. The property was not given to the City for a park. The City purchased a
portion of the outlot after the Engineering Department identified the need for another well in this
area.
Randy Kleinhuizen, 13732 Atrium Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated the 22,000 square
feet seems relatively small and wondered if it could partially be a park and a well house. Ms.
Lindquist replied that the State of Minnesota sets minimum size requirement for well sites. The
City was only interested in purchasing, and Centex was only interest in selling, the minimum
amount necessary to construct the well house. Mr. Kleinhuizen asked if the tree line would have to
be moved for any future development. Ms. Lindquist replied since the developer has lot provided a
detailed plan for this area there was no way for the City to know for certain how future
development could effect the existing trees. Ms. Lindquist recommended that residents follow up
on that phase of development because developers often try to keep vegetation.
There were no further public comments.
MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:22 p.m.
MOTION by Commissioner Messner to recommend that the City Council approve an
Administrative Plat for a Lot Split to allow for the creation of a 22,121 square foot parcel from
Outlot F, Meadows of Bloomfield.
Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Follow up: Mr. Lindahl stated this item will go to City Council for approval on November 7, 2006.
Chairperson Messner recessed the regular Planning Commission meeting at 8:23p.m.
and opened the Board of Appeals and Adjustments meeting.
5.e. 06 -51 -V, Twin Ponds (Manley) Variance. Mr. Zweber presented this item. On October 18,
2005, the City Council approved a simple plat to create a two lot subdivision off of 120th Street for
Manley Land Development (Manley) called Twin Ponds. As the plat name depicts, the two building
lots are located between two wetlands, each of which requires a 75 foot wide wetland buffer in the
form of a conservation easement. These conservation easements were obtained as a condition of plat
approval.
Early this year, Manley requested a release of the conservation easement to allow for wetland buffer
averaging that would result in a reduction in the width of the buffer near the house in exchange for
a wider buffer in other another area adjoining the wetland. At their October 3, 2006 meeting, the
City Council denied the request to release the conservation easement. Manley is requesting a
variance to the building setback requirement from the wetland buffer to reduce the yard between
the house and wetland buffer while maintaining the full 75 foot wide required wetland buffer.
Staff is requesting guidance from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments on the validity of the five
findings necessary for a variance, particularly regarding the practical, difficult or unnecessary hardship.
If the Board agrees with the applicant's justification, then approval is warranted. Mr. Zweber
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 24, 2006
PAGE 9
reviewed the five findings and how it relates to the variance request.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward.
Troy Asleson, Manley Brothers Construction, Inc., 2113 Cliff Drive, Eagan, Minnesota 55122,
approached the Commission and showed diagrams which explained his difficulties with constructing
an appropriate house for the lot with respect to the wetland buffers. The home needs to be a rambler
for handicap accessibility which results in a large amount of square footage. The setback behind the
garage as part of the wetland buffer is to reserve space for yard space and this situation, space behind
the garage is not necessary. Oak trees on the property prohibit shifting of the garage. Mr. Asleson
mentioned the conservation easements required on a large part of the property which could reduce
the value of the property in the future.
Chairperson Messner asked whether or not Lot 1, Block 1 has been developed. Mr. Asleson
responded that a home has been developed but it is currently for sale. Chairperson Messner asked to
see a diagram of the home on Lot 1, Block 1 and asked about the 30' setback Mr. Asleson was not
aware of at the time of construction. Mr. Asleson pointed out on the diagram the 5 foot setback
from a no -touch line. He stated they were able to comply with the intent of the ordinance by keeping
the house outside of the buffer area. If the 30' setbacks were enforced on Lot 1, the home could
have been rendered unuseable. They were also able to make the septic sites work within the buffered
areas.
Alfred Willenbring, 1225 80 Street East, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota 55077, approached the
Commission. He is the homeowner of the home on lot in question. When the land was presented to
him, the builder him he could build right up to the wetland line. Later, the builder mentioned the 30'
setback and that changed the way the house had to sit and pine trees had to be removed. He is
willing to build a smaller garage than originally desired to save a few trees. He stated that the way the
buffer zone is set the pine trees will have to go. He likes the woods being in the backyard and does
not want another house directly next to his, so this lot seemed perfect for his home.
Jane Willenbring, 1225 80 Street East, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota 55077, approached the
Commission and said she went to the homeowners in the area who received the notice to the City
Council meeting. All owners indicated they did not care if the setbacks were enforced or not.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:55 p.m.
There were no further public comments.
MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:56p.m.
MOTION by Commissioner Messner to approve a wetland buffer setback variance to allow for
the construction of the house and detached garage as depicted on the Lot 2 Site Plan dated October
3, 2006, with conditions.
Second by Palda.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 24, 2006
PAGE 10
As follow up, Mr. Zweber stated that there is a 10 day appeal period wherein a council member,
administrator or neighbor can appeal the motion. After that period, a building permit can be issued.
Chairperson Messner recessed the Board of Appeals at 8:58p.m. and reconvened the
regular Planning Commission meeting.
Old Business: None.
New Business:
a. Appointment of Planning Commission Member to St. Joseph Church Task Force.
Community Development Director gave the background on this item. On September 19, 2006 the
City Council approved the composition of a Task Force and a process for looking at the long- and
short -term uses of the St. Joseph property. The City Council indicated they would like
representation on the Task Force from one Planning Commission member. It is expected that the
group will begin the property reuse study in January 2007. It is hoped that the project can be
completed in a year, with final recommendations going to the Council for approval.
Both Commissioners Schwartz and Howell volunteered. Commissioner Schwartz expressed her
desire to be on the task force and the Commission agreed to appoint Commissioner Schwartz as a
member of the St. Joseph Church Task Force.
Reports: None.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Commissioner
Messner made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Howell seconded. Upon unanimous decision,
the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PAGE 1
CaII to Order:
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held
on Tuesday, November 28, 2006. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
with Commissioners Schwartz, Palda, Schultz and Howell present. Also in attendance were
Community Development Director Lindquist, City Engineer Brotzler, Senior Planner Zweber,
Planner Lindahl, Project Engineer Dawley and Recording Secretary Hanson. The Pledge of
Allegiance was read.
Additions to Agenda: None.
Audience Input: None.
Consent Agenda:
a. Approval of the October 24, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes.
MOTION by Schwartz to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Palda.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion carried.
Public Hearings:
5.a. 06 -54 -CP Rosemount Family Housing (Dakota County CDA). Community Development
Director presented this item. At their February 7, 2006 meeting, the City Council approved the
PUD Concept Plan, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat for 30
townhouse units, with conditions. One of the conditions was that the Dakota County Community
Development Agency (CDA) was to work with Lennar, the developer of the property to the west,
to provide a joint access to the site from Connemara Trail. The Dakota County CDA has
purchased a portion of the Outlot D of Evermoor Glendalough 7 Addition that would provide a
direct access to Connemara Trail in the location of the former Dodd Blvd. This new street access
would then provide one access to the west to serve the Glendalough neighborhood and one access
into the CDA site. A second access remains to the north as previously anticipated.
As a result of the additional property purchase, the Dakota County CDA has revised its concept
plan to include 32 units, an increase of two units from the original approval. Along with the
revisions of the PUD Concept Plan, Dakota County has also prepared and is asking for approval of
the Final Plat and PUD Final Development Plan of the project. If the Planning Commission and
City Council were to recommend approval of all these requests, this would be the last public
approvals necessary prior to the CDA to beginning construction.
At their February 7, 2006 meeting, the City Council had approved a 30 unit townhouse
development consisting of 5 four -unit buildings and 2 5 -unit buildings. The density of this
development was 6.25 units per acre. This development was proposed to be accessed through the
Glendalough neighborhood by an extension of a private drive from Tara Commons. The Planning
Commission and City Council were concerned about accessing this site through the Glendalough
neighborhood, proposed building setbacks from the private drive, and a number of other issues.
Excerpts from the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings and the City Council meeting are
attached.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PAGE 2
Ms. Lindquist reviewed the current site plan, comparing it to what was presented in February, 2006.
She reviewed the main issues: the project is requesting a master development plan; and the new
parcel needs additional approval for a comp plan amendment and rezoning change to be tied into
the CDA project.
Kari Gill, Deputy Executive Director, Dakota County CDA, gave an overview of the project for
those Commissioners who were not present last winter. The purchase of the new parcel is
contingent upon approval of this item. Ms. Gill presented slides showing the need for workforce
housing in Rosemount, guidelines for residents, ownership details of the project, and property
management of the project. She discussed other similar developments in neighboring communities,
showed pictures of other projects, and discussed details of the Rosemount project. The architect of
the project, Kim Bretheim, LHB, Inc., was also present for questions.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m.
David Bartz, 13566 Crompton Court, stated he still has concerns with the project. He presented
slides summarizing his concerns including the following: the growth rate has far exceeded the
Comprehensive Plan, the small town feel goal in the Comprehensive Plan has not been maintained,
the proposed project exceeds the density for a PUD, single stall garages do not meet the
requirements, and the proposed project has less than half of the land required for a PUD. He asked
if this project would be approved if it was proposed by a different developer. He mentioned that a
local newspaper recently noted an objection to the UMore park development as Rosemount would
lose its small town feel. Mr. Bartz feels the CDA project accomplishes that also.
There were no further public comments.
MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Public hearing was closed at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Schultz asked about the access road from Connemara. City Engineer Brotzler
responded that it did not make sense to have a separate driveway off of Connemara. However,
there is still the potential to extend the median in that road in the future.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the project was to revert back to density of 6 units rather than 6.5
units, how many units would that allow. Ms. Lindquist stated the reason why the density shifted
was because the road became a right -of -way which would allow 6.03 units per acre. Chairperson
Messner asked about the purpose of Outlot B. Mr. Zweber responded that Outlot B is a separate
Outlot west of Dodd Blvd and is essentially open space but it is not dedicated to the City. Ms.
Lindquist responded the current City Comp Plan does not have a median plan designation and
therefore, there is a wide designation in Urban Residential. The City Council had mentioned
proposing an amendment to the Comp Plan in the future.
There were no further questions or comments by the Commission.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz to recommend that the City Council adopt an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan changing the land use designation for the site from
Transition Residential to Urban Residential subject to approval by the Metropolitan
Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
S NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PAGE 3
Second by Schultz.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0.
Motion by Commissioner Schultz recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance
rezoning the site from Rural Residential to R -2, Moderate Density Residential PUD.
Second by Howell.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0.
Motion by Chairperson Messner to recommend that the City Council approve the
preliminary plat and final plat subject to:
1. Dedication of right -of -way of Connemara Trail and the new Dodd Bvld.
2. Dedication of drainage and utility easements completely over Outlot A and Outlot
B.
3. Dedication of appropriate drainage and utility easement over Lot 1, Block 1 subject
to approval by the City Engineer.
4. Approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation as needed.
5. Conditions with the Engineering memorandum dated November 20, 2006.
Second by Schultz.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0.
Motion by Commissioner Howell to recommend that the City Council approve the
Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan subject to:
1. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Rural Residential to Urban
Residential by the Metropolitan Council.
2. Execution of a PUD agreement.
3. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer regarding drainage,
easements, grading, storm water management and utilities including:
The applicant shall secure all permits agreements necessary for the proposed
crossing or grading of the pipeline easements.
The applicant will grade the new Dodd Blvd as part of their project and provide a
cash deposit to the City to pay for its future construction.
No parking will be permitted on the streets and turning radius information shall be
provided subject to approval by the Fire Marshal.
Additional storm water management detail is required including a maintenance plan
for the rain gardens.
Payment of connection and trunk fees required.
4. Park dedication in the form of cash in lieu of land in the amount of $108,800. (32
units x $3,400 per unit) based upon the 2006 fee schedule.
5. Approval and receipt of permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation
as needed.
6. Eighteen common parking spaces shall be provided, based upon sixteen for the 30
units and two for the office.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PAGE 4
7. The applicant provide at a minimum, a setback of 20 feet between the units and the
private streets which will be sufficient for driveway parking. This requirement is in
recognition of the single stall garages proposed for the individual units.
8. Provide a minimum of a 20 -foot setback for the off street parking stalls and the new
Dodd Blvd.
9. Two additional trees shall be installed in front of the southern four -unit building
adjacent to the new Dodd Blvd.
10. Any revisions necessary to the landscaping plan to conform to the sight triangle
standards for visibility at intersections will be required for all public and private
intersections within the development.
11. The applicant obtains final building elevation approval including brick wainscoting
or similar accent on the rear and side elevations for City Council review and approval prior
to issuance of a building permit.
12. The applicant provide a final site plan and grading plan addressing listed conditions
for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0.
Ms. Lindquist stated this item is scheduled for City Council on December 19, 2006.
5.b. 06 -59 -ME Shafer Contracting Co. Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal. Senior Planner
Zweber presented this item. Scott Spisak of Shafer Contracting has applied for the annual renewal
of the mineral extraction permit for their property located one mile north of 135 Street East and
'/a mile west of Rich Valley Blvd. (County Road 71).
Shafer Contracting has been the most active mining owner /operator in the City. Shafer has been
working on the site since 1998 and owned the property since 2000. At its meeting on July 18,
2006, the City Council approved revised conditions of the mineral extraction permit to allow "haul
back" activities that include only earthen fill materials from Mn /DOT projects that further meet
the requirements of testing in documents by American Engineering Testing, Inc., and which is used
to replace sand and gravel mined below approved finish grades.
One condition of the revised haul back permit was that a revised reclamation plan should be
developed and approved as a part of the 2007 Shafer Contracting, Inc. Mineral Extraction Permit.
The revisions to the reclamation plan have three goals. First, Charles Koehnen, neighbor, was
concerned about the function of his well and requested that the stormwater pond within the gravel
mine be moved farther from his property. The proposed reclamation plan will move the pond into
the phase 4 and phase 5 areas after those areas have been mined and haul -back activities have
occurred. Second, staff recognizes that the properties surrounding the mine have rolling topology
and the revised reclamation plan now more closely matches these neighboring properties. Third,
staff was concerned that the original reclamation plan essentially created walls on the north, west,
and south sides of the mine. These walls would make it difficult to provide roads or utilities to the
reclaimed site. The revised reclamation plan includes concept roadway corridors in which roads
and utilities can be brought to and travel through the reclaimed site. The proposed revised
reclamation plan meets these three goals.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PAGE 5
Shafer has provided a letter with information regarding the mining activities of the past year. Shafer
is currently removing sand from the west half of phase 4 and is beginning the initial haul back in
phase 2, 3, and 4. Through September 30, 2006, Shafer has removed approximately 348,065 cubic
yards of sand in 2006 and has paid Dakota County the appropriate taxes.
The City had received a complaint within the last year that Shafer has been mining outside the area
approved within the Mineral Extraction Permit. On August 17, 2006, staff preformed a site
inspection and there was no evidence that Shafer was mining in access of that approved by the City
of Rosemount. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
renewal of the Shafer Contracting, Inc. Mineral Extraction Permit for 2007 with the revised
reclamation plan.
Commissioner Palda asked when the proposed changes to the reclamation plan are going to take
place. Mr. Zweber reported that the trees will most likely be added at a later date. As haulback
materials are brought back in, the reclamation will progress along.
The Applicant, Scott Spisak, Shafer Contracting Co., approached the Commission. He reported
that Shafer has worked since July when the City Council approved modifications to the permit to
come up with a revised reclamation plan. He thinks all of the issues have been addressed including
removing the pond away from the neighbor's property, future access and rolling topography. To
clarify some points, Mr. Spisak stated reclamation would occur in a similar fashion to the original
phasing plan. They would begin grading those slopes to the new grades as haulback material is
brought in and trees would be planted as those slopes are ready.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
Gary Ista, 12131 Rich Valley Blvd., lives three quarters mile off the road and stated that it's tough
to hear the animals due to the gravel pit operation. He asked if dust particulate testing and testing
on the water had been completed.
Charlie Koehnen, 12255 Rich Valley Blvd., lives on the parcel adjoining the site. His main
complaint was regarding the truck traffic. He reported several incidents of reckless driving and
asked what could be done about it. Another issue is regarding his well. His well was tested up to
standards. He also requested that more watering be completed to keep the level of dust down.
Marcia Mrozinski, 11771 Rich Valley Blvd., Inver Grove Heights, also has issues with truck traffic
and dust. The roads need to be upgraded to support the level of truck traffic. The shoulder is
being pushed into her front yard.
Joan Schneider, 12255 Rich Valley Blvd., approached with several questions. First, she asked if the
daily hours of operation could be included in the permit. She asked which Phases are Shafer
allowed to go through in the current permit. Mr. Zweber replied that they are allowed to go
through Phases 2, 3, and 4. After they reclamate Phases 2, 3, and 4, they will then move into Phase
5. Ms. Schneider asked what was included in reclamation and whether or not reclamation on Phase
1 should be completed before working on Phase 4. Mr. Zweber stated that no phase is completed
as of yet as far as reclamation but reclamation does need to be completed on the beginning phases
before they can move any further west. Ms. Schneider reported that trucks are driving carelessly,
taking out stop signs and power poles. Mr. Zweber suggested reporting these individual incidents
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PAGE 6
to the police so they are put on record. Ms. Lindquist stated the City will provide a specific name
on the police department that can receive these reports. Ms. Schneider then inquired about regular
inspections and if there could be a minimum number of inspections performed each year. Mr.
Zweber stated that inspections required once or twice a year should be a reasonable request.
Scott Spisak, Shafer Contracting Co. approached the Commission again to address the concerns of
the residents. He reported that this has been the busiest year in about 9 years and the current
project is a large contract on I -94. Since it has been a dry year with added business, this could
explain the increase in dust. He responded to Mr. Ista's concerns about the noise stating that the
equipment has been tested and it meets the decibel levels required. The pit is lower than all of the
surrounding area and a large amount of noise comes from the refinery. He reported that all
material being brought as part of the haulback materials will be tested. The storm pond is there to
treat the water and it's required to be there. As part of the revised plan, Shafer will construct a new
pond in stages. Mr. Spisak addressed Mr. Koehnen's concern regarding the reckless driving of the
truck drivers. He reported that Shafer has a full time safety director and he has investigated all of
the instances Mr. Koehnen has reported. Shafer can submit these findings if requested. Mr. Spisak
stated that the road depicted on the new plan is probably a long way out in the future and could
change as the City develops. With respect to Marcia Mrozinski's concerns with the intersection of
117t and Rich Valley Blvd., Mr. Spisak replied that trucks have a problem making that turn. The
dust is coming from the trucks driving on the shoulder. Shafer is trying to maintain the shoulder
even though it is a County road and they sweep it often, sometimes daily. The grass shoulder is a
right -of -way, not part of Ms. Mrozinski's yard. Mr. Spisak stated he does not object to listing the
days of operation in the permit and agrees that it should be Monday through Saturday. Mr. Spisak
reported that in all of 2006, Shafer has been permitted to work in the western half of Phase 4.
There are slopes that have been graded and interim seeding has been planted on part of the north
side of Phase 2, at the east end of the property around the pond, and on the south side of Phases 2
and 3. He reported that Shafer will place sign at the pits so the drivers do not go into Ms.
Schneider's driveway. Mr. Spisak stated he has no objection to required semi- annual inspections
by City staff. He also has no objection to people calling police when there are vehicular violations.
Commissioner Palda asked whether or not Shafer waters with calcium chloride. Mr. Spisak replied
Shafer primarily uses water, but has used calcium chloride in the past. He stated Shafer needs to get
a source of water closer to the pit so it requires less travel to haul the water in.
Commissioner Schwartz asked who is responsible for the drivers. Mr. Spisak replied that due to the
increase in workload, they use as many of Shafer trucks as they can and then rent trucks when it's
not enough. Shafer drivers report directly to the company. Shafer has a safety director, a drug
screening program and disciplinary program. Outside drivers work through various brokers which
are sometimes difficult to track down.
Chairperson Messner asked if Shafer has finished mining Phases 2 and 3. Mr. Spisak responded
that they have finished according to the current plan. If the revised plan is approved, then Phases 2
and 3 are not at the required finished grades. To finish those current grades requires excavating the
floor in the pit and then filling it in. This may not be completed in 2007.
Mr. Koehnen, 12255 Rich Valley Blvd., approached the Commission again to ask if the floor of the
pit could be completed before moving any further west. It was confirmed by Mr. Spisak and Mr.
Zweber that the reclamation plan requires the current phases to be completed before being allowed
to Phase 5.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PAGE 7
There were no further public comments.
MOTION by Schultz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:57p.m.
Chairperson Messner stated Item L. of the permit should be modified to include a provision to
limit days of operation to Monday through Saturday. Also Item R. should be modified to add semi-
annual inspections. Commissioner Howell inquired about Item G. and whether or not a dust
control plan was submitted with the City. Mr. Spisak responded there is a plan submitted and Mr.
Zweber stated he would verify this. Commissioner Palda asked if a provision could be included in
dust control requirement requiring Shafer to put down calcium chloride where necessary. Mr.
Zweber stated he could look into that as well.
MOTION by Chairperson Palda to recommend that the City Council approve the mineral
extraction permit for Shafer Contracting subject to the attached conditions for 2007 with
the revised reclamation plan dated October 31, 2006.
Second by Howell.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0.
Mr. Zweber stated this item will go to City Council on December 19, 2006. In the meantime, staff
will make revisions to the permit as discussed.
5.c. 06- 45 -PP -V Rosemount Hills 5 Addition Preliminary Plat and Variance. Senior
Planner Zweber presented this item. The applicant, John Tapper, owns an 11 acre parcel, located
directly south of his residence at 12760 Chinchilla Avenue. This 11 acre site is predominately
wooded with two wetlands on the site, one of which bisects the parcel. The applicant proposes to
subdivide the parcel into three lots and construct a 22 foot wide road across the wetland to serve
the three created building sites. The RR Rural Residential Zoning District allows a maximum
density of 1 lot per 5 gross acres, which would only allow the parcel to be subdivided into two lots.
Mr. Tapper is requesting a variance to allow for the three lot subdivision.
John Tapper proposes to subdivide an approximate 11 acre parcel into three rural residential lots
that would be served by a 22 foot wide road and individual wells and septic systems. The majority
of the roadway within the site is proposed to be private. The RR Rural Residential Zoning
District allows a maximum density of 1 lot per 5 gross acres, which would only allow the parcel to
be divided into two lots. Mr. Tapper has requested a Variance to subdivide the property into three
lots based on three hardships; the surrounding rural residential lots average 3.5 acres in size, the
cost of constructing Chinchilla Avenue approximately 1,000 feet, and the existence of wetlands on
this property.
The application does not warrant a variance to allow three lots which would be in excess of one lot
per five acres. The proposal with submitted plans and designs for the preliminary plat are
substandard and inconsistent with required ordinance provisions. Given the current submittal, staff
411 cannot support the application as is. Should the applicant choose to revise the application to
subdivide the property into 2 lots, staff would offer the following comments:
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PAGE 8
The applicant will need to construct a public road to public road standards to the northern
edge of the subject property. The adjoining property to the west is currently undeveloped
and the City must provide an opportunity for public access to that lot. From that point
private access could be provided to individual lots.
The applicant must review the proposed location of the private drive and the appropriate
house pad and septic system locations to decrease wetland, wetland buffer, and tree removal
impacts. The plan should be revised to include at a minimum some on -site mitigation,
maintenance of the 75 foot buffer to the greatest extent possible, and replacement of trees
removed per the ordinance performance standards.
A storm water management plan must be submitted consistent with the City's adopted
stormwater management plan.
In order for the variance to be granted, five findings need to be made. Mr. Zweber reviewed the
five findings and how the project does not qualify for the variance. Staff recommends denial of the
variance from the ordinance required lot density requirement, as it is detrimental to the public
health, welfare and safety; no unnecessary hardship exists; and no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances exist. Staff also recommends denial of the preliminary plat because it exceeds one lot
per five acre gross density and provides inadequate street design, stormwater management, wetland
mitigation, and tree replacement.
Chairperson Messner asked to see an aerial map of the parcel. Mr. Zweber presented an aerial map
of the location and pointed out the details of the proposed project.
Jared Andrews, from Loucks Associates, the engineer on the project, approached the
Commission. He stated that the immediate neighborhood has smaller lots and this project will be
consistent with the 3.6 acres per unit. He stated that this development would be easier to access
from the south and creating an access across the wetlands provides a hardship in site constraints.
They are proposing a turn- around in the southern portion of the site for fire truck access. They
also propose 22 feet in the right -of -way. Mr. Andrews stated that the site constraints are not due to
the design, but to the access, location of wetlands and the topography. The company has not
heard of any objections from surrounding neighbors. They are trying to save as many trees as
possible. Mr. Andrews feels there is significant hardship with the property.
Chairperson Messner asked what the grade was off of Chinchilla. Mr. Bill Sharbono of Loucks
Associates approached the Commission and reported the grade is at 9 Mr. Zweber reported
there is a 40 foot drop between the culdesac and curve. City Engineer Brotzler reported that City
Code requires a maximum grade of 8 Chairperson Messner asked if there was anything in the
City Code regarding private drives. Mr. Zweber replied that the Code does not allow a private drive
without a PUD. Mr. Brotzler responded that the access road from Chinchilla Court has been
proposed as a public road and as a public road it does not meet city standards. He reported that the
City Attorney has stated there are legal constraints to creating a private drive at a public right -of-
way. It is possible to create a private drive if the appropriate easements are obtained. Ms.
Lindquist added that the real issue is the project is inconsistent with the City's current codes. The
City of Rosemount does not typically allow private drives. If a private drive is allowed, there are a
variety of variances required that are not being currently discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PAGE 9
The Applicant, Mr. John Tapper, 12760 Chinchilla Avenue, approached the Commission. He has
spoken to most of his neighbors and has received support from them. He feels having a 22 foot
access into this parcel minimizes the visual impact of this project. He stated he's trying to develop
this piece in the most environmentally manner as possible. Mr. Tapper feels the lot sizes are
compatible with others in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Howell asked the applicant why he deems three lots are necessary and not two. Mr.
Andrews of Loucks Associates pointed out that the third lot has the least amount of tree removal
and the greatest amount of buffer to the wetland. Chairperson Messner asked about the 22 foot
access road and grading of the right -of -way. Mr. Sharbono replied that in order to meet City
standards coming down the hill, they need to grade out the slope to flatten out the road. Mr.
Brotzler stated that City standards would require getting easements and the City has upheld these
standards with other property owners. Chairperson Messner stated the City has the ability to
condemn easements if necessary. Ms. Lindquist stated the applicant is the owner that would be
affected on one side and the City would be looking at additional easements from Mr. Tapper.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:53 p.m.
Bill Olson, 12539 Chinchilla Court, inquired as to the cost of assessment to the residents on
Chinchilla if the project is approved. Mr. Brotzler replied with the proposal currently before the
Commission, there would be no cost to the residents.
Jim Jordan, 795 Camberwell Drive, Eagan, owns the six acre parcel to the west of the Tapper
property. He agrees to the private drive standards and would share in the cost of the private drive
to access his property. He plans on building a home on the parcel some day and does not
anticipate splitting the parcel.
Bill Huffstutler, 3296 129 Court West, stated he does not support this plan and that a number of
issues have not been addressed. He is concerned about the environmental impact of the project.
In his opinion, when you subdivide a parcel into more lots than are allowed, it impacts the water
table and increases the risk that the area wells will be compromised. He feels removal of all the
trees is an issue and the grade percentage requirement is an issue. Mr. Huffstutler stated that if the
City allows an exception to the 5 acre density rule in this case, then it will be allowed in other
places. He feels the notion of mitigating wetland effect by buying wetland offside credits shows a
lack of good faith on the part of the developer. It does nothing to benefit the property owners in
the neighborhood that this will affect. He asked why it's the burden of the City and the people in
the neighborhood to accommodate the difficulty of the lot in question. He also wondered if there
will be testing on the lot and additional septic systems.
Joan Wood, 12599 Chinchilla Avenue, expressed her opposition to the project and stated that
everyone in the neighborhood bought their lots to be in the country without a lot of traffic.
Jared Andrews, Loucks Associates, approached the Commission again to respond to the
residents' comments. He stated that tests have been completed. He feels this site does not really
compare to other sites with access as it takes significant work to design. The company's intent is
1111 not to grade as much as possible.
There were no further public comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PAGE 10
MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing.
Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Public hearing was closed at 9:11 p.m.
Commissioner Schultz stated her opinion that the applicant does not meet the required conditions.
It is her understanding the neighborhood as a whole does not want this project. Commissioner
Howell voiced her agreement. She stated the conditions have not been fully addressed; it is not
precise enough at this point for approval. Commissioner Schwartz voiced her concerns with
wetland issues not being adequately addressed and stated there are too many requests for different
variances and exceptions that do not have solutions. Commissioner Schultz expressed her
appreciation that this is a unique property and it is precedence setting. However, she could not
support the proposal at this time. Chairperson Messner stated that from a driveway perspective, it
does not make sense to create a 22 foot driveway. A number of issues are not properly addressed:
grading, tree replacement, and wetland impacts. Ms. Lindquist stated that staff is looking for more
direction on what is next. She stated that staff feels increasing the density is inconsistent with the
idea of trying to conserve the site. She asked the Commission if staff should move forward with
the private driveway; should there be two lots or three lots.
Mr. Tapper approached the Commission and stated that if the three lot proposal does not get
approved, he would be happy to work with Staff to make the project better and continue the plat
with a proposed two lots. Mr. Zweber instructed the Commission that we can table the plat but the
variance needs to get acted on. Staff will need to republish and re- notice with the new variances in
the two lot proposal.
MOTION by Commissioner Schultz, of the Planning Commission, also sitting as the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments, to deny the variance request to allow a density greater
than one lot per five gross acres that would have allowed three lots on the eleven acre parcel
of Rosemount Hills 5` Addition, subject to the following findings:
1. The proposed street design, wetland and wetland buffer impacts, and tree removal
are detrimental and adversely affect the public health, welfare and safety.
2. Street construction, the existence of wetlands, and neighboring lot sizes do not
create a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship that would warrant granting of a
variance.
3. The construction of a street to serve a development and the existence of wetlands
on rural residential property are not an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that
would warrant granting of a variance.
Second by Palda.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0.
MOTION by Chairperson Messner to table the second motion with respect to the
Preliminary Plat of Rosemount Hills 5t Addition.
Second by Schultz.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PAGE 11
Ms. Lindquist stated this item will be tabled with no date certain and staff will republish the notice.
5.d 06 -60 -TA Commercial and Industrial Text Amendments Clean Up. Planner Lindahl
presented this item. This item was initiated by staff for the purpose of eliminating minor conflicts
between the current zoning ordinance and recent amendments to the commercial and industrial
districts. As you may recall, the City recently past amendments to the C -3, Highway Commercial,
C -4 General Commercial, BP Business Park, LI Light Industrial, GI General Industrial and
HI Heavy Industrial districts. The proposal of this item is to eliminate conflicts or redundancies
between the current ordinance and the recently approved amendments.
None of the proposed amendments will change the performance standards recently reviewed by the
Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Staff considers these amendments to be
minor "housekeeping" items necessary to eliminate conflict or redundancies between the current
zoning ordinance and the amended commercial and industrial districts. It was necessary to have
these "house keeping" items come after completion of the commercial and industrial text
amendments process because the impact of those amendments on the ordinance as a whole was
unforeseeable.
Recently, the City Council approved amendments to the commercial and industrial sections of the
zoning ordinance to implement the existing policies of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the new
policies set forth in the 42/52 Land Use Plan. Overall, those amendments focused on updating
architectural and outdoor storage performance standards as well as reallocating uses to more
appropriate districts. Throughout the amendment process, the Planning Commission and staff
worked extensively with members of the public and interested business owners to create consensus.
Each amendment was reviewed and approved by the City Council after a public hearing by the
Planning Commission.
At the completion of that process, staff identified seven sections of the current zoning ordinance
that had minor conflicts or redundancies with the amended text. The attached amends eliminate
these differences and insure that the new performance standards will apply to all future
development projects within the commercial and industrial zones.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments, making minor changes to the seven
sections of the Zoning Ordinance detailed above to eliminate conflicts with recent amendments to
the Commercial and Industrial Section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 9:27 p.m.
There were no further public comments.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz to close the Public Hearing.
Second by Howell.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Public hearing was closed at 9:28 p.m.
MOTION by Chairperson Mesnner to recommend the City Council approve the attached
amendments, making minor changes to the seven sections of the Zoning Ordinance listed
below to eliminate conflicts with recent amendments to the Commercial and Industrial
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PAGE 12
Section of the Zoning Ordinance:
Section 11 -2 -5 General Provisions for Rooftop Mechanical Systems
Section 11 -5 -1 District Development Regulations for Dimensional
Standards
Section 11- 5 -2.A.2 District Development Regulations for Supplementary
Regulations of Building Type and Construction of
Commercial Districts
Section 11- 5 -2.A.3 District Development Regulations for Supplementary
Regulations of Building Type and Construction of
Business Park District
Section 11- 5 -2.A.4 District Development Regulations for Supplementary
Regulations of Building Type and Construction of
General Industrial District
Section 11- 5 -2.A.6 District Development Regulations for Supplementary
Regulations of Building Type and Construction of
Accessory Buildings
Section 11- 5- 2.B.1.b District Development Regulations for Supplementary
Regulations of Supplementary Height Regulations
Permitted Exceptions
Second by Howell.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0.
Mr. Lindahl reported this item will go to City Council on December 19, 2006.
Old Business: None.
New Business:
7.a. Appointment of Planning Commission Member to Transit Plan Advisory Committee.
Community Development Director Lindquist presented this item. During the last year, as the City
Council discussed the Draft Transportation Plan, there have been discussions about development
of a Transit Plan for the Community. Most recently, in September, staff brought a draft scope of
services to a City Council worksession. The Council provided additional feedback and the revisions
were made to the scope. At the regular City Council meeting on November 7, 2006, the Council
approved the Scope of Services for a Transit Plan not to exceed $23,000.
The Study is broken into six tasks. The total for the project is not to exceed $23,000.
Staff has discussed the concept of having an advisory committee to assist in this endeavor. The idea
would be that this committee, comprised of one person from the City Council, Planning
Commission, and Utility Commission, would be brought together on a somewhat formal basis to
review the scope and progress of the work being undertaken. This group would assist in evaluating
the draft report. It is expected that the group would be brought together at the beginning and end
of the study and potentially once or twice during the middle. Staff would like to use this smaller
group as a sounding board before taking the draft report to the City Council and other interested
parties. The Planning Commission needs to appoint a member to serve on the Transit Plan
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PAGE 13
Advisory Committee.
Commissioners Palda and Schultz volunteered. It was decided Commissioner Schultz would be
appointed to serve on the Transit Plan Advisory Committee.
Reports: None.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Commissioner
Messner made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Schultz seconded. Upon unanimous decision,
the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary
411