Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120228 PCM RM PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 1 Call to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 28, 2012. Chairperson Powell called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. with Commissioners Demuth, Weber, Irving, and Ege present. Commissioner DiNella was absent. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, Project Engineer Olson and Recording Secretary Hanson. Commissioner Miller arrived at 6:43p.m. City Administrator Johnson arrived at a later time. The Pledge of Allegiance was read. Additions to Agenda:None. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of January 24, 2012, Regular Meeting Minutes MOTION by Demuth to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Ege. Ayes: 6. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public Hearings: Planner Mr. Lindahl 5.a. Public and Institutional Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (10-13-TA). explained the staff report for the initiated text amendment amending sections of the Zoning Ordinance relating to public and institutional uses such as churches, schools, and parks. He stressed to the audience that the text amendment will not result in any developmental changes to the city parks. Chairperson Powell asked staff the risks involved if the text amendment was not approved at this time. Mr. Lindahl stated the difficulty in determining the level of risk which depends on a number of factors, but staff feels it is important to recognize that if the dynamic exists in other communities, it could exist in Rosemount wherein private properties zoned as Public and Institutional want to change. The public hearing was opened at 6:46p.m. Tim Buckenberger, 13844 Claredowns Way, stated that the threat of litigation given as a reason for the amendment is not sufficiently supported with scenarios where this could happen in Rosemount. Also, he stated that the meetings held in 2011 with property owners is a procedural misstatement because he has never been contacted by the city and he feels highly affected by the change. Mr. Buckenberger asked about the quotes in the staff report of the city attorney and asked if staff was following the advice of the city attorney in this matter. Tom McCarthy, 14037 Dartmouth Path, stated the notice letter was very vague and did not specify which residential zoning designation is involved. Also, he stated that while only residents within a 350 foot area received the notices, more of the public uses the park than that. He also stated that not enough time was given to review the staff report and he feels the property values of homes will go down if the zoning designation of the parks is changed. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 2 rd Steven Mann, 3465 143 Street West, stated he doesn’t understand the litigation risk to the city of privately owned properties if the parks are already city property. He feels rezoning the parks will shorten the process to develop the parks as residential. He feels the better solution would be to rezone the privately owned properties but leave the parks. Janet Rohlf, 14190 Cobbler Avenue, asked if the 2030 Comprehensive Plan could be changed in the future to allow the parks to be sold for other development. Dennis Randall, 14034 Clover Lane, commented on the lack of time allowed to review the packet and stated that there should be a zoning classification just for parks. He feels changing the zoning to residential will affect the property values. th Wendy Hartley, 2765 134 Street West, stated she called the homeowners’ association liaison and they did not know anything about this proposal. She questioned the cost involved to rezone all of the properties. Tony Kaufman, 14233 Cobbler Avenue, stated he felt it was dangerous to draw the conclusion that Rosemount will have the same litigation risks as other communities and recommended the City do more research. He asked what the legal obligation is with respect to changing the Comprehensive Plan and zoning classifications. th Don Sinnwell, 3335 145 Street West, stated that people buying property next to a church, park or golf course are aware of the zoning of that property. He feels there would not be any problems to rezoning the property at the time it would change hands and therefore the current proposal is unnecessary at this time and causing undue concern among the residents. Erin Fletcher, 13822 Birmingham Court, lives adjacent to St. Joseph’s Church and stated she paid more for her land because it was adjacent to an open space. She is concerned that it would be easier to change the use for the property if the proposed rezoning is approved. rd Ron Jacobson, 3647 143 Street, lives next to Carroll’s Woods and stated that rezoning the woods to residential removes one more layer of protection for the woods. He stated he contacted the DNR who informed him that the DNR would have to give permission for any use other than a park. He requested the Commission to table the issue in light of the interest and comments raised. Deb Kaczmarek, 13094 Danube Lane, also requested the item be tabled stating that there was not adequate time to review a 71 page report filled with legal jargon that is hard to understand for regular people. She feels that attaching a zoning classification to the parks with a term less clear than “public” will be confusing. Jackie Doehling, 14885 Dodd Boulevard, lives next to Twin Puddles Park. She stated she was never notified prior to this meeting as it is referenced in the staff report about meetings with property owners. She questioned why parks cannot remain zoned Public and Institutional and requested the definition of “long term” as referenced in the staff report. Karen Kirkwood, 13210 Downey Trail, Apple Valley, lives near the Evermoor development and the Innisfree park. She stated her concern that even a little bit of residential development on the park property would negatively change the neighborhood considerably. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 3 Scott Rogers, 14110 Cobbler Avenue, stated he used to live in Eagan when they had the same situation where the City closed a golf course for residential development. He stated he bought his current property because of the park in the backyard and if the intended use is not residential, then the zoning should be zoned as parks. Duane Smith, 14875 Dodd Boulevard, stated he was not notified of any earlier meetings and feels that since the parks are part of the whole community, the whole community should be notified of this change. He suggested the Commission postpone the matter until all residents are notified and can attend the meeting. Mr. Lindahl clarified at this point that the meetings with property owners mentioned in the staff report were meetings held with the owners of the private properties being rezoned such as the churches and schools, not the owners adjacent to the properties. Brad Johnson, 13950 Dander Court, stated that when a person looks to move to a new city, a major item they research is the green spaces and parks. He asked how this will be done if the parks are the same color on the zoning map as the residential areas. Steven Mann, 3465 143rd Street West, approached the Commission again and stated that it is clear the proposal is not supported by the public and questioned what remained in the process. Kathy Klonecky, 15621 Cornell Trail, suggested the zoning designation for parks should be what some other cities are using as “public open spaces”. She stated she contacted the Metropolitan (Met) Council to ask what they require in this process and the Met Council told her they only review what the city submits and that the city is not held by the MN state law of conformity as referenced in the staff report. With respect to the notice received, she stated that every resident should be notified and the letter was hard to understand. Kathleen Rogers, 14110 Cobbler Avenue, stated her opposition to the proposal and that just because the Commission or city is able to do something, it doesn’t mean they should. Chuck Gill, 14270 Cobbler Avenue, stated when he bought his property, he was told the park would be there forever. He stated that he doesn’t trust the City when it says the long term intended use of the property will not be affected with the proposed zoning change. Amy Lapree, 14090 Cobbler Avenue, stated she remembers when the issue of paved trails within Carrolls Woods was a public hearing and that none of the public voices were heard at that time. She requested the Commission open the issue up to all city residents and not to make any hasty decisions. rd Kathleen Tousignant, 3581 143 St W., lives adjacent to Carrolls Woods and stated she sees many steps being eliminated in the process to have the property developed as residential. She told of a time she called the Minnesota Zoo to see if they could retrieve an owl that had been abandoned in Carrolls Woods. The Minnesota Zoo informed her that being in Carrolls Woods, the bird was already in a protected zone. She requested that the park remain a protected zone. Kathy Klonecky, 15621 Cornell Trail, approached again and stated she felt the schools and city hall should remain Public and Institutional zoned properties. There were no further public comments. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 4 Mr. Lindahl explained the process of the Planning Commission, the notification of public hearings and publications, and clarified the meetings held with the stakeholders of the owners of the properties actually being rezoned. He stated that the owners of the private properties are in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Lindahl addressed the questions asked in the public comments. He stated the issue with the private properties being publicly zoned is different than rezoning the parks which are already public property. With respect to the notice sent to the residents, Mr. Lindahl stated that City staff followed state law regarding the requirement to notice all residents within 350 feet of the involved property and the purpose of the notice is sometimes hard to explain in a short and concise manner. He stated that amending the comprehensive plan is a different process not part of the current proposal and he acknowledged the suggestion by one resident to zone the parks as a completely separate zoning category as a viable option. Community Development Director Lindquist stated if there is a difference between the zoning designation and the land use designation, the land use would govern. She stated the purpose for the text amendment is to stay in compliance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further clarified the litigation risk as it relates to private property, not the parks. She stated that the parks are not the main purpose of the text amendment and suggests the Commission pull the park rezoning item from the recommendations but continue with the other areas. Further discussion took place on the affect of rezoning of parks and Chairperson Powell stated his opinion that if the parks are rezoned to residential, the city would not be able to reassure those residents that live adjacent to the parks of the longevity of the park. Chairperson Powell made a motion to continue the public hearing so staff and the Commission were allowed time to consider the public comments. MOTION by Powell to continue the public hearing to the March 27, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. Second by Ege. Ayes: 6. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was continued at 8:03p.m. Chairperson Powell recessed the meeting at 8:03p.m. Chairperson Powell reconvened the meeting at 8:10p.m. 5.b. Dakota Aggregates Request for Ordinance Text Amendment to Allow Large Scale Mining (12- Senior Planner Zweber stated the University of Minnesota is proposing to develop the 5,000 02-TA). acre UMore property (3,000 acres in Rosemount and 2,000 acres in Empire Township) into a mixed use community of up to 30,000 people. Before the development occurs, the University and their partner Dakota Aggregates are proposing to mine the western 1,600 acres of UMore over a 40 year period (25 years in Rosemount and the final 15 years in Empire). The Rosemount Zoning Ordinance does not permit mining in UMore. Dakota Aggregates has requested a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow mining in the western half of UMore. Mr. Zweber stated that staff has prepared a Large Scale Mineral Extraction Ordinance that would regulate the mining request and recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and take testimony from all the public that is in attendance. He further recommended to continue the public hearing to the March 27 Planning Commission meeting. This continuance will allow time PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 5 to evaluate the public testimony and consider revisions to the ordinance to address concerns raised. Commissioner Miller asked about the monitoring methods the city will use for mitigation efforts of noise and dust and whether or not it is appropriate to place the ancillary uses within an agricultural zoned area rather than an industrial zoned area. Mr. Zweber responded that establishing the ordinance allows the applicant to apply for a permit and deals with the standards for any mining organization, not exclusive to Dakota Aggregates. The permit will address any mitigation efforts required. With respect to the ancillary uses, Mr. Zweber stated that Section G of the ordinance addresses ancillary uses and it states they can only be active on the property as long as the mine is active. If the ancillary uses were set up in an industrial zoned area, then they could stay there forever. Commissioner Demuth asked about the compaction requirements. Mr. Zweber responded that the ordinance is not specific as to what the requirements are but simply states in Section J.8. that the material needs to be compactible. Chairperson Powell asked staff to explain the process with the ordinance amendment and permitting process and Mr. Zweber clarified the process. The applicant, Timothy Becken, from Dakota Aggregates, stated this has been a long process of identifying issues and creating solutions involving a series of neighborhood meetings. He stated they are excited to be at this stage in the planning. The public hearing was opened at 8:39p.m. Kris Johnson, 14414 Atwater Way, stated that he is happy to hear that explosives are prohibited, the tree requirement should be reviewed during the winter months when coverage is at a minimum, the berm should be at least 20 feet high on the other side of the tree line which will aide in dust protection, and that the truck traffic should be kept to County Road 46 if possible. He asked how the noise levels affect the current noise ordinance the city already has and asked the economic benefit the city will gain from the mining. Ray Martin, 2310 Beech Street, suggested planting trees on the north side of County Road 42 to give additional protection from the noise and view. th Myron Napper, 3381 145 Street East, stated he was happy that UMore will finally use the property constructively and begin to pay the real estate taxes but he stated he is concerned about the additional traffic and whether or not the current infrastructure will sufficiently handle it. Nathan Denny, 14404 Atwater Way, asked what parties are involved in the permit process and requested the setback off of County Road 42 be increased to 1300 foot minimum. Deneace Tucek, 14140 Autumnwood Trail, stated she is concerned with the dust and noise and also safety issues involved with damages to passing cars and roadways from rocks and sands coming from the trucks. She asked why this particular parcel was chosen for mining when the University owns so much property in the area. Kevin Bartol, 14398 Atwater Way, asked how the added expense will be mitigated to the residents from the sand in the furnace filters and air conditioners and how the noise will be controlled from the truck traffic on County Road 42. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 6 There were no further public comments. Mr. Zweber gave the tentative schedule of the ordinance and permitting process and stated that residents will have additional opportunities to voice their concerns. Commissioner Irving asked the applicant how long they plan on operating the ancillary uses even after the mining in Rosemount is completed. Mr. Becken replied that they plan to operate the ancillary uses throughout the 40 years of mining in Rosemount and Empire Township. Commissioner Miller asked if the ordinance could specifically state that the EIS is available for public review. Mr. Zweber stated that staff can post the EIS on the website or provide a link to UMore’s website and it will be available for viewing at City Hall. MOTION by Irving to continue the public hearing to the March 27, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Second by Miller. Ayes: 7. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was continued at 9:06p.m. 5.c. Ryland Group Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan and Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for Greystone Development (11-33-PP, 11-34-PUD, 11-35- Senior Planner Zweber stated the applicant, The Ryland Group, Inc. (Ryland) requests approval CP) of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan with Rezoning for the Greystone subdivision to allow 54 lots on about 24 acres. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment is necessary to change the land use designation from MDR – Medium Density Residential to LDR – Low Density Residential and the rezoning is necessary to change the property from AGP – Agricultural Preserve to R-1 PUD, Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development and establish appropriate lot and setback standards. Mr. Zweber stated that after the Planning Commission had continued the Public Hearing from Greystone to the January 24 Planning Commission meeting, staff now recommends approval of a comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary plat, and planned unit development master development plan with rezoning with the conditions listed. There are a few issues, such as the berming along Akron Avenue, that need further refinement prior to final approval by the City Council. Commissioner Miller asked about stormwater management and the proposed trail system. Project Engineer Olson explained stormwater management plan and easements involved and Mr. Zweber explained on the map where the proposed trail will extend to. Chairperson Powell asked for a clarification of the park dedication process and Mr. Zweber explained on the map where the future park area is proposed. The Applicant, Mark Sonstegard of Ryland Homes, stated this is Ryland’s first community in Rosemount and it will be completed in two phases, 23 lots now and the remaining lots in 2013. The public hearing was re-opened at 9:42p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Irving to close the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 7 Second by Miller. Ayes: 7. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 9:43p.m. MOTION by Irving to recommend the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Greystone development changing the land use designation from MDR – Medium Density Residential to LDR - Low Density Residential, subject to the Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Metropolitan Council. Second by Ege. Ayes: 6. Nays: None. Motion approved. MOTION by Irving to recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Greystone, subject to conditions: a.Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Metropolitan Council. b.Approval of a Major Planned Unit Development rezoning the subject property and designating minimum lot requirements and setbacks. c.The 2.16 acres of required park dedication will be fulfilled by a declaration being recorded on an outlot in the location of the 4.5 acre park on the property to the north as shown on the future development layout. d.Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the attached memorandum dated February 21, 2012. e.Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as detailed in the attached memorandum dated February 22, 2012. f.Conformance with all requirements of the Fire Marshal as detailed in the attached memorandum dated February 14, 2012. Second by Weber. Ayes: 6. Nays: None. Motion approved. MOTION by Irving to recommend the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with the Rezoning of the property from AGP – Agricultural Preserve to R1 PUD – Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions: a.Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Metropolitan Council. b.All home front elevations shall have one of the following features: a side entry garage; 3½ feet of brick or stone wainscoting; or a front porch with railing that extends at least 30% of the width of the front elevation. c.A deviation from City Code Section 11-2-15 F. so that the home designs do not need to include an option for a three garage stall. d.A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.1. to reduce the interior lot minimum area of 10,000 to 8,600 square feet and corner lot minimum area from 12, 000 to 11,000 square feet. e.A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.2. to reduce the minimum lot width to sixty (60) feet for interior and seventy five (75) feet for corner lots.. f.A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.4. to reduce the front yard setback to PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 8 twenty five (25) feet. g.A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.5. to reduce the side yard setback to seven and one half (7.5) feet. h.A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.9. to reduce the maximum lot coverage to forty percent (40%) for lots less than 9,750 square feet in size and thirty five percent (35%) for lots between 9,750 square feet and 11,250 square feet. i.No driveway width shall exceed fifty percent (50%) of the front property line nor fifty percent (50%) of the curb line in front of the property. j.Lots 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13, Block 2 should be reduced to sixty two (62) feet in width and Lots 9 and 10, Block 2 should be expanded to sixty six (66) feet to accommodate the ten (10) foot side yard drainage and utility easements. k. A minimum of a three foot high berm shall be constructed along the western property lines Lots 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 1 to provide additional screening between the subdivision and Akron Avenue. l.Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the attached memorandum dated February 21, 2012. m.Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as detailed in the attached memorandum dated February 22, 2012. n.Conformance with all requirements of the Fire Marshal as detailed in the attached memorandum dated February 14, 2012. Second by Demuth. Ayes: 6. Nays: None. Motion approved. Old Business None. : New Business None. : Reports As a reminder, Mr. Zweber stated there will be a Planning Commission meeting on : March 13, 2012, with a work session following. Adjournment There being no further business to come before this Commission, the meeting was : adjourned at 9:45p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathie Hanson, Recording Secretary