HomeMy WebLinkAbout0423032.
3.
4.
o
Ao
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2003
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case #03-32 Shamrock Development is requesting a change to the
Comprehensive Plan designation on approximately 8 acres from Hospitality
General Commercial (C-HG) to High Density Residential (R-HD) in the
northwest comer of Outlots I and J, The Wilds.
Old Business:
Case 03-03 Windsor Development is requesting to rezone 10 acres from A
(Agricultural) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) and preliminary plat to create 23
lots and one outlot for detached single family dwellings. This property is located
directly north of CSAH 42 and east of CSAH 18, just west of the Prior
Lake/Savage municipal border.
Case #03-29 Consider an Amendment to Section 1104.303 (Bluff Impact Zone)
and Section 1104.304 (Bluff Setbacks) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Case #03-09 Julie David is requesting an appeal to the Zoning Administrator's
decision to deny a building permit for the property located at 14958 Pixie Point.
New Business:
Case 03-28 Arcon Development will present a concept plan for development of
the Stemmer Property located on the north side of Shoreline Drive and west of
Spring Lake Regional Park.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:~3 Files~03 Planning Cemm~03 pcA~,enda~AG042803.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
The Planning Commission selcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who
choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once, you allow everyone else to speak
before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to elairificafion or
new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input
on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further tesitmony or comment will
not be possible except under rare conditions. The City Council will not hear
additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
NAME
ADDRESS
PHLIST.DO~
PAGE I
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 28, 2003
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the April 28, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane
Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording
Secretary Counie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the April 14, 2003, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case//03-32 Shamrock Development is requesting a change to the
Comprehensive Plan designation on approximately 8 acres from Hospitality
General Commercial (C-HG) to High Density Residential 01-HD) in the northwest
corner of Outlots I and J, The Wilds.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 28, 2003,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Shamrock Development has filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
for approximately 8 acres of property located on the east side of CSAH 83, 1//4 mile
south of CSAH 42, and directly north of Wilds Parkway. The proposal is to amend the
2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current C-HG (Hospitality General
Business) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation.
This property is presently zoned C-4 PUD (Low Density Residential) and C-4 (General
Business-The Wilds Planned Unit Development) and is designated as C-HG (Hospitality
General Business) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Wilds original
L:\03 Files~03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes~vlNO42803.doc 1
III i
Planning Commission Meeting
.4pri128, 2005
PUD plan identified this area for commercial uses. This site was also the location of the
original sales building, which has since been removed, for the development. At this time,
the applicant is planning to develop these 8 acres in conjunction with the property to the
north in The Wilds North, already planned for High Density Residential uses.
Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan as requested.
Lemke questioned if this proposal makes common sense. Kansier said it is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Criego asked for clarification between row townhomes and regular townhomes. Kansier
explained the row would have six to ten connecting townhomes.
Ringstad questioned what does the City do with neighboring municipalities concern with
respect to something the City is considering. Kansier responded it is a part of the process
when changing the Comprehensive Plan to notify the neighboring community. A case
could be made that switching from commercial to high density residential will not have a
net impact. Traffic on the County Roads would be pretty much the same.
Atwood questioned the difference between neighborhood retail and commercial retail.
Kansier explained the differences based on density, smaller building, hours of operation
and traffic generators.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Jim Stanton of Shamrock Development, stated Wensmann Homes would be
coming in with the actual plans probably very close to the sketch. The former owner of
The Wilds had originally planned this area for hotels. This would be a buffer from
County Road 83. County Road 83 will be upgraded this year so there should not be an
impact to traffic.
Ringstad asked what the unit price range would be. Stanton said they will be upscale as
they are on the golf course. He did not know Wensmann's exact price scale.
The public hearing closed at 6:45 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
Came in not eager to embrace the change. One, would like to see the high density
numbers addressed but after staff pointed out the locations and Comprehensive
Plan and the Parkway would be moved, felt better it and would support the
change.
Ringstad:
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~ViN042803.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 28, 2003
· It appears this change is better than the original usage. The Commission straggles
any time commercial designations are moved out of the City, when some people
feel there is not enough to begin with.
· Support the change because the high density and the type of units built will make
sense in this area.
Criego: · Agreed with Ringstad, it fits better with the community and the surrounding
projects.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
Lemke:
Agreed with Commissioners - it makes sense.
Stamson:
· Approve. It is an appropriate change for this particular piece of property.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD
DESIGNATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This meeting will go before the City Council on May 19, 2003.
6. Old Business:
A. Case 03-03 Windsor Development is requesting to rezone 10 acres from A
(Agricultural) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) and preliminary plat to create 23
lots and one outlot for detached single family dwellings. This property is located
directly north of CSAIt 42 and east of CSAH 18, just west of the Prior Lake/Savage
municipal border.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated April 28, 2003, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
Windsor Development has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Windsor Estates of Prior Lake on property located at 5980 140th Street NE (CSAH 42),
just west of the Prior Lake-Savage municipal boundary. The application includes the
following request:
1. A Preliminary Plat to subdivide 10 acres into 22 lots for single family dwellings.
On March 24, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this development
and continued the preliminary plat based upon staff's recommendation due to issues with
proposed street grade and storm water ponding within Savage's portion of the overall
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~MN042803.doc 3
tii I[
Planning Commission Meeting
At, ri128, 2003
Windsor Estates development, however, the Commission recommended approval of the
rezoning of the property from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). On
April 7, 2003, the City Council approved the rezoning. The applicant submitted revised
plans on April 10, 2003.
Overall, the preliminary plat complies with relevant ordinance provisions and City
standards, if the conditions of approval are met. One of the major issues pertaining to
this development is how the property to the north and west will develop if the preliminary
plat is approved as submitted, so the applicant prepared a concept grading plan for a
street connection to the west. Proposed tree removal exceeds maximum limits, therefore
190 trees are required for reforestation purposes. Staff recommends the preservation plan
be reconsidered on Lots 2-3, Block 3 to determine the feasibility of preserving trees
within the buildable area of the lot. Most important, since the subject plat connects with
a plat in the City of Savage, the applicant shall gain all necessary approvals from Savage
prior to the City approving Windsor Estates of Prior Lake.
The Planning staff recommended approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain plat approval for Windsor Estates of Savage from the City
of Savage.
2. The applicant shall obtain a permit from Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District
prior to approval of a grading permit for the property.
3. All comments identified in the memorandum from the City Engineer dated April 17,
2003, shall be addressed.
4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City.
5. One hundred feet of right-of-way for CSAH 42 shall be dedicated from the centerline
of the road.
6. The applicant shall obtain permits from Scott County for access and median
construction.
7. The tree preservation plan shall be revised to indicate existing significant trees to be
preserved in proposed house pads are to be removed. The tree mitigation plan should
be revised accordingly.
8. The landscape plan shall be revised to include and 4 trees per comer lot.
9. The development shall be subject to park dedication fees of $2,670.00 per unit to be
paid with the development contract.
10. A permit shall be required prior to the demolition of the existing structures on the site.
11. All signage shall require a sign permit.
12. The applicant shall obtain required permits from all applicable governmental agencies
prior to final plat approval.
13. The final plat shall be submitted within 12 months of City Council approval.
Scott County has commented on this plat noting it will be a right-in, right-out access on
County Road 42. As part of the plat process, they will also be requesting 100 feet of
right-of-way fi:om the center line of County Road 42.
This will go before City Council on May 19, 2003.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Conma\03peMinutes~MNO42803.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
April 28, 2003
Ringstad asked staff to explain Lot 1, Block 4, recommendation. Kirchoff explained the
lot is long and narrow and has 3 street frontages. It would make more sense to add it to
the development to the west. It was not included as a recommendation of approval.
Comments from the public:
Debbie Brodsho, the project landscape architect, stated they were in full agreement with
staff except for the tree and lot issues just brought up. They did look into the
recommendations and hoped to save those trees on Lot 1. There are several large trees
that cannot be saved although many would. Brodsho said they would propose a
compromise or letter of credit for the value of those trees to make sure they would be
saved. The Lot 1, Block 4 issue is an unusual situation. The lot has a hill and slope. Even
if the property was combined with an adjacent lot it would be a good buffer to County
Road 42. They could also change the lot configuration and still keep it an adequate lot
size. Did not want to lose the number of lots in the development.
Stamson asked staff if they could comment on the tree issue. Kansier said in situations
like this, staff assumes the trees will be removed. It doesn't mean they have to be
removed. The City gets a letter of credit indicating if the trees are still healthy at[er the
end of construction, the number of trees can be reduced from their tree loss. Staff is not
saying they have to be removed. Based on the location and the house pad, if they look
like they have to be removed we assume they will.
There were no comments from the public and the public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
* Asked for clarification on the Lot 1, Block 4 issue. Kirchoff explained it is a very
unusual shaped lot with 3 street frontages. It is not a typical situation. Staff only
brought it up as a suggestion to protect the future property owner from County
Road 42.
Comfortable with the tree preservation plan. Would like to hear from the other
Commissioners.
Criego: · We've seen this development before. Like the idea of adding the trails.
· Agree with staff's recommendations.
· Does not see a problem with Lot 1, Block 4 with the way it is. Why is there
concern for County Road 42? Kirchoffresponded it was not a typical situation
with 3 street frontages and it was staff's suggestion, not a condition.
* Feel comfortable leaving it the way it is. It is an odd shape but plenty of room for
a house.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN042803.doc 5
Ill [ i
Planning Commission Meeting
/lpri128, 2003
Ringstad: · Agreed with Commissioners and conditions.
· Leave Lot 1, Block 4 as is.
· Supported proposal.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Commissioners.
· Questioned the demolition of the existing structures. Kirchoff said they would be
removed.
· On behalf of the neighbors on 141st Street, would like to see the construction
traffic routed away from the existing residential neighborhood. Kansier said part
of the Development Contract specifies where construction traffic should enter.
· The neighbors also questioned sidewalks on 141st Street at the last meeting. Is it
overkill to suggest sidewalks? Kansier responded she recalled the neighbors did
not want them. Savage controls that area.
· Supported development with traffic concerns addressed.
Stamson:
· Agreed with staff and Commissioners. The development is not unique but given
the number of restrictions and conditions by the City and County, this is the best
we can get.
· Agreed with staffthat Lot 1, Block 4, is very unusual, but not sure it is not a
benefit that the house will be further from County Road 42. Comfortable the way
it is.
· Supported with staff's conditions.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 10 ACRES INTO 22
LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS FOR WINDSOR ESTATES OF PRIOR
LAKE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on May 19, 2003.
B. Case #03-29 Consider an Amendment to Section 1104.303 (Bluff Impact
Zone) and Section 1104.304 (Bluff Setbacks) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 28, 2003,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On April 14, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to nonconforming structures in the Bluff
Impact Zone and in the Bluff Setback. The amendment would allow additions to
existing, nonconforming structures located within a bluff impact zoned and a bluff
setback
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXMN042803.doc 6
Ill i I
Planning Commission Meeting
dpri128, 2003
The Planning Commission generally agreed with the provisions of the proposed
amendment. The Commission, however, had some questions about this ordinance as a
result of the public testimony. The following issues were addressed in the Planning
Report:
1. Review the illustration in the Ordinance to ensure that the setback is shown as 25 feet.
2. Review the definition of Bluff Impact Zone to determine if it should read "A bluff' or
"The bluff".
3. Investigate the insurance issue to see if the current ordinance allows payment in case
of damage or destruction of an existing home.
4. Include a definition of an addition to ensure the Ordinance does not inadvertently
allow the replacement of an existing structure.
Staff recommended approval of the draft ordinance.
Lemke questioned the illustration. Kansier said it was a scanned illustration from the
State as an example of determination. The text part of the ordinance governs the
ordinance.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson: · Ideally it would be great to correct the illustration.
· Staff is right on with the "a bluff or the bluff' issue.
· Not concerned with the insurance issue.
· My concern was g4, that we don't inadvertently allow the replacement of an
existing structure and commend staff with coming up with a fairly simple solution
that addresses the concern.
· Happy with the ordinance.
· The issue as a whole makes administration a little bit easier and it is more
equitable in dealing with the issue.
· Support staff.
Lemke: · Nothing else to add.
· It is correct. Will support.
Criego:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation, but if it is approved by the Planning
Commission, when would City Council see this? Kansier said it would be their
next meeting on May 5.
Ringstad & Atwood:
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXMNO42803.do¢ 7
Planning Commission Meeting
.4pri128, 2003
Agreed with Commissioners that staff did a great job. Will support.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on May 5, 2003.
C. Case #03-09 Julie David is requesting an appeal to the Zoning
Administrator's decision to deny a building permit for the property located at 14958
Pixie Point.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated April 28, 2003, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
On April 14, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed Julie David's appeal, and by a
vote of 4 to 1, directed staffto prepare a resolution approving the appeal from the Zoning
Administrator's decision to deny a building permit for the construction of an addition to
an existing single family dwelling in a bluff impact area on property located at 14958
Pixie Point Circle SE.
The majority of the Planning Commission was convinced the petitioner's interpretation
of how to determine the "top of bluff' is correct, and that the staffDNR and an
independent consultant retained by the City were incorrect. The Planning Commission
did not state for the record findings of fact to legally support their action. The Planning
Commission accepted the petitioner's argument that since the definition of top of bluff in
the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance does not contain the term "average," the top of
bluff should be determined by measuring from contour to contour, as recommended by a
resident who spoke at the meeting. This interpretation is incorrect and further described
below.
According to the direction given by the Planning Commission, the top of bluff should be
determined by measuring from contour to contour, rather than taking the average of the
elevation change from the 904' contour (ordinary high water mark of Prior Lake) to a
point where the elevation change is less than 30 percent. This interpretation has not been
utilized by the City staffin the past and is not consistent with the bluff protection
ordinance.
Since there was controversy about the interpretation of the ordinance, City staff sought
clarification input from Patrick Lynch, DNR Area Hydrologist, who agreed that the city's
past practice in calculating the bluff impact zone was correct. The City also retained an
independent evaluation from Robert Barth ofBonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates.
Staff believes that the petitioner's analysis is inconsistent with State Statute, city
ordinances and past practices in determining bluff impact zone, and if adopted, would
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Con-an\03pcMinutes~VlN042803.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
~lpri128, 2003
totally compromise the integrity of the bluff ordinance. Furthermore, the Planning
Commission did not supply findings to support the change in determining the top of
bluff. The only possible finding that was made was Ms. David had waited long enough
to get a building permit and that she should be granted a building permit, even though
there is a pending amendment to the bluff ordinance that would allow Ms. David to be
issued a building permit.
Petitioner argues that in determining the top of bluff, the average slope is not utilized
simply because the definition in the zoning ordinance does not include the word
"average." This interpretation would result in an absurdity, and is totally inconsistent
with the direction set forth in section 1101.304, which provides rules of construction that
"shall" apply to these matters. The zoning ordinance is a collection of provisions that
must be read as a whole, not piecemeal. To contend that "average" does not apply to the
top of bluff definition, when it was included in bluff and toe of bluff definitions, is
completely erroneous. Moreover, it lacks common sense.
The Planning Commission did not provide findings for staff to incorporate into the
resolution approving the appeal. Thus, the Commission should prepare findings of fact
for the reversal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the building permit.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
· Two weeks ago when this came before the Commission I supported it, not
because of the applicant's argument. I was trying to throw in common sense; if
the bluff amendment was approved tonight (as it was) my question to staff was "If
the Amendment took affect would Ms. David be here for this process?" Staff said
· Does not see anything in the Resolution in here for an engineering study. This
property is clearly in a bluff impact zone. The ordinance just changed but the
criteria clearly states "an engineering report must accompany the application."
Has this been done with this application? Kirchoffresponded not to her
knowledge.
· That being said, would approve what is before us tonight if an engineering report
was attached.
Atwood:
· Wants to stress in staff's concluding remarks regarding the appeal that impacted
me, "It is a quasi-judicial decision that sets precedent. Staffwould like to confirm
that the Planning Commission understands the implications of the action on the
appeal if this is to apply to all bluffproperties, there are not findings in the record
to support the reversal of the Zoning Administrator's decision."
· Given the action in the previous amendment in good conscience can deny this
appeal.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~tN042803.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
.4pri128, 2003
Criego:
· Two weeks ago the Commission spent hours on this matter.
There were a lot of
discussions on what the Findings were. It is a very confusing ordinance and some
of us are responsible for this ordinance and I was one of them. I will take partial
blame for part of this. I can understand where staff may have misunderstood what
the Commission was stating.
· It certainly did not indicate that Ms. David's interpretation of the existing
dwelling and proposed addition are not in the bluff impact zone should be
followed because she has waited a long time to get a building permit. That is the
finding of this particular Resolution.
· I cannot be in favor of this Resolution, because in my mind that is not what we
were talking about two weeks ago. We could spend a lot of time tonight talking
about what it is. The Resolution in my hand is much closer to what came before
the Commission a few weeks ago.
· Does the change to the ordinance satisfy the problem at hand? And does it do it in
a timely fashion? It is my belief based on what I just heard, the change to the
ordinance will be presented to City Council at the next meeting will be as fast as
any Resolution or modification to the Resolution before us tonight. If staff can
tell me that is the case I would say that we cannot approve this Resolution as
written.
· Asked Kansier for help on the process. Kansier said the ordinance amendment
will go before City Council on May 5. It will have to be published the following
week. An ordinance is effective upon publication.
· If the Resolution is approved with all the modifications what would be the process
for approval? Kansier said they would have to articulate the Findings tonight and
incorporate them into the Resolution. Approve the Resolution with the list of
changes. The appeal process will begin tomorrow.
· When can the applicant actually get the building permit if we approve the
Resolution with changes tonight? Kansier said if no one appeals, it would be a
week from Tuesday.
· Does the Commission want to try to come up with a Resolution in a proper state
rather than as it is now stated as it is absolutely wrong? Or go forward and either
accept or deny this Resolution as it sits and let the change to the ordinance take
affect? That is the question to the Commissioners tonight.
Lemke:
· Right or wrong, my impression was the Commission was ruling on the
interpretation of the bluff impact ordinance on this specific property and case. Not
necessarily how it was done and what will be done in the future. That might not
be the interpretation everyone had.
· I still believe in this instance the top of the bluffis at the 936 contour not the 952
as stated by staff. If the ordinance is going to be changed and it is only a few
days, what difference does it make?
Stamson:
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~lN042803.doc 10
Planning Commission Meeting
,4pri128, 2003
From our discussions last week, not surprised staff did not come up with specific
Findings. No one was in total agreement. Everyone had different feelings for
what was done. This is not surprising that it came out as muddled as it did.
· One of the disadvantages of the process is that the Commissioners are pushed to
make a decision and there is not time to discuss and consider the information
presented at the meeting fully enough to accurately make a decision.
· Personally voted for this last week but after thinking about it and reading
additional submitted material, I feel staff's interpretation is correct, it is the way
the ordinance was intended.
· Staff checked with the DNR whose ordinance it is based on and they felt it was
correct.
· The applicant has made a great deal of"averaging" versus "nonaveraging" but it
is inherent in the measurement averaging. It's just what you consider averaging.
· I flip-flopped on this.
· I am even more against approving this Resolution from the standpoint of the
discussions I just heard tonight. We were trying to do this to allow the applicant
to build. What we were ruling on is how bluffs are measured. We got caught up
on l~ring to get this particular parcel done. That is not the right way to do it.
· The correct approach is to change the ordinance and have City Council look at it.
· What is customary is what we have been doing, so we should stick with the status
quo.
· Staffhas interpreted the ordinance correctly and that is how I will vote this
evening.
Ringstad:
· Take it back 2 weeks, what I was attempting to do is structure the way I thought
we were going to be looking at a modification of an ordinance. We did look at it
and approved it. When I talked about engineering, that ties into the amendment
we just approved so whether I would be voting to support this with engineering or
voting to deny this and let nature take its course with City Council, it is
effectively the same thing.
Stamson:
· Agreed that it's the same thing in relation to this particular case. This case is
much broader and effects more properties. The process would be better served by
going through City Council.
· Ringstad agreed.
Atwood: · At the last meeting trusted the amendment will proceed in a timely manner.
· Does not want to vote in support for this particular issue.
Criego:
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes~vlNO42803.doc 11
Planning Commission Meeting
.4pri128, 2003
· The essence of the conversation two weeks ago was that the ordinance is
confusing to many and in his opinion needs to be looked at in depth. Recommend
having a workshop on this ordinance so the Commissioners understand it. I felt it
is not clear.
· Everyone is trying to do the right thing, the best way is to handle this is to take it
forward as an ordinance change.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT 03-01PC A
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
DECISION TO DENY A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
ADDITION IN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Lemke and Ringstad, nays Atwood, Stamson and Criego.
Commissioner Ringstad asked for a clarification of the Motion.
REVOTE: Ayes by Lemke, nayes by Atwood, Criego, Ringstad and Stamson. MOTION
FAILED.
The Commissioners decided to act on the original Resolution 03-01PC from the previous
meeting.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION
03-01PC THAT WAS PRESENTED TWO WEEKS AGO, DENYING AN APPEAL OF
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO DENY A BUILDING PERMIT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION IN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE
WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT PRESENTED AT THAT TIME.
Stamson:
This particular Resolution basically upheld the Planning Commission's determination of
bluff and gave for Findings:
1. The City's practice in following the bluff ordinance is that the toe of the bluff
begins at or above the ordinary high water mark.
2. They have consistently applied this application.
3. Staff determined the top of the bluffis located at the 951'/952' contour and the
proposed living space and garage are located within the bluff impact zone.
4. The consultant engineer confirmed that the top of bluff is located at the 952'
contour and that the existing dwelling and proposed addition are located within
the bluff impact zone.
5. The City and Department of Natural Resources have determined that the proposed
addition is an expansion of a non-conforming use.
6. The appellant has not demonstrated reasonable or factual support to justify her
interpretation of the top of the bluff and bluff impact zone.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Atwood, Ringstad, Criego and Stamson, nay by Lemke.
MOTION CARRIED.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinuteshMN042803.doe 12
Planning Commission Meeting
.4pri128, 2003
This can be appealed within 5 calendar days.
Criego suggested a workshop for the Commissioners on this matter including the DNR.
The commissioners agreed.
Atwood did not disagree, but felt the new language proposed by staff is correct.
Lemke felt if the surveyors cannot agree, there is an issue.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO ORGANIZE
A WORKSHOP WITH THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS
ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY AND DEFINE IN DETAIL, INCLUDING ANYONE
WHO CAN HELP DEFINE THE INTENT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 7:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:57 p.m.
7. New Business:
A. Case 03-28 Arcon Development will present a concept plan for development
of the Stemmer Property located on the north side of Shoreline Drive and west of
Spring Lake Regional Park.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 28, 2003,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Arcon Development is considering development of the Stemmer property, which consists
of approximately 77 acres of property located on the north side of Shoreline Drive
(CSAH 12), north of Spring Lake and west of Spring Lake Regional Park. This property
is presently vacant land designated for Low to Medium Density Residential uses on the
2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
The developers have submitted a concept plan for the development of this site, which
subdivides the property into 113 lots for single family homes, for a gross density of 1.47
units per acre. The concept plan does not include any parkland, although it does include
an outlot along Spring Lake that may be intended as a homeowners association lot.
Stamson asked for clarification on County Road 12. A proposed road realignment by
Scott County was shown on the overhead.
Criego questioned the annexation of the land going to the lake. Kansier explained the
common neighborhood with the park and development. This is a large development and
there are no parks. It may be a situation where the City takes a smaller fee with a park to
the east.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Cormn\03peMinutes~tN042803.doc 13
Planning Commission Meeting
April 28, 2003
Kansier said staff has had a request to the north of this property for annexation.
Criego asked if there was a better way to handle the streets that dead-end on the north and
south properties. Kansier said they will probably have temporary cul-de-sacs. The idea
of a sign noting that the street will be extended is just a "heads up".
Lemke asked if there were different options on the collector streets. Kansier said how
the City chooses the streets will affect the development. Kansier gave examples of
existing collector streets.
Comments from the Developer:
Larry Frank, Landscape Architect and Project Manager for Arcon Development, pointed
out this is a concept plan and they have some of the same concerns as staff noted in the
Planning Report. They started this project about a year and a half ago with the property
owners, Township, County, DNR and Park District to get everyone familiar with a
potential development. It was important to get sewer around the lake. The issue with the
park and the relocation of County Road 12 has been important. The main point of
interest is for the Park District to receive grants fi.om Metropolitan Council is by having
shore land available for boats, picnicking areas and a beach. Arcon has been working
with all entities, and this plan has the least affect on the wetlands. The parks plan calls
for no access offCounty Road 12. There would be some kind of underpass so their
vehicles would enter on the north side and County Road 81 would be blocked off on the
south. Traffic will get moved away from the lake. Frank pointed out different ideas with
the wetland, NURP pond and park area. They are going to look at some redesigning of
the park area.
Frank gave a brief background on Arcon Development and their development
requirements. The issue of dockage came up many times at the township meetings. Frank
said they have not really looked into that at this time.
Atwood asked if this was going to be a phased project. Frank responded it would be
phased in terms of additions. Typically the grading now is done at the same time to
balance. It depends on the number of lots but the buildings would probably be done in
two phases.
Ringstad would like to see some sort of neighborhood park. There are many residents
and it is important to have their own park where kids can safety get to.
Ringstad also confirmed the development is open to several builders and Arcon approves
the architectural designs on a one by one basis. Frank confirmed they did. Ringstad said
he was familiar with the three developments in Savage and are all very attractive.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~lN042803.doc 14
III
Planning Commission Meeting
April 28, 2003
Criego asked Frank about the traffic pattern. Frank responded they would have traffic
calming with street widths and curving. He also had suggestions on shared driveways,
tumarounds and sidewalks.
Criego questioned trails into the regional park. Frank said that is something they are
ahead of the park district at this time and will be in contact with the district.
Stamson's concern was the regional park as well. Comfortable with the concept. Would
like to see the driveways minimized as well.
Kansier said this will go before the City Council on May 19th with the Planning
Commission's comments forwarded on.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye gave a brief overview of the City Council's decision on the Deerfield Development's
high density request. City Council reconsidered and approved the high density on an
unanimous vote.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Don Rye
Director of Community
Development
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinuteshMN042803.doc 15