Loading...
PC Minutes 1-18-05 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Al-Jaff: I apologize. Yes you do. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Okay with that, you’re correct Commissioner Lillehaug. With that motion not being passed, can I entertain another motion? Lillehaug: I make a motion to deny this applicant. Slagle: Okay. Is there a second? Keefe: Second. Slagle: Any additional comments? Leave it at that? Okay. Lillehaug moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the application for planning case #04-43 for Yoberry Farms for 57 lots and 8 outlots as shown in the plans received December 20, 2004. All voted in favor, except Papke and McDonald who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) Lillehaug: Chairman Sacchet, can we, a few of us if we want, can we give a quick summary as to our reasons why I… Sacchet: Yes. I think it would be beneficial and I’m going to not participate obviously in that discussion. If you would want to summarize for the benefit of council why you took the decision you just took for the Yoberry Farms proposal, that’s what you’re suggesting Steve, right? That’s good suggestion. Please go ahead. Do you want to start since you made the suggestion. Lillehaug: I’ll put on a few of my comments anyways. One would be, I think it is possibly feasible to connect to Trunk Highway 41 and make that connection, regardless of what I previously indicated. I do have concerns with the traffic volumes on the north and south streets from the development. The easterly cul-de-sac, there’s other options there that could minimize a couple of lots. Create a totlot. I don’t think it was fine tuned enough to approve and make something feasible. There’s underlying issues that simply there’s not an answer at this point that deal with specifically with the park issue. That needs to be handled. It’s my opinion there needs to be a connection from the north to the south to the two developments. That’s all I have, thanks. Sacchet: Thank you Steve. Any other Commissioner want to add comments for in summary for council to the previous decision? No? Alright. With that we get to the third item on our agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 1.19 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF MURRAY HILL ROAD AND MELODY HILL ROAD, JOHN HENRY ADDITION, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-05. 32 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Public Present: Name Address Richard Herrboldt 6464 Murray Hill Road John DeLuca 6484 Murray Hill Road Gil Kreidberg 6444 Murray Hill Road Greg Nelson 2165 Murray Hill Court Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Keefe: I’ve got a question. Sacchet: Go ahead Dan. Keefe: In regards to the lot immediately to the east, I believe it’s the east of that. I didn’t see any sort of landscaping or berming or anything associated with the backs of these. I mean are we going to require anything or is there any landscaping or, that would be on the back side of these homes essentially. Metzer: We are requiring they plant, each new lot plant one tree in the front yard. There is significant tree coverage in this back corner here. No significant tree canopy in Lot 2. Keefe: Okay. Al-Jaff: If I might add. Sacchet: Go ahead Sharmeen. Al-Jaff: Our ordinance does not require a buffering between one. Sacchet: Is your mic on? Al-Jaff: Pardon? Our ordinance does not require buffering between low density and low density so. Sacchet: Any other questions from staff? No? With that I’d like to invite the applicant to come forward and present what you, if you have anything to add. Do we have an applicant here for this one? No applicant here for this one? Well that makes for a very short applicant presentation. If we don’t have an applicant presentation, I move right on to the public hearing portion of this. This is a public hearing so I’d like to invite any residents that want to speak up to this, to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Tell us what you have to say. 33 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Gil Kreidberg: My name is Gil Kreidberg. I live at 6444 Murray Hill Road. I own the property that would be opposite Lot number 3. Sacchet: Opposite on which side? Gil Kreidberg: On what would be the west side. Sacchet: Across the street basically? Gil Kreidberg: Across Murray Hill. The lack of, the fact that the applicant is not here is slightly distressing to me because it makes it difficult to really determine the nature and the character of what they’re going to construct there. Currently if you go from Melody back up Murray Hill Road there, there’s sort of two separate cul-de-sacs. One that’s directly west of this property and north of my property. Slagle: You can bend your mic and pull it over there and show us on the. Gil Kreidberg: Okay, on this thing. Basically you have this project right in here that has 4 homes on 2.2 acres. And then as you come further down, I own the property, the water tower is right across from what would be where proposed house #3 is going to go. I own that property along with another ¾ of an acre to the south. Everything in that area as you come from Melody south is on a minimum half acre lot. The 4 homes are on a little over half acre. The 6 homes on the cul-de-sac straight ahead from that are on ¾ acres to an acre and 1/3 acres that I have. Nothing in that area is under 600 grand. We would be very disturbed to see somebody come in there just because the technical rules allow it and build something that’s sub-standard to the neighborhood, which I think is just as important as whatever the technical rules are. And you know there are a lot of very mature trees run along Murray Hill there. Mostly pines. Have been there a long time. Clearly in order to access this stuff, some of that’s going to have to come down. We’re not very excited about that. When they put the 4 homes in here a few years ago, they fairly mitigated the number of trees they took out to do that by making one entry and putting the 4 homes off the one entry. Clearly there will have to be two entries here logistically here because of the size of the space. So without the applicant here to discuss what’s going on, kind of leaves it a little open ended. Cite lack of professionalism, I don’t know what your normal plan is but how often does an applicant not show up to Planning Commission here? Sacchet: Actually does the staff have anything to say to that? I mean if the applicant is not here, is that like in court when the cop is not there when you have a speeding ticket and the speeding ticket gets thrown off because the cop is not there to tell you were speeding, even though you know you were speeding? Do we know? Al-Jaff: Our ordinances do not demand that. Sacchet: There is not a requirement for the applicant to be present. That’s my understanding too. Yeah, I mean you’ve worked with the applicant. We don’t have a requirement for the applicant to be present in order for the process to proceed. Okay. Is that accurate? Okay. 34 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Gil Kreidberg: Based on the information that we have here, which is simply a drawing with a little red box where the houses are going to be, I don’t think we have sufficient information. Based on that, I clearly would not support this, your approval. Sacchet: You’ve got to be careful though because this is a plat submission. Not a building permit submission so at this point, we customary do not know what type of house goes on there. We may know is it a full basement, which I believe we know at this point, isn’t it? They’re two full basement houses. It’s not a walkout. It’s not a lookout. And that’s usually how far we go. At the point when you look at the subdivision step, what this is. Gil Kreidberg: Alright, do you take into account the nature of the neighborhood in which something’s going to be constructed? Sacchet: As far as is possible within the framework of the ordinances and the code of the city, yes. Gil Kreidberg: I understand. Because I could knock my house down and put 5 houses up on it… Sacchet: If you have enough space, and it meets the ordinance, yes indeed you could do that. Gil Kreidberg: Yeah, but it just, I mean it just seems counter productive in a lot of senses and seems like it could affect the value of the other property in the region which I think would be something to take into account. Sacchet: And we try to be sensitive to that, absolutely. Gil Kreidberg: Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you for your time. Sacchet: Thank you for your comments. Anybody else want to address this item? This is your chance. And I’m going to move pretty fast so if you want to speak, please stand up and do it. John DeLuca: My name’s John DeLuca. I’m at 6484 Murray Hill Road. Directly adjacent to the piece of property that we’re talking about here. Sacchet: On which side? John DeLuca: On the east side. Sacchet: East side, okay. John DeLuca: I’m right here. Slagle: You’re south. Sacchet: South. 35 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 John DeLuca: Right. Not having seen anything other than this drawing, this larger drawing here, and hearing for the first time square footage, which I can’t compute. I don’t know what that means to me. But looking at this drawing, it looks like almost half of this is, property’s being given to existing house, and at 1.1 acres, that’s going to bring these 2 pieces of property right down to the minimum I would guess. Sacchet: Correct. Yes, they’re down to the minimum. John DeLuca: Alright. Well. Sacchet: To meet the code. John DeLuca: As Gil said, I think you know as a resident there, I’m very concerned about what exists there and then what is going to be put there alongside of it and I’d appreciate any consideration you have going forward. Thank you. Sacchet: We do what we can. Anybody else? Seeing nobody, I will close the public hearing. Bring it back to commission for discussion and comments. Who wants to give it a start? Hit on Kurt enough tonight. Maybe start with Jerry. Go ahead. McDonald: I’ll jump into it. I have some concerns too about when you bring up the neighborhood, the existing house. The footprint of that. The fact that we’ve now got, and I don’t have the drawing. It was like 4-5 lots stacked up across that way. What’s going to happen with those? I mean you could do the same thing there and you create access problems. What are those homes? Do they fit within a neighborhood? Do we have enough information to really go on because again, as you say, this is an upscale area and the lots are quite large. I understand that with code you know you can do that but when it all came down to the final vote, yeah I might vote on it too but based upon the fact that you can do it but I would like to know how you’re going to put houses on these lots. Access in and out. There’s not enough information here. I think you need to go back to the developer as to what he intends. Sacchet: So that’d be a reason for the developer to be here. McDonald: Yes. I understand what you say that we’re not asking for house plans but again, the footprints that are there, when I look at how it fits on the property versus his and all the other’s, is that in character to the neighborhood. Sacchet: If I may interject a question for staff. We have neighborhoods where we ask two houses to have a common driveway. For instance on Lake Lucy. There it’s because of the traffic situation, the way I understand it. Could possibly be a reasoning here that in order to minimize the tree cutting into that hedge type of row of trees, to make it one driveway. Is that something that could be considered possibly? That’s a little unfair to ask that but if the applicant would be here we would ask the applicant that but. Saam: Yeah, well I guess I’d look to planning. Would that be a private street then? 36 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Al-Jaff: Yeah. Saam: And would that need a variance then? Sacchet: Well, are those private streets on Lake Lucy? Al-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Every single of those driveways is a private street. Al-Jaff: Anything that’s shared by more than one household would become… Sacchet: So every pair of those houses has a private street variance? Al-Jaff: Exactly. Sacchet: They didn’t need a variance at the time. Thanks for clarifying Bob. Saam: Mr. Chair, again on Lake Lucy it is a different animal because it’s a collector road. Higher traffic count and we have it in the code where we can limit direct access to collector roads. Sacchet: So we have some foundation for that, what we don’t have here. Saam: Yeah, it’s apples and oranges. Sacchet: Okay. Sorry for jumping in. Do we want to move this way? Jerry, were you done with your comments? McDonald: Yes. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: Do we know why the applicant isn’t here? Metzer: No. Lillehaug: No idea? Truthfully, this is questions right? Sacchet: This is comments and questions. Discussion. This is wrapping up as quick as possible. Lillehaug: Okay. I don’t see anything here that I would change on this development, but why isn’t the applicant here. It doesn’t take any time to come here and state his case. I mean I think it’s very irresponsible for that. Sacchet: Yeah, we just run into a question where we would like to have the applicant, definitely. 37 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Lillehaug: That’s all I have. Sacchet: Okay. Any comment? Comment? Anybody want to make a motion? Slagle: I’ll make a motion. I move that, where are we here? Sacchet: Page 7. Slagle: I make a motion that we recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-05, John Henry Addition for 3 single family lots as shown on the plans received December 17, 2004, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 16. I won’t add it as a condition but I would make a strong recommendation that staff contact the applicant and make sure he or she certainly appears before the City Council. When it goes to there. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-05, John Henry Addition for 3 single family lots as shown on the plans received December 17, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist conditions: a. A minimum of one planted tree shall be required in the front yard of each lot. b. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. c. All trees shown as preserved and outside of the grading limits as shown on plans dated Received 12/17/04 shall be saved. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. 2. Submit drainage calculations and drainage map for staff review and approval at time of final plat. 3. On the plan: a. Show a minimum 75 foot rock construction entrance. b. Call out the proposed house types on Lots 2 and 3. c. Show silt fence around the grading area. d. Show the existing access drives on the western side of Murray Hill Road. e. Show the locations of the proposed sanitary sewer and water services to the new lots. f. Show the location of the proposed driveways for the new lots. g. Show existing topography and structures within 100 feet of the property line. h. Show the existing sanitary manhole rim and invert elevations along with all of the existing utility pipes in Murray Hill Road. i. show 30 foot rear yard setback. 38 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 4. All sanitary services must be 6” PVC-SDR26 and water services 1” copper. 5. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (3) than what the property had been previously assessed for, the additional two units will be charged the sanitary sewer and water connection charge. The 2005 sanitary sewer and water connection charges are each $5,118 for a total per unit or per lot cost of $10,236. Based on these rates, the total amount due payable to the City for the additional two lot units will be $20,472 (2 @ $10,236.). 6. Add the following City detail plates: 1005, 2001, 5300, and 5301. 7. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 8. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk hook up charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 9. As part of the development improvements, the developer will be required to extend water and sanitary sewer services to the property line of each new lot. 10. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City’s latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA. 11. A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign the plans for the utility improvements. 12. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year found, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated Type of Slope when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days 39 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 14. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 1.19 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $1,301; the water quality fees are approximately $3,219. At this time the estimated SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $4,520. 15. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat. The 2005 park fees rate is $4,000. Park fees for John Henry Addition will be $8,000. 16. Building Official conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Separate water and sewer service must be provided for each lot. All voted in favor, except McDonald who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Sacchet: Basically it was within the zoning. Our task is to establish does it meet the ordinance and it does. Next we have our fourth item on the agenda. 40