Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 10, 2005 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLA NING COMMISSION AGENDA MON Y, JANUARY 10, 2005 Fire Stati n - City eouncil Chambers 6:30 p.m. 1. eall Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Consent Agenda: 5. Public Hearings: A. #04-139 and 04-140 (Conti ued) Wensmann Realty has applied for a Preliminary Plat and POD for the develo ment 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 elem ntary school site, a fire station site, an interpretive center, and parks. The Prop y is located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection ofCSAH 21 an CSAH 42. B. #04-136 Kwik Trip, Inc., h s submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Revie for Kwik Trip (Motor Fuel Station) on a commercial site located at the SE corner fCo. Rd 83 and 42. C. #04-148 Mark Crouse and L sa Beck are requesting a 10 foot Ordinary High Water setback variance for t e construction of a deck addition to a single family home at 15507 Calmut Ave ue NE. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. #05-01 City of Prior Lake is requesting a vacation of a drainage and utility easement on the property 10 ated at 3470 Sycamore Trail. B. Discussion on the Compreh nsive Plan Hearing Schedule. 8. Announcements and Corr spondence: 9. Adjournment: Ll05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSIQNI05 AGENDAS\AGOI ]005,00 .cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952. 47.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 PLANNIN COMMISSION MINUTES MOND Y, JANUARY 10, 2005 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the Janua 10,2005 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Com issioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Director Jane K sier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, City Engineer Steve Albrecht and Recor ing Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll eall: Billin ton Lemk Perez Rings ad Stam n Present Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the December 13 2004, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Pu lic Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. #04-139 and 04-140 (Conti ued) Wensmann Realty has applied for a Preliminary Plat and PUD for the development of 336 acres for a mixed unit development known as Jeffers Po d. The proposal includes 693 residential units, 23 acres of commercial, a 12 acre ele entary school site, a fire station site, an interpretive center, and parks. Th property is located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and SAH 42. The Planning Commission held a p lic hearing on this proposal on December 13, 2004. Due to the number of outstanding is ues, the Commission continued the public hearing to January 10, 2005. Planning Director Jane Kansier pres nted the Planning Report dated January 10,2005, on file in the office ofthe City Plannin Department. Staff and the developer are working n the following issues: L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MJNUTES1MNOIloo5.doc I L__ 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2005 · Engineering Concerns: Prel minary Plat; Utilities; Grading; Storm Water and Wetlands. . Buffer around Jeffers Pond · County Road Concerns . Bluffs . Tree Inventory and Preserv IOn . Fire Station Site . Parks . Market Study . EAW . Traffic hnpact Report . Overall Development Them The developer has addressed m major Issues with the latest submittal. Although all items have not been ompleted, the staff is comfortable with the idea of placing specific conditions of app oval on the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD. There are no issues that will chang the major design elements of the site. The necessary changes to the grading plan, the tre preservation plans and the wetland requirements can be addressed prior to grading on th site. Other, more specific changes will be addressed at the final plan stage. The Planning staff suggests the foll wing findings: (J) Provides a flexible approac to development which is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Ci 's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed PUD is consis ent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designations on the entire si . The PUD approach allows the location ofthe different land uses in ways t at preserve and enhance the natural features of the site. (2) More creative, efficient and ifJective use of land. open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses. The proposed PUD plan c1u ters the commercial and residential areas, and provides additional open sp e. (3) Create a sense of place and rovide more interaction among people; The PUD plan proposes trail , and other pedestrian elements to connect the residential and the commerc al elements. The commercial area is also designed to be pedestrian-friendly, and t provide services for the neighborhoods. (4) Increase economic vitality a d expand market opportunities; The proposed commercial a a provides additional retail and commercial opportunities for the City. (5) Support long-term economic stability by strengthening the tax base, job market and business opportunilies; L:IOs FILESI05 PLAN COMMISSIONIOS MINUTE~IMNOI IOOs.doc I ! 2 . ---________._L....._._.. Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2005 The proposed commercial ea provides additional retail and commercial opportunities for the City. he new residential areas, along with the commercial development, will strengthe the City's tax base. (6) Increase transportation opt! ns, such as walking. biking or bussing; The plan includes a transit rking area, which will allow the City to expand its bus service so it may serve ore passengers. This area will also increase transit opportunities for other Scot County providers. The parking area will also provide parking for those w 0 wish to use the trail system. (7) Provide opportunities for Ii cycle housing to all ages. The PUD plan includes sev al housing types, from senior housing to condominiums to townhous s and traditional single family homes. This mix will provide housing options to any different buyers. (8) Provide more efficient and fJective use of streets, utilities. and public facilities that support high quality la d use development at a lesser cost. The development utilizes a ix of public and private streets. The public streets provide access through the evelopment and to adjacent properties. The private streets are primarily used fo the townhouse developments, and will be maintained by a homeowners associatio . (9) Enhanced incorporation of ecreational, public and open space components in the development which may e made more useable and be more suitably located than would otherwise be pr ided under conventional development procedures. The PUD district also enco ages the developer to convey property to the public. over and above required de ications, by allowing a portion of the density to be transferred to other parts 0 he site. The PUD incorporates a lar natural park, as well as an active park. Other public elements include a fir station site, a school site and a transit site. (J 0) Preserves and enhances des rable site characteristics and open space, and protection of sensitive envir nmenlal features including, but nOllimited to. steep slopes, wetlands, and trees. Where applicable, the PUD should also encourage historic preservation, re-use and redevelopment of existing buildings. The plan includes a trail aro nd the lake, trails through the natural park, and a system of trails connecting t other trails in adjacent developments. The plan also preserves the bluff areas on e site, and provides a public-owned buffer around Jeffers Pond. (J 1) High quality of design comp tible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. The proposed design is com atible with the surrounding land uses. The Staffrecommended approval 0 the Preliminary Plat and PUD subject to the following conditions: LID5 FILESIOs PLAN COMMISSIONIOs MINUTES~MNDIIOOs.dOC I I ----~-,--_.._-_._._-~--,_.._---_.._---_.._--"'_.._---_._..~-- -~--_...__.._. 3 Planning Commission Meeting January II, 200S 1. Engineering Issues: Address al engineering issues addressed in the memorandum from City Engineer Steve Albre ht dated December 30, 2004. All grading, storm water and wetland issues must e addressed prior to any grading on the site. 2. Maintain a 50' wide buffer arou d the OHW of Jeffers Pond. With the exception of a 10' trail, this buffer should rem in undisturbed. 3. All Scott County Highway Dep ment issues must be addressed with the final plans. 4. No grading or other disturbance may take place within the identified bluff impact zone. All structures must meet he minimum bluff setback requirements. 5. A revised tree inventory and tre preservation plan must be submitted prior to any grading on the site. 6. The developer must provide spa e to accommodate an 8,000 square foot fire station and at least 20 parking spaces. he specific location for this site will be determined as part of the final plan phase. 7. The plan must include an active recreation park consisting of at least 4.5 to 5 acres of usable, relatively flat upland. 8. The developer must provide fun s for a future traffic signal. These funds will be escrowed as part of the develop ent contract. 9. The overall theme must be refin d and incorporated into the final plans. Questions from the Commissione s: Billington questioned the "inadequa e" plan scale. Albrecht responded the developer revised the plans however to get the plans back in a timely manner the submittal was reduced and hard to read at the time The developer has since submittal full scale plans satisfying meeting the requirements Billington stated the developer did great job in responding to staffs and Commissioners' concerns. Perez asked to review the POD find ngs. Kansier reviewed the ordinance criteria along with staffs findings. Perez questioned the density. Kansi r stated the project is well below the density requirements. This design is decrea ing the housing density. She went on to point out the green space and park areas. Comments from the Public: Terry Wensmann representing Wen mann Homes, said staff did a thorough job in presenting the report. Wensmann fi It all of staff s concerns and requirements have been met. I I I L:\OS FILES\OS PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESj\MN01IOOS.dOC ... -'---'-'-..._ ..... J. 4 Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2005 Billington asked Wensmann ifhe e countered any difficulties in meeting staffs requirements. He stated he had no roblems and did not foresee any surprises that would hold up the project. Leslie Davis, of The Earth Protecto s Environmental Group, 622 Lowery Avenue, Minneapolis, said he was stunned ith the developments in the area. Davis stated the plan in front of the Commissioners s not a plan but a theoretical project of devastation and destruction on one of the last b autiful places in the State of Minnesota. He questioned the storm water runoff anagement. Davis went on to read an article with statements made by Paul Oberg on ob Jeffers wishes. He would like to see the paper giving Oberg the authority to do w t Mr. Jeffers wanted. Davis felt this was a total destruction of the area. Even thou he lives in the city he is affected by this development. Davis was disappoin ed in the Department of Natural Resources approval when people depend on them to pro ect the land. He realizes the developers put a lot of money into the plans but he suggest d they be refunded by the State Lottery Environmental Trust Fund. Davis ked for a month's continuance to look at the project so he could bring solid reasons and lternatives for this land. Jim Deanovic (applicant partner) po.nted out this project has been in the process a long time. Staff has looked at this for ov r 4 years. This project is part of the City's 2020 Plan. All agencies have spent a lot ftime reviewing the project. Rhianna Saxon, 14584 Bridle Ridg Trail, spoke at the last meeting though she understood the area was a protected area. She wanted to speak as a concerned citizen and exercise her voice for the preservati n of the property. Saxon read a prepared statement protecting the wildlife and environ ent. She was concerned for the loss of wild life habitation and wetlands. Prior Lak is a special place. She hopes the Commissioners will make the right decision for alii ving things that have no voice. She told the Commissioners to be brave, live fea less, be extraordinary and make the right decisions even if they stand alone. Saxon wr te a poem in commemoration of this event to her life, which she passed out to the Commi sioners and staff. Paul Oberg, Executor for the Robe Jeffers estate, stated several years ago Bob Jeffers concluded the property was not suit ble for farming because he did not believe in using chemical fertilizers. He dredged th pond you see today. The bluffs, pond and surrounding area will remain in its atural state to be used for educational purposes by the school and nature center. The n ture center will be a cooperative venture with the Estate, School District and City. T staff and developer are aware he has established a conservation easement to protect th natural beauty. Oberg stated he has full trust in the City and developer and encouraged he Commissioners to support the development as proposed. I Terry Schammel, 2812 Cougar pathf said she came for another matter and was not aware of this project. She asked the Comnjtissioners to wait on their decision until more people are aware ofthis project, because shF wasn't. This will affect a lot of people. I i L:\05 FILES\OS PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTEtNOllOOS.dOC 5 _.~------_.._. -_.._~J___.__.__._.___.. Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2005 I I The public hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. Comments from the Commissiontrs: I Ringstad: · The Commissioners go bac at least 18 months discussing this project. At least 5 government agencies (City fPrior Lake, DNR, Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District, Metrop litan Council and the Army Corps of Engineers) have studied this project and the ffects on neighboring areas. . At the last meeting I brough up the protection of the bluff was absolutely critical as to how this works throu the POD process. Staff has stated they are comfortable with moving fo ard with it being preserved. It is a must in my estimation. . Agreed with the additional . The commercial area is not . Based on all information re ark space. reating a saturation of businesses within the City. ived and staff s conditions I will support the request. I Billington: I . Reviewed all documents inc uding the EA W. They were all professionally done. · The developer has a traditio of caring in the community. They do not come in with bulldozers destroying t e environment. Other work they have done in the area is impressive. So I hav no concern about the quality of the developer. . The design of the property akes sense. It provides for conservation and allowances have been made. . The City Staff has done a gr at job in coordinating all agencies on this project. Have to believe the regulato agencies are aware of the statutes and will make sure they are carried out pro erly. . Will support this project unl ss something jumps out and demands attention. . This development will be d ne properly and in the interest of the community. This will not be swept unde the carpet and not given proper attention by this body or anyone else. . Support. ! i Lemke: ! . Does not have a lot to add t~the Commissioners' comments. . The City Council held a len thy hearing on the EA W. All the agencies reviewed this project and came to a di ferent conclusion than some of the opinions heard tonight. . . This process has been open bd transparent. There have been many meetings open to the public. This didlnot come about two weeks ago. . Staff did an excellent job la~ing out the Findings why this POD should not be held up. ! . Prepared to support. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTE~\MNOll005.doc I I I , I ..\.~. 6 Planning Commission Meeting January //, 200S Perez: . Thought about this for a Ion time and read all information, heard the concerns of the neighbors. It may be a s tuation where I personally don't want to see either, but something is going to b developed. . We have to look at meeting he requirements and the location. Everything we have read meets the require ents, certainly since the last meeting. The developer took great strides in meetin our concerns. . Not saying I agree or disagr e with the development but for this body is how I have to look at it, and this is a development good plan. . I agree with all the Findings It makes sense to utilize this open space and maintain lower density. Th fire station and school are a lot of tradeoffs for the City. . Whether you agree or disag e with this area, there will be development. This plan keeps things in place d creates a lot of positives for the City of Prior Lake. . Will approve. Stamson: . Agree with fellow Commiss oners. . A couple of people say they ere surprised with this project. However, we have seen this project more than yother in the last decade. . The conceptual plans came bout several years ago. We reviewed a number of different testimonies on this roject. . The Prior Lake American h done articles on it. It was not sprung on us in the last few weeks. It's been ha pening for several years. . Agree with fellow Commiss oners - it is the best use of the area. It preserves the natural features. It meets all fthe criteria for a PUD. . Overall I will support this. I . Prior lake has changed drast cally in the II years I have lived here. The question is where is it going? The re lity is this is an urban area. There is no way to stop the development. When yo look at the City atmosphere we have provided many open spaces, more so than 0 er suburbs. We are doing an excellent job in that case. . The entire City cannot be pa~kS' To be an efficient city, it must grow. . This particular property is b autiful. The development as presented is preserving what we like about it, yet all ws growth that is practical. . Support the development. I MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND *Y BILLINGTON, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KN WN AS JEFFERS POND, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. ! ! Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MPTION CARRlED. This matter will go before the City <j:ouncil on January 18,2005. LIas FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\Os MINUTES\MNOI I005.doc 7 ....._._...--l.,____..~."......__~..".. Planning Commission Meeting Jalluary 11, 2005 I I I I B. #04-136 Kwik Trip, Inc., Jj.as submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for fwik Trip (Motor Fuel Station) on a commercial site located at the SE corner of e1. Rd 83 and 42. i Planning Coordinator Danette Moote presented the Planning Report dated January 10, 2005, on file in the office ofthe Citr Planning Department. Kwik Trip, Inc. has applied for a cqnditional Use Permit to establish a motor fuel station within the Community Business ZOling District. The site is within the Wilds North 4th Addition and is located at the south ast corner of CSAH 83 and CSAH 42. The 3.3 acre site is proposed to con ain the following elements: . A 4,825 square foot conveni~nce store. . 10 fuel pump stations with fn overhead canopy . A 2,805 square foot carwas9' i The proposed site plan will meet s~aCk requirements. The carwash will be required to adhere to conditions detailed in the ity Code, and maintain hours of operation between 6:00 am to 10:00 pm, unless the se ice doors to the facility remain closed. In addition to the Conditional Use irmit' the applicant is required to have site plan approval by the City Development eview Committee. While working with the Development Review Committee, t e applicant has made modifications to the site plan to limit impacts to adjacent properties. i i The proposed motor fuel station is ~lowed in the C-2 district with approval of a conditional use permit. In order to rpeet the criteria, the Planning staff recommends the following conditions: i , , 1. Conditions outlined in Section IjI02.1003(1) ofthe City Code, related to motor fuel stations as a conditional use, shalll be adhered to. 2. Prior to building permit issuanc~, all grading and drainage plans must be approved by the City Engineer. . 3. Exterior materials of all buildings on the site shall comply with Section 11 07.2202 of the Zoning Ordinance. ! 4. Buffer yard requirements as out$ned in Section 1107.2000 of the City Code shall be m~ . 5. The carwash shall limit hours o~.operation from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm. Questions from the Commissione1s: Perez questioned who was on the D~velopment Review Committee. Moore responded that all department heads and some ~fthe support staff were involved. LlOS FILESIOs PLAN COMMISSIONIOs MINUTE~MNOIIOOs.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 200S Billington questioned the proposed building location from the nearest structure. Moore explained how she scaled the area. !fhere is a roadway between the residential homes and the fuel station plus the additional f~et from the nearest structure. Billington questioned the grading mild visibility. Albrecht responded explaining the grades and elevations. There will b~ minor berming and landscaping. Billington questioned the height. Moore responded it would be 20 feet to the top ofthe canopy. Billington questioned the landscapitg. Moore explained the requirements. The applicants exceed the requirements.! Billington questioned the signage. ~oore responded the sign plan has been submitted and will have to come forward with!an additional permit. They have not officially applied for a permit. Just looking a~ it, it does not look out of place with the City's requirements. Kansier displayed th~ proposed building signage. The applicant has also reduced signs from what is allowed.! Moore stated the applicant's requesl meets all requirements. Perez asked if a traffic study was d~e. Moore said it was not required. i I Ringstad questioned if two accesses! were too much on County Road 83. Albrecht stated the County would not permit an int~rmediate access at that point. Also, there is a significant amount of grade from Wpds Path on down. It would be a problem even ifthe County would permit it. I Ringstad questioned if the two acce~s points are typical for a project like this. Albrecht explained that originally there were ~ accesses proposed however staff disagreed and allowed 2 accesses. Moore pointed out the developer has made a number of changes since the beginning of the application. Most notably the crash. It will be a limited use not to disrupt the neighbors. , Lemke questioned our carwash reqU(irements. Moore responded there are conditions such as hours of operation. Perez questioned the requirements f~r outdoor events. Moore explained it would not be permitted. Comments from the Public: Brad Fry representing Kwik Trip thi/-nked staff for all their work. He would be available for any questions. L:\05 F1LES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTE~\MNOl1005.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2005 Billington questioned if they did a ttaffic count. Fry responded it was not required but he hoped it was high. Dave Peterson, 14213 Badger Circl~, said as residents they pay a lot of money to live in a nice quiet golf community and now!within 350 feet from his house a proposed gas station is going in. He felt it was not goinm to be a convenience for him or his neighbors and stated Prior Lake does not need another gas station. Peterson asked if the City knew the impact on crime and felt it was goinLg up. Would like to see the impact on crime especially with little kids playing wjthin 200 feet of this gas station. Peterson said he knew it was going to be a commerc1al area but thought the access was coming off County Road 42 or the main entrance to Th~ Wilds. He questioned the City's benefit for putting in a gas station in that area as he di<1n't see any. Peterson went on to say the people who use the Casino have more of a crim~ record than those who do not go to the Casino. He stated there will be more crime with a gas station. If this goes through Peterson felt his house would go down in value. He ~lso said Wensmann Homes is not disclosing what is going in this area. Peterson wanted !to know what the standards are for letting consumers know what is going in. Perez explained this area is designated for a gas station. Moore went on to further explain if the applicant didn't need ~ Conditional Use Permit the residents would not have been notified and the applican~ could have built the station. Peterson said the gas station would be selling alcohol. Adding it all up there is no need for another gas station. Patrick Stevens, 14190 Coyote Circle said he was shocked to find out about the station. Stevens felt this is a dangerous traffic area. People who stop at the gas station will be coming from the Casino. The road Is not well designed for this use. There is no traffic count. He has lived in the area for 8 months and has seen 3 accidents at the intersection. Stevens also questioned the traffic atId tanker noise. He felt this could be a high crime area. There are a lot of kids in the area and use the streets to walk to play. Stevens stated it is a ridiculous area to put a gas st*ion. The gas station will be a draw for kids to go in and buy candy. . Jerry Thiesen with Shamrock Develppment stated they worked with Scott County for a long time on the access. This cornet has always been considered "commercial", at least 8 years. The area was platted specific~lly as a commercial corner with the intention of a gas station and convenience store Olj. this site. It is a good site to meet the needs of the neighbors. Felt badly the neighbors!were not aware of this long time designation. Quite often when properties are sold the iIj.formation is not transferred to those purchasing. Terry Schammel, 2812 Cougar PathNW, said when she purchased her home it showed one entrance into the development. 'She later found out they were adding the entrance from County Road 83. She called S~amrock Development and was told the area would be a commercial area with lower traffic. Schammel went on to say she pays to be part of L\Os rILES\Os PLAN COMMISSION\Os MINUTESIMNOI IOOs.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2005 The Wilds Association but you wou'dn't know it because you have to drive past the Kwik Trip to get to her house. Jed Adams, 14210 Coyote Circle, a$feed with the neighbor's comments that he did not know what was going in. Adams fe't it would be an eye-sore and changing the neighborhood. He is opposed to tht1 project. Had they known they would have reconsidered their decision to move !to that area. Scott Mooney, 14167 Woodchuck 1)rail, echoed the sentiments that this project is not for the neighborhood. He was told the ~ea would be a "light commercial development". In his mind a gas stationlcarwash is not what he considered to be a light use. He did not see this fitting into the neighborhood. 1]he access will be next to a high development area increasing traffic through the neighborhood. If the site will not accommodate access off County Road 83 then do not allow it. If this development does go through, please reconsider higher landscaping requirements. Mooney suggested higher berms and more trees such as mature evergreens. He was concerned a traffic study was not done for this project. Lighting was not brought up as it is a concern. They already look out and see the teepee lights. The residential ania is becoming very commercialized. As a taxpayer he disagrees with the direction of this project. Rick Tremmel, 14171 Badger Circl~, said he has a retention pond in his back yard and is concerned for the gas runoff. He capnot touch the buffer zone. All the gas runoff will flow into a pond and will cause bad flffects for the water quality. He felt there should be a study done before making a decisipn. Steve Albrecht responded to the wetland comment and explained it was a constructed stormwater pond meant to handle arjd treat runoff from the Wilds North development. The County did look at the traffic stjldies including this area as a commercial area. That is why the County is not requiring atly additional infrastructure at the intersection. They anticipated the traffic volumes it wopld generate. There is no specific traffic count for the gas station however, it is 36 footLwide street. It is minor collector street with only 182 homes which is not an overuse (j)fthe street. Albrecht explained the street capacity. Again, the County did look at the tr~ffic and did not warrant any additional improvements. Patrick Stevens, 14190 Coyote Circle, questioned the purpose of having a gas station at that particular area. Who is it suppose to serve? Applicant, Brad Fry with Kwik Trip responded they have gone over the l!llldscape requirements as well as the building architect requirements. He also reSponded on the use ofthe Kwik Trip station - they are family owned, they are a grocery store, bakery/coffee shop and gas station. The purpose is to serve all residents and drivers *ing County Roads 42 and 83. Terry Schammel, 2812 Cougar Path, just heard how everyone is going to preserve Jeffers Pond. She understands growth is inevitable but they do not need another gas station especially off a residential street. The average child is under 5 years old. It is too close to homes. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNOllO05.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting January II, 2005 The public hearing was closed at 8: 14 p.m. Comments from the Commissiontlrs: Billington: · There is a safety issue and a!real problem with traffic with cars and movement. . There is a visual impact. . Not saying it's a bad projecfbut has some issues with the site and will have some problems supporting the site. Lemke: · If this property was zoned something else and the applicant was asking for a rezoning I probably wouldn'!t approve. . At this point, it is allowed. . Support. Perez: . Understands where Commis~ioner Lemke is going with this but there are other uses for this. . I do not feel the Findings haye been met for the Conditional Use Permit. . Cannot support. Ringstad: . Questioned Albrecht on the ~tation access - The County said it is too close to permit another access. Albrecht said based on the County's overall review ofthe Preliminary Plat, Wilds Pathi was the closest access they were going to allow from County Road 42. Nothing bptween Wilds Path and County Road 42 is going to be permitted as part of their aCgess control. . Kansier responded the distarlce from County Road 42 is just under a quarter mile - 1,000 feet. . The access is only allowed ail Wilds Path is the worst case scenario. If! owned a home I would be concerned. . Kwik Trip might want to reqonsider part of their plan to serve the 180 residents. They may not support the stl!>re. . However, the commercial pi~ce of property meets the requirements. It doesn't mean if! was in the neighborhood I'd like it. . I purchased homes in and Ol\t of Prior Lake and failed to check the surrounding zomng. . "Let the buyer beware"- wh~n any of us move, you have to go to the City and see what the neighboring properties are zoned. . Will reluctantly support. . We are not asking to change the zone, it is a permitted use. . Encourage Kwik Trip to reconsider if they want the residents to be customers. LlOs FILESIOs PLAN COMMISSIONIOs MINUTE$IMNOIIOOs.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting January II, 2005 Stamson: . Asked staff for the theoreticitl argument for a CUP. Kansier eXplained the CUP uses are appropriate for the :).rea but have impacts. The Findings are laid out and if the Commissioners do not. find certain requirements they can layout conditions. · On this particular intersectidn is there a potential for another gas station? Kansier eXplained the designated zoI/.ing on the four corners. The Comprehensive Plan identifies them as commercilll areas. . It is the corner of two Count~ roads. Feel Wilds Path is sufficient to handle the traffic. It is common in the Twin City area and this is the way stations are built. Usually there are commerci~l designations along the street. · Struggling with the residentjal area. · Questioned if the area has alr,vays been zoned residential. Kansier pointed out the corner area has always been iintended as commercial. . Struggling with the Finding~. Open Discussion: Perez questioned if all the Findings have to be met to approve. Kansier said all CUP requirements do not need to be met ro mitigate the impact. However there can be applied conditions for landscaping, noise, Tting, signage, etc. You have to add up the positives and negatives and see what you coare up with. I Perez said he cannot approve not knpwing the impact. There are no traffic studies. As a body we cannot say there are no imJjlacts. That's where I struggle. Landscape does not cover safety. i , Kansier said if the concern is trafficf the Commissioners can ask for that information from the developer. i Lemke noted nobody is going to driye up to this corner just to get gas, people will stop as a convenience driving past it. I Samson explained why gas stations require a CUP. Perez asked if there are other uses f~r this designation that do not need a CUP. said there are several, offices, daycfes, retail stores, etc. Kansier Perez felt this was not a good use f<t the area. Stamson said it is not anyone use. Jt is very different than the Pike Lake Holiday Store with residential areas around it. Th~ traffic doesn't impact it the same way. The problem here is the driveway comes out into ithe neighborhood. It is not a bad place for a gas station but it's the site configuratioQ. The overall impact is negative to the neighborhood. Will not support. We are not short of gas stations at this time. LIDS FILESIOs PLAN COMMISSIONIOs MINUTESIMNOI IOOs.doc 13 Planning Commission Meeting Janaary 11, 200S i MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND B~ BILLINGTON, DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE CUMLATIVE IMPACT <j>F A HIGH INTENSITY USE ON THE CORNER WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN TIiIE GOALS OF THE COMMUNITY DISTRICT AREA. THE SITE SPECIFICALLlf HAS SOME FEATURES THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED ALTHOUGH IT IS ~ERMITTED FOR THE DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by Perez,!BilIington and Stamson. Nays by Ringstad and Lemke. MOTION CARRIED. ' I The brief recess was called and the Ineeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. I I C. #04-148 Mark Crouse and~'Lisa Beck are requesting a 10 foot Ordinary High Water setback variance for the c struction of a deck addition to a single family home at 15507 ealmut Avenue N . I , Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 10, 2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. I Mark Crouse and Lisa Beck are reqfesting a 65 foot variance from the required 75 foot ordinary high water setback variancF to construct a 3' by 12' stairway and landing addition to an existing single famil~ dwelling on property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. i The existing single-family dwellingiwas constructed in 1995 after approval of setback variances to the front yard and the qrdinary High Water Mark. In February, 2001, the Planning Department received an aJjplication from Mr. D. Mark Crouse for a variance to allow a deck to be located 4' from t~e Ordinary High Water Elevation on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. lIhe deck was constructed in the year 2000 without a required building permit. I The Planning Commission conduct~d a public hearing on this matter on June 25, 2001, and subsequently denied the varian e. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's denial of the deck se back variance. The City Council ultimately upheld the Planning Commission's decisio . The applicant then removed the deck as required. The second story patio door, constnlcted with the house in 1995, remains in place. , , I The DNR reviewed the proposed valiance request, and does not object to the construction ofa 3' by 12' stairway and landing,!provided there is an existing door. i , The strict application of the require1 ordinary high water setback poses undue difficulties on the development of the property. I Based upon the findings the staff recommended approval of the variance. i L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNOllO05.doc 14 Planning Commission Meeting Jalluary 11, 1005 Questions from the Commissione~s: I Ringstad questioned what would beirequired if the variance was not approved, would the patio doors have to be removed andireplaced with a window? Kansier responded the applicant did not have to replace with a window. Stamson questioned what was diffe~ent about the property on the survey. The impervious surface was discussed at length at a lJrevious hearing. i Kansier pointed out the survey is mjt reflecting the impervious surface reduction. requested walkway does not affect tre impervious surface. The Comments from the Public: Applicant Mark Crouse, responded to the Commissioners' concern regarding the impervious surface. They are 100kiIjI.g for safety. It is a critical issue. He is open to any questions. Robert Uebele, 15247 Nautica Cirelf NE, stated he is the president ofthe Windsong Association and has no objections t1 the request. i The public hearing was closed at 9:~0 p.m. ! Comments from the eommissiondrs: , Lemke: . Not opposed to the request *sed in the DNR and staffs recommendations. . It is not adding anything tha~ is not already below it. It is just a minimum to correct the doors to the grou~d. i · Support. i Perez: . Agreed with Lemke. . Approve. , Seeingi the DNR reviewed this and are fine with it. I . i Rmgstad: i . Support - would be looking ~t this differently if there was not an existing patio below. We have been consi*ent with looking at variances with the Ordinary High Water Mark from a safjlty point and there is already a deck below. , I ! Billington: i . Agreed to support per staffsi recommendation and conditions. i Stamson: . Agree with Commissioners that this is a minimal impact. It does not create an impervious surface impact. LIDS FILESIOs PLAN COMMISSIONIOs MINUTESlMNOl IOOS.doc 15 Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2005 . Having trouble finding a lacl!;: of deck as an undue hardship. We haven't found that in the past. To me a dec~ is a convenience. If a window was there it wouldn't be a concern. We do not find not having a peck or entrance on the lake side is a hardship. There has been a few cases where tlhat was the only access or practical access to the home. This is not the case. Not supporting. . . Ringstad: · Did not disagree. If it was npt for the lower level and am not considering this a deck. Ifit was a deck I would vote against it. There is no new encroachment beyond something existing. ~t is the only reason I am supporting it. Stamson: · Agreed, it's not a deck, onlyiaccess to the home. It is more of stoop or landing. , I MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SEC01'fD BY BILLINGTON, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 05-01PC APPROVING A 65 FOOll ORDINARY HIGH WATER ELEVATION SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THElcONSTRUCTIONOF A STAIRWAY AND LANDING ADDITION TO THE SJ;NGLE FAMILY DWELLING. i Vote taken indicated ayes by all. *OTION CARRIED. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. #05-01 City of Prior Lake i, requesting a vacation of a drainage and utility easement on the property located ~t 3470 Sycamore Trail. i Public Works Coordinator Makenzi1 McCormick presented the report dated January 10, 2005 on file in the office of the Pubtc Works Department. i In 1978, the City purchased an ease*ent on the property at 3470 Sycamore Trail for the purpose of constructing and maintairing a sanitary sewer. In 2004, the City rehabilitated the existing lift station and placed n~w sanitary sewer lines in a different location. It was discovered at that time that the sew~ line was not located in the original easement. Mr. and Mrs. Mader granted a new ease~ent to the City for the new placement and maintenance of this utility. As a result, the original easement is no longer needed. The City Council initiated the vacation or the existing easement on December 6th, 2004. A public hearing has been scheduled fr the January 18th, 2005 Council meeting. The vacation ofthis easement is notiinconsistent with any specific goal or objective of the Comprehensive Plan. A new ea*ement has been obtained for this area. Staff recommended approval of the vacatjon. L:IOs FILESIOs PLAN COMMISSIONIOs MINUTES'lMNOI IOOS.doc 16 Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2005 Comments from the Commissionefrs: Perez: , · Questioned the two determi9ations. It says the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss utility el1Sements. Is there ever a time when that becomes an issue? Kansier responded it !would be unlikely unless there was a pipe that wouldn't be protected. She ~ent on to explain how it would become an issue. Stamson: i . Staff explained the City has po future needs and it is in the public's interest. . Support. Lemke/PerezlRingstad/Billington, . Agreed ! MOTION BY BILLINGTON SECcjlND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APROVE THE V ACA1jION AS REQUESTED. , Vote taken indicated ayes by all. M~:)TION CARRIED. i This matter will go before the City ~ouncil on Tuesday, January 8th i i B. Discussion on the eompre~ensive Plan Hearing Schedule. i , Planning Director Jane Kansier briefed the Commissioners on the proposed Comprehensive Plan public hearingf. Staffis looking for comments or concerns. i The Commissioners thought it wou* be best to give an overview. Most of the public input would be on the Land Use Map. Has there been any contact with the raper? Kansier said staff can do that. 8. Announcements and Corr~spondence: 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9: 17 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:IOs FILESIOs PLAN COMMISSIONIOs MINUTE~IMNOIIOOs.doc 17 PUBLIC HEARING ! Conducted by ~he Planning Commission cJ~~ ~O. 2000- The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who choose to speak, we ask th~t, after speaking once you allow everyone to speak before you address the Co~mission again and limit your comments to new information. Please be aware this is the princip~l opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, ~urther testimony or comment will not be possible except under rare occasions. ' The City Council will not hear ad~itional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you. ' ATTEN~ANCE - PLEASE PRINT LD EPT'N ORK' .BLA:-iKF~vl\PHSIGN1; l' .dec ____._.._.~m__'____._____.__..____m_.._"..__ PUB~IC HEARING Conducted by the Planning Commission I /-~" r~) I I The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who choose to speak, we ask th~t, after speaking once you allow everyone to speak before you address the Conjmission again and limit your comments to new information. : Please be aware this is the princip!ll opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, ~urther testimony or comment will not be possible except nnder rare occasions. ' The eity Council will not hear ad~itional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you. I , ATTEND~'iCE - PLEASE PRINT NAlYlE r-<if I L '~h III Un ,; I L l'e.rec~J.< AIl DRESS ~ ) HflX 7''1/1 .....\T' t'llll.f .fllM ~ '>-/0 I , . r;, '/ S / M (i .. h A I/E.. PI- I t) I" t..CJ 1.1 __ I I : : i , I ! I , , I i ! I I I L' DEPTWOR1('BLANKFRMIPHSIGNUPdO$ i I --1____,.__...~_.~___.__,_____.____...,____._._~__...__._..__