Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20130625 PCM RM PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 1 Call to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 25, 2013. Chairperson Powell called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Husain, Miller, Kurle and Weber present. Also in attendance were Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, Economic Development Intern Hadler, Assistant City Engineer Olson and Recording Secretary Kladar. The Pledge of Allegiance was read. Additions to Agenda:None. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of the May 28, 2013, Regular Meeting Minutes MOTION by Weber to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Kurle. Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. Abstain: Miller. Motion approved. Public Hearing : 5.a. Request by Lennar Corporation for a Preliminary Plat and PUD Final Site and Building Plan th Economic Development Intern Hadler for Prestwick Place 9 Addition (13-25-PP, 13-26-FDP). stated that the applicant, Lennar Corporation (Lennar) requests approval of a Preliminary Plat and th Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Site & Building Plan for the Prestwick Place 9 Addition subdivision to allow 68 lots on approximately 31 acres. Ms. Hadler further explained the different phases of the development and conditions involved. Commissioner Weber inquired about the small section of lots within Phase 1 along Albany Avenue. Ms. Hadler stated Albany is currently under construction. Assistant City Engineer Olson added th that Albany Avenue is included with Prestwick 7 and will be under construction this fall and the roadways and infrastructure will be in place with that addition. Lots 9 and 10 will also be developed th with 7 addition. No further questions. The public hearing was opened at 6:37 p.m. Shalome Westberg, 14184 Atwood Court, stated she is concerned about increased traffic as there are lots of kids on the two cul-de-sacs. Currently there is no through traffic and she inquired if nd 142 Street West needs to be extended into the new development as proposed. If the proposed nd street must be there they would request a 4-way stop between 2 cul-de-sacs and 142 Street. Mr. Zweber responded that he received calls from two residents about this proposed street and that one of the callers had specifically stated that he was in favor as it would provide a connection to the park itself. Connemara Trail is the major road in the area. None of the other roads will lead to a full intersection with County Road 42 other than Connemara and turning south onto Akron Avenue to County Road 42. This will connect Bloomfield and everything south of Connemara. This connection does not provide a shortcut to anywhere else or provide an additional thoroughfare. Eliminating the connection would possibly delay emergency service. Further, in 2007 when Prestwick was approved this connection was shown as a future street. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 2 Assistant City Engineer Olson stated they will determine if a study is warranted regarding 4-way stop. He noted that the connection does provide continuity between neighbors and the park but is not a regional connection. Zach Little, 14262 Atwood Circle, is concerned about whether the easement on his property will be accessed during the development stage as he has trees planted there. Assistant City Engineer Olson responded that the proposed grading plan will grade up to the property line and not beyond. Eric Zweber added that all drainage will stay on the properties. The backyards are graded with a swale and catch basins will be installed. Brian Schulte, 14214 Atwood Circle, had the same concerns of kid safety and traffic. He inquired as to the criteria for a 4-way stop sign placement. Assistant City Engineer Olson stated that the City will take a thorough look at this intersection but the determination is made based upon traffic and pedestrian volume and sight distance. Chairperson Powell inquired whether stop signs actually slow down traffic. Assistant City Engineer Olson responded that they do not and are not a good method for traffic calming. If a driver is forced to stop they will speed beyond the stop sign or roll through it. He noted that stop signs can give pedestrians a false sense of security. Fran Hagen with Westwood Professional Services was present on behalf of applicant Lennar. Commissioner Miller asked applicant about the proposed sidewalks. In the past he’s seen more sidewalks in other Lennar (such as Glendalough) projects than he is seeing on the proposed development. He inquired whether the sidewalks are sufficient and is there a potential for increasing the amount. Mr. Hagen stated that this was standard for what they’ve done in the past. More sidewalks are th typically added if it is a heavy traffic road. Applicant refers to Prestwick Place 7 design. Albany Way has a sidewalk on both sides leading down to the park so they continued that per City instruction. Mr. Zweber added that the City reviews plans based on adopted city code and plans. Council has adopted a pedestrian and bicycle plan which requires sidewalk on one side of street in single family residential streets. On Albany, there are sidewalks on both sides because it funnels into the park and has increased traffic. The plan meets city’s requirements but more sidewalks can be added if the Planning Commission recommends. Chairperson Powell asked whether the Park Board reviews sidewalk and bike plans. Mr. Zweber advised that the Parks and Recreation director reviews and comments on subdivisions and sidewalks. Commissioner Miller wanted to make sure kids aren’t crossing over intersections to get to the park. Mr. Zweber replied that the City will add sidewalks if there are more homes or longer distances to destinations. He added that they planned to make as few intersection crossings as possible. Sidewalks on both sides won’t alleviate the need to cross at an intersection. Commissioner Miller asked how city is planning on signage that will show cars that there are designated crossing areas there. Mr. Zweber replied that a zebra stripe would be reasonable at the intersection Aldborough Avenue and Ailesbury Avenue. Assistant City Engineer Olson said that PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 3 traffic will stop at the two T-intersections and the City will evaluate whether a dedicated crosswalk and additional signage is needed. Commissioner Husain inquired about areas on the proposal designated as future commercial area. Mr. Zweber replied that they are owned jointly by Lennar, Pemtom Land Company and Arcon Land Company. Commissioner Husain asked whether city had considered traffic volume if there are commercial lots there. Mr. Zweber indicated that the City did within an AUAR in 2005. The commercial road will have a 3/4 access with 42; Akron Avenue has access in midblock between 42 and Connemara and residential street makes a T to try to discourage the use of local residential streets being used as short cuts to get to commercial area. The commercial area was further evaluated with preliminary plat approval in 2007 and the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2008. The City worked on a road network that encourages access to commercial area with limited access through local streets. Kyle Pak, 14274 Atwood Circle, states that he has a hill behind his house. The new development proposes three lots on top of the hill and he is concerned about the view from the proposed lots in that they will be looking down onto his property. Assistant City Engineer Olson responded that there would be no grading beyond property lines. The hill would remain and the homes will be higher than his lot. Mr. Zweber said Lot 6 would be behind Mr. Pak’s house and Lot 7 only partially. Lots 8-10 would be oriented to the pond to the south rather than to his house. Mr. Pak was also concerned about the easement on his property and whether additional water from the new lots would flow through his easement into the pond. Mr. Zweber advised that some of it will as the lots flow to the southwest and will flow down through the drainage and utility easement to the pond. The water would roll down from Lot 7 but Lot 6 flows north to a catch basin. The drainage and utility easement was determined to be part of the slope of the pond. The diagrams shows slope from Lots 8-9; there will be less of property flowing through the easement after development than the current agricultural field. Chairperson Powell said most of Mr. Pak’s lot is likely drainage and utility easement. Mr. Pak said the easement cuts across vertically down to catch rain water and the east side of the hill is landscaped too. Chairperson Powell said the purpose of the easement is so the anticipated runoff would go through there and the quantity wouldn’t change much with development as the grading is oriented southwest not west toward property. MOTION by Miller to close the public hearing. Second by Husain. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:10 p.m. nd Commissioner Kurle asked the applicant about 142 Street and whether most of construction would go through Connemara Trail and down Ailesbury. Assistant City Engineer Olson stated that contractors will use Connemara and Mr. Zweber added that they wouldn’t allow construction traffic nd to use 142 through Bloomfield. Commissioner Miller commented on the deviations from City Ordinance regarding lot size, etc. that come up recently each time a plat is approved. Commissioner Miller inquired whether there has there been discussion at the City level to revise codes so they don’t have the same variations each time a plat is approved. Mr. Zweber said that during a Comprehensive Plan review for UMore PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 4 or possibly earlier the City would consider a zoning ordinance for a smaller lot for single family homes. Chairperson Powell asked whether the smaller lot size is a reflection of the market. Mr. Zweber said yes but also the regional rules encourage the City to provide small lots and more density. Specifically, the Met Council has a benchmark of 3 units per acre which they can get close to with a 65’ lot. MOTION by Powell to recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for th Prestwick Place 9 Addition, subject to conditions: a.A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.1. to reduce the interior lot minimum area of 10,000 to 8,300 square feet. Blocks 1 & 3 will retain the R1 standards of 10,000 square feet. b.A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.2. to reduce the minimum lot width to sixty-five (65) feet for interior lots and eighty (80) feet for corner lots on Blocks 2 & 4. Per the conditions of City Council Resolution No. 2007.92 adopted October 2, 2007, Blocks 1 & 3 (formerly known as Blocks 1 & 2) will retain standard 80 feet minimum lot width for interior lots, and 95 feet for corner lots. c.The home design front elevation shall include a minimum of three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting, excluding doors, windows or the wall behind the front porch; a front porch with railing that extends at least 30% of the width of the front elevation, including the garage; a side entry garage; or no more than 70% lap siding, excluding doors and windows. d.A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.4. to reduce the front yard setback to twenty five (25) feet. e.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 on Blocks 2 & 4. Blocks 1 & 3 will retain the standard 10 feet side yard setback per the conditions of City Council Resolution No. 2007.92 adopted October 2, 2007. f.A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.9. to increase the maximum lot coverage to thirty five percent (35%) for the of lots Blocks 2 & 4. g.Sidewalks should be added along Alma Circle on Lots 28 – 31, Block 4. h.One additional overstory tree should be added to each of Lot 6, Block 3 and the corner lot Lot 5, Block 4. i.The proposed subdivision sign on Outlot B may not be placed on public property. j.Trees must be installed between home and adjacent right-of-way. k.Trees installed on individual lots shall be planted in a location that does not interfere with curb stops or individual sewer or water connections. l.Drainage and utility easements with storm sewer infrastructure may contain fences but shall be required to include gates to provide truck access; shall prohibit sheds or other accessory structures; and shall prohibit landscaping that would impede drainage. m.Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the attached memorandum dated June 18th, 2013. n.Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as detailed in the attached memorandum dated June 18th, 2013. o.Conformance with all requirements of the Fire Marshal as detailed in the attached memorandum dated June 10th, 2013. Second by Miller. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 5 Old Business None. : New Business : Planner 7.a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for Alternative Energy Systems (13-27-TA). Lindahl stated that Rosemount’s existing solar collector standards were last updated in 1993 and should be revised to address changing technology, establish consistent standards, and implement the City’s goals to become a more sustainable community. Mr. Lindahl explained that systems can be roof or ground mounted. Roofs are typically used in urban areas. Staff thinks it is important for the solar panels to blend into the existing background. There are two primary ways in which the City could designate use: accessory or conditional. Accessory use is considered a secondary use of a piece of property. Conditional use is more appropriate for rural or industrial. If the city were to consider accessory use, the applicant would request building permit and it would be an administrative type review. Conditional or principle use of the site would require a public hearing and come before Planning Commission. There could also be some interim uses. Mr. Lindahl requested comments from the Planning Commission on the information provided in the packet. Commissioner Husain inquired whether geothermal energy was included as an alternative energy. Mr. Lindahl responded that geothermal use is currently not being considered as the City feels that solar is the most appropriate place to start. However, the City intends to rename the code as alternative energy as opposed to solar and that could include geothermal and wind energy. Geothermal use is different and includes pipes and underground systems and there will be different standards for geothermal. Commissioner Miller inquired about height of the solar panels. He suggested that solar panels that exceed the height of house need a variance and if they are flush to the house to proceed by permit. Regarding ground mounted, he would like to see some screening standards and heights restrictions. Further, regarding performance standards there should be some benefit to putting them in. If City sets the structure for solar energy they open door to others such as wind power generation. Geothermal systems would just need to meet requirements and he doesn’t think the City would want to do conditional use permit. Generally speaking the process should be streamlined so City can provide permits once standards are met. Mr. Lindahl responded that the City will attempt to balance between an efficient use of the solar system with meeting performance standards. On the house shown, the panels were placed to get the most efficient use of the sun. Commissioner Miller thinks if it impacts surrounding properties, the Planning Commission may need to hear those matters and feels a balance of streamlining and maintaining the integrity of neighborhoods is important. Chairperson Powell said they are trying to set boundaries under which most things fit. The City will need some control if the changes will affect neighboring properties. With respect to geothermal, Mr. Zweber said there approximately six geothermal installations in town and most of them went in with no problem. The City will want to provide guidelines for review for those systems. Commissioner Kurle stated that height restrictions for buildings may be a good place to start for the guidelines. Commissioner Kurle inquired whether residents could say they can’t build due to trees so they could just go taller with their system. Mr. Lindahl responded that they would need to rise to the practical difficulty standard to meet variance requirements. Staff would typically advise PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 6 applicants that zoning standards create development limitations. The City would need to balance what is practical and reasonable for applicant to gain access to the solar resources with impact on surrounding properties. Mr. Zweber added that a City can modify a solution to a variance and can place reasonable restrictions. Commissioner Weber added that he would like to encourage solar systems in industrial areas. These buildings have larger rooftops and use more energy than residential homes. Commissioner Miller commented that setting good standards in place would help homeowners and businesses. He stressed the importance of supporting both citizens and businesses. Commissioner Miller also inquired about the process of moving to step 3 of the Green Steps. Mr. Lindahl stated there are 26 Best Practices items which communities need to do fully to implement the Green Steps program. Currently the City has done 7 or 8 items. Other items to be done include: create solar ordinance and streamlined permitting system, develop complete streets program allowing more alternative transportation methods with biking and walking, there are also certain energy standards for purchasing office machines and papaer. More detail about the next steps will be provided in the future. Mr. Lindahl requested the Commission’s input regarding whether solar panels should be permitted or as an interim use where solar panels would be the primary use of that property. The new Minnesota law allows for community solar where a property owner could create a large solar farm. They could lease or sell a panel of energy back to customers within the county. This is expected to be the new trend. Commissioner Husain inquired whether the City could put restrictions on new commercial buildings and the type of energy they use. Mr. Lindahl replied that this would exceed the City’s planning authority. The new state law requires the major utilities to produce 1.5% of their electric energy from a solar resource by the year 2020. The state is creating a broader incentive. Mr. Zweber added that there can be some City regulation on projects where City funds are involved. Commissioner Miller said interim use is his preference as it allows a review of permits. This will give an opportunity to make corrections and continue to improve performance standards. Commissioner Kurle said accessory use would be preferred for residential. He recommended conditional use for commercial properties based on certain requirements. Interim use could be used within a certain zoning area to maintain some control. The next step in this process would be for staff to draft an ordinance and bring it back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Planner Mr. 7.b. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for Accessory Dwelling Units (13-28-TA). Lindahl stated that the purpose of this item is to begin a discussion with the Planning Commission about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) within single family residential zoning district. Currently, single family districts prohibit more than one dwelling unit per property. Accessory Dwelling Units are defined as a “residential living unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons separate from a main unit on the same parcel.” Mr. Lindahl stated that staff requests the Planning Commission provide feedback regarding the idea of introducing ADU’s into single family zoning districts. There are two different potential processes: accessory or conditional use and the City needs to develop standards for either process. Staff recommends that the base zoning standards apply to PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 7 create consistency. The City could limit these units to certain zoning districts. Staff feels it is appropriate to maintain character of single family neighborhood. Zoning should regulate size to insure ADU’s remain secondary to the primary use (i.e., 30% of size). Occupancy can also be restricted by number of people or ownership. Other communities like Maple Grove or Woodbury have taken an incremental approach that allows separate living areas within an existing home such as the basement. Commissioner Kurle stated this is becoming very common in residential additions. He recommends accessory use with guidelines such as listed by staff. Commissioner Weber agrees and stated the only time he would want conditional use is for somebody who is not related. Mr. Zweber said the zoning ordinance wouldn’t allow revocation of the conditional use. The code currently addresses rental licensing. The City will look to see if a rental license can accommodate this type of dwelling. These licenses are managed administratively and are valid for 2 years. If the owner doesn’t meet the standards the licenses can be pulled. Conversely, zoning has a permanence that runs with the land. Commissioner Weber inquired whether they would still need to meet the minimum coverage of the lot. Mr. Zweber said they would without a variance. Commissioner Miller stated he would like to see accessory use for existing homes thereby setting up performance standards based on lot size and other criteria. Secondly, he thinks the City would need a new zoning code for the types of dwellings such as the Lennar drawing as they are quite different (i.e., single family plus zone). The Planning Commission talked previously about shrinking lot sizes in the recent developments. These new home designs are covering too much of these lots and lots will need to be bigger. Mr. Zweber stated there are plenty of non-conforming lots in the City such as the one acre lots along north South Robert Trail that are zoned Rural Residential. If the lot doesn’t conform to the lot standards, then the Planning Commission can consider prohibiting the able to get an ADU. If a lot is non-conforming, then that lot would have to be evaluated individually and a variance would allow the City to do that. . Commissioner Miller stated bigger lots may be necessary. Mr. Lindahl stated if they are basing standards on existing zoning standards, if you came in for ADU you would still look at the same standards regardless of what lot size you are on. The lot size may inherently limit the ability to have an ADU. The City would potentially add a standard minimum lot size for an ADU. Commissioner Miller doesn’t want a lot of conditional use permits and reviews. He thinks existing and future are different scenarios. Mr. Lindahl stated it’s important to review the criteria and tie to rental licensing process. Chairperson Powell wants to see these units as accessory uses if they fit underlying zoning and would like to allow where possible. He thinks that the owner needs to be in one of the two units. Commissioner Husain inquired as to the difference between accessory and conditional use permit. Mr. Lindahl replied that accessory uses are things that go along with primary use (i.e., garage, pool in single family zoning districts). Conditional use are similar to principal use but only appropriate under certain conditions (i.e., Rosemount allows churches as a conditional use in residential areas.) Commissioner Husain concerned about misuse and believes that a conditional use permit is more attractive. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 8 Commissioner Miller leaves at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Kurle doesn’t want there to be hindrances and recommends current code dictate guidelines. Mr. Zweber said there is a hybrid such as potential guidelines could require that detached would be conditional use and attached could be accessory use. Staff will study the issue further and create draft accessory dwelling unit standards for the Planning Commission to consider. Senior Planner Zweber stated 7.c. South Urban Gateway Analysis for Redevelopment (SUGAR). that the South Gateway District is an hourglass shaped area that is designated for commercial uses in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and he further explained where the area is in Rosemount. Mr. Zweber further explained that the City has received a $15,000 grant from the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) to conduct the South Urban Gateway Analysis for Redevelopment planning study and the City Council is recommending an approximate twelve (12) member committee including two Planning Commissioners to assist with the study. Mr. Zweber requested the Commission to appoint two committee members. Commissioners Kurle and Weber volunteered to be on the South Gateway Redevelopment. Reports : Senior Planner Zweber stated the open house for 8.a. Summary of UMore AUAR Open House. th public comment on the UMore AUAR was held last night, Monday, June 24, from 6:30-8:30p.m. with a presentation at 7:00p.m. in the banquet room of the Community Center. The Mayor and several council members were present and 15-20 residents. Mr. Zweber stated that were questions were raised how County Road 42 would be improved and how the environmental review would happen. It was explained that a construction contingency plan would need to be developed and approved by the PCA before any development happens. Adjournment There being no further business to come before this Commission, Chairperson : Powell adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Karin Kladar, Recording Secretary