PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Agenda

Transcription

1 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call & Introduction PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Agenda Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. Roseville City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive 3. Review of Minutes: November 6, 2013 regular meeting minutes 4. Communications and Recognitions a. From the public: Public comment pertaining to land use issues not on this agenda b. From the Commission or staff 5. Public Hearing Planning File : Request by City of Roseville for approval vacation of a remnant right-ofway easement at 2305 Walnut Street 6. Other Business: By motion, ratify the following dates for the Planning Commission s 2014 regular meeting schedule; all dates are the typical first Wednesday of each month except for January 8, because City of Roseville offices are closed on January 1, New Year s Day. January 8 February 5 March 5 April 2 7. Adjourn May 7 June 4 July 2 August 6 September 3 October 1 November 5 December 3 Future Meetings: Planning Commission & Variance Board (tentative): Jan. 8, 2014 & Feb City Council: Dec. 2, 9, 2013 & Jan. 13, 27, 2014 HRA: Jan. 21, 2014

2

3 Planning Commission Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Draft Minutes - Wednesday, November 6, Call to Order Chair John Gisselquist called to order the regular meeting of the Planning Commission meeting at approximately 6:30 p.m. and reviewed the role and purpose of the Planning Commission. 2. Roll Call & Introduction At the request of Chair Gisselquist, City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. Members Present: Chair John Gisselquist; and Commissioners Michael Boguszewski; James Daire; Shannon Cunningham; Mohamed Keynan; and Robert Murphy Members Excused: Commissioner David Stellmach Staff Present: City Planner Thomas Paschke; Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd; and Acting Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Executive Director Jeanne Kelsey 3. Review of Minutes October 2, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes MOTION Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to approve the October 2, 2013 meeting minutes as amended. Corrections Page 1, line 31 and subsequent references (Cunningham) Correct any references from Wolf to Woof as the proper name of the business. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. 4. Communications and Recognitions a. From the Public (Public Comment on items not on the agenda) No one appeared to speak at this time. b. From the Commission or Staff Member Murphy referenced an received by the Commission from an applicant for Intern; with Mr. Paschke advising that this had been sent in error, and would be responded to by staff. Discussion was held regarding the 2014 meeting calendar, with that schedule typically addressed at the December 2013 meeting. Mr. Lloyd alerted the Commission that the first meeting in January fell on Wednesday, January 1, 2014; and to avoid conflicting with that holiday, the schedule would need to be addressed accordingly; and suggested that previous protocol be followed to defer that January meeting one week later, or in this case, Wednesday, January 8, Public Hearings Vice Chair Boguszewski reviewed the protocol for Public Hearings and subsequent process. PLANNING FILE Request by Meritex Enterprises, Inc. owner of the industrial property at 2280 Walnut Street, for approval of a PRELIMINARY PLAT of the existing Outlot in preparation for development Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Planning File at approximately 6:35 p.m.

4 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 6, 2013 Page 2 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized the request as detailed in the staff report dated November 6, 2013; for development of an approximate 138,000 square foot office/warehouse facility on the proposed Lot 1. Mr. Lloyd noted the process for development and those items that remained pending; as well as referencing the previous Variance Board action approving the Variance as a preliminary step to consider this Preliminary Plat and move forward in the process. Mr. Lloyd advised that the Planning Division recommended approval with conditions; and reviewed recommended conditions for the applicant to continue working with the Public Works Department to address easement, storm water infrastructure requirements as necessary; and grading, drainage and tree preservation plans pursuant to that Variance. Member Daire questioned if suggested landscaping treatments for landscaping and screening based on the extraordinary arrangement of loading docks facing the front would go forward in a subsequent plat before the City Council. Mr. Lloyd responded that landscaping was not usually part of Preliminary or Final Plat approval, nor were tree preservation plans or other items that were reviewed as part of the permit process and applicable City Codes. While the applicant always needed to be mindful of those requirements throughout the process, Mr. Lloyd noted that they were not actually part of the plat approval process itself. Member Boguszewski questioned the holding pond and size, and whether they were simply a rule of thumb at this stage of the development; and if it was safe to assume that the applicant would work with appropriate staff to ensure adequate sizing. Mr. Lloyd advised that this was an accurate conclusion; and while the final details were not completed at this point, reserving the space now until the actual need was defined by City Code and watershed district requirements would be finessed at the time of site grading and eventual building construction. Applicant Representative, Dan Williams, for Meritex Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Williams advised that he had no additional comments beyond staff s written and verbal report; and was available to stand for questions. Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 6:46 p.m.; with no one appearing for or against. MOTION Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Keynan to recommend to the City Council APPROVAL of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of Outlot A of the Highcrest Park Second Addition plat; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4 6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated November 6, Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. City Council action on this item is scheduled for Monday, November 25, Other Business Review the proposed acquisition and sale of 1840 Hamline Avenue by the Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Chair Gisselquist introduced this item at approximately 6:47 p.m. Mr. Lloyd briefly reviewed State Statute related to property acquisition by the City, as detailed in the staff report; noting that the Planning Commission was asked to determine whether the proposed acquisition was in line with General Land Use and Residential Area Goals and Policies, the HRA s Housing and Neighborhoods Goals and Policies; HRA Strategic Plan; and the Roseville Housing Replacement Program related to lot/sale replacement program guiding its activities. At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the City s monitoring of property databases under certain categories and contact with property owners alerting and inviting them to consider applicable Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) programs.

5 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 6, 2013 Page 3 Acting Executive Director Jeanne Kelsey of the HRA Ms. Kelsey reviewed the program, originating in the late 1990 s by the City of Roseville, and recently resurrected by the HRA based on its 2012 Strategic Plan Update. At the request of Member Boguszewski as to the status of property acquisition, Ms. Kelsey advised that a Purchase Agreement had been formalized. If the acquisition continued forward, Ms. Kelsey advised that the HRA intended to close on the property after January 1, At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Ms. Kelsey advised that property acquisition was funded by the HRA, with its own specific taxing authority and annual levy; with a certain amount of dollars set aside annually, and ultimately re-circulated back into this program. At the request of Member Murphy, and from a Zoning standpoint, Mr. Lloyd advised that there were specific parameters for housing development within the HRA s Housing Replacement Program (HRP); and that the existing house would be demolished, and the parcel used in the future for a new single-family housing unit. No one from the public appeared to speak to this item, and Chair Gisselquist ended discussions at approximately 6:55 p.m. MOTION Member Gisselquist moved, seconded by Member Daire indicating that the Planning Commission hereby makes a determination that the proposed acquisition and disposal of the subject parcel at 1940 Hamline Avenue is in compliance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; based on the comments and findings of Section 2 of and recommendations of Section 3 of the staff report dated November 6, Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. 6.a Other Business Request by the Roseville City Planner for direction regarding previously approved ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO Chapter A (One- and Two-Family Design Standards) of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance Chair Gisselquist introduced this item at approximately 6:57 pm City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized the staff report dated November 6, 2013; based on previous discussions of the Commission, and further review and analysis by staff concluding that those Commission recommendations (the first two bullet points page 2, lines 11 12) were no different than those allowances currently in place in Section B of City Code. Mr. Paschke noted that staff already reviewed extenuating circumstances to support individuals seeking to modify their home design as applicable to this section of code. Mr. Paschke noted his attempt at humorously applying various application scenarios as a starting point for further Commission discussion; and more defined recommendation that language remain as is, or direct staff to come back with additional language for a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission accordingly. Mr. Paschke noted that, essentially, previous Commission action provided no solution; and the main question was whether the code, as currently stated, should continue to have the flexibility for staff to analyze each proposal related to garage locations, and how it met design/construction standards. At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Paschke opined that the Commission needed to determine their intent for flexibility, whether it involved design amenities, a porch or other option. Mr. Paschke predicted that any change will create a set of different concerns and discuss implemented; and final determination would be determined by the City Council as to whether or not they concurred with the Commission s recommendation. At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke confirmed that current language allowed administrative flexibility at the staff level for each application; or the option for a Variance process for residential designs if the garage was a forward component.

6 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 6, 2013 Page 4 Mr. Paschke advised that most developers and contractors that staff dealt with performed their due diligence and research, and came to staff to review them before finalizing their designs. Mr. Paschke noted that it was infrequent that a problem occurred unless someone prepared their design and was ready to proceed with the permit process without realizing the design standards adopted by the City. Mr. Paschke noted that staff had already supported several design features with unique situations that met code and still accomplished the design goals of the applicant. Member Boguszewski stated that his contention remained that the residential character of a street was more dependent on landscaping and overall massing relative to the road than the relative distance of the face of a garage compared to the home itself. Member Boguszewski further stated that he agreed that the City didn t want new homes up against a road to retain the residential feel. Given the variables in architectural detail possible, Member Boguszewski opined that he wasn t sure that should be included in code. However, Member Boguszewski advised that while he was not concerned with the first two bullet points (lines 11 12); he preferred language added to Section 2 (lines 31-32) similar to the following: If no part of the structure is closer than 50 from the front property line, this setback requirement could be waived Member Cunningham expressed her interest in addressing flexibility for lots having physical constraints (e.g. lake lots, etc.), or if on a smaller lot, there was limited ability to make sure the garage is in an exact location; and provided several possible scenarios. Member Cunningham stated that she was not opposed to adding flexibility to City Code to allow the Planning Department to have more discretion in those types of decisions if there were extenuating circumstances, and staff encouraging owners to do more architectural detailing, without actually defining those components. Member Cunningham stated that she trusted staff s discretion, and noted other areas in City C ode that allowed them that same discretion. Mr. Lloyd referenced Section B Requirements Apply to All New Construction (page 2, lines 33 41) consisting of existing language already utilized in several circumstances allowing staff interpretation and administrative deviation ability. Mr. Lloyd provided several examples of those situations used where lots had physical restraints. Member Keynan questioned how problematic this requirement is right now, or how many issues staff was finding; whether the Commission was trying to fix something that really was not a problem. Mr. Lloyd opined that, depending on who you spoke to, there was room for debate as to whether or not there was a problem with garage placement. Mr. Lloyd advised that current code language had been based on Comprehensive Plan guidance; and usually when a problem came forward, it was due to the applicant designing their home without being aware of City requirements. However, Mr. Lloyd noted that this infrequent issue certainly had no effect on the safety or neighborhood degradation typically part of an analysis. Mr. Paschke advised that of the single-family home permits issues since the new code was put in place, he was aware of only 1 instance where the applicant sought a variance, that was subsequently not approved by the Variance Board, nor on appeal by the City Council. Mr. Paschke noted that this one applicant strongly expressed his lack of support of those design standards. Under those circumstances, Member Keynan stated that he was fine with staff having additional flexibility on a case by case basis. Member Boguszewski concurred, noting that the applicant/developer had indicated that such a design standard would require a variance process and cause homes to be priced higher; and in his case, having to redesign the configuration, it would hurt his ability to sell the home or market it cost-effectively based on that current code language. Member Boguszewski questioned whether or not the Variance Board or the City Council on appeal had ultimately supported that assertion, but that it was irrelevant at this point; but questioned if the City had observed any other problems in the housing market that would support that assertion.

7 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 6, 2013 Page 5 Chair Gisselquist opined that, from his perspective, current language allowing administrative discretion or requiring waivers, was sufficient. However, Chair Gisselquist stated that he would like to make sure the third bullet point (page 2, lines 13-15) with the 50 requirement was added. Mr. Paschke advised that the Commission s recommendation could be forwarded to the City Council accordingly, based on their previous action and tonight s subsequent discussion and clarification. Mr. Paschke reviewed the process for staff moving the third bullet point as previously referenced, forward to the City Council as a Text Amendment; with no additional Public Hearing required, and probably incorporated with other Text Amendments. Member Murphy opined that the third bullet point to him appeared to sufficiently serve as a specific triggering mechanism. After an ensuing brief discussion, it was Commission consensus that current language provided enough flexibility at this time, and if further concerns were received from contractors or developers that they had trouble developing in Roseville due to the strictness of its code, such a situation would become evident and come before the Commission in the future. With no one from the public speaking to this item, Chair Gisselquist ended discussions at approximately 7:30p.m. Chair Gisselquist confirmed that staff would bring the third bullet point language revision (page 2, lines 13-15) before the City Council in the future as a recommended text amendment. 7. Adjourn Chair Gisselquist adjourned at approximately 7:20 p.m.

8

9 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE: 12/4/2013 ITEM NO: 5 Division Approval Item Description: Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARING Request by City of Roseville for approval vacation of a remnant right-ofway easement at 2305 Walnut Street (PF11-024). Application Review Details RPCA prepared: November 27, 2013 Public hearing: December 4, 2013 City Council action: December 9, 2013 Statutory action deadline: n/a Action taken on an easement vacation request is legislative in nature; the City has broad discretion in making land use decisions based on advancing the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. 1.0 REQUESTED ACTION City of Roseville proposes to vacate a small area of right-of-way easement that remains after iterative platting and vacating of the surrounding property. 2.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION The Public Works Department recommends approval of the proposed EASEMENT VACATION; see Section 7 of this report for the detailed recommendation. 3.0 SUMMARY OF SUGGESTED ACTION By motion, recommend approval of the proposed EASEMENT VACATION; see Section 8 of this report for the detailed action. PF11-024_RPCA_ Page 1 of 3

10 4.0 BACKGROUND 4.1 The property at 2305 Walnut Street, located in City Planning District 11, has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Industrial (I) and a corresponding zoning classification of Industrial (I) District. 4.2 On May, 9, 1963 the predecessor in interest of the subject land granted the Village of Roseville a public street easement for County Road B2, now referred to as Terminal Road in this area. Because this road segment never functioned as a public street as intended, the City Council decided to abandon its public interest and, on May 12, 1986, approved the execution of a Release of Easement and Quit Claim Deed in favor of the predecessor of interest. 4.3 During the process of platting the property in 2011, the Ramsey County Surveyor had indicated to Meritex that the public road easement of 1963 needs to be properly vacated under Minnesota State Statute In September 2011, the City Council formally vacated the right-of-way easement overlying the property being platted at that time, namely the Highcrest Park 3 rd Addition plat. A copy of this preliminary plat is included with this report as Attachment C; notice that the northern end of the plat features a 30- foot by 17-foot area which was owned by another party and which was, therefore, not included in the plat. Because that small rectangle of land was not part of the plat it was, consequently, excluded from the proceedings to vacate the right-of-way easement overlying the land within the plat. 4.4 Then, in April 2013, Meritex applied for approval of the Highcrest Park 5 th Addition plat, at which time the 30-foot by 17-foot rectangle, identified on the preliminary plat as Parcel 2, was acquired for inclusion in the plat; a copy of this preliminary plat document is included with this report as Attachment D. Once again, the astute Ramsey County Surveyor noticed that the 1963 right-of-way easement had not yet been vacated from this small area. This present application, then, seeks to formally vacate the last of this rightof-way easement remaining on the former Meritex property. 5.0 VACATION ANALYSIS 5.1 The City of Roseville Public Works Department staff has reviewed the proposed vacation of right-of-way easement and supports the vacation, more as a housekeeping item, since the City took actions in 1986 and 2011 to abandon its interest as a public street/roadway and vacate the surrounding easement. 5.2 Since the Planning Commission is responsible for holding the public hearings for applications like the proposed vacation, Planning Division staff is preparing the report and supporting materials for review. But Planning staff doesn t have an interest, per se, in such proposals and merely conveys the comments and recommendation of the Public Works Department in addition to coordinating the review of the proposal by the Planning Commission and City Council. 6.0 PUBLIC COMMENT As of the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has received one phone call inquiring about the proposal from nearby property owners, but no comments were offered. PF11-024_RPCA_ Page 2 of 3

11 7.0 RECOMMENDATION Based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 4 6 of this report, the Planning Division recommends approval of the VACATION of the remnant right-of-way easement overlying the 30-foot by 17-foot rectangle identified as Parcel 2 on the Highcrest Park 5 th Addition preliminary plat. 8.0 SUGGESTED ACTION By motion, recommend approval of the VACATION of the remnant right-of-way easement at 2305 Walnut Street, based on the comments and findings of Sections 4 6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of this staff report. Prepared by: Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd bryan.lloyd@ci.roseville.mn.us Attachments: A: Area map B: Aerial photo C: Highcrest Park 3 rd Addition plat D: Highcrest Park 5 th Addition preliminary plat PF11-024_RPCA_ Page 3 of 3

12

13 EUSTIS ST Attachment A: Location Map for Planning File I / I I / I I / I I / I I / I I / I I / I I / I 2515 TERMINAL RD (Priv) TERMINAL RD BP / O/BP 2328 I / I BP / O/BP BP / O/BP WALNUT ST HIGHCREST RD (Priv) I / I I / I I / I BP / O/BP BP / O/BP 2341 ST CROIX ST BP / O/BP IN / INST 2361 BP / O/BP BP / O/BP City of Minneapolis I / I I / I Prepared by: Community Development Department Printed: September 1, 2011 LR / R1 Site Location Comp Plan / Zoning Designations Data Sources * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (8/2/2011) For further information regarding the contents of this map contact: City of Roseville, Community Development Department, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN WALNUT ST ST CROIX ST W / INST Location Map HR / HDR Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, 2170 information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose Feet requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes , Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. mapdoc: planning_commission_location.mxd 2168 ST STEPHEN ST

14 MILLWOOD AVENUE W Attachment B: Aerial Map of Planning File TERMINAL RD TERMINAL RD (Priv) ST C X ROI WALNUT ST ST ST CROIX ST EUSTIS ST Site Location ST STEPHEN ST W AL NU T ST HIGHCREST RD (Priv) Prepared by: Community Development Department Printed: September 1, 2011 Data Sources * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (8/2/2011) * Aerial Data: Kucera (4/2009) For further information regarding the contents of this map contact: City of Roseville, Community Development Department, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN Location Map Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes , Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided Feet

15 Attachment C ( PRELIMINARY NOT FOR RECORDING ) N DETAIL A N SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS

16 Attachment D Page 1 of 1