Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030804 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Consent Agenda: 5. Public Hearings: A. Case #04-25 IVEX, LLC is requesting to rezone the property located at 4616 Colorado Street SE from R-2 to C-3. B. Case #03-98 & 03-91 Shamrock Development is requesting a preliminary plat consisting of25.37 acres and an amendment to The Wilds PUD to replace the approved rental cabins with 23 detached single family homes on envelope lots. C. Case #04-21 An amendment to Section 1107.2200 of the Zoning Ordinance to add materials to architectural materials standards. 6. Old Business: A. Case #04-11 Wensmann Realty is requesting an application to vacate the right-of- way for Wilds Drive located adjacent to Wensmann 4th Addition. B. Case #03-20 Discussion on temporary boat and storage covers. 7. New Business: A. 2003 Code Enforcement Report 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Agenda\AG030804.DOC www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the March 8, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Those present were Commissioners 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 Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Absent Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the February 23, 2004, 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 #04-25 IVEX, LLC is requesting to rezone the property located at 4616 Colorado Street SE from R-2 to C-3. City Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated March 8, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. IVEX, LLC is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to change the use district from R-2 (Low-Medium Density Residential) to C-3 (Specialty Retail) on property located at 4616 Colorado Street SE. The property is designated C- TC on the 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. On February 2, 2004, the City Council approved a resolution amending the 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map to designate the subject property C-TC (Town Center Commercial). The Metropolitan Council deemed the amendment consistent with the regional plan on February 18, 2004. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804f1xed.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 A single family dwelling, constructed in 1920, occupies the site. The property is currently zoned R-2 (Low-Medium Density Residential). A single family dwelling is a permitted use in the R-2 use district. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing dwelling and construct an office building on the site. In order to permit the commercial use, the zoning map must be amended to be consistent with the C- TC land use designation on the 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. Based upon the findings, staff recommended approval. Comments from the Public: Steve Sammis, of IVEX, LLC, stated IVEX was a locally owned company specializing in real estate and mortgage services. They are looking forward to moving to the downtown area and building a multi-purpose office building at 4616 Colorado Street. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . The current zoning designation is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Use Plan. The proposed zoning change is correct. . Fully support the zone change. Lemke: . Agreed with Ringstad - The actual zoning must be brought in line with the Comprehensive Plan. . Support change. Perez: . Support the amendment. The use is consistent with the adjacent properties and Comp Plan. Stamson: . Looked at this before. This is one of the steps in the process. We talked about expanding the downtown and this makes sense. . Support. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE R-2 TO C-3. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on AprilS, 2004. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804frxed.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 B. Case #03-98 & 03-91 Shamrock Development is requesting a preliminary plat consisting of 25.37 acres and an amendment to The Wilds PUD to replace the approved rental cabins with 23 detached single family homes on envelope lots. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 8, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Shamrock Development has applied for approval of a development to be known as Sterling South 2nd Addition on the property located immediately west of Sterling South at The Wilds, east of CSAH 83 and north of Oakes Lane. The application includes the following requests: . Approve an amendment to The Wilds Planned Unit Development Plan; . Approve a Preliminary Plat. The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of22 dwelling units on 25.37 gross acres. The development also includes private streets and private open space. The following are the issues pertaining to this proposal: Some residents have expressed concern about the road connection to Oakes Lane, because they feel this may encourage through traffic on Wilds Lane from Wilds Parkway. In the staff s opinion, this connection should be made for safety reasons. Without the connection, the entire Sterling South development includes a half-mile of dead-end road and more than 100 units with only one way in and out. While there is some risk of through traffic, the staff feels this is minimal due to the winding street. The Planning Commission must make a recommendation on the need for the street connection to the City Council. There is also some question about the ownership of Lot 89, the existing common area for Sterling South. There are 3 units (1, 2, and 22) located within this area. The developer has indicated to staff that he is working with the homeowners association to allow the construction of these units. If that permission is not forthcoming, the 3 units must be eliminated. The wetland mitigation plan must be approved prior to any grading on the site. If the mitigation plan is not approved as proposed, the units located closer than 30' to the 100- year flood elevation of the wetland must be adjusted to meet the required setback. There are a number of engineering issues, as noted in the attached memorandum from the Assistant City Engineer. Most of these issues can be addressed prior to final plat; however, no additional grading will be permitted until all of the grading and hydrologic issues have been completely addressed. The above issues will affect the final design of this development. However, the staff believes these issues can be addressed prior to final plan approval. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804frxed.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 Amendment to The Wilds PUD Plan: The amendment to the PUD plan removes 11 acres of commercial development (rental cabins) from the overall PUD plan. The proposal increases the total number of dwelling units in the PUD plan from 656 to 678, and increases the overall density from 1.14 dwelling units per acre to 1.19 dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendment is consistent with the overall development of The Wilds PUD. Preliminary Plat: The attached memorandwn from the City Engineering Department lists the necessary revisions required to the preliminary plat. Most of these issues can be addressed at the final plat stage. However, no additional grading will be allowed until the wetland mitigation plan has been approved and all of the grading and hydrologic issues have been addressed. The proposed PUD amendment and preliminary plat are generally consistent with the provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The staff therefore recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The wetland mitigation plan must be approved prior to any grading on the site. If the mitigation plan is not approved as proposed, the units located closer than 30' to the 100-year flood elevation of the wetland must be adjusted to meet the required setback. 2. The developer must obtain permission for the construction of the 3 units on Lot 89. If that permission is not forthcoming, the 3 units must be eliminated. 3. The developer must provide an access easement to Sterling South at the Wilds for the use of the segment of Wilds Lane located between Wilds Parkway and Sterling South at the Wilds prior to final plat approval. 4. The private streets must be platted as outlots. 5. Provide elevations and sample floor plans for the proposed building types in Sterling South 2nd Addition. 6. No grading will be permitted until the following Engineering issues have been addressed: Wetlands: a. The City requires upland buffer area to be a minimwn width of 20 feet and average width of 30 feet around the perimeter of all wetlands. The buffer areas illustrated on the plans do not appear to meet the average buffer size required by the City. The City requires preservation of areas where natural vegetation exists in buffer strip areas. Grading in the buffer area should be avoided where natural vegetation can be preserved. Many areas show 15' of buffer. Because of the ')agged" line of the proposed wetland buffer, additional signage will be necessary. b. We recommend excavating both mitigation areas down an additional two feet to ensure positive hydrology. This does not appear to have been done for the northern mitigation area. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804flXed.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 Hydrologic/Hydraulic, Water Quality, and Grading Comments: a. The low exposed opening elevations for structures adj acent to pond 3 may need to be raised depending on the EOF elevation of the pond. There should be a minimum of 2 ft of freeboard between the low exposed opening and the EOF of the pond. The EOF near Street A is above the low floor elevation for lot 7 block 1. b. A skimmer structure should be used at the outlet of pond 2. In addition to providing skimming, this structure should decrease the discharge rate for the 2 year event so that the 2 year rate leaving the site matches the existing rate. c. Grading is shown beyond the property lines near lot 18. Show the existing easement on the plans. d. Define the access route more clearly for the pond. 7. Address the following Engineering issues in the final plans: Watermain: a. Show 8" watermain for the project instead of 12" watermain. Label existing watermain size. Streets: a. Provide more detail for the street connection at Oaks Lane. Questions from the Commissioners: Stamson: Currently we prohibit cul-de-sacs longer than 500 feet and I am assuming Wilds Lane is longer than 500 feet. Does this predate the rule or was that a modification of the PUD? Kansier said she thought it was approved as part of the PUD in 1993. Lemke: questioned the cul-de-sac - Kansier responded there are only three driveways. It is a short length of street and would not require a cul-de-sac. Comments from the public: Applicant Jim Stanton of Shamrock Development said staff gave a thorough report. He has talked to numerous homeowners who have a concern with the street going straight through. As far as he is concerned he can put in a cul-de-sac. Basically, it is a right-out only because of the design. The other concerns by staff in the report will be addressed. He also stated he would buy the land from the homeowners' association if they wish. If they don't want to sell, he will plat without the last three lots. Ringstad questioned if there would ever be a right-in access. Stanton responded it would not as there is a center median and explained the route. Kathy Holter, 2707 Wilds Lane, and is concerned Wilds Lane will become a through- street. There are a significant number of cars coming through trying to get to Mystic. When the two golf courses are available it will be a thoroughfare. She suggested Wilds L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804flXed.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 Lane becoming a public street taken over by the City. Holter stated they pay taxes like everyone but do not enjoy the benefits of living on a city street. Another solution may be to cul-de-sac the new road and leave Wilds Lane a cul-de-sac. When this first became an issue, many residents signed a petition saying they did not want a through-street. It is a common fear. The concern is the narrow street. Daniel Boris, 2712 Wilds Lane, sees two forces trying to preserve their interests (developer and residents). It's easy to take one side or the other. There is a solution for both. Boris is in favor of having a cul-de-sac off Oakes Lane. That would ensure the residents on Wilds Lane they would not have a through-street. It is common to see cars coming down Wilds Lane thinking they can get through. He feels the best solution is to cul-de-sac the new development. Development is fine if it is consistent with the development in the area. Linda Williamson, 2849 Wilds Lane, said from the information she received from her realtor was that it was a cul-de-sac which was valuable to her because she has a mentally disabled daughter who does not pay attention to traffic. She has very big concerns with this street becoming a through-street. There has been substantial.snowfall this year and no place to put the snow as well as no place to park or drive making it very difficult. Williamson felt there was more value in a home on a cul-de-sac than a through-street. Jeff Holter, 2707 Wilds Lane, presented the Sterling South Townhome plat and told by the realtor there would be no further development. He went to the City and found a similar plat and was told nothing was planned. Had he known there was going to be a through-street he would have never bought this property. Holter said he lived at the end of the cul-de-sac and having a right-in will slow traffic down but people will still drive down their street. Holter questioned who was going to police the street. It is his understanding the applicant has to have access to Outlot 0; however, Holter would like to see a cul-de-sac off Oakes Lane. He would also like to see the City maintain the road like the rest of Wilds Parkway. Their road is privately funded and the traffic is minimal. Holter asked the Commissioners to take this into consideration. Jim Beaudette, 14985 Summit Circle said he shares the concern of the residents on Wilds Lane. The street is not wide enough to accommodate the additional traffic. There are lots of nice big vehicles at the golf course, and not something you drive 10 mph. Residents are aware there are children and pets. It's not an area people should be zipping through. He loves to golf and agreed with those who feel there will be additional traffic trying to get from The Wilds to the Casino golf course. Beaudette questioned how the medical equipment will access the area it's a right-out only. Beaudette felt the private streets are not built like public streets and stated with the maintenance, upkeep and repairs, it is logical, ethical and moral the street become a public street. The taxes are substantial and the benefits are minimal. He felt if the street was going to be used by the public the City should take ownership of Wilds Lane. Whether assumptions were made several years ago, there were no indications it would be a through-street. It was presented as being a cul-de-sac which is a consideration in L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804flXed.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 buying property. Beaudette felt there will be a lot of traffic and not minimal like some people think it is. Jim Stanton agreed the sales sheets did show a cul-de-sac but never paved. It was specifically paved straight as part of the street. The cul-de-sac was never completed. They paved the last house in the cul-de-sac for a driveway. He said he did not care if there is a cul-de-sac from Oakes Street. It will separate The Wilds development. As far as the emergency vehicles - assume they will come up the wrong side of the road. He also pointed out that one can sustain anything mathematically until it happens. Stanton pointed out everyone who drives down to the end have to drive back. If you don't have a cul-de-sac they will drive right out. Twice as many people will have to drive up and back with a cul-de-sac. Stanton said he would answer any other questions and wanted to work things out with the neighbors. Ringstad asked Stanton to indicate on the map where he would be willing to put in the cul-de-sac. Stanton pointed out the area and said it would not be a problem to change. Lemke asked Stanton if there would be a way to construct an emergency entrance. Stanton explained a few options. He was willing to adjust and make it work. John Bachelor, 2711 Wilds Lane, felt if there was proper signage at the entrance of the street showing limited access and a private neighborhood, it would limit the traffic. Bruce Holmes, 14983 Summit Circle, said his concern is the 24 foot street width with no sidewalks. Most of the residents have dogs and if someone outside the community is driving too fast it is a safety hazard. The golfers coming out of the driving range is one thing but there are also large banquets and if the drivers had alcoholic drinks the drivers will be driving faster and reckless through the neighborhood. There was a brief discussion on sidewalks. Bob Rose, 2690 Wilds Lane, said the road arguments are complete however, because this is a private road there would be a significant expense to maintain it. His other concern was for heavy construction equipment going up and down the road. Rose said he would like to see the proposed housing plans. Stanton said he had no problem furnishing the house plans and they will look exactly the same on the outside. He also said the heavy equipment would come in from Oakes Lane and put the center lane in last. It could be a condition by staff that all the heavier equipment would not come down their road. He also pointed out the private street is built to the same standards (other than width) as all the other streets in the City. Stamson asked if the new development will be part of the existing homeowners association. Stanton said the current homeowners/association will take a vote to decide. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804frxed.doc 7 PliInnin, Commission Meetin, March 8, 2004 Stamson asked if Stanton has to negotiate with the current homeowners on access to the street as it is a private road. Stanton said it is in the original documents. Ironically, they are technically landlocked as they vacated the public road which goes back to the surrounding land owners (the golf course). He said staff can make it a condition of the plat to deed it over. Technically, the residents do not have a way in. Ringstad asked what the selling price would be. Stanton responded he did not build the original homes however, the neighbors said it would be around $400,000. Richard Bryce, 2792 Wilds Lane, said they were under the impression it was going to remain a private road with a cul-de-sac. It is a small road and this winter they realized how difficult it is with the private street. There are no sidewalks and a lot of people walk on the street. Linda Williamson commented all of this started before the above homeowners moved in and felt information should have been supplied to him. In moving forward, Williamson requested information on the street be disclosed or take legal action that the homeowners were not aware this was a consideration at the time they bought the home. Bernie Chauss, 14993 Summit Circle, serves on the Board of the association and said he tries to promote harmony between all. One concern is that Jim Stanton is graciously willing to purchase 3 lots from the association. As a homeowner, he would encourage (Commissioners) to go along with the suggestion and construct as a cul-de-sac. Jeff Holter, 2707 Wilds Lane, said he is concerned why another development is opening up when the current development is not complete. Is there a time limit for neighborhood development? Commissioner Stamson responded that was not up to the City. John Michaletz, 14945 Summit, questioned the liability of a private street owned by the homeowners being used by the public. The police do not patrol. If there is a speeder, do we go out and flag them down? His concern was liability. Kansier said staffwould have to ask the City Attorney. Stamson also responded this is not a unique situation. There are private through-streets all over town. This is not something new being created. The public hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Perez: · After reading the report, listening to the presentations, the pre-work has already been done. . As far as the wetland and meeting approval as part of the recommendation - that will be covered. . Other issues staff felt could be addressed. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804flXed.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 . The through-road - the neighbors have strong feelings. The developer is offering a give-and-take trying to get to an amiable situation. Sees the negatives outweighing the positives as far as the through-street. . A cul-de-sac would probably work best for the situation. . The neighborhood will continue to have issues with people driving to the end of their cul-de-sac. . With or without the cul...de-sac there will still be a snow removal issue. . Approve with the cul-de-sac instead of the through-street. Lemke: . Has a concern with the health and welfare as mentioned by the staff. However, because it is a private street it is narrow. The residents are best served if the street does not go through - it could end with a cul-de-sac with a provision that emergency vehicles can get in and out. . The rest of the conditions will be met including the wetland mitigation. . The developer is on record stating the building style would be identical on the outside. . As far a signage - the association can put something up. It is not a city matter. . Support the amendment and preliminary plat without the connection and a provision for emergency equipment. Ringstad: . Visited the development, drove to the end of the street and looked over the area. Can see why people think they can cut through. . If this private road was a 28 foot wide street would lien toward the connection at Oakes Lane. The citizens made some compelling arguments. . The minute word got out there was a through-street; it would be used a lot. . Agree with staff s recommendation with the exception of the connection on Oakes Lane. . Support the cul-de-sac the citizens are in favor of. Stamson: . Agreed with Commissioners. It is a better use of the land than the initial proposal. The developer has done his work on most issues. Staff laid that out well. . The issue ofa private road has been a long standing rule of the City that you don't exceed 500 feet for a cul-de-sac. Regardless of signage the residents will still have double traffic. . There could be better signage on the road that will cut down on some of the traffic. . Some of the other problems of cul-de-sacs is if a watermain breaks the homeowners are living on an island. Private streets create problems for emergency vehicles. Likes Lemke's idea to create a cul-de-sac with some kind of connection to go through to Oakes Lane. . That could also be the construction access. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804fIxed.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler, said engineering-wise adding 22 more houses to an already long area, figuring 4 trips per house is another 88 trips on Wilds Lane. Asked to consider possibly having the cul-de-sac off Oakes Lane near the Wilds Lane cul-de- sac. Stamson explained the additional traffic with long cul-de-sacs. The Commissioners and staffhad a brief discussion with the number of trips deciding it is more like 9 trips per day per household - a 25% increase in traffic. Poppler said staff would like to see the connection go through. The Engineering and Planning Department concerns are the same. The connection will allow disbursing traffic at the same time providing emergency access. It gives people 2 options for directions. Lemke explained the saying "Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it" regarding traffic issue. Stamson suggested platting out a cul-de-sac on Oakes Lane with a temporary access because of the narrow road and lack of sidewalks on Wilds Lane. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE WILDS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REPLACE THE RENTAL CABINS WITH THE 22 UNITS, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS WITH TWO CLARIFICATIONS: THE CONSTRUCTION AND ACCESS FOR THE PROJECT OFF OAKES LANE WITH AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS STERLING SOUTH 2ND ADDTION, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter will go before the City Council on April 5, 2004. A recess was called at 8:07 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:12 p.m. C. Case #04-21 (Continued) An amendment to Section 1107.2200 of the Zoning Ordinance to add materials to architectural materials standards. City Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated March 8, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The Planning Commission discussed potential changes at their regular meeting on February 9,2004. The Commission supported the ordinance amendment to add fiber L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804fixed.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 cement siding as a Class Ia material, allow synthetic stucco as a Class I material, require a higher grade of vinyl siding, and increase the number of attached residential units that must comply with the more strict material standards. On February 23,2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment and unanimously tabled the item so that staff could prepare additional language for review. The Planning Commission supported staff s proposed ordinance amendment with additional provisions that: 1. allows staff the discretion to either permit materials not listed or except certain materials from being counted against maximum materiaVclass area, 2. allows metal garage doors on residential structures to exceed the 10 percent maximum for Class ill materials, and 3. defines "higher impact rated grade siding." A typical metal garage door is 16 feet in width and 8 feet in height (128 square feet). The current architectural standards limit metal materials to 10 percent of the building face. So much of the time, the garage door exceeds the limitation. Although staffhas not considered garage doors against this maximum percentage, the Planning Commission recommended metal garage doors be explicitly permitted to exceed the 10 percent. Essentially, this amendment will codify current practice, as well as provide design flexibility. In an effort to make the material standards provision more adaptable to the technological advances in exterior building products, the Planning Commission recommended staff have discretion in approving materials not listed or disregarding the installation of non- listed materials. The staff approved non-listed material must comply with four criteria. This provision may create administration difficulties. Future staff may not possess the expertise to judge the durability of the material. Furthermore, specific materials are listed in the ordinance because they are historically durable products. The issue is whether allowing staff discretion to approve non-listed materials defeats the purpose of the ordinance. In conclusion, the proposed amendment: 1) allows fiber cement siding as a Class Ia material, 2) considers synthetic stucco a Class I material, 3) specifies vinyl siding grade, 4) increases the number of units in one residential building that must adhere to the stricter material standards, 5) permits metal garage doors to exceed the 10 percent maximum for Class III materials, and 6) permits staff the discretion to approve non-listed materials. Kirchoffpresented an example of how the ordinance would be interpreted. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804fixed.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommended approval. Questions by the Commissioners: Stamson and Lemke - commented on the aesthetic elements and design versus the Class I material. Ringstad said some of the architectural gables do fit into the spirit and intent - is there any way to give the developer credit for enhancing the appearance of the outside? Putting them under this formula would penalize them. Kansier said she did the calculation and said the gables are relatively a small percentage of the building. Staff s concern is the new language does not always fit all situations. Stamson said the real issue is the size of the building. Do we want to lower the standards? Staff and the Commissioners discussed revising the clarifying the language. Comments from the Public: Terry Wensmann from Wensmann Homes, thanked staff and Commissioners for looking into the ordinance. Terry felt the spirit of the ordinance is to have attractive looking building. Decorative pieces are not even considered Class I materials. Wensmann presented townhouse developments that consist of all Class I materials which he felt did not have much curb appeal. Lots of flat surface but meets the ordinance today. There is a lot more that can be done to the exterior with the decorative material. Wensmann showed the textures that can be added to make the buildings more attractive. He said he doesn't have a good answer for more than 8 units. It's the same product, one is 8 the other 10. He also pointed out a back-to-back 10 unit building with 5 units on each side. Questions from the Commissioners: Lemke questioned the balance-look on the 8 versus 10 unit buildings referred by Kelly Murray at the last meeting. Stamson discussed the Class I materials and the intent. He then suggested saying "Class I and Ia materials have to be 60%, a minimum. of 30% Class I and Class Ia is credited at .75 square feet - comparing it to the park dedication formula. The minimum. would be 30% brick and then if they used Hardy Board for the remainder of the 30% then they are only crediting a percentage of it. Use the same formula as the tree replacement. Kansier said staff could work that out and it would solve some of staff's concern. We would not max out on the Class Ia. The public hearing was closed. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804fixed.doc 12 PlII.nning Commission Meeting Mllrch 8, 2004 Comments from the Commissioners: Perez: . Questioned staff s thoughts on their discretion on building materials. Kansier responded the current staff has a pretty good idea of what the Commissioners are looking for. There are some risks that the next generation may see it different. She said they can live with the proposed language but there may be some inconsistencies. . Applicants can appeal if they did not agree with staff s interpretation. . Agreed with the remaining conditions. . Feel comfortable with Stamson's proposal. Lemke: . Commented on staff s discretion language and has confidence in their decision making. If it becomes a problem it can be revisited. Very comfortable with staff s discretion. . Agreed with Stamson's suggestion in allowing the type of building Mr. Wensmann showed us. It is just a better looking building and believes it will be every bit as durable as stucco or more so. . Question to staff on the garage doors percentage. Kirchoff said staff felt it should be capped at 20%. . Kansier said staff can bring the language back on March 22. It will not delay the Council meeting. . Comfortable with leaving the 8 unit requirement. Ten units would be stretching it. Ringstad: . Agreed with Perez and Lemke's comments. . There was a need to revisit this. Fine with the way staff wrote the amendment. . Cap the garages at 20% and include Stamson's comments into a new ordinance amendment. Stamson: . This is getting towards what we were discussing. . Major concern was with the percentages and unintended consequences. If the problem can be solved - this will be ideal. . Confident in staff s discretion. Understand staff s concern was being the umpire when it should be with the Commissioners. Feel confident with current staff. . What has been laid out is concrete and staff can point to criteria. . Everything else falls into what we were looking at. Lemke: . Staff s criteria for the material are pretty straight forward. There is a good comfort level it will be taken care of. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804flXed.doc 13 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 Stamson: . It gives some flexibility. It assumes if staff starts seeing the same thing over and over it will come back to the Commissioners. . This is really architectural, it's not a safety issue. It's not a fire code. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY PEREZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECT STAFF TO INCORPORATE THE LANGUAGE DISCUSSED AND BRING IT BACK ON MARCH 22, W04. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 6. Old Business: A. Case #04-11 Wensmann Realty is requesting an application to vacate the right-of-way for Wilds Drive located adjacent to Wensmann 4th Addition. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 8, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On November 3, 2003, the City Council approved the preliminary plat known as Wensmann 4th Addition. This preliminary plat included the lots previously platted as Outlots I and J, The Wilds, and as Lot 14, Block 2, and Outlot B, The Wilds North. The plat also reconfigures the segment of Wilds Drive located between Wilds Parkway and Cougar Path as originally platted in The Wilds and The Wilds North. Wensmann Homes has now filed an application for a final plat for Wensmann 4th 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. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to "plan for access to and movement of people, goods and services." The vacation of the existing right-of-way for Wilds Drive will not impede this goal. New right-of-way for the realignment of the street will be dedicated as part of the final plat. Staff recommended approval. The public hearing is March 15,2004. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . Staff laid out the groundwork. The public interest to do so allows a better use for this piece of property. The need for this particular easement will be handled with the plat and the vacation will be conditioned on the plat being approved and finalized. . Support - it is in the public interest to vacate and move forward. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804frxed.doc 14 PIllnnin, Commission Meetin, Mllrch 8, 2004 Ringstad: . Agreed to support. The new right-of-way will be dedicated at the final plat. Lemke & Perez: . It is in the public interest to do so. . Agreed to support. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THE RESOLUTION NOT BE RECORDED UNTIL AFTER FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. The public hearing will be March 15 at the City Council meeting. B. Case #03-20 Discussion on temporary boat and storage covers. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 8, 2004 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On February 23,2004, the Planning Commission began discussion about a Zoning Ordinance amendment that would address temporary boat storage structures. This discussion specifically focused on boat lifts, rail systems, and the structures used to cover boats. After a great deal of discussion, the Planning Commission members decided the issue would require additional thought. The Commission directed staff to put this item on the next agenda for further discussion. Kansier said from a zoning perspective covers should consider them as part of the boat lifts. The zoning ordinance is not quite equipped to cover the item. Kansier explained the shed and fence permit process. Staff reviews the setbacks and make sure they are correct. There is no charge. Stamson questioned the track system-type covers. Building Official Robert Hutchins presented pictures of covered boatlifts. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . You expect boatlifts to have canopies. It needs to be distinguished between that and storage. If it is structurally part of the lift it is legal and part of the recreational equipment. . Prohibit walls on the covers as it then becomes a structure. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804frxed.doc 15 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 . Limit to not having walls. Lemke: . A canopy is different than having walls. Typically canopies are removed in the winter. They are temporary and removed from the water. And most people remove canopies in the winter. But how do you define it? . Like the recreational equipment definition and let staff decide if it is a boat lift. That allows discretion. Stamson: . Need a little more clarification on where the break is between a boatlift and another person's building. But we are on the right line. Lemke: . Staff can look at the meeting Minutes and see track systems did not include 4 walls or walls of some kind and see the clear intent of what the Planning Commission considered boatlifts. Stamson: . Not worried about staff, it's the general public. There should be guidelines. Kansier - We should address rail systems as they are becoming more and more prevalent. In her opinion the conditions should be specifically listed as being a kind ofboatlift. If the canopy is going to be included it has to be structurally part of the lift. Ringstad: . Agreed with Kansier, we need to identify some sort of acceptable limit whether it is half, one-third or something like that. One thing we haven't talked about is the fact these are regulated under the building code. However, these structures have been on the lake for a long time and now we decided to kick into enforcement and for whatever reason we have not enforced it in the past. Would like to see the City Attorney check into this issue. Perez: . Agree with Kansier - if the canopy is part of the boatlift that would be acceptable. A carport next to the garage as a structure is not acceptable. The four walls can be part of the boatlift but that is where I would draw the line. Stamson: . Think it is a good point about what has been done in the past and what could be coming up. In general, people who are buying canopies at the Boat Show are buying products that would qualify. We want to eliminate cheap constructed materials. Bob Hutchins, presented a short survey of the lake and found 4 structures on upper Prior Lake that were either a track systems or hoop system and did about 50% of Lower Prior L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804flXed.doc 16 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 Lake and found 6 covers. Right now there is not that many out there. The only reason this came up was based on a complaint. Stamson: . The concern is creating a shanty town on the lake if some sort of standard is not set. Hutchins also pointed out staff s pictures of the 1999 shoreline parcels and said it was not a problem. There were only 4 structures up out of643. In the last 5 years there has been a growth of these structures on the lake. Other lake communities restrict the use on water oriented structures. Some use bins for storage. Others follow the DNR guidelines that you cannot go over a 400 square foot area, meeting 10 foot side yard setbacks and lake setbacks. Impervious surface is also factored in as part of the lot. Any type of cover will be considered impervious surface. General Discussion and comments: . Track systems are not unique. They are gaining in popularity. . How do you justify these structures when we don't allow decks? . Are we making a mountain out of a mole hill? . We keep adding to it. Got to draw the line somewhere. . Have a problem with a canvas top without the walls being impervious. Without the canopy you still have a big boat and we don't call that impervious. . Most of these canopies are around 200 square feet. Don't know how much runs into the lake. . This is a concern from the DNR. The Commissioners agreed to revise the recreational equipment language and will look at it again this Spring. Kansier said it would be a public hearing in April. 7. New Business: A. 2003 Code Enforcement Report Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 8, 2004 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The purpose of this report is to provide the Planning Commission with information regarding complaints, code violations, and code enforcement activity for the year 2003. This report consists of a year-end summary of the total number of complaints and code violations in order to provide the Commission with insight that may be useful in evaluating current resident concerns and future regulatory decisions. A great majority of City residents have pride in their neighborhoods and community, and feel an obligation to maintain a neat appearance on their respective properties, as well as a concern for the adjoining properties. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804frxed.doc 17 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 The City of Prior Lake received one hundred ninety (192) complaints in 2003 for an increase of twenty-five percent (25%) when compared with one hundred fifty four (154) complaints in 2002. Upon inspection, staff discovered a total of two hundred and thirty five (235) violations on the subject properties. Code violations relating to property appearance and health issues topped the list of violations and included thirty (32) illegal storage of junk and junk vehicles, twenty nine (29) improper recreational vehicle parking or vehicles parked in required yard areas, and accessory structures (sheds) not meeting required setbacks to property lines. Animal control complaints also totaled twenty-nine (29) and included excessive barking, running at large, waste pickup and the keeping of more than 3 domestic animals (dogs & cats). Overgrown grass (12") and weed complaints totaled twenty eight (28), followed by twenty seven (27) improper disposal of garbage/refuse. Zoning district use violations totaled eighteen (18) and included noncompliant home occupations and non-permitted uses within a particular zoning district. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . Fifty percent of the complaints were aesthetics. It is important to note when discussing canopies and boat covers that aesthetics is important to residents. Lemke: . Questioned the City Water Works code violations. Hutchins explained people do not pay their water bills. The City wants them to have a public water supply otherwise they could be living in an unsanitary building. One of the ordinances is proper sanitation facilities. There were 3 violations last year. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND FORWARDING IT ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: None 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804frxed.doc 18 PUBLIC HEARING Conducted by th. e Plal9t.. ing CorSSion ~/lA Ci1 ~ ODD . 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 (r I( /~ It' ....,... /,/ ,P~/{) j;1 L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP .doc