The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/24/88H~STIiIGS PLA'III'~G O31:llSSIgl lay 2,$, 1931 Tho ragJlar meeting of the ',lastincs Planninq ~embers Present: ~on~issi~ners '(ais~r, Featherston~, ~(ro~, Voelker, Z,ender, 3itty and Chair::~an Faith. ~lanbers Absent: Ooamissioners Dredge, ~nderson qar,n,_n~n~q~ Planning Intern '?arising. Staff Present: Planning Oirectar ' '~ ' A motion was mad,a by Oomnissioner (aiser, Oomaissioner Zender to approve the ]ay % Oommission minutes. seconded by ~11~IJTES lg~] Planning [Jpon vote t~ken, Ayes, 7; Uayes, O. Conmissioner Anderson arrived at 7:35 Planning Direct:ar Harnanin,] started out tha meeting by EqST/!/EST ~ .~]LL $'~T 3,7 rah~indin'~ thc; Plannin~ .,ommissi3n of thair actions ta[~en at the ~lay g, lg3~ Planning 3on:nission m'~eting pertaining to th~ East/~est Collsctor Street. At that time, the topic t"~blad for further study and a committee ',~as forned to a recommen:Jation to the Planning Conmission. STqEET Oon,nissioaer l<aiser, Com~nittea Ohairpers3n, r,~ad the findings of the committee. Those findings are as follo~s: "!~e had a considerable difficulty !lith the problem of collector streets for tills project. It ~;;as i:npossible to look at the road situation without Iool~,ing at the project itself. This felt, inappropriaYe because the project is not finalizeJ. have 3esn as'4ed to ~nake rsco~lmendations based in concept only an'J tills yeas very difficult. ~!e felt that based on the follo~ving facts: 1. The land is not annexed as yet, and is in the concept phase only. 2. It requires the surrounding land o.,~n~rs and current developers to bear the cost and inconvenience of this new developnent. 3. ~'4either 23rd or 25th ara straight roads, but planned to folto'~,/ the development lines and ,~ould seem to increase traffic on 15th St. as uell as creating heavy traffic on Southvie~,,/ 3rive and on °leasanf. (She concern was 55 and Pleasant). Our conclusion was that a >l-S collector should me Jesi:jned across the bac'4 of the development ~,]ith standard East/ ,'est streets to provide flowin$ access. h'e also feel the concept appears overly dense and not in the best interests of public safety in an] of itself. This concept scans to need more '~'~orl( with fewer cul-de-sacs. Tilings th3 ~,om~nit'h~ noticed: 1. Z3rd-Park, ()n tho ,',}atvie,,~ Orive end of 23rd ,across from th~ ~ater to,er. 25th and 3Id ierid:]e Lane - This road could 'aa blocked to thrLI traffic, this .,~ould prevent th) %')ssibl,3 heavy traffic intersection of 25th & Pleasant. This aras is i:npar,~d visually and during the wint]r r~;onti~s could encoura;]e people to drive down Old Gridge Lane crossin'j Pleasant Drive. These rssidential stra:sts with all their curves ~,~er] not designed to handle heavy traffic. The Con,~itt,ae ruled out 25th St. as a possibility. 23rd Street - Alon,~ ',,~ith the pot:;ntial i,npact on the residential street located betvfeen Pleasant and :,?estvie'.¢ - the Ohurch property ,vouid be severed. Tiaa d~veloprnant no','~ under construction would be harmed frae lots 5 & 5 thru lots 11 or 12 - roads ;';,auld result on both sides of the property :noshing a double assessment to the land owner or developer. This is not only unfair but unusual from a planning pers)ective. ?fa would ~.~elco;ne a redesign of the proposed developnent to allow for continuity ~,~ith the existing residential 8r~a." After discussion a -notion .cas made by Com~issioner Featherstone, seconded by Zend,ar adopt the Comi'nittea findings and to reconmend a '4orth/South collector street bedesigned to be constructed along the west side of ',roi lin property. ,~ 7ast/!Vest collector street alan] the West 25th St. or !','est 23rd St. alia, nment is not reco~li~endad. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 3; iIayes, O. nlanning Director iarrnening indieat~,d that I.%l.,Inc. on behalf of itself and five different property o,,~ners, is r~,questing approval of a prelininary plak called ifeskviet,~ Shopping Center 2nd Addition. This plat proposes to rapist i~estvie'~ Shopping Center Ist AdJition. ;~o ne~ developilsnt is proposed as a part of the pla'fting action. otJ:3LI C :dEARIhIG PRELl II:IA:TY PLAT AH3 VAT I A'dCE-'~EST- VIE~¢ S:~3?PI;IG CEITE~ 2~13 linC. ETAL Currently, Westview Shop;~ing Center Ist Addition is platted into trio large lots which have been allowed to be subdivided using :neh~s and bounds descriptions. This has resulted in a confusing :nixture of legal descriptions for the Lfestviev~ '~,all area. In order to r9solve th~se problems th=, applicant proposes to replat the 'Vestview i'.all area to take into considoration existing lot lines as l,¢ell as proposed n~','~ lot lines. For exaiaple, along the north side of tho South Frontage Road tile applicant proposes to rapla~ the to~ lines as they are currently described by :netes and bounds. Along the souti~ side of th~ Frontage Road ('lestview :~all and Top 3,a It Center are]) tho applicant does propose a more innovativ~. approach. In this case, the mall building itself and :las station ara proposed to 5e ~)latted as t,,vo lots ~vith th3 parking area platted as a separate lot. '~lanning 9ir~.~ctor Harmenina indicate{] that f?chnically variance should be granted Per tl~e prop.~sed con,non ':,'all arrange:~ent betwe~n Pamida ~nd fha remaining Chairman Folch opened t:ae public hearin3 at 7:44 Since there wor~ no persons in attendance inf~.rest~d in co'nraentin9 on the proposal Chairman Folch closed the public l~earing at 7:45 p.m. ]Ir. 3roo!~s Swanson, r~.presenting I.[}.1., Inc. was in attendance to ans,*~er any questions the Planning 3ommission would have on th is setter. After discussion, a :notion was ~sade by Co'nrnissioner i(aisar, seconded by Oom~nissioner i(rook to recommend approval of the prelisinary plat and variance subj6;ct to th.; followin]: A. That pursuant to Oity Code the applicant shall provide a properly drawn legal insfru.qent, to be appraved by the City Attorn;y, which addresses the joint parkin2 and access arrange'nents for Lots 1 ~?~ Stoc< 2 (nail .'} Pamida buildin]) in relation to Lot 3, (par]<ing lot) and the joint par;<ing and access arrangements for Lot 3, Sloc'.< 2 (Top 9o It), Lo~ 6, 31oci< 2 (office building) and LoP Block 2 (vacant lot). Aisc, as authorized by City Code, the city shall be a third party to these documents if dee~ned appropriat}. These documents shall be recorded against the applicable lots. Tha'f the applicant for~naily advise the city ti~:~t Lot 4, ~loci~ 2 is anticipated to be us.-.d for parkin.1 purposes to serw; Lots 5 or 6, 31oc]< 2. That approval of the preli:ninary plat is contingent on th:; applicant meeting the require,nents as made by Upon vote taken, Ayes, ~; Hayes, 0. Ptanning i)ir.~ctor Haraenin{) infer}ed th; Planning Com~nission that "ir. O'Oonnor is requesting a 3 foot rear yard setback variance so that he may demolish an existing one car ~araHe and construct a three car garage on the rear portion of his property. The garage is proposed t~ extend %0 ~?ithin t',~o feet of the rear property line rather than the required five foot ~"naxilsu:n. The side Icl setbac'.( of the garage is proposed to be 2 feet rather than the required 3 foot side lot setback ~or an unattached garage. VARtAHCE ~,ESUEST JA'aES O~CONHOR, 110 RIVER STTEET (LOTS 7 2, ,¥)31TlOli ?l{). 13) lr. O~Connor '.'/as in attendance to answer any questions the Planning Co'~;.nission would have on 'Phis item. After discussion a notion ..~as made by Commissioner Zender, seconded by Commissioner Ditty to recom:nend approval of the variance request due to the special conditions .and circunstances which are apparent. In this case, ti~e location of the existing drive~.~ay in relation t:~ the ~.xisPing house and large bac!<yard tree would na](e it difficult for a car to enter one ef ti;e proposed garage stalls Iocatsd on the Par south side of the garage if the setbac~ requirements ~.iere met. Approval of this vari2nce is subject to all builJin.? cedes 5eing met with r?.s)ect to Pire~.~alis,etc. Up:an veta ta?,en, Ayes, 7; );ayes, l(ro~k. Tha Plsnnin3 Cam ~ission, as ,3 qenaral pasition, also indicat:~d that ',Ir. O'Connor should pay specific att}ntion to lot line locations due to the close proxi:~ity of the proposed garage to the lot lines. Planning 0irector ,'~ar"nenin!~ indicated to the Planning Commission that IBI, Inc. is requesting a variance t:a Section 10.07, Subd. 3T3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allo~,~ the Pa;~ida Discoun~ Center, located in the !?estvie',,~ Halt, to have aggregate signage in excess of the 249 sq.ft. maxinu~a permitted by code. The Paini~a Discount Center proposes to have 360 scI. ft. of total si]n space. The City Code ~'~hich relates to this matter states "!~ithin the ::]-3, C-4, and 0-5 districts, no individual sign surface si~all exceed 240 sO. ft. in area, nor shall two or more signs be so arranged and inte2]rated as to cause a display surface over 240 sq. ft. per parcel. In addition~ a shopping cent~,r :nay have one area identification sign per ~najor thorou~]hfare, which shall identify the center only, not advertis~ the business therein. The total area of such sign space or surfaces shall not exceed 240 sq. ft. ~ach business ¥~ithin a shoppin~ center shall be permitted to have an aggragate square foota}e of sign space not to exceed 240 sq. ft. The Pamida Discount Center is located in a shopping center co'~piex ~,~hich allows each business ',~ithin the nail to inave 240 sq. ft. of sign space. Therefore, by usin~ this nethod the total amount of sign space per~nittad on the Wastvi,a?~ ~all ?]auld be (including Pamida) 4,329 sq. ft. (13 ~)usinesses x 240 sq.ft. = 4,32'i)). According to the applicant, presen~ signage of all the }usinesses is 1,73~ sq. ft. Pami:Jas signaga request is for 3~0 sq. ft. '~hich ~'~ouI,J bring the total signage on the ~,~estvie~ flail to 2,094 sq. ft. A~tar discussion a notion .-~as ~',~ade by Cem'nissionsr '.<rook seconded by Anderson to deny the variance request on the grounds that the applicant has not met the City's criteria for the granting of variances. Upon vat} taken~ Ayes, 3; Uayes, Ditty,Folch,',(aiser, and Zender; F,aetherstona abstained. A second motion was made on the subject by Co;n~nissioner Zender, secon:~ad by Comaissioner Ditty to allow the Pamida r)iscount St~re t,a have 36,S sq. ft. of signage based on the fact that special conditions and circu~nstances present thanselves due to the fact that tha ordinance, in this case, presents a hardship as it does not address the unique circunstances of the buildin7 and the large disparity of the size, in terns of floor area, of the businesses in the structure. This recommendation is subject to the con,Sition that the total signage on the ',/astvie?~ r~sll structure shall consist of not more than 4,3290 sq. ft. of sign space Y~ith 350 sq. ft. tebs allocated to the Pepsi,Ia Discount Store with the re~laining sign space allocation to be distributed to the re~naining businesses '~ithin the mall ~,~ith no other business, ?~ith ~he exception of Pa~ida, to have more than 24,9 sq. ft. of signage, as per 0ity Sade, subject to the riTnt for futura variance requests to be made. SIGN Upon vote tauten, Ayes, 5; 'layes, 1(roe,m, Anderson, Veel!;er. Planning Director ltarnening indicated to the Planning Oommission that qs. 3srgelt is r)questing ~ 13tis~' rear yard setbacl,; variance sa that she nay cons,~ruct a t,hrae seas:~n p~rch at the location of a previously existing open deck. The thr~,e season porch is proposed to extend within 19t4~ of the rear property line rather than required 35 foot maxi num. to After discussion a .notion was ;'nade by m, omnissionar i(aiser, seconded by Oommissioner !(rook to recommend approval of the variance due to the follo~,~in~ reasons: Ae That special conditions and circumstances exists in this case .'~hich ara peculiar to the land and Puilding involved and uhich are not generally applicable to other lands or structures in th~ area. Literal interpratatien of th} Oity O,ade will deprive ,applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by adjacent residences and other properties in the same district under th) tarns of the zoning ordinance. Granting this variance r}quest '~ill nat confer any special privileges that are deniad by the Zoning Ordinance to other land o~n~,rs in the ar~a as most adjac~,nt Io,% n~ve deeper rear yards which allo'~v appendages '4ithout violating the terms of the ordinance. D. That th] special conditions and circumstances Jo not result fren the actions of this applicant. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 7; ilayes, 1. Planning Director Har'nening indicated to the Planning 070E;7 P:JSLIO Commission that Advanced 1lames of 1tastings is requesting a rezonin:] from Ag to 17-3 PRO and preli;ninary plat ~pproval PLAT A)~D VARIANCE for a development called Rivemvood 4th Addition ,~hicn is ~EqJJEST-RIV~Rt?OOD proposed to be located directly south of the existing 4TH River!~ood develop~nent. The applicant is also re,questin2 a variance to Section 11.05, Subdivision 3]) of the platting ordinance ',,~hich requires that in blocks longer than ~00 feet a pedestrian cross,,,~ay or Ivalking path is required. Th~ developer ,,zas require,5 to make provisions for ~alk'~tays in its~ plat adjacent to the subject property. Overall, the :Jevelop~nent scheme is propos]d to i)e si'nilar to tiYa type of single family developnent for,nat in the existing ,Jevelopnent. In the plat in question the ai)plicant proposes 23 sinF]le fa.']ily hones and t',,~o ,~ unit to~nhouse lots. Density is 4.1 units per gross acre and 5.5 units p~,r nat acre. .\~t~sr d~.~u~o~.an, motion ,.~as made by ~ ' ' " · . seconded by Oom.'nissioner Vo~lker to order that ~ aublic haarinm .... for this ma'ft~r ~oe h~l;~ on Juan 13, Iraq~ af 7:~9~ p.a. iJpon vote ta,~n, A'/~s, Si ~layes, 0. Planning 9iroctar Harnenin;7 indicated to the ?lannlng Conmission that the llinnesota ]unicipal 3oard conducted a pu'alic hearing] on the proposed anm~xation of property in the area of Trunk Hi~hv.~ay 316 and 51. Other than testinony whici~ the city sub.nittsd, no other comments or objections were made to the proposed annexation. After the hearing the [linnasota 'Iunicipal 3card indicated that the record '.-~ould be left open for two ;~eeks to allow the city to respond to written comments which the !!etropolitan Oouncil had made to the llunicipal 3card on the proposed annexation. Harnening indicated that a letter woul~ be sent to the !lunicipal 3card by lay 25, 193;~. LAi~ USE ISSUES- A)~ ',tE XAT I 0 'l -IYY 315 ]. ~1 AR~A- .tarmen'ng also indicated that if the annexation is .approved, the city will be ~ ' ~ · r.~ulr.d to a.nend its Comprehensive Plan, Oo~prahensive Sewer Plan etc. to t~',;e into consideration the proposed annexation, land use, etc. Ton Loucks, the City's 0amp Plan consultant, was in attendance to discuss with tile Planning Commission ~afters pertainin] to land use in the ann?.xation area as well as other parts o~ the city. With respect to the annexation area, and in particular the T.'.I. 316 & T.H. 61 triangle area, Loucks suggested that both co~nmercial and ~adium density residential developments be permitted. Louc'4s provided an e><hibit which illustrated his recoamendations. Harnening pointed out that a public hearing would be required as a part of the Oonp. Plan alaendment process, le-nbers of the Plannint Co:nmission indicated they Y~ould prefer to held off on conducting the required public hearing un-Hi further action has been taken by the !lunicipal 3card on the annexation. further action was ta'4en. Olannin] Director Harmening inforned the Planning .gom:nission he had received a survey dra,~ing of the ']owes-Graus/Carriage House property located at 3th & Sddy Street. It appears St. Johns Church, owner of the property, intends on requesting approval of a minor subdivision of the property and several variances. StJB] I V I S I O~q .A~',I ] VA ~,1A~q OS-ST. JO'HH S OH JROH After discussion, .a motion was made by Commissioner Kaiser, seconded by ~on~ ~sslon~r Anderson to order that a public hearin~ for this mafter be held on June 13, lOSS at 7:3,3 p.m. I~t~, that Tom "Ihite had requested that ,~,r,,~n~ng ind'~- ~ no action be tauten at tnl~ tine on his r~zoning request ~or Lots 3 ~ 4, 31ack 13~ Town of ~last'n~s. ,, :---' *,,~'~ R!zQ,JEST- Tgl '?,41Tz tJpon vote taken, Ayes, :3; ilay',as, 0. Planning ;)iractor Har.~3ning L~dated the Planning There being no further busin:~ss a motion ,.vas ~nade by .~o,lnlS$1on~r l(Q[$er~ $.a¢o,~dg~ by Comnission~r ~-=.atherston.a to adjourn fha Planning Con, mission a==~' . ~ln~s ,at ~:3S rI. ..pon vot:~ taken, Ay~s~ ~; ~layes, O. ADJOiJR"I'iE ~T