HomeMy WebLinkAbout0728032.
3.
4.
e
7.
8.
9.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JULY 28, 2003
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
#03-73 Steve Griffith is requesting a 7.4 foot variance from the required 11.6 foot sum of
side yard setback for the reconstruction of a detached garage located at 17274 Sunset Trail
SW.
B. g03-65 Shiela Blickhan is requesting a 12 foot variance from the required 25 foot rear yard
setback for the construction of a deck addition located at 3361 Fremont Circle NW.
Co
g03-79 Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative is requesting a 7 foot variance from the
required 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of a control building at 14024
Commerce Avenue NE.
D. #03-80 Digger's Polaris is requesting a conditional use permit to conduct motor vehicle sales
and service on property zoned C-4 for the property located at 16450 Anna Trail SE.
#03-79 Tollefson Development submitted a request to include approximately 36 acres of
property on the City of Prior Lake 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and to designate
the property for R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) to R-HD (High Density
Residential) uses located directly east of CSAH 17 (Marschall Road) north of 165th Street
and the Autumn Acres development in the South ~A of the NE ¼ of Section 5, T 114, R 22,
Scott County. 0Vlargie Schiltz Revocable Trust/Jeff and Alyssa Schneider properties)
Fo
g03-77 Tollefson Development is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for
approximately 28 acres from the C-HG to the R-HD located at the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of CSAH 42 and CSAH 83. (John O'Laughlin property)
Old Business: None
New Business: None
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\03 File~03 Planning Conun~03 pcAgendaX.A. GO72803.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ifil
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by t_he Planning Commission
The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to
all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to
speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new
information.
Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter.
Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible
except under rare occasions.
The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter.
Thank you.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
NAME ADDRESS
'rD;,-,,',; ~/.O~'/F (~,~\ ,~ ~: ;a,,,,, -/~,?/;,.. ~/,.,-/,,Z .m,../,., ,,,,,/v.,.~
'FAt.) ~/~)-,r-h,~;J ,:~,~ ~m,f,,(' G~,/~ fi, m.-
i~n\d~c Ne~ Iq55'~, 5rook.~cz'~ [31~d
L:~DEPTWORK~BLANKFRM~HSIGNUP.doc
~ll[ I
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to
all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to
speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new
information.
Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter.
Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible
except under rare occasions.
The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter.
Thank you.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
NAME ADDRESS
L:kDEPTWOKKkBLANKFRM~HSIGNUP.doc
:111 i I
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 28, 2003
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the July 28, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cfiego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson,
Community Development Director Don Rye, Planner Cynthia Kirehoff and Recording
Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Absent
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the July 14, 2003, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Consent:
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. #03-73 Steve Griffith is requesting a 7.4 foot variance from the required 11.6
foot sum of side yard setback for the reconstruction of a detached garage located at
17274 Sunset Trail SW.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated July 28, 2003, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
Steven Griffith is requesting a variance from the Zoning Ordinance for the reconstruction
of a 216 square foot detached garage on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential)
and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 17274 Sunset Trail SW. In order to
reconstruct the detached garage the following variance is required: A 5.9foot variance
from the required 11.6foot side yard setback required so the sum of the side yards equal
15feet (Section 1101.502 (8)).
The subject property is a riparian lot on Spring Lake. A single family dwelling,
constructed in 1973, and single stall detached garage currently occupy the site. The lot is
7,898 square feet in area above the ordinary high water level of Spring Lake and
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VlN072803.doe 1
ill i I
Planning Commission Meeting
duly 28, 2003
approximately 50 feet in width at the front yard setback. A driveway easement extends
across the subject property to serve Lot 20, the property to the south, due to the
topography change from Sunset Trail.
The shape of the lot and required 11.6 foot sum of side yard setback creates an undue
hardship. Staff supports the variance because without relief the applicant would not have
a reasonable use of the property.
Stamson questioned the sum total of side yard variances. Kirchoff explained.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Steve Cn'iffith, 17274 Sunset Trail, said the distance between the house and
garage to the north is 11.5 feet. This is a very difficult due to the lot shape. They have
been working with contractors and architects to figure out a way to do this and meet the
City's requirements. Everyone agrees this is the location to have the garage. The garage
size is minimal at 12 x 18 feet. It will give him 2 feet of space for his 16 foot car. The on
site parking is also an issue. Sunset Trail has "No Parking" on both sides. It is very
difficult for guests to park as there is no space. Griffith is also asking the Commissioners
to delete staff's recommendation to reduce the bituminous surface. It will make the
entrance to the home very difficult and hard to plow around. The impervious surface is
less than 1 percent of the lot size. He felt the removal of the area is a hardship as it leaves
less parking area and changes the use of the property.
Stamson clarified the garage is the same size as the existing garage. Griffith said it was
the same size and went on to explain the problems with moving the garage.
Criego questioned if the applicant's house was on the side yard property border. Griffith
responded a privacy fence encroaches.
Maureen Doheny, 17264 Sunset Trail, the adjacent property owner questioned if the
garage can be slightly repositioned by 3 or 4 feet and reduce the variance. Stamson
explained he would not be able to park a car if it's moved fonvard. Doheny explained
another neighbor closed part of the road off and suggested possible parking areas. She
felt the Griffiths should have their garage but if there was another alternative'she would
prefer that over a variance. The home is her summer residence and is concerned the
variance could affect them in the future when they want to add on.
Ringstad questioned if cutting into the bank on Sunset Trail would have to be pretty
creative engineering. Doheny responded what she felt would work.
Stamson asked if there was a dedicated easement or an agreement. Kirchoff felt there
was a driveway easement. There currently is no access from the south.
Criego felt the problem will not be solved by moving the garage closer to the street.
Kirchoff explained the potential setback issues from moving the garage in other
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXMN072803.doc 2
lil i i
Planning Commission Meeting
July 28, 2003
locations. All of the lots have problems because they are substandard. If the neighbors
try to rebuild or add on, they will require variances.
Curt Hennes, lives on the other side of the Griffiths, stated he had no problems with the
proposed project. Hermes wanted to point out that the easement is to be used by all 5
houses and he needed access. The topography is extremely high up to Sunset Trail. He
explained the street easement to Sunset Trail is 10 feet. The bank is approximately 3 feet
wide and drops down to the easement.
Stamson asked where Hennes parked. He said he parks on the very edge of the tarred
easement near the bank. Everyone uses it. He does not have a garage, he just parks in
the small space. Hennes said the residents have all lived there for at least 10 years and
get along well with the current setup despite the odd shaped lots.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego: · Felt another variance is required.
· Does not see any problem replacing the garage. Recommend approving the
request. The property is very difficult.
· As long as the impervious surface is not increased, the 37.5 square feet is okay
because of the multi-use of the neighbors. Leave it the way it is.
Lemke:
· Concurred with Criego.
Ringstad: · Visited the property and concurred with the Commissioners, especially removing
condition #3 at the suggestion of the DNR to try and create less impervious
surface.
· Since the applicant is replacing the existing structure and not adding to the
existing structure.
· This easement is critical to all five residents.
· Support the variances.
Stamson:
· Very unique property and situation. We usually see larger 2 car garages.
· Concern in this particular one is the closeness to the adjoining property. This is a
detached garage and under current building codes does not meet the fire code.
There is a risk factor that is much greater next to a summer home that does not
have current fire codes.
· If there was not an existing garage I would not recommend. The variance is there
if we try to mitigate it.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~MN072803.doc 3
Iii I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 28, 2003
· Would support the variance but add a condition to build the garage to meet the
fire codes to provide protection.
* There is 10 feet between structures. Garages are more fire prone than most
houses. The seasonal home probably lacks fire protection.
· Staff's condition on removing the impervious surface should be to allow
rebuilding without removing the impervious surface. It should not be a condition
of the variance as it is a hardship without the removal of impervious surface.
Criego: · Do we know the distance between the structures? Kirchoff said the separation on
the northern side is 11.5 feet.
· There is a 3.5 foot variance required.
Ringstad:
· Asked staff about the fire code issue. Rye said he believes if it is 5 feet from the
property line it would have to be a rated wall. It doesn't hurt to add a condition.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSAD, RECOMMEND MODIFIYING
RESOLUTION 03-07PC GRANTING A 5.9 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 11.6 FOOT SUM OF SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE. ALSO APPROVE A 3.5 FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS.
MODIFY THE RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE CONDITION//3 AND ADD THE
GARAGE MEET BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TO MEET FIRE CODE
REQUmp M ,rrs.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY R1NGSTAD ADOPTING RES. O3-07PC AS
AMENDED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
B. #03-65 Shiela Biickhan is requesting a 12 foot variance from the required 25
foot rear yard setback for the construction of a deck addition located at 3361
Fremont Circle NW.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated July 28, 2003, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
Sheila Blickhan is requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance for the construction
of a 14 foot by 18 foot (252 square foot) deck addition on property zoned R-1 (Low
Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 3361 Fremont
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes~42qO72803.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
July 2s, 2oo5
Circle NW. In order to construct the deck addition the following variance is required: A
13foot variance from the required 25foot rear yard setback (Section 1101.502 (8)).
A single family dwelling and attached garage, constructed in 1987, occupy the site. The
lot complies with minimum lot area and width requirements of the R-1 use district. The
existing dwelling is set back 34.5 feet from the front property line and 26 feet from the
rear property line, at its closest point.
The lot complies with minimum lot area and width. It does not exhibit exceptional
characteristics that would warrant relief from the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the
property owner currently has a reasonable use of the property. Staff does not support the
variance because the applicant does have other options to cure the safety issue.
Lemke questioned - In approving a plan for a house would the City look at a deck that
high above grade that has sliding glass door? Kirchoffpresented the original plan that
did not have the doors. It should be noted that at the time of the building, the structure
was flipped. During the building permit review, if there is a patio door shown on the plan
and a future deck is clearly not going to meet the required setback, it should be deleted
from the plans and noted on the plans that a future deck should not be permitted.
Stamson said it was not uncommon for builders to draw up a plan and then build it
another way.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Jason Blickhan felt staff's hardship criteria #1 does not allow the applicant to
enjoy the property as they should. The slope of the yard it does not allow them any other
options in terms of making adjustments. The deck is a practical use. Blickhan said he
had letters from the neighbors in Support of a deck. He understands the ordinances but
felt it has to have a practical value and it is his right to have a deck on the property.
Bob Rykken 3330 Fremont Avenue said he was shocked the Blickhan's had to get a
variance to put on a deck. He is glad there is a process to go through but hopefully the
process will be fair. He questioned if the back yard setback was 12 feet in the past. Staff
said it was not. Rykken also felt the plat lot dimensions were wrong as he helped
measure the back yard. The actual lot depth is closer to 34 feet and they would only need
a 6 foot variance.
Royce Neibert, 1656 165th Street, Shakopee, felt these type of issues are caused by
developers. The lot and house are put on in a ridiculous way. The house plan was
approved one way but was allowed to build it another way. That is wrong. The plans
should have never been flipped.
The public hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~vlN072803.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
July 28, 2003
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
· There are three main challenges - the shape of the lot, the position of the house on
the lot and the apparent reversal of the house plan.
· In reviewing the 9 hardship criteria - the applicant has not met all the hardships.
What is coming out tonight is the reversal of the building plan.
· Without the reversal of the building plan I don't think I could approve the
variance.
· The reversal of the plan is something that I have a problem with. Understand
plans are flipped routinely. This is the problem - when it is done without the
City's knowledge.
Stamson:
· Have to point out there is nothing in the building plans that says the City did not
know it.
Ringstad:
· Questioned what would happen now if a plan was flipped. Kirchoff said ideally
the City should know if the plans are flipped to ensure that in cases like this, the
deck would meet the setbacks.
· Stamson said the survey submitted shows the proposed building. The intent was
to build it even though the blue print is different.
Criego:
· It is straight forward, not having a deck is not a hardship. In many previous cases
the Commissioners have basically indicated not having a deck was not a hardship.
We can't go forward with the requested variance. Does not see a hardship with
this application.
· There are sliding glass doors with minor balconies.
· We can't assume it was a mistake in 1987. Do not know if it was designed for a
deck. The setbacks were 25 feet at that time.
· It was not a hardship.
Lemke:
· As it applies to the first hardship criteria, I feel this is a hardship. It is not
practical to remove the sliding glass doors and put in a window. There is clearly
enough room to build a deck.
· At least the confusion of the plans of the house meets the criteria.
Stamson: · Agreed there is a practical difficulty building the deck however, the
Commissioners have never found lack of a deck is a hardship for a variance.
· There is plenty of reasonable use without a deck.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes'uMN072803.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
July 28, 2003
· State provisions give us a set of hardship criteria. The lack of a deck does not
meet the hardship criteria outside unusual circumstances.
Ringstad:
The hardship criteria are brought to us by the State and must meet all nine
requirements. This dearly does not meet all.
· It looks like there might have been some confusion with the flipping of the
building plans. But the survey indicates the plans were to be set on correctly.
· Deny request.
MOTION BY CRIECJO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 03-
08PC DENYING A 13 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR
YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Ringstad and Stamson. Lernke voted nay.
MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
C. #03-79 Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative is requesting a 7 foot variance
from the required 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of a control
building at 14024 Commerce Avenue NE.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated July 28, 2003, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative (MVEC) is requesting a variance from the zoning
ordinance for the construction of a 15 foot by 21 foot (315 square foot) control building
for an electric substation on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD
(Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 14024 Commerce Avenue NE (NE lA of the
NE ¼ of Section 30). In order to construct the control building a 7 foot variance from the
required 25 foot rear yard setback (Section 1102.405 (3)).
Existing exceptional conditions on the property, including the location of the
transmission lines, create practical difficulties for the location of a new control building.
Therefore, staff supports the front yard setback variance.
Comments from the public:
Dennis Wolf, representing Minnesota Valley Electric Coop, explained they are trying to
work in the confines of the fenced area. They are installing new equipment to
accommodate present and future needs. The hardship is that they need all the space
within the fenced in space. They are not expanding over the area. The streets have been
reconfigured restricting their property and setbacks. They will also be improving the
integrity of the fenced in area.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinuteshMN072803.doe 7
Planning Commission Meeting
July 28, 2003
Stamson questioned if the proposed building is replacing the existing building. Wolf
explained it would and the process. The building will be larger. The building was built
in the mid-50's and falling apart. It is designed for storage of the equipment.
Criego asked where the entrance would be. Wolf said it would be on the south side.
There will be no fencing but the door will be secured: Wolf explained the need for 2
doors.
There was no public comment and the hearing was closed at 7:38 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
We need to make sure there is an adequate supply of electricity to the City.
· Not quite sure from the presentation why it's necessary for the large building. It
is 6 times the size. Overall, it does not seem to be a problem at this site.
· Does not share the security concerns.
Ringstad: · Agreed - There are existing exception conditions with respect to the property.
· Approve the request.
Criego:
· Agreed with staff.
Stamson: · Concurred. The applicant has demonstrated this is necessary for providing the use
that is there. It is not strictly convenience, it is critical to the community.
· Support staff's recommendation to approve.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 03-
09PC GRANTING A 7 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FRONT
YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONTROL BUILDING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
D. #03-80 Digger's Polaris is requesting a conditional use permit to conduct
motor vehicle sales and service on property zoned C-4 for the property located at
16450 Anna Trail SE.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated July 28, 2003, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~lN072803.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
.~uly 28, 2003
Doug Nagle, of Digger's Polaris, is requesting Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) to
conduct (1) motor vehicle sales and (2) motor vehicle service and repair on property
located at 16450 Anna Trail SE for a Polaris dealership. The property is zoned C-4
(General Business) and is guided C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) on the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. Motor vehicle sales and motor vehicle repair are
separate conditional uses in the C-4 zoning district.
Since this is a redevelopment of site previously used for lumber sales, there are numerous
issues associated with the site plan that must be resolved a condition of the Conditional
Use Permit. These include architectural materials, accessory structure side yard setback,
gravel storage area, landscaping/buffering, and fencing. Staff has recommended
conditions of approval to cure the nonconformities present on the site.
The staff recommended with the following conditions for the motor vehicle sales:
1. A certificate of survey prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor shall be
submitted.
2. Exterior materials of all buildings on the site shall comply with Section 1107.220
of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. If the existing gravel parking area on the northern portion of the site is to be
utilized for screened outdoor storage, it shall be surfaced with concrete or
bituminous.
4. The detached accessory structure shall either be relocated to comply with the 20
foot required side yard setback or removed from the site.
5. Landscaping shall be installed along Anna Trail and TH 13 to screen the parking
lot as required by Section 1107.204 of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. Existing gravel parking area along the west property line shall be removed.
7. The outdoor storage area shall be 100 feet from the west and north property lines.
Therefore, bituminous or gravel surface that does not meet this setback shall be
removed.
8. Landscaping shall be installed to comply with minimum requirements in Section
1107.1905 of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. Storm water ponding shall be provided on the site if the impervious surface of the
site is increased or if more than 10,000 square feet of the site is disturbed.
10. A fire hydrant shall be installed north of the existing principal structure. Issues
identified by the Building Official in the memorandum dated July 1 l, 2003, shall
be addressed in the revised site plan and building permit application as required.
11. Civil plans shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer locating storm water
ponding and the extension of a water main for the new fire hydrant.
12. Outdoor storage shall be placed on a bituminous surface and shall be limited to
41,416 square feet in area.
13. No outdoor storage of vehicles or equipment shall be located outside of the
designated, fenced storage area.
14. No previously registered but currently unlicensed or non-operable vehicles shall
be stored on premises.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes~lO72803.doc 9
ii[ !
Planning Commission Meeting
July 28, 2003
15. All open sales or rental lots shall be operated in conjunction with a building or
buildings containing the same or similar materials as displayed on the open sales
or rental lot.
16. String lighting shall be prohibited.
17. Test driving shall be prohibited on any street in an "R" use District.
18. All customer and employee parking shall be clearly designated and signed.
19. No outdoor public address system shall be permitted.
20. No motor vehicle transport loading or unloading shall be permitted on any minor
residential street.
21. No display or storage of motor vehicles shall be permitted on any public right-of-
way.
22. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1203 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be
met.
The staff recommends approval for the motor vehicle repair with the following
conditions:
1. No public address system shall be audible from any property located in an "R"
Use District.
2. All repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance of vehicles shall be inside a
closed building except tire inflation, changing wipers or adding oil.
3. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00am to 10:00pm, unless the service
doors to the facility remain closed at all times.
4. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1203 (3) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be
met.
Add a 23 condition to submit a lighting plan.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Stamson questioned the exterior building materials complying with the zoning ordinance.
Kirehoff said the applicant would have to comply with the Class I building materials.
Criego - There are two pieces of property, the north is wooded, what happens to the
wooded area if approved? Could they add their sales area into it? Kirchoff said the CLIP
would be attached to the site plan. The City does have a tree preservation ordinance and
any removal of trees on the site would have to be reviewed. If the applicant adds
impervious surface a ponding issue could be triggered. The issue is noted in the staff
report.
Rye said it would also trigger an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
Stamson - What if the applicant wants to add trails in the wooded area? Kirchoff said the
CUP would have to be amended as that type of use was not part of the site plan.
Comments from the public:
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinutesWIN072803.doc 10
Planning Commission Meeting
July 28, 2003
Steve Dody, Pope Associates Architectural Services representing Digger's Polaris, said
the exterior materials will be stucco. In response to Condition #3 regarding paving -
Diggers has no plans to change the site. Condition ~4 regarding the detached accessory
structure - there is a discrepancy in two surveys showing on one that the structure's
overhang is on the adjoining lot. The recent survey does not indicate any encroachment.
They will submit the landscape plan and agree to the hydrant as well as the lighting plan
requirements.
Lemke - If the survey shows the accessory structure overhanging the property, will the
structure be removed? Dody responded they would remove it.
There were no comments and the public hearing closed at 7:55 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Agreed with staff and the conditions.
Lemke: · Concurred. This will be a welcome addition.
· Support staff's recommendations.
Ringstad: · With the proposed conditions the aesthetic conditions will be improved.
· Agreed with Commissioners to support with the conditions.
Stamson:
Agreed with Commissioners and staff.
Support.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOTOR VEHICLE SALES ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16450 ANNA TRAIL SE WITH THE 23 CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY R1NGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16450 ANNA TRAIL SE WITH THE 4 CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on August 18, 2003.
Recess was called at 7:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:05 p.m.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Conma\03peMinuteskMN072803.doc 11
Ill i i
Planning Commission Meeting
July 28, 2003
E. #03-79 Tollefson Development submitted a request to include approximately 36
acres of property on the City of Prior Lake 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map and to designate the property for R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density
Residential) to R-HD (High Densi~ Residential) uses located directly east of CSAH
17 (Marschall Road) north of 165t Street and the Autumn Acres development in the
South ½ of the NE ¼ of Section 5, T 114, R 22, Scott County. (Margie Schiltz
Revocable Trust/Jeff and Alissa Schneider properties)
Director of Community Development Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated July
28, 2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The subject property was annexed by the City on June 16, 2003 and currently does not
have a Comprehensive Plan designation. The applicant has requested the property be
designated R-L/MD, Low to Medium Density residential. This site consists of a total of
38 acres ofunplatted land. There are two separate parcels of land involved and one of the
parcels is occupied by a homestead. The total site consists of 37.9 acres.
The City of Prior Lake 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan includes a vision element entitled
Housing Quality and Diversity. The primary policy under this element is to "Adopt a
policy to provide housing for persons of all ages." Designation of the property for Low
to Medium Density Residential (R-L/MD) would seem to be the appropriate designation
for this property, given the nature of existing and proposed developments in contact with,
or in close proximity to, the subject property. Access and visibility issues would preclude
designations of commercial use and industrial uses here would likely result in land use
conflicts with adjacent properties. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the request.
Stamson questioned the annexation agreement and assumes there will be a lot of
Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Rye said under the schedule to be adopted the first
properties will come in next year. There will have to be a review and refine the areas.
Comments from the public:
Todd Bodem representing applicant Tollefson Development presented a concept plan on
the property. They are working with other property owners. The proposed project will
have 79 single family homes and park. It would be tied in with the Stemmer property
project. Details still have to be worked out.
Paul Hofstien, 1896 165th Street East, Shakopee, (Autumn Acres development), has no
qualms with the proposed designation, but is concerned the development has access to
County Road 17. As a resident of Autumn Acres they were assured by the Township and
City officials that 165th Street would not become a collector street.
Royce Neibert, 1656 165th Street, Shakopee, felt the higher density will affect his
property. The residents of Autumn Acres invested a lot of money to have 2 acre lots. He
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinuteshMN072803.doe 1 2
Planning Commission Meeting
July 28, 2003
felt the lots adjacent to Auttmm Acres should be large and continue to reduce in size
away from their development. The County will determine the access.
There were no more comments and the hearing closed at 8:20 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation on the designation.
Stamson:
· Agreed and supported. Low to Medium density is appropriate.
· The next step will be to look at the zoning issues and process to develop. The
specifics will be at a later date.
Criego: · Questioned the maximum density. Rye explained the density and zones.
· It will be up to the staff and planning Commission for a recommendation.
Agreed with staff.
Lemke: · It is appropriate for this property.
· Support.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-L/MD, LOW TO
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on August 18, 2003.
F. #03-77 Tollefson Development is requesting an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan for approximately 28 acres from the C-HG to the R-HD
located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 42 and CSAH 83.
(John O'Laughlin property)
Director of Community Development Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated July
28, 2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The applicant has initiated an amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map on approximately 28 acres of land located on the south side of CSAH 42 and west of
County Road 83 from H-CG (Hospitality/General Business) to R-I-ID (Residential High
Density). This site consists of a total of 40.03 acres ofunplatted, vacant land. The
applicant wishes to amend the Comprehensive Plan map to designate 28.03 acres of the
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~vlN072803.doc 1 3
Planning Commission Meeting
.~uly 2s, 2003
property for High Density Residential use. The area of this site, less road right-of-way is
36.39 acres. The area to be amended is 28.03 acres.
The City of Prior Lake 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan includes a vision element entitled
Economic Development. Item 2 of that element is to "Ensure that land is available and
designated for future business development and redevelopment." This amendment will
remove approximately 18 developable acres from commercial designation in the
Comprehensive Plan. By itself, this would suggest the proposed amendment is
inconsistent with objectives of both the Comprehensive Plan and the 2020 Vision and
Strategic Plan.
Staff believes the upgrade of County Roads 42 and 83 and future increases in traffic at
this location bolster the argument for commercial development at this intersection and
does not support an argument for residential development at this location. The staff felt
there was no compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Plan and the appropriate
action in this case is to recommend denial of the proposed amendment.
Comments from the public:
Todd Bodem, representing Tollefson Development distributed a concept plan with a
proposed townhome development. It is similar to the proposed east mixed-use projects.
Commercial has a tendency to bring in more traffic congestion. The topography suits a
housing development. They are not proposing apartments.
Brian Stordahl, president of the Meadowview Townhome Association stated they support
staff's recommendation to deny the request. The traffic is very congested. There is a
significant wetland and was concerned with encroachment. Stamson explained the Land
Use designation. Their concern is not just possible apartments but the density. Rye said
the general zoning category is R4 allowing 30 units per acre.
Michael Okronglis, 2286 Stonecrest Path was concerned for the traffic and potential
apartments. The elevation is low and questioned the sewer plan. Rye said a lift station is
proposed off County Road 42. Okronglis also questioned the runoff. Rye explained the
drainage system. Okronglis stated he was against the high density zoning.
John O'Laughlin, 2988 Valley View Road, Shakopee, owner of the property said he was
involved in the Comprehensive Plan designation and originally was in support of the
commercial designation. The runoff into the wetlands is controlled by the project. The
traffic concern is supposed to be taken care of after the County Road 42 construction. A
commercial designation will cause more traffic.
Chris Woodbury, 14452 Castlegate Way, Vice President of the Homeowners Association,
felt high density apartments is a concern. Townhomes may be a better use than the
commercial designation. They do not want to see their property values decrease.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning CommX03pcMinutesXlvlN072803.doc 1 4
Planning Commission Meeting
.~u~y ~, ~oo$
Rye explained the presented concept is just an idea. It could include many combinations.
The Commercial designation range from a neighborhood commercial to general business
designation including a wide variety of uses. When this designation was put on the
property 5 years ago, the intent was to allow for complimentary uses to Mystic Lake
Casino and all that is happening tonight is that a certain portion would be designated high
density. It is hard to give a great mount of detail at this time.
Josh Johnson, 14263 Brookmere Blvd, said they did not understand high density and is
totally against the designation. He feels the Comprehensive Plan designation is very
appropriate. The traffic will not increase that much with neighborhood businesses.
John O' Laughlin, Valley View Road, asked if anyone fi:om the townhomes felt they are
high density. The neighbors are presently living in townhomes. Some of their objections
are not justified.
Danielle Ness, 14332 Brookmere Blvd., said they chose to live in the subdivision because
of the lower townhome density.
Brian Stordahl, felt if it was rezoned to townhomes it might be appropriate. The high
density is different. Similar townhomes would be okay.
Rye pointed out the density on Meadowview is R2.
Patty Maas, 2195 140th Street NW, owns the adjoining 15 acres, felt the property values
should raise. Air quality is also an issue. When the road construction is finished the
traffic pattern will change. She does not want the high density. The DNR is setting
adjoining property aside for wetland.
Todd Bodem, Tollefson Development, clarified that they do not intend to build apartment
buildings. Building this type of development would create more open space.
Gary Walshimer, Tollefson Development, said to take into consideration there is no
existing strip mall and could have many beneficial neighborhood uses. One of the
reasons John O'Laughlin is selling the property because the farming use is not what he
wants. If John cannot sell the property for commercial maybe he could graze cattle or set
up a pig farm which is in his rights. The neighbors have to realize Mr. O'Laughlin is the
property owner and now has the opportunity to sell.
Criego asked Walshimer if he considered a low to medium designation. Walshimer said
he did, but with the wetland, the uniqueness of the property and topography his intention
was to have townhomes similar to Centex.
Criego asked if there were any potential businesses to go in on the remaining 8 acres.
Walshimer said they have not pursued that area. Take away the casino and there is not a
lot of residential housing.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes~IN072803.doc 15
Planning Commission Meeting
July 28, 2003
Michael Okronglis, 2286 Stonecrest Path, asked if the developer talked about traffic
going through the neighborhood. Stamson replied that is not what is being considered at
this time.
The hearing closed at 8:58 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
Over the last few years the Commissioners approved several R4 designations.
· Does not make sense to remove commercial designations for potential high
density.
· Support staffs recommendation for denial.
Criego:
· Was involved with the property to the south (Meadowview) and there was a lot of
discussion with the R1 and R2 designations. That is a good combination and
worked out well.
The parks and ponds were discussed. We talked about what would happen on the
north side. The corner is perfect for commercial. The question is whether there is
a developer that needs 40 acres for commercial. Right now there isn't.
· Hopefully there will be more commercial areas in the future. The residents may or
may not like it.
· No matter what is decided tonight, the problem still exists on how to combine
neighborhoods together so that there is continuity.
· I personally feel this property is a combination of low to medium density and
commercial. The question is what developer will come forth and develop the
property.
· Cannot approve the high density as proposed.
· Not enough information to change Comprehensive Plan. Agree with staff to deny
the request.
Lemke:
· Agreed with Criego - the property looks ideal for commercial development. It
may be appropriate for a combination of designations.
· Confirmed by staffthe current designation is for hospitality and general business.
If a Holiday Inn wanted to come in, would there be a restriction on height? Rye
said 35 feet under the current zoning.
· The residents are concerned for the development, it is important to listen to the
resident who felt having a commercial designation might be worse.
· Does not support high density.
Stamson:
· Agree with Criego. The community does not always understand what the
Commissioners look at. It is important to note what a Comprehensive Plan Map
is. It is an overview long term plan for the City.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXMN072803.doc 16
Planning Commission Meeting
July 28, 2003
We picked this comer out with the traffic patterns and uses in the surrounding
area.
· This is the most appropriate use - nothing has changed in the last 5 years.
· Would not support the change.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on August 18, 2003.
6. Old Business: None
7. New Business: None
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
· There will be no Planning Commission meeting on August 11, 2003.
· The joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting with the DNR is scheduled
for August 18th.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Community
Development
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Conun\03pcMinutes~lN072803.doc 17