Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20150127 PCM RM PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES January 27, 2015 PAGE 1 Call to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 27, 2015. Vice Chair Kenninger called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. with Commissioners Kurle, VanderWiel, Forster, and Miller. Also in attendance were Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, and Recording Secretary Roudebush. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. Additions to Agenda: Updated agenda to include the recess of the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals Audience Input: None Consent Agenda: th a.Approval of the December 9, 2014, Meeting Minutes MOTION by Kurle Second by Forster Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. Motion Passed. Commissioner Miller hadn’t shown up at this time to vote. RECESS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND OPEN BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS MEETING Public Hearing: 5.a. Request by submitted by Brian Rohrenbach to allow a variance from the Rosemount Zoning Ordinance sections 11-5-2.A.6 (Accessory Buildings) and 11-4-3.F (Minimum Lot Requirements and Setbacks) to allow construction of an accessory building (15-01-V). The applicant, Mr. Brian Rohrenbach, is requesting accessory building size and setback variances to allow construction of a 1,500 square foot accessory building. The subject property contains an existing 624 square foot detached accessory building and the applicant would like to construct a second 1,500 square foot accessory building. Together the existing and proposed accessory buildings would total 2,124 square feet or 924 square feet more than allowed by ordinance. In addition, the applicant plans th to locate the proposed 1,500 square foot accessory building 27 feet from the 125 Street property line or 13 feet closer than the 40 foot setback requirement. The applicant selected this location to maintain the required 30 foot setback from the neighboring properties to the east while placing the accessory building as far as possible from the wetland to the west. Staff recommends denial of these variance requests based on the finding that the applicant has not established a practical difficulty in complying with the zoning regulations and the variance request is based upon the property owner’s desire for more storage space and not any innate difficulty with the site. Further, the ordinance permits accessory buildings for any property in this zoning district and varying from the current PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES January 27, 2015 PAGE 2 standard would bestow a benefit not available to other properties in a similar circumstance, in this case a desire for additional covered storage. Commissioner Kurle inquired if the home already has a current garage. Planner Lindahl explained that they have both an attached and a detached garage. He also inquired if they attached the detached garage, would the applicant be able to build the 30’ x 50’ accessory building or would the size have to be reduced. Planner Lindahl stated that the size would have to be reduced to 1200 sq. ft. or 50% of the foot print of the home including the garage. If they attached the current detached garage, then the total footprint area would become about 2870 sq. ft. allowing about a 1435 sq. ft. accessory building to be installed. Kurle also inquired if a setback variance would still be required. Planner Lindahl stated that they would have to do more research but thought there might be a possibility of repositioning the building to meet the setbacks. They need to consider the neighbors and the wetlands. Commissioner Forster inquired what the process is if the lots were joined. Planner Lindahl stated that completion of any accessory structures on the second lot would require the applicant to combine the two properties and applicant is agreeable to that option. Planner Zweber stated that the Planning Commission wouldn’t have to approve the lot combination. Forster also inquired if the applicant looked into attaching the existing detached garage. Lindahl stated that there are some challenges, the garage is on floating slab and the house is on footings. The Building Official said it is possible to attach the garage, but more of a challenge than if the garage had footings. The applicant can give his opinion on options. Forster also inquired if we know if the house is maxed out for setbacks on south and eastern edge. Planner Lindahl responded that there were no discussions of the possibility to add to other areas of the house lot but the lot design is already very tight. The northern property line already has a variance and the front is already very close to the setback. The public hearing was opened at 6:59 pm. Public comments: Trent Eigner, 12465 Blanca Ave, questioned the Commission if they had a chance to drive through neighborhood. He stated that he knows that this area is zoned Rural Residential but the lots are more like low density neighborhoods in Rosemount. He wanted the commission to ponder what it would look like if a pole barn were constructed in the middle of the Evermoor development. He is not in favor of variance. Brian Rohrenbach 12485 Blanca (applicant) stated that staff is very respectful and helpful, and warned him of the possible outcome. He wants the new building to store his historic farming machinery. He has no intention to make it into a commercial business, just his personal hobby so he doesn’t have to store in various locations. He is willing to combine lots if that is what is needed for him to build the new accessory building. He feels like adding this building will add great value to this property. Commissioner Kenninger inquired if the applicant has looked into the placement if the PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES January 27, 2015 PAGE 3 new building is so it wouldn’t impact neighbors. Rohrenbach stated that the original plan was to use th the existing driveway so there would not be an impact to traffic on 125. MOTION by Kenninger to close the public hearing. Second by Kurle. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes. The public hearing was closed at 7:18 pm. Additional Comments: Commissioner Kenninger inquired if they were to attach current detached garage, the size of the garage would not be an issue but the placement would. Planner Lindahl stated that the accessory building would need to be slightly smaller around 1400 sq. ft., not the original 1500 sq. ft. proposed. The applicant could construct a 576 sq. ft. accessory building without the need for a variance. Kenninger confirmed that the applicant would need to combine the properties to do so. Commissioner Kurle inquired about what the process is to combine the properties. Planner Lindahl stated that the applicant would need to submit an application to the city, provide a survey, and legal descriptions before and after the lot combination. It would also need approval by the City Council. Kurle understands the applicant’s desire to make a good use of space and cleaning up the neighborhood, he also states that it doesn’t meet the practical difficulties. Setbacks are a concern and encourages the applicant to look at the other options discussed. Chair Miller stated that he understands that this area has undergone a number of variances as development has grown. He clarified that if applicant attached his existing detached garage that the new accessory building could be completed. He is also concerned that if the Commission grants the variance it would be a benefit solely to applicant and no other neighbors. Miller asks for suggestions from the commission. th Commissioner Kenninger feels that 125 Street is already tight. She doesn’t feel that attaching the existing detached garage to get the additional building is a viable option. She is most concerned with the setbacks and the precedence it would set if the variance were granted. Commissioner Forester can appreciate that the applicant has an odd lot. He is not concerned about setbacks but the accessory building size variance that would allow twice as much building as is allowable on other properties in the Rural Residential district. He asked the applicant if there is something in the middle that could be a compromise. 1.MOTION by Kurle to deny an accessory building size variance from the ordinance permitted 1,200 square feet to 2,124 square feet. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES January 27, 2015 PAGE 4 Second by Forster Ayes: 3 (Forster, Kurle, VanderWiel). Nays: 2 (Kenninger, Miller). Motion approved. 2.MOTION by VanderWiel to deny an accessory building front yard setback variance from the ordinance required 40 feet to 27 feet. Second by Kurle Ayes: 4 (Forster, Kenninger, Kurle, VanderWiel). Nays: 1 (Miller). Motion approved. CONTINUE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND CLOSE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS MEETING Old Business: none New Business: 7.a. Request by Ryland Homes for a Final Plat to Develop a 47 Lot Subdivision named Greystone 4th Addition(14-63-FP).The applicant, Ryland Homes (Ryland) requests approval of th a Final Plat for the Greystone 4 Addition to allow 47 lots on approximately 17 acres. The preliminary plat covering this area (Greystone II) was approved by the City on July 15, 2015. Staff th finds that the Greystone 4 Addition Final Plat is consistent with the Greystone II Preliminary Plat approval with the staff recommended conditions. Chair Miller noted that the Commission previously had questions about sidewalks and railroad tracks. He inquired if the staff feels that the buffer proposed between the houses and railroad track is enough. Planner Zweber stated that the locations of homes are similar to those of Bloomfield development and the setbacks are larger than some older neighborhoods with in the city. He also noted that Ryland makes considerations in the building materials of the homes to take into account the location of the homes in proximity of the tracks. Commissioner Kenninger inquired if Ryland is required to make the upgrades for noise dampening. Zweber stated that there are no requirements related to specifics to building materials but the Commission could add one in if they see fit. Commissioner Kurle inquired about the distance from the house to the tracks. Zweber stated that there is a 60 ft. easement plus a 30 ft. side yard setback, so at minimum it is 90 ft. between the houses and the railroad tracks. Commissioner Forester inquired about the elevation of tracks vs. houses. Zweber stated that the tracks are at about an elevation of 950 ft. and the homes sit above the tracks around a 960 ft. elevation. Forester also mentioned that he recalls trail access to the park, what is the status of the PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES January 27, 2015 PAGE 5 trail. Zweber stated that the trail was graded this summer and will be constructed by the City. The funds will be from the cash in lieu of land mentioned in the Park and Rec Director’s memo. Chair Miller inquired if berming is viable option to create a buffer zone. Zweber stated that there is not adequate space between property lines for berming and a trail. Landscaping will provide a buffer. Mark Sonstegard, Land Development Manager for Ryland Homes was on hand to answer questions. Chari Miller was concerned with the proximity of tracks and the amount of traffic on the tracks to the homes. He inquired what Ryland is doing to mitigate the train noise. Mr. Sonstegard stated that the site plan shows that the homes are orientated so they are parallel with tracks. They are using the street as a buffer between houses and the tracks instead of having the houses backup to the tracks. He also stated that having the homes elevated above the tracks does reduce noise. Ryland has development in Plymouth that is also located near train tracks; the plan is to use the same windows for sound to help with train noise. Ryland will make sure that these lots will be disclosed as lots located near train tracks. Miller also inquired about the R rating for the homes with better windows. Mr. Sonstegard stated he would have to look that information up. Miller also asked if installing a fence would be helpful. Mr. Sonstegard wasn’t sure if the fence would keep people from going on the tracks. Ryland would rather put a sidewalk on south side of the street and put a fence in the Outlot. Ryland is agreeable to installing a black chain link fence. Commissioner Forster inquired about the plan for construction traffic. Mr. Sonstegard stated that the way the phases have been laid out construction traffic from one newest phase will not interfere with the existing houses. The construction traffic will need to drive through the neighborhood but parking will not be on developed streets. Grading has been completed so there won’t be any heavy machinery brought in. th MOTION by Kurle to recommend the City Council approve the Final Plat for Greystone 4 Addition, subject to conditions: th a.The Planning Commission finds that the Greystone 4 Final Plat is consistent with the Greystone II Preliminary Plat approved on July 15, 2014. b.Approval and execution of a subdivision agreement. c.Trees installed on individual lots shall be planted in a location that does not interfere with curb stops or individual sewer or water connections. d.Fences on lots adjacent to Akron Avenue (Lots 1 and 2, block 1) shall be constructed so that proposed landscaping is visible to the public, outside the fence and between the fence and the Akron Avenue right-of-way. rd e.Dedication of Outlot B, Greystone 3 Addition to the City for park and recreation purposes. th f.The east-west aligned portion of Addison Avenue shall be renamed to 138 Street East. g.Trail within Outlot A shall be extended to the intersection of Adelle Avenue and PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES January 27, 2015 PAGE 6 th 138 St E. h.Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the attached memorandum dated January 20, 2015. i.Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as detailed in the attached memorandum dated January 22, 2015 Second by Forster Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion approved. 7.b. Request by The City of Rosemount for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Related to Non-Conforming Auto Related Uses This application was initiated by staff as a result of the findings and recommendations from the South Urban Gateway planning study. The City Council and Port Authority approved this study in August of 2014. The Implementation section of this report included a recommendation to consider zoning changes targeted to non-conforming auto related uses. While the South Urban Gateway examined non-conforming auto related uses within the designated study area, implementation of this strategy may address non-conforming auto related uses City wide. This memo seeks to begin execution of this implementation strategy by identifying the issues to be addressed and defining a study timeline. Chair Miller stated that there are currently two properties with in the SUGAR area, Holiday station and Valvoline Oil, that would be affected. Planner Lindahl confirmed there are two businesses affected. Planner Zweber stated that Goodyear is outside the study area but in the same vicinity and could also be affected by any decisions made. Mr. Zweber added the location of the proposed SA gas station was rezoned to C-3, Highway Service Commercial, as it is zoned now it is possible a business with large amounts of outdoor storage could move it. Miller inquired what would be the impact if the zoning is not changed. Lindahl stated that the businesses could remain as is and would only see an impact if the business wanted to expand. They would not be allowed to expand as they are currently zoned. Miller wondered why we needed to concern the commission with rezoning these properties now if the business could petition the Commission when/if the need arises. Lindahl stated that the intent is not to be done piecemeal and also to not take the Commission’s time for each request if we can address it now. Zoning also helps direct which businesses are preferred in a location and is a benefit in attracting new businesses. Zweber stated that the zoning of C-4 would not be inconsistent with comp plan but it discusses that most appropriate land use category for C-3 is Regional Commercial, not Community Commercial. Community Commercial (C-4) is ideal for locations closer to residential areas where as Regional Commercial (C-3) is more ideal in areas away from residential locations. There are downsides to zoning C-4, there is a possibility of an undesirable businesses moving in nearer to residential areas. Zweber went on to state that we could operate as is but thinks it is worth having the discussion and if the alternative is no better than what we have now no changes have to be made. He feels enough issues have been identified that it warrants examination. Miller stated that if each property is addressed individually the City would have chance PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES January 27, 2015 PAGE 7 to stop potential unwanted uses to occur. He would rather things align with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Kurle stated that it seems option 3 would be putting a band aid the issue. Mr. Lindahl stated yes, there are limits but staff will do its best to make it as universal as possible. C-4 zoning doesn’t have a way to differentiate business types and C-3 has conditions for types of businesses. The answer maybe to provide more specifics on allowable businesses, he is interested to find a more universal plan for the City than just focusing on the SUGAR study area. Commissioner Kenninger is concerned about what business could take up residence in the SA site. She would like to try to prevent that from happening in other areas of the city. She asked for clarification on option 3. She questioned if Holiday closed up, could another business of same type to take over that location. Zweber stated that unless it was closed longer than a year it could remain the same business type but would be as is with no expansions. Commissioner Forester inquired as to what are the parameters used to define auto related uses. Planner Lindahl stated that is part of what they are trying to determine. Under C-3 uses range from car sales to gas stations. The text amendment will define what are the differences between a gas station/oil change business vs. car sales. Planner Zweber asked for suggestions as to whom else to include in discussions. He stated that the owner of the BP in Downtown asked to be involved so he can understand the impacts on gas stations. Commissioner Kurle thought that current business owners within the study area as well as all Rosemount businesses should have the opportunity to be involved. Commissioner Kenninger thinks it would be worth looking at what impact does it have on the land developer if zoning is changed. Reports: None th Next Meeting will be in the 4 Tuesday in February Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Chairperson Miller adjourned the meeting at 8:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy Roudebush, Recording Secretary