HomeMy WebLinkAbout0311022.
3.
4.
Se
e
7.
8.
9.
Bo
D°
Fo
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case file #01-079 Kenneth & Carol Boyles are requesting a 14.5 foot variance to permit
a 10.5 foot rear yard setback rather than the minimum required 25 feet for the property at
15358 Breezy Point Road.
Case files #02-09 and 02-010 Wensmann Homes is requesting a Preliminary Planned
Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 23.66 acres to be subdivided into
2 lots for commercial development and 10 lots for 64 townhouse units to be known as
Fountain Hills 2nd Addition located south of County Road 42 and west of Pike Lake
Trail.
Case files 02-015 and 02-016 Tom Holme Construction, Inc., is requesting an
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map and a proposed Zone change request to
subdivide into 7 lots for single family homes at the property located on the northeast side
of Mushtown Road, directly west of Toronto Avenue and Overlook Drive.
Case file #02-020 John and Linda Meyer are requesting a variance to lot area less than
the required minimum of 15,000 square feet for the construction of a seasonal cabin on
Lots 61, 62 and 64 of Twin Isles.
Case file #02-022 Prior Lake Baptist Church is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to
allow multiple buildings on a single lot for the property located at 5690 Credit River
Road.
Case file #02-020 D.R. Horton is requesting a combined preliminary plat and final plat
to be known as Deerfield 6th Addition. The proposed plat will add 10 feet of property to
the existing Lots 5-8, Block 1, Deerfield 2nd Addition.
Old Business:
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcagenda'~Ag031102.DOC
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
,
The Planning Commission~[elcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who
choose to speak, we ask that, a~ter speaking once, you allow everyone else to speak
before you address the Commission again and limit your gornmenrs to clairLfication or
....... It..~ . . .
new informaUon. Please be aware this Is the prmc~pa_l opportumty to ~rov~de input
on this ma.er. Once the public hearing is closed, further td~i't~fr~gn~'~f'comment will
not be possible/except under rare conditions. The City Council will not hear
additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRI?~
ADDRESS
~L
;/
PIqLIST.DOC
PAGE
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the March 11, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the February 25, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings:
A. Case file #01-079 Kenneth & Carol Boyles are requesting a 14.5 foot variance
to permit a 10.5 foot rear yard setback rather than the minimum required 25 feet
for the property at 15358 Breezy Point Road.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Staff report dated March 11, 2002 on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Kenneth & Carol Boyles,
for the construction of a single family dwelling with an attached garage, on the property
located at 15358 Breezy Point Road, and legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Red Oaks
Second Addition, Scott County, Minnesota. On February 24, 2002, the applicants
submitted a letter requesting a continuance of this agenda item until the next scheduled
Planning Commission Meeting on March 11, 2002.
The request is for a 14.5' variance to the rear yard setback to permit the structure to be
setback 10.5' from the rear lot line rather than the minimum required setback of 25 feet.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN031102.doc
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
Based on the Findings, the staff found this request does not meet the nine hardship
criteria. Staff determined Lot 1, Block 1, Red Oaks Second Addition, was platted to meet
the minimum dimensional standards and setbacks for the R1 SD districts, and is a legal
conforming lot of record. In addition, there is a legal building envelope that meets the
minimum setbacks to the rear lot line for a future dwelling of less size. The staff
recommended denial of the requested variance.
Comments from the public:
Applicants Ken and Carol Boyles, 13003 Cardinal Circle, Eden Prairie, distributed
handouts of their proposal. Boyles explained their plan and how they came up with the
variance. He felt there were flaws in the original plat and the lot was nonconforming. He
felt his proposal would be a solution to the problems. Boyles disputed staff's hardship
criteria, pointing out his lot was surrounded by water on three sides making the building
pad much smaller, therefore, the hardships had been met. Boyles counted up all the lots
on Prior Lake and found 20 lots have water on 3 sides but none of them have water on 3
sides and a wetland. His lot is almost an acre but because of the terrain and the setback
requirements it ends up being a modest size-building pad with many restrictions. If he
moves his house plan to the high ground it will eliminate the need for a variance.
Patrick Pards, 15386 Breezy Point Road, the neighboring lot, said he did not like the idea
of a retaining wall between the lots. It did not make sense. The Boyles' plan seemed to
make more sense and fit into the neighborhood. Pards also had a concern for the runoff if
a retaining wall was in place.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Visited the lot twice. It is a beautiful lot. Variances that normally come before the
Commission usually have to do with exceeding 30% impervious surface coverage or
trying to move closer to the lake than is normally allowed. This is different.
· This is a common sense issue as to where to build the house.
· The staffdid a good job in putting together the report but disagreed with their
conclusion.
· The lot is unique because of the topography and water on 3 sides.
· Common sense tells me this is a side yard not a back yard in which case this would
not be before the Commission.
· There is a hardship and supported the request.
Criego:
· Looked at the lot. The question is the definition of back yard and front yard. The
planning staff has taken the logical position that the front yard is where you drive in
and the back yard is the back of the home. They had no alternative; basically the
request could not be done without a variance.
· On a normal lot like this on the lake, it would have basically 95 feet of yard setbacks.
Ten feet on the sides, 50 feet on the lakeside and 25 feet on the street side. This
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXJVlN031102.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
applicant has basically 135 feet of side yard setbacks. They have substantially
exceeded the total. The question is, what is rear or side yard? It is basically the
definition we are discussing.
The lot is unique and the Commission as a group wants to protect any of the wetland.
This is the best solution for everyone.
Agreed with applicant. Support the request.
Atwood:
· Concurred with Commissioners, it is a unique lot and the definition of side and rear is
at issue.
· In favor of the applicant's request.
Ringstad:
· Visited the lot and it is clearly a unique lot.
· After reading staff's report and hearing the applicants concern there is certainly some
gray area.
· Based upon the information, he concurred with the Commissioners and would grant
the request.
Stamson:
· Questioned staff on what point is the rear lot determined. Is it based on the
applicant's designed or the time the lot is platted? Kansier responded it is based on
ordinance definition that states the rear yard is opposite the front yard, which is
defined as being adjacent to the street.
· Concurred with staff.
· When this was platted a few years ago, there was big discussion of whether or not
there were 3 buildable lots. It was repeatedly argued by the developer that there were
3 usable, buildable lots and this design would accommodate 3 homes. Nothing has
changed in that regard.
· There is a sufficient building envelope and largely the problem is the size of the
home.
· The hardship criteria have not been met.
· Opposed the variance request.
Open Discussion:
Criego felt the lot was unique and in order to have the applicant do what was originally
platted is unreasonable. It would result in deterioration of water and the surrounding area.
The property is so unique he felt it should be allowed. The applicant had a better
solution. The surrounding area should be left natural.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES
AS REQUESTED AND DIRECT STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A RESOLUTION
WITH FINDINGS.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN031102.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
Vote taken indicated ayes by Atwood, Criego, Lemke & Ringstad, nay by Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
B. Case files #02-09 and 02-010 Wensmann Homes is requesting a Preliminary
Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 23.66 acres to be
subdivided into 2 lots for commercial development and 10 lots for 64 townhouse
units to be known as Fountain Hills 2nd Addition located south of County Road 42
and west of Pike Lake Trail.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff Report dated March 11, 2002 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
Wensmann Realty, Inc., has applied for approval of a development to be known as
nd
Fountain Hills 2 Addition on the property located on the west side of Pike Lake Trail,
approximately 1/8 mile south of CSAH 42 and directly south of Fountain Hills Drive.
The application includes the following requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
While the total site area is 23.08 acres, the PUD plan encompasses 10.16 acres of the site.
The PUD development consists of a total of 64 dwelling units on 7.17 net acres, for a
total density of 8.92 units per acre. The remaining area of the development will consist
of two commercial lots, 7.01 acres and 4.67 acres in size.
The major issue that must be addressed is the easements adjacent to the private streets.
There is some redesign required to address this issue; however, this could occur at the
final plan stage. The staff recommended approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. The private streets must be designed so that the sum of the width of the outlot and the
adjacent easements is equal to 50 feet.
2. Extend sanitary sewer and water main to the south property boundary.
3. Provide a drainage easement and storm sewer pipe from the south side of the wetland on the
east side of the property to the south property line for the future use of the property to the
south.
4. Provide a drainage and utility easement on Lot 1, Block 1, Fountain Hills Addition, for the
sanitary sewer pipe located within this lot.
5. Provide the information necessary to show how the drainage will work behind Unit g4 to
achieve a 2% swale.
6. Provide retaining wall profiles and design by a registered engineer.
7. Revise the landscaping plan to include the required number of oversized trees.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN031102.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
8. Verify that the setback between the buildings and the wetland is 30' to the 100-year flood
elevation of the wetland.
9. Indicate whether signs will be provided for the townhouse development. If so, provide sign
elevations and greater detail on the location of the proposed monument signs.
10. Provide a lighting plan identifying the foot-candles at the south property line that are a result
of the wall lighting on the south side of the units.
11. Provide a phasing plan for the project.
12. Provide an irrigation plan.
13. Provide street names for the private streets.
14. Ensure that the tie-ins to the existing 8" water main valve on Pike Lake Trail will be
acceptable for hook-ups and testing.
15. Proved a concrete entrance to the easterly entrance to the new sidewalk. The westerly
entrance will require a valley-gutter where needed.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Questioned staff if the easement would only be 49 feet, could the Commission
recommend approval? Kansier said they could approve it. One foot would not make
a difference.
· Questioned if the only real problem with the setbacks is snow storage. Kansier
responded it was the major problem. But it also has some effect on smaller utilities.
It limits the placement of gas and electricity lines.
Comments from the public:
Terry Wensmann from Wensmann Realty explained the townhouse development
consisting of 64 units. All the townhomes will be owner-occupied. There will be no
rentals. He also explained the different townhome elevations and the least amount of
impact on the wetlands and slopes. They are saving as many of the significant trees as
possible with this plan. Wensmann briefly described the benefits of the PUD and private
streets and landscaping. They will provide the 50-foot easement that staff was
concerned with. There will also be a development monument at the end of Fountain Hills
Court. Nick Polta, the engineer from Pioneer Engineering was also available for
questions.
Criego:
· Questioned reducing the lots and driveways. Wensmann responded it is an outlot
maintained by the townhome association. It is not a problem. The easements would
go across the driveway like any other single-family development.
Ed Vierling, 14310 Pike Lake Trail, said his concerns were the cost of the townhomes,
runoff and traffic. His family owns land south and west of the development, has no
desire of developing and want to continue fanning. His other concern is for tree
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN031102.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
preservation. He questioned if the private streets would be able to support emergency
vehicles.
Atwood:
Asked the applicant to address the purchase price. Wensmann said the price range
would be starting at $150,000 to $200,000 the average being around $170,000 to
$180,000. He also addressed Mr. Vierling's concern that the retaining wall would not
be visible.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
Questioned Wensmann why he did not elect to use Class I materials. Wensmann
responded because of the affordability - making it as maintenance-free as possible to
keep the association fees down.
· This is the right use of the property but concerned the number of units is stacked in.
It seems to have a lot of units in a small area. Understand it is substantially less with
8 units per acre. Somehow the structuring of the units and the way it is designed is
not beneficial to the City.
At'wood:
· Agreed with Criego. It is an appropriate use of the property. It is beautiful. The
higher density is appropriate.
· Happy the developer is Wensmann Homes, they speak for themselves. However, the
modifications are excessive. Would like to see one of the inner looped units dropped.
It could make it more interesting. There would be more open space.
· Love the trails around the pond and that they hook up with the other trails.
· Appreciate the concern for preserving the trees.
· Would like to see another monument.
· Support staff in removing one of the units.
Lemke:
· The issue of density is always tough. The applicant has taken the topography and
wetlands into account and tried to group the houses to maintain a significant portion
of open space.
· The concern in cutting the density is that it may force the units into the slopes and
other less desirable areas.
· Concern for traffic.
· If the right-of-way issue can be resolved, it seems like an appropriate use.
Ringstad:
· Staff addressed the question on the additional impervious ground cover and the
effects on the neighboring properties. Staff seemed satisfied there was existing
infrastructure that would be created to accommodate the development.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN031102.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
· In reading the report it makes sense for the density being requested subject to the 15
conditions staff is recommending. Will support the proposal.
Stamson:
· Have to agree with Lemke on the density issue. Keep in mind the property is zoned
R3 for high density. It is possible for 30 units per acre; the developer is well below
that.
· The issue of the buildings be packed in - it is a direct response to the topography of
the site. That is why we have a PUD. We are looking at trying to save hills and trees.
If this was a flat piece of land, the buildings could easily be spread out. The buildings
proposed gives more use of the land. In this case, preserve the trees and hillsides.
· The buildings were brought into a tighter configuration to do that. Support the
density the way it is.
· The development meets a price point needed in this City.
· The problem with the 50-foot total width for private streets appears to be a non-issue.
· The other conditions brought up from staff are largely details, record keeping and
adjustments are not a big issue
· This development will be a nice addition. It is a very appropriate use of the property.
Open Discussion:
· The Commissioners discussed the setbacks, modifications and density. The zoning
was discussed along with affordable housing. The whole idea behind a PUD is to
allow this type of modifications. If developers are not allowed to use them, do not
have PUDs in the Ordinance. Criego felt there are other ways to accommodate.
· Misunderstanding that the slopes were bluffs.
· Other discussions were the Class I materials. Atwood felt this plan could be achieved
with less density.
· Terry Wensmann responded explaining the private drives and setbacks similar to
Wensmann 1st Addition.
· Another issue brought up by Lemke is the affordability. The next generation cannot
afford $700,000 homes in The Wilds. It is an appropriate development for the City.
· Criego questioned city requirements for cul-de-sacs on private roads. Kansier
explained on short streets as proposed, the City does not require a cul-de-sac.
Emergency vehicles can just backup.
· The Commissioners questioned Class I materials. Kansier explained the material.
· Criego questioned the lack of sidewalks. Normally the Commission requires
sidewalks. The development has trails.
· Stamson would like to see the Class I materials used.
· Ringstad agreed with Lemke on the affordability for the City. The Commission
should be sensitive to this issue. Leave as proposed.
· Lemke asked Wensmann if he know the price change for Class I materials.
Wensmann responded he did not know at this time. It would depend on how much
was used on the building - the fronts, rear, and sides. Guessing around the entire
building at 60% it could add $3,000 to $4,000 to the cost, depending on the material.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN031102.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE THE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS FOUNTAIN
HILLS 2ND ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson. Nays by Atwood and
Criego. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS FOUNTAIN HILLS 2Nt~ ADDITION
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson; Nays by Atwood and
Criego. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go to the City Council on April 1, 2002.
A recess was called at 8:02 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:07 p.m.
C. Case files 02-015 and 02-016 Tom Holme Construction, Inc., is requesting an
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map and a proposed Zone change request
to subdivide into 7 lots for single-family homes at the property located on the
northeast side of Mushtown Road, directly west of Toronto Avenue and Overlook
Drive.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff Report dated March 11, 2002 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
On February 4, 2002, the City Council adopted a resolution annexing 4.34 acres of land
located on the northeast side of Mushtown Road, between Pondview Trail and Toronto
Avenue in Section 11, Spring Lake Township. Since this property was not included on
the City plans, the Council also initiated an amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Map to include this property. The proposed amendment designates this
property for Low to Medium Density Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan
Map and zones the property as R-1 (Low Density Residential) on the City Zoning Map.
The Planning staff found the proposed R-L/MD designation consistent with the goals of
the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed R-1 district is also consistent with this
designation. The staff therefore recommended approval of this request.
Criego questioned how much land was annexed. Kansier said the applicant annexed the
entire area.
Comments from the public:
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN031102.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
Wade Kytola, 4403 Pondview Trail, bought 360 feet of property abutting the proposal.
He was concerned with additional homes and the existing runoff problems, his property
will be damaged. The City had many restrictions with his lot. Kytola was not happy he
was not informed of the annexation. Kansier explained the orderly annexation process.
Atwood pointed out the zoning is consistent with the neighborhood. It will be single-
family home development. Criego explained one of the requirements of the development
is there would be no runoff onto other properties.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
· Reiterated Criego's comments regarding runoff when the plat comes in. The
Commission is sensitive to that.
· Supported request.
Lemke:
· Agreed with fellow Commissioners and the staff report. The land is now part of the
City of Prior Lake and the question before the Commission is zoning. R1 is the right
use of the land.
Criego:
· Concurred. The Comprehensive Plan has to be modified. R1 is the best use.
· Agreed with staff's opinion.
Atwood:
· Agreed and supported the zone change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Commissioners and staff. R1 and low to medium density is appropriate.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
TO DESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 4.34 ACRES LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE TO THE R-1 DISTRICT ON THE SAME
4.34 ACRES.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on April 1, 2002.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN031102.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
D. Case file #02-020 John and Linda Meyer are requesting a variance to lot area
less than the required minimum of 15,000 square feet for the construction of a
seasonal cabin on Lots 61, 62 and 64 of Twin Isles.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Staff Report dated March 11, 2002
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from John & Linda Meyer for
the construction of a seasonal cabin on three platted lots on "Twin Isles". The applicant's
stated they attempted to purchase lot 63 and combine it with the other 3 lots in order to
meet the minimum lot area, but were unsuccessful and request the variance to allow the
construction as proposed. The request is for a 2,396 square foot variance for a total area
of 12,604 square feet rather than the required minimum area of 15,000 square feet or two
contiguous lakeshore lots.
The City received a complaint in the year 2000, regarding the construction of an
accessory building on two of the subject lots on "Twin Isles", specifically Lots 62 and 64.
Upon inspection, staff determined the construction had commenced without the necessary
building permits. The Meyers were notified of the violation and halted construction.
The applicants now propose to construct a seasonal cabin on Lots, 61, 62 and 64.
Currently Lots 62 and 64 are legally combined, but Lot 61 was purchased at a later date
in the year 2001. Lot 61 shall to be legally combined under one title with Lots 62 and 64
subject to variance approval and prior to the issuance of a building permit. The total area
for lots 61, 62 and 64 is 12,604 square feet, which is less than the minimum required
15,000 square feet or two contiguous lakeshore lots, as required for island development.
The City Building and Engineering Departments have reviewed this variance request, and
in essence both departments have no objection provided well location and septic design
are approved by Scott County. The Department of Natural Resources stated they have no
issues with the variance proposed, and questioned whether 2 suitable septic sites been
identified on the property. Scott County approved one septic site for this application.
The Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt the resolution with the
conditions approving the requested variance based on today's ordinance requirements on
undeveloped existing platted lots of record creating a hardship. In addition, approval of
this request should be subject to the condition the lot is developed as shown on the survey
to ensure additional variances are not required.
The following are conditions, which shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. The property owner shall file with the Scott County Recorder a property title that
combines Lots 61, 62, and 64.
2. The subject site shall be developed as shown on the attached survey to ensure additional
variances are not required.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN031102.doc 10
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
3. The permit is subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable County and State
agency regulations.
The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. The resolution must be recorded and proof of recording
submitted to the Planning Department. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant to
Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null and void if the necessary
permits are not obtained for the proposed structure within one year after adoption of this
resolution.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Suggested the well design and approval by Scott County should be a condition.
Horsman pointed out Condition #3 covers that issue.
· Horsman also said the applicant is now requesting that the existing well on Lots 43,
44 and 45 provide a waterline to supply water to the second site. There is a question
if that would be approved or not. It needs to be researched.
Criego:
This applicant came before the Commission a number of months ago to put a garage
on this particular property. There was a lot of discussion at that time of continuous
lots with separation of a roadway. The Commission considered this to be contiguous
ownership. How does that play with separate building of a home on same ownership?
Horsman explained the riparian lot restriction. In this case, it is a separate site.
Comments from the public:
Applicants John and Linda Meyer, Prior Lake residence address is 3313 Twin Isle Circle,
stated he enjoyed Prior Lake. He is requesting a 2,396 square foot variance instead of the
required 15,000 square foot area. His goal is to have adequate shelter for his family and
secure personal property and improve the aesthetics of the Island. Meyer explained the
layout and description of Twin Island. The original plat of 1925 was designed for lake
cabins. Meyer read the Twin Isle zoning ordinance requirements. He also questioned the
City's 25-foot setback requirement.
Criego:
· Questioned Meyer's primary residence. Meyer said it was 8300 Ewing Road in
Bloomington.
· Questioned Meyer if the proposed home is a second home they would keep or intend
to sell. Meyer said they need the space and plan on living there seasonally.
Stamson:
· Questioned the interior lots having lake access. Meyer pointed out the common lot
having access to the lake.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\O2pcminuteshMN031102.doc 1 1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
· Questioned dockage. Meyer explained it could be put in the common area.
· Questioned the road. Meyer said there is a 20 foot defined road.
Criego:
· Questioned staff on why is there a 25-foot side yard setback from Lot 63. Horsman
explained it was a rear yard lot line. It doesn't have anything to do with the roadway.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· No problem supporting staff's findings and the conditions stated in the report.
Ringstad:
· Agreed, there are no problems granting the request with the 4 conditions.
Criego:
· No problem with staff's recommendation other than the statement brought up by
Steve Horsman that the desire to have common water come from the current
dwelling. It seems that what is done has to be separate because the property could be
sold in the future. Don't know if that should be in a Resolution or somehow make
that clear to Scott County that it is of keen interest to the City. Maybe staff could
help.
· Kansier said she is not sure what authority; County or State would actually have to
approve that type of connection. The engineering department will need to see the
permit for the water supply. There are a number of issues once one starts sharing
wells. There are different regulations. The City will have to look into it. If they
were allowed to share the well, the City would require documentation that in the
event the two properties are sold separately one or the other would not be losing their
water supply. It would be part of the building permit.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
Lemke:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation and make sure the water condition is taken care
of.
Stamson:
· Concurred with fellow Commissioners and staff supporting this issue.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02-
002PC APPROVING A 2,396 SQUARE FOOTAGE TO ALLOW A LOT AREA OF
12,604 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MIMIMUM ARE OF
15,000 SQUARE FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the variance appeal process.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN031102.doc 12
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
E. Case file #02-022 Prior Lake Baptist Church is requesting a Conditional Use
Permit to allow multiple buildings on a single lot for the property located at 5690
Credit River Road.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 11, 2002,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
Prior Lake Baptist Church has filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
allow two principal structures on a single lot for the property located 5690 Credit River
Road. This site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). No variances are required for
this project. The Church is planning an addition to the existing church and school. In
order to meet the impervious surface requirements for this development, the Church has
purchased the adjacent property to the northwest. There is an existing single-family
home and detached garage on this lot. The Church is proposing to rent the single family
home tmtil sometime in the future, when the home will be removed. There is no specific
date for the removal of this structure.
Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit request, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Staffmust approve the site plan for the church addition before the resolution
approving the CUP is recorded.
2. The applicant must file an application to combine the lots for City approval.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Suggested some kind of time line, it could be 10 years, as long as it doesn't become a
permanent use. Support the proposal.
Lemke:
· The staffhas done a good job of laying out why a Conditional Use Permit is
appropriate.
· Did not consider an expiration date. If the church has gone to the trouble of having an
architect, they are going to develop it and would probably require that the house be
moved.
Criego:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation as it relates to the time frame of the Conditional
Use Permit. It seems there should be a condition that indicates the Conditional Use
Permit is only good for the current structure. If that structure gets torn down, they
cannot put another like structure and do the same thing.
L:\02FILES\O2planning comm\02pcminutes~lN031102.doc 13
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
· Kansier said once something is destroyed, it automatically kicks in the requirement.
The City would not allow duplication without going through the process.
Ringstad and Atwood:
· Supported the Conditional Use Permit with staff's conditions.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO STAFF'S
CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on April 1, 2002.
F. Case file #02-03 D.R. Horton is requesting a combined preliminary plat and
final plat to be known as Deerfield 6th Addition. The proposed plat will add 10 feet
of property to the existing Lots 5-8, Block 1, Deerfield 2nd Addition.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 11, 2002,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
D. R. Horton, Inc., is requesting a combined preliminary plat and final plat for the
property is located on the south side ofFish Point Road, west of Deerfield Drive, at
17252, 17254, 17256 and 17258 Deerfield Drive. The proposed plat will add 10' of
property to the existing townhouse lots, described as Lots 5-8, Block 1, Deerfield 2nd,
which will allow the construction of a deck on the townhouse units.
This application is being processed as a combined preliminary plat and final plat under
the provisions of Section 1002.400 of the Subdivision Ordinance. This section allows the
City staff to combine the preliminary and final plat process when a proposed subdivision
meets all of the requirements.
The proposed plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning
Ordinance. The only issue with this plat has been identified by the City Attorney as part
of the review of the title work. The Planning staff recommends approval of this plat
subject to the following condition:
The 6 issues identified by the City Attorney in the letter dated February 26, 2002, must be
addressed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney before the City will sign the final plat
documents.
Comments from the public:
Mike Suel, D.R. Horton Homes, just wanted to clarify the request was for a 5-foot
extension. Horton would like to fulfill their obligations to their buyers by allowing them
to construct decks. Suel explained the miscalculation.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN031102.doc 14
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
Criego:
· Questioned who owned the property Horton was acquiring. Suel responded it was an
outlot owned by the homeowner association. At the present time, the association is
under the control ofD.R. Horton. He also mentioned their attorney is looking at the
proposal.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Questioned staff on meeting the setbacks to the wetlands. Kansier responded they
were met.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
Lemke:
· Agreed. Questioned staff if the property coming out of the common space reduced
any requirement. Kansier said it did not.
· No problem with the request.
Ringstad, Atwood and Stamson:
· No problem supporting the request.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF DEERFIELD 6H ADDITION WITH
THE CONDITION OUTLINED IN STAFF'S REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on April 1, 2002.
6. Old Business: None
7. New Business: None
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~lN031102.doc 15