Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpm_061101 Planning Commission Meeting City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Minutes - Wednesday, November 1, 2006 1. Call to Order Planning Commission Chair Mark Traynor called to order the meeting of the Planning Commission at approximately 6:30 p.m. and welcomed those in attendance; reviewing the purpose of the meeting and the Public Hearing procedure. Chair Traynor introduced staff; and welcomed Joel Koepp to the Commissioners and the audience, and expressed appreciation to Mr. Koepp for providing the mapping details required by the Commission. 2. Roll Call & Introductions City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. Members Present: Commissioners Ildephonse Gasongo; Jim Doherty; Mary Bakeman; Daniel Boerigter; Dan Roe; Joe Wozniak; and Chair Mark Traynor. Staff present: Community Development Director John Stark; City Planner Thomas Paschke; GIS Technician Joel Koepp; City Engineer Debra Bloom; and Recording Secretary, Sheila Stowell. City Attorney Joe Langel was also present. 3. Approval of Minutes MOTION Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Roe, to approve meeting minutes of October 4, 2006 as presented. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Abstentions: 1 (Doherty) Motion carried. 4. Public Comment – Communication and Recognitions Public Comment Al Sands, 2612 Aldine Mr. Sands noted that his comments related to the proposed Twin Lakes redevelopment, but not the portion being presented at tonight’s meeting; but were related to the service mix at the corner of County Road C and Cleveland Avenue. Mr. Sands sought to call the Commission’s attention to alleged drafting errors in the B-6 zone between the map, zoning ordinance, and in the chart included in City ordinance 1005.07. Mr. Sands noted references to retail sales and their relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Sands adamantly requested that the alleged error in references be corrected immediately to state service mix, not retail sales; and that the Chart used to list different types of allowable uses in the mixed zoning area be enhanced with more detail of actual types of businesses to avoid future confusion in B-6 zoning areas, such as the Twin Lakes redevelopment area. Staff had provided a bench handout (e-mail) dated Friday, October 20, 2006 from Mr. Sands to Community Development Director John Stark; and duplicated the bench handout (e-mail) with an updated request dated October 27, 2006. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 2 Mr. Sands noted that he had also brought this to the City Council’s and Community Visioning group’s attention, as well as asking Mr. Stark to review the zoning ordinance; and suggested that the Planning Commission recommend a moratorium on anything being implemented into the B-6 zoning that is not identified as part of the ordinance. Joel Cheney, 2172 Acorn Road Mr. Cheney sought clarification regarding distinctions for buildable front footage requirements in relationship to easement restrictions. Mr. Stark noted that additional information and detail would be needed to make an appropriate and accurate response, and was somewhat site-specific depending on various considerations. Mr. Stark did review how staff determined property widths for lots from a general policy standpoint, depending on staff and City Attorney interpretation of the spirit and intent of City Code (i.e., the recent driveway easement considered by the Planning Commission). Robert Rouda, 946 Lydia Drive Mr. Rouda expressed concerns regarding Twin Lakes redevelopment areas not being discussed tonight in conjunction with the case coming before the Planning Commission; opining that the whole acreage and its various phases should be discussed as an entire unit, not simply in parts. No one else from the public appeared to speak on any non-agenda items. Commissioners and Staff No comment. 5. Public Hearings a. PLANNING FILE 3791 PRELIMINARY PLAT Art Mueller seeks approval of a for the proposed subdivision of the residential property at 2201 Acorn Road into four (4) single-family lots served by a public street. Chair Traynor opened the Public Hearing at for Planning File 3791. City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request of Mr. Mueller to subdivide his 1.9 acre parcel into four (4) single-family residential lots served by a public street and public utilities. does not Mr. Paschke noted that the proposal complies with all code requirements, and require Comprehensive Land Use Map designation amendment or a rezoning. Chair Traynor reviewed the previous case before the Commission for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), with a private street, and requested that staff explain the difference in that and this request. City Planner Paschke briefly reviewed the request and explained that the previous PUD was for a private street versus the public street now proposed; and noted that staff had not determined that no portion of tonight’s request was not in compliance with current City code. City Attorney Langel concurred with the previous discussion points. Commissioner Wozniak opined that the PUD allowed for more input from the City toward the development of the lots as opposed to the proposed plat at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Paschke advised that with the proposed Preliminary Plat meeting all current code requirements, the City’s ability to place conditions on the development were limited (i.e., tree preservation; lot size modifications), and would not allow for modifying setbacks or Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 3 Applicant, Art Mueller, was present, but had no comment at this time. Staff recommended approval of the PRELIMINARY PLAT for Art Mueller, creating four (4) legal, conforming residential lots and a public cul-de-sac street on the 1.9 acre parcel at 2201 Acorn Road, as conditioned in the staff report dated November 1, 2006. Commissioner Doherty left the meeting at this time to attend another scheduled meeting. Public Comment Joel Cheney, 2172 Acorn Road Mr. Cheney had numerous questions on setbacks; similar and recent development in the same neighborhood; determination of front setback requirements; and his concerns regarding those setback requirements and drainage issues. Mr. Paschke addressed several of Mr. Cheney’s concerns, as well as misconceptions regarding the proposed Preliminary Plat for 2201 Acorn Road. Mr. Paschke advised that placement of a home on a lot determined what was the frontage of the lot, and on which street it became addressed to, noting that the rear or side yard setbacks had yet to be identified, depending on the development and building permitting processes and when individual plans and documentation were submitted; and clarified that the Planning Commission was considering the creation of four (4), legal, conforming residential lots and a public cul-de-sac street on the 1.9 acre parcel at 2201 Acorn Road. Mr. Paschke advised that staff had yet to review final utility and drainage plans, but noted that those reviews and approvals would be part of the permitting process, as dictated by code and administered by staff. Mr. Cheney had additional comments specific to recent development of his property and setback requirements; and the proposed setback requirements for Mr. Mueller’s proposal. Chair Traynor encouraged Mr. Cheney to seek out staff outside the Public Hearing venue to discuss the specifics of his concerns; after Mr. Paschke noted that City Code had been revised several years ago, indicating that the parameters for determining code compliance for Mr. Mueller were now different than at the time of Mr. Cheney’s development. Mr. S. Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road Mr. Ramalingam expressed concern regarding the additional trees that appeared to be impacted with this proposal versus the previous proposal, which he had supported after requesting that all care be given to ensure tree preservation. Mr. Paschke advised that the City, unfortunately, had no current tree preservation and replacement plan; however, noted that staff had recommended conditions to attempt as much tree preservation as was deemed feasible. Additional discussion was related to the private versus public road and right-of-way requirements for design; number of proposed homes to be served by the public road. Mr. Ramalingam stated, for the record, his opposition to this proposal. Edward Emerson, 2265 Acorn Road Mr. Emerson polled Commissioners as to the number of them that were familiar with Acorn Road; and encouraged their personal review of the area. Mr. Emerson opined that the current situation is road was too narrow (alleged to be 19’ by Mr. Emerson); and with the curves and lack of speed zones, was hazardous to pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic; further opining that there should be no more development in the area, due to public safety Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 4 concerns. City Engineer Debra Bloom Ms. Bloom addressed issues related to Acorn Road, rebuilt in the 1990’s at a twenty-four foot (24’) wide street face to face, based on minimum City design standards, and as requested by neighborhood residents at that time. Ms. Bloom noted that Little Oak Road is proposed as a twenty-six foot (26’) wide roadway, also meeting City design standards; and that all provisions of the proposed plat would have City Code requirements to be met, as would all proposed plats coming before staff for review and recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council Mr. Emerson opined that there should be speed limit signs on Acorn Road; and reiterated his concerns for public safety, as well as opposition to additional development with more homes in the neighborhood, needing to access Acorn Road. Ms. Bloom noted that speed limit signs were a separate process, and that she would forward Mr. Emerson’s comments and concerns to the Public Works Director for review by the Safety Committee. Ms. Bloom further noted that, when a roadway is not signed, State Statute dictated that the speed limit was determined to be 30 miles per hour. Ms. Bloom advised that the City attempted to avoid sign clutter on roadways as much as possible, but that if the neighborhood were interested, the City could perform a speed count to establish if speeding was a concern, and provide driver education regarding speed safety if the residents were interested, and recommended that the neighborhood direct a letter to the Public Works Director outlining that request. Ms. Bloom noted, however, that speed concerns were not a part of tonight’s consideration of a Preliminary Plat approval, based on land use determinants. Chair Traynor asked staff to review their research regarding traffic impacts to Acorn Road and the new proposed road with three (3) additional homes. Ms. Bloom reviewed, from discussions at a previous meeting when the original PUD was reviewed, the standard trip estimates, based on the standard traffic engineer’s manual (ITE) related to the average number of daily trips (10) generated per day for a single-family home, and advised that both roadways were had sufficient capacity. At the request of Chair Traynor, Ms. Bloom addressed lighting on Acorn Road, another concern raised by Mr. Emerson. Ms. Bloom advised that, in previous discussions, the neighborhood consensus was that they didn’t want street lighting; but that the City was open to reconsidering installation of a City paid and maintained street light at intersections and/or curves, with the 100% support from all property owners within 100’ of the proposed location, and upon receipt of a signed petition processed through the Public Works Department. City staff had provided, for Commission information, a Bench Handout representing an excerpt of the Roseville City Council minutes for September 25, 2006, where they discussed, and ultimately denied (3/2 vote) the PUD application. Mr. Ramalingam Mr. Ramalingam questioned whether his previously-agreed-upon approval for a drainage pond as part of his property for construction of a private road, was now similar for the proposed public roadway; opining that he wasn’t sure he was interested in allowing drainage on his property anymore from this development. Mr. Ramalingam also questioned if parking would be allowed on the public street. Mr. Paschke advised that the new plan is similar to the previous plan, other than for the road design, easement, and right-of-way areas, and a slight modification in lot size. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 5 Ms. Bloom advised that she was in ongoing discussions with Mr. Mueller and his engineer to address the requirements of the City for drainage, water quality and rate control; but that no drainage plan had been approved at this time, and they would need Mr. Ramalingam’s permission to cross his property (i.e., easement) prior to proceeding. Ms. Bloom noted that the drainage management plan would need to meet potential flooding issues, and satisfy Engineering Department requirements; and meet any public easements required prior to proceeding with permit issuance to proceed. Ms. Bloom advised that there were numerous options for the developer to consider as part of the drainage plan, including an underground chamber system and/or a rain garden. Ms. Bloom, in addressing the parking question, noted that, standards dictate that no parking was allowed on any roadway narrower than twenty-eight feet (28’). Chair Traynor noted staff’s recommended condition 5.3 related to approval for grading, drainage and storm water management. Gary Boryczka, 2250 Acorn Road Mr. Boryczka had several questions regarding the location of the proposed driveways to the street and/or intersection, which were addressed by staff. Mr. Boryczka reviewed his historical perspective of the 1995 construction of Acorn Road, opining that it was the smallest road in Roseville, and was sized in accordance to input from property owners so as to diminish impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Boryczka opined that there was no expectation at that time of the magnitude of development off this small road, and if intentions were known at the time of that decision, the road wouldn’t have been allowed to be built this small. Mr. Boryczka questioned staff’s actual review of the plans as submitted; and opined that staff “always approved them.” preliminary plans Mr. Paschke advised that staff supported the as submitted, and following no final plats or plans careful and detailed review; however, noted that had been presented or approved at this time. Mr. Paschke noted that the City’s review process by applicable departments and personnel had been provided; and a review of City Code currently in force, with direct correlation that requirements had been met. Mr. Boryczka questioned which grading plan, “A” or “B,” would be used. Mr. Paschke advised that, at this time, the plans were conceptual (Preliminary) in nature, and the applicant would be required to provide a final drainage plan to meet all requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District, and City Code; and that the final grading plan may be a combination of both, one or none of those submitted, depending on additional findings and Preliminary review. Mr. Paschke reiterated that the Planning Commission was reviewing a Platconceptual in a proposal. Mr. Boryczka expressed concern with the proposed curbing indicated, and questioned water run-off. Ms. Bloom reiterated her statement that, as a condition of approval, the applicant would need to meet storm water management requirements; and that the final information had yet to be completed by the applicant’s engineer, and presented to staff for review and approval. Mr. Boryczka continued to dispute details of the proposed plat, including how the homes would be addressed and his presentation of the preliminary plat to the U.S. Postmaster. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Paschke reminded Commissioners, and the public, that under City Code, the City issued addresses within the City, and that the Post Office was not the enforcement mechanism for approval. Mr. Paschke noted that, when the individual homes were located on the lot, through the building permit process, staff would then identify the addresses. Mr. Boryczka had further questions on the grading plans, grade changes, location of homes, curbing, and other details. Chair Traynor reminded Mr. Broyczki that the Commission was not deciding the fine points in the process at this time. Paul Romanowski, 2195 Acorn Road Mr. Romanowski advised that he had originally purchased his home due to the low density of the neighborhood. Mr. Romanowski performed his own estimate of the number of trees he determined would need to be removed; and opined that the entire area would “look like a war zone and ruin the entire situation.” Mr. Romanowski presented a petition signed by numerous neighbors, stating,” We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Roseville, hereby petition our City to place a moratorium on the subdivision/platting/rezoning of the following described are of Roseville: that area bounded on the west by Highway 280, on the north by Highway 36, on the east by Cleveland Avenue, and on the south by County Road B. Our reasons for requesting this moratorium with the petition and attachment, attached hereto and made a part are attached;” thereof. James Kilau, 2225 Acorn Road Mr. Kilau advised that he lived adjacent to the property under consideration; spoke to the uniqueness of the property; discussed the width of Acorn Road; and his perceptions that density would not increase in the area. Mr. Kilau expressed his disappointment with the proposed development, threatened to leave the neighborhood if development continued, and questioned what would happen to the value of area homes. Mr. Kilau questioned why staff, Commissioner and City Council time continued to be wasted, following the City Council’s denial of the previous plan. Joel Cheney Mr. Cheney questioned who would pay the cost of the public road. Ms. Bloom advised that the applicant, upon City approval of street design, could construct the road with their own contractors and engineers, monitored and inspected by the City Engineer; or the developer could enter into an Improvement Contract with the City, and the City would build the road. Ms. Bloom advised that the cost for construction would be 100% the applicant’s responsibility; and once accepted by the City, it would become a City street, with maintenance and future repairs the responsibility of the City. Ms. Bloom briefly reviewed code requirements, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, that a hard surface for access to homes needed to be built. Mr. Emerson Mr. Emerson disputed the width of Acorn Road and Ms. Bloom’s statement on the width. Mr. Emerson and other members of the audience expressed frustration with the quality of the audio in the Council Chambers; as they were unable to hear comments from the presentation table. Chair Traynor apologized for the apparent audio difficulties at tonight’s meeting. Nancy Gulden, 2226 W Laurie Road Ms. Gulden spoke against the subdivision, based on safety issues, drainage, environmental Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 7 issues, removal of trees, and disruption of the neighborhood wildlife; as well as changes to the character and integrity of the neighborhood’s rural aspect with creation of a cul-de-sac. Ms. Gulden respectfully requested that Commissioners vote against the proposal. Janet Romanowski, 2195 Acorn Road Ms. Romanowski questioned why the project was once again before the Commission, when the City Council had denied the previous request. Ms. Romanowski referenced a recent St. Paul Pioneer Press article discussing cul-de-sacs, and the lack of support from metropolitan area planners. Ms. Romanowski opined that Mr. Mueller had originally lobbied for a narrow road to keep intensity down. Ms. Romanowski asked Commissioners to vote against the proposal. Applicant, Arthur Mueller, 2201 Acorn Road Mr. Mueller noted that many of those opposing his project had already split their lots; reviewed his history with the neighbors and his assistance in cooperating with them in development of their properties; addressed his intent and preference for tree preservation; discussed his residency in the neighborhood for fifty-nine years, and his long-term commitment to the neighborhood; and expressed his willingness to work with staff on outstanding issues and valid concerns of neighbors. Mr. Mueller noted the changing and growing community that Roseville was becoming; and the community’s need for smaller lots to attract younger families with children to affordable housing. Mr. Mueller reiterated his intent to improve the neighborhood and increase values of adjacent properties. No one else appeared for or against; and Chair Traynor closed the Public Hearing at 7:58 p.m. MOTION: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Wozniak, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the PRELIMINARY PLAT entitled, Oak Acres,” for Art Mueller creating four (4) legal, conforming residential lots and a public cul-de-sac street on the 1.9 acre parcel at 2201 Acorn Road, based on the information in Section 4 and the conditions of Section 5 of the project report dated November 1, 2006. Commissioner Bakeman recognized that change was difficult, but that it was a given. Chair Traynor advised that he had voted against Mr. Mueller’s previous proposal due to his concerns with the character of the neighborhood; the need for diversity in housing with larger lot sizes as an option; and the dramatic changes it would create in the neighborhood. However, Mr. Traynor noted that consideration of a Preliminary Plat that met all Code requirements and did not require Comprehensive Land Use Map designation amendment or rezoning was a strict narrow review for the Commission, and taking everything into consideration, he would be voting to support this proposal. Commissioner Boerigter noted that he had previously voted for the project, opining that that was a proposal that provided more City control through the PUD process. Mr. Boerigter recognized and addressed several worthy public comments heard tonight; however, noted that it was Mr. Mueller’s property, that the trees were on Mr. Mueller’s property; and that he should be allowed to develop his property, within the refinements of City Code, as he so chose to do. Commissioner Boerigter opined that while the threat was made that everyone would be splitting their properties, some lots would support splitting, but that those that could be split were also private property and their development was at the discretion of the property owner. Commissioner Boerigter addressed his perception of minimal traffic impacts from three (3) new homes and projected trips, opining that Acorn Road was more than sufficient to handle the additional traffic. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 8 Commissioner Boerigter, in considering the totality of the proposal, current City Code, and conditions addressing areas of concern, opined that Commissioners were obligated to vote for the project; and noted that he would be voting to support the project. Commissioner Boerigter opined that this was overall a good project, the proposed homes would be expensive, and he doubted that any real negative property value or impact would occur to adjoining properties. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Chair Traynor advised that the case would come before the City Council on November 13, 2006. b. PLANNING FILE 3893 INTERIM USE PERMIT Walser Automotive Group seeks approval of an for temporary automotive repair and service operations at 2980 Cleveland Avenue while their permanent facility at 2775 Highway 35 N are being reconstructed. Chair Traynor opened the Public Hearing at for Planning File 3793 at 8:05 p.m. City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request of Walser Automotive Group, in cooperation with St. Paul Properties, Inc. for approval of an INTERIM USE PERMIT, in accordance with Section 101209 of Roseville City Code, to allow the establishment of a temporary auto service garage to minimize disruption of customer service during construction of their new dealership at 2775 Highway 35. Mr. Paschke noted that, as Walser had developed their final engineering and construction documents, as well as contracting with a developer/builder, they had determined that the original two-phase redevelopment would create a detrimental disruption to service operations and project construction, as well as an extended construction timeline, and would not be in the best interest of their customers. Mr. Paschke advised that Walser had discussed with staff the possibility of temporary use of an off-site facility at 2980 Cleveland Avenue for auto service. Mr. Paschke noted that use of the facility would require either a Conditional use Permit or and Interim Use Permit, with staff determining that an Interim Use Permit would the appropriate process for approval. Mr. Paschke advised that no exterior improvements were proposed, only interior improvements such as air handling/exchange system and hydraulic vehicle lifts; and would need review and approval by the City’s Building Official. Mr. Paschke reviewed the proposed conditions for interim use of the property. Staff recommended approval of the INTERIM USE PERMIT, based on the comments and findings of Section 5, and subject to the conditions outlined in Section 6, of the project report dated November 1, 2006. Applicant, Don Shilling (160 Bighorn Drive – 612/616-2571), Director of Facilities for Walser Group Mr. Shilling concurred with staff’s presentation. Commissioner Wozniak questioned the proposed traffic or parking volume of the service department. Mr. Shilling estimated that each service bay averaged 3-4 vehicles per day; and noted that technicians intended to road test the vehicles between the drop off site at Walser’s current Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 9 facility at 2775 Highway 35 and the temporary facility at 2980 Cleveland Avenue, with vehicles returned to the permanent site for customer pick-up, thus eliminating any additional traffic at the temporary site. Mr. Shilling advised that no quick lube or high-traffic generation was proposed at the Cleveland site during the temporary use of the facility. Additional discussion included access to Langton Lake ball fields and overflow parking on the site for those activities; and proposed hours of operation (7:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.). Staff noted that they were unaware that an agreement existed for park use overflow parking with the property owner. Commissioner Bakeman questioned if customers would use the Long Lake Road facility for drop off and/or overnight parking, rather than the Cleveland facility. Mr. Shilling responded affirmatively; noting that the Cleveland facility service bays would need to be cleaned after business hours, and there may be several vehicles parked overnight in the service bays for shuttling vehicles the following day, but that no quantity of vehicles would be on the temporary site. Commissioner Boerigter questioned which side of the premises would be leased; with Mr. Shilling responding that the west side of the facility would be used for the bays. Commissioner Gasongo questioned what would happen after the thirteen (13) month period, if the permanent facility were not ready. Mr. Paschke advised that the applicant would need to submit to staff and prior to expiration of the expiration date built into the Interim Use Permit approval, to seek extension. Mr. Paschke noted that the applicant would be expending additional funds to lease the facility, and if construction delays occurred, it was to their advantage to avoid any delays; with the applicant anticipating being in their new facility prior to the expiration of the Interim Use Permit. Mr. Paschke advised that, aside from building and fire code standards that would be under a separate review process through the City’s Inspection and Fire Departments, no additional requirements referencing auto service and repair standards were called for. Public Comment Robert Rouda, 946 Lydia Drive Mr. Rouda questioned how vehicles requiring towing or trucking would be handled. Mr. Shilling responded that the percentage of those repairs to that site would be limited to a vary small percentage, but that they would be towed directly to the site; estimating that less than four percent (4%) of vehicles are currently towed in. Chair Traynor closed the Public Hearing at 8:19 p.m. MOTION: Member Roe moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the INTERIM USE PERMIT for Walser Automotive Group to establish a temporary auto service/repair use parcel at 2974 – 2982 Cleveland Avenue, for a period of one (1) year, based on the comments and findings of Section 5, and the conditions of Section 6, of the project report dated November 1, 2006. Commissioner Wozniak offered a friendly amendment to the motion, accepted by Commissioners Roe and Bakeman, amending the motion to include a condition that that applicant work with the St. Paul – Ramsey County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section, to ensure that all hazardous materials on the site were managed and stored properly; and to notify the department, with a copy to staff for verification, of their change in business location. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 10 Commissioner Bakeman thanked Commissioner Wozniak for incorporating the additional condition related to hazardous waste. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Chair Traynor advised that the case would come before the City Council at their November 13, 2006 meeting. RECESS Chair Traynor recessed the meeting at 8:22 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Doherty returned to the meeting at this time. c. PLANNING FILE 3790 REZONING, Rottlund Homes and David Bernard Builders & Developers seek approval of a GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND VACATION OF EASEMENTS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY for the Twin Lakes redevelopment area. Chair Traynor opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 3790 at 8:35 p.m. City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request of Rottlund Company, Inc. seeking support for Twin Lakes West, a fifty-eight (58) acre (approximate) redevelopment, that requires approval of a RIGHT-OF-WAY/EASEMENT VACATION, PRELIMINARY PLAT, REZONING, AND GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Staff noted that the project consists of approximately twenty-seven (27) acres of residential, twenty-four (24) acres of office, and seven (7) acres of outlots for an approximate total of fifty-eight (58) acres. Mr. Paschke noted that all actions should occur in the same order and format to support each other as outlined in the staff report. Comp Plan Community Development Director John Stark reviewed the Comprehensive Plan review, as detailed in Sections 5.1 – 5.8 of the staff report dated November 1, 2006; with staff concluding, with input from the City Attorney’s Office, that the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject area as “BP-Business Park” is conceptually consistent with the mix of uses and stated goals described in the maps and text of the 2001 Master Plan. Mr. Stark further outlined sub-areas within the subject area, identified in the 2001 Master Plan as “Opportunity Areas 1, 2, 3 and 5,” on the table identified as “Exhibit C.” Mr. Stark also reviewed the seven (7) broad policies, ten (10) goals and policies of the 2001 Master Plan, and twenty-four (24) renewal strategies, all included in the staff report. Staff further concluded that no aspect of the applicant’s proposal was identified as being in conflict with these areas, with “Exhibit D” of the staff report providing an analysis of the manner in which the proposal addresses the goals of the 2001 Master Plan. Right-of Way/Easement Vacation Mr. Paschke reviewed, in detail, the right-of-way and easement vacations portions of the proposal for Twin Lakes west, as outlined in Sections 6.1 – 6.4 of the staff report. Mr. concept Paschke noted that the proposal was in form at this time, and would be further refined through ongoing environmental review prior to the final development plan going before the City Council for review and consideration. Mr. Paschke noted that the Planning Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 11 Commission was being asked to review and base their consideration on whether or not to support the concepts proposed to work toward a final and detailed project, meeting all code requirements, and as negotiated through staff and the Commission. Preliminary Plat Mr. Paschke reviewed Sections 6.5 - 6.7 of the staff report, detailing the review process; and proposed use mix. Rezoning Mr. Paschke reviewed proposed rezoning within the redevelopment area, as detailed in Section 6.8 – 6.11 of the staff report. General Concept Proposal Mr. Paschke reviewed the General Concept as submitted; detailing each specific concept, as outlined in Section 6.12 – 6.15 of the staff report. Mr. Paschke reviewed the various components (i.e., professional office, residential housing, and service mix – restaurant) of the Concept Plan., detailed in Section 6.16 – 6.26 of the staff report. Public Infrastructure Mr. Paschke revised Sections 6.27 – 6.30 of the staff report related to public infrastructure; noting that staff supported the concepts being advocated, but had not provided final approval, pending further refinement, Rice Creek Watershed District and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) review and approval, ongoing negotiations with the City Engineer and Public Works departments; and continued detailing of the concept plan. Mr. Paschke further reviewed park land dedication; staging of the proposed development; other amenities, including trail and sidewalk systems; project impacts to traffic, wetland ponding and shoreland protection requirements, parking, utilities, mechanical equipment, and environmental issues; and design standards and guidelines, incorporating recommendations of the Twin Lakes Stakeholder Panel. Staff concluded their presentation by stating that the Development Review Committee (DRC) and Community Development Department had concluded that the GENERAL CONCEPT phase of the Twin Lakes West development meets the requirements for consideration by the Roseville Planning Commission for their consideration of an advisory recommendation to the Roseville City Council. Staff further and specifically concluded that the request for RIGHT- OF-WAY and EASEMENT VACATION, PRELIMMINARY PLAT, REZONING, and GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT do not conflict with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan (and the property designation of BP, Business Park) or the 2001 Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan. Further, staff concluded that, in a great number of ways, the proposal fulfills the goals, policies and strategies set forth in the 2001 Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan; and based on the information provided in Sections 4 – 8 of the Staff Report, the DRC and Community Development Staff recommend approval of the requests, as noted in the report, by Rottlund Company for Twin Lakes West. Discussion included why the Twin Lakes Parkway was not connecting Fairview and Cleveland Avenues; with staff advising that the AUAR Update would dictate whether a connection was necessary, which would be reflected in the final development plan following completion of traffic studies as part of the AUAR update in process. Further discussion included input from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) regarding the proposed housing mix and how it related to Roseville’s Housing Plan; intent of developer to use “green friendly” development principles and LED certification process hallmarks; lack of retail proposed in this plan; relocation of the proposed Twin Lakes Parkway and further distance from Langton Lake, as well as housing, rather than retail, located close Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 12 to the park and lake; staff’s update to the Commission on the status of the AUAR update in relationship to this proposal and the 60-day land use review process; and public access to Langton Lake for non-residents. Applicants Theresa Greenfield, Director of Land Development for Rottlund Homes and David Bernard Builders and Developers Ms. Greenfield noted that, also present tonight, were Linda Fisher, Land Use Counsel for the applicant with Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.; and Joe Samuel, Project Manager and Senior Professional Engineer with RLK Incorporated. Ms. Greenfield briefly reviewed the four (4) action requests before the Commission tonight; and reiterated the development team’s commitment to the City of Roseville. Ms. Greenfield noted that this proposal had been provided a public viewing at various open house processes recently hosted by the applicant. Ms. Greenfield recognized the community’s initial discussions beginning in 1973 to protect and preserve Langton Lake and protecting and preserving area natural resources; and the ultimate creation of a concept plan to honor the Comprehensive Plan, and 2001 Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan. Ms. Greenfield further reviewed the proposed housing mix and opportunities presented; preservation of open space as designated by the Parks and Recreation Commission; and location of Twin Lakes Parkway. Ms. Greenfield recognized the numerous details to be refined; and concurred with the recommendations outlined in the staff report; and sought Planning Commission support to move forward to work with the DRC, permitting process and agency review, with a goal of initiating construction in the spring of 2007. Ms. Greenfield noted that the proposed plan responded to concerns previously echoed throughout the community through public meetings, and eliminated the retail with the project boundaries; honoring the Twin Lakes Parkway location further away from the park; additional open space adjacent to the park; increased office space to increase higher paying jobs and increased city tax base. Chair Traynor observed that the proposed housing mix would be the largest one-time expansion of housing in the community since the 1960’s; and requested substantial input from the HRA in consideration of that housing mix. Ms. Greenfield expressed enthusiastic response to working with the HRA; noting that, to- date, the developer had been focused on the overall concept plan, but intended to honor the current redevelopment contract as it addressed the affordable housing stipulations; and welcome ongoing dialogue with and utilization of the HRA’s extensive study and research of the community and area housing needs and current inventory. Ms. Greenfield also addressed Commission comments regarding green building and LED certification; again referring to the negotiated redevelopment contract in existence, and the developer’s commitment and intention to apply water resource efficiencies, low flow fixtures, low rate irrigation systems, recycling of construction waste, and other considerations. Discussion included various price points for various types of housing opportunities, ranging from $200,000 - $350,000, depending on style; numerous proposed access points to Langton Lake on the south for non-residents and/or non-tenants; additional discussions with the Parks and Recreation Commission for their suggestions; market value for office space and tenant interest and inquiry with the developer to-date; uniqueness of the site for the business community; and connection of Twin Lakes Parkway, depending on the outcome of the AUAR Update and review. Public Comment Robert Rouda, 946 Lydia Drive Mr. Rouda thanked the applicant for their response to previous public comment; however, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 13 questioned what was proposed for the next phase, and how the entire project was envisioned. Mr. Rouda questioned the intent for senior housing, accessibility, and other amenities; and expressed caution in approving the project without knowing the overall plan. Ms. Greenfield noted that the applicant’s reference to senior housing, included that they would be age-restricted with at least one of the owners being 55+, would be multi-story condominiums, underground parking, ADA compliant, and having other amenities addressing the needs of the senior purchaser. Mr. Paschke reminded the public that future phases of the development would be bound by the same plans – the Business Park and 2001 Master Plan. Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane Mr. Callahan had numerous questions related to the actual identify of the developer, who actually controlled the property, and whether the current development agreement was valid with this applicant. Staff advised Mr. Callaghan that the existing contract was not part of the land use context being discussed tonight; and would be subject to amendment by the City Council; and assured that Rottlund Companies controls every property within the fifty-eight (58) acres currently seeking approval for redevelopment. Mr. Callaghan disputed staff’s statement; and additional discussion was held between Mr. Callaghan, Commissioners and City Attorney Joe Langel with respect to the development agreement; property ownership; and tonight’s land use application. Mr. Callaghan further disputed representations of proposed uses, seeking more specific plans for each site; road access onto Fairview Avenue; location and connections for Twin Lakes Parkway; comparisons of this proposal to the original proposal; interpretations of the Court of Appeals findings; and proposed number of housing units. Staff and Commissioners responded to Mr. Callaghan’s questions and concerns as appropriate; and Mr. Stark clarified that the City of Roseville is not currently involved in any litigation whatsoever as it is related to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Terry Moses, 1776 Maple Lane Mr. Moses opined that the City was “getting the cart before the horse” in considering this application prior to completion of the AUAR Update; questioned concept plan approval as being “final;” questioned the legality of this applicant and property ownership related to the existing development agreement; and status of properties under Eminent Domain action . Staff responded as appropriate, and reiterated their previous discussions related to the 60- day review period for land use cases; and the continuing update of the AUAR on a parallel track. Al Sands, 2612 Aldine Mr. Sands provided his historical perspective, referencing minutes from June of 2001 related to the Twin Lakes AUAR map and plan approved by the City Council. Mr. Stark responded to Mr. Sands’ concerns, addressing the findings of the Court of Appeals ruling and resulting determination that the 2001 Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan served as the Comprehensive Plan; and detailing existing conditions and options. Mr. Sands continued to dispute staff’s interpretation. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 14 Tam McGehee, 77 Mid Oaks Lane Ms. McGehee questioned the actual number of proposed housing units; and questioned why the Twin Lakes Parkway was not being shown as continuous on tonight’s drawings, when it was shown as continuous at the recently-held, applicant-sponsored, open houses. Mr. Stark noted that the concept approval PUD didn’t require a finite unit count. Ms. McGehee advised that the rerouting of traffic, during peak hours, off Fairview and away from residential areas, had always been an issue, and discussions were held at the open houses, and needed to be pursued. Yul Yost, 3015 Fairview Mr. Yost had extensive questions and comments related to storm water drainage and depth of the proposed holding ponds; presented his calculations for runoff; questioned how the developer proposed to handle impervious surface runoff; enhanced protection of Langton Lake; access to the ponds by City staff for ongoing maintenance; and his maintenance of the north end holding ponds to-date. Considerable discussion was held among Mr. Yost, staff and Commissions, and Mr. Yost presented his comments in written form in a letter addressed to the Planning Commissioners, attached hereto and made a part thereof. dated November 1, 2006; Ms. Bloom addressed the technical drainage and ponding issues raised by Mr. Yost; thanked him for his continuing service to the community in maintaining the outlets; and alerted the public to upcoming neighborhood meetings to address many of the issues raised by Mr. Yost. Ms. Bloom requested a meeting, outside the Planning Commission venue, to further hear his comments and suggestions for the drainage management in the area, based on his years of observation, and documentation. Dan Cooke, 3070 Shorewood Lane Mr. Cooke had questions on Master Plan principles discussed on Exhibit D in the staff report; protection of neighborhoods with less intrusive land uses; proposed number of housing units; status of the AUAR Update; and concerns regarding traffic. Staff responded to Mr. Cooke regarding staff’s interpretation of land uses and their compatibility. Commissioner Bakeman opined that the existing truck terminals would seem much more intrusive to the neighborhood than the office/residential mix proposed. Mr. Stark advised that the Court of Appeals ruling “trumped” any previous City action to the specifics of the 2001 Master Plan and amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Terry Moses Mr. Moses disputed staff’s comments related to the AUAR and their “intelligent recommendation” to the City Council; and disputed Ms. Bloom’s interpretation of impervious surface estimates (currently 90%), opining that his discussion with a hydrologist noted that much of the site is gravel of Class 4 materials, and not considered impervious. Ms. Bloom clarified that Class 5 or gravel, when packed down, is not the same as green space, and was considered more similar to bituminous surfaces, and treated as such when reviewing development plans. Ms. Bloom reminded listeners that the engineering staff was, in requiring rate controls and water quality was also considering erosion elements of gravel; and respectfully disagreed with Mr. Moses’ comments. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 15 Tam McGehee Ms. McGehee disagreed with Ms. Bloom, opining that “this is not her area of expertise,” and that numbers had been rated by engineers as to their level of permeability. Al Sands, 2612 Aldine Mr. Sands disputed the comments of Mr. Stark related to the Comprehensive Plan; expressed his disappointment that the new Community Development Director was going the route of the former Director; and opined that the Planning Commission ratified whatever the Community Development Department put in front of it, ultimately creating more problems for the City, and creating more dissent. Commissioner Doherty disputed Mr. Sands’ characterization of and injustice to the Commissioners; noting many times when denial has been a decision of the Commission, not in concurrence with staff recommendation. Carole Erickson, 2925 Mildred Drive Ms. Erickson noted her proximity to the proposed development site; spoke in support of the project; and encouraged Commissioners to approve and send the project forward, as a step to alleviating pollution around and into Langton Lake. Ms. Erickson opined that Fairview Avenue was actually a County arterial road meant to carry substantial traffic. Janet Jacobs, (northern 3064 Mildred Drive?) Ms. Jacobs expressed concern with traffic; and expounded on difficulties she already faces entering County Road D, the only access point from her property, during rush hours. Ms. Jacobs encouraged staff, the developer and Ramsey County to work toward solution of this “major, major, major” headache. Ms. Jacobs further noted that she had attended the open house, but couldn’t get an answer from anyone on future plans for big box retail, making her suspicious of the next phase. Ms. Jacobs opined her support of the plan as presented and the preservation of Langton Lake. Chair Traynor closed the Public Hearing at 11:03 p.m. Chair Traynor opined that this proposal and overall plan was much more desirable than the previous plan, with the more walkable, urban neighborhood design, housing and office mix, and anticipated improvements to Langton Lake. Chair Traynor referenced the staff report and conclusions outlined for the record as to the proposal’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and the rationale of the analysis and conclusions. Commissioner Bakeman opined that change was hard, but also inevitable, and further opined that even without doing any type of project, traffic would continue to increase throughout the community due to the increased development of suburbs north of Roseville and people moving through the City to downtown St. Paul and/or Minneapolis. Commissioner Bakeman concurred with involving the state and county in getting a grasp on the ongoing traffic issues in the northern suburbs, and pooling of dollars to alleviate traffic congestion. Commissioner Bakeman opined that that a property owner had a right to develop their property in accordance with the City’s codes and guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, and long-term development. Commissioner Bakeman further opined that the current proposal met those requirements. Commissioner Doherty noted that he had worked at two of the truck terminals forty (40) years ago, and the properties were in bad shape then and were worse now. Commissioner Doherty sympathized with the increasing traffic on Cleveland and Fairview Avenues, but noted that the majority of north/south thoroughfares within the community and other suburbs were facing similar congestion concerns, and would not diminish. Commissioner Doherty Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 16 noted that he had supported the previous plan, and would support this plan as well. Commissioner Gasongo thanked staff for the thoroughness of their review and report, particularly with the magnitude of the project; and addressed those public comments, whether opposing or supporting the project, and their need to recognize the technical information needing review by staff, and their comprehensive diligence, research and analysis. Commissioner Gasongo advised that he would support this land use plan, with conditions as outlined and discussed; deferring legal issues to the City Council, as he deemed was appropriate. Commissioner Roe followed up on Commissioner Gasongo’s comments, opined his support of the project, with conditions; and had prepared several conditions for Commission consideration to add to the approval process. Suggested conditions were related to environmental standards; affordable housing; access points for the south side of Langton Park for non-residents; and Preliminary Plat approval upon concurrence with the parameters of the redevelopment agreement related to rezoning. Commissioner Roe opined that it was time to get started improving the Twin Lakes area, and provided his support of the project with conditions. Commissioner Wozniak concurred with Commissioner Gasongo; and provided “kudos” to staff. Commissioner Wozniak opined that the Commission approved many of staff’s recommendations, as they did an excellent job preparing reports and answering Commission questions. Commissioner Wozniak further opined that this appeared to be a good proposal, and concurred with Commissioner Roe’s proposed conditions, adding conditions for construction standards providing for green construction and development, as well as LEED certification; and working with the HRA on affordable housing components. Commissioner Wozniak opined that he would personally like to see bike lanes included in the plans. MOTION 10.1: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Doherty, recommended APPROVAL of the RIGHT-OF-WAY and EASEMENT VACATION, eliminating public interest in one (1) road right-of-way, five (5) roadway easements, two (2) sewer easements and one (1) drainage easement, based on the comments of Section 5.1 – 5.4 of the project report dated November 1, 2006/ Such approval would be based upon a determination that the requested right-of-way and easement vacation does not conflict with Roseville’s Comprehensive Plan and does not impair the general health, safety and welfare of the community. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Discussion ensued regarding the appropriate place to apply the conditions and the relationship of the final development plan process for a PUD and contractual obligations at that point. MOTION 10.2: Member Traynor moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, recommended APPROVAL of the PRELIMINARY PLAT for Twin Lakes West, creating five (5) residential lots, three (3) office/service mix lots, seven (7) outlots and dedicating public right-of-way for Mount Ridge Road and Twin Lakes Parkway, subject to approvals and permits required by the Parks and Recreation Commission; Rice Creek Watershed Organization; and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR); Ramsey County; and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Such an approval would be based upon a determination that the requested preliminary plat does not conflict with Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 17 Roseville’s Comprehensive Plan and does not impair the general health, safety and welfare of the community. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Motion carried. MOTION 10.3: Member Traynor moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, recommended APPROVAL for a REZONING of thirteen (13) parcels from I-1, Light Industrial and I-2, General Industrial to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with an underlying zoning of B-6, Mixed Use Business Park District per the site plan and preliminary plat submitted. The final rezoning would become effective upon approval by the City Council of the PUD Agreement and publication of the ordinance. Such an approval would be based upon a determination that the requested rezoning does not conflict with Roseville’s Comprehensive Plan and does not impair the general health, safety and welfare of the community. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Discussion ensued regarding which conditions to include and appropriate language and intent; completion of Twin Lakes parkway regardless of AUAR Update outcomes; HRA input on housing components; City Attorney Langel’s opinion to not reference the existing development agreement in the land use determinations; park access on the south side; and the developer’s ongoing discussions and work with staff. MOTION 10.4: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Roe, recommended APRPOVAL of the GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) for Twin Lakes West, as prepared for the November 1, 2006 Planning Commission meeting by the Rottlund Company for an approximately fifty-eight (58) acre office, restaurant, and residential development, subject to approvals and permits required by the Rice Creek Watershed Organization and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR), Ramsey County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT); and amended to include the following conditions: 1) Applicant will obtain input from the HRA regarding housing mix and work with staff and the HRA for affordable housing options; 2) Applicant will work with staff and apply for LEED certification, “green” or similar principles in construction of the development; 3) Applicant and staff will work to develop a plan that addresses pedestrian and bicycle needs to foster better transit for the development and park access; and 4) The developer will work with staff on exploring the ability to extend the Twin Lakes Parkway to Cleveland Avenue as part of redevelopment project. Such an approval would be based upon a determination that the requested Concept PUD does not conflict with Roseville’s Comprehensive Plan, and does not impair the general health, safety and welfare of the community. Final approval by the City Council will be considered after all conditions and required documents and permits have been submitted for final approval. Final approvals are considered a separate application process. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 18 Chair Traynor noted that anticipated City Council Action on the Concept Plan would be at their November 27, 2006 City Council meeting. Chair Traynor thanked staff and City Attorney Langel for an outstanding job on their analysis, report, and presentation; and thanked Ms. Greenfield for her presentation. d. PLANNING FILE 3692 CONTINUATION of the Roseville Comprehensive Plan Update Process – Review of technical update schedule with various City Commissions. Chair Traynor advised that staff and various advisory commissions were exploring how best to proceed with the Comprehensive Plan Update in light of staff’s recent conclusion that large scale revisions were necessary, and that technical revisions would be difficult to isolate from those larger revisions. Chair Traynor noted that the community visioning process was nearing completion and would help inform any Comprehensive Plan changes made next year. Chair Traynor noted that staff had determined that a Planning Commission resolution recommending to the City Council funding for a consultant was not necessary at this time. MOTION: Member Wozniak moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to carry over discussion of the Comprehensive Plan Update Process to the next meeting. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Motion carried. 6. Information and Reports Chair Traynor advised that the Appeals language for the Variance Board had been prepared by staff and would be discussed at the next meeting. Commissioner Doherty requested that the document language include a provision that notice of appeals be provided to all Variance Board members for their information. Staff was so directed to include such provision. Chair Traynor thanked staff and Commissioners. 7. Adjournment Chair Traynor adjourned the meeting at 11:48 p.m.