HomeMy WebLinkAbout0514012.
3.
4.
A.
Bo
0
Bo
e
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MAY 14, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Case File #01-012 Consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to permit accessory
structures on Island developments.
Case Files #01-026 & 01-027 Consider an application for a Preliminary Plat to be
known as Park Nicollet Addition and a Senior Care Overlay District for a
development to be known as Crystal Care.
Old Business:
New Business:
Case File #01-031 Consider the vacation of the drainage and utility easement
platted on Outlot V, The Wilds.
Case File #01-032 Consider the vacation of the platted alley and drainage and
utility easement in Block 9, Prior Lake Original Plat.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcagenda~ag51401 .DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MAY 14, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the May 14, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, 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 Present
Lemke Present
Stamson Absent
Vonhof Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the April 23, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Stamson arrived at 7:33 p.m.
Commissioner Vonhofread the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #01-012 (Continued) Consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
permit accessory structures on Island developments.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated May 14, 2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On February 26, 2001, the Planning Commission considered proposed language for an
ordinance amendment. The Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing for
this amendment.
On April 9, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public heating on the proposed
amendment. The original proposal limited the size of an accessory structure to 300 feet.
The Commission discussed proposed options for the amendment and heard testimony
from a "Twin Isles" property owner. The Commission then directed staffto revise the
draft ordinance amendment with conditions to allow limited accessory structures on
island development.
L:\01 files\01 pl ancomm\01 pcminuteshnm051401 .doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
The revised language limits the size of an accessory structure to 576 square feet, or the
size of the principal structure on the lot, whichever is less. It also requires a minimum
setback of 100 feet from the ordinary-high-water mark.
Whether or not an accessory structure should be allowed on island lots is a policy issue.
The unique circumstances pertaining to island lots warrant limitations on the number and
size of structures and on the amount of impervious surface. However, the current
ordinance only provides for seasonal cabin structures on the islands and equipment
storage appears to be an issue without an accessory structure. It does not seem
unreasonable to allow limited accessory structures; however the size of these structures
should be determined as a policy issue.
The staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment.
Hydrologist Pat Lynch with the Department of Natural Resources submitted comments
for this report. In essence, the DNR would not oppose adoption of the ordinance
amendment as proposed.
Staff did receive comments from two Twin Island residents regarding no accessory
structures or use permitted on a lot without an established principal use. The second
concern was a requirement that all structures contain an enclosed septic system.
Lemke questioned the principal structure pertaining to the variance applicant. Horsman
explained the accessory structure ordinance.
Criego question if the lots were combined, would they ever be able to separate. Horsman
said not for the purposes of subdividing and building.
Comments from the public:
Dave Wuellner, 16930 Walnut Avenue, also owns a cabin on Twin Island, Lots 6 and 31.
Wuellner had three concerns. The first was the language stating there had to be a
principal structure to be able to add an accessory structure. Wuellner was on the
Planning Commission at the time the Zoning Ordinance was written. He said he didn't
realize the way the ordinance was written that it precluded anyone on the Island from
having any reasonable shed. It was an oversight on the Commissioner's part. It is
important to have an accessory structure but the concern is the excessive square footage.
It is a convenient figure that this square footage was given to accommodate someone who
started to build a garage without a survey or building permit and got caught. Now there
is an amendment to change the whole ordinance just to accommodate him. It is not the
right thing to do in the planning sense. Wuellner stated he did put up a shed, but stayed
below 120 square feet. This garage would be an enormous structure on an island where
the majority of the houses are not even that big. In fact, it was put on 4 lots that just a
few years ago were clear-cut. There is a tree preservation ordinance. This is the last place
on Prior Lake where there are cabins. The rest of the lake is being redeveloped. This is a
seasonal "up north" area. Hate to see this area damaged. The City should not change
ordinances to accommodate one individual.
L:\01 fi les\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes'u-nn051401 .doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
Criego questioned what size structure would be appropriate. Wuellner said he couldn't
speak for all island property owners. Wuellner questioned what would be allowed on the
mainland. What is the norm for the RI district? Horsman responded 832 feet maximum
for a detached garage with impervious surface conditions. Wuellner felt the Commission
is accommodating a resident who did not abide by the rules and got caught and now he
wants to go ahead and change the ordinance. Criego questioned what would be a fair
accessory size. Wuellner said he doesn't know the right answer, but did not want to
make the decision for everyone and just because someone did it anyway, the law has to
be changed to accommodate it. It is the wrong way to go. Zoning Ordinances are put
together for the long range. The accessory structures have typically been 10x12 foot
(maximum) storage sheds.
John Meyer, 3313 Twin Island, said a number of the older cabins are smaller and the
newer seasonal cabins are larger sized. The pattern of residential homes is the same.
Every generation's home is getting larger. Meyer said there is a need to secure one's
property and stated some people have more toys than others. He felt the proposed
ordinance language is correct. Meyer said he talked to the Twin Island residents and all
agreed there is a need for accessory structures.
The hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
No one is arguing there shouldn't be a storage facility.
It is not inappropriate to bring up the discussion on the size of the accessory
structure. The proposed square footage is large.
· It should be reasonable.
Stamson:
· Opposed the proposal. It fundamentally changes the density on the Island. The
long-term goal has been to minimize development and preserve the Island.
Larger structures were discouraged so residents were not permanently living out
there.
· Allowing a garage-style structure will increase the development.
Long term it will attract people to increase their cabin size and use because of
having other types of things they can store that were not anticipated or allowed in
the past.
· Part of the concern is ifa 572-foot garage is allowed, 572 feet plus the
surrounding area and driveway will have to be cleared. That square footage tums
out to be at least 1,000 square feet. Many trees will have to be removed. What
happens when 4 or 5 more structures are constructed? People will be clear-
cutting to accommodate larger structures. A significant amount of trees will be
removed.
· Accessory structures are warranted and should be allowed on a smaller scale.
L:\01 files\01 pl ancomm\01 pcminutesXmn051401 .doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
Agreed with Criego that a 12 x12 foot structure could be allowed. A larger
structure could be put in with minimum destruction to the landscape and trees.
· This proposal is too much. It is too drastic and will affect the character of the
island based on one application. It is unwarranted.
· Very strongly opposed.
Criego: · Agreed with Commissioner Stamson, his position has been well thought out.
· Against large structures, clear-cutting the trees.
· Keep this island as natural as possible.
· The residents do need large accessory structures out there.
· More than happy to approve a 12x12 square foot structure.
· Would be against anything larger.
Lemke: · Did not feel the 24 x 24 foot size was unreasonable. It is 100 feet away from the
lake setback.
· There is a tree replacement ordinance in place.
· Does not see other structures like this that will be able to fit in. These lots happen
to be large enough to accommodate that size structure.
· The property owner has some right to use his property.
Vonhof: · Believed in the general principal of allowing accessory structures on the island is
necessary.
· Agreed with all of the conditions set forth.
· Did have a question on the size. There were previous discussions about boat
storage.
· In previous discussions before this was drafted, boat storage on the island was
determined to be around 300 to 400 square feet.
· Everything else in the draft is acceptable.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
Stamson:
· Disagreed in previous discussions with boat storage. That is why the requirement
of a principal structure had to accommodate it. Most of the lots do not
accommodate a boat getting to them. Especially on certain steep lots. The road
would have to be utilized and that is not maintained. Large-scale items should not
be stored on the Island.
· Storage of boats should be off-site. We are pushing that way with storage off the
Island. The ordinance does not allow boats to sit in the driveway. It has to be put
in the back or side yards.
L:\01 fi les\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes'mm051401 .doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
It is inappropriate to have a structure that size. The storage should be big enough
to accommodate what is on an island during the summer, water skies, and mowers
and that type of thing.
Criego:
· Agreed with Commissioner Stamson.
The purpose of the accessory structure was
waylaid. When the issue was brought up, I felt there was a need for accessory
structures. The question is size. Never visualized it to be 576 square feet.
· I was thinking a 12 x 12 structure was appropriate.
· 500 feet or half the size of the cabin is just asking for trouble.
· Agreed there would be a problem with the trees coming down. You can talk
about tree preservation, but for a tree to grow it would take 20 years. Do we want
the Island to look considerably different?
· The residents need accessory structures but nothing of that size. 120 square feet
is good.
Lemke: · At the last meeting, the Commissioners settled on 300 feet.
· Explained the outside dimensions of the buildings.
Atwood: · In looking over the Minutes, 300 feet was settled on.
· 576 feet square feet is too large.
Lemke:
· If the DNR, who is as protective of the lake as anyone did not oppose this. Some
weight should be given to that.
Stamson:
· In the past, the Commission has been more restrictive with the island than the
DNR. The Commissioners have always been more restrictive with the Shoreland
area as well.
· If 20 people came forward clamoring for a change it would be different. But to
make a significant change than what has been done in the last 50 years based on
one single application seems imprudent.
· Agreed with having accessory structures but the size should be much smaller.
· Agreed with Wuellner, 576 square feet has a major impact on the island.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE SECTION 1104.309 OF THE CITY OF PRIOR
LAKE CODE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH THE CHANGE IN THE THIRD
ITEM THAT THE STRUCTURE SHOULD NOT BE LARGER THAN 168 SQUARE
FEET.
Vonhof felt 160 square feet was too small, 300 feet would be better.
L:\01 files\01 pl ancomm\01 pcminutesknn051401 .doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
Atwood agreed with 300 square feet.
Lemke said you might as well go with 320 square feet and keep it at building sheet size at
16 x 20.
Atwood felt 240 square feet would be a compromise.
Vonhof said the concem is the bulk of the structure.
Criego said he was okay with 240 square feet.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO AMEND THE SQUARE
FOOTAGE TO 240 FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case Files #01-026 & 01-027 Consider an application for a Preliminary Plat
to be known as Park Nicollet Addition and a Senior Care Overlay District for a
development to be known as Crystal Care.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 14, 2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Crystal Care, LLC and Park Nicollet Health Systems have filed an application to develop
the property located south of TH 13, west of Franklin Trail, and directly south of the Park
Nicollet clinic. The request includes the following:
Approve a Preliminary Plat for 11.60 acres;
Approve a Senior Care Overlay District for the development of a 60-unit assisted
living facility.
The proposal calls for the subdivision of the existing 11.60 acre parcel into 4 lots. Lot 1,
Block 1, is the existing site of the Park Nicollet clinic. Lot 2, Block 2, is the proposed
site of the assisted living facility. The remaining lots will develop at a future date.
Crystal Care, LLC, is the developer of the assisted living facility project. Park Nicollet
Health Systems, the current property owner, will develop the remaining commercial lots.
The staff recommended approval of the proposed preliminary plat and Senior Care
Overlay District subject to the following conditions:
Preliminary Plat:
1. The developer must obtain a Watershed District permit prior to any work on the site.
2. The developer must address the following Engineering Department comments:
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesLmn051401 .doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
a. Provide the stage-storage-discharge tables and routing calculations through the
infiltration basins. The data will be used for design of the storm sewer and
regional pond.
b. All grading for the infiltration basin is to be accomplished on the site. The plan
shows grading on adjacent Lot 1.
c. Add a hydrant at the end of the 8" main per the Public Works Design Manual.
d. Address the reconstruction of the existing section of the ring road. This portion of
the road must be completed with an overlay after it is widened.
e. If the typical section shown on sheet 1 of the plans is for the parking lot area, it
does not meet minimum pavement sections requirements outlined in the Public
Works Design Manual.
Provide an estimate of the traffic generated by the existing clinic and an estimate of
the traffic that will be generated by the assisted living facility with the final plat
application.
The developer must address the issue of the existing sign at Franklin Trail. This sign
must either be removed or relocated and the developer must enter into a "Private Use
of Public Property Agreement" with the City prior to approval of the final plat.
Senior Care Overlay District:
1. A registered landscape architect must sign the landscape plan.
2. The developer must submit an irrigation plan for the site.
3. The developer must submit restrictive covenants for this use for review and approval
by the City Attorney.
4. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council.
5. Upon final approval, the developer must submit two complete sets of full-scale final
plans and reductions of each sheet. These plans will be stamped with the final
approval information. One set will be maintained as the official Senior Care Overlay
District record. The second set will be returned to the developer for their files.
Comments from the public:
Larry Johnson, President of Crystal Care, handed out a packet which included the
description of Crystal Care, their Mission Statement and resumes of the individuals
included in the project. Johnson went on to explain the Memory Loss and Assisted
Living facilities for seniors. Crystal Care is also looking at sites in Minnesota, Iowa and
Wisconsin. One important point is the Crystal Care facility will compliment the locally
proposed senior facilities in Prior Lake.
Bob Davis, Architect with Design One, 9973 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, presented
the design of the facility. All the standards have been met. The roof overhang will be 3
feet because it is a three-story building. Davis also presented the exterior materials of
stone and siding.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes~nn051401 .doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
Mike Lewis, Crystal Care, 5200 Willson Road, presented the traffic study and stated they
will have further discussions with staff. Crystal Care will be drafting the covenants and
are planning on installing an irrigation system.
Andrea Shuck, 16766 Brunswick, representing 16 owners of the adjoining property
Colonial Estates, stated they are happy with the senior care facility coming into the area
and are not opposed to the project, but are concerned with the size and lighting.
Questioned if an EAW was done on this property? Kansier explained it was not required
because the site is too small. Kansier pointed out the overhead represents the exterior
lighting. Shuck said she enjoys living in Prior Lake and does not like to see the
environment breaking down.
The floor was closed at 7:46 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson: · It is nice to see the only major requirement from staffis the signage. The project
meets nearly every requirement and design issue by the City.
· The project will blend in well with the other senior housing projects.
· It will be great for Prior Lake. It is a welcome addition.
· The site and layout is appropriate.
· Agreed with the neighbor's comments that this was a large building. But the
structure size is misrepresented on the overhead. It is a residential structure and
the materials they are using will blend in well.
· Supported staff's comments and would like to move forward.
Criego:
· How many staff will be working at any given time? Terry Pratt, Director of
Operations for Crystal Care, said that any given time (24 hours a day, Monday
through Friday) there would be approximately 22 staff members. The shifts will
be staggered, not only to accommodate the amount of traffic but also for
efficiency in staffing patterns. There will be 12 to 15 staff members on the
weekends.
· Out of the 40 parking spaces, 15 will be used for staff. Will the remaining
parking be adequate for the facility? Pratt responded it would be appropriate.
Most visitors will come in the evening. Weekends will be busier, but there will
be less staff.
· What about sidewalks or walkways? How are they going to get to other areas in
Prior Lake? Pratt said they will have a transportation van. At this time it has not
been determined if it will be a 12 or 15 passenger vehicle. There will be
pathways around the Memory Care area.
· Mike Lewis responded they would be in favor of sidewalks along the ring road.
They are just waiting to find out how it will work with the City. Kansier said the
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshnn051401 .doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
right-of-way will accommodate one, probably two sidewalks. Lewis said they did
not want an isolated sidewalk. It should be part of the master plan.
· Questioned the lighting issue brought up by the neighbor. Kansier responded the
light standard proposed would not flood anyone's yard. There is also additional
landscaping to soften the area.
· In favor of the development. Prior Lake needs a facility like this.
Lemke: · It was a great presentation by the developer.
· All requirements have been met.
Atwood: · Agreed it looks super. Crystal Care will act as a catalyst for the ring road.
· Not opposed to the eave encroachment.
· The parking seems generous.
· How big are the patios? Davis replied they would be 30x30 feet and 30x60 feet.
· As a gesture of good will, could the landscaping be looked at closely to have
some measure to dissipate the lighting?
· Rye said the light distribution patterns could be moved and faced towards the
building. It would reduce the lighting impact.
· Landscape will also help.
· Agreed with Criego on the sidewalks.
· What is the status of Franklin Trail being turned over to the City? Kansier said it
has been turned over the City but the County will maintain it for another year.
Vonhof:
· Questioned the sprinkler system and fire doors. Davis responded they were
included.
· Questioned if there were any other construction techniques different than
apartments? Davis said thc building will follow under the same codes as
apartment buildings. There arc no firewalls.
· Confused by the sidewalks not designated on the ring road. City Engineer
McDermott said she believed they arc proposed on both sides. It is considered a
collector street and sidewalks arc standard. She went on to explain the ring road
should be constructed all the way to Duluth Avenue by 2002. There arc still
discussions with the developer.
· It is an excellent project.
Larry Johnson said the neighbor's comments were helpful and will report back on the
lighting and landscaping.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS PARK
NICOLLET ADDITION WITH THE ADDED CRITERIA THAT SIDEWALKS ARE
INCLUDED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesknn051401 .doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE A SENIOR CARE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR AN ASSISTED
LIVING FACILITY TO BE KNOWN AS CRYSTAL CARE WITH THE
CONDITIONS AS STATED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before City Council on June 4, 2001.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case File #01-031 Consider the vacation of the drainage and utility easement
platted on Outlot V, The Wilds.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 14, 2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Outlot V of The Wilds was originally platted in 1993. A drainage and utility easement,
30' to 70' wide, was platted through the outlot to accommodate the sanitary sewer line.
Shamrock Development is in the process of replatting this outlot as The Woods at the
Wilds. The existing easement will encroach into the buildable area of some of the new
lots.
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is satisfied by the dedication of necessary
easements with the new subdivision plat. The Planning staff recommended approval of
this request, subject to the condition that the resolution vacating this easement is not
recorded until the final plat is approved.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· This is fine, subject to the Final Plat.
Lemke, Atwood, Stamson and Vonhof: · Agreed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION OF THE EASEMENT AS REQUESTED,
SUBJECT TO THE FINAL PLAT.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteskmn051401 .doc 1 0
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #01-032 Consider the vacation of the platted alley and drainage
and utility easement in Block 9, Prior Lake Original Plat.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 14, 2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
R & K Sales, Inc. has filed a petition to vacate the platted alley and a 20' wide drainage
and utility easement on the property located on the north side of Dakota Avenue, the west
side of Main Avenue and south of Lakefront Park. The applicant is proposing to develop
this property. The proposed building would encroach onto the platted alley and the
easement. The applicant has also filed an application to combine all of the lots as a part
of this development plan.
If the lots are combined and redeveloped, there is no need for the existing easement and
the alley. Staff recommended approval of this request subject to the condition the
resolution vacating this easement would not be recorded until the combination of the lots
is approved and recorded, and a development plan for this site is approved.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Questioned the telephone company's easement. Kansier explained the agreement.
Criego:
· How does this get approved without the telephone company's agreement?
Kansier explained that a signed agreement will be subject to the City's approval
before recorded.
Randy Simpson, President of R&K Sales, developer of Lakefront Plaza, was present for
any questions.
Lemke:
· Comfortable with recommending approval for the vacation based on the
conditions and agreement with the telephone company. It should not have to
come before the Commission again.
Atwood:
· Agreed.
Stamson:
· No problem with the vacation. It is a better use of the property. It is in the City's
interest. Feel odd approving without the telephone issue being resolved.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesh-nn051401 .doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
Criego:
· No problem as long as the telephone agreement is mentioned as a condition.
Vonhof:
· Agreed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION OF EASEMENT SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS: 1) THE VACATION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL THE
COMBINATION OF THE LOTS IS APPROVED AND RECORDED; AND 2) THE
APPROVAL OF THE TELEPHONE COMPANY TO REMOVE THE LINE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
The Tuesday, May 29 meeting will proceed as scheduled.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
Donald Rye
Planning Director
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshrm051401 .doc 12