Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout082895REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1995 7:00 p.m. HEARINGS: o Call Meeting to Order a) Review Minutes of Previous meeting. Consent Items: a) Resolution- 9520PC- Thielen Variance PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPLICATION FROM RCS ASSOCIATES FOR SCHEMATIC PUD, REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "WILD OAKS." 13 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF CONROY STREET, PRIOR LAKE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PRIOR LAKE YEAR 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS "THE WILDS NORTH" CONSIDER HOME OCCUPATION REQUEST FOR LAURIE J. CAMPBELL, 16420 MANDAN AVENUE SE, TO OPERATE A THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE BUSINESS. CONSIDER APPEAL OF BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL FROM PLANNING DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION THAT RECYCLING IS NOT PERMITTED IN THE 1-2 DISTRICT. CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR RON AND KIM ANDERSON FOR THE PROPERTY AT 4301 GRAINWOOD CIRCLE: VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT AREA OF 6,516 SQ. FT.; AGg2895.DOC PAGE 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER o A 5 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK ON THE EAST; A 27 FT. LAKESHORE SETBACK; 5 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE WEST; AND A 3% VARIANCE ON THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR RON CEMINSKY OF 5239 BROOKS CIRCLE SE: TO ADD A THIRD GARAGE STALL: 4 FT SIDE YARD VARIANCE TO THE EAST. OTHER BUSINESS: a) Planning Commission Chair Appointment AG82895.DOC PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST, 28, 1995 The August 28, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Commissioner Vonhof at 7:02 p.m. Present were Commissioners Arnold, Kuykendall, Loftus, Roseth and Vonhof, Intem Commissioner Criego, City Planner Don Rye, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. ROLL CALL: Arnold Present Roseth Present Lofius Present Kuykendall Present Vonhof Present REVIEW MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 14, 1995 MEETING: MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 14, 1995 MINUTES. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold, Kuykendall, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA: Thielen Variance - Resolution 95-20PC. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 95-20 PC. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Kuykendall, Loftus, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPLICATION FROM RCS ASSOCIATES FOR SCHEMATIC PUD, REZONING. PRELIMINARY PLAT, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "WILD OAKS". 13 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF CONROY STREET, PRIOR LAKE. A sign-up sheet was circulated to the public. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report prepared by Assistant Planner Deb Garross dated August 28, 1995. MN82895.DOC PAGE 1 Highlights of the report included: The proposed PUD of Wild Oaks is not consistent with preservation policies of the Comprehensive Plan related to steep slope natural features. The proposal shows the development of townhouse units in areas of the property containing 20% or greater, steep slopes. A second issue, although not a natural feature defined by the Comprehensive plan, concerns tree removal on site. In order to address potential clear cutting issues of the Shoreland District, the Schematic PUD should include a tree inventory identifying the specific location and specie of each significant, hardwood tree equal to or larger than 12" in caliper. The developer requests approval of a variance to allow the cul-de-sac to be 586 feet in length instead of the Subdivision Ordinance maximum of 500 feet. Staff recommends the CUP be approved to allow for the formation of a back lot association concurrent with the subdivision of Wild Oaks. The Planning Commission should note the boat slips and any access to recreational amenities in The Harbor PUD constitute a private agreement between the Wild Oaks Homeowners Association and The Harbor Homeowners Association. A letter from Attorney James Bates, representing Mr. John Gorra of 14133 Shady Beach Trail, was entered into the record. Mr. Gorra's basic concern was the extension of Conroy Street to Shady Beach Trail. His belief being it will reduce the value of his lots. Also entered into the record was a letter from Scott County Highway Engineer, Brad Larson, commenting on no direct access to County Road 42, concerns about compatibility between land use and highways, complaints about noise and a request to the developer to assess the noise impact of the roadway and take additional measures to mitigate the problem. Mr. Larson would like the City to review the setback requirements along County Road 42. The Staff recommendation was to table or continue the public hearings to a date and time certain and provide the developer with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future Planning Commission review. Mr. Dick Krier of James J. Hill, Inc., Planning and Engineering, introduced the applicant, Mr. William Hayden, Mr. James Sanders, the attorney for applicant, and Mr. Roy Anderson of Midwest Landscapes, the landscape and tree preservation specialist. Mr. Krier proceeded to explain the development and describe the site. His main points were: · Developing 23 townhomes as opposed to the 28 units allowed by City Ordinance. · Agreeing to pay for the construction of Conroy Street at the request of the City Engineer at the developer's expense rather than making it a burden on the property owners in the area. This will not benefit the development. · Developer is exceeding the standards of the Ordinance related to landscaping - no clear cutting, preserving many existing trees and planting several more. Spending $100,000 on retaining walls to preserve trees. MN82895.DOC PAGE 2 · Installing a drainage NURP pond to protect the wetland. Water coming into the wetland at the present time is not cleaned at all. · Constructing a larger roadway/cul-de-sac than the Ordinance requires to accommodate emergency and public safety equipment is a substantial cost to the developer. · This is a R-1 zoning district with a shoreland overlay district, and given the standards for a single family subdivision, the developer can get almost the same number of homes, without preserving the trees or constructing the street. Mr. Roy Anderson of Midwest Landscapes, Maple Grove, presented overheads of proposed retaining walls and methods to preserve trees. The site requires 79 trees yet the developer will provide 89. Jim Sanders, attorney for the project, explained the developer agreed to construct Conroy Street, which is an improvement for exchange for the additional 3 townhouse units. In respect to the Harbor Association, Mr. Sanders felt it is a matter of a private contract, private covenants and conditions between the developments and not a matter involving the Planning Commission. It is not a legal requirement in the City Ordinances. Mr. Krier addressed the steep slope issue. Staff recommended moving the cul-de-sac which would be a better alternative than removing the slope and trees. The wetland will be drainage to Savage as well as Prior Lake. There are two alternatives in constructing Conroy Street - 1) Build up as a horseshoe as it is now or 2) Build up and connect with Shady Beach Trail. Both alternatives are acceptable to the City Engineer. The City owns the easement on Lot 13 to Shady Beach Trail. Issues would be traffic and 2 existing homes. Culverts would be installed to avoid flooding. Comments from the audience: Tom Keamey, 6424 Conroy Street, stated his concern for Prior Lake's Tree Preservation Policy. (Leek - The City does not have a current policy at this time. The Subdivision, Shoreland Districts and PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance address clear-cutting and preservation of natural features.) Mr. Keamey inquired on the inventory of the trees and preserving trees less than 12 inches. He also feels grading will be hard on the existing trees, hills and wetlands. It is important to him not to destroy an area like this. Mr. Kearney suggested the City look into neighboring Tree Preservation plans. Scott Roth, 6394 Conroy Street, felt there is no hardship for the variance request on the cul-de-sac. He presented pictures of the existing trees to the Commissioners. Mr. Roth's concern was the developer taking too many trees and excavation will harm the existing trees. He would like to see 4 to 6 inch trees left as well. The proposed development will not work in that area with the wetland and steep grade. He feels the overhead proposal is not an accurate reflection of the area. This area is workable with a fewer homes. MN82895.DOC PAGE 3 Calena Townsend, 6565 Harbor Place, presented a petition in opposition of the 23 townhomes in the area, the removal of trees and the impact it will have on Prior Lake and surrounding residents. Dave Frees, will be a resident at 6346 Conroy Street, agrees with the Staff on the construction of the slope. The oak trees will be affected with the excavation and will take a long time to replace. Erosion into the wetlands is his primary concern. Dean Olson, 6412 Conroy Street, said there are not many places for his children to play and the parks are too far away. His other concern is for the construction of Conroy Street. There are blind spots on the road and he hopes it will be constructed in a safe manner. Bill Townsend, 6565 Harbor Place, will soon be moving to Conroy Street, and his main concern is for the runoff of the new development and how this is going to be managed with Savage using the wetland as well. The pond will not maintain its natural vegetation. He hopes the Commission will follow StafFs recommendation in connection with the watershed issues. Mr. Townsend's other concern is to make Conroy Street a cul-de-sac as it would maintain the existing character of the area and without planning the road carefully part of the wetland will be lost. He urges the Commission to take their time and get more input on this matter. Ted Schweich, 6436 Conroy Street, stated one of his issues is the cash donation for the park. He has smaller children who cannot walk to neighboring parks. Mr. Schweich feels the developer should provide a tot lot for the neighborhood. He also feels the impervious surface coverage should be addressed. The construction of Conroy Street will increase traffic. He realizes the land has to be developed but was told by the owner, Wes Green, there would only be six homes constructed in the area. Mr. Leek addressed some of the above issues: Two-thirds of the site is zoned R-1 and the density of 28 units is correct. The maximum building coverage is 9% and well within the performance coverage. Mike Sweeney, lives on Lot 10, 11 and 12, addressed the surfacing of Conroy Street. He feels constructing a cul-de-sac would be the better alternative as there are not enough people using the road at the present time. His other concerns are to save the trees and the coverage issue with the wetland. Constructing the street is under 15 feet from his deck as well as his neighbor's. It would eliminate huge portions of their lots reducing their property values. Mr. Sweeney suggests tabling the matter. Rick Devine, 10401 Shady Beach Trail, agrees with Mr. Sweeney and does not want to see a through street. There is no benefit to anyone with Conroy Street as a through street. Would like to see a cul-de-sac constructed. Peter Coyle, attorney for the Harbor Association addressed the Conditional Use Permit. He feels it is not a private matter between the developments and would like the Staff and MN82895,DOC PAGE 4 City Attorney to review the issues to verify there is not a conflict with the private contractual rights the Association has to the property. As he reads the legal description attached to the Conditional Use Application, it is his impression Wilds Oaks is seeking to establish public domain on all of the common area within the Harbor. Access to the recreational acres should be worked out. Mr. Leek stated the City Attorney can look into the legal description and common areas of the Harbor. The anticipated access to Prior Lake is through the 6 boat slips in connection with the Harbor. This is a private matter between the parties. It is possible for the Harbor Association to join in the application for the Conditional Use Permit. Carol Scott, 6370 Conroy, is disturbed by the clear cutting and the definition of it. The Shoreland Management was drafted by State Statute and there were some things the City could change and some thing's that could not be changed. Mrs. Scott suggested the City contact the DNR for their definition of clear cutting. She objects to a PUD that it does not have to abide by the Shoreland Management Ordinance. (Mr. Leek stated PUDs in a shoreland district uphold those standards.) Mrs. Scott pointed out an area that was recently placed in the torrens system and came under the ownership of the residents on one side of the road. In the process some of the properties who opposed the process were given a recreational easement along the lake. Mrs. Scott heard the Association has plans to buy one of the lots that have the recreational easement so they can use it. She would like to see something in the Developer's Agreement or a provision of the PUD to prohibit the Association from using the recreational easement. She agrees with the residents of Conroy Bay that 6 single family residents would be feasible rather than this development. Linda Anderson, 14053 Greenway, has the same concerns for density, trees, the runoff to the wetland and the street going through. She said if the street goes through it would be a traffic nightmare. Martin Polasik, 14087 Shady Beach Trail, concern was for the road extension into Shady Beach Trail. The traffic flow is a big concern and he would prefer to see a cul-de-sac which would eliminate the problem. Calina Townsend, moving to 6300 Conroy Street, would like to take issue with the developer. The developer assumes most of the people buying the townhomes will be empty nesters. She feels they will be young professionals raising children. She said the Commission should check out the ability of the developer to fund this project, what has he done in the past, is it possible he is going to go broke and what will happen with a partially done project. Mr. Green always seems to end up with the property and makes a profit. Residents did not ask for the Conroy Street improvements. Ed Reese, 6520 Harbor View Circle, invited the Commissioners to come out and see the area. The area has limited parking space and narrow streets. He would like the Commissioners to take a closer look at the capabilities. MNg2895.DOC PAGE 5 Kathy Bachelor, 10469 Greenway, stated property owner, Wes Green told her there would be 6 executive homes in this area. She would like the area to stay quiet with low traffic and preservation of the wetland. Traffic is an issue for the residents with small children. She realizes there is going to be development but asks the Commission take into consideration what the residents are asking. Bob Prchal, 6406 Conroy Street, requested to table the matter and drive out and to see the area. It is an extremely challenging area to develop. Comments from the Commissioners: Arnold: Ideally 6 executive lots would be the way to go but that is not proposed; the advantage of a PUD is the City has some control; property is awfully congested; has a lot of concern for the number of trees removed; would like to see an invemory of trees by location; and inventory of trees 6 inches or greater; he would like to see as much of the steep slope preserved as possible; good concerns brought up by audience on drainage in the southwest corner of property - we need more information in that regard; suggestion of cul-de-sac makes sense; concern for the additional three townhomes to make up the difference in construction of Conroy Street. (Leek responded it would make additional access into the area, more room for public safety with the approved developments north of Prior Lake and Savage. With Savage in the watershed, there is serious need to address the way the drainage works in this area. The improvement of the roadway and storm sewer improvements go hand in hand.) (Assistant Engineer John Wingard explained the developer will be responsible for mitigation by creating 2 acres of wetland for every 1 acre filled that are taken out. It should provide more water storage and with the upgrading of Conroy Street more water will be held in the pond.) Commissioners need to see the contours of the wetland. Roseth: Agrees with Commissioner Arnold; would like to know more about Savage dumping into the lake in written form with comments and diagrams; want to verify and see the 23 units; would rather see 6 single family homes; would like to see elevation after minimal excavation; see a before and a proposed after plan; can see Conroy Street as a through street for tying in neighborhoods and for safety access - either cul-de-sac with a walking path or break away portion for police and fire; research the 6 slips with the CUP; need definition of clear cutting and who is responsible for the Harbor CUP. Loftus: concern for trees and steep slope; feels we should table for more information; a PUD may not be the answer; should have public paybacks through a PUD; park fund should have green space for the public, particularly if there is more traffic; there are legal issues on the CUP that have to be worked out; lake access has to be determined by attorneys. Kuykendall: comments well received by audience; taken in a positive vein by developers and Commissioners; suggest to table motion. MN82895.DOC PAGE 6 Criego: consider cul-de-sac for safety which is important for 23 additional homes; drainage is important and should be investigated; recommend to table. Vonhof: concur with Commissioners; additional information should come to us; suggest to table. Mr. Krier stated one of the issues Staff asked them to do is to extend Conroy Street. If the Conroy Street matter can be resolved it would help them know how to develop the area. They are willing to do this either way. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY ROSETH TO TABLE THE SCHEMATIC PUD, REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Discussion: All Commissioners will go out on the site; will not table to exceed more than 60 days. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Roseth, Kuykendall, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Amold, Loftus, Kuykendall, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 9:44 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:51 p.m. ITEM #2 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PRIOR LAKE YEAR 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS "THE WILDS NORTH". A sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance. Planning Director Don Rye presented the information in the Planning Report dated August 28, 1995. A summary of his report is as follows: The applicant, RKB Inc. applied to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation on the subject property from Agricultural to Commercial, extend the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) to include the subject property and to change the zoning designation from A-l, Agricultural to B-l, Limited Business. The subject property is a parcel of land located at the southeast comer of the intersection of County Roads 42 and 83 and having an area of 19.5 acres. Material submitted in support of the application MN82895.DOC PAGE 7 shows potential land uses to include a gasoline service station, fast food restaurants, grocery store, hardware store, banks and dry cleaning. The land use mix is indicated as being conceptual in nature. The applicant has indicated the first phase of the development will consist of a gasoline station and fast food restaurant. The Staff recommendation and finding is the general designation of Commercial is appropriate and direct further consideration of commercial land use alternatives with emphasis on destination-type land uses for the site and proper land use controls while deferring action on the zoning change. Timn Jacobs, Project Director for the Wilds, emphasized two issues, usage of the land and the rezoning of the land. The configuration of the road would be determined at the preliminary plat/final plat application. The reason this proposal did include some indication of access was because of issues with Scott County concerning what they could do and not do. Timing is important - the Comprehensive Plan has been delayed. Before the delay, The Wilds made contractual arrangements with Amoco and McDonalds. Mr. Jacobs said staff recommended applying for an amendment. Mr. Jacobs feels there are not a lot of services in this area. He is confident the surrounding area will be residential. Mr. Jacobs also explained the buffer area between the commerical and residential properties. Jim Halek, 14869 Manitou Road, said he had some involvement with The Wilds conception. Mr. Halek would like the commerical area to help with his taxes and feels it would benefit Prior Lake. Tom Chaklos, owns the 40 acres at the half mile point referred to. He feels The Wilds needs the zoning change. His concern is for the access road. (Rye explained the County's policy and the guidelines.) Mr. Chaklos would also like to see the speed limit dropped to 45 mph. (Commissioner Vonhof stated they could make the request. Rye explained the request process.) Court McFarlane, speaking for Dick Klimmeck, has a concern with the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and how it will affect the current land owners. This decision will also have an impact on future developments. The Klimmecks do not want to see a delay in the 2010 plan because of what is happening with this rezoning. (Rye - more emphasis has been put on the 2010 Plan than is warranted. Adopting the plan does not mean it is all going to change - the City is still bound by the MUSA extensions and the Metropolitan Council makes the decisions.) Monica Anderson, 2853 140th Street NW, stated no one has approached them on the access issue on County Road 42. Timn Jacobs, addressed Mrs. Anderson's concern, he did not receive the letter from the City until late last week and was not able to do that process and fully intend to alleviate her concern and get a mutual agreement worked out. MN$2895.DOC PAGE 8 Ray Peterson, 13901 Canterbury, lives directly across the proposed development. He is concerned about the access on County Road 42 and how they are going to handle the wetland. The intersection is very dangerous. He has a concern for spot development. He would prefer to see an overall plan. Whether they develop it now or later is immaterial. There is also indication of a lift station and he would like to know the cost to maintain and how is he affected, i.e. higher assessments. His neighbors are concerned with these proposed changes as well. Comments from Commissioners: Roseth: no problem with the MUSA extension - actually taking out more property than putting back in; the property is going to develop; the City needs commercial property; likes the concept; need the ins and outs of the access and speed limits. Loftus: down side on spot zoning on an overloaded comer; logical development other places; concern with dealing with an estate of the party involved in the land exchange. Kuykendall: in general supports Staff recommendation; the only reservation he fails to see any fiscal impact statement made or put together; would like to see a total cost benefit analysis of all the pending public improvements giving different scenarios; if it is a plus to the City economically when is it going to pay off?. When do we break even? Would like to see the numbers before we proceed. Arnold: comment in the Staff Report that the Metropolitan Council prefers a two to one exchange when it is commerical; will this be approved by the Metropolitan Council. Are they going to look at this as a good exchange? (Rye explained the major and minor amendments. This would fall into the minor amendment category - not a significant change in the regional system.) Explanation of originally trading 20 acres to Metropolitan Council's recommendation of 40 acres. Criego: The 2010 Plan indicates a portion of the area was going to be rezoned commercial; we are basically moving ahead of the Plan. (Rye - the general land use designation of commerical is acceptable there are other concerns need to be addressed further, one being, the emphasis on destination land uses. Another is, what the proper zoning approach should be. May want to include in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment some specific direction provided for that property so there is a basis when the zoning is amended to reflect that rather than trying to negotiate it at the time the zoning process is conducted.) safety issue with traffic; it is up to developers to determine the land destination. Vonhof.' no objection to plan - the Notice was for 20 acres not 40 acres; agree with Commissioner Criego in relation to moving ahead with the plan; changing conditions on the west side of the City; heavy traffic on County Road 42; we should get a determination on the acreage. MN82895.DOC PAGE 9 Open Discussion: the City does not control the Mystic Lake Casino traffic; would like to talk about this in more detail; need to see finance numbers; issue today is - do we want commerical?; better zoned B-1; issue of 20 vs. 40 acres; green acres program; MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO TABLE THE MATTER TO THE SEPTEMBER ! 1, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Kuykendall, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY ROSETH TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Roseth, Kuykendall, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Kuykendall requested Staff to obtain more information on costs, the impact and additional traffic improvement. ITEM #3 CONSIDER HOME OCCUPATION REQUEST FOR LAURIE J. CAMPBEIJ,, 16420 MANDAN AVENUE SE, TO OPERATE A THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE BUSINESS. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated August 28, 1995. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. No off-site parking. On-site parking for a maximum of two (2) customer vehicles must be provided. 2. No exterior signs identifying the business, its products, or services. 3. No sale of products on the premises. 4. No employees beyond the one (1) applicant/operator. 5. The home occupation permit may not be sold, transferred or assigned. 6. The Home Occupation permit is subject to all applicable ordinance and legal requirements. Violation of any ordinance or legal requirement shall be deemed grounds for immediate revocation of the Home Occupation Permit. 7. The Home Occupation may be reviewed annually by the City. Applicant Laurie Campbell stated she was present and had nothing to add to the Staff Report. Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: supportive of application and recommends adoption of the Resolution. MN82895,DOC PAGE 10 Commissioners Kuykendall, Arnold, Roseth, Criego and VonhoE all supportive of the application. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 9525PC. Vote taken signified ayes by Lofius, Arnold, Kuykendall, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM #4 CONSIDER APPEAL OF BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL FROM PLANNING DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION THAT RECYCLING IS NQT PERMITTED IN THE I-2 DISTRICT. Planning Director Don Rye presented the Staff Report dated August 28, 1995. In June, the City Staff was made aware of the operation of a recycling operation conducted by Buckingham Disposal at 5980 Credit River Road. The facility was opened without benefit of a Certificate of Occupancy and a subsequent determination was made by the Planning Director that the use was not a permitted or conditional use in the I-2 zoning district. The ordinance currently defines light manufacturing as "the process and fabrication of certain materials where no process involved will produce noise, vibrations, air pollution, fire hazards or noxious emissions which will disturb or endanger neighboring properties." Fabricate is defined as "To construct by combining and assembling" while manufacturing is defined as "to make or process a raw material into a finished product, esp. by means of a large-scale industrial operation." The owner of Buckingham Disposal is appealing this decision pursuant to Section 7.4 of the zoning ordinance. The Board of Adjustment has the responsibility to hear the appeal and make a recommendation to the City Council to either uphold the interpretation by staff, determine the staff interpretation was incorrect and grant the appeal or to recommend some alternative resolution of the issue such as a zoning ordinance amendment. John Cairns, attorney representing Tom Buckingham, owner of Buckingham Disposal explained the recycling process. Buckingham Disposal is the designated Scott County drop off station. The property and building was upgraded. The manufacturing process is done inside the building. Mr. Cairns suggested not following StafFs recommendation and asked to table the matter, monitor the operation for 6 month and watch the success rate. Mr. Cairns also invited the Commissioners to view the operation. Tom Buckingham, owner of Buckingham Disposal stated he is a resident of Prior Lake and has been in the business for over 20 years. They want to be good neighbors, are up front and run a clean operation. Comments from Commissioners: MN82895.DOC PAGE 11 Kuykendall: from the description given by applicant it sounds like manufacturing; should fit in designation; would like to see specific performance issues in the Conditional Use and Permitted Use in our Zoning Ordinance; supports the issue. Arnold: has a problem seeing this as a manufacturing business; would like to see the business in Prior Lake; the process of getting amendment changed is 60 days; debate between the manufacturing process; feels the operation should continue but concerned it is not in the Ordinance. Roseth: recommends item #3 as recommended by Staff is to make a determination where in the City this would fit - under what zone. (Rye - It does not fit the current Ordinance.) feels it should fit somewhere in the City; thinks it fits under Conditional Use whether it is specified or not. Loftus: Agree with Commissioner Roseth; one distinction is that it is automatic; making it a Conditional Use can set certain controls; knows Buckingham runs a good operation and is an asset to the community; Buckingham should apply for a Conditional Use Permit; Commission needs to know details of the operation; noise is a factor as well as hours of operation. Criego: property being used for other purposes; (Becker Arena is an assembly process on the other side of the building.) all operation is inside of building; trash is outside building. (Lofius - could screen it - related to outside storage.) Kuykendall: the issue is definition; manufacturing does not cause noise, air pollution, vibrations or fire hazard; operation crushes cans inside the building; noise outside the building is an issue; meets definition. Vonhof: in reading over the correspondence between the City and Buckingham Disposal I can see the Planning Staff acting as zoning officers looked at this and said it doesn't fit any of the definitions we have in our opinions; agrees with Commissioner Kuykendall it is a manufacturing process and our Ordinance is deficient in that it does not have recycling in it; it is not listed in any of the other City zones; this was a determination Staff had to make and I disagree; we do not want to get into the business of looking internally into every process. Open discussion: there is going to be only one recycling business in the City, probably the County; if the matter can come under Conditional Use Permit, notices would be sent out; there would be more information and we can set conditions; noise is a factor; meets definition - it is manufacturing; it is a finished product ready to sell. Tom Foster, 5795 Shannon Trail, stated he felt the Commissioners were on the right track-the business is light manufacturing. He has a process ready to sell to his customer. MN82895.DOC PAGE 12 MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY LOFTUS, RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL UPHOLD THE APPELLANT AND DIRECT TERMINATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT. Rationale: Based upon the definition of light manufacturing as discussed in this meeting. Discussion: agrees with definition of manufacturing which makes it a conditional use; (Rye - The City will let them operate and not enforce while a determination is made. This initiated a process that could conceivably result in them being able to continue without any problem.) suggestion to recommend alternate #3 of the Staff Report; put under conditional use; with the information presented to the Planning Commission it fits the definition of manufacturing. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Loftus, and Kuykendall; nays by Arnold and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. Recommendation to City Council will be to uphold the appellant and direct termination of the zoning ordinance enforcement based upon the criteria above. ITEM #5 CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR RON AND KIM ANDERSON FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4301 GRAINWOOD CIRCLE: VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT AREA OF 6~516 SQUARE FEET; A 5 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ON TI-IE EAST. A 27 FOOT LAKESI-IORE SETBACK ON TI-IE WEST; AND A 30/$ VARIANCE ON TIlE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated August 28, 1995. Kim Anderson went over the changes in their footprint - removal of the third stall garage; the walkway and porch going into the home was dropped three feet so it does not count in the impervious surface coverage. By making it a two car garage and taking a couple of feet off the back of the house they did gain some lakeshore setback. She talked to DNR, Hydrologist, Pat Lynch who told her he would not be making a formal reply to what they had done, he had seen it and he felt they had made an honest good faith effort but it was not part of DNR's policy to respond a revamp. Mrs. Anderson talked to Dave at Valley Survey and explained the reason they are at the 9.91 is because of the way the lot is angled. They are at 50 feet in the front and 49.03 in the back. She then presented pictures of the lot. Mrs. Anderson also stated they have the neighborhood support with the signatures at the last meeting. They took the information the Commissioners suggested and changed their plans. Jim Halek, built the house on 4255 Grainwood last year. This is a similar plan to his where variances were granted. This plan would enhance the neighborhood. He is supportive of the variances. MN82895.DOC PAGE 13 Comments from Commissioners: Arnold: applicants did a good job of getting the coverage ratio down; major effort to change; supports variances. Roseth: neighbors have variances; agree variances are need to build a reasonable house; Loftus: similar comments; feels the same - attempted to down size, believes there is a hardship; supportive. Kuykendall: really trying to cram on a small lot; still off on the coverage; cannot support hardship criteria # 1; grandfather clause could be used in this matter. Criego: neighbors support variances; hardship standards have been met; feels you can have a smaller house on the property; if this is approved, where are we going to stop?; feels the property has to have a home on it but it should be smaller. Jim Halek stated he has built approximately 18 lots on Prior Lake in the last two years. Previous lakeshore owners received many variances. When the bridge opens the values on the lake will become much greater. People are not going to be building cabins on the lake - it will be their home. The better the homes, the better the taxes. We have to continue to attract the right people. We have to upgrade the homes on the lake. Vonhof.' there is no building envelope on the property without variances; meets hardship criteria; the proposal in front of us is a much more reasonable proposal than the original; variances should be approved. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES. Discussion: the envelope requires variances; made an attempt and came back with a more reasonable proposal; there are other similar properties; granted similar variances in neighborhood; have to look beyond this piece of property - is this how we want the neighborhood to look? reflects the neighborhood. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Kuykendall, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM #6 CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR RON CEMINSKY OF 5239 BROOKS CIRCLE SE; TO ADD A THIRD CAR GARAGE STALL; 4 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE TO THE EAST. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated August 28, 1995. Staff recommends denial of the variances based on the Findings, the hardship criteria has not been met. MN82895,DOC PAGE 14 Ron Ceminsky, stated he lived in Prior Lake for 17 years and built this house in 1977. He is asking for a variance to add a third car stall to store materials. His neighbor does not oppose the addition. Mr. Ceminsky passed out pictures of his property to the Commissioners. According to the current ordinance he can add 8 feet but needs 12 feet. He feels he can not expand in the back yard because it is heavily wooded. Comments from the Commissioners: Roseth: in looking at this it is hard to justify a 4 foot variance; we like to save trees but he has the room in the back yard; it is not a hardship. Loftus: if a person builds within the code, they do not need a variance; this house was built and designed for the lot; given the large lot area it is not a hardship to add a third car garage. Kuykendall: move the shed and take out a tree; cannot justify; can put storage space behind garage; could rent storage for his business; it is applicant's decision on tree value. Arnold: there is no way to justify a variance with a lot this size; understand not wanting to move the trees but this is for storage and not a hardship. Vonhof: concurs with Commissioner Loftus; it is a situation where we look at the total square footage; suggest to put addition behind. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO DENY REQUEST FOR 4 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE. Discussion: No demonstrated hardship for the basis of the motion. Recommendation to go to an architect. There are other options. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Loftus, Roseth, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Ceminsky felt the Staff and Commissioners do not care. He feels there is a hardship by removing the two trees and shed. (Leek stated it is not fair to say Staff and Commissioners do not care but they have to follow the hardship criteria.) Commissioner Vonhof explained the process of appeal. OTHER BUSINESS: a) Planning Commission Chair Appointment. MN82895.DOC PAGE 15 MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE NOMINATION OF DICK KUYKENDALL AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Loftus, Kuykendall, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 12:59 a.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MNg2895.DOC PAGE 16