Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 Meeting Minutes rough draft 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, June 20, 2016 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, June 20, 2016 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Wade Larson, Bill Kallberg, and Dave Tieman. Also present were City Attorney Sarah Schwarzhoff, Project Engineer Seng Thongvanh, Director Dan Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke and Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, May 16, 2016 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MAY 16, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV16-001015 – 2567 Spring Lake Road – Variance – The property owner is requesting a side yard and front yard setback to replace an existing garage with an attached two-car garage within the Low Density Residential Shoreland (R1SD) Zoning District. PID: 25-131-006-1. Planner Matzke introduced the variance from the minimum front yard setback and minimum side yard building separation. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented a resolution, location map, survey dated June 15, 2016 and a conceptual building plans stamp dated May 23, 2016. Applicant Jeffery Holten, (2567 Spring Lake Road SW) He said Planner Matzke summarized the application and commented on the amount of impervious surface left after construction is completed. He mentioned a brief letter that was attached to the application. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson asked how long has the applicant has owned the property. Holten replied they purchased the property last January. Tieman questioned the neighbor to the west garage being out further than the proposed garage. Holten responded saying yes, and explained the garage situation of placement. 2 MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 6:16 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 6:17 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson stated this agenda items is straight forward, matches the building, acknowledged the space of the garage and home. He commented on the variance being light and not out of the ordinary, as well as the impervious surface being reduced. He said he is in favor. Tieman agreed with Commissioner Larson; it looks like a great project, nice reduction in impervious surface. Kallberg said he would like the structure on the left/west noted as a very large building occupying most of the Lot 5 and Lot 4 and they are not in code for their side yard setback, being at only three feet; He stated the reason for this needed variance is due to the distance between buildings is being affected by the proximity of the adjacent structure on the common Lot line. He said they are doing a good job of this and is improving the property, the little garage that you see in the photograph is no longer there, as it has already been removed. He feels this will improve the property. Fleming stated he will be supporting the variance; it does meet our five-point threshold in 1108.400 in the zoning ordinance. MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUESTED TWO VARIANCES FOR 2567 SPRING LAKE ROAD WITH THE LIST OF CONDITIONS AT 6:21 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. B. DEV16-000001 – Summit Preserve, LLC – Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, Variance, and a Conditional Use Permit - Summit Preserve, LLC is proposing; (1) a preliminary plat on 55 acres for 71 single family Lots and 122 attached townhome units; (2) a rezoning from PUD Planned Unit Development to R-2 Medium Density Residential; (3) two variances for minimum Lot depth and front setback for the townhome units; and (4) a conditional use permit for 122-unit cluster townhome units within the proposed R-2 District. The subject property is located north of 140th Street NE (County Highway 42) and east of Crest Avenue NE (County Highway 18). PID: 25-924- 001-1, 25-924-001-2, 25-924-001-4, 25-924-002-4, 25-924-002-1, 25-924-002-2. Director Rogness introduced the Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, Variance and Conditional Use Permit. He explained the history, current circumstances, rezoning, preliminary plat, conditional use permit, variances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented a location map, preliminary plat, preliminary plat sheets, PUD approved in 2007, staff memo’s, tree preservation area and maps, and resolutions. 3 Engineer Thongvanh commented on the sewer component. He presented a map and explained where the sewer component is, sanitary sewer connection and where the sewer flow is. He mentioned the applicant has two options: (1) reconnect from the sanitary sewer at Meadow Avenue, just south of County Road 42; (2) Put additional sanitary sewer along County Road 42 and still bring the sanitary sewer service on Crest Avenue. He mentioned that the applicant is reviewing the cost and some of the pro’s and con’s of the above two options. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming thanked staff for raising the issue with the County and stated their letter was pretty clear with their nine comments. He asked the timing of the conversation; where are we at on the Kensington conversation? Director Rogness responded commenting on a meeting set up with the County that was canceled and rescheduled. Fleming questioned if there was a traffic study; as there seems to be a lot of traffic. He commented on the units and the traffic at a full build out. He stated he would like to be absolutely sure that the traffic studies are accurate. He commented on not supporting a project that doesn’t think thoughtfully and deeply about the implications of traffic onto a major connector. He asked Director Rogness the process of the traffic study. Director Rogness explained the traffic study that was done; primarily to evaluate the amount of traffic going to County Road 42, and if it would warrant the traffic signal. He stated the counts that are being looked at and if the PUD had stated/constructed, there would be a traffic signal but the County is backing off of that requirement of a signal. He said it is really dependent of what it warrants and what the traffic study shows. Fleming asked how nimbly does the County respond once the warrants have meet that threshold. He stated he wouldn’t want to see a huge mess for the City and then a protractive process with the County to meet our needs and collaborate. Director Rogness gave an example of Pike Lake Road with Commercial on one side and lots of residential to the south. He explained the area and said this intersection acts as a full intersection without signals being there, until the traffic warrants would dictate. He is not experienced on what triggers the County to make that decision and at what point. He explained there is a certain amount of traffic that triggers that. Fleming asked if we can find that information out. Kallberg said he had the same reservations about the traffic and the intersection. He explained with a different intersection discussed at the City Council meeting last week. He commented on one ways with residential area and Savage losing their right in/out. He questioned getting a signal; maybe at Kensington and commented on designing a one way in/out of the development and how many years it would be before there would be other access off of Highway 18. Director Rogness explained the first stage and commented on what could be recommended by the Commissioners on behalf of the Kensington closure. He commented on what staff feels the developer should/should not do on their own. He said he doesn’t believe what is being proposed conflicts with the right hand turn lanes; however, if the Commissioners felt that it should remain open, he believes the Commissioners could provide that recommendation. He commented on the long term plan in the corridor area and stated there is more discussion that needs to occur with the County on the street subject. 4 Kallberg questioned the Kensington right-in/out and weaving traffic due to the U-turn. Director Rogness explained where they would make that U-turn. He said this area is already open and assumed this may already be what is going on. Kallberg responded but there is no right turn lane for the new street at this time. Director Rogness stated no there is not, and explained they would go down to the full intersection and make a left turn and it would not conflict with the right hand turn lane. Larson asked Engineer Thongvanh if he could explain the water booster station. Engineer Thongvanh explained showing the grading plan and statint the elevation. He explained the proposed elevations leaves 44 feet of difference between the areas. He commented on the importance to provide the necessary pressure to serve the area. He pointed out where the water tower is, and explained where the high point is. Larson questioned the booster station helping other developments coming in from the north of this area. Engineer Thongvanh replied it would to a certain extent. He commented on the high point and the land going down, resulting in grade changes, and pointed out the overall high point, this is what we are trying to meet as far as the water pressure is concern. He pointed out where it extends a little that being to the north and then stated it goes down from that point. Larson asked if that was based on how many homes are in the development or more of the topography. Engineer Thongvanh stated it is more of a grade issue, he stated we had the same issue when Director Rogness showed the PUD, so of the commercial was higher or even higher building from that, so it is more of an elevation issue at that point. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 4B AT 7:01 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. Applicant: Did not comment. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY LARSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 4B AT 7:02 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tieman stated overall is a good development; it matches our R-2 needs for the community and it is a really nice job laying this into the area. He complimented the developer on their job; addressing the trees, layout, playground and so forth. He shared concerns about the traffic on County Road 42 and the intersection with the slope. He said overall he believes this is a good use and the variances are minimal. 5 Kallberg said he recalls about this particular area is back in 2007, when this was going to be commercial, they had in mind a creative water quality feature that would have a deep ponded area and would recycle that water irrigation purposes; he doesn’t see anything like that now, but at least they have areas for storm water management and that is quite important factor in the Prior Lake area. He stated there is a long list of recommendations from Staff therefore, there is not much more we can add to that. Larson stated he agrees with connections for water and sewer to be worked out along with the engineering department. He said he is in favor of this PUD Plat. Fleming said he is in favor for the plan however, has deep concerns about the traffic. He wants to be sure that our conversations with the County are proactive and that as much as we can respectively be pushing them to also be proactive and give us some insurances in the timing of the warrants and their capacity to be nimble when those needs arise. He stated the plan does meet our seven-point threshold in 1108.202. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE NUMBER ONE; REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM PUD, (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), TO R- 2, (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SUBJECT TO THE MET COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT 7:06 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO RECOMMEND APROVAL OF ALTERNATTIVE NUMBER TWO; PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUMMIT PRESERVE SUBJECT TO REZONING THE PROPERTY INTO R-2, (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) INCORPORATING THE FOUR PROPOSED CONDITIONS AS SUGGESTED BY STAFF AT 7:07 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPROVING ALTERNATIVE NUMBER THREE; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CLUSTER HOUSING OF ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-TWO UNITS (122) IN SUMMIT PRESERVE AT 7:08P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPROING ALTERNATIVE NUMBER FOUR; VARIANCES OF FIVE (5) FEET FOR THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACKS IN ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY (120) FEET FROM MINIMUM LOT DEPTH FOR THE CLUSTER HOUSING AT 7:08 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. C. DEV16-000005 – Andren – Preliminary Plat – Hemlock K. Holdings, LLC is proposing a preliminary plat on 8.5 acres for 22 single family Lots within a R-1 (Low Density Residential) Use District, and a minimum corner Lot size variance on Lot 22. The subject property is located south of Carriage Hills Pkwy NE, north of Beach Street NE and east of Bluebird Trail NE. PID: 25-926-018-0. Specialist McCabe introduced the request for the preliminary plat and consideration of approval of a minimum corner Lot size variance in a low density residential subdivision. He explained the history, current circumstances, preliminary plat, variance, property exchange, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented a location map, development plans dated May 17, 2016, Memo dated June 16, 2016 and additional memo dated June 7, 2016. 6 Engineer Thongvanh reviewed the grading plan for the site; commenting on sloping towards the south, proposing low point, proposed street, Hemlock and Raven drainage, stating drainage is pretty straight forward. He commented on site balance for grading and hauling material on the site, stating that would be a question for the applicant. He commented on the storm sewer plan stating it follows the layout of the roadway and drains out to the pond. He explained sewer and water and stated it is fairly straight forward again. He pointed out where the applicant is proposing a sewer line and where our main line is; he stated they cross and then go down to Beach Street and so the applicant is proposing to use that storm as part of their development. He explained the sewer and saving on some depth is still being reviewed. Specialist McCabe explained further on the property exchange subject and the variance on Lot 22. He commented on preserving trees/woodlands. He stated attached to the report is a number of pages of memorandums from the Community and Economic Development Department, Engineering and Public Works Department stating the number of concerns and issues staff is working with the applicant who is working in good faith and addressing any of the comments; most noticeably storm water management, public infrastructure, utilities, tree replacement and the Outlot dedication and how that will work at the final plat. He commented on how well the applicant has been working with Staff. Commission Comments/Questions: No questions. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 4C AT 7:19 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Roy Stromme, (4913 Beach Street) He stated he has lived on Beach Street since 1986 and there has been a lot of changes. He gave status of being in the business of Commercial Property Developer as well as an Attorney. He likes what is being proposed but has concerns regarding the storm water pond, planning issues, engineering and legal; he commented on this concerns touching base on storm water treatment facility, storm water design, drainage into Beach Street pond, excessive discharge into the lake, lack of reports of existing baseline operational characteristic of the pond, vacated/orphan street and an existing non-working pond with an addition makes for a larger non-working pond. He stated he has discussed this with his Engineer and mentioned there is no report or inventory from the City available; he said he will have one preformed at his expense to review calculations. He closed with he would like this proposal tabled until the proper engineering storm water is stable and he explained why this is so important to him. Applicant Terry Forboard, Principal and President of Forboard Land Company, as well as a Chief Operating Officer, Principal in Hemlock Holdings, LLC, (the applicant). He thanked everyone for the opportunity to explain their project and gave an extensive background of his development experience. He presented the slide show explaining the proposed parcel has been owned by a long time Prior Lake resident and stated he has also known her for quite some time and is grateful she selected their company to plan the development. He commented on the following: property being an infill site, working with the City in a series of meeting and interactive processes, and creating reiterations, different concepts and being sensitive to existing conditions. He stated the topography is steep and heavily wooded; adding the challenges to develop this property. He commented on removal of trees, balance of dirt, utilities being subterranean, interesting Lot patterns, curvilinear movement to streets and Lots, contours of the site, amount of grading, following City guidelines, and supporting staff recommendation and conditions. He 7 explained how the City and developer worked together via phone conferences, meetings and agreements have kept them on time for planning; stating any of the outstanding items that remain will be worked out with the City. He explained the processes of the preliminary and final plats stating this protects the City and residents to ensure that the developer does everything required as addressed within the legislative process. He commented on supporting staff, best possible approach and they are comfortable with the preliminary plat. He commented on the storm water pond, explaining it is performing the way that it is intended; however, they recommend wiping the slate clean and possibly redesign the pond and explained how they could redesign it. He stating after many designs and ideas, we mutually agreed on the design that is before us this evening. He commented on a neighborhood meeting that occurred last Thursday evening; overall he thought it went well. He stated some of the concerns of the neighborhood including minimal tree loss and grading, noise, traffic, dirt and safety. He commented on encouragement to kids to be aware of their surroundings. He stated in the staff report there is commentary on hours of operation. He introduced his Senior Engineer, Roger Humphrey and stated we are available for any questions you may have. He commented on time frame of getting started/ending. Kallberg stated he was confused of the orientation. He shared concerns of a pond that may be owned by a neighbor. Specialist McCabe explained the orientation of the document is rotated. Larson asked Engineer Thongvanh about the current storm water that they have, is that the filtration system where that would be located currently. Engineer Thongvanh explained there is two cells to this; the existing cell and he explained the location. And the upper cell, which is a pretreatment cell for that ponding area. Larson asked since the improvements have done, have there been any ramifications on the cul-de-sac neighborhood below the pond for flooding or causing any issues to homeowners. Engineer Thongvanh said if there are issues with the pond our Water Resource Engineer might be a better contact as these are issues with the pond or even the pipe that is discharging out to the lake have inspections on by this department. He has not shared any concerns to us as far as this is concerned. Larson questioned the discharge and asked if there is a pipe that runs underground that discharges to the lake from the existing pond. Engineer Thongvanh replied yes to the pond down towards Beach Street, believes there is one or two pipes. Kallberg questions a vacated street referred to by a resident. He asked what street that is. Stromme explained the orphan street. Applicant Forboard explained the orphan street was a title issue which has been corrected by the City and approved by the City Council within the last six to seven weeks. He said the orphan street has been corrected and any title issues related to any of these properties and there is a condition to that and that will happen. Fleming asked staff if there is affirmation of the City Council title issue is resolved. Planner Matzke said yes, it went through the City Council a couple months ago as well as our City Attorney Office for review. 8 Applicant Forboard said his recommendation is those that would be a condition of approval, which is typically the case and we accept that. Tieman asked the size of the proposed retention pond and what it can hold. Roger Humphrey, Senior Land Developer and Engineer for Stantec. He explained the City of Prior Lake has a very extensive storm water ordinance and stated they modeled the existing conditions of the site including on and off site areas that drain into the site that ultimately goes down to the storm water pond in the southeast corner of the property. He said when they evaluated the existing conditions we also have to take into consideration the proposed conditions and when that is being done we had to initially look at having two ponds, one in each corner of the area, which we end up ultimately on several concepts with the final proposal where we actually expanded the more of a regional pond, the City portion that was in a rectangular shape at the bottom. He said this pond had a sliver of what we call wet pond area where it is actually water and when storm water comes down there, it is a standing surface water condition, settlements can settle out and it can continue to quin the water, to prepare for the next storm. That area we have increased considerably, so we are able to provide the three things the City require; volume control is the upper basin that is mentioned, rake control which is a larger pond that can store more water and slowly let the water out of the pond and then water quality, having a better water retention system at the bottom of the pond and these things are being done under today’s standards, where maybe that pond when it was initially built was built under older standards that generally didn’t need those three conditions. He said we have some off site water to the north, to the west, but when we get to Hemlock on the west side as we go south, that is where the other neighbor mentioned that water is hydrologically disconnected from the upstream portion of the pond in terms of our development. His water goes down to Beach Street to the cul-de-sac and into the pond at that location. He said we also looked regionally as a whole the terms of the entire development area to look at the size of that pond. He said we baseline that and then ultimately do the storm water system that we submitted to staff and are working out minor items on that. Kallberg asked if the new storm water design going to include some iron sand filtering facility or just plain sediment fund. Engineer Thongvanh replied he doesn’t think there are any plans for an iron sand filter, correct. Humphrey said no not for this design. Mike Wolf, (4978 Beach Street NE) He presented a photo and questioned safety of children and road damage with only three inlets. He explained the three inlets stating one was just recently redone and asked if there are any, at this time, damage deposits and who is responsible for cleaning up any road damage. Engineer Thongvanh responded stating as far as construction traffic concerned the one unfortunate part of this is it is an infill development and will have impacts from all sides. The one thing we need to look for is the grading portion and he believes the applicant mentioned they would balance the site. He said a majority of this will stay on the site; there will not be a whole lot of trucking once they start to clear the trees and move dirt around, there is not a whole lot of trucks as far as traffic is concerned, there will be construction traffic, workers and bringing in equipment, otherwise where grading is concerned that should be it. The biggest impact is going to be when they are building the street. He explained the process of trucks and when there will be the most traffic; towards the end. The good thing about this area is there is multiple access points to this, a lot of times if there is construction traffic comes in one way and out the same way, whereas if you have multiple points they may come in on Bluebird and loop around and out a different way. Damage wise it is a public street; we have had developments in the past, 9 the streets are built to withstand. We can certainly evaluate and continue to do maintenance on the streets every few years. Fleming said what provision or recourse do we have or the City have, if a development brings with it some extraordinary wear and damage. Wolf commented on a lot of fill being brought down to the southeast of the property and now we will have construction in both places. He said there will be an excessive use of Bluebird and Carriage Hill Parkway with the property that is being proposed right now along with the property to the southeast. He asked all the roads that were just repaved and resurfaced and redone all the money that was spent to do that, what is the plan to make sure these roads are put back together. Engineer Thongvanh replied that as far as the development, we have a development contract and within these contracts we have public infrastructure, we take security for these, plus twenty-five percent. If we do see excessive wear and tear on the roads, we are going to call upon the developer to remedy the situation. Wolf questioned the land swap. He has not seen a defined plan of attack as far as where that grading goes, how far tree removal comes into that acre and a half parcel. How far from the north moving south across that pond, as his property sits to the south side furthest Lot down closest to the cul-de-sac. He has mature maple trees and due to moving into the neighborhood a year ago, he has had his yard staked. He said he has not seen anything as far as Prior Lake merging with the developer to see where that goes; therefore, would like to propose to put this project on hold until it is defined and brought up for the neighboring properties. Engineer Thongvanh said they have brought the grading plan and he explained where the grading limits for the construction is. He explained to Mr. Wolf where his property was in location to where the ponding project is, stating it should be about fifty to sixty feet from that property line. Wolf said that Mr. Humphrey has explained that there is a possibility that would go further, actually all the way to the south side of the water. He said since it is such a grey area he would like this put on hold until we know for sure where this line is. He commented on the issues with the where the water retention system is at. He questioned if the cul-de-sac would be used for maintenance of the retention pond, or is the cul-de-sac staying the way it sits now. Engineer Thongvanh said we need to ask the applicant with an access off of the ponding area; coming from Beach Street they are a little bit to steep for that, so we are looking more of an access off Hemlock Lane, rather than off of Beach Street. Wolf said there is not a great way to get to this into a corn field; he asked when the City meets with a developer that no variances will be allowed for construction hours. He asked how the pond essentially will work better. Forboard explained the existing ponds wet surface is quite small and to allow proper settlement it would need something bigger; it will operate better with the proposed one. He said their proposed option would be about four times the surface area then currently exists. He stated on the surface area of the wet pond is essentially where all the sediments drop out. He expressed his opinion as the existing pond was not built to the standards that we have today. He said all site work will be engineered as directed by the City Staff, so it is not something that we alone are proposing. Fleming asked why Mr. Humphrey made that point; as we know that is the case. 10 Forboard said because sometimes the residents think that the developer/applicant are unilaterally doing these things without government supervision. Fleming said so that is a perfect Segway into a condition that he will propose; neighborhood meetings need to continue every forty-five to sixty days or something along those lines. We value input here as a community and he would like to make sure that as the project is moving forward that there is ample opportunity for dialog to be happening. He stated that most residents understand that the City is building the road map is followed. He said he didn’t hear the question about the excessive damage or wear and tear on the roads. Rick Langer, (5035 Beach Street NE) He explained the location of his property and previous owners; stating the previous owners owned the property to the north as well as the property being developed. He said the house to the north of him reside in Oregon, they were not aware of the development until he spoke with them last week. He stated there is a driveway that goes through the middle of the proposed property and has a legal easement on the driveway; he asked are you going to create non activity with the road to their existing driveway that they have at the edge of their property. Forboard explained there is an easement through the property, that for the benefit for the adjacent property to the east, Mr. Olson is the owner of that property and did receive notice of not only this meeting, but the neighborhood meeting as well. Fleming asked Mr. Olson that resides in Oregon and if so, how was this notice delivered. Forboard said yes; the City sends out these notices, and said he believes it is sent out U.S. Mail. He said over the past week Mr. Olson and his council have been in contact with the seller and as of today, they reached an agreement in writing to handle the easement. He said this is a title matter and the developer’s agreement and the plat agreement and everything else requires that all title matters are cleared prior to development therefore, already being a condition. He said he is not at liberty to talk about the legal situations or ownership of the seller, that would not be appropriate. Langer asked if there would be access to the road that is being created. Forboard said Staff has highlighted the preliminary plat and pointed out where their driveway is; the proposed roadway come right to that exact point of their driveway. Langer reiterated his question; will they have driveway access to that road. Forboard replied yes. Danielle Scherer, (14495 Dove Court NE) asked about curb and gutter between Lot 12 and 13. Engineer Thongvanh explained any improvements within the development would be the developers as well as any matching points; matching points with Raven Court. They would have to match in and pay for those improvements. Scherer asked about the trees in a diagram marked in and asked if these are not guaranteed; that it is just being proposed. Specialist McCabe explained that is correct as this is the initial preplacement plan; after talking with the applicant he believed it would be this extensive or greater, not less than this. These trees are proposed at three-inch tree but could be greater or more trees. He said it could be more trees, but doesn’t see it being less trees. 11 Scherer said right now it is not meeting the requirements to replace trees, is that correct. She asked about the variation request for Lot 20 to allow for greater buffer and protection of preserved trees, would the City and/or developer think about adding more of a buffer between some of the other homes; such as Lot 19, 13 and 12. She asked if the hill by her house, (her house being Lot 13), would be taken away and all of the storm water drain away from Knob Hill Society or would we also have water draining in towards our home. Specialist McCabe said that is correct. He said additional buffers would be up to the developer/applicant if they chose to do so; but the City would not require any additional. Engineer Thongvanh answered the hill questions using an overhead picture to explain the grading plan. He explained the contours and stated they are draining toward the back of Lot 13 and comes out south toward Hemlock Lane. He pointed out proposed retaining walls. Scherer asked so the water would drain away from us or towards us. Engineer Thongvanh replied it would drain away from you. Scherer asked that is the reason for the modular wall; then would you leave any trees there. She asked would you consider leaving some additional trees for buffer and also to prevent water flow down towards the Knob Hill Development Specialist McCabe said it could be taken into consideration when the applicant is revising the preliminary plat. Sarah Schultz, (14498 Dove Court) She shared concerns about when they purchased their property; they have lived there since 2006 and made their financial decision to purchase their home based on being on a Court and from what she has found online on the Prior Lake website is listed in 615 and 616; a temporary dead end situation associated with by providing access for future extension to and through an adjacent undeveloped property requires a cul-de-sac with a concrete curb and gutter installation and a sign reading possible future roadway connection. She stated she has lived there four ten years and have never seen a sign saying that Dove or Raven Court would be a through street. She said this was a concern for them when they purchased the home; she called the City and asked specifically how this would impact if we were to buy on Dove Court and what she was told at that time that since it was a Court it would remain a dead end and at best a cul-de-sac. She said this has changed her opinion of where she lives and the value of her property. She said they already have experienced a significant amount of water that pools into their backyard; bringing additional concerns if this goes forward that we already have trouble with drainage and apparently when the development was put in on Knob Hill, they put in the correct drainage behind Raven Court, but Dove Court was overlooked which results in flooding in our back so if this goes through will that be even more significant. She did ask that question at the meeting and was told they would note it. She asked for other residents of Prior Lake, what can the City do when you potentially buying a home and the street is dead ended, why is there not signs up stating it is a potential through street and that is my question to the City. Fleming asked if this could be addressed that concern about perceiving or hearing one thing and time goes by, Cities evolve and then statements become blurred or residents believe that we have not been truthful. Engineering Thongvanh said he can’t speak from the past as far as naming of the streets are concerned. He said looking at the map there are cul-de-sacs to the north of Carriage Hills and the 12 reasoning would be to think that they extended these road names down to the south to have them stubbed and as far as future road extensions, it is part of our review that we do ask for barricades at the end of those roads with the future road extension sign on those. This is something that has not been done with this development, we do require temporary cul-de-sacs, that was part of our design back in 2007 as far as our public works design manual revised in 2007. He said maybe these items weren’t addressed previously in those guidelines, but they are being addressed today, unfortunately for the past he cannot speak to that, but today we are doing those proactive items that was brought up, so as far as temporary cul-de-sacs the signs would be at the end of the dead end streets. He commented on yard drainage on Lot 12 which is probably next to Ms. Schultz property and the grading toward the front and we should note there maybe drainage issues here and work with the applicant to see if we can get the additional drainage out of there. As far as existing wise, we are not sure what is out there now and review with Ms. Schultz. There is additional grading that we could do here to help you out a little and believes the applicant would want to do so too. Schultz asked about traffic and no sidewalks being proposed in this development. Engineer Thongvanh said generally for short residential streets like this we do not see a need for sidewalks, due to low volume of traffic; sidewalks and trails usually get put in with some kind of connection to park and/or collector streets. He explained the impact of sidewalks on existing properties. Schultz asked about sidewalks on Hemlock. Engineer Thongvanh commented on the connection to Hemlock stating it doesn’t connect to anything. He said there is a sidewalk there on Bluebird, but it doesn’t lend itself to any other areas. Schultz said the reason for asking is when there are bringing in construction, the children don’t have anywhere to go, but she knows on Dove Court and assumes on Raven it is such a narrow street already that if we have two cars parked on the street we cannot get through ourselves, so she is curious to how they are going to address that with their equipment. Engineer Thongvanh replied staff is involved with the construction portion of it, so we will work with them as far as the traffic concerned. If you have issues on Raven or Dove Court as far as the width; he shared the Traffic Safety Advisory with her to take requests for no parking signs. Schultz said on Dove Court right now it says no outlet, so we don’t get a lot of people coming down the street, but when the neighbors park out there it is a very narrow access point for their large equipment coming into remove the trees. Engineer Thongvanh replied that may be something we need to look into. He suggested a temporary no parking on one side; if the developer knows or the engineer knows they will be hauling quite a bit of material in there to build the road or anything like, we could look into that temporary no parking sign for out there at least for the duration so they can get their equipment in and out and be safe with that access. We can work closely with the developer as far as that is concerned. He said however, if you are experiencing parking issues, there is a petition process to the Traffic Safety Advisory Community. Schultz said no that is not my issue; my issue is when they are in construction, how are they going to get through and not inconvenience us as the homeowners. She reiterated how important she thinks it is as a resident of Prior Lake that you make it absolutely known to people when a street is going to change from Court, which is defined as a dead end or cul-de-sac, when you are going to turn that into a through street and people base their financial decisions on purchasing homes based on that; she moved from a road to a court for a reason and now that is being de-valued and as a resident that makes me very sad. 13 Jay Johnson, (14453 Raven Court NE) He presented a slide that stated the biggest concern issue from 2014 is growth; it is over growth. He said he knows that Ken thinks we need growth, but a lot of people think we need to put a halt to growth in Prior Lake and it has been expressed by the citizens as it is the highest issue. His second slide is preserved for the future is open space/nature; he said he lives right on the court and everyone knows there are a lot of eagles in that area; there is eight and a half acres of heavily wooded area and anything done to look out preserving wild life. He said as far as he knows the sale has not gone through to this gentleman and he would like to push that the Committee here tonight would go to the City Council and say that this development should either be bought by the City or should be held for wild life conservation. He said he is on a Court too and explained his reasoning for living on a Court. He explained it was never said it would be a through street. He believes this development is a big mistake and suggested that the Commissioners and Ken want to grow Prior Lake to forty thousand people. He believes that no one in Prior Lake wants that other than Ken. We don’t have the schools, we don’t have the intersections and he commented on the extra homes add extra people and extra cars. He said traffic is another of the highest concerns and there will be another hundred and twenty-five cars on the streets of Prior Lake and you’re putting them on small roads. He stated we don’t need the traffic we don’t need the growth and we are not preserving what we want; open spaces and nature. There is a lot of nature out there, a lot of deer, a fox, coyotes and eagles. He thinks it is time we say if the sale has not gone through, it is time to draw the line in Prior Lake and say we don’t need this anymore. Tracy Prasanna, (14478 Raven Court NE) She said Jay brought up most of her concerns. She shared additional concerns of the trees that are on Raven and Dove Court; they give substantial shade, especially to the houses that all line up with the woods in their backyards. She shared concerns of her children not having a place to play, as they ride their bikes in the street and play in the woods on a rope swing. She said her children would be very sad if they cannot explore in the woods anymore, a natural place for them to be instead of in the house on screens all day. She commented on the trees blocking the wind; it keeps the cold winds away. She said she is very upset and commented on their view will be taken away. She commented on additional kids in the schools and stated there is no need for houses behind our houses. Johnson said he was at the meeting Thursday night and there are over seven hundred tree removal; seventy percent. Larry Shipman, (14497 Raven Court NE) He explained his location and said he would like to see in writing from the City exactly what the rules of operation are going to be, what they are going to do to keep the streets clean, noise, everything that is going to impact the residents adjacent to this operation so the residents have something to fall back on if these things are not being handled properly. He does agree with Mr. Johnson on the need for this development as the schools and streets are already overcrowding. He said he knows tax dollars are important. Marlene Stromme, (4913 Beach Street) She asked a request of having the development fee made more at a hearing. She believes this is an important piece of property, it is not just a previous farm land but home to woodpeckers and owls and such; it is important for us to keep open spaces and this one is probably a good one to keep. Maybe more people need to be involved to say it should be bought by the City, rather than just be developed. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY LARSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:28P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: 14 Kallberg said he appreciates the feeling that we need to maintain open space in Prior Lake; however, there are many open spaces already, into a couple dozen at least scattered throughout Prior Lake with one not too far away from here on Carriage Hills Parkway. He questioned who would like to pay to buy this for the City so that the current owner is fairly compensated for their property; are we going to take up a collection in the neighborhood, are we going to put it under a tax base for the whole City and he stated we need to keep that in mind as we develop and many of the new developments include open spaces, they are required to include open spaces. He said he is not sure of the complete rules on that, but we need to keep that in mind. We cannot say you cannot sell until the City will buy it from you. We don’t know what the price of this property is in value, but we already have big taxes on right now in the City, but we cannot just keep loading. Larson said he appreciates the residents coming out and speaking; he encourages them to continue to come on other areas and subjects that they have the heart for, realizing that in the same sentiment that not many people want something in their back yard. He said with the cost of putting in treatment plans and sewer plans and etc.; that has to be distributed costs. He commented on growth, stating we are a Twin Cities that is a growing community and we need housing for young families to come in and also for the young families to contribute to the school system. We love the school system and have a great school system in Prior Lake/Savage. With this development here, he echo’s the sentiments of Commissioner Kallberg regarding the residents are adamant about having this open space, why haven’t they approached the purchase of this land as all the land owners together for this property, but that is an option that you had in the past as well as to be able to maintain that. He said the developer has gone with the owner of the property, they looked at the possibilities and said that there have been many variations to look at to make sure there is funding and roads are adequate for outside of that area of the development, so with the twenty-two Lots that are here he sees that the twenty-two Lots of additional neighbors that you would have invited to your barbeque. We cannot just have land sitting without anyone taking any responsibility for it. This is the land rights of this owner to be able to pursue and develop. As far as the investigating an area that is an open Lot and an area of Prior Lake, call City Hall or look at research on line to see what kind of development is close. There is a vision Plan for 2030 and 2040 that is out there. There are areas set aside for commercial and industrial and residential. All of the land is already suited for that. Take advantage of that information and research and the City is more than happy to help you out and understand where it is set at for the vision plans. He stated he is in favor of this preliminary plat. Tieman said he has concerns over the number of tree loss we have here as well as the storm water retention pond being properly designed. He said he is going to take the developer at his word, that they are going to work with the City. And the City will hold them accountable, as there is already a whole list of requirements that are required from the City. He encourages the residents in the area to make sure that the City is doing their job; let’s all work together to make sure everybody is doing their part. He said as far as the actual preliminary plat, it meets all the requirements and is a good use for the land, he does support it. Fleming is in support of the preliminary plat. He stated he does share some of the concerns about erosion, storm water management and grading. He said he is going to state for the record that it is a condition that community dialog continues as the development is happening every thirty-five to sixty days. He commented on one public comment regarding the impact statement and said if we cannot provide that readily or readily available or user friendly online, it would be a great conversation starter at the very next dialog between the development and the builder, so what are those impacts. This would be a great opportunity for the developer and his team, residents and City Staff to come together and talk about what those real impacts are and how we will work together to mitigate those in some sort of a formal guiding document. The plan does meet the five-point threshold with conditions of 1108.406; he thinks there may be some wiggle room to preserve more trees or replant more trees; some adjustments could be made with the caliber inch threshold. 15 MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE ONE; THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE ADREN PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE LIST OF CONDITIONS AND THE ONE COMMISSIONER FLEMING JUST MENTIONED AT 8:37PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING ALTERNATIVE NUMBER TWO; A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CORNER LOT AREA LESS THAN REQUIRED MINIMUM FOURTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT LOT AREA REQUIREMENT FOR THE CORNER LOT IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY) ZONING USE DISTRICT 8:38 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. D. DEV16-001016 - Versatile Vehicles, Inc. – Conditional Use Permit - Versatile Vehicles, Inc. is requesting a conditional Use Permit to allow Class II Outdoor Storage to exceed 50% of the principal building’s floor area within the I-1 General Industrial Use District of the Deerfield Business Park. PID: 25-444-003-0. Director Rogness introduced variance from the minimum lakeshore structure setback and minimum side yard setback on property located on Twin Island. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented a resolution, location map, survey dated April 1, 2016, building plans, site photo and applicant narrative stamp dated March 1, 2016 Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming asked the hours of operation and any lighting plans available. Director Rogness said the hours of operation are in our ordinance and stated he has not seen the lighting submission yet; however, we also have standards of lighting. Applicant: Gaby and Stephany. Gaby said we have been in business in Savage for thirty-one years. They sold one building to a neighbor a few years ago and ended up inquiring the Diggers building off of Anna Trail, across from the Pointe Restaurant. He explained they took an old property that was vacant and improved the area. He said they had a very successful first year and enjoys Prior Lake so much they decided to sell the Savage building and build in Prior Lake. He said his daughter lives in Prior Lake. He explained his business as being core in electric core golf cars and supplies golf cars to this community, Creeks Bend and New Prague and since they moved into this area they also are the supplier of Wild’s Golf Club and Brackets Crossing, so it has been really well received; they expand all the way to Montgomery and New Prague, Hazeltine, and etc. He said after thirty-one years, we enjoy about a sixty-five percent market share. He explained their business as clean, quiet and a really good place to start, expand and relocate to this area. He explained business hours; busy in summer hours and very quiet in the winter. He said there is no assembly lines or night operations; no loud business, no noise, no fuel, no pollution. He explained the regular rotation of their fleet. Stephany commented on having an industrial building next to homes. She commented on size of their business, size of golf cars and hours of operation; typically, being from 8-5 with a couple hours for 16 employees to come and go. She said they have been at the Anna Trail location for one year now and stated they feel like they have been good neighbors in the past and will be good neighbors in the future. Kallberg asked what is the interaction between locations; what happens at each of these locations, are they different uses and how much rotation of vehicles occurs coming and going. Gaby explained the reasoning for the Highway 13/Anna Trail is more for retail and the new proposed would be more for assembly and maintenance and storage. He said due to the volume of need and sale of the Savage location, they need two locations. Larson asked about the smaller parking to the lower left of the Lot; is that for employees, vans and trucks. Gaby replied it is for vans and service trucks to reload, etc. and there are two to three mobile vans to service golf cars at golf courses. He explained the business details. Tieman asked about the proposed out door storage area; would that be golf car only and would there be any other outdoor activities going on besides storage. Gaby said no, we only have golf cars, and parts. There is no other line; no ATV’s, or snowmobiles, etc. Tieman asked about the outdoor area being used for nothing but storage. Gaby said correct and everything is drivable/movable. MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4D AT 8:597P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Jan Wehr-Anderson, (17462 Deerfield Drive SE) She stated she has been a resident of Deerfield Coach Homes for eleven years. She said they bought in Deerfield because it was prime Lot and paid prime money for that Lot due to the wetlands behind them. She explained they have been jolted by BL Horton twice; effected by Busse rezoning and now being faced with the wetlands being taken away from us. The original paperwork that came to our homes did not look like this; it was very grey, showing the zoning to be right up near our Lot line. She explained they are on the berm and would be able to see over the eight- foot fence from her bedroom window. She explained the bedrooms are in the back of the units and they will hear things; they already hear the busses at five o’clock in the morning when they warm up. She stated she knows industries need to go forward however, the lights are going to be a nuisance in the summer time and crime possibilities. She stated they are a quiet retirement community, not all are retired, but they enjoy their homes, wildlife, and no one will speak for the animals but we have enjoyed them for eleven years. She shared concerns about the wetlands, if they build the berm where is the water going to go; in our basements because she has a walkout. She has never had water in her basement and her sump pump has never run. But she knows there is wetlands back there. Kyle Hansen, (17476 Deerfield Drive SE) He explained the reason they bought their homes here was the wetlands. He is not opposed to this development; in fact, progress is a good thing. He had questions about the current site plan. He explained where they are located and said he has been on the business side. He explained under the current plan the berm is not continuous and this berm has a fence at the top. He said fences are not always the most aesthetically pleasing and they are only proposing thirty- two trees over the six hundred feet, that is one every twenty feet. He suggested a natural approach; drop the fence off the berm, put a ten-foot-high berm with two rows of six foot evergreen trees alternating, 17 staggered so they create a block instead of the fence; the fence could be moved to the inside of the berm on the property edge and go with a non-opaque fence for security and go with the more natural look. Therefore, creating a fifteen-foot block that would block the building and parking lot and be a win-win situation for both sides of the fence. Mike Gressman, (17260 Revere Way) He stated he is in the township and this would probably not even bother him; however, he is here to speak on behalf of what he is dealing with. He said this is probably a nice situation for that area. He said he got hit by the Busse Property, but now they also put in an excavation company next to the Busse Property. He explained he listens to dump trucks starting at 4:30am with their tailgates banging. He said just for the rest of the people that are going to be directly affected by this; he wanted to bring some of his evidence from living next to some of these other uses for the rest of the people that are going to be directly affected by this. He stated his experience is the Conditional Use Permit goes out and then there is no monitoring, no oversite, no anything after the permit is given. Fleming said he would like to address this immediately as he feels this is a wildly held perception. He said Staff can tell you that he is a stickler, and so comments that he makes formally, he does follow up with Staff and the City long after decisions are made. He said that they would have his personal insurance that this body, does follow up and that it is not just a transaction for us. Gressman said the evidence speaks otherwise as he lives by these properties every day and that is what is going on. He said in regards to the excavation property at this point, they are supposed to have the opaque fence that is eight feet high; what good is that when they are piling in that area is twenty feet high. Fleming said he has not heard anything remotely in this proposal that things are going to build up twenty feet of anything. He said he doesn’t want to get off subject here. Gressman said he doesn’t want to get off the subject either, but would like to give some analytical evidence so that the people here can hear from you that you are following up on this. He questioned the hours of operation and lighting; he asked that consideration be given to the people in the area of these things. Fleming said lighting was his first question to staff. Roger Blessum, (17456 Deerfield Drive SE) He feels better about the project now, but the gentleman that was up here talking about the trees and the berms, his suggestions were very good. He would like those ideas taken into consideration as you work forward on this project. Gaby wanted to reassure the height of the cars and invited everyone to come look at his business and golf cars. MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4D AT 9:12 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tieman stated this is a great fit for this land, nice to see the industrial development in the community and appears to be very well done. He does like the idea of adding some requirements for leaving some additional trees in the back makes a lot of sense as well as the berms. He believes there are some nice things you can do to really hide that fence because fences can be ugly. He would like to ask Director Dan to work with you on this. He stated he does like this a lot. 18 Fleming is supporting the plan as it does meet all of our thresholds; the conditions are solid and he stated he does love the berming idea. He suggestion to Staff that some sort of a collative dialog between the builder, resident with the great idea and Staff and come together and make that work. Larson applauded the homeowner in the area there that is working with the situation of win-win. He stated he likes the comments of rather not in my back yard to let’s find a solution. He thinks it is a nice solution and for Versatile Vehicles to move here to Prior Lake is a great and he thanked them for the additional business, involvement in the community and stated this is a great fit for this area because we are looking at where is the buffer between homes and industrial; this is an area that may be used for six months of the year then the other parts of the year you may barely know the business is there. He said this is a great buffer for the industrial park and he knows the home owner’s adamant about this particular property behind their homes. He stated the win-win situation is a great concept and he doesn’t see anything like the problems that may have been with the bus company or dump truck company. He said he doesn’t believe what we are seeing on the map that the wetlands will be disturbed as much and maybe it would have to have a little more berm, but he thinks it is a win-win situation and he thanked the resident with the input that gave this situation to evolve. Kallberg said he would like to say thank you to the owner of this enterprise for bringing his business and employment to Prior Lake, as we are always looking for more employment opportunities and having a diverse economic base. He stated the issue with the wetland; the berm is going to be built up from the wetland, it doesn’t impede on the wetland and make it smaller. He explained for every acre of wetland that you fill you have to build up a foot and a half someplace else, we are not going to disturb the wetland. He said he doesn’t know if we can specify the amount of trees at thirty two; however, Director Rogness is saying sixty or more and what type of tree was not mentioned, but certainly the idea of an evergreen tree as year round screening is great. Director Rogness said Commissioner Kallberg brought up a good comment. He explained what is required around this wetland area. He said there is a buffer requirement, so there are a couple lines, one being a fence line and the other where they will put silk fence up. He explained where they can and cannot up to the edge of the wetland, as they cannot disturb that area. He explained how the berm was going to added and what is being proposed to do. He also explained the curb line, depth, continuous berm, catch basin and where the water would go. He said Staff would be working with the applicant on all of this. Kallberg said in the report the fence was proposed right behind the storage side and right behind the curb line, rather than on top of the berm is that correct. Director Rogness said fences are not always very attractive; there primarily for security and even if they look attractive at the beginning, overtime they tend to lose their attractiveness. He stated he was thinking that a fence running around the curb line would help with the screening over all across the back and then the berm in front of the fence with the landscaping would work better. He said if this plan stayed as is, you would see more of trees than fence, some places where it thinned out you may see fence, but this way you would have some form of screening and you would primarily see the fence, but you would have some form of screening and see more trees rather than fence. There needs to be adequate screening. Gaby said he would be willing to do more screening for privacy. He said he is moving to Prior Lake too. And is proud of the community, he wants to protect the city too. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CLASS TWO OUTDOOR STORAGE OF APPROXIMATELY SIXTY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENED BY STAFF. 19 VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. DEV16-001012 – Martin-Scholl Twin Island – Variance – The property owner is requesting variances from the minimum lake setback and side yard setback to construct a seasonal dwelling in the Low Density Residential Shoreland (R1-SD) Zoning District located on Twin Island. Planner Matzke reviewed the introduction, history, commentary on the DNR, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion from the May 16, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. He explained the outcome of the meeting, stating it was Tabled to the June 20, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting due to additional information from Staff and the City Attorney be present. He presented a resolution, location map, survey dated April 1, 2016. City Attorney Sarah Schwarzhoff highlighted her memorandum attached in the staff report. She stated Planner Matzke and her have been working on this for months. She explained this is not the only area in the City that have these types of issues due to a lot of smaller Lots and the same question arises; Are they buildable or not? Generally, it is very similar to what you know of Nonconforming Lots; someone comes in and they have a structure and it is non-conforming, they get to retain that structure but cannot expand it. This is a very similar area, they have a buildable Lot; it was platted many, many years ago, it was buildable when they platted it and it is still buildable today. What is buildable on it is the question before you tonight. You are not required to grant any specific variances, or the variances before you tonight however, the Lot is buildable and should be used for something. One of the issues and the State Statue is really what is driving this and one of the concerns that we have heard a lot from residents is I asked this question twenty years ago and I got a different answer. And in this case they probably are right. The fact is the State Statue changed in 2009 and what happened was the City were saying the Lot doesn’t meet our requirements, it is too small, you cannot build on it. The court stepped in and said no really that is a taking, you are taking their rights to use that property; the legislator stepped in and offered some clarification. So what we got now is a situation that is different than what it was twenty years ago. Just like if you built a house today you would have different building code requirements than you did twenty years ago as the law is different. What we are facing today under the Statue is that you have two options; (1) a City can establish a situation where if you can meet the septic setbacks, impervious and building setbacks; then you can allow that Lot to be built as is. The City has not elected to put that in the ordinance, as it has not come up and it is better to deal with them on a case by case basis through the variance process. (2) If you cannot meet that or the City hasn’t set up Number one, then you are back to a variance situation; the property owner can come in and request whatever variances they like to request and they are assessed like any other situation. In addition, in these shoreland Lots; the new laws for 2009 does list some specific things we need to consider. She explained the items to be considered. She said we have a situation that the law is different than it was twenty years ago; we have a buildable Lot, we have an applicant requested variance, so now we are back to our standard variance criteria that Planner Matzke explained tonight. She stated if you refuse to grant these variances, it would be valuable to give some direction to the applicant to what might be acceptable, because if you get into a situation where you are refusing all use of the Lot, it may be a claim for a taking. The law in this area is incredibly grey, there is no clear situation what is a taking and what isn’t; very much a case by case basis. But we do know that if there is no allowance of use of the Lot is will likely being a taking. She said feedback to Staff and applicant on what would be acceptable would be greatly appreciated if you’re not comfortable approving this variance. She explained the common ownership issue stating the 2009 law tried to balance this idea of if you have a Lot you should be able to use it with we don’t want fifty or sixty cabins in this small area and the balancing solutions was if you have a single Lot of Record, you can build on it, if you have multiple Lots of Common Ownership you have to develop those together unless you meet the Lot size requirement. The legislature thought this to be fair and we are bound to what the legislature put in place. We cannot over rule the legislature in this issue or any issue. She closed with the issue of 20 accumulative impact. We cannot look at the accumulative impact; they need to be reviewed on a one by one basis. Commissioner Comments: Fleming stated he echoes the comments of his fellow Commissioners tonight on other matters; all three of them spoke to meaningful importance of residents speaking up and what their thoughts are. He said one of the things he loves about Prior Lake is that we do have this open forum as lots of other municipalizes are very rigid with their public hearings and don’t have dialog. So we may not always agree, but we are always respectful and civil and hopefully have a clear and open area of our various positions. He would like to commend our residence for letting us know what you think and how you are feeling. Tieman stated he has a lot of reservations of this variance request due to did something change, and City Attorney Schwarzhoff has made this very clear, that it has changed. He said the actual requested variances are pretty typical that we would approve for other areas of the lake; they are common. He is in favor of approving this variance request. Kallberg said comments that he likes to hear and hear too often is what is the sense of talking if no one is listening, they will do what they want anyways. He stated he doesn’t want to be in that position. We have further information from previous meetings about not allowing building on these undersize Lots. We are looking at a Lot half of the established minimum size and in fact it was fifteen thousand at one time and now it is twelve thousand. And now we are asking to allow building on a Lot that is another fifty percent less than the minimum. Now as stated by Legal Council the buildable Lot was platted in 1925, which then this would be minimal type cabins that would fit on these little Lots without issues of water quality and septic’s; the Watershed District has spent a lot of money getting this taken care of on Spring Lake. The people that own property on Spring Lake spent a lot of money putting in proper sewers and supplies and now we are advised that we cannot deny the use of this Lot however, we can deny the variances. Either we allow it or we don’t allow it. Find a way to build something on that Lot that doesn’t require variances, then you don’t need them. Larson stated he is in favor of the variances due to the fact that it was platted years ago and at that time it was an allowable use for a seasonal dwelling. It would be a totally different picture if it was an area that was going to be used every day; 365 days a year. He commented on he may feel a little different if it was not a seasonal dwelling. The concept that we have seen with DNR additional comments on the septic tanks and etc. this is an attainable Lot and we are not restricting the rights of the homeowner. Fleming he will be supporting the application. He said there has been a lot of deep due-diligence on this; multiple perspectives and he is comfortable with this decision. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES FOR LOT 51; TWIN ISLAND AT 9:42 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson and Kallberg. Opposed by Tieman. The Motion carried. 6. New Business: None. 7. Announcements / City Council Updates: 8. Adjournment: 21 MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. Fleming absent. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant