HomeMy WebLinkAbout062298REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
· MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1998
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #98-044 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF MOTORIZED
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN THE PRIOR LAKE CITY LIMITS
B. Cases #98-077 and 98-078 CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS GLYNWATER
C. Case #98-017 CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS
WINDSONG ON THE LAKE 3RD ADDITION
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Downtown Redevelopment update.
B. Update on stares of zoning administrator.
8. Adjournment:
r.L: \9 ¥ FIL~98P I~COn-MM~C~,GFi~qDA~G0622 ~8 .D~C
16200 r~a§m creek ~ve. ~.m, ~nor La}m, Minnesota SS372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-424S
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 22, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The June 22, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall
and Stamson, City Attorney Suesan Pace, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning
Coordinator Jane Kansier, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott, Police Lt. Steve
Schmidt and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Absent
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
Cramer Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the June 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Public Hearings:
Chairperson Stamson read the public hearing statement.
A. Case #98-044 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF
MOTORIZED RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
LIMITS
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 22, 1998 on
file in the office of the City Planner.
The public hearing is to consider regulations for the operation of motorized recreational
vehicles in the Prior Lake city limits. The regulations may include such matters as
locations for the operation of these vehicles, hours of operation, use of the vehicles,
required permits, equipment standards and enforcement provisions. The hearing is also to
determine what type of regulations, if any, should be adopted.
In the summer of 1997 and the spring of 1998, the City received several complaints
concerning the operation of off-road motorcycles in the area in and near the Titus
Addition. The complaints primarily concerned the noise and disturbance caused by this
activity.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin'u-rm062298.doc 1
On April 6, 1998, the City Council adopted a moratorium on the operation of motorized
recreational vehicles in order to allow the City the oppommity to study the issue. The
moratorium is effective for 90 days, or until July 6, 1998, although the City Council has
the option of extending the moratorium for up to 18 months.
Draft/ti of the proposed ordinance was sent out for public comment. The draft includes
a definition of motorized recreational vehicles, and other pertinent definitions, provisions
for the operation of such vehicles, required permits, equipment standards and
enforcement provisions.
The draft defines a motorized recreational vehicle as any "motorized two-, three- or four-
wheeled or track, self propelled vehicle designed or used for recreational purposes,
including, but not limited to all-terrain vehicles, trail bikes, hovercraft& motorcycles, and
motorized bicycles". Snowmobiles are not included in this definition since they are
regulated under a separate chapter of the City Code.
The draft also outlines the location and manner of the operation of these vehicles.
Essentially, these regulations do not allow the operation of motorized vehicles on any
residentially zoned property less than 10 acres in size, on any public property, in any
careless, reckless or negligent manner, or in a manner which creates loud, unnecessary or
unusual noise which disturbs, annoys or interferes with the peace and quiet of other
persons. The ordinance does allow the operation of motorized recreational vehicles on
residentially zoned parcels greater than 10 acres in size with the issuance of a permit,
following a public hearing. Even with a permit, however, these vehicles are not allowed
within 300 feet of the property boundaries.
Law enforcement officers will be primarily responsible for the enforcement of this
ordinance. Violation of the ordinance is considered a misdemeanor, punishable for a fine
not exceeding $700.00 or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed 90 days, or both.
The provisions of the proposed ordinance are similar to the provisions of other motorized
recreational vehicle ordinances throughout the State. Many communities have banned the
use of these types of vehicles in the city limits altogether. In an effort to tailor these
provisions to the city of Prior Lake, we have modified the ordinance in Draft #2.
The City received some feedback on the proposed ordinance provisions. One of the
concems is the ordinance prohibits the use of all-terrain vehicles even when used for
purposes other than recreation for example, lawn and garden work. Draft #2 addresses
this concern by modifying the definition of a motorized recreational vehicle to eliminate
the word "designed" and to limit the scope of the provisions to those vehicles used for
recreational purposes. In the operational provisions, a section was inserted stating "in a
manner that simulates a race or temporary race, or creates or causes unnecessary engine
noise, tire squealing, or causes tires to spin or slide upon the acceleration or stopping of
said vehicles to unnecessarily turn abruptly or sway from side to side". This provision
specifically addresses the issues of racing the vehicles.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXrraa062298.doc 2
The provision prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles on residentially zoned property
less than 10 acres in size remains the same.
Staffhas also revised the ordinance to distinguish public property from public streets.
Public property typically includes parks, school property and other government owned
areas. The operation of motorized recreational vehicles on public rights-of-way is
legislated by State Statute provisions pertaining to vehicle condition, licenses, and other
traffic laws. Speed limits for these vehicles are also included in the traffic laws. The
City cannot legislate the speed of the vehicles on private property.
Another addition to the ordinance is a reference to the procedure for a public hearing.
The procedure for a public hearing will be the same as the conditional use permit process
with a hearing before the Planning Commission and review by the City Council. The
notification requirements will also include mailed notice to owners of property within
500 feet, and publication in the newspaper.
Draft #2 also eliminates the provisions generally covered under State Statutes, such as the
requirements for head lights and tail lights, the operation by a minor, and the operation
while under the influence of drags or alcohol.
Finally, the enforcement provisions have been revised to include any designated city
official, rather than just law enforcement personnel.
The staff recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance as written, or with changes
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Questions from Commissioners:
Criego: How does this relate to the snowmobile regulations? And what makes this
different from the snowmobile ordinance?
Kansier: The snowmobile ordinance designates what streets they are allowed to drive on.
Criego: Why didn't you combine the snowmobile use?
Kansier: Snowmobiles have their own regulations and are not in the zoning ordinance.
They are covered under traffic and right-of-way laws.
Criego: We could have a similar use of snowmobiles in the winter that would cause
noise in the community.
Lt. Schmidt: It is under the traffic code. You can drive your snowmobile on private land.
Kuykendall: Is noise the issue?
Kansier: Noise and disturbance was a large part of the original issue.
Kuykendall: Is there any decibel level or duration?
Kansier: The ordinance was written as is because there was no other way.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn062298.doc 3
Kuykendall: We haven't solved the noise issue. We're addressing noise pollution.
Rye: The State Rules on noise typically are based on a fixed source. It is very difficult to
demonstrate without specific standards for the duration and level of noise based on the
land use that is creating it. You could have a very loud noise in a short period of time and
you've violated those noise rules. Currently the City has not adopted the State Rules.
The City has a general nuisance provision about noise. The decibel level would relate to
fixed noise.
Kuykendall: Were there any studies pulled on noise?
Rye said we did not specifically deal with just the noise.
Comments from the public:
John Packer, 15325 Edgewater Circle, has concerns with the proposed ordinance. He
owns motorcycles, snowmobiles and ATV's and understands the problem. People moved
into a development didn't know there was a race course next door. The race course
people did not care a development was going in. The problem is noise. Packer uses his
ATV's for many home uses, taking out the dock, plowing the hockey rinks for kids,
gardening, etc. These are legitimate uses. His ATV is actually quieter than his
snowblower and weedwhip. His other concern for Draft #2, was Subdivision 3, G.
"Without lighted head and tail lights".
Pace explained the reason for the motorized vehicle requiring the headlights during dusk.
Lloyd Lucht, 5960 Flandrau Circle, had been talking to Councilman Kedrowski and some
of his concerns have been addressed, however what has not been addressed is use in the
winter. He does use his ATV for yard work in the summer but also uses it in the winter to
go down to the lake to ice fish.
Brenda Miller, 13208 Henning Circle, noted in reference to Mr. Packer's comments, she
purchased her home in April of 1997 and there was no race track. Miller uses her ATV in
the winter and wet season to feed her horses. The race track noise is unbearable. We are
not changing anything old, this race track is new.
Tom Cosgrove, 13261 Henning Circle, said when he moved in 10 years ago there were
only horses and fields. There have been many police calls. He feels they have been held
hostage on their own property. This activity can be taken elsewhere which it has. He is
in full support of this ordinance. The use of ATV for uses other than racing should be
acceptable. He feels a person should not have to leave their property to enjoy quiet.
Once this ordinance is adopted it can be enforced. This will benefit the majority of the
people.
Greg Helming, 13171 Pike Lake Trail, owns the race track. Last July he was sent a letter
from the zoning code officer. At that time he followed the noise and setback ordinance.
A few of the neighbors called the police several times. The police could do nothing
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn062298.doc 4
because he was in compliance with the ordinance. The motorcycles are not any noisier
than a weedwhip or chain saw. Many people are now involved in this issue. It used to be
a neighborhood issue not a City issue. He does not see why the 4-wheelers are involved,
they were never been part of the complaint. The motorcycles do not have head or tail
lights. He has ten acres of land zoned residential. Up until April 6, he was within his
rights to use his property for this reason, not to be a nuisance. If it is zoned agricultural
you have to get a permit. Setbacks are 300 feet.
Henning said a neighborhood meeting was called last September to rectify the situation
and hours would be set aside. The compromises did not come because some neighbors
would not compromise on hours to use the property. They do not want any motorcycles.
The complaints have been the noise. A lot of issues still have to be worked out. Now it
is you against us. What this boils down is a property issue.
Mike Mankowski, 3171 Butternut Circle, uses his ATV for recreational and utility
purposes. He believes there should never have been a public hearing. He questioned how
many complaints did the City have other than the motorcycles. Also, what steps have the
City taken to resolve the issue between the parties?
Lt. Schmidt explained the process involved two meetings with the neighborhood and a
compromise could not be reached. There were a few individuals who would not
compromise with a set number of hours. Lt. Schmidt felt there was no other resolution
but to go before the City Council and deal with the issue by ordinance.
Rye explained a number of residents appeared before the City Council who then directed
this public hearing.
Mankowski went on to say this is a noise issue, not an ATV issue and contrary to what
was said earlier, residents are not entitled to peace and quiet. If someone wants peace and
quiet they should buy 400 acres and plot a house in the middle of it. We are entitled to a
reasonable amount of peace and quiet. Prior Lake is surrounded on three sides by rural
property. The fact is, we have decibel meters available to the City. They are used on the
lake to ticket people for unusually loud boats. It will take a little bit of effort for
enforcement. It would be better than restricting the ATV rights of other residents. When
my neighbor complains about the noise, is the City going to come out and plow my
driveway and lift out my dock? At what point do we give in to every phone call and
complaint and adopt a new ordinance? Mr. Mankowski stated he could solve this
problem between the parties and we wouldn't be talking about it again. If City Council
passes this ordinance they are sending a message to the community they would rather
take the easy way out and pass new restrictive laws rather mediate a peaceful solution that
does not infringe on the rights of law abiding ATV owners.
Jim Space, 16094 Eagle Creek Avenue, said he does not know either party in dispute and
has no gain either way. Mr. Space uses his ATV to remove his fish house, landscape,
remove milfoil, and for commercial and developing property. The use of the ATV is not
a toy, it is a real utility use. He is against the ordinance because there are so many good
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~n062298.doc
uses for ATV's. A noise ordinance should be figured out without enforcing this
ordinance. If the parties can not work out the issues the City and police should work with
the people.
Roseanne Campagnoli, 13200 Henning Circle, believes Oakview Estates had been there
when she arrived. Agreed with both sides of the issue. But common sense and fact
should prevail. There is a lot of rhetoric and emotions involved. No one is against the
recreational vehicles. The property was turned into a professional track that brought
people from outside Prior Lake. It was the continual noise that brought us here. We are
not a country club environment. Our taxes are hefty and we expect something in return
but so does Greg Henning. Government should do what is best for the majority. It is not
two parties, there are many residents from the Pike Lake area. Campagnoli said she was
embarrassed and resentful this is portrayed as a little back fence tiffbetween the country
club and property owner. When good citizens tried to handle the issue it was brought to
the next level. Make sensible decisions on all recreational vehicles. Also a group of
people have been forced to live with noise in their front yards.
Chris Deanovic, 14122 Louisiana Avenue, had a larger concern, today it is a noise issue.
Prior Lake is a recreational community. Where is it going to stop? Tomorrow will it be
snowmobiles, personal watercraft etc. If we do this today who is to say a bunch of people
who live on the lake hear a snowmobile at 12:30 at night and now we're going to ban
snowmobiles. Once you take the first step the next step is easier.
Doug Nagel, owns Prior Lake Polaris. When he was researching this issue last summer
he talked to Frank Boyles who told him Prior Lake is a recreational area. Agreed with
others it is a noise issue. Because of this issue he has lost many sales in the last three
months. What is the difference if you want to plow your yard with an ATV or your kid
wants to ride around the yard?
Kuykendall questioned what kind of muffler system could be used? Nagel said any ATV
in his store is quieter than a John Deere tractor.
Guy Ohland, 18391 Vergus Avenue, Dist. 23 Motocross Vice Chairman for the AMA,
said there were pictures and misquotes in the paper. Both parties have rights. Instead of
banning all motorcycles why not limit their use? Why the extreme measures? Why
group in the ATV's and dirt bikes? Instead of everyone getting excited and shutting
down, try for some middle ground. There is a way of quieting motorcycles, but is slows
them down. The noise is part of the motorcycle.
Cramer: Are there any other practice facilities other than personal property? Ohland
responded there are a few private tracks. The closest is 70 miles away in Zumbrota, the
next one is 100 miles away. Jordan has one tentatively set up for one to two days a
month. The State is working for recreational areas. One possibly in the this County.
Rye asked when they are done practicing where do they compete? Ohland responded
Zumbrota, Brainerd, Deer River and Texas.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn062298.doc 6
Bruce Hennen, 4671 Martindale Street, said the issue is responsible use of ATV's, as
long as they are not used carelessly. A few bad apples wreck it for everyone. This is a
safety issue for the people in the community. When there are 10 or 12 bikes in a small
area it is too much. Our rural area is being squeezed every day. Maybe the motorcycle
people can buy some property. Motocross bikes are the noisiest. Not the ATV's. The
noise goes out for over a mile. Put them in your back yard for an hour. Residents should
not have to listen to this. It would be okay out in the country. It is the people who use
the vehicles that create the problem. This is something that happened last summer. The
windows are closed in the winter l~om the snowmobile noise. These dirt bikes are not
licensed and do not have lights. Not only is the sound disturbing also the dust and dirt.
Commend the City Council for the peace and quiet that has been brought back to the
neighborhood.
Lori Ohland, 18391 Vergus Avenue, said this is about compromises. We have an 11 1/2
acre parcel in Spring Lake Township. But we do not let our children ride at all hours of
the day. We respect our neighbors.
The public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· It is unreasonable to ban all recreational use in the City. There are a lot of valid uses.
People have pointed out this ordinance bans things that are not necessarily
problematic.
· Some restrictions are appropriate, hours of operation, property setbacks.
· The real problem is a track was developed for private use. A conditional use could be
incorporated without banning recreational vehicles in the entire City.
· This ordinance is far too restrictive for the City of Prior Lake.
Kuykendall:
· Fundamentally it is a noise issue.
· Would like to see a recommended approach to regulate the level of noise. Any
consistent use of anything is annoying.
· A major issue in United States is noise pollution.
· What is an acceptable level of noise? There is constant noise living on the lake.
· Get scientific evidence from professionals, such as Boston, to pin down an acceptable
level of noise. There are other ways to address the issue.
· The ordinance is unacceptable. It is not political.
· Consider tabling the issue.
Criego:
· First of all, this is a recreational area. We spend a lot of time protecting our lake,
parks and trails. People move out here for the recreational uses.
· To outlaw some of the recreational vehicles is not right when the issue is noise.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn062298.doc 7
· There are other recreational issues that disturb neighborhoods.
There has to be a way to regulate noise.
What happens when my neighbor has a band and is too loud? Lt. Schmidt explained
the procedures.
· Why wouldn't the nuisance laws address the issue and why did if have to come to this
point? Lt. Schmidt responded it is a code issue and said there is a court date in July
dealing with the incidents.
· This is the wrong vehicle to use. Noise is a serious problem.
Cramer:
· The ordinance does not address the problem. Understands the motocross bike noise.
Empathizes with the lack of facilities.
· There are valid uses in the community. We are not Richfield or Hopkins where it
would make sense to ban all recreational vehicles because they have small lots and
tight quarters. Prior Lake has larger lots and areas.
· This comes down to basically two issues - land use and noise.
· The snowmobiles are on trails and go from one point to another.
· Dirt bikes stay in one area which makes it a land use issue.
Stamson said the general consensus is the Planning Commissioners are not comfortable
with this ordinance.
Cramer asked staff what would happen if the Commissioners denied the ordinance.
Rye said you have many options, act on the ordinance - one way or the other; based on
testimony tonight - make corrections to draft or provide direction that heads off in an
entirely different direction.
Stamson recommended denying the proposed amendment and recommend the staff come
up with some kind of ordinance relating to specifically developed tracks and conditional
use permits for them. It would be a land use issue which can be addressed beyond the
noise. Then go back and study the noise issue.
Rye suggested recommending to Council they deny the proposal along with an additional
recommendation in trying to resolve this issue.
Kuykendall explained the Commissioners have been discussing noise problems for a long
time. It is costly to enforce but the City has to shift and hire more people - it will cost the
residents more bucks and residents don't want tax increases. If this wasn't important the
residents wouldn't be here. The City needs to address noise over all and asked that this
subject be tabled and look for the cost of enforcement.
Rye pointed out the City works on a complaint basis.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin'mm062298.doc 8
Criego said the police have been there time and time again. There is nothing for them to
enforce. This body cannot address it. The Commissioners do not have the power to
come up with a noise ordinance.
Rye said if the City was going with State standards, it would not be in the zoning
ordinance. It would be in the City Code enforced probably by the code enforcement
officer. It is a whole separate and broader issue. This is a land issue, its use of the
property, safety and noise. To the extent you are not satisfied with this ordinance, make
recommendations that are appropriate to the City Council and ask how they would like to
proceed.
The moratorium is scheduled to expire on July 6, 1998. The Council has the authority to
extend that up to 18 months.
Kuykendall suggested the moratorium be lifted and deal with the other issues. This is not
the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. We can collect the homework, and then, based
upon our findings make a recommendation with some intelligence to the City Council.
Pull the information and find out the cost of the City for enforcement. Part of it might be
a conditional use.
Stamson: It is a land use issue which can be addressed much faster than an entire City
noise issue. Then look at noise.
Cramer suggested:
· Recommend denial of the proposed ordinance.
· Recommend to City Council to modify the current moratorium to include only off-
road dirt bikes.
· Recommend staff come up with a land use ordinance to address dirt bike tracks.
· Recommend City Council or staff address the noise ordinance and determine who
should deal with the noise ordinance and set a date or dead line for this ordinance to
be redrafted.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL DENIAL OF ORDINANCE 98-XX, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE
5 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 5-9 AND THE PRIOR
LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6 BY ADDING SECTION 10, REGULATING THE
USE OF RECREATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLES.
Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY
COUNCIL MODIFY THE CURRENT MORATORIUM BANNING ALL OFF-ROAD
VEHICLES TO BANNING ONLY OFF-ROAD DIRT BIKES USED IN RACING AND
EXTEND THE MODIFIED MORATORIUM TO ALLOW FURTHER STUDY OF
THE ISSUE.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXrnn062298.doc 9
Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND STAFF TO
COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH REGULATIONS FOR RACE
TRACK OR OTHER MOTORIZED VEHICLES THAT CAN BE USED IN THE CITY
LIMITS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND STAFF OR
CITY COUNCIL TO COME UP WITH A NOISE ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPROPRIATE BODY FOR APPROVAL, NOT
SPECIFIC TO THIS ISSUE BUT GENERALLY RELATED TO ISSUES
THROUGHOUT THE CITY SUCH AS BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE TO MOTORIZED
VEHICLES.
Discussion:
Find out what other cities are doing and report back.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A discussion followed regarding commercial recreation not including race tracks or any
organized racing taking place. Concern is the impact not the sanction.
Requested staff to find out what, if any, negative real estate issues.
Kansier said the recommendations will go to the City Council on July 6.
A recess was called at 8:13 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:21 p.m.
B. Cases//98-077 and 98-078 CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS
GLYNWATER
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 22, 1998 on
file in the office of the City Planner.
Wensmann Realty has applied for 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. The application 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.
1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~-ra~062298 .doc 10
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 an
application for a zone change, a conditional use permit and a preliminary plat. These
applications were considered by the Planning Commission on February 23, 1998, and by
the City Council on March 16, 1998. On March 16, 1998, the Council approved the zone
change to the R-2 (Urban Residential) District, and the preliminary plat. On April 20,
1998, the Council approved the conditional use permit.
Following these approvals, the developer applied for and received grading permits to
begin grading the property. The developer also applied for approval of a final plat.
Shortly thereafter, it was brought to the staff's attention that not all owners of property
within 500' of the site had been notified. The error in notification was due to the fact that
the developer's title company had submitted an incomplete list of names. This list was
not verified by the staff, and so proper notification was not given to adjacent property
owners.
On June 1, 1998, this issue was reviewed by the City Council. Upon advice from the
City Attorney, the Council noted the zone change was valid since individual notices are
not required for rezoning of more than 5 acres. However, the Council adopted Resolution
98-68, rescinding the approval of the conditional use permit and preliminary plat due to
improper notification.
Because the previous approvals have been rescinded, the public review process of the
preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications is starting over. The Planning
Commission is considering two applications at this time. The first application is to
approve a Conditional Use Permit for this project. The second request is for approval of
a preliminary plat for this site, to be known as Glynwater.
The total CUP area (less the CSAH 82 right-of-way) consists of 41.57 acres. The net area
of this site, less wetlands, is 32.12 acres.
There are also steep slopes, or slopes in excess of 20%, located on this site. These slopes
are generally located on the eastern half of the site. There are several areas in which the
steep slopes will be disturbed by the placement of building pads and utilities.
Information submitted by the developer indicates 5.33 acres of the site are considered
steep slopes. Of this 5.33 acres, 1.64 acres, or 4% of the entire site, will be disturbed for
site grading and the installation of sanitary sewer lines.
This vegetation on this site consists of vacant cropland. The eastern and southern
boundaries of the property are wooded, as is the area adjacent to the wetlands. The
project is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminknn062298.doc 11
applicant has submitted an inventory of the significant trees on the site which indicates a
total of 203 caliper inches of significant trees.
There are three wetlands located within this site, with a total area of 9.45 acres. The
wetlands are located in the southeast comer of the site, along the southern boundary of
the site, and in the center of the site.
Access to the site is from CSAH 82, on the north. CSAH 82 is identified as a Minor
Arterial street in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The County Engineer has noted an
access permit will be required for each opening onto CSAH 82. The plan also proposed a
"right-in/right-out" access onto Fremont Avenue, with a median in Fremont to prevent
left tums.
The property is zoned R-2 (Urban Residential), which is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation. The R-2 district permits townhouse developments as a
conditional use, with a density not to exceed 5.5 units per acre.
The plan proposes 121 units on a total of 41.57 acres. Density is based on the buildable
acres of the site, or in this case on 32.12 net acres. The overall density proposed in this
plan is 3.7 units per acre, which is within the permitted density of 5.5 units per acre.
The preliminary plat consists of 109 lots for the townhouse units and open space. There
are 103 lots for the buildings, and 6 lots for common open space. The plat also includes
parkland, and 6 outlots intended for the placement of development signs.
This plan proposes 4 new public streets. The plat also proposes some improvements to
the north end of Fremont Avenue. This improvements include a median, to restrict
taming movements onto Fremont Avenue, and curb and gutter.
This plan identifies a park along the south boundary of the property. The total park site is
11.91 acres; however, much of the area consists of wetlands and ponds and steep slopes.
The parkland dedication requirements for this site is 4.2 acres, consisting of dry upland
with undisturbed soils.
The plan proposes the extension of an 8" sanitary sewer line from the existing line
located on the north side of CSAH 82 at Fremont Avenue. The development will actually
be served by parallel sewer lines.
The developer has submitted a landscaping plan which identifies a total of 206 new trees
on the site. Most of the trees will be located in front of the units along the new road
right-of-way.
Since not all of this site is located within the present MUSA, the development will be
phased accordingly. The first phase will be that portion within the MUSA, and includes
82 units. There will be a temporary turnaround located at the westerly end of Glynwater
Trail until the remaining area is added to the MUSA and is developed.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~-nn062298.doc 12
Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat for this site, known as Glynwater, consists of
42.04 acres to be subdivided into 109 lots, parkland and 6 outlots. In general, the
proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning
Ordinance. Since this has been through the process once already, all of the engineering
requirements have been addressed. One of the outstanding issues which must be
addressed is the disturbance of the slopes on this site. Section 6-6-6 E of the Subdivision
Ordinance states "whenever possible, slopes of twenty percent (20%) or greater should
not be disturbed and should be retained as private or public open space." This plat has
several locations in which slopes of 20% or greater are disturbed, either for the placement
of roads and utilities or the placement of homes.
Conditional Use Permit Plan: The proposed CUP must be reviewed in accordance with
the criteria found in Section 7.5(C) of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 7.5(C) provides
that a conditional use shall be approved if it is found to meet specific criteria.
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
zone change request, the Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use Permit.
If the Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions:
1. A letter of credit for the landscaping and tree replacement must be submitted prior
to approval of the final plat documents.
2. 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.
If the Conditional Use Permit is approved it should be subject to the following
conditions:
1. A letter of credit for the landscaping and tree replacement must be submitted prior
to approval of the final plat documents.
2. 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.
The Planning staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the above
listed conditions, and the Conditional Use Permit subject to the above listed condition.
Comments from the public:
Developer Terry Wensmann, Wensmann Homes, said he realizes the Planning
Commission knows the background. Wensmann apologized to the residents who were
not identified due to an error from the title company. Last week the residents were
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn062298.doc 13
invited by Wensmann to join them on a bus tour of current developments they had going
in other areas similar to the proposed Glynwater. About 10 people went on the tour and
told Wensmann what their concerns were.
Stephanie Renslow, 14516 Fremont Avenue, said they tried to organize the residents to
condense their comments. She understands there has been some adjustment in the
Planning Department to better inform residents. Chuck Gerlach was present to co-present
their issues.
Some of the residents are concerned the rezoning issue will not be addressed at this
meeting. Renslow pointed out the lake association property has approximately 31
households. She feels Fremont Avenue has become a highway. The neighborhood had
many meetings and has hired an attorney because they were not able to assert their rights.
Their two basic concerns are 1) the financial stability of the project; and 2) access from
the Glynwater project.
They agreed the track of development is inevitable. Their hope was for single family
homes and they are disappointed it is townhomes. They are insisting on quality and will
continue to monitor. Concerned with the MUSA line. Should the first half be built on
the contingency of the MUSA? While they have confidence in Mr. Wensmann many of
the residents have homes over the $200,000 range.
Chuck Gerlach, 16059 Northwood Road, believes this development effects all residents
and future residents of Northwood Road. This group was present because they know the
nature of the system and feel they should be represented. His concern is for the access on
Bay Knolls and Fremont Avenue. Where will the traffic go? Will they be turning around
in driveways or the association property? Another concern is the distance from Bay
Knolls off County Road 82 (he is guessing to be about 15 feet). Mr. Gerlach explained
their concerns with the traffic off County Road 82. He also feels there is existing speed
problems. There are no sidewalks and many children.
The residents have come up with several alternatives and invited the Commissioners and
staff to come out and look at the Fremont Avenue intersection. Suggested going back the
original plan with the cap and access. Mr. Wensmann would lose one townhome but there
would be no troubling access.
Mr. Gerlach spoke to several of the Commissioners regarding the cul-de-sacs and their
concerns for emergency and maintenance vehicles (snow plowing). We can't stop
development but can control how it grows. Suggested to deny Bay Knolls intersection.
Tom Finn, 15672 Fremont Avenue, explained he had a video tape of the intersection off
County Road 82 and Fremont showing the heavy traffic. He said he has been a
professional driver for 28 years and has never seen such an intersection. Traffic off
County Road 82 is heavy and very dangerous. Finn feels a hammerhead or cul-de-sac
would solve all the problems.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn062298.doc 14
Jan Ferguson, 15745 Island View, presented pictures of County Road 82 and Fremont
Avenue. Ferguson pointed out stakes and questioned if there are only 15 additional trips
why is the intersection there? She claims the distance is 20 feet. She also feels fire
trucks will not be able to make the comer. It makes no sense for anything other than
snowplowing. The access makes no sense.
Kansier pointed out the stake is probably a fight-of-way line not the Bay Knolls Drive.
Nick Polta, Pioneer Engineer, stated the edge of the bituminous of County Road 82 to
Bay Knolls Drive is 60 feet. Not sure what the stakes in the picture identify, possibly the
County right-of-way. Adding the 15 feet it would make it a 75 foot distance.
Fiona Hein, 15567 Fremont Avenue, said if the access was 60 feet from County Road 82
that would allow for 3 cars to turn on that road, she would still have a hard time making
the comer off County Road 82. Her other concern is for the safety of her children with
people possibly turning around in her driveway.
Mike Soukop, 15669 Fremont Avenue, has the same concerns as everyone else. He feels
residents will take the other route through Fremont to avoid the stop light.
Rick Renslow, 15651 Fremont Avenue, challenged everyone to drive down County Road
82 and turn on to Fremont at 5:00 p.m. The intersection is dangerous without the
development.
Mike Com'oy, 15531 Fremont Avenue, said he owns the closest house to the comer, and
people turn around in this driveway. It is occasional and it does not bother him. But it
could become a problem. A future sidewalk is proposed for the west side of Fremont
which will bring additional bikes. Add the cars and now there is too much congestion. A
cul-de-sac would be a better solution.
Tom Finn, 15672 Fremont, is interested in the results of the traffic study with the
conditional use permit, specifically the day and time it was done. Kansier explained how
the 710 trips were calculated. Finn questioned what was included in the traffic and
environmental study and the home values. And what is required with a conditional use
permit? Kansier explained the criteria and procedures.
Chuck Gerlach questioned if anybody talked to the County about putting in an access that
close. Kansier responded the City and County had several discussions. McDermott
stated the County required the right in/right out on the access on Fremont.
Rick Renslow, 15616 Fremont Avenue, said he had one thing to say. Staff and
Commissioners are here to work for us. Residents pay big taxes to the City. Staff better
not look in the manual, they should get off their butts and take a look at what is going on
before making any kind of decision on this project. The developer is the outsider. Not
taking anything away from the developer, he's probably a great guy. We live here and
pay taxes. The City better listen to what we're are saying.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~an062298.doc 15
Fiona Hein, 15567 Fremont Avenue, stated they all know development is going to go on,
and appreciate all the efforts to control what is going on. We also know the area on
Highway 13 near McDonalds and County Market are used on a daily basis. For any of the
development in the area of County Road 82 to Dakotah Fitness, there really isn't any easy
access to get to there except through Fremont. So we see this double yellow line, a new
housing development is going in and we don't know about it, so it looks suspicious. Her
concern for the longer term plan. Why a highway through a wonderful residential
neighborhood?
Elizabeth Tobeck, 15759 Fremont Avenue, said the first week she moved to her house
she was almost hit by a car. She has small children, there's no stop sign, no speed
bumps. How is my kid suppose to cross the street to get to the park? Now you're adding
more traffic. Can you put a main highway anywhere? Does it matter there are children in
the area? She doesn't want her one and three year old to get hit by a car.
Terry Wensmann stated he appreciated and understands the homeowner's concern. The
City notified them to conduct a traffic study. The amount of traffic from their
development will be less than the study shows. Does not want to dispute but explained
possible routes.
Wensmann explained the cul-de-sac grading problems. All options were explored and
what is presented tonight was the best solution. The main concern is for emergency
vehicles and plowing. He stated he would not be opposed to going back to the
hammerhead situation and not having the access on Fremont.
Kuykendall questioned Glynwater Street width at the access point. Pulta said curb to
curb - 35 feet.
Mike Soukop, 15669 Fremont, questioned the Planning Commission, why was a Bay
Knolls even considered with the townhomes?
The public hearing was closed at 9:39 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
Much of the discussion has turned to Fremont Avenue.
The MUSA will not interfere with the development.
· The Planning Commissioner's concern is to keep the property as is with as many
slopes, wetlands and trees. The developer could have had 30% more homes in the
development. He is at 70% of what the code requires.
· There is a lot of open land.
· The Planning Commission has addressed many of the issues brought up tonight.
Every community wants to keep their neighborhood as it was.
· The problems with traffic on Fremont would be there without the development.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn062298.doc 16
· McDermott requested the developer improve half of Fremont and the City would pay
for the other half with curb and gutter. There is 450 foot piece of Fremont that is not
improved.
· McDermott said there are no plans at this time for redeveloping Fremont at this time.
· There should be some discussion for safety. We can't control people as it relates to
violating traffic laws. But we can control the intersection being so close to County
Road 82.
Cramer:
· Questioned street definitions.
· Kansier stated Fremont has been classified as a collector street since 1973.
· Rye explained the street system starting with local, residential access streets serving
very limited properties, then collector (Fremont) streets feed into the arterial streets
such as County Roads 82 and 21, which turn into highways and freeways.
· Roman Kohout, lives on the comer of Fremont and County Road 82, said if the City
changed the road designation, the City should have told us. He went on to say if the
City puts a median on Fremont it will devaluate his property.
· Polta said Bay Knolls is a little over 600 feet in length.
· Kansier explained the cul-de-sac and hammerhead designs with the involved
variances.
· Well aware of a similar traffic situation.
· It comes down to safety. Try to get a hammerhead cul-de-sac.
Kuykendall:
· Concurs with Commissioners.
· Strongly suggested extending the right-of way to Fremont. Closing the intersection
on Fremont might be a possibility and then re-route the traffic.
· This kind of design (hammerhead) would meet the design requirements.
· Does not feel the existing design will create a traffic hazard, but another design could
be used.
Stamson:
· With the exception of the intersection of Bay Knolls and Fremont, this is an
exceptional design for the development.
· Should look at the hammerhead cul-de-sac design.
· Ask the Police and Fire Departments if the design is workable. Would rather make a
decision after talking to them.
· McDermott said the proposed design concept would be acceptable to Public Works.
Criego:
· Likes the hammerhead design.
· It might be worthwhile to put a trail on the end of the Bay Knolls to the sidewalk on
Fremont for pedestrians as well as bikers. No access by vehicles.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminkmn062298.doc 17
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT KNOWN AS GLYNWATER ALONG WITH THE
CHANGES LAID OUT NAMELY BAY KNOLLS WILL BE HAMMERHEAD END-
CAPPED. A VARIANCE WILL NEED TO BE GRANTED FOR THAT PURPOSE
AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT.
Discussion with City Attorney and Commissioners regarding the variance and notice.
MOTION AMENDED BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. Bay Knolls Drive must be redesigned to eliminate the access to Fremont Avenue and
to include a hammerhead turnaround. This design must also include a pedestrian
connection from the end of Bay Knolls Drive to Fremont Avenue.
2. The developer must submit an application for a variance to the Subdivision
Ordinance requirements for the revised design of Bay Knolls Drive. This variance
must be approved prior to final plat approval.
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 revised to include the correct legal
descriptions for each association. These documents must be recorded with the final
plat documents.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A letter of credit for the landscaping and tree replacement must be submitted prior to
approval of the final plat documents.
2. 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.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case #98-017 CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS
WINDSONG ON THE LAKE 3RD ADDITION
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 22, 1998 on
file in the office of the City Planner.
H & H Land Development has applied for approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as
Windsong on the Lake 3rd Addition. The property in question is located along the east
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn062298.doc 18
boundary of the existing Windsong on the Lake Development, immediately adjacent to
Prior Lake at the southerly end of Edinborough Street.
On February 23, 1998, the Planning Commission considered an application to amend the
Windsong on the Lake PUD Plan to add this property, less the existing home site, to the
PUD Plan. The purpose of the amendment was to gain additional lake shore, which
would then allow 11 additional boat slips. At the same time, the Planning Commission
considered a preliminary plat for this site. The preliminary plat included 1 lot for the
existing dwelling, and two outlots. A portion of the site was also to be added to Lot 2,
Block 1, Windsong on the Lake Addition. The outlots would have become part of the
common open space for the Windsong on the Lake development.
The Planning Commission approved the PUD Plan amendment and preliminary plat on
April 13, 1998. A condition of approval required that the homeowner's association
documents for the development be amended to include the new area. The developer
requested that the item be delayed until he was able to obtain the necessary approvals.
This proposal differs from the original proposal in that it does not include any of the land
in the existing Windsong on the Lake development. The preliminary plat includes 1.62
acres to be subdivided into 1 lot for the existing single family dwelling, and 3 outlots.
The single family lot is 24,212 square feet in area. Outlot A includes 21,482 square feet,
Outlot B includes 14,903 square feet and Outlot C includes 10,137 square feet. All of the
lots include at least 75' of frontage at the Ordinary High Water elevation. Outlot B will
be sold to the owner of the adjacent property (Lot 2, Block 1, Windsong on the Lake). In
the original plan, Outlot A and C were to be added to the PUD common space. In his
narrative, the developer has not indicated his plans for these outlots if they are not
included in the PUD.
The site of the existing house is relatively level. However, the remaining site is primarily
steep slopes and bluffs, with elevations from 904' MSL to 940' MSL. There is no
grading proposed as part of this plan. Access to the existing home is from Edinborough
Street. There is no separate access to the outlots; access is proposed from adjacent lots.
This area 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.
Preliminary_ Plat: The preliminary plat does not create any additional buildable lots.
Lot 1, Block 1, the site of the existing dwelling, meets all minimum lot area and width
requirements. There is no public right-of-way or parkland dedicated in this plat. In
addition, there are no required or proposed utilities, including sanitary sewer, water
mains, or storm sewer proposed. The existing house akeady has 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.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~m062298.doc 19
The outstanding issue in this plat is the status of the outlots. Without the PUD
amendment, there is no guarantee the outlots will be included as part of the common open
space. With the exception of Outlot B, the developer has not provided any future plans
for these outlots, including ownership and maintenance. Outlot C does not have any
access other than through adjacent lots. This issue must be discussed and resolved prior
to approval of the plat.
Another issue concerns the existing encroachments on the outlots. According to the
preliminary plat documents, there is a stairway providing access to the lakeshore across
both Outlot A and B. In addition, there appears to be a shed located on Outlot C. These
encroachments must either be removed or addressed prior to final plat approval.
The preliminary plat is generally 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 developer must address the ownership and maintenance of each of the outlots. In
addition, future access to Outlot C must be addressed.
2. The encroachments on Outlots A, B and C must be addressed. These structures
should be removed, or their use addressed.
The Planning staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the above
listed conditions.
Comments from the Public:
Ralph Heuschele, the developer, stated they asked for this request (preliminary plat) for
financial reasons. After the Planning Commission approval, they were put in position
where they had a purchase agreement for the Schricker property but had not closed on it.
They were given an ultimatum by the seller to close on the April 28, or the property
would go back on the market. The partners ofH & H Land Development decided rather
than risk loosing the project and loosing the ability to accomplish what they had put their
work into so far, that they would go ahead and buy the property. They proceeded at the
same time to obtain the homeowner approvals. At this time they have come up with an
80% majority, they need 90%. There were discussions with homeowners adjacent to the
properties indicating they would be interested in purchasing the property. Heuschele
proposed restricting the sale to only residents with legal access. The encroachments
(shed and stairways) will be dealt with. He is expecting in time he will get total
homeowners approval.
Marv Mirsch, 2260 Sargent, St. Paul, and 15432 Red Oaks Road, felt this was a fail-safe
matter, if the developer can't get the ownership or the homeowners to agree to purchase
the property which was to give boat slips to the outlot then he looses the boat slips.
Kansier explained that was a different issue.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn062298.doc 20
The public hearing was closed at 10:35 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· All questions have been answered.
· Sounds reasonable.
Criego:
· Happy with staff's recommendation with the modification ofOutlot C and adjacent
properties.
Cramer:
· Agreed with Commissioner Criego.
Stamson:
· Concurred.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, RECOMMEND THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS WlNDSONG
ON THE LAKE THIRD ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS: 1) THE DEVELOPER MUST PROVIDE COVENANTS STATING
THE OUTLOTS MAY ONLY BE SOLD TO THE WINDSONG ON THE LAKE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS; AND 2)
THE ENCROACHMENT ON OUTLOTS A, B AND C MUST ADDRESSED. THESE
STRUCTURES SHOULD BE REMOVED, OR THEIR USE ADDRESSED.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier said it will go before City Council July 6, 1998.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Downtown Redevelopment update.
Rye said the committee approved the draft design report for downtown. The EDA
will get the final report in July. The committee wanted community-wide support, not
just support from the EDA and Planning Commission. They would like to market to
the community. There should be some incentive.
B. Update on status of zoning administrator.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~naO62298.doc 21
The City hired Steve Horsman for the zoning administrator position, who will be starting
July 1.
Kuykendall suggested a workshop on noise management.
Criego requested an engineering presentation on bluff determinations.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 10:47 p.m.
Donald Rye Connie Carlson
Director of Planning Recording Secretary
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nO62298.doc 22