Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-11CITY OF LAKEVILLE Planning Commission Meeting Minutes FEBRUARY 17, 2011 The February 17, 2011 Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Davis in the City Hall Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. Flag pledge and roll call of members: Present: Chair Davis Vice Chair Lillehei Commissioner Drotning Commissioner Grenz Commissioner Maguire Commissioner Blee Absent Secretary Adler Staff Present Daryl Morey, Planning Director; David Olson, Community and Economic Developer Director; Frank Dempsey, Associate Planner; Allyn Kuennen, Associate Planner; Zach Johnson, Assistant City Engineer; Andrea Poehler, Assistant City Attorney; and Penny Brevig, Recording Secretary. ITEM 3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Vice Chair Lillehei commented that he would like to make the following amendment to paragraph 7 on page 4 of the February 3, 2011 Planning Commission meeting minutes: "Commissioner Lillehei expressed concern that the security amount listed in Stipulation #9 of the planning report will may not be adequate..." The February 3, 2011 Planning Commission meeting minutes were approved as amended. The February 3, 2011 Planning Commission work session meeting notes were approved as presented. ITEM 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Morey stated that the following items were distributed to the Planning Commission at tonight's meeting: 1. The February 16, 2011 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee meeting motions regarding the Kingsley Shores Senior Living preliminary and final plat and the Hosanna 4th Addition preliminary and final plat. Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 2 2. The following handouts in reference to Agenda Item 7, Malt -O -Meal Company: • Comparison of Setback, Screening and Building Height Along North Property Line table. • Copies of a petition opposed to Malt -O -Meal encroaching upon or vacating the conservation easement. • Revised Exhibit A - 2011 Site Plan. 3. Colored rendering of the Hosanna 4th Addition senior living facility. 4. A copy of the 2011 Land Use Planning Workshops brochure. If anyone is interested in attending any of the workshops be sure to contact Ms. Brevig. Mr. Morey introduced and welcomed our new ex- officio member of the Planning Commission, Officer Shawn Fitzhenry. ITEM 5. KINGSLEY SHORES SENIOR LIVING Chair Davis opened the public hearing to consider the application of Frank M. Schoeben for the following, located west of Kenwood Trail (C.R. 5) and north of Klamath Trail: A. Comprehensive Plan amendment to re -guide property from Commercial to Office/ Residential Transaction, B. Zoning Map amendment to rezone property from C -3, General Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, C. Conditional Use Permit for a planned shoreland development, D. Development and final stage planned unit development for a senior housing facility, E. Preliminary and final plat of two lots and one outlot to be known as Kingsley Shores Senior Living, and F. Vacation of public easements. The Recording Secretary attested that the legal notice had been duly published in accordance with State Statutes and City Code. Frank Schoeben introduced himself and thanked the City for their efforts in the last 6 years on making this project a reality. Matt Frisbie, from Frisbie Architects presented an overview of their request. He presented colored renderings of the senior living facility which were not provided for the Planning Commission packets. Planning Director Daryl Morey presented the planning report and described each of the applications submitted in conjunction with the Kingsley Shores Senior Living development as well as the requested PUD flexibilities. Mr. Morey stated that the proposed Kingsley Shores Senior Living development will meet the City's comprehensive planning goals of providing a variety of life cycle housing choices Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 3 to meet the changing needs of Lakeville's population. He indicated that the proposed development has been carefully planned to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements, subject to the flexibilities allowed by the planned unit development, in a natural environment lake setting. Mr. Morey indicated there is a small exception parcel that was not deeded to the City with an administrative subdivision approved in 1997 that will be conveyed by the City by quit claim deed to the property owner with the final plat. Mr. Morey stated that should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Kingsley Shores Senior Living planning applications, Planning Department staff recommends the 18 stipulations listed in the February 11, 2011 planning report, and adoption of the Findings of Fact dated February 17, 2011. Chair Davis opened the hearing to the public for comment. There were no comments from the audience. 11.06 Motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing at 6:44 p.m. Ayes: Maguire, Lillehei, Davis, Blee, Grenz, Drotning. Nays: 0 Chair Davis asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Discussion points were: • Locations of elevators and the staging area for people moving furniture in and out of the building. • Concerns regarding stucco. Mr. Frisbie confirmed that there is a drain system that is installed behind the stucco to eliminate moisture. • Fire access and ingress and egress locations for emergency vehicles and delivery trucks. Mr. Morey commented that there is a truck turning template in the plans, and it does identify that it will accommodate a fire truck. The front entrance canopy height is 13 feet 6 inches which will also accommodate the fire trucks. Mr. Morey also indicated that the drive aisle is wide enough for cars to pass a parked delivery truck. • Commissioner Drotning commented that this project has been a long time coming and thought it was a very nice plan. • Flow of traffic through the parking lot was discussed. Mr. Morey stated that a majority of the trips to this site will come from the east to the west off of County Road 5. Both entrances and exits allow two -way traffic. • Commissioner Grenz asked if this will be a for profit facility. The developer replied that it will be. Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 4 • Snow removal was discussed. Mr. Frisbie stated that snow storage for the senior living facility will occur between the senior living building and the future building to be constructed on Lot 1 and also in front of the senior living facility parking lot. For record snow falls, the snow will be trucked away. 11.07 Motion was made and seconded to recommend to City Council approval of the following; A. Comprehensive Plan amendment to re -guide property from Commercial to Office/ Residential Transaction, B. Zoning Map amendment to rezone property from C -3, General Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, C. Conditional Use Permit for a planned shoreland development, D. Development and final stage planned unit development for a senior housing facility, E. Preliminary and final plat of two lots and one outlot to be known as Kingsley Shores Senior Living, and F. Vacation of public easements, subject to the following 18 stipulations, and adoption of the Findings of Fact dated February 17,2011: 1. The recommendations listed in the February 11, 2011 engineering report. 2. The recommendations of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee. 3. The Zoning Map amendment is subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. 4. The Zoning Map amendment and easement vacation are subject to the recording of the Kingsley Shores Senior Living final plat. 5. The exception parcel will be conveyed by quit claim deed to the property owner consistent with the administrative subdivision approved in 1997. 6. Outlot A must be deeded to the City with the final plat. 7. The Kingsley Shores Senior Living facility must be developed consistent with the plans approved by the City Council. 8. A westbound right turn lane must be constructed on Klamath Trail by the developer as shown on the approved plans. 9. The developer shall construct a 10 foot wide bituminous trail on the north side of Klamath Trail. The developer is responsible for 50% of the cost of constructing this trail adjacent to the preliminary and final plat and 100% of the cost of constructing the portion of the trail between the west boundary of the preliminary and final plat and the Charthouse Restaurant driveway. 10. The existing overhead utility lines on the north side of Klamath Trail must be buried at the developer's expense. 11. A total of 94 dwelling units will be transferred to the Kingsley Shores Senior Living development as allowed by the residential shoreland density reserve section of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 5 12. The following setbacks are required for the continuing care senior facility on Lot 2: Klamath Trail: 30 feet (building) 15 feet (parking) Side Yard: 20 feet (shoreland overlay district) OHWL: 150 feet 13. A private agreement for shared parking and driveway access and shared storm water drainage facilities between Lots 1 and 2 must be completed prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. The agreement must include maintenance responsibilities. 14. The developer must install "fire lane" signage along the driveway in front of the senior housing facility as recommended by the Fire Department. 15. Any rooftop mechanical equipment must be screened from public view in compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements. 16. Landscaping shall be installed consistent with the approved landscape plan. A $97,000 security must be submitted to guarantee installation of the approved landscaping. 17. Detailed light fixture plans for exterior lighting must be submitted with the building permit for the Kingsley Shores Senior Living facility. Lighting must comply with the requirements of Section 11 -16 -17 of the Zoning Ordinance. 18. Development signage shall be installed consistent with the approved plans. Signage for the Kingsley Shores Senior Living development is subject to the following conditions: • The combined freestanding sign on Lot 1 shall be constructed consistent with the approved site plan. • No additional freestanding signs shall be allowed on Lot 1. The Zoning Ordinance allows two wall signs for the future building on Lot 2 because it is a corner lot. • No wall signs shall be allowed for the senior housing facility on Lot 2. Ayes: Lillehei, Davis, Blee, Grenz, Drotning, Maguire. Nays: 0 Break at 6:56 p.m. Reconvened at 7:06 p.m. ITEM 6. HOSANNA 4TH ADDITION Chair Davis opened the public hearing to consider the application of Hosanna Lutheran Church of Lakeville for the following, located at 9600 - 163rd Street: A. Comprehensive Plan amendment to re -guide property from Public and Quasi Public to High Density Residential, B. Zoning Map amendment to rezone property Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 6 from RM -1 and RM -2, Medium Density Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, C. Development and final stage planned unit development for a senior housing facility, D. Preliminary and final plat of two lots and one outlot to be known as Hosanna 4th Addition, and E. Vacation of drainage and utility easements. The Recording Secretary attested that the legal notice had been duly published in accordance with State Statutes and City Code. Jim Hayes, member of Hosanna Church, presented an overview of their request. He indicated that Sheppard on the Lake in Prior Lake is a model for this proposed development. Mr. Hayes stated that a neighborhood meeting was held and no negative comments were received about the project. They are hoping for occupancy in 2012. He estimated that the proposed chapel construction is one to two years out. Jill Keiser from Ebenezer Management Company stated that with this proposed development there are 24 memory care units and 69 housing units with services, which allows the residents to add level of services as needed. Ward Issacson with Pope Architects and Charles Howley with HTPO presented a short 3 -D video and a powerpoint. Mr. Issacson indicated that they are not changing any driveway access points onto City streets. He also indicated that they would like a proposed tower that would identify the campus with a maximum height of 60 feet to also be approved at tonight's meeting. Mr. Issacson listed some of the senior housing facilities' amenities, which will include an outdoor courtyard, beauty parlor, and a movie theatre. Associate Planner Frank Dempsey presented the planning report. Mr. Dempsey stated that he was informed earlier today that the underground parking stalls are actually 18 1 /2 feet in depth and not 19 feet as shown on the plans and as stated in the planning report. Mr. Dempsey stated that the proposed development is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance for use of a PUD District and complies with applicable performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Dempsey stated that should the Planning Commission recommend approval of this proposal, Planning Department staff recommends the 15 stipulations listed in the February 11, 2011 planning report, and adoption of the Findings of Fact dated February 17, 2011 Chair Davis opened the hearing to the public for comment. Dan Neudecker of Pope Architects representing the applicant stated that they are in agreement with the stipulations in the staff report. He clarified that the underground parking stall measurement of 19 feet was to the outside of the wall so Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 7 essentially they are requesting that 18 1 /2 foot parking stalls be approved tonight. He stated the applicant agrees to add parking lot islands on the west side of the parking lot as stipulated in the planning report except they would like to keep the painted island in the northwest corner of the parking lot for snow removal purposes. He reiterated that the church would like to get approval of the 60 foot marker at tonight's meeting. 11.08 Motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing at 7:47 Ayes: Davis, Blee, Grenz, Drotning, Maguire, Lillehei. Nays: 0 Chair Davis asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Discussion points were: • The lighting plan should be revised to include the new parking lot layout. • Clarified the number of existing (26) and proposed new (10) handicapped parking spaces. • Clarified that a fence is proposed around the outdoor sitting area for the memory care units. • Traffic flow, egress and ingress locations were addressed. The addition of the parking stalls on the west side of the site was considered a positive compared to having church parishioners park across Ipava in the elementary school parking lot. The existing drop off in front of the church will remain the same. • Screening associated with the relocation of the detached storage building needs to be addressed. It was clarified that there wont be any loss of parking stalls with the relocation of the storage building. • Discussed the chapel as part of this PUD approval. The height of the proposed chapel will be 20 feet maximum at the mid point of the roof and will be lower than the height of the existing church. • Planning Commission members were comfortable with leaving the raised curb island out in the northwest corner of the parking lot so there will be a place to push snow into the adjacent drainage area. • Commissioner Drotning felt that the expanded parking lot design could have been better, but he will accept it. He felt that parking lot circulation will be better with the existing church parking lot than it will be with the redesigned parking lot. • This senior housing facility will be developed by an LLC with partial ownership between the church and Ebenezer. Shared parking, sign, and maintenance agreements will be provided prior to the City Council meeting. Signage will be co- located on the church property, which will be identified in the development agreement. Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 8 • The trash enclosure for the senior housing facility was identified on the plans. It will be a freestanding structure located next to the loading area on the south side of the building. • Mr. Dempsey stated that a future 60 foot cross structure was identified as a future construction by Hosanna in 1996. He indicated that the Zoning Ordinance allows a structure height of 35 feet unless a greater height if approved by CUP. He stated the structure height increase can also be approved as part of the PUD. The Planning Commission was not comfortable approving the 60 foot cross structure at tonight's meeting. They felt they needed more detailed information on the design of the structure before they could make a recommendation to the City Council. • Mr. Hayes indicated that the cross structure is not in its final design yet. Only the height has been determined. He stated that it would probably be constructed in about 2 years with the construction of the chapel. He did not want to delay the senior housing project and was willing to come back with a separate CUP application and more details for consideration of the cross structure height. • Commissioner Maguire asked how the memory care residents are secure from the general public. Mr. Neudecker indicated that there is a locked entrance to the memory care area. The memory care residents have their own secure dining and outdoor sitting areas. • Commissioner Grenz confirmed that the width of both the surface and underground parking stalls are 10 feet. • Vice Chair Lillehei requested that the 18 1 /2 feet deep underground parking stalls be identified in the staff memo to City Council along with revised plans. Stipulations 6 and 13 were recommended to be amended as follows: 6. The plans must be revised to include raised concrete curb islands with landscaping as required by the Zoning Ordinance prior to City Council consideration, with the exception of the northwest island which may be painted 13. Exterior lighting shall be installed according to the lighting plan approved by the City Council and in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. 11.09 Motion was made and seconded to recommend to City Council approval of the following, located at 9600 -163rd Street: A. Comprehensive Plan amendment to re- guide property from Public and Quasi Public to High Density Residential, B. Zoning Map amendment to rezone property from RM -1 and RM -2, Medium Pl annin g Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 9 Density Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, C. Development and final stage planned unit development for a senior housing facility, D. Preliminary and final plat of two lots and one outlot to be known as Hosanna 4th Addition, and E. Vacation of drainage and utility easements, subject to the following 15 stipulations listed in the February 11, 2011 planning report, as amended, and adoption of the Findings of Fact dated February 17, 2011: 1. The recommendations listed in the February 11, 2011 engineering report. 2. The recommendations of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee. 3. The rezoning to PUD is subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment re- guiding the property for high density residential use. 4. "No Parking" signs must be installed by and at the expense of the developer in locations required by the Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency fire access. 5. Interior concrete sidewalks shall be constructed as identified on the approved site plan. 6. The plans must be revised to include raised concrete curb islands with landscaping as required by the Zoning Ordinance prior to City Council consideration, with the exception of the northwest island which may be painted. 7. Landscaping shall be installed consistent with the approved landscape plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements. A security of $70,000 shall be required with the final plat to guarantee installation of the landscape improvements. 8. The developer shall provide a joint parking and access agreement allowing Hosanna and Ebenezer shared driveway and surface parking lot use. 9. A signed agreement between the church and Ebenezer for the freestanding monument sign adjacent to 165t Street will be required prior to City Council consideration. 10. The exterior building materials shall comply with the requirements established by Section 11- 61 -19.B of the Zoning Ordinance. 11. Park dedication requirements shall be satisfied as a cash fee in lieu of land subject to review by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee and approval of the City Council. 12. Signs larger than two square feet shall be limited to the allowances provided for in the O -R District except that a freestanding sign is to be a monument type structure with a height not to exceed six feet, 28 square feet in area and set back not less than 15 feet from any public right -of -way. A wall sign not exceeding 50 square feet is permitted on the north face of the senior housing facility building. A sign permit is required prior to the installation of any signs. Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 10 13. Exterior lighting shall be installed according to the lighting plan approved by the City Council and in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. 14. The trash enclosure shall be constructed according to the approved plans and according to the Zoning Ordinance requirements. 15. The future chapel and classroom addition to Hosanna Lutheran Church are allowed by the Planned Unit Development and shall be subject to the approval of a building permit and constructed according to the approved plans. Ayes: Blee, Grenz, Drotning, Maguire, Lillehei, Davis. Nays: 0 Break at 8:24 p.m. Reconvened at 8:35 p.m. ITEM 7. MALT-0-MEAL COMPANY Chair Davis opened the public hearing to consider the application of Malt -O -Meal Company for the vacation of a conservation easement at the Malt -O -Meal Technical Center, located at 20802 Kensington Drive. The Recording Secretary attested that the legal notice had been duly published in accordance with State Statutes and City Code. Paul Holtzhueter, Vice President of Business Development from Malt -O -Meal, presented an overview of their request and the Company's short and long range growth plans for their Lakeville facility. Mr. Holtzhueter stated that Malt -O -Meal has made a commitment to Lakeville. Efficiency is important to them. He indicated that they want to expand on this site and keep everything at one location in Lakeville. He stated they want to be good neighbors to the residential homeowners to the north. Kevin Rolfes, Design Consultant and Stephen Mastey, Landscape Consultant spoke about landscaping and buffers. Their main objective for this site is to preserve the buffer area along the north property line. In addition, they want to enhance the buffer area by strategically placing some large white pines between the Malt-0- Meal property and the neighbors to the north. They have proposed a conceptual landscape plan but they indicated the most effective way to implement the landscape plan is to wait until spring to perform a site analysis and inventory the existing trees in an effort not to damage them or their roots when installing the new trees. Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 11 Associate Planner Allyn Kuennen presented the planning report that included an analysis of Malt -O- Meal's expansion plans, comments from the adjacent neighbors, and review of the conservation easement by the City Attorney. Mr. Kuennen stated staff recommends forwarding the easement vacation application to the City Council with a recommendation that Option Three as listed in the February 11, 2011 planning report and as recommended by the City Attorney be approved. Mr. Kuennen stated that this option would allow the City Council to provide written consent to Malt -O -Meal to construct additional parking adjacent to the existing building and to allow the future construction of an office building and associated parking areas and stormwater treatment basins within the existing conservation easement contingent on Malt -O -Meal complying with the eight development standards that are listed in the February 11, 2011 planning report. Vice Chair Lillehei suggested that Mr. Kuennen explain why the conservation easement vacation is before the Planning Commission tonight. Mr. Kuennen stated that Malt -O -Meal approached the city for permission to construct parking and a future office building within the conservation easement. The City Council reviewed Malt -O- Meal's request at a work session. The City Council directed staff to have Malt -O -Meal apply for an easement vacation, schedule a public hearing at a Planning Commission meeting to obtain public comment, and have the Planning Commission provide the City Council with a recommendation that addresses Malt - O- Meal's request and concerns expressed by the adjacent residential property owners. Chair Davis opened the hearing to the public for comment. Richard Henderson, 20067 Jutland Place Mr. Henderson feels that the issues are not being addressed for an objective decision on the easement. He feels that the conservation easement vacation will have a negative impact on the neighbors. Mr. Henderson indicated that this easement vacation should not be allowed without the following being considered: • A cost - benefit analysis should be prepared. • Negative impacts on the property values. • There is no history of a conservation easement ever being vacated. • The neighborhood is an environmentally sensitive area. Mr. Henderson stated that it comes down to whether Malt -O -Meal is going to respect the neighbor's quality of life. Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 12 Bart Gernander, Attorney for Jim Reitter • Mr. Gernander indicated that zoning is an important issue here. The residential area is zoned RS -2, Single Family Residential. A lot of impervious surface area is going to be added if the property is developed as proposed by Malt -O -Meal and stormwater runoff should be considered. • Malt -O -Meal has asked for a wish list. They have not shown that they need to vacate this easement. • There will be a direct negative impact on residential property values. • It appears that Malt -O -Meal has options that would not infringe upon the conservation easement. Jim Reitter, 20690 Jutland Place • Showed a picture of what he sees from his bedroom window. • Quoted from the City Code the purpose of the RS-2 District. • Quoted a section of the January 20, 2011 Planning Commission work session notes. • Did not see anything in the conservation easement document that says anything about the conservation easement being put there due to manufacturing. • Quoted selected provisions of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. • Felt that Malt -O -Meal should have showed other alternative parking and expansion plans that would be outside the conservation easement. • Referred to a wetland area northeast of the site within the residential area. Todd Bornhauser, Chamber of Commerce Executiz7e Director Mr. Bornhauser thanked the Planning Commission members and staff for their time and effort on resolving issues over the years. Mr. Bornhauser was hopeful that this can be resolved to everybody's satisfaction. He indicated that tonight's meeting has three examples where flexibility is needed as the City continues to expand. Mr. Holtzhueter commented that they are trying to be good neighbors. He clarified that he feels the reason the conservation easement was put there in the first place was to keep manufacturing uses from coming within 150 feet of the residential area. On the area of their property without the conservation easement, Malt -O -Meal could legally construct a building within 40 feet of the neighbor's property line and parking within 20 feet to the neighbor's property line, but they are proposing to keep the existing building over 100 feet away and parking adjacent to the existing building 40 feet away from the property lines. The proposed future building will be Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 13 be over 100 feet away and the parking adjacent to the proposed future building will be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the residential properties. Shelly Carney, 20676 Jutland Place She wanted to reiterate the fact that the neighbors know that Malt -O -Meal is trying to be a good neighbor. She does not believe nor does the definition suggest that this easement should no longer be there. Ms. Carney felt that there is probably more of a reason to have it in place due to the expansion of the City. Brian Carney 20676 Jutland Place Thanked the neighbors for their proposal. Commented on their beautiful backyards and how much money they have put into them to make them this way. He hopes that the City of Lakeville maintains the integrity of their codes and that Malt -O -Meal does the right thing. Jeff Wellen, 20684 Jutland Place Mr. Wellen reiterated that most of the neighbors have put significant revenue into their backyards. He highly respects Malt -O -Meal. He does believe that there will be a drop in the value of the homes. He also believes there are other options, probably to the south that Malt -O -Meal should consider before building in the conservation easement. 11.10 Motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing at 9:41 p.m. Ayes: Grenz, Drotning, Maguire, Lillehei, Davis, Blee. Nays: 0 Chair Davis explained that property value impacts is beyond the purview of the Planning Commission. Chair Davis asked staff to point out the wetland that is northeast of the Malt-0- Meal property referred to by Mr. Reitter. Chair Davis asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Discussion points were: • Commissioner Drotning commented that everything in the ordinance is open to interpretation. The residential neighborhood adjacent to the Malt -O -Meal site never would have been developed if you interpreted the ordinance and Comprehensive Plan as outlined by Mr. Reitter. Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 14 • Chair Davis asked the City Attorney to comment on their options for voting on the easement vacation application. Assistant City Attorney Poehler indicated that staff's recommendation on the easement vacation is for denial and for City Council to consider Option 3, providing written consent to allow certain improvements in the conservation easement subject to the 8 stipulations listed in the planning report. • Chair Davis thanked Mr. Bornhauser for his comments regarding the Planning Commission and staff. • Commissioner Grenz asked about the use of white pines for screening. Malt - O- Meal's landscape architect said they have had a great success rate with them and they are a local native tree. • The Planning Commission agreed that Malt -O -Meal is making concessions to be good neighbors. Malt -O -Meal could build a 6 story building but are committing to only 2 stories. In addition, they are proposing 20 foot white pines when they are only required to plant 6 -8 foot trees, as well as increasing the parking setback from 20 to 50 feet. • The Planning Commission wanted the neighbors to realize that a buffer zone between different zoning districts does not have to be an easement. The buffer typically includes berming, landscaping, fencing, or even another building. • The Planning Commission discussed tabling this agenda item until they get more detailed plans from Malt -O -Meal on the proposed landscaping. • Commissioner Drotning stated that the Planning Commission will make the tough decisions. The City has the authority to make changes to the conservation easement. He is okay with allowing improvements in the conservation easement area, but feels Malt -O -Meal needs to provide a more detailed landscape plan to address the concerns raised by the neighbors. Break at 10:17 p.m. Reconvened at 10:23 p.m. Chair Davis indicated that the Planning Commission needs to provide staff with guidance and determine an option that works for the City, the neighbors and Malt - O -Meal. 11.11 Motion was made and seconded to table this agenda item. Prior to the vote being taken, the Planning Commission members discussed exactly what they would be trying to accomplish by tabling this agenda item. They suggested having Malt -O -Meal prepare more detailed landscape and site plans. Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 15 Ayes: Grenz, Maguire. Nays: Drotning, Lillehei, Davis, Blee. Motion to table the conservation easement vacation request failed. Mr. Morey commented that the 20 foot white pines proposed by Malt -O -Meal greatly exceed Zoning Ordinance requirements and would potentially have a greater impact on the existing trees in the buffer area if they were not properly located. As such, it is important for Malt -O -Meal to carefully evaluate the exact placement of the 20 foot white pines in order to more effectively enhance the existing landscape buffer and reduce the impacts of future parking lot and building expansions on the neighboring homeowners. As Malt -O- Meal's landscape architect has stated, it would be best to perform the evaluation in the spring when the weather permits. Mr. Morey pointed out that stipulation 5 does state that a detailed landscape plan must be submitted for review and approval by City staff. Mr. Morey also pointed out that the public hearing is closed so there would be no additional public input if the easement vacation is tabled to a future Planning Commission meeting. After discussion, Commission members agreed to amend Stipulation 4 to read "The parking lot adjacent to the existing building must be set back a minimum of 30 50 feet from the north property line as si,,.w o n Exhibit F " Break at 11:18 p.m. Reconvened at 11:25 p.m. Chair Davis asked Mr. Morey and the Assistant City Attorney if the Planning Commission can break their recommendation into two motions. It was determined that two motions could be made. 11.12 Motion was made and seconded to recommend denial of the vacation of a conservation easement at the Malt -O -Meal Technical Center, located at 20802 Kensington Drive. Ayes: Drotning, Maguire, Lillehei, Davis, Blee, Grenz. Nays: 0 11.13 Motion was made and seconded to recommend that City Council provide written consent to allow Malt -O -Meal to construct additional parking adjacent to the existing building and to allow the future construction of an office building and associated parking areas and stormwater treatment basins within the existing conservation easement, subject to the following 8 stipulations, as amended: Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 16 1. Any future building is limited to a height of two stories. 2. Any future building must be set back a minimum of 100 feet from the north property line as shown on Exhibit F of the February 11, 2011 planning report. 3. Any future parking areas within the conservation easement must be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the north property line as shown on Exhibit F of the February 11, 2011 planning report. 4. The parking lot adjacent to the existing building must be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the north property line. 5. A minimum of 25 white pine trees or similar species, with a minimum height of 20 feet at the time of planting, must be installed on the existing berm along the entire length of the north property line. In addition, smaller evergreen trees are to be planted along the north and south property lines to further enhance the buffer yard screening. A detailed landscape plan showing all exiting and proposed plantings must be submitted for review and approval by City staff. 6. All parking lot and exterior building lighting must be directed away from the residential properties to the north as shown on Exhibit F of the February 11, 2011 planning report. 7. Uses within any future building are limited to research and development or general office. 8. All future site improvements must be reviewed by the City prior to the commencement of work to insure compliance with City Ordinances. Ayes: Maguire, Lillehei, Davis, Blee, Drotning. Nays: Grenz. Commissioner Grenz did not think that everyone is accepting of this solution. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, l k� Penny Brevy, Recording Secre 3/03/11 W- M Chair 3/03/11