Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110628 PCM RM Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 1 Call to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 28, 2011. Chairperson Powell called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Ege, Demuth, Kolodziejski, Irving and DiNella present. Commissioner Miller arrived at 6:33 p.m. Also in attendance were Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, Project Engineer Olson, Community Development Director Lindquist, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brotzler, Resource Engineer/WSB & Associates Consultant Moffit and City Clerk Domeier. The Pledge of Allegiance was read. Additions to Agenda:None. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: a.Approval of the May 24, 2011, Regular Meeting Minutes. MOTION by Kolodziejski to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Ege. Ayes: 7. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings: At 6:31 p.m., Chairperson Powell recessed the regular Planning Commission meeting and opened the Board of Appeals and Adjustments meeting. a. Markos Chouliaris Variance Request (14531 Dodd Boulevard) to Allow Setback Variances for Planner Lindahl summarized the information provided the Waste Enclosure and Patio (11-25-V). in the staff report. Markos Chouliaris (Tops Pizza) has applied for a variance to increase the setback allowances for the waste enclosure and patio on his property. Planner Lindahl summarized the information provided in the staff report. The public hearing was opened at 6:43 p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Kolodziejski to close the public hearing. Second by Demuth. Ayes: 7. Nays: None. Motion approved. The public hearing was closed at 6:43 p.m. Chair Powell questioned the buildings surrounding the property. Mr. Lindahl explained which buildings were located adjacent to the property. Commissioner DiNella requested that Planner Lindahl explain the three variances requested. Mr. Lindahl explained the variances requested in relation to the patio and trash enclosure. The applicant, Markos Choularius, explained the access to the patio and buildings. He further explained the location of the trash enclosures. While explaining the access to the patio the applicant mentioned that patrons could bring their drinks outside. Chair Powell confirmed that alcohol on the patio was not allowed as part of this variance request. Mr. Lindahl clarified that the PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 2 liquor approval was a separate process from the request. Mr. Lindahl also explained that the applicant would be required to submit a plan for a building permit in order to construct the trash enclosure. Commissioner Miller questioned if the existing concrete structure met code. Mr. Lindahl explained that a visual inspection had been conducted but further review will take place with the additional structures are added. MOTION by Kolodziejski to approve a side yard setback variance from 10’ feet to 2’ to allow placement of a smoking patio, subject to the condition that the applicant obtain a permit in conformance with all applicable standards for a smoking patio. Second by DiNella. Ayes: 7. Nays: None. Motion carried. MOTION by Kolodziejski to approve a front yard setback variance from 30’ to 17’ and a side yard setback variance from 10’ to 8’ to allow placement of a trash enclosure subject to the condition that the applicant obtain a building permit in conformance with all applicable standards for a trash enclosure. Second by Irving. Ayes: 7. Nays: None. Motion carried. b. Geller Variance Request (12575 Biscayne Avenue) to Allow a Flat Roof and Corrugated Siding Planner Lindahl summarized the information provided in the staff report. Tod Hutchinson (11-22-V). has submitted a variance request on behalf of owners, Nicholas and Lori Geller, to allow for a flat roof and corrugated siding which requires a variance from Sections 11-2-15.C.1 and 11-2-15.E. Commissioner Ege stated she could understand the aesthetic standpoints raised in the staff report but questioned if the applicant looked for other materials that can offer the same feel as the proposed siding and meet the City’s requirements. Mr. Lindahl explained that the applicant applied for a building permit in May and staff had the conversation with the applicant on how the plan could be altered to meet the standards. He added that removing the request for corrugated siding would eliminate that portion of the variance. He noted that the applicant elected to move forward with the variance as they wanted the corrugated siding. Commissioner Miller inquired if a full structural review of the project has been completed or not because of the roof and siding implications. Mr. Lindahl explained that prior to any permits being issued a full inspection of the plans submitted would be conducted. Tod Hutchinson and Scott Maurer approached the Board on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Hutchinson explained the design of the home in full detail including the use of sustainable materials throughout the inside and outside of the house. He added that the proposed roof was of good quality and had a 30 year warranty. He stated that the materials proposed would be similar to those on the roof of City hall. He added that the steel siding would be allowed per the ordinance if it was 45 inches wide. He explained the benefits of the wider siding to be used for the project and included warranty information. Mr. Maurer added that the flat roof was the most important element to pass tonight. He noted that the corrugated metal expresses and matches the form of the building. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 3 Commissioner Miller questioned the quality of the proposed siding. Mr. Maurer stated it was a commercial product and explained the installation. Commissioner Miller also questioned the proposed landscaping. Mr. Hutchinson explained the landscaping proposed and the visibility of the home once the landscaping was installed. Commissioner Irving questioned if the applicant wanted to speak on their own behalf. Ms. Gellar approached the Board and explained the decision making process. She appreciated the approval of the flat roof and asked the Commission to please consider the corrugated siding. Commissioner Irving stated it seemed to be a good siding and would meet the spirit of the house. Ms. Gellar stated it was her dream home. Commissioner Ege questioned the applicants about using a different corrugated siding that would meet the City’s standards. Mr. Hutchinson replied that it was a premium metal siding that was being proposed and that it was just bigger than the allowed 16 inches. The public hearing was opened at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Lindahl stated that the standards in the ordinance do allow steel but it is dependent upon the zoning of the building. He talked of other types of siding and clarified that the reason for the variance was because of the width proposed. He added that the materials used at City Hall are allowed because of the zoning of City Hall. He again explained how residential zoning is different from the public and institutional zoning. He added that staff received two calls on the ordinance where one was neutral on the request and the other was against the request. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff did receive one letter from Dale Cody who was against the variances. Al Schawb of Eagan and property owner east of the Gellar property stated he didn’t care about the warranties of the materials proposed. He added that the siding reminded him of a pole barn and did not support the choice of siding. He requested a copy of the sections of the zoning code for that residential area. Commissioner Irving questioned if Mr. Schwab moved to his residence if it was brand new or previously built. Mr. Schwab wasn’t sure why it matter and stated his house is brand new. Mr. Schwab added that it was 180 degree change proposed compared to the other homes in the area. Commissioner Ege clarified that Mr. Schwab was an Eagan resident. Mr. Schwab stated he currently lives in Eagan. Dale Cody, 2275 - 126th St. W., Rosemount, stated he was a resident of the neighborhood for 21 years and did not support the flat roof as it would be too contemporary. He added that the corrugated siding reminded him of a barn and did not fit with the White Lakes area. Jeff Paulus questioned the seams of the siding. Mr. Hutchinson replied that the seam would go down ever 45 inches. Mr. Paulus wasn’t sure that the siding would look the best but liked the idea of a flat roof. Randy Kaiser, 12919 Bolivia Avenue West, Rosemount stated he was OK with the siding because a structure across the street had the same brown metal siding. MOTION by Ege to close the public hearing. Second by DiNella. Ayes: 7. Nays: None. Motion approved. The public hearing was closed at 7: 45p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 4 Commissioner Ege requested that staff address the standard about steel and the differences between residential and commercial standards. Mr. Lindahl read the standards as listed in the ordinance pointing out that the standards include allowable materials. The ordinance states that siding panels could not be wider than 16 inches. Senior Planner Zweber further clarified the wording of the ordinance noting that 45 inch panels are typically found in more agricultural areas. He stated that are many building materials that would meet the standards of the ordinance. Commissioner DiNella expressed concerns about snow on a flat roof. Mr. Hutchinson stated that while the roof appears flat from a distance that it actually does have a small pitch. Commissioner DiNella was also concerned about the corrugated siding and the aesthetics to the neighborhood. Commissioner Ege questioned what percentage of the home would have the corrugated siding. Mr. Hutchinson replied that 40% of the home would be corrugated, 58% hardie and 2% is a fireplace. Commissioner Miller questioned if other buildings in the area had corrugated siding. Ms. Gellar replied yes. Commissioner Irving questioned how many homes were located in the area. Mr. Lindahl stated approximately 20 homes in the subdivision nothing that the south subdivision is denser. MOTION by Miller to approve a roof slope variance from five to twelve (5:12) minimum pitch to a flat roof for the property located at 12575 Biscayne Avenue based on the findings made in the staff report dated June 28, 2011. Second by Ege. Ayes: 7. Nays: None. Motion carried. Chair Powell stated he visited the site and believed the proposed siding would be out of character for the neighborhood. Commissioner Irving did not support the Chair’s opinion and stated that roughly 20 people live in the neighborhood. He commented that only four neighbors provide any comment and the other 80% did not comment. Resident Dale Cody questioned how many mailers were sent out. Mr. Lindahl explained the notification process. Mr. Hutchinson added that approximately 100 addresses received notice. Commissioner Ege stated she did not support staff’s position to deny the variance based upon the width of the siding. Chair Powell clarified with staff that if the Commission moved to grant the variance that separate findings would need to be made. Mr. Lindahl agreed and said that alternative recommendations with the five findings used as criteria to grant a variance were required. MOTION by Kolodziejski to deny the variance request to allow corrugated metal panels as exterior material for the property located at 12575 Biscayne Avenue based on the findings made in the staff report dated June 28, 2011. Second by DiNella. Ayes: DiNella, Powell, Kolodziejski. Nays: Ege, DeMuth, Irving, Miller. Motion denied. Motion by Irving that with findings to approve the variance to allow them to have the siding as stated in the report. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 5 Commissioner Irving stated his findings as follows: Criteria #1 – Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance? Commissioner Irving stated that really as far as the ordinance is concerned he went back and forth on the metal. It is not aluminum foil. He felt nothing jumped out at him to say it is too far off the cuff. Criteria #2 – Is variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Commissioner Irving stated that if you read the section is about safeguarding the natural features of the area. He added that resident Randy Kaiser felt it did do that. Criteria #3 – Commissioner Irving stated he didn’t know what the condition required. Criteria #4 – No comment was made. Criteria #5 – Commissioner Irving stated this condition was his biggest concern. He said we all buy homes and only 20% of the neighborhood showed up to say they don’t like the plan. He didn’t feel comfortable telling a property owner what to do with their property. Commissioner Irving then stated he hoped his reasons were good enough though they might not be to the letter of the law. He did not feel swayed to support the City’s recommendation. Commissioner Miller requested to address the finding points for discussion. Criteria #1 – Commissioner Miller stated that based on staff report the intent of the ordinance is to provide a safe structure for the homeowners. The materials being selected are said to be of a superior quality. Criteria #2 – Commissioner Miller stated the comprehensive plan lists the property as residential rural development. Criteria #3 – Commissioner Miller believed the house was being put to use in a reasonable manner. Any other type of siding would make it a moot issue. Criteria #4 – Commissioner Miller stated that the homeowner and builder identified that it would be a sustainable approach. Criteria #5 – Commissioner Miller stated it was a nuisance finding. There is potential this could affect the character of the neighborhood as residents stated. The applicants have indicated their intent to do everything in their power to provide landscaping that secures the other homeowners in the area of the essential character. Commissioner DiNella requested that the motion be repeated. Commissioner Irving stated that the motion was to approve a variance to allow the siding on the house but could not remember the rest. City Clerk Domeier stated the motion was to approve the variance to PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 6 allow the siding on the house. She suggested that the motion be more specific to include the address and the findings. Commissioner Irving read out loud the motion listed in the staff report and then made a formal motion. Chair Powell noted that the staff report specifically denies the variance and the motion should include the change that per the findings indentified by commissioners. Motion by Irving to approve a variance request to allow corrugated metal panels as exterior material for the property located at 12575 Biscayne Avenue based on the findings made in the staff report dated June 28, 2011 and comments taken as such at the meeting and per the findings identified by commissioners. Second by Miller. Commissioner DiNella requested a roll call. Ayes: Ege, DeMuth, Irving, Miller. Nays: DiNella, Powell, Kolodziejski. Motion carried. At 8:12 p.m. Chairperson Powell recessed the Board of Appeals and Adjustments meeting and re- convened the regular Planning Commission meeting. nd c. Prestwick Place 2 Addition Final Plat and Final Development Plan (11-20-FP, 11-21-FDP). Senior Planner Zweber summarized the information in the staff report. D.R. Horton has applied for final plat and final development plan approval on property zoned R-1 PUD: Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development to construct a 29 single family development and redesign the 142 fifty-six (56) foot wide single family lots into 127 sixty-five (65) foot wide single family lots. Commissioner Miller questioned how this development compares to the project to the south in terms of house and lot size. Mr. Zweber replied that the house and lot sizes are almost identical. There is a difference in that this preliminary plat approval last year included a wainscoting of brick or stone for the bottom 3.5 feet of the house. He noted that the applicant asked for flexibility on this standard and preferred to do a front porch but wouldn’t fit with a brick or stone wainscoting. Staff would be willing to work with applicant on variety of front elevation elements for the City Council approval. Commissioner Miller requested that staff explain the 429 assessment project. Mr. Zweber explained the 429 assessment process in detail. Chair Powell questioned if the applicant would be required to submit a waiver of appeal for the assessment. Mr. Zweber explained that the City Attorney will include the waiver in the subdivision agreement. Chair Powell questioned how condition number two would be satisfied. Mr. Zweber stated that the applicant could address which option they are considering. More information was provided on the location of the well based upon the three former single family lots located on Akron Avenue that the City actually owns and were bought with the intention to construct a well at the site. There were many locations where the well could be located. The applicants will give the City a site for a well if they chose to purchase those City owned lots. Chair Powell also questioned condition number 11 in regards to the scenario if the bids for Connemara Trail would come back much higher than expected. Mr. Zweber stated that if the bids came back to high and the City did not move forward then the proposed design would not work and the applicant would not have access. A complete redesign would need to be submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 7 Scott Johnson, President of Arcon Development, stated that the deal was pretty clear in that the lot sizes would be increased and they have agreed to provide a well site to the north. He noted that the documentation was being drafted would be complete when the project proceeds to the City Council. Chair Powell had some questions on the front elevations. Mr. Johnson showed the different trims and features being proposed for the homes. The public hearing was opened at 8:27 p.m. Leeland Mann of Northern Natural Gas provided information on a pipeline going across the property. He stated that the gas company has not been approached for permission to cross the pipeline. He would like to have better plans to ensure maintenance of the pipeline. Mr. Olson stated it is a requirement that the developer work with Northern Natural Gas regarding the pipeline. Fran Hagen of Westwood Professional Services stated he sent out the CAD files to Northern Natural Gas two weeks ago. He indicated that Westwood is cooperating to resolve the situation. MOTION by Ege to close the public hearing. Second by Kodesjski. Ayes: 7. Nays: None. Motion approved. The public hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Discussion was held regarding changes to the front elevations. Mr. Zweber suggesting including language in the approval to allow for City Council approved front elevation enhancements. Commissioner Miller was concerned about the issues with the pipeline being addressed. Mr. Zweber explained that the pipeline concerns are in the engineering memo and that condition number 7 addresses the engineering comments. Commissioner Irving shared concerns about the encroachment agreement. Project Engineer Olson stated that an encroachment agreement would be required by Northern Natural Gas. He stated that no grading will be done until the agreement has been executed. He further stated that information has been provided to the developer and required as part of the Northern Natural Gas agreement to be in the City. The administrative pipeline agreement was not in the purview of the Planning Commission. nd MOTION by Miller to recommend that the City Council approve the Prestwick Place 2 Addition Final Plat and Planned Unit Development Final Site & Building Plan, subject to the following conditions with the Amendment to Condition 3 to read The alternative front elevation design including approximately three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting or other City Council approved front elevation enhancements is required: 1.Deviations from the R-1 zoning district are granted to allow a 65 foot minimum lot width, 25 foot front yard setbacks, 7.5 foot side yard setbacks, 8,750 square foot minimum lot size, and 35% lot coverage. 2.D.R. Horton will provide a well site within the exception parcels located on the east side of Street F or Arcon Development will to agree to provide a well site in a future development phase, preferably to the north. The well site will need to be a minimum of 0.25 acres with a minimum dimension of 105 feet by 105 feet and have a permanent access onto a local public street. 3.The alternative front elevation design including approximately three and a half (3.5) feet of PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 8 brick or stone wainscoting or other City Council approved front elevation enhancements is required. 4.Add the plant species abbreviations next to the plant symbols on the landscape plans. 5.Trees installed on individual lots shall be planted in a location that does not interfere with curb stops or individual sewer or water connections. 6.Fences on lots adjacent to Akron Avenue or Connemara Trail shall be constructed so that proposed landscaping is visible to the public, outside the fence and between the fence and Akron Avenue or Connemara Trail right-of-way. 7.Compliance with the conditions and standards within the City Engineer’s Memorandum dated June 21, 2010. 8.Compliance with the conditions and standards within the Fire Marshall’s Memorandum dated June 17, 2010. 9.Compliance with the conditions of Dakota County Plat Commission Approval. 10.Increase the size of Preliminary Plat Lot 2, Block 4 to a minimum of 8,750 square feet. 11.City Council award of the Connemara Trail construction contract on July 19, 2011. 12.Payment of fee-in-lieu of park dedication at the time of building permit issuance at the rate established by the City Council at the time of building permit issuance. Second by Demuth. Ayes: 7. Nays: None. Motion carried. d. SKB Environmental, Inc. Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment and Interim Use Senior Planner Zweber provided an Permit for a Compost Facility (11-17-TA, 11-18-IUP). abbreviated summary of the staff report and requested to continue the public hearing. He stated that Dakota County Environmental Management and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staff needed to provide guidance on the request to process sewage and industrial sludge within the compost. SKB Environmental has applied for a zoning ordinance text amendment and interim use permit to allow a compost facility on their site. The public hearing was opened at 8:38 p.m. Brenda Suggi, 13701 Courthouse Blvd., Rosemount, expressed concerns about the changes occurring at the proposed site over the past 20 years. She stated that every year the site gets bigger and higher. She added that she was promised that food would not go to the dump that would promote rodents. She questioned when enough would be enough. Bonnie Troska, 13650 Courthouse Blvd., Rosemount, stated her concerns with the water and soil on her site because of SKB. She added that she did not want rats on the property that would affect her kitties. MOTION by Ege to continue the public hearing to July 26. Second by Kodejski. Ayes: 7. Nays: None. Motion approved. The public hearing was continued at 8:42 p.m. e. Marshes of Bloomfield Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Master Development Senior Planner Zweber began summarizing the Plan and Rezoning (11-23-PP, 11-24-PUD). information provided in the staff report. Pulte Group has applied for preliminary plat and planned unit development master development plan and rezoning to construct 183 single family units on 156 acres. The rezoning request would be to rezone the property from AG-Agricultural to R-1 PUD- Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development. Andi Moffit, Manager of the PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 9 Environmental Group at WSB & Associates, explained the wetland management plan and how it works. She touched on the wetland conservation act and city wetland management plan, the four classifications of wetlands, detail of wetland buffers. Commissioner Miller questioned the amount of mitigation that was within the development versus outside of it. Ms. Moffit responded that all mitigation was proposed to be within the site development. Commissioner Miller also questioned other stormwater and buffering issues that may jeopardize the quality of water. Mr. Zweber explained that those issues would be discussed during the next portion of his presentation. He continued the summary of the staff report. Commissioner Miller questioned if there would be a home owner’s association for the project. Mr. Zweber replied that the City would be requiring a home owner’s association as part of the approval. He stated the Commission could add the requirement to the proposed conditions listed in the motion. Chair Powell questioned if the proposed buffer would essentially overlap the 10 foot drainage and utility easement. Mr. Zweber replied yes. Ian Peterson, Vice President of Pulte Homes, provided more information on the project. He added that a home owner’s association would be established. He provided additional information on the wetland management and the front elevation architectural themes. Commissioner Miller questioned the long term monitoring of the wetlands. Mr. Peterson stated they will continue to work with WSB on the wetland issues. He explained more about the five year monitoring program. He noted that Ms. Moffit will be providing input on the expectation for monitoring the wetlands. The process will be addressed in the final plat stage and disclosures will be given to the home buyers. Commissioner DeMuth stated she did not support the applicant’s request for an increase in the maximum lot coverage. She did not want stormwater directed to Horseshoe Lake. Mr. Zweber explained the two part PUD process as listed in the ordinance. The standards that the City would deviate from would be discussed as part of the final development plan and the infiltration issues would be resolved with the final plat. Commissioner DiNella questioned if the HOA will file a declaration with Dakota County that spells out what is required with regards to wetland management. Mr. Peterson replied yes and that a disclosure statement will be provided to owners stating they received the declaration. Chair Powell questioned if the applicants requested 429 assistance. Mr. Peterson replied yes. Mr. Zweber pointed out that the financing will be determined during the final plat process. The public hearing was opened at 9:49 p.m. Randy Kaiser, 12919 Bolivia Avenue, Rosemount, stated he felt the Commission is off track from the rezoning of the property. He opposed the whole project and shared concerns about the wildlife sanctuary. Jackie Young, 12895 Bengal Avenue West, Rosemount, spoke about the quality of life in Rosemount and the unique parcel of land being discussed. She did not want paved streets, sewer or water brought to the site. She did not support the rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 10 Roger Hamilton, 13555 Athena Way, Rosemount, stated he would like to see the project less developed and preserve the marshes and creatures. Lisa Czyz, 13545 Atrium Avenue, Rosemount, was concerned about the rezoning, wetlands, wildlife and creatures. She would love to see Rosemount grow but felt this development was premature. Chris Peterson 13563 Athena Way, Rosemount, shared concerns about the school system being impacted and other safety and construction concerns with Bonaire Path. Sarah Gutierrez, 13552 Atwater Court, Rosemount, requested that the Commission reduce the amount of development for the project. She also shared concerns about the price points of the proposed homes. Todd Durscher, 2058 Bonaire Path, Rosemount, expressed his concerns with the speeding along Bonaire Path. Mike McMenomy, property owner to the east, stated his concerns with payment for half of Bonaire Path improvements and the location of the future road. Further comments were given regarding the assessments and alignment of the road between his property and the subject property. Leland Mann of Northern Natural Gas expressed concerns about the trails beside the pipeline easement and had further concerns about the wetlands. Tracey Larsen, 13561 Atwater Path, Rosemount, expressed concerns about people willing to buy the homes after the development disturbs the area. Randy Kaiser, 12919 Bolivia Avenue, Rosemount, expressed concerns about the traffic on Bonaire Path. Lisa Czyz, 13545 Atrium Avenue, Rosemount, stated there could not be a market for homes in this area. MOTION by Ege to close the public hearing. Second by DiNella. Ayes: 7. Nays: None. Motion approved. The public hearing was closed at 10:21 p.m. Chair Powell asked staff to address the rezoning, road reconstruction, potential future assessment and transportation issues. Mr. Zweber stated the plans for development support the comprehensive plan. He explained that the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2009 and showed the land use map to the Commissioners while explaining the anticipated development and future road extensions. He also explained the location of the future road between the subject property and the McMenomy property. Project Engineer Olson provided more information about Bacardi Avenue including the state aid funds and the pedestrian updates to Bonaire Path. Mr. Zweber stated that the school districts provided comments on the comprehensive plan stating that while the Rosemount portion is growing the Eagan and Apple Valley portions are declining. He provided information on the current housing lot inventory in Rosemount. He noted there are PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 11 less than 100 lots remaining and based on the current growth that would last one year. He added that developers are here because the market can support it. Chair Powell talked about the MUSA boundary and the planning for the City’s infrastructure system. Project Engineer Olson added that Bonaire Path was designed and built per the comprehensive plan for the property developing and utilizing the road. The speeds on Bonaire Path are set by MnDOT and outside the regulation of the City. Commissioner DeMuth questioned the price point of the neighborhood. Chair Powell requested that the applicant provide the information. Mr. Peterson explained the price points, housing styles and floor plans. He also provided pictures of the plans. Commissioner DiNella thanked the public for their comments. He stated he was a previous member of the City’s Port Authority and noted how hard they worked along with the Community Development Director to bring more commercial and retail businesses to Rosemount. He further stated that unless Rosemount has more roof tops that a big box retail will not be located in Rosemount. He also explained the tax burden. He ended by saying he is the president of a HOA in his neighborhood and supports the project having an HOA for the protection of home values. Commissioner Irving was concerned about the issues raised by Mr. Mann. Mr. Zweber agreed that while it is an issue that the preliminary plant shows just the concept. He added that the final plan will show the ultimate development and how it will occur. Mr. Zweber explained the process for moving forward. Mr. Irving stated the he was still concerned about it jeopardizing the project. Commissioner Miller expressed concerns about the traffic. Mr. Zweber explained that before the comprehensive plan was adopted that the City went through the AUAR process and completed a traffic model of the area. Mr. Zweber explained the motions as presented. Chair Powell clarified the changes to conditions 3 and 19. MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council Approve the Marshes of Bloomfield Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan and Rezoning to R-1 PUD: Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions modifications to 3 and 19: 1.Deviations from the R-1 zoning district are granted to allow a 75 foot minimum lot width, 25 foot front yard setbacks for most lots, 20 foot front yard setbacks for lots with wetland buffers; 7.5 foot side yard setbacks, and 9,250 square foot minimum lot size. 2.Pulte will provide a well site within the Preliminary Plat. The well site will need to be a minimum of 0.25 acres with a minimum dimension of 105 feet by 105 feet and have a permanent access onto a local public street. 3.The home design front elevation shall include a minimum of three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting or City Council approved front elevation enhancements 4.The private neighborhood pool site shall require a Site Plan Review before construction. 5.Developer installed trees shall be planted outside of the public right-of-way except for the entry medians and the maintenance of these trees shall be the responsibility of the individual homeowners or the homeowner’s association. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 12 6.Add the plant species abbreviations next to the plant symbols on the landscape plans. 7.Trees installed on individual lots shall be planted in a location that does not interfere with curb stops or individual sewer or water connections. 8.Wetland mitigation areas shall be expanded to total 1.64 acres. 9.Wetland buffer averaging is allowed per the roadway and utility buffer averaging analysis and the household buffer averaging analysis. All areas within the wetland buffers that do not have natural vegetation shall be seeded and established with a wetland buffer seed mix. 10.Fences are not allowed in wetland buffers. Conservation easements shall be granted over all wetland buffers not located on public lands. 11.Structural setbacks for lots with wetland buffers located on them is reduced to twenty (20) feet. 12.Minimum building setbacks from the OHWL mark of Horseshoe Lake and Mare Pond shall be 75 feet. 13.Approval of the Shoreland Ordinance Planned Unit Development by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 14.Compliance with the conditions and standards within the City Engineer’s Memorandum dated June 22, 2011. 15.Compliance with the conditions and standards within the Park and Recreation Director’s Memorandum dated June 22, 2011. 16.Compliance with the conditions and standards within the Fire Marshall’s Memorandum dated June 17, 2011. 17.The applicant will dedicate land for park dedication, subject to final acceptance by the Parks Commission with the remaining in payment of fee-in-lieu of park dedication at the time of building permit issuance at the rate established by the City Council at that time. 18.Development of the site beyond Phases 1 and 2 are dependent upon the provision of necessary public utilities and infrastructure for access and city utility services. 19.Home Owner’s Association is required. Second by DiNella. Ayes: DiNella, Ege, Powell, Kolodziejski. Nays: Demuth, Irving, Miller. Motion carried. Mr. Zweber requested that the Commissioners who voted against the project to state their reasons for the official record. Commissioner Miller stated he voted against the project based upon the information provided by Mr. Mann, the impacts to the horseshoe area lots and the wetlands and that he was unclear as to what would happen with the easement to the trail and future development. Commissioner Irving concurred with his concerns. Commissioner DeMuth stated it was a unique piece of property like Evermoor. She did not support the Evermoor development and therefore would not support this development either. She added that she was not part of the current comprehensive plan or the process. She added there was plenty of land to the east that could be developed. Old Business None. : New Business None. : Reports None. : PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 13 Adjournment There being no further business to come before this Commission, Chairperson : Powell made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Irving. Upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 11:06 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Domeier, City Clerk