Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 26, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the September 26, 2005, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Present Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the September 12, 2005, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A.IB. 05-185 & 05-186 Tollefson Development is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the subject property (A referred to as the Barber Property and (B) the Goodlund property) located north of I80tb Street, east of Fairlawn Avenue, west of Rice Lake and south of TH 13, in Section 10 of Spring Lake Township. Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Reports for both A and B items of the agenda dated September 26,2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Tollefson Development has applied for amendments to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map to add approximately 5.5 acres (Barber property) and approximately 5.0 acres (Goodlund property) to the City of Prior Land Use Plan Map designating this property as R-LIMD (Low to Medium Density Residential). The property is located north of ISOtb Street, east ofFairlawn Shores, west of Rice Lake, and south ofTH 13. The subject property was annexed by the City on July IS, 2005 and currently does not have a Comprehensive Plan designation. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMN092605.doc I Planning Commission Meeting September 26, 2005 Staff felt the designation of the property for Low to Medium Density Residential would seem to be the appropriate designation for this property, given the nature of existing and proposed developments in contact with, or in close proximity to the subject property. Access and visibility issues would preclude designations of commercial use and industrial uses here would likely result in land use conflicts with adjacent properties. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Comments from the public: Todd Bodem of Tollefson Development stated staff did a great job highlighting the issues. This property will be added to the recently armexed Lindstrom property. The meeting closed at 7:36 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . Agreed with staffs recommendation to designate this density. Makes sense. . Support. Billington: . The property is in line with the Comprehensive Plan. . Support. Lemke, Perez & Stamson: . Agreed. Stamson questioned if staff felt 5 acre parcels were appropriate to armex into the City. Kansier said it depends on the area. In this particular area, there are a lot of smaller parcels that will be developed into a larger development. We may see similar smaller parcels accumulated to develop a project. This is not in the orderly armexation area. Kansier gave a brief explanation of what the City looks at regarding smaller armexations. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-UMD, LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on October 17, 2005. C. EP 05-196 Rock Creek Designers and Builders, LLC is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a building height of 42 feet in the C-3 (Specialty Business) Zoning District. The site is located at the corner of Main and Hastings. L\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSIONl05 MINUTESIMN092605.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting September 26, 2005 Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 26,2005, on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department. Rock Creek Designers and Builders has filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction of building 42' in height on the property located at the northeast intersection of Main Avenue and Hastings Street. This site is zoned c-3 (Town Center). No variances are required for this project. This property is currently owned by the City of Prior Lake. The City recently went through a bidding process to sell and develop this site. As part of this process, the City is requiring a 3-story office/retail building, with at least 4,800 square feet per floor. The building proposed by Rock Creek Designers and Builders is a 3-story building with a brick, glass and architectural concrete panel exterior. The building has zero setbacks from the lot lines as permitted in the c-3 district. No on-site parking will be provided on this site, as is also allowed in the c-3 district. The proposed building meets the design criteria of the c-3 district. The additional height is consistent with the CUP criteria listed above. Staff recommended approval of the request. Stamson questioned the zoning ordinance regarding allowing a 3-story building or 35 feet, whichever is greater. Kansier explained the intent. In this case, it is 3 stories with higher ceilings and exceeds 35 feet requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Comments from the public: Dan Schaefer from Rock Creek Designers & Builders, explained why they were looking at 10 foot clear height ceilings. The total parapet height will be 42 feet. It's a 3 foot parapet with a brick fayade. The building will be constructed to all commercial codes and regulations including sprinklers. Tom Flink, Prior Lake Shell Station, 4805 Dakota Street, said he was opposed to the project because of the lack of downtown parking space. There is not enough parking to support another building. He had the impression after Wensmann' s trailer was removed the City would pave the area for parking. It is very critical the alley (Hastings Avenue) stay open for the many business deliveries. Flink questioned who mains control over the street and parking lot. Kansier responded the City will retain control and the parking lot is also public. Right now there is no proposal to close off any access. Flink questioned on the time line of construction and if provisions were made to keep the access open. Kansier said the City would work with the Shell Station on the issues. The public hearing was closed at 7:54 p.m. L:IOS FILESIOS PLAN COMMISSIONlOS MINUTESIMN09260S.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting September 26, 2005 Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: . This is a reasonable deviation from the standard. Support. Lemke: . Stafflaid out all the issues why all the criteria for a CUP have been met. . Originally agreed with Mr. Flink on the lack of parking - it was my feeling driving downtown. However, according to the McComb Study there is enough parking. . Support. Perez: . Agree this is a good use ofthe zoning ordinance. This is what the Commission envisioned when we changed the ordinance. . Support. Ringstad: . I think the fate of this property was decided when the City opened it up for bids with the requiring a commercial office building be constructed on it. . It looks like a great building. Support. Stamson: . It's a great project. This is what the City envisioned - a high quality building. It is an appropriate fit for downtown. . Parking will be an issue in the future as the businesses grow however the City is addressing the needs. . It is a great addition to downtown. Support. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING RESOLUTION 05-16PC APPROVING OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Kansier explained the appeal process. D. 05-195 Greg and Dianne McClenahan 5212 Hope Street, are requesting a variance to allow an addition to a single family home to encroach 8' into the minimum required bluff setback. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 26,2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSIONl05 MINUTESIMN092605.do<: 4 Planning Commission Meeting September 26, 2005 Gregory and Diane McClenahan are requesting a variance to construct an addition to an existing single family dwelling located at 5212 Hope Street SE. In order to do so, an 8 foot variance from the required 25 foot setback from the top of bluff (Section 1104.304). The entire lot in question is 19,787 square feet in area, with approximately 101' feet of frontage at the front lot line and 98' feet of frontage at the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW). There is a bluff on this lot. The top ofthe bluff is at the 928' MSL elevation. The bluff setback is 25' beyond this line. The existing house is outside the bluff setback. There is an existing deck that appears to be located within the setback. The total impervious surface on the lot, with the additions, is 5,918 square feet, or 29.91 % of the lot area. The first two additions do not require variances. The Department of Natural Resources was notified of this variance request. The DNR is not supportive ofthis variance, as noted in Hydrologist Pat Lynch's September 2, 2005 comments. These comments note the 25' setback negotiated by the City of Prior Lake is less than the minimum statewide standard bluff setback of 30 feet. The applicant submitted an engineer's report on the proposed addition. This report outlines the construction methods that should be used to ensure slope stability. The strict application of the 25 foot bluff setback does not create an undue hardship. A single family dwelling currently exists in the property. The applicant is able to build additions without the need for any variances. Based upon the findings in their report, staff recommended denial of the variance request. Billington noted the DNR mentions bluff problems in the past. Kansier explained the bluff failures a few years ago prompting this ordinance. Billington questioned if staff feels the 25 foot versus the DNR's 30 foot requirement has an impact on this. Kansier responded the City's views on this issue. Staff is very careful on their determination. The engineering report is reviewed. Stamson supported Kansier's comments. Staff does a thorough job in investigating the bluffs. The fact Prior Lake is at a 25 foot setback is because we have a qualified staff. That makes a big difference. Comments from the public: Applicant Greg McClenahan, 5212 Hope Street, distributed packets for the Commissioners. McClenahan stated he moved to this residence in 1992 and noted the existing bluff is not the original bluff and went on to explain the landscape and their remodeling plans. McClenahan disputes staffs reasonable use of the property. The architect's idea is to load up the side of the home as opposed to the lake side. McClenahan felt the bluff line could be any number of places. The one feature he felt makes this an unusual bluff is that it is a very stable bluff. He pointed out Geo L:I05 FILESI05 PLAN COMMISSIONl05 MINUTESIMN092605.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting September 26, 2005 Engineering's report stating his home is in line with the neighbors' and not at risk for bluff failure. Another item that makes this an unusual situation is the original construction and fill. McClenahan stated staff had two different interpretations of the bluff. All conclusions as well as the DNR's determinations affect the original building and should be grandfathered in. He did not feel there was a safety issue as indicated in the engineering report. The public hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m. Kansier responded to McClenahan's comments on staffs calculations of the bluff pointing out the minor differences and why they were made. Staff was not wrong in their calculations. Billington questioned if soil determinations were considered in the calculations. Kansier explained they were not. It is strictly determined by the elevations. Most of the lots developed on Prior Lake have been moved and landscaped before the ordinance. Staff has to look at what is current. Billington stated soil composition is an arbitrary factor. Stamson added it doesn't make much difference where the bluffs were 50 years ago. It's where the bluff is on the property you are building on. McClenahan stated he had an engineering report and told the Commissioners and Staff not to tell him it is not a consideration. It should be involved in the determination if it is a safe bluff or not. Its part of the ordinance. Kansier said it was not a consideration in where the top of the bluff is located. An engineering report is considered as part ofthe building permit. The public hearing was closed again at 7:39 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . Questioned the grandfather ordinance continuing to build in a bluff area. It's my understanding additions can be made but not to extend into the existing bluff. Is that correct? Kansier responded it was correct. The ordinance does not allow them to build "out" but they can build back. Kansier went on to explain a recent bluff variance. . Considering the engineering report as it applies to this variance application. There are a couple of comments I would like to make from the report. The report says "the soils are relatively stable." And the next sentence says "however, slope stability analysis is required to determine the factor of safety." To say there is a degree of safety in reference to this report - is not convincing. It does not say it is safe. LI05 FILESI05 PLAN COMMISSIONl05 MINUTESIMN092605.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting September 26, 2005 . It also says "it is imperative the trees and vegetation are not disturbed during construction." I can only take that to mean ifit was disturbed the stability of the slope would be in question. Or, it might fail. ' . While it might make sense to the applicant for this addition, it doesn't meet the hardship criteria that would grant the variance. . Do not support. Perez: . Agreed with Lemke on the strict application of the hardship Findings. . Agreed with staff as well as the DNR's comments. Sometimes the DNR is not strict enough in my mind. I can think of a recent case. . Not in favor of approving. Ringstad: . Several of the requested 25 foot bluff setbacks we have seen in the last few years are also for consistency in the community, with respect to building. It is important. We have not deviated. I can't see deviating in this case. . Agreed with fellow Commissioners - it does not meet the hardship requirements. . Will not support. BiIIington: . The applicant's presentation on the project had a lot of good information, however given the standards we are given to uphold mandated by the DNR, the deviation is impossible to support. . Looking at the setback requirements - the hardships are not there. . Support staff's recommendation. Stamson: . The applicant did a great job pertaining to adding on an addition. But there are no hardships. The purpose ofthe variance is not being met in this case. The home and the lot have reasonable use with or without a variance. Denying the request is not denying a substantial right. . The hardship is not created by the ordinance, it is created by the preferred use of the applicant and that is not the intent of a variance. . It fails on the basis of no hardships. . Deny on that basis. Lemke: Questioned staff if the bluff setback ordinance is unique to Prior Lake. Kansier explained it is the DNR rule for all State lakes. The DNR gave the City flexibility based on a number of factors, one is that we have a bigger setback of 75 feet rather than their 50 foot setback. Part of it is because we are almost a 100% developed community. Ll05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSIONl05 MINUTESIMN092605.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting September 26, 2005 MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 05- 17PC DENYING THE VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION WITHIN THE REQUIRED BLUFF SETBACK. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: None 8. Announcements and Correspondence: None 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:I05 FILESI05 PLAN COMMISSIONl05 MlNUTESIMN092605.doc 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 SIGN UP ATTENDANCE SHEET Please print your name and address. Thank you. .~ /4oJ. .~IJ" MW , ~i.)"i L:\DEPTWORK\Public Hearing Sign Sheet.doc pL