HomeMy WebLinkAbout0116012.
3.
4.
A.
Bo
C°
D°
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Case File #00-072 (Continued) Holiday Station Stores are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a gas station/convenience store and carwash for the property located north of Fountain Hills
Drive at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail.
Case File #00-089 Jane Crosson is requesting a Variance to permit a deck structure with a rear
setback less than the minimum required.
Case File #00-084 The Vierling property owners are requesting an amendment to the City of Prior
Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan for 320 acres located in Sections 23 and 24, Township 115,
Range 22. The proposal is to amend the Land Use Map from the current R-HD (High Density
Residential) designation and the C-BO (Business Office Park) designation to Rural Density.
Case File #00-082 Gary Matson is requesting a preliminary plat consisting of a total of 0.96 acres
to be subdivided into 2 lots for the existing single family dwelling and one new single family
dwelling for the property located on the north side of Centennial Street, west of Candy Cove Trail
and south of TH 13.
o
7e
Ao
Case File #00-00-086 The Church of St. Michael is requesting a variance to the maximum
building wall length to building height for the new addition to St. Michael's School on property
zoned R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) District located at 16280 Duluth Avenue.
Old Business:
New Business:
Case File #99-086 Mark Liesener is requesting a one year extension of the approved Variance
Resolutions 99-025PC and 99-026PC for the property identified as Lot 13, Block 2, Tiros Second
Addition.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
r~L:\01~files,.~lplane,~\01pc, a~-n~169. I.DO~C ,
16200 ~.ag~e creek ave. ~.~., t~nor ~-a}m, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the January 16, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue McDermott, Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Stamson Present
Vonhof Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the December 11, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Vonhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-072 (Continued) Holiday Station Stores are requesting a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a gas station/convenience store and carwash for the
property located north of Fountain Hills Drive at the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 16, 2001, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The City of Prior Lake recently received an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
to allow the construction of a gas station, convenience store and automatic car wash on the
property located at the southwest comer of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on this application on December 11, 2000. Due to the
number of issues pertaining to the application, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to January 16, 2001, to allow the applicant time to address these issue. The applicant
submitted revised plans to the Planning Department on Monday, January 8, 2001.
The staff recommended approval of this CUP, subject to the following conditions:
1. The site grading and drainage issues as outlined in the memorandums from the
Engineering Department.
2. The parking plan must provide the minimum parking spaces.
3. An access easement for the shared driveway must be submitted.
4. An irrigation plan must be provided as part of the landscaping plan.
L:501 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn011601 .doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
5. Drainage and surfacing plans for the car wash must be submitted for review and approval
by the City Engineer.
6. Outside Storage and Display: No outside sale or display shall be permitted except
gasoline and other goods consumed in the normal operation of a car and limited to the
following products: oil, gasoline and oil additives, windshield cleaner, windshield wipers,
tires and batteries. No products shall be sold or displayed in any required yard nor shall
the total display area occupy more than 150 square feet in area or be more than 5 feet in
height. No other vehicular parts and non-automobile oriented goods shall be displayed or
sold outside.
7. Public Address System: No public address system shall be audible from any property
located in an "R" Use District.
City Engineer Sue McDermott stated the majority of the engineering issues have been revised
and are reflected on the new plans. The major issues were with the driveways. Most can be
worked out with the developer's engineer. The driveway entrance should be moved 10 feet
to the west in order to avoid a catch basin. The Engineering Department also requested that
the applicant hold a pre-construction meeting to meet with the private utility companies to
discuss the timing of relocation of substantial features in the western driveway area.
Kansier said the Holiday plans have identified all the outstanding issues. Some changes will
need to be made to the plan, however the staff did not feel those issues would warrant further
continuance of the items. They are minor items that can be addressed before this goes before
the City Council.
Comments from the public:
Victor Sacco, Manager of Real Estate for Holiday Companies, said they have reviewed the
conditions and will meet the conditions to the site plan. The Holiday Companies' engineer
was also available for questions.
Dave Baden, said he was a close neighbor to the area and questioned the direction of runoff.
Sue McDermott said there is an on-site storm sewer system and in accordance with the
building code they will have to provide drainage in the carwash. She did not see a problem.
Vonhof closed the floor.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Concurred with staff subject to the conditions in the report.
Stamson:
· The last meeting concern was landscaping. There was no clear plan. Those issues
have been met.
· The second concern was the impact on the neighbors. The surrounding lots are
heavily treed. There is adequate screening.
· Recommend City Council approve the request.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesh-nn011601.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
Criego:
Why isn't there a drain basin with this project? McDermott said the sedimentation
holding ponds were graded in with the entire Fountain Hills Addition. The ponds
were graded in at that time. Most of the water will drain to the regional pond on
County Road 42, which was designed to take the drainage from this property.
· Questioned the sidewalk or trail in front of the station.
McDermott explained the trail on the north side of Fountain Hills Drive, which
covers the industrial park connecting with Pike Lake Trail.
Asked applicant to discuss the easement required for the second driveway. Sacco
responded Holiday decided it would be good traffic circulation to have the access cut
lined up with the side street parallel with Pike Lake Trail. Another concern was for
the utilities. Holiday will put together an easement with property holder Wensco.
· Kansier pointed out the development had always planned for a shared driveway for
these lots.
· The landscaping was laid out to help the residents. Questioned if there was more
landscaping on the west side of the property. Sacco said they looked for trees on the
southeast side that would block and screen. Pines trees are located on the site.
· Felt there should be larger evergreens to solve the problem.
Lemke:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
Atwood:
· At the last meeting there was a question on the Viefling fence. Kansier responded the
issue was with the west side of the plat, not part of this lot.
Vonhof:
· Concurred with the Commissioners' comments. Encouraged better screening on the
southeast comer using larger plantings.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A GAS
STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE SUBJECT TO STAFF'S CONDITIONS.
Criego felt there should be more evergreens at a greater height.
Stamson felt the maple trees have a bigger canopy and will cover more area. If too many
evergreens are put in you can see over the top of them. The homes on the hill are heavily
treed as it is.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will'most likely go before the City Council on February 5, 2001.
B. Case File #00-089 Jane Crosson is requesting a Variance to permit a deck
structure with a rear setback less than the minimum required.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn011601 .doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
Januasy 16, 2001
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated January 16, 2001,
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Jane Y. Crosson for a deck
addition to be added to a single family structure recently approved under Building Permit
#00-983, to be constructed on the vacant lot at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue. Eagle Creek
Villas, LLC, is the current owner and builder of the subject property, and Ms. Crossen has
purchased the property contingent on securing this variance to construct the deck addition on
the main level.
On September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 00-12PC granting
variances to lot area and lot width for this subject lot, an existing substandard lot of record.
The original building plans and variance request did not include a main level walkout door or
deck addition to the house, only a lower level walkout door to a ground level platform.
The following variance is requested:
A 13 foot variance to permit a 12 foot structure setback to the rear lot line rather than the
required minimum 25 feet.
The Planning staff believed the hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the
Ordinance requirements and the subject lot in relation to the proposed development plans,
including the previously adopted variance resolution. Staff recommended the Planning
Commission adopt the resolution denying applicant's variance as requested.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Jane Crosson, said she has a purchase agreement contingent on approval of the
variance. She is a current lake dweller. She would like to build a new house with the
convenience of accessing the barbeque area from the kitchen area. Crosson explained the
proposed structure included the common area not the actual lot line. She did not feel this was
an unreasonable request and stated it would increase the value of the home. She would enjoy
the deck May through October from all levels of the home. The neighbor's view will not be
affected.
Greg Engebos, 4931 Beach Street and 14582 Oakland Beach, felt all of the homes in the area
will be rebuilt at some time. He thought most of the neighboring homes do have a second
level deck and would like to keep the aesthetic appearance of the property as high as
possible.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Four months ago when the home was designed without a deck, no accommodations
were made for a deck. It was designed under the ordinance and setback requirements.
It was an obvious conscious decision of the builder to eliminate space for the deck to
accommodate some other needs. The builder would not have done that if he felt it
was a great hardship given the home he was designing.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn011601 .doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
· The hardship criteria has not been met under a number of issues.
· Nothing has changed to create a hardship.
· Deny the request.
Criego:
This is a substandard lot, smaller than a substandard lot at 4,000 square feet.
· The first variance we accepted was a 3,500 foot change from the original plan.
have been several variances made on this property that were justified.
· The common area was considered for impervious surface.
· The applicant is stretching this property. Now she is asking for more.
· There is more home than the property can handle.
Not in favor of the request.
There
Lemke: · Looked at the lot and neighborhood.
· Does not disagree with the Commissioner's comments, but a deck is customary and
reasonable in Minnesota.
· There is going to be platform underneath it.
· Support the deck.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Stamson and Criego, the deck is an afterthought. In a well thought out
plan a deck would have been included.
· Pointed out at the last meeting, the neighbors felt the variances on this property
would cause a hardship if they wanted to add on. Questioned flip-flopping the home
as previously discussed.
· Crosson said the plans were flipped-flopped. She pointed out she was not part of the
original plan. She put money down in November and made changes inside the home
to suit her tastes. Crosson questioned why there was no deck and requested the
variance.
Vonhof: · Concurred with fellow commissions, the hardship criteria have not been met for any
further variances on this property. It is a small property area to provide a deck.
· Will not support.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
001PC DENYING A 12 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF
13 FEET FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn01160 l.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
C. Case File #00-084 The Vierling property owners are requesting an amendment
to the City of Prior Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan for 320 acres located in
Sections 23 and 24, Township 115, Range 22. The proposal is to amend the Land Use
Map from the current R-HD (High Density Residential) designation and the C-BO
(Business Office Park) designation to Rural Density.
Vonhof stated the Commissioners just received information submitted by the applicant and
will not have time to review. However, testimony would be taken by the public and most
likely the hearing will continue to the next meeting.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 16, 2001, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Helen, Edward, Michael and Rebecca Vierling have filed an application for a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for the property located on the north side of CSAH 42 between Pike Lake
Trail and CSAH 18. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
from the current RoHD (High Density Residential) and the C-BO (Business Office Park)
designations to the Rural Density designation on 320 acres of land.
This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural). The east 160 acres of the site are
designated as C-BO (Business Office Park) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map,
and the west 160 acres of the site is designated as R-HD (High Density Residential). The
applicants have requested these designations be changed to Rural Density.
The total site consists of approximately 320 acres and has been cropland for several years,
although some portions of the site are wooded. The property is used for agricultural purposes.
There is a farmstead and outbuildings located in the southwest comer of the site. Also, the
site is subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act.
In 2000, the property owners requested the City approve a request for this property to be
reenrolled in the Agricultural Preserve program. The City refused this request on the basis
the property no longer qualified for program participation. The City has no objection to
enrollment of this property in the Green Acres program, which provides some tax protection
for existing farmland. The City also has no plans to rezone this property from its current A
(Agricultural) district unless requested to do so by the property owners.
The current designation of this property for use as something other than long-term agriculture
has been in place since 1995. The applicants have not demonstrated any need to change this
designation.
Staff recommended denial of the request.
Comments from the public:
Attorney Patrick Kelly, Kelly & Fawcett Law Firm, 2350 Piper Jaffray Plaza, St. Paul,
representing the applicants, stated the property does not qualify for the Agriculture Preserve
Program is because of the Comprehensive Plan. Kelly said land under the RoHD zoning
equates to 30 units per acre. Kelly believes his calculations would be 4,000 to 5,000 units
with the 160 acre parcel. This is not part of the MUSA. They studied the area dealing with
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn011601 .doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
well system issues. When and if the Vierlings decide to rezone, the City's infrastructure
would be impacted. The Vierlings have been farming this property for 150 years. As part of
the operation the Vierlings utilize approximately 170 acres on County Roads 42 and 21.
They also have 55 acres on Prior Lake. If the operation is shut down they will have no
choice but to develop.
Stamson pointed out the City is not asking for the amendment, the Vierlings are.
Kelly felt by amending the Comprehensive Plan the City has knocked out the farming
process. If they are out of the Ag Preserve they will be piece-mealing the development.
Sections of 20 or 30 acres will become office park or commercial. This is a contradiction in
reality, normally developers come in and want to put 4,000 or 5,000 units or 3 story office
buildings. The Vierlings are asking the City to put them back in the Ag Preserve and farm. It
is an 8 year period. With the Ag Preserve Plan they will maintain farming. It is a benefit of
open space for the community. Their farming is a profitable operation.
Stamson pointed out the Vierlings initiated the 240 acres removal out of the Ag Preserve two
years prior to the City changing the Comprehensive Plan. Kelly said at that time, Helen
Vierling's husband Leo was running the farm and there were other issues going on in the City
of Prior Lake. Leo chose not to re-enroll but he figured he had this 8 year window to take a
look at it and see what was going on with development. Leo passed away in 1995 and his
wish was to continue farming with his son, Michael. Michael has been successful and this is
the direction the family would like to go. Most cities are striving for open space and the
Vierlings are trying to accomplish that.
Stamson referenced the staff report suggesting the alternative of Green Acres. Kelly said it
does not do what the Ag Preserve does. Kelly then summarized the Ag Preserve definition.
(473H.01 Minnesota Statutes).
Stamson clarified the benefits of the Ag Preserve: · Better tax advantages
· Protected from eminent domain
· Special Assessments
· Zoning Conflicts
Stamson asked Kelly what Ag Preserve does not do. Kelly responded it involves a tax-type
situation where it allows deferring assessments as soon as the farming operation ends. With
Ag Preserve, the cities can act different ways through the power of zoning. If the farmer is in
the Ag Preserve he does not have to worry about the headaches of conflict with the best
intentions of the city. Green Acres does not protect like the Ag Preserve.
Kelly went on to say there has been correspondence back and forth with the City of Prior
Lake since February of 1999.
Atwood questioned if the remaining 110 acres are part of the Ag Preserve. Kelly responded
it was part of the operation of the farm, but there is a drainage problem with the lake
property. It is zoned office/commercial on the comer of County Roads 41 and 21.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn011601 .doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
Lemke questioned what governmental body approves the Ag Preserve. Kelly responded once
the City okays it, it is reviewed by the County and ultimately approved by the Met Council.
McDermott clarified there is trunk sewer and water along County Road 42 and this area.
When the County Road 42 and Pike Lake construction started a few years ago, there were
crossings put in to the north side of County Road 42. She stated she would be happy to
provide Mr. Kelly with the plans.
Stamson asked if there were any other designations besides Rural Residential that would
allow Ag Preserve. Kansier answered there was not.
Comments from the public:
Mike Vierling, 13985 Pike Lake Trail, thanked his neighbors for the support. Vierling said
people ask him why he just doesn't pack up his bags and go somewhere else. Sometimes
money does not buy happiness. He does not want to farm anywhere else. It wouldn't be the
same. Vierling explained some of the problems he will have if he is not in the Ag Preserve.
He would like to see his sons have the opportunity to farm just like his Dad gave him. The
neighbors love the open spaces. He knows he will eventually be forced out. Pretty soon
there is going to houses everywhere. He wants to run the farm like a business. He can't do
that unless he is in the Ag Preserve program and asks for the City's support. What is 8 years
down the line? Even if he wanted to sell it would take years get it fight.
Stamson questioned Vierling if 8 years is a long enough period to justify the improvements
he would like to make. Is it enough? Vierling said it was and went on to say he does not
want to put in any improvements until he knows what is going on.
Lucy Vierling Cunningham, stated the family has been farming for many years and are
dedicated to the farm. This is not the time to sell. She has a family, works full time and still
works on the farm.
Dan Klamm, 4130 140th Street NE, has known the Vierlings for 15 years and felt it was great
to see the farm exist for 150 years. Eight years is not long. Maybe the City has had
disagreements with the Vierlings but the community should come together on this issue.
Paul Lindahl, 2560 Muhlenhardt Road, felt the farm is a beautiful setting. The Vierlings are
asking for help. It is hard for a farmer to ask for assistance. It seems like such a minor thing,
at least give them a chance. They have done a lot for the community.
Russ Dunker, 4487 Chestnut Lane, said he does not know the Vierlings well but sees Mike a
few times a year. Mike has a real passion for what he does. Dunker felt it was not
unreasonable for the Vierlings to want the tax advantages. He is in support of the Vierlings
farming for as long as they want. They are very good neighbors.
Rita Baden, 13866 Pike Lake Trail, questioned how farm land is taken out of rural density
when it is being farmed. Why does the community feel they can make these changes? If the
Vierlings are willing to farm, let them make the choice. We are losing our open space.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesXmn011601 .doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
Kansier explained the zoning is still agriculture and fanning is a permitted use. The
Vierlings can continue to farm as long as they like. The Comprehensive Plan is a long term
plan to identify potential uses of property to allow the City, County and the rest of the
community to plan for things like municipal services, mad systems, the park systems,
including the farm land. The City has no intention of stopping the Vierlings from farming.
The City is required to plan long term. The zoning has not changed and the City is not
requesting the amendment.
Kansier clarified the 8 years in Ag Preserve. Once the property is in the Ag Preserve
Program it does not come out until requested by the property owner. Once they make the
request the 8 year time frame starts. It is not just 8 years, it will go on until the law changes.
Kevin Shadduck, 4841 Beach Street, said the Vierlings have been great neighbors. The only
reason not to help the Vierlings farm is to perceive that the City wants to force them to sell so
the City can get a bigger tax base. It is a terrible motivation not to help a farmer.
Joe Zieska, 5316 Hampton, said he has looked out his window the last 14 years to see the
Vierling property and if they desire to farm for the next 100 or 200 years they can. But that
is not the issue. The property is zoned agriculture. He doesn't believe in the history of Prior
Lake (inaudible). To paraphrase Mr. Kelly we have to look at this logically from the facts.
First I would like to straighten out a few facts from Mr. Kelly. He stated the property was
zoned RHD (Rural High Density) - it is not. It is zoned Agriculture. The Comprehensive
Plan is RHD and CBO. He mentioned building 4,500 housing units on the land. The City
only has 3,000 houses. I don't see how he can put 4,500 in that little spot. He talks about
putting manufacturing and industrial in CBO. Those uses are not allowed. It has to be
business office park. Kelly speculated on the needed infrastructure and traffic on County
Road 42. He talks about the breakdown of County Road 42 in Bumsville. There isn't anyone
here that would tell us that 42 in Burnsville is broke down. That is why we need long range
planning. The City has to look at what the plan could possibly be used for in the future. As
the City Engineer pointed out, they oversized and put trunk sewer and water mains in to get
across County Road 42 to get to Pike Lake trail projects in anticipation of future
developments. It is only right for the homeowners who live adjacent to this property.
Anyone who has been on the Planning Commission for any length of time finds when there is
difficult rezoning problems, it is not from the land owner, it is from the adjacent property
owners. When I bought my house I never knew what was going to be there. The property
owners along County Roads 42 and 18, Pike Lake Trail will sell some day or somebody else
moves in and sees the beautiful farm and all of a sudden an office building goes up they'll
say "What happened? There was a farm before." By leaving it in the Comprehensive Plan as
potential uses somewhere in the future those people who purchase that property will know
potentially what can go in there. These are the reasons the Comprehensive Plan should be
left as is. It has nothing to do with present day land use.
Dave Baden, said the Vierlings are hard workers. The cows are good neighbors too. The
open space in Prior Lake is disappearing, we need less development. He hopes the Vierlings
will be farming for another 80 years, not just 8.
Linda Lehman, 13231 Henning Circle, said she has been working with the Vierlings for the
past 5 years on the environmental compliance for their feedlots. Mike Vieding is looking at
spending $35,000 to $65,000 to come into compliance with the feedlot. He needs to know if
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn011601 .doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
he will be able to farm there for the next 8 to 10 years for that issue alone. Would like the
Commissioners to allow him to continue not only for the cost issue but also for compliance
and whatever protection he needs from the Ag Preserve.
Yvonne Anderson, 13220 Pike Lake, Program Manager for the YMCA Camp and caretaker
since 1982 said the Camp has been on Pike Lake since the 1960's. At some time the YMCA
Camp will be put into a situation of the potential land use. The 80 acres they are on allows
2,500 youth each summer to come and experience the outdoors. Anderson supported the
Vierlings and asked the Commission to remember the green space.
Cindy Stark, 14730 Rosewood Road, enjoys looking over the Vierling property and Prior
Lake. The Vierling farm gives their children the opportunity to see a hard working farm.
Greg Engabos, 4931 Beach Street, appreciates what the City has done in developing the
Comprehensive Plan and understands proper planning. If it is the intent of the City of Prior
Lake to let the Vierlings continue farming, it should be demonstrated they could be put in the
best economic situation possible by allowing the Agricultural designation. Both intentions
would be met.
Jadin Bragg, Carriage Hills Development, said he listened to the Commissioners earlier
determining if there was hardship for a deck. He said it seems ridiculous the Commissioners
are pointing out they cannot change the Comprehensive Plan to let the Vierlings have what
they need. It is causing them economic hardship. Think about the area you live in.
Residents want to drive by a farm not high rise buildings. Bragg said he loves the fact he can
see Jeffers Pond and the cows. Don't change it.
Kenny Landherr, 14612 Rosewood Road, said from his family perspective they feel fortunate
to live next to the Vierling property and was the main reason they moved there. The bigger
issue is that it is a wonderful opportunity for his children to experience the farm.
K.R. Radin, 14211 Shore Lane, enjoys seeing the cows and felt Mike Viefling should have
the opportunity to continue farming.
The hearing was closed to the public.
Commissioner Vonhof stated that since the Commissioners received a large packet of
material just before the meeting, they would like to continue the public hearing and give the
Commissioners time to review the information.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO
JANUARY 29, 2001.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson asked for a detailed definition of Green Acres and Ag Preserve specifically the tax
details for the next packet.
A recess was called at 8:12 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:19 p.m.
L:\O 1 files\O I plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mnO 11601 .doc 1 0
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
D. Case File #00-082 Gary Matson is requesting a preliminary plat consisting of a
total of 0.96 acres to be subdivided into 2 lots for the existing single family dwelling and
one new single family dwelling for the property located on the north side of Centennial
Street, west of Candy Cove Trail and south of TH 13.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 16, 2001, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of the public heating is to consider an application for a preliminary plat for the
0.94 acre site located on the north side of Centennial Street, west of Candy Cove Trail and
south of TH 13. The preliminary plat, to be known as Matson Addition, is the site of a single
family dwelling at 5366 Centennial Street. The proposed plat consists of 0.94 acres to be
subdivided into 2 lots for single family dwellings. Lot 2, Block 1, is the site of the existing
dwelling. Lot 1, Block 1, is the site of a futUre dwelling. The proposed lots meet or exceed
the minimum lot area and frontage requirements for the R- 1 district.
The proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning
Ordinance. If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following
condition:
Prior to final plat approval, the developer must submit a landscaping plan as required by
Section 1 O0 7. i O0 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
A minimum iO' wide drainage and utility easement must beprovided along the front and
rear lot lines of each lot, and a minimum 5' wide drainage and utility easement must be
provided along the side lot lines of each lot. A 15' wide drainage and utility easement
must be provided along the west lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, to maintain the existing sewer
easement.
Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat of Matson Addition as presented and
subject to the condition listed above, or with specific changes directed by the Planning
Commission.
Atwood questioned the parkland dedication. Kansier responded. The amount will be minor.
Comments from the public:
Gary Matson, felt Jane explained the situation well.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Approve
Atwood, Stamson, Vonhof and Lemke: · Concurred
L:\O 1 fi les\O I plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mnO 11601.doc 11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS REQUESTED WITH STAFF'S
CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
E. Case File #00-00-086 The Church of St. Michael is requesting a variance to the
maximum building wall length to building height for the new addition to St. Michael's
School on property zoned R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) District located at
16280 Duluth Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 16, 2001, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received an application for a variance to allow the construction of
an addition to the existing St. Michael's school building on the properly located at 16280
Duluth Avenue. The proposed addition is located on the south side of the existing school,
and is 142' long and 26' high. The following variance is therefore requested:
A variance to permit a structure with a building wall length to building height ratio of
5.46:1 rather than the maximum ratio of4:1 (City Code Section 1107.2202, §8,b).
St. Michael's school is located at the northwest quadrant of Duluth Avenue and Pleasant
Avenue. The property consists of a combination of unplatted and platted parcels. It is in the
process of being replatted into one large parcel.
St. Michael's is in the process of expanding the school. The first phase, planned for
construction in 2001, consists of the south addition. Phase 2 is planned for construction
within the next 3 to 4 years. There are no specific plans for this second phase. Based on the
applicant's drawing, construction of the second phase also seems to require the purchase of
additional property.
The proposed request does not appear to meet the hardship criteria in that a legal alternative
exists. The applicant can redesign the west side of the addition to meet the maximum ratio of
length to height. The staff therefore recommends denial of this request.
Comments from the public:
Rollie Brouillard, Parish Administrator for the Church of St. Michael, introduced the project
architect John Nightingale.
John Nightingale, Project Manager for St. Michael's from DRL Group in Minneapolis,
explained the project and future phasing for the school. Nightingale felt adding the bump-out
would be a detriment to the building. The homeowners have been notified and if there has
not been any problems, felt St. Michael's should be able to proceed.
Atwood questioned how the bump-outs would affect the master plans. Nightingale
responded it would effect the design of the phasing and be in the way and has no function.
Atwood asked if they would be back to the drawing table. Nightingale said they would and
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn011601 .doc 12
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
effect the designer phase. Atwood questioned who sent out the notices to the neighbors.
Kansier responded staffdid but St. Michael's had been holding neighborhood meetings. The
variance request was sent out 10 days before the meeting.
Lemke questioned the Phase 2 walls reducing the length. Nightingale said they were going to
be flush walls.
The hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Staff recommends denial based on the hardship criteria. They do not meet criteria #1.
The lot cannot accommodate a building of this size.
· It is important to keep in mind this is in phases. Phase 2 is going to require buying
more land. That current property is not on the market and outside St. Michael's
control. This lot as proposed cannot accommodate the entire project. It is extremely
small for the use.
It is important to note this lot is 3 acres to house an elementary school. In passing 4
to 5 elementary schools on the way home, the smallest probably sat on 20 acres. It is
on a narrow block, constricted on three sides by public streets. The school and
church has been located there since the early 1900's. It was one of the first buildings
in town and predates any zoning ordinances in the City.
· For those reasons the hardship criteria has been met. This is largely outside their
control. The property is unique.
· The addition provides a valuable asset to the community.
· The problem can be mitigated by adding a condition that any future addition
eliminates this condition. So if St. Michael's does add on in the future it will be
eliminated. The final phase will not need a variance. Recognize that this is a phasing
proposal.
· It could also be mitigated by additional landscaping in the short term.
* This is a unique situation.
Criego:
· The east side of the new proposed building meets the criteria because of the
entryway. Kansier said it does meet the criteria and explained the ordinance
requirements for the bump-out.
· The homes on the east side are going to see a long flat building.
· Understand the phasing, but there is no guarantee that this will be done. How can the
Commission legitimately give a variance for something that may not be done? It is
an economic issue and predicated on a lot of things out of St. Michael's control.
· There are situations like this with homes and in the past have been very stringent that
the Commission did not want long walls to be built without some breaks. The
ordinance was even modified the ordinance to reduce the impact to make it less
prohibited.
· Cannot legitimately say yes to this variance.
· Serious concern for long flat walls and the appearance of them for the neighbors.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn01160 l.doc 13
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
Lemke:
· It speaks volumes that the neighbors are not present to object. If they do not object, I
will not object. St. Michael's say they have a master plan to expand.
· To build a 4x4 foot requirement that does not need to be satisfied after the end of
phase 2, maybe not the proper way to look at it from a planning standpoint, but
inclined to let them build it.
Atwood: · Sees no problem granting the variance.
· The neighbors are not close.
· It is not attractive as it stands now. The material will be Class I.
· Trust that St. Michael's will go forward.
· Agreeable to request.
Vonhof:
· Most elementary schools sit on 20 to 25 acres, minimum. This is an extremely tight
base.
· Believed the hardship criteria had been met.
· Suggest this condition be eliminated with any future phasing.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE
WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT ANY FUTURE ADDITION ELIMINATE
THIS VARIANCE REQUIREMENT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Atwood, Vonhof, and Lemke. Nay by Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier clarified the Motion by stating the Commissioners would like staff to prepare a
Resolution to the Motion for the next meeting.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case File #99-086 Mark Liesener is requesting a one year extension of the
approved Variance Resolutions 99-025PC and 99-026PC for the property identified as
Lot 13, Block 2, Titus Second Addition.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated January 16, 2001,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a written request for a one year extension of an approved
variance from Mark Liesener. On December 13, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a
variance to the structure setback requirement. This variance expired on December 13, 2000.
The request to extend the variance was submitted on December 6, 2000, after notification by
this office of the impending expiration. Variance Resolution 99-026PC, originally adopted
on December 13, 1999, approved a variance to the minimum structure setback for a single
family dwelling. The variance is described as follows:
L:\01 files\01plancomm\01pcminutes~nn011601.doc 14
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
A 70 foot variance to permit a 30 foot structure setback from the Ordinary High Water
Mark (OHWM) elevation of a tributary stream rather than the required 100 foot [City
Code Subsection 1104.301: (3) Setback Requirements: Tributary Rivers].
The Planning Staff reviewed the applicant's request for a one year extension of time. The lot
in question is a nonconforming lot of record. A variance is required before any construction
will be allowed on the property.
On October 9, 2000, The Planning Commission approved a request for a time extension of
one year for Variance Resolution 99-021 PC. Resolution 00-014PC granted the applicant
until September 27, 2001, for commencing construction on the subject property or the
variance will expire. Staff recommends a time extension for this variance request coincide
with the time extension granted on the previous request, on September 27, 2001. If a building
permit is not approved prior to September 27, 2001, this variance will also expire.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
Sounds reasonable.
Atwood:
· Questioned if the new owner (Daniel Pinkevich) had contacted the City. Horsman
said he has not recently talked to him. Originally Pinkevich was planning to build in
the spring, but does not know if that has changed.
· September 27 is reasonable.
Stamson, Criego and Vonhof: · Concurred.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING EXTENSION OF
THE VARIANCES TIEING THEM TO THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2001 DATE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
· Councilmember Jim Ericson has been appointed as liaison for the Planning
Commission.
· Commissioners should start thinking of workshop issues and get back to staff.
· Criego suggested talking about the zoning implemented a few years ago from low-
density to medium density.
· The new Subdivision Ordinance will be coming up soon.
· Criego suggested looking at the rezoning districts.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn011601 .doc 1 5
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
· Vaughn will not be at the next meeting.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m.
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn01160 l.doc 16