Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102504 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 25,2004 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. #04-121 Lifestyle Homes has an application for a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet on property located at 4851 Rutledge Street SE. B. #04-122 Verizon Wireless has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility in a residential district. This property is located at 14998 Wilds Parkway NW. 6. Old Business: A. Tree Preservation discussions. 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Agellda\AG102504,DOC 'ty f . I k WWW.CIOpnOrae.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2004 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the October 25, 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 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 October 11, 2004, Plarming Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. #04-121 Lifestyle Homes has an application for a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet on property located at 4851 Rutledge Street SE. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the planning report dated October 25, 2004, on file in the City Planning Department. Mitchell Husnik is requesting a five (5) foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback to construct a single family dwelling on a site located south of Rutledge Street, east of Lakeview Circle, and west of Stefan Circle. In 1994 the lot was approved as part of the Lakefront Woods Final Plat. However, the final plat was never recorded, so the lot does not exist. The survey submitted does not coincide with the legal description provided by the applicant. The survey and legal description will need to be revised to reflect the site as a separate and legal lot. L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNI02504.doc I Planning Commission Meeting October 25, 2004 The neighboring lots maintain front yard setbacks ranging from 26 feet to over 40 feet. The closest neighboring structure (to the east) is setback over 40 feet from the Rutledge Street right-of-way. The footprint of the proposed structure is 2,280 square feet. The structure is proposed to have a three stall garage. The applicant has not submitted any building elevations or floor plans. Over fifty percent of the site is comprised of a wetland. However, the site maintains the ability to accommodate a reasonable building pad area within the required setbacks. If the proposed structure was reconfigured or reduced in size, the structure could meet setback requirements. The strict application of the required 25 foot front yard setback will not disallow reasonable use of the site. A single family dwelling with a different design can comply with these requirements. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommended denial ofthe requested variance. Questions from the Commissioners: Ringstad asked ifthere was a rear yard setback issue with respect to the wetland. Moore responded they were right at the 30 foot setback. Lemke questioned if the neighbor setback of26 feet was from the house or the garage. Moore responded it was the house, the closest structure. Comments from the Public: Mitchell Husnik, owner of the property at 4851 Rutledge Street, working with Steve Millar who would like a single family home on the property. Husnik distributed a revised survey indicating the lot was legally subdivided and Certificate of Titles with "cancelled" stamped on the documents. The legality of the lot has been in question with staff. He also read a two page letter disagreeing with staff s report. Lemke questioned the impervious surface calculations. Moore responded it 3,451 square feet, just under by 120 feet, assuming that is the driveway and patio areas. Husnik said that was included. Stamson asked for the per(;.entage. Moore said it was around 28 to 29 percent. Steve Millar, 15657 Fish Point Road, said he also owns lakefront recreational property near Red Oaks. It is important to be a good neighbor and would like to have a three car garage to store his trailer. They looked at several configurations and felt this worked best. Perez questioned the exemption on filling in the wetland. Husnik said he did not have the particular details, but he understands there is an exemption of up to 400 square feet for all L\04 FILES\04 PLAN CQMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNI02504.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting October 25, 2004 wetlands. It has to be approved by the City. This is another option ifthe Planning Commissioners turn down the variance. However, they would like to work with the City. Moore added that any shore land lot which proposes to alter 10 cubic yards or more is required to apply for a grading permit. In this case, as part ofthe grading permit the wetland exemption would be reviewed and referred to a technical evaluation panel. In either case, it would have to meet the requirements, it is not a given that the fill would take place. It is not an automatic exemption. It is also a separate item from this request. Connie Carlson, 15559 Lakeview Circle, pointed out the applicant was incorrect stating several of the neighbor's have front yard setbacks substantially less than the City requirement. The neighbors' front yard setbacks are closer to 50 feet from the road. She also attended the original final plat public hearing and the information Mr. Husnik presented was not part of the discussions at that time. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: . Questioned the sidewalk and setback area. Kansier said the sidewalk would be in the easement. . Questioned the relationship between the property line and street. Kansier explained the driveway grade. . Understands the applicant's desire but there are no hardships. The building pad can be adjusted. . Deny - not in favor. Ringstad: . Staffs suggestion to redesign the home and eliminate the need for the variance is correct. . Agree with Atwood, the hardships are not met. . Deny. Lemke: . I see it different, the topography of the lot creates a hardship. The difference on a 20 or 25 foot setback from the garage should be an administrative decision. My recollection is a 20 foot setback is acceptable. Anything less than 20 is impacting the safety and site lines. . There is still going to be a sidewalk in the easement. . Find a hardship in the wetland and lot. Perez: . Sees the property owners' obstacles, the wetland will continue to be an obstacle. The question is the reasonableness of the house trying to see if something will fit. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNI 02504.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 25,2004 . If this is approved it will affect the averaging of any other structure. It does have an affect. . The exemption of fill may be a possibility - agree with staffthat all the hardships have not been met. . The house can be redesigned. . Based on all those reasons - agree with staffto deny. Stamson: . It is a difficult lot but not unusual. There are many small areas on the lake with difficult slopes and setbacks. The buildable area is similar to lake lots. In some instances some front yard setbacks granted. Generally we look at a small lot and prefer to push the house closer to the street rather than the lake. . This particular lot does not meet the hardship. There is plenty of buildable space for a home. It can be redesigned and the applicant would still have reasonable use of the property. . The State requirements dictate and the hardships are not met in this case. . Vote against. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 04- 12PC DENYING A REQUESTED FIVE (5) FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. Vote taken indicated ayes by Atwood, Ringstad, Stamson and Perez. Lemke nay. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. B. #04-122 Verizon Wireless has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility in a residential district. This property is located at 14998 Wilds Parkway NW. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 25,2004, on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department. Verizon Wireless has applied for a conditional use permit to allow the placement of wireless communication antennas on the civil defense siren structure on property located on the Maintenance Center property for The Wilds golf course. An existing 50' utility pole with the civil defense siren is also located on this property. This proposal moves the existing utility pole about 25' to the east, on the south side of the existing maintenance garage. The proposed tower will be 70' high and constructed of galvanized steel rather than a standard wooden utility pole. It will be surrounded by a 7' high security fence. The site also includes a utility building, located immediately east of the existing garage. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNI02504.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting October 25, 2004 Antenna towers, and accessory buildings, are a permitted use in all Zoning districts. The proposed height ofthe tower is consistent with the provisions of Section 1110.503, Paragraph 1. This proposal is somewhat unique in that the City will continue to own the tower. The civil defense siren will be relocated to the top of the new tower, and Verizon Wireless will enter into a lease agreement with the City for the use of the tower. That agreement must also be approved by the City Council. The Planning Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must receive a building pelmit prior to any construction on the site. The plans must be signed at this time. 2. The applicant must enter into a development agreement with the City for the use of the City's tower. Questions from the Commissioners: Stamson questioned if there were no alternate sites that would provide the required height. Kansier said this is the only structure. They could put it on an existing 50 foot pole, whether that could accommodate the antennas we don't know. The pole would almost have to be replaced one way or another. Stamson noted past antenna issues. Lemke clarified the 50 foot wooden pool would be removed. Comments from the Public: Jaymes Littlejohn, attorney from Moss and Barnett, representing Verizon Wireless stated staffs report was thorough. However he did explain the antenna location and the galvanized poles. The civil defense siren will be on the very top of the pole where Verizon's antennas will be lower at 15 feet. Ringstad asked Littlejohn ifVerizon needs an antenna or additional antenna to serve the customers they have. Littlejohn responded the only people present at the hearing were in favor of the antenna. Ringstad said he has Verizon and the service is poor in that area. Littlejohn explained this is 10 feet taller than the shortest installation ever done. A mile to 2 miles in radius would solve a lot of problems. Renwood Erickson, 2845 Wilds Lane, a Verizon customer said he has very poor service and almost unable to use their cell phones in their homes. Supports the request. The public hearing was closed. L\04 FILES\04 PLAN CQMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNI02504.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting October 25, 2004 Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: · In favor of the proposal and maximizing the existing structure. It would better to have the one tower instead of two. Lemke: . The City comes out very well in this. More of our citizens would be able to benefit from it. There is no down side. Support. Perez: . Agree with Commissioners. This will be a positive impact to the community. . It is consistent ofthe goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. . Likes that it is replaced with galvanized steel. Support. Atwood: . Agree with Commissioners and support. Stamson: . Agree with Commissioners. It is better served in that area. . As far as placement, in a residential area you couldn't get much better than this. It is sitting near a maintenance shed for the golf course. There is no negative impacts. . Support. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS TO ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ANTENNA ON THE CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14998 WILDS PARKWAY. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter will go before the City Council on November 15. 6. Old Business: A. Tree Preservation discussions. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated October 25, 2004, on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department. At the August 23, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners reviewed the City's tree preservation and restoration ordinance. After evaluating the current ordinance, consensus was reached that the current requirements adequately provide for L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN102504.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting October 25, 2004 the preservation and replacement of trees as development takes place. However, it was also noted additional measures could be considered in relation to the following areas: . Tree inventory integrity/credential requirements . Standards for significant specie replacement . Consideration of "Best Practices" Moore gave an overview of the proposed requirements. Comments from the Commissioners: Perez: . Who would check the best practices? Moore responded it would depend on who the Commissioners would recommend. The engineers could check some of the issues like fencing or drip line barrier. It would have to be looked into. Atwood: . Would like to discuss this tonight and wanted to point out the objective of the Commission was not burden the staff with this. If a couple of the changes like "best practices" could be implemented would be a great idea. . It would not hurt the City to have a certified forester on call, do not know the expense, but would like the City to check into it. . A reoccurring theme throughout the four years as a Commissioner has been unhappy neighbors with significant tree loss after the development is in. It is an important discussion. . Would like to add that a certified forester follow up after the development was complete. Ringstad: . Would not disagree but the concern is cost. Who pays for having a forester on call? Atwood said the developer would be responsible. . The cost would be then passed on to the residents. The City should not be responsible. Stamson: . The cost would be shifted from the surveyor or engineer. By just requiring the inspections should be done by a certified forester will give you a level of expertise but probably does not increase cost. Surveyors and landscape architects are not cheap, the cost is shifted to someone who is more qualified. Lemke: . Does the City have anyone who goes out and checks for Dutch Elm disease? Yes, the park maintenance staff checks trees. Primarily it is done on city property. . A lot ofthis information is wonderful. Likes the ability to waive a percentage of tree replacement incase there are more desirable trees utilized. Likes the flexibility. Might get a better end product. L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNI02504.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting October 25, 2004 · It is also important the developer has a wound kit on hand to repair injured trees. . On bigger tracts serve notice to the contractors the City is serious on tree preservation. Inspectors will be checking. Most people in the trades understand that. It's just a question of whether or not they think they will be scrutinized. Stamson: · It would be nice to see what trees would be tagged to be saved and removed. The Commissioners would like to have staff include some of the simple changes to implement and not raise costs. Use a better level of expertise. Kansier - staff can take the recommendations and bring back a proposal for review. Lemke: · Still like the idea ofreplacing an oak for an oak. It is significant to our area. 7. New Business: None 8. Announcements and Correspondence: The City Council may conduct a workshop on November I to discuss transportation in the Comprehensive Plan. Tonight is Commissioner Atwood's last meeting. Kansier thanked her on behalf of the staff. Stamson also thanked Atwood for all her hard work and insight. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:32. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNI02504.doc 8