Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout082304 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 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: A. #04-66 McGuire Variance Resolution B. #04-98 Klasell Variance Resolution 5. Public Hearings: A. #04-94 Michael & Julie Betchwars are requesting a variance to the lakeshore setback and the impervious surface requirement on the property located at 16001 Northwood Road. B. #04-96 & #04-97 ARIMA has submitted an application for a concept plan review and amendment to a comprehensive plan land use map to allow 4 duplex units and 4 triplex office buildings. The 16.74 acre site is located north of Co. Rd 42 and west of Pike Lake Trail 6. Old Business: A. Case #04-80 Tollefson Development submitted an application for preliminary plat consisting of 24.49 acres ofland located on the south side ofTH 13 and west of Crystal Lake to be subdivided into 33 lots for single family homes. B. Cases #04-77 & 04-78 Arcon Development has submitted an application for preliminary plat consisting of 82.47 acres to be subdivided into 81 lots for residential development to be known as Stemmer Ridge. This property is located on the north side ofCSAH 12, directly west of Spring Lake Regional Park in Section 4, Spring Lake Township. 7. A. B. C. 8. 9. New Business: Shepherd's Path Concept Plan Tree Preservation Discussion Amendment to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: L:\04 FlLE$\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Agenda\AG082304.DOC www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 I Fax 952.447.4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 2004 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the August 23, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Present Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the August 9, 2004, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: Commissioner Perez requested removing the McGuire Variance Resolution from the Consent Agenda. A. #04-66 McGuire Variance Resolution Perez noted there had been many discussions on this property however he felt more consideration to the impervious surface percentage should be discussed. All other City variances have been held to the 30% requirement. As far as the house and the two-car garage - the size is reasonable. The applicant can appeal the impervious surface to City Council. Ringstad: Had the same concerns as Perez. The impervious surface is a topic of clarification. Would like some clarification of the 35% from the DNR. The Planning Commission has seen nonconforming lots in the past and has not allowed the overage. The Commissioners have been consistent in their 30% requirement. Lemke: Mentioned the difference from 30 to 36 percent is normally unreasonable. He felt the lot was very small and the applicant has the right to reasonable use. The house is not large. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN082304.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 23. 2004 The DNR did not object and appeared to support the request in their memo. The percentage was reduced from 39% to 36%. Perez: Stated to reach the 30% the square footage the applicant would have to reduce 1495 square feet. Lemke: Felt there was too much to reduce pointing out the ordinance requires a driveway. Atwood: Felt there were two issues - Would like to find out why the DNR approved the percentage and secondly is there too much house for this lot? Kansier responded the deadline for action is September 10, 2004. Lemke: Stressed 2 weeks ago there were 3 Commissioners present as a quorum who voted and directed staff to draft a Resolution and felt it would be a disservice to the applicant who is not present. The Commission acted as legal authority to approve these as requested. Stamson: Stated he was always against the 35%. It is so unlike the DNR to deviate from the percentage. Stamson went on to say he was swayed because of the small lot. The neighbor met the requirement by eliminating one parking stall. We generally assume that a two-car garage is not a hardship. I've flip-flopped. Ringstad: We often see smalllots on the lake -looking at the memo before us which was brought up 2 weeks ago indicates what was approved in 1995. The Commission denied the request and ultimately approved a 27.5 foot setback. It is important for this Commission to show some consistency to the community. Ifwe allow the increase in impervious surface by 6% tonight I am going to have a tough time looking at every other lakeshore owner who asks for a 1 or 2 percent impervious surface request. All they will have to do is remind us on August 23, 2004 we agreed to 6% for Mr. McGuire and at that time I'm not going to have an answer for them. Stamson: The difference is every variance is different. Kansier clarified the original request and what was approved. Perez: Agreed with Ringstad and Lemke regarding the fairness. However, what about the previous applicants who were turned down to make 30%? L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN082304.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting August 23. 2004 Lemke: Of course that is an issue. What is reasonable in 1995 may not have included a 2 car garage. If each property wasn't unique we wouldo't have to be here. This Board has the authority which presumes sometimes we are needed. What are we here for? There are other ordinances where you cannot grant a variance. This is not one of them. Stamson: The question here - does the hardship meet the 35% variance? I struggled but agreed with the DNR's recommendation. Without that recommendation I would not vote for it. To some extent I am going to hold to that. How often are we going to see that? I doubt there is going to be a change of heart and recommend 35% impervious surface all the time. Pat Lynch saw something here that warranted the request. Ringstad: When Pat gets back from vacation can we get a memo on why this property warrants the difference in the impervious surface? Maybe there could be a different style of home. Stamson: Will not disagree with you - I have not changed my opinion on the 30% impervious surface. In this case, it is warranted. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 04-01PC SUBECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Votes taken indicated ayes by Lemke, Atwood and Stamson. Nays by Ringstad and Perez. MOTION CARRIED. B. #04-98 KIasell Variance Resolution MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, ACCEPTING RESOLUTION 04- 09PC AND 04-IOPC APPROVING THE VARIANCES SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated by ayes. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. #04-94 Michael & Julie Betchwars are requesting a variance to the lakeshore setback and the impervious surface requirement on the property located at 16001 Northwood Road. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 23, 2004, on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department. L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN082304.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting August 23. 2004 Mike and Julie Betchwars are requesting variances to construct a garage and a deck addition to an existing single family dwelling on property located at 16001 Northwood Road. In order to construct these additions as shown on the attached survey, the following variances are required: 1. A 4 foot variance from the required 50 foot ordinary high water setback required in the R-l SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) district. (Section 1104.302 [4]) 2. A 241 square foot variance to the maximum impervious surface requirement. (Section 11 04.306 [1]) The existing house on the property was built in 1968. In 2004, a building permit was issued for the garage and the deck addition on the east side (lakeside) of the house. A condition of approval of the permit was the removal of 241 square feet of impervious surface on the driveway. Although the existing impervious surface exceeds the maximum 30%, the removal of the 241 square feet would offset any additional impervious surface created by the addition. The permit also allowed the reconstruction of the existing deck and stairway, even though they encroached into the required setback from the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW). The new portion of the deck was to be at least 50' from the OHW. The strict application ofthe maximum impervious surface and the required ordinary high water setback does not pose undue difficulties on the development of the property. An existing single family dwelling, with decks, complies with required setbacks. Based upon the findings the staff recommended denial of the variance. Questions from the Commissioners: Lemke questioned the impervious surface percentages of the other two properties served by the driveway. Kansier said staff did not have that information. Comments from the public: Applicants Mike and Julie Betchwars, 16001 Northwood Road - Julie agreed with staff their request is not a hardship but common sense. Item #7 would be decreasing the setback with removing the stairs. The deck and stairs are two different issues. They would remove the stairs reducing the impervious surface. They have an extremely deep lot however they have 6 lots adjoining their property. One neighbor uses their driveway as a parking lot for their company. It would alleviate the congestion on the street. Mike pointed out 6,600 square feet is driveway. The neighbor has a higher impervious surface coverage on the easement. There is nothing they can do. Ifparking is allowed on the corner and there will be no room to turn the comer. It is a safety issue. Ringstad questioned one of the conditions ofremoval of241 square feet of impervious surface from the driveway. Kansier explained a provision in the ordinance that allows L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN082304.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting August 23. 2004 one to make changes or additions in the lot that already exceeds the impervious surface as long as the percentage is not increased. Perez questioned why they dido't ask for a variance first before construction. Mike Betchwars responded they spoke with the City first and explained by removing the deck they are moving further away from the lake. The City granted the permit knowing this procedure. Mike Thibault, 16103 Northwood Road, is in support of the request. He appreciates the applicants moving the deck further away from the lake. The public hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: . Interested in what fellow Commissioners have to say. . Asked for clarification on the proposal. Kansier responded and explained the landscape proposal. . Right now the applicant is over by 9,800 square feet. . Part of the driveway should be removed. The parking can be addressed separately with the City. . Impressed with removing the stairs and with some new ideas maybe the other variance could be removed. Ringstad: . It's a good trade. . Not in favor of increasing the impervious surface. Lemke: . Agreed with Ringstad - the applicant can rebuild the stairs - the deck is being reduced. It is a good trade. . In favor ofthe 4 foot variance for the deck. . Certainly favor getting rid of unnecessary impervious surface where you can, but the only hesitation is the driveway also serves another property. The impervious surface should be shared with the neighbor. If the two lots in total are under 30% - keep the driveway. Perez: . Agree with Ringstad by not increasing the impervious surface and stay within the percentages. . As far as the deck - agree with staff on the findings - there is no hardship. . Will not approve. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN082304.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting August 23. 2004 Stamson: . Regarding the percentage variance - there is no hardship. The applicant built a bigger house. There is no hardship created by the ordinance. . The 4 foot variance from the OHW - went back and forth on this. There really is no hardship. What we are looking at is an improvement to the property. There will be less impervious surface. It is further from the lake. The hardship is the strict application of the ordinance is preventing the applicant from improving the situation in regards to the ordinance itself. It is not just a convenience to the owner. It improves the situation on the lot. . That in itself a reason to approve - there is a hardship. Grant the request. The Commissioners agreed. The hardship with the impervious surface is from the driveway. The applicant is required to keep the driveway with the easement of the other property. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, DIRECTING STAFF TO APPROVE A 4 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE FROM THE OHW. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY RINGSTAD SECOND BY PEREZ DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION DENYING A 241 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND GARAGE ADDITION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. B. #04-96 & #04-97 ARIMA has submitted an application for a concept plan review and amendment to a comprehensive plan land use map to allow 4 duplex units and 4 triplex office buildings. The 16.74 acre site is located north of Co. Rd 42 and west of Pike Lake Trail B. (1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 23,2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Arima Real Estate Development, LLC, is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for approximately 19 acres ofland located north of CSAH 42, west of Pike Lake Trail, and south of Pike Lake. The proposed amendment redesignates the southern portion of the property from R-HD (Urban High Density Residential) to C-CC (Community Retail Shopping). The north half ofthe property is proposed to be changed from R-HD to R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential). L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN082304.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting August 23. 2004 This property is presently designated as R-HD on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). Within this designation, density is permitted to be a maximum of 30 units per acre. The applicant is proposing the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in order to facilitate the development the property for offices and townhomes. The proposed Land Use Plan designations of C-CC and R- L/MD are consistent with the proposed uses. The proposed designations are also consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommends approval. Questions from the Commissioners: Atwood asked for clarification between hospitality and general business districts. Kansier explained there were minor differences in the definitions. Comments from the public: Nicole Walz, representative for ARIMA Development, briefly explained why they are proposing the low density for the site preserving the environment. Ed Vierling, 14310 Pike Lake Trail, said he had a problem changing the Comprehensive Plan for their land from the Agriculture Preserve. It was denied by the City. Vierling stated their farm is a business just like the applicant's. We had to keep our land as is and it's only fair. There are lots in the Fountain Hills Development that have not taken off. This area is not ready for this type of expansion. The land should stay the way it is. Back in our face and back in their face. Julie Garwood, 13900 Pike Lake Trail, stated her concern was for runoff. Stamson explained that issue would be addressed at the preliminary plat stage. The public hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . We all saw the McComb study indicating the need for commercial area. This area falls in line. . Support staffs recommendation. Lemke: . Appreciates Mr. Vierling's comments. Some good points were made. . As far as the change in the Comprehensive Plan before us - it does make sense for this land. Under the current zoning is 30 units per acre. Ifthis is not changed there could be 180 housing units. This proposal fits into the land. . Supports. L:\04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN082304.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2004 Perez: . Questioned staff on the timeJine on the McComb study. Kansier said it is out 20 years. The report includes 5 year increments when the City could support different types of businesses. The market will dictate where the uses would go. . Agreed with Lemke on the lower density. The open space will be beneficial. . As far as the economic vitality - don't dispute the new designation because of the density. . Agree with staff. Atwood: . Agree with Lemke. Always in favor of lower density in the community. . Not only is the proposed density suitable for the area, it fits better with the neighbors. It is important to consider. . In favor of the change. Stamson: . Agreed with staff and Commissioners. . Concern in pulling out some ofR4. Ifwe continue to pull high density areas out it may be a mistake down the road. R4 is best along County Road 42. The community needs well-rounded housing units. . In this case, I believe this property meets the Comprehensive Plan - it is a good fit for this land. . Support. Atwood: . Applaud Stamson looking into the future. But disagree with the high density. This corridor will allow large tracts of high density. Kansier pointed out the McComb Study indicates the need for high density in this area. Staff will be looking at revising the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP REDESIGNING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF CSAH 42 AND PIKE LAKE TRAIL FROM R-HD (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO C- CC (COMMUNITY RETAIL COMMERCIAL) AND R-L/MD (LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL). Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B.(2) CONCEPT PLANS Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 23, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN082304.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting August 23. 2004 Arima Development has submitted a concept plan which includes both commercial and residential uses. The southern portion of the property directly adjacent to Pike Lake Trail, includes four triplex office buildings. The area to the north of the existing driveway includes four 2-unit townhomes. 1be concept plan includes a total of 12 office units and 8 residential units. For discussion purposes, the staff has identified the following issues: ~ Pike Lake Trail is unimproved. The developer will be responsible for the upgrade of the street to collector street standards, and for the extension of City services. ~ Only one access will be allowed from Pike Lake Trail. We would suggest turning the "private easement" into a public street, and providing access to the north and south from that street. ~ The stormwater ponding area looks small. We would recommend working with the City to enlarge the City's existing pond to handle the runoff from this site. ~ All structures must be set back 30' from the 100-year flood elevation of any wetland or pond. Atwood questioned Outlot A. Kansier explained the proposal. Lemke clarified one access off Pike Lake Trail. Are there any regulations? Kansier explained the limits and access proposed is too close to County Road 42 pointing out this is a concept. Nicole Walz presented the proposed town offices and town homes. She also addressed the street issues. The stormwater ponding issue is working with the City. The Town homes will $250,000+, 2,200 to 2,300 square feet. Walz said they would work with the neighbor on access. The benefits would be dean streets maintained by the association. Julie Garwood, 13900 Pike Lake Trail, said they are not interested in moving the easements. They would be removing a lot ofthe trees. They want to keep their driveway. Atwood questioned her thoughts with the proposed access. Garwood responded she did not think that was such a bad idea. Mike Vierling, 13985 Pike Lake Trail, wanted to know if the intersection on Pike Lake and County Road 42 could handle 80 parking spaces. This could be a blind corner. The developer has to fix the road. He heard the developer wanted to move and tar Pike Lake Road. Kansier responded the City talked to another developer and gave them the same information. Vierling pointed out his property. Rita Baden, 13866 Pike Lake Road wanted to know how far the developer is going to stay away from the property line. Will there be a buffer? She would prefer to see trees rather than buildings. L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc MinutesIMN082304.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting August 23. 2004 Kansier said this is concept plan. The setbacks are 25 feet. Do not have the information on how many trees would be removed. Generally there is a buffer between townhomes. It is too early at this point to comment. Comments from the Commissioners: Perez: . This will not be the last time to talk about this proposal. . Like staff s idea of one access to the two areas. It would work better. . Overall, it looks fine. It's a start. Lemke: . Two roads would be better, but can see where one is preferred. . Would like to get rid of the ponding and have the developer work with the City. Ringstad: . Like the basics ofthe proposal. . Urge the developer to work with the neighbor's concerns. . It is in the early stages, but looks good. Atwood: . Agree with the concept. . Work with the residents. It is an important part ofthe development. Stamson: . Agreed with the Commissioners' comments. . Agreed with staff on one access. It is safer situation. . It is a workable plan. . The neighbor has a concern with the easement, however that is in their control. . Overall, this plan will work. Support at this time. A recess was called at 8: 17 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:20 p.m. 6. Old Business: A. Case #04-80 Tollefson Development submitted an application for preliminary plat consisting of 24.49 acres ofIand located on the south side of TH 13 and west of Crystal Lake to be subdivided into 33 lots for single family homes. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated August 23, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Tollefson Development has applied for approval of a development to be known as Maple Glen on the property located on the south side of Trunk Highway 13 and west of Crystal Lake. The initial application included a request to approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and a Preliminary Plat. L:\Q4 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN082304.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting August 23. 2004 The development proposal included 33 dwelling units on 23.65 acres. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item on July 26, 2004. Following the close of the public hearing, the Commission discussed the following issues related to the proposed development: . Reduced side yard setbacks and minimum lot sizes. . Unanswered drainage issues and possible impacts on the fen. . Questions related to the development not meeting the criteria of a Planned Unit Development. The Commissioners requested the developer submit new plans and information addressing the above items. On Monday, August 9, 2004, the staff received additional information addressing the items listed above. The applicant has withdrawn the request for a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and is continuing to address issues related to drainage, lot layouts, and dedicated parkland. These revisions have not been submitted at this time, so this request should be continued. Comments from the Commissioners: MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO SEPTEMBER 13, 2004. Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Cases #04-77 & 04-78 Arcon Development has submitted an application for preliminary plat consisting of 82.47 acres to be subdivided into 81 lots for residential development to be known as Stemmer Ridge. This property is located on the north side of CSAH 12, directly west of Spring Lake Regional Park in Section 4, Spring Lake Township. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated August 23, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planner. At the August 9, 2004 Planning Commission meeting Arcon requested approval of a Preliminary Plat to allow the subdivision of 82.89 acres for 69 single family homes and a Conditional Use Permit that would allow for 20 cluster homes. Since that time the majority of the development has remained unchanged, however the one significant change is the withdrawal of the Conditional Use Permit which would have allowed the 20 cluster townhomes. Instead the revised plans now call for 12 single family lots as many of the neighbors and people who spoke at the August 9 public hearing requested. The request now is for a Preliminary Plat to subdivide the area into 81 single family lots. The LI04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN082J04.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2004 revised density ofthe site is now 1.57 units per acre which is consistent with the uses of the Rl district. Arcon Development submitted a letter dated August 23, 2004, requesting the removal of condition 11 requiring Lot 29 be removed from the current plan. Staff and developer will review prior to City Council consideration. Staff recommended approval of the plat. Atwood questioned the removal of the 4 lots.. Moore responded the applicant is working with staff and the development to the west. Dustin Kern, representing Arcon Development, said they met with the neighbors and revised the plan. There will be more revisions including Lot 29 however, if they can not meet the ordinance they will drop it. They are crunched for time and wanted to work with staff on the revision. Comments from Commissioners: Lemke: . Questioned condition 11. Moore said it was up to the Commissioners. . Not concerned with this developer. He worked with the neighbors. . Liked the concept 2 weeks ago. Have no doubt the developer will work with the City. . Support. Ringstad: . Agreed with Lemke's comments. . Lot 29 will be worked out. . Support. Atwood: . Agreed and look forward to seeing the reconfiguration. Perez: . Agree with Commissioners. Saw the meeting on cable and the neighbor's comments. . Feel comfortable sending this to City Council. Stamson: . The applicant will meet the conditions. . Support. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY PEREZ, TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF STEMMER RIDGE SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS WITH CONDITION 11 AMENDED AS INDICATED. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN082304.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting August 23. 2004 Tentatively this would go to City Council on September 20, 2004. 7. New Business: A. Shepherd's Path Concept Plan Kansier gave an overview of the proposal. Shepherd's Path is considering development of their remaining property, which consists of approximately 70 acres of land located on the north side of CSAH 42 and east and west of McKenna Road. About 13 acres ofthe property is used for the new Shepherd's Path church. This property is designated for High Density Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The developers submitted a revised concept plan for the development of the entire site as a faith based community, consisting of religious worship, senior housing, community recreation and social space, education, daycare and a conference center. The concept plan includes a total of 504 units. These units are primarily intended to serve the senior population, and include assisted living units, independent living units, skilled nursing units, townhomes and apartments. The concept also includes space for a gymnasium, a celebration center, a day care, a youth center, a retreat and a town center. There is no formal action, it is strictly for discussion and informational purposes. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . Questioned the 35 foot height limit. Kansier said it was a community standard. Normally you see lower heights. It keeps density down. Previous discussions indicated the Planning Commission and City Council wanted to keep the heights down. It is something staff could look at again. . Is it possible to grant variances? Kansier said it is, but on a regular basis the ordinance could be changed. . Exceptions can be made on PUD's. Trade open space for one story. Perez: . What is the northern designation? Kansier said it was low to medium density. Allen Black representing Shepherd's Path, stated their purpose was to introduce the project and concept of the plan. This is a community based project. It is a basic concept of a continual path of life. Black pointed out the residential areas. The goal is to create an interactive community including 488 units for older adults. They also have long range plans for assisted living. Black was looking forward to suggestions and working with the City. L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN082304.doc 13 Planning Commission Meeting August 23. 2004 Lemke: · Questioned the legislative support fOf skilled nursing units. Black explained the process. He also indicated the assisted living residents would have very few drivers. Ward Isaacson, Pope Associates, eXplained the big project is to maintain the green space and maintain the DNR wetland, add trails and playgrounds. Isaacson also spoke on rerouting McKenna Road, the Town Center, a new front door (access) to the facility, park areas and a youth center. Stamson: . It is a well thought out project. The concept flows. . It is a great asset to the community. . There will be lots of green space and frontage. It is high quality development. Hopefully this will carry through the fest of the community. . This is good mixed use. I support that and like the approach. . Do not support a 4 level building for the entire City. However, this is a PUD and could work with it on larger sites. Ringstad: . Equally excited for this project. It is well thought out. . Agree with Stamson on the 4-level building. . Great green space and open space. . Overall, like what I see and would like to see it move forward. Atwood: . Like the green space on County Road 42. . Agree with the flow. It is an exciting project. . In favor of a mixed use application with a PUD for the 4 story buildings. Perez: . Agreed with Commissioners. It's exciting. . Good use of space. . Agree with the PUD for the 4 story buildings. Lemke: . The parking is in the back. It will be beautiful as you drive along 42. . There should be a transit station proposed for the Jeffers property which would accommodate this area. . Would go for a 4 story hotel, but in this case there appears to be some valid reasons. It is a necessary service. . Concern the neighboring residents may not like it. . The project is a third of the density allowed. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN082304.doc 14 Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2004 B. Tree Preservation Discussion The Planning Commission recently asked staff to review the City's tree preservation and replacement ordinance, specifically to determine if we could save more trees within each development. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 23, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . Does the City of Prior Lake have a forester? Kansier responded the City does not. . Who at this time can tell the tree identification and differences? Atwood responded it is not the City's responsibility, it's the developer's. . Kansier explained the City gets a tree survey from a registered land surveyor who identifies the tree species and sizes. The City relies on their professional integrity just any other professional. Atwood: . What got me going on this is a habitual stream of people who are concerned for tree removal with new developments. . I believe some surveyors and developers can be subjective on tree removal. Would like to see the responsibility lay within the City's jurisdiction. There are several options for the City. . There are communities who have someone on staff or hire consultant foresters. . The other issue is the tree size. The size of the tree is not necessarily the main factor in what should be saved. Several experts feel the first thing to look at is the species of trees. An oak would be considered more valuable than a box elder tree. Another important fact is a new development can affect trees long after the equipment is gone. Many trees could be damaged. The State Forester believes the oak wilt is due to the rapid development. . Not sure the caliper measure should be used to determine the value of the tree. The health ofthe tree should also be a factor. . Would like to see an independent evaluator determining tree replacement. . One of the communities requires a 2 to 1 replacement. . The age of the trees is also a value of hierarchy. Significant trees could be a faster growing tree versus a longer living tree. Perez: . Who would pay for this staff person? Ringstad right now the developer is paying for it. It would be horse apiece just a matter of which the person is contract by- the developer or City. It is a very legitimate checks and balance brought up tonight. . Agreed. Would like to see that rather than have someone on staff because of the cost. L:I04 FILESlO4 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN082304.doc 15 Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2004 Atwood: · We as a Commission have repeatedly heard residents explain their concern for trees and we have all sympathized with them. But now with valid information from experts as a Commissioner we can let the residents know the box elders will not stand much more time. . An independent forester can identify diseased trees. Ringstad: . Many people say they enjoy other's trees. Neighboring property owners have the right to develop their property. . Prior Lake's ordinance restrictions are right in the middle of other communities. . Our City Code is consistent for everyone. I like that. . Atwood agreed but felt it could be tweaked a little. Stamson: . Agreed with Ringstad - thought Prior Lake had one of the better codes because it was stricter. We are at 6" for measuring where other cities are at 12". . Like the fact we specify removal replacement. . Liked Apple Valley's ordinance requiring oaks replace oaks, That is good for the community. We used to be an oak savannah. . Not too sure about the forester. Agree that it needs to be looked at professionally. Not sure it's being done now. Most developers hire professionals. . Should have qualifications specified. Atwood: . Regarding Ringstad's comment on the trees being on the developer's land. It is important to point out development -. a 25 foot setback to someone's property line is an impact. . Slow growing trees have longer life. Look at the value and species ofthe trees being removed. Someone in the know should be making the decisions. Stamson: . The property owner has the right to take down trees on his own property even if the neighbors like to look the trees. Ringstad: . Often times at public hearings we can see citizens' input making a difference. Trees being saved for example. StaIDson: . Most developers try to keep signific,mt valued trees because there is value to the property. There are also a lot of overgrown scrub trees and shrubs that residents perceive as being very wooded. The scrub trees will get clear-cut and perception LI04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN082304.doc 16 Planning Commission Meeting August 23. 2004 is the developer took all the trees. They do not understand it is a lot of overgrown brush. Atwood: . There should be "best practices." Not saying the current preservation is not adequate, would like to step it up. Lemke: . Like the idea of replacing species for species - oak for oak. We should move on that and incorporate it in our ordinance as soon as possible. It is a terrific idea. There was a brief discussion by Commissioners on replacing valuable trees (oaks) by caliper inches. They also mentioned high value coniferous trees. Lemke: . There has to be a cost balance. If the City does something to cause the price of a lot to increase by $100,000 someone will have to pay for it - the consumer. Is that reasonable? . Trees can be damaged pretty easily - either by storm or insects. Short of having a City Inspector sitting on a bulldozer I'm not sure how it will be enforced. The Commissioners agreed there had to be a balance. Kansier said staff will look at the definitions in the ordinance and get back to the Commissioners. We can look at the qualifications for professionals as well. Staff will continue to look at more information. C. Amendment to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance In May, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed a report about mixed use developments. At that time, the Planning Commission's discussion seemed to indicate the best approach to mixed use developments would be to amend the existing PUD ordinance. The staff has been receiving more inquiries about mixed use projects. Staff expects to receive applications for at least one project (Jeffers Pond) in the near future. The staff is asking the Planning Commission to initiate a formal amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in order to have a mechanism in place to handle these proposed projects. The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would establish each PUD as its own Zoning District, rather than as an overlay district. This would allow more flexibility in uses and other standards. The staff will also draft language that would require high standards in exchange for mixed uses and flexibility in selected bulk standards. LI04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN082J04.doc 17 Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2004 Comments from the Commissioners: MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUD STANDARDS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE DIRECTING STAFF TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A ZONE CHANGE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE SIMULTANEOUSLY AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Officer elections for Chair and Vice Chair will be in September. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMISlO4 pc MinutesIMN082304.doc 18