HomeMy WebLinkAbout121304
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the December 13, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, 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:
Billington
Lemke
Perez
Ringstad
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the November 22, 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. #04-144 Jonathan Kuckhahn is requesting a variance from the Zoning
Ordinance requirement for a driveway setback to a property line located south of
CSAH 82 west of G1ynwater Trail, north of Arctic Lake.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated December 13, 2004,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Jonathan Kuckhahn is requesting a 3 foot variance from the required 5 foot setback to
construct a driveway which will be less than 5' from a property line on the property
located south of CSAH 82, immediately west of Glynwater.
The property is zoned ASD (Agricultural Shoreland District) and is guided R-L/MD
(Urban Low/Medium Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Map. This is an existing nonconforming lot. The buildable area of this property is
located about'!. mile south of CSAH 82. The only driveway access to the building site is
from CSAH 82 via the 16' wide strip ofland. The strict application of the ordinance
creates an undue hardship in this case, since there is no other alternative for the driveway
location. The staff recommended approval.
L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\Q4 pc Minutes\MN121304.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2004
It is unusual to allow construction of a driveway prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the dwelling. However, the length of this driveway, and the fact it is the only way to
reach the site, are mitigating circumstances. To alleviate any potential problems, the staff
suggests the applicant submit a Letter of Credit (LOC) to cover the cost of removing the
driveway if a house is not constructed by December 31, 2006. The LOC would be
released upon issuance of a building permit or removal of the driveway within that time.
Billington questioned the amount of the LOC. Kansier said they would work with the
applicant and Engineering Department.
Comments from the Public:
Applicant Jonathan Kuckhahn, 4280 Chestnut Lane, said he was concerned with the
Letter of Credit requirement ifhe would not be able to build within the City's timeline.
Kansier explained the condition - a building permit would have to be applied before
December 31, 2006. Once the building permit is issued, the City will release the Letter
of Credit. Two years is a reasonable time frame. Kuckhahn questioned what would
happen ifhe had to sell the property and not put the driveway in. Stamson responded it
shouldn't be a problem. The applicant wouldn't put a driveway in without building a
home.
Jan Margis, 3349 Glynwater Trail NW, asked for clarification on the driveway. Kansier
said the driveway would be 2 feet from the applicant's property line. Margis requested a
fence be installed between the walking path and the driveway as a requirement.
Billington questioned the length of the suggested fence. The applicant responded it might
be 150 feet.
Stamson questioned why the walking path was put on the line and the driveway cannot be
on the property line. Kansier explained the unique property and access.
Chester Schultz, Board member of Glynwater West Homeowners Association, presented
a statement of concerns read by Kansier.
LeRoy Bohnsack, 3343 Glynwater, said there currently was a 4 foot washout on the
easement. He also said there are homes within 15 to 20 feet of the driveway. Questioned
where the sewer and water line would come from. Kansier responded the service line
would go between the city park easement. Bohnsack also asked what would be done for
dust control. Kansier said that would be handled during the construction.
Jan McCormick, 3315 Glynwater Trail, said the new road would be basically in her back
yard. She felt the trees would be destroyed and the dust unbearable during construction.
Stamson explained a driveway is not a roadway. He also pointed out the trees were not
on her property.
L:\04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinuteslMNI2IJ04.doc 2
---.---------~--,---,..-,-,."-.-.-----"--.---_"_. .~.,_..__._____.____.~__.______.___.. ___.'m____._.._._.__._.".._.~_
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2004
Kansier noted the landscaping in Glynwater went onto the applicant's property.
LeRoy Bohnsack, asked if the applicant knew where the sewer and water would go. City
Engineer Larry Poppler said there were several options.
Jim Clark, 3353 Glynwater Trail, questioned if the City was interested in buying the
applicant's property. It would be a shame ifthere is a house between the city park and
the lake.
Kansier said the City did look at this property and the City Council felt this property was
not appropriate at the time.
Jonathan Kuckhahn, responded the trees mentioned by the residents were owned by the
SMSC and will be cut down with their development. They are also scrub trees.
Ringstad questioned if the applicant will blacktop the driveway. The applicant said he
would with some type of impervious surface.
J an Margis questioned if the property was even buildable. Kansier responded it was.
Stan Ellison, the Land Manager for the SMSC, pointed out the easement was put in place
to avoid land-locking and has been there at least 20 years that he knows of. The lot and
easement were there before the Glynwater development. Ellison said most of the trees
are scrub trees and they sit on SMSC land and will be removed at some point. The fact is
there is no other way to the property.
Kelly Murray, representing Wensmann Realty, explained the history of Glynwater. The
16 foot easement is not part of the Glynwater plat or the SMSC property. It is a separate
parcel ofrecord. Last winter the County mailed notices to all the adjacent property
owners that the easement would be for sale through tax forfeiture. Wensmann Realty
bought the property on a sealed bid and they are now the fee owners. The easement
parcel was created originally for a driveway to the triangle property. The owners did not
keep up the taxes and it went into forfeiture.
The hearing was closed at 7:03 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. Ringstad questioned runoff on neighboring properties. What is the plan? Kansier
said before grading for the driveway the applicant will show where the runoff will
go. The City will work with the applicant. There are options. It will be a
challenge but it will be accomplished.
. The applicant has a buildable lot. The City and applicant will make sure the
runoff does not run onto the neighbor's property.
L:\04 PILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN121304.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2004
. Agree with staffs findings. Support the variance request. The hardship criteria
have been met.
. Initially not in favor of the fence. Residents walk on city streets without fences.
Billington:
. Agreed with Ringstad and staff. This is a reasonable request.
. A fence would be lengthy and a difficult configuration. Not sure of the cost
benefit.
. Support staffs conclusion.
Lemke:
. As much as the residents voiced their concerns a property owner is requesting use
of his property. It is a reasonable request to gain access.
. Understands the neighbors don't like it. If you build a walking path two feet from
the property line you should not complain when someone else is two feet from the
other line. That is the way it is.
. Support the variance.
Perez:
. Agreed with staff - all nine hardships have been met, especially 2,3 and 7.
. Agreed with Ringstad, this needs to be done to build on the lot.
. Approve with conditions.
Stamson:
. Note - it's not a question of will or will not a driveway be built. The resident has
access to an easement to build a driveway and has sufficient land to build. It's a
classic example of a variance. It has to be an undue hardship created by
ordinances. That is the conflict - it's the two competing issues with ordinances.
The problem is ifhe builds it 5 feet he can only build a 6 foot driveway. Either
we allow him to have a 6 foot driveway or allow him to build closer to the
driveway. Its width versus closer to the driveway.
. The sensible solution is to allow him to build closer than 5 feet from the property
line.
. Agreed with staff and commissioners.
. Not necessary for a fence. It's a driveway for a single family home. There are
sidewalks along most roads. There is no need for traffic control.
. The amount of construction traffic is not an issue.
. Support as presented.
Lemke questioned snow removal. Kansier responded the property owner would have to
be like anyone else next to the property line.
L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNl 21304.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2004
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, ADOPTING RESOLUTION
04-14PC APPROVING A 3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 5 FOOT SETBACK FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
B. #04-137 Amcon Construction has filed an application to amend Section
11 07.304 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for a separate designation for the
number of required parking spaces for kennel uses.
Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated December 13,
2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Amcon Construction has filed an application to amend Section 1107.304 ofthe Zoning
Ordinance to provide a separate designation for the number of parking spaces required
for animal kennel uses. Although the applicant has applied for this amendment for a
specific site, the amendment will apply to all kennel uses.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow for a separate parking classification for animal
kennel uses, independent of animal hospital uses. In the past, kennel facilities have
commonly been an accessory use to a veterinarian facility. However, in recent years
animal boarding I kennel facilities have become more numerous and independent of
animal hospital uses. For that reason, many communities are reviewing parking
requirements related to this use, and adjusting them accordingly.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives ofthe
Comprehensive Plan and the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes. Staff
recommended approval.
Lemke questioned how the parking would be required and the actual enforcement.
Moore explained the process.
Comments from the Public:
The applicants were present but declined to comment.
The public hearing was closed at 7: 18 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Had the same concern as Lemke. Preference would be 5 parking spaces plus one
for every 10 kennels - similar for day care and nursery parking. If animal training
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNI21304.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13. 1004
is on site there should be one space for every attendee and every employee. It is
easier to enforce.
. Agree with the change but more along the lines of the example.
Lemke:
. Agree with the change that animal hospitals and kennels need the same amount of
parking.
. Support the change with Stamson's language.
Perez:
. Agree with the change.
Ringstad:
. Agreed - the ordinance is required. Like Stamson's recommendation for parking.
Billington:
. Agreed - it is time to update the ordinance language. The change in that business
is like any other business, constant revolving and we have to change with it.
. Support with the amended number of parking spots.
MOTION BY ST AMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTION 1107.304 OF THE
PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE WITH THE REPLACEMENT LANGUAGE OF FIVE
PARKING SPACE PLUS ONE FOR EVERY 10 KENNELS. IF ANIMAL TRAINING
CLASSES ARE TAUGHT ON SITE, REGISTERED CLASS ATTENDEES PLUS
EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AVAILABLE PARKING STALLS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on January 3,2004.
C. #04-141 Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community has filed an application
for a Conditional Use Permit for the realignment of approximately 3,100 feet of
Dakotah Parkway to accommodate an event center building addition to Mystic Lake
Casino.
Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated December 13,
2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) is proposing to excavate
140,000 cubic yards. 30,000 cubic yards of the excavated fill will be reincorporated
within the site and 110,000 cubic yards will be removed. The 18.2 acre area is located on
the west side ofCSAH 83, approximately % mile south ofCSAH 42 and y., mile north of
CSAH 82. The purpose of this excavation is to allow for the relocation of approximately
3,100 feet of the existing Dakotah Parkway. The new alignment will accommodate an
event center building addition to the Mystic Lake Casino. Section 1101.509 of the
L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN121304.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1004
Zoning Ordinance states grading, filling, land reclamation, and excavation require a
Conditional Use Permit for excavation of more than 400 cubic yards.
Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit request, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to beginning any work on the site, the applicant must obtain approval ofthe
wetland mitigation plan.
2. Prior to beginning any work on the site, the applicant must obtain a permit from the
Watershed District and from any other agency as required. Copies of the approved
permit must be submitted to the City.
3. A tree inventory and replacement plan must be submitted prior to the issuance of any
permit.
4. An Irrevocable Letter of Credit, on a form prepared by the City and approved by the
City Attorney, is to be submitted prior to the recording of the resolution. The amount
of the LOC is for 125% of the cost of the landscaping. Bids or estimates for the
required landscaping must be submitted to the City for review and approval.
5. The excavation must be done according to the approved plans.
6. The clean up of gravel as a result of spills or general transportation of gravel on any
public road shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
7. Hours of operation are 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (weekdays) and
8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays.
8. Watering for dust control shall be done on an as needed basis or within 24 hours
written notice from the City. Such notice shall be transmitted by facsimile to the
applicant. Dust control includes the entire project area and is not limited to roadways.
Water for dust control shall be provided from an off-site source.
9. The CUP is valid for one year, but is revocable at any time for noncompliance with
any condition contained herein. At the expiration of its one (1) year term, the
property owner may make application to the City to renew the CUP. The initial
approval of this CUP does not create any right, in law or equity, to the renewal
thereof. Any renewal of the CUP is subject to City Council approval and is to include
any information as requested by City staff or the City Council that would aid the City
Council in determining whether the excavation activities conducted pursuant to this
CUP created any adverse impacts to the health. safety or welfare of the City or its
residents.
Commissioner Perez is abstaining from comments and voting as he is employed by the
SMSC.
Comments from the Public:
Stan Ellison, Land and Natural Resource Manager for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community (SMSC), gave a brief description of the proposed road and requirements.
The realignment is for access to two buildings. An additional project is to replace a new
lift station. It will help to alleviate any problems with County Road 83. The majority of
the vegetation is scrub trees. They will plant new trees even though it is not required.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN121304.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2004
Ellison pointed out the site and the future road with impacts to the wetland. He also
explained the wetland mitigation plans.
Stamson asked ifhe knew the traffic count. Ellison said he does not have the current
number. The intended number will be employees and some golf course access. It should
not be a busy casino road. Eighty percent of casino traffic is off County Roads 83/82.
There still should be a way around any construction on County Road 83.
The public hearing closed at 7:35 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Billington:
. The request is reasonable and meets the criteria.
. I am sure engineering has reviewed this. With their guidance I will support the
request.
Lemke:
. Once again the SMSC has shown a lot of class. All oftheir facilities are first
class. Believe this will be the same.
. It will be a beautiful bridge and will preserve the wetlands.
Ringstad:
. Agreed - will support.
Stamson:
. Agreed - The Community has done a great job designing this. They went above
and beyond the requirements.
. Support.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING
RESOLUTION 04-XXPC TO ALLOW GRADING AND EXCAVATION OF MORE
THAN 400 CUBIC YARDS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all with Commissioner Perez abstaining. MOTION
CARRIED.
n. #04-139 and 04-140 Wensmann Realty has applied for a Preliminary Plat
and pun for the development of 336 acres for a mixed unit development known as
Jeffers Pond. The proposal includes 693 residential units, 23 acres of commercial, a
12 acre elementary school site, a fire station site, an interpretive center, and parks.
The Property is located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21
and CSAH 42.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated December 13, 2004,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNI21304.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2004
Wensmann Realty and Paul Oberg, executor for the Jeffers Estate, have applied for
approval of a development to be known as Jeffers Pond on the property located at the
southwest quadrant of the intersection ofCSAH 42 and CSAH 21. The application
includes the following requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
. Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a mixed-use development consisting of retail space and offices,
single family homes, residential condominiums, townhomes, senior apartments, an
elementary school site, a fire station site, transit station site, and parks and trail on a total
of 336 acres. 37% of the site is wetland. This is the first PUD proposal submitted under
the new Mixed Use PUD standards, adopted by the City Council in October, 2004.
Kansier gave an overview of the entire project.
A brief overview - The preliminary plat consists of lots for 117 single family homes, 211
townhome units, 47 rental townhome units, and 204 senior co-op apartment units. The
plan also includes a 24-acre mixed use site, consisting ofretail, office and other
commercial uses, and 114 residential units. Density of the development is based on the
net area ofthe site, which is 194.02 acres. There are a total of 693 units proposed, for an
overall density of3.57 units per acre. This is consistent with the density in the R-1
district.
There are several issues pertaining to this proposal. Some of these issues will affect its
overall design. Others are issues that must be addressed prior to preliminary plat
approval. These include the following:
. Engineering Issues:
1. Topography
2. Utilities - interceptor pipe
3. Grading
4. Storm Water
5 . Wetlands
. Buffer around Jeffers Pond
. County Road Issues
· Bluffs
. Tree Inventory/Tree Preservation
. Fire Station Site
. Parks
. Market Study
. EAW
. Traffic Impact Report
. Overall Development Theme
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN121304.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13. 2004
Based on the issued listed above, the proposed plan cannot proceed as is. The Planning
staff recommended the public hearing be continued (to January 10, 2005) until several of
the issues have been addressed.
Lemke questioned the round-about not meeting Federal Highway Standards. Kansier
said the idea is to provide a nice traffic flow out of the commercial areas. The
dimensions will not meet the standards. A school bus or fire truck cannot make it around
it. If it is provided it has to work.
Comments from the Public:
Terry Wensmann, ofWensmann Homes, stated they have been planning this project for
over a year and are happy with the plan. It will preserve the natural amenities on site
with a nice housing mix. Many government agencies are involved. They are working on
staffs comments and concerns. None of the issues will be a problem. They are just
going to tweak the process. They are not concerned with tabling the hearing to January
10.
Billington noted he really liked the project and wondered if the applicant had any
concerns with engineering's comments. Wensmann responded they met with stafflast
week and did not see any significant changes.
Billington asked about the timeline. Wensmann said they would like to start grading this
spring. They feel they can meet the dates and actually start building homes after the
streets are in - maybe July - depending on the weather. The school has some urgency.
Build out may be 3 or 4 years.
Lemke questioned if they were okay with the Watershed District. Wensmann responded
most issues have been addressed with the Watershed and DNR. They do not foresee any
problems.
Lemke would like to see the roundabout. Terry Wensmann said they are looking at
meeting the standards. Hopefully they can preserve it.
Deb Olson, 14640 Bridle Ridge Trail, said her family has enjoyed the Jeffers Pond area
for 10 years. Olson asked the Commissioners ifthere has been any consideration for the
amount of noise in that area. It is already noisy with County Road 21. She stated she has
grown accustom to a certain standard ofliving in the country. Now it sounds like she'll
be living in the "freeway". Kansier responded "noise" is addressed in the EA W. The
suggestion is the noise would not be any more than any other development on the site.
County Road 21 is a major road which will continue to Highway 169. One of the
requirements with this development is to have some sort of buffer and landscape along
the road. Olson said she is still concerned with the noise for the residents who live along
County Road 21. She asked the Commissioners to consider the lifestyle of the residents
who live in Carriage Hills and Raspberry Ridge.
L:\04 FILES\Q4 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN12] 304.doc 10
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2004
Rhianna Saxon, 14584 Bridle Ridge said no one cares what she says because she is not
rich or a developer. Saxon said she moved from an overdeveloped area that changed
everyone's lifestyle so she moved because it was miserable. She moved to Prior Lake
because it is a magical place and still like the country. The Jeffers Pond area is like a
dream. Why can't these beautiful areas be protected? Where will the wildlife go? She
does not want to look across the street to see industry, cars, etc. Saxon felt her house will
be worth nothing. This development will change Prior Lake and she'll move.
Deb Olson asked staff for the traffic count on County Road 21. Kansier said she does not
have the exact count, probably around 24,000.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke questioned the DNR's concern with the maple basswood forest. It looks like it is
being preserved. Kansier responded they were talking about the trees on the ridge and
park. Everyone is making every effort to preserve the ridge and trees. It is part of the
natural park area.
Lemke asked if the developer had any concerns with the fire station. Kansier said the
concern is size and configuration. Without a specific layout it is hard to tell. The
developer will note as part of the plan that it will meet staffs concerns.
Lemke questioned the noise issue with the breakout of the development. Half the traffic
will come off County Road 42 and part off County Road 21. Kansier explained the
traffic flow.
Ringstad said he is going to be specifically looking at the bluff impact zone. He would
like to see the 50 foot buffer preserved.
Kelly Murray said there was a problem reading the lines on the plans to distinguish the
setbacks from the wetlands. A new plan was redesigned and the actual topo has
improved areas where it looks like there is a bluff impact.
Kansier pointed out there were 300 notices sent and tried to solicit public input. It has
been in the newspaper and the developer had a neighborhood meeting.
Billington asked if the EA W was available for review. Kansier said it was available on
the City's web site and a copy at the office.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY BILLINGTON TO CONTINUE THE HEARING
TO JANUARY 10,2005.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN121304.doc 11
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1004
6.
Old Business:
None
7.
New Business:
None
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The December 27'h Planning Commission meeting has been cancelled.
Kansier announced Councilmember Blomberg will be resigning.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\Q4 FILES\04 PLAN COMMI$\Q4 pc Minutes\MNI21304.doc 12
PUBLIC HEARING
condU~he Planning Commission
UA,VJ&v I ~ I Jt)Cff
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.
ATTENDAJ.'1CE - PLEASE PRINT
NAJ.'1E
ADDRESS
I
5SIZ'U
"
5":5'Yo
,J
L: \D EPTWOR.I<:' B LAClKFRM'PHSIGNlJP ,doc