Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0212012. 3. 4. A. Do REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: 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. (Continued from the January 29, 2001 meeting) Case File #00-083 Rock Creek Homes are requesting variances to minimum lot area and structure setback to the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a single family home on the property located at 5690 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE. (Continued from the January 29, 2001 meeting) Case File #01-001 Centex Home is requesting a zone change for 38.9 acres of vacant land located on the west side of CSAH 83, ¼ mile south of CSAH 42, in the East ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The proposal is to remove the Shoreland District designation from this property and to rezone the property from the current A (Agricultural) District to the R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) District. (Continued from the January 29, 2001 meeting) Case File #01-004 John and Linda Meyer are appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision to not allow a 24 foot square detached accessory structure on Lots 62 and 64, Twin Isles. (Continued from the January 29, 2001 meeting) Case Files #01-005 & 006 Pavek Family Investments Company/Hodgson Trust is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat to be known as Regal Crest to allow a cluster townhouse development consisting of 25.58 acres to be subdivided into 78 lots for townhouse units on the property located on the west side of CSAH 21 approximately ¼ mile north of CSAH 82. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 p~agenda~AG021201 .DOC 16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 0 e Ao Ao Old Business: Case File #00-086 St. Michael's Variance Resolution. (Continued from the January 29, 2001 meeting) New Business: Review Subdivision Ordinance Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: L:\01 fil~\01 plancorcan\0 lpcag~daLa, G021201 .DOC PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001 1. Call to Order: Acting Chair Stamson called the February 12, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke and Stamson, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Absent* Criego Present Lemke Present Stamson Present Vonhof Absent 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the January 16, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. *Commissioner Atwood arrived at 6:32 p.m. Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case File #00-084 (Continued) 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. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 12, 2001, on file in the office of the City Planner. Helen, Edward, Michael and Rebecca Vierling 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 R-HD (High Density Residential) and the C-BO (Business Office Park) designations to the Rural Density designation on 320 acres of land. L:\01 files\01plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 1 Plann&g Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 The Planning Commission considered this item at a public heating on January 16, 2001. At that meeting, the applicants' representatives distributed a packet of information. The Planning Commission continued the public heating in order to review this information. The public hearing was closed at that time. The January 15, 2001, letter submitted by the firm of Kelly & Fawcett, P.A., representatives of the applicants, contained several reasons they believe the Comprehensive Plan should be amended. Kansier categorically contested each item listed in their letter. 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 because it failed to meet the statutory requirements. The current Comprehensive Plan designation of the property does not preclude the use of this land for agricultural purposes. 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 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency submitted a letter dated February 1, 2001 indicating a long history with the applicant on water quality runoff issues. 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. Questions from the Commissioners: Criego: · Questioned why only 240 acres out of the 320 acres are being asked to change. Kansier said the request includes all 320 acres. The 240 acres are what the Vierlings initiated for removal. · Why would the remaining acreage have to be requested? Kansier responded it was still in the Ag Preserve Program. But it no longer meets the statutory requirements. The City has taken no steps to initiate removal of that property. · If the City would take action it would probably take 8 years? Kansier said it was her understanding the City would have to adopt a resolution stating initiation of removal and it would take 8 years before it actually came out. · Questioned the tax issues and the City's ability to take over property as well as enforce ordinances in the area. Kansier explained the public projects relating to the Ag Preserve Ordinance. · Criego and Stamson recapped the definition. · Questioned State regulations from the PCA. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 Comments from the Public: Jim Sullivan, Enforcement Project Leader for the Southeast District of the State, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, MPCA, 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155, stated the environmental issues came up in 1996 when the MPCA was first made aware of the discharge issue. The Agency and Vierlings have made some effort to address some of the issues. Sullivan said he did not want to make excuses as to why the issue has not been resolved, but there has been administrative process related to enforcement issues. They are downsizing government and the Agency has been reorganized. MPCA is looking for assurance that the discharge from the facility does not exceed State Water Quality Standards. The other option is a no discharge facility under the Federal Rules. The agency is currently negotiating with the farm to address the issues and set a corrective action plan within the next month. Criego asked if the property was in the Ag Preserve Program would the MPCA have the same rights to impose. Sullivan responded it had no impact on their ability to regulate. The Ag Program is not a program they administer. He went on to say on the Federal level, that there are a number of grant program to help farmers. Sullivan said he is not aware of the affects of the City's Comprehensive Plan; the District Conservationists for the NRCS could answer that better. Criego questioned if the land was in Ag Preserve, would the regulations referred to still apply. Sullivan said "Absolutely, the MPCA regulations still stand". Being in the Ag Program may not help with the funding. Commissioner Stamson re-opened the public hearing. Comments from the Public: Attorney Patrick Kelly of Kelly & Fawcett Law Firm in St. Paul, representing the Vierlings, said the key issue is that the City Planners are representing no plans of rezoning. The Vierlings are asking for purposes of the farm operation to allow them to go into the Ag Preserve. The Vierlings want to continue farming and have no plans to rezone. It is important to allow the farming operation to continue. They have an 8 year plan and the Ag Preserve allows farming without intrusion from local regulations. Michael Vierling, 13985 Pike Lake Trail, said his farm produces soybeans and milk. In 1976 the State of Minnesota certified the Vierling farm as a century farm. There are State programs to protect the land from 10 to 30 years. Vierling said he did not want to put money into the operation and two years later have the City come and take his land. He has to improve the feedlot. At the last meeting the neighbors said they wanted the Vierlings to farm. The Constitution said there should be freedom. Vierling felt it was not fair he should lose out on all the programs just because he lives in Prior Lake. The City is saying it is ready to develop. He would like to continue farming at least 10 years until he knows what his kids want to do. If he continues farming for 10 years, the 2020 Plan will still be 10 years away. That is why his Dad took the land out of Ag Preserve because L:\01 fi les\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 you don't know what the future is going to be. Vierling quoted the Prior Lake American quoted the City, Mayor Wes Mader and a neighbor. He said he felt if the City doesn't let his family farm with his kids, you might as well get a machine gun and blow everyone away. Gary Matson, 4584 Hummingbird Trail, lived in Prior Lake two years, said everyone is taken away by the beauty of the Vierling farm. He hopes that carries some weight. Dan Klamm, 4130 140th Street, said his family fought for this Country, it bothers him to see how this piece of America and history is going down. It bothers him that the Ag Preserve gives the City the power to stop whatever makes the Vierling farm go. Klamm told the Commissioners to give it to the Vierlings, turn the cheek and help them farm. People move to Prior Lake for recreation, quality of life, quality people, a good time and a community that cares for one another. Kimbel R. Raden, 14211 Shore Lane, does not know what Council members like or dislike the farms. People who like the farm probably had relatives on the farm and probably had to actually go out and work for a days living. The people who don't like farms would rather slip a gas station here or there or on somebody else. They're not really telling anybody what is going on because they know how to make a little more money for the City. He stated he understands making money for the City. One of the reasons he moved to the City is because of Mike and Becky's farm. Radin is from a farm background and military background and comes from a hardworking family. He totally respects anyone who goes out and works day in and day out. When it is up to a group of people to decide for a man or woman for their kids' fate not to be able to carry on what they want to do. He felt every citizen in Prior Lake should know who hates the open spaces and farms. Then we know who we're up against. It is good for everybody. Raden felt the Commissioners should side with the farm. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: It is hard to fight the issue of having or not having a farm. I would love to see the farm another 300 years. It is not the issue. I would love to have open land all around. Prior Lake is growing. How do we grow sensibly without causing hardship for individuals? Prior Lake is a small community and limited for growth. · The question is, do we want to grow the City any larger than it is now? The 2020 Comprehensive Plan does say that we need to grow and we will grow based on various input from the citizens of Prior Lake. There have been many meetings on the Comprehensive Plan and they address all these issues before us tonight. Do we all agree? Obviously not. · Would I like to have many more farms? Absolutely. · Is it possible long term? Probably not. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 I would love to slow the process. The one thing that comes back to me. Not against the Ag Preserve Program if it has benefits for the Vierling family. · Concern is that once it goes back to Ag Preserve. It could stay that way for another 150 years to 300 years. Is that really what the citizens of Prior Lake want.'? · This is an emotional issue. · Not clear after all the testimony from Mr. Kelly and the City what the true benefit of the Ag Preserve Program other than it leaves control within the family. Which we all know in 1993 the family decided to pull out of the Ag Preserve. It was not the City nor the citizens decision, it was the Vierling's decision. · I believe there was a logical reason Mr. Vierling did that. We do not know what Mr. Vierling saw. · If I could get a guaranty of 8 to 10 years, I would be more than happy to agree. But the fact is once it goes back to preserve it could be locked up forever. Stamson: Don't come up and point your finger and say you are going to force them off the farm after you just moved in to a new house on somebody else's farm. People have to realize the decisions made affect somebody. It is not the City who is the bad guy here, the City is responding to what is going on in the community. · Prior Lake is a growing community and we have these issues before us. The City is responding not initiating this issue. · Agreed with Criego, the farm is an asset to the community. The issue is not that the City wants the farm. · The Comprehensive Plan is long term. The realty is this community will not be rural in 2020, regardless of the actions taken today. What the City is saying is if the Vieflings decide to sell, and someone decides to develop, the City would like the land use to be Business Office Park and high density. The decision to sell is entirely up to Mr. Vierling. · There has to be some type of plan that drives the City in the future to say here is what we want the City to look like, so it is an efficient and an attractive City at the time it is built. Otherwise it will end up haphazard like cities out east that develop without this type of planning. · I downloaded information from the State and read through Agriculture Preserve which repeats over and over again, is long-term farm uses. Their idea of long term is 8 years to get it out. Their idea of long term is a minimum of 8. · Mr. Vierling stated he would like to farm 8 to 10 years. He will not be forced out. The marketing conditions in this area are not going to force him off in that amount of time. The surrounding cities and suburbs will more likely attract developers before Prior Lake. It is not in demand. · The idea of Ag Preserve was not to cut a deal for a few years. The program stresses long-term farming. Even Mr. Vierling stated it is not his intent. He is looking at 10 years. That is not the intention of the Ag Preserve program. · The issue is what the Comp Plan does and what it needs to be. Rural residential was designed for area where there are no services available to allow agriculture L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 uses for a longer term, maybe 30 or 40 years. This is not appropriate for this place. · The feeling of the Commissioners and Council five years ago and when the Comprehensive Plan was recently update the idea was this area will develop 15 to 20 years out. · The uses are appropriate. Cannot support changes. Lemke: · Agreed with the comments from the Commissioners. It is an emotional issue. · What we are talking about is not what the land is going to be used for tomorrow. It is zoned Agriculture, tomorrow it will be agriculture. We are talking about somewhere in the future. If the land is developed what will it look like. · I wouldn't be truthful or honest to say 20 or 30 years down the road that it will still be agriculture. · Anyone else moving out here has the right to look at a Comprehensive Plan and know what the future of that land will look like. · Mr. Vierling and his attorney, Mr. Kelly stated the land would be developed some day. · Will not support changing the existing designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Atwood: · Couldn't agree more on an emotionally charged issue. · Is rural density appropriate? Kansier explained the designation and the services. · If the Comprehensive Plan is amended, what is the process and the cost for the City? Kansier explained the process - two ways it could be amended again. The City would do an update of the plan. The costs are staff time, publications, public hearing notices and hearing costs. The other option would be for the property owner to file an amendment, the process is the same - go before the Planning Commission and then the final decision is made by the City Council. The filing fees generally do not cover the full cost of the process. The cost if initiated by the City is paid by the taxpayers. · Time frame? Kansier said it could take 45 to 90 days depending on meeting schedules. · The Metropolitan Council needs to approve all Comp Plan Amendments. · The Planning Commission is an advisory committee who makes a recommendation to the City Council. · What does it look like to the citizens of Prior Lake if the Comp Plan is amended? Kansier explained it gives residents and others who move here an idea of what the plan will be through the year 2020. The document can be changed. · Nobody will come in and take the Vierling farm a minute after 2020. Some people see this as a threat of taking the farm. · See no reason not to let them apply for the Ag Preserve program. · There are two sides to everything. Does not see a burden on the City to change the Comp Plan. · Would like to see the Vierlings step up to the plate and pay the costs. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting February 12. 2001 · If this does not pass, the Commission does not make the final decision; no one is trying to take away the beautiful farm. Criego: · Missing something, a month ago, the taxes were one of the big issues. The Vierlings claimed it was a tax problem if it was not in Ag Preserve. That is not SO. · Two things are coming across. One is the fear the City is going to do something that would inhibit you from farming. The second concern is putting up any accessory structures because of requests the City might require. · The MPCA says they are trying to help the Vierlings to not pollute the water and there is some funding available to help. The only thing I can put my finger on is fear of the City taking over some of the property. · Mike Vierling said, "Just look at what the City did to the Mendens and Kops. Look what they had to do to fight. The Kops lost their farm. I'm the only one left. The Jeffers farm is going to be developed. The City took their farms away. The City is always looking for parks, fire stations, whatever. Why should I put in thousands of dollars into that feedlot and like the MPCA said if I don't get into the Ag Preserve Program I won't get no funding. Why should I put all the money in? What is the difference in the Zoning? The City can take it out tomorrow." · Kansier responded the City could not take it out unless the Comprehensive Plan was amended. · Why would the City amend it now then turn around and amend it again? It doesn't make sense. · Vierling asked if the City could guarantee 10 years? · The concern is what could happen is that the kids and their kids want to continue farming and more power to them. At least in the Comprehensive Plan · We as citizens have seen what happens when a City tries to take over land. There is a huge outcry and there should be. There is no intent of takeover of the farm. It is up to the Vierlings if they want to develop the property. · Vierling questioned what would happen if he guaranteed he would take it out in 10 years. · Kansier pointed out Mr. Vierling's intentions are good but probably not legal. It would be provisional contract zoning which is illegal in the State. The City would have to talk to the City Attorney. · Mr. Kelly said he was a City Attorney for a number of cities in the metropolitan area and stated agreements could be made in unique situations like this and amend the Comprehensive Plan at any time. The City is under the obligation under the 2020 plan to re-look at the Comprehensive Plan. Kelly said the Vierlings could give the City a guarantee in 10 years they are going to be out farming. They want the 10 years to allow the farming use based on their land use experts and engineers. The Ag Preserve gives the Vierlings all the things they want to do. · Do we (Commissioners) need legal advice on the 10 year agreement? Kansier said they would. · Can the Commissioners pass a recommendation to City Council with certain conditions and let City Council and the legal staff decide if it is appropriate? L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 Kansier said there is nothing stopping the Commission from making a recommendation. Stamson: · Opposed to that approach, it is bad government. This is a long term planning document. The idea for government is to treat the community as a whole and look out for the entire community's best interest. The drive is to direct development further out. This would happen all over the City if that if that is agreed to. · Agree it is a tough decision. Criego: · The Comp Plan is known for a long range plan, do not see any problem modifying the plan. Stamson: · It should be modified on situations that are changing to alter the long term plans. We can't make long term plans reflect short term goals. That is not the way to do it. Atwood: · Questioned Criego why 10 years makes him feel better? Criego responded if there is no time limit it can be farmed for the next 300 years. That is detrimental to the City of Prior Lake. To have the City give up that right at this point is not a proper judgment. The proper judgment would be to give the citizens and the Vierlings what they need. And if that is 10 years more power to them. That doesn't mean they have to stop farming, it just comes out of the Ag Preserve. · Questioned Criego why he felt if the Vierlings farmed another 10 years it would be detrimental to Prior Lake. Criego felt in the Ag Preserve program it is. The Green Acre program is fine. At some point a developer will pay an enormous price to develop that land. If it is in the Ag Preserve it will take 8 years to get out of the program. By that time the developer will be long gone and find another piece of property. If it's not in the Ag Preserve, the Vierlings can sell the property at that point and take advantage of the offer. · Questioned Criego why he (the City) would be making that decision for the Vierlings. Criego responded the Vierlings took the land out of the Ag Preserve in 1993, it was not the City. · The City based their 1995 Comprehensive Plan on the Vierlings taking the land out of the Ag Preserve. It was done that way because of the Vierlings. · Criego felt 10 years was a good compromise. The Comprehensive Plan is a 20 year document. · The Vierlings should be able to decide. Does not have a problem with the Vierlings staying in Ag Preserve. · Criego responded that the Comprehensive Plan which was discussed with the citizens of Prior Lake, the Planning Commission and City Council and because of the.actions of the Vierlings they decided to make the land something different L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 from farming. Now because of financial considerations and a fear of the government, the Vierlings would like the Ag Program to be re-instituted for a period of time. I can accept that, but not forever. They can still farm forever; no one says they can't, just not under the Ag Preserve program. Stamson: The bottom line is there is no financial impact. The real concern is that the City is going to initiate something that will cease the existence of the farm, which may or may not happen. · Criego felt the Commission is a buffer between the citizens of Prior Lake and the government. The City may or may not cease the operation. The chances of stopping the operation are minute. Understand Vierlings' fear. · This document has been worked on for a long time and under the scrutiny of the Met Council and now we're talking about changing. We should not base the amendment on one family's fear of what is not going to happen. This is not the way to run a government. It is not good for the balance of the citizens of Prior Lake. Kansier explained the Comprehensive Plan and all approvals from the Met Council. Atwood: · Does not want to be part of a Commission that anyone can stand up and put a Superamerica in my next door lot. That's not what we're doing here. · There is tons of sentiment in this community and this property is a landmark, for those reasons we should extend a hand for some peace of mind, whether or not we agree with it. Their fears are real. Why tie their (the Vierlings) hands behind their back. Stamson: · There is no concrete actionable thing the City is doing to stop the farming operation. The fear something might happen is a less valid reason to re-write the ordinance. · This is a primary piece of real estate. It is on the comer to two major roads in a developing community. Is the best use of that land rural residential? It is not what Mr. Vierling wants to do with is property, that's up to him. From the City's point of view, is rural residential the best use for that property? It is not, long term. · If Mr. Vierling wants to stay in the farm, that's up to him. What the Comprehensive Plan does is set an instance if he decides to quit farming what is going to happen to it? · We are discussing a planning document and what the purpose is. Atwood: · Agreed. But felt there are certain circumstances that dictate certain allowances and this one of the instances. · Believes the average citizen in Prior Lake would agree. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 Lemke: · Questioned Mr. Kelly on eminent domain protection. Kelly mad thc Met Council's interpretation. · Understand under eminent domain thc land can bc condemned in a one year time frame. · Kelly said that definition is going on the Ag Preserve Program. · Kelly responded thc Vicrlings arc concerned that a government agency will come in and condemn part of the farm. The Ag Preserve will protect them from any government agency and let them continue farming. · Thc authority's right under eminent domain, thc 8 years would not be an ironclad guarantee. If an authority came in to condemn this property even though it is in Ag Preserve, the EQB would look at it and say no other alternative exists, they can only delay it for one year if another alternative exist. Kelly said those procedures are on a high standard of taking the farming operation as a priority for the purpose of statute. There are a number of hoops. It's not just saying we want this land for "x" purpose. It has to be balanced out. · Kansicr noted that procedure applies when acquiring land or casement having an ama of 10 acres or more. This procedure is over and above thc eminent domain procedure in the Ag Preserve. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF STATUS ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE CONDITION WITHIN TWO YEARS THE PROCESS TO TAKE IT OUT OF AG PRESERVE IS UNDERTAKEN BY THE OWNER THEREBY ALLOWING IT TO BE OUT OF THE AG PRESERVE WITHIN TEN YEARS. Vote taken indicated ayes by Atwood and Criego, nays by Stamson and Lemke. The motion fails. The deadline for the City to take action is in March. It can go the City Council with no recommendation. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO DENY THE REQUEST. Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson and Lemke, nays by Atwood and Criego. The Motion fails. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO TABLE THE REQUEST TO THE FEBRUARY 26, 2001, MEETING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:00 p.m. Themeeting reconvened at 8:11 p.m. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 B. Case File #00-083 Rock Creek Homes are requesting variances to minimum lot area and structure setback to the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a single family home on the property located at 5690 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated February 12, 2001, on file in the office of the City Planner. The Planning Department received a variance application from Rock Creek Homes, LLC (applicant), representing Christopher Rooney (owner), for the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on the property located at 5690 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE. The following variances are requested: · A 418 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 7,082 square feet for the lot to be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes, rather than the required minimum 7,500 square feet · A 2.1-foot variance to allow a structure setback of 51.2 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet, rather than the required setback of 53.3 feet as determined by setback averaging. Department of Natural Resources Hydrologist Patrick Lynch submitted comments on this request. In essence, the DNR is not opposed to the proposed variance provided the correct setback averaging is utilized, and the applicant is advised that any future requests for a variance to add a deck will not be viewed favorably by the DNR. Staff determined a legal alternative building envelope exists, which meets the front yard set back of 35.5 feet as proposed, and meets the lakeside setback averaging of 53.3 feet. This provides for a building footprint of approximately 47.9 feet by 34 feet for a total area of 1,628.6 square feet. A resident adjacent to the subject lot submitted a letter with views opposed to the requested variances. Staff recommended approving the lot area variance and denying the setback variance request. Criego questioned if the owners of Lot 33 also owned Lot 32. Horsman said it was his understanding it was. Comments from the Public: Applicant Dan Schafer, of Rock Creek Homes, 16817 Duluth Avenue SE, said they are proposing a new single family structure. They are utilizing the 150 foot setback averaging. All the other setbacks have been met. The neighboring properties on Fairlawn are sitting on a 25 foot setback. They would like to be consistent with the L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 neighbors. If the 2.1 foot setback against the high water level is not acceptable they would request the setback variance be to the street side. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · Questioned thc street setback at 25 feet. Horsman said under the new ordinance the Code requires a street setback averaging with existing lots of record. In thc new development it would be 25 feet. Criego: · Questioned the front setback. Horsman explained the ordinance. The minimum setback is 25 feet. · No problem with the first requested variance. · Did not agree to give the lakeside variance. Move forward. Stamson: · Agreed with Criego the lot size variance is need. The house is not oversized. · The setback in the front is reasonable given the lot area. Atwood and Lemke: · Agreed. Atwood: · Keep the neighbors in mind regarding the trucks and parking. Criego: · The Commission is really strict on impervious surface. Any future request for a deck would not be agreed to. If this is the size house you want without a deck, design it that way. · Question to staff in regards setbacks with the substandard lots - 10 feet on one side and 5 on the other, what is happening with the air conditioning units? · Horsman said mechanical equipment are only permitted in the back or front of the building. · Asked the developer Schafer what his plans were. Schafer said they discussed the location of the AC unit and will put it on the lake side. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01- 005PC GRANTING A 418 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT AREA OF 7,082 SQUARE FEET FOR A LOT TO BE UTILIZED FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING PURPOSES, RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM AREA OF 7,500 SQUARE FEET. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A 2.1 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. C. Case File #01-001 Centex Home is requesting a zone change for 38.9 acres of vacant land located on the west side of CSAH 83, ¼ mile south of CSAH 42, in the East ½ of the NW 1/4 of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The proposal is to remove the Shoreland District designation from this property and to rezone the property from the current A (Agricultural) District to the R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) District. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 12, 2001, on file in the office of the City Planner. Centex Homes and John O'Loughlin have filed an application for a Zone Change for the property located on the west side of CSAH 83, ¼ mile south of CSAH 42, in the East ~2 of the Northwest ¼ of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The request is to rezone the property from the A (Agricultural) District to the R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) District, and to remove the Shoreland District designation from the site. The proposed R-2 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The R-2 district allows residential development with densities up to 7.2 units per acre. This would allow townhouse development, as well as 6,000 square foot single family residential lots. The Shoreland District definition and Minnesota Rules allow the reduction of the Shoreland District if the natural drainage area of the property is away from the water body. In this case, the property lies outside of the Mystic Lake drainage area and drains to the northwest. The Planning staff recommended approval of the request. The proposed R-2 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation. In addition, the property lies outside of the practical limits of the Mystic Lake Shoreland District. Pat Lynch, Area Hydrologist from the DNR has also reviewed this request and has no objections. Sue McDermott, City Engineer, said the City received a preliminary grading plan and there is no drainage going towards Mystic Lake. Comments from the Public: L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 13 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 Developer, Steve Ach, Centex, 12400 Whitewater Drive, Minnetonka, said he agreed with the Planning Report. He reminded the Commission he presented a concept plan several weeks ago. They have several constraints with the property, i.e. surrounding zoning and topography. One of the reason they are requesting the R2 zone is to look for a blend of uses with transitional townhomes to single family homes. The overall density is around 3.8 units per acre well short of the 7 that R2 allows. Regarding the Shoreland Ordinance request, their drainage will go to the north. The plan is to berm as much as possible along County Road 83 and provide an aesthetic buffering and grade change to further enhance the visual separation from the development and Mystic Lake. Criego questioned Ach on the existing stand of trees. Ach stated they were going to preserve as many of the trees as possible. A tree inventory had been sent to the City. Some will be removed because of the drainage. Overall, the developer will enhance the buffer. Julie Cleary, 2920 Pineview Drive said she wanted to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. The cost and home values of the residents of The Wilds far exceed the cost of the proposed units across County Road 83. Cleary stated she was concerned that every comer has turned into townhomes similar to Savage. The southern border area of The Wilds has also turned into a number oftownhomes as well as the proposed west area with lower income properties. Cleary is concerned with lowering the value of The Wilds property. Stanley Ellison, Land and Natural Resource Director of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, 2330 Sioux Trail NW, has no concern for removing the property from the Shoreland area stating it is clearly not a drainage basin for Mystic Lake. The Community opposes the rezoning from the R2. First there are many potentials for environmental issues including high slopes and drainage. The R2 zoning and high density that comes up with townhomes, will create difficulty given the steep slopes and the amount of impermeable surface that would have to go in with the townhomes to get this project, will create wetland impacts and serious potential erosions. The second issue is that the housing may not be the best use of the property. The Community has commercial property to the south; the area to the north is guided for commercial. Single family housing does not generate a lot of cash flow. Ellison's third concern is for the service area. This project will be going in with the joint City, Council and Tribal project which is not going in the within the next year. McDermott said there are existing sewer and water stubs on County Road 83 and The Wilds, which will not affect the project. Atwood questioned Ellison on the single family dwelling generating a large cash flow. Ellison explained how there is no on-going cash flows with single family homes. This property has extremely steep slopes. A large amount of grading will take place and the area will still remain steep with a very large potential for runoff into the wetland damaging water quality. The townhomes make it worse. L:501 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 14 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 Stamson said the majority of the housing will be single family. Stamson asked what Ellison felt was a better use to alleviate the problems. Ellison said single family from a purely technical standpoint of water quality is a fairly reasonable use. Because there is commercial zoning on the surrounding areas, people will not want to pay a lot of money for a lot when their view will be the back of a 7-11. Stamson questioned the Community's plan for the surrounding property? Ellison said the west will be single family housing and the steep slope will be put into native prairie grass and an oak savannah as a buffer zone for the housing up on the hill and the wetland on the bottom. The large commercial area will be the City's property to the north. Lemke questioned the DNR's letter regarding the runoff. Ellison said some of the project's runoff will go directly into the wetland. There are other issues with downstream permitting. Chris Dahl, 15259 Wilds Parkway, said he took a lot of time to find the appropriate site to live. They came from a townhouse development and it is not what they wanted to move into. Dahl said he is dismayed they have townhomes outside their front door. Now the west and east entrances will have townhomes. Hopes the City does not give into the townhome developments stating he likes the small community. Kansier clarified the R1 zone does not preclude townhouses at a lower density. The density for R1 3.6 units per acre. The difference for the R2 zoning is the smaller single family lots. Peter Hennen, 15249 Wilds Parkway, said he is for development. His concerns are for traffic near the entrances and what is the anticipated price range for the homes. What are the number of units? Stamson said right now they are looking at the rezoning issue and do not have a lot of detail on the planning. Kansier said one entrance will be off Wilds Parkway. The traffic study is going on with the redevelopment on County Road 83. McDermott said the County would to see the main entrance west of County Road 83 up further on the north property line with a 3A entrance off Wilds Parkway. Tony Firollo, 14504 Wilds Parkway shared the same concern with the traffic. The existing traffic is heavy on County Road 83. He does not want to see people cutting through The Wilds as a shortcut. His other concern was the price range of the development stating he lives in an upper bracket home and felt the proposed development will lower the value of his home. Chris Dahl, questioned the developer on the price range of the homes stating if the homes are going to be $90,000, let him know now so he can sell his house and get out before the homes are built. Everyone at The Wilds is living in a $400,000 to $700,000 home and are concerned with this project. Ach said they are looking at two different products $225,000 to 250,000 for single family homes. Originally the townhomes were going to L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 15 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 be in the $150,000 to $160,000 range. Suspects that may go up with the constraints on the site. Shakopee has smaller lots but the average home is $230,000. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: · Appreciate the homeowners concern, but there is so much commercial across the street. Lemke: · Initial thought was with Atwood's point indicating the commercial property across the street. · The developer is not going to be building $600,000 homes similar to The Wilds. · The plan is appropriate. Maybe change the mix. Criego: · This issue is whether to zone R2, immaterial for what is planned. That is the next stage. Concern for the topography. · Part of the process in the next step is to deal with the steep slopes. · The issue is to rezone to R1 or R2. · Because of the lay of the land, it makes more sense to stack the townhomes in a confined area leaving the steep slopes and trees. This was never designated as commercial property in the Comprehensive Plan. · R1 basically says there will be a lot of single family homes with a lot of acreage. But those homes would take away most of the slopes and cause a lot of grading. R2 at least we (the City) has the ability to retain the slopes and condense the homes to a point where the slopes are not disturbed. · R2 is the correct zone. Stamson: · Agreed with Criego the issue is zoning. · It has been designated for residential property. High density and Commercial designations are not appropriate. · The trouble with RI and the larger lots is that it spreads out the homes. More acreage is used. With R2 you can cluster the homes and preserve the natural features and leave the open spaces. R2 allows a smaller minimum lot size than RI. That is the advantage of R2 in this particular case. In the long run that type of approach will give a nicer approach. R2 is appropriate. The density in this case actually meets the RI. · There is no concern for the Wilds residents; a development like this does not have a negative impact. Prior Lake has developments where one has to drive through an industrial park to get to it. The developer is still building $250,000 and $300,000 homes. That type of thing has a lot less proven impact than people imagine it will. It is not an issue. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 16 Planning Commission Meeting February 12. 2001 · There will be traffic problems but would be that way with any development going in. ,, Work with developer to preserve the natural features. The Commission will really look at preservation when the plat comes in. MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE FROM THE A (AGRICULTURE) DISTRICT TO THE R-2 (LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND TO REMOVE THE DESCRIBED PROPRETY FROM THE MYSTIC LAKE SHORELAND DISTRICT. Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on February 20, 2001. D. Case File #01-004 John and Linda Meyer are appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision to not allow a 24 foot square detached accessory structure on Lots 62 and 64, Twin Isles. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated February 12, 2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The Planning Department received an appeal notice from Attorney Bryce D. Huemoeller (Applicant), representing John & Linda Meyer (Owners). The appeal regards the Planning Departments decision to not permit construction of an accessory structure on two vacant lots on "Twin Isles". The applicant's request to allow the construction was submitted to the City in a letter dated December 15, 2000. On December 28, 2000, staff responded and denied the request with an explanation and the option to appeal the decision. This case originated from a complaint in September 1999, regarding the construction of an accessory building on two vacant lots on "Twin Isles", specifically Lots 62 and 64. Upon inspection, staff determined the construction had commenced without the necessary building permits. The property owner was notified of the violation and halted construction. The owner's first option was to apply for a building permit to construct a seasonal cabin on the vacant lots because accessory structures are not permitted. On September 18, 2000, the City adopted Ordinance Amendment 00-22 that permits accessory structures on two or more nonconforming lots under single ownership that are separated by a private road or driveway from the lot containing the principal structure. The owner is now proposing to combine lots 62 and 64, with Lots 43, 44, and 45, which contain the principal structure, and complete construction of the accessory building. An appeal to the decision of the Zoning Administrator is not site specific and affects the way in which the ordinance is applied in all situations. In summary, the listed permitted "Uses" for accessory structures in the general provisions code section are not listed permitted "Uses" in the special provisions code section for island development. In L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 17 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 addition, the City staff's long-standing policy has been to interpret the ordinance as not permitting accessory structures on "Twin Isles". The staff therefore recommends the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the appeal as requested. Comments from the public: Jim Bates, attorney for the applicant, 16670 Franklin Trail, stated this is a fairly narrow legal issue. He disagreed with staff interpretation of the ordinance and felt the Island ordinance is directed to maintaining uses of the property are on a seasonal basis. It is reasonable to expect that someone who uses the property on a seasonal basis may have need for an accessory structure. If you mow the lawn, you do not want to store it in the cabin residence. The new ordinance which allows combining lots separated by a driveway and putting an accessory structure that is separated from the main structure is appropriate to this circumstance. He felt the ordinance gives the opportunity to come before the Commission and have them determined if it meets the ordinance. Bates felt it follows the function of the ordinance on a base by base issue. The decision is interpreting the ordinance. With all due respect to staff, it is up to the Planning Commission and City Council to make the decision. They do not believe there is a conflict. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · The concern with Mr. Bates comments is the private road accepts the accessory structure. Staff is interpreting the ordinance correctly. · It is very clear that Island uses are not permitted. · Agreed with staff. Lemke: · The way the City interprets the ordinance. The amendment was after the Island ordinances. · Stamson explained the ordinance. The Island is not permitted. · The plain language of the amendment says that if a lot is separated by a road you can build an accessory structure in an R1. · Stamson replied in an R1 district an accessory structure is a permitted use. It is not permitted on the Island development. The amendment is in a distinct section of the ordinance. Criego: · It is clear the subdivision does not allow garages on Twin Island. It is also very clear the subdivision supercedes the general provision. Whether it makes sense or not, you should be able to have a garage on Twin Island. Most homes have accessory buildings on the Island. The realty is, they are there. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 1 8 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 The approach should be a change in the ordinance rather than a variance. Looking at this for a variance is clearly "No". Maybe more willing to change the ordinance. If the Commission accepts the variance that means anyone else can come forward and ask for a variance. · If the Commission decides the variance is appropriate what is done with the existing accessory building on the property? Do we allow 2 accessory buildings? Allow 1, maybe bigger than the applicant requested? Remove one? There are a number of issues. Stamson: · This is not a variance request it is a decision appeal. · The decision is how the Island ordinance applies. The Island ordinance does not supercede the general ordinance. In that case it will apply to more than just accessory structures. It will apply to how they build cabins and the Shoreland District. · Rye responded there are two issues: 1) The appeal and 2) Some kind of amendment to the ordinance. The Commission can agree or disagree with staff's interpretation. If the Commission wants to pursue something beyond that, you have an option to look at the ordinance. Criego: · Believe the interpretation is correct but need to look at whether or not to change the ordinance at a later time. Atwood: · Agreed with Criego that staff interpreted the ordinance correctly, but need to look at the ordinance. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01- 04PC DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO NOT PERMIT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR ISLAND DEVELOPMENT Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBLITY FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING FOR STORAGE PURPOSES ON ISLAND DEVELOPMENTS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Horsman explained the appeal process. E. Case Files #01-005 & 006 Pavek Family Investments Company/Hodgson Trust is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat to be known as Regal Crest to allow a cluster townhouse development consisting of 25.58 acres to be L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 19 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 subdivided into 78 lots for townhouse units on the property located on the west side of CSAH 21 approximately ¼ mile north of CSAH 82. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 12, 2001, on file in the office of the City Planner. Pavek Family Investments Company and Hodgson Trust have applied for approval of a development to be known as Regal Crest on the property located on the west side of CSAH 21, 1/4 mile north of CSAH 82. The application includes the following requests: · Approve a Conditional Use Permit for a cluster development; · Approve a Preliminary Plat. The proposal calls for a cluster townhouse development consisting of a total of 78 dwelling units on 23.81 net acres, for a total density of 3.3 units per acre. The proposed development includes 20 dwelling units in 6 four-unit buildings, 48 dwelling units in 16 three-unit buildings and 10 dwelling units in 5 two-unit buildings. The development also includes private open space. Staff felt the site is suitable for cluster development due to the topography, wetlands and the existing trees on the site. The proposal attempts to preserve many of the steep slopes by designating this area as common open space. Some modifications to the plans, however, will improve the preservation of these slopes and preserve more of the mature trees. These modifications include the following: · Eliminate the units identified as Lots 6-8, Block 3, 2nd Addition. This will preserve slopes exceeding 20% as well as some of the mature trees. · Eliminate the units identified as Lots 9-11, Block 2, 2nd Addition. This will preserve several mature trees. · Limit the buildings on the north side of Street "A", shown as Lots 12-21, Block 2, 2nd Addition, to 2- and 3-unit buildings. This will enable the buildings to be spaced further apart and will preserve more mature trees. · Center the temporary cul-de-sac on the east end of Street "A", and move the building identified as Lots 1-4, Block 3, 2nd Addition, to the north so it is setback 25' from the permanent right-of-way. This will preserve additional trees. The primary issue relating to the preliminary plat is the storm water runoff to the property to the south. This issue can be mitigated by the acquisition of a drainage easement. It is the developer's responsibility to obtain this easement. There are also several engineering issues remaining; however, these issues can be resolved prior to approval of the final plat. The major outstanding issue pertaining to this development is the staff recommendation for the elimination of certain units. This has an effect on the design of the site. However, it is possible to allow this application to move forward with a specific recommendation to L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 20 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 the Council. The design issues, including the number of units, the landscaping and tree preservation plans, and the submittal of building elevations must be addressed prior to City Council review. On that basis, the staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the Planning Report. Stamson: Concern with forwarding and making major modifications. Kansicr responded if the applicants had substantial redesigns the City would recommend a new application and go before the Planning Commission. Comments from the public: Darin Pavek, representing the Pavek Family Investment Company for College City Homes said they are based out of Lakeville and have been building in the area for 35 years. Regal Crest will be upper level townhomes with prices from $250,000 to $400,000. Many units will have 3 car garages. They have combined driveway accesses and third car stalls to increase the curb appeal. These units will have extensive landscaping, sprinkler system and a homeowners association to take care of all the exterior maintenance. Over 500 trees will be planted on the site. Upon staff's recommendation a neighborhood meeting was held. The main concern from the neighbors would be the traffic and access on County Road 21. Pavek said they are excited to move the project forward but are concerned with removing some of the units. Peter Knaeble, engineer from Terra Engineering, stated most of his comments were addressed by Kansier. He added the 2020 Comp Plan is currently designated urban low to medium density residential which allows up to 10 units per acre. Their project with 78 units are under the zoning classification at 3.3 units per acre. This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the adjacent to the western development mix of townhomes and single family. They are not asking for a rezoning but a conditional use permit, which is allowable under the R1 district. The proposal meets the zoning provisions. The neighbor's concern is with the access on County Road 21. There will be two accesses. Scott County concurred the appropriate connection is at Windsong Circle. The other access will connect to Wensmann's development at Jeffer's Pass. The stub roads to the north and south will provide future access to the undeveloped property. The cluster housing ordinance is specific. They are under the maximum 4 units per building at 2 to 4 units. The development is also three times the maximum open space requirement. Knaeble explained the open space area, protecting the natural environment (trees and wetland) and trail system. They concurred with Staff's conditions in the Planning Report and will make the recommended revisions. Dan Metzger, 4130 Windsong Circle, said two high buck developments have tried to make it in Prior Lake over the last 10 to 15 years. Windsong and The Wilds developments still have available lots. What does work is townhome projects. But what happens is an increase in the population and infrastructure that creates concern for the surrounding property owners. Metzger's main concern is the proposed road across from Windsong Circle. There is a significant drop to get to the access. Metzger spoke on the L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 21 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 existing casino traffic. A traffic light at the intersection will not work, it is too dangerous. Atwood: Questioned what Metzger sees as a solution. Metzger said aside from not liking the development he would like the access to come out at Lord's Street or build a road along the wetland and come out at Lord's Street. The entrance through another development is not going to work; residents will use the quickest route. Kim Crooks, 3839 Eagle Creek Circle, representing her 18 year old daughter said her concern is with the runoff and cited some of the existing runoff problems. She felt the plans indicated the grading would run off to her property. McDermott said the engineering department reviewed the plans and have concerns with the grading and will continue to work with the engineer. Crooks pointed out a small spring on the edge of her property. McDermott said she was not aware of the spring. Stanley Ellison, Land and Natural Resource Manager for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, 2330 Sioux Trail, stated the Community agreed with Staff's recommendation to take care of the larger wetland issues. He also pointed out the Community was not included in the neighborhood meeting. Ellison felt the wetland impact was calculated incorrectly. The replacement wetland area does not meet State law. The Commission needs to make sure they are met. The grading along the north end is poorly conceived. The eastern most home on the tribal land will have drainage directly into the swimming pool. The storm water issue is related to this. The runoff is going into tribal land and needs to be addressed. The traffic issue is major. The woods are one of the last remaining maple area is Scott County. It is a significant piece of history. Cutting down and replacing 2" trees will not have the same ecological system performance that exists today. There are a number of minor issues to be dealt with the City Engineer. The Community agreed with staff on taking out some of the townhomes along County Road 21. Ellison requested to be included in any neighborhood meeting. Kneable addressed some of the issues. The access to Windsong Circle is appropriate and acceptable to Scott County and the City. This is the first of a number of developments in the neighborhood. There will be other connections. Knaeble's felt their calculations off this existing site will have less runoff than it has today. They meet and exceed the Wetland Conservation regulations. 100% of street runoff will go into the NURP pond on site. They are not going to clear cut the trees. Atwood questioned the access. Knaeble explained the additional access on County Road 21. The County felt the access meets the site distance. Knaeble pointed out they received the surrounding property list of the neighbors from the County. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshnn021201 .doc 22 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 Dino Howard, 15351 Schroeder Circle, attended the neighborhood meeting and said there were a lot of concerns. Her concern is for safety on the existing County Road 21 and explained the site problem coming out of the proposed access. It is not appropriate. She would like to see a cul-de-sac in that area. Consider the safety issues. It sounds like the project has a number of issues to address. Howard felt the applicant should come back with the corrected issues. The public meeting was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: · Familiar with the area. There are safety concerns with the access. · There are no resolutions from the developer as far as removing some of the buildings. Atwood: · This matter should be continued. There is a large list of issues to be discussed. · Would like to see staff's considerations addressed by the developer. Stamson: Overall the development fits the area. It is a tight area to design. Cluster housing will preserve the natural environment. Agreed with staffon removing some of the units. Understands the safety concerns by the neighbors. · There will be access problems on County Road 21. · The County is very diligent on what they allow. The County felt the site lines were well within the norm for what a County considers a safe speed. If they don't agree they will come back with alternatives. It is closely regulated. Does not see a problem with the access point. · Not comfortable sending this to Council. Criego: · Kansier explained the Conditional Use Permit. · The applicant has to use a CLIP for cluster housing. · The approach is right and the plan is good. It is best for the property. · Concern is the main trees are on the north side and a little bit on the south. It is very important to maintain the forest of trees and not take out 50% of the trees. · With any plan that I would agree to, would be to maintain the woods and preserve the area. · Would like to see more concrete statements from staff that the rtmoffis not excessive. · Rye addressed the runoff rate control. · Need to discuss the issue. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 23 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 Safety issue is a concern. The County has looked at it. The problem is the speed and hill. The City and the County should address the problem and how to resolve it, not the developer. · Sidewalks are on each side of the public streets. · Knaeble addressed the trail by the wetland area. Stamson: · Its not just the trees individually that are important, it is the entire stand as a group. In this case, the tree replacement policy does not replace what exists. That is why it is important to preserve the existing trees. Atwood: · The traffic is a major issue. · Have the Engineering Department address the spring on the Crooks' property. Criego: · The County is not taking into account the speeding and site. People are not suppose to speed, therefore it is safe. · Don Pavek said moving the units will be difficult. He agreed there his a problem with the speed on County Road 21. Something has to be done. But as far as taking out units, maybe taking 1 or 2 units but not 9. If it comes to taking out that many, they might have to withdraw. The originally started with 80 units and cut it down to 78 now to 69. Considering the price of land and development costs it will be very difficult. Taking out one unit in each building will not make an impact. Pavek explained the common area has steep slopes and cannot be built on. Stamson: · Questioned Pavek if two weeks would be enough time. Pavek said it would be tight and asked if the Commission could be present. Criego: · How many homes on Jeffer's Pass? Information not available with staff. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO TABLE THIS ISSUE TO THE FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 11:01 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:06 p.m. 5. Old Business: A. Case File #00-086 St. Michael's Variance Resolution. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented Resolution 01-003PC. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshnn021201 .doc 24 Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2001 The Commissioners agreed. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION. Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Atwood and Lemke, nay by Criego. MOTION CARRIED. 6. New Business: A. Review Subdivision Ordinance. Kansier said staff will present this at the next meeting. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 11:09 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201 .doc 25