Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032502 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Consent Agenda: A. Boyles Variance Resolution 5. Public Hearings: A. Case #02-027 Matt Ellman and Karen Opoien are questing a variance for a structure setback less than the minimum required setback to the top of bluff for the construction of a room addition for the property at 14909 Manitou Road. B. Case #02-023 Keystone Communities (formerly Crystal Care) is requesting a Senior Care Overlay District for a development to be known as Keystone Communities for the construction of a 3-story, 107 unit senior rental building located south of Highway 13 and west of Franklin Trail. C. Case #02-021 Donald B. Scherer is requesting a variance to structure setback to the ordinary high water mark to allow an existing deck t° remain on the property at 3894 Green Heights Trail. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. Review 2003-2007 Capital Improvement Program. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcagendaXAGO32502,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 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Criego called the March 25, 2002 Regular Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, and Ringstad, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Kelly Meyer. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Present Criego Present Lemke Present Ringstad Present Stamson Absent 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the March 11, 2002 Regular Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. Commissioner Criego reviewed the agenda, read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. 4. Consent: A. Boyles Variance Resolution. The Zoning Administrator bdefly reviewed the agenda item in connection with the March 25, 2002 Staff report on file in the office of the Planning Department, MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Atwood, Criego, Lemke and Ringstad, MOTION CARRIED. 5. Public Hearings: A: Case File 52.027 Matt EIIman and Karen Opoien are requesting a 5.24 foot variance to permit a room addition structure to be setback 19.76 feet from the top of the bluff rather than the required minimum 25.foot setback for the property at 14909 Manitou Road. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Staff report dated March 25, 2002 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The Planning Department received a variance application from Matt EIIman & Karen Opoien (applicant/owner) for the construction of a room addition to an existing single family dwelling on the property located at 14909 Manitou Road. The principal structure is a legal non-conforming dwelling because the existing deck was originally built in the bluff setback area prior to the establishment of bluff setbacks. The current applicant/owners purchased the subject property in November 2001, and L:\02FlLES\02planning cornm\02pcminutesgvlN032502.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 25, 2002 have not made exterior modifications or improvements to the property. The applicants had submitted a building permit application for the addition, and staff determined a bluff setback variance is required. The applicants request a 5.24-foot variance to permit a room addition structure to be setback 19.76- feet from the top of bluff rather than the required minimum 25-foot setback. Based upon the Findings, the staff found this request does not meet the nine hardship criteria. The staff therefore recommends denial of the requested variance as proposed by the applicant. The staff could recommend approval of a lesser variance, which would allow an addition that does not go beyond the existing deck encroachment. Lemke: Asked if using the existing deck envelope would have to include overhangs. Horsman: Confirmed. Comments from the public: Matt EIIman (applicant, 14909 Manitou Road): Noted that when the house was purchased their intent was to increase the size of the house and that they were not aware of any restriction. Also noted that they were amenable to taking additional measures to address environmental issues. Karen Opoien (applicant, 14909 Manitou Road): Thanked the staff for all of the help and noted that the variance would not adversely affect the surrounding property owners. Believed there was a hardship for their family of five in that there is only one bathroom. Further advised that they would be amenable to accommodating any concerns of the City and Watershed with respect to erosion control. Noted that the architect and the engineer were both present to answer questions. John Van Able (architect, 1108 Abbott Lane, Minnetonka): Asked if the staff would support a variance within the deck footprint just as it is, removing the overhang. Horsman: Confirmed that as long as the structure including any overhangs remains within the footprint of the current deck, the staff would recommend approval of a lesser variance. Chuck Miller (14897 Manitou Road): Commented that as the affected neighbor he had no objections to the addition and looked forward to having the dog kennel removed. Asked if the concrete patio is considered in the setback calculation. Horsman: Advised that the patio is only considered when calculating impervious surface, and is not considered for setback calculations. Commissioner Criego closed the public hearing. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: Asked for staff to clarify the concept of intensification and lake creep with respect to this property. Horsman: Explained that the existing deck meets the definition of a structure, as does a room addition and would constitute an intensification of the use. However, because the intensification is minimal from the deck to the room L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~4N032502.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 25, 2002 addition, staff would recommend approval if the proposed addition remained entirely within the footprint of the current deck structure. McDermott: Advised that lake creep does not appear to apply in this case. Ringstad: Asked about the original survey and the concerns raised under that submission. Horsman: Noted that the original survey was incorrect in its interpretation of a bluff setback line. The setback line is not necessarily from the top of bluff, but from where the slope becomes less than 18%. The second survey showed the revised setback. Lemke: Asked the size of the area that encroaches the footprint of the current deck. Horsman: Approximately 30 square feet, not including any overhangs. Crie,qo: Asked if the new patio structure impacts the bluff ordinance. Further commented that it seems staff's recommendation would be for approval if the plans do not impact the property outside the footprint of the current deck. Horsman: Advised that at the time the patio and deck was built, there was no bluff setback. In addition, patios are not defined as structures and so the setback would not apply. Opoien: Asked if the addition could be extended beyond the footprint of the deck, just not on the north side, and no farther than 8 feet from the existing house structure. Horsman: Confirmed. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION NOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT WHICH WOULD IMPACT THE BLUFF SETBACK ON THE NORTH END AND THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE STAFF REPORT. Horsman: Cladfied that the proposed resolution would include language that the applicant must comply with all other ordinances and regulations of all other regulatory authorities, as well as the requirement to sign and record the consent forms. The motion and second accepted the friendly amendment. VOTE: Ayes by Atwood, Criego, Lemke and Ringstad, the MOTION CARRIED. B. A request by Keystone Communities and Park Nicollet HealthSystems for a Senior Care Overlay District for the property located south of the Park Nicollet Clinic. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff report dated March 25, 2002 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. L:\02FILES\O2planning comm\O2pcminutesXMNO32502.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 25, 2002 Keystone Communities and Park Nicollet HealthSystems have filed an application to develop the property located south of TH 13, west of Franklin Trail, and directly south of the Park Nicollet clinic. The request is for approval of a Senior Care Overlay District for the development of a 107-unit senior care facility. Keystone Communities is the developer of the senior care project. Park Nicollet HealthSystems, the current property owner, will develop the remaining commercial lots. The proposed senior care overlay district includes Lot 2, Block 2, as shown on the preliminary plat for Park Nicollet Addition. The applicants are requesting approval of a Senior Care Overlay district under the provisions of Section 1106A of the Zoning Ordinance. These uses are permitted in the C-4 district. The proposed Senior Care Overlay District complies with most of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed modifications are within the scope of approval of the City Council. The Planning Commission should comment on whether these modifications are appropriate. The staff recommends approval of the proposed Senior Care Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer must submit restrictive covenants for this use for review and approval by the City Attorney. 2. A registered landscape architect must sign the landscape plan. 3. The developer must submit an irrigation plan for the site. 4. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council. 5. Upon final approval, the developer must submit two complete sets of full-scale final plans and reductions of each sheet. These plans will be stamped with the final approval information. One set will be maintained as the official Senior Care Overlay District record. The second set will be returned to the developer for their files. 6. The developer must enter into a development agreement with the City. This agreement will outline the specific requirements for this overlay district. Crie§o: Asked why the staff did not recommend 60% Class I materials for the project. Kansier: Advised that the modification is within the scope of the City Council, and the Class I proposed is somewhere between 50-55%. Comments from the Public: Kristi Olson (CEO, Keystone Communities): Commented that they are very excited about the project and that the market study is very strong. The comments from the Town Meeting were primarily positive and there is a growing list for available units. Believed the project will be a wonderful addition to the community. Criego: Asked what changed from the original plan and size. Olson: Advised that their market research indicated that congregate care, assisted living and memory care all be included in the project. The original plan was only for assisted living and memory care. Lemke: Asked for clarification as to the landscaping requirements. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN032502.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 25, 2002 Kansier: Advised that the current plan allows for a calculation of 44 trees, rather than the 107 required by the ordinance, although physically there would be more trees, just smaller, on the site. Gary Tushie (architect): Noted that the senior overlay district allows for a lesser landscape requirement to allow for better utilization of the space for this use. Also advised that the tree requirement does not allow a calculation for shrubs, which this site would have a lot of. Added that the original plan also included a garage. Parking is now underground. Kansier: Noted that the original building was a two-story with a one-story devoted to memory care. The new proposal is for an additional floor in both instances. Andrea Schook (16766 Brunswick Ave. SE): Asked for sensitivity by the Commissioners concerning mitigation of the impact the development will have on her property. Would like to see one less story in that specific location and more of a green screen for privacy. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: Supported the project and the conditions set by staff. Asked about the size of the strolling garden, and if the south side is where the adjustment to the landscaping occurs. Tushie: Commented that the strolling garden is approximately 150 foot long on the east side and that the adjustment to the landscaping plan involves the whole site. Noted that some additional screening with evergreen trees could be provided on the northeast corner which would limit the impact on the adjacent property owner. Criego: Recommended that a number of sizable trees be added to the top of the retaining wall to address the concerns of the adjacent property owner. Tushie: Confirmed that the plantings could be on top of the retaining wall. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND APFROVAL OF THE SENIOR CARE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR A SENIOR FACILITY TO BE KNOWN AS KEYSTONE COMMUNITIES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF AND AS DISCUSSED WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING PLAN. VOTE: Ayes by Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and Ringstad, the motion carried. This item will be considered by the City Council at its April 15, 2002 regular meeting. C. Case File #02-021 Donald B. Scherer is requesting a 23.foot variance to allow a structure setback of 52-feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet, rather than the minimum required setback of 75 feet for property located at 3894 Green Heights Trail. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman advised that the applicant had requested this item be removed from the agenda and continued to a later date. MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ITS APRIL 8, 2002 REGULAR MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Atwood, Cdego, Lemke and Ringstad, the motion carried. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN032502.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 25, 2002 6. Old Business: NONE. 7. New Business: A. Review 2003-2007 Capital Improvement Program Minnesota Statutes provides that all proposed capital improvements be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. As in previous year's, the ClP continues to plan ongoing improvements to the City's parks and street paving and reconstruction projects. Projects maintaining the City's sewer and water infrastructure are also scheduled throughout the five- year scope of the plan. Any recommendation for changes to the ClP should indicate which particular goal or policy in the Comprehensive Plan is being advanced by the recommended project. The thing to keep in mind is that all projects are competing for a limited amount of money and the CIP is limited to those projects with the highest priority. Noted that items such as a new municipal well and acquisition of a park site in the Northwood Road area had both been moved up in the ClP. Improvements to the TH13 / CSAH 23 intersection not previously planned were included in 2003. A new City Hall / Police facility was added as well with a target of 2004. Comments from Commissioners: Lemke: Asked how additions or deletions are now processed. McDermott: At this point the staff would make the recommendations to the Council for final approval, Lemke: Asked the status of the well currently being drilled. Also commented that he strongly supported the outlet channel improvements and repairs. McDermott: Advised that a test well in the Jordan aquifer is currently under construction and targeted for completion this year. The well proposed in the CIP would also be a Jordan well. Crie,qo: Believes the CIP adequately addresses the long term needs of the City and that the plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD TO RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED 2003-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL. VOTE: Ayes by Atwood, Criego, Lemke and Ringstad, the motion carried. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: NONE. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:40pm, L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN032502.doc