Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0223982. 3. 4. A. Bo Ce A. 6. 7. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, February 23, 1998 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: January 26, 1998 and February 9, 1998 Public Hearings: Case File #98-022 Consider a lot width variance for Charles and Sandra Furlong, 4231 Quaker Trail. Case Files #98-016 to 98-018 Consider an Amendment to the original Windsong on the Lake Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat to be known as Windsong on the Lake 3rd Addition. Case Files #98-010 to 98-012 Consider a Zone Change request, a Conditional Use Permit and a Preliminary Plat for the project to be known as Glynwater. Old Business: Case File #97-132 Continuation of the Burdick Properties variance request. New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: L:~98FILES\98PLCOMM~CAGENDA~AGO22398.DOC 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Dh. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1998 1. Call to Order: The February 23, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Kuykendall Absent Criego Present Cramer Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the January 26, 1998 and February 9, 1998 Planning Commission meetings were approved as presented. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case File #98-022 Consider a lot width variance for Charles and Sandra Furlong, 4231 Quaker Trail. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated February 23, 1998. The Planning Department received a variance application from Charles and Sandra Furlong who are proposing to remove an existing structure and construct a new single family residence. The lot is 49.89 feet wide at the 25 foot minimum required front yard setback. Section 5-8-12 of the City Code requires that substandard lots have a minimum lot width of 50 feet to be buildable. The City Code does not specify what measurement distances are in, the setbacks and other numerical ordinance requirements cannot be rounded. Thus, the existing lot width at the front yard setback is less than 50 feet requiring a variance. The lot is located in the Maple Park Shore Acres subdivision on Prior Lake. The legal building envelope is approximately 35 feet wide and 63 feet deep, resulting in an area footprint of approximately 2,205 sq. feet. The applicant does not have a house designed yet, but intends to comply with all building setbacks and impervious surface. The DNR has not commented on this request. Staff has concluded the variance request for lot width is substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot which the applicant has no control over. 1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcminhrm022398.doc 1 Comments from the public: Charles Furlong, 4231 Quaker Trail, commented all the lots in the area are the same size. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · The variance hardship criteria have been met. The lot is substandard and platted in 1922. · No objections. Criego: · Agreed with Vonhof- propose to approve Resolution 98-03PC. Cramer: · Concurred Stamson: Agreed MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 93-03PC GRANTING A .11 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.89 LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case Files #98-016 to 98-018 Consider an Amendment to the original Windsong on the Lake Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat to be known as Windsong on the Lake 3rd Addition. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated February 23, 1998. H & H Land Development has applied for approval of an amendment to the Windsong on the Lake Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat to be known as Windsong on the Lake 3rd Addition. The developer has also applied for approval of a final plat, which will be considered by the City Council along with the PUD amendment and the preliminary plat. The property in question is located west of CSAH 21 and south of Lords Street. The area to be added to the PUD is located along the east boundary of the existing PUD plan, immediately adjacent to Prior Lake at the southerly end of Edinborough Street. The original Windsong on the Lake PUD was approved in 1983 and consisted of 33.36 acres of land to be developed into 26 large, single family lots, a private equestrian club, l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhm022398.doc 2 and a private recreation area adjacent to the lake. The final plat for the original lots was approved in 1984. In 1988, the PUD plan was amended to eliminate the equestrian club and substitute 12 single family lots, for a total of 38 single family lots. A final plat, Windsong on the Lake Second Addition, consisting of 7 of the 12 new lots was approved in 1995. The remaining 5 lots have not been platted at this time. To date, approximately 12 of the 38 lots remain undeveloped. The Planning Commission was to consider two applications at this time. The first application is a request to amend PUD Plan for this project. The second application is for approval of a preliminary plat for this site, to be known as Windsong on the Lake Third Addition. The original PUD area consists of 33.36 acres. The area to be added to the PUD is 0.97 acres, for a total PUD site of 34.33 acres. This site has a varied topography. The northerly portion of the site, Windsong on the Lake Second Addition, is relatively level. However, the remaining site has a fairly steep topography, with elevations ranging from 910' MSL to 980' MSL. The topography of the site to be added to the PUD is primarily steep slopes and bluffs, with elevations from 904' MSL to 940' MSL. There is no grading proposed as part of this plan. This existing portion of the PUD has been graded, and most of the original vegetation removed. The area to be added to the PUD is wooded, with the exception of the existing home site. Since no grading or land disturbing activity is proposed, a tree inventory has not been prepared. There are no existing wetlands on this site. Access to the Windsong development is from CSAH 21, via 154th Street, Windsong Circle, and Lords Street. Access to the existing Schricker home is from Edinborough Street. No changes are proposed to the access. This proposal adds a portion of the Schricker property to the Windsong on the Lake PUD. The Schricker property currently includes approximately 1.5 acres of land. This proposal subdivides the existing Schricker home on 0.56 acres leaving the remaining 0.97 acres as part of the PUD. The 0.97 acres is subdivided into two outlots. Outlot A is 0.57 acres in size, and is intended as common open space. Outlot B is 0.18 acres, and is also intended as common open space. The two outlots also provide an additional 165 feet of frontage on the lake. The remaining 0.22 acres will be combined with Lot 2, Block 1, Windsong on the Lake, to create a new lot 0.77 acres in size. This lot is the current site of the Metzger home, and the additional lot area will provide frontage on the lake. The proposed amendment does not provide any additional buildable lots to this development. What it does provide is an additional 165 feet of lakeshore frontage under l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm022398.doc 3 common ownership. This additional frontage will allow more boat slips for the lot owners in the Windsong development. There are currently 26 boat slips located along the common area of this development. The additional frontage this proposal provides would allow up to 11 additional boat slips under the formula outlined in the City's Zoning Ordinance. According to the narrative submitted by the developer, all of the boat slips would be located in the vicinity of the current docks. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources controls the actual location and configuration of the boat slips. The current DNR permit for this development must be amended to allow the additional slips. The purpose of a Planned Unit Development is to allow flexibility in residential land development, variety in the organization of the site, higher standards of site and building design, preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics, and more efficient and effective use of land. Based on these standards, the Windsong development should probably not be a Planned Unit Development. The issue of whether this development should remain a PUD was discussed by the Council when the previous amendment was considered in 1988, According to the April 4, 1988, City Council minutes, "extensive discussion occurred on the merits of retaining the PUD designation and whether or not Windsong zoning should be changed to Rol .... It was generally agreed that the PUD zoning provided the Council with more controls over the subdivision than a typical R-1 zoning designation." For this reason, the PUD designation remains in place. The primary effect of this amendment is the additional boat slips which would be allowed. The proposed outlots provide a common open space that is not easily accessible or very useable space. Outlot A is accessible only from the adjacent lots. Both Outlot A and Outlot B are very steep, and do not provide good access to the lakeshore. The proposed amendment is consistent with the existing development of the Windsong on the Lake PUD. If the development is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions: 1. No more than 11 additional boat slips shall be permitted. The Developer must provide a copy of the revised DNR permit allowing the additional boat slips to the City Planning Department. 2. The Homeowner's Association documents for Windsong on the Lake must be amended to include this area, and the amended documents must be recorded with the final plat documents. A recorded copy of the amended documents must be submitted to the Planning Department within 10 days after recording the final plat. 3. There shall be no filling or grading on Outlots A and B, as shown on the preliminary plat for Windsong on the Lake Third Addition without the issuance of a separate filling and grading permit. Any alteration to the existing vegetation on these outlots must also be consistent with the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. There shall be no filling or grading on Lot 1, Block 2, as shown on the preliminary plat for Windsong on the Lake Third Addition without the issuance of a separate l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn022398.doc 4 filling and grading permit. Any alteration to the existing vegetation on this lot must also be consistent with the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The preliminary plat for this site, known as Windsong on the Lake Third Addition, consists of 2.08 acres to be subdivided into 2 lots and 2 outlots. Lot 1, Block 1, is 0.56 acres and is the site of the existing Schricker home. Access to this lot is from Edinborough Avenue. Lot 1, Block 2, is 0.77 acres in size and is the site of the current Metzger home. Access to this lot is from Windsong Circle. Outlots A and B are 0.57 acres and 0.18 acres respectively. The outlots are to be part of the common open space for the Windsong development. There is no public right-of-way or parkland dedicated in this plat. In addition, there are no require or proposed utilities, including sanitary sewer, water mains, or storm sewer proposed. The existing houses already have these services available, and there is no need to provide these services to the outlots. Since no utility improvements are required, no fees will be collected. However, a park land dedication fee will be collected for the final plat. The preliminary plat is consistent with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements. If the Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions: 1. The Homeowner's Association documents for Windsong on the Lake must be amended to include this area, and the amended documents must be recorded with the final plat documents. A recorded copy of the amended documents must be submitted to the Planning Department within 10 days after recording the final plat. Staff recommended approval of the amendment to the PUD subjected to the conditions listed in the staff report. Criego questioned why the additional land is being used for slips. Rye and Kansier explained the ordinance and formula allowing 11 slips. Comments from the public: Ralph Heuschele, developer of Windsong on the Lake, 10315 Thomas Avenue South, Bloomington stated he has not had a chance to see the letter from the Thompsons. His objective is to maintain the high quality development and went on to say some of the nicest homes built in Prior Lake because of Windsong's lake access. The reality is the lake access is fine but if someone does not have a place to dock his boat the value depreciate quickly. There is a parcel of land adjacent to the development that has significant frontage. They had extensive discussions with the DNR. The discussions resulted that it would help with the water quality of the lake. No variances are being requested. Mr. Heuschele pointed out where the new additional floating docks would be placed which would be at the developer's expense. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn022398.doc 5 Annie Sheehan, 4055 Windsong, said her only concern is the residents have not had enough time to discuss this issue and requested postponing voting on this and allow the association time to discuss. Heuschele responded the subject of the change was on the November 1997 association agenda. The subject was discussed extensively at that time. He said a time line is involved and there was an opportunity to discuss with the association. Stamson asked if the association had the power to block. Heuschele stated the homeowners association by-laws has a 75% approval. The benefit to the homeowners is the value of the new homes. If they are unable to obtain boat slips - the lot values will go down. The real benefit is the unsold lots would have nicer homes on it and the property values would stay high. Criego questioned access. Heuschele said the common areas would have the access to the lake. The new slips would go to the new property owners. Cramer questioned Heuschele if the association received a copy of the preliminary plat. He said they made an effort to inform the residents. Leslie Marrinan, 4075 Windsong Circle, said this is the first time she saw the preliminary plat. She stated she was not here to argue, the residents have not had enough time to discuss. She spoke to Dan Metzger who gave her some information. Her main concern is she was told she would have "x" amount of swimming beach. The number of feet has decreased with this proposal. She is more concerned for the safety of her daughter swimming down at the beach than the land values. Metzger also informed her there would be a minimum of 50 feet between the docks for a swimming beach. Marrinan would like to see some minimums before this is approved. She also feels this issue was not discussed extensively. Marv Mirsch, 2260 Sargent, St. Paul, who also owns a seasonal home at 15432 Red Oaks Road, said he was taken a back with this proposal because where the added boat slips are proposed is a very narrow access to the area. If more boat slips are permitted, it would be like adding another marina on the lake. Where most of us (lake residents) are regulated what we can do with our lots, he is just amazed. He cannot build his house within 30 feet from a bluff line because the appearance from the lake is paramount. This is a lake-wide concern with allowing an additional marina development on the lake to benefit homeowners association off the lake. He is against adding more lots becoming a marina. The hearing closed at 7:15 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · The homeowners association should be informed with more details than it has. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn022398.doc 6 · Does not believe the Planning Commission should make any decisions at this time. · Believes adding more docks is adding 40% more dockage to the area. Crflmer: · Shares the same concerns as Criego regarding the additional docks. · Very serious concerns of the Metzger area and the original PUD path going through private property. · Concern the residents have not been totally informed. · Homeowners are going to have to take care of Outlots A and B. · Not supportive of making a decisions until we know the homeowners make a decisions. · Would like to see the request continued. Vonhof: · Disagreed with comments from previous commissioners. · Quoted staff's conditions pointing out the homeowners would have to approve of it or it would not go forward, so that is already accounted for. · Familiar with the area, one of the issues of a PUD is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. It is a steep slope, wooded area and is entirely appropriate to be an outlot. · Concerned with the private lot but staff's condition takes that into account. · Who are the property owners? Ultimately the homeowners association. That is significant. They are talking about the developer but it will be the people who live there. · The marina issue - Vonhof lived on the lake before the 26 docks were in and feels there was no significant increase on the lake. There are 15 to 20 homeowners associations that have docks on the lake. That is not inconsistent from a lake-wide standpoint. The City's philosophy has always allowed homeowner's dockage and lake access and now the City can't say we're not going to do that anymore. · We have to stay consistent with decisions and policies. · Support the addition of the land with the conditions. Stamson: · Agreed with Vonhof- the homeowners have protection with the power over the proposal. · If the homeowners were told they were to have more beach space, that is an issue between the developer and residents, not the City. · Agreed the extra boat slips is an aesthetic issue, but it is a public lake. The lake is owned by the public. The development itself is on the lake and has provided boat slips for a while. · With the conditions presented the request is reasonable. Criego questioned homes on the outlets. Kansier explained the difference between the plat and the PUD. Metzger property is part of the PUD but the property which goes down l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn022398.doc 7 to the lake becomes part of the Plat, not common area. It was not included in the calculations. The two outlots allow for 11 slips. Cramer questioned staff on the paths allowed in the PUD. Kansier explained the walking paths are private, not public - association will work out. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE PUD PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE FOUR CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof and Stamson; 2 nays by Criego and Cramer. MOTION FAILS. Discussion: Criego feels the homeowners and developers should work together. Heuschele responded the association membership might have some advisory capacity. But in order to amend the covenants in this development they have to persuade 30 of the 33 lot owners that this is okay. Their signatures are needed. Heuschele asked the Commissioners to reconsider. He felt he will have enough problems persuading people. Mr. Schricker told them he is moving on and if they cannot perform in a reasonable amount of time the point will be moot. Stamson said the homeowners will have to decide what they want and it will be easier for them if the they know what the city has decided. Cramer's concem is the homeowners association was not brought into this. Stamson felt to approve it and if the homeowners do not agree. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO TABLE TO THE NEXT MEETING. Vonhof pointed out not one person has come forward stating they are opposed for any specific reason with regard to this land, except for the location of the docks. Vote taken signified 2 ayes by Criego and Cramer; 2 nays by Vonhof and Stamson. MOTION FAILS. MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT MEETING ON MARCH 9, 1998. Criego feels the homeowners signed on a number of years ago for more beach front. The homeowners should understand what they are getting into. Cramer said there is a concern if Outlots A and B were not owned by the association. The access is for the association. If the homeowners had been more informed it would be l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn022398.doc 8 a different issue. The homeowners were not included in property issues they are going to own. Concern for the additional boat slips. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 7:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Vonhof left at 8:00 p.m. Case Files #98-010 to 98-012 Consider a Zone Change request, a Conditional Use Permit and a Preliminary Plat for the project to be known as Glynwater. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated February 23, 1998 on file at the City of Prior Lake Planning Department. Wensmann Realty has applied for a Zone change, a Conditional Use Permit and a Preliminary plat for the property located on the south side of CSAH 82, just west of Fremont Avenue and directly south of the entrance to The Wilds. This property is currently zoned A-1 (Agriculture) and C-1 (Conservation). Much of the property is also located within the Shoreland District for Prior Lake and Arctic Lake. The applicant is requesting the property be rezoned to the R-2 (Urban Residential) district. The application also includes a request for a conditional use permit to allow the development of the property with 121 townhouse units, and a preliminary plat consisting of 109 lots for the townhouse units and open space. In December, 1997, the applicant filed an application for a Schematic Planned Unit Development for a townhouse development on this property. On January 5, 1998, the city Council denied this application based on the fact the proposed Schematic PUD Plan was inconsistent with the stated purposes and intent of the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance in that the same proposal, with the exception of the private streets, could be accomplished through the Conditional Use Permit Process. The developer then filed these applications to develop the property. The Planning Commission is considering three applications at this time. The first application is a request to rezone the property from the A-1 (Agricultural) and C-1 (Conservation) districts to the R-2 (Urban Residential) district. The second request is to approve a Conditional Use Permit for this project. The third application is for approval of a preliminary plat for this site, to be known as Glynwater. The Planning staff suggested several conditions which should be included if the Preliminary Plat is to proceed. It should be noted that revised plans were submitted which may address some of the issues outlined by the staff. However, these plans were not submitted in time to allow a detailed review. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcrninham022398.doc 9 The staff also suggested six conditions which should be attached to the Conditional Use Permit if it is approved. The Planning staff recommends approval of the Zone Change, the Preliminary Plat subject to the above listed conditions, and the Conditional Use Permit subject to the above listed condition. It may be appropriate, due to the number of outstanding engineering issues, to delay action on the preliminary plat until the major issues are addressed. Criego questioned the previous PUD private streets and access to Fremont. Kansier explained the previous plan did not include access to Fremont Avenue. Cramer questioned the area between County Rd 82 and the right of way. Kansier explained the sidewalks and county roads. Comments from the public: Applicant Terry Wensmann, of Wensmann Homes, pointed out they had not changed too much from the original PUD. The biggest change is the access to Fremont Avenue. They are not disturbing the slopes with this proposal. The other conditions are engineering and many have already be resolved. Pioneer Engineering was present to answer questions. The only condition they have a problem with is #4 regarding defining easements. Mr. Wensmann stated they have done many townhomes and have always put blanket easements in the common area. He feels there would be a lot of confusion and close to impossible to separate easements under this plan. This would be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Wensmann went on to say they would prefer 7 site signs and monuments. The City only allows 6. Wensmann explained the $170,000 style townhomes, $275,000 and $125,000 townhomes. First phase will be in the MUSA and whenever the MUSA becomes available they will finish up with the second phase. The engineer has done calculations 41 1/2 acres with 5.33 acres of steep slopes of 20% or more. Of that 5.33 acres only 1.64 acre will be disturbed for a total less than 4% of the entire site area. 11.9 acres will be dedicated as park land. 4.83 acres are wetland. Impervious surface areas have been met. Applicants have been working with staff to address all issues and concerns. The public hearing was closed at 8:19 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Cramer: Developer is working hard to develop the area. · Good addition to the community in general. · Support staff's recommendation approving the preliminary plat. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXrnn022398.doc 10 Criego: · Agreed with Cramer, it is a great use of land. · Question to staff regarding easements. Kansier said biggest concern is that the City take some of that area out for development fees. Be aware they cannot put signs on utility easements. Blanket easement concern is the signage. No other concerns. Stflmson: · Supports staff's recommendation. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE FROM THE A-1 AND C-1 DISTRICTS TO THE R2 DISTRICT BASED ON THE FACT THE AREA IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MUSA AND THE R-2 DISTRICT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT KNOWN AS GLYNWATER, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Change the name of Bayview Drive. There is already a Bayview Circle in the City street system. In addition, change the name of Spring Glen Road or Spring Glen Circle so there is only one Spring Glen. 2. Outlot B must be identified as Outlot A. 3. Provide the following information on the Engineering Plans: a) Show all utilities in the profile view. b) Show size of all existing utilities in the area. c) Include insulation detail to be used on sanitary sewer. d) Provide calculations showing that the pavement section is adequate (see plate #501 in the Public Works Design Manual). e) Street grades within 100feet of intersections cannot exceed 2. OO percent. J) Provide design and profiles for the median and the street improvements to Fremont. The City may be willing to share in the engineering costs for this design as per the City oversizing policy. g) Show the construction limits on the grading plans. The grading and installation of the sanitary sewer will impact the 20% slopes. h) Indicate on the plan areas where slopes are greater than 5:1. 0 The wetland report indicates a wetland "water course"flowing south from basin B to basin A. A road and grading is proposed over this water course. The l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminh'nn022398.doc 11 wetland report must be revised to address the impact of this filling and grading on the water course. j) NURP ponds shah have 6:1 slopes below the NWL, and 4:1 slopes above the NWL. k) Show the grading detail for the Ramble }Valkout. There is a 10' grade difference for Lots 1-6, Block 1. 0 Spot locations and elevations must be called out for aH high points of emergency overflow swales. m) A notation should be added to the plan requiring periodic inspections under the NPDES permit. If l0 or more contiguous acres of exposed soil are draining to the same area, a temporary sedimentation basin is required under NPDES rules. n) If construction traffic will be allowed at the right-in/right-out off of Fremont, a rock construction entrance is required. o) The use of the storm ceptor must be approved by the Watershed District. Calculations to determine if the pipe is sized adequately to handle the flows must also be provided. p) Consider revising the storm sewer layouts on sheets 8 and 16 to reduce the length of pipe needed to serve the project. q) Catch basin intercept calculations will be required before final plat approval. r) Set the outlet elevation for Pond 4 at the flood storage level required for two back to back 100 year storms. s) The outlet for NURP #2 is 2. S feet lower than the elevation of Wetland Basin "A " (Pond 5). Additional survey shots are required to verify the bottom elevations of Wetlands/Pond 4 and 5. 0 The stage/storage curve for Pond 5 should be checked, The area for elevation 902.1 should be 0.0 acres, and the area for 904 should be 1.5 acres. u) Continue to look at alternatives other than the parallel line to provide sanitary sewer. If the parallel lines are the best alternative, a heavy duty trail to maintain the sewer in the park area is required. This trail and access must be shown on the plans. 4. Signs in the common lot area may not be located within a utility easement. 5. An access permit from the Scott County Engineer is required for each location connecting to CSAH 82. This permit must be supplied prior to final plat approval. 6. The sanitary sewer crossing under CSAH 82 must be bored and placed in a steel casing. A utility permit will be required prior to installation. 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. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn022398 .doc 12 MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Six identification signs will be permitted on the site. The signage plan must be revised to identify the locations of these signs, and to clarify the location of each type of sign. Ifa sign is located adjacent to the park access on the east side of Glynwater Trail, no portion of the sign or fence is permitted in the parkland, 2. The plan must provide a calculation showing the impervious surface, not including road right-of-way, on the portion of the site located within the Shoreland District. The impervious surface of the site in the Shoreland District may not exceed 30% of the site area, less right-of-way. 3. The plan must identify Phase I and Phase II of the development. The plan must also note that Phase II will not be allowed to develop until the property is included within the MUSA, and services can be extended. 4. A letter of credit for the landscaping and tree replacement must be submitted prior to approval of the final plat documents. 5. The homeowner's association documents must be revised to include the correct legal descriptions for each association. These documents must be recorded with the final plat documents. 6. 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 all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: A. Case File #97-132 Continuation of the Burdick Properties variance request. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated January 23, 1998 on file with the Planning Department with the City of Prior Lake. On January 12, 1998 the Planning Commission heard the request for variances on the respective lots on Commerce Avenue. The requested variances relate to two existing commercial properties located on Commerce Avenue. 14180 Commerce Avenue was built in 1994 and 14162 Commerce Avenue was built in 1997. The following variances are being applied for at the respective addresses: 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminh-nn022398.doc 13 A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash enclosure; and A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. The Planning Commission continued the hearing and requested staff to supply additional information. On January 26, 1998 the Planning Commission was provided additional information as requested. The item was continued to February 23, 1998 to allow the applicant sufficient time to submit a revised landscape plan and to place posts in the field indicating top of berm and fence location. This has been completed. The applicant has submitted full size copies of a landscape plan and color photographs of the proposed screening. The proposed landscape plan includes required irrigation and 151 shrubs. While the ordinance does not require a specific number of shrubs, they must be planted to meet certain criteria such as screening. The City has a letter of credit on file to insure the landscaping plan is complied with and all plantings survive one winter. The proposed landscape plan exceeds the City's minimum requirements as stated in the landscape ordinance. As stated in the staff report dated January 12, 1998, staff has concluded the hardship criteria have been met, considering the structures are existing and both sites are at maximum build out with respect to parking and setbacks. Considering that the trash enclosure is located in the drainage and utility easement, staff recommends a "Use of Public Easement" agreement be signed and recorded by the applicant (as amended in Resolution 98-01PC). Resolution 98-01 PC and 98-02 PC include the condition that the fence be continuous with no breaks, the landscaping and screening be completed as in revised plans and that grading be completed as previously approved. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn022398.doc 14 Due to lack of pertinent information the variance request to berm slope should be denied. The Planning Commission should deny this request based on lack of hardship if a written request for withdrawal is not received. The applicant has also asked for a 2 foot variance to fence height. The proposed plan indicates a 7.5 foot fence section. Variance to fence height should be approved if landscape plan is a condition of building setback variances to be consistent and clear. Comments from the Commissioners: Cramer: · The applicant has exceed the recommendation of the berm and screening height. Support the two foot variance request. · Opposed to the variance for the trash enclosure - there are other places on the Burdick property to locate the enclosure. The neighbors do not need a dumpster in their back yard. Stamson: · Question for Mr. Kelly regarding thc 3 to 1 slope. The intention was to withdraw the 3 to 1 berm height. Kelly stated the berm was in fact 2 to 1. · Tovar explained the landscape codes. She also stated the grading plan of 2 to 1 is approved in the ordinance and reflected on approved grading plan. The variance is not needed. Criego: · Went out to the site and observed the berm, string, homes and setting. The best we can do with a 6 foot fence is that you are not going to see much of the buildings, only the rooftop. With the berm you won't see the cars or lights. · Agreed with staff on the continuous fence instead of being broken in two parts. · Concern for the trash enclosure. But half of that trash container has been there for many years. Not sure the other half will make too much difference. · Regarding the two foot variance - There are only two points that go beyond 2 feet. · Tovar explained the Resolution 98-02PC references Exhibit B which shows the two points, not across the board variance for the building. · With the adjusted berm and fence the variance should be approved. Stamson: · The request for the 2.7 variance setback hardship has been met. · The fence height of 8 feet is not the variance plan. Tovar explained it would have to be added. · Main concern for the trash enclosure. The only reason for leaving it there is that it is somewhat expensive to move. It is not a hardship. Cannot vote to approve the trash enclosure so close to private property. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin'wnn022398.doc 15 Cramer: · Asked staff if the landscape for Building #3 has to be done within a year. Tovar said there is no deadline but the Planning Commission could make that a condition for both buildings. Criego: · Concern for fencing around the trash enclosures. Tovar pointed out the landscape plan on the overhead. · Eldon Hugelen, the landscape architect, explained the trash enclosure plan starting out planting 8 foot arborvitaes growing to 20 feet. · The buildings are blocked off up to the roof. · Questioned garbage pick up times. Rye said the current ordinance does not regulate times in commercial and industrial areas. · Should be changed near residential areas. The Planning Commissioners discussed the variances required for each building. The Commissioners decided to consider the building setback and fence height variance separately from the trash enclosure setback. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98- 01PC GRANTING A 2.7 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING AND A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 7.5 FOOT FENCE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF A 7 1/2 FOOT CONTINUOUS PRIVACY FENCE ALONG SIDE THE TRASH ENCLOSURE IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT G. CRAMER ADDED AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT LANDSCAPING BE COMPLETED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE LETTER OF CREDIT EXPIRES FOR BUILDING #3. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98- 02PC GRANTING A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR SIDE YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL AND A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FENCE HEIGHT OF 7.5 FEET FOR THE PROPERTY AT 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE A VARIANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW THE TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE LEFT WHERE IT IS WITH THE FENCING AND BERMS AS STATED. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn022398.doc 16 Discussion by Commissioners: Criego: We have done as much as we can to fence, berm and cover up. with the garbage pickup. City Council will deal Stamson: 43 feet is too close. There are other options. The spirit and intent of the ordinance is to keep the enclosure away from the property. It is screened. Vote taken signified 1 aye. 2 nays. MOTION DENIED. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO DIRECT STAFF PREPARE A RESOLUTION DENYING THE VARIANCE FOR THE TRASH ENCLOSURE SETBACKS BASED ON FINDINGS AS DISCUSSED. Vote taken 2 ayes, 1 nay. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained to the public the 5 day appeal process. Harry Ray, 5726 West 98 1/2 Street, Bloomington, stated he was appalled the residents did not have the right to speak. He did not realize the public hearing was closed several weeks ago. He felt there are still many things to be discussed by the neighbors. The City Manager assured them there would be an ordinance relating to the garbage proposed to the Council. The second issue is the drainage runoff. The residents expected the right to be heard and want justice. Mike Marxens, 14231 Timothy Avenue, questioned the city code states parking lots should be 25 feet from residential area. Tovar stated it was 20 feet and the applicant was in compliance. June Phillipp, 14211 Timothy Avenue, asked if there is going to be a retaining wall in her back yard. She is assuming there will be a retaining wall behind building #2. Tovar will give her a copy of the plan. Stamson again explained the applicant or any aggrieved party could appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. 6. New Business: The Commissioners briefly discussed the following: · The training session has been scheduled for March 31, 1998 at the fire hall. · There was a short discussion on the stalled library issue. The zoning ordinance final draft target date is the first week in March. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhrm022398.doc 17 · Enforcement of ordinances is a concern. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary 1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn022398 .doc 18