HomeMy WebLinkAbout11240316200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
2.
3.
4.
e
e
e
Do
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case #03-133 Consider an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map for
property located in Sections 4, 10, 11 and 12, Spring Lake Township.
Case #03-137 Kevin Berens is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor
storage on property located in the I-1 General Industrial Use District.
Case #03-125 R & K Sales, Inc. is requesting to rezone approximately 20 acres of
land fi:om A (Agriculture) to R4 (High Density Residential) on property located
north of County Road 42, west of Pike Lake Trail and south of Pike Lake.
Case #03-132 An amendment to Section 1101.400 of the Zoning Ordinance to add
language to the definition of a bluff.
Old Business:
New Business:
Case #03-53 & 53 212 Development is requesting a Final Plat and a Final PUD
Plan consisting of 10.62 acres to be subdivided into lots for 24 townhouses to be
known as Crystal Bay Townhomes.
Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm~03 pcAgeada~.G112403.DOC www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the November 24, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Perez, 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
Lemke Present
Perez Present
Ringstad Absent *
Stamson Present
* Commissioner Ringstad arrived at 6:32 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes fi.om the October 27, 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. Case #03-133 Consider an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map for
property located in Sections 4, 10, 11 and 12, Spring Lake Township.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 24,
2003, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
In October, 2003, the State of Minnesota approved an orderly annexation agreement
between the City of Prior Lake and Spring Lake Township. This agreement established a
schedule for annexation of approximately 3,000 total acres of land located in Sections 4,
10, 11 and 12, Spring Lake Township.
The first phase of this agreement was the annexation of a 0.23 acre parcel located at 2485
Spring Lake Road (Speiker property). This parcel was annexed immediately upon
approval of the agreement, due to the fact the parcel is serviced by City sewer and water.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VlN112403.doc
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 2003
The second phase of the agreement, scheduled for annexation in 2004, includes
approximately 380 acres of land described as follows:
· The property located on the south side of CSAH 21 and west of CSAH 87 in Section
12, Spring Lake Township (Bohnsack, Svoboda, and Prior Lake Blacktop property)
· The property located directly south of Deerfield Development and The Ponds Park in
Sections 11 and 12, Spring Lake Township (Radanke property);
· The property located directly west of the City limits and east of Crystal Lake in
Section 11, Spring Lake Township (Maple Acres, 17011-17127 Mushtown Road, and
17240-17300 Panama Avenue);
· The properties located south of 170th Street, south and east of TH 13, and north and
west of Crystal Lake and Rice Lake in Sections 10 and 11, Spring Lake Township;
· The properties located immediately west of Northwood Oaks Estates and Hawk
Ridge Road and east of Spring Lake Regional Park in Section 4, Spring Lake
Township;
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to include the newly annexed parcels on the
City 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and to provide a future land use
designation for these properties. The proposed amendment designates the existing
commercial property (Bohnsack, Svoboda, and Prior Lake Blacktop property) for
Hospitality General Business (C-HG) uses. The remaining areas are to be designated for
Low to Medium Density Residential (R-L/MD) uses.
The Planning staff recommended approval of the Amendment as proposed as it is
consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Comments from the public:
Dave Brown, 1227 Pioneer Lane, Shakopee, stated he owns 35 acres in Section 10 and
was also representing James Lally who owns 27 acres in Section 10. Commends the City
for the foresight and agreed with the residential zone; however they would like to see a
higher density on their property. The property is near Highway 13 and attached housing
is in the immediate area. Brown does not see where a single family home will be less
than $400,000 per unit under this proposal and felt a need for attached housing. The
Busacker property is in the same general area and is proposed for townhouses. Brown
said their property is far better suited for town_houses.
Ed Speiker, 2485 Spring Lake Road, said his property was the 4th item already being
annexed. Speiker said he was bewildered why this is the first he has heard of being in the
City of Prior Lake. He attended the annexation meeting last spring and his property was
excluded at that point and not part of the agreement. His sewer and water was paid for
through the City. Speiker does not see any benefit or reason to be annexed into the City.
He questioned if the property was going to be designated something different. Kansier
said the State annexed the property into the City limits in October. The restrictions will
not be much different than they are now. Speiker said he was disappointed that this is the
first he heard of it, at a public hearing.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN112403.doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 2003
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
· The staff is correct with the consistency of the current uses with what was part of
the township. This has been discussed in the past.
· The lower densities will have a minimal impact on the water levels of the area
lakes.
· Support staffs recommendation 100%.
Atwood:
· Asked staff to address Mr. Brown's concern with the higher density in his area.
· Kansier responded the City Council just acted on annexing the Busacker property
in at their last meeting. The proposed designation of Low Density does not
preclude townhomes. It is really a function of density. It basically limits density
to 3.6 units per acre - maximum. As an example - Crystal Bay Townhomes is
zoned R1 and they are townhomes. What it wouldn't allow would be density
above 3.6 units per acre. It would not allow multifamily apartment-style with
more than 4 units.
Stamson:
· Questioned if this Comprehensive Plan designation would allow zoning of R1 or
R2. Kansier responded the staff has to look very closely at the study done by the
Watershed District which will limit the density. If we are not going to limit it by
zoning the City will need to adopt very specific storm water management
requirements to keep water from running into the lakes. This is the first step in
that process.
Atwood: · All in favor of staffs conclusions and agreed with the Watershed District to keep
the management of the lake levels at the forefront.
· Support the amendment.
Lemke:
· Agreed with staffs assessment. The applicant may have a good point about the
property being along Highway 13 being a major thoroughfare, but staff pointed
out this designation does not preclude the building oftownhomes. It just limits
density.
· That is also based on the information from the Watershed District concerning the
level of the lake.
· Support the staffs recommendation.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutcshMN112403.doc
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 2003
Stamson:
Concur with staff- they did a good job. The uses are appropriate for the
residential and commercial/industrial districts.
· As far as density - It is important to know this is Low to Medium density. The
alternative is high density. This density proposed will allow townhomes. It is
essentially the same designation as the Bohnsaek property. This addresses the
speaker's (Brown) concern.
· Support.
Perez:
The letter from the Watershed District addresses the lake level and the
designations.
· They also mention their desire to acquire land for open space and water storage.
Have there been any discussions on that?
· Kansier responded she had not been involved in any discussions. The City does
not own the land and the Watershed District will have to work with the property
owners. However, the City has an ongoing relationship with the District and
work very closely with them. The City would support their endeavors and be of
whatever assistance in that manner.
· The other thought is what Mr. Brown brought up as far as the designation. The
density was explained and gives the options. His issue was affordability with the
limitations.
· Does not see any other issues.
Stamson:
· Asked Mr. Brown if he understood the proposal. Brown said he is more
comfortable. He didn't understand the difference between R1 to R2 and density.
Stamson explained the Comprehensive Plan and zoning processes. There are
specific concerns with the Watershed and DNR. The Bohnsack property is under
the same density.
· A large number of the townhouse projects in the City are under the 3.6 units per
acre.
· Brown said he had more of a 5 to 6 unit plan in mind which would make the price
unit around $200,000 rather than the $400,000.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE AMENDMENT TO ADD APPROXIMATELY 380 ACRES TO THE 2020
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN TO DESIGNATE THS AREA FOR R-L/MD
USES AND C-HG USES.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before City Council on December 15, 2003.
B. Case #03-137 Kevin Berens is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for
outdoor storage on property located in the I-1 General Industrial Use District.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~lN112403.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 2003
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated November 24, 2003, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Kevin Berens is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the outdoor storage of
school buses on property located at 16731 Welcome Avenue. The property is zoned I-1
(General Business) and is guided I-PI (Planned Industrial) on the 2020 Comprehensive
Land Use Plan Map. Outdoor storage is a Conditional Use in the I-1 use district. The
applicant is currently storing buses on the site without the benefit of screening or
landscaping, out of compliance with the administratively approved site plan.
On August 20, 2002, staff administratively approved a site plan for the outdoor storage of
buses on the subject property with conditions. Since the property is located within a
landlocked watershed basin (Markley Lake), Berens Bus Company entered into an
Agreement for Monitoring and Maintenance Plan with the City. The City Council
approved the execution of this agreement on August 5, 2002.
The site plan was approved on the condition the outdoor storage be screened with a solid
fence 6 feet in height. Instead, the applicant proposes to screen the buses by means of a
10 foot tall chain link fence with a "windscreen." The proposed windscreen is
inconsistent with the approved plan.
On November 3, 2003, the City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance to require a
Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage in the I-1 use district with conditions.
The staff recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County no later
than 60 days after City Council approval.
2. Improvements shall be constructed pursuant to the plans administratively
approved on August 20, 2002, with the conditions set forth in this report.
3. A solid wood fence shall be installed along Welcome Avenue.
4. A building permit shall be issued prior to the installation of the fence.
5. The two-car parking stalls located adjacent to the east property line shall be
eliminated from the site plan.
6. Inoperative vehicles or equipment or other items typically stored in ajunkyard or
salvage yard shall not be stored on site.
7. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1503 (8) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be
met.
Stamson questioned the parking ordinance since buses are not specifically mentioned
under the general rules. Normally the City requires 2 stalls which are adequate. In this
case, the applicant has provided as many stalls as buses. Do we use the general parking
ordinance? Or if the applicant came in and said he was only going to put in 2 stalls,
would it have been approved? Kirchoff explained the staff would look at how many
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes'uMN 112403 .doc
5
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 2003
buses he would be parking on the property and then try to have the applicant
accommodate that many stalls for the bus parking. Stamson agreed.
Lemke questioned Condition 5 - regarding the 2 car parking stall located adjacent to the
east property line shall be eliminated from the site plan. Kirchoff explained the two
parking stalls on the plan do not meet the minimum ordinance requirements. The depth is
not adequate.
Comments from the public:
Applicants Kevin and Geri Berens stated they reviewed the conditions proposed by staff
and are okay with everything except condition #3 regarding the solid wood fence. One of
the problems they ran into with the different fence companies who came out to view the
site and give ideas felt a wood gate is too heavy and would not maintain proper closure
after a few years. The fencing companies said they would not guarantee the wood
holding up after a number of years. The wood gate and slope of the driveway were a
concern with all three companies. Welcome Avenue is also a private driveway and their
property is the second to the end and little or no traffic. Geri Berens said they are not
trying to disagree but felt staff's condition would not work well in this situation.
Stamson questioned if the applicant meant just the gate as opposed to the mounted part of
the fence. Berens said it was - and the slope of the driveway was also an issue. All three
companies came to the same conclusion. There are also holding ponds on each side of
the driveway.
Atwood questioned the driveway width. Berens said it should be about 35 feet.
Berens said the concern is the wooden gate. It is too heavy and the companies will not
guarantee it will last.
Atwood questioned the driveway grade. Kevin Berens said he did not know.
Ringstad questioned the cost difference between the wood and chain fence. Kevin
Berens said the wood product would be about half the price of a chain link and screening.
He said they would like to be consistent with the mesh screen 96% blockage instead of
the 6 foot high wood fence to hide a 10 foot bus.
Atwood questioned if staff intended it to be a 10 foot wood fence. Kansier said the site
plan was approved prior to the ordinance. The ordinance called for a 6' solid fence.
Staff's recommendation is to make the applicant go with a 10 foot wood fence. Six feet
would be adequate.
Perez questioned the property to the north. Kevin Berens said it was occupied by
Mickelson Construction. Berens also explained the upkeep with the wood fence. There
would be fewer problems with a chain link fence.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~lN112403.doc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 2003
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Would like to talk about the driveway and the weight of the wood. Does staff
have other options? Kansier said they would not have any objections to
something other than the wood gate. Staff felt the wood along the front of the
road, excluding the gate would be acceptable. At some point in the future,
especially as this area has services available there will be more intensive uses
other than what is there now. Staffalso felt the applicant's proposed screening in
the sides and rear are adequate as it is not visible from the public road. Staff
thought the landscaping and the 6 foot wood fence along the front was a better
screen.
· Agreed - Cannot find a compelling argument to put up the chain link on all four
sides. The front of the property should be wood - it would look nicer and have
better curb appeal. Recognize the wood gate would be difficult at that size
although I would support staff's findings with the condition of the gate.
Lemke:
· Is the wood recommended because it has 100% screening? Kansier said the wood
fence is 100% opaque. It is a better visual barrier for the buses.
· Originally felt a wood fence along the front made sense, but after listening to the
applicant I'm not sure what the problem is if three sides were chain link and they
have a 35 foot chain gate. Not convinced putting two wood panels along side of
either side are any better. It is not going to hide the buses.
· The chain link screening all the way around is appropriate for this property.
Ringstad:
· Respectfully disagree with Lemke. Like the compromise approach discussed
where the gate can remain a chain link.
· Understands where a wood gate could cause problems in the future - that is why I
would support a compromise with the chain link gate and wood along the front.
Stamson:
· The aesthetics going forward is something to consider. Right now there are
plenty of chain link fences in that neighborhood. It is not inappropriate at this
time but with future development I would think at least along the street have
something a little better.
· That is the standard elsewhere in commercial districts.
· The maintenance is not an issue. Both wood and chain are not maintenance-free.
There are pretty ratty old chain link fences.
· The one thing that leans me to allowing the chain link fence - it is better to have a
10 foot chain fence for screening and would consider that option but it would
require more landscaping along the property with additional trees and bushes.
Although not opposed to requiring a wood fence either.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~lN112403.doe
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 2003
It makes sense to have a chain gate or some other kind of material. It is more
functional.
It needs to be somewhat nicer than the current chain link fence. Either a chain
link with increased landscaping or the wood fence in the stationary positions.
Perez:
Agreed with Lemke - If it were anywhere else I could see the wood fence. When
we start talking aesthetics and getting into the hodgepodge with the wood fence
and gate with chain link it would look better with a chain fence all the way
around.
Agreed with Starnson on the landscaping. It would be a good compromise.
Fine with chain link all the way around.
Open discussion:
Atwood said the frontage is 200 feet. It is a long piece of property.
Ringstad said there is a substantial mount of frontage with a 35 foot fi:ont gate so there is
still 165 feet - debating if it should be wood or chain. It will have an aesthetic appeal for
people using it now and people using it in the future.
Lemke pointed out the plan submitted has significant landscaping.
Kirchoffbriefly explained the landscaping.
Atwood felt the aesthetics were important - appreciates the maintenance, but it needs a
little more curb appeal.
Lemke pointed out if the cost was more it would be an issue. The applicant is not saying
they can't put up a wood fence because it costs more than the chain link fence. It is
practically a dead-end road, they are storing school buses. It is awfully difficult to get a
10 foot wood fence. They would have to be built like the fences on the interstate. Not
saying it doesn't look better, but in this particular incident a chain link 96% opaque fence
is an appropriate use.
Atwood pointed out the distance between the fencing and the first parking stalls. Atwood
said she would be willing to change if there were more of a buffer area to screen with
landscaping.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE WITH STAFF'S
CONDITIONS AMENDING CONDITON #3 REGARDING A SOLID WOOD FENCE
EXCEPT FOR THE GATE ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Atwood, Ringstad and Stamson. Nays by Lemke and Perez.
MOTION CARRIED.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Corran\03pcMinutes~lN112403.doc
8
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 2003
This item will go before the City Council on December 15, 2003.
C. Case #03-125 R & K Sales, Inc. is requesting to rezone approximately 20
acres of land from A (Agriculture) to R4 (High Density Residential) on property
located north of County Road 42, west of Pike Lake Trail and south of Pike Lake.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated November 24, 2003, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
R & K Sales, Inc. is requesting to rezone approximately 19 acres on property located
north of CSAH 42, west of Pike Lake Trail, and south of Pike Lake. The 2020
Comprehensive Plan guides the property R-HD (Urban High Density Residential). The
applicant is requesting the zoning map amendment to facilitate the development of the
site for townhomes.
This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural), which is inconsistent with the
comprehensive land use plan designation. The 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
designates the property for R-HD uses. Corresponding zoning is R-4 (High Density
Residential). Within this designation, density is permitted to be a maximum of 30 units
per acre.
The applicant is proposing to develop the property for townhomes. Thus, the property
must be rezoned fi:om its current classification, A, to R-4. The R-4 zoning classification
is consistent with the R-HD land use designation on the 2020 Comprehensive Land Use
Plan Map. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommended approval.
Lemke questioned the letter fi:om Scott County referencing the drainage to the pond.
Kansier said the County is referencing the City's easements for utilities which include
storm water.
Comments from the public:
Applicant, Randy Simpson, R & K Sales, 2940 179th Street, said at this time they have no
direct development plan, they are just asking for rezoning. The R4 density would allow
apartments and PUD's.
Stamson asked if they owned the single family house included in the application.
Simpson replied it was not, there is a roadway easement to the house.
Julie Garwood, 13900 Pike Lake Trail, stated she was concerned with the easement to her
property and the runoff. Stamson said when the time for the actual development occurs;
the staff and Commissioners look at runoff very carefully. Kansier said with any
development staff insures access to a home. The details would come out with the
development.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXMN 112403.doc
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 2003
Stamson said if it is a private easement they would have to negotiate with the land
developer. But in no circumstances would access be cut off to her home.
Garwood said her concern is the land elevation is higher than her property and she is
concerned for the runoff. Stamson said that would be addressed at the development
stage.
Dave Baden 13866 Pike Lake Trail said he lived across fi:om the property for 31 years
and felt the R4 Comprehensive Plan is out of sync with the rest of the neighborhood.
There are affordable single family homes. The type of homes nurses and teachers can
afford to live in. Prior Lake has a big shortage of these homes. We need single family
homes where people can have a garden, apple trees and a birdfeeder. The
Comprehensive Plan did not look at the neighborhood. Look at the townhouses behind
the Holiday Station. Do anything but do not reclassify this R4.
Mona Hanson, 4250 140th Street, moved to this area in Prior Lake in the late 80's because
it was zoned Agricultural. She does not care to see townhomes in this area. It should
remain quiet and beautiful. Concerned for the implications on the watershed for this area.
It is extremely fi'agile. What studies will be done to insure damage will not be done?
This is a very special wildlife environment. It would be very proactive for the Council
and community to preserve this area in Prior Lake. Hanson was also concerned for the
noise level and traffic impact on County Road 42. It is not realistic to keep the property
as is but not the designation proposed. She would rather see a compromise. Hanson
would like to know who is doing the impact study for the Watershed.
Ed Vierling, 14310 Pike Lake Trail, said the north side of County Road 42 is not ready
for this. The big concern is the runoff into the holding pond.
Applicant Randy Simpson stated the concerns of the residents have been noted. This
plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the water runoff is a large issue. It
would be great to see this as a park or remain as is. Simpson said he would offer this to
the City for purchase as an option. Or as another option offer it to the Watershed for
runoff. At this time the request is for a zone change. There is no development time line.
He was aware of the oppositions fi:om the neighbors and the concerns of the Watershed.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad: · The comments fi:om the neighbors have not gone unnoticed.
· In respect to the runoff- those issues will be address at the time of the
development.
· The traffic increase is being reviewed by Scott County.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VlN112403.doc
10
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 2003
· There was a Comprehensive Plan study complete and not done frivolously. Not
everyone is going to agree with the outcome. The 2020 Plan designated this area
for high density.
· Unless I hear compelling arguments I will support the change.
Atwood:
· Regarding access and Pike Lake Trail - The developer will be required to upgrade
Pike Lake Trail for access or submit an escrow to the City for future
improvements. This will be addressed at the time of the subdivision.
· The subject property and surrounding property is already designated for high
density in the Comprehensive Plan.
· Will support zoning change at this time. When the Comprehensive Plan was
reviewed, this property was designated for high density.
· Kansier said the Comprehensive Plan outlines the easement purchased by the
City. It is a permanent easement. The area was not zoned R4 when the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted primarily because services were not available.
Services are now available offCounty Road 42 to be extended to serve properties
to the north.
· This neighborhood can have input at the public hearings at the development stage.
The Commissioners and Watershed District take water nmoff seriously.
· Support in favor of the change.
Lemke:
· Agreed with fellow Commissioners. When the Comprehensive Plan was initially
put together this area was designated for high density residential for future use
based upon its proximity to County Road 42.
Would like to see single family housing in Prior Lake; however the price for a
new single family home is almost $400,000.
· Dakota County went a little different direction and passed a bond to raise 20
Million Dollars and went out and bought open parcels to preserve as public open
space.
· As to this application will support staffwith the high density.
Stamson:
Agreed with Commissioners. The City as a whole needs a mix of different uses.
The State laid out the process of doing a 2020 Comprehensive Plan with the idea
to look out 20 or 30 years and decide what uses are appropriate. This was
carefully reviewed and discussed. The issue is access because of its location
proximity and traffic patterns.
The Comprehensive Plan did a good job designating areas within the City of what
their long term use is going to be. It is appropriate and the R4 designation is
consistent.
Glad Commissioner Lemke brought up the Dakota County bond. It was a good
approach. Prior Lake and Scott County have substantially large parks.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXMN112403.doc
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 2003
In this particular case, it is in the long term best designation for this piece of
property.
Support.
Perez:
Agreed with Commissioners on the designation. It is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The comments from the neighbors are concerns with the Commissioners. We will
keep them in mind with the development.
Agreed with the designation. Move forward.
Open Discussion:
Atwood pointed out only 6 acres out of 19 will be developed. There will be a feeling of
green space - more so than other developments.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
SCAH 42 AND PIKE LAKE TRAIL FROM A (AGRICULTURAL) TO R-4 (HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL).
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on December 15, 2003.
D. Case//03-132 An amendment to Section 1101.400 of the Zoning Ordinance to
add language to the definition of a bluff.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated November 24, 2003, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
At their October 27, 2003, meeting the Planning Commission initiated an amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance text to expand the definition of bluff to include language from
Minnesota Rules 6210.2500.
The regulation of steep slopes or bluffs is regulated by the Shoreland Ordinance, which is
a component of the Zoning Ordinance. The Shoreland Ordinance is based upon the
Minnesota Rules promulgated by the Department of Natural Resources. The current
bluff definition is taken directly from the Rules.
In January 1998, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to exclude the language "an area
with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not
be considered part of the bluff." The impetus of the 1998 amendment was an appeal of
the Zoning Administrator's determination of the top of the bluff on property located at
16091 Northwood Road. The language that excluded what is essentially a "plateau"
between steep slopes was thought to create too much confusion for the property owner.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN112403.doc
12
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 2003
Within the last year the top of bluff determination issue has resurfaced, and staff believes
the repealed language should be incorporated into the definition.
The proposed amendment will exclude flat areas in bluffs that are 50 feet in length or
greater and maintain an average slope of less than 1 § percent. The language is consistent
with Minnesota Rules 6120.2500, therefore staff recommended approval.
There were no comments fi.om the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Support the change. We all looked at it along with Commissioner Criego. This
will clear up some things.
· Mildly disappointed the illustration was not updated. Sometime in the near furore
I will take that as a task and submit it to the City staff.
Ringstad, Atwood, Perez, Stamson:
· All agreed and supported.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on December 15, 2003.
6. Old Business: None
7. New Business:
A. Case #03-53 & 53 212 Development is requesting a Final Plat and a Final
PUD Plan consisting of 10.62 acres to be subdivided into lots for 24 townhouses to
be known as Crystal Bay Townhomes.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 24,
2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
212 Development, LLC, has applied for approval of a Planned Unit Development Final
Plat for the property located south of CSAH 82, directly east of Fremont Avenue and
approximately ½ mile west of CSAH 21. The proposal calls for a townhouse
development consisting of 24 dwelling units on 10.62 acres. The development also
proposes private open space and 21 boat slips for the use of the residents.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinutesXMN 112403.doc 13
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 2003
On September 15, 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution #03-156 approving a
Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan for this site, as well as a preliminary plat.
The resolution listed 11 conditions with approval. (See Resolution.)
The staff recommended approval of the Final PUD with the following findings:
The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved preliminary plan.
The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the criteria for a PUD listed in Section
1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. This plan is also consistent with
the City Council findings listed in City Council Resolution #03-156.
The staff also recommended approval of the Final PUD Plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council.
2. A signed PUD agreement must be approved by the City Council.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson questioned if the permeable paver language met the requirements. Kansier said
it did. Revisions were made and staffwas satisfied.
Lemke commented a Letter of Credit is sometimes required. Is there any recourse by the
City if the pavers were not maintained? Kansier said initially there will be a $10,000
Letter of Credit from the developer specifically for the permeable pavers. Eventually the
homeowners association will take over the maintenance, will be required to maintain the
Letter of Credit. The City will oversee the procedure.
Ringstad asked if the Letter of Credit is out indefinitely. Kansier said it is renewed
automatically. The engineer's estimate is $10,000.
Atwood questioned what change occurred with the 23r~ and 24th units? Kansier
responded the setbacks are 15 feet from the fight-of-way of Fremont Avenue. It was a
modification approved by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Stamson questioned the trees and grading issue brought up by a neighbor. Kansier said
the grading was done in accordance with the Tree Preservation plan. Staff pointed out
the trees to be removed at a meeting. The neighbor was at the meeting and must have
misunderstood. The trees were clearly marked on the plan.
Stamson: · This plan is largely the same as approved before.
· Support and move on to the City Council.
Ringstad:
· Agreed - Reviewed this a few times and discussed it thoroughly with conditions.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes~MN112403.doe
14
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 2003
Atwood:
· Agreed
Lemke: · Agree - this is what we talked about. I'm sure the residents were shocked with all
the trees gone, but it will be a beautiful development when completed.
· Support.
Perez:
· Agreed.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE FINAL PUD PLAN SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on December 1, 2003.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The Commissioners welcomed new Commissioner Paul Perez.
Kansier announced there will be a joint City Council - Planning Commissioner workshop
on December 15th. Details will follow.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN112403.doc
15
ill: 1I