Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & draft 7/14/08 Minutes 4646 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTMBER 8, 2008 City Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Consent Agenda: 5. Public Hearings: A. EP08-134 & 135 Justin Rubenzer is requesting a conditional use permit and a request for a variance from the 60 foot side yard setback to allow a car wash in the C-4 (General Business) Zoning District. This property is located at 4520 Tower Street. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:I08 FILESI08 PLANNING COMMISSIONl08 PC AGENDAS~;~ofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 14, 2008 1. Call to Order: Vice Chair Ringstad called the July 14, 2008, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Fleming, Perez and Ringstad, Community Development/Natural Resource Director Danette Walthers-Moore, Planner Jeff Matzke, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Fleming Lemke Perez Ringstad Present Present Absent Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the June 23, 2008, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Ringstad read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. EP08-125 Spring Lake LLC/Bill Broback is requesting variances from the Zoning Ordinance for construction of a single family home located at 2485 Spring Lake Road. City Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated July 14, 2008, on file in the office of the Community Development and Natural Resource Department. Bill Broback is requesting variances to construct a new house on property located at 2485 Spring Lake Road SE on the north side of Spring Lake. For this proposed construction, the following variances are required: . A 25 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 District (Section 1102.405 (3)). . A 5.0 foot variance from the minimum 10 foot side yard setback required in the R-1 District (Section 1102.405 (3)). L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN071408.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2008 . A 60.0 foot variance from the minimum 75 foot lakeside setback (Section 1104.304). . A 2.5% variance from the maximum 30% impervious surface requirement (Section 1104.306). The property is zoned R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District), and is guided R-LD (Urban Low Density Residential) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The existing single family dwelling was constructed in 1952 without a garage. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing house and construct a new home and garage with a footprint of 1500 square feet. The lot area is 7,802 square feet. A buildable area does not exist which would allow for construction of a house without the need for variances. The proposed structures on the lot have a footprint of 1500 square feet with a proposed driveway of 1032 square feet for a total of 2532 square feet of impervious surface coverage (32.5% impervious surface coverage). The strict applications of the front, side and lake shore setback requirements create a hardship for the property owner. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story, walkout home on the lot. The proposed structure will increase the existing lake shore and side yard setback distances while maintaining a similar setback for the front yard. Based upon the findings in this report, staff recommended approval of the requested east side yard, front yard, and lakeshore variances with the following conditions: 1) This resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Community Development & Natural Resources Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2) The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations. 3) The applicant shall address all items outlined in the Community Development and Natural Resources Department's July 3,2008 memorandum prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff believes the applicant could remove 191 square feet of impervious surface from the driveway and turnaround area thereby reducing the impervious surface to 30% of the total lot area. Based upon the findings, staff recommended denial of the requested impervious surface variance. Questions from the Commissioners: Fleming asked staff to point out the proposed modified driveway square footage. Matzke explained the driveway reduction area. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN071408.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting July 14,2008 Fleming - Is it safe to assume the County is still on board with the "0" removal ofthe right-of-way? Matzke said the County did respond and will not be taking any part of the property because of the utility work that lies in the area. Therefore, they were not interested in vacating the area. Perez - The DNR commented on the impervious surface, did they comment on the lakeside setbacks? Matzke responded they did; some ofthe other houses in the area have similar setbacks. It is difficult it change the overall look on the current lakeshore. The hydrologist did mention attempting some storm water or rain gardens to buffer the area before it runs into the lake area. Matzke also spoke to our water resource engineer who said it would be quite difficult providing enough area to make an impact. Comments from the Public: Applicant Bill Broback, 12507 Dorchester Court, Apple Valley, said he did not have anything to add to staffs report. The public hearing was closed at 7:13 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: . Does not see any reason not to support the application. . Support the recommendations. Perez: . Agree with staffs report. There were questions in my mind with hardships being met but as long as the situation is not further denigrated and improved in some areas. . Support. Fleming: . Pleased to hear the County is on board, which was my biggest concern. . Philosophically against zero setbacks but as long as the County has agreed. . . . I understand staff s recommendation is to deny an element of the amendment to increase the impervious surface and I will be supporting that just as well. Ringstad: . Agree with my fellow Commissioners. . The Commissioners denied an impervious surface request a few months ago with another applicant on the same road who approached us to increase the 30% impervious surface requirement. One thing this body (the Commissioners) feel strongly about and offer the public is our consistency of maintaining the impervious surface regulation. . Agree with the other three variances. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN071408.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2008 MOTION BY FLEMING, SECOND BY PEREZ, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 08-08PC APPROVING THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS: . A 25 variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R- 1 District (Section 1102.405 (3)). . A 5.0 foot variance from the minimum 10 foot side yard setback required in the R-1 District (Section 1102.405 (3)). . A 60.0 foot variance from the minimum 75 foot lakeside setback (Section 1104.304). MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 08- 09PC DENYING THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE: . A 2.5% variancefrom the maximum 30% impervious surface requirement (Section 1104.306). Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Ringstad explained the Appeal process. B. EP08-128 Preston Reynolds (EM Products) is requesting a variance from the Zoning Ordinance for construction of a building addition located at 5380 Cottonwood Lane SEe City Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated July 14, 2008, on file in the office of the Community Development Natural Resource Department. Preston Reynolds, owner ofthe site, on behalf of EM Products has applied for a variance to allow for an addition to the existing building on a site located at 5380 Cottonwood Lane. For the proposed construction ofthis addition the following variance is required: · A 15 foot variance from the minimum 50 foot front yard setback required in the C-5 District (Section 1102.1406). The total site is approximately 3.5 acres. Currently, the site contains a 28,800 square foot structure. The property is zoned C-5 (Business Park) and guided C-BO (Business Office Park) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Map. EM Products is a manufacturer of industrial engine exhaust parts. They have occupied the site since 1995. The front yard along County Highway 21 was reduced as a result of the recent road expansion project. Prior to the road construction the building was setback 50 feet from the County Highway 21 right-of-way. The expansion ofthe road included a 15 foot wide area dedicated as right-of-way leaving a 35 foot front yard setback for the L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN071408.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 14,2008 existing structure. The applicant is proposing to add a building addition which extends the building line ofthe existing structure while maintaining the existing setback of 35 feet. The applicant will also submit a site plan application for review of landscaping, parking, storm water, grading and other performance standard requirements. The strict application of the 50 front yard setback creates a hardship for the property owner. The existing nonconforming setback was created when the adjacent highway was expanded on the north side of the lot. The applicant has proposed to maintain the existing setback for the addition. Based upon the findings in this report, staff recommended approval of the requested front yard variance with the following conditions: 1. This resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Community Development & Natural Resources Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations. Questions from the Commissioners: Perez -If they were not expanding would a variance be required? Matzke responded it would not. The variance is for the proposed building expansion. The existing building would be grandfathered in as nonconformity. Fleming - What is the timeline for the construction of the addition? Comments from the Public: Preston Reynolds, 9575 Livery Lane, Lakeville, stated they need the addition as soon as possible. The intention is to start in August. They would like to keep the business in Prior Lake. Matzke did a good job laying out the report. The hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Perez: . Agreed with staff s report - there is a hardship because of the road change. Support. Fleming: . I do not find a reason not to support the request. The staff report is very thorough. The County Road 21 expansion is the cause of the request. Support. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN071408.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 14,2008 Billington: . Echo Commissioners comments and support as well. Ringstad: . Will support. It is nice to see a business in Prior Lake is doing so well they need to expand and want to stay in Prior Lake. County Road 21 is causing the hardship and makes this request very reasonable. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY FLEMING, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 08-10PC APPROVING THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS: . A 15 foot variance from the minimum 50 foot front yard setback required in the C-5 District (Section 1102.1406). Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Ringstad explained the Appeal process. C. EP08-129 FMHC Corporation for T-Mobile is a conditional use permit to allow a communications tower with a reduced front setback in the R-l Use District. The property is legally described as "Park Willows 3rd Addition." City Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated July 14, 2008, on file in the office of the Community Development Natural Resource Department. FMHC on behalfofT-Mobile has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a communications tower with a reduced setback in relation to a public street. The proposed tower is located at the Willows Park in the R-l (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. The existing electric power pole on site near the comer of 170th Street and Elm Street is 35 feet in height. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing electric pole with a 45 foot monopole communications tower which will hold antennas in addition to security lighting for the small parking area below. The 45 foot tower is located 25 feet from Elm Street thereby requiring a CUP for the street setback reduction below 45 feet. Because Willows Park is a small neighborhood park with multiple residential properties nearby the City has been working with the applicant to place the communications tower and equipment in a way that is discrete with little impact to the park setting. The pole will be approximately 24" in diameter and treated with a maintenance-free coating to match the "cinnamon" color of the current fencing and structures in the park. The existing fencing around the portable toilets will be replaced and additional fencing will be placed around the tower ground equipment area. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN071408.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 14,2008 In addition to the installation of the monopole, T-Mobile has agreed to replace the wooden baseball field light pole located in the northeast comer of Willows Park. The replacement pole will be of steel construction with a general purpose flood light to match the similar pole design in other City parks. Also, the existing overhead power line running between the proposed tower and the electric light pole will be buried underground. The tower is allowed with a reduced street setback in the district with approval of a conditional use permit. In order to meet the criteria, City Staff recommended the following conditions: 1. The applicant must receive a building permit prior to any construction on the site. 2. The applicant shall provide screening for the equipment stand on the west side of the fenced enclosure. Questions from Commissioners: Billington - I noticed in terms of the lighting situation, there is going to be a security light, would there be an adverse impact with the lighting? Matzke stated it was a safety light in the "down" position and will not flood into the adjacent properties. Comments from the Public: Pat Conlin, FMHC representing T-Mobile, thanked staffand said the staff report was very complete and she had nothing more to add and would answer any questions. Billington questioned what drives the need for this use. Do you see additional facilities ofthis type? Ms. Conlin stated one in six people have cell phones in their homes and are not using land lines. She went on to explain the additional needed uses. There were no other comments and the hearing closed at 6:31 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: . It is good to note the additional usage of the phones in the area and that has to be a positive situation. Consequently, I see no problem with this installation. · I was worried with the light flooding the neighborhood however that will be part of the building permit process. Matzke responded staff will look into the screening at that point. The fence and enclosure will be similar to the existing layout. . That was my concern. . Support with staffs recommendation. Fleming: . Will support. It is reasonable and well planned. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN071408.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 14,2008 · I like the addition to the baseball field. Perez: · Agree with staff's Findings with the CUP and the improvements that go along with it. Will support. Ringstad: · Questioned staff if residents were notified at a certain radius. Matzke responded everyone within 350 feet was notified. Staff did receive a number of calls questioning the installation. Once the residents understood what it was, they did not have a problem with the additions. Their main concern was not wanting to destroy the integrity of the park. · We can draw the conclusion the residents did not have a problem with it because they are not here to speak. · The new plan actually looks like it cleans up the site area. . Support. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY FLEMING, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER WITH A REDUCED SETBACK IN RELATION TO A PUBLIC STREET. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Ringstad explained the Appeal process. D. EP08-126 212 Development is requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Development Crystal Bay Townhouse development located on the south side of CSAH 82, east of Fremont Avenue and ~ mile west ofCSAH 21. Community Development and Natural Resources Director Danette Walthers-Moore presented the Planning Report dated July 14,2008, on file in the office ofthe City Community Development and Natural Resources Department. The Crystal Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved by the City Council on December 1,2003. The approved PUD Plan included 24 townhouse units in 12 buildings. The proposed townhouses were a 3-story walkout, attached single family style dwelling with an attached garage. Each ofthe units in these buildings included a 3-car garage, rear yard decks, and approximately 4,610 square feet of floor area. The buildings are 34' high at the front, with exteriors consisting of a combination of brick and stucco. In October of 2004, the 212 Development Group and Manley Brothers Construction were granted a minor amendment to the originally approved PUD. The proposed amendment affected the style, size and exterior elevations ofthe townhouse units. The 3-story walkout buildings were replaced with a rambler style unit, with a 3-car attached garage, a rear yard deck and a four season porch. The exterior ofthe building consisted of Hardie L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN071408.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting July 14,2008 Board siding and shakes, rather than stucco and brick. The ground floor area of the units remained the same, and the units fit into the existing envelope lots. The current 212 Development Group request involves a minor amendment to allow for the reconfiguration of seven attached townhome units allowing for 14 detached single- family units. The structures, which will be slightly reduced in size, will be located within the confines of the previously approved building envelopes. The main issue is whether or not the proposed amendment will change the character of the PUD. The amendment does not change the number of units or increase the ground floor area of the buildings. The proposed amendment does decrease the amount of impervious surface by approximately 332 square feet. It should also be noted the proposed single-family homes will contain the same design, color palette, materials, and scale, with the exception of having space between the individual units. The spacing between the proposed single-family homes will maintain a 10 foot separation. Staff recommended approval of the amendment to the PUD Final Plan with the following conditions: 1. The developer shall provide a revised grading plan. 2. The developer shall submit revised impervious surface calculations and plans reflecting the revised impervious surface totals. Comments from the Public: John Klingelhutz, 212 Development, 350 East Highway 212, Chaska, explained they are trying to get the development going again. One ofthe problems they are running into is the "common wall" oftownhomes and being tied together. People want individual units. Hopefully we can get tracking. Ringstad questioned if part of the amendment is to create a detached or villa-type home and what were the price points. Klingelhutz responded the difference in the product (building) is not going to be a lot different. The land prices have gone down. The price of the building will be around the low end and high end of $800,000. Originally they were priced around $1 Million. The land has been reduced by about $150,000. The units will be a little smaller. They could be built for less. Ringstad questioned if the land costs have gone down $150,000 per unit or per building? Klingelhutz responded "Per unit." Fleming questioned what the average square footage of the home would be. Klingelhutz said the square footage will be very similar, he believed 196 square feet less than the original. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN071408.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 14,2008 Billington - Have your market studies led you to believe in a positive way that the reconfiguration of these dwellings is going to make a huge difference in sales? Klingelhutz responded it is a couple of things. "The prices on Prior Lake were around $1 Million a few years ago and now they are lower. When you build units like this you have to have some pretty strong contractors to do it when they have to buy two lots and only finish one. They have also sold the property to two other developers then ended up getting the property back. What they are trying to do is bring more people into the mix. In order to do that for the smaller builders we have to break them up two at a time." Billington responded it is a way to get other contractors to build at a lower price. Ringstad questioned if the land would be open to a variety of builders or one new builder to finish out the development? Klingelhutz responded whoever the builders would be have to follow the exterior plans. "We don't care if they change in the interior. We probably will not sell to ten builders, probably a couple." Don Eisma, presently lives in Apple Valley and has recently purchased one of the homes and will move in soon. The developers and residents did meet and discussed some of the issues. He indicated they did make progress but do have a ways to go. The big question is "How much longer?" At the present time the development is short on owners. Mr. Eisma is asking the Commissioners and developers to work with the homeowners to finish this project. As homeowners he believes they support the plan and 212 Development. "I believe we should be working together." Kyle Schroeder, 15557 Highland Avenue, wanted to thank the Planning department for notifying the residents within 350 feet when they did not have to. He also wanted to point out the tree replacement requirement. Schroeder said he echoed Mr. Eisma's comments and hopes the project is completed soon. What they have done so far is very nice. The public hearing was closed at 7:51 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Fleming: · Respectfully to the residents, it is not the responsibility ofthis body (Planning Commission) to adjudicate and serve as an arbiter for homeowner issues. That being said, I was pleased to see Mr. Eisma's letter and the comments. It is our responsibility to listen and hear the concerns raised. · Glad to hear the developers did have one or two conversations with the neighbors. · Understands none of us have the wherewithal to forecast the market conditions and economy. · Also understand and emphasize the developer and builder is trying to get the project finished and have no control over that as well. · Echo the sentiment regarding the grading and the preservation of trees. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN071408.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting July 14,2008 Perez: . Agree with staff - this is minor amendment to the proposal. The character is still there. . It is less intensive with impervious surface. . Appreciate the very constructive comments ofthe residents and obviously they want to see this succeed. . If this minor amendment will help the development get finished and succeed, I will support. Billington: . In this time of difficult economic conditions, for the risk-taking entrepreneur he has to be something more than faint hearted. The developer is trying to accelerate the best he can under the circumstances. This isn't going to be anywhere near a cakewalk. . I think your willingness to be open with the neighbors is excellent. . I think it is our responsibility to help you in every way we can within the statutes to make this development work. It is in the City's best interest as well. . Support with staffs recommendation. Ringstad: . I agree with my fellow Commissioners. It has been brought up a couple of times in 52 months there is only a handful of units completed. . Nobody could foresee the market we are in. It is the worst market in 30 to 40 years especially for the developer who went in and planned this development. Nobody has a crystal ball. . Adding the second phase you get the product mix which can bring in someone who otherwise would not want to be part of a townhome development. Hopefully this will spur building and bring the development to a successful conclusion. . Architecturally the plan is similar to the existing units and should tie into the neighborhood well. . Support. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY FLEMING, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL PUD PLAN FOR CRYSTAL BAY WITH THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This will go before the City Council on August 4th. E. EP08-130 Consider an amendment to Section 1004 of the Zoning Ordinance. Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler presented the Planning Report dated July 14, 2008 on file in the City Engineer Offices. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN071408.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2008 The intent of this ordinance revision is twofold: 1) to update referenced documents; and 2) defined a grandfather period for areas platted and constructed with trunk storm collection and treatment facilities previously approved. The update of referenced documents is fairly straightforward. The Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan was an outdated reference and the Surface Water Management Plan replaced it. The definition of a grandfather for stormwater treatment designed as collection and treatment facilities is proposed. In situations where a development plats large areas with the intention of coming back in later years to re-plat portions as they sell, some certainty is needed for stormwater treatment and total land requirements. Under this proposal, when collection and treatment facilities are planned with the greater development and constructed in advance, future re-plats of the treated area would meet the stormwater rules at the time of the plat for 10 years. Ifthis grandfather is not in place, there is no incentive to create collection and treatment facilities, which is a goal of the City because they are more cost effective to operate and maintain. Poppler presented the Shepherd's Path campus as an example. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommended approval. Comments from the Public: There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed at 7:00 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Perez: . The report is pretty straight forward. The amendment is needed, especially for the developers. No surprises. . Support. BillingtonlFleminglRingstad: . Support. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND INDICATED IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before City Council on August 4th. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN07I408.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2008 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: None 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Walthers-Moore noted the next meeting will be revisiting the Zoning Code with all the changes and revisions. Fifty people came by compost site on Saturday. The site will be open again in two weeks. Buckthorn information will be available. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN071408.doc 13