HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 12, 2006
Maintenance Center
17073 Adelmann Street S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JUNE 12,2006
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda:
5. Public Hearings:
A. 06-138 Patricia Leitchman is requesting setback variances to allow for
reconstruction of an existing garage and deck. The property is located at 4949
Minnesota Street.
B. 06-141 Don and Lisa Pampuch are requesting a 1.9' variance from the 15'
building separation requirement and a 0.7' variance from the 50'+ wall minimum
setback requirement for R-l residential lots. The property is located at 4295
Grainwood Circle.
C. 06-137 Glen & Edie Svoboda are requesting a combined preliminary & final plat
consisting of 1.23 acres of land at 16769 Creekside Road. The property is to be
subdivided into 2 lots for single family homes.
D. 06-128 Master Development has submitted an application for Conditional Use
Permit to allow outdoor storage on Lot 2, Block 1, Deerfield 7th Addition
(pending plat approval). The site is located south of Adelmann Street/CSAH 21,
west of Granite Court, east of Deerfield Drive in the Deerfield Industrial Park.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:I06 FILBSI06 PLANNING COMMISSION\AGENDAS\AG0612~. cityofpriorlake. com
Phone 952.440.9675 / Fax 952.440.9678
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JUNE 12,2006
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the June 12,2006, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, Planner
Jeff Matzke and Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler.
2. Roll Call:
Billington
Lemke
Perez
Ringstad
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the May 22, 2006, 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. 06-138 Patricia Leitchman is requesting setback variances to allow for
reconstruction of an existing garage and deck. The property is located at 4949
Minnesota Street.
Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated June 12,2006,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Patricia Leitchman is requesting a variance to allow for the reconstruction of an existing
garage and deck located on the property at 4949 Minnesota Street. In order to reconstruct
the garage and deck shown on the attached survey, the following variances are required:
. A 2.4 foot variance from the required 5 foot side yard setback permitted on
nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502 (8)).
. A 4.9 foot variance from the required 15 foot sum of the side yards on
nonconforming lots (Section 1101.503(8)).
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
The property is zoned R-2 (Low-Medium Density Residential). The initial dwelling unit
and garage were built in 1955. In 1980 a one foot side yard variance was granted to
allow for the construction of a 308 square foot addition on the southeast comer of the
dwelling unit. The applicant is proposing to remove and rebuild the existing garage and
deck. The current structural condition of the approximate 367 square foot garage reveals
a need for the structure to be replaced. Due to the extensive weathering of the existing
deck boards, the deck should be repaired as well. The existing side yard setback for the
garage on the west border of the property is 2.6 feet at its closest point and increases to
3.2 feet as it extends to the south.
The applicant proposes to utilize the existing footprint for the garage and deck, thus not
decreasing the current setback. The alley is a grass area with its only distinction being
curb cuts on both ends. After visiting the site and verifying that no utilities exist within
the alley, staff believes the alley no longer serves a public purpose. The alley is currently
being used for various private uses (parking of vehicles, vegetation, and play structures).
The Planning Commission may choose to recommend to the City Council that staffbe
directed to proceed with the process for vacating the alleyway.
The staff recommends approval of a 2.4 foot side yard setback and a 4.9 foot sum of the
side yard variances with the following conditions:
1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of
adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent
Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state
agency regulations.
Stamson questioned if the alley was a dedicated right-of-way, not an easement on the
neighbor's yard. Moore confirmed that was correct.
Perez questioned if a vacation would be part of the conditions. Moore responded it
would not. The Commissioners would have to recommend a vacation to the City Council
and they would then direct staff.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Patricia Leichtman, 4949 Minnesota Street, had no comments.
There were no other public comments and the public hearing was closed at 6:40 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Perez:
. Agreed with staff - the criteria had been met. As long as the applicant is using the
current footprint it is not encroaching any more than what previous existed.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
. Agreed with the vacation of the alley way. Will support.
Lemke:
. Agree with staffs analysis of the hardship criteria. Will support.
. Recommend to City Council to direct staffto look at the alley vacation.
Billington:
. Concur with staff findings. Support.
. Support the vacation ofthe other property.
Ringstad:
. All 9 hardships are met. The property is being built on the current footprint.
. Will support staff recommendation and vacation of the alley.
. Stamson:
Concur with staff and other Commissioners. This is consistent with other
hardships in the past. She is simply rebuilding. It is a reasonable request, will
support, alley too. It will benefit the City to allow these property owners to
improve their property in this type of situation.
. Agree with both Motions.
MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 06-05PC
APPROVING A 2.4 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 5 FOOT SIDE
YARD SETBACK AND A 4.9 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT
SUM OF THE SIDE YARDS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND
DECK.
Vote taken indicates ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, DIRECTING STAFF TO BRING
AN ALLEY VACATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
Vote taken indicates ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. 06-141 Don and Lisa Pampuch are requesting a 1.9' variance from the 15'
building separation requirement and a 0.7' variance from the 50'+ wall
minimum setback requirement for R-l residential lots. The property is located
at 4295 Grainwood Circle.
Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated June 12,2006, on file in the
office of the City Planning Department.
Don Pampuch is requesting a variance to construct a new house at 4295 Grainwood
Circle. In order to construct the dwelling the following variances are required:
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
3
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
. A 1.9 foot variance from the 15 foot building separation required in the R-l
district (Section 1101.502 (8)).
. A 0.7 foot variance from the 50+ foot wall minimum side yard setback
required in the R-l district (Section 1102.405 (6)).
The property is zoned R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay
District). A single family dwelling with a single-car garage currently occupies the lot.
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing house and construct a new home on the
site. The lot area to an elevation of904.0 feet (OHW) is 7,256 square feet. The proposed
house is 1,548 square feet with a proposed driveway of 627 square feet for a total of
2,175 square feet (29.9% impervious surface coverage).
The strict application of the building separation distance requirement and side yard
setback create hardships for the property owner. The proposed changes to the existing
conditions of the lot actually increase the current separation distance and side yard
setback of the lot. Many other surrounding lots have similar conditions for lot area, lot
width, and walls greater than 50 feet in length. The proposed structure will be similar to
other houses on adjacent lots. Based upon the findings in this report, staff recommended
approval of this requested variance.
Perez questioned the requirements for a building wall exceeding 50 feet. Jeff explained
the rationale. Stamson added the problems with lake homes - especially if they are long
and narrow lots. The City does not want two 50 foot walls next to each other forming a
giant tunnel.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Don Pampuch, 4295 Grainwood Circle, spoke on 50 foot rule. The majority of
the wall does not go into the 34 foot setback area. Their request will not cause a problem
for the neighbors. It will not be a dark and narrow area. The setback requested is
because of the neighbor's cantilever.
There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed at 6:53 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. Agree with staffs analysis and findings indicating hardship. It appears the
nonconforming use of the lot will be improved.
. It is a reasonable use of the property. Support the variance.
Billington:
. Concurs with staff s findings and will support.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
4
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
Ringtstad:
. All nine criteria hardships have met. This is a nonconforming lot and as
Commissioner Lemke pointed out, the lot will improve with some of the
construction. Will support request.
Perez:
. Will support based on staff s report and fellow Commissioners' comments.
Stamson:
. Agreed - the uniqueness of the property creates a hardship. We found other lots
like this where a hardship exists in creating a new home. The development and
design is reasonable and appropriate for the property and neighborhood.
. As it has been mentioned, it actually improves the lot. Support.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 06-06PC APPROVING A 1.9 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 15
FOOT BUILDING SEPARATION AND A 0.7 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 50+
FOOT WALL MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIRED IN THE R-l
DISTRICT.
Vote taken indicates ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. 06-137 Glen & Edie Svoboda are requesting a combined Preliminary and Final
Plat consisting of 1.23 acres ofland at 16769 Creekside Road. The property is to
be subdivided into 2 lots for single family homes.
Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated June 12,2006, on file in the
office ofthe City Planning Department.
Glen and Edie Svoboda have applied for approval of a development to be known as Edie
Addition on the property located on at 16769 Creekside Circle SE. The site is north of
MN TH 13 and west of Anna Trail. The request calls for the subdivision of the existing
lot into two single-family residential lots. All of the proposed lots conform to the R-l
minimum ordinance requirements. The overall layout ofthe plat appears appropriate
given the constraints of the site's grades.
The preliminary plat application will comply with relevant ordinance provisions and City
standards, provided all the conditions of approval are met. The Planning staff
recommends approval of the combined preliminary and final plat, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The development of Lot 2 shall be graded so that the drainage is not directed into the
right of way for MN TH 13.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City.
3. The applicant shall obtain required permits from all applicable governmental agencies
prior to final plat approval.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
5
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12,2006
4. The final plat shall be recorded at Scott County within 90 days of approval by the
City Council.
Comments from the public:
Glen Svoboda, 16769 Creekside Circle, explained why they wanted to split the property.
It was never platted with the City when they moved in 41 years ago. They are hoping to
get it back to two properties.
There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed at 6:58 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Billington:
. This it seems to be a positive endeavor. It will have a favorable affect in the
neighborhood. Given the staffs comments, I will support the request.
Ringtstad:
. Will support. Both lots are well over the minimum lot size requirements. The
drainage plan proposed seems reasonable.
Perez:
. Agreed - it meets all the requirements. Do not see any issues in approving it.
Lemke:
. Will support for the previously stated reasons by Commissioners.
Stamson:
. Will support as well. It is a reasonable use and meets all ordinance criteria.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE COMBINED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO BE
KNOWN AS EDm ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicates ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on June 26, 2006.
D. 06-128 Master Development has submitted an application for Conditional Use
Permit to allow outdoor storage on Lot 2, Block 1, Deerfield 7th Addition
(pending plat approval). The site is located south of Adelmann StreetlCSAH 21,
west of Granite Court, east of Deerfield Drive in the Deerfield Industrial Park.
Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated June 12,2006, on file in the
office of the City Planning Department.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
Master Engineering and Construction has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
outdoor storage on a site located south of Adelmann Street and west of Revere Way,
within Deerfield Industrial Park. Currently the site is vacant. The site plan shows a
structure and an outdoor storage area for the parking of construction related equipment.
The 32,100 square foot structure is proposed to contain eight warehouse suites (ranging
in size from 3,732 square feet to 3,916 square feet). The property is zoned 1-1 (General
Industrial). Outdoor Storage is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit in the 1-1
district, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant is requesting approval of a CUP to allow outdoor storage for construction
equipment. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to store the following items:
~ Two (2) dump trucks each measuring 30 ft by 8 ft in size
~ Two (2) trailers each measuring 30 ft by 8 ft in size
~ Fuel tanks measuring 10ft by 16 ft in total area
~ One (1) low boy trailer measuring 90 ft by 10 ft
~ Pipes measuring 20 ft by 8 ft in total area
~ One (1) pipe trailer measuring 20 ft by 8 ft in total area
~ One (1) bulldozer measuring 30 ft by 32 ft
~ Two (2) skid loaders measuring 8 ft by 12 ft each
~ Two (2) backhoes measuring 20 ft by 8 ft each
The applicant has advised that these items will generally be located a various job sites in
the area yet there will be times when some if not all items are stored within the proposed
outdoor storage area. The proposed outdoor storage area will be fully enclosed by a six
foot high wood fence and screened with deciduous and coniferous trees.
Overall, staff believes the outdoor storage is consistent with the intent ofthe I-I use
district provided conditions of approval are met. However, staff believes the grading
proposed within the wetland buffer may be unnecessary for the development of the site.
The wetland buffer area has been previously established as part of the Deerfield
Industrial Park 2nd Addition. If the applicant proposes to grade within the wetland buffer
area additional topographical lines will be needed for staff to recommend approval of the
CUP for outdoor storage. The best source of information for this is an updated certificate
of survey with proposed site improvements and proposed structure in relation to the
wetland and easement boundaries. Until this has been provided, staff recommended
continuing the hearing for further engineering evaluation.
If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the Conditional Use Permit, staff
recommended the following conditions be attached:
1. The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County no later than
60 days after City Council approval.
2. A plan must be provided that details the design and materials used for the
construction of the enclosed fenced area.
3. A zoning permit shall be issued prior to the installation of the fence.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
7
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12,2006
4. All vehicles within the outdoor storage area must be operable, licensed, and
registered.
5. The applicant shall submit a certificate of survey verifying the proposed site
improvements and proposed structure in relation the to wetland and easement
boundaries.
6. Prior to site plan approval, the applicant shall submit revised plans reflecting plan
changes and conditions as indicated.
7. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1503(8) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met.
8. All conditions listed in the May 26,2005 Engineering Department memo shall be
met.
The Planning staff recommended the item be continued to allow the applicant additional
time to modify the site plan and outdoor storage to address engineering concerns.
Questions from Planning Commission:
Stamson questioned if the Planning Commission could specify what types of storage is
permitted. Moore responded they could be specific. There were concerns with
Greystone's landscaping as part of CUP.
Perez questioned the existing trees shown on the plan. Matzke said they will not be
disturbed because they are in wetland and pointed out the buffer area.
Billington questioned if there will be any drainage towards existing residential area.
Poppler responded there was nothing he was aware of. The development was sent up
with two stormwater ponds and storm sewer piping for the businesses coming into the
area.
Lemke asked to see the buffer area and if staff had any concerns. Matzke pointed out the
wetland, trees and where the applicant will landscape. Matzke also spoke on the buffer
area.
Perez questioned ifthe proposed trees were required on the southern end of the property.
Matzke said they were required as part of their screening plan for the outdoor storage as
well as screening for the loading docks. The applicant is also proposing a 6 foot fence.
Lemke confirmed the trees were not going to be planted in the buffer area.
Comments from the public:
Wayde Johnson, Master Development Services, 125 West Broadway, Minneapolis,
55411, said there is really two pieces of information to add to the staff report. One is
grading in the wetland buffer area. Their engineer talked to Larry (City Engineer) and
they believe there is a way they can do the outdoor storage without grading in the
wetland. It would mean adding a couple of retaining walls to minimize the disturbance in
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
8
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
the area. They believe the recommendation is reasonable and have highlighted it on the
plan.
The second item - At the neighborhood meeting the applicant heard concerns of an II
District abutting a residential area. There was a request made that he survey a deck to
show site lines from the O'Neill property showing site lines from the fence and trees.
Johnson passed the photo around to residents and went on to explain the deck and site
lines just over fence.
Billington asked Johnson ifhe made any progress on the engineering department
concerns. Johnson responded they were, but it was fairly recent and they have not heard
back from staff.
Lemke questioned the fuel tanks measuring lOx 16 feet - do you have a height figure for
those fuel tanks? Johnson said he would like the DeRudders to answer as they will be
using it. DeRudder responded he thought it was about 6 feet.
Stamson asked if the units were condos. Johnson said "Yes, 8 units approximately 4,000
square feet". They will be sold in any combination. One business will be purchasing 2
units.
Stamson questioned the storage area as part of a common area. Johnson said it would
actually be re-platted into the new owner's name. It will go with the unit.
Stamson asked about future storage area. Johnson said they don't know, they have about
2,000 square feet of land that it would fit on. There are no other buyers at this time.
Stamson questioned if they don't use the CUP, how the applicant would prevent others
from just turning it into a storage area? Johnson responded they will have to fence it to
screen the loading docks. The combination of city ordinances and the association
regulations would have to enforce the storage.
Ringstad pointed out staff s report recommendation was to continue but if the applicant
does not need to go into the wetland for the buffer does that affect the recommendation?
Matzke said staff still recommends a continuance because there are still a number of
issues the engineering staffis working on and staff would like to see the site alternations
fit before recommending approval. If something does not work or alters the approval of
the outdoor square footage area staff wants to know.
Lemke asked Johnson if four weeks would be enough time. Johnson said it was fme.
Bernie O'Neil, 17488 Deerfield Drive, said they gave permission to the applicant to come
to their house and survey to see the land presented. However, the O'Neils never saw
Johnson and they have questions about it. O'Neil felt the wetlands have been a home for
the wildlife for a number of years. "The idea of storage tanks and dump trucks which
they will have the pleasure of looking at is offensive. The neighborhood realizes the
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
9
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
Council has every right to allow these things but don't think it is a good decision."
O'Neil said they think of this area as part of their homes and it is not right with the
tractors and trailers in their view. "The applicant may have a legal right, but the
neighbors object to outdoor storage. Make it more acceptable." O'Neil recommended
the Planning Commission reconsider the outdoor storage.
Vem Lindholm, 17466 Deerfield Drive, questioned the 30' buffer area from the edge of
the wetland. Can other trees be planted in the wetland? Matzke explained the buffer area
cannot be disturbed. The buffer area should remain natural and additional trees cannot be
planted for screening. Matzke went on to explain the grading area. Lindholm questioned
the fencing and landscaping plan. Matzke pointed out the fence location. Lindholm said
his concern is the site lines to the bottom of the building. Matzke explained the site line.
Lindholm felt the fence does not block a large portion of building. Everything in the
outdoor storage area is over six feet. He suggested the Commissioners require a higher
fence or berm it and put fence on top of the berm.
JoAnn Swenson, 17490 Deerfield Drive, read a letter she sent to City Council. The
following are some of her comments: She has been a Prior Lake resident for 7 months,
enjoys the wildlife, sunrises and is looking forward to many years of this enjoyment.
When she bought her home she was aware the wetland was adjacent to an industrial zone
district. However, she did not think additional storage would be allowed. Swenson went
on to quote the 2030 Vision and Mission Statement regarding preservation of natural
resources. The residents were here before Master Development requested this CUP.
The "use" cannot have undue impacts on adjacent property, and must protect
neighborhood character.
Swenson said she can live with aesthetically pleasing buildings, she cannot live with
construction equipment. In the event the CUP is approved, the landscaping, trees and
fence are inadequate. Look for different location for outdoor storage. Swenson stated she
and "the neighbors realize and value the need for industry within the City boundaries and
in fact, they want to be amicable neighbors. However, it cannot preclude the rights and
expectations of homeowners that by the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the
environment of the neighborhood and ultimately the value of the homes can be forever
altered." She did not feel the neighborhood should have to look, listen or smell heavy
industrial equipment.
Swenson also stated ''with a little forethought and creative planning with the guidelines
set forth in the 2030 Plan and in the City developed procedures for obtaining a
Conditional Use Permit would have prevented the turmoil we now face." She wrapped
up her comments saying they too, would like to continue to call Prior Lake "A wonderful
place to call home."
Judith Hanson, 17436 Deerfield Drive SE, said in April of2004 the C5 district along
Adelmann Street was changed to C4. At the same time, based on the Planning
Commission's recommendation to the City Council, phase II of the Deerfield residential
park was approved, which is where she lives. The residents did not have any input at that
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
10
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
time. At the 2004 meeting, the other side of Adelmann Street remained C5. "I want to
know why that happened? Why is one side of Adelmann 1-1 and the other side is still C-
5?"
Moore responded the applicant and developer requested the need for additional industrial
area. Largely it had to do with the dimensions of the lot. The lots were deeper and the
applicant felt the need for additional industrial areas. At that time, they didn't feel the
need to change both sides of the street.
Hanson questioned if there was a road at that time. Moore responded there was. Hanson
said she just can't get her head around the fact that one side of the road is C5 and the
other side abutting residential is 11 with outdoor storage. Moore said the C4 district is
also included in the industrial park which does not allow outside storage.
Hanson stated there was an error in judgment by the Planning Commission and City
Council. To her knowledge there is no where else in Prior Lake where this condition of
an 11 district butts up to a residential area. Now the residents are seeing a plan for
outside storage containing diesel tanks. Hanson stated "Deerfield residents have
thoughtfully and respectfully addressed this Commission to advocate for reasonable use
of the Industrial site." They are not opposed to the industrial site. They are very happy
with the landscape company as he is a good neighbor. Outside storage does not belong in
this location. Put outside storage in front of the building. It would be better than having
diesel fuel and huge construction equipment that close to a residential development.
Hanson said she understands the Planning Commission may well recommend this venture
and feels the CUP conditions should include the following:
. Hours of operation should be from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm.
. Limit the amount of equipment to be stored on site - one truck cab, two trailers,
one truck, one bulldozer, two skid loaders and two backhoes.
. Disable back-up alarms while equipment is in storage area.
. How does a 6' fence provide security so no one can get to the diesel tanks?
Matzke responded it was presented to one of the detectives in the Police
Department. He did not give an official comment at this time. However a cedar
board-on-board fence is in his mind is adequate. It will be in a locked fenced-in
area. Hanson said the fence should be at least 10' high to keep the vandals out.
. Hanson questioned the tanks size. Matzke responded the applicant said they
would be 1,000 gallon tanks.
. The fence must be stained and maintained every three years on the side facing the
residents.
. Bottom line - this does not belong here. I know by the April 2004 decision the
City is legally bound by the 11 criteria.
Hanson said she wanted to know tonight how to get an amendment to rezone the area.
"How is it done? What is the paperwork? Because time after time we have come before
this Board (planning Commission) and we're fighting the same battle every time."
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
11
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12,2006
Matzke explained the amendment process.
Keith Dahnert, 17440 Deerfield Drive, said once again, his concerns are revolving around
zoning of the property. At the neighborhood meeting with Wayde and Master
Development, Wayde Johnson said he couldn't believe this property was zoned to allow
this type of stuff right next to residential areas. He said this is more typically in
Minneapolis areas where residential and commercial areas abutted each other. It is
uncommon and has never seen it south ofthe river. Dahnert said "Many ofthe residents
wish they could have been here to see what went on and what was going through people's
minds when this was rezoned. Why this would have been approved astounds all of us."
Dahnert said they know this is a commercial area and have no issues with the building.
Concerns are with outside storage. Is there any outdoor storage that will not be allowed
next to homes? If this Conditional Use Permit is approved it will create an eyesore, with
ongoing noise and fumes. Dahnert said it was stated "The neighborhood will never
approve anything." His reply is he did not have problems with other businesses in the
area and went on to say they have a problem with the kind of things the City is allowing
to go into the park because it's zoned that way. "The City has allowed buses, bobcats
and front-end loaders. He's assuming the answer is "no - there is nothing you will not
allow." Therefore Dahnert wants the following conditions: Higher fencing; limited noise
and operating hours; restriction on number of additional pieces; restriction on
maintenance of vehicles -do not allow any maintenance and limit the CUP to this
property owner.
Alice McCauley, 17448 Deerfield, said the building is fine but the buyer's business is in
question. Every time there is a planned business the focus is on how high should the
fences be? How tall should the trees be? What kind of trees should they be? Doesn't that
send a message that the businesses proposed is wrong for the area? She asked the
applicant from Masters if he would want this next to his home but he never answered.
Also, his first comment was "Prior Lake allows this type of construction adjacent to
residentiaL" McCauley - "Puts a real positive light on Prior Lake."
Doug Swenson, 17490 Deerfield, said judging by the sensitivity of the local residents,
any unacceptable intrusion into our lives (noise, lights, smell) will lead to repeated calls
to City, developer, etc. Put some teeth into this Conditional Use Permit so these
complaints will not be forthcoming.
Jerry Hanson, 17436 Deerfield, stated he would like to say (to the Commissioners) "It's
nice to see you again, unfortunately you're still all here." Hanson then questioned the
applicant (Wayde Johnson) on the landscape plan. At the neighborhood meeting Johnson
said the trees were coniferous. The plan presented has deciduous trees - which is right?
Johnson replied the trees for screening are a combination of coniferous and deciduous.
There are additional trees on the site. Hanson said it was not clear to him on staffs
drawing. Ifthey were, he missed it. Matzke explained the landscape plan. Hanson
questioned Johnson who will hold CUP? Matzke replied the applicant for CUP is Master
Development. Kansier explained the CUP runs with the property. Hanson questioned if
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
12
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
other units have been sold? Johnson said there are purchase agreements contingent upon
approval ofthe CUP.
Hanson questioned where DeRudder's current business is located. JeffDeRudder, 4910
Hickory Hills Trail, said the business is at his home south of Prior Lake.
Hanson said his understanding is there would be two tanks and questioned DeRudder on
the tank size. DeRudder said there are two 1,000 gallon tanks. Hanson questioned
Matzke how many other CUP's for outdoor storage tanks have been granted in Prior
Lake. Matzke said he was not aware of any others. Kansier explained there are other
outdoor storage tanks in town. The most recent was the propane tank at the new Holiday
Station. Some of the other approved propane tanks are at the Dairy Queen, the Holiday
Station by the Dairy Queen, the gas station in town and others in the industrial park.
There are several but she could not give exact dates.
Jerry Hanson talked about storage for ammonium nitrate fuel oil from information he
found on WIKOPEDIA. Hanson then asked if the fire chiefbeen involved? Jeff, spoke
with Fire Chief and Building Official and explained the permits required as part of
building permit process. Hanson felt it would not take too many disenfranchised
individuals to round up basic fertilizer and blow up these tanks. What emergency plans
are in place? As far as he knows, the City has never dealt with anything like this, at least
in his conversations.
Hanson asked if the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan were still in vogue. Kansier
explained difference between 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan and Comprehensive Land
Use Plan.
His other concern was that this CUP does not talk about specific pieces of equipment to
be added or subtracted. Hanson said it does not seem much of a guideline to him. He
has only lived here a couple of years and his observation is that there is a consistent level
of support for the businesses and developers to allow exceptions to the norm. The CUP
process is part of it. He did not feel there was comparable support of the citizens affected
by these decisions.
Hanson then stated "The only way we can get anything changed is have the City Council
do it. A business owner can put whatever he wants and very rarely do we see CUPS not
approved. This seems to be a concern for the citizens themselves. Both Mr. Busse and
Mr. Johnson, and by association Mr. Mesenbrink who started this whole mess completed
a development plan before the CUP's were approved. This suggests to me one of two
things. These are either very risk-taking business men because they were willing to risk
up to seven figures and more of money not knowing if they will be successful in the CUP
process. Or, they had information that it was already a done deal and didn't have
anything to worry about. If that is the case, we are wasting time and a lot of money with
these hearings."
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
13
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
Hanson briefly quoted Abraham Lincoln and then went on to say many of the residents
feel it was bad rezoning by the City - storage tanks and their usage are not appropriate.
Judith Hanson, 17436 Deerfield Drive questioned the size of the outside storage area.
Matzke said it is 7,280 square feet. Hanson wanted the applicant to speak to how this
area will be used. From her point of view, that is a formula for disaster with all the big
equipment moving around. Wayde Johnson said in past circumstances like this, what's
common is safety bollards are placed around the tanks. There is a protection so they
can't be backed into. The DeRudders will be using about 5,000 square feet of the storage
area.
Bill Dillingham, 17459 Deerfield, said he took a drive and believes he located the
DeRudders home. It looks like it is sitting on 10 or more acres of land. He felt
DeRudder's business is further way from their house than what it will be from the
Deerfield residents. Dillingham then stated "They don't want it in their back yard
either."
JeffDeRudder, questioned the Planning Commission - Ifhe is not allowed to move here,
to build a building as an investment for him and his son, where can he do that in the City
of Prior Lake? Matzke explained his commercial use with a Conditional Use Permit and
pointed out the appropriate areas. DeRudder said he thought the other lots in the
Deerfield Industrial Park were full.
Alan Billington asked the applicant to characterize the recent meeting with the neighbors.
Was there a positive tone? Were you able to explain how you would mitigate the
possible obtrusiveness of the operation? Wayde Johnson responded he would
characterize the meeting as similar to tonight - it was more of a learning process. They
went over the plan which is basically what is in front of the Commissioners. There was
some constructive feedback given and they offered to take a survey off one ofthe
resident's deck. Johnson said it was a good working meeting and said he understood
where they are coming from as well. The neighbors did not like it but it was an amicable
meeting.
The public's verbal response prompted Commissioner Billington said he was asking the
"developer" and went on to ask Johnson ifhe talked about the berming and screening.
Johnson said they did and explained the landscape plan. He cannot move the outdoor
storage any closer to the building because ofthe narrowness of the lot. Fair to look into
fencing and landscaping. He was not concerned about the engineering issues. Poppler
said the comments are pretty minor but there is a level of detail to be worked out on the
plans. Billington said that was his understanding after reviewing the documents.
Billington asked if there was anything else that would be helpful. Johnson said he was
here to find out what the Planning Commission thinks after the presentation and
discussions.
Bernard O'Neil, 17488 Deerfield Drive, showed the flier (from the applicant) given to
them prior to neighborhood meeting. They did not know about outdoor storage until the
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
14
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12,2006
City's notice. He very strongly objects to the change to the industrial park outdoor
storage.
Vem Lindholm, 17466 Deerfield Drive, questioned if the CUP goes with the land or the
owner. Staff (Matzke and Moore) explained the instances in which a new CUP would be
required.
Moore commented on the mailed public notices and the developer's neighborhood
meeting notice. As a courtesy to the residents, the City includes a location map and text
that states "Outdoor Storage on the Site." It hasn't changed. Stamson pointed out the
notices are not the same as what the developer may have mailed.
Alice McCauley, 17448 Deerfield, said at the neighborhood meeting the developer was
very polite but the meeting was not that friendly. She asked why they could not put a
fence like they have along freeways which is higher than a 6 foot fence. Johnson said it
would be cost prohibitive. She said she doesn't understand why we have to go back to
"fences and trees". McCauley said she doesn't have a problem with the building; she has
a problem with the business going into the two units. There must be somewhere else this
can go. "We're going to be looking at one hundred buses. Thank you very much. Now
we'll be looking at two 1,000 gallon above ground storage tanks. I don't get it and am
very disappointed in Prior Lake."
Jerry Hanson, 17436 Deerfield Drive questioned if the meeting is continued, would the
public hearing be closed to public comments. Moore and Kansier explained the hearing
process.
Keith Dahnert, 17440 Deerfield Drive, said back to the last time they were in front of the
Commissioners (Busse CUP) - some of the issues were about distance between homes
and where the buses were going to be. This time, the distance is much less. It is really
hard to talk after the public hearing is closed and the Commissioners make their
comments. Is there any outside storage the Planning Commission would not allow in the
Industrial Park?
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. It is an interesting coincidence; he just read a newspaper article about the need for
a place for businesses with outside storage - similar to this situation. There is a
definite need.
. We are seeing many of these because the County is cracking down on businesses
located on 10 acre home sites. So it's Shakopee, Prior Lake and other cities
where we have industrial sites where this can be done. We're seeing a crunch at
the moment of people who are getting shuffled out of the County and trying to
find a place to go.
. There is a need for this type of industrial and outside storage use. I don't want to
make the impression there's not.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
15
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12,2006
. We need to recognize why we require CUP's for outside uses. It's because we
recognize in the ordinance the impact and the potential for negative impact on
neighboring properties. I believe that is the problem here. The cumulative impact
of putting these businesses along the property line is getting to be too much for
neighbors.
. Judith Hanson suggested putting the outside storage in the front of the property
but no one wants it in front ofthe building so it's pushed to the back. Normally
that wouldn't be a problem.
. The stored items proposed to go in are much higher than 6 feet. Everything stored
is at least 8 to 10 feet higher. It's just too much. If! was trying to get this
building in, I would swap the building the other way and put the storage towards
Adelmann Street.
. Overall, I don't see this as appropriate for this space. The next property is going
to be right next to the neighbors.
. The applicant has a great use and I wish I could find him another place to go but
one has to take into account the impact with the neighbors. I wouldn't have a
problem with this property except with the bus garage - it is too much along the
property line.
. Won't support.
Ringstad:
. Ironically enough, the first thing I have written down is the possibility of a
reconfigured plan. Questioned staff if it was possible to switch building around
and have the outdoor storage off Adelmann Street. Matzke replied the use must
still meet setbacks and screening. It could possibly be altered. Moore noted the
code does not allow loading docks facing the street. Originally when the
applicant came in there was also some discussion about limitations of maximizing
out the site and turning radius for trucks. Staff did look at other alternatives.
. As with variances, cost is not a factor as one of the criteria.
. Discussed types of limitations which can be placed on CUP, including hours of
operation; number and type of equipment; back up alarms; landscaping and
fencing.
. Would like to see some sort ofreconfigured plan if possible. Look at outdoor
storage toward front of building, etc.
. There is a lot that can be done here. Master has done a lot of impressive buildings
throughout the Twin Cities.
. Address some of concerns in next 30 days.
Billington:
. Agree with previous Commissioner comments - we do have some issues on the
table. Look for a way to do these to meet everyone expectations. The City needs
the tax base here, we also need good neighborhoods. Somewhere there has to be
some meeting of the minds.
. The building reconfiguration is a good one and needs to be further discussed.
. There are other engineering recommendations by staff that should be discussed -
the berming and fencing.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
16
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
Lemke:
. What is the distance from the property line to outdoor storage? Jeff responded it
would be approximately 100 feet. The wetland area sits around 60 feet from the
area.
. It should be around 190 feet from the storage area - not 25 feet as someone
indicated.
. What is the definition of screening? Matzke responded it is defined in the City
Code.
. Does screening mean you can't see anything? Matzke and Moore explained
staffs interpretation of screening - looking at what is reasonable to minimize
impact.
. Can fences be more than six feet high? Moore responded on County Roads and
major corridors you can go up to 8 feet. Outdoor storage has always been 6 feet.
It is an option for the Commissioners to go higher.
. Was there any concern from the fuel tanks that jumped out? Moore said staff
talked to the Police and Fire Departments and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency about requirements, fire and building codes.
. Would underground storage tanks be allowed at that location? Matzke said it
would be allowed and the same permit rules apply.
. Could a CUP contain such language requiring underground versus above-ground
storage? Moore stated the Commissioners could put whatever conditions and
requirements with respect to that but note as far as safety - there are specific
guidelines. The City has residential areas next to gas stations with underground
tanks which are much larger than this. The MPCA and all agencies are aware of
the requirements.
. Have heard the consternation from neighbors regarding this. I do believe this is
what an industrial area is for.
. We are going to continue this hearing and have not made up my mind but I'm
included to support CUP, perhaps with more conditions than proposed. I am
particularly concerned with the fuel storage.
. I am going to do some research in the next four weeks to find out what is
necessary.
. Would consider limits to hours.
Perez:
. Agree with Lemke - this is the type of business that should be there. Also, agree
with Alice (McCauley) - why do we have to do all this screening? Is it
appropriate?
. Do not agree with Stamson that there are too many things and the area is being
overburdened. I do not look at it as being overburdened, it's more a question of
proximity to residences. Even with some of the screening and suggestions by the
Commissioners it may work.
. In favor of what Commissioner Ringstad proposed as far as reconfiguring the
building.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
17
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
. Would be open to keeping the public hearing open until July 10th.
Commissioner Stamson suggested leaving the hearing open to allow comments on a new
proposal. The Commissioners agreed.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY PEREZ, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING UNTIL JULY 10, 2006.
Vote taken indicates ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
There were no announcements.
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Jane Kansier &
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretaries
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
18
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
C;:rl~ l~. Db
l
The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to
all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to
speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new
information.
Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter.
Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible
except under rare occasions.
The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter.
Thank you.
ATTENDANCE-PLEASE PRINT
NAME ADDRESS
120,,-' ~, I-A.SIt YfTm PIlI'H 4dB5 L?Z:C'$!;D C~(~i\J. ~ _
Jllrll (J l-t-a,t,MI.,d ~1l.J..1.~ _ ___ _Id J2r. '\...C
Ju.n...~~. 1'1'131. JJ~'!;i"~Jr. 5-;::
&IIJ'~~ N.JLh ~x2 !S/?; . ~.<J;
...::; i-e.;/. .5 J O$tJC>A / to 11f2'i 1!1i!.' ::: =- a ilL ;;;s~
,6~e ~~i~ /J~&'~(!}WE
l:;{:.ftr:.A- A-~J-NJ-lJIM a-9t.J-9 .u~~-::::>I Sc
1im St:.+IJJI:!:/oefL /"!L!I? ~ ,,JOSP/C.- t.N..re. Pc L.
,~DEJo\.~ 2"::)'1) OwYJ< [4. ~(oI'~ ,MN ~~71
...'1>..,w,\..,..;",',s I~C;-LJ, '?~o....../.~ I-Iv. Ml?lc; M"",C'C'1/1
=!1't) St...l~~JJY1 /7lf1tJ "nu('~~/,.j Jlr~rF - . .
~~)PI'I~()1t 17YQO ~~:dUM sc:-
~a.("G.l ~\~(,L."""v 171tJ.;(; ~~I/e~G
81/..L Jj (L':(1Y6-J-IAfVI 17 "1-;-1 DE F RI=J~Ln nR/l//=' S'f
I~ r ITJ/ /JA-#-rVrn r 1'74'1 () II '~"
L ,-r rJ4 J/-vlf'71.."'f I ~ , .. L ... I ~
Jeff t)e'Rudd:e.r 49l(] \-\1(...~l'wy' \=.h\k'\r\ PL C)s3,?
~.so.. Dc-'Kudck-r " 1\ '0 I' I' 1\ "
\f~_ {\ ,A 4'A ~~1(JIM. !7~ 0(?~~_6..(l~cl.J. ,Dr.5E?L ~)S7L
~ Ai L'At<..{c~ 1'7<1-c1Ft)~~;;r/
. . ..' I
L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP.doc