HomeMy WebLinkAbout042699REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
CASE FILES #98-172 AND #98-173 BRADLEY OVERBY IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
STRUCTURE SETBACKS AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN LAND RECREATIONAL USE
IN AN R- 1 DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ISLAND VIEW
CIRCLE.
CASE FILES #99-003 AND #99-004 (CONTINUED) PRIOR LAKE OAKS, LLC IS REQUESTING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS
WILD OAKS LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 42, WEST OF GREENWAY AVENUE AND
NORTH AND EAST OF CONROY STREET.
CASE FILES #99-013 AND #99-014 D.R. HORTON IS REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR
THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS DEERFIELD LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 21,
SOUTH OF FISH POINT ROAD AND WILDERNESS TRAIL AND EAST OF THE PONDS ATHLETIC
FACILITY.
CASE FILE #99-018 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS ! 102.1300 AND 1102.1600 OF
THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
rL:L99~IL~\99P I~CO~SM~PCP/~GF~lDA~G04269~. D(~C
16200 ~ag~e ~reeK ~ve. ~.r~., ~'rior LaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 26, 1999
1. Call to Order:
The April 26, 1999, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording
Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
Cramer Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
Cramer correction on page 4 change comment to say "Look imo a right tum lane from
Pike Lake Trail to Fountain Hills."
The Minutes from the April 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting were approved as
corrected.
4. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing statement and opened the meeting with
the first item.
Ae
CASE FILES #98-172 AND #98-173 BRADLEY OVERBY IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR AN R-1 DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ISLAND
VIEW CIRCLE.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated April 26, 1999
in reference to the Conditional Use Permit on file in of the office of the City Planner.
The City received an application for a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance from
Bradley Overby. The applicant is proposing to use part of an outlot with two existing
sheds for open land recreational use with a parking area for camper use during the
Summer daylight hours with no over night camping. The property is located on the south
side of Island View Circle and begins approximately 375 to 400 feet east of Island View
Road. This property is zoned R-1 and Shoreland District. Open land recreational uses
require a conditional use permit in the R-1 District.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc I
Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the 6 conditions listed in
the Planning Report.
Criego questioned how long the sheds had been in the area. Horsman responded several
years. There are also 3 docks.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated April 26, 1999, on file in the
office of the City Planner. The application is for a variance to the required setbacks for a
water oriented accessory structure as part of the Conditional Use Permit to allow "Open
Land Recreation."
Staff felt hardship was met with respect to the required front yard setback. However,
only one water oriented accessory structure is permitted. Therefore, the smaller, more
non-conforming shed should be removed and a 9.7 foot front yard variance for the other
shed should be granted. A condition of the variance should include a building permit,
required flood protection, and conforming architectural materials (non sheet-metal).
Comments from the public:
Bradley Overby, 15901 Fremont Avenue, Prior Lake stated two families bought the
property several years ago and has since then bought the other party out. The shed was
put up because of security reasons. Overby stated they contacted the City years ago and
were told there would be no problem with the sheds. He would like to use the outlot as
an extension of his property and has not seen an ordinance violating these issues. Overby
said he is only asking for seasonal storage. Overby presented overhead pictures of the
property as well as neighboring boats and campers stored on the property all year long.
He stated he does have 3 docks and explained the storage. Overby said he was happy to
comply with the shed requirements and but is concerned with the storage of his camper.
Kansier explained the ordinance.
Sally Schmidt, 3791 Island View Circle, representing the neighbors, prepared a letter for
the Commissioners which she read into the record. They do not object to the use of the
property but object to the way the applicant is using the property as well as the dockage.
Marie Piette, 3595 Island View Circle, stated the applicant is maintaining the land but
feels it looks like a KOA campground. She supports the homeowners association and
does not want to look at the storage.
Steve Kopetzki, 3845 Island View Circle, pointed out the letter read by Ms. Schmidt does
have 25 signatures.
The public hearing was closed.
1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc 2
Comments from Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation. A Conditional Usc Permit is in order.
bone of contention is thc recreational vehicles.
· Restrict to use to daylight hours allowing for appropriate use of the property.
The real
Kuykendall:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
· Address the daylight hours.
· The use of the land for this purpose does just that. It is not large enough to build a
home.
· Would like to know what the DNR feels about the number of docks.
Stamson:
· Concurred with staff.
· Variance allows reasonable use with the conditions.
· The vehicle and trailer storage is not appropriate. However, the use is consistent with
the neighborhood.
Criego:
· Would like to hear from the DNR regarding the docks and the timber wall near the
shoreline.
· Camper use should not be in that area. There is not enough parking.
· Recommend only camper for parking.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
Cramer:
· Agreed with staff and Criego's concern for parking.
· Supportive of staff's recommendation with one water-oriented shed.
· Asked for clarification with Condition #6 regarding recreational vehicle parking.
Horsman explained the ordinance.
· Would like to see the parking for the entire year addressed in this matter.
Criego:
· Questioned the definitions for recreational property and recreational storage. Kansier
said it was not specifically addressed in the ordinance.
Stamson:
· Suggest DNR complies with dockage and suggested a condition that applicant
complies with DNR regulations.
Vonhof and Kuykendall suggested continuing.
1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc 3
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND KUYKENDALL, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING
TO MAY 10, 1999, FOR SPECIFIC RESPONSE FROM THE DNR ON DOCKAGE
AND SHORELAND MODIFICATIONS ON THE TIMBER WALL.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
CASE FILES #99-003 AND #99-004 (CONTINUED) PRIOR LAKE OAKS, LLC IS
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE
PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS WILD OAKS LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 42, WEST
OF GREENWAY AVENUE ANn NORTH AND EAST OF CONROY STREET.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 26, 1999
on file in the office of the City Planner. This is a continuation of the public hearing from
the February 8, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. Staff recommended approval of
the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions listed in the
Planning Report.
Criego asked for clarification on the driveways and tree caliper replacement. Kansier
responded.
Comments from the public:
Robert Speed, 11792 Acron Avenue, Inver Grove Heights, one of the developers, stated
they met the neighbors concerns and 24 conditions. They spent a lot of time and effort to
comply to neighbors' needs. .
Scott Roth, 6394 Conroy Street, stated his concems were not addressed. First, some of
the trees to be excavated are over 100 years old. The excavation will disturb all the
remaining trees and they will not survive. Another tree disturbance concern is the
construction of the retaining walls. The additional drainage from the impervious surface
of the new development will raise the wetland by 2 feet. Therefore, the adjacent trees to
the wetland will be lost. Roth disagrees with the landscaping plan the developer is
proposing and went on to quote the vegetation selection in the Shoreland Management
Ordinance. Another concern is for the stress on the existing wetlands. Savage already has
drainage into the area. He is not sure if the setbacks are from the existing Conroy Street
or the platted street are correct stating some residents will have cars sticking out into the
street if the street is moved as platted. Roth would like reassurance the existing street
will remain as is.
Dave Frees, 6346 Conroy Street, commended staffwith the report, however he felt the
area is in the bluff zone. Frees read a partial paragraph of a letter dated April 19, 1999 to
Jane Kansier from Pat Lynch, Hydrologist with the DNR. His second concern is the small
wetland. Frees' interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance wetland definition would be
violated as proposed.
Ted Schweich, 6436 Conroy Street, brought up the PUD proposal several years ago and
why it was denied. He stated he has never seen a development come in as a conditional
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc 4
use permit and felt this project should go in as a single family development. He would
like to see the density reduced. Schweich also wanted to address the issue of parkland.
Questioned where his children would go to play. Other issues were with the roadway not
being built, no buffer, slopes, clear cutting trees and runoff.
John Gorra, Shady Beach Trail, said the road as platted is not as actually traveled. Gorra
stated the second issue was selfish - he would like to see the road raised. There has to be
road improvement with this development. The previous proposal was going to dead-end.
Gorra would like the project to go with the original recommendation and put in a cul-de-
sac at the end of the road. He did not want to see the connecting streets and traffic.
Dan Heiling, 6298 Conroy Street, said he has seen a lot of erosion with the existing water
runoff. There is more sedimentation flow and increase of lake vegetation into Prior Lake.
He agreed with Mr. Gorra's concerns.
John Turner, 14137 Shady Beach Trail, main concern is the runoff. This development
will add more runoff. The road should be upgraded.
Marianne Frees, 6346 Conroy Street, thanked the developer for reducing the size of the
development. She also felt the tree survey was incorrect. Frees stated they have done a
lot of landscaping and is concerned with problems associated with the road and runoff.
Calena Townsend, 6300 Conroy Street, said there are many residents who could not make
the meeting and will be writing letters. She would like the Commissioners to revisit the
rezoning of the property. She has lived in Prior Lake for 3 years and has seen many
changes. If the City cannot control Savage, they (City) will have to deal with the runoff
into Prior Lake. She does not agree with messing with the geography. As a
neighborhood they are concerned, this development is not what the neighbors want.
Townsend told the Commissioners they had the legal means to turn this proposal down
and as stated before, they will not give up.
Lori Heiling, 6298 Conroy Street, said they were told by the realtor the area would be
single family homes and since the townhomes are not consistent with the neighborhood,
her property value will go down.
Bill Townsend, 6300 Conroy Street, was concerned the Commissioners had a lot of
things going on at the meeting. But there are many concerns yet to be raised. Townsend
stated he felt it was his right and duty to address 6 pages of concerns. (A copy of the
document is on file in the office of the City Planner.)
Comments from the Commissioners:
Cramer:
· Cannot support this development because of units 15 to 21 impact steep slopes and
wetlands.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcminXmn042699.doc 5
· Removal of units 15-21 would provide area to mitigate runoff and act as a buffer area
to the existing homes in the new area.
· Basically, this area is ecologically sensitive to be completely cut up.
· Questioned staff if the Conroy Street upgrade was in the City Capital Improvement
Plan. McDermott responded if the residents of Conroy Street would like the road
upgraded they would have to go through the Minnesota Statute 429 process and
requesting City Council to add the improvements to the Capital Improvement Plan.
· Cannot support the development. A little less would a great improvement.
Criego:
· Feels there are basically 5 items.
· The drainage issue revolves around the impervious surface. This has been reviewed.
· Is there a serious problem with Conroy Street today? Certainly tomorrow.
· Is it a bluff?. Has the DNR indicated it?
· Access to the lake. Would like to hear from the developer.
· McDermott said it appears some of the trees were surrounded by silt fence in order to
protect them. McDermott also noted the drainage meets all the criteria. They will
revise the calculations. If the on-site ponding is not adequate the developer will have
to address it. The wetland issue has been addressed.
· Kansier read the ordinance regarding the Conservation District.
The significant trees are not being removed.
· Kansier read the letter from the DNR.
· Joel Cooper, the engineer from James Hill & Associates, addressed the tree loss
explaining the engineering techniques dealing with the tree removal. The intent is to
keep the runoffinto the pond on site. Cooper said the runoffwill not cause any
flooding. The rate of runoff leaving the site will remain the same as the pre-
developed rate.
· Questioned staffon the Conroy Street position. McDermott presented a map of the
traveled roadway which appeared to be in the development. McDermott does not see
as an issue.
· John Haselton, the owner of the development, said they have no property ownership
on the lake.
Vonhof:
· Criego did an excellent job in addressing the issues.
· Has attended every meeting on this development. Appreciates the work the
neighborhood has done.
· This is the most environmentally sensitive piece of property on Prior Lake. It is very
challenging. There will be a development on this site.
· The developers did a very good job addressing the issues.
· Has concern for the steep slopes and impact on the east side of site.
Kuykendall:
· It is not easy to address all the issues.
· The road issue is put to bed. The elevation on the road is a concern.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcminh'am042699.doc 6
· Complemented the developer for putting forth a good plan.
· Traffic flow, street improvement, cul-de-sac, parks, issues are still conflicting. They
are all valid issues and need to be addressed in a special assessment for the area.
· The residents could buy the property and take care of it as a park.
· The developer was very forthright working with staff on many details. Especially
working with the Capital Improvement Program and paying for the road. There has
to be some concessions.
· We've come a long way but there are still some issues which need to be addressed.
Stflmson:
· Commend developer for addressing the issues from the last meeting.
· The major issues were addressed and answered.
· Comfortable with what the developer has done.
· Storm water will probably meet the requirements.
· A townhouse development can actually give the City more control. If it was simply
single family homes the City would not have the restrictions. If the property owners
want to see the lake and cut down the trees, they can do it without the neighbor's
permission.
· Would like to see numbers on the water by the engineers.
Criego:
· The conditions outlined by staff does state the engineers have to review and make
sure the project meets the standards of the City.
· The project should not be held up by that particular criteria.
· In favor of the development. The townhouse association is better for the area and the
owners cannot do what they want.
Open discussion:
Kuykendall pointed out the Commissioners have not had time to read the six pages
submitted by Townsend.
Criego questioned the elevation of Conroy Street and the Capital Improvement Plan.
Kansier clarified the Capital Improvement Plan. McDermott explained the City's policy
of gravel roads being assessed to the property.
Stamson said the runoff issue is existing, not created by the potential development.
Kuykendall suggested tabling or taking another 30 minutes to discuss.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, TO TABLE THE MATTER TO THE NEXT
MEETING. NO SECOND. MOTION FAILED.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc 7
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE CONDITIONS STATED IN THE STAFF
REPORT AS FOLLOWS:
1. Revise the plat to show all necessary easements over all public utilities not located
within the dedicated right-of-way. The easements must be at least 15' wide, or
twice the depth of the utility pipe, whichever is greater.
2. The grade of Wild Oaks Terrace must be revised so that it does not exceed 2% for
the first 100' approaching the intersection with Greenway Avenue.
3. Provide turnarounds for emergency vehicles on the common driveways, separate
from the guest parking areas. These driveways must be at least 20' wide, and must
be drawn, to scale, on the plans.
4. Provide the following information on the Engineering Plans at the final plat stage:
a) The City Project number (98-35) must be shown on all plan sheets.
b) The slopes on the water quality pond are too steep and must conform with the
Public Works Design Manual which requires 6:1 slopes below the 10 year HWL
and 4:1 or flatter above the l O year HW£.
c) Add a note in the profile calling out a minimum depth of 8 feet for the
watermain.
d) The water main which provides service to the four units adjacent to "Street A"
must be 6" DIP, not a 1-1/2" copper service.
e) The clean out at the end of the sanitary sewer at "Street A' must be a standard
manhole. All sanitary sewer pipe is to be 8".
JO Submit a soils report and pavement design with the final plat submittal.
g) Detailed plans for the retaining walls will be required. Walls higher than 4feet
are to be designed by a registered engineer and will require a building permit.
h) All silt fence is to be heavy duty.
i) Provide a swale between units 5 and 6.
5. Revised storm sewer calculations must be provided. A complete review of the storm
sewer will not be completed until calculations are submitted. The storm water
routing calculations are to be run with O. 0 acre-foot storage at starting elevations.
6. Provide a new wetland delineation for the small wetland (pond 100) as well as
sequencing for the mitigation.
7. Any grading or utility work within the County right-of-way will require a permit
prior to construction. Evidence of this permit must be submitted to the City prior to
final plat approval.
8. Necessary permits from any other agency, such as the watershed district, must be
obtained and submitted to the City prior to final plat approval
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcminXmnO42699.doc 8
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Stamson and Criego, nays by Kuykendall and
Cramer. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED
IN THE STAFF REPORT AS FOLLOWS:
1. Revise the landscaping plan to include an irrigation system and the necessary
replacement trees (a minimum of 151 caliper inches). Staff suggests the additional
landscaping be placed, where possible, along Greenway Avenue and Conroy Street
to provide additional screening from the singe family residences.
2. Revise the plan sheets to include the correct calculations for impervious surface,
landscaping perimeter, and tree replacement requirements.
3. A letter of credit for the landscaping and tree replacement must be submitted prior
to approval of the final plat documents.
4. The homeowner's association documents must be recorded with the final plat
documents.
5. A new set of plans, showing all of the revisions, must be submitted prior to final
approval of the conditional use permit.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Stamson and Criego, nays by Kuykendall and
Cramer. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 8:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
Commissioner Vonhof was excused from the meeting.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND THE
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW CONROY STREET AND INCLUDE IT IN THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
CASE FILES #99-013 AND #99-014 D.R. }tORTON IS REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND A ZONE CHANGE
REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS DEERFIELD LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF
COUNTY ROAD 21, SOUTH OF FISH POINT ROAD AND WILDERNESS TRAIL AND EAST
OF THE PONDS ATHLETIC FACILITY.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 26, 1999
on file in the office of the City Planner.
D. R. Horton and Deerfield Development have filed an application for a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and a Zone Change for the property located south and west of CSAH
21, south ofFish Point Road and Wilderness Pond Trail and east of the Ponds Athletic
1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin~mn042699.doc 9
Facility. The proposal is to amend the Land Use Plan Map from the current R-L/MD
(Low to Medium Residential) and C-BO (Business Office Park) designations to the R-
HD (High Density Residential) designation on 62.92 acres on the west side of this
property. This proposal also includes a rezoning from the current A (Agricultural) and C-
5 (Business Park) district to the R-4 (High Density Residential) district for the 62.92
acres on the west side of the site, and from the A (Agricultural) district to the R-2 (Low to
Medium Density Residential) district for the residual 101.31 acres.
This property is a part of the 260 acres of land which was annexed by order of the
Minnesota Municipal Board on July 9, 1997. During initial discussions with the City
staff and the City Council, the developer indicated he was interested in a mixed use type
development which would include an expansion of the Waterfront Passage Business Park
on the east side of the site, and a combination of residential uses on the remainder of the
property. These discussions indicated the residential portion of the site would be
developed at a total density of about 5 units per acre, which would equal roughly 700
units.
Staff recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the R-HD
designations and recommended approval of the rezoning of the entire 164 acres to the R-2
district.
Questions by Commissioners:
Stamson questioned the maximum density in R-2. Kansier responded it was 7 units per
acre.
Criego questioned the Comprehensive Plan zone R1 and the options. Kansier explained
single family with townhomes. The major difference is density, 3.6 per acre. The
original discussion was 5 per acre.
Cramer asked if the road alignment was in place. Kansier said it would be addressed at
the Preliminary Plat stage. Roadways could be designated as collectors.
Stamson questioned the Fish Point Road to the south. Kansier explained the long range
plan is for Fish Point Road to meet up with Mushtown Road.
Kuykendall recapped the density and how the units were arrived at. Kansier explained
the MUSA system.
Comments from the public:
Don Patton, of H.R. Horton, the developer, gave a brief background on the developments
they have been involved with in the surrounding cities constructing over 400 homes last
year. Patton explained they did have a neighborhood meeting showing the layout and the
four different proposals on the site. An association would be formed for maintenance.
There would be no rentals. The proposal for R2 adjoins the industrial property. The
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc 10
densities of what they are looking at will make the R2 work as long as they can use a
PUD development.
Kuykendall questioned the density. Patton explained the concept plan. 140 units on 167
acres with a balance of 380 units on 58 acres. The 520 units are under the 700 unit limit.
Kansier recapped. A total of 654 units is what the developer is looking at.
Kansier explained the amendment is for a zone change. The Commissioners are looking
at how the property should be zoned for development.
Margi Atwood, 16992 Crimson Court, said she would like to keep the current zoning.
There is number of wildlife is in the area and if the zoning is changed, all will go away.
She is not opposed to development just this development density. Fish Point Road will
be the only access to the development and will become a freeway. She feels 750 new
residences turn into 1200 additional vehicles. A number of neighbor's quality of life will
be significantly affected. Atwood felt the additional homes will burden the school
district, fire, police, etc. Anther area of concern is the sewer and water needs of the
development. She does not want high density in her back yard and agreed with Mr.
Patton's comments industry is a good neighbor.
Tom Stanley, 6221 Sue Ann Lane, is concerned with the runoff into Markley Lake. Two
houses are potentially in danger of flooding. Markley Lake is a closed basin. He
compared the lake to the City leaving the water faucet running and heading off to work.
The high density is more than the environment can handle.
Tim Courant, 16910 Crimson Court, submitted a petition with signatures from Prior Lake
residents, several of whom are not neighbors. Courant questioned the benefit to Prior
Lake to rezone the annexation area. He also went on to question if the police, school
district and fire department could handle the increased load. His other concern was for
traffic. A traffic light will be needed on Fish Point Road and County Road 21 with the
tax imposed on the citizens of Prior Lake. Courant was concerned for the property values
on adjacent homes and stated the proposal will not be serving the citizens of Prior Lake
only the developer and the land owner.
Franke Forstner, 5170 Lexington Court, said the one issue not addressed is the business
district. She talked to the adjacent businesses who were not aware of the proposed
change and felt the current zoning will benefit the area businesses. Forstner said she also
talked to a number of people looking at retirement who do not want to see Prior Lake
change or grow any faster.
Wendy Roepke, 16923 Crimson Court, stated she heard the Prior Lake School District is
bad. Her other concern is rental properties. Whatever is it zoned, nobody wants
apartments next to their home. She was told the City is demanding rental property.
Curt Horkey, 17021 Fish Point Road, of Keyland Homes and Minnesota Valley
Millworks, stated he was told the area was going to be zoned for industry. Horkey said
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc 11
they moved from Bumsville with lower income and driveby shootings, now he will be
right next to apartments. Horkey asked to take into consideration the semi-trucks coming
into the industrial area with neighboring kids out running around.
Dennis Wells, 5629 Parkview Circle, moved to the area approximately 5 years ago stating
had he known this development would go in, he never would have built in Prior Lake. No
one will be happy with a low income development next to their home. The property
values will go down. Most of the duplexes on Franklin Trail have 2 or 3 cars and boats in
the yard which shouldn't be allowed. He was worded what is going to happen when the
road goes through. Prior Lake has to start worrying about the people who live in Prior
Lake, not the people who they think are going to live here.
Kevin Bergstrom, 16030 Eagle Creek Avenue, questioned if an EAW was available and
stated it was required. Bergstrom's other concerns are as follows: the density, increase
for tax dollars, the wetland and open water. He questioned why should the residents pay
for this development, why was this property originally zoned as R1 and how will this
serve the citizens of Prior Lake.
Mike Atwood, 16292 Crimson Court, moved out to this area and would like to see it
remain the way it is. Atwood contacted the PCA on the wetland and talked to several
members of the Metropolitan Council stating if it comes down to it, they will get an
EAW study. He also talked to the Watershed and Scott County Soil and Conservation
who told him the neighbors should protect and do what they can to protect the
environment. There is no pond for runoff. All the experts say the runoff will kill the
wetland.
Criego pointed out this is not a proposal. There are a number of other steps before any
approval is given to the developer. This is a zoning change only. The design layout is
not the gospel. The City has many controls not to create runoff and pollution. What the
Commissioners are looking at is high density or low density.
Wendy Roepke, 16923 Crimson Court, said she was at the information meeting and was
told the developer wanted to start the project in July. She was glad to hear there are some
other controls.
Stamson explained the amendment was for land use only.
Thomas Robeck, 16974 Wildemess Trail, concurred with the opinion of neighbors, they
were under the impression the street would be a cul-de-sac. Industry is a good neighbor
for single family homes and had no objections. He has upwards of $300,000 invested in
his home and is against the high density. There is already traffic on his dead-end street
with many children in the neighborhood. The matter of the wildlife protection is very
important.
Terry Hagelberger, 16940 Crimson Court, stated the zoning lays the foundation of what
will follow.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc 12
Jeff Elasky, 16951 Wilderness Trail, said he spoke at a meeting several years ago. The
biggest concern is the density. He was told 2 years ago by Scott County, Spring Lake
Township and City the density was 2.5 acres.
The hearing was closed at 10:10 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
Agreed with neighbors the zoning should stay low density.
· Kansier explained the industrial park density and zoning.
· Proposed to keep low density except for a small piece by the industrial park which
would be R2.
· Kansier explained the R1 and R2 District densities. In both cases townhomes are
allowed as a conditional use. Also a PUD is allowed which would be more units per
acre.
· Recommended most of the acres in question be zoned R1 with a conditional use
permit.
· Recommended the small strip next the industrial park be labeled R2 with a slightly
higher density.
Kuykendall:
· Agreed with Criego comments.
· Questioned the rental property. Kansier explained the definitions.
· The zoning is the foundation.
· When there is a transitional change as this, there should be a buffer area. The vast
majority should be R1 but there could be more R2.
· This is also guided by Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Act which the
City has to comply with. If it becomes rental property so be it.
· The plan concept is good.
Stamson:
· The City Council looked at this issue a year and a half ago. They felt it would be
zoned low to medium density. Nothing changed in the year and a half. High density
was originally looked at and turned down.
· Familiar with the developer and does a nice job. Would like to see a development
like this in Prior Lake, but this is not the area.
· Fish Point Road beyond the High School is not the primary road. This development
should have a better road access.
· Some townhomes would be okay.
· Propose to do the entire development RI.
Cramer:
· Stamson summed up his concerns.
1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc 13
· To change to high density, the development would have to be near a major arterial
road. This will not work.
· Has a difficult time rezoning without seeing the schematics of a plan.
· Shared Criego and Kuykendall's recommendation that this should be R1 with a
percentage of R2 for transition. It is the only fit with the neighborhood.
· Most of the eastern portion should be R1 except the northeast quadrant.
Criego said one of the affordable housing sites was set out on County Road 42. Not this
area.
Cramer pointed out Scott County HRA basically commended Prior Lake on their
response to affordable housing.
Kuykendall and Criego felt the developer did a great job with housing developments in
other communities.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Patton pointed out an original proposed high density.
Mark Roepke, 16923 Crimson Court, does not agree with the preliminary drawing and
questioned the R2 density.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO TABLE THE HEARING
TO MAY 10, 1999, FOR THE DEVELOPER AND STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A
NEW PROPOSAL.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 10:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:44 p.m.
CASE FILE #99-018 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 1102.1300 AND
1102.1600 OF THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 26, 1999
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the new Zoning
Ordinance (effective May 1, 1999) relating to the setback requirements for nonresidential
structures and parking lots adjacent to Residential Use Districts.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc 14
Section 5-4-1 E of the current Zoning Ordinance requires that nonresidential structures
shall maintain a minimum setback of 60' for side and rear yards adjacent to Residential
districts. This section also requires parking lots and access drives for nonresidential uses
maintain a 20' setback for side and rear yards adjacent to Residential districts. This
provision was inadvertently excluded from the new Zoning Ordinance, effective on May
1, 1999. By the time this error was discovered, the City Council had adopted the new
ordinance. Therefore, an amendment is necessary to include this provision.
Staff recommended approval of the amendment as proposed or with changes specified by
the Planning Commission.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE THE
AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business: None
6. New Business: None
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Kansier said the Ordinance goes into affect May 1, 1999.
· The Comprehensive Plan will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council this week.
· The joint meeting/tour with City Council and Planning Commission is scheduled for
May 12.
· The public town meeting for the downtown development disthct will be held at the
High School on May 13.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjoumed at 10:49 p.m.
Recording Secretary
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc 15