HomeMy WebLinkAbout0623032.
3.
4.
Co
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JUNE 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 #03-24 & 03-25 Farmington Development is requesting a preliminary plat
and conditional use permit for a townhouse development consisting of 11 units to
be known as Prior Lake Pond Addition. This property is located north of CSAH
82, west of CSAH 21, south of Regal Crest and east of Wensmann's 2"d Addition.
Case #03-54 Wensmann Realty is requesting an amendment the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map to the C-TC (Town Center) designation for the property
located at 4666 Dakota Street SE.
Old Business:
New Business:
Case #03-55 Wensmann Realty is requesting to vacate a portion of Erie Avenue
adjacent to the property located at 4666 Dakota Street SE and to the Lakefront
Plaza building.
Case #03-61 Shamrock Development is requesting to vacate a portion of the right-
of-way for Wild Horse Pass and the drainage and utility easements located on Lot
21, Block 4, Lots 14-15, Block 5, and Outlots A and B, The Wilds south and on
Outlots A and B, The Wilds 5th Addition.
Case #03-57 Patrick Jolitz, 3235 Kent Street SW, is requesting to vacate the north
8' of the 16' wide platted alley adjacent to Lot 1, and the East ~A of Lot 2, Block
30, Spring Lake Townsite.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:',03 File~3 Planning Comm~03 pcAsendaLAG062303.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ill i i
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, at, er speaking once, you allow everyone eIse to speak
before you address the Commission again and limit your'comments to ctairification 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 - PI,EASE PRINT
NAME
ADDRESS
PHLIST.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2003
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the June 23, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning
Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, Assistant City Engineer Larry
Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Absent
Lemke Absent
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the June 9, 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 #03-24 & 03-25 Farmington Development is requesting a preliminary
plat and conditional use permit for a townhouse development consisting of 11 units
to be known as Prior Lake Pond Addition. This property is located north of CSAH
82, west of CSAH 21, south of Regal Crest and east of Wensmann's 2nd Addition.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated June 23, 2003, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
Farmington Development, Inc. is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide
5.72 acres into 12 lots for 11 townhomes and conditional use permit for a cluster
townhome development on property located at 3810 154th Street (CSAH 82) and zoned
R-l, Low Density Residential for Prior Lake Pond Addition.
Overall, the preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications will comply with
relevant ordinance provisions and City standards provided all the conditions of approval
are met. One of the major issues pertaining to this development is how the property to
the east will develop if this proposal is approved as submitted. Staffhas worked with the
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutesXlvlN062303.doc I
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 2003
developer to locate CSAH 82 access close to the common interior property line so as to
benefit the property to the east. Scott County will not allow access on CSAH 21 for that
property. As a result, the proposed Majestic Lane provides access to both parcels.
The staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shah obtain a permit from Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District
prior to approval of a grading permit.
2. The applicant shah address aH engineering comments as outlined in the
memorandum from the Assistant City Engineer dated June 16, 2003, and forthcoming
comments from WSB, Inc. regarding storm water and wetland issues.
3. The applicant shah enter into a development contract with the City.
4. The applicant shah escrow funds to construct the extension of Majestic Lane and a 5
foot sidewalk to the property line at the time the parcel to the east develops.
5. The applicant shah escrow funds to provide for the construction of a right turn lane
on CSAH 82.
6. The applicant shah obtain permits from Scott County for access and utility
construction.
7. The applicant shah submit documentation of a grading easement on the property to
the east prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
8. An average 30foot buffer strip shah be maintained around the perimeter of the
wetland, measured from the ordinary high water level. Disturbed areas within the
buffer shah be revegetated with native wetland plantings where feasible.
9. Wetland buffer monuments shah be installed as required by the City and Prior Lake-
Spring Lake Watershed District.
10. AH structures shah meet the 30foot wetland setback.
11. A drainage and utility easement shah extend over Lot 12.
12. The tree preservation plan, including the tabular listing and map, must be revised to
be consistent with ordinance requirements, so that mitigation can be properly
determined.
13. The landscape plan shah be revised to include a minimum of 50 trees, in addition to
proposed entry plantings, to satisfy minimum planting requirements in the Zoning
Ordinance. Species should be appropriate for the site, based upon existing
vegetation and the list of acceptable species included in the tree preservation
ordinance.
14. The development shah comply with the maximum 30percent impervious surface
coverage standard.
15. The development shah be subject to park dedication fees of $2, 670. OO per unit to be
paid with the development contract.
16. The applicant shah demonstrate that 600 square feet of open space has been provided
per unit.
17. A 5foot wide trail shah be constructed along the west side of Majestic Lane to
provide a connection to the existing trail in Regal Crest.
18. A demolition permit shah be required prior to the demolition of the existing
structures on the site.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Conma\03peMinutes~IN062303.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 2003
19. All signage shall require a sign permit. A site plan shall be submitted for review
prior to sign permit application, should signage placed within the drainage and
utility easement.
20. The applicant shall submit homeowner association documents for review.
21. The applicant shall obtain required permits from all applicable governmental
agencies prior to final plat approval.
22. The final plat shall be submitted within 12 months of City Council approval.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Ringstad - questioned the temporary cul-de-sac. Kirchoff responded the existing Majestic
'Lane does not connect with the abutting property.
Comments from the Public:
The developer had no comments to add.
James Hamilton, 15420 Eagle Creek Avenue, the adjoining property owner, said his
concern is for swamp that has developed in their back yard from the existing Regal Crest
development. Hamilton presented pictures of his property showing the standing water
from the runoff. They are not against the development, but concerned when they were
told there would be no affects from the Regal Crest development. Hamilton asked to take
their concern into consideration.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
Asked staffto address Mr. Hamilton's concern with runoff. Assistant City
Engineer Larry Poppler said the Hamilton's approached the engineering
department a few months ago. Poppler talked to the engineer who developed
Regal Crest. The pond and wetland mitigation for Regal Crest were built
approximately right on to the hydraulic calculations. There is an existing wetland.
The Hamilton's claim there is more water. It is hard to determine. The
department has not done further analysis. The proposed Ponds development will
drain to the west of the property.
· Staff outlined 22 conditions.
· The cluster housing requires an application for cluster housing shall demonstrate a
superior development would result by clustering. Because there is a wetland to the
west, this is approximately half the size of the development that is not going to be
impacted, allowing this to fall into the cluster housing.
· Support the recommendation with conditions.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Con'an\03pcMinutes~l~N062303.doe 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 2003
Atwood: · Agreed with Ringstad but has one further note - suggested a name change for the
development because it is so close to "The Ponds" on the other side of the city.
· Concern for the Hamiltons. Poppler said the hydraulic figures are on track.
· This is not a good scenario for the Hamiltons. This developer should keep an eye
on this issue.
· Concurred with staff and conditions.
Stamson: · Agreed. The design and use is appropriate for the property.
As Ringstad pointed out, using a cluster development meets the conditions set
forth. This is not a big piece of land, they are utilizing it the best they can.
· Staff addressed all the major housekeeping issues.
· Support.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 5.72 ACRES INTO 12
LOTS FOR 11 ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS FOR PRIOR LAKE
POND ADDITION, SUBJECT TO STAFF'S 22 CONDITIONS.
Atwood questioned if the name change should be a condition. Ringstad felt it was an
appropriate consideration, but did not want to add as a condition.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN 11 UNIT CLUSTER TOWNHOME
DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3810 154TM STREET ZONED R- 1,
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF
REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on July 7, 2003.
B. Case #03-54 Wensmann Realty is requesting an amendment the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to the C-TC (Town Center) designation for the
property located at 4666 Dakota Street SE.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 23, 2003,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Wensmann Realty has filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for
approximately 7,500 square feet of land located on the north side of Dakota Street, and
east of Erie Avenue and the Lakefront Plaza building. This property is presently zoned
R-2 (Low-Medium Density Residential) and is designated as R-L/MD (Low to Medium
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VIN062303.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 2003
Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. There is an
existing single family dwelling located on the property. At this time, the applicant is
proposing to develop this site into a parking lot for the Lakefront Plaza building. In order
to do so, the Comprehensive Plan must be amended and the site rezoned to the C-3
(Town Center) district. Parking lots are permitted as an accessory use in the C-3 district.
Staff felt the proposed C-TC designation is consistent with the goals and objectives in
that it will allow additional parking for the multi-use Lakefront Plaza building. The C-3
Zoning District includes stringent design standards which will lessen the impact of a
commercial use on the adjacent residential property. The City of Prior Lake 2020 Vision
and Strategic Plan also includes a Downtown Redevelopment element.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Stamson questioned how this item is impacted with the next vacation issue. Kansier
responded they would be tied together and will impact the design of the parking lot. In
terms of the land use plan it would be separate. It can be a parking lot either way.
Stamson noted the Commissioners talked about discussing rezoning the entire block.
Kansier said that would be a possibility. Staff will be bringing a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment in the next few months. The reason it was not included is because this is a
specific application.
Comments from the Public:
Kelly Murray, representing Wensmann Realty, said the proposal would allow the
developer to increase the number of parking spaces for Lakefront Plaza. They are trying
to have a viable commercial development within Lakefront Plaza. A lot of the parking
spaces need to be reserved for the retail businesses. They would like to designate the
additional parking for the residents only. The additional parking is needed for downtown
to promote more people. Murray asked the Commissioners to table part of the upcoming
vacation application so they can spend more time developing a rain garden feature to
make a corridor to the park.
Steve Skaja, 4664 Dakota Street, said he was not opposed to the parking lot but would
like to see some sort of privacy fence between his property and the parking lot.
Stamson asked staff if there was enough property to put in a buffer. Kansier said she was
not sure of the size of land or design. The intention is to keep the parking away from the
existing residential properties. They should talk to Mr. Wensmann about it. Staff could
incorporate that into the site plan.
Bruce Wetterlin, 4662 Dakota Street, feels he is impacted by a 3-story high rise with
people looking down into his back yard. Steve Skaja's bedroom is 5 feet from the
property line. His main concern is the buffer zone. He is not against the development,
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinuteshMN062303.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 2003
but does not see how a parking lot and buffer zone will work with only 65 feet.
Suggested using the police annex area for parking when a new City Hall is built.
Susan Shroyer, 4662 Dakota, lives about 35 feet from the proposed project. None of the
neighbors were opposed to the development. It is a very attractive project. She has 20
units facing their backyard and would like to see the proposal for the parking lot. She
was also concerned with her property value decreasing. They would like to see some kind
of privacy fence and believes Wensmann would be cooperative. Headlights would be
right in her back yard. She questioned if city land is being used for this parking lot.
Wensmann said they would be willing to landscape the building. Shroyer talked about
Prior Lake's developing green space.
Atwood asked Shroyer how she would see this parking issue addressed. Shroyer said it
would be better to have green space or landscaping into the park.
Kelly Murray said they were looking at parking spaces for 25 to 30 vehicles.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood: · Agreed this is an appropriate spot for residential parking and retail parking for the
plaza but concerned for the homeowners with the second entrance to the park.
· The downtown redevelopment is moving at a great pace.
· Concurred with staff's findings.
· My experience with Wensmann is that they are creative. Confident they will
buffer by landscaping between the homes and parking lot.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with Atwood and staff. This fits in well with Lakefront Plaza; it is a
natural extension of the Town Center Designation.
· Trust staffhas heard the comments and concerns from the neighbors and take
them into consideration.
· Recommend approval.
Stamson: · Long term, this makes sense as a Town Center designation. The conflict we are
seeing with the neighbors is taking just a small strip of land and changing it. We
should look at the entire block.
· The spot zoning issue has been discussed many times.
· This could be a slam dunk if the right-of-way was not in between.
· It would be more appropriate to look at the entire block- there are too many
conflicts between the R-1 property owners and this commercial area.
· The larger area needs to be looked at and not take this little spot and rezone it.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXMN062303.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 2003
· Atwood questioned when staff would be looking at rezoning the area. Kansier
responded it would be sometime this summer. It would be a while before a public
hearing.
· Look at the entire block before a decision is made. It would be totally different
without the park trail and right-of-way issues.
· We should not tie ourselves into this issue when the entire block has not been
discussed.
Atwood asked the developer if she knew how the parking lot would be laid out.
Murray said they are not giving this property to the Lakefi:ont Plaza owners.
Wensmarm will retain the parking area. The number of stalls really has not been
determined. There are 78 units and 80 underground parking stalls.
· Atwood questioned the occupancy. Murray said the first closing is set for July 15
for residential units.
Stamson questioned when they feel they will hit the residential and commercial
occupancy. Murray explained the parking concerns fi:om the residents and
retailers. There are 40 parking stalls for the commercial. The additional parking
would be for the residents and would not tie up the store front parking.
Ringstad asked staff if this project was approved without this additional parking
lot. This project must have met the parking requirements before approved.
Kansier said the downtown does not have a parking requirement. Staff knew
parking was needed for the residents. Lakefront provided one space per unit. The
40 spaces for retail/commercial area are right. They are in the boundaries of
acceptable parking but it was also with the idea there is some public municipal
parking in the area.
Stamson:
· Their proposed use is not improper but a determination at this time is not
appropriate when we are going to look at the entire block in a few months.
· Atwood and Ringstad agreed - as long as it is going to be review in the next 3 to
5 months, see how the entire block shakes out in the Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO DENY THE REQUEST
AND REVIEW THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE IN 3 MONTHS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on July 7, 2003.
6. Old Business: None
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXMN062303.doc 7
~Ill[ !
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 2003
7. New Business:
A. Case 003-55 Wensmann Realty is requesting to vacate a portion of Erie
Avenue adjacent to the property located at 4666 Dakota Street SE and to the
Lakefront Plaza building.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 23, 2003,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Wensmann Realty has filed an application to vacate a portion of the Erie Avenue right-
of-way located north of Dakota Street and south of Lakefront Park. The request would
allow the applicant additional lot area for the construction of parking lot on the property
at 4666 Dakota Street, and would allow a door opening on the west side of the Lakefront
Plaza building.
The Commissioners have a request before them presented by Wensmann asking to defer
the Vacation ora 33' by 200' strip of right-of-way adjacent to the west side of the
property at 4666 Dakota Street. They are however, requesting the following:
· Vacation of a 5.50' by 100' strip of right-of-way adjacent to the west property line of
the Lakefront Plaza building.
This segment of Erie Avenue is the location of the trail between Dakota Street and
Lakefront Park, and there is a Minnegasco gas main located within the 5.50' strip
requested to be vacated. In addition, the City is planning a storm water management
project in the downtown area that includes a rain garden in this location. The garage for
the existing house at 4666 Dakota Street also encroaches onto this right-of-way.
As proposed, the vacation would leave the City a 27.5' wide strip of right-of-way for
both the trail and the rain gardens. This area may be adequate for the trail, but will not
provide enough area for the rain gardens. Vacation of the 5.50' wide strip may also
impede access to the existing gas main and is thus inconsistent with the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on the information submitted thus far, there is a public need for the tight-of-way.
The staff recommended denial of this request. If the right-of-way is vacated, a condition
requiting an easement over the 5.50' strip must be included as part of the vacation.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Stamson questioned the gas main location under the 5 foot strip. Kansier responded staff
received a letter from Minnegasco and they do not object to the vacation as long as there
is an easement over the area.
Stamson questioned why the 5.5 foot strip was necessary. Murray said during the design
process for Lakefront they were looking at the exterior commercial area. They have two
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~MN062303.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 2003
options, they can either get a Private Use for Public Property Agreement for the canopy
over the commercial area encroaching by 5.5 feet or they can do it permanently and take
care of the vacation and restate easements. The building itself is in the property, the
canopy covers the right-a-way. It will go over the sidewalk.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· The applicant explained why the vacation was needed. This project is a
cornerstone to our downtown and preserving the streetseape is very much a public
purpose.
· Support.
Ringstad and Atwood: · Agreed.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO GRANT THE 5.5 FOOT
EASEMENT VACATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A public hearing on this matter will be held at the City Council meeting on July 7.
B. Case #03-61 Shamrock Development is requesting to vacate a portion of the
right-of-way for Wild Horse Pass and the drainage and utility easements located on
Lot 21, Block 4, Lots 14-15, Block 5, and Outlots A and B, The Wilds south and on
Outlots A and B, The Wilds 5th Addition.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 23, 2003,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On May 5, 2003, the City Council approved the preliminary plat known as The Wilds 6th
Addition. This preliminary plat included the lots previously platted as Lot 21, Block 4,
Lots 14-15, Block 5, Outlots a and B, The Wilds South and Outlots A and B, The Wilds
5th Addition. The plat also reconfigures a portion of Wild Horse Pass as originally
platted in The Wilds South. Shamrock Development has now filed an application for a
final plat for The Wilds 6th Addition. In order to reconfigure the lots and the street, the
existing right-of-way, drainage and utility easements must be vacated. New easements
and right-of-way will be dedicated in the final plat.
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is satisfied by the dedication of necessary right-of-
way and easements with the new subdivision plat. Staff recommended approval of the
request, subject to the condition the Resolution vacating the easements ~d right-of-way
not be recorded until the final plat has been approved.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN062303.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 2003
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad, Atwood and Stamson:
· Agreed that this is in the public interest and supported.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THE
RESOLUTION NOT BE RECORDED UNTIL AFTER THE FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council for public hearing on July 7, 2003.
C. Case #03-57 Patrick Jolitz, 3235 Kent Street SW, is requesting to vacate the
north 8' of the 16' wide platted alley adjacent to Lot 1, and the East ½ of Lot 2,
Block 30, Spring Lake Townsite.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 23, 2003,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Patrick Jolitz has filed an application to vacate the north 8' of the 16' wide platted alley
located adjacent to the south property line of the property at 3235 Kent Street. There is
an existing home on this property. The alley is currently unimproved. The applicant is
proposing to rebuild the existing garage and requires the additional lot area to meet the
maximum impervious surface requirements.
The alley fight-of-way was originally dedicated as part of the Spring Lake Townsite plat
many years ago. The alley right-of-way is 16' wide. There are utilities located with the
alley right-of-way including a gas main, telephone cable and electric lines.
The vacation of this alley will impede access to the existing utilities and is thus
inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the
staff recommended denial of the request.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood: · Supported staff's recommendation, unless the applicant is ready to relocate the
utilities.
· Deny the request.
Ringstad: · Quoted the vacation statute for public interest. This vacation is not in the best
public interest.
· Support denial.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes~MN062303.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 2003
Stflmson: · Concurred.
· The utilities are in the right-of-way and access has to be protected and that
overrides any other benefit.
· Recommend to City Council to deny the request.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL THE DENIAL OF THE VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AS
PROPOSED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on July 7, 2003.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Kansier explained the averaging of residential front yard setback problems. Staff is
asking the Commissioners to give a verbal consent to go a head and direct staffto bring
the issue forward. The Commissioners indicated to go forward.
The second issue is the common public area between the lakeshore and property owners
and asked for consent to review the ordinance and bring back to discuss.
Reminder of the Annual Surf and Turf tour on June 30th.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN062303.doc 1 1