Loading...
CC Minutes 11-10-03 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 they need to get done on the property without a variance and it's a tough one. I hate to say no but you know. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments Councilman Ayotte? No, okay. My comments are similar. You know if there's some way it can be done without the variance that would be preferred and it looks like there are some options and I guess I would encourage those to be pursued but, because you'd like to be able to let people improve their property to the way they like to. But for a variance there needs to that compelling reason, as Councilman Peterson and Labatt mentioned and so those are my concerns here as well. Any other comments or is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: I'd move that we deny Variance #2003-13 for a 13 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement based upon the findings of the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to deny Variance #2003-13 for a 13 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement based upon the findings in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. Mayor Furlong: As I mentioned in the beginning of the meeting, item 5 has been removed from our agenda. Tabled to a future meeting. WALNUT GROVE 2ND ADDITION, 7305 GALPIN BOULEVARD, KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT: 1) REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R4). 2) REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLA T APPROVAL TO CREATE 5 LOTS CONSISTING OF ONE SINGLE F AMIL Y HOME AND FOUR TWIN HOME UNITS WITH A VARIANCE FOR THE USE OF A PRIV A TE STREET. 3) REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. Mayor Furlong: Before I request a staff report I'd just like to say that the applicant in this case, Klingelhutz Development Company is a client of my firm. And while we 9 City Council Meeting - November 10,2003 haven't been involved in any direct, had any direct involvement in this matter or any financial interests in this matter before the council, I'm going to recuse myself due to the possible perception that I may have a conflict of interest. With that I'll ask the Deputy Mayor, Councilman Peterson to lead the council in it's consideration of this matter. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: With that, staff report please. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. As you stated this is a 3 part request. The first is to rezone the property rrom A2 to R4. First, this property is located on the northeast corner of West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard. It's access will be through Baneberry Way West which is a private street. As part of the subdivision for Walnut Grove they did receive the required easement for access purposes. Under the land use designation of residential low density appropriate zonings are RSF, which is single family residential, R4, which is what the applicant is proposing. Which permits single family homes or twin homes, or is part of a planned unit development. When we first looked at this site we thought that there would be more units that would go in there but due to Bluff Creek corridor, which runs on the south end of this property, it really constrained the developable area of the site. The applicant did come in with the two new twin home, or 4 additional units and keeping the existing home. So staff is recommending approval of the rezoning to R4. The proposed units are very comparable in size to the bungalow homes which are the detached townhouses within the Walnut Grove development. They'll be slightly larger than the townhouses that are immediately to the east of this. So we believe this development is very compatible with that. As part of the subdivision request they need a variance for a private street. One of the issues at the Planning Commission was that they were leaving in the existing temporary turn around. The applicant has revised his plans to provide a hammer head, which is adequate for the engineering department and our fire marshal both signed off and said this is adequate for meeting their purposes. The other concern the Planning Commission has was that configuration of the Lot 5, we would like to see a more rectangular shape to that, and they feel that this Lot 5 is very constrained by the setback to Bluff Creek. Staff had encouraged the applicant to plat the Outlot B because that preserves most of the primary zone of the Bluff Creek corridor. We currently own the property immediately south of this. We received that as part of the Galpin Business Park. We think this will be a good addition to that permanent open space in the community and it will help to preserve the corridor. So while the lot configuration is sort of, not rectangular, it does comply with ordinances so we are recommending approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions in the staff report. Finally there is, because it's within the Bluff Creek corridor, there's a conditional use permit required for any development. We believe by preserving the corridor they will protect the Bluff Creek and so we're recommending approval of that. The Planning Commission did vote to recommend denial of the rezoning and subsequently the subdivision and conditional use permit. Again their condition was that the turn around hadn't been addressed and they were unsure how this really fit in with the neighborhood. We provided additional information in the report to show how it would fit in with the Walnut Grove development. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. 10 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Councilman Peterson: Any questions of staff? Councilman Labatt: Bob, is that existing house on the property, will that be accessed off of Galpin then? Bob Generous: Yes. It will keep the existing access point that it has. Councilman Labatt: And can you just give me the rationale for why that, why we wouldn't want to pull it off of Galpin? Bob Generous: Well we would if they were making a new house there or new development. However there is a significant slope up to the back of that site from where the end of this driveway will be, or this private street. And so to access the garage they'd have to build, basically build a new garage. As you come to the end of this, this is north and then it'd go uphill and the garage is already entered that way. They're not going to change anything on the existing site. Councilman Labatt: But there's been other times when we've pulled other lot splits like this off and re-routed the access. Correct? Bob Generous: That's correct. Councilman Peterson: Other questions of staff? Councilman Lundquist: Bob, how do you respond to the Planning Commission's concerns about that sort of being shoe horned in there and however else they described it in the lot shapes and things like that. Bob Generous: Well they're correct. It is a tight site, especially the Lot 5. They could have shown alternate lot designs in a split building. However these are big twin homes. They're 1,300 square foot for one floor is big. Big property. Councilman Lundquist: Sure. And has the applicant made any alternate proposals for other layouts in there to address the Planning Commission's concerns at all or it's just a, you know it's a concern and here's the development as it is? Bob Generous: They've revised the lot lines slightly, but not a lot. It fits their plan I suppose, and we did have that one condition about no egress opening or door openings on that site so we wouldn't have people that would have a walkout to the side who want to expand. Put a patio or something in there. They have accommodated the deck area and porch area and they do have additional expansion areas towards the sides of the building and that's how they oriented these structures. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Any other questions? 11 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Councilman Labatt: Bob, I'm still kind of hung up on why we can't make this guy to access off the private drive. I mean look at the elevation change and from the end of that hammer head on the north is 974 elevation and his drive's at 981. So you're looking at 7 feet grade change. And so is this guy in the existing home, is he selling and Klingelhutz is going to do a lot split and develop? Is that what's happening here? Bob Generous: Yes. The house is being sold to another party is my understanding. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Bob the only question that I had is, I don't know whether you were involved in the meeting two weeks ago where we had a conceptual conversation about the property across Galpin and.. .how do we compare this development in area obviously and with the presentation, is there, we were kind of negative towards that but then it was a little bit more intense but how do you compare the two, if you can? Bob Generous: Well this one would be much less intensive development of a property compared to the townhouse project. And also it doesn't rront onto the main drag. This is sort of into the neighborhood. The orientation's a lot different. Councilman Peterson: Alright. The applicant, are you the applicant by chance? Are you the applicant? John Klingelhutz: I'm the applicant, yes. Councilman Peterson: Alright, go ahead. Make a presentation if you'd like, over and above what we've already heard. John Klingelhutz: Well, you know one of the things... Councilman Peterson: Name and address please. Could you state your name and address please. John Klingelhutz: John Klingelhutz, 1560 Bluff Creek Drive. If you change the driveway, the layout for that house doesn't work very well. First of all, grade. Second of all, the way you enter the garage and third, most of the trees that are on that site you know, that used to be one of the Lyman residences and a lot of those trees are 100 year old trees, and most of them would go away. So I mean we believe that leaving that driveway for that one residence, I mean it's been there all these years and I don't think it's going to increase or decrease any traffic or be a hazard to anything on that road. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Fellow councilmen, any thoughts on this? 12 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Councilman Ayotte: Any comments from our beloved commissioner from the Planning Commission? Uli Sacchet: I'm Uli Sacchet. I live at 7053 Highover Court South. I'm representing the Planning Commission. We were really struggling with this particular application. I think it has a lot of merits. It's a good project overall. However, we found that basically the two things that staff already highlighted, that the cul-de-sac was not addressed, we felt had a very big impact on the layout of this whole thing. And we had an application just the same night, the same meeting before this application came up where we had a development where houses were put not on the setback line but close to setback line and we face requests for variances. We see encroachments. People are going to go out there. They're going to have fireplaces. Fire pits in there. They're going to want to have decks. They're going to want to have pavers and what have you back there, and in this case the lot, the setback line is pretty much coinciding with the smaller unit of the twin homes. We felt that it was not, at least some of us felt that that was not in line with the comprehensive plan's idea of trying to preserve the natural integrity as much as possible, even though it does meet the letter of the ordinance. We felt that was a reason to oppose this, and see some additional effort put in in terms of alternatives being explored, which that hammer head seems like there's a little bit of an alternative but I mean it's up to you to decide whether that's sufficient. It still seems relatively small effort in terms of actually looking what the alternate possibilities are. There's a lot of constraint with that wetland right in the middle of the site so it's definitely a difficult site to balance all the interests. Basically from a Planning Commission we felt there should be more effort and it should go back through the system. I don't know whether an option will be for council to refer it back to the Planning Commission with that consideration to refine those aspects or, I mean that's in your hands now at this point. Any questions from my end? Thank you. Councilman Peterson: Thank you. Any comments gentlemen? Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to know what the down side would be to bring it back to the Planning Commission for a little bit of the... what is the negative to that? Does it bring adversity to the project? Councilman Peterson: I think it goes back to timing. I assume it's. Councilman Ayotte: That's the question. I mean. Bob Generous: Let's see, Planning Commission meets once in December and then in January again. Then the council into January. Councilman Peterson: So we're probably delaying it 45 to 60 days if we do that? Is that safe to say? Bob Generous: That would be right near the envelope for city review. Today's actually the end of the first 60 day period. 13 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Councilman Peterson: I mean we could approve it with a condition that staff continue to work with the applicant to improve the cul-de-sac area. To continue the process. Councilman Ayotte: I wouldn't want to put a roadblock in. Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Other comments to that? Anyone else? Councilman Lundquist: I guess my comments would be, why I asked the question about the extra effort. That I would tend to agree with the Planning Commission that we're probably setting ourselves up for variances and other non-conforming type issues to come. However, they're currently meeting everything that they're required to do by ordinance and everything else so I guess it's hard to say no, although I would encourage us, the staff to keep working on that to mitigate some of those future potentials. Councilman Peterson: Councilman Labatt, anything additional? Councilman Labatt: Well I think Brian's on, and Uli I thank you for your comments. The Marsh Glen was, that was proposing to do the same thing. When they came in with those town homes and we kicked it back and we said no because we're setting ourselves up here. And Brian, I think you're right on. You hit the nail on the head here or the noodle is going uphill Bob, is that how you say it? I think we're setting ourselves up for potential of having variances here by putting these buildings right on the setback lines. These homeowners are going to buy these properties, it happens in my neighborhood. Lundgren Brothers has put these buildings right on the property lines and the setback lines and they can't put a pavers stone deck in. So I'd say we either get the applicant to give us a written extension or we deny it tonight based upon the findings of fact in the Planning Commission report. Councilman Peterson: Okay. I probably feel the same way. I think that we could have a better project given more time so, although I don't like not making a decision. I don't like the decision we have to make right here so I'm comfortable in doing it. The only other alternative would be to send it through with staff working on addressing the issue of the cul-de-sac, but that doesn't address the setback issue. So I would entertain a motion. I'll pay somebody a dollar for a motion. John Klingelhutz: Could I say one thing? Councilman Peterson: Go ahead. John Klingelhutz: We're willing to work with the staff to do whatever we need to do to make the city at ease with this project. Whatever that might be. Does that mean that we need to take the site that is tight and take a little more off of the part that goes into the Bluff Creek area to have the lots look like they're bigger or whatever that might be, we're interested in making this work. 14 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you. I guess with that being said, you know a possible resolution could be sending this back with specific criteria as it relates to the cul- de-sac and to increase setbacks by a certain foot percentage or a percentage to address the concerns that you might have. Councilman Labatt: So Bob you said we're at the end of our first 60 days. Bob Generous: Yes. You can take it up to an additional 60 days to review. Councilman Labatt: So that puts us at January 10th, 11 th? Bob Generous: Somewhere around there. Councilman Labatt: And when do you have a Planning Commission meeting? It has to come back to the council in January. Bob Generous: Yes, and that's where we run into a problem. Councilman Labatt: Can this get on your December Planning Commission agenda if we kick it back to the Planning Commission with some direction? Okay. Bob Generous: Theoretically if they can make revisions. Councilman Labatt: I think Roger wants to chime in here. Roger Knutson: The applicant's indication his willingness to work with us, and considering your difficult time constraints, maybe they would give you an extension until you can deal with it appropriately in January. I don't know when you meet your first or second meeting in January. Maybe they could just give you an extension to the end of January. You could ask if that'd be okay with the applicant. John Klingelhutz: Like I said before that would be fine. Whatever we need to do. And it's getting pretty late in the year to do anything so I mean we have to wait til spring. It's really not the end of the world so let's just figure out what we have to do and make it work. Councilman Peterson: Alright, thank you. Councilman Ayotte: Appreciate it. Councilman Peterson: Alright, that makes the motion a little bit simpler. Councilman Labatt: So I would move that we table this and kick it back. Table it at the council level, kick it back to the Planning Commission for their meeting in January with the direction to look at the cul-de-sac or hammer head more closely and on Lots 4 and 5, 15 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 to look at the setbacks and the building size and location. Proximity of the lot. Any more direction or things you want massaged on it? Councilman Peterson: Is there a second to that? Councilman Ayotte: I'll second that. Councilman Peterson: Any further discussion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council table the Walnut Grove 2nd Addition request for rezoning, preliminary plat and conditional use permit and send it back to the Planning Commission with direction to look at the cul-de-sac or hammer head more closely and on Lots 4 and 5, to look at the setbacks, building size and location. All voted in favor, except Councilman Lundquist who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Councilman Peterson: The next item on the agenda is a motion to permanently transfer power to the Deputy Mayor. Mayor Furlong: You're out of order. I've got it back now. I've got the microphone back. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Furlong: Any council presentations? Councilman Ayotte: Provide comments to the city manager regarding our meeting with public safety. Todd Gerhardt: Bob Ayotte, Councilmember Bob Ayotte and myself met with Mike Fahey and discussed some CrimNet data with Mike Fahey and how our deputies can access that information. Right now that information can only be gained through an e- mail address and, or calling down to the dispatcher. So right now our deputies haven't had access to that information. I haven't had a chance to talk with Jim Olson, our Sergeant, but he is, one of the things we would do is have them directly call the dispatcher. The CrimNet program that the County is doing, it's a pilot program and it's a computer system that would allow the deputies to access criminal information from every county in Minnesota. So if they would pull somebody over, they could call the dispatcher with that person's driver license and get information that may have court pending litigation against that individual. Right now the deputies do not have that access to the computers in their cars so one solution to that is to call into dispatch. Right now our deputies aren't doing that and I'll be working with Sergeant Olson to ensure that the deputies do have that option available. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other council presentations? 16