Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout070901REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JULY 9, 2001 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 2. 3. 4. A. Co o 6. 7. A. 8. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: Case Files 01-039 and 01-040 Consider an application for a preliminary plat to be known as McCormick Acres and to consider variances to thc minimum lot area for three of the proposed lots for the property located on thc south side of 170th Street, North of Highway 13 and east of Pheasant Meadows. Case File 01-049 Consider an application to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow off-premise nameplate signs in commercial districts. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. Old Business: New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. Adjournment: L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcagenda~,07090 I.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, JULY 9, 2001 1. Call to Order: Chairman Vonhof called the July 9, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Lemke, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Absent Criego Present Lemke Present Stamson Present Vonhof Present 3. Approval of Minutes: Correction: Delete "Criego" from the first paragraph. The Minutes from the June 25, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as corrected. Commissioner Vonhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case Files 01-039 and 01-040 Consider an application for a preliminary plat to be known as McCormick Acres and to consider variances to the minimum lot area for three of the proposed lots for the property located on the south side of 170th Street, North of Highway 13 and east of Pheasant Meadows. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 9, 2001, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The Patrick L. McCormick Trust has filed an application for a preliminary plat for the 1.85 acre site located on the south side of CSAH 12 (170th Street), west of CSAH 13 and east of Pheasant Meadows. The preliminary plat, to be known as McCormick Acres, consists of 1.85 acres to be subdivided into 5 lots for singe family residences. There are two existing single family dwellings on this site. The application also includes a request for variances to the minimum lot area for 3 of the proposed lots. There are two main issues pertaining to this preliminary plat. The first issue is the need for variances to the minimum lot area for three of the proposed lots. The need for L:\01 files\01 plancomn~01 pcminutesWIN070901 .doc Planning Commission Meeting July 9. 2001 variances is caused primarily by the County requirement for 50' of right-of-way rather than the standard 33' of right-of-way. If the standard amount of right-of-way were dedicated, Lots 3 and 4 would meet the minimum lot area requirement of 12,000 square feet. Lot 5, however, would still be less than the minimum lot area with an area of 11,681 square feet. The second issue pertaining to this proposal is access to the property to the south. Although the property to the south is adjacent to TH 13, the State purchased the access rights to this site several years ago. At the present time, the only access to this property is from Pheasant Trail, the platted but unimproved road to the west. This will remain the access to the property, unless the City creates a new access by realigning the TH 13 and CSAH 12 intersection. Another option is to require dedication of right-of-way through this plat from CSAH 12 to the property. This would result in the loss of a lot from the proposed plat. If the Planning Commission finds the variance to the minimum lot size is justified, the proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to final plat approval, the Tree Inventory must be revised so all trees are labeled and it must be signed by a registered land surveyor. 2. The water and sewer service locations must be verified. 3. The applicant must obtain an access permit and any other required permits from Scott County prior to final plat approval. If the variance is not approved, a fourth condition requiring that all lots meet the minimum lot area requirement must be included. Staff recommended the Planning Commission defer action on the preliminary plat and variance to August 13, 2001, allow the applicant the opportunity to reconsider the proposed plat. Criego questioned if the property south of the applicant was landlocked? Kansier pointed out the access through Pheasant Meadows. Rye said at the time of the designation the City had no idea the State would purchase the access off Highway 13. Criego also questioned the easement location. Rye said the description indicates it is located to the easterly side of the house. Comments from the public: Applicants, Kris Busse and Tim Arvidson, spoke as representatives of the Patrick McCormick Trust. Busse respectfully disagreed that there is a hardship with the property as there are two existing homes. With existing homes one does not have the ability to layout the property in a typical subdivision fashion. Regarding the access issue, Busse L:\01 files\01plancomm~01pcminutesWIN070901.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting duly 9, 2001 did not feel it was a good idea to run commercial traffic through a residential area. Suggested re-aligning the Highway 13 and County Road 12 access. It would be a better- controlled traffic area. By placing the burden of access to the neighbors' property is not fair to the McCormick family. They were never paid for the access rights. It is hard to understand that someone was paid for access rights and now the McCormicks are required to provide access. Arvidson pointed out the location of the log house. At the time it was built, the house met City ordinances. The City required 12,000 square foot lot sizes after the log home was built. The staff report pointed out that the majority of the variances are for the additional footage dedicated to the County for right-of-way. Julie McCormick, said there is some difference in keeping the property in the original state. McCormick questioned the value of the property if subdivided. She would like to see the property remain the same. Judd Dow, (McCormick's fianc6e) said they did not get a notice until yesterday. The family is split two to two on the decision to subdivide the property. Dow felt the family needed more time for adequate council to study the value of the land. Question if there would be more valuable to keep the existing lots or subdivide. Commissioner Vonhof explained the Commission could not answer those questions. The surrounding property owners are notified 10 days prior to the meeting. Kansier pointed out the notice went to the applicant. Dow said they would like to get adequate appraisals and requested more time to study the issue. Two of the trust heirs felt the hardship is not there and would leave it as is. Rye questioned if decisions of the trust were made together or by one person. Dow said it is up to Kris Busse. Two of the heirs would like more information. Howard Monnens, owner of the 10 acres south of the property, said he does have an access from the State to Highway 13. He would have to get a permit. He also has a water and sewer easement from 1980 though the McCormick property. Monnens does not see the Pheasant Meadows property as an access for the commercial property. Monnens also stated he went to the State and they were okay with getting access. The City felt access from the intersection of 170th and Highway 13 was too close to the interchange for an access. The County said they only thing they could do was to suggest counting 1,300 feet as a possible access from the westerly side of Pheasant Meadows, which would not work. Monnens asked the City to look into a long-term solution. He felt the State, County and City officials should consider the future of the area now. Mark McCormick, an heir of the McCormick trust, pointed out the older home on the west side sits up 8 to 10 feet, and is concerned the driveway is too close to the adjoining lot and will have to be adjusted. Several trees will have to be taken out and a retaining wall will have to be constructed for access to the old house. The other house has a high L:\01 files\01 plancomn~01 pcminuteshMN070901 .doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 9, 2001 elevation and would look like an island. He was concemed they would loose value on the home. William Baker, resident and representative for Pheasant Meadows Association stated their concern is for the access trail through the property. He agreed with Mr. Monnens that the area has to be looked at as a total. Access through a residential area is not appropriate. The Association would like to maintain the integrity of the area. They are objecting to any further development access through the area. Baker questioned what the affect would be if the commercial property would be changed to residential? Pheasant Meadows is planning on petitioning for a variance on the roadway to prevent a future access. Baker presented a petition from 64 Pheasant Meadows residents outlining his comments. Mike Klingberg representing his parents Bill and Nancy Klingberg, 3655 170th Street, east of the property, are concerned for a potential home 20 feet away from their property. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: Agreed with staffto defer this to the August 13, meeting. There are many issues which require more information. Criego: Questioned staff.' If the applicant does not dedicate the right-of-way at this point, is that acceptable or is he required to dedicate it? Rye said it depends on what law book you read. Recent Supreme Court decisions state you cannot compel dedication by the need of a project. You can compel dedication but what you dedicate has to be proportionate to the need created by the project. The issue to be resolved is whether or not traffic generated from this development would be of volume warranting dedication to the entire right-of-way or some percentage of it. Criego clarified. · Rye said anytime the City approves a plat on a County Road, the County would always say they need right-of-way. It tends to come up more on County roads. · Does not like to plat property in a substandard method. Three lots are substandard. The Commission does their best to keep the standards. · If the dedication were required would be against approving the application at this time. There is no question that the driveways proposed would be connected to the County road. Kansier said the County felt the driveways would have to be combined. In essence there would be 3 openings. The County requires driveway permits. · The applicant did not show a need to divide into 3 substandard lots. L:\01 files\01 plancomrn~01 pcminuteshMN070901 .doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting duly 9, 2001 Stamson: If you can't compel a dedication, does that mean the City cannot require it at all.'? Rye said the City would have to purchase the right-of-way if it is needed. · Questioned if the City would develop access through Pheasant Meadows7 Rye said the neighbors objected to Pheasant Meadows accessing through their neighborhood. As a result of that, a connection to the west was eliminated. This was retained but the street itself was not built. It is a platted right-of-way. Dedicated public street. · Agreed with Criego and City Staffthat it is a matter of convenience to split into $ lots. They do not meet the standards. · Willing to give the applicant more time to look at the issues. Vonhof: · More information was received than was in the report. Suggested obtaining more information before a decision is made. · Agreed with Commissioners on the variance request. Perhaps 4 lots would be more appropriate. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO DEFER THE MATTER TO THE AUGUST 13, 2001 MEETING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Kansier clarified that staff should come back with information on access and realignment of the intersection of Highway 13 and 170th. Vonhofpointed out that access is in the CIP for the City and County for 2002. Stamson requested addressing the dedication issue. The City cannot compel the applicant to dedicate access. Vonhof explained the actions on this issue. Lemke suggested the trustees should leave their addresses with staff for notification. B. Case File 01-049 Consider an application to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow off-premise nameplate signs in commercial districts. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 9, 2001, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The purpose of this public heating is to consider an amendment to the Sign provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant, Wensco, is requesting an amendment that would allow off-premise nameplate signs in commercial districts. These signs are generally used by multiple tenant shopping centers to list the names of the individual tenants. Examples of the signs were presented. Wensco would like to use this type of sign to identify the various businesses located in the Fountain Hills development. The Zoning L:\01 files\01 plancomrnk01 pcminutesWIN070901 .doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 9, 2001 Ordinance does not allow off-premise signs. The ordinance, however, does allow subdivision signs, identifying the name of the development, at the major entrances to the development. Staff felt there is a public need for an amendment to allow nameplate signs. The proposed amendment also is consistent with the goal of "economic vitality" in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specifically, the language is consistent with the objective that requires the City to "maintain high standards in the promotion and development of commerce and industry" by encouraging, regulating, and promoting aesthetically pleasing commercial and industrial development. Lemke questioned the height of the signs in Bumsville. Kansier said the City did not have that information. The 10 feet above grade is for the intersections that say the name of the business center. It is 20 feet for other districts, except for the C5 district. Comments from the public: Kelly Murray, representing Wensco, the applicant, agreed with Staff's proposed language. Their only concern is that they requested 25 feet for the size. Their lot happens to be on a steep slope along County Road 42. Murray explained the grade and the problem. They need the full 20 feet to get to the sign they are proposing. Murray presented the proposed sign. They were going to tie in with a theme for the area. The sign would be located 15 feet west from the Holiday station lot line. There were no comments from the public and the floor was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · There should be signage for industry and parks. · Agreed with the twenty feet. Something can be worked out on what the average is. · That particular property can only benefit from a high level sign. It should not be a problem. · There should be entrance signage into the park. Ten feet is appropriate. Stamson: · It is a good idea and beneficial to the City. · Regarding Item 2b: Should the City be more specific with nameplate signs? This is more ora subdivision sign. Rye responded the City would be getting into content regulation. There is nothing to say they can't have multiple businesses within the one sign. Stamson agreed. · Addressing the applicant's concern with the grade. Twenty feet is okay. Language should be added to accommodate the issue with the sloping ditches. · Kansier said the City would review the language. · There are very few natural grades along County Road 42. L:\01 files\01 plancomn~01 pcminutesWIN070901 .doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 9, 2ool · Kansier stated that there are unique circumstances and would maybe have to look at variances. But try to make it apply to most situations. · Overall agreed with staff's recommendation. Lemke: · Agreed 20 feet is adequate, · Do not create a situation where everyone who installs a sign on a graded slope has to apply for a variance. · Agreed the language in the ordinance is good, · Rye suggested wording in cases where the sign is located on a slope that thc short dimension can be 20 feet and the other whatever is necessary to meet the grade. · Agreed with the suggestion. Vonhof.' · Agreed there is a need for the proposed language. · Be consistent. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before City Council on August 6, 2001. C. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 9, 2001, on file in the office of the Planning Department. On June 25, 2001, the Planning Department held a public hearing for two variance requests from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The requests included a setback variance to allow a deck to be setback 4 feet from the ordinary high water mark, and to permit an impervious surface area of 4,422 square feet. The Planning Commission denied the deck variance at the public hearing on June 25, 2001, (Attachment 1 Resolution #01-008PC). The Commission continued the public hearing regarding the impervious surface variance to allow the applicant more time to revise and reduce the request because the Commission did not agree with the request for 4,422 square feet or 57.5 % of the total lot area. On July 3, 2001, the Planning Department received a request from the applicant to continue the public hearing for the impervious surface variance request from the L:\01 files\01 plan¢omrr~01 pcminutes~MN070901 .doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 9, 2001 scheduled date of July 9, to July 23, 2001. The applicant submitted the postponement request due to the lack of time needed to provide the additional information. The staff recommended the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until the next scheduled meeting as requested by the applicant. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JULY 23, 2001. Stamson questioned the resolution denying the structure setback. Kansier responded it was acted on. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A. Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. The Commission adjourned to attend the joint workshop. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\01 files\01 plancomm~01 pcminutes~lN070901 .doc 8