HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-MARCHM
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MARCH 19, 1987
The March 19, 1987 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting was called to order at
7 :32 P.M. by Vice Chairman Roseth. Present were Commissioners Arnold, Wells,
Kedrowski, City Planner Graser, and Assistant City Planner Garross.
Commissioner Loftus arrived at 7:50 P.M.
MOTION BY ARNOLD TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 5, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING AS PRESENTED, SECONDED BY WELLS.
Upon a vote taken, ayes by Arnold, Kedrwski, Roseth, Wells; the motion carried.
ITEM II - CONCEPTUAL PLAT HEARING FOR DOUG F'ARRELL - UMM SHORE OAKS
Gene Simpkins and Doug Farrell, property owners, c®nented that they are seeking
concept approval for a small subdivision consisting of 13 lots which is located
adjacent to Carriage Hill Road. The introduction of sewer and water to the area
has prompted the owners to submit development plane.
City Planner Graser discussed the Conceptual Plat for North Shore Oaks This plat
would come under the old Subdivision Ordinance and Conceptual Plat approval was
given by Eagle Creek Township prior to its annexation to Prior Lake. Mr. Graser
further commented on sewer utilities planned for the area, tree plantings, width
of Carriage Hill Road, and the proposed park land. The area designated for park
is low land and may not satisfy City park dedication requiremer'`s. The
developer should give thought to retaining the parcel as a natural wildlife
area. Staff recommends conceptual plat approval.
The Planning Commissioners commented on the topography being even with little
grading and filling to be done, the size of the lots, proposed price range and
possibility of creating lots to accommodate garages. The Commissioners were
concerned that many of the proposed lots are smaller in dimension than lots in
adjacent subdivisions. Adjacent homeowners may oppose the platting of lots
smaller than existing lots. It was the consensus of the Commission that the
developer should proceed with their plans.
At this time a 5 minute recess was called.
The meeting was called back to order at 8:13 P.M. by Chairman Loftus.
(612) 447.4230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. P.O. BOX 359 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 65372
KTNUTES OF THE PRIOR LAKE PLANNING NNLMISSION MARCH 19, 1987
ITEM III =-P 1DLIC _ JJEAR IW_ (J?Mr JNUATION FUR OOLCEPT SITE PLAN - YRIOId70GD P [
AMEMIDKD BY 7GM STYE FENS WAS CALLED TO M ER
Previous to the meeting at 5:30 P.M. a tour of the property for this hearing was
taken by Staff, Planning Commission, developer, and area residents. Greg
Halling, Engineer for Rehder Wenzel, and representative for the developer was
present to answer questions.
City Planner Graser reviewed past action of Priorwood P.U.D. with regard to the
history of the P.U.D. and original proposal to develop 106 multi family units in
a 17.4 acre parcel. The concerns of 5 years ago are similar to todays concerns.
They consist of natural limitations of the site, garage space, another need for
a plan with detail and good architectural design. Five years ago the Prior Lake
market favored apartments and condominiums while today's market is for single
family homes. Mr. Graser further commented on drainage and creek flowage, the
integration of the P.U.D. development with adjacent developed neighborhoods, tot
lot area, read design and collector system for safety, grading and filling
destruction, flood plain and orientation of units on the property.
At this time audience input was called for.
The area residents were opposed to the increased density proposed, destruction
of natural features, devaluation of their property, impact of development on
the environmentally sensitive area, transition area between single family hones
and condos or apartments with a buffer, increased heavy traffic in area if Cates
and Five Hawks are connected, erosion and water flow, and tot lot location a
concern for safety.
The Planning Commissioners had concerns over the increased density, how changes
from the first P.U.D. request to this amendment affect the density bonuses
given, density bonuses should be re- evaluated, tot lot location, destruction of
slopes and natural features, developers lack of concern for the environment,
amount of buildable area, trails /walkways, aesthetic design, roadway circulation
for safety, drainage and water flow, owner occupied or rental, engineering and
parks concerns. The Commissioners were concerned that the density the developer
is attempting to achieve is in direct conflict with the goals of P.U.D.
development as specified in Section 6.11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
MOTION BY WFLU TO DENY THE PRIONIC D P.U.D. APPLICATION AS PRESENTED BASED ON:
1. THE P.U.D. DOES HOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS F IRBLI SHED IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE.
2. UNITS TO NORTH IN THE P.U.D. ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE, A 15'
BUFFER IS NEEDED TO RETAIN NATURAL FEATURES AND TO PROVIDE SEPARATION
BETWEEN THE P.U.D. AND EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE PROPOSAL
SHOULD INCLUDE PLANS FOR A SIDUALK ALONG FIVE HAWKS AVENUE AND A
PRIVACY FENCE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND P.U.D.
3. LOCATION AND SIZE OF TOT LOOT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AS PER STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION.
4. SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE RECOMMENDED ALONG NORTH EDGE OF P.U.D. FOR
TRANSITION AREA AND OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS SHOULD BE ONODRFORATED AS WELL
AS RENTAL UNITS.
5. INSUFFICIENT PARKING SPACES FOR P.U.D.
•!tumor : ez 10 N
MINUTES OF THE PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COM•IISSION MARCH 19, 1987
ITEM ISI - PUBLIC HFAR COILrINUATION FOR CONCEPT SITE PLAN - PRIORWO®
AMENDMENT BY T()M STEFFENS WAS CALLED TO ORDER
Previous to the meeting at 5:30 P.M. a tour of the property for this hearing was
taken by Staff, Planning Commission, developer, and area residents. Greg
Halling, Engineer for Rehder Wenzel, and representative for the developer was
present to answer questions.
City Planner Graser reviewed past action of Priorwood P.U.D. with regard to the
history of the P.U.D. and original proposal to develop 106 multi family units in
a 17.4 acre parcel. The concerns of 5 years ago are similar to todays concerns.
They consist of natural limitations of the site, garage space, another need for
a plan with detail and goad architectural design. Five years ago the Prior Lake
market favored apartments and condominiums while today's market is for single
family hones. Mr. Graser further commented on drainage and creek flowage, the
integration of the P.U.D. development with adjacent developed neighborhoods, tot
lot area, road design and collector system for safety, grading and filling
destruction, flood plain and orientation of units on the property.
At this time audience input was called for.
The area residents were opposed to the increased density proposed, destruction
of natural features, de- valuation of their property, impact of development on
the environmentally sensitive area, transition area between single family homes
and condos or apartments with a buffer, increased heavy traffic in area if Cates
and Five Hawks are connected, erosion and water flaw, and tot lot location a
concern for safety.
The Planning Commissioners had concerns over the increased density, haw changes
from the first P.U.D. request to this amendment affect the density bonuses
given, density bonuses should be re- evaluated, tot lot location, destruction of
slopes and natural features, developers lack of concern for the environment,
amount of buildable area, trails /walkways, aesthetic design, roadway circulation
for safety, drainage and water flow, owner occupied or rental, engineering and
parks concerns. The Commissioners were concerned that the density the developer
is attempting to achieve is in direct conflict with the goals of P.U.D.
development as specified in Section 6.11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
MOTION BY WELL: TO DENY THE PRIORWOCD P.U.D. APPLICATION AS PRESENTED BASED ON:
1. THE P.U.D. DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE.
2. UNITS ID NORTH IN THE P.U.D. ARE TOO CLOSE 70 THE PROPERTY LINE, A 15'
BUFFER IS NEEDED TO RETAIN NATURAL FEATURES AND TO PROVIDE SEPARATION
BETWEEN THE P.U.D. AND EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 741E PROPOSAL
SHOULD INCLUDE PLANS FOR A SIDEWALK ALONG FIVE HAWKS AVENUE AND A
PRIVACY FENCE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND P.U.D.
3. LOCATION AND SIZE OF TOT LOT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AS PER STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION.
4. SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE REODMMMMM ALONG NORTH EDGE OF P.U.D. FOR
TRANSITION AREA AND OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS SHOULD BE INCORPORATED AS WELL
AS RENTAL UNITS.
5. INSUFFICIENT PARKING SPACES FOR P.U.D.
aim nw �w•m y
MINUTES OF THE PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1967
Upon a vote taken, ayes by Arnold, Kedrowski, Loftus, ROseth, Wells; the motion
carried.
MOTION BY AR40LD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR OONCEPT SITE PLAN - PRIOM30D
P.U.D. AMENDMENT BY TOM STEFFENS, SEODMED BY ROSEIH.
Upon a vote taken, ayes by Arnold, Kedrowski, Loftus, Roseth, Wells; the motion
carried.
*The tape of this hearing will be kept on file in the office of the C.'.ty Planner
as the official record of this Public Hearing.
At this time a 5 minute recess was called. The meeting resumed at 10:05 P.M.
ITEM IV - CON11NUED VARIANCE REQUEST RV GREG BIDE
Greg Eide commented that the request is for a 24 garage to the south side
of his house.
Assistant City Planner Garross commented per memo dated 3/5/87 with regard to
safety onto County Road 81. Also stating that a call from Brad Larson, Scott
County Highway Engineer was received. The County would be opposed to this
variance request due to the creation of another access point onto County Road
81. Staff was concerned that a safe intersection could not be achieved due to
existing topography on the site.
The Planning Commissioners commented on the topography of the lot with concern
over the steep slope and limited landing space at County Road 81. The
Commissioners were concerned that the intersection of the driveway and County
Road 81 would cause an unsafe situation for the homeowner and traffic on the
County Road.
MOTION BY ARN(LD TO DENY THIS RBXES ' FOR A 34 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE FR(M7 THE
SOUTHEAST PROPERTY LINE FOR 3013 FAIRVIEW ROAD SINCE THE SLOPE PRESENTS AN
UNSAFE M DITICN FOR ACCESS TO CDUNFY ROAD 81, SHOOMM BY ROBETH.
Upon a vote taken, ayes by Arnold, Kedrowski, Loftus, Roseth, Wells; the motion
carried.
ITEM V - 0XVINUM VARIAN10E RR7x7R_ST RV DON ALBER S
Don Alberts commented on the request for an 8' frontyard and 4 south side
yard variance to build a garage. Mr. Alberts presented two letters from
abutting property owners, Ardis Bergh north side property owner and Mr. 6 Mrs.
Michael Wagner south side property owners, riot opposed to the variance request.
Also Mr. Alberts presented pictures stowing lot lines and house which he bought
as such.
Assistant City Planner Garross commented per memo dated 3/19/87 with regard that
the lot exceeds minimum lot size requirements, the applicant purchased the home
with full knowledge of the garage and driveway situation, and lack of hardship
as specified in Section 7.6 of the City Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commissioners discussed the variance and understood the situation.
However there was concern over setting an irreversible precedent.
3
MINUTES OF 141E PRIOR LAKE PLANNING C0194MION MARCH 19, 1987
MOTION BY ROSETH TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR 4'11" SIDE YARD AND 8' FRONT YARD
VARIANCE FOR 19704 OOJE AVENUE S.E. SINCE IT DOES NOT CONFORM TD THE PRIOR LAKE
ZONING 01MINANCE SECTION 7.6 AND GRMITING WOULD SET AN IRREVERSIBLE PRECEDENT,
SECONDED BY ARNOLD.
Upon a vote taken, ayes by Arnold, Kedrowski, Roseth, Wells; nay by Loftus (He
felt there was a hardship not caused by the applicant.); the motion carried.
MOTION BY ROSEIH TO AA70URN THE MARCH 19, 1987 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING, SECONDED BY ARNOLD.
Upon a vote taken, ayes by Arnold, Kedrowski, Loftus, Roseth, Wells; the motion
carried. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M.
4