Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101026 PCP RM Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2010 PAGE 1 Call to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 26, 2010. Chairperson Ege called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Irving, Kolodziejski, Demuth, and Powell present. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, Planner Lindahl, Senior Planner Zweber, Project Engineer Olson and Recording Secretary Hanson. The Pledge of Allegiance was read. Additions to Agenda: None. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of the August 24, 2010, Regular Meeting Minutes b. Approval of the August 24, 2010, Work Session Minutes MOTION by Kolodziejski to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Powell. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 5.a. Request by Vesterra, LLC and Stonex, LLC. to renew their Mineral Extraction Permit through 2011 (10 24 ME). Senior Planner Zweber reviewed the staff report and stated that the applicant, Jonathan Wilmshurst of Vesterra LLC /Stonex LLC, requests renewal of the Vesterra and Stonex mineral extraction permit for 2011. The subject properties are located south of Bonaire Path, 1 /4 mile west of Blaine Avenue (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. Mr. Zweber reviewed the background and conditions of renewal. Applicant, Jim Bauers, partner of Vesterra and Stonex, approached the Commission and stated they would be willing to include the haul -back provision since they would be required to turn over the site in clean condition when the project is complete. The public hearing was opened at 6:37p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Powell to close the public hearing. Second by Ege. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. The public hearing was closed at 6:38p.m. Commissioner Powell asked whether or not the protocol would indicate where materials would be coming from and also whether or not the City has received any complaints from the operation in the past. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2010 PAGE 2 410 Mr. Zweber stated the protocol from Danner is the most recent one that came in at the time. Mr. Wilmshurst has not provided Vesterra's protocol yet. Mr. Zweber requested the Commission to specify whether or not they feel it is necessary to include the haul back language from limited locations in the protocol. Mr. Zweber also stated that there have been no complaints on the site in the last two years. Chairperson Ege asked if it would be a detriment to the City if the haul back language from limited locations was not included. Mr. Zweber replied that with Danner and their local and State projects Shafer working mostly on MnDOT or MAC projects, a limited location haul back provision works well with their businesses. He stated that Vesterra and their sub contractor Total Construction work on smaller job sites. Commissioner Demuth asked if Danner shares their reports with the City. Mr. Zweber replied that Danner has yet to haul material back but that the City receives reports from Shafer twice a year including the MnDOT tests on the haul back material. Commissioner Demuth asked if the protocol specifies which company should do the testing. Mr. Zweber stated that when the City receives the protocol from Vesterra, staff will be able to review the report to see if they've chosen a company that meets the expertise. Commissioner Powell stated he did not feel it necessary to include location specific haul back language and he felt comfortable with the recommendation as it is currently stated. MOTION by Commissioner Powell to recommend the City Council approve the renewal of the Vesterra, LLC and Stonex, LLC Mineral Extraction Permit for 2011, subject to the standards outlined in Section 12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance and the 2011 Conditions for Mineral Extraction, including: 1. Submittal of a Vesterra LLC /Stonex LLC Reclamation Protocol similar to the Danner Inc. Borrow Pit Reclamation Protocol Rosemount, Inc. including a bi- annual report submitted to the City. 2. Provision of a surety bond as required under item M of the 2011 Conditions for Mineral Extraction. 3. Provision of a certificate of comprehensive general liability insurance as required under item N of the 2011 Conditions for Mineral Extraction. Second by Irving. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. Mr. Zweber stated that provided staff receives the protocol from Vesterra beforehand, this item will go before the City Council at the November 16, 2010, meeting. b. Downtown District Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (09 32 TA). Senior Planner Zweber reviewed the staff report and stated that following the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive (Comp) Plan, the City must review its Ordinances and update them as needed to implement the goals and polices of the Plan. Currently, Downtown is predominately zoned C -2 Community Commercial to address the commercial uses, PI Public and Institutional to address the civic uses, and a Downtown Overlay District which allows for some mixed uses /multi family residential buildings. The goal of the new zoning district is to create one zoning district that would replace the PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2010 PAGE 3 C -2 Community Commercial and Downtown Overlay districts while allowing for commercial, multi residential, and civic uses. The City will still maintain the Development Plan for Downtown Rosemount to show the mix of land uses expected in Downtown and the Downtown Design Guideline to more fully explain the design elements expect when designing a building for Downtown. Chairperson Ege asked that since auto repair businesses will no longer be allowed in the Downtown District, how that affected the Medicar business already in downtown. Mr. Zweber responded that the Medicar business is a legal non conforming use resulting from previous changes to the C2 district. The property is grandfathered in and can continue in its current size and capacity but cannot expand. He further stated that the changes to the Downtown District will not further affect how they operate their business. The public hearing was opened at 6:58p.m. Don Sinnwell, 3335 145` Street, Rosemount, and owner of a business located at 3020 145 Street approached the Commission and stated he was present at the Business Council Meeting when the City presented the draft ordinance. He listed a few concerns: What is the definition of a Historical Central Business District? Mr. Sinnwell stated that the new ordinance is restricting businesses from locating in downtown which conflicts with what the City should be trying to accomplish. With respect to the one parking space per apartment restriction in the draft ordinance, Mr. Sinnwell stated that an apartment will most likely have occupants with more than one vehicle meaning the one parking space will not be enough. Mr. Sinnwell stated that requiring financial institutions to obtain a conditional use permit for the drive -thru requires another permit and results in more time and money for the applicant. Mr. Sinnwell stated that excluding body piercing establishments again restricts businesses from locating in downtown and those types of businesses could draw a lot of people to downtown. Mr. Sinnwell stated he doesn't see why automobile parts and sales stores are not being allowed as they would bring traffic to the area. Mr. Sinnwell stated that retail sales of clothing is allowed although it takes a customer base of about 50,000 to support a clothing store. He asked how such a store would survive without additional traffic in downtown. Mr. Sinnwell stated that by not allowing sales to take place out of semi- trucks, the City is disallowing current practices such as Dewalt who has a semi that will sell tools in front of Terry's Ace Hardware. Mr. Sinnwell asked for the definition of "finished products" since hobby stores are allowed earlier in the ordinance and hobby stores often have products that are not finished. Mr. Sinnwell stated that a requirement for a six foot fence would be a safety hazard for a retail store or a bank where a person could hide behind the fence. Mr. Sinnwell further stated that in addition to the fencing and buffering requirements, the ordinance is requiring an additional 10 foot setback from the residential area which takes away a space equal to one parking space or sales space away from a business. With respect to the parking space requirements, Mr. Sinnwell stated that adding a requirement for 10% of the parking space to be for islands and decorative landscaping takes away from valuable parking area when parking is already so limited in downtown. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2010 PAGE 4 Mr. Sinnwell asked the Commission whether or not the new standards in the downtown district will be cost effective or cost prohibitive to new businesses coming into town. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Ege to close the public hearing. Second by Kolodziejski. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. The public hearing was closed at 7:10p.m. Mr. Zweber suggested the Commission table the item to allow staff to review the comments and questions put forth and come forward with a suitable response. To generally respond to some of Mr. Sinnwell's comments, Mr. Zweber stated that historic downtown, when mentioned in this context, means the area that was originally downtown. He further stated that many of uses that used to be in downtown and are no longer here mostly because of the market and most uses have moved to County Road 42. With respect to setbacks in the downtown district, Mr. Zweber stated that there are no setbacks unless the business borders a residential district and then there is an additional 10 foot buffer required, whereas in the C4 district, there are setbacks required on all property boundaries. Also, many uses mentioned by Mr. Sinnwell as not being allowed in Downtown are allowed in the C4 district along County Road 42. Mr. Zweber asked the Commission to provide direction on how to address the other questions and comments. Chairperson Ege agreed that the Commission is not prepared to pass the ordinance at this time and suggested tabling the item to give staff more time to prepare. Commissioner Powell stated his agreement to table the item. MOTION by Ege to table review of the DT: Downtown Zoning Ordinance to the November 23, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. Second by Powell. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. This item will be continued at the November 23, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. Old Business: None. New Business: a. University of Minnesota Student Presentations on Housing Topics at UMore Park. Carla Carlson, Executive Director at the Office for UMore Park Academic Initiatives, and Vice President of Operations UMore Development LLC, introduced the students presenting a summary of their reports that they prepared during their summer internships. The reports are Financial Models for Affordable Housing at UMore Park by Allie Kylndred, and UMore Park and Energy Efficient Incentives in Affordable Housing: Developer to Homeowner by Leslie Theiste. The first presentation was given by Allie Klyndred on Affordable Homeownership at UMore Park with an objective to research various models for financing and implementing affordable homeownership in the development at UMore Park. Topics of her presentation included affordability, shared equity ownership, shared equity owners The Community Land Trust Model, inclusionary zoning, and suggestions for the future. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2010 PAGE 5 Leslie Theiste gave a presentation on the Energy Efficient Incentives in Affordable Housing Developer to Homebuyer with an objective to research different ways to incentivize developers and potential homebuyers to invest in a green, affordable home and move to UMore Park. Topics of her presentation included developer financial incentives and marketing advantages, homeowner focus group findings, financial incentives, energy cost savings and health home benefits. Commissioner Irving stated he would have liked to see in the report how the cost of building green can be offset or alleviated for the homebuyer. Ms. Kylndred responded that there are opportunities for the costs of building green to be shared and sold at a discounted price with the shared equity homeownership option. Mr. Theiste responded that in her research she found that incentives for the homebuyers are not available right now and that needs to be improved. Commissioner Powell asked what was considered affordable home ownership in Rosemount. Mr. Kylndred responded that HUD defines affordable housing as 30% of a household's income being spent on housing and there are varying incomes in Rosemount. Commissioner Powell then asked what agency would be involved in the process to oversee the sale restrictions and to follow up. Ms. Kylndred responded that within the shared equity models, the homebuyer is normally paired with a non profit organization. She gave an example of Community of Lakes Land Trust in Minneapolis as a company that works with the homebuyer. Commissioner Powell asked how education of potential homebuyers will be increased on the subject of green technology. Ms. Theiste responded that it could be made a condition for a homebuyer to go through educational classes on the green features of their homes or to provide them with a tangible manual that shows examples of their home details. Commissioner Irving asked if it is a plan to have an association assist in maintaining the housing. Ms. Theiste responded that they cannot determine at this point whether an association would be in place or not. Chairperson Ege responded to the statement from the presentation that "when you have a healthy home, you have a healthy family" stated that corporations and companies are embracing this philosophy more to ensure their employees are at work to protect their bottom line. Ms. Ege told the students they did a great job giving their presentations and that the full reports were very well written. Mr. Zweber asked Ms. Theiste about the incentives provided to homebuyers from utility companies but that many Cities have multiple utility companies. Mr. Zweber asked how their incentives compare from utility company to utility company. Ms. Theiste responded saying the incentives are fairly similar to each other from utility company to utility company. Mr. Zweber asked Ms. Klyndred if she found there was less tendency to invest in their property if the homeowner would not get the full equity from their investment in their property with the shared equity program. Ms. Klyndred stated she did not find anything regarding that in her research but that she would look into it. There were no further questions or discussion between the students and the Commission. Reports: None. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2010 PAGE 6 Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Commissioner Ege made a motion to adjourn. Upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 7:56p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary