Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 1 CaII to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 23, 2007. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Schwartz, Palda, Schultz and Howell present. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, 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 December 26, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes. MOTION by Schultz to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 5.a. 06- 61 -IUP Linder's Greenhouses Interim Use Permit. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Linder's Greenhouse has requested an Interim Use Permit to continue the operation of their flower mart at the Rosemount Market Square for the 2007 through 2009 seasons. They anticipate being open from approximately April 15 through July 15. The greenhouse and display area would be in the same location as previously approved. In 2004, the flower mart had received approval through a Conditional Use Permit. Since 2004, the City has revised its Zoning Ordinance to include temporary sales operation like these as a Transient Merchant Sales Lot Interim Use Permit. This change in the ordinance should not have an impact on how Linder's operates or on the City approval process. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff recommends approval of the Interim Use Permit with the same conditions as they have been operating previously. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:35p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:36p.m. Chairperson Messner stated the term of the permit, years 2007 -2009, should be added to the end of to Condition No. 1. There were no further questions or comments by the Commission. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz to recommend that the City Council approve the Interim Use Permit for Linder's Flower Mart, subject to the following conditions: 1. Linder's Flower Mart may occupy the space provided within the site plan only during the period each year from April 1 to July 31, 2007 through 2009. 2. Within 24 hours of the removal of the structure the parking lot shall be cleaned and restored to the use as a parking lot. 3. No use may be made of the structure other than the storage and sale of nursery plants. 4. Unless specifically authorized by a separate Interim Use Permit, the authority to operate the PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 2 plant sale business shall terminate automatically upon 1) any change in footprint of any building within the Rosemount Market Square property, or 2) any change in use or in structure which results in a greater total number of parking spaces being required within the Rosemount Market Square property, or 3) any change in the parking requirements of the City Code which would require a greater total number of parking spaces being required within the Rosemount Market Square property. 5. No signs or signage may be permitted for the plant sales business excepts as follows: 1) one sign per side of the structure no larger than 32 square feet each, with two of the signs allowed on the roof of the structure, and 2) two flags no greater than 18 '/z feet in height each. 6. No plants or other material shall be stored, displayed or sold outside of the area enclosed by the fence shown on the site plan. 7. The size of the temporary structure shall not exceed 84 feet by 21 feet by 12 feet high; and the entire enclosed area by the fence shall not exceed 144 feet by 36 feet. Linder's Flower Mart shall apply for and receive approval of a temporary structure permit from the City Building Official. Linder's shall secure and provide written permission for its patrons and employees to use rest rooms in one of more of the Rosemount Market Square or neighboring businesses. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Mr. Zweber stated this item is scheduled for City Council on February 20, 2007. Linder's Greenhouses will open for business around April 15, 2007. 5.b. 06 -62 -ME Vesterra, LLC Stonex, LLC Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal. Planner Lindahl presented this item. The applicant, Jonathan Wilmshurst of Vesterra LLC /Stonex LLC, requests renewal of the Vesterra and Stonex mineral extraction permits for 2007. The sites consist of two neighboring properties, each approximately 80 acres in size, located south of 135` street, 1 /4 mile west of Blaine Ave. (County Road 71). The properties are owned by Flint Hills Resources which leases them back to the applicant to permit mineral extraction. The responsibility for securities and compliance with the conditions remains with Vesterra and Stonex as the property lessee. Chairperson Messner asked about the access on 135 and whether or not the company will keep the access there or move it to County Road 71. Mr. Lindahl replied that the applicant mentioned their access currently comes from County Road 38. In the future they anticipate the resident to the east to be moving which would allow them to utilize an existing access giving them direct access to the site. In any event, the applicant would come back to the City for approval for any necessary improvements. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:40p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:41p.m. There was no discussion among the commissioners. MOTION by Chairperson Messner to recommend the City Council approve renewal PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 3 of the mineral extraction permit for Vesterra and Stonex, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the attached 2007 Conditions for Mineral Extraction, including: a. Submission of an updated Surety Bond in the amount outlined in the attached 2007 Conditions for Mineral Extraction. b. Submission of an updated Certificate of Comprehensive General Liability Insurance as outlined in the 2007 attached Conditions for Mineral Extraction. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Mr. Lindahl stated this item will go to City Council on February 20, 2007. 5.c. 06 -63 -ME Solberg (Ped /Kuznia) Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal. Planner Lindahl presented this item. The applicant, Solberg Aggregate Company, requests renewal of the mineral extraction permit for the Otto Ped and Grace Kuznia properties located 4992 145t Street East. Solberg Aggregate Company took over operation of the pit in 2005 from Ames Construction and continues to operate the mine on a day -to -day basis. This application represents the routine annual permit renewal as required by ordinance; however, the applicant also requests to expand the mining permit into the adjacent 80 acre property owned by Grace Kuznia. This expansion is consistent with the performance standards for mineral extraction outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. This request is subject to the conditions outlined in the permit as well as the mineral extraction permits standards outlined in Section 12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff recommends renewal of the Solberg Aggregate Company (Ped Kuznia) Mineral Extraction Permit for 2007, subject to conditions. Chairperson Messner asked where the haul road led from. Mr. Lindahl replied that the access road runs between the Ped property and Danner property and is shared by the Danner pit. Chairperson Messner asked about the recommendation to do reclamation on Phase 1 before going to Phase 3. Mr. Lindahl confirmed that is the current plan. Lauren Howard, Solberg Aggregate Company, 3615 145 Street, Rosemount, approached the Commission and stated he was available for any questions. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:46p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Schultz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:47p.m. Mr. Lindahl mentioned the letter from John Reese, 504 Broadway, Goodhue, who owns the property west of the Danner site. Mr. Reese has questions with respect to the standards of mineral extraction permits. For purposes of explanation, Mr. Lindahl stated that mineral extraction is PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 4 allowed as a conditional use in the agriculture district with two standards: 1. Occurs on any property zoned agricultural, and 2. the property is located east of Hwy. 52 and within 1/2 mile of County Road 42. Any mineral extraction permit application is subject to approval. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff will follow up with Mr. Reese. MOTION by Commissioner Howell to recommend the City Council renew the Solberg Aggregate Company (Ped- Kuznia) Mineral Extraction Permit for 2007. 1. Conformance with the attached 2007 Conditions for Mineral Extraction, including: a. Submission of an updated Surety Bond in the amount outlined in the attached 2007 Conditions for Mineral Extraction. b. Submission of an updated Certificate of Comprehensive General Liability Insurance as outlined in the 2007 attached Conditions for Mineral Extraction. c. The applicant shall submit a Reclamation Plan to the City for review and approval. Said plan shall be coordinated with the any abutting Mineral Extraction site to insure matching conditions and final grades along any adjoining property line(s). In addition, the Solberg plans shall illustrate no greater than an eight (8) percent slope from the eastern property line of the Kuznia property to the existing grade of the site to insure proper conditions for any future roads (see modified Condition V in the attached permit). Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. For follow up, Mr. Lindahl stated this item will go to City Council on February 20, 2007. 5.d 06- 64 -AMD Innisfree Homeowners Association Planned Unit Development Major Amendment. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. In 1999, the City approved the preliminary plat and planned unit development (PUD) of Evermoor, which included the Innisfree neighborhood of 18 duplex condominiums (total of 36 units). Two of the duplexes (four units) were shown on the north side of Evermoor Parkway. On July 20, 2004, the City approved the final plat of the portion north of Evermoor Parkway for Wensmann Homes to construct three detached townhouses and a fourth parcel, Outlot A, which is currently vacant. The City did not place any restrictions on the future development of Outlot A and currently Dakota County taxes Outlot A as a buildable parcel. The Innisfree Homeowners Association (HOA) would like the City to place a restriction on Outlot A to declare it unbuildable so the County would tax it at a lower rate. The Innisfree HOA, with the technical assistance of Wensmann Homes staff, is requesting that the City place a restriction on the Oudot A to prevent the future development of Outlot A. This restriction would allow the oudot to continue to be used privately by the Innisfree homeowners but be taxed as un- developable property. Mr. Zweber reviewed the options the Commission have to address on this issue. He stated that if the Planning Commission chooses to declare Outlot A non developable, then staff would recommend the option to request the Innisfree Homeowners prepare and record a conservation PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 411 JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 5 easement over Outlot A in the name of the City and modify the Evermoor PUD Agreement accordingly. Applicant, Steve Hegge, President of the Innisfree HOA, and owner of one of the lots that adjoins the area, approached the Commission for any questions. Chairperson Messner asked if the Association had a preferred option. Mr. Hegge stated that the Association did discuss Option No. 1 consisting of deeding the property to the City for park purposes. However, they are concerned with the steep incline on the open lot leading down into Lot 3 and the owner there would not want kids sledding down the steep hill into their yard. The Association proposes to keep control of the area as greenspace, get a lower tax on it, but still be in control of the property if the community has problems with it. The Association agrees to Option No. 3. Mr. Hegge also mentioned the request in the reduction of the application fee. Chairperson Messner stated he sympathizes with the issue but the Commission deals with land uses. It will be up to the City Council to approve the fee reduction. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 7:01p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Commissioner Palda to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:02p.m. There was no discussion. MOTION by Commissioner Schultz to recommend that the City Council address Outlot A of Evermoor Innisfree 2n Addition by requiring that the Innisfree Homeowners prepare and record a conservation easement over Outlot A in the name of the City and recommend approval of a Major Amendment to the Evermoor PUD Agreement. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. As follow up, Mr. Zweber reported this item will go to City Council on February 20, 2007. 5.e. 06- 65 -SP, 06 -66 -CUP Flint Hills Resources Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit. Planner Lindahl presented this item. The applicant, Flint Hills Resources, requests site plan and conditional use permit approvals to allow the construction of a 135,400 square foot maintenance, warehouse, and office facility. The building will be used to house approximately 200 existing Pine Bend Refinery employees with capacity to accommodate an additional 70 future employees for a total future population of 270 employees. The proposed building will be located on a newly created parcel south of the Clark Road access onto Highway 52, north of Union Pacific's track facilities, and west of Highway 52. Staff recommends the Commission approve the request subject to the ten (10) conditions. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the conditions and waivers requested by the applicant. Mr. Lindahl also reviewed the elevation diagrams of the exterior of the building. Commissioner Schultz asked for clarification of the conditions with the provided staff report and the revised report. Chairperson Messner asked about the amount of acres for development. Project Engineer Dawley responded that 10 acres was supplied on the site plan for proposed improvements only. The 10 acres were calculated by looking at the impervious surface added to the site. 44.7 acres PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 6 applies to the area being approved. Applicant, Don Kern, Flint Hills Resources, approached the Commission. Also present were Mark Murphy, Project Manager of Flint Hills, and Peter Brozek, from TKDA, the engineering company. Mr. Kern noted the reason for deviation on the curb and gutter is to get different ideas for water retention from the County. They are looking for more innovative ways to deal with water retention. Mr. Murphy showed the Commission detailed elevations of the exterior of the building. They plan to add a canopy to hide the overhead doors. The exterior material will be colored concrete, not plain grey. In discussions with the County to find the best way to manage stormwater runoff, they will place curb and gutter around the perimeter of the parking lot. One idea is to possibly slope the elevation to the east and put in curb cuts to allow the water to drain into a large storm basin. Mr. Murphy also showed a third diagram of the road leading north to Clark Road and showed the amount of curbing being put by the road. Chairperson Messner asked how high the berm would be east of the property. Mr. Murphy showed a diagram of the berm in relation to the building height and level of Highway 52. They stated the loading dock should not be visible from Hwy. 52. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 7:28p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Commissioner Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:29p.m. There was no discussion among the Commissioners. MOTION by Commissioner Schultz to recommend the City Council approve a site plan and conditional use permit for Flint Hills Resources to allow construction of a 135,400 square foot maintenance, warehouse, and office facility, subject to the following conditions: 1. Recording of the proposed subdivision and lot combination to create the subject property prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Submission of an easement insuring permanent access to the maintenance building site from the existing access point to the Clark Road right -of -way for review and approval by the City Attorney. The approved easement shall be recorded with Dakota County, prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The City Council waives the pedestrian circulation and parking lot green space standards of Section 11- 4- 16 -2.G (Site and Building Standards). Should the applicant improve the proof of parking area, the applicant shall bring the entire parking area into compliance with the internal green space standards as well as replace all associated berming and landscaping. 4. Issuance of a building permit. 5. Redesign of the site to include continuous concrete curb and cutter around all parking and maneuvering areas, prior to action on this item by the City Council. 410 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 7 6. Redesign of the east elevation of the building to eliminate the all loading docks facing a public right -of -way, prior to action on this item by the City Council. 7. Submit plans to ensure the guard house and storage building conform with the ordinance exterior building material standards and are compatible with the proposed warehouse structure, prior to action on this item by the City Council. 8. Submission of a landscape security equal to one hundred and twenty five percent (125 of the cost of the plantings illustrated on the approved landscape plan. 9. No light surface shall be visible from the adjacent Highway 52 right -of -way. 10. Conformance with all conditions of the City Engineer as outlined in this report prior to issuance of a building permit, including but not limited to the following: a. Building permit issuance shall be conditional upon award of contract by Council to extend sewer and water from existing City infrastructure to the maintenance shop and warehouse facility. b. Certificate of Occupancy issuance shall be conditional upon completion, testing, and acceptance of sewer and water utilities extended to the maintenance shop and warehouse site by the City Engineer. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Mr. Lindahl reported these items will go to City Council on February 20, 2007. 5.f. 06- 67 -SP, 06- 68 -LC, 06 -69 -CON Rosemount Business Center, LLC Site Plan Review, Lot Combination Application and PUD Concept Plan and Final Development Plan. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Rosemount Business Center, LLC has proposed to construct an approximate 28,000 square foot building on two lots at the corner of Chippendale Avenue and Carrousel Way. The building is proposed to be divided into as many as eleven distinct businesses, each of which will own their condominium unit. The request includes a combination of the two existing lots into one lot and a building that will be split through a Common Interest Community (CIC) plat into the condominiums. The proposed uses within the up to eleven units will be office /warehouse uses similar to those in the northeast, along Carrousel Way. Consistent with the zoning on the site, the building will meet the architectural standards of the recently revised C -4 district, similar to the other commercial office buildings along Chippendale Avenue. Mr. Zweber stated that staff recommends approval of the Lot Combination, Site Plan, Planned Unit Development Concept Plan and Final Development Plan, subject to conditions. Mr. Zweber reviewed those conditions and requirements thereof and showed colored renderings of the building elevations. Mr. Zweber also mentioned Condition No. 6 requiring a sidewalk connection from Carrousel way to the joint movie theater. The second part of that Condition No. 6 should be PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 8 deleted as the City Engineer does not recommend a sidewalk connection mid- block. Mr. Zweber also reviewed the details of the proposed Planned Unit Development agreement and the deviations from current Ordinance. Chairperson Messner asked if there is a difference between office parking standards and retail parking standards. Mr. Zweber discussed the differences between office and retail standards. Commissioner Schultz asked if there was a reason why the applicant proposed the driveway on Carrousel more west than the movie theater driveway. Mr. Zweber did not know for sure but suggested it could be to center with the lot. Chairperson Messner asked if the perimeter drainage utilities are part of the PUD recombination. Mr. Zweber stated there will be a drainage and utility easement over the entire Lot 2, not only the perimeter. Chairperson Messner asked how one would get to the warehouse in Bay 2 and Mr. Zweber replied that the only access is through the front door. The applicant, Dan Huntington, approached the Commission. He stated that there is no problem to move the driveway access to be across from the movie theater driveway. The layout of Bay 1, 2 and 3 is preliminary and can change in any number of ways. Because of the office warehouse application, some of the owners may produce more garbage than another tenants which is why we proposed for each tenant to take care of their own garbage. Mr. Huntington stated that they can do a common garbage. Chairperson Messner stated he would like to see a common garbage. With respect to the tree replacement requirement, Mr. Huntington mentioned the addition of 14 more trees would be difficult to fulfill due to the lack of space. He would like the consideration to use evergreens, or bigger trees, and eliminate adding more trees. Chairperson Messner concurred, but stated he thought the berm is a necessity. A discussion continued with respect to other properties on the block or nearby that are or are not bermed. It was decided the berm requirement would remain. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:05p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Schultz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:06p.m. Chairperson Howell suggested putting in the larger type trees to make up for not placing the additional 14 trees. Mr. Zweber stated what was required by the ordinance and that staff could work with the applicant on reasonable larger trees. This would be a modification of Condition No. 7. MOTION by Chairperson Messner to recommend approval of the Site Plan, Lot Combination, Planned Unit Development Concept Plan and Final Development Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. Execution of the PUD Agreement. 2. Payment of all applicable City development fees. 3. The colors of the exterior materials must be integral to the material. Painting of the exteriors materials will not be permitted. 4. Office or Retail Uses are limited to total of no more than 14,800 square feet. 5. The westerly access on Carrousel Way shall be moved east to align with the movie theater /Carrousel Office joint entry. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 9 6. A sidewalk connection shall be made from the building to the existing city sidewalk on Chippendale Avenue. 7. In lieu of the tree replacement requirement, the application shall work with staff to reach a reasonable alternative that is equal in compensation to the tree replacement requirement. The revised landscape plan will be provided before City Council approval. 8. Provision of a common trash enclosure to serve the entire building. 9. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from Chippendale Avenue and Carrousel Way in accordance with the City Ordinance. 10. Signs for individual businesses are permitted only in the 3 foot by 12 foot 4 inch sign banner above each store front. 11. A common grading and storm water infrastructure plan for the joint access drive with Chroust Dentistry will need to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 12. The creation of a berm two feet higher than the parking lot to meet the Ordinance requirement for parking lot screening. 13. Submission of a landscape security equal to one hundred and twenty five percent (125 of the cost of the plantings. 14. Conformance with all conditions of the Fire Department Memorandum dated January 11, 2007, City Engineer Memorandum dated January 12, 2007, and the Parks Department Memorandum dated January 16, 2007 prior to issuance of a building permit. Second by Howell. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Mr. Zweber stated this item will go to City Council on February 20, 2007. 5.g. 06 -42 -SP Dakota County Library Preliminary Plat. Community Development Director presented this item. The City is requesting approval of a preliminary and final plat for the library site. The 4.32 acre site is currently comprised of eight lots. The plat creates two lots; one of which will be deeded to the County for construction of the library and one will be retained by the City. The City acquired the St. Joseph's church property in 2004 to provide land for a new Dakota County Library. The County requires the City to dedicate the land and the County pays for construction of the facility. Design for the Library is underway with a scheduled public meeting to unveil the library concept on January 29, 2007. The 4.32 acre plat is located within the Downtown area and is zoned a combination of PI and R -1A. Ms. Lindquist also showed an elevation of the proposed library. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:10p.m. Debra Zippel, 14300 Cameo Avenue, Rosemount, who lives directly behind the South end of the library lot approached the Commission. She has an issue with the easterly six feet of their lot. Ms. Lindquist stated that Mr. Baxter, as a church member, had that property deeded properly to the church. Ms. Zippel stated she did not receive notice and that the county showed no record when she last checked. Her concern was whether or not the 6 feet parcel would hold up a sale of their property. Ms. Lindquist stated she will have to have Mr. Baxter check the records and contact Mrs. Zippel. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 10 III There were no further public comments. MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:14p.m. There was no further discussion among the Commissioners. MOTION by Commissioner Howell to recommend approval of the Kilcumreragh Addition Preliminary and Final Plat. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Ms. Lindquist stated this item will go to City Council on February 6, 2007. Old Business: None. New Business: None. Reports: Ms. Lindquist stated there is a meeting on the 30 and 31st of January, Dakota County Planning Process. She gave a small update on downtown development and the continued work with Stonebridge group. III Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Chairperson Messner made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Schultz seconded. Upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 8:16p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary III PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 PAGE 1 Cali to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 13, 2007. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Schwartz, Schultz and Howell present. Commissioner Palda was absent. Also in attendance were 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 January 23, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes. MOTION by Schwartz to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Howell. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 5.a. 06- 67 -SP, 06- 68 -LC, 06 -69 -CON Rosemount Business Center, LLC PUD Master Development Plan and Rezoning. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Rosemount Business Center, LLC has proposed to construct an approximate 28,000 square foot building on two lots at the corner of Chippendale Avenue and Carrousel Way. The building is proposed to be divided into as many as eleven distinct businesses, each of which will own their condominium unit. The request includes a combination of the two existing lots into one lot and a building that will be split through a Common Interest Community (CIC) plat into the condominiums. The proposed uses within the up to eleven units will be office /warehouse uses similar to those in the northeast, along Carrousel Way. Consistent with the zoning on the site, the building will meet the architectural standards of the recently revised C -4 General Commercial zoning district, similar to the other commercial office buildings along Chippendale Avenue. At the January 23, 2007 meeting, the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan and Lot Combination, subject to conditions. Staff is requesting approval of the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan and Rezoning. Mr. Zweber gave an explanation of the current plans and the changes since the meeting on January 23, 2007. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:35p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:36p.m. There was no discussion among the Commissioners. MOTION by Commissioner Schultz to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan and Rezoning, subject to the following conditions: 1. Execution of the PUD Agreement 2. The development is allowed to deviate from the C4 General Commercial zoning district to permit mixed office /warehouse or retail /warehouse uses; eliminate the parking setback from the joint access drive; and to permit a maximum of 81% impervious surface. No other deviations or variance from the C4- General PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 PAGE 2 Commercial zoning district are allowed. 3. Approval of the Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan and Lot Combination by the City Council. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. Mr. Zweber stated this item will go to City Council on February 20, 2007. Old Business: None. New Business: 7.a. 2008 -2030 Comprehensive Plan Goals Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. By 2008, the City of Rosemount (along with all other local government units within the seven county metropolitan area) needs to submit a comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council to address the future growth of the City through the year 2030. Staff is proposing that the process for development of the 2008 -2030 Comprehensive Plan begin by reviewing the goals of the existing 2020 Comprehensive Plan and determining the seven to ten overriding goals of the City. After these overriding goals are determined, a public open house will be conducted for the residents of Rosemount. Preliminarily, it is expected that this open house will occur during the April Planning Commission work session. After April open house, the Planning Commission will work on 5 items: Community background, community facilities, the housing element, the transportation element, and then environmental element. The Utility Commission will work on utilities. Economic Development will be part of the Port Authority. Mr. Zweber discussed the proposed goals for the Commission's discussion. 1. Maintain a manageable and reasonable growth rate that does not adversely impact the delivery of services but allows the community to grow and become more diverse from now until 2030. 2. Preserve the existing rural residential areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan and increase rcnta °n affor housing opportunities in the community to attain a balance of life cycle housing options. It was decided to delete the phrase "rental and affordable" from No. 2. 3. Promote commercial renewal and rehabilitation in the rcdcvclopcd, historic Downtown and along Hwy 42 while accommodating new commercial development along appropriate transportation corridors such as Akron Avenue and Cty Hwy 42; Cty Hwy 46 and MN Hwy 3; and Cty Hwy 42 and US Hwy 52. It was decided to remove the word "redeveloped." PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 PAGE 3 4. Encourage additional high quality and tax base generating industrial development in the northeast portion of the community and within the current Business Park. It was decided to add the word "current" before "Business Park." 5. Preserve natural resources and open space within the community and ensure development does not adversely impact on -going agricultural uses until urban services are available. 6. Promote use of renewable resources by creating sustainable development and building green. 7. Collaborate and provide connections between the City and surrounding Cities, Townships, Dakota County and public and private schools in the area. 8. Work with the University of MN to create a neighborhood that can successfully integrate into the community while achieving goals of health, energy, and education. 9. Collaborate and provide services (such as libraries, community center, senior center, etc.) to all groups of residents. Mr. Zweber stated the plan for the March meeting is to talk about the open house and create a schedule for meetings. Reports: Mr. Zweber stated that at the meeting on February 27, the Commission will see the concept plan of Arcon Development. The AUAR was approved and the first development is starting. Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Chairperson Messner made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Schultz seconded. Upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 8:09p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 1 CaII to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 27, 2007. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Schwartz and Howell present. Commissioners Palda and Schultz were absent. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, Project Engineer Dawley and Recording Secretary Hanson. The Pledge of Allegiance was read. Additions to Agenda: Addition of 7.a. to New Business, Case 06- 10 -SP, Harmony Clubhouse Site Plan Review Extension Contractor Property Developers Company. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of the February 13, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes. MOTION by Howell to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 3. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 5.a. Case 07- 07 -TF, 07 -08 -CUP Northern Natural Gas Transmission Facility and Conditional Use Permit. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Northern Natural Gas Company (NNG) is conducting upgrades to a number of pipelines and pipeline facilities throughout Minnesota and other Midwest states. This type of construction activity requires a conditional use permit (CUP) and a transmission facility permit. Prep work is expected to begin in March with pipeline construction occurring from May through October. Northern Natural Gas Company (NNG) is conducting upgrades to a number of pipelines and pipeline facilities throughout Minnesota and other Midwest states. In Rosemount, this includes the installation of a 24" natural gas pipeline adjacent to the existing 18" pipeline running from roughly Cty Rd 46 and Mn Hwy 3 to the comer of Bacardi Ave and 135` Street. This construction will occur through a predominately light industrial and agricultural area between Cty Rd 46 and Cty Rd 42 and through a developed residential area between Cty Rd 42 and 135 Street. NNG will also be conducting a number of other smaller equipment replacements within Rosemount, include replacing service equipment on 130 Street just north of Keegan Lake, and replacement of approximately 1000 feet of 16" gas pipeline on the south side of 120 Street about 1 /2 mile west of Dodd Blvd. Mr. Zweber explained to the public that the City has no ability to regulate the route of the pipeline, prevent the installation of the pipeline, or the construction methods used in its installation. The federal Pipeline Safety Act (PSA) regulates the construction and safety of pipelines and preempts local ordinances. Mr. Zweber explained the different sites affected by the construction and site locations and the conditions required respectively. The applicant was present but offered no comment at this time. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:54p.m. John Hewitt, representing Noah and Kristin Brand, 14405 Blumberry Court. Mr. Hewitt stated that two days after the Brands took possession of their new home, Northern Natural Gas knocked on their door and asked to use their property as a staging area. He stated that land rights and the quiet PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 2 enjoyment of the property are important to an owner and these rights will be disrupted with the pipeline construction. The owner should be compensated. Catherine Wise, 14008 Belmont Trail, approached the Commission. NNG also asked to use her yard as additional storage south of the staging area. She asked if they would need more space outside of the easement area and why they need additional space to the extra lot. Mr. Zweber clarified that the staging areas are not under the City's control; they are regulated as part of the federal permit. The City does not have the authority to tell the pipeline company they do not need to use the easement areas. Gregory Cade, Senior Right of Way Agent for Northern Natural Gas, Omaha, Nebraska, approached the Commission. He stated the residents who spoke live on the lots with the treelined backyards. NNG need the exta space in order to complete a bore in the area. They will try to compensate homeowners fairly and will try to complete the work as quickly as possible. They do not intend to cut down any major trees if possible. Chairperson Messner mentioned why NNG did not want to unload trucks using Connemara rather than the staging area. Mr. Cade responded that the NNG contractor felt nervous shutting off Connemara directly across the fire station. They felt it would be safer to do it in another location. Unloading in the street would take longer than at the staging area due to less public involvement. Robert Osborn, Vice President of Pipeline Operation for Michels Pipeline Construction, added that Connemara slopes way down which is a hazard. Also, in using the extra lot, it will assist in less use of the parking lot of the fire station. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell. Ayes: 3. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:06p.m. Chairperson Messner clarified for the public that the City's role in this matter is not to approve or disapprove of the construction of the pipeline. The City is trying to eliminate as much concern as possible regarding construction activities and the potential impact on the residents. Regarding the off loading onto Connemara, Commissioner Schwartz stated it does not seem logical to have the unloading occur across from the fire station and agrees the extra staging area should be used, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Howell agreed as long as the activity takes place during the specified time periods. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz to recommend that the City Council approve the Transmission Facility Permit and Conditional Use Permit for Northern Natural Gas, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submittal and approval of a City Utility Permit from the City Engineer. 2. Conformance with all conditions of the Park and Recreation director's Memorandum dated February 20, 2007 and the City Engineer's Memorandum dated February 22, 2007. 3. Work performed within the "temporary work space" and the "staging area" shall confirm with the usage detail provided within the Northern Natural Gas Company memorandum dated January 30, 2007. 4. All construction and restoration activities shall conform to the City of Rosemount General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 3 5. All infrastructure and landscaping removed from City property shall be restored and replaced upon completion of the pipeline project, including a one year warranty period. A letter of credit for 110% of the value of the infrastructure and landscaping shall be submitted to the City before work commences and shall be effective until the expiration of the one year warranty period. 6. The establishment and usage of the temporary storage area for AA Auto Parts and U Pull R Parts shall conform to the following conditions: a. The temporary storage area is limited to the 200 foot by 500 foot shown on the site plan. b. A screening fence similar in height, color, material, and opacity is installed before any cars are placed in the temporary storage area. c. Access to the temporary storage area is provided only through the U Pull R Parts site. d. The temporary storage area is only allowed between March 1, 2007 and August 15, 2007. The temporary storage area shall be restored to the condition previous to its installation by August 16, 2007 e. The temporary storage area shall be inspected by staff from the Dakota County Environmental Management department upon restoration by the applicant. Any work required by Dakota County will be the sole responsibility of the applicant and must be completed by December 31, 2007. 7. Work performed within the residential lot at 13960 Belmont Trl (Lot 17, Block 1 of Biscayne Point 4t Addition) shall conform with the usage detail provided within the Northern Natural Gas Company memorandum dated January 30, 2007. 8. Installation of a 6 foot high wood privacy fence along the north and south property lines of 13690 Belmont Trl. The fence shall begin 10 feet east of the front property line and end 10 feet west of the 60 foot wide pipeline work space easement. 9. Upon completion of the project, 13690 shall be re- graded to the condition within the Biscayne Point 4t Addition grading plan and sold or transferred as a residential lot. 10. The Michels contractor's yard and offices are subject to the following conditions: a. The contractor's yard and offices may only be used from March 21, 2007 to October 31, 2007. b. No pipe sections may be stored on the ground at the contractor's yard. c. Overnight truck parking is limited to three trucks. No truck parking is permitted from 7 pm on Saturday until Noon on Sunday. d. Semi- trucks or other construction vehicle may not enter or exit the site between the hours of 8 pm and 6 am. e. These conditions do not apply to the areas identified as temporary workspace during the construction of the pipeline and launcher /receiver site. 11. The pipeline junction site on Bacardi Ave is subject to the following standards: a. Northern Natural Gas Company shall submit a site plan for approval by the Community Development Director. b. The site shall be buffered by a two foot high berm with landscaping installed to provide 50% opacity. c. The access drive and parking area for service vehicle shall be paved in accordance with the Parking and Loading Area Standards. IP Second by Howell. Ayes: 3. Nays: 0. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 4 As followup, Mr. Zweber stated this item will go to City Council on March 20, 2007. The applicant will be giving the City more information regarding a projected timeline for construction. 5.b. Case 07 -09 -CON A rcon Development Concept Plan for the McNamara Property. Senior Planner Zweber stated that Arcon Development has submitted a Concept Plan for approximately 290 acres north of Cty Rd 42, 210 of which are west of Akron Ave and 80 of which are east of Akron Ave. The development will include approximately 230 acres of residential development, 50 acres for commercial, and 10 acres for a school for the ISD 917. The residential component will include homes constructed by Centex (about 150 acres), Lennar (about 60 acres), and the Dakota County Community Development Agency (about 20 acres). The applicant is asking for feedback from the City regarding the general layout, housing mix, density and site design before developing a more detailed final plan and master development plan. The property northwest of the intersection is bounded by the Union Pacific rail line to the north, the Bloomfield neighborhood to the west, Cty Rd 42 to the south, and Akron Ave (Cty Rd 73) to the east. There are five exception properties within the northwest area, one farmstead property along Cty Rd 42 and four single family homes along Akron Avenue. The property northeast of the intersection is an 80 acre parcel bounded by agricultural property to the north and east, Akron Avenue to the west, and Cty Rd 42 to the south. Mr. Zweber reviewed the concept plan describing the developers and types of development, street arrangements public and private, different types of buildings proposed, and accesses onto County Roads 42 and Akron. Chairperson Messner asked about the extra handout given regarding the exception property. Mr. Zweber explained that the exception properties are not undevelopable. If the owners decide to sell, the developer has plans for the exception properties, as shown by the handout and on the concept plan. Chairperson Messner also asked whether or not the crossings of the pipeline as shown on the concept plan were already completed by the pipeline company. Mr. Zweber stated the permits will need to be acquired in the future. The applicant, Rick Packer, Arcon Development, approached the Commission. Also present for questions were representatives from Centex Homes, Lennar Homes, Dakota County CDA and District 917. Mr. Packer stated he appreciated Mr. Zweber's work on the project and stated that this is a tough piece of property with an unusual amount of mixed use involved. The County Roads involve access difficulties. The pipelines have their own unique requirements, as does the school property. Mr. Packer stated that Arcon would like clarification on three different issues: 1. the acceptability of private roads since public roads have setbacks to deal with; 2. The setbacks to the 70 foot wide lots, proposing 5 and 10, rather than 10 and 10; and 3. Access issues onto Akron Avenue. Arcon would like the opportunity for their engineers to meet with City engineers regarding the accesses before the Plat Commission reviews the plan. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 7:37p.m. Dave Durigan, 14160 Atwood Court, approached the Commission. His property backs up to the proposed Centex development. He has three concerns: 1. The commercial area will be needed with the amount of extra people in the neighborhood; 2. He would like to see a wider setback so the houses will not be so close together; 3. Questioned the phrase "park dedication will be paid in cash in lieu of land" and whether or not this means there will be no parks. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 5 Mr. Zweber responded that the fee -in -lieu of land is a common approach when space for parks is neither available or needed. He pointed out there is a park near the school that the City can use during non school hours. Elaine Loesch, 14155 Autumnwood, approached the Commission. She stated that the extra traffic is a big concern and wondered why two lanes were needed on Akron. She asked how far north the two lanes will stretch and whether or not there be stoplights on County Road 42. City Engineer Andrew Brotzler approached the Commission to address Ms. Loesch's questions about Akron Avenue. He stated the City is currently working with the County to upgrade Akron from County Road 42 to 135` It will probably be 2008 before any construction begins on Akron Avenue. Future plans for Akron is to have it continue from 135t to the northern city limits. Funding for the project is contributed 55% by the County. It is intended to have Akron be a divided roadway with channelized intersections at County Road 42 to 135` for protected turnlanes. The railroad crossing at 135t will be set up to meet quiet zones at a minimal cost today rather than completing it in the future. Zack Little, 14262 Atwood Circle, approached the Commission. His home is on the west border of the proposed Centex development. He is concerned with the elevation difference from the berm in his backyard to the new development. He also asked whether or not the current easement in the Bloomfield development will be affected by the construction for the new development. Mr. Brotzler approached again to respond to the easement question. He said the easement Mr. Little was referring to was probably a drainage and utility easement. Typical of these developments, at the time the Bloomfield development was being constructed, the developer did not have access to the adjoining property. In order for them to do the work on the property they controlled, they needed easements in order to complete the work. With respect to the berm, the question is difficult to answer since this is only a concept plan and grading is not involved. MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 3. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:50p.m. A discussion took place among the Commissioner regarding the 70 foot lots and the setbacks proposed within the Centex development. Steve Ach from Centex approached the Commission. He stated the homes will be similar to the homes in the Bloomfield development. The 70 foot wide lots are a little narrower than Bloomfield. The reduced setback will still allow for three stall garages. Centex is looking for more density yet still include single family homes. Chairperson Messner stated that it is for the council to decide whether the roads should be public or private. Mr. Messner asked Mr. Zweber if reduced setbacks and 70 foot wide lots have been allowed in other developments. Mr. Zweber responded yes in other places in the City but not in the majority. Mr. Zweber suggested other things the Commission could require having garage to garage, or house to garage to alleviate the closeness of the houses. The Commission did not oppose the setback reduction. With respect to the access issues, Chairperson Messner stated the issues are best handled by engineers and agreed that both parties should meet to discuss the alternatives. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 6 Commissioner Howell expressed her desire to see more of a neighborhood feel to the development with more park areas to balance out the high density. Mr. Packer shared colored renderings of the concept plan with the Commission that showed what it is intended for park areas. Mr. Zweber also added that there will be series of meetings coming in the future to talk more about these issues including a rezoning and comprehensive application, master development plan and preliminary plat which will require a public hearing where everyone will get noticed. There will be meeting to discuss the final plat before any construction will happen. More specific details will be addressed at future meetings. MOTION by Chairperson Messner to recommend that the City Council approve the Concept Plan, provided the following changes are made: 1. The comments within the City Engineer's memorandum dated February 16, 2007 or other modifications that will bring the site into compliance with city standards. 2. The plan adequately address comments received from the Dakota County Plat Commission. 3. The Park Commission will determine the credit for the parkland dedicated within this plat and the amount to be paid as fee in lieu of parkland dedication. 4. The eastern most access onto Cry Rd 42 will need to be constructed fully on the Arcon property or the developer would need to acquire the rights to build it on the neighboring property. The access will need to be designed to go around the existing City pressure release valve structure. 5. The alignment of the second local street from the west property line and its intersection with Connemara Trl will be revised to meet sightline and tangent standards. 6. A second access to a public road will need to be constructed from the Lennar townhouse development east of Akron. 7. The public minor collector street north of the school needs to be built before the school can be occupied. 8. Access to both the Centex and the Lennar townhouse neighborhoods on the west side of Akron are too close to Connemara Trl. Revisions will need to be made to move these accesses to at least 150 feet from Connemara Trl. 9. The Lennar townhouses in the southwest corner of the development will need garages that are accessed from the shared private driveways. Direct access from the individual units to the public street will not be allowed. 10. The island at the end of the minor collector within the Centex single family will need to be removed. 11. Connemara Trail will need a minimum of 85 feet of right -of -way with 7.5 feet wide landscape easement on each side or the developer will need to dedicate 100 feet of right -of- way per the City specifications of a major collector. Either method, the house setback from Connemara Trl will be measured as if there is 100 feet of right -of -way on Connemara Trail. 12. Private streets will need to be 28 feet wide. Further determination by City will be needed to assess where private versus public streets will be allowed. 13. Additional ROW width for Connemara Trl will be required at the sections of raised medians and turn lanes for the first access west of Akron through to the first access east of Connemara Trl. 14. Direct access from the garages of the townhouses onto public streets will not be permitted. Townhouses shall access the public street via private joint driveways. 15. Additional ponding areas are expected within the development area. 16. The design of the rear yard swales shall be submitted for City review to ensure that they meet the City infiltration design requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 7 17. The City park shall be designed to allow for active recreation without interference from the Metropolitan Council sanitary sewer line. 18. Additional information will need to be provided regarding the sidewalks, trails, and private amenities. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 3. Nays: 0. As follow -up, Mr. Zweber stated this item will go to City Council on March 20, 2007. Staff would like the plat commission to review the plan before going to Council so they can share with the Council the County's opinion of the concept plan. 5.b. Case 07 -06 -CON Rosewood Commons Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Progress Land Company. Planner Lindahl stated that the applicant, Progress Land Company, requests Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval of a mixed -use residential and commercial development consisting of up to six 40 -unit residential buildings containing approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2) commercial buildings. The subject property is located south of 145 Street, north of the railroad spur, east of the railroad line and west of the Greif Brothers Packaging and the Rosewood Village neighborhood. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the background of the property, the process of the concept plan and PUD development plan, and specific details of the four different concept plans proposed by the developer. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff recommends Design Four focusing on the internal greenspace and the clusters of the buildings, the roundabouts added to the site and the commercial uses. Chairperson Messner asked about the absence of underground parking for Apartment 2 on Design Four. Mr. Lindahl stated that the absence was an oversight and there will be underground parking similar to the other apartment buildings. Commissioner Schwartz questioned why the plan does not quite meet the ordinance requirement of two parking stalls per unit. Mr. Lindahl responded that that item had not been addressed at the concept plan level but that staff will need to work with the developer to meet those requirements. The applicant, John Stainbrook, Progress Land Company was present and approached the Commission. He gave a brief history of the property and intentions of the new development. He stated he prefers Design 3 or 4 with the buffering around the perimeters. Progress Land Company is hoping to meet with Greif Brothers regarding the open space next to their building for possibly a landscaping buffer. There is a five year timeline in completing the development. They plan on working with the City to get the park dedication fees reduced. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:34p.m. Joseph Brady, 14710 Boysenberry Court, approached the Commission. He and his neighbors are concerned about the access between Rosewood Village and the proposed Rosewood Commons. He asked if there will be a barrier or fence stopping traffic down Boysenberry Court. Mr. Lindahl responded that under the current proposal, the main access would come from 145 There will be PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 8 one emergency access from Boxwood path with some sort of divider that would provide access to only emergency vehicles. Jason Devries, 14719 Boysenberry Court, stated his concerns: 1. Continuity of the surrounding community. 2. Pending fire marshall approval of such a high density with only one main access. 3. Confusion with the buffer schematics. 4. Loud noise from the railroad for the units backed to the railroad. 5. Whether or not there are an appropriate number of parking spaces. Mr. Stainbrook responded to his concerns. There will be a landscaping buffer on the new side of the tracks, similar to single family side where Mr. Devries lives; it will remain that way as part of a public open space. The wall of pine trees will remain on the west side of the property and will act as a buffer to the railroad tracks. Chairperson Messner asked whether or not the homes next to the railroad will be built with thicker windows or insulation to mitigate the noise impact. Mr. Stainbrook responded he will have the builder available to answer more specific questions at a later meeting. Jeff Mademann, 14722 Boysenberry Court, stated his major concern with the development is the high density. The area is not equipped or designed to handle the extra traffic. He is concerned that if the barrier on Boxwood Path is not approved, Rosewood Village will have a huge increase in traffic. He mentioned that in previous meetings it was stated that the properties close to the railroad would be more suitable for commercial than residential. He feels the developer is looking to put as many buildings as possible on a small chunk of land to make more money than with single family units. Mr. Stainbrook responded that Rosewood Village was platted with a buffer for medium density housing. The land south of Outlot C is also zoned commercial so there is a transitional buffer. There is a market for apartments for people who cannot afford a single family home. Progress Land will work with the City on the traffic concerns. Tom Kenninger, 2734 148 Street West, lives on the backside of the spur. He stated about a year and half ago, Progress Land planned a townhome development on the property to the west. The mayor at that time said the property needed to be commercial because it was too close to the railroad tracks and no one would want to live there. The property now up for development is closer to the railroad tracks than the past parcel. Mr. Stainbrook responded that Outlot C will be a pond area and they do have a commercial buyer looking at the southern parcel west of where Mr. Kenninger lives. Mr. Kenninger asked who determines the highest and best use of the property and Mr. Stainbrook replied that Progress Land makes the determination, not an appraiser. Jeff Mademann, 14722 Boysenberry Court, approached the Commission again and stated it is clear that people do not want this type of development in this area. It is not suitable to make the area a high density area in a low density neighborhood. He is concerned this result in more crime in the neighborhood. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 3. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:57p.m. Chairperson Messner stated he preferred Design 3 over Design 4 because the units are not back to back. He liked the location of Apartment Building 6 on Design 4 better than on Design 3. He liked the commercial building on Design 3 rather than two separate buildings. He feels the market rate apartment site is a good use but the overall number of units may be a little above what can be accomplished. Chairperson Messner also stated that the access on 145 and the emergency route PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 9 will need to be worked out between the fire marshall and traffic engineers. Community Development Director stated that the 145` access has been approved by the City engineers. The City's concern is not to block a public road and that traffic is contained within the development. Commissioner Schwartz stated she liked the placement of Apartment Building 6 on Design 4 but wondered if the commercial building by 145 can be revised to put the parking behind the building as on Design 3. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz to recommend the City Council approve a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Rosewood Commons endorsing Design Three (except placement of Building 6 on Design Four) containing a mixed -use residential and commercial development consisting of up to six 40 -unit residential buildings containing approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2) commercial buildings, subject to the following conditions: 1. In exchange for the PUD, the developer shall create a universal "Historical Railroad Depot" architectural theme for this neighborhood. This theme shall carry over into the buildings, amenities, lighting, pedestrian facilities and signs for the development. In addition, the developer shall provide underground parking in each residential building, extensive berming and landscaping, and private on -site recreational facilities. 2. The applicant shall work with Greif Brothers to eliminate glare from their existing lighting. 3. The applicant shall work with Greif Brothers to secure a landscape easement over the Greif Brothers land adjacent to the Rosewood Commons site to provide additional area for landscaping and open space. 4. Conformance with all comments in the City Engineer's memo dated February 22, 2007. 5. Conformance with all comments in the Park and Recreations Director's memo dated February 20, 2007. Second by Howell. Ayes: 3. Nays: 0. As follow -up, Mr. Lindahl stated this item will go to City Council on March 20, 2007. 5.b. Case 07 -04 -TA Official Map Ordinance. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Over time, a growing community needs to expand their street and other public facilities to accommodate new growth. Often, communities know what improvements need to be made years before the improvements are actually constructed. With this advanced knowledge, communities can design the needed improvements when the land required for these improvements is either undeveloped or sparsely developed. Often times there is a concern that currently undeveloped land will be developed before the public improvements are made. This concern can be eliminated by mapping what land will need to be preserved for the improvement and adopt it as an Official Map. The ordinance will enable the City to adopt Official Maps and will be located within the zoning ordinance section of the City Code. Therefore, it is subject to Planning Commission review and recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 10 Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 9:11p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell. Ayes: 3. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at9:12p.m. There were no questions or comments from the Commission. MOTION by Commissioner Howell to recommend that the City Council approve the Official Map Ordinance. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 3. Nays: 0. As follow -up, Mr. Zweber stated this item will go to City Council on March 20, 2007. The Planning Commission will see an Official Map in the future. Old Business: None. New Business: 7.a. Case 06- 10 -SP, Harmony Clubhouse Site Plan Review Extension Contractor 4111 Property Developers Company. Planner Lindahl stated the applicant, Contractor Properties Development Company (CPDC), requests a one year extension to the site plan approval for the Harmony Clubhouse to February 28, 2008. On February 28, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review a site plan application from Contractor Property Development Company to allow the construction of a 3,125 square foot clubhouse for the Harmony development. After some discussion regarding minor changes to the original concept plan, the Commission voted to approve the site Plan request. According to Section 11- 10 -3.K that site plan authorization is valid for one (1) year from the original date of approval. However, it should be noted that the ordinance does allow for the Planning Commission to grant an extension of this approval. To date, the applicant has yet to begin construction of the clubhouse and is therefore seeking a one year extension on the original site plan approval. They cite the slower than expected housing market over the last year as the main reason why they need the one year extension. Staff recommends approval of a one year extension of the site plan approval for the Harmony clubhouse to February 28, 2008. All conditions of the original approval shall carry over to this extension. Should the applicant wish to alter the original approval, they will need to seek the appropriate type of amendment to the original approval. MOTION by Commissioner Messner to approve a one year extension of the Site Plan approval for the Harmony Clubhouse to February 28, 2008, subject to the following condition: All conditions of the original approval shall carry over to this one year extension. Should the applicant wish to alter the original approval, they will need to seek the appropriate type of amendment to the original approval. Second by Howell. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 11 Ayes: 3. Nays: 0. Mr. Lindahl stated this item does not need to be approved by the City Council. Reports: Chairperson Messner asked Community Development Director Lindquist why Rosemount Business Center was continued at the February 20, 2007, City Council meeting. Ms. Lindquist responded that the adjoining property owner has some concerns about the garage doors facing the dentist office and asked that the doors be removed. The item is expected to go before the City Council again on March 6, 2007. Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Commissioner Schwartz made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Howell seconded. Upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 9:16p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 1 CaII to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Work Session of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 13, 2007. Vice Chairperson Schultz called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Schwartz and Palda present. Chairperson Messner and Commissioner Howell were absent. Also in attendance were Senior Planner Zweber, and Planner Lindahl. Discussion: a. 07 -14 -TA Iberg Request for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (4393 Upper 135 St). Planner Lindahl presented this item. Mr. Clair Iburg of 4393 Upper 135 Street West, requests the Planning Commission's feedback on his request to amend the RR Rural Residential District development standards to allow the expansion of his existing non conforming detached accessory building. Mr. Iburg has an existing garage that he would like to replace with a larger garage, but this replacement cannot occur without a variance because of the various setbacks from property lines, septic systems and the well. Mr. Lindahl presented four options to address Mr. Iburg's request: maintain and enforce the current standards of the rural residential district; rezone these properties when public utilities become available; amend the rural residential district; or create a new zoning district. Mr. Lindahl went on to say that while there are sections of the Rural Residential District with substandard lots that may face many of the same development limitations that affect Mr. Iburg's property, staff does not recommend amending the Rural Residential District. Without more research it is unclear whether the other issues limiting development on Mr. Iburg's property (existing development pattern, topographic conditions, required setbacks, and on -site septic and well facilities) also affect other properties throughout the district. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan endorses the preservation of the existing Rural Residential District and standards. Therefore, resolution of this issue may be a more appropriate question for the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Lindahl concluded by asking the Commission for feedback regarding Mr. Iburg's request and the four options proposed by staff. Commissioner Schultz asked Mr. Iburg if he had any comments or questions for the Commission. Mr. Iburg stated that he made the request to amend the Rural Residential district because he saw it a quick -fix to his issues and the issues of several of his neighbors who would also like to expand their accessory buildings. However, after reading the staff report and hearing from staff during this meeting, he understands how his request may not be the correct way to address this issue for the City as a whole. The Commission discussed the request and the information provided by staff. The Commission agreed that while there may be issues with the standards for the Rural Residential district, given the direction of the Comprehensive Plan, neither rezoning nor amending the setback standards for the Rural Residential district are appropriate at this time. Therefore, the Commission recommended that Mr. Iburg pursue a variance instead. However, the Commission cautioned Mr. Iburg that no approval is guaranteed and each variance request is reviewed by the Commission on its own merit. b. 07 -13 -TA Temporary Sign Zoning Text Amendment. Planner Lindahl presented this item. He explained recent turnover in the Community Development Department personnel lead staff to reexamine the City's process for administering temporary signs permits (banners, pennants, portable reader boards, and the like). Last December, the Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 2 began by taking inventory of the existing temporary signs within the community and asking for feedback from the Rosemount business community regarding their temporary sign needs. That inventory found a total of 18 businesses did not comply with the current temporary sign standards. Since that time, staff worked with each of these businesses to bring them into compliance. To date, all but one (Rick's Auto) is in compliance. Staff continues to work with the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce, Discover Rosemount, and any interested business owners to assess the temporary sign needs of the community. In addition to this examination, staff compared the City's temporary sign standards to those of several surrounding communities and compiled a list of recommended changes to the Rosemount's temporary sign standards. Staff asked the Commission to review this information and provide direction regarding updates or changes to the City's temporary sign standards. Mr. Lindahl went on to explain the City's current Temporary Sign Standards and Compliance Process. Temporary /portable signs, beacons and the like are allowed in any public, commercial or industrial district. Permits may be obtained from the Community Development Department and must be submitted three (3) days prior to installation of the sign. The permit shall contain the following information: sign dimensions, height, color, material of construction, method of anchoring, content and location. The fee is $10 per permit if a business obtains the permit prior to placing the sign. However, the fee is $50 if a business places a temporary sign without a permit. Permits for temporary/portable signs shall be issued a maximum of six (6) times per year for a maximum of ten (10) days per permit. The length of the permit for revolving beacons or similar devices shall not exceed three (3) days and shall be issued a maximum of three times per year. Temporary signs shall conform to the setback of any existing freestanding sign on the property or the required setback for the zoning district in which it is located (usually ten feet), whichever is greater. In addition, temporary/portable signs may not be located within any corner sight triangle, public right -of -way or easement, or within one hundred fifty (150) feet of any other freestanding sign. Finally, the placement of temporary/portable signs may not otherwise interfere with safe pedestrian or vehicle movements. Mr. Lindahl went on to compare Rosemount's temporary sign standards with those of the surrounding communities. Mr. Lindahl directed the Commission to the table in the staff report that compared Rosemount's temporary sign standards with those of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Hastings, and Inver Grove Heights. While the temporary sign standards vary from community to community there were some universal standards. Each community limits temporary signs to certain zoning districts. Some allow them in all commercial, industrial, or institutional districts while others limit them to only commercial districts. The number of temporary sign permits allowed per year varies from as few as 2 to as many as an individual business may want. The length of an individual permit is typically 10 days with two communities (Apple Valley and Hastings) allowing 15 days. Similarly, the total number of days allowed under all permits in one year is typically 60 days with Apple Valley limiting it to 30 days per year. Fees range from as little as no charge to as much as $61.50. Size standards range from no limit to as small as 18 square feet. And, typically most communities limit businesses to one temporary sign at any given time with only Apple Valley allowing multiple temporary signs at any given time. The setback and positioning standards are also fairly uniform. Typically the setback standards range from 10 feet to 13 feet. In addition, all of the communities surveyed prohibit temporary signs from PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 3 corner sight triangles, public rights -of -way, and any easement. Rosemount also requires temporary signs to be set back a minimum of 150 feet from any existing permanent ground sign. The types of temporary signs differ in each of the six communities. In general, all communities allow banners while most also allow portable reader boards, pennants, and sandwich board signs. All but one prohibits rooftop signs and all either ban electronic /flashing signs or (in the case of Eagan and Lakeville) have moratoriums in place while they examine their standards. Planner Lindahl went on to explain that last December's temporary sign inventory asked for feedback from the Rosemount business community regarding their temporary sign needs. Since that time, staff continues to talk with the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce, Discover Rosemount, and any interested business owners regarding the community's temporary sign needs. To date, staff has received comments from 8 businesses and 2 churches. Their comments are summarized below. 1. Reduce the fee. 2. Increase the number of permits allowed per year. 3. Increase the duration of each permit to at least 14 days to allow "advertising impact" and to correspond with the typical temporary sign rental period. Some businesses asked for an increase to 30 days per permit. 4. Allow sidewalk signs without a permit in all commercial districts, not just the downtown. 5. Allow electronic reader board temporary signs. Mr. Lindahl stated staff acknowledges some changes to the temporary sign standards may be appropriate to update /modernize the City's standards. To that end staff made the following recommendations. First, staff recommended increasing the duration of each temporary sign permit from 10 to 14 days. Mr. Lindahl noted this would necessitate an increase in the total number of days a business may have a temporary sign from 60 to 84 days (or nearly 1 /4 of the year) annually. Second, staff recommended allowing sidewalk signs in all commercial districts, not just the downtown, without a permit. These sidewalk signs would be subject to all the current size, location, and display time standards in place for the Downtown district. Third, staff recommended reducing the size of temporary signs from 100 square feet to 32 square feet. Mr. Lindahl concluded by explaining staff plans to take the Commission's recommendation to the Discover Rosemount and /or the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce in the coming months and report back in the near future. The Commission discussed the City's temporary sign standards and those of the surrounding communities. As feedback, the Commission generally was supportive of staff recommend changes with a few acceptations. First, the Commission stated that temporary portable reader boards were better suited for the C -3, Highway Commercial and C -4, General Commercial district because of their auto oriented design and should not be allowed in the C -1, Convenience Commercial or the C -2, Downtown Commercial districts because of the neighborhood, pedestrian, and traditional design of these districts. For these same reasons, the Commission stated sidewalk signs should continue to be prohibited in the C -3 and C -4 Districts and allowed in the downtown district. Second, Commissioner Schwartz expressed concern with the sign ordinance as a whole and PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 4 recommended staff consider updating the entire sign ordinance not just temporary signs. Commissioner Schwartz went on to add that she would like staff to specifically focus on the standards and enforcement of temporary real estate signs especially those for new developments, special events like the Parade of Homes, and open houses. Staff noted the recommendations of the Commission and stated that the next step will be to get input from the Chamber of Commerce and the Discover Rosemount group as well as bring specific text changes back to the Planning Commission for review and comment. c. 07 -05 -TA Tree Preservation Text Amendment. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Mr. Zweber stated that there has been interest from both the Planning Commission and the City Council in updating the Tree Preservation Ordinance to focus on preservation over replacement. Mr. Zweber reviewed the existing ordinance and summarized eight other ordinances from the metropolitan area. Mr. Zweber recommended that Rosemount revise the ordinance to include hardwood trees 6 inches and larger, softwood trees 12 inches and larger, and conifers 12 feet and taller; include a heritage tree category for hardwoods 27 inches or larger and conifers 50 feet and taller; allow 20% tree removal for single family developments, 30% for multi- family, and 40% for commercial and industrial; replacement of 0.5 inches for each inch removed; replacement tree of 2.5 inches; and provisions for a payment of a fee -in -lieu of tree replacement. Commissioner Schultz asked how the removal of dead trees would be addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Zweber stated that commonly significant trees are defined as trees that are in good or better condition meaning that dead trees or trees in poor condition can be removed without replacement. Commissioner Schwartz stated that a one year warranty period on replacement trees does not guarantee that trees will survive the transplanting. Mr. Zweber stated that the Planning Commission can recommend extending the warranty period, but that if the period is extended beyond two years then it would be difficult to determine if a tree died due to transplanting or some other cause that occurred after transplantation. Commissioner Palda inquired how a security for tree replacement is refunded. Mr. Zweber stated that it has been staff's policy to refund 75% of the security after the replacement trees have been planted and the remaining 25% is refunded after the warranty period has expired and any trees that have died are replaced. Mr. Zweber stated that a public hearing for this ordinance will be scheduled for April 24. d. 2008 -2030 Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Mr. Zweber stated that this item is an extension of the Comprehensive Plan discussion from the March Planning Commission Workshop and will focus on the housing goals. Mr. Zweber reviewed the existing goals from the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Zweber discussed the proposed goals for the Commission's discussion. High Density Residential 1. Provide rental opportunities for young adults and recent college graduates returning to Rosemount. 2. Provide an opportunity for student housing near Dakota County Technical College. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 5 3. Provide ownership opportunities for seniors with access to transit and public /institutional facilities. 4. Work with the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) and other state and federal agencies to provide affordable housing opportunities. 5. Locate high density residential with access to the collector and arterial street network. 6. Locate high density residential in conjunction with downtown and the commercial areas along Cry Rd 42 to create mixed use neighborhoods and transit oriented districts. 7. Disperse high density residential in appropriate areas throughout the community to avoid entire neighborhoods of high density residential. 8. Implement a rental inspection program to ensure that rental properties are maintained. Medium Density Residential 1. Encourage the development of owner occupied medium density housing. 2. Disperse medium density residential throughout the community to avoid entire neighborhoods of medium density residential. 3. Design medium density housing with private amenities and open space for the residents of the medium density housing. 4. Provide pedestrian and recreational trail connections with the adjacent land uses. 5. Work with the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) and other state and federal agencies to provide affordable housing opportunities. 6. Implement a rental inspection program to ensure that rental properties are maintained. Urban Residential 1. Facilitate neighborhood planning for improvements which create to reinforce neighborhood unity, safety, and identity. 2. Encourage the use of planned unit developments to protect and enhance natural features, open space, and to provide appropriate neighborhood transitions. 3. Incorporate pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with sidewalks and trails as important design elements. 4. Encourage the construction of a variety of single family home sizes and styles to increase home ownership opportunities. 5. Maintain the city's partnership with the Dakota County cluster for the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA). 6. Initiate or cooperate with housing improvement programs that encourage reinvestment in older homes. 7. Work with the Habitat for Humanity and other similar organizations, along with Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) and other state and federal agencies, to provide affordable housing opportunities and to redevelop and rehabilitate older homes in the City. Transitional Residential 1. Streets shall be designed to follow the natural contour of the property and shall provide 4111/ necessary vehicle connections throughout the geographic area. 2. Trails shall be planned to connect public areas and create pedestrian pathways within natural corridors. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 6 3. All wetlands and woodlands shall be preserved /protected and incorporated into the natural landscape design of each development. 4. Natural corridors or buffer yards shall be utilized along boundaries of dissimilar housing types and densities by maximizing the use of existing landforms, open space, and vegetation to enhance neighborhood identity and integrity. 5. Steep slopes shall be protected from development. 6. All transitional residential areas shall provide a unique urban /rural character with a mixture of housing types, but with a relatively low average net density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre, with a lower density along areas guided for rural residential use. 7. Clustering of housing units shall be designed to conserve the land's natural resources. Rural Residential 1. Discourage the placement of structures on top of exposed ridge lines. 2. Allow clustering where natural areas and active agriculture can be retained. 3. Maximize the retention of vegetation, maintain natural landforms, and minimize lawn areas. 4. Define, during the platting process, building envelopes that avoid the location of structures in areas needing to be preserved. 5. Protect open space or conservation areas with conservation easements. These tools are intended to be used for environmental and scenic resource protection, not public access. Land Use Category Housing Types Density HDR High Density Residential Apartments 12.0 Units per Acre Condominiums MDR Medium Density Residential Multiple Unit Townhouses 7.0 Units per Acre Single Family Homes UR Urban Residential One to Four Unit Townhomes 2.5 Units per Acre Manufactured Housing TR Transitional Residential Single Family Homes 2.0 Units per Acre One to Three Unit Townhomes RR Rural Residential Single Family Homes 0.2 Units per Acre Commissioner Schwartz stated that the concept of mixed use neighborhoods should be added, as well as an emphasis on connectivity between the neighborhoods. Mr. Zweber stated that staff will work on the combining some of the similar ideas throughout the various types of housing and structure the ideas into overall goals and objectives to obtain the goals. Updates: Senior Planner Zweber stated that the Planning Commission will be hosting a public open house for the Comprehensive Plan on Tuesday, April 10 at 6:30 p.m.. The event will be held at the Community Center and will include information regarding transit, parks, housing, and the City's overarching goals. Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 7 Eric Zweber, Senior Planner Jason Lindahl, Planner PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES S APRIL 24, 2007 PAGE 1 CaII to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 24, 2007. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:33p.m. with Commissioners Howell and Palda present. Commissioners Schwartz and Schultz were absent. Also in attendance were 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 February 27, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes. b. Approval of the March 13, 2007 Work Session Meeting minutes. Commissioner Howell stated the minutes of the March 13, 2007 work session meeting state she was present and she was not. In addition, on Page 4 and Page 6 of the minutes, it states that statements were made by Commissioner Howell, when in fact she was absent and unable to make any statements. Chairperson Messner noted the corrections. MOTION by Palda to approve the Consent Agenda subject to the noted changes to the March 13, 2007 Work Session Meeting minutes. Second by Howell. Ayes: 3. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 5.a. Case 07 -12 -TA Danner Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal. Senior Planner, Eric Zweber, presented this item. The applicant, Marlon Danner of Danner, Inc. requests renewal of the mineral extraction permit for the property located at 4594 145 Street East. This request is based upon the routine annual review and renewal of the current permit. This pit is currently in the 2000 phase. In 2006, approximately 70,000 tons of aggregate material was extracted from the 2000 Phase of the site. The applicant plans to extract 70,000 tons of material from the 1999 and 2000 Phases of the site during 2006. The request is subject to the conditions outlined in the permit. In addition to these specific conditions, all mineral extraction permits are subject to the general performance standards outlined in Section 12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Upon review of these standards, police records, and the information submitted by the applicant, staff recommends approval of the Danner Mineral Extraction Permit 2006. Applicant was present but declined comment. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:37p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell. Ayes: 3. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:38p.m. There was no discussion among the Commissioners. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 24, 2007 PAGE 2 MOTION by Commissioner Howell to recommend that the City Council renew the Danner Mineral Extraction Permit for 2007, subject to the standards outlined in Section 12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance and the 2007 Conditions for Mineral Extraction. Second by Palda. Ayes: 3. Nays: 0. As followup, Mr. Zweber stated the item will go to City Council on May 1, 2007. 5.b Case 07 -05 -TA Tree Preservation Ordinance. Senior Planner, Eric Zweber, presented this item. In the past year, a number of Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers have expressed frustration with our Tree Preservation Ordinance. One specific comment has been that the ordinance encourages tree replacement over the preservation of existing trees. Staff has evaluated a number of other cities' tree preservation ordinances and has proposed an ordinance that focuses on preserving truly exceptional trees while allowing trees to be removed during development provided replacement trees are planted. Mr. Zweber summarized the proposed ordinance changes which included the definition of significant trees, whether or not there are exceptional trees, when and how much replacement is required, the size and species of replacement trees, credits and incentives, fees -in -lieu of trees, security bonds, and requirements of different construction circumstances. Mr. Zweber then provided an example of how the new ordinance would work using Rosemount Hills 5` Addition scenario. Chairperson Messner stated that after Rosemount Hills 5t Addition, he felt the 300 tree replacement requirement was excessive. He likes the idea of heritage tree replacement. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:56p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: 3. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:57p.m. There was no discussion or questions among the Commission. MOTION by Commissioner Howell to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Second by Palda. Ayes: 3. Nays: 0. As followup, Mr. Zweber stated the item will first go to a City Council work session in June before going before the Council at a regular meeting later in June. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 24, 2007 PAGE 3 Old Business: 6.a. 07 -13 -TA Temporary Sign Zoning Text Amendment City of Rosemount. Planner Jason Lindahl presented this item. During the March 13, 2007 work session, staff reviewed the City's temporary sign standards, compared them with those of several surrounding Dakota County communities, and suggested minor changes to those standards. The changes proposed by staff during that meeting included increasing the duration of each temporary sign permit from 10 days to 14 days and establishing a size standard for temporary signs as 32 square feet. Two additional changes proposed were to add a new standard limiting portable reader boards to the C -1, Convenience Commercial, C -3, Highway Commercial and C -4, General Commercial Districts and to retain the existing standard limiting Sidewalk Signs to the C -2, Community Commercial (Downtown) District. The Commission based this direction on the findings that portable reader boards are larger than sidewalk signs and more suited for sites with front yard setbacks and off street parking areas. By comparison sidewalk signs are, by definition, designed for buildings or businesses adjacent to the right -of -way with no front yard and to be placed on a sidewalk within a public right -of -way. Mr. Lindahl summarized the proposed changes to the ordinance. Mr. Lindahl also reviewed the issue of First Amendment claims with respect to signs and stated that Staff is working with the City Attorney and League of MN Cities on this issue. Staff requested further direction on the proposed changes. Chairperson Messner asked where in the ordinance it allows portable reader boards in C1,C3 C4, districts. Mr. Linclahl pointed out the location and explained the exceptions. He explained the ordinance still allows for banners and sidewalk signs. He explained that reader boards are not being allowed in the downtown area because there isn't sufficient space for signs of that size. Commissioner Howell stated she felt that reader boards tend to be distracting. Chairperson Messner asked if churches or schools having a special event need to have a permit to place advertisement signs. Mr. Lindahl stated the only signs that do not need a permit are real estate signs, yard signs and campaign signs. He stated staff needs to look at this issue because there is the potential for someone to interpret that as favoritism over another business. Staff is having the City Attorney review this issue to make sure the City is being fair. Chairperson Messner asked where that type of sign is supposed to be located. Mr. Lindahl stated that real estate signs, campaign signs and garage sale signs are supposed to be placed on the property that the person owns or on which the activity is taking place. Staff has periodically removed signs for open houses and parade of homes that were located in the wrong area and then contacted the person to inform them they cannot have signs in the public right -of -way or off premise. Mr. Lindahl stated the purpose of the item at tonight's meeting was for the Commission to take a formal look at the draft ordinance with respect to the language that would be changed before staff presents the draft ordinance to the business community for comment. The Commissioners all gave their endorsement for the proposed draft. New Business: None. Reports: Senior Planner Zweber highlighted that Rosemount Business Center have canceled their purchase agreement and the owner of the property now has a new buyer. The matter is continued until we receive an official application. Mr. Zweber stated there will be a Planning Commission work session scheduled for May 8, 2007, to discuss the community facility goals and objectives and PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 24, 2007 PAGE 4 discuss the meeting schedule for the rest of the year. Commissioners should plan to meet on the second Tuesday of every month for the rest of the year except for possibly one off during the summer and holidays. Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Commissioner Messner made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Palda seconded. Upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 7:18p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 1 CaII to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Work Session of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 8, 2007. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Howell, Schultz and Schwartz present. Commissioner Palda was absent. Also in attendance were Senior Planner Zweber, and Planner Lindahl. Discussion: a. Community Facilities Goals and Objectives. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Mr. Zweber presented following goals and objectives: 1. Provide community facilities for all age groups. A. Work with ISD #196, the Boys and Girls Club, the YMCA and other interested agencies to evaluate the feasibility of a teen center. B. Annually review the services provided for seniors and explore partnership opportunities with other agencies. C. Encourage indoor recreation by private providers or public /private partnerships. D. Periodically review the community interest of an aquatic center. E. Periodically review the community interest of a multi- purpose arena with the capability for additional sheet(s) of ice. F. Work with Dakota County to construct the Robert Trail Library and License Center. G. Explore possible developers of or partnership for a conference center. H. Work with Dakota County, churches, and civic organizations to provide services for residents in need. I. Locate community facilities near their target population. 2. Encourage the reuse or redevelopment of historic or culturally significant buildings. A. Evaluate the reuse or redevelopment of the St. Joseph's Complex on South Robert Trail for public benefit. B. Work with the Rosemount Historical Society to record and document historic and culturally significant buildings and artifacts. 3. Provide municipal services that meet the needs of our growing population. A. Evaluate expanding or relocating City Hall when service demands warrant. B. Locate fire and emergency services to provide responsive service to urban residents. C. Evaluate the police facilities needed to meet the demands of the community. D. Determine the appropriate location for a centralized public works garage and storage yard. 4. Encourage the establishment of citywide coverage of private utilities. A. Encourage the installation of state of the art telecommunication infrastructure into business parks and commercial areas to facilitate high technology businesses to locate within Rosemount. B. Encourage the establishment of private utilities that allow residents to work from home, telecommute, or otherwise reduce the need to commute to work. 5. Locate private utilities where they have the least impacts. A. Install new utilities underground and bury existing utilities where possible when land is developed. B. Encourage future utility transmission facilities or expansions to co- locate within existing utility corridors to limit encumbrances on property owners and future development. C. Encourage private utilities to co- locate or joint trench to limit the need for utility easements and maximize the use of private property. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 2 Mr. Zweber stated that many of the goals and objectives were created from the 2004 Community Facilities Task Force Facility Needs Assessment Report. Chairperson Messner asked if any feasibility studies have been conducted for the senior center, aquatic facility, or multi- purpose arena since the 2004 report. Mr. Zweber stated that no formal feasibility study has been conducted but that interest in these facilities has been surveyed as a part of the 2005 and 2007 resident surveys. Commissioner Schwartz stated that indoor recreation should be provided by private companies whenever it is possible. Ms. Schwartz requested that the objective to encourage indoor recreation by private developers should be strengthened and moved to first objective. Commissioner Schultz asked if the City has heard of any interested in an aquatic facility. Mr. Zweber stated that he heard two comments at the April 10 Open House regarding interest in an aquatic facility, one requesting the City to construct one, and one requesting that a private party construct one. Commissioner Howell stated that she has heard some interest in an aquatic facility, but she has heard more support for additional ice sheets for open skating, not just hockey. Ms. Howell clarified that the request for the open skating ice would not necessarily need to be indoors and could be located outside in the neighborhood parks. b. Housing Element. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Mr. Zweber reviewed the eight subjects within the housing element: housing characteristics; type of housing; tenure; condition of the existing housing stock; housing on individual septic systems; senior housing; affordable housing; and projected housing growth. Commissioner Schultz questioned if the City would really be 45,000 people by 2030. Mr. Zweber stated that the Met Council has projected that the City will be 38,400 people in 2020 with 13,700 housing units. Staff has projected that Rosemount will construct another 3,150 housing units from 2020 to 2030, resulting in the 45,000 people in 2030. Commissioner Schwartz questioned if Rosemount would construct more multiple housing units than single family units over the next 25 years. Mr. Zweber stated that 45% of the housing units constructed from 2000 to 2006 were multiple family and cities tend to develop denser as they mature. The Planning Commission had some general discussions about the current slow down in the housing market. Chairperson Messner asked if the term "Transitional" is still needed in the Comprehensive Plan after Evermoor has developed. Mr. Zweber explained that there is some single family housing on the east side of South Robert Trail that has lots that are too small to contain a backup septic system and will likely need municipal sanitary sewer service within 25 years. Mr. Zweber explained that it is these small lot areas, and the land that the sanitary sewer would be provided past, that would carry the name transitional. c. Future Work Session Schedule. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Mr. Zweber explained the Comprehensive Plan schedule that will create a draft plan for public comments in March 2008 and a plan to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council in August of 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 3 Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Eric Zweber, Senior Planner PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 2007 PAGE 1 CaII to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 22, 2007. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Howell, Schwartz and Palda present. Commissioner Schultz was absent. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, Project Engineer Dawley, Planning Intern Morton and Recording Secretary Hanson. The Pledge of Allegiance was read. Additions to Agenda: Chairperson Messner stated that Centex Homes has pulled the variance item and it will no longer be on the agenda. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of the April 24, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes. b. Approval of the May 8, 2007 Work Session Meeting minutes. MOTION by Palda to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Howell. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 5.a. Case 07-1 5-AMD Rosemount Crossing Major PUD Amendment. Planner, Jason Lindahl, presented this item. The applicant, Rosemount Crossing, LLC, requests their application for a Major Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to place an automatic teller machine (ATM) be tabled to the June 26, 2007 regular Planning Commission meeting. The applicant makes this request to allow more time to prepare their plans. The Commission should open the public hearing during tonight's meeting and allow anyone present to comment with the understanding that no plans will be presented and no action will be taken until the June 26` meeting. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:33p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Schwartz to continue the Public Hearing for Rosemount Crossing, LLC to allow the placement of an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) to the June 26, 2007 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. 5.b Case 07-1 6-SP Dakota County Library Site Plan Review. Senior Planner, Eric Zweber, presented this item. The City of Rosemount and Dakota County are working jointly to design and construct the Robert Trail Library. In January, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the plat to create the separate lot for the library. In April, the City Council approved the Kilcumreragh Addition which created the lot for the County to construct the library. This request is to review the site plan of the library and recommend approval of the PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 2007 PAGE 2 rezoning of the entire parcel to PI: Public /Institutional zoning. This site plan and rezoning review will be the final Planning Commission review before the construction of the library begins. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the site plan for the Robert Trail Library with conditions and recommends approval of the rezoning from R -1A: Low Density Residential to PI: Public /Institutional. Mr. Zweber showed the site plan and went through the details including the site layout, the building design and materials, the landscaping and tree preservation, access and parking, pedestrian circulation, mechanical equipment and trash enclosure, the signs, lighting and utilities. Mr. Zweber noted that the site plan is short of the number of trees required in the tree preservation ordinance with respect to a certain size but exceeds the number required overall. Also, the lighting exceeds the number of lumens required. Mr. Zweber explained the need for two parcels to be rezoned from R -1A to PI. The Applicant, Steve Saienga, Dakota County, approached the Commission and stated Mr. Zweber explained the plan adequately and the County is anxious to move forward. Bids are anticipated in July and construction should start in the Fall, 2007. Anticipated opening in January, 2009. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:48p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:49p.m. Chairperson Messner stated he felt the library fits well on the site and works with the accesses. 110 MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz to approve the Site Plan for the Robert Trail Library, subject to the following conditions: 1. Issuance of a building permit. 2. Conformance with all conditions of the City Engineer's Memorandum prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Site lighting shall be revised to allow no more than 1.0 lumen at the southern property line. 4. Submission of a separate administrative sign permit application. Second by Howell. Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. MOTION by Commissioner Howell to recommend approval of the rezoning from R -IA: Low Density Residential to PI: Public /Institutional. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. As followup, Mr. Zweber stated the site plan approval does not need to go before the City Council. The rezoning item will go before the City Council for approval at the June 19, 2007, meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 2007 PAGE 3 5.c. Case 07- 17 -LC, 07 -18 -PUD Celadon Properties (EFH Co. Lot Combination and Planned Unit Development Plan. Planner, Jason Lindahl, presented this item. The applicant, EFH Company, requests lot consolidation, planned unit development (PUD) master development plan with rezoning and PUD final site and building plan approvals to allow the construction of a 10,450 square foot office, light manufacturing testing, researching, and laboratory facility with associated site improvements. The building will be used to house the corporate headquarters for Celadon Systems, Inc. Celadon Systems is a custom engineering firm specializing in the manufacturing and testing of equipment for the Semiconductor industry. Staff recommends approval of the lot consolidation, planned unit development (PUD) master development plan with rezoning and the PUD final site and building plan applications to allow the construction of a 10,450 square foot office /light manufacturing, and testing, research and laboratory facility and associated site improvements, subject to conditions Mr. Lindahl outlined for the Commission. Chairperson Messner asked where the mechanical equipment was being located. Mr. Lindahl showed the landscaping plan explaining where the equipment would be located. Chairperson Messner asked about the area shown for future building. Mr. Lindahl stated the area will be seeded with a grass turf and the applicant hopes to build the second building within the next 4 years. Chairperson Messner asked about the sidewalk connection from Chippendale Avenue to the parking area. Mr. Lindahl stated that the applicant has revised the plan subsequent to the plan submission. They have added a sidewalk connection from the vestibule to Carrousel Way and then over to Chippendale Avenue, and therefore the current condition regarding sidewalks is not needed at this time. Applicant, Mike Whalen, EFH Company, Burnsville, Minnesota, approached the Commission and stated a representative from Celadon Systems was also present. Mr. Whalen stated this particular site was chosen because the company desired to be in Rosemount and also the business needs to have very minimal vibration. The business park area is too close to the railroad. Mr. Whalen stated with respect to the loading dock that it consists of a drive -in door for Federal Express and UPS deliveries during the night hours. Chairperson Messner asked the applicant if there are any problems with the other conditions and Mr. Whalen replied that there are none. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 7:07p.m. Kurt Chroust, owner of the property north of the Celadon Systems development, approached the Commision. He asked what the berming requirements are in this development along Chippendale Avenue and Carrousel Way. Mr. Lindahl stated the berming requirements in the C4 district. Mr. Chroust asked Mr. Zweber if these requirements were identical to what was required of his business and Mr. Zweber replied that an acceptable measure for meeting the 50% opacity is a two foot earthern berm which is what Dr. Chroust has now and what EFH Company has proposed. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:09p.m. There was no discussion or questions among the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 2007 PAGE 4 MOTION by Commissioner Howell to recommend the City Council approve a lot consolidation, planned unit development (PUD) master development plan with rezoning and PUD final site and building plan applications for EFH Company to allow construction of a 10,450 square foot office, light manufacturing, testing, researching, and laboratory facility and associated site improvements, subject to the following conditions: 1. Recording of the lot consolidation prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to approval of the lot consolidation, the drainage and utility easements over the existing lots shall be vacated. 2. Approval of a revised landscape plan illustrating one (1) boulevard shade tree every fifty (50) linear feet along both Chippendale Avenue and Carrousel Way. The revised plan must also reposition evergreen plantings to more effectively screen parking and loading areas. Evergreen plantings shall be placed in a staggered double row pattern close enough to meet the screening requirements but with adequate area to allow the plantings to grow to maturity. 3. The applicant shall revise the location for the mechanical equipment subject to staff review and approval. 4. Submission of a landscape security equal to one hundred and twenty five percent (125 of the cost of the plantings illustrated on the approved landscape plan. 5. Approval of a detailed lighting and photometric plan along with detailed Cut Sheet for each light fixture consistent with the City's light requirements prior to action on this item by the City Council. 6. Conformance with all conditions of the City Engineer as outlined in this report prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee of $19,620 prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. The applicant shall install a sidewalk to connect the existing sidewalk along Chippendale Avenue and the sidewalk around the proposed building. 9. All signs require approval of a separate sign permit prior to placement of the sign. The freestanding sign must meet the 10' setback requirement. 10. The additional uses approved through the PUD include light manufacturing and testing, research and laboratory uses. Similar uses may be allowed in the future subject to City staff approval. There is no outside storage allowed as part of any land use on the site. 11. The Floor Plan, Site Plan, and parking calculations shall be revised to reflect the actual percent of these uses prior to action on this item by the City Council. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 2007 PAGE 5 As followup, Mr. Lindahl stated this item will move to the June 19, 2007, City Council meeting. In addition, there will be an application to vacate the easements of the adjoining parcels. Chairperson Messner stated there will be no recession or adjournment for the Board of Appeals to convene because Centex has withdrawn their variance. However, Chairperson Messner stated the Commission should discuss the variance request in the event a similar request is submitted in the future. He asked the Commissioners their opinions on whether or not such roofing materials should be allowed. Commissioner Schwartz stated she would not be in favor of including the material. Commissioner Howell stated she drove by the house and did not see the benefit of having a metal roof. She would be concerned about hailstorms and raising insurance rates of homes with metal roofs. Commissioner Palda stated he would be in favor of allowing the new material. He stated more developments have begun using metals roofs and he believes it a material for the future. Chairperson Messner stated he has seen it used up north more than around Rosemount. He stated he is not sure the type of metal in question is of the quality that should be required. Chairperson Messner stated the Commission needs to know what types of materials are available and not only the types allowed because it will be an issue at some point in the future. However, he stated that it should be dealt with when someone proposes to use it in the future, rather than now as ordinance change. Commissioner Palda agreed that it should be brought up again with other roofing possibilities. Mr. Zweber agreed and stated he will be sending out a letter to Centex instructing them that they either need to submit a change to the ordinance or remove the 411 roof and put an acceptable material on the front porch. Old Business: None. New Business: None. Reports: Community Development Director Lindquist introduced a new planning intern, Tom Morton. He will be primarily working on the comprehensive plan and may do a staff report in the future. Also, Ms. Lindquist reminded the Commission of the public meeting on June 18` for the Rural Residential area as part of the comp plan update. There will be three focus group meetings: rural residential, UMore, and land use on the far east side. The rural residential notices will go out on Tuesday. Ms. Lindquist provided an update on the Port Authority public hearing on eminent domain. Also, the Port Authority will be presenting RFQs for the Genz Ryan block in the near future. 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 7:22p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 PAGE 1 CaII to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Work Session of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 12, 2007. The meeting was called to order at 6:31p.m. with Commissioners Howell, Schwartz and Palda present. Commissioner Schultz arrived at 6:44p.m. Chairperson Messner was absent. Also in attendance were Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, Planning Intern Morton and Recording Secretary Hanson. Senior Planner Zweber stated that the July work session will be canceled and there will not be a work session in August, so the next work session meeting will be in September. Mr. Zweber also gave reminders of other calendar items: June 18 Comp Plan Open House, July 23 Comp Plan Open House. Mr. Zweber switched the order of the agenda items due to his need to leave the meeting early. Discussion: b. 2008 -2030 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities Element Senior Planner Zweber asked the Commission if they had any questions or comments regarding the draft goals and objectives of the community facilities element. Commissioner Schwartz questioned whether or not the objectives with respect to the St. Joseph's church parcel will be included in the comp plan even if the work is not completed until December. Mr. Zweber stated that the comp plan may need material may need to be inserted at the last minute upon completion. Commissioner Schwartz asked about a timeline on the UMore project. Mr. Zweber that the next step is in their court and then reviewed what UMore has recently been working on: environmental assessment, ordnance facility cleanup, costs and responsibilities. Mr. Zweber stated the comp plan will be amended with UMore information becomes available. a.2008 20 30 Comprehensive Plan Update: Environment and Natural Resources Goals Planner Lindahl stated the Commission needs to review and discuss the Environment and Natural Resources goals. Mr. Lindahl handed out another map of Rosemount's current natural areas which did not make the packet and then reviewed the Met Council's goals for natural resources and the City's nine goals for the comp plan. City of Rosemount's Environment and Natural Resource Goals 1. Preserve and protect the natural environment with emphasis on the conservation of needed and useful natural resources for the present and future benefit of the community. 2. Utilize natural resource areas to provide an overall open space system that satisfies the physiological and psychological needs of both individuals and the community. 3. Connect existing natural resources areas through a continuous greenway network creating a more ecological system of open space. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 PAGE 2 4. Promote sustainable environmental practices that preserve, protect and restore the natural environment while maintaining or enhancing economic opportunity and community well- being. Schwartz asked if we knew how many jobs exist in reserving natural resources as part of economic opportunity. Mr. Lindahl stated he did not have figures available but could do some research on the matter if requested by the Commission. 5. Create a livable community where future development respects and integrates the natural, cultural, and historic resources of the community. 6. Cooperate with federal, state, regional, and local governments as well as with residents' groups and nonprofit organizations to protect natural resources both within and around the City of Rosemount. 7. Promote environmentally friendly design standards such as Energy- Efficient Development, Green Infrastructure, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), and the like. 8. Encourage activities that reduce the consumption of finite resources and ensure there are opportunities to re -use or recycle natural resources. 9. Support and encourage community efforts in environmental awareness, education and stewardship. Commissioner Schwartz asked if an item regarding reducing the City's dependence on fossil fuels would be appropriate. Mr. Lindahl stated such an item could be an objective under Goal #8. Commissioner Schwartz asked whether or not there are federal regulations to deal with with respect to the Mississippi since it's a federal waterway. Mr. Lindahl replied no, not from a planning perspective, but that the DNR and Forestry Department are the reviewers of the MNRRA plans submitted as part of the comp plan. Commissioner Schultz asked if these goals are similar to other area cities such as Eagan or Inver Grove Heights. Mr. Lindahl stated he had yet to review other cities' goals but planned to do so. He stated it would make sense to review other cities for similarities. Commissioner Schultz asked if the City would come up with the community efforts referred to in Goal #9? Mr. Lindahl stated the Commission should come up with objectives to go under Goal #9 such as providing what programs can be offered on a local level to the community to promote environmental awareness. Commissioner Schwartz asked how much active ag land there currently is in Rosemount and Mr. Lindahl replied that he could have actual numbers for the Commission at a future meeting. Commissioner Schwartz asked if active living items would be added as objectives under Goal #5. Mr. Lindahl stated they will try to incorporate active living items when they are completed by the County. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 PAGE 3 Commissioner Schwartz asked if there will be any objectives with respect to the interpretive corridor. Mr. Lindahl replied that the Planning Department may possibly coordinate with the Parks Recreation department to complete those objectives. He stated the City Council would like to expedite the trail that will go to the new athletic complex. Mr. Lindahl stated that more detailed text will be provided to the Commission within the next month. Other Discussion /Reports: Planner Lindahl gave an update on the active living project. He reviewed the phone survey given to cities on active living and Rosemount seemed to have the most positive responses on active living. He stated that Blue Cross Blue Shield will be meeting with the City's active living committee sometime in the future. Mr. Lindahl shared an article from the Star Tribune with the Commission titled "Burbs to be hit by Senior Boom" regarding a study completed by the Brookings Institution on how the Baby Boom will affect suburbs. Commissioner Schwartz added she saw an article in the National Realtors Association newsletter that spoke about how senior living will increase in the area in the future. Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:46p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 26, 2007 PAGE 1 Call to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 26, 2007. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Howell, Schwartz, Schultz and Palda present. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, Project Engineer Dawley, Planning Intern Morton and Recording Secretary Hanson. The Pledge of Allegiance was read. Additions to Agenda: Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of the May 22, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes. b. Approval of the June 12, 2007 Work Session Meeting minutes. MOTION by Schwartz to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Palda. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 5.a. Case 07 -21 -SP and 07 -22 -CUP Intermediate School District #917 Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit. Senior Planner, Eric Zweber, presented this item. Intermediate School District (ISD) #917 is requesting site plan review and a conditional use permit to construct a 40,000 square foot school designed for approximately 100 students and offices for about 20 teachers with special skills such as Braille and sign language. The proposed location is at the former Dakota County public works facility on Biscayne Avenue between Beech St. W. and the railroad tracks. Mr. Zweber reviewed the site plan, and further discussed building massing and materials showing the Commission samples of the building materials, requirements of approving a conditional use permit, site access, parking and traffic flow, sanitary sewer and water service, stormwater management tree replacement and landscaping, lighting, and the Biscayne Avenue right -of -way. Chairperson Messner asked why it was suggested that the fencing on the east and south sides of the property be removed. Mr. Zweber responded that staff felt if there was a fence around the ponding area, people could get in the area, but may not be able to get out. If the fence was removed, then it wouldn't be an issue. The City generally discourages fencing around ponds and most projects do not contain fencing around them. Commissioner Schultz asked if some of the trees could be salvaged. Mr. Zweber responded that some could be but the landscape architect had identified some of the trees as ill or dying. The Applicant, John Christenson, Superintendent of District 917, approached the Commission and gave a brief synopsis of school operations including the number of students, transportation details and school hours. He stated there are between 60 -100 students who will get to the school around 8:30 and leave around 2:30 -3:00, by bus transportation. There would not be any after school or evening activities. There is a short summer school program. Faculty will arrive around 7:00 7:15a.m. and leave around 4:00- 5:OOp.m. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:43p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 26, 2007 PAGE 2 Maynard Ohm, 2412 Beech Street, asked who will own the property. Mr. Zweber responded that Dakota County CDA will purchase the property on behalf of District 917. Mr. Ohm then stated he wondered the feasibility of completely clearing the site and stated he thought it would pretty expensive to get the property ready for construction of the school. He wondered if it would be more economical to begin with an empty field. He also asked if there could be a fence along Beech Street. He also voiced his concern with the railroad tracks north of the property being very noisy for a school environment. Mr. Zweber said it would be up to the Commission to approve a fence along Beech Street. Cindi Potaracke, 2354 Belfast Street, lives on other side of the railroad tracks. She stated her concern with the safety for children attending school with the railroad being so busy. She stated residents in the neighborhood put up fences to keep their children safe from the railroad track and suggested there should be a fence or more of a buffer blocking the school children from the tracks. MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:49p.m. Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Christenson to come forward again and asked him why a fence along the east and south sides of the property was in the original design. Mr. Christenson stated they had felt it was in the interest of the neighbors to have a fence and District #917 had no problem with it. Mr. Christenson stated however that the City had stated a fence around the area was not consistent with the other schools in the community. It was the school's intention to use fencing more for a benefit to the neighborhood, but also to define where the children need to stay. Chairperson Messner asked what was envisioned for the north side of property with respect to the railroad tracks. Mr. Christenson stated there will be a berm completely along the north side of property, with a great amount of trees and shrubs and a fence along the inside of the berm. He also stated it was designed to have the playground area between the tracks and the building to help reduce the noise. It is also planned that noise resistant materials will be used in the building. With respect to the demolition concerns, Mr. Christenson stated that the school district was able to work with the County to complete the demolition at a very reasonable price. The blacktop is in poor condition and the buildings are basically block and concrete slab. The County has been through the pollution control agency for any issues. The demo process will try to salvage some of the items. Mr. Christenson stated that cost effective wise, going to a greenfield site with the cost of roads and utilities would easily outweigh the cost of demolishing the proposed site. Mark Lenz Lenz Architecture, approached the Commission to add a few details on the landscaping and berm. Commissioner Howell expressed her concern with the safety of the children and asked how much supervision they would have during play times. Mr. Christenson responded that the children will be supervised in small groups when outside so the opportunity to wander away is very limited. However, having fencing around the play area will help define the area so the students know the limitations. Commissioner Palda stated that since this school is so close to railroad tracks, it should be looked at differently than other schools in the city. He expressed his desire to have fencing on the north side to define the boundaries, but would exclude fencing on the south side. It was agreed upon by the Commission that there should be fencing to define the playground areas, but not around the entire site. Mr. Zweber stated Condition #7 should be modified. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 26, 2007 PAGE 3 MOTION by Howell to approve the Site Plan for a 40,000 square foot school for ISD #917, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the conditions within the Fire Marshall's Memorandum dated June 4, 2007, the Park and Recreation Director's Memorandum dated June 18, 2007 and the Engineering Department's Memorandum dated June 19, 2007. 2. Payment of the appropriate City Fees at the time of the issuance of building permit. The City Engineer has estimated the following fees based on the site plan submittal: Sewer Connection Fees SAC units are calculated by MCES Trunk Area Assessment 8.0 acres $1,075 /acre $8,600 MCES SAC Fee $1,675 /SAC unit City SAC Fee $1,200 /SAC unit Water Connection Fees Trunk Area Assessment 8.0 acres $4,860 /acre $38,880 City WAC Fee, 8" Meter $33,175 Storm Connection Fees Trunk Area Assessment 7.4 acres $6,665 /acre $49,321 City STAG Fee 7.4 acres $2,200 /acre $16,280 3. Confirm the existence of 50 feet of half right -of -way on Biscayne Avenue as indicated on the Survey Plan Sheet. 4. Any signage will require a separate administrative approval. 5. All roof top mechanical structures will require screening in accordance with the City Code. 6. The trash enclosure will need to be constructed with material similar to the building in accordance with City Code. 7. Removal of the chain link fence on the south and east side of the property except for the play areas. The chain link fence may remain on the north property line to provide separation from the rail line but shall be constructed of black vinyl coated chain links, posts and hardware. 8. Submission of a landscape security equal to one hundred and twenty five percent (125 of the cost of the plantings illustrated on the approved landscape plan prior to issuance of the building permit. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 26, 2007 PAGE 4 MOTION by Palda to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit of a 40,000 square foot school for ISD #917, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction of trail with a minimum of 8 foot width within the Biscayne Avenue Right -of- Way in accordance with the City of Rosemount Trail and Sidewalk Plan. 2. Removal of the two existing driveway entrances and replacing them with new driveways that meet City standards. 3. Revision of the landscape plan to supplement the existing landscaping to the south and the east. 4. Revision of the lighting plan to meet the lighting requirements of the C4 General Commercial zoning district. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. As follow -up, Mr. Zweber stated the conditional use permit will go before the City Council for approval on July 17th 5.b. Case 07 -24 -OM Official Map of the 42/52 Area. Planning Intern Morton presented this item. The current intersection of County Highway 42 /US Highway 52 is deficient to handle current traffic levels, and will become more dangerous as future traffic grows. Dakota County, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the City of Rosemount have come up with a joint solution to construct a more efficient intersection that can carry higher volumes of traffic. The purpose of this public hearing is to discuss the proposed Official Map to allow for improvements to the 52/42/55 interchange. Adopting the Official Map will prevent development from occurring in the area designated for future right -of -way needed for the new interchange during the time of Official Map approval and actual construction of the 52/42/55 interchange. Mr. Morton presented a map showing areas that will be needed for the right -of -way construction. Mr. Morton stated that John Sass from Dakota County is also present to answer any questions. Chairperson Messner asked for a timeline of events leading up to this point. Ms. Lindquist provided an overview of work on the plan since 2003. She stated that it is important to get the official map adopted to define right -of -way areas and create the ability to access funds. Mr. John Sass, Dakota County, approached the Commission. He stated there has been an EAW completed on the site and there are no significant impacts on the site. The County has been working on the layout in more detail to create the least right -of -way impact possible. The official map was prepared by MnDOT by a hired consultant. The County has federal money to use for friendly acquisitions, beginning with appraisals and meetings with residents. Adoption of the official map will give the opportunity to use RALF money, which is provided on a first come first some basis. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 7:12p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 26, 2007 PAGE 5 Mr. Rahn, owner of the Rich Valley Golf Course, at 3855 145 St E., stated that he will go out of business if the easements go where they are proposing. He would have to move approximately 7 greens, 5 tees, the driving range, and will lose 40 -60 spots in the parking lot. He is requesting that the frontage road access move approximately 1 /2 mile farther east rather than circle it right into his #1 fairway and driving range. If the frontage road access is placed to the east of the golf course and a road is place over to 145`'' which comes into Connelly, then the golf course customers would have to come up Connelly and then come back again. All that would be needed for the golf course would be a driveway coming from the west side. Mr. Rahn stated if the plan stays as it is, it would cost between 1.3 and 1.5 million to change the golf course. He is requesting that this new plan be considered, however, if they want to keep the right to put a frontage road across his property in the future, he would agree to that. Marlin Rechtzigel, 3330 145` Street East, stated that in the original intersection plans, service roads were not included. The residents were just informed of the service roads and the increased area of the right -of -way in the last week or 10 days. He stated he has talked to the city planner about what would be the increased acreage and the planner said it wouldn't change. He stated the right -of -way on his parcel had clearly increased so the acreage would change as well. He has talked to the DOT engineer who said this intersection would be sufficient for the next 10 years barring any development. Frank Knoll, 4322 145 Street East, asked if whether or not they are taking more land on his side of the road than the other and whether or not it is the end of the construction at that point. Ms. Lindquist replied that it is not the end of construction, just the end of the map. Mr. Knoll then asked when it is planned to put in the other streets running up to 138` running behind his property. Ms. Lindquist stated that there are two processes going on at the current moment: 1 official mapping based on the MnDOT approved layout; and 2 The County is working on a new layout with the intention to decide what the appropriate frontage roads and accesses to the parcels will be once the interchange is put in. The roads on the proposed map are options they will explore for access to other parcels. Randy Napper, 3381 145` speaking for Myron Napper asked about the reference in the staff report about land not acquired by the City within six months. Mr. Zweber clarified the six month timeline with respect to submitted permits and the appeal process. Ms. Lindquist further clarified that if the City cannot come up with the money to purchase the property within the six month time period, then the permit will be approved, if all other ordinance and building code regulations are met. Chairperson Messner clarified that at this point no one is talking about actively condemning property for the right -of -way purposes. Wes Knodt, 15102 Clayton Avenue East, asked about the driveways that appear on the map over his property and expressed his concern with the access from his property to Highway 52. Ms. Lindquist stated there have been discussions on the issue of the access being blocked. There will be public meetings in the future associated with accesses during this planning process. Mr. Knodt asked when the actual surveying will be completed. Ms. Lindquist replied that the surveying was actually done several years ago. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 26, 2007 PAGE 6 Mr. Myron Napper, 3381 145t Street East, approached the Commission and expressed his disappointment on how long this process has gone on. He asked what he can do when his property is deteriorating but the County won't buy it because they have no money. He stated he wants to be treated fairly in this process and not end up in Dr. Kurt Hansen's current position. Marlin Rechtzigel, 14727 Clayton Avenue, stated he owns three parcels involved in this process. He saw an article in the paper stating that one of the commissioners requested making this a 4 leaf clover instead of 3 leaves. He wondered if that proposal was still alive. Ms. Lindquist replied that this official map is based on the 2003 drawing and that the commission hasn't taken any action at this point; they are still working on the layout. Mr. Rechtzigel wanted to know where the accesses would be placed since he has 60 acres of property that may be affected. Ms. Lindquist stated that access issues are being reviewed right now and the City and County will be working in more detail with individual properties. Mr. Rechtzigel stated that this meeting was a waste of time and the public should be invited when there are more answers. MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:34p.m. Mr. Sass stated there are two separate issues. The official mapping is a state statute rule that provides a tool the City and County can use and it does not take any rights from the property owners. The second issue is background issues based on the map. When the County did the environmental work, they set out one frontage road through the golf course connecting to Connelly Road. They didn't do any other frontage accesses because there was zoning issues and land use issues. The designers did not want to spend to much time and dollars on land that would change before building commenced. Mr. Sass stated his job is to work out access issues looking at the ultimate vision and come to a balance. The frontage roads included on the map are just a concept. Chairperson Messner stated individual property particulars are not before the Commission tonight, but just the official map. By approving the official map, Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Sass if that then allow the process to facilitate early acquisitions. Mr. Sass replied that, yes, the money cannot be used unless you have an adopted official map. Mr. Sass also stated that once the map is adopted, he can then call the Met Council to have money available and then he can approach property owners. Commissioner Schultz stated she needed a good understanding on what she would be agreeing to at tonight's meeting. She stated she enjoys the golf course and wanted to make sure that what she agreed tonight would not jeopardize the golf course in the future. Mr. Sass responded that the right -of -way shown on the official map does go through the golf course parking lot and the driving range, but has no affect on the golf course access. Whether or not the Commission approves the official map does not mean the right -of -ways will stay that way. Mr. Sass stated alternatives will be evaluated and that the official map is just a footprint of the right -of -way and is more of a permitting issue. Commisioner Schwartz questioned the process and whether or not the Commission loses all control over the access issues once the official map is approved. Mr. Sass replied that the City has most control of the process on the official layout through the municipal consent process. There will be several open houses coming in the future. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 26, 2007 PAGE 7 Commissioner Palda asked about development of properties in the right -of -way. Ms. Lindquist confirmed that in adopting the official map, it is insuring there is not additional capital investment within the right -of -way area. Mr. Napper, 3381 145t Street East, approached the Commission again. He stated he had been at a meeting about a month ago pertaining to light rail and the speaker said it would be between 7 -14 years and there will be light rail in the 42/52 area. He stated he belongs to the Sierra Club and has heard that they would like to make his property a park -n -ride location. There was no further discussion. MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council approve the County Road 42 /US Highway 52 Official Map. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. As follow -up, Mr. Morton stated this item will go before the City Council for approval on July 17` 5.c. Case 07 -25 -LS Abrahamsen Lot Split. Planner Lindahl presented this item. The applicants, Hans J. and Phyllis M. Abrahamsen, request lot split approval to allow the creation of a 5.22 acre parcel from their existing 75.14 acre parcel. The site is currently used as farm land and contains several agricultural and storage buildings. Should the City approve the split and associated minor subdivision and declaration, the applicants intend to sell the new 5.22 acre property, including the agricultural and storage buildings, to another party for use as their homestead. The Abrahamsens will retain the 69.92 acre Parcel C with the understanding that it may not be used for another residential dwelling unit. Mr. Lindahl further reviewed the subdivision request including the land use and zoning issues, setbacks, streets and access, sidewalks, trails and pathway, utilities and easements, and parks and open spaces. The applicant was present but had no comments. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:OOp.m. Ken Schindeldecker, 4485 160t Street East, stated he has no problem with the proposed split. He lives on parcel A and has no problem with the setbacks of the buildings. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:01 p.m. Chairperson Messner asked the purpose of the Minor Subdivision Agreement and Declaration referred to in the second motion. Mr. Lindahl replied that the Agreement sets forth the conditions of approval of the lot split is in a form that is recordable against the property for future reference. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 26, 2007 PAGE 8 MOTION by Schwartz to recommend that the City Council approve a Lot Split to allow for the creation of a 5.22 acre parcel to be known as Parcel B from the existing 75.14 acre with a Parcel Identification Number of 34- 03100 010 -01 to be known as Parcel C, subject to the following conditions: 1. Execution and recording of the Minor Subdivision Agreement and Declaration prior to issuance of a building permit for Parcel B. 2. Dedication of an access easement of sufficient width to accommodate the necessary driveway from parcels A, B, and C to the right -of -way for 160 Street, prior to issuance of a building permit for Parcel B. 3. Conformance with all septic and well standards including, but not limited to, designation of both a primary and secondary drain field on site, prior to issuance of a building permit for Parcel B. 4. Payment of all applicable development fees including a $300 Geographic Information (GIS) fee and 1 unit of Park Dedication equal to $3,400, prior to issuance of a building permit for Parcel B. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. MOTION by Schultz to recommend that the City Council execute a Minor Subdivision and Declaration. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. As follow -up, Mr. Lindahl stated the item will go before the City Council for approval on July 17 5.d. Case 07 -22 -PP Ryan Companies Preliminary Plat. Planner Zweber presented this item. Ryan Companies has submitted a preliminary plat to develop a business park with approximately 560,000 square feet of office /warehouse buildings. The site is approximately 55 acres in size, 42 acres of which would be developed as the business park and 13 acres would be maintained by the city for an existing well house and future water treatment plant. Ryan Companies currently does not have any companies that are interested in locating within the business park, but the preliminary plat approval will allow Ryan to market the business park and request future final plats and site plan reviews when they locate interested companies. Mr. Zweber further reviewed the proposed land uses, site access, parking and traffic flow issues, landscaping, sanitary sewer and water service, and stormwater management. Chairperson Messner asked about part of the plat in the northeast corner along Boulder Trail and whether or not it is Pahl property or a City right -of -way. Mr. Zweber pointed out the actual edge of the right -of -way on the map and described rights associated with that. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 26, 2007 PAGE 9 Applicant, Joe Samuels, RLK Engineers working with Ryan Companies, approached the Commission. He stated they are in concurrence with the conditions set forth by the City. With respect to Item 15 in the engineering memorandum on stormwater issues with the JJT Property, he stated that they need to do more research on how the stormwater runoff from the JJT property will affect the stormwater pond on the Ryan parcel. Project Engineer Dawley provided further detail on the stormwater issue and what was intended by the memorandum. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:13p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:14p.m. There was further discussion among the Commissioners. MOTION by Messner to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of the Rosemount Business Park Third Addition for Ryan Companies, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the conditions within the Park and Recreation Director's Memorandum dated June 18, 2007 and the Engineering Department's Memorandum dated June 20, 2007. 2. Utilities, sidewalk, and street lights will need to be constructed with the future extension of Boulder Avenue. 3. The water main will need to be upsized from Outlot C (future water treatment plant) to the existing 12 inch main in Boulder Trail. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. Mr. Zweber stated this item will go before the City Council for approval on July 17` 5.e. Case 07 -20 -SP CHS Transportation Site Plan Review. Planner Lindahl presented this item. The applicant, Cenex Harvest State (CHS) Transportation, requests site plan approval to allow construction of 7,810 square feet of additional office space, 2,995 square feet of additional truck bay space and 16,250 square feet of additional outdoor truck storage. This is the first project to request planning approval under the new GI General Industrial District standards adopted in 2006. As such, some of the existing conditions on site do not conform to the new standards and are considered a legal nonconformity. Under state law, existing legal nonconformities are allowed to continue in their present form; however, any new development or expansion is required to meet the new standards. In this case, the applicant has met many of the new standards while in other instances staff and the applicant have worked together to bring the site closer to conformance with the new standards. Mr. Lindahl further reviewed the land use and zoning issues of the site, lot and building standards, building appearance and materials, parking issues, access issues, outdoor storage, Landscaping and berming, exterior lighting, trash enclosure, and signage. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 26, 2007 PAGE 10 Chairperson Messner asked if the light poles were lowered and the landscaping increased, would that address the outdoor lighting issues. Mr. Lindahl stated there are a number of options that could be looked at: reducing the height of the poles; adding shielding to the lighting; and reducing the intensity of the bulbs. Chairperson Messner asked whether or not the existing stormwater ponding is sufficient to accommodate the runoff from the additional impervious surface. Mr. Dawley responded that the stormwater ponding was previously approved with anticipation of the site expansion and it was sized sufficiently. Applicant, Mike Nolan, Division Operational Manager of CHS, 3290 140 Street East, stated his only request at this point is to be allowed to stay with the current landscaping, 6 foot evergreens that will eventually grow to the 10 foot requirement to avoid the additional cost of new trees. With regard to the screening for the employee parking, Mr. Nolan stated he has added quite a bit of landscaping on the front portion of the existing employee parking that they could move to the new parking lot. He stated a representative from their technical firm was present if the Commission had any questions about the building design or materials used. Chairperson Messner stated the proposed building looked nice. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:32p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Palda to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:33p.m. Chairperson Messner asked if the 114 plantings suffice to satisfy one of the landscaping conditions. Mr. Lindahl further explained the landscaping requirements of the site and stated the applicant can use those plantings where they will be most effective. There are perimeter requirements in addition to the screening requirements. It was an agreement among the Commissioners to keep the 8 foot requirement and allow the relocating of the front landscaping. MOTION by Howell to approve the site plan for CHS Transportation allowing the construction of 7,810 square feet of additional office space, 2,995 square feet of additional truck bay space and 16,250 square feet of additional outdoor truck storage, subject to conditions: 1. Approval of a revised Site Plan illustrating both the existing and additional outdoor truck storage areas. The square footage and percent of site for both the existing and additional areas and the total area shall be included in the Site Plan legend. 2. Approval of a revised landscape plan illustrating sufficient screening of the outdoor storage area and new parking area. The outdoor storage area shall be screened by a double row of at least eight (8) foot evergreen trees extending at least 430 feet along the eastern property line. The new parking area shall be screened by evergreen trees and /or shrubs to provide a minimum fifty (50) percent opacity screen to a height of at least four (4). The parking area screen shall extend from the western access to 140` Street East to the western edge of the PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 26, 2007 PAGE 11 parking area. The landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Submission of a landscape security equal to one hundred and twenty five percent (125 of the cost of the plantings illustrated on the approved landscape plan prior to issuance of the building permit. 4. Approval of a revised Lighting and Photometric plan with no light reading in excess of 1.0 Lumen at any property line and no new lights in excess of 30 feet in height. 5. Conformance with all conditions of the City Engineer as outlined in this report prior to issuance of a building permit. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. As follow -up, Mr. Lindahl stated that site plans do not go forward to the City Council. The Applicant will need to resubmit revised plans based on the required conditions and then move forward with the building permit. 5.f. Case 07- 15 -AMD Rosemount Crossing Major PUD Amendment. Planner, Jason Lindahl, presented this item. The applicant, Rosemount Crossing, LLC, requests their application for a Major Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to place an automatic teller machine (ATM) be tabled again to the July 24, 2007 regular Planning Commission meeting. The applicant makes this request to allow more time to prepare their plans. It was agreed to allow the extension to the July 24, 2007 regular Planning Commission meeting, but that this should be the last extension allowed. If the applicant is not ready to present their item at the July 24`'' meeting, they should withdraw their application and submit a new application when they are ready to proceed. MOTION by Messner to continue the Public Hearing for Rosemount Crossing, LLC to allow the placement of an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) to the July 24, 2007 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. Old Business: None. New Business: 7.a. 07 -23 -CON Anderson Concept Plan (Highway 3 County Road 46). Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Jerry Anderson has provided a commercial and business park concept plan for the Planning Commission's review. The concept plan proposes 119,100 square feet of retail commercial and 62,500 square feet of office /warehouse uses. Mr. Anderson also owns the PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 26, 2007 PAGE 12 businesses directly east of this site, AAA Auto Parts and U Pull R Parts. Mr. Anderson does not have any tenants identified for this development but is looking for input or any concerns that the City has about the concept plan before he begins marketing the property. Mr. Zweber further reviewed the proposed land use, site access, parking and traffic flow issues, and utilities. Chairperson Messner asked if the commercial zoning allowed auto service type uses. Mr. Zweber replied that those uses are not allowed in C4, but there are other commercial designations such as C3 that do allow it. The commercial comp plan usage is fairly liberal as to which commercial zoning designation can be used. Chairperson Messner agreed with the buffer idea and suggested a showroom type space as an alternative to the typical office warehouse space. He invited the applicant to come forward. Applicant, Jerry Anderson, approached the Commission and stated his partner, Jim Anderson, was also present. He stated his intent in presenting this to the Commission was for a marketing tool in representing this property to the market. He stated this will be helpful to have a proposed site plan to represent to a realtor. Commissioner Howell expressed her opinion that the buffer of a warehouse between the AAA and retail development is a good idea. She feels it would be a good spot for retail. Chairperson Messner again stated he wouldn't necessarily oppose office warehouse, but thinks some type of showroom type space might fit as well. Reports: Community Development Director Lindquist reported that representatives from UMore are prepared to make a presentation at the July 11 City Council work session and the Planning Commission is invited to attend. Ms. Lindquist gave a brief summary of current work on the UMore plan. Ms. Lindquist also reported that the Port Authority public hearing on eminent domain was continued to July 16 at 6:OOp.m. in the Dakota Room at DCTC due to the size of attendance of the last meeting. This next meeting will not be televised. A decision on the eminent domain issue is tentatively scheduled for August 6th. Mr. Zweber reported that the next comp plan open house will be on Monday, July 23" d on the parks and recreation plan, community facilities, and natural resources. Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Commissioner Schwartz made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Howell seconded. Upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 9:02p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 1 Call to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 24, 2007. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Howell, Schultz and Palda present. Commissioner Schwartz was absent. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, Project Engineer Dawley, Planning Intern Morton, City Engineer Brotzler, and Recording Secretary Hanson. The Pledge of Allegiance was read. Additions to Agenda: None. Audience Input: Charlie Koehnen, 12255 Rich Valley Blvd., Rosemount, came to the meeting to make note that Shafer Construction is hauling dirt back from a non -MnDot job which is in violation of the permit issued to them last fall. According to Mr. Koehnen, Shafer's response was due to the fact that the State gave them assistance, that assistance made it a MnDot job. Mr. Koehnen asked Project Engineer Dawley if the same would be the case on a project the City was working on, and Mr. Dawley replied that no, it would not qualify it as a MnDot job. Chairperson Messner stated a copy of the permit will be reviewed and he will then consult with staff and legal counsel regarding the matter. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of the June 26, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes. MOTION by Palda to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Howell. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 5.a. 07 -31 -CUP Rosemount High School Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Rosemount High School has a gas meter and associated piping that is located on the outside of the building that vandals have used to access the roof of the school. The school is requesting a conditional use permit to allow construction of a ten (10) foot tall security fence around the gas meter to prevent further access to the roof from this location. Applicant, Mike Schwanke, Facilities Coordinator for District #196, approached the Commission and thanked Mr. Zweber for the work completed on the staff report. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:36p.m. MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:37p.m. MOTION by Schultz to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Rosemount High School to construct a ten (10) foot tail security fence around a gas meter and associated piping. 411 Second by Howell. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 2 4111 As follow -up, Mr. Zweber stated this item will need to go before the City Council on August 21, 2007. 5.b. 07 -30 -CUP South Robert Square Daycare Center Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit. Applicant, Jayme Macchitelli requested a conditional use permit to allow a daycare facility in the existing building located at 2975 145 Street West. The site is commonly known as South Robert Square and until recently housed the Loch pharmacy. Planner Lindahl reviewed the site plan and the eight findings the Planning Commission must find in order to approve the conditional use permit. Also, Mr. Lindahl reviewed the standards required for daycare facilities. Chairperson Messner asked about the difference between the two easements required as conditions. Mr. Lindahl explained that the ingress and egress easement between the two properties is to insure both properties maintain access to 145` Street. The parking easement has to do with shared parking between the two properties. Chairperson Messner asked if the proposed outdoor play area left enough parking to accommodate the use. Mr. Lindahl replied that the City's parking requirements are based on the use of the building but the Downtown zoning district does not have parking requirements. Commissioner Schultz asked about the location of the drop off area and the flow of traffic. Mr. Lindahl pointed out on an aerial map where the applicant proposes putting a drop off and pick up area. Commissioner Palda asked if the number of children using the daycare was known. Mr. Lindahl replied that the applicant would be able to answer that question. State license mandates the number of children per square footage of area. Applicant, Jayme Macchitelli, 13586 Dellwood Way, was present and approached the Commission. She stated she felt having the play area in the back would be more convenient since no one usually parks in that area. Commissioner Howell asked how it is proposed to get the children to the play area from the daycare center. Ms. Macchitelli responded that the children will be supervised as they walk across the parking lot. Chairperson Messner asked the applicant how she proposes to configure the parking lot around the play area. Ms. Macchitelli stated they would block off parking spaces next to the play area, and the play area will be fenced with a gate. Mr. Lindahl further clarified that the play area would be designated with signs and it would be clear to the public that the spaces closest to the play area were not for parking. Chairperson Mesnner asked the applicant if she's had discussions with the other property owner. She stated she has not spoken with the other property owner; she was just recently made known of the parking easement issue. Chairperson Messner asked where the proposed drop off area would be. Ms. Macchitelli indicated on the aerial map 4 -5 parking spots marked off for drop off and pick up areas. She stated she is expecting 60 -70 total maximum children as allowed by the square footage of the building. Chairperson Messner asked if that requirement applied to the play area also and Ms. Macchitelli responded that no, not all of the children will be on the play area at the same time. Only about 15- 20 kids will be on the play area at one time. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:56p.m. Dr. Kurt Hansen, owner of the property approached the Commission and expressed his concerns with placing the play area next to the building affecting the traffic flow around the building. He stated that is why the applicant chose the back corner for the play area, not knowing about the parking easement with the bank. Dr. Hansen stated he has met with the bank and they may also 410 express their concerns at tonight's meeting. He stated his opinion that placing the play area in the corner would have the least impact on traffic flow in the parking lot and it is a more shaded area for PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 3 playing. It will close a connection from one parking lot to another which will cause drivers to back out of the lot, but it should not create any problems. Another concern of Dr. Hansen's is the fencing requirement of a 6 foot black vinyl chainlink fence. Dr. Hansen stated that State law requires only a 5 foot fence for daycare centers. He requests the Commission to allow the applicant to be able to choose between the 6 foot black vinyl fence or just a 5 foot regular chainlink without any vinyl. With respect to the parking easement, Dr. Hansen agreed there needs to be an agreement but doesn't understand why the City has to be a party to or even aware of such agreement and it shouldn't need to be a condition of approval. The play area will take five parking spaces away but then the bank will gain three parking spaces on the south side due to closing off the parking area. Dr. Hansen further stated that the drop off area next to the building will be active on two different occasions: drop off between 6:00a.m. 9:00a.m. and pick up between 4:00 6:OOp.m. The last item Dr. Hansen pointed out is that the applicant will not have the daycare license in place until the site is finished when the appropriate authorities can view the premises. Chairperson Messner asked Dr. Hansen if he has spoken with the bank with respect to the potential shifting of parking spaces back by the proposed play area. Dr. Hansen replied that yes, he has discussed it with the bank. Chairperson Messner then asked how the applicant proposes the parking spots by the play area will be used. Dr. Hansen replied that drivers will have to back out to the west using an area marked off for that purpose. With respect to the easement agreement between property owners, Chairperson Messner stated he did not see how the City could approve the conditional use permit without first knowing whether or not there was an agreement. Dr. Hansen said he had no objection to the requirement. Chairperson Messner asked Planner Lindahl where the actual property lines were located with respect to the aerial map and site plan. It was unclear as to the actual location of the property line but it appeared the play area proposed by the City would be located directly on the property line. Dr. Hansen also pointed out another option for a drop off /pick up area could be on the west side of the building. Mr. Lindahl responded by pointing out several difficulties with having a drop off area in that space. Dr. Hansen then noted that the applicant does not have a problem with the drop area that the City has suggested. Mark Toombs of First State Bank of Rosemount approached the Commission. He stated he has had discussions with Dr. Hansen. He stated he was at first apprehensive about the play area going in the corner and cutting off the parking lot access. However, the property line will go through the play area if it is placed next to the building. If the City requires planters to be placed along the property line, the Bank would ask that the planters not be placed on Bank property. As a result, the play area would have to be pushed to the east closer to the building. Mr. Toombs stated this would be disruptive to the parking area of the other building tenants. He also expressed his concern with the one drop off option in the area on the west side of the building due to bank customers backing out of the spaces just west of the driveway. Mr. Toombs stated he has spoken with Schwanz Surveyors who completed the survey for the Bank and they are trying to locate their copy of the survey. In the meantime, Mr. Toombs stated the blue line on the aerial map is a good representation of what he feels is the property line. Commissioner Schultz asked Mr. Toombs what the current snow removal consisted of. Mr. Toombs pointed out an area on the aerial map where the snow is usually piled, just south of the proposed play area. Commissioner Schultz then asked how Mr. Toombs felt the drop off /pick up area would affect the flow of traffic with the added difficulty of snow. Mr. Toombs replied that the recent amount of traffic in the parking lot has decreased and snow is usually removed in the off hours of the day and so he doesn't expect it to be a problem. Commissioner Schultz questioned the height of the snow pile and whether or not there could be a problem with kids climbing onto PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 4 the snow pile from the play area. Mr. Toombs responded saying they would move the snow pile a few feet from the play area fence thus making it difficult for children to play on the pile unless they left their supervisors and the play area. He stated that overall, he favors having the play area in the back corner, but that there would have to be a parking agreement between the owners. There was no further public comment. MOTION by Schultz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:25p.m. Commissioner Schultz stated she was now more comfortable with where the applicant wanted the play area. However, she stated she would like to see additional signage or striping so motorists can see there is a definite walking path. Mr. Lindahl stated the Commission has the ability to add conditions if they so desire. Community Development Director Lindquist added that the point Commissioner Schultz is making about the extra safety measures simply reiterates the reason why staff suggested the play area be placed next to the building. Staff has talked to the City Attorney and with the conditional use permit, the Commission has some latitude with determining the conditions, but not so much with the site plan review. Staff drew the drop off area and the play area on the site plan, the applicant did not supply these details. Ms. Lindquist stated that the use has to accommodate the site and the site has to accommodate the use. She also stated that the City does not support the proposed drop off area in the west corner of the site. Chairperson Messner stated he would like to see a survey so the exact property lines can be determined. He also stated he does not like the play area next to the building for reasons stated by the applicant, as well as it being right on the property line. However, he stated he does not like the play area situated in the back (west) corner of the site because the children then need to walk across the driveway and parking lot to get there. Commissioner Howell stated her first opinion of the application was the site is not the right place for a daycare. She stated it would be nice to come up with another option for the play area but was unsure of what other options are available. Ms. Lindquist asked Mr. Toombs when he thinks Schwanz would have a survey available. Mr. Toombs stated he talked to Schwanz on Monday, July 23` and they said they would look for it. Chairperson Messner stated before he would be ready to make a decision on this application, he wants to see a survey, there needs to be an access agreement and he would like to see how the play area would look and how the children will get to it. Commissioner Schultz stated that with 60 -70 kids being dropped off and picked up, she would like to see some type of stated traffic flow telling motorists which way to come and go so there's one direction of flow. With respect to the play area, Commissioner Schultz stated the issue with the back area is the public safety with children walking across the parking area. She stated she would like to see extra striping and signage. Chairperson Messner recommended this item be tabled so the applicant can come back with modifications and more detail. There was no further discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 5 MOTION by Chairperson Messner to table the Conditional Use Permit application submitted by Jayme Macchitelli until the applicant can come back with more detailed plans and a survey. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. 5.c. 07- 26 -PP, 07- 27 -ZA, 07- 28 -PUD Prestwick Place Preliminary Plat. Arcon Development, Inc. has submitted applications for approval of a Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan for approximately 285 acres north of County Road 42, 205 of which are west of Akron Ave and 80 of which are east of Akron Ave. The development will include approximately 235 acres of residential development and 50 acres of commercial development. Senior Planner Zweber explained that the purpose of this public hearing is to provide a general overview of the project to the Planning Commissioners and the public, but staff is recommending continuance of the applications until additional details can be addressed by the applicant. The plans that the developer has submitted to the City need revisions before a formal recommendation can occur, but staff has elected to bring this draft proposal before the Planning Commission and the public to discuss a number of big picture issues so that appropriate plan changes can be made to reflect the Commission's direction. Based on the Planning Commission discussion, the developer will need to revise the plans before the August 28 meeting in anticipation of a formal recommendation of the Planning Commission. Prestwick Place will only be put on the August 28 meeting if they have satisfactorily addressed the issues raised at tonight's meeting and within staff memorandums. Mr. Zweber reviewed the recommended revisions that the developer should make before the August 28 meeting. Mr. Zweber reviewed the site plan, the proposed zoning, and the proposed housing styles. He presented five questions that need to be answered: 1. Should the size of the single family lots next to Bloomfield be expanded to 80 foot wide lots? 2. Should the City allow the use of sheet metal roofing for residential uses? 3. Is the park too small for the amenities included? 4. Should additional private amenities be included comparable to other Planned Unit Developments such as Evermoor, Harmony and the CDA site? 5. Should higher levels of architecture be expected from houses and townhouses visible from major public streets such as Connemara Trail and Akron Avenue? Applicant, Rick Packer, Arcon Development, approached the Commission. Also present wereKari Gill from Dakota County CDA, Jay Liberacki from Lennar, and Steve Ach from Centex Homes. Mr. Packer stated that Arcon Development's only outstanding issue is the rezoning of the commercial area. He stated they are currently working on the parks with the Parks Commission. Steve Ach, Centex Homes, approached the Commission. He stated Centex Homes has about six issues they would like to discuss. First issue is the lot sizes and setbacks along the Bloomfield development. The largest houseprint is 56 feet wide. They would need a 5 foot setback in order to allow the homes they would like. Mr. Ach stated they tried to provide some mitigation of having PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 6 landscaping along the rear yards to compliment the residents along the west side. He stated with 72 foot size lots, they are not going to build less of a home and they can still build 3 car garages. Chairperson Messner asked if the 56 foot wide houseprint includes a 3 car garage. Mr. Ach stated that it does. Chairperson Messner then asked how the elevation of the new lots compared with the existing lots in the Bloomfield development. Mr. Ach replied that he believed the new lots were a little higher in elevation and that Centex Homes plans on trying to match the grade and possibly place a berm between the lots. Mr. Ach stated their second issue was the use of metal for roofing. He passed out an additional elevation for the Commission to view and stated that Centex can provide more information on the metal roofing if requested. Mr. Ach stated their third item to point out to the Commission was with respect to the area planned for the 55+ age group. Centex Homes changed the plan from an attached 3 unit building to small lots with detached homes. Mr. Ach stated they have explored the market and found a stronger preference for detached homes. The building change will be brought to the August meeting, together with a more detailed plan on the amenities provided in that area consisting of a social gathering area with a trail, fireplace and grilling facilities. The fourth item Mr. Ach wanted to see discussed was the pedestrian systems throughout the development to Connemara and out to Akron. The fifth issue was the setback requirement of 7.5 feet in the development with 56 and 51 foot wide lots. Mr. Ach stated that the homes in those areas will not have any opportunity for expansion. The 7.5 setback will ensure 15 feet between buildings as opposed to the 5 -10 setbacks. The final issue Mr. Ach spoke of pertains to the rezoning in the active adult area. With the change from the attached 3 unit buildings to the single detached buildings, the zoning designation should be R -2 rather than R -3 as originally planned. Jay Liberacki, representing Lennar approached the Commission. He stated Lennar has two issues they would like to discuss: amenities and architecture. Mr. Liberacki stated when they build amenities with developments, they have two primary needs: tot areas and dog exercise areas. He stated they did have a trail planned within the greenbelt in the west side development which was taken out due to stormwater issues. Those issues have been resolved. Several of the asphalt areas will be replaced with green space. Mr. Liberacki pointed out some architectural details on some elevations. Mr. Zweber shared his concern with the ends of the back -to -back buildings facing the public streets. Rick Packer of Arcon Development spoke again and stated his appreciation to the Commission for allowing this item to be presented in pieces while some of the details are worked out. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:31p.m. Dave Durigan,14160 Atwood Court, owns property on the eastern edge of the Bloomfield development. He stated his concerns about the proposed 72 foot lots and whether or not the elevation difference between the lots will cause drainage into his lot. He stated he would like to see the same association standards as in the Bloomfield development so there is a smooth transition between neighborhoods. Jeff Geske -Peer, 14148 Atwood Court, approached the Commission. He encourages 80 foot lots because otherwise the plan looks crowded. He would like to see a neighborhood out his backyard that is similar to his, keeping in mind the future marketability of his home. Mr. Geske -Peer stated he is aware of elevation differences and he is concerned there will be drainage into his yard. He suggested a berm between the developments. Mr. Geske -Peer also mentioned the grove of trees on the eastern side of the development and that he's heard those trees will not be kept. He would like those trees to remain if possible because they block the lights of the refinery. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 7 There were no further public comments. MOTION by Schultz to continue the Public Hearing to the August 28, 2007, meeting. Second by Howell. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was continued. Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Zweber where the grove of trees were located the resident was referring to. Mr. Zweber pointed out where the trees are located and stated that none of the trees are specified as heritage trees and actually are inferior types of trees. Chairperson Messner then began discussions on each issue that needed to be addressed before the next meeting on August 28, 2007. With respect to whether or not the size of the single family lots next to Bloomfield be expanded to 80 foot wide lots, Commissioner Schultz asked if there has been similar requests from other neighborhoods. Mr. Zweber replied that there has been a couple but with unique circumstances such as the amount of trees on the lots. Mr. Zweber clarified that it is not the entire area of 72 foot lots to consider making 80 foot lots, but only the homes next to the Bloomfield development. Commissioner Howell stated she would like to see the 80 foot lots on the western line. Chairperson Messner agreed that 80 foot lots would provide a smoother transition between the developments. Mr. Ach provided that 72 foot lots with 10 foot setback would not allow 2 car 41) garages, but 80 foot lots can retain 10 foot setbacks. On the matter of metal roofing, Chairperson Messner reiterated from previous meetings on the subject of metal roofing that the Commission had preferred that metal only be used for accents. Commissioner Howell stated her main concern with large amounts of flat surface that were metal would cause insurance rates to rise if there was damage from a hail storm. Chairperson Messner stated he was open to the idea but the Commission would need to see more information before amending the City Code on allowed roofing materials. Chairperson Messner stated his agreement in allowing setbacks of 7.5 feet on each side in the 56 and 51 foot lots. The other Commissioners agreed. With respect to parks and other amenities, Chairperson Messner stated he would like to see more detail on the reserved Outlot. He is pleased with the trails, dog areas and tot areas. He stated he would like to see a central park area on the western side. Regarding the architectural areas that are open to public view, Chairperson Messner stated he would like see the end elevations of those buildings at the next meeting. With respect to the zoning designation of the commercial area, Rick Packer of Arcon Development stated that they are not requesting the PUD part of the zoning of the commercial area. They are requesting the C -4 zoning so they can give the prospective commercial entities an idea of what will be allowed there. Mr. Zweber stated that in order to grant zoning, the City needs to see a proposed concept. Ms. Lindquist further clarified that the whole project came in as a PUD, so staff expected the commercial area to be presented as a PUD. Mr. Packer again stated he would like just the C -4 zoning first and then come back with a PUD when there is a plan. There was no further discussion on the issues. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 8 Old Business: None. New Business: None. Reports: Community Development Lindquist gave an update on the Port Authority's process on the possible use of eminent domain. The next meeting will be Monday, August 6, 2007. 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 9:05p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 PAGE 1 CaII to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 28, 2007. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Howell, Schultz, and Schwartz present. Commissioner Palda was absent. 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: Consent Agenda: a. Approval of the July 24, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes. MOTION by Schwartz to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Howell. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 5.a. 07- 26 -PP, 07- 27 -ZA, 07- 28 -PUD Prestwick Place Preliminary Plat. Arcon Development has submitted applications for approval of a Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan for approximately 285 acres north of County Road 42. The Planning Commission discussed with Arcon a number of issues that would need to be revised within the plan. Arcon was not able to make these revisions in time for staff to review the plans before tonight's Planning Commission meeting. Staff has recently received the revisions and will be prepared to discuss the plan visions at the September 11 Planning Commission meeting. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue public hearing on the Prestwick Place development until the September 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION by Howell to continue the Public Hearing to the September 11, 2007, meeting. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was continued. 5.b. 07 -13 -TA Sign Ordinance Text Amendment. Planner Lindahl presented this item. Recently, staff noticed that the City's existing sign ordinance needed updating in three areas: general purpose and permitting procedures, free speech, and temporary sign standards. At meetings on March 13` and April 24 of this year, the Planning Commission reviewed proposed changes to the temporary sign performance standards and briefly discussed the purpose and permitting procedure as well as the free speech issues. Since the last meeting, staff has been working with the City Attorney and relying on the League of Minnesota Cities to update the City's Sign Ordinance as it relates to theses three issues. In addition, staff presented the temporary sign permit standards and discussed the proposed permitting and free speech changes to the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce during their June 12 meeting. It was noted that Discover Rosemount declined an offer to make the same presentation. The amended ordinance contains changes related to these issues. Staff intends to continue working on the sign ordinance and reevaluate the various zoning districts sign regulations. However, it was felt that issues relating to temporary signs and free speech signs warranted the current amendments. Mr. Lindahl further reviewed the changes affecting the following sections: Findings, Purposes and Effect; Severability; Definitions; Administration and Enforcement; General Regulations; Prohibited Signs; District Regulations; and Substitution. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 PAGE 2 Commissioner Schultz asked about the type of sign that was placed in front of Celt's downtown and how that type of sign is affected by the ordinance amendments. Mr. Lindahl replied that temporary changeable copy signs with lights or letters are deemed more appropriate for the non downtown commercial areas. The ordinance was amended to prohibit those types of signs in the downtown area. Mr. Lindahl further explained the proposed standards for temporary signs in the downtown area and other commercial areas, not downtown. Chairperson Messner inquired about free standing sidewalk signs and Mr. Lindahl explained the standards regarding size and the time limitations for temporary signs. Commissioner Schwartz asked about how the ordinance relates to real estate signs specifically signs placed away from the subject property. Mr. Lindahl stated the ordinance prohibits signs hung in trees or placed in the right of way. However, he stated that staff realizes there is a need within the real estate community to place the sign to advertise homes. He invited comments or suggestions from the Commission on how aggressive the City should be in the enforcement of real estate signs. Commissioner Schwartz stated she felt that real estate signs placed within the right of way or in an area other than the property should be prohibited completely or restricted to a time limit. Chairperson Messner suggested treating them as sidewalk signs that are required to be taken down at the end of each day. Community Development Director Lindquist stated that it would be easier for the City to completely prohibit real estate signs rather than place a daily time limitation on them. The prohibition would allow staff to administer and enforce the ordinance easier and also there is a question about favoring one type of advertising sign over another. Commissioner Schwartz said this should also apply to builder /developer signs which can be up for years. Chairperson Messner asked about the requirements of a for -sale sign placed an industrial building someone is trying to sell and whether or not they would need a permit for such a sign. Mr. Lindahl pointed out which section in the ordinance would apply to that type of sign. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 7:02p.m. There were no public comments. Mr. Lindahl further explained staff's desire to continue the item and the public hearing to give the public an additional chance to speak at the next meeting. MOTION by Schwartz to continue the Sign Ordinance Text Amendment and the Public Hearing to the September 25, 2007, meeting. Second by Howell. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was continued. Old Business: 6.a. 07 -30 -CUP South Robert Square Daycare Center Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit. The applicant, Jayme Macchitelli, requests a conditional use permit to allow a daycare facility without an on -site outdoor play area in the existing building located at 2975 145th Street West. The site is commonly known as South Robert Square. This item was last before the Commission on July 24`". At that meeting, the Commission held a public hearing and then tabled the item to allow the applicant more time to consider the location of the outdoor play area and provide more detailed plans. Since then, the applicant has revised their application by removing the outdoor play area. As a result, staff has re- evaluated the application without this item and is prepared to recommend approval subject to conditions. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the conditions required for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 PAGE 3 Commissioner Schultz asked about the access to Central Park with children crossing Highway 3 and whether or not extra signage or striping could be placed at the intersection making drivers more aware of children crossing. Mr. Lindahl provided an aerial of the area, noting that there is an existing stoplight and the crosswalks are already striped. Mr. Lindahl indicated that the City generally does not install those types of signs and it is unclear if a sign would even be permitted since Hwy 3 is a State controlled road. Commission Schultz asked the applicant at what point in Highway 3 would the children be crossing to get to Central Park. John Wuchko, 20046 Hoya Court, Lakeville, and Jayme Macchitelli, 13586 Dellwood Way, Rosemount approached the Commission. Ms. Macchitelli responded that they would cross at the stoplight at the intersection of Highway 3 and 145t Street. Mr. Wuchko, the applicant's father, responded that they would cross the street with all of the children holding a rope with an adult on both ends. In some circumstances, the daycare may also bus the children to parks and other activities. Commissioner Howell stated she felt better now about the children crossing Highway 3 because of the stoplight and the crosswalk, rather than the children crossing a busy parking lot as previously proposed. Chairperson Messner pointed out that Central Park is only one of three options for available parks. Commissioner Schultz stated she is concerned that the people in Rosemount are not used to seeing children crossing that intersection. MOTION by Schultz to recommend the City Council approve a conditional use permit allowing a daycare facility without an on -site outdoor play area at the property located at 2975 145th Street West, subject to the following conditions: 1. Issuance of a building permit. 2. The existing trash enclosure shall be brought into and maintained in compliance with ordinance standards prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Four (4) drop- off /pick -up parking stalls shall be installed as illustrated on the attached site map. These four drop- off /pick -up stalls shall have signage designating them as "Drop off /Pick -up Only" stalls for the hours of 6 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 4. The Employee Parking stalls shall be installed as illustrated on the attached site map and have signage designating them as "Employee Parking." 5. The applicant shall submit copies all applicable state, county, and city licenses to the Planning Department for inclusion in the application file prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. This application does not include an on -site outdoor play area. Should the applicant wish to add an on -site outdoor play area to this permit, they will be required to follow the conditional use permit amendment process as outlined in the City Code and pay all 411 associated fees. Second by Schwartz. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 PAGE 4 Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Mr. Lindahl stated this item would normally go to the September 18 City Council meeting but that the applicant has requested and the City has agreed to expedite the matter and move it to the September 4`'' City Council meeting. New Business: 5.a. 07- 26 -PP, 07- 27 -ZA, 07- 28 -PUD Prestwick Place Commercial Area Zoning. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Arcon Development has submitted applications for approval of a Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan for approximately 285 acres north of County Road 42. At their July 24 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed with Arcon a number of issues that would need to be revised within the plan including the additional information needed to approve a rezoning of the commercial area. Staff requests direction from the Planning Commission regarding the potential commercial area regulations for Prestwick Place. Mr. Zweber further explained what commercial businesses the City would allow in that area and what uses could go on either outlot within the commercial area. Mr. Zweber stated a couple of changes Arcon has requested. Commissioner Schwartz asked how much square footage a Super Target has and Mr. Zweber replied about 90,000 square feet and could be accomodated on the east side commercial area. Chairperson Messner inquired how much square footage in a Kohls department store and Mr. Zweber stated the Kohls store in Apple Valley is approximately 48,000 square feet. Chairperson Messner stated he approves the reduction of the east side minimum square footage requirement to 60,000 square feet and also approves the request to be able to switch the standards from one side of the area to the other. The other Commission members were in agreement. With respect to the outside storage area, Chairperson Messner stated that most materials involved with stores like Home Depot and Lowes are contained inside the building. He stated his preference, given the residential density of the area, is to leave the limitation to 20,000 square feet as initially proposed. Chairperson Messner stated he would need to see the proposed project before allowing more than 20,000 square feet. The other Commission members were in agreement. The Applicant, Rick Packer of Arcon Development, approached the Commission. Mr. Packer stated he would like to have as much flexibility with the 45,000 square feet as possible. He would like to look at uses that are oriented to the neighborhood or surrounding development. He stated he does not see commercial development occurring on this site for quite some time. Mr. Packer pointed out that the most important thing that a big box business will be dependent on is at least a three quarter access on Akron and the County has yet to agree to it. If the access is not approved, development may be further delayed. However, Mr. Packer stated that going forward with the commercial rezoning will help in marketing the property. Chairperson Messner stated he would like to see some flexibility within the 45,000 square feet requirement but agrees there should be some type of major anchor within that area. He stated that whatever the combination of square footage, there needs to be a minimum threshold to have an anchor in that space. Chairperson Messner suggested a hotel could be added to the acceptable uses. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 PAGE 5 Reports: Community Development Lindquist reported the City is moving ahead with the downtown project. At the Port Authority meeting on August 21", architecture and design of the Stonebridge project was discussed. Staff is hoping to have a Development Agreement approved by late September or early October. At the September 18 meeting, the Port Authority is interviewing the one firm who submitted a proposal on the Genz Ryan property. Mr. Zweber gave an update on the comprehensive plan process and stated that due to current schedule of the Port Authority, the economic development section will be delayed. On October 9, 2007, there will be an open house held for the east side industrial area. 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 7:45p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 1 Call to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 11, 2007. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Howell, Schwartz and Palda present. Commissioner Schultz was absent. Also in attendance were Senior Planner Zweber, 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 August 28, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes. MOTION by Howell to approve the. Consent Agenda. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 5.a. 07- 26 -PP, 07- 27 -ZA, 07- 28 -PUD Prestwick Place Preliminary Plat. Arcon Development has submitted applications for approval of a Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan for approximately 285 acres north of County Road 42. The Planning Commission discussed with Arcon a number of issues that would need to be revised within the plan. Arcon was not able to make these revisions in time for staff to review the plans before tonight's Planning Commission meeting. This is a continuation of the public hearing opened at the meeting on July 24, 2007, and further continued on August 28, 2007. Mr. Zweber highlighted the changes to the plan since the meeting on July 24, 2007. One item to discuss is the requested rezoning of the various areas. Mr. Zweber went through each area and details that need to be discussed. The areas include the Dakota County CDA townhomes and apartments, the Arcon commercial property, Arcon single family residential, and Lennar townhouses. Commissioner Howell asked if there was any type of buffering between the single family and multi- family housing. Mr. Zweber replied the applicant does provide additional landscaping beyond the trees on the street, but the majority of the buffering is provided through the landscaping around the actual units. He also stated that not a lot of focus was put on the landscaping in that area since it is assumed that people who buy the single family homes there should realize there are multi- family homes across the street. Commissioner Schwartz asked whether or not the townhouses have two car garages. Mr. Zweber replied yes, with the exception of the Dakota County CDA townhomes. Applicant, Rick Packer, Arcon Development, approached the Commission and stated his appreciation of the extra time allowed to present their item. With respect to the architectural control of the single family homes, Mr. Packer stated Arcon did not think of the architectural guidelines that he submitted as the City Code. He further stated that Arcon would agree with using half brick on the front of homes and a 7:12 roof pitch, with the exception of houses with porches. In that event, Arcon would install brick on the front of the garage rather than placing half brick behind a porch where it would not be seen. Mr. Packer wanted to clarify what was meant by Arcon being required PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 2 to maintain the stormwater basins. If the City was requiring Arcon to maintain the landscaping, that would be acceptable. But Arcon would resist maintaining the actual stormwater infrastructure once the landscaping is established. Chairperon Messner also asked for clarification on the stormwater maintenance. Project Engineer Dawley responded that within the subdivision agreement, the City's role would be set forth in maintaining the stormwater structures. However, the City should not have to replace each tree that may die or pick up garbage every spring. Mr. Dawley stated it will be set forth in the subdivision agreement that the City will be responsible for maintaining the stormwater infrastructure, but any other aesthetics of the property will be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. Jay Liberacki, with Lennar Corporation, approached the Commission to discuss three issues pointed out by staff. The first issue was with Condition #7 regarding additional landscaping. Mr. Liberacki agreed with the adding more landscaping along County Road 42 where homes abut the highway. However, he stated he does not agree with more landscaping in the outlot away from the units where the focus should be on foundation plantings rather than trees in the outlot. With respect to additional landscaping between the townhomes and parks, Mr. Liberacki stated that Lennar is contributing significantly to upgrade those parks so those areas will be attractive viewing areas. He stated he does not agree with additional screening to prevent residents to be able to view those areas. Mr. Liberacki added that the last area, Outlot F, will have attractive architecture that should not be screened from public view. The second issue was with respect to Condition #9, the treatment of guest parking at the end of the private driveways. Mr. Liberacki stated that this practice has been successful in other communities. Mr. Liberacki stated Lennar had previously connected the driveways with guess parking but redesigned that feature while working with the fire department. It would be possible to go back to that design if the City so required. With respect to the tot lot requirement in Condition #12, Lennar would agree with including a tot lot on the west side in the outlot with a connecting trail but would then expect a tot lot in the park Lennar is contributing to with park dedication fees. Mr. Liberacki stated that gazebos are not very often used although they are attractive structures. Lennar would prefer to use a larger play area than a gazebo. With respect to the trail system request on the east side, Mr. Liberacki stated that Lennar did not intend that trail to be an integral part of the city's trail system, but rather an inner private trail for residents. Mr. Liberacki stated there should be a sidewalk on the side of Street 17 to satisfy the City's need to connect the trailways. Mr. Liberacki further stated that with respect to Condition #13 requiring Lennar to submit a playground structure plan to staff is acceptable to Lennar, but the part that states the City would review and approve the structure for age appropriateness does not seem fair. Mr. Liberacki stated that Lennar works with a vendor who specializes in playground structures and are the best judge of age appropriate structures. Mr. Liberacki stated that he does not feel it appropriate for staff to have the power to veto the designed submitted by Lennar's vendor without understanding the buyer's profile as the vendor does. In closing, Mr. Liberacki stated that Lennar looks forward to building in the neighborhood and believes they will become an asset to the City of Rosemount. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 3 Chairperson Messner asked to view the end unit profile of the single townhomes. A discussion took place as to the architectural details on the end of the units and the discrepancies between the photographs and the watercolors. Chairperson Messner stated he would prefer to see some architectural features that break up a plain wall on the end of the unit. Chairperson Messner stated he agrees to some level that there doesn't necessarily need to be full screening at the end of the units from the parks, just mainly along the roadways. Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Liberacki about the type of parking where 65% cannot back up and whether or not this type has been successful in other communities. Mr. Liberack replied yes, and that guests should be able to back into and out of the residents' driveway. Chairperson Messner asked whether or not residents would be able to back out of their driveways if guests are parked at the end. Mr. Liberacki replied yes and that the only complaints Lennar has received on this issue is when residents park their own cars at the end for long period of times. He further stated that the driveways could be designed a couple of feet wider to allow for back up space or the spaces could be placed off to the side rather than at the end which would make it a higher percentage. He stated this has worked in other communities. Mr. Zweber informed the Commission it would not be acceptable if additional parking reduced the amount of open space. Chairperson Messner agreed that Lennar would need to meet the 20% open space requirement. Chairperson Messner stated that he does not have a problem with some of the parking as designed by Lennar but would prefer to see a greater percentage of it, not necessarily just at the end but more allowance for residents to back out of the driveways if there are cars parked at the end. Commissioner Schwartz asked Mr. Liberacki what demographics Lennar is looking for stating her concern with the high number of inside units. Mr. Liberacki replied that the demographics is changing where typically these homes 3 -4 years ago were purchased by first time home buyers with small children. Now, he stated, that with the cost of new housing and current foreclosure rates, residents are beginning to stay longer and now single parents are included in the buyers. Commissioner Schwartz stated that if buyers are evolving to an older family entity with older children, there should also be basketball courts and additional parking for teenagers with cars. Mr. Liberacki replied he did not feel basketball courts would be a welcome amenity adjacent to the home units, but rather in a park further away where older kids can ride bikes to or walk to without accompaniment of an adult. Commissioner Schwartz then asked if the center units are equally as popular as the end units. Mr. Liberacki replied that no, the center units are not as popular and they will be priced accordingly. With the continuation of the public hearing, Chairperson Messner invited the public to come forward with comments. There were no public comments. MOTION by Palda to close the public hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:40p.m. With respect to Condition #12 and the private amenities on the west side, Mr. Zweber stated that the common lot may be a more appropriate option for additional amenities although there is a gas line and retaining wall in the area. Also, the trail could occur in a wider arc than suggested by the applicant. Mr. Zweber stated both issues are legitimate to explore further. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 4 411 With respect to the Condition #9 off street requirement, Mr. Zweber stated that if there is parking at the end, it should be sufficiently far enough away from the residents' driveways and in some instances, there is a back -up area provided. Mr. Zweber further stated he would be reluctant to let the percentage go lower than 25 Chairperson Messner stated he is uncomfortable with the wording of Condition #9 and wondered if it required the elimination of stalls that do not allow vehicles to backup. Mr. Zweber replied that yes, that was the intent of the condition. Commissioner Schwartz stated she was concerned about the precedent set and wondered where else in Rosemount this type of parking is used. Mr. Zweber replied that it used on a very limited basis in Harmony, possibly 12 stalls for the 300 townhouse units. Commissioner Schwartz stated her concern with the quality of life for residents to live there with it being such a crowded and congested area. She recommended staying with the low numbers as in the Harmony area. Commissioner Howell agreed that it would be very difficult to back out in the crowded areas as proposed. Commissioner Schwartz recommended the 10% usage equal to Harmony and Chairperson Messner agreed to modify Condition #9 to allow for no more than 10 Chairperson Messner stated Condition #13 should be modified to delete the words "age appropriate" with respect to the City review and approval of playground structures. Chairperson Messner then addressed Condition #7 with respect to additional landscaping. He stated he agreed with requirement for additional landscaping on top of the berm all along County Road 42 to where it meets Street 14. Along Street 14 to Street 9, Chairperson Messner agreed to with additional landscaping to Street 9. Chairperson Messner agreed to strike the requirement along the common lot 29 boundary with the City Park. With respect to the south side of the berm on common lot 107 along the Connemara Trail frontage, Mr. Zweber suggested 2 -4 feet of additional landscaping to fill in the gap along Connemara. The Commission was in agreement. Before the motion was made by the Commission, Mr. Zweber pointed out that if written approval of the 3 /4 access on Akron is not received, the C4 rezoning of the commercial area will be withdrawn. MOTION by Howell to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan of Prestwick Place and the Rezoning of the Arcon single family residential from AG Agricultural to R1 PUD Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development; the Lennar and Dakota County Community Development Agency townhouses from AG Agricultural to R3 PUD Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development; the Dakota County Community Development Agency apartments from AG Agricultural to R4 PUD High Density Residential Planned Unit Development; and the Arcon commercial area from AG Agricultural to C4 PUD General Commercial Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions: 1. R1 PUD lots have a minimum lot width of 72 feet, a front yard setback of 25 feet, a 5 foot garage side yard setback, a house side yard setback of 10 feet, a rear yard setback of 30 feet, and minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet, except that the lots of Block 1 and 2 are required to have a minimum lot width of 80 feet and both side yard setbacks are 10 feet. 2. R3 PUD neighborhoods have a setback from the public street of 25 feet, a setback from property lines of 30 feet, a minimum building separation of 20 feet, and a minimum parking setback of 20 feet. 3. The Dakota County Community Development Agency townhomes are permitted to have a single car garage. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 5 4. R3 PUD buildings have a maximum of 12 units per building. 5. Garages on single family houses on corner lots shall be located on the opposite side of the house from the public street. 6. Setbacks from the Connemara trail section that has only 85 feet of right -of -way will be measured as if the right -of -way is 100 feet wide. Fences or other residential accessory structures will not be allowed in this setback area. 7. Additional landscaping is provided on the south side of common lot 53 along County Road 42 and Street 14 frontages, along the common lot 29 boundary with the City Park, and on the south side of the berm on common lot 107 along the Connemara Trail frontage. 8. Final landscape plans will need to be submitted with the final plat and construction plans. Modifications to the final landscaping plans may be required by the City Planner or City Engineer if any landscaping would interfere with street signage, infrastructure or other design issues. 9. The required 1 /2 stall per unit off street parking requirement for the townhornes needs to be fulfilled with parking stalls that allow the vehicle to turn around when backing out of the stall not to exceed more than 10 10. The applicant receive final site plan and master development plan approval for the Dakota County Community Development Agency portion of the plat. Additional information regarding landscaping, stormwater management, pedestrian access and architecture and other ordinance requirements must be submitted for City review and approval. The unit counts for the proposed Dakota County CDA development assumes that there is sufficient space to install the needed infrastructure while meeting all ordinance requirement not expressly waived within this approval. Failure to meet ordinance requirements may result in a reduction in the total number of units permitted to be constructed. 11. The applicant receive final site plan and master development plan approval for the Arcon commercial area (outlots G and J). Additional information regarding landscaping, stormwater management, pedestrian access and architecture and other ordinance requirements must be submitted for City review and approval. The development of the commercial areas is subject to conditions stated within Prestwick Place Commercial Area Guidelines dated September 7, 2007. 12. A private amenity feature, such as a tot lot or gazebo /picnic area, needs to be added to the western Lennar townhouse neighborhood. 13. The final construction plans for the eastern Lennar townhouse playground and picnic area need to be reviewed and approved by City staff to ensure that the structures and equipment installed are age appropriate, meet industry standards, and is adequately sized for the amount of residents in the neighborhood. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Chairperson Messner asked what the proposal is for trails on the east side. Mr. Zweber pointed out the public right of way line along the street, the proposed trail, sidewalk on the north side and west of development. Staff is requesting the trail through the development be connected to the other city trails. Chairperson Messner stated he sees the trail within the development as an internal sidewalk and that a connection to the trail should be along the street not through the development. Commissioner Palda agreed with that statement. Chairperson Messner further stated he preferred to see the trail along one side of the street and leave the trail through the development as a private PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 6 trail. Therefore, Change #3 as part of Condition #3 to approval of the preliminary plat needs to read "trail needs to be added to the west side of street 17 from Connemara Trail to street 16" instead of a "sidewalk Condition #3 needs to read "five" changes instead of "six" changes deleting Change #5. Motion by Schwartz to approve the Preliminary Plat of Prestwick Place, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City Engineer's memorandum dated September 7, 2007, the Parks and Recreation Director's memorandum dated September 5, 2007, and the Fire Marshal's memorandums dated August 1, 2007. 2. Recording Planned Unit Development Agreement at the time of Final Plat recording. 3. Provide the five eix changes to the trail and sidewalk network identified within this executive summary. 4. Installation of "No Parking Fire lane" signs on both sides of all of the private drives. 5. The development of the residential land east of Akron Avenue is limited to 200 units until a second full access to the area is constructed. 6. Private Drive 42 needs to be revised to address and accommodate the Fire Marshal's limit of 200 feet in length. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. As follow -up for this item, Mr. Zweber stated this item will go before the City Council on October 2, 2007. This will allow the applicant three weeks to revise their plans and staff to provide new recommendations to the Council. Old Business: None. New Business: None. Reports: Mr. Zweber provided a handout to the Commissioner with information on the listening sessions offered by UMore Park. Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Commissioner Schwartz made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Howell seconded. Upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 8:12p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 1 CaII to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 25, 2007. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Schwartz, Schultz and Palda present. Commissioner Howell was absent. Also in attendance were 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 September 11, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes. MOTION by Schwartz to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 5.a. Total Construction Equipment, Inc. and Furlong Mineral Extraction Permit (07-33 ME). Planner Lindahl presented this item. The applicant, Total Construction and Equipment, Inc. requests renewal of the mineral extraction permit for property owned by Tom Furlong located on the west side of Fischer Avenue, 1 /4 mile south of Highway 55. This request is based upon the routine annual review and renewal of the current permit. Mr. Furlong contracts with Total Construction and Equipment, Inc. to operate the mine. According to Willie Krech, General Foreman for Total Construction, the pit is still operating within Phase I as illustrated on their Phasing Plan. They intend to continue to operate within Phase I for 2008 and extract between 10,000 and 100,000 yards of sand. This request is subject to the conditions outlined in the permit. In addition to these specific conditions, all mineral extraction permits are subject to the general performance standards outlined in Section 12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Upon review of these standards, police records, a site inspection and the information submitted by the applicant, staff recommends renewal of the permit for 2008, subject to the above mentioned standards and condition. Applicant, Tom Furlong, approached the Commission. He stated the need for his gravel pit began when Hwy 55 was being blacktopped. Mr. Furlong further stated that they developed the golf course and the pit was perfect for providing sand for the sand traps. Mr. Furlong stated they have completed quite a bit of work cleaning up the area as Mr. Lindahl requested. Mr. Furlong's son, Tom Furlong, approached the Commission and assisted in showing the Commission photographs of the site. The Commission did not have any questions for the Applicant. The public hearing was opened at 6:37p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Schwartz to close the public hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:37p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 2 Commissioner Schultz asked Mr. Lindahl if he was satisfied with the progress the applicant had made in cleaning up the area. Mr. Lindahl replied that he is satisfied with the progress and stated that Mr. Furlong has been very proactive in completing the clean up. He further stated he is confident the requested clean up will be complete before the item goes to the City Council. MOTION by Schultz to recommend renewal of the Furlong Mineral Extraction Permit for 2008, subject to the standards outlined in Section 12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance and the 2008 Conditions for Mineral Extraction. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the 2008 permit prior to action on this item by the City Council. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. As follow -up for this item, Mr. Lindahl stated this item will go before the City Council on October 16, 2007. Staff will continue to work with Mr. Furlong to make sure the site is cleaned up on schedule. 5.b. Glendalough 8 Addition Final Plat and Club House and Pool Site Plan Review (07- 34-FP, 07- 35 -SP). Planner Lindahl presented this item. The applicant, U.S. Homes, requests final plat and site plan approvals to allow construction of a private neighborhood pool and bath house. Staff recommends approval of both the final plat and site plan for Glendalough 8 Addition. By ordinance, the Planning Commission approves the site plan while the City Council approves the final plat. Staff's recommendation for approval is based on the materials submitted by the applicant and the findings made in the staff report which Mr. Lindahl reviewed. The recommendation for approval is subject to the conditions listed in the report. Commissioner Palda asked how many people lived in the neighborhood. Mr. Lindahl replied he did not know how many people but that there are 252 lots. Commissioner Palda expressed his concern with the lack of parking for the pool house. Mr. Lindahl replied that there is no parking requirement in the City code for this type of use. He further stated that considering this will be a private neighborhood facility, it is assumed the distance people will travel is limited. The engineering and public safety departments have reviewed this and have determined there is enough room for short term parking and drop off areas. Mr. Lindahl stated that the Commission could certainly make a recommendation for more parking areas if they feel it's necessary. Project Engineer Dawley added that there is off street parking on the surrounding frontage areas in addition to the lots adjacent to the site. Applicant, Jay Liberacki, from Lennar Corporation, the builder in Glendalough, approached the Commission. Mr. Liberacki stated this project has been a learning process. He stated Lennar should have platted this area several years ago when additional easements for the underground utility pipes could have been taken care of. He stated they are having the engineer put the easements on the plan. Mr. Liberacki shared Lennar's comments on the required conditions contained in the staff report. With respect to Condition #4, Mr. Liberacki stated Lennar does not typically cut or remove sidewalks; they push their utilities under them. With respect to Condition #5, Mr. Liberacki stated the draintiles will be removed rather than include cleanouts. With respect to Condition #9, Mr. Liberacki stated that if a photometric plan is required to show the lighting, Lennar will simply eliminate all exterior lighting. He further commented that the "Preliminary Plat" title in the staff report is inappropriate because he feels it is a "final" plat. Continuing with the required conditions, PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 3 Mr. Liberacki stated with respect to proposed double row of trees to be used for screening, due to the emergency overflow requirements, Lennar will reduce it to a single row of trees. Mr. Liberacki stated that none of their neighborhood pool facilities have trash enclosures. They use trash receptacles that are emptied on a timely basis and Mr. Liberacki stated that Lennar will not be installing trash enclosures at this site. With respect to not being allowed any signage on the site, Mr. Liberacki stated Lennar would like at least four signs that say it is a community park for Glendalough residents to keep out outside public attendance. In response to the requirement that landscape areas are to be irrigated, Mr. Liberacki questioned if this meant staff would need to review the irrigation plans and wondered if City staff has more expertise than Lennar's irrigation contractor. In conclusion, Mr. Liberacki stated that if the sidewalks and play areas could be designed and constructed without the whole site plan process, it would be appreciated. Chairperson Messner suggested going through Mr. Liberacki's items of concern individually. Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Liberacki to explain the issue with Condition #4 regarding the draintile system. Mr. Liberacki replied that the draintile system goes around the edges of the flower beds so plants are not sitting in water. He stated that the City Engineer proposed the draintile go under the sidewalk but if it requires Lennar to remove sidewalks, they will simply remove the draintile completely. Project Engineer Dawley clarified that Lennar's plans did not note whether or not the sidewalks were going to be removed or if the plan was to go underneath the sidewalks. The City would definitely allow Lennar to go under the sidewalk if they are able to; staff simply wanted a notation of it on the plan. Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Dawley to clarify Condition #5 regarding the cleanouts. Mr. Dawley responded this is a recommended action because it is a privately maintained draintile system, but it is mainly a suggestion. Commissioner Schultz asked Mr. Liberacki how eliminating the lighting would be wise from a safety standpoint. Mr. Liberacki stated the residents could decide at a later date if they would like lighting. Mr. Lindahl added there is no minimum requirement for lighting but that it's for the safety and protection of the residents more than anything else. Downcast lighting and a photometric plan are standard requirements for any site plan that has lighting. Mr. Liberacki stated the lighting would be eliminated by Friday. Mr. Liberacki stated that with respect to Condition #11, Lennar's irrigation plans will not be complete until next spring so if this condition is a requirement of the site plan being approved, then it will not be approved until next spring. Mr. Lindahl clarified that the general standard for landscaping is that it is irrigated so it will survive and strive. Staff did not see any notation on the landscaping plans with respect to irrigation. Mr. Liberacki stated that all sod and plants will be irrigated. With respect to the double row of trees between the poolhouse and the adjoining homes, Mr. Liberacki stated it will probably be reduced to one row of trees due to the underground piping. He stated though that Lennar may talk to the abutting homeowners to offer putting some of the trees on their property to provide additional screening. However, Mr. Liberacki added that he feels parks should be inviting to homeowners rather than screened from view. Mr. Lindahl stated his concerns with the landscaping being reduced and that staff would like to work with Lennar to maintain a screen of some kind rather than have it eliminated or reduced. Chairperson Messner stated he would prefer to review the landscaping if there will be a huge reduction. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 4 Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Liberacki what Lennar's other pool sites currently have with respect to trash enclosures. Mr. Liberacki responded they have decorative garbage cans with iron closures on the top; there are no trash enclosures or dumpsters. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff is requesting more information from the applicant as to where trash will be stored in between the time it is in the containers to when it is hauled. Mr. Liberacki stated they use a maintenance company that comes to each site to test the water and remove the trash; the trash is not stored anywhere on site. Chairperson Messner stated that some note to that affect on the plan would suffice. With respect to signage, Mr. Liberacki stated that Lennar doesn't want any signs with the name of the park on it, but signs that say the park is for residents of Glendalough only. The sign does not need to be big and will not be gaudy. Mr. Liberacki stated that this is a walking neighborhood with sidewalks on both sides of the streets. He further stated that Lennar would not want to require parking at the neighborhood facility. The public hearing was opened at 7:17p.m. Mike Leppones, 13321 Carrach Avenue, approached the Commission and asked if there were any plans for a play area for children on the site and questioned the starting time for construction. Mr. Lindahl showed on the site plan where the proposed tot lot would be located. Mr. Liberacki could not give a date certain for construction and stated he would discuss this later with the resident. Mr. Leppones also commented that he has lived in the area for six months and he doesn't feel there is a need for additional parking at the new facility. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Palda to close the public hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:20p.m. Chairperson Messner stated he was in favor of leaving Condition #5 regarding the draintile system cleanouts. Chairperson Messner suggested amending the photometric plan requirement to say a plan is required "if lighting is included Mr. Lindahl stated that if the applicant chooses to withdraw the lighting, the condition would not be applicable anyway. Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Liberacki if there is currently signage at the other pool sites. Mr. Liberack replied there is. Mr. Lindahl stated that if the applicant feels it is important to have reasonable signage to insure the patrons of this site are residents of Glendalough, staff can probably accommodate this request. This type of use is not as detailed or complicated as a commercial site as far as signage requirements are concerned. Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Lindahl of his opinion on the trash enclosure item. Mr. Lindahl replied that staff would be satisfied with something in writing from the applicant explaining how the trash will be maintained. Staff's concern is to prevent the trash from lying around or not being contained. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 5 MOTION by Schwartz to recommend the City Council approve the Final Plat for Glendalough 8 to allow the creation of Lot 1, Block 1, Harmony 8`" Addition, subject to the following conditions: Conformance with the conditions outlined in the City Engineer's memo, dated September 19, 2007. Payment of all applicable fees. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. MOTION by Palda to approve the site plan for the Glendalough 8 Addition private pool and bath house with associated landscaping, paths, and open space, subject to the following conditions, as amended: Approval of the Final Plat for Glendalough 8`'' Addition and conformance with all conditions of approval. Issuance of a building permit. Submittal of a lighting and photometric plan in conformance with all lighting standards, prior action on the final plat by the City Council. Demonstrated conformance with the requirements for a trash enclosure prior to action on the final plat by the City Council. Demonstration that all landscape areas will be irrigated and applicant will work with staff in amending the landscape plan to provide for some level of screening along the northwest side of the site. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. As follow -up for this item, Mr. Lindahl stated the final plat will continue for City Council approval on October 16, 2007. The site plan is approved by the Commission and does not go to the Council. 5.c. Sign Ordinance Text Amendment (07- 13 -TA). Planner Lindahl presented this item. This is a continuation of the public hearing opened at the regular Planning Commission meeting on August 28, 2007. Staff recommends the Planning Commission resume the public hearing on this item and take any public comment before recommending approve of this item by the City Council. This public hearing is a continuation from the meeting on August 28, 2007. Commissioner Schultz questioned the difference between the recommended action and the conclusion and recommendation in the staff report. Mr. Lindahl clarified that the Commission needs to resume the public hearing, take any comment, and make a recommendation for approval to the City Council. The public hearing was resumed at 7:37p.m. Tim Judy, 15621 Cornell Trail, approached the Commission and stated he has been following the sign ordinance issue. He stated he feels the ordinance is unfair to small businesses that use banners and temporary signs as their only way to advertise their products. He stated that products and sales PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 6 change quite frequently and limiting businesses to permits only three times a year is unfair to them. Mr. Judy further stated he would like to see more originality in the way the city does things. He stated the League of Minnesota Cities has a handbook that every city follows, but maybe the City of Rosemount could be a little looser in their practices. Kathy Klonecky, 15621 Cornell Trail, stated she saw the notice about this meeting in the Town Pages but she had to search for it and she did not see any article in the This Week newspaper. She stated there used to be banners on the walls of buildings so people could see what specials businesses had and all of a sudden the businesses were told they couldn't hang banners anymore. She stated this is a time- saving way for residents to be able to see the banners. Ms. Klonecky stated she has talked to businesses who say they are losing money because people are not stopping in as they used to when banners were allowed. Ms. Klonecky stated she has checked other city ordinances such as Apple Valley and they require permits but do not require fees. She feels it is unfair for Rosemount to require fees if Apple Valley doesn't. She stated that no one complained about the signs before this ordinance was resurrected this year. She quoted an article from the League of Minnesota Cities that stated their biggest concern with signage is with billboards. Ms. Klonecky stated the city ordinance should state that no billboards are allowed, no ripped or tattered signs, and the advertising should be placed on the business only, except for realtors who have to advertise open houses. She stated there should not be any fees or permits required. In talking with area businesses, she found that the businesses paid the fees and completed a form, but they did not receive a permit. There shouldn't be any favoritism between businesses and there shouldn't be time limits since busy people are not going to remember the time periods. In conclusion, Ms. Klonecky stated that small businesses should not be losing money due to an old law that doesn't work. Scott Askew, 13602 Dellwood Way, one of the owners of Rosemount Storage, east of City Hall approached the Commission. He stated one of the problems he has with the ordinance is the way it's written in that only changeable letter reader boards are allowed which are pretty much outdated. He stated Rosemount Storage installed an electronic reader board and within 12 -16 hours of having it in operation, they received four calls as a result. Mr. Askew stated there are other businesses in Rosemount that have electronic reader boards, including the City. He is requesting the City not ban the electronic reader board altogether, but govern the way it's used. He stated the electronic reader board was a big investment for his business and will work to increase revenue if he's allowed to use it. Jim Hamilton, 15085 Derby Circle, sells electronic message centers and works with Scott Askew. He had recently gathered some information with Discover Rosemount regarding somebody who had a business in Rosemount and went out of business. That business owner wanted one of the signs Mr. Hamilton sells but couldn't because of the sign ordinance. Mr. Hamilton stated he has a lot of different styles of LED signs. He stated that Rosemount National has an electronic reader board and requests that other businesses in Rosemount have the same opportunity as the bank to advertise. He understands there needs to be some restrictions on outside signs and temporary signs, but he feels the ordinance should govern them, not prohibit them. He has more information if the Commission would be interested in seeing different types of signs. He provided the same information to the City of Cambridge on how to govern signs. He stated the city needs to be in the 21" century with the type of signs they are allowing businesses to have. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 7 Tom Piekarski, 14800 Dodd Blvd., approached the Commission. He explained his current situation with the City and the court action. He showed the Commission photographs of realtor and builder signs compared to his vegetable signs and stated the realtor and builder signs did not have permits issued. He requested the City to quit picking on the small businesses and start treating businesses equally. Jim Hamilton, 15085 Derby Circle, approached the Commission again and asked about the grandfathering of the bank's reader board and when the current sign ordinance was adopted. Mr. Lindahl stated that he believed the ordinance was last modified in 1997. Mr. Hamilton stated he seriously doubted the bank's reader board pre -dated 1997 and that allowing them to have the sign but not other businesses is unfair treatment. Ron Carlson, from Inver Grove Heights, and business owner in the City of Rosemount approached the Commission. He stated as part owner of Rosemount Market Square, he does not have a reader board but would like to have one. He feels they are a modern and effective tool for advertising. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Palda to close the public hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:03p.m. Commissioner Schultz asked Mr. Lindahl if it was known when Mr. Askew was issued the permit what type of sign he was proposing and that it would not be allowed at a later date. Mr. Lindahl explained the process when Mr. Askew came in for a permit and stated he did not ask Mr. Askew if it was an electronic reader board and Mr. Askew did not say if it was or not. He further stated that the current process allows three days for staff to review the sign but he issued the permit at the counter that date to expedite things for Mr. Askew. Mr. Askew's sign vendor has spoken with staff on two different occasions and was aware of the city standards at the time the permit was issued. When staff realized the sign was an electronic reader board, staff tried to fix the problem. Chairperson Messner asked for clarification on the type of sign being discussed and where in the ordinance they are included. Mr. Lindahl pointed out the particular section and stated that the current ordinance prohibits this type of sign but that staff is attempting to clarify the types of signs in this text amendment. The text amendment is mainly adding specific, more modern terms to describe the types of signs that were already prohibited. The new ordinance allows a limited size in displaying prices of gasoline and allows an electronic reader board at the community center because it advertises community events, the time and the temperature. Commissioner Schultz commented that the reader board at the Community Center is great to have but also agreed with the audience that the City should try to help Rosemount grow with their local businesses. She suggested that the Commission research this issue more from a business person's viewpoint to hopefully come up with an alternative that is allowed by the ordinance or possibly relax the restrictions. Commissioner Palda agreed with Commissioner Schultz and stated that the City needs to be with the times with electronic reader boards, but they need to be governed. He stated that the City of Rosemount is going to continue to grow and the City needs to try to keep businesses here. He stated the signs should be allowed, but governed. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 8 Chairperson Messner asked about the standards of illumination. Mr. Lindahl stated there are standards for illumination. He stated that with the policy in place and the feedback staff has received from the Commission is to continue limiting electronic reader boards as in the current ordinance. Therefore, staff hasn't completed any research on size and illumination standards of electronic reader boards. Commissioner Schwartz suggested that perhaps Mr. Hamilton could provide more information to the Commission as in a demonstration of different types available. She stated she is not in favor of making Rosemount look like Las Vegas but understands that the Commission lacks information on which to base a decision. There was agreement among the Commissioners to obtain more information about electronic reader boards before making a decision. Mr. Lindahl suggested setting up a worksession schedule to discuss this item further. Chairperson Messner asked about the temporary sign usage and the current fees and requirements. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the process and stated the current fee is $10.00 which is to cover the minimum amount of staff time to issue the permit. The time period was increased from 10 to 14 days. Before a motion was made, Mr. Lindahl suggested the Commission table the item to the October meeting and then possibly table it again at that meeting, or schedule a worksession meeting. MOTION by Messner to table the sign ordinance amendment item to the October 23, 2007, meeting. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. 5.d. Rezoning of South Rose Park 3rd Addition Property (Celadon Property) (07 -18 -PUD). Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. On June 19, 2007, the City Council approved a lot combination, planned unit development (PUD) and rezoning of two lots within the South Rose Park 3` Addition from C4- General Commercial to C4- PUD- General Commercial Planned Unit Development for Celadon Systems, Inc. to construct an office research building. Since that time, Celadon has chosen not to construct the building. The PUD and rezoning is site and building specific to the Celadon's operation. Ron Carlson, the land owner, would like the property rezoned back to C4- General Commercial, which removes the PUD status and allows him to market the property to any user that would be permitted with the C4 regulations. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of the former Celadon project from C4 -PUD- General Commercial Planned Unit Development to C4- General Commercial. Public hearing was opened at 8:33p.m. There was no public comment. MOTION by Schwartz to close the public hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:33p.m. There was no discussion among the Commissioners. MOTION by Messner to recommend the City Council approve a rezoning of former PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 9 Celadon Project (Lot 1 Block 1 South Rose Park 3` Addition except the North 140 feet and Lot 3 Block 1 South Rose Park 3"' Addition) from C4 -PUD- General Commercial Planned Unit Development to C4- General Commercial. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. As follow -up for this item, Mr. Zweber stated this item will go before City Council for approval at the October 16`'' meeting. Old Business: None. New Business: None. Reports: Mr. Zweber reminded the Commission of the upcoming open house on October 9`'' at the Community Center to discuss the eastern half industrial areas with respect to the comp plan. Mr. Lindahl provided an update on the real estate signs located in the public right of way stating that correspondence was sent two weeks ago to all area builders reminding them of them they cannot have signs in the right of way or in the sight triangle. Staff has been working to remove the signs in violation of the standards. Chairperson Messner asked about the other signage of the vegetable signs by a Rosemount resident. Mr. Zweber stated that the vegetable signs are a violation because signs are not allowed for a home based business. Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Commissioner Messner made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Palda seconded. Upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 8:38p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2007 PAGE 1 CaII to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 23, 2007. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Howell, Schultz, and Palda present. Commissioner Schwartz was absent. Also in attendance were 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 September 25, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes. MOTION by Schultz to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings: Chairperson Messner recessed the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:31p.m. and opened the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. 5.a. Rosemount 2006 Limited Partnership Variance Request (07- 37 -V). Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. The Twin Cities Housing Development Corporation, a non -profit workforce housing provider, has purchased the Rosemount Greens rental townhouses in 2006 under the name of the Rosemount 2006 Limited Partnership (LP). Rosemount 2006 LP is currently rehabilitating the 28 units including expanded entrances, new kitchens, new siding and windows, a new parking area and other needed repairs. As a part of the improvements, Rosemount 2006 LP is proposing to install a bus shelter for children to wait for the school bus. The proposed location for the bus shelter is located between the building and the street, which is within the required front yard setback. Ken Isaacson, of Twin Cities Housing Development Corporation representing Rosemount 2006 Limited Partnership, approached the Commission and stated he was available to answer any questions. The public hearing was opened at 6:37p.m. Jay Roverud, 14595 Cobalt Avenue, asked what materials the shelter will be made of glass or plexi- glass, and stated his concern with the shelter being damaged easily. Robert Oberle, 3872 144t Street, approached the Commission with several questions including who would be responsible for paying for the shelter, would the shelter currently be the only one in Rosemount, and who would be responsible for maintaining the shelter in the event of graffiti. Mr. Zweber stated that the applicant will pay for the construction of the shelter and further replied that this shelter will currently be the only one in Rosemount. If Rosemount gets more public transportation, more shelters will probably be constructed. Mr. Zweber stated that if there are graffiti problems or other maintenance problems, it can be reported to the City as a Code violation. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2007 PAGE 2 James Bonkoski, 3853 144 Street, asked what effect the shelter will have on the traffic on 145 Street and would there be additional signage installed. He also asked if the shelter would be heated or lighted and how close the shelter will be located to the bike path. Mr. Bonkoski's final question was whether or not there are any ordinances currently in place that governs these shelters. Mr. Isaacson of Twin Cities Housing Development Corporation approached the Commission to answer the questions from residents. He stated the shelter will be made of a plexiglass material made by a company in Connecticut which is the same company that provided shelters at I -35E and Pilot Knob and is heavy duty plexiglass shelter. He further stated that Twin Cities Housing Development Corporation will be responsible for replacing the plexiglass if it gets damaged and to maintain the shelter. Mr. Isaacson stated the shelter will not be heated or lighted; there will not be any power inside. The shelter will simply provide a place for children to stand instead of on the street or in the driveway. Mr. Isaacson stated that buses currently stop there already so there will not be any increase in travel capacity. Mr. Zweber stated the shelter will be approximately 20 feet away from the bike path. Mr. Isaacson further stated that he will give his business card to residents and will provide information on other properties the company owns so residents can see how they are maintained. Jay Roverud, 14595 Cobalt Avenue, approached the Commission again and asked if the shelter is going to be big enough to house all of the kids so there won't be fights. Mr. Isaacson stated it should be big enough. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Messner to close the public hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:46p.m. There was no discussion or questions among the Commission. MOTION by Schultz of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to approve the Variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback to construct a bus shelter at Rosemount Greens. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Mr. Zweber added an answer to one of the resident's questions regarding whether or not there is an ordinance that governs this type of shelter. Mr. Zweber stated that the City's zoning ordinance does not currently allow this type of structure which is why a variance is being requested. However, he stated, this matter is on the staff's list of things to look at in the future, particularly if the City receives more similar requests in the future. As follow -up to the variance approval, Mr. Zweber stated this is the final action on this item unless someone chooses to appeal the matter within 10 days. If no one appeals the variance approval, the City can issue a building permit. Chairperson Messner adjourned the Board of Appeals and Adjustments meeting at 6:48p.m. and recessed the regular Planning Commission meeting. 5.b. Evermoor Crosscroft 3rd Addition Major PUD Amendment (07- 38 -AMD). Planner Lindahl presented this item. The applicant, D.R. Horton, Inc, requests approval of a major Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow an increase in the impervious (hard) surface coverage for PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2007 PAGE 3 all lots in the Evermoor Crosscroft 3r Addition (Westport) from thirty (30) to thirty -five (35) percent. As a PUD, this neighborhood has required home plans. Since platting this neighborhood in 2006, the applicant discovered that the thirty (30) percent lot coverage standard limits the number of approved home plans that will fit on several lots. According to the applicant, the limited options available are not selling well. As a result, the applicant now requests an increase in the lot coverage standard to allow more home options for their customers. In this case, a major PUD amendment is necessary because the applicant's request deviates from the underlying R -1, Low Density impervious surface coverage standard. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff is recommending approval of the increase to only a few of the lots, being Lots 15, 16 and 18, Block 2 and Lots 2 and 3, Block 4 of Evermoor Crosscroft 3 Addition. Applicant, Mike Suel, from D.R. Horton, Inc., approached the Commission. Mr. Suel stated that when this development began, D.R. Horton had three homes that would fit on these lots, but today's building code changes with respect to stairs required the company to make the foyers larger. This change took the Colonial plan from the choices available, which Left only two plans. Mr. Suel stated that one of the two plans will not sell which only leaves one plan and having the same plan for every home doesn't seem like the type of neighborhood the City is looking for. Mr. Suel stated D.R. Horton is requesting a variance or amendment and will accept only the five lots recommended by staff but thought it would be easier to maintain the whole neighborhood. Chairperson Messner asked how many different variations D.R. Horton could offer with the 35% coverage ratio. Mr. Suel replied they could get nine different plans to fit. Commissioner Palda asked when the mentioned building code change took place. Mr. Zweber responded that the change took place at the first of the year in 2007. Commissioner Howell stated she realizes the market is difficult but feels that D.R. Horton could try to be creative and offer incentives with the plans they currently have available. She asked Mr. Suel if D.R. Horton has tried to make upgrades, or redesign plans, or consider changing them without changing the amount of impervious space. Mr. Suel replied they have finished reproducing house plans and floor plans in anticipation of what the buyer wants but they are also restricted by a PUD agreement. They have added landscaping, upgraded cabinets and upgraded the carpet. The public hearing was opened at 7:07p.m. Ryan Kroells, 3750 Crosscliffe Path, stated he was the first homeowner in the neighborhood. He feels that if the Commission allows D.R. Horton the amendment on these five lots, they'll just come later and ask for variances on the remaining lots. He asked how close will the houses be to each other. Mr. Kroells stated he feels this is just another oversight by D.R. Horton and should have been addressed in the very beginning. Craig Cool, 13770 Shannon Parkway, stated his house backs up to the lots in question. He stated the backs of the houses look like apartment buildilngs. He has a great concern with water runoff due to a ditch that was put in behind the houses. He requested the Commission not approve the amendment because of the runoff issue. He stated that if more hard surface area is allowed, there is not going to be enough opportunity for water to drain where it's supposed to go and it will go into his backyard. Also, Mr. Cool stated that the builder was going to improve the screening between the houses but have not done anything worth the money they've spent. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2007 PAGE 4 410 Brent Preator, 3759 Crosscliffe Path, approached the Commission and also commented on the water flow issue. He stated he feels the developer needs to take greater care with the water flow issues. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Messner to close the public hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:12p.m. Chairperson Messner asked how the requested increase in impervious surface would affect the setbacks of the homes. Mr. Lindahl stated that the PUD dictates the setbacks are five (5) feet on the garage side and ten (10) on the house side and that the requested amendment would not affect the setbacks. Chairperson Messner feels there should be a condition recommending additional landscaping on the west border of the development before the item goes to council. Chairperson Messner stated the biggest issue or concern has to do with the runoff issue that already exists. Project Engineer Dawley stated that previous improvements were made in this addition consisting of a pipe on the west corner which borders the edge of Mr. Cool's property. Mr. Dawley stated that Mr. Cool's property did have flooding problems prior to the installation of the piping and ponding completed last year. Mr. Dawley stated the Engineering Department does not believe the increase in impervious surface would impact Mr. Cool's property with respect to stormwater runoff. Commissioner Howell stated her opinion that although only a slight increase is requested, she feels the market is what it is and a seller needs to be creative to sell its product, not rely on the City to change the standards to accommodate for the fill of more homes. Chairperson Messner asked if there are specific elevations approved as part of the PUD agreement. Mr. Lindahl replied that elevations approved in the PUD agreement were part of the packet for the Commissioners' reference. These homes approved for this development consisted of twelve homes, three of which currently fit the five lots in question, and two of those three are most viable. Mr. Suel approached the Commission and stated that with the change in the building code, the floor plan got bigger and limited the homes available. Chairperson Messner mentioned then that another option would be to amend the PUD with new elevations. Chairperson Messner then stated that it would be his position to be in favor of increasing the impervious surface on the five lots with the condition on the revised landscape plan to improve the screening and stormwater control. MOTION by Messner to recommend the City Council approve an impervious surface coverage increase from thirty (30) to thirty-five (35) percent for Lots 15, 16 and 18, Block 2 and Lots 2 and 3, Block 4 of Evermoor Crosscroft 3 Addition, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall install additional landscaping to provide a more effective screen along the western property line. A revised landscape plan detailing this additional landscaping shall be approved by staff prior to action on this item by the City Council, with addition changes in the screening. Second by Schultz. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2007 PAGE 5 Ayes: 2. Nays: 2. (Howell, Palda) Motion was not approved. Chairperson Messner stated the Commission could extend the discussion to see if there was a way to get a vote at tonight's meeting, could table the item with the hope of having a full Commission at the next meeting, or could move the item to the Council with a deadlocked recommendation which is not usually the preference. He further stated he had no additional comments on the issue. Commissioner Howell stated she felt that if this request is approved for D.R. Horton, then other builders will come to the City with changes to make it easier to sell their homes and it shouldn't be up to the City to make changes to assist them. Mr. Suel approached the Commission and stated he would prefer the Commission table the item to give D.R. Horton a chance to review the landscaping and drainage issues. MOTION by Messner to table this item to the November 27, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. As follow -up for this item, Mr. Lindahl stated staff will discuss with the applicant the items raised at this meeting and will bring the item back to the November meeting. 5.c. Rosemount VFW Post 9433 Site P Ian Review and Rezoning Request (07- 39 -SP, 07-40 ZA). Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) has applied for site plan review of a patio and accessory storage building. The patio will provide an area for patrons and members to smoke outdoors with their alcoholic beverages now that it is illegal to smoke indoors. The VFW property is currently zoned AG Agriculture which does not allow eating and drinking establishments or membership organizations, making the VFW a legal non conforming use. To remove the non- conforming status, the VFW has applied for a rezoning from AG Agriculture to RR PUD Rural Residential Planned Unit Development. Mr. Zweber reviewed the site plan and elevations of the proposed patio and accessory storage building, including the landscaping requirements of the additions. Another requirement Mr. Zweber mentioned is the accessory building needs to be of the exterior materials and the principal building. Mr. Zweber reviewed the zoning request and stated that staff does not support rezoning to a commercial designation because then the site is opened to any commercial business if the VFW ever sells the property. Staff is recommending a RR PUD Rural Residential Planned Unit Development zoning designation because RR is what the comp plan designation is. Mr. Zweber further reviewed the conditions to the rezoning request. Applicant, Mark Monson, VFW Commander, stated Charles Novak, the architect, was also present to answer any questions. Chairperson Messner asked if they considered any alternatives to concrete block and wainscoating. Mr. Monson replied that they did but thought the wainscoating would be more pleasing to the public. Chairperson asked about the location of the landscaping and Mr. Monson replied that it seemed like the logical place for the patio on the side and then use it during the VFW's special functions. He further stated the Ladies Auxillary volunteered to put a three row tier of blocks with flowers in front of the building. Commissioner Schultz asked if the motivation for the new patio was the change in the smoking law. Mr. Monson replied they had always planned on constructing a patio, but that the change in the smoking law accelerated their planning. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2007 PAGE 6 The public hearing was opened at 7:50p.m. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Palda to close the public hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:50p.m Commissioner Schultz asked for an explanation for the rezoning part of the item. Mr. Zweber replied that the applicant would not be able to expand the use without the rezoning. He further stated the VFW essentially owns one parcel and the City wants them to be able to use their site as if it was one parcel. He stated that owning an almost five acre parcel and being able to use only one acre of the lot didn't seem fair. Commissioner Schultz asked if the building itself is privately owned. Mr. Monson replied that the VFW owns the building and it is a privately owned business but that the national VFW organization would take over if the local business could not pay the bills. Chairperson Messner stated with respect to the accessory building materials, he liked the look of what was being proposed but that he would prefer more of a cement board siding as opposed to vinyl siding and asked if this could be included in Condition #5. Mr. Zweber responded that Condition #5 can be expanded to state the type of material. Chairperson Messner also stated he liked how the landscaping was depicted. MOTION by Palda to approve of the Site Plan for a 544 square foot patio, a 240 square foot covered patio and a 480 square foot accessory storage building, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revision of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Liquor License to permit alcoholic beverage consumption on the patio. 2. Issuance of a building permit. 3. City Council approval of the rezoning of the property to RR PUD Rural Residential Planned Unit Development. 4. Issuance of the property approvals from the City of Eagan to construct the accessory storage building. 5. The colors of the exterior of the accessory storage building must be complementary to the existing building. Cement board lap siding shall be installed on the accessory storage building in place of the metal or vinyl lap siding shown on the plans. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. MOTION by Messner to recommend approval of the Rezoning of the property from AG- Agriculture to RR PUD Rural Residential Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions: 1. Recording of a Planned Unit Development agreement. 2. No setback is required on the north property line provided that the parcel to the north within the City of Eagan is maintained in common ownership with the VFW parcel within the City of Rosemount. 3. 20 foot setback from the 120t Street West for the existing building. Any additions to the existing building or any new buildings constructed on the site will need to meet the required 40 foot setback of the RR- Rural Residential zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES S OCTOBER 23, 2007 PAGE 7 4. The minimum lot size of 0.85 acres is allowed provided that the parcel to the north within the City of Eagan is maintained in common ownership with the VFW parcel within the City of Rosemount. 5. The use of a membership organization in conjunction with an eating and drinking establishment and outdoor seating is a permitted use. Second by Howell. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. As follow -up, Mr. Zweber stated the rezoning item will go the City Council at the regular meeting on November 20, 2007. 5.d. Surface Water Management Plan Review. Project Engineer Dawley presented this item. As a member of the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO), the City of Rosemount is required to maintain a Surface Water Management Plan in conformance with the VRWJPO plan. At the August 23, 2007 VRWJPO board meeting, the City's Surface Water Management Plan was approved by the VRWJPO. With this approval, the City is required to adopt the final SWMP within 120 days. As the SWMP is a component of the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, a public hearing for the plan is required prior to City Council adoption of the Plan. Philip Belfiori gave a presentation on the SWMP explaining what the plan consists of and its purpose. It also included the current plan development process and what has been accomplished to date. Mr. Belfiori reviewed the different sections of the plan and what each consists of. Mr. Belfiori stated he expected the City Council to receive the Plan for approval at the meeting on November 20, 2007. There were no questions or discussion among the Commissioners. Public hearing was opened at 8:08p.m. There was no public comment. MOTION by Schultz to close the public hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:08p.m. There was no discussion among the Commissioners. MOTION by Schultz to recommend the City Council approve the Surface Water Management Plan for adoption. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Old Business: 6.a. Sign Ordinance Text Amendment (07- 13 -TA). Planner Lindahl presented this item. This is a continuation of the discussion from the September 25, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of this item by the City Council. If the Commission is concerned about the language relating to electronic signs as proposed, it is recommended the draft ordinance be stripped of those changes to allow the other text amendments to proceed. Staff would add electronic signage to the list of ordinance amendments that are to be PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2007 PAGE 8 41 explored by staff and the Commission as time permits. Mr. Lindahl showed the Commission photographs of examples of electronic reader boards currently in the City and other examples of signs in different parts of the country showing the technology. Commissioner Schultz stated she recently went to Rosemount Storage to see a demonstration of their electronic reader board sign by Mr. Jim Hamilton. She stated now seeing an example of the sign at the Dakota County Technical College, she asked how that sign differs from the sign Rosemount Storage is prohibited from using. She further stated that she thinks the Commission should look at signs that could help the local businesses and she feels she cannot approve the amendment as it is. Chairperson Messner stated the way the ordinance was worded in the past allowed electronic reader signs in public and institutional districts. He stated his concern with allowing that type of signs in other locations as in across from residences. Chairperson Messner further stated that if these types of signs are allowed, the Commission will need to look at where the signs will be allowed in addition to the type, size, color, etc. and he stated his concern with delaying the entire ordinance because of this one issue. He stated his preference to move on with the ordinance amendment at this time but then Commission Schultz could recommend a time frame to readdress the issue of electronic reader boards. Commissioner Schultz stated she could possibly agree with approving the item at this time but that she would want the issue revisited sooner rather than later to discuss electronic reader boards in more detail. 41, Mr. Lindahl stated the original intent of this item was to rearrange the ordinance and clarify its purpose and that we may be doing the public a disservice of not informing them of how much discussion is taking place on electronic reader boards. However, if the Commission would like to make the electronic reader board issue a priority, staff would begin to work on it. Senior Planner Zweber shared his concern that the comprehensive plan process needs to be completed with the next couple of months and while he appreciates Commissioner Schultz's to handle all of the details at once, it may not be an option due to time constraints on the Commission's schedule. He further stated that the ordinance changes with respect to temporary signs have been promised to business owners and should be completed now. Commissioner Schultz stated that the electronic reader board signs are prohibited in the ordinance on Page 14 and she stated she does not feel that it's right to say they are prohibited. Mr. Lindahl responded that the content of the standards in the current ordinance does not address any new changes. Chairperson Messner asked about how the ordinance addresses the definitions of sign reader boards and video reader boards. Mr. Lindahl stated that in the beginning of the ordinance, it states that anything that is not specifically allowed is then prohibited. The existing ordinance addresses electronic reader signs in several sections so staff attempted to relocate the language in one section so it would be easier to understand. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff kept the original intent of the ordinance and listed what was originally prohibited. Chairperson Messner invited the public to speak restricting comments on the two major issues currently being discussed: electronic reader signs or temporary signs. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2007 PAGE 9 Kathy Klonecky, 15621 Cornell Trail, approached the Commission. She stated she called the City of Apple Valley regarding their policy on temporary signs and was informed that they require a permit but do not charge any fees for temporary signs. She stated that Rosemount businesses are smaller than Apple Valley businesses and they cannot afford to pay for sign permits. She stated she felt that Rosemount businesses should not have to pay for signs if Apple Valley businesses do not have to. Ms. Klonecky further stated she had hoped the Commission would change their minds after she testified at last month's meeting. She stated she has talked to some Rosemount businesses and was informed that some businesses took down their signs because they did not want to pay to have them up. Ms. Klonecky stated that according to First Amendment rights, if you have private property, you should have the right to put up a temporary banner without having to pay for it. Chairperson Messner clarified to Ms. Klonecky that the Planning Commission is not allowed to make recommendations on permit fees or fee structure and stated that is only within the City Council's jurisdiction. Ms. Klonecky then replied she felt the Commission should vote no against the ordinance. Aside from the fee, Ms. Klonecky stated that businesses should be able to put up signs as they wish like they did before when the ordinance wasn't enforced. She further stated that when the law was relaxed and no one was enforcing it, businesses were fine and no one did anything wrong. She stated she feels Rosemount business owners are smart and conservative and will not put up any electronic reader boards that are big like billboards and that the Commission should talk to business owners to see what they want. Mr. Scott Askew, owner of Rosemount Storage, approached the Commission and thanked them for the opportunity to speak even after the public hearing was closed. He directed the Commissioner's attention to the City's "Spirt of Pride and Progress" motto and stated that "progress" is the key word. He stated that electronic reader boards have several advantages including unlimited number of messages, computer control, display of business communications along with public service information, and is the most cost effective form of advertising other than word of mouth. Mr. Askew read several online testimonials of businesses that use electronic reader boards for advertising. Mr. Askew further stated that Rosemount Storage can survive for another 15 months on their current capital if their business does not grow and that they would need to grow 3 -5% a month to make it. He thanked Commissioner Schultz for coming to his business to see the sign they would like to use and invited the other commissioners to come see it as well. Mr. Askew asked the Commission not to ban electronic reader boards, but to govern them. He stated his fear that if the Commission passed the ordinance amendment, the issue will not be revisited and requested the Commission table the item to allow the presentation of more information or at a minimum, allow electronic reader signs under the temporary sign section. Mr. Tim Judy, 15621 Cornell Trail, approached the Commission and stated he spoke at the last meeting and would like to reiterate that signs are very important to small businesses and restricting them does them no service. He stated the City can govern the size and color, but to completely restrict the signs does the local businesses no service. Mr. Jim Hamilton, 15085 Derby Circle, approached the Commission and stated that one thing that concerned him was that businesses such as Rosemount Storage do not have time to wait until the Commission's schedule allows more discussion on the issue. He stated that if the City loses businesses out of the community, the City loses jobs. Mr. Hamilton further stated that if the Commission does not have time to discuss this item at a worksession to get more educated on the matter, it would be a mistake. Chairperson Messner invited discussion or questions from the Commissioners. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2007 PAGE 10 Commissioner Howell asked Mr. Lindahl where the section on ribbons and banners on Page 12 of the original ordinance get moved to in the amendment and Mr. Lindahl explained they were moved to the temporary sign standards on Page 14 and are also contained in the definitions of temporary signs. Mr. Lindahl clarified for the Commission that since this item has been on the agenda since March, there have been both comments that the item was moving too quickly and not fast enough. He explained that staff has tried to focus on the non controversial items that needed to be addressed from a caselaw standpoint. However, he stated, the City is feeling the budget crunch as everyone else is and the changes to the temporary sign standards have made things easier and have allowed greater time periods for business owners. He stated that the Council reduced the fee and further explained that the reason for the fee is there has been a public policy of the Council that permit fees should be the responsibility of the owner, not the general taxpayers. Mr. Lindahl further stated that he agrees new issues may need to be addressed by the ordinance, but that staff's role is to address what it is currently in place. Commissioner Palda stated his agreement with Commissioner Schultz that is not comfortable with approving the ordinance amendment at this time. He stated he feels with the changing economy, the Commission should discuss things with business owners. Chairperson Messner stated he realizes that the signs with new technology are coming but that the Commission needs to look at the size, color and technology of the signs. He further stated his concern that if Commission acts on the item now, the issue regarding electronic reader boards may not be immediately addressed. He suggested the possibility of scheduling a worksession but noted that proper notices have not been given to the public and public involvement and feedback will be needed on this issue. Chairperson Messner stated he would like to be able to come up with a solution as in allowing an electronic reader board as a temporary sign. Mr. Hamilton stated that if the ordinance states that if a sign is not listed, then it's illegal, then that would mean the sign at the Bank should be illegal. He stated he feels the Commission needs to take the time to work this issue out. Mr. Lindahl stated he did not currently have a building permit or the existing regulations at the time the Bank sign was construction, but explained that was not the issue in front of the Commission at this time. He stated the time issue has been raised and the matter presents a more complicated issue than just the present businesses. He stated his concern that the City is doing a misjustice to the community to go forward with the reader board issue at this time. Commissioner Schultz asked Mr. Lindahl if there was some process Rosemount Storage could go through or some type of criteria developed, such as the variance approval process, to have a reader board approved against the current requirements. Mr. Lindahl stated that the quick answer in staff's opinion would be no and further explained the difference with a variance approval process. Commissioner Schultz then asked if there was a way that the language on Page 14 regarding prohibited signs could be changed to delete electronic signage. Mr. Lindahl explained that there is a prohibited sign section in the ordinance that should stay but that the content of that section is at the prerogative of the Commission. He explained that the underlined sections in the amendment are new and if the Commission agrees to move on without the reader board language, then that language can be stricken from the amendment, but the reader boards would still be prohibited. Mr. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2007 PAGE 11 Lindahl stated however that a business owner can come in to the City and file a text amendment to amend the ordinance. Chairperson Messner stated his recommendation for business owners to file a text amendment which would allow the temporary sign language to be more specific to the individual need and it would be addressed on a more timely basis than in a worksession, public hearing and then approval. He further stated his preference to address the item currently before the Commission that doesn't change what is currently allowed, but encouraged Mr. Askew to purse the text amendment option available, Mr. Askew asked how timely a text amendment application is addressed and Mr. Lindahl explained the 60 and 120 day time rules. Chairperson Messner agreed that the Planning Commission and the City need to come up to speed on electronic reader board technology, but also stated that tonight's item needs to be acted on. MOTION by Messner to recommend the City Council approve the attached sign ordinance amendment and direct staff regarding future sign ordinance amendments with the addition that standards having to do with electronic signs need to be addressed in the future. The Motion was not seconded. Motion was not approved. Commissioner Schultz stated she would like to re- address this motion but add some type of timing to it regarding the future sign ordinance amendments. Commissioner Howell asked Mr. Zweber about the comprehensive plan timeline. Mr. Zweber stated that the Commission can choose a time frame for the motion and then it will go to the Council to approve. He further explained that the comprehensive plan timeline includes discussion in January, revisions in February, public hearing in March, and distribution for comments in April which leaves May as the next available month. Commissioner Palda asked if a provision could be added to the ordinance to allow reader boards on a case by case basis so they can be governed. Mr. Lindahl expressed his unease at putting the decision or governing in the hands of the current staff or Commissioners on staff at that time. There was further discussion and explanation from Mr. Lindahl on the text amendment application process that Mr. Askew could follow and the timeline involved. MOTION by Schultz to recommend the City Council approve the attached sign ordinance amendment and direct staff regarding future sign ordinance amendments regarding temporary signs and reader boards on or before the first regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting in April, 2008. Second by Howell. Ayes: 2. Nays: 2 Messner, Palda. Motion was not approved. Commissioner Palda stated his objection was because of the businesses in Rosemount and he feels there should be something that should be addressed or allowed now with respect to the reader boards. Chairperson Messner stated the Commission has the option to push the item to the City Council on a 2 -2 vote and asked Commissioner Palda if a shorter timeline would get his approval. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2007 PAGE 12 Commissioner Palda stated this is a bigger issue than just the business owners present at tonight's meeting. Mr. Lindahl clarified that any business owner can come in tomorrow and file an application to move this issue to the front. Chairperson Messner stated that if any timeline is placed in the motion, he will not approve it. MOTION by Schultz to table the item until the next Planning Commission meeting on November 27, 2008. Second by Palda. Ayes: 2. Nays: 2 Messner, Howell. Motion was not approved. Chairperson Messner then asked Commissioner Palda what kind of timeline he would like to see in the motion and Commissioner Palda responded with sooner than April. MOTION by Palda to recommend the City Council approve the attached sign ordinance amendment and direct staff regarding future sign ordinance amendments regarding temporary signs and reader boards on or before the first regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting in January, 2008. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 3. Nays: 1 Messner. Motion was approved. As follow -up for this item, Mr. Lindahl stated this item will go before City Council for approval at the November 20, 2008, meeting. New Business: 7.a. Prestwick Place Final Plat (07- 13 -TA). Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Arcon Development has submitted applications for approval of a Final Plat for approximately 285 acres north of County Road 42, 205 of which are west of Akron Ave and 80 of which are east of Akron Ave. On October 2, 2007, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat, Master Development Plan, and Rezoning for Prestwick Place, with conditions. The ultimate development will include approximately 235 acres of residential development and 50 acres of commercial development, but the final plat on this meeting's agenda creates the individual ownership of all outlots and no buildable lots. There were no questions or discussion among the Commissioners. MOTION by Messner to recommend the City Council approve the Final Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. Recording of the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan Agreement onto Outlots B through M and Outlot P. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Dakota County Plat Commission. 3. This Final Plat creates no buildable lots and will result in no construction activity. A future Final Plat and Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan approval will be required to create buildable lots before any construction could take place. All conditions within the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Master PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2007 1110 PAGE 13 Development Plan approvals carry forward onto any future Final Plats involving Outlots B through M and /or Outlot P. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. As follow -up for this item, Mr. Zweber stated this item will go before City Council for approval at the November 7 meeting. Reports: None Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Commissioner Messner made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Palda seconded. Upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 10:08p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 410 PAGE 1 CaII to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 27, 2007. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Howell, Schultz, Schwartz and Palda present. Also in attendance were 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 23, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes. MOTION by Howell to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Palda. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 5.a. Shafer Contracting, Inc. Mineral Permit Renewal (07- 42 -ME). 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 135t Street East and 1 /4 mile west of Rich Valley Blvd. (County Road 71). Mr. Zweber reviewed any issues over the past year and improvements Shafer has made to the surrounding area. Applicant, Scott Spisak of Shafer Contracting, was present and provided no comment. The public hearing was opened at 6:36p.m. Gary Ista, 12131 Rich Valley Blvd., approached the Commission and stated he wanted his well water tested and questioned if the haulback brought onto the Shafer site was tested. He also wanted to know if Shafer is required to report any spills and what type of reclamation plan is in place. Mr. Ista further inquired whether or not there has been testing done on the dust emissions and noise levels and how the noise level is regulated. Mr. Zweber responded to the request for water testing by saying the City hasn't ever received a request in the past but that he would talk to Shafer about conducting a test. Mr. Zweber further stated that the haulback material has been tested and Mr. Ista is free to examine the testing file at the City if he so desires. In the event of a spill, Chairperson Messner stated that Shafer would have to report the spill to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Mr. Zweber stated that he does not know of any testing on dust emissions or noise levels. If there are complaints made on the noise levels, the City would investigate as a code enforcement procedure but not until a complaint is made. Charlie Koehnen, 12255 Rich Valley Blvd., approached the Commission and stated his biggest concern is with the drivers. He stated one driver went down in the ditch and took the railroad sign out while talking on his cellphone. He's complained to Shafer about the drivers and does not believe the police reports are accurate in reporting the incidents. Mr. Koehnen stated the problems with the drivers at the railroad crossing are so often, Stan Kodesk, a railroad representative stated to Mr. Koehnen that they would remove the crossing sign if one more problem took place. Mr. Koehnen PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 2 stated that the dust is also a problem because there isn't any vegetation on top of the berms. He also expressed his belief that some of the haulback material was contaminated material obtained from work being completed on Shepherd Road. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Schwartz to close the public hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:46p.m. Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Zweber to explain the final reclamation plan and the requirements thereof. Mr. Zweber showed a diagram of the final reclamation plan and explained that once Shafer is done working in an area, they must reclamate that area. Shafer is currently not finished with any area other than Phase 1. They are working in Phases 2, 3, and 4 and moving towards the south. Mr. Scott Spisak approached the Commission to address the concerns raised by the residents. Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Spisak about Shafer's current phasing plan and the vegetation issues. Mr. Spisak gave a brief description of the current stage of phasing and stated that perhaps Shafer could install some interim seeding for areas that are either finished or are not going to be finished in the actual operation area. Mr. Spisak stated he will talk directly to Mr. Ista about testing his well water. He further stated that Shafer is operating well above the water table and should not be affecting anyone's well water. With respect to spill cleanup, Mr. Spisak confirmed that Shafer is required to report any spills to the MPCA and cleanup would then be handled according to state law. Mr. Spisak stated he is not aware of any dust or noise testing, nor is he aware of any complaints on the noise levels. With respect to Mr. Koehnen's concerns about the drivers, Mr. Spisak stated that his safety department has investigated a couple of instances, including one at the railroad tracks which has since been resolved. With respect to the dust problems and lack of vegetation, Mr. Spisak stated Shafer will look into interim seeding. Mr. Spisak further stated that the haulback material Mr. Koehnen mentioned was taken from a Mendota Heights area site and consisted of rock with clay mixed into it and Shafer has no intentions of burying it. He stated the trucks were being watered down because of the dry conditions and as an interim measure before they could install roll tarps on the trucks. Chairperson Messner stated he would like to see some of condition requiring interim seeding or other way to reduce the dust, particularly on the north end of the property next to the residents in that area. MOTION by Messner to recommend approval of the mineral extraction permit for Shafer Contracting subject to the conditions for 2008, with the added condition of interim seeding to control dust. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. As follow -up, Mr. Zweber stated this item is tentatively scheduled for the December 18 City Council meeting depending on the meetings with Shafer about the new interim seeding condition. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 3 5.b. Vesterra, LLC Stonex, LLC Mineral Permit Renewal (07- 43 -ME). Planner Lindahl presented this item. The applicant, Jonathan Wilmshurst of Vesterra LLC /Stonex LLC, requests renewal of the Vesterra and Stonex mineral extraction permits for 2008. The subject properties are located south of 135`" street, 1 /4 mile west of Blaine Ave. (County Road 71). The properties are owned by Flint Hills Resources which leases them back to the applicant for mineral extraction. While Flint Hills and Vesterra, LLC /Stonex, LLC are parties to the permit, the responsibility for securities and compliance with the conditions remains with Vesterra and Stonex as the property lessee. Applicant was present but provided no comment. The public hearing was opened at 7:02p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Schwartz to close the public hearing. Second by Howell. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:03p.m. There was no discussion or questions among the Commission. MOTION by Schultz to recommend the City Council approve renewal of the mineral 410 extraction permit for Vesterra and Stonex, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the attached 2008 Conditions for Mineral Extraction, including: a. Submission of an updated Surety Bond in the amount outlined in the attached 2008 Conditions for Mineral Extraction. b. Submission of an updated Certificate of Comprehensive General Liability Insurance as outlined in the attached 2008 Conditions for Mineral Extraction. Second by Howell. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. As follow -up, Mr. Lindahl stated the item will go before the City Council at the meeting on December 18, 2007. Old Business: 5.b. Evermoor Crosscroft 3rd Addition Major PUD Amendment (07- 38 -AMD). Planner Lindahl presented this item. The applicant, D.R. Horton, Inc, requests approval of a major Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow an increase in the impervious (hard) surface coverage from thirty (30) to thirty -five (35) percent for four (4) lots in the Evermoor Crosscroft 3r Addition (Westport). This item was last before the Planning Commission during the October 23, 2007 meeting. With only four members present, the Commission voted two (2) to (2) two for staff's recommendation, therefore the motion was not approved. At the applicant's request, the Commission then voted to table this item until the November 27' meeting in hope of having the full Commission present to act on this item and to allow the applicant more time to work with neighboring property owners to address their concerns. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the changes to the PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 4 application and how the concerned residents now feel about the matter. Commissioner Schultz asked Mr. Lindahl if he had spoken to any of the residents. Mr. Lindahl replied that he spoke with one resident, Larry Baker, who was more neutral on the matter in the beginning but now is more satisfied with the project. Commissioner Howell asked if the application was not approved, whether or not the additional landscaping would get completed. Mr. Lindahl stated that the existing landscaping that is damaged will get replaced because the City has a landscaping security to replace them. However, he stated, the additional landscaping is something the applicant is offering as part of the application. Applicant, Ron Mullenbach, D.R. Horton, approached the Commission and stated that in having conversations with City staff, he understands there is some precedence in this type of application in the Evermoor Glendalough area. Mr. Mullenbach stated that he believes the major concern of the residents is the sightlines and landscaping. He stated D.R. Horton will try to enhance the screening above the existing low lying plants. Commissioner Howell stated while she has nothing against the applicant and what they are trying to accomplish, she believes that regardless of the market conditions, sellers need to be creative and come up with incentives to sell their products rather than have the City make changes to the plans to make it easier. She further stated that there are several builders in Rosemount who are having a tough time due to the current market, and if everyone tries to have the plans adjusted to help sell their product, then the plan will no longer exist. Commissioner Howell stated she could not support the application. Mr. Mullenbach responded that the applicant's request is not solely about market conditions although it is a factor. He gave an explanation of how D.R. Horton began with three floor plans for the neighborhood and ended with only one due to the change in the building code eliminating one floor plan and one other simply not selling. He further stated that they do not want four homes in one area having the same floor plan, which is why they are requesting an increase in the impervious surface to allow for a variety of available floor plans. Mr. Mullenbach stated the development did not create drainage problems on the property; the drainage problems were pre existing which the City has appropriate addressed. He further explained that there is an open outlot that D.R. Horton plans on deeding to the association of the neighborhood to the north. The association plans on using the outlot for community gardens. Mr. Mullenbach stated that D.R. Horton has already planted an additional 46 trees that were not on the original landscape plan. Commissioner Howell asked about the waterflow concerns one resident had at the last meeting. Mr. Mullenbach replied that the outlot next to the catchbasins needs to be regraded. He stated that it was graded in early October with the intentions of seeding the area and then with the additional rainfall in October, they were unable to complete the work before having a problem with the waterflow from the exposed area. Commissioner Palda asked Mr. Mullenbach that if this application is not really a financial issue, then why in a letter from Mr. Mullenbach did it state "in a good market, we could sell these homes Mr. Mullenbach replied that he was referring to the one home that isn't selling for whatever reason and it has to do with the market condition with respect to that floor plan, but not otherwise. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES S NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 5 Chairperson Messner stated his opinion is that given the PUD process and the change in the building code that eliminated one of the floor plans, he agrees that it is better to have variety in the neighborhood rather than have all homes have the same floor plan. Also, he stated the drainage issue has been taken care of and the additional screening would be beneficial so he supports the recommended action. MOTION by Messner to recommend the City Council approve an impervious surface coverage increase from thirty (30) to thirty -five (35) percent for Lots 16 and 18, Block 2 and Lots 2 and 3, Block 4 of Evermoor Crosscroft 3"' Addition, subject to the conditions listed below. In exchange for this concession in the PUD, the applicant offers to plant six (6) new maple trees to enhance screening along the western property line. 1. Installation of two trees (one (1) maple and one (1) spruce) to replace these trees that were lost as a result of installing the new drainage way. 2. Submission of a landscape security equal to one hundred and twenty five (125) percent of the value for the six (6) new trees to insure they survive at least one growing season as required by ordinance. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 3. Nays: 2 (flowell,Palda). Motion was approved. As follow -up for this item, Mr. Lindahl stated this item will go before the City Council on December 18, 2007. 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 7:29p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 1 Cali to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Work Session Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 27, 2007. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Howell, Schultz, Schwartz and Palda present. Also in attendance were Mayor Droste, Councilmember Shoe- Corrigan, Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, Project Engineer Dawley, and Recording Secretary Hanson. Discussion: 2.a. Planning Commissioner Training. Time to time, the City provides training and educational opportunities for the various advisory committees and commissions, such as the Planning Commission. Sarah Sonsalla, an attorney at Kennedy and Graven, Rosemount's Legal Council, was present with a presentation on the role and responsibilities that the Planning Commission has in city governance. Mayor Droste and City Councilmember Shoe Corrigan also were present to discuss the role and relationship of the Planning Commission with the City Council. The powerpoint presentation Sarah Sonsalla provided included the following slides: Sources of the City's Zoning Powers Duties of the Planning Commission Information to be Relied Upon The Comprehensive Plan Court Review of Land Use Decisions Conditional Use Permits v. Interim Use Permits Public Hearings and Decision Making. Chairperson Messner asked about the time allowed for people to speak. Ms. Sonsalla replied that people need to be allowed to say what they need to say but at the same time, the Chairperson needs to keep things moving. Mayor Droste asked whether or not a time limit can be set for testimony. Ms. Sonsalla replied that you can set a limit but you need to be aware the public has the right to speak regardless of how much time is remaining.) Voting 60 -Day Rule Open Meeting Law Commissioner Schultz questioned variances and whether or not the hardship could be only economic in nature. Ms. Sonsalla replied that an economic issue can be one of the reasons for a variance but not the only reason. Mayor Droste pointed out that the public thinks the decisions are already made because there is minimum decision making and little discussion. Therefore, he stated Commissioners should give a full discussion of the decision even on the simplest matters. Also, Mayor Droste stated the public thinks the decision should be made based on the opinions raised at the public hearings. He went on to mention the current downtown redevelopment issue that will come before the Planning Commission in the future. It may be possible that the Port Authority and Planning Commission will hold a joint meeting to discuss the complexities of the steps in going forward on this issue. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 2 Councilmember Shoe Corrigan suggested the Commissioners read the Downtown Development Framework. Councilmember Shoe Corrigan stated that even though Commissioners have to deal with difficult situations at times, the Commission has very clear boundaries and must adher to the codes and standards in place. She stated it is important to always justify the votes with comments and instructed the Commissioners to always vote their conscious. It was asked by the Commission whether or not a Commissioner could speak at a Port Authority or City Council meeting as a resident while serving as a Planning Commissioner. Ms. Sonsalla replied that it is important to share opinions as a resident, but make it clear that you are speaking as a resident and not as a Commissioner. Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Commissioner Messner made a motion to adjourn. Upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 8:27p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary