Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102395REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1995 7:00 p.m. Call Meeting to Order/Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: New Business including Public Hearings: Consent Agenda - Knudsen Variance Resolution 9535PC. 1. WILD OAKS - PUBLIC HEARING for Schematic PUD, Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, Variance and Conditional Use Permit. ADELLE PHILLIPS - VARIANCE - 5470 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE, requesting a 26 foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 49 feet instead of the required 75 feet. o STEVE SKAJA - VARIANCE - 4664 Dakota Street SE, requesting the following variances: A 17 foot variance to permit a front yard setback of 8 feet instead of the required 25 feet. A 6 foot variance to permit a side yard setback on the East of 4 feet instead of the required 10 feet. A 3 foot variance to permit a side yard setback on the West of 7 feet instead of the required 10 feet. TIM BECKER - VARIANCE - Lot 19 Twin Isles, applicant requesting the following variances: A 8,501 sq. ft. lot area variance to permit a lot area of 3,499 sq. ft. instead of the required 12,000 sq. Ft. required in the RI- Suburban Residential District and one acre required under the Twin Island Development Guide; A 78' lakeshore variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 22' instead of the required 100'; A 10.5' front yard setback variance to permit a front yard setback of 14.5' instead of the required 25 feet; A 4.7' side yard setback variance on the East to permit a side yard setback on the East of 5.3' instead of the required 10'; and a 4' side yard setback variance on the West to permit a side yard setback on the West of 6' instead of the required 10'. 16200 l~9~[~/'ek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesotaa3~e3~72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1 1 o o DOUG AND PAM COLBY - HOME OCCUPATION - 5293 Brooks Circle SE, applicant requests approval to operate a business involving small candy vending machines. TIME LIMIT ORDINANCE REVISION - PUBLIC HEARING - Consider an amendment to Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-06 bringing the ordinance into compliance with State mandated time limits for action on requests related to zoning. Other Business: Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: AG102395.DOC PAGE2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1995 The October 23, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Planning Director Don Rye at 7:01 p.m. Mr. Rye asked the Commission to have Commissioner Tom Vonhof chair the remainder of the meeting. Present were Commissioners Criego, Loftus, Vonhof and Wuellner, Planning Director Don Rye, Assistant Planner Deb Garross, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. ROLL CALL: Loftus Present Kuykendall Absent Vonhof Present Wuellner Present Criego Present REVIEW OF THE OCTOBER 9, 1995 MEETING MINUTES: MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 9, 1995 MINUTES. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner and Criego. Commissioner Vonhof abstained from voting. MOTION CARRIED. 1. WILD OAKS - PUBLIC HEARING for Schematic PUD, Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, Variance and Conditional Use Permit. The Public Hearing was called to order and a sign-up sheet was circulated. Assistant City Planner Deb Garross gave an overview of the August 28, 1995 meeting and presented the information in the October 23, 1995 Staff Report. An Issue Summary was presented outlining concerns raised at the Public Hearing on August 28. The Issue Summary identified options for development and extension of Conroy Street along with positive and negative aspects associated with alternatives. It was also determined by the City Attorney, Glenn Kessel and the Harbor Association Attorney, Peter Coyle, that a Conditional Use Permit is not required because the developer will not construct a beach and the subject site is not contiguous to a public lake. Therefore, the Zoning Ordinance requirement for Conditional Use Permit does not apply. Jim Sander, attorney for developer, Bill Hayden, stated Staff did an excellent job in outlining the issues. Comments made at the August meeting were addressed. Mr. Sander further explained the developer's constraints with the ordinances, neighbors' concerns and working with the City to come up with a plan that will work. The developer would prefer to develop 20 townhomes which would avoid building on the steep slope and save more trees but to improve Conroy Street, additional townhomes would have to be built to MN102395.DOC PAGE I compensate. The developer would do whatever is decided by the Planning Commission regarding the construction of Conroy Street. Comments from the audience: Bill Townsend, 6300 Conroy Street, said he was here with neighbors who have concerns for the development that are both technical and for quality of life reasons that are reflected in the Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Townsend stated he was not a local government expert, but thinks the role of the Commission is to provide for the intangible input. Things for which rules cannot be written. His issues were the slope, clear-cutting trees, the Conroy Street improvement and the cul-de-sac variance. Mike Sweeney, 14099 Shady Beach Trail, lives on Lots 10, 11 and 12. Mr. Sweeney felt Lot 13 is a continuation of the wetland and the existing runoff is stressing the area. The extension of Conroy Street through Lot 13 will increase what they are losing now. Mr. Sweeney feels the cost to put in the road is astronomical and no one is served by this. He feels the City is strong-arming the developer to make improvements nobody in the neighborhood wants. Mr. Sweeney was aware of the easement owned by the City when he bought his home but felt it was for utilities not a street. Martin Polasik, 14087 Shady Beach Trail, feels a smaller development would be better than the townhomes for the neighborhood. He did not see how the construction of Conroy Street would not benefit anyone. Mr. Polasik also said he had a problem with the clear-cutting. Ted Schweich, 6436 Conroy Street, discussed issues on the cul-de-sac, zoning and ordinances, impervious surface, street construction and assessments and park dedication. He thought economics was an underlying factor. Mr. Schweich felt the City's attitude is "we are getting a road for nothing". He said he does not believe the traffic flow numbers are correct. Mr. Schweich felt the City could keep the easement and put a trail through Lot 13 and cul-de-sac Conroy Street. (Deb Garross explained the issue of public vs. private cul-de-sac. The developer is putting in a private cul-de-sac, Conroy Street is public.) Mr. Schweich felt his interpretation of the Ordinance is different from the City (Staff). John Wingard, Assistant City Engineer addressed the park dedication. The area would be approximately one acre and cash would be better used on the site rather than creating a flat area which would take out more trees. Instead, the City would take the land dedication and leave the area wooded. The cash dedication of approximately $8,000 would go to upgrading other City parks. The 1100 feet on Conroy Street would roughly cost $60 to $70 Thousand Dollars and the developer agreed to build a 23 unit development to pick up the cost. If the City went through a public improvement project to assess the upgrade to Conroy Street, the City would be able to assess about half the cost on the north side to the developer. The homeowners along Conroy Street would be MN 102395.DOC PAGE 2 asked to pay for the cost of the Street. The east and west sides would have to be assessed leaving the City (all residents) to pick the balance. David Kirkland declared he was an lawyer representing 13 property owners along Conroy Street and Greenway Avenue. His three issues were: tree cutting; slopes and variances. He believes a stand of trees is not defined in the Ordinance and there should be a tree inventory for trees over 4 inches. Mr. Kirkman felt the developer should not have a variance just because he wants one. He felt the only hardship is the developer cannot get his 23 units on the property and therefore no basis to grant a variance simply because the developer will make more money. Deb Garross reminded the Commission at the initial Public Hearing, Staff recommended and also specified the tree removal and landscaping provisions were not sufficient. The recommendation was for the Planning Commission to give specific guidance to the applicant to provide such materials. Because there was a lack of direction by the Planning Commission, Staff used the most recent Shoreland Regulations approved by the City in 1993. The City has the responsibility of administrating Shoreland Regulations and is doing so in a comparable mariner which the City has done since 1987. There was no objection by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to this development. The role of the Planning Commission is to take the public input and combine that with what is required in the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Rye, Planning Director also responded to some of the comments made by Mr. Kirkman regarding the Shoreland Ordinance: 1) The definition of a stand of trees; 2) There is no specific requirement in the Shoreland Ordinance for a tree inventory. The Staff took that upon themselves as part of the PUD. 3) Provisions of the section shall not apply to permitted uses. Tom Kearney, 6426 Conroy Street, commented on Commissioner Arnold's concern for the tree inventory. Mr. Kearney contacted the City of Savage and inquired about their Tree Preservation Ordinance. He is also aware the City of Prior Lake is working on an Ordinance and is scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting. Don Kotula, 14031 Greenway Avenue, would not like to see the street go through. He feels the City is taking the developer's side. Deb Garross responded to Mr. Kotula's remark stating Staff reviews and base recommendations based on the Ordinances. The developer is responsible for their project. The City is not an advocate of any particular development. Staff's job is to review the Ordinance and application and make recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. MN102395.DOC PAGE3 Mike Von Arx, 14346 Rutgers Street, thought the Ordinance should be changed. He felt the developer is raping the land to save the wetland. Because of this action, Mr. Von Arx believes the quality of life will go down. Mr. Rye reminded the Commissioners the total site is 13 acres and developing 8 acres is well within the requirements. Carol Scott, 6370 Conroy Street, requested the Developer's Agreement state the developer has no intention of buying property allowing them to use the recreational easement which would be a great hardship on the residents whose recreational easement is in front of their homes. Mary Ann Frees, 6346 Conroy Street, stated the Planning Commission overturned the Staff recommendation a year ago to allow a variance to save her oak tree. She is now asking the Planning Commission to save the rest of the trees. Mrs. Frees believes the Planning Commission has a moral obligation to keep the area environmentally beautiful, private and special. Jay Ferrier, 14075 Shady Beach Trail, felt the wetland influences the lake. He went on to say if the townhomes were built, lawn fertilizer will drain into the lake. The lake will turn into a swamp. Mr. Ferrier stated no one from City Hall has come out to talk to him to ask how he feels. Associate Planner Michael Leek mentioned Staff did not make any indication to go out and poll the neighborhood and the public hearing is for that purpose. Dan Heiling, said he just purchased the property on 6298 Conroy Street. Edina Realty informed him six homes would be developed on this property. He is not in favor of removing all the trees. He does support the cul-de-sac, Mr. Heiling also feels the townhomes will diminish the value of his property. He would also like to hear from the DNR. (Deb Garross and Michael Leek responded the DNR is aware of the project and provided information for other issues for tonight's meeting.) Mr. Heiling further went on to say he hoped the Watershed District would take care of the wetland issue. Calina Townsend, 6300 Conroy Street, asked the Planning Commission to consider their concerns for the environment and neighborhood. She feels the neighborhood is being neglected. She said she wished Staff would work through the Ordinance for the neighborhood like they did for the developer. No one wants a through street. Mrs. Townsend believes the neighborhood has as much input as the developer. Jim Sander, attorney for the developer stated it was unfortunate discussions had gone off base and to stay focused on the issues. The developer never had a free ride. The sketch proposed by neighbors of six homes was never proposed by the developer. The City Staff MNI02395.DOC PAGE4 took a good deal of time with the issues and sees no merit with arguments raised by neighbors. Bill Townsend presented a letter to the Planning Commission by Scott Roth. Comments from the Commissioners: Loftus: · Agrees with Mr. Schweich the PUD is a vehicle to get some creativity within the project. · The tree removal numbers mentioned are somewhat staggering. · Agrees with the attorney's comment of increasing density for purposes of a road. · Extending and connecting streets is a legitimate purpose the City is trying to achieve. · Additional 3 units are landing on the slopes which are environmental amenities. · We do not have a tree ordinance at hand. · Not sure a PUD is the right vehicle. Wuellner: · The Shoreland Management District does not only apply to lakeshore lots but to developments within 1000 feet from the lake - this is an environmental impact on the lake. · Does not see how the development in this area is an asset. · The development is not consistent with the Shoreland Management. · No one else (neighbors) want this development. · Does not support the PUD. Criego: · The developer has rights and the neighborhood has rights and the difference between the two. We may not all agree with what our neighbors do but it is within their right within their property lines. If it meets the ordinance they can do it. · There will be some development on this land in the future. · A PUD ought to allow for the enhancement of the property. · If the property is developed in any way, trees are going to have to come out. The question is how many. · Runoff into Prior Lake · The logic for extending the road is a safety issue. · The slope should be maintained as much as possible. Vonhof: · Read all the documents and listened to all concerns. · The concept of a PUD is to give the City greater control over development in exchange for certain variances or allowances made for the developer. · This area is unique with steep slopes, trees, a wetland and is adjacent to the lake. MN102395.DOC PAGE 5 · Regarding Conroy Street - Staff rightly saw an opportunity to complete the street at no cost to the City at large. This is good public policy. · At some point down the line this street will be upgraded regardless of what happens tonight and when that happens it will cost every one who lives adjacent to the property and everyone in Prior Lake a lot more. · The value we are also balancing out is the slope. · The variance hardships have not been met on the cul-de-sac. · Staff took a lot of heat tonight and is not justified. The City Staffworks for all of us and for our best interest. They make reports based on their best judgment on what is best for the City at large. Loftus: · Would like to have access to Savage's Tree Preservation Ordinance. · Restriction to grading reference. · The corridors are for street and utilities. Michael Leek addressed the Prior Lake's proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. The draft will be presented to the Commission on November 13. City Council gave specific directions - 25% tree removal on site was appropriate, and 25% for individual building pad development on individual lots was appropriate. They also gave direction as to what they want to see as considered significant trees, specifically 6 inch caliper and 12 foot height trees. City Council is of the opinion the Ordinance should be self enforcing and if any costs were incurred it should be directed back to the developer. Deb Garross stated the application came in and a decision has to be made on the zoning issues related to the PUD application and the variance prior to December 3. The Planning Commission has to act and the application forwarded to City Council. If City Council does not make a decision by then it will be deemed approved. The application cannot be held up for a new ordinance. A new ordinance cannot apply to an action that is already underway. Loftus: · Has not heard hardship criteria for cul-de-sac. Negative on that issue. · Not want to propose more than the 20 townhomes applicant requested. · Negative recommendation to building on the slope - should preserve. General discussion by Commissioners: Deb Garross explained the reasons for the extension of the cul-de-sac. The developer requested the variances. Staff felt the hardship criteria was met because of the slopes on site and there was no other access allowed to the site from County Road 42 so they have to come in somewhere. Also, because of the slopes they cannot put the road in locations other than what is indicated on the application. In order to serve the entire parcel a road must be put in. The conditions for variance approval have been met. Another issue the MN102395.DOC PAGE6 Planning Commission may not be aware of is City Council did request Staffto review the cul-de-sac standard in the Subdivision Ordinance possibly to amend or delete it depending on the research that will be conducted next year. Staff recommendation for approval is based on the proposal of a private cul-de-sac. A cul-de-sac at the end of Conroy would be a public improvement and the City would be violating its own Ordinance. John Wingard addressed the issue of increased traffic. The gravel street with additional traffic would have to be upgraded at the cost to the residents. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF RESOLUTION 95-21. Discussion: Neighborhood does not want it and sees no value in it; there are other options for trade offs; other PUDs are much more in keeping with the health and welfare of the community; steep slopes are not adequately protected by the Ordinance; 100% of the neighborhood input has been negative; the PUD as proposed does not adequately address the steep slope and tree issue; negative environmental impact; the density of 23 townhomes are too much for the site. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED TO DENY RESOLUTION 95-21. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO DENY ORDINANCE 95-13. Discussion: This motion is supportive for reasons stated above. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED TO DENY ORDINANCE 95-13. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF RESOLUTION 95-22. Discussion: Because the PUD failed in the Planning Commission's view this should also fail. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION 95-22 DENIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF RESOLUTION 95-23. Discussion: Failed because it is part of the PUD; variance looked more like an economic hardship; hardship criteria has not been met. MN 102395.DOC PAGE 7 Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION 95-23 DENIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Lofius, Wuellner, Criego and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 9:53 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:03 p.m. 2. ADELLE PHILLIPS - VARIANCE - 5470 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE, requesting a 26 foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 49 feet instead of the required 75 feet. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated October 23, 1995. Staff concluded the hardship criteria has been met and recommends approval of the requested variance. A faxed was received from the DNR with no objections to issuance of the variance provided the replacement deck does not encroach any farther waterward than the existing deck. Applicant, Adelle Phillips asked permission to replace the existing deck for it is unsafe for her grandchildren. Comments from Commissioners: Wuellner: · Applicant explained she built the house and the deck. At the time it was built she had an additional 50 feet of sand. · Supports request. Creigo: · Should approve request. Lofius: · Should approve request. Vonhof: · Hardship criteria has been met and supports request. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 95- 34PC. Discussion: The hardship criteria has been met. MNI02395.DOC PAGE 8 Vote taken signified ayes by Creigo, Wuellner, Lofius and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. 3. STEVE SKAJA - VARIANCE ~ 4664 Dakota Street SE, requesting the following variances: A 17 foot variance to permit a front yard setback of 8 feet instead of the required 25 feet. A 6 foot variance to permit a side yard setback on the East of 4 feet instead of the required 10 feet. A 3 foot variance to permit a side yard setback on the West of 7 feet instead of the required 10 feet. Associate Michael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated October 23, 1995. Staff concluded the hardship criteria has not been met and recommends denial of the requested variances. Applicant Steve Skaja, 4664 Dakota Street, presented a drawing of the proposed deck. He feels the entire block of homes are equally close to the street. Comments from Commissioners: Criego: · The hardship criteria has not been met. Cannot support. Loftus: · Skaja felt the deck enhanced the appearance of his home. Mr. Skaja has a deck on the back of his home. Michael Leek explained applicant could build a platform and not considered a structure the Ordinance and would be an alternative. Wuellner: · Suggest to drop the grade of the deck and build a platform. Vonhof: · Variance hardship has not been met. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO DENY THE VARIANCES REQUESTED FOR 4664 DAKOTA STREET. Discussion: Inability to prove hardship; other reasonable uses of the property. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Loftus, Criego and Vonhof. VARIANCES DENIED. MN102395.DOC PAGE9 1 I 4. TIM BECKER - VARIANCE - Lot 19 Twin Isles, applicant requesting the following variances: A 8,501 sq. ft. lot area variance to permit a lot area of 3,499 sq. ft. instead of the required 12,000 sq. Ft. required in the RI- Suburban Residential District and one acre required under the Twin Island Development Guide; A 78' lakeshore variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 22' instead of the required 100'; A 10.5' front yard setback variance to permit a front yard setback of 14.5' instead of the required 25 feet; A 4.7' side yard setback variance on the East to permit a side yard setback on the East of 5.3' instead of the required 10'; and a 4' side yard setback variance on the West to permit a side yard setback on the West of 6' instead of the required 10'. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated October 23, 1995. The City Attomey felt the Notice was deficient regarding the R-1 requirement rather than 1 acre. His recommendation is to conduct the hearing and continue to the next meeting. Staff finds a lack of hardship and recommends denial of the variance requested. Applicant Tim Becker, 6919 North Shore Drive, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, stated he owned Lot 19 for ten years. Mr. Becker presented overheads of the proposed construction. He believes one of the biggest hardships is not being able to purchase adjacent lots. Mr. Becker would like to utilize the property and build something nice and fit into the neighborhood. His neighbors homes would be 40 and 45 feet away. Other cabins are 20 feet apart. Dave Olson, 3420 Twin Isle Circle, owns Lots 22 and 23, stated Lot 18 was sold a few months ago and there are other available lots. Mr. Olson expressed concern for the Island looking like an inner city. Mr. Becker would not be able to build a deck and high water. This would also impact the Gray Water System. The Island was platted in 1925 and the existing cabins have been there for many years. Mr. Olson feels the City should stick to the criteria in the Ordinance. Jeff Dusek, owns the cabin on Lots 16 and 17, agreed there are other lots on the Island. Mr. Dusek feels the City should not set a precedent by granting the variances. Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: · Clarification of one acre - controlling - unsewered area. · Applicant cannot camp in the R1 Zone, nor build a storage facility on the lot. Wuellner: · Also a land owner on Twin Isle. · Existing cabins are years old. MN102395.DOC PAGEI0 ¸lA · Extremely small lot and the Ordinances were written to preserve the land and natural resources. · People have to know what they are buying. · The issues are with the Shoreland Management District. Criego: · Mr. Becker has done a good job with the structure but the issue is environmental and the Ordinance is clear. · Will have to reject request. Mr. Becker believes he can design a septic system to fit in. He was lead to believe he could on the lot when he bought it and pays taxes on it. He was informed of the rules last year. Mr. Becker feels he has too much into it to let it go. Vonhofi · Applicant just does not have enough property right now to build. · Will have to continue matter to November 13, 1995. MOTION LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO NOVEMBER 13, 1995. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. 5. DOUG AND PAM COLBY - HOME OCCUPATION - 5293 Brooks Circle SE, applicant requests approval to operate a business involving small candy vending machines. Applicants were not present. Item will be continued to November 13, 1995. Consent Agenda: Knudsen Variance Resolution 9535PC. Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Loftus and Wuellner. Vonhof abstained from voting. MOTION CARRIED. 6. TIME LIMIT ORDINANCE REVISION - PUBLIC HEARING - Consider an amendment to Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-06 bringing the ordinance into compliance with State mandated time limits for action on requests related to zoning. The Public Hearing was open and a sign-up sheet was circulated. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated October 23, 1995. MNI02395.DOC PAGE11 There were no comments from the audience. Comments from Commissioners: All Commissions recommended the Amendment. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND THE AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 83-06. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioners requested a meeting with the DNR to discuss various issues. OLD ISSUES: Discussion on City Council's hearing on Wilds North. Election of Vice Chair will be on the agenda for November 13, 1995. Commissioner Vonhof commented on Staff's good job of presenting Wild Oaks. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Criego, Wuellner and Vonhof. MEETING ADJOURNED. The meeting adjourned at 11:28 p.m. Don Rye Connie Carlson Director of Planning Recording Secretary MNI02395.DOC PAGEI2