HomeMy WebLinkAbout022601REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Bo
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
February 12, 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 tA mile northof CSAH 82. (Continued from the
February 12, 2001 meeting)
Case File #01-003 Shamrock Development has submitted an application for a
Preliminary Plat known as The Wilds South consisting of 77.19 acres to be
subdivided into 141 single family lots. This property is located on the south side
of Wilds Parkway and the north side of County Road 82.
D. Public hearing to consider a proposed Subdivision Ordinance for the City of Prior
Lake.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #00-083 Rock Creek Home Variance Resolution.
L:\01 fil~\01 plancomm\01 pcagenda\ag022601 .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
Ao
New Business:
Island Development Ordinance Review.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\01 fi les\01 pi ancomm\01 pcagenda~ag02260 I.DOC
Planning Commission Meeting
February 26, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the February 26, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Stamson and Vonhof,
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 Present
Criego Absent
Lemke Present
Stamson Present
Vonhof Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the February 12, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Commissioner Vonhofread the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
The attorney for the first public heating was not available at the starting time. Therefore,
the agenda changed to Item 5A. (see page 9), followed by Item 4B. (see page 5).
4. Public Hearings:
A. 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 February 12, 2001 meeting)
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn022601 .doc 1
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 26,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
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.
On February 12, 2001, the Planning Commission reopened the public heating to consider
this additional information as well as additional testimony. Following the testimony, the
Planning Commission closed the public hearing and discussed this request.
After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission considered a motion to approve
this request. This motion failed on a 2-2 vote. The Planning Commission also
considered a motion to deny this request. Again, the motion failed on a 2-2 vote. Rather
than send this item to the City Council without a recommendation, the Commission
tabled action on the request until February 26, 2001. No new information has been
submitted.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke: · Have not changed mind since the last meeting.
· Would like to see the Vierlings farm the land as long as they want.
· Do not feel it is appropriate to say the future use of the land is going to be rural
density.
Stamson:
· There are a number of land use issues. Is long term agricultural appropriate for
this piece of property? I do not think it is. It is located within the city limits,
served by two major county roads, water and sewer are available to it. The
Metropolitan Council has a procedure to identify permanent agricultural land.
There are a number of items related to soil quality and tests. 1) The land is
agriculture, a situation that is rapidly disappearing; 2) Adjacent land is zoned
agriculture and; 3) the land is outside the future urban area, a designation set by
the Metropolitan Council relating to the MUSA and the land use in 2040. The
property meets none of the criteria that the Metropolitan Council deems
appropriate for long-term agricultural use.
· Talked to people responsible for rural policy at the Metropolitan Council. In their
opinion they did not feel this property would meet their standards for review for
land that qualifies for Agricultural Preserve status.
· Are we saving farmland by protecting this piece of property? Researched a
number of different sites. This action does not preserve farmland. The biggest
threat to farmland is inefficient use of farmland within municipalities. By
stripping off urban areas to development like this, is actually destroying the
farming economy by forcing nonagricultural uses into urban areas.
· This site has sewer and water available to it and is in a municipality. What we are
proposing flies directly in the face of what farm preservationists are advocating.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesXmn022601 .doc 2
· Why can't this farm exist in a sea of residential, commercial uses 30 years from
now? Because like any industry farming requires the critical mass to support the
infrastructure that it requires to operate efficiently and survive. That
infrastructure is not in this area, it is quickly moving south. If we preserve a small
pattern of farms here and there in developed areas, we are forcing development to
hopscotch. There will be little pockets of developments in between largely
fanning areas like Lydia and New Prague. That is the problem it creates.
· This type of action creates more pressure for farmland and better farmland to
disappear.
· The applicant spoke of his fear of eminent domain preventing him from investing
in his operation. The Agricultural Preserve does not prevent eminent domain
procedures but creates a higher standard, which is reviewed by the Metropolitan
Council.
· Agree it would prevent the City taking the land for parks or some public uses.
The City's current designation is business office park clearly stating the City has
no intention of creating parkland. If the City wanted parkland, it would be
designated park.
· Ironically, the business office park designation prevents the school district from
using its power of eminent domain. They also have that power separate from the
City.
· The corresponding district next to the business office park designation is C5 and
schools are not allowed in the C5 district.
· If this is amended to rural residential and the zoning is agriculture, schools are
allowed in the agriculture district. Now you have a flat piece of property with no
schools and has city sewer and water available. It is an ideal location for a school
on that side of the City. It is far more likely to loose the property to the school for
eminent domain than the City. Nothing is solved. There is an increase of eminent
domain.
· The final issue is the proposal from the last meeting for a written agreement with
the applicant to rezone. That is a short-term backhanded way of getting the
applicant's request for Agricultural Preserve approved, but in the long term we
are still reverting back to the original business office park. The way it was
presented was, the idea behind it was to allow the applicant to apply for grant
money that the federal government does not deem him qualified under the current
zoning. To me that is no different than misrepresenting income on your taxes or
misrepresenting your health on an insurance document. It is fraudulently
representing your intentions for a piece of property in order to obtain money from
the government that they wouldn't give you otherwise. The City should not be a
part of that.
· Will not support the amendment.
Patrick J. Kelly, representative for the Vierlings, said he takes issue with Stamson's
statement of misrepresentation of doing the Ag Preserve for some fraudulent means.
Kelly said that was untrue.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn022601 .doc 3
Stamson said he did not intend to imply that it was the applicant's intentions. By doing
so, it would be the City being fraudulent by their actions. Stamson said he had no issue
with the applicant and apologized if the applicant felt it was directed at him.
Atwood: · Appreciate all the research from Commissioner Stamson.
· Has not changed her position from the last meeting.
· The Comp Plan is a fluid document. It can be looked at and amended.
This is an exceptional case where we can do that com£ortably.
· It is the Vierlings property and they should ultimately decide what happens.
· This is an advisory commission. City Council will make the final decision.
Vonhof:
· Appreciate input and obvious reflection the Commissioners spent on this issue.
· Worked extensively on the Comprehensive Plan from 1993 to 1995 and its
ultimate approval in 1996. At that time, the City held a number of public
hearings. In my 8 years on the Commission there has never been so much interest
in a planning issue. The Comprehensive Plan is a guide. It is where we as a
community think we are going to be in 2010 and 2020. This process takes a long
time for everyone to have ample opportunity to be heard. It is a good process.
· Believes the Comprehensive Plan also is a plan based upon information available
at the time decisions are made. There is additional information that was not
available in 1995. This process took almost 2 years.
· We have been told by the Vierlings that they intend to farm for some period of
time.
· The zoning is correct. It is appropriate.
· The Comprehensive Plan should also be consistent with what the projected land
use is going to be.
· A lot of issues brought up have not been directly related to the basic issue.
· In planning there is many time spans. A 20-year time span is a relatively long
period of time.
· In these types of'situations, requests for amendments, people are not thinking of
what we are actually looking at. We are trying to figure out what that land use is
going to be 10 or 20 years down the line.
· The property owners have indicated they plan to farm long tenn. The zoning is
consistent. But that was not the Commission's understanding back in 1995.
· We have to get back to the basic issue at hand. What is the projected land use 10
or 15 years down the line. And we have been told it is going to be farming -
agricultural.
· Regardless of what the surrounding land uses are, it is possible to farm completely
surrounded by residential property.
· Reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and there is an anticipation that it can be
modified. The key is - is there additional information? New information has
been provided. Regardless of what the neighbors think or what the City thinks or
location, the ultimate test in a sense goes back to what the property owner is going
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn022601 .doc 4
to do. If everyone in the City would come up and tell us what they were going to
do with their property long term then obviously the Plan would be more accurate.
The City's intent is to have as accurate a projection as we can.
· We have someone who has come forward to tell us this is not accurate because it
is not consistent with what our plans are. Very clearly that would justify an
amendment.
The Comprehensive Plan' intent is to have an accurate projection.
· Fully respect fellow Commissioner's viewpoint on this matter.
· Having been involved in this Plan from the beginning with a lot of time invested
in this document, with the information presented to this Commission, it is
consistent to support the amendment.
Open discussion:
Stamson:
· Felt Vonhofmisrcprescntcd thc idea of the Comprehensive Plan. It is not a
document for what property owners intend to use their property for. If it were,
there would be a mismash of uses because everyone would have different ideas of
what their property should be.
· The idea behind the Comp Plan is for a City to lie out what thc community should
look like so in years to come as it develops, it will be efficient, manageable and
avoid the appearance of cities that grew before planning. Cities that are a
mismash of industries in thc middle of residential neighborhoods. That truly
represented what owners' long term use was. We need an orderly development of
the community so it is an attractive livable community.
Vonhof: · Gave an analogy of a land use such as a college campus.
· We have information that this is what the use is going to be. That's the difference
in this particular case.
· This use will continue. It is reflecting reality. Let's make it consistent with the
use.
Stamson:
· The college property and farmland use cannot be compared.
· The proposed Rural Residential district does not reflect the correct district use
either. It is intended for areas without city water and sewer and residential lots for
40 acres or more.
· The implication is residential use, not agricultural use. We don't have an
agricultural designation for the Comp Plan to reflect what the Vierlings want.
Vonhof: · The services in this case were driven by other developments off the Vierling
property.
· The Comprehensive Plan is a broad brush, the zoning is a more accurate land use.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\0 lpcminutes'xmn022601 .doc 5
· When someone enters into the public record that they intend to use the property in
this particular way and will continue the existing use, we are just responding to it.
The request is a response to that.
· Get back and get focused to the planning document and guideline.
· As planners we take the best information we have at the time and apply the
appropriate land use and designation. It is a pure planning function.
Stamson:
· That is point, this is planning for future uses. By changing it, we say Rural
Residential property. If for some reason Mr. Vierling sells or loses thc property,
we have it designated as rural residential property. It is not the intent.
· Understands Mr. Vicrling wants to farm. That is great, but for planning, for some
unforeseen circumstances that doesn't happen, we need to designate it for what it
should bc and Rural Residential is not what it should be.
Vonhof:
· Agreed with Stamson on that point.
· Economic conditions can change anything. An economic slowdown could make
multiple family housing become far more desirable than single family housing. If
that happens, the City would have to make adjustments at the time.
· This is the information today.
· The plan tells people coming in what the area is going to be. It is totally
appropriate if you get new information it can change.
· Agreed with Stamson that a two year bandaid is not appropriate. But when
someone comes in and says this is what the land is going to be, we should reflect
that. It is totally appropriate to change with new information.
· Stamson made very compelling arguments regarding the surrounding
infrastructure and the location of the land. The overriding sense is that we now
have information that is unique in the planning sense.
Lemke:
· Concern for people moving into the area. They go to the Comprehensive Plan
and see
· Rural density, then in 10 years when Mr. Vierling sells his property a business
office park comes in. Those people will come back and say "why didn't you tell
me?"
Stamson:
· When Mr. Vierling decides to sell, what do you think the best land use is?
Vonhof:
· A lot of different things. We have to deal with the information we have now.
Stamson:
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes~-nn022601 .doc 6
The Commission has never used that criteria before. What we have is one
landowner's stated intention. There are a number of scenarios that can change
that.
· It should reflect the Community's interest as a whole. What this area should be at
2020 build out.
· Stamson and Vonhof discussed college land uses.
· At 2020 build-out, assuming there will be more development, where that is, we
don't know. The Comprehensive Plan should reflect where market forces are
creating development. And these are the areas that the City thinks these types of
uses fit into the community.
· Vonhof agreed.
· The fact that one particular property owner might have a different intended use
does not change the fact that if his property would develop in the next 20 years
that this is what the City would like the guiding vision to be.
· Agree that Mr. Vierling may still be there, but designating the land agriculture
reflects an accurate picture of what the developing community will look like in
the future.
Vonhof:
· We do not know what the future will be. But this Plan does not go beyond 2020.
What we are talking about is amending the existing Plan based on the information
provided today.
· If I were buying property around there I would want accurate information for the
surrounding area. It will significantly impact 20 years.
A petition was presented to staff.
Atwood:
· Can the record reflect Commissioner Criego's previous vote? Kansier said the
City Council will have all the minutes and testimony that occurred.
MOTION BY STAMSON, TO PASS ALONG THIS ITEM TO COUNCIL WITH NO
RECOMMENDATION.
Motion dies for lack of a second.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE VIERLING PROPERTY LOCATED IN
SECTION 23 AND 24, TOWNSHIP 11, RANGE 22.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Atwood and Vonhof, nays by Stamson and Lemke. Motion
dies.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO PASS THIS ITEM ALONG TO
CITY COUNCIL WITH NO RECOMMENDATION.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn022601 .doc 7
Atwood:
· Questioned why can't the Motion could not go to the City Council as 2 to 2 vote.
Stamson:
· There should be a record for the City Council. Three Motions have failed. It
doesn't move along until the Commission moves the recommendation forward.
Kansier said this goes before the City Council on March 19, 2001. This matter will not
be a public hearing.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson said the community needs to look at all farm land and take a look at treating it
differently. There is no language to protect farm land in the Ordinance.
A recess was called at 7:21 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:37 p.m. to item 4C.
B. 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. (Continued from the February
12, 2001 meeting)
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier stated this meeting was continued from the February
12, 2001, meeting to allow the developer time to address a number of issues that the staff
felt were outstanding. One of the issues had to do with drainage and the Watershed
District requirement. Kansier was told by the applicant today they had met with the
Watershed District and they need to make some revisions to their plans. For that purpose
the applicant is requesting a continuation to the March 12, 2001 meeting.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING
TO MARCH 12, 2001.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case File #01-003 Shamrock Development has submitted an application for a
Preliminary Plat known as The Wilds South consisting of 77.19 acres to be
subdivided intol41 single family lots. This property is located on the south side of
Wilds Parkway and the north side of County Road 82.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 26,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
Shamrock Development has applied for a Preliminary Plat for the property located on the
north side of CSAH 82, on the south side of Wilds Parkway and west of Orion Road.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn022601 .doc 8
The preliminary plat consists of 77.19 acres to be subdivided into 140 lots for single
family residential development. The plat also includes a 6.6 acre park and a 1.17 acre lot
for the City booster station and well house.
In general, the proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision
Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. The Engineering Department reviewed the original
plans and had several items that must be addressed. These items are listed on the
attached memorandum from the City Engineer. The developer has submitted revised
plans to address these items, and City staff is reviewing these plans.
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 conditions:
1. Revise the plat so that Lot 9, Block 1 includes at least 12,000 square feet of area
above the 1 O0-year flood elevation for the storm water pond.
2. Change the name of Partridge Place to a name unique to the Prior Lake street
naming system.
3. Revise the landscape plan to note the location of these trees in the front yard, and the
additional required trees for corner lots. Replacement trees must also be identified.
An irrevocable letter of credit will be required for the replacement trees.
4. Provide a right-turn lane and a bypass lane, constructed to County standards, at the
intersection of CSAH 82 and Bobcat Trail. Plans for these lanes must be submitted
with the final plat application.
5. Submit an access permit and other required permits for work in the County right-of-
way with the final plat application.
6. Submit a wetland replacement application with the final plat application.
7. Provide copies of the Homeowner's Association documents with the final plat
application. These documents should specifically address the maintenance of
monument signs for this development.
8. All utilities and roads must be constructed in conformance with the Public Works
Design Manual.
Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the above conditions of
approval and forward this recommendation to the City Council.
Stamson questioned roads requiring connections to stub streets, why is the developer not
required? Kansier explained the situation with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community and parkland. There are also significant trees along the area and there has
been some discussion of vacating the area.
There were no comments from the public.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn022601 .doc 9
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson: · Concurred with staff. It is consistent with what we have seen for the property.
· Feel comfortable with what is presented.
Atwood:
· Agreed.
Jim Stanton, 2973 Fox Hollow, Shamrock Development, said there is only one thing that
does not comply - the islands in the middle of the cul-de-sacs. It can be covered in items
7 and 8 of the conditions. Islands do not comply with the City's Design Manual. The
rest of The Wilds have islands maintained by the homeowners association. This addition
would also have a homeowners association to maintain the islands.
Lemke:
· How would we handle the islands? McDermott said the City has not allowed
them in the past but they also decrease impervious surface. There were approved
in other plats of The Wilds. As long as their homeowners association agrees to
maintain them, the City really doesn't have a problem. The developer will have a
written agreement document.
Vonhof:
· Questioned the parking lot with the park. McDermott said the parking lot
planned. It is just not shown. The City requires the developer to grade the area
and the City will included it in the CIP. It should be included next year.
Originally concerned with the access off County Road 82, but the issue was
addressed by staff. There is a sign on County Road 82 stating "No Passing on
Shoulder".
McDermott said there will be a fight turn lane. It will be similar to the Glynwater
access.
· Will there be any bike paths along the property? McDermott said Hennepin
County currently has an easement for a bike path along the north side of County
Road 82.
Kansier said the idea is for a future trail along County Road 82 but would not be
done until the road is upgraded to four lanes.
As long as there is a provisions made. McDermott said it is not currently in the
County's CIP. The City has commented on the issue and should be included in
the near future.
· It is a good preliminary plat. Straight forward.
· Support the plan and staff's recommendation.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE PRELINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS AND
FORWARD ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
L:\01 files\01 plancomrn\01 pcminutesh-nn022601 .doc 1 0
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
D. Public hearing to consider a proposed Subdivision Ordinance for the City of
Prior Lake.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 26,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
The City staff has been working on revising and updating the City Subdivision
Ordinance. The Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed a draft of the
Subdivision Ordinance at a workshop on October 30, 2000. At that time, the staff
discussed several issues pertaining to this ordinance and received some guidance from the
City Council and the Planning Commission. These changes have been incorporated into
the draft Subdivision Ordinance. Kansier gave an overview of the outline and proposed
changes.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed Subdivision Ordinance to the City Council.
Comments from the public:
Jim Stanton, 2973 Fox Hollow, this is one of the better ordinances. It is more practical.
Stanton questioned the buffer around the wetlands. Kansier explained the buffer area is
counted in lot area but not the wetlands. Stanton then commented on page 31 of the
ordinance regarding outlots.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Rye explained outlots. Staffcan come up with a modification of the language to
utilize adjacent property or development. The City needs to be a little bit careful
not to just give carte blanche. There is a way to address the issue.
· Like the preliminary plat/final plat under 5 lots.
Likes the level of detail at the preliminary plat stage.
· Overall it is great.
Lemke: · Agreed with Atwood, anything we can do to save money in terms of the level of
detail in the preliminary plat. It is great.
· It is a good document.
Stamson:
· Concurred. Staff did an excellent job.
· Questioned center islands in cul-de-sac. McDermott explained the snow removal.
Unless there is a homeowners association to maintain the landscaping the island
can become messy and scraggly. It is also why the City does not allow trees in
the boulevard. It is a maintenance issue.
L:\01 files\01plancomm\01pcminuteshnn022601 .doc 11
· There are typically several driveways in a cul-de-sac, it is hard to push the snow
into people's yards without damage or complaints. Typically the snow is stacked
in the center of the cul-de-sac until a later time when trucks can come and remove
it.
· It is more attractive to have a center island in a cul-de-sac.
· Jim Stanton said they have islands in The Wilds, the one in his cul-de-sac is
heavily treed. Snow can still be pushed into the center. They have had no
problems. Provisions made by homeowners to maintain the islands and holding
the City harmless will help.
Atwood:
Is snow storage a big problem in the City7 McDermott said it is this year. It can
become an attractive nuisance for kids.
· With islands you wouldn't have the problem of hauling the snow away and
storage.
· Stanton said everyone has the maximum driveway and there is no storage for
snow. Pushing the snow in the center and hauling it away is better. Stanton
agreed with McDermott that it can be a nuisance with kids. It is easier to haul
away.
Stamson:
· The positives asthectics outweigh the negatives of islands.
Vonhof:
· There should be a provision by the homeowners to take care of the cul-de-sac
islands.
· The draft document reflects the experiences of the staff. Staffhas done a good
job in all of the ordinance modifications.
· Support sending the draft forward to the City Council.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #00-083 Rock Creek Home Variance Resolution.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented Resolution 01-007PC approving a 2.1
foot variance to permit a front yard structure setback of 33.4 feet rather than the 35.5 feet
as required for front setback averaging.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
007PC APPROVING A 2.1 FOOT FRONT SETBACK.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn022601 .doc 12
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Island Development Ordinance Review.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated February 26,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
The purpose of this staff report is to consider proposed language for a potential
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow accessory structures to be located
on island lots. This proposal was initiated by a directive from the Planning Commission
at the public hearing on February 12, 2001. An Appeal was filed with the Planning
Department regarding the staffs' denial for a proposed accessory structure on "Twin
Isles". The Commission adopted Resolution 01-04PC upholding the Planning staffs'
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that does not permit accessory structures on the
islands. However, the Commission requested staff to research the issue and present a
report at the February 26, 2001 meeting.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Questioned the height exceeding 10 feet for adequate storage. Horsman explained
the process of determining the height. The structure could actually be over 10
feet in height.
· There was a brief discussion on limiting height. They are limited in the general
accessory structure section of the ordinance.
· Rye explained the language presented did not address the issue of roof line. It
talks about compatibility in terms of the exterior materials.
Stamson: · Like staff's approach of using water accessory structures. It is appropriate.
· This came from a variance from a resident who wants to build a garage on the
property.
· Homes on the island have no allowable storage facilities at the moment. The
island residents do not have any ability to transfer equipment back and forth.
There should be some storage.
· 250 square feet is larger than the City normally allows.
· The City has been strict with the Island Development to protect the land.
Primary homes are not on the island.
· 250 feet works and allows storage for a large amount of equipment. Garages are
not necessary.
· The other approach for storage of recreational equipment is okay, but there are a
couple of problems in the wording. It is not bad, it just needs a little work.
Atwood:
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn022601 .doc 13
· Agree to Stamson with the water accessory approach.
· Would like more discussion on 250 square feet.
· DNR Hydrologist Lynch's letter comments on storage area.
· I feel if you are on an island, where are you going to take your boat for
maintenance? Not necessary to store a boat.
Stamson: · The island has been set up as recreational cabins, not primary structure.
· You should have a home off site. Believe boats should not be stored on the island.
The Commissioners briefly discussed pontoons on the island.
Atwood:
· Is 250 feet reasonable for all the storage?
Vonhof: · The majority of island property owners do not own that much land.
· The general cabin.
· Maybe 300 sq feet, 400 feet is too large.
· You don't want to have overwhelming storage spaces over the cabins.
· Rather see material stored inside, than outside off season.
· Agreed with Commissioners, prefer not to limit it just to water structures. It could
be chairs and whatever. Make it a storage structure.
· Question to staff re: Lynch's remark of allowing structures as close as 10 feet
from the water line. Rye explained that pertained to a 20% slope and in many
cases there is not a lot of room between the bottom of the slope and the water so a
10 foot setback is allowed.
· 300 feet would cover the vast majority of storage.
Horsman said there is a definite need for storage. It would only enhance the view from
the lake. Maybe get some idea from the island owners.
Vonhof:
· It is a unique situation. We have to set the perimeters.
Stamson:
· Question to staff- Does this allow an accessory structure to be built on the other
side of a private drive? Horsman said it could be tied in.
· The preference would be to put the structure in the interior of the island.
· Questioned if they agree to over 300 feet which would be over the DNR's
recommendation. Rye said the ordinance had to be written so it applies in every
case.
John Meyer, owner of property at 3313 Twin Island, said their intent was to get a
building permit for a garage to be able to store a vehicle, watercraft, lawnmower and
L:\01 files\01plancomm\01pcminutes\mn022601 .doc 1 4
other storage. They also wanted to store the floats for the dock. Meyer explained the
problems with storage in cabins. They want a secure place for storage. Meyer said his
cabin is the highest elevation on the island.
Atwood questioned Meyer on the size. Meyer said his pontoon is 24 feet long. He
wanted to construct a 24 x 24 structure. He owns the largest interior lots. Residents will
not be able to see his garage.
DNR approved structure is 400 feet used for water accessory structure. Rye said the
DNR has to approve any changes to the Shoreland District. They are also concerned
about impervious surface.
Vonhofrequested staff to bring back for a public hearing.
Preferred first method - general conditions outlined and them some greater square
footage. 250 is the bottom. Consider garage doors. Maximum width of a boat is 8.6
feet. Pontoons will fit in very few garages. The Shoreland District is a protected area.
The cabins are small 500 to 600 square feet. The Commissioners felt comfortable with
300 square feet.
Horsman questioned what the setbacks would be. Stamson said 50 feet minimum or no
closer than the primary structure, whatever is greater.
Rye said staff will make every attempt to contact the island homeowners.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
The City Council would like a workshop regarding the downtown and incorporate the
design standards and have asked the staff and Planning Commission to look at the issue.
Rye is working on the ordinance and will hold a work session to include the Planning
Commission. Let staffknow if members will be able to make it on April 2.
Vonhof thanked the Commissioners and staff for the last few meetings in dealing with the
issues.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn022601 .doc 1 5