Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 24 2011 PC Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 24, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, October 24, 2011 1. Call to Order: Chairman Perez called the October 24, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Roszak, Perez, and Howley, Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, Planner Jeff Matzke, City Engineer Larry Poppler and Development Services Assistant Peter Aldritt. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY HOWLEY, SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 24, 2011 MEETING AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes, Howley, Perez, and Roszak. The motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of October 10, 2011 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY HOWLEY, SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 24, 2011 MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, and Roszak. The motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: None 5. Old Business: A. #EP 10-121 Bluffs of Candy Cove. Jason Miller has submitted an application for Variances related to building setbacks, lot area, and bluff impact on a site consisting of approximately 1.07 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes. This property is located east of Candy Cove Trail, north of TH 13. B. #EP 10-122 Bluffs of Candy Cove. Jason Miller has submitted an application for a combined preliminary and final plat to be known as The Bluffs of Candy Cove consisting of approximately 1.07 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes. This property is located east of Candy Cove Trail, north of TH 13. Planner Matzke presented, that both 5A and 5B will be covered together since this is the third time that this project has been brought to the Planning Commission. The Commission had tabled this project from their last meeting so that the engineering and storm water issues could be resolved. Those issues have been addressed and that is why it is brought before you tonight. Jason Miller submitted an application for variances related to building setback, lot area, and bluff impact, and for his combined preliminary and final plat application on a site consisting of approximately 1.07 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes. The property is located east of Candy Cove Trail, north of TH 13. The topography of the area is very steep all the way from the 904 up to 984 elevations. Access to Candy Cove Trail is through city owned property. Due to the steep bluffs on which the property is located, this plat involves some major engineering to allow for access from Candy Cove Tail 1 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN102411.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 24, 2011 and to allow for housing pads to be placed. Matzke discussed the different grading options that can be accomplished. Option one proposes grading across the corner of his neighbor’s property; however, the developer has been attempting to reach an agreement with the neighbor to allow this grading but has not been successful to this date. Option two shows a retaining wall following the property line between Jason Miller and his neighbor and then grading out the City owned parcel. Since the developer would be able to grade farther back on the hill there is more room for separation between the proposed retaining walls. The neighbor currently has a wall along his access point. He does not have an easement for this wall, but it was approved by the City in 2002 through a building permit process. The developer’s Option 2 grading plan proposes the removal of this boulder wall. The city does have concerns about removing the boulder wall. The City Staff believes there are other alternatives to grade the area and the City Engineer will discuss these further in a few moments. This site has been a challenging development project. City Staff has been trying to work with the developer on what alternative or what design might best fit the area. While the Planning Commission input and the recommendation will be evaluated, the ultimate approval of a grading design lies with the City Council’s decision. Engineer Poppler stated, I want to reiterate what Jeff had stated. This has been one of the most complicated projects the city has encountered. The developer has worked hard to get through the engineering comments and issues. We feel that we have gotten through the major concerns and are down to a few minor ones that we can work out between now and construction. Throughout this process we have met with the neighbor and the developer both together and separately to try and work something out. The City has prepared three alternatives for grading. Alternative One is two walls - a 4 foot wall and then a 17 foot wall - to terrace the grade of the hill. Alternative two proposes adding a third wall; there would be a 4 foot wall, 8 foot wall, and a 6 foot wall. This would provide some areas for buffering with plantings to break up the wall. We are proposing Alternative Two be pursued. Alternative two does requires some removal of the retaining wall placed by the neighbor in 2002 so the rd City would need further evaluate that. The 3 alternative, City Staff is not recommending. This requires a very large 25 foot wall to avoid grading in the hill. We met with both the developer and the neighbor last week and from those discussions we came up with these alternatives. The developer or the neighbor has not had a chance to view or review these proposals. Hopefully between this meeting and the City Council meeting we can have some further discussion about the alternatives and come to a resolution on this access. Planner Matzke stated, the Planning Commission has basically two aspects of this project in front of them tonight. One aspect is the nine variance requests. They are variances that are on the lots, none of these variances has to do with the grading that is currently on this city owned project area. The second aspect of the project is a recommendation or lack there of to the City Council for the proposed plat that would include which grading proposal, with particular interest to the city-owned parcel area, that the Planning Commission feels should be recommended to the City Council. Commissioner Questions: Howley asked, you’re talking about that existing wall, the orange wall, was constructed and approved via building permit process and you have both said that the city is thinking it’s best to leave it alone because it was approved under such a process? Is that just out of fairness to the existing homeowner or is there any risk of legal action that we might be worried about or why has the city staff stated that here tonight? Engineer Poppler responded, our legal counsel has advised us that the wall should remain. 2 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN102411.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 24, 2011 Roszak asked the applicant, of these options that have been proposed for access, do you have a preference?” Applicant Jason Miller responded, I have a preference to choose one of the two options that I provided the city with. Obviously my first preference is to go with two small four foot high retaining walls and that is not the option that is probably right in front of you at this moment because we have to go with the option where we also put that small point in and go around our neighbors so that is my first option. I chose that because it is the absolute minimum amount of retaining walls that I could put in. It does still leave a small point of retaining walls that’s higher than I would like to see, but the farther I push the retaining walls back against that point and the more landscaping area I have between the two little four foot walls that I am proposing, the more pine trees and other things that I can put in to beautify the slope of that hill, so I thought one big green grassy slope would look better. I think all the other options that the city is proposing right now which try to keep the neighbor’s retaining walls in place will require at least 20 feet in height of additional retaining walls. Then the walls extend the large height for a longer segment length farther beyond the wall segment length of what I am proposing to the city. Roszak asked, this option that we have in front of us now, it shows a seventeen foot wall? Applicant Miller responded, yes it does get up to seventeen feet tall. Roszak asked, and one of the other options that the city proposed were four foot six foot eight foot walls and we didn’t disturb any of the existing wall? Applicant Miller responded, that’s correct. Roszak asked, and you prefer the seventeen foot wall? Applicant Miller responded, when you’re looking at the tiered walls from the freeway looking up at them, they’re still going to look like twenty feet of total wall; so to have one small point at seventeen feet that I thought I could cover up with pine trees, I thought that made more sense. Plus, I also thought my neighbor would look at all these other options and eventually come around to the thought that it would probably look better to have a nice green grassy yard in front of his house, and we could probably skip most of these different options. Roszak asked, can we ask what the sticking point is with the neighbor? Applicant Miller responded, I’m not sure. I would assume he’s got a wall there and he would kind of like to keep things as they have always been. He might prefer that I not even do this development. I’m not even sure what all the sticking points are. We’ve talked a few times, haven’t gotten real far. Howley asked, the city’s alternative number two still has that point that’s seventeen feet tall right? Engineer Poppler responded, at the triangular point near the property corner, it would be seventeen feet but immediately west of that it would begin to reduce in height. Perez stated, I do not have any questions at this time. Commissioner Comments: Howley stated, I will attack this one aspect at a time as Jeff guided us. Concerning the variances, I’m willing to support these variances. The reasons being are there’s some property there that the land owner wants to develop and he certainly has some problematic challenges in front of them. That creating the best separation from the lake he’s not trying to build five homes he’s reducing it to three so there’s obviously been a little bit of give on his side and the city’s given him a little bit of give on the city variances so I think the hardship findings are met in this case and there are practical difficulties certainly not created by this landowner. Highway 13 coming through the whole access with the lake being right there, the regulations changing over time, these small lake lots. I am going to support the variance application tonight. 3 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN102411.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 24, 2011 Roszak stated, I do feel it meets the hardship requirements. I think the applicant’s done a good job meeting the engineering requirements for the variance request. I hope we can somehow work out the access for the benefit of all the parties involved. I can support the variance as presented. Perez stated, as Jeff and Larry both pointed out, this is a difficult project - the size of the lots, where they’re located, the history on these parcels. I think everyone’s been diligent with finding something that will work for both parties and I think these variances are warranted and practical difficulty. It’s been documented very well so I will be supporting the variances as well. A MOTION MADE BY HOWLEY SECOND BY ROSZAK TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 11-09PC APPROVING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT AREA, BLUFF IMPACT ZONE, SIDE DRIVEWAY SETBACK, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK AND LAKE SETBACK ALLOWED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAT KNOWN AS THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, and Roszak. The motion carried. Roszak stated, I too can be in support of the preliminary plat. They have met all the requirements from engineering and I’m sure we will work out the access. I can support it. Perez stated, Commissioner Roszak I think we’re looking at what option as far as the grading. Roszak stated, I think the City’s alternative two would be my recommendation. Howley stated, I certainly can approve the preliminary final plat. Now for the grading, well one thing is this is the first time we’re seeing these options tonight so we’re a little hard pressed doing a thorough review in my opinion to give a strong recommendation to the city council. Any recommendation I threw out there is going to be half hazard at best. And knowing the developer is going to want to grade, if he can’t get an easement from the neighboring property owner he’s going to grade it out the way he can and do it to the best economical advantage, as anybody would do, and I understand the city is coming up with some other solutions, but without knowing a lot of the details of the risk management of taking out a retaining wall that’s in a city-owner parcel, is it right of way? Considered right of way? Or just city owned property? Planner Matzke responded, it’s a city-owned property. Howley stated, okay. You know typically municipalities don’t like things in their right of way, being at this is city-owned property kind of changes my thinking a little bit. I guess I am inclined to say the existing retaining wall should go, and it should get graded out to limit the retaining walls and the developer should landscape the heck out of it, that’s my opinion. Now, I would think as part of the City Council packets there should be a good memo from the City Attorney as to why this may not be advisable, and maybe they can say no we’re leaving it in there and then we’re down to what alternatives are in front of us, but my recommendation would be to remove that retaining wall and grade it out and landscape it as best as possible. I will say as to the city’s couple alternatives I like the tiered wall better (Alternative 2) obviously, the more tiers the better. In a rebuttal to the developer’s question, “Is it going to look like one big wall?” Well it’s not because there are going to be trees in between it so it’s not going to look like one big wall, it’s going to look like a short wall with trees, a short wall with trees, and a short wall with trees so that’s why I think I like that alternative which is what Commissioner Roszak was mentioning as well, but again being put on the spot with a recommendation of which alternative we prefer I think we’re hard pressed to do, to be honest but my gut feeling is get rid of the 4 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN102411.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 24, 2011 resisting wall and grade the heck out of it and put some landscaping in there but that’s the facts that I know as of now so that’s what I’m going to stick with but I will support the preliminary and final plat. Perez stated I also will be recommending approval of the preliminary and final plats, as far as the project, it just got a little more difficult with this retaining wall and whether it should stay or be moved. Obviously the best option would be if the neighbor would work with the developer, that’s something that we can’t control, but obviously that would be the best option as far as I’m concerned. As far as the other alternatives, with the City’s legal counsel saying the wall needs to stay or recommending it should stay, I would listen to the City’s legal advice on that. So of the alternatives, I agree with my fellow commissioners the tiered wall (Alternative 2) is probably the best remaining option out there. Howley stated, one more point, on the east end, the far east end it looks like there is the outlet of the underground system it looks like there is a four foot bust in the grading plan the 922 contour ties in and then the 920 contour from the MNDOT right of way doesn’t tie into the wall at all so something that’s easily worked out but it will affect how you finalize your grading in that area just something to think about. Perez stated, I will to be supporting the preliminary and final plat. MOTION BY HOWLEY SECOND BY ROSZAK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMBINED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF GRADING AS NOTED IN OUR MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, and Roszak. The motion carried. 6. New Business: A. # EP 11-123 Consider a request to vacate the existing drainage and utility easements located on the Hickory Shores Development. Planner Matzke presented this item before you tonight is part of the project that you have seen before. The project is known as hickory shores and it is a residential development along highway 13 near the intersection of village lake drive and highway 13 on the south side of the city limits. The project was originally approved for Hickory Shores on August 21, 2006 and the City Council approved that plat of Hickory Shores 5 years ago. It included lots 1-39 of block 1. It’s the townhome portion that is right along the Highway 13 property. It was brought before you two meetings ago at your late September meeting for Hickory Shores. Jim Deanovic the developer is proposing to re- plat the area of the townhomes, he is still doing the attached townhomes but he is going to be loosing one lot in the overall schematic and going from a 30 design townhome complex to a 37 design unit townhome complex. As a result of the re-platting this is going to the City Council in November, what we need to do is vacate the existing drainage and utility easements that were created with the former plat. You may recall this concept was done before with the previous development that you had in the summer by Ryland Homes with the Jeffers Pond 4th addition. They as well had to vacate some of the easements prior to the final approval of a re-plat basically so the new easements can be dedicated with the new plat. That’s why this is being brought before you tonight so that the planning commission does hear all land use changes and offers their recommendations to City Council based on those. There is a couple determinations that the planning commission makes in regards to vacating easements or vacating right of way and that’s does it comply with the comprehensive plan and is there a public need or anticipated future need for the designated easements. In this case, this new plat will designate the required easements in the 5 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN102411.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 24, 2011 shaded areas. The recommendation by staff will to be approve the existing drainage and utility easement vacations as requested for final approval in contingent upon the plat being approved by City Council. Commissioner Questions: None. MOTION BY HOWLEY SECOND BY ROSZAK TO RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PURPOSED VCATION AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, and Roszak. The motion carried. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Community and Economic Development Director Dan Rogness presented a thank you to Commissioner Perez and Howley for doing a great job serving on the Planning Commission. City staff has appreciated all the hard work and time that you have put in. MOTION BY HOWLEY SECOND BY ROSZAK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, and Roszak. The motion carried. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Peter Aldritt, Development Services Assistant 6 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN102411.doc