Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpm_850807 Roseville Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, August 7, 1985 The August 7, 1985 regular meeting of the Roseville Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Don Wiski at 7:30 p.m. Members present: DeBenedet, Matson, Dressler, Mueller, Johnson, Wi ski Members absent: Berry Staff present: Drown, Dahlgren, and Waldron Approval of Minutes Matson moved, DeBenedet seconded, that the minutes of the regular meeting of July 3, 1985, be approved. Roll Call: Ayes: Dressler, Matson, DeBenadet, Wiski Nays: None Abstain: Johnson and Miller Planning File 1602 Richard Paulsen request for rezoning from R-l to R-2 and lot split to construct duplex. Presentation This particular request was held over from the previous Commission meeting in that Mr. Paulsen was unable to attend. Mr. Dahlgren discussed this particular proposal pointing out that when the land to the East was commercial, this proposal could have been done without the rezoning. Mr. Harry Dalgren was present to discuss the project. He showed the plans to the Commissioners and informed them that he had assumed he had initially purchased a duplex lot. That, in effect, is why he was appearing before the Commission, to request a rezoning and lot split. Mr. Paulsen will construct a duplex for Mr. Dalgren, who will subsequently sell it. Discussion Mr. DeBenedet asked why the plan showed four front elevations. The applicant stated that it was simply depicting the various alternatives. Mr. Matson asked whether the applicant had talked to neighbors regarding the project. Mr. Dalgren stated that he hadn't, nor had any of the neighbors sought him out. Mr. Wiski stated that the side entrances were a concern to the neighbors, and asked if the applicant would review different options. The applicant stated that he would indeed research the various options available. Roseville Planning Commission Meeting August 7, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Wiski reconfirmed Mr. Drown's previous assessment figure on the parcel, and the applicant informed the Commission there was an escrow check now in place. Mr. Wiski also stated that an easement was needed, and that it currently wasn't recorded. The applicant said that he would dedicate said easement as required. Mr. Drown pointed out that the pond to the South is needed for drainage, thus the City would like an easement to the wet area of said pond. The applicant replied that this would not be a problem. Ms. Dressler asked whether the property would be rented or owned. The applicant replied that both will be for sale. Recommendation Mr. Matson moved, seconded by DeBenedet, that the rezoning from R-l to R-2 and lot split be approved as per submitted plans. Roll Call: Ayes: Nays: Johnson, Dressler, Matson, Mueller, DeBenedet, and Wiski None Planning File 1604 Con/Spec Corporation, Rezoning from R-l to R-2, Special Use Permit for PUD, and Variance to Lower Area. Northeast Wagner Place. Presentation Mr. Dahlgren discussed the project and the contiguous land use in the area, particularly the Southern nonconforming use. The site is currently zoned R-l. This site was originally proposed for duplex development; however, this request was denied as a result of the common driveway negatively impacting the single family adjacent to the property, and as a result of the height of the proposed buildings. The developer has now moved the common driveway away from the single family home, and is directing it between the respective structures. Mr. Drown stated that the plat for this parcel has not been filed yet, and it should be forthcoming. Mr. Drown also pointed out that documentation was needed for maintenance and snow removal purposes. Sewer service will also need to be constructed in the area. Mr. C. R. Hackworthy subsequently made a presentation regarding the project. He pointed out that originally he was looking at single family housing; however, the trees in the area simply could not be saved as a result of that particular approach. Through the use of his three duplex proposal, a significant number of trees can be saved. Mr. Jensen, the architect for the project, subsequently discussed the modifications that were made in the project relating to housing type, height, and significant traffic modifications. Mr. Jensen also discussed his canvasing of the neighborhood, in which he maintained that only three of the fifteen neighbors were opposed. Roseville Planning Commission Meeting August 7, 1985 Page 3 Discussion Mr. Matson asked what safeguards would be available to enforce the PUD after the rezoning had taken place. Mr. Dahlgren stated that one could consider timing the project, so that the rezoning didn't take place until the project was actually close to beginning. Mr. Dahlgren again reiterated that one can't attach conditions to a rezoning issue. Ms. Dressler asked whether the square footage on the first floor, although short of the requirements, should be considered a problem in view of the fact that the upper story significantly increases the total square footage. Mr. Wiski asked what the roof line elevation would be above center, and Mr. Jensen replied approximately sixteen feet. Mr. Matson asked whether a twenty foot driveway would be a problem, and the concrete curb requirements. Mr. Jensen replied this would not present any difficulties. Ms. Johnson asked for a clarification of the drawings with respect to the distance between units. Mr. Jensen replied the distance is twenty feet. Ms. Johnson wanted to know how many trees are going to be torn out according to the drawings. Mr. Jensen replied it appears that two would be removed. Mr. Miller asked about the retaining walls and the driveway and what height they were. Mr. Jensen replied they are about four feet, but they would tend to disappear as the driveway became closer to the street. Mr. Matson asked where the drainage in the area would be going. Mr. Jensen replied that the water would drain down the driveway, and subsequently into the lake. Mr. Wiski asked where the major landscaping and fencing would occur. Mr. Jensen pointed out that the whole northern area would be landscaped, and there would be fencing by the parking area. Mr. Jensen stated they would certainly subject the landscape plans to staff review. Mr. DeBenedet asked about the exterior of the building, and would it reflect the existing neighborhood's apearance. Mr. Jensen stated that they would attempt to make the structure as maintenance free as possible. The buildings would be stucco, with earthen colors. Mr. Matson asked Mr. Drown if that driveway drainage for the area was appropriate. Mr. Drown stated that he would prefer something more sophisticated. However, there are no storm drainage facilities in the area. Mr. Wiski asked if there had ever been a plan formulated for drainage in the area. Mr. Drown replied there was one developed ten years ago that is currently being updated. Roseville Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 Mr. Roger Hess, 1913 Shadybeach Avenue, stated that all members were opposed to the project, and asked how high in relation to the neighbor's roof. Mr. Jensen replied approximately six feet higher. of his family the roof would be that it would be Mr. H. R. Klingbeil, 892 Wagner Place, discussed the problems with the lots, and wanted to know the total square footage on the proposed lot. Mr. Jensen replied that the plan is drawn to scale, and that the lot is two hundred thirty one feet wide. Mr. Hess asked whether there are double garages. Mr. Jensen replied they are currently single garages. Roger Hess, Jr., of l898 Wagner Place, questioned whether one could safely get a car out of the proposed driveway. Mr. Jensen replied that the driveway was at the seventy-five degree angle, and a driveway to be safe should not really be less than a sixty degree angle. Warren Wilson, 1901 Wagner Place, asked if there would be enough room for visitors with respect to the parking on site. Mr. Jensen replied parking for visitors was indeed adequate. Mr. Klingbeil asked to have this issue tabled for thirty days, and he would like to show the Planning Commission what a "mess" the lot really is. Doris Klingbeil asked whether all the area would be blacktopped. Mr. Jensen stated it would not be blacktopped between the garages. Mr. Hess stated he was against the project because of its density, and it was also his opinion that you could not force Con/Spec to comply with the plan as submitted. Mr. Hess, Jr. also stated he was against the project as a result of the density and the potential drainage problem. Mr. Klingbeil asked how the proposed roof could only be six to eight feet higher than his residence if his home is only one story. Mr. Wiski pointed out that you can build three single family homes today on that parcel, thus something is going to occur there, and it was in the Planning Commission's best interest to encourage the best possible development on that parcel. Mr. Matson asked how the structures would be built on the parcel, and how Con/Spec proposed to work within the contours of the land. Mr. Jensen illustrated to the Planning Commission members how the development would be placed on the property, and how the roof of this property related to the Klingbeil property. Mr. Hackworthy stated that it was his intent to build a very high quality project as depicted on the plan. He stated he had filed a utility bond. Ms. Johnson stated that she did not support the project as it was too many buildings for that particular area. Mr. Miller agreed that this could be a particularly difficult development for the proposed property, but he was certainly more uncomfortable with three single family homes being built on that area. Roseville Planning Commission Meeting August 7, 1985 Page 5 Mr. DeBenedet pointed out that three duplexes could be built on that site, and he was more comfortable supporting the variances to the floor plan in that it would help create more space for the proposed development. Mr. Matson stated that he liked the project now that it had one driveway, and the development was good for that area, particularly in terms of the fact that it is a transitional area. Mr. Wiski pointed out that Roseville has supported duplexes in the past, and that nonconforming commercial use exists in the south of this area, and if that use was conforming, the duplexes could be built without any resulting concerns. Additionally, only one driveway is now being proposed, or seven vehicle trips per day. This could very well be the best means of using that unique land area. Ms. Johnson stated that she was not convinced that the proposed driveway is the best plan that could be presented for that area. Ms. Dressler stated that she was concerned that the third unit does not have a yard, therefore this may not be a very marketable structure. Ms. Johnson stated that the neighborhood is essentially R-I, therefore the area shouldn't be rezoned for multiple uses. Mayor Demos stated that the City has treated duplexes identical to R-l areas. Recommendation Mr. Matson moved, seconded by Mr. Mueller, to recommend the rezoning from R-l to R-2, and urged the Commission to identify this motion with the proposed PUD. Discussion Mr. Dahlgren stated that the City could hold final approval until the plat is properly filed. Roll Call: Ayes: Matson, Mueller, DeBenedet, and Wiski Nays: Johnson and Dressler Matson then moved, seconded by Miller, to approve the variance and the PUD submitted with the following conditions. l. That the final plat be submitted. 2. That the driveway is twenty feet wide. 3. That a landscaping plan be submitted. 4. That three cross easements are executed for maintenance purposes. 5. That separate utilities for available for each home. 6. That concrete curb and gutters be developed. 7. That building plans are submitted as they were presented to the Commission on August 7. Roseville Planning Commission Meeting August 7, 1985 Page 6 Roll Call: Ayes: Dressler, Johnson, Matson, DeBenedet, Mueller, and Wiski. Nays: None. Planning File 1605 Richard Fearing request for variance to parking and bulding setback requirements and sign location at Southwest corner of County Road D and Fairview Avenue. Presentation Mr. Dahlgren discussed the site which was a former gas station that has been converted into village Transmission Center. The building has been substantially improved, and the owner wishes to further improve the area by adding a small addition to the currrent building. Mr. Fearing will also be reconstructing the parking area and adding other required curbing on the driveways and parking areas. Mr. Fearing will also be putting up a new sign, which is difficult to relocate thirty feet from the required right of way. Thus, he is requesting the sign to be placed three feet from the new property line, which is basically ten feet back from the existing property line on County Road D. Mr. Fearing stated that he wanted to improve the image of the area and provide a more efficient parking place for the area. Discussion Mr. Wiski asked if there is going to be landscaping beyond some type of sodding. Mr. Fearing stated he would be willing to use shrubs and other items as required. Mr. Wiski read communications from Mr. and Mrs. Shiller supporting the project, and from a Mr. Barry O'Meara, twin home owner next to the parcel, that asked for a delay in the decision. Mayor Demos pointed out that Mr. O'Meara's duplex currently sits on an R-1 lot because of village Transmission's commercial use in the adjacent lot. Recommendation Mr. Matson moved, seconded by Ms. Johnson, to approve the variance for sign, parking and building setback. The following conditions were attached. l. Appropriate right of way be dedicated to the city. 2. Plan to be amended to reflect increased addition height. 3. Final landscape plan to be submitted. Roll Call: Ayes: Johnson, Dressler, Matson, Moeller, DeBenedet, and Wiski. Nays: None. Roseville Planning Commission Meeting August 7, 1985 Page 7 Planning File 1606 FML Inc. application for zoning from R-1 to R-6, special use permit for planned unit development and division of lot at 2250 Victoria. Discussion Mr. Dahlgren presented the FML proposal which consists of twelve fourplex residential units on 4.9 acres of land. It is necessary that the land be rezoned from R-1 to R-6, which requires 10,000 square feet per unit. Mr. Drown pointed out that this area should be plated. Thus, the proposal should be considered a preliminary plat, and not a lot split. Mr. Drown also stated that he wanted to keep the area for placement of the street sweepings from the City. It was also discussed that there may be a need to loop the water system in the area. Mr. Pope, the architect for FML, proceeded to discuss the project stating there was basically no opposition to the project and they had agreed to extend the fence and make modifications in the property line to accommodate the neighbor's existing fencing. Mr. Pope also stated they would be willing to landscape the site and proceeded to show an artist's concept of the development. Discussion Mr. Wiski asked what the City dumping area in the pit would be used for in the future. Mr. Drown stated it would be used for interim ponding. Mr. Wiski also asked whether the undeveloped pit area once filled in could create further development problems. Mr. Dahlgren replied no, it would not, as no other development can take place because the PUD locks in existing development. Mr. Wiski asked what the parking availability was in the area. Mr. Pope replied that there are 2.5 units per dwelling unit, where two are required right now. Nancy Caspers stated she was concerned about the filling of the pit, as they had hoped it would be filled in immediately. Mr. Drown stated again that we would fill the pit within two years time. Mr. Matson asked Mr. Pope how long they thought it would take to complete the project. Mr. Pope stated that there would be a Spring completion. Resident (unnamed) asked for higher fence, and if the system was looped, who would pay for the actual utility cost. Mr. Drown stated that the City would pay for the easement to achieve the desired loop of the system. Jim Hartman, 775 Sherren Avenue, stated he would like a six foot fence in the area, and asked about the type of plantings. Roseville Planning Commission Meeting August 7, 1985 Page 8 "Unnamed" resident wants fence extended in the area, but that could create problems. Mr. Matson asked whether the southern part of the pit could be filled in and a fence put up. Mr. Pope stated the southern part could be filled in the Spring, and a fence would be erected. Merlin Wait, 880 West Highway 36, discussed his concern regarding water and ponding in the pit. Recommendation Matson moved, seconded by Dressler, to approve the rezoning from R-l to R-6, approval of PUD, and the preliminary plat, with the following conditions. 1. The City has two year access to the pit. 2. Concrete curbing be constructed. 3. Grading, utilities, and landscape plan be submitted. 4. The fence and southernly fill of the pit be completed by July, 1986. Discussion Mr. Wiski asked whether the City should be allowed to keep that pit open for two years, and was also concerned whether parking was adequate. Mr. Matson concurred that parking could be a problem. Mr. DeBenedet stated that he also was concerned about the parking and whether there would be problems for emergency vehicles in the area. Mr. Dahlgren suggested that a new site plan for additional parking be submitted. Mr. Matson and Ms. Dressler concurred that should also be another condition, and that a new parking plan should be submitted. Roll Call: Ayes: Johnson, Dressler, Matson, Mueller, DeBenedet and Wiski. Nays: None. other Business Parking Study Mr. Dahlgren discussed the major elements of the Parking Study which essentially recommends the following changes. A. 2.8 seats per space, compared to 2.5. B. For bar and lounges, one parking space per 20 square feet of open space. c. One space per 50 square feet of banquet area. D. Outdoor one-half requirement of indoor seating requirements. Mr. Wiski asked whether there should also be an analysis as to the number of employees of a restaurant, and how they may impact parking needs. Mr. Dahlgren pointed out that new studies have been completed on parking, and Roseville Planning CO~TIission Meeting August 7, 1985 Page 9 the Planning Commission may want to take a look at parking in general. The Planning Commission members concurred, and will be asking the Council to consider a more extensive parking study in the future. A motion was made by Ms. Dressler, seconded by Ms. Johnson, to adjourn at 11:20 p.m. The motion carried.