Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/1997CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 16,1997 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Plarming Commission meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m.. Members Present: Diane Nagler, Jce McNamara, Karen Edgeton, Frank Blundetto and Paul Oberg. Members Absent: Marcia Gowling Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Tom Lovelace, Kathy Bodmer, Keith Gordon and Mike Dougherty Others Present: See the sign-in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Edgeton asked Staff and the Commission members if they were any changes or additions to the proposed agenda. Community Development Director Rick Kelley noted that it was necessary to add an item 2A, Election of Officers, and an item 8A, City Attorney Comments on Development Petitions. Jce McNamara stated he had had a phone call from residents near the proposed Wal-Mart who wished to address the Commission on some of the development issues. Kelley noted this item could be wvered under the process to review development petitions under the attorney comments on the added 8A. MOTION: Nagler moved, seconded by Oberg, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion carried 5 - 0. 2A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Vice Chair Edgeton noted this item is necessary due to the recent resignation of Alan Fellmer, former chair of the Coicunission. Edgeton then opened the floor to nominations. Jce McNamara nominated Edgeton to serve as chair; Paul Oberg seconded the nomination. The question was raised whether or not it was necessary to have additional nominations for a particular position. City Attorney Mike Dougherty when at least one nomination had been received, the nominations could be closed and a vote taken. MOTION: Nagler moved, seconded by McNamara, to close the nominations for chair. Edgeton called the question. The motion carried 5 - 0. Edgeton then called the question concerning the election. The vote was 5-0, resulting in Karen Edgeton as the new chair. Chair Edgeton then called for nominations foY Vice Chair. MOTION: Oberg moved, sewnded by McNamara, to nominate Frank Blundetto. MOTION: Naglei moved, seconded by Oberg, to close the nominations. The motion carved 5 - 0. Chair Edgeton then called the question, which carried 5-0, resulting in the election of Frank Blundetto as Vice Chair. Since the position of secretary continues to be occupied by Mazda Gowling, election for this office was not necessary. Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1997 Page 2 3. APPROVAL OF JUNE 18,1997 MINUTES Chair Edgeton asked Staff and the Commissioners if they had any changes to the draft minutes submitted in the packet. There being none, she called for their approval. 5-0. MOTION: Nagler moved, seconded by Blundetto, to approve the minutes. The motion carried 4. CONSENT ITEMS MOTION: Oberg moved, sewnded by McNamara, to recommend approval of items listed on the concern agenda. The motion tamed 5 - 0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Condifional Use Permit for Service Bays for Car-X Chair Edgeton stepped down from the podium at this tune, stating she is the property owner of the building adjacent to this item. Vice Chair Blunde[to opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer identified the location of the project on the southwest comer of 147th Street and Glenda Drive. The property is currently designated orr the city's comprehensive plan for retail business use and is also caned Retail Business. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a conditional use pemut for no more than two service bays for the installation of auto accessories and vehicle maintenance. The proposed building is approximately 6800 square feet in size and covers approximately 18% of the lot, well under the maximum building coverage of 30%. This item was reviewed as a sketch plan at a previous Plamiing Commission meeting regarding location of the overhead doors aceessing the bays. City code limits this to no more than two overhead bay doors. Bodmer then turned the presentation over to the petitioner. Kenneth Nordby of NAI Architects introduced himself and Denis Halleran, the owner, and the contractor of the building. He displayed renderings ofthe building and distributed building samples of the exterior constmction materials proposed for the stmcture. He said the building would contain a total of seven service bays which would be accessed via an internal circulation aisle with one entrance door and one exit door, meeting the city code requirements. He noted the exterior materials would be a reddish brick with a tan decorative accent band, apre-finished metal flashing, and a yellow metal canopy over the window area. Commissioner McNamara asked about petroleum pollution that exists on the site dating back to the time it was occupied by an Amoco service station. Nordby stated there are monitoring wells on site, and they will be kept in place until the site has been certified as free of pollutarrts. Blundetto then opened the public hearing to audience comments. There being none, McNamara asked Bodmer about the existing shazed parking conditions on the site, and how the revision proposed by this site plan might affect the adjacent property. Bodmer stated there was some staff concern on this issue, but there was not a legal easemern document recorded against the property which required the existing shared pazking to continue. Nordby stated he understood a former site plan approved for constmction on this property also eliminated the shared parking, and he believes any circulation problems that might exist on the interior of the adjacent Time Square shopping center could be addressed by a relocation of the outside storage area adjacent to the Coast to Coast Hardware Store. Planning Commission Minutes July 16,1997 Page 3 Commissioner Oberg stated sometimes with these type of auto service facilities, overnight outdoor storage of vehicles can become a problem. Nordby stated if a car is not complete or cannot be picked up by the owner, it will be kept inside the building. Mr. Halleran stated he currerrtly has five similar operations, and they don't leave vehicles out of doors overnight atany of them due to the potential liability if the vehicle should be vandalized or stolen. Blundetto stated he remembered the outdoor storage at Coast to Coast was an issue in the pas[ and asked staffto check on the screen'n_g or other requirements established on that outdoor storage area. Commissioner Nagler asked about the distance between the north entrance onto 147th Street relative to its separation from the Glenda Avenue intersection. She wondered if that close spacing might create a problem. City Engincer Keith Gordon noted that the access ahpady exists and was established at the time the site was used for an Amoco service station. There being no further comments, Blundetto closed the public hearing with the standazd remarks and indicated there would be no action taken on the item this evening. Chair Edgeton then rejoined the Planning Commission. B. Cedar Isle Village Chair Edgeton asked staff to address this issue. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace indicated the proposal is for a planned unit development amendment and preliminary plat to provide for 74 detached townhome units on 22 acres located along the north side of 145th Street, west of Freeport Trail. This property is currently designated on the comprehensive plan for low density uses and is caned under a plarmed unit development (PD #580) for townhome use. The existing prelirniuary plat approved for the property provides for 74 townhouse units in a twinhome configuration. The revision would allow the same number of dwelling units to be constructed in a detached townhome design. The overall layout for the streets and grades would remain as is. Fdgeton opened the public hearing with the standazd remarks and asked if there were any questions of the Commission. There being none, she asked for the presentation by the petitioner. Larry Frank of Arcon Development introduced himself as the project manager. He stated the primary change from the previously approved project for this property is the conversion from an attached townhome unit to a detached unit While most of the townhome units were asingle-story design, these detached townhomes will be mostly two-story units with full basements. Commissioner Nagler asked if there were any building elevations. Frank distributed copies oftwo different types of building elevations representing two different builders' proposals. He said they had not selected which builder would be constrirctiug these units. He noted the single story units would be about 1400 squaze feet in area, and the two-story units between 1500 and 2200 square feet in azea. Chair Edgeton asked how these dwelling units differ from a traditional single family unit. Frank stated the primary difference is that there is a large common lot owned jointly by all of the single family homeowners, and there is an association to take care of all the outside lawn and driveway maintenance. Nagler asked the reason for the change. Frank stated they were simply responding to changing market conditions. He said while this is similar to a townhome product, many potential purchasers prefer not to have a common wall which is necessary in an attached townhome unit. These units are smaller than a traditional single family home in terms of area and also located on a smaller yazd azea. Planning Commission Minutes July 16,1997 Page 4 Chair Edgeton asked if staffhad any additional conmients on the proposal. Lovelace stated the preliminary plat needs to be revised to indicate the common open space as a separate lot. Also, 145th Street along the south boundary needs to be constructed in its extended condition. Finally, afive-foot wide sidewallc would need to be installed along the north side of 145th Street and Flora Way, with the planned unit development revised to create a new subwne for this detached housing unit style. Chair Edgeton then opened the public hearing to audience commexrks. Mike Brown of 14362 Freeport Trail stated he is a resident of Cedar Isle Estates, and is in fact the last house located on Freeport Trail near this development proposal. He stated the cnrreut townhomes being constructed are luxury townhomes. He asked what the value of these revised units would be. He said they should be constructed and sold at the same price range as the townhomes are being sold. He also stated he believes he is the only resident in Cedar Isle Estate who received mailed notice for this project, and understands that mailed notice is given to those only within 350 feet. James Trad of 14466 Flora Way stated he is a new resident of the Cedar Isle townhome project, and that the townhomes sell for over $200,000 each. He asked what the value of these units would be, how they would appear, and what the exterior finish of the units would be. Rick Nelson of 14310 Freeport Trail stated he is also a single family homeowner in the Cedar Isle Estates neighborhood, and that he is not very familiar with what is being proposed now. It is his understanding that these would be sold in the 140 to $180,000 range as opposed to the 180 to $220,000 range of the townhome area. He said he was told the townhome sales was too slow, which was one of the reasons for the proposed change. He said his family chose Apple Valley to build their new home because they considered it to be an upscale city with better demographics than adjacent cities that were served by Independent School District 196. He said when they bought their house in the Cedar Isle neighborhood, they looked at the Countryhome townhome brochures to assure themselves that what was built there would not detract from their neighborhood. He said the city should make the developer follow the plan as it was originally approved. he said at this lower price, he would consider these to be starter homes, which will be occupied by young families with too many children to overrun the neighborhood. The city should deny the project. Judy Barna of 14327 Freeport Trail said when they built their home, they were promised that future homes would not be less expensive than theirs. Chair Edgeton asked if it would be possible to get information on restrictive covenants established in this neighborhood. Oberg asked for a description on how Planned Development No. 580 describes the appearance and size of the pemriited townhomes so they could compare them to what is being proposed this evenhig. Claire Ramsay of 14348 Freeport Trail said the price for these units will be more like a starter home, and she thinks this would generate more children who would have to be accommodated within the school district. Fran Zane stated he had just moved into the townhore area, and they don't even have the grass installed in their lawn area yet. Lori McKay of 14301 Freeport Trail said she lives in the existing single family area, and she chose her home due to its location, the style of adjacent homes and the appearance of the townhomes currerrtly being Planning Commission Minutes July 16,1997 Page 5 built. She said she doesn't think any empty nesters would buy these iwo-story units because they aze too old to go up and down the stairs. That means buyers would tend to be younger families with children. Debra Higgins of 14330 Fresno Avenue said she is very concerned over the proposed change. She said she doesn't want to see starter homes end up in her neighborhood, and all the kids that would generate who would end up runuiug azound the neighborhood. Diane Fitzgerald of 14297 Fresno Avenue said she is also opposed to this change, and was told when she built her house that all of the homes to be bunt would have prices comparable to those in the traditional single family azea. Mike Brown again stated he was concerned at a price range of 140 to $180,000 that these units might be bought up by investors and end up as rental units. There being no further comments, Chair Fdgeton closed the public hearing with the standard remarks. She said there would be no action this evening, and the item would continue to appear on Planning Commission agendas until a decision is reached and a recommendation is forwarded to the City Council. Nagler said the developer may warn to set up a neighborhood meeting with the residents to discuss in greater detail the cost and appearance of these proposed units. Chair Edgeton called for a recess at 7:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:03 p.m. C. Public Hearing for Amendment to Zoning Ordinance for Accessory Buildings Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. In this case the city is the petitioner proposing an amendment to the city's zoning ordinance. Tom Lovelace noted the public hearing concerns the performance standards listed in Section Al-8 in the city code of ordinances dealing with the placement of accessory buildings (storage sheds) in single family residential districts. It is proposed to change the standard for which a building pemut is required by reducing the size from 144 square feet to 120 square feet. This is consistent with the Minnesota state building code requirements. It is also proposed to change the setback for an accessory storage building from a dwelling unit from ten feet to six feet. Finally, it is proposed to change the setback from an accessory building to a garage area from ten feet to zero feet, provided the six- foot separation to a dwelling space is met. This would essentially allow storage buildings to be constructed immediately flush to the wall of a garage as long as it is offset from the common demising wall of the dwelling azea. Lovelace indicated that requests for setback variances haue been coming before the city in increased numbers regarding the setback perfom~arrce standards to garages. He outlined the history of the current ordinance, which appears to be based on direction established by former fire marshals in an attempt to keep a storage building likely to contain flammable materials, such as gasoline or pairrt, away from the dwelling unit. He said based on discussions with the currern fire marshal, as well as the city building official, the current standards imposed by the state building code concerning fire separation can accommodate this under the revised standards proposed as part of this public hearing. Lovelace went onto state the code could also be revised to allow storage sheds in the side Yazd azea as long as the setbacks to the side yard property line are met. Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1997 Page 6 Blandetto asked what situation prompted this request. Lovelace reviewed the recent request for a homeowner in Cedar Isle Estates for a setback variance to the garage because the homeowners' association would only allow a shed to be placed on the property if it were flush with his existing primary structure. Lovelace also stated it is his beliefthere are probably numerous existing violations ofthis setback requirement throughout the city, particulazly because the city does not issue budding permits for the smaller sheds, which most people tend to have. McNamara asked about the change that would now require a building permit for 120 square foot structures versus 144 squaze foot structures to conform with the current building code standards. He asked when the standazds were last changed. Lovelace stated there haue been several editions of the UBC/Minnesota state building code, and he will check this out. Chair Edgeton then opened the public hearing to comments from the general audience. There being none, she closed the hearing with the standard remarks. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Regatta Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat Tom Lovelace reviewed the development proposal on 101.8 acres of kmd located on the north side of 160th Street and a half mile east of Galaxie Avenue. He noted the comprehensive plan guides this area for low density multi-family residential, and that it is proposed to change the zoning on the property from Agriculture to a planned unit development with a density consistent with the comprehensive plan designation: A total of 469 dwelling units would be constnrcted in this mixed residential development. The preliminary plat would provide for the subdivision of the land into the necessary lots for building construction and the public streets and utilities needed to serve the units. Dennis Griswold of Pulte Homes noted that Gary Grant of Pulte Homes was here this evening, as well as several members of the Rechtzigel family, from whom they aze purchasing the property. Griswold reviewed the changes in the plan before the Commission this evening relative to the plan which was the subject of the public hearing at the previous meeting. He noted they have reduced 16 dwelling units from the courthome azeas and 2 units from the clubhome azea. This was done in order to increase the greenspace in each area to meet the 60% minhnum standard in each individual development portion. He said the overall greenspace for the project is now 69%. He went onto note the courthome layouts haue been revised to incorporate some of this green area azomid a central pond azea, and have included more curvilineaz private roads to reduce the "barracks" of buildings constructed directly in a line. He noted they have confirmed their locatioir for Finch Avenue lines up with the existing intersection on 160th Street with Finch Avenue in Lakeville. He pointed out the bem~s and landscaping which would be constructed along 160th Street with a vaned height to provide screening and some noise attenuation. Griswold then reviewed the landscape proposed along Flagstaff Avenue, which has been reviewed and approved by Williams Pipeline Company, since they will keep the plantings offthe area ofthe pipeline proper. Griswold noted in the clubhome area, which was originally all four-unit townhomes, they have now made a modification to provide for 34 of those dwelling units in a iwinhome configuration. This has allowed a majority of those to now have aside-loaded garage to visually break up the front appearance of the dwellings. He noted the total density is 4.6 dwelling units/acre gross, or 5.69 dwelling units/acre net, both within the comprehensive plan guidelines of 3-6 units/acre. He pointed out the sidewalks to be constructed along both sides of 157th Street, and along one side of the street which connects from 157th Street to the park access. He noted they would be revising the cul<le- Planning Commission Minutes July 16,1997 Page 7 sacs into the city-required teardrop design. Griswold noted at the public hearing there had been some confusion concerning the location of the 100-foot wide pipeline easement on the west boundary of the property, where FlagstaffAvenue would be constmcted. He stated the 100-foot wide easement would be measured from the section line, and that there would be at least aten-foot setback from any dwelling unit from the boundary of that easement. The paved surface of FlagstaffAvenue would then be offset 27 feet further to the west so there would not be any paving duectly over the physical location of the pipeline within that easement. He also stated all of the rightof--way would be dedicated with the phase II plat, including rightof--way that would extend past the ffarxnsttead exception to connect to 160th Street. Griswold stated the production of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been ordered and should be done within the next two days. They believe the overall review process for the EAW should be about complete by the time they would be ready to come to the City Council for final pkrt and subdivision approval for phase I. Griswold closed by stating they aze also in agreement with the other three staff recommendations included in the report. Chair Edgeton asked if Griswold could point out the phasing areas on the plat. Griswold pointed out how the development is split roughly along the center street area for phase I on the east, and phase II on the west. He also noted the park dedication would be split correspondingly, so each phase would dedicate its required 10%. Griswold stated the phase II constmction of sheets and utilities would begin prior to occupancy of the majority of units being built in phase I. He esthnated about 40% of the phase I units would be occupied at the three conshuction of the streets and utilities, particulazly the extension of Flagstaff out to 160th Street, would commence. Chair Edgeton asked Griswold if he could address the public comment received on the possible conflict of these new residential units in close proximity to sand and gravel mining operations, and what type of information would be provided to potential buyers. Griswold said there would be full disclosure to all buyers of dwelling units in this subdivision. Pulte Homes as the builder and developer are the only source of information to these buyers, and they would not have to rely on third-party realtors. He said they are firlly awaze of the existing and proposed mining to the north and to the east, and aze prepazed to answer questions of their buyers concerning this. He said they will include this in thew sales literature. Also, Griswold noted potential buyers would be able to seethe mining operation on the north as already in existence, and could determine for themselves whether or not they feel that would be a neighbor they could live with. He noted the northeast comer provides a substantial buffer azea via the parkkmd dedication and the screening created by the existing topography. Chair Edgeton asked what other n~fonnation the staff feels would be available to potential buyers. Rick Kelly noted it has been the city's policy to require the placement of a city-prepazed sales boazd in the sales offices that indicate the surrounding existing and proposed uses, major roads and city hall phone numbers for potential buyers to contact if they have questions about surrounding land uses. Chair Edgeton asked if the prirnary and secondary crushing operations are actually in place now in the adjacent mining operation. Lovekice noted they were in place at this time. Griswold stated as a consultant he has also worked with sand and gravel mining operations that include rock crushing and recycling activities. He said the noise is not that difficult to deal with because it is a lower pitch and volume, but they certainly intend to disclose this inforn~ation aT time of sale. Gary Grant approached the Commission to provide an additional presentation concerning the unit designs. He displayed a series of elevations which were distributed among the Commissioners for the courthomes, clubhomes, duplexes and a typical detached single family unit. Planning Commission Minutes July 16,1997 Page 8 John Grzybek stated he is a co-trustee for the Rechtzigel family trust. Grzybek read a letter from the Rechtzigels into the record. He stated the idea of originally having an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS for sand and gravel mining over this entire azea made sense for planning purposes in order to determine the maximum potential impacts might be, if in fact the land were used for mining purposes. He stated the city's review and adoption of the EIS simply means the environmental issues have been addressed and detemuned to be acceptable, if the land were to be mined. He noted the EIS, however, was not a document adopted relative to an approved master plan that had to be followed. Grzybek stated the public hearing commern about "conflict of uses" is not really a surprising comment given the rate of the city's growth since some friction is always to be expected among different land uses as it is corrverted to its final end use. He said they aze not trying to dictate how the adjacent landowners can use their land for mining purposes, and does not feel the Rechtzigels should be dictated to either. Donald Rechtzigel stated he currernly resides in Elmwood, Wisconsin, where he's lived for many years since moving away from the farm on 160th Street. He said he warrts the ]and to be developed in accordance with his father's wishes since he is unable to continue farming it. Chair Edgeton asked for a clarification about the January I, 1995, date in the staff comments concerning sand and gravel mining. Lovelace and City Aitomey Mike Dougherty noted the city's adopted policy for sand and gravel mining in the comprehensive plan had established a policy concerning January 1, 1995 being a "cutoff date" after which new sand and gravel mining proposals, even if consistent with the adopted EIS, may come under greater scrutiny in order to be approved. McNamara noted the cornrnern referencing the Deparltrient of Natural Resources' determination that sand and grnvel deposits are a natural resource in relatively scarce supply, and ttiat this resource should be used rather than built over. Kelley noted that the city needs to balance the acknowledgment of a natural resource with the financial burdens which aze placed on the city by tying up lazge areas of the community an inordinate period of time prior to development, particulazly when it is often necessary to provide infrastrucdue improvemerns in a more costly piecemeal fashion around the mining areas, rather than to simply be able to traverse them. Nagler asked City Engineer Keith Gordon about the comments raised concerning the final grades, and the matching of those grades to the sand and gravel mining azeas. Gordon noted the existing topography is flat land, and there is a relatively high water table about 13 to 14 feet below the existing grade. He stated even if the adjacern property is mined, it would not result ni long, steep banks adjacent to this pazcel. Tony Gleekel identified himself as legal counsel for the Barton Sand and Gravel operation and the Fischer Sand and Gravel operation. He stated there would be additional infom~ation presented from two of their consultants, Greg Ingraham and Kasten Roweena. Greg Ingraham of hrgraharn and Voss stated in his opinion the EIS plan is not being followed, and that this ends up hurting the investment made by the sand and gravel mining operators. He stated he did not believe the city should approve the development subject to the EAW, since such a tentative approval is likely to prejudice the outcome of the EAW findings. He went on to state he wanted to see a copy of the letter from Williams Brothers Pipeline indicating they were in agreement with the landscape plan that affects their pipeline easement. hrgraham weal onto state he thinks the city should require the construction of FlagstaffAvenue with the first phase since there would never be a sufficient guarautee that the second phase would occur and Planning Commission Minutes July 16,1997 Page 9 Flagstaff would be constructed. If this occurs, the city would essentially be approving a 250 dwelling unit cul- de-sac. Blundetto asked Ingraham if he could define the difference between a "concept" versus a "plan" in reference to the EIS Consolidated End Use Concept. Ingraham stated that detailed pkws for projects ofthis ruaguitude are quite rare; usually they are just concepts. Kiisteu Roweena introduced herself as an associate with Sundae Engineering and a geologist by training. She referenced previous correspondence they had sent to the city on the lack of confom~auce with the Regatta development with the previous EIS plan. She also referenced the DNR's comments concemi a the loss of a natural resource. She stated it was her understanding that an application on the adjacent McNamara property was pending, and that Bruce Malpherson had made a similar application on the Rechtzigel property some tune ago. Roweena tendered a copy of the sand and gravel EIS concept to the Commission for their reference. Rowcena asked when the EAW process for the Regatta project would begin. She was informed that upon submittal to the City Council of a completed EAW, authorization to submit and begin the process to the EQB would be granted, which would start the 30~1ay clock numiug upon publication in the EQB Monitor. Gleekel asked for a clarification concerning the approval process for additional sand and gravel mining operations. Kelley and Dougherty offered a brief explanation wncerning the application and review process, and the application of the sand and gravel EIS as an evaluative tool. They also referenced the e~stiug policy established in the comprehensive plan about the January 1, 1995 date, and that some additional evaluation would be necessary since that date had now passed. Such passage of time, however, does not invalidate the EIS. It simply means that some additional and supplemental infontration might need to be provided. Grzybek stated whether or not this natural resource is in scarce supply or not is irrelevant to them since they have no intention of mining their property and would not sell to anyone else for mining purposes. Chair Edgeton called for a recess at 9:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m. Oberg stated with 400 plus dwelling units, he believes a decision regarding the project should await the conclusion of the EAW process. Blandetto stated he does not see the adopted EIS as a land use plan. He also doesn't think whether or not 100 acres, plus or minus, in the metro area is mined for sand and gravel really is significant regazding regional gravel resources. He said going through the whole EIS was a painful process, but those sand azid gravel operations approved since that time seem to be working now. He still has some question or not adherence to the 25-acre cell mining standard is occin-ring. He said if this is the case, there should be less open mining in the city each year than used to exist. He was also told that the new rrnuiug standards and permitting process would keep nuisances to a minimum, which would imply to him there should not be a problem with residential in close proximity to muvng operations. McNamara. stated often when there are wnflicts between development and landowners there is compromise. He does not see that there has been much compromise in this case. Planning Commission Minutes July 16,1997 Page 10 Chair Edgeton noted that the property owner has made it cleaz they have no intention to haue this property mined. She thinks the developer has properly addressed notification of potential buyers about the adjacent sand and gravel raining operations. All of this azea will be residential at some time so that the land use remains consistent. MOTION: Nagler moved, seconded by Blundetto, to recommend approval of rezoning to a planned unit development to accommodate the Regatta development. Motion carried 4-1 (McNamara). MOTION: Nagler moved, seconded by Blundetto, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Regatta, with the conditions as outlined by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (McNamara). B. Action Plus Signs Building Addition and Setback Variance Katlry Bodmer introduced the item, which represents a building addition at 6955 145th Street. The property is zoned "Light Industrial" and guided "Light Industrial" on the comprehensive plan. It is proposed to add a 4,720 square foot addition to the existing building, which will require aten-foot variance on the rear property line and aten-foot pazking variance to the street. Dan Gust, the owner and operator of Action Plus Signs, noted that a sirnilar parking setback variance had been approved for the light industrial buildings on either side of his, and that a rear setback variance often feet had been approved two doors down. He said he needs more space in order to handle larger national contracts. Commissioner Nagler asked which building was next door on the east. It was noted Vinge Tile is located to the east, with their pazking lot along the common lot line. MOTION: Oberg moved, seconded by Nagler, to recommend approval of the variances due to the hardship created by the original placement of the building far beyond its front yard setback. Motion carved 5-1. MOTION: Oberg moved, seconded by Nagler, to recommend approval of the site plan and building permit authorization, subject to fire wall constrixction per state building code. Motion carried 5-0. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Diamond Path Heights Tom Lovelace introduced this item, which involves 44 acres of land on the east side of Diamond path about a half mile north of 140th Street. This area is guided on the comprehensive plan for single family use and is currerrtly zoned "Agriculture". The sketch plan before the Commission this evening is for 133 townhouse dwelling units. Lovelace noted the property is currertdy rolling with some azeas of heavy woods, and also contains a number of ponds, the laigest of which is a DNR-protected water. Jerry Duffy stated he is legal counsel for the owners. He introduced Jim Merila of Merila and Associates. Mr. Merila noted the comprehensive plan is being requested for a change to "Low Density" to allow a rezoning to "M-2C". He displayed a "constraixrt" map which indicated steep slopes, wooded azeas and ponding azeas which would restrict development. He said they aze in the process of doing a more detailed tree Planning Commission Minutes July 16,1997 Page 11 inventory, but have not completed it yet. he said they estimate the sales price of the townhomes from 150 to $200,000. Chair Edgeton asked if there were renderings of the townhomes. Mr. Merila noted they did not have renderings at this time as they have not selected a builder. Nagler stated she would like to see the townhomes laid out I a less lineaz orientation. She asked if the existing ponds had outlets. Gordon stated the normal and high water levels have been set by the city of Rosemount forthe lazge southern "Birger Pond". Merila stated the Birger Pond is about 13 feet over its 1967 levels. He stated Rosemount has indicated they could start construction for an outlet of this pond by the end of the year if a development is approved. He stated the elevation of this pond essentially establishes the outer limits of the wetland delineation, which in turn affects where buildings can be constructed. He noted the sketch plan shows the lot areas, not the buildings constructed within the lots. McNamara. said it is important that the developer works with the city of Rosemourrt, and that the layout to be considered should take into account the existing natural grades and trees. He expressed some concern over the potential for storm water rnnoffpollution since this was a former agricultural and barnyard azea. Oberg asked if hammerhead turnarounds are being proposed on all of the dead-end private streets. Merila said they are on all of them that exceed the city fire marshal's length standards. Chair Edgeton noted currently there aze only single family land uses azound this site, and it is guided for single family on the city's comprehensive plan. She felt the public hearing process is likely to receive adverse comments from the adjacent property owners who are expecting a similar development to what they already live in. She asked that staff check the density of this project compared to the density of the townhomes in Hunters Wood. Blundetto stated they really should consider evaluating this project based on its design and not just the density numbers. they acliially need to seethe amts to detemvue what is appropriate. Nagler stated she agrees with Blundetto, but it is still important to save as many trees as possible. Merila said the next iteration of the plan will have a lot more detail and would probably be messaged in terms of location of the units. Blandetto asked if pond amenities would be added. Merila said they might be. Chair Bdgeton said the developer should consider meeting with the adjacem neighborhood prior to a public heazing. 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Attorney Comments on Development Petitions City Attorney Mike Dougherty noted that citizens often approach commissioners and council members concerning pending projects to try to influence what their vote might be, and ask for their position on those development projects. He stated that while there is nothing improper for a council person to receive Planning Commission Minutes July 16,1997 Page 12 information or opinions from a member of the public, it is not proper for them to state how they will vote on an issue. He said the reason for this is that the purpose of having a public hearing and a public fonun for discussion on an issue is to bring all the information out, allow debate, and then allow each commissioner or council member to make a detenriination on how they will vote. 1f in fact members have made up their mind on an issue prior to its formal public hearing, the public hearing is in essence a sham and serves no function. He also noted any assembly of commissioners or council members to hear comments and opinions from residents falls under the open meeting law standards. This would mean that in the case of the Commission, whenever there aze three or more commissioners present and they aze discussing business for which they will need to be involved in a vote, it is a public meeting. John Bergman of 14691 Guthrie Avenue stated he had wished to meet with the commissioners to discuss the upcoming Wal-Mart development proposal. He stated he was not aware that such a meeting would be subject to any type of public notice, or that the commissioners might have to be constrained in their responses to him. He stated all they are trying to do is to provide information to the commissioners and the city concerning their position about the proposed Wal-Mart. Bergman referred to a set of photographs of Wal- Mart stores throughout the metropolitan azea that they had taken, and noted there was a great disparity conceming the level of maintenance of these stores, the amount of landscaping, and the amount of screening to adjacent uses. A general discussion ensued among the commissioners concerning the development review and approval process. 9. ADJOiIRNNI>;NT MOTION: Nagler moved, sewnded by Oberg, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m.