Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout091304 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 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. #04-94 Betchwars Variance Resolution. 5. Public Hearings: A. Case #04-80 Tollefson Development submitted an application for preliminary plat consisting of 24.49 acres of land located on the south side of TH 13 and west of Crystal Lake to be subdivided into 33 lots for single family homes. B. #04-72 Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amend Section 1106: Planned Unit Developments of the Zoning Ordinance to designate Planned Unit Developments as a distinct Zoning District rather than an overly district, and to establish the standards and criteria for a planned unit development. C. #04-111 Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amend Section 1108.808 (Applications Awaiting Action on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a combined petition process for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and an amendment to the Zoning Map. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. #04-105 The City has initiated a request to vacate a drainage and utility easement on the property located at 5191 Hope Street. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: A. Officer Elections 9. Adjournment: L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Agenda\AG091304.DOC www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the September 13,. 2004, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansi,:r, 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 23, 2004, Phuming Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: A. #04-94 Betchwars Variance Resolution. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 13, 2004 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 04- 02PC APPROVING THE VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION TO THE SINGLE F AMIL Y HOME. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 04- 12PC DENYING THE 241 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. S. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing statement and opened the public hearings. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN091304.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 2004 A. Case #04-80 Tollefson Development submitted an application for preliminary plat consisting of 24.49 acres of land 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 September 13, 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 Rice Lake. Initially, the application included a request to approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and a Preliminary Plat for 33 dwelling units. 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. The applicant has withdrawn the request for a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and revised the plan. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into 29 single family dwellings. All of the proposed lots conform to the R-1 minimum requirements of 86 feet in width, 12,000 square feet in area, and less than 3.6 units per acre in density. The overall layout ofthe plat appears appropriate, given the constraints of sites grades and the existing wetland area. However, there are three remaining issues with the proposal: 1. Proposed tree removal will need to be clarified to show that no more than 25% is removed for building pads, driveways, and utilities. 2. Proposed parkland will need to be further reviewed by staff to distinguish acceptable upland areas and the remainder in cash dedication. 3. The developer will need to provide calculations showing that the 100 year post development elevation is not higher than the existing 100 year elevation, or provide additional onsite volume to maintain elevations. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN091304.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 2004 The preliminary plat application will comply with relevant ordinance provisions and City standards, provided all the conditions of approval are met. Therefore, the staff recommended approval with the 12 listed conditions in the Staff Report. Commissioner Ringstad abstained from discussions and voting on this matter. Comments from the public: Todd Bodem representing the developer Tollefson Development stated he had nothing to add to the report and was aware of the 12 listed conditions. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: . Like the concept and will support with the 12 conditions. Lemke: . Support - had trouble making the leap to a PUD with the original concept. Perez: . Pleased to see the lot sizes were addressed. . The developer is continuing to work out the draining issues with the Watershed District and staff. . Will support as long as the conditions are met. Stamson: . Agreed - it fits into the ordinance. Support. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 24.49 ACRES INTO 29 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on September 20, 2004. B. #04-72 Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amend Section 1106: Planned Unit Developments of the Zoning Ordinance to designate Planned Unit Developments as a distinct Zoning District rather than an overly district, and to establish the standards and criteria for a planned unit development. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 13, 2004 on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN091304.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 2004 On August 23, 2004, the Planning Commission initiated an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to Section 1106 (Planned Unit Developments). The purpose of this amendment is to establish each PUD as its own Zoning District, rather than as an overlay district. This will allow more flexibility in uses and other standards. The amendment also includes language requiring a high standard of development in exchange for mixed uses and flexibility in selected bulk standards. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes. Based upon the findings staff recommended approval. Perez questioned if stafftalked to John Sullivan regarding the market study. Kansier responded she did and he agreed. Atwood questioned why wouldn't the City require the marketing study? Kansier said it could be construed as a public requirement in a public entitity. Stamson felt the developer probably already had it done. The down side is how much paperwork does the City want to review? Kansier said it is something in writing stating what they want to propose. It is really for unique and different kinds of projects. The Commissioners briefly touched on not making a very specific requirement. There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . Overall like the amendment. It is consistent with the goals of Comprehensive Plan. . Liked staffs discussion on what it is not intended for. . Does not have a strong feeling either way on the marketing study. Studies can be selective. It would depend on who you hire and what you are looking for. . Would agree if others on the Commission feel it is necessary. Lemke: . The flexibility is important and fits into the 2020 Vision Plan. . Would include the market study ifit is already done. Would not want to require it be done if it had not already been done. . What about the building material? Kansier said the standard zoning requirement would be the base comparison. It would be wide open. The Planning Commission would have the flexibility to decide. . Maximum flexibility is good because things change. Has faith in the Planning Commission and City Council's discretion. L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN091304.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 2004 · As to the two public hearings - it does not seem to be streamlining the process. Often the difference between the Preliminary and Final are just the minor details. Not sure we couldn't get it all done in the preliminary procedure. · How much add in time for the two public hearing? Kansier said it usually takes 45+ days starting when the application is complete. It probably adds 2 weeks to the process. It will depend on the applicant. · Would prefer to see one public hearing and cover all the issues at the preliminary hearing. · It's a good step. One we probably need to take. Perez: · Regarding the public hearings - would lean toward one meeting to streamline. As long as the notices are sent out and the public can comment. · The market study is probably already done. Put in as a requirement. · Regarding land uses and modifications - It sounds like this would also help the Planning Department in trying to get the creativity we are looking for. Would not put any limitations on it and leave it open. . This will also meet the Comprehensive Plan requirements. . This is a high standard amendment with flexibility. Atwood: · This is a tool to allow a more flexible development and provide an opportunity for public input. · Regarding staffs three issues - agree with all the concerns. Feel there is a need for two public hearings. Would like to discuss. Theoretically one hearing works better, however, I see the need from the public's standpoint to have two meetings. · Agreed with Ringstad - Do not see any requirement need for the marketing study. However, there may be some useful information, so it could be allowed. · Recommend not to limit height requirements. Not at this stage, we can always amend. We are looking for creativity. · Agree with Ringstad that staff laid out what this amendment is not intended. Stamson: · Agree with Commissioners on the purpose and intent. When the ordinance was written, it was intended to be creative with a little give and take. This is a much better approach. It gives the City a stronger hand to accomplish its goals and bring better developments. . I do not feel streamlining the process is an issue or concern. You can't come in and build something unique to a community and expect it to be whipped through the process in a couple of days. It has to be a longer process. For that reason two hearings is better for public hearings. Streamlined is not a concern at all. . Ringstad is right, no developer is going to come in with a market study stating he is not going to make it. It is not bad to request one. We could get a document that someone might have a different look of the community. The City might learn L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN091304.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1004 something from a market study. Hate to see someone spend $10,000 at our request, but they probably already have a study. · Not concerned with the ordinance being done at the same time as the preliminary plan. The Commissioners discussed time lines (one year) and flexibility with new unique projects. The Commissioners were concerned but also agreed two public hearings were not out ofline. The public input is important. The City Attorney reviewed the proposal. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WITH COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on October 4, 2004. C. #04-111 Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amend Section 1108.808 (Applications Awaiting Action on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a combined petition process for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and an amendment to the Zoning Map. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated September 13, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. In 1999, the Planning Commission and City Council considered ways to provide a mOre systematic review of proposed land use changes, while increasing guidance to developers. At that time, it was determined the objectives could best be accomplished by amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow the rezoning of a property only after the Council had taken final action on the approval of the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. Since the time of the 1999 Zoning Ordinance amendment, staff has received numerous requests from developers wanting to submit simultaneous applications for Comprehensive Plan Amendments and rezonings. For this reason, and to further streamline the development process, the Planning Commission may want to consider removing the language from the Zoning Code. The amendment will eliminate confusion and streamline the approval process. In addition, the amendment will continue to provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission and City Council to fully review Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning requests. There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed. L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN091304.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 2004 Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · Disagree only for the reason people are going to equate the comprehensive plan and rezoning when they are really two different steps. It will eliminate the discussions of the proposal and zoning. People are going to comment on the proposal and not discuss the rezoning. . Ringstad explained his concerns with one hearing. The Commissioners briefly discussed the pros and cons of one hearing. Residents are confused with Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning hearings. . Kansier explained the intent and the actual process of the requests. . Does not like the idea of the Comprehensive Plan, Rezone and Preliminary Plat all in one hearing. Kansier responded staff will have some indication of what will happen at the hearings. The Commissioners will get to see a concept of what the developer is proposing. Lemke: . Minnesota Law states the Comprehensive Plan has to meet the zone. . Recalled other hearings with discussions on rezoning when the intent was amending the Comprehensive Plan. Kansier explained the options. People will have the opportunity to speak. Prior Lake is one of the few communities who do not combine the process. Perez: . This will streamline the process. In favor of the amendment. Atwood: . Support Ringstad: . Wauld not prefer to see a preliminary plat on the same night as the Rezoning or Comprehensive Plan. . Support. Stamson: . Agreed with Commissioners but felt there should be some separation on the hearings. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on October 4, 2004. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN091304.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 2004 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. #04-105 The City has initiated a request to vacate a drainage and utility easement on the property located at 5191 Hope Street. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 13, 2004, on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department. Mark Ruths owns property located at 5191 Hope Street. When the property was platted in 1977, it dedicated a 20' wide easement through Lot 22, Block 2, for an existing sanitary sewer line. As part of the 2003 reconstruction project, the City relocated this sewer line to the east within an existing easement. Mr. Ruths would like to build a detached garage on his property. While the proposed garage does not encroach into the existing easement, a retaining wall around the garage would encroach into the easement. The City has acquired a new easement for the existing sewer. The approval of this vacation will allow the property owner use ofthe original easement area. The description provided for the existing easement includes the 10' wide easement along the front of the property and the 5' wide easement along the rear lot line. These areas are necessary, and should be excluded from the vacation description. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . The Comprehensive Plan does not make any statements to utility easements. The public interest is served. . Support. Lemke/Perez/Ringstadl Atwood: . Ageed MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THE DESCRIPTION IS REVISED TO EXCLUDE THE 10 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT ALONG THE FRONT LOT LINE AND THE 5 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT ON THE REAR LOT LINE. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter will go before the City Council on September 20, 2004. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: The Commission elections will be held at the next meeting. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN091 304.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 2004 Memo from the DNR on impervious surface. The joint workshop is tentatively scheduled for October 11 to discuss the Comprehensive Plan. The public hearing will start at 7:00 p.m. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN091304.doc 9