CITY OF ST. FRANCIS ST. FRANCIS, MN PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 19, 2006

Transcription

1 CITY OF ST. FRANCIS ST. FRANCIS, MN PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 19, Call to Order: The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Rich Skordahl. 2. Roll Call: Present were Chairman Rich Skordahl, Commission Members Ray Steinke, John Hane, Pete Karpe, Greg Zutz and Malcolm Beck. Angela Westbrook was absent. Also present were City Council Member Steve Kane, City Planner Steve Bjork and P & Z Secretary Barb Vogtlin. 3. Adopt Agenda: Motion by Beck second Steinke to adopt the April 19, 2006 Planning Commission Agenda for April 19, Motion carried Approve Minutes: The minutes were tabled due to changes that Pete Karpe and John Hane had. They will be brought back to the May 17, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. 5. Minor Subdivision/Roppe: The Public Hearing opened at 7:05 pm. Planner Bjork stated the subject property is approximately 29 acres in size. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject property into a 24 acre and 5 acre parcel. There is an existing house located on the proposed 5 acre parcel. There is also a pole shed located on the proposed 24 acre parcel. Bjork stated the subject property is presently zoned Rural Residential. The minimum lot size for a parcel within the Rural Residential district is 2.5 acres with a lot width of at least 300 feet along a County Road. Both of the resulting parcels will meet these minimum requirements. However, the lot configuration for the 24 acre parcel is irregular in shape. However, the 24 acre parcel has a flag shape strip along the east edge of the parcel. Flag shape parcels have generally not been permitted. The flag shape strip currently provides driveway access for the 5 acre parcel and the 40 acre parcel to the north. The flag shape strip directly to the east of the 5 acre parcel should not be permitted as shown. This strip of land should be combined with the proposed 5 acre parcel. Both parcels will be serviced by private sewage treatment systems. A pole shed has been constructed on the 24 acre parcel just to the west of the NW corner of the 5 acre parcel. The west property line of the proposed 5 acre parcel will need to be at least 25 feet from the pole shed. The City prohibits the construction of an accessory structure on a lot prior to the construction of the principal structure. The proposed minor subdivision will result in the pole structure being located on a parcel without a principal structure. Approval of the minor subdivision should be contingent upon the construction of a principal structure on the 24 acre parcel. The applicant has provided a survey and legal descriptions for the proposed parcels.

2 Page Two A modification to the legal description will be required if the flag shape portion of the 24 acre is required to be combined with the 5 acre parcel. Bjork stated the proposed subdivision will result in the creation of one additional parcel. A cash Park Dedication will be required for this request. Bjork indicated this proposed Minor Subdivision has been forwarded to Anoka County for their review and comment. Bjork stated it is anticipated the County will require the dedication of additional ROW along County State Aid Highway 13. The location of the driveway will likely be reviewed by the County. It is not anticipated that turn lanes will be required for this subdivision request. However, any future subdivision in this area will likely trigger the construction of turn lanes. Bjork stated that at this time, the driveway for the proposed 5 acre parcel is located within the flag shape strip of land in the SE corner of the subject property. A private driveway that services the 40 acre parcel to the north of the subject property is also located within a private driveway easement across eastern 66 feet of the subject property. An additional private driveway is located to the East of the driveway(s) for the above noted properties. Consolidation and/or elimination of the driveways onto the County Road should be considered. The best method to achieve the consolidation and/or elimination of the driveways would be to construct a City street in this area. There appears to be two potential locations for a future City street. The first option would be to extend CSAH 13 to the north of 229 th Avenue. Dedication of Right-of-Way along the western portion of the subject property would help to achieve this alignment. The second option would be to eventually construct a City street along the eastern portion of the subject property. Dedication of ROW along the eastern portion of the subject property would achieve this alignment. The first option probably provides for a better alignment, but the second option is expected to be easier to accomplish. The easement along the eastern portion of the subject property would also allow for the future subdivision of the 24 acre parcel and provides for better access to the landlocked 40 acre parcel to the north. Bjork stated the proposed Minor Subdivision request meets City Code requirements with a few minor exceptions. Staff is recommending approval of the Minor Subdivision request with the following as conditions of approval: 1) The Park Dedication requirement shall be in cash form. 2) The south 630 feet of the east 66 feet of the subject property (flag shaped parcel) shall be combined with the proposed 5 acre parcel. Revised legal descriptions shall also be provided. 3) A future City street easement shall be dedicated across the east 66 feet of the subject property. 4) Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated along County Road 13 subject to the requirements of Anoka County.

3 Page Three 5) Filing of the Minor Subdivision shall be completed within 6 months of the subdivision approval. 6) A building permit shall be applied for and issued (foundation only) for a new principal structure on the 24 acre parcel prior to execution of the deed approving the split. 7) The west property line of the proposed 5 acre parcel will need to provide at least a 25 foot setback from the existing pole shed. Eric Rockstad, Contractor for the Roppe s stated that in going through the conditions of approval the Roppe s had some concerns. Mr. Rockstad stated in regarding #2 the south 630 feet of the east 66 feet of the subject property (flag shaped parcel) shall be combined with the proposed 5 acre parcel. Mr. Rockstad stated their Attorney said the City does not have any rules against irregular shaped parcels. Bjork stated yes we do. Mr. Rockstad stated the Roppe s have questions about the driveways. Bjork stated all the driveways the way it is proposed would all be one, and the City does not allow that. Mrs. Roppe stated we are only doing a minor subdivision and by doing this we are not changing anything else the road will stay like it has been, the driveway, our driveway, the private driveway and we are not making any changes, we are not blocking anybody from going back there. The people that are on the 40 acres they have been given the right to go back there, we have given them the rights to travel back there. The same as the 5 acres when that gets split we will do the same thing for them. If we ever develop back there then we won t run into this problem. Mr. Roppe stated they are selling this 5 acre parcel to their son. Mrs. Roppe stated also it has been mentioned that someday CSAH 13 will continue all the way through to the north and now why do they want to come all the way over to our driveway and make that straight back. Mr. Rockstad asked what happens after tonight. Skordahl stated the Planning Commission is a recommending board to the City Council so it will now go to the Council on Monday May 1, Terry Dechaney, th Avenue stated he lives to the west of this property and was wondering about CSAH 13 going through. Bjork stated that was in the County s plans years ago but he is not sure what is going on with it now. Motion by Karpe second Beck to close the Public Hearing at 7:23 pm. Motion carried 6-0. Hane asked about the 40 acre parcel behind this property. Bjork stated the 40 acre parcel is a land locked parcel and somehow they were able to get a private driveway easement going back to that property to build a house. We don t do that anymore and I am not sure how that happened but we don t issue building permits off of private driveway easements but that is an existing condition.

4 Page Four Now the 5 acre parcel the driveway for that would actually come through that 66ft strip so now you have two driveways serving two different properties and now you have basically created a private road system at that point and that is one of the rational requests the dedication of that ROW with the combination of the flag shaped piece. We require a driveway for each lot so they would have to have driveway access to their property and it is very unlikely the county will allow that additional driveway. Steinke asked if you request a dedicated easement along the east side of the 5 acre would it continue on through the 24 acre parcel to accommodate the 40 acre parcel. Bjork stated it would be along the entire east 66 ft along the existing property. Beck asked if it has a deeded recorded easement at the Courthouse so if anybody went down there they could find it and it would show the deeded ROW all the way back to the landlocked 40 acres. Ms. Roppe stated the owner back there has been using that as his driveway for years and yes there is. Bjork stated the 40 acre parcel does not have frontage on the road. Hane stated he understands it is a concern for the applicants, but he stated it does not seem unusual for us to be looking at doing this kind of change because that is typically the Planning & Zoning process, that we make adjustments that are appropriate to the long term development in this area and I guess I don t see this city street easement as unusual request, I think it is in the best interest of the long term development in this area. Steinke stated since there is an easement whether it be recorded or nonrecorded to the 40 acres in the back, I would concur with John that it should be a dedicated City easement to go back there to accommodate the 40 acres at this time being there is a house back there otherwise this parcel would be landlocked. Mr. Rockstad asked why this needed to be dedicated at this time. Steinke stated to insure the existence of it for future time. Skordahl stated they will have a chance to speak again in front of the City Council. Mr. Rockstad stated they disagree with #3 under the conditions. Skordahl noted the disagreement. Skordahl stated we are going to continue our discussion based on testimony that we have heard and also what City Staff has put together we will come up with our recommendation that is not a decision it is just based on what has been put in front of us and then it will go in front of the City Council. Ms. Roppe stated the City will be getting a letter from their Attorney. Motion by Malcolm second Steinke to approve the Minor Subdivision with Staff s 7 conditions noted and also noting the applicants are in disagreement with #3. Motion carried Site Plan & Variance County Market: The Public Hearing opened at 7:34 pm. Bjork stated the applicant is proposing to construct a 1,080 square foot addition to the carwash at County Market. The proposed addition will match the existing structure. The proposed addition will be on the south side of the existing carwash structure. The proposed addition will require a variance from the front yard setback requirement. Bjork stated a Site Analysis was completed for the original structure along with the recent addition to the convenience store.

5 Page Five Much of the Site Analysis will remain the same as the original review. Bjork stated in order for the variance to be approved, the request must meet all of the Variance Criteria found in Section 10.56, Subd.3. The following are Staff s comments regarding the variance criteria. The subject property (City Centre Development) had little or no development constraints. The carwash was constructed in its current location with no limitations. There have been no new issues relating to the subject property that has impacted the development potential for this property. There does not appear to be any exception, unique or extraordinary circumstances relating to the subject property. Surrounding properties with a Commercial Zoning Designation are limited to a 35 foot front yard setback off of a City Street and a 50 foot front yard setback off a County or State Highway. Existing commercial properties in the area meet these setback requirements. Approval of the variance would provide the property owner with a property right that is not extended to other properties in the area. The proposed variance is not expected to impact adjacent properties. The front yard setback requirement is intended to provide good sight lines and a uniform design standard. A majority of commercial properties have been able to meet the existing front yard setback requirements. The City has reviewed few, in any, front yard setback variances for commercial properties. The existing front yard setback requirements are unreasonable for the General Commercial zoning district. The proposed carwash addition is not offensive in appearance and would constitute a good addition to the City Centre project. However, the proposed variance would be a substantial deviation from the intent of the General Commercial District. Bjork stated the Site Plan as proposed appears to meet City Code requirements with the exception of the front yard setback requirement. Staff is recommending approval of the Site Plan as proposed contingent upon the following: 1) Approval of the front yard variance request. 2) Provide detail on grit removal relating to the sanitary sewer. Bjork stated that in terms of the variance request, it does not appear to meet City Code requirements. If the Planning Commission concurs with the Findings noted above, a motion to deny the request would be in order. If the Planning Commission feels that the request meets the variance criteria, Findings of Fact to support approval of the variance would be required. Bjork stated that as noted above the Site Plan request is contingent upon approval of the variance request. The City Council will ultimately act on both requests. Jeff Kearney, Manager of the County Market stated when they first built the carwash they thought one bay would be enough, but due to the stacking of cars they are in need of another bay. Mr. Kearney stated they are unable to go the North with the addition because of the gas pumps, so they can only go to the South.

6 Page Six Mr. Kearney also stated they have looked into putting one in the back of the store but because of the residential area they didn t think it would be good. Skordahl asked if the space is used as efficiently as possible. Mr. Kearney stated there is actually a maintenance room that is about 6 to 7 feet wide and the whole length of the building that you don t see when you re in there. Hane asked what the current setbacks are. They are about 35 feet from the bike trail. Bjork stated it is under the PUD standards which were 35 foot setback. Hane asked if this would cause a problem for people existing out of County Market. Motion by Steinke second Hane to close the Public Hearing at 7:43 pm. Motion carried 6-0. Motion by Karpe second Zutz to approve the Site Plan with the 2 conditions noted above. Motion carried 6-0. Skordahl stated as far as the variance request, he can understand the need to do such a thing but there will be a struggle to do the Findings of Fact recommending approval of the Variance. Steinke stated this would be like any other business wanting to do this so I would recommend denial with the same criteria that is before us now. Motion by Hane second Steinke to deny the variance request based on the findings of a major deviation from current standards and there is no evidence of any unusual circumstance for the setbacks and also concur with the Findings of Fact from Staff comments A - E. Karpe stated we do our darnest to bring in businesses and to keep them here to operate and be profitable for our tax base. Karpe stated there is no other place on site to move it. He stated he would like the Planning Commission to really think about their decision tonight. Hane stated his first concern is the 16 ft and Staff s recommendation. Hane stated we have to follow rules and limitations. Motion failed 2-3, Hane and Steinke yea, Karpe, Beck, Zutz nay. Motion by Karpe second Zutz to approve the variance based on the PUD and the Findings of Fact A E as follows: Karpe stated under A Uniqueness would be that there is no other place to put it. B PUD setbacks, C Staff s Findings that it is not affecting adjacent properties, D Staff s Findings, E Staff s Findings. Motion carried 3 2, Karpe, Zutz Beck yea, Steinke and Hane nay. Motion carried 3-2. Steinke asked for a 5 minute recess to ask City Attorney Scott Lepak if the Chairman on the Planning Commission has a vote. Lepak stated yes, but he would check on it. 7. Final Plat River s Edge: The Public Hearing on this issue is closed but there has been a request to allow additional testimony. Motion by Karpe second Steinke to allow additional testimony. Kristen Gamm and Darwin Gamm, are requesting a 6 ft high chain link fence along the south and west end of their property and would like the Developer of the River s Edge Development to pay for it. Mr. Gary Rude the Developer, stated it will be quite expensive for that type of fence. It was stated the City has never requested this as a condition in any other development.

7 Page Seven The Planning Commission advised the Gamm s to talk to the Developer regarding the property lines. Bjork stated the Final Plat as proposed meets City Code with a few minor exceptions. The Final Plat as proposed has met all of the requirements of the Wild and Scenic River Ordinance. The Final Plat as proposed has made all of the request lot adjustments noted during the Preliminary Plat review. Bjork stated the Street names noted do not follow the addressing grid. They will need to be changed. The City received a comment letter from the DNR. The DNR has recommended a 30 foot bluffline set back for all structures. A wetland mitigation area is proposed to the west of Lot 6, Block 6. A portion of the storm water pond and mitigation area extends beyond the plat limits. An easement will need to be provided for that part of the pond and mitigation area that is outside of the plat. Bjork stated a 30 foot upland buffer should be provided around all wetland basins to the greatest extent possible. The buffer can be accomplished by means of a Drainage and Utility Easement. The subject property must also follow the requirements of the Flood Plain Ordinance. Bjork indicated that the subject property does not have immediate access to City water and sewer. The City Engineer will be commenting on the proposed utility plan. Drainage and Utility easements have been provided over the wetland basins and the storm water ponds. The Park Commission has recommended a land dedication. The proposed road alignment has been approved by Anoka County. The County has requested the construction of turn lanes in this area. The proposed development will be responsible for the cost of any improvements to County Road 72 as required by Anoka County. Bjork stated Staff is recommending approval of the Final Plat with the conditions noted: a. The Park Dedication requirement for the plat shall include the dedication of Outlot A (Credit for land dedication will be provided for the upland area only. Credit will not be given for wetland basin, storm water pond or any area located within the County Road easement). The balance of the dedication requirement shall be in cash form, with credit given for the land dedication. The reference to Park Area within Outlot A shall be eliminated. b. All of the structures located within Outlot A, including the foundation, will need to be removed. All existing wells and septic systems will need to be properly abandoned. c. There is a parcel located to the West of Silverod Court (Street G) that is not labeled. The City had requested that this area be platted as an Outlot and then deeded to the City for Storm water manangement purposes. This parcel will need to be properly labeled. Also, if this area is to be platted as an Outlot, the City is requesting that the west line of this parcel be moved further to the west in order to encompass as much of the wetland basin and storm water pond as possible.

8 Page Eight d. A 10 ft trail easement will be required along the County Road. The easement is in addition to the road ROW. This easement will be required over the SE corner of Lot 1, Block 2. e. Drainage and Utility easements shall be provided over all wetland basins and the storm water ponds. Minor adjustments to the D&U easements will be required. Additional easements as noted by the City Engineers shall be provided. f. The Final Plat is noting a portion of 237 th Avenue extending beyond the plat limits. The area in question is to the north of Block 7. An easement for that part of the street outside of the plat boundary will be required. g. A 30 foot upland buffer around all wetland basins shall be provided to the greatest extent possible. The buffer can be accomplished by means of a Drainage and Utility Easement. h. Modify Block numbering within the development. The numbering scheme shall increase in sequential order as the project moves from East to West. i. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from Anoka County. The applicant shall also be responsible for the cost of any improvements to County Road 72 as required by Anoka County. j. Address all required changes to the Final Plat as requested by the City Engineer. k. Street names shall be assigned as follows: Street A 236 th Lane NW, Street B 236 th Avenue NW, Street C 236 th Avenue NW, Street D Lily Street NW, Street E Marigold Street NW, Street F Quay Street NW, Street G Silverod Court NW, Street H Tulip Street NW, Street I Xenia Street NW (to the East edge of Lot 7, Block 6). l. Establishment of the property line delineation between the property owners. Motion by Beck second Karpe to approve the Final Plat of the River s Edge Development with the 11 conditions noted above and also adding #12. Motion carried 6-0. Discussion Items: Bjork provided copies of the Home Occupation Standards, Architectural Standards and the Decentralized Waste Water Treatment Systems & Cluster Developments. Bjork stated the Architectural Standards at this time there is no immediate need to update this standard at this time. The Decentralized Waste Water Treatment Systems, Staff will continue to address this matter with the Metropolitan Council. Until this issue can be fully addressed, no action on the adoption of a decentralized sanitary sewer system ordinance should be considered.

9 Page Nine Bjork stated as far as the Home Occupation, copies of the Home Occupation standards for the Cities of Anoka, Blaine and Elk River were provided to the Planning Commission during the March 15 th meeting. The Planning Commission requested additional time to review each of these ordinances and to make additional contacts as needed. Bjork stated the Planning Commission should consider the following changes to the Home Occupation standards: - A better defined review process - Establishment of a list of Prohibited Home Occupations. - Establishment of Permitted Home Occupations, including specific criteria for Permitted Home Occupations. - Establishment of Conditional Use Home Occupations, including specific criteria for Conditional Use Home Occupations. - Establishment of an annual Inspection of the Home Occupation, along with an annual review fee. - Establishment of a Revocation process for all Home Occupations. - Establishment criteria relating to the ability or inability to transfer the Home Occupation permit upon change in ownership. Bjork stated if the Planning Commission is in agreement with all or part of the above noted changes a draft Ordinance will be provided for Planning consideration during the May Planning Commission meeting. Also a Public Hearing will need to be set. 8. Miscellaneous: Planner Bjork provided a copy of the City of St. Francis Park Master Plan to the Planning Commission for their review. 9. Adjournment: Motion by Beck second Steinke to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:00 pm. Barbara A. Vogtlin P & Z Secretary