Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0522957:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:30 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 8:20 p.m. 8:40 p.m. ~1. 2. 3. 4. 5. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, MAY 22, 1995 Call Meeting to Order a) Review Minutes of Previous meeting. Consent Items:~ a) Resolution- Kraus Variance McKnight Variance Request The Preserve at The Wilds Preliminary Plat and Variance Midwest Cable Conditional Use Permit Ziskovsky Variance Request Snodgrass Variance Request OTHER BUSINESS: a) Capital Improvement Program b) Planning Commission Membership All times stated on the Planning Commission Agenda, with the exception of Public Hearings, are approximate and may start a few minutes earlier or later than the scheduled time. AG 52295 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER I 1 5/22/95 Planning Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 22, 1995 The May 22, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Commissioner Vonhof at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Arnold, Loftus, Roseth and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Assistant Planner Deb Garross, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Secretary Connie Carlson. REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Loftus, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT ITEMS: a) Resolution 95-09PC (Kraus Variance). Vote taken to approve Resolution 95-09PC of the Consent Items signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM 1. MCKNIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST: Associate Planner Michael Leek stated the applicant has requested the hearing be moved to the June 12, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO CONTINUE THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO JUNE 12, 1995. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Loftus, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. The next item was a public hearing scheduled for 7:30. Commissioners took this opportunity to discuss item b) Planning Commission Membership. Planning Director Don Rye explained the City Council's Motion in April asking the Planning Commission to recommend revisions to the Bylaws for continuing terms of Planning Commissioners whose terms are to expire until the 2010 Plan has been completed. Also to provide provisions for apprenticeship to be served by newly appointed members of the Planning Commission. The Motion deals with two different issues, the first as far as extension of terms for current members by amending the By-laws to add the following language: City Council in its sole discretion may extend the term of any Commission member when it is deemed to be in the best interest of the City. Such extension shall be for a period of time to be specified by the City Council. This allows them the option of if the need arises, without necessarily pinning it down to the current circumstance of completing the Comprehensive Plan. M52295.DOC PAGE I 5/22/95 Planning Minutes The second issue of apprenticeship brings concern of how long should this be? Should they be allowed to participate in deliberations? Either with or without voting privileges? Should they be compensated for this apprenticeship? Requiring an apprenticeship make it harder to attract people serving on the Planning Commission? Looking for input from Commissioners to bring back recommendations to City Council. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF COMMISSIONERS: Three Commissioners have been on a long time and have a lot of experience and historical background which is important to the Commission; Apprentice should observe and not be part of the discussions until "on board"; It is also important for apprentice to be committed and attend all meetings; Commissioners may have to resign and then would have to make an appointment; This gives Council an opportunity to plan ahead; Three months is six meetings which would be more appropriate than six months; Apprentices would be able to sit in the audience, take notes, observe and get use to the policy and procedures; As time goes on, swing into the conversation or move up to the table and participate; It should be up to City Council to compensate for their apprenticeship; No voting privileges; Great opportunity to train instead of slowing down the Planning Commission with questions and procedures; It is presumed that the apprentice is already appointed by Council and will be the permanent replacement; Commissioners Arnold and Roseth's total years of experience is 31 years; Recommendation is to change By-laws; Rye will draft the outline for the next meeting. Commissioner Vonhof will make an activity report to the City Council in June as required by the By-laws. Commissioners should bring their ideas and concerns to Vonhof by the next meeting. Commissioner Loftus stated he will be on vacation for the second meeting on June 26. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PRESERVE AT THE WILDS PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE: Timn Jacobs, the project manager for The Wilds, stated this request originally started in January when they wished to change the PUD designation of the attached villas to nine detached villas. At that time the PUD usage was changed contingent on engineering approval of the location of the private road. Also the original "second tier" developer, Neddegard was to develop the nine detached villas and proceed with what they term as "custom grading" of all the lots, and the primary developer, Prior Lake Development was going to act as developer for the streets, utilities and major grading in the plat. The custom grading of each lot would be done as each lot was sold. Since that original contract was initiated, the second tier developer changed from Neddegard to Paramount Construction. Paramount agreed to purchase the property and develop it consistant with the PUD requirements. M52295.DOC PAGE 2 5/22/95 Planning Minutes Nick Poulta of Pioneer Engineering explained the preservation plan and private streets. preliminary grading plan, tree Assistant Planner Deb Garross presented information as per the May 22, 1995, Planning Report. The Prior Lake Development Review Committee, (DRC), received an application for subdivision and variance from Prior Lake Development L.P., 2500 Wilds Parkway, Prior Lake, MN 55372. The request is to adjust property lines of Outlots L, B, and W, The Wilds, as per attached preliminary plat. The part of the plat in the vicinity of Outlot L, The Wilds, is proposed to be subdivided into 9 lots for development of "Detached Villa Homesites." The entire subject site consists of approximately 58 acres of land. The part of the site to be platted with lots contains about 3.5 acres of land. The majority of the site contains fairways #10, (located north of Outlot L, The Wilds), and #12, (located south of Outlot L, The Wilds). In addition to preliminary plat approval, the applicant requests that the following variance be granted with the subdivision: A 12' lot depth variance for proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Preserve at the Wilds. The proposal is to create a lot containing 88' of lot depth. The required lot depth is 100', therefore, the applicant requests a 12' lot depth variance. The Staff recommendation to deny the preliminary plat is based upon the fact that the grading plan does not address the entire subject site, contains inaccurate building and driveway information and therefore the preliminary plat application is incomplete. In addition, restrictive covenants, required by the Subdivision Ordinance, have not been submitted with the preliminary plat application. City Engineer Larry Anderson stated the most significant issue with the plat from an engineering standpoint is the lack of the detailed grading plan for the individual lots. The Subdivision Ordinance does require a grading plan. The Preserve has indicated they would like to have custom graded lots and have not shown any grading on the lots. If there is no grading plan for the individual lot Engineering will not know how one lot will tie into the adjacent lot. The Subdivision Ordinance also requires drainage plans. Developers would have to be responsible for the grading and drainage. If this was resolved it would take care of the major points from engineering and several other minor details that can be addressed. Also depending on how the individual lots are graded, that will effect the amount of trees that are removed. There were no comments from the audience. Comments from the Commissioners included: Arnold: feels it is appropriate to have the grading plan submitted to the City so Engineering can make plans; concern for trees. Roseth: Concurs with Arnold. (Poulta explained the custom grading concept is to provide service to each individual lot and preserve trees. The only way to provide graded building sites is to strip the building site and trees will not be saved. The developer holds M52295.DOC PAGE 3 5/22/95 Planning Minutes an interest with the custom grading. There is going to be an association in this development which will be responsible for all areas outside the actual building itself. There is already a blanket easement granted to themselves as an association. The building pads are large and meet all requirements. This represents the worst case scenario.) Loftus: Asked for comments from Engineering (Larry Anderson: Recommends the developer provide a grading plan for the plat. Vonhof: What and who is to develop retaining walls? (Poulta: The developer will probably use Braun Intertech to design their retaining walls.) concurs with other Commissioners to follow ordinance grading plan; concern for amount of trees removed from site - 80%. (Garross: should state in deed that any trees removed will be replaced and maintained. This will provide guidance to developer and future builders and homeowners. Request tree preservation be placed within the Preserve covenants.) Vonhof: Request for tree preservation in covenants. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY ROSETH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 95- 07PC THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PRESERVE AT THE WILDS. Discussion: Resolution spells issues out. Item 16 under Conditions adequately covers the grading plan. All issues in the attached Memos and Exhibits must be approved by the City Engineer. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Roseth, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:25 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. With the approval of Midwest Cable the Ziskovsky and Snodgrass variance requests proceeded as follows: ITEM 4. ZISKOVSKY VARIANCE REQUEST: Associate Planner Michael Leek presented Planning Report dated May 22, 1995. The Planning Department received a variance application from Gerald and Kris Zislovsky for 2952 Spring Lake Road SW. The subject property is legally described on the applicant's certificate of survey, and consists of part of Lots 10, 11 and 12, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota. The applicant proposes to construct a deck measuring 10 feet x 16 feet. The specific variances requested are an 8 foot front yard variance from Lime Street and a 25 foot front yard variance from Spring Lake Road. The requested variances would result in front yard setbacks of 17 feet (instead of the required 25 feet) and 60 feet (instead of the required 85 feet), respectively. M52295.DOC PAGE 4 5/22/95 Planning Minutes The subject property was platted prior to its annexation by the City of Prior Lake in September of 1975. The existing house was moved onto the lot in 1981. Staff believes all the hardship criteria have been met and recommends approval of the variance request. Gerald Ziskovsky, 2952 Spring Lake Road, presented pictures of the property. Mr. Ziskovsky stated he talked to most of the neighbors who agreed a deck would look nice. The deck would be 3 to 4 feet off the ground with a railing. Mr. Ziskovsky has also discussed the plans with the Building Department. There were no comments from the audience. Comments from the Planning Commissioners included: Roseth: in view of presentation and comments no questions; Loftus: hardship criteria have been met; former jurisdiction allowed; substandard lot; support. Arnold: concur with Commissioners; Vonhof: agree with hardship criteria, staff report and comments. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ROSETH TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED 17 AND 60 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACKS INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 AND 85 FEET RESPECTIVELY. Rationale: All hardship criteria have been met. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Roseth, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM 5. SNODGRASS VARIANCE REOUEST: Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the Planning Report dated May 22, 1995. The Planning Department received a variance application from Michael G. Snodgrass for 17372 Sunset Trail SW. The subject property is legally described as Lot 29, FAIRVIEW BEACH, Scott County, Minnesota. The applicant proposes to construct a second story deck measuring 7 feet by 27 feet on the southwest side of the existing house. Access to the deck would be gained by an existing door from the living room space. The specific variance requested is 2.40 foot variance from the side yard setback. This would result in a side yard setback of 7.60 feet instead of the required 10 feet. The FAIRVIEW BEACH addition was platted in 1929. This subdivision was included in the September 1975 annexation by the City. The rear of the property abuts Fairview Road. The existing house was constructed in 1979. The property is narrow, measuring 49.97 feet at the front property line. It is also substandard in area (6096 square feet). M52295,DOC PAGE 5 5122195 Planning Minutes If constructed as proposed, the deck would maintain about a 19 foot separation from the house to the West. The subject property, because of its size and configuration, presents few options for the location of a deck. Parenthetically, the house to the West, which is similar in configuration, has a similar second-story deck. It does not appear that a variance was granted in connection with that deck. Staff recommends approval of the request because the ordinance hardship criteria have been met. Mr. Leek also read a letter from Todd Hertaus, a neighbor of Mr. Snodgrass, who supports the variance request. No comments from the applicant, Michael Snodgrass or the audience. Comments form the Commissioners included: Loftus: supportive of variances; hardship criteria have been met; addition would add extra use of the house. Arnold: concurs with Lofius; Roseth: concur with Staff and Commissioners; Vonhof: agrees. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED 2.4 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 7.6 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET. Rationale: Hardship criteria have been met. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM 3. MIDWEST CABLEVISION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Tim Block, the Chief Technician of Midwest Cablevision, of Prior Lake and Savage, stated the CUP request was to erect a bulding on site. The intent is to upgrade the cable television system which will increase reliability and add channel capacity for new services. The building would house additional channel equipment, installing fiber optic cables, laser receivers and various electronic components. Mr. Block addressed some of the conditions of Resolution 95-08PC. Assistant Planner Deb Garross discussed the details from the May 22, 1995 Planning Report. The applicant, Midwest Cablevision, requests a conditional use permit in order to locate a public utility building within the R-2, Urban Residential Zoning District. The proposal is to construct a 20' x 20' building to house fiber optic equipment needed to provide cable services to the community. Two previous CUP's were issued on November 9, 1983, and February 6, 1984, to North American Communications Corporation to locate a receiving tower; two, 7 meter earth station antennas; and a 12' x 18' building to house communications equipment on the subject site. In addition, a 115' height variance was granted to construct a 150' receiving tower. Since the 1984 approval, staff has inspected the site on a number of occasions and noted that the landscape plan has not been completed and there have been other Ordinance M52295.DOC PAGE 6 5/22/95 Planning Minutes violations. In addition, three satellite dishes have been erected on site without approved building permits. The previous owner, North American Cable, and current owner were contacted by former Planning Director, Horst Graser, via letter and phone calls advising that site inspections revealed several Zoning Ordinance violations as well as violation of the approved CUP, (related to incomplete landscaping). Corporate representatives for the applicant did not respond to the letter nor phone conversations made by Mr. Graser in 1993-1994. A site inspection was conducted the date that this agenda report was written. The inspection revealed several Ordinance violations such as: garbage and refuse on site; outside storage of two trailers; 12 large spools, located outside of the fenced area; 5 satellite dishes inside of the fenced area; countless large spools located inside of the wire fence; unused utility boxes, wire, and an unscreened, broken dumpster. Ron Habekorn, owner of Norex building stated his concern for misuse of the building. When the permit was initially applied for in 1984, the issue was controversial in that it was adjacent to a school and residential property and the Norex office building. It was going to be treated as a public utility facility. Mr. Habekorn's impression of a public facility would be to blend in with the neighborhood. His concern is the visibility impact for all visitors as well as employees coming into their parking lot. He feels the site looks like a light industrial district. Mr. Habekom would like to see the building appearance improved to blend in with the area and the original intent of the permit upheld. He also stated he would like to remain friends with Tim Block and try to work something out. Tim Block said he was sorry for the inconvenience to Norex and will do whatever he can to make improvements to the property. Comments from the Planning Commission: Roseth: parties involved understand the situation; Referring to Item #11 of conditions - recommend October or November as a completion date instead of September; discussion on dish size and numbers. Loftus: Norex is developed and concemed for image and positive impression. There have been major changes from the beginning and need to harmonize the issues; suggest a tour or slide presentation to bet a better feel for property and evaluate. Arnold: Supports Resolution as it stands; some conditions can be worked out; discuss point by point. Vonhof: Found it disturbing that Midwest Cablevision has not been in compliance with the CUP; property has historically been in violation; letters have been sent notifying the CUP violations and now is the time to remedy; some of the violations were in place before Midwest Cablevision bought the site; this is the time to bring the site into compliance; applicant should be aware of City's concems; there should be no violations present before approval of the City; applicant should come back after complying; direct Staff to go on site with applicant and address current Ordinance violations. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF COMMISSIONERS: conditions of Resolution should be complied with before they address this again; do not feel comfortable acting on the status of the application at this time; suggest item be tabled until Ordinance violations have M52295.DOC PAGE 7 5/22/95 Planning Minutes been resolved; Midwest Cablevision have been the owners for 3 years, while most problems occurred before applicant obtained ownership. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO TABLE AND BRING BACK AT THE DISCRETION OF THE APPLICANT AT SUCH TIMES AS HE HAS HAD TIME TO TALK WITH STAFF AND CLARIFY THE COMPLAINTS AND RECTIFY THE ORDINANCE VIOLATION ITEMS. AMENDMENT BY LOFTUS: COMMISSIONERS TO SEE VISUAL AIDS OR ARRANGE TO TAKE INSPECTION TOUR. No discussion. Votes taken signified ayes by Roseth, Loftus, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. OTHER BUSINESS: a) Capital Improvement Plan: City Planner Don Rye. In a joint meeting with the City Council an issue came up with the Planning Commission indicating its desire to play some role in the Capital Improvement Program. Council felt it was appropriate to participate. Many of the issues are from Engineering and Rye would like someone from Engineering to explain the process and rationale. Also, most of big items are the City's share of County road improvements. Another budget issue is directed to the Parks and Recreation Department for equipment and improvement of existing facilities. One of the directives from Council is to explore funding for new community park facilities. Public Work items revolve around County road improvements. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF COMMISSIONERS: The City pays for anything higher than the standard improvements, i.e. lights, sidewalks; improvements to Mushtown Road in 1996 and improvements to Pike Lake Trail in 1998; some projects are funded by revenue bonds, Federal and State money; and State Aid, Capital Park Fund, referendums and others. Commissioners have until July 17, 1995 to discuss. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY ROSETH TO CLOSE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Roseth, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was closed at 10:29 p.m. Donald R. Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary M52295.DOC PAGE $