Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout070802REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JULY 8, 2002 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 2. 3. 4. o Ao Co Do Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Consent Agenda: Public Hearings: Case #02-068 Dennis & Karen Perrier are requesting variances for front, side, sum of side yard and rear setbacks for thc construction of a new single family dwelling on the property located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle. Case #02-075 Bernard Carlson is requesting a variance to the required rear yard setback to allow the construction of an addition to Carlson Hardware Store located at 16281 Main Avenue SE Case #02-076 Hillcrest Homes, Inc. is requesting variances to allow grading, fill and excavation within the bluff impact zone on property located at 14764 Rosewood Road. Case #02-072 Consider an amendment to Sections 1101.400 Definitions and 1104.308 (4) Water Oriented Accessory Structures of the Zoning Ordinance. Old Business: Case Files #02-024 and #02-025 - Consider a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat to be known as Timber Crest Park. The proposal includes 28.19 acres to be subdivided into 162 townhouse units located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of County Road 21 and Highway 13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail. New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcagendaXag070802. DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 5S372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-424S AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PUBLIC HEARING Conducted by the Planning Commission The Planning Commissionl~lcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once, you allow everyone else to speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to clairification or new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further tesitmony or 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 PRINT NAME ADDRESS PHLIST. DOC PAGE I PUBLIC HEARING Conducted by the Planning Commission The Planning Commission selcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once, you allow everyone else to speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to clairification or new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further tesitmony or 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 PRINT NAME ADDRESS PHLISTDOC PAGE I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 8, 2002 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the July 8, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Starnson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Present Criego Present Lernke Present Ringstad Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the June 24, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. Case #02-068 Dennis & Karen Perrier are requesting variances for front, side, sum of side yard and rear setbacks for the construction of a new single family dwelling on the property located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The Planning Department received a variance application from Dennis & Karen Perrier for the construction of a single-family dwelling and attached garage on'nonconforming platted lots of record located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle. After a revision on the survey, the applicant is eliminating variance #1, a 1.8 foot variance to permit a 25 foot structure setback to the front property line: 1. A 1.8-foot variance to permit a 25-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 26.8-feet as required by setback averaging. 2. A 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard setback, rather than the minimum required 25 feet. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02perninutes'uMN0708022.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 3. A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum setback of 62.5-feet as required by setback averaging. 4. A 0.7-foot variance to permit a combined sum of side yards of 14.31-feet, rather than minimum of 15-feet as required for the sum of side yards on a nonconforming lot. 5. A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for building walls over 50-feet. The Staff felt the proposed dwelling may be redesigned and reduced in size to reduce or eliminate variance requests 2, 3, 4, & 5. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria have not been met with respect to variance requests #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5, as proposed by the applicant and staff recommended denial of the requested variances. Staffrecommended the following conditions be included with approval of any variances deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission: 1. The resolution as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and 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 applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the approved variances and all conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission, along with the proposed finish grades with drainage and an erosion control plan. 3. The applicant shall submit an application for a Lot Combination of Lots 17, 20, & P.O. 21, and create one legally transferable document (Deed), and shall record said document at the Scott County Land Records Office. 4. The applicant/owner shall remove all existing impervious surface areas on the combined lots to create a total impervious surface area equal to or less than 30% of the total lots area. 5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations. Ringstad questioned if the proposed house would fit anywhere else on the property? Horsman responded there would have to be another side yard variance and went on to explain the rear yard setback averaging. Criego questioned if the existing garage would stay on Lots 20 and 21 ? And does the impervious surface include the garage? Horsman said the impervious surface was calculated with the boathouse, garage and common property. The applicant meets the impervious surface requirements. Comments from the public: L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN0708022.cloc 2 Planning Commission Meeting July $, 2002 Applicant Dennis Perrier, 16502 Inguadona Beach, explained they are trying to improve the neighborhood and have worked with the City for almost 4 years. The house is over the property line and will have to be demolished and start over. They have lived in the home 29 years and plan on retiring here. He realizes it is a non-conforming lot and pointed out they are under the impervious surface requirement. Perrier said they could eliminate 2 variances if he reduces the home by 2 feet and would only need the rear yard variance. They have expanded their property to the east and south. Another point is that part oflnguadona Beach Road was always on his property. Back when it was a gravel road people could not make it up the actual road in the winter, so when the road was paved Perriers deeded a portion of their property and traded a portion of the common area to the north. They are very limited with the lot size and are proposing a rambler so it would fit into the neighborhood. Lemke questioned the ramifications of losing 2 feet on the home. Perrier felt it was necessary for aesthetics and it is still a small house. He also pointed out numerous variances given to neighboring homes. Criego questioned Perrier if he would consider a larger home with 2 stories. Perrier responded they considered it and went on to explain the huge new obstructing 2-story homes on the lake. The rambler fits into the neighborhood. Gene Tremaine, 16500 Inguadona Beach, said the Perriers are really trying to meet the requirements. Tremaine explained he was forced to put in a huge 2-story, but looks like a 3-story from the lake. It would be nice to have a rambler in the neighborhood. It gives some distance between the lots. Tremaine said the neighborhood has been trying to improve their homes and are supportive of the Perriers' request. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: · Appreciated the applicants' willingness to be flexible and sensitivity to the neighborhood. A rambler would have more appeal to his neighbors. · Supported staff's findings with the 2 foot side yard and there is a willingness on the part of the applicant. Ringstad: · Agreed with staff's findings. Support a variance for a rear yard setback. However, it may be necessary to move the 2 feet and remove the other variances. Criego: · If the Commission agrees with staffthen the applicant is reducing the length of the home by 12.5 feet. · The average width of a lot is 50 feet. This one is 55 feet and historically has stayed with the total 15 feet distance between properties. · Agreed with staff, a very nice home can be managed with only one variance and that is with a rear yard setback variance. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN0708022.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting ~uty s, 2oo~ · Understand reducing the length of the home is a burden on the applicant. But to have a home 40 by 75 feet long on a substandard lot is pretty unusual. Have never seen that before. · Questioned if the eaves were included with the setbacks. Horsman responded the applicant is proposing 2 foot eaves. He should not have a problem. There is no encroachment. There may be a problem in the stoop area as proposed. Lemke: · Most of the house is 32 feet wide. The widest part of the home is 40 feet. It is a modest size - 1,800 foot square house. · Lemke questioned the rear yard setback. Horsman explained the setback averaging would be under the 9.2 foot variance. The proposed setback is 50 feet. · This is making the house much smaller with the 2 foot reduction. · Only needs to eliminate small variances. · On non-standard lots - 50 feet has been the guideline. It is a reasonable use of the property. Stflmson: · Concurred with the majority of the Commissioners and staff. The hardship criteria have been met but a reasonable correction to eliminate the hardship would be to draw the house back to the averaging from the OHWM. · Explained lake creep. This is a classic example. This home is drastically closer to the lake than the adjoining properties. · The applicant could easily build a two-story. A small foundation size does not mean a small house. · The applicant does not want to have a 2-story. He has a small lot, there are some tradeoffs. The Commission is not eliminating his ability to build a reasonable size house. · Agreed with staff- it is reasonable. Open Discussion: Lemke: · The neighboring homes are not going to be demolished soon. As proposed the applicant is actually moving the structure away from the lake. · Understood lake creep, but has a hard time when the applicant is moving the structure back from the lake. Stamson: · The reality is the house can be pushed back. It is a replacement home. Criego: · Agreed with Stamson there are other ways to scale down. The fact of the matter is that it is a small piece of property. This house will be further towards the lake L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN0708022.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 than the neighboring properties. A precedence should not be set. of neighbor' s rights. Agreed with staff's position and conditions. Approve the rear yard setback. It is a violation MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCE REQUEST, 1, 3, 4 AND 5 AND MODIFYING REQUEST 2 TO APPROVE A 9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 16 FEET INCLUDING STAFF'S 5 RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT. Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Atwood, Ringstad and Stamson. Nay by Lemke. MOTION CARRIED. Horsman explained the appeal process. B. Case #02-075 Bernard Carlson is requesting a variance to the required rear yard setback to allow the construction of an addition to Carlson Hardware Store located at 16281 Main Avenue SE Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The Planning Department received a variance application from Mr. Bernard Carlson (applicant/owner) to allow the construction of an addition to an existing commercial building on the property located at 16281 Main Avenue. The proposed addition will be attached to the side of the existing building and extend to the rear lot line. The request is for a 10-foot variance to permit a O-foot structure setback from a rear property line rather than the minimum required 1 O-feet. The City Building Department noted the applicant must provide soils and structural engineers' plans on the method of protecting the adjacent buildings. The City Engineering Department commented the existing manhole is under the concrete of the loading dock, and a new manhole outside of building slab envelope must be built. In addition, the line from the new manhole to the existing becomes a private service. Integra Telecom noted existing telephone lines that service building will need to be relocated. The Planning staffhas determined the variance request for the rear yard setback does not meet the nine hardship criteria, since it is a business decision to expand the existing building due to economic growth and the need for additional space for storage and display of materials. The applicant can redesign the addition to meet the required 10' setback with a comparable yet smaller addition. The staff therefore recommended denial of the requested variance. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN0708022.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting Jury s, ~oo~ Staff also noted if the Planning Commission found the variance met the hardship criteria, it should be subject to the condition that no outdoor storage of equipment or dumpsters will be allowed without providing screening from public view. Comments from the public: Applicant Bernie Carlson, 16281 Main Avenue, felt this was going to be a slam dunk but understood the staff's recommendation following the ordinance. The main point is this is not a new building and does not meet the new ordinance. It makes sense to add on to the existing building which has a zero setback. If it is not built on, it will leave a small area in which to collect trash and snow. The manhole hole was not an issue he was aware of. It is not a project-breaker either way. Carlson said he wants to invest money and improve downtown. Stamson: · Questioned the manhole. Carlson said there is no visible manhole and he's never been aware of one in the 15 years he's owned the property. · Kansier explained they would work with applicant on the manhole issue. Criego: · Questioned Carlson on loading and the access behind Fongs. Carlson explained the proposal and felt he could work out any problems with Fongs. Atwood: · Questioned what the alley was used for. Carlson explained the major use was used for deliveries by Viking Liquor. The video drop-off is not in the back of the video store anymore reducing significant traffic. Carlson also explained the additional parking and common trash container. Criego: · Concern is for delivery trucks in the alley such as trash pickup and larger trucks. Carlson said he agreed with Fongs to cut the comer to 14 feet. · Carlson also explained he would stay 4 feet away from the Extra Inning property. Lanny Adler, owner of Extra Innings Saloon, concern was for the soil and structure conditions for his property 4 feet away. Would he have problems down the road and who would be responsible? Adler said he could find the manhole. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: · Thrilled the hardware store is doing well, but agreed with staff's recommendation that the hardships have not been met. · Denied the request. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~MN0708022.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 Criego: · Is this a side or back yard setback? On Main Street you can build up to the existing neighbor, but not the back yard. If it was a side yard he would be able to build up to the line. · Realistically this is a side yard. Lemke: · Questioned staff on a minimum distance for an alley. Kansier said there was nothing for a private driveway or access. This is a private driveway. It is not that much different from what is there now. A strict reading of the 9 hardship criteria - it might be a stretch that it is met. · The applicant's request makes sense. Understands the front access is on the side. · Support the request since the applicant is willing to work with Fongs. Atwood: · Agreed with the rear and side issue. · Had an issue with the "undo concentration of structures in relationship of surrounding land." Viewed the land but technically the hardships had not been met, but it is a reasonable request from a business owner to expect that area for construction. · Supported. Stamson: · Agreed with Ringstad, the hardships have not been met, however, the front/back yard setback argument is an issue. The way to do that is to overrule staff indicating Eagle Creek Boulevard is the front. That then eliminates 10 feet off the building. We do not have the right to do that. · When this ordinance came up a few weeks ago, I brought up the fact rear yard setbacks were not needed at all. I stood alone on that issue and everyone else felt a 10 foot setback was needed. It was argued for quite a bit and I was overruled because the others strongly felt a 10 foot setback was needed. Now the very first building we see, they are saying it is not needed. In that case, the ordinance should be reviewed. · A variance is not warranted in this case. · Did not support. Criego: · Did not disagree with Stamson. But felt there were two side yards, a front and back yard. The back yard is the extension of the building. My logic is not as sound as I thought it was. · We can't allow variances without hardship criteria. · Can we allow side yards to be zero. · If there is justification it is a comer lot - that's the hardship. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\O2pcminutes~IN0708022.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 Stamson pointed out staff and most Commissioners felt very strongly that there should be 10 foot division. A variance should not be granted - the ordinance should be changed. Criego agreed. The Commissioners continued to discuss the back yard versus the variance request. Criego questioned how the City addresses the issue of not damaging the neighboring property. Kansier explained it would be addressed at the building permit phase. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION. THE FINDINGS BEING IT IS A UNIQUE CORNER LOT AND SITUATION. Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke and Atwood. Ringstad and Stamson voted nay. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. A recess was called at 7:50 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:04 p.m. C. Case #02-076 Hillcrest Homes, Inc. is requesting variances to allow grading, fill and excavation within the bluff impact zone on property located at 14764 Rosewood Road. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The Planning Department received a variance application from Hillcrest Homes, Inc. to permit a boulder retaining wall to remain on the property located at 14764 Rosewood Road. The boulder wall and fill were installed during the construction of a single-family dwelling that was approved under Building Permit # 01-1206. The applicant had submitted a building permit application and survey for the project, but the submitted materials did not include the retaining wall and the grading/filling work conducted within the bluff impact zone as part of the proposed project. Thus this work was done without a permit. An inspection of the project by staff discovered the work. The applicant is requesting a variance to permit the import of materials and grading/filling within the bluff impact zone. The Area Hydrologist with the Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this request. The DNR visually inspected the site and directed the applicant to correct the riprap boulders placed along the shoreline. He reserved judgment on the work in the bluff impact zone until an engineers report was submitted, but commented that removing the boulders and imported fill at this point may have greater potential for erosion and slope failure. Staff felt all nine-hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the requested variance to permit the import of materials and grading/filling in a bluff impact zone. The L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXlVlN0708022.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 applicant created the hardship when the boulder retaining wall and fill were installed on the subject property. The site was not developed as approved under Building Permit # 01-1206. The staff therefore recommended denial of the requested variance as proposed by the applicant. Criego asked to restate the ordinance for the side yard wall. Horsman explained. He also pointed out the retaining wall in the drainage easement. Comments from the public: Applicant Chris Deanovic, President of Hillcrest Homes, said the staff report was correct but wanted to explain the process of building on Prior Lake. Staffwas correct on the description of the east retaining wall in the easement. The corrections have been made and will have it inspected by engineering. Also the DNR did have some requests for the retaining wall on the lake. He has done a fair amount of home construction on the lake and has never included retaining walls on the building permits. He did admit he was unaware of the ordinance. The DNR has signed offon their work. Deanovic said he did not try to sneak in a 150 foot retaining wall. The point is, now what do we do? They waited a month to hear from the City Attorney and then started to put pressure on staff. He was forced to go ahead and try to continue the project. That's when it was decided to go for a variance. He would like to deal again with the bluff ordinance. It doesn't work on this lot. Deanovic said they would like to get back on the project. Stamson reiterated Deanovic's situation. Deanovic built a retaining wall making it less steep at the base. Deanovic explained the slope vegetation and the process. He felt taking the wall out will do more harm than good. They didn't want anything washed out. One of the things the ordinance is trying to do is avoid going in and cutting out the bottom of the lake. The flat spot on the lake has always been there. It has never been touched. It is a tough site. He is also dealing with the drainage issues with staff. Criego questioned how much total fill was brought in. Deanovic said probably 10 loads, 6 for the road and 4 down to the retaining wall. The upper loads did not need permits, it was part of the building permit, The lot sat for a long time because it was a difficult lot. They are trying to work with staff for the best solution. He's had a "stop work order" on this since February. Horsman said the total footage would be 100 feet of the boulder wall in the impact zone. Criego questioned if the boulders were technically in the bluff. Kansier responded they were and Deanovic admitted he filled in the bluffwhich is specifically against the ordinance. Deanovic responded they had done work in the bluff area. Kansier said the City requires grading permits and this is far more than balance. The permits are very limited. It is nothing new. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN0708022.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 Atwood questioned how far the easterly wall moved. Deanovic said they moved it out about a foot from the 5 foot easement. Part of it encroached into the neighbor's property. It has been pulled back outside the easement. The current survey does not show the corrected work. Horsman said the retaining wall is higher than 4 feet in some places, therefore the wall would have to go back 10 feet. The key is to keep the walls out of the easement. Deanovic said they will make sure the wall will be 4 feet or less. Ringstad questioned what happens in the building phase when the boulder wall in the bluff impact zone. Where does the City go from here? Horsman explained a proposed survey is reviewed by the building, planning and engineering departments. In a case like this, it would have been caught and the applicant would be notified it was not permitted. To get a grading permit, the applicant would have to supply exactly what is being changed. At that time, it would be reviewed by the engineering department. Stamson questioned if this would have been approved. Horsman said it would not. Criego questioned why the wall was not caught by the building inspectors. Kansier replied it was. A resident also complained. Duane Melling, 4833 Beach Street, built the house across the street and said his view of trees have now been replaced by a three car garage surrounded by a 4 foot stone wall. The applicant has created a drainage problem with the new retaining wall. The organic soil is being washed down into the lake. If the wall exists, it will force water into a 4 to 5 foot area between the properties with the washed out of muck and topsoil. It was washing out before. Melling pointed out the water quality article in the recent Prior Lake American. What the applicant is doing is not going to solve the problem. Melling explained some of the washout on his property and suggested installing a culvert. It is a hardship for the neighbors and he would like protection. Criego asked Mr. Melling if he had any problems or issues with the boulder wall along the bottom of the bluff. He said it was a shock to come back this spring and see a boulder wall but understands the applicant needs to protect the waterline coming in and washing out the property. Evan Shadduck, 4841 Beach Street, felt the applicant is doing a pretty good job over all. There was an error stated earlier - the applicant has been working on the project and boulders have been moved without the City knowing it. The wall was constructed in the winter. He called the engineering department out of concern. His point is so much with the current construction as it is, two 4 inch pipes were stuck out over the retaining walls forming a pond of sand and mud. The mud was all over. Shadduck explained the pipe situation. He thanked the City for watching out for residents. But understood the contractor needs to finish his project. There has been a lot of washout since the rains. Shadduck felt the lower retaining wall does not affect the area. L:\02FILES\O2planning comm\02pcminutesWIN0708022.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 Chris Deanovic said he is aware of the ponding and will take care of it. The two pieces of the tube are from the project and explained why they were there. The project still has a "stop work order" - they cannot work inside. Stamson questioned Deanovic on getting a permit for the boulder wall. Deanovic explained the process working with staff. Horsman agreed with Deanovic's comments. Jim Albers, 16043 Northwood Road, the realtor representing the applicant, explained the bluff ordinance. Albers cited a bluff issue on Twin Island. He did not believe staff's bluff line was correct. The issue at hand is that section of wall in the bluff impact area. Albers distributed pictures taken last winter of the project. He argued with Horsman on the bluff ordinance interpretation, the top of bluff and their DNR violation issue. Albers felt the bluff definition was not clear. A brief discussion followed on the applicant's surveyor determining the top of bluff. The question is where does the builder have to remove it? Is removing it going to do more damage than has been done already? Their engineer (not the city) felt the retaining wall should be left in. Albers felt if the stop- work order had not been done, these issues would have been handled a lot faster and there would have been grass on the site and we wouldn't be dealing with the erosion issue brought up by the neighbors. Kansier stated this lot is difficult to build on. There are several files on this property with the bluff determination. The bluff line was determined at the time the building permit was issued. These are State rules and the City has to enforce them by law. The City works extensively with the DNR on the definition and interpreting it correctly. Stamson pointed out in this particular situation, a determination was made where the bluff was and agreed to by all parties before the construction of the house. Kansier said the issue is the retaining wall. It is apparent fill was placed in the bluff impact zone wherever the Commission defines that to be. That is the issue to deal with. Duane Melling questioned if the wall was set back the proper distance. Kansier said there was no variance requested. If the wall is more than 4 feet in height, it has to be moved back to a minimum of 10 feet off the lot line. If it is less than 4 feet it has to be out of the easement. Melling also questioned the drainage on his property. Assistant City Engineer Larry Popple explained the engineering department will be working with the applicant. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · Questioned what type of materials should be in place of the 5 foot easement to insure that the drainage goes to the lake and what would the engineering recommend. Poppler explained the culverts and drainage. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN0708022.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 · Questioned the drainage down to the lake. Important to note that every effort is made to correct the problem with the proper materials. Kansier stated the City will monitor the problem. · Why has the City not made a recommendation? This is not a variance issue, it is a violation of the ordinance and it should either be removed for fined. · Kansier responded that in all violation cases the City gives people options. The City tells them the available options and ask them to pursue a remedy. Horsman said the City Attorney did feel a variance was an option. However, it is an after- the-fact variance created by the applicant. · Under the terms of how the Commission reviews variances, can't state this is a legitimate variance. If the Commission denies this, what remedy will the City take? Horsman explained it will depend on the Commissioners. Ordinarily the City would issue a citation and bring the applicant to court. · This was an honest error. How big an issue is this? Compared to the property and the neighbors. He didn't take the bluff away, he added boulders. Pretty straight forward. They violated an ordinance and the penalty could be $500 or $1,000. · Kansier said that is not an option. The City's job is to enforce the ordinance. The City Attorney and City Council have options. Staff will pursue this just like all other violations. We have had other violations come before the Commission which have been denied and staff has taken the next steps forward. · Horsman stated the applicant wanted to keep the wall, staff's position was "No, it is not a permitted use." The applicant is having his public heating to deal with the action. · Stamson questioned the City Council process. Kansier explained the court process. · This does not have any major impact on the bluff or lake. Does it warrant a variance? · Guidelines are to deny the variance. But this should not prolong the project. The bigger issue is the drainage on the east side of the property line. Lemke: · The DNR's comment is that removing the boulders may have greater potential for slope failure. Concerned about that. Understand the wall was built without a permit. · The reason we have the bluff ordinance is to protect the bluff. · Inspected the wall from the lake side. It appears to protect the bluff. It should stay but don't know how. · The bluff ordinance probably needs reworking. Its not for us to do, it is a State Ordinance. If someone does something to protect the bluff- I have concerns about taking the wall out. Atwood: · Agreed - not a fan of an after-the-fact variances, but if there is potential for slope failure it should stay. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN0708022.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 · Feel strongly about erosion on the neighbors. · The applicant will deal with it. · Impression is that the City staff and the community would hold the applicant to fixing the erosion. · Grant the variance. Ringstad: · Agreed with 80% or 90% of the comments, but it was wrong, it was a mistake to put the wall in. What if we look at another variance of the same thing tomorrow? Another boulder wall in a bluff impact zone with someone saying "Gee, I didn't know, it will do more harm than good to move it now." Now we created a snowball and a precedence. · Cannot support. · Deny the request and remove all the boulders in the bluff impact zone. Stamson: · This fails greatly. The applicant created this problem. I don't like the grasping of straws for the greater potential for erosion. · This wall was not necessary for the bluff. It was put in for aesthetics. · The engineer does not say the wall is necessary. He just said it isn't doing anything to endanger the slope. He says it doesn't hurt anything being there. · Hard time granting a variance on the assumption the wall is actually doing anything. · Read Pat Lynch's DNR comment - He really doesn't know without looking at an engineer's report and that maybe that is the case. He is not saying the wall should or shouldn't be removed. · The applicant did not try to do something behind the City's back, he was careless. · Agreed with Ringstad, every time someone touches the bluff, they come here and say it's got to stay because we did it. To suddenly grant that because we think it is a minor issue, is really going in the wrong direction. People will be going out building bluff in the bluff all the time. It is one of the hardest things to enforce now. If we start looking at them saying "well they did it, now we're stuck with it." It is a very slippery slope. · Will not grant the variance. Atwood questioned if the Commissioners could have this looked at during the building permit stage. Kansier said the language is there. Stamson said the problem is, this was done. If he would have brought it up during the building permit stage, it would have been caught. Atwood felt the applicant didn't know. Stamson said he should have asked. The language is in the ordinance. If it was in his paperwork up front, it would have been caught. Atwood felt Stamson was correct, the wall was for aesthetics. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN0708022.doc 13 Planning Commission Meeting Jury 8, 2002 Atwood questioned the "stop-work-order". Horsman explained the situation came about based on a complaint and further explained the corrections that needed to be done. The corrections have not been verified. Kansier explained the City has to be consistent with all applicants. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 02- 010PC DENYING THE VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE IMPORTATION OF MATERIAL INTO A BLUFF IMPACT ZONE. Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Ringstad, Criego and Atwood. Lemke nay. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. A recess was called at 9:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. D. Case #02-072 Consider an amendment to Sections 1101.400 Definitions and 1104.308 (4) Water Oriented Accessory Structures of the Zoning Ordinance. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO TABLE TO THE JULY 22, 2002, MEETING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 6. Old Business: A. Case Files #02-024 and #02-025 - Consider a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat to be known as Timber Crest Park. The proposal includes 28.19 acres to be subdivided into 148 townhouse units located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of County Road 21 and Highway 13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Ray Brandt has applied for approval of a development to be known as Timber Crest Park on the property located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and TH 13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail. The property owner, Prior Lake Apartments, has also signed the application. The application includes the following requests: · Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan; · Approve a Preliminary Plat. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~MN0708022.doc 14 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 This property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of a total of 148 dwelling units on 28.19 acres. development also includes parkland and private open space. The On May 21, 2002, the applicant submitted a complete application that called for a development consisting of 170 units. Since the application was complete, the staff scheduled a public heating before the Planning Commission. Notice of this heating was published in the Prior Lake American and sent to owners of property within 500' of the site. This original proposal involved filling a large portion of the wetland on the site. The Wetland Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) subsequently advised the developer that the proposal was inconsistent with the Wetland Conservation Act, and could not be approved. As a result of the TEP decision, the developer submitted new plans on June 11, 2002. Because of the timing of this submittal, the staff has not had the opportunity to review these new plans. In addition, the developer must submit a revised wetland mitigation plan and revised storm water drainage calculations. However, since the public hearing had already been published and notices sent, the staffhad no choice but to place this item on the agenda. The Planning Commission opened the public heating on June 24, 2002, and accepted limited testimony. The Planning Commission then continued the public heating to July 8, 2002, to allow staff time to further review the revised plans. One of the major issues pertaining to this development is whether or not the plan meets the PUD criteria. The primary justification for a PUD appears to be the use of the private streets. A cluster development of this type is permitted in the R-4 district, so a similar development with public streets, and meeting the required setbacks could be done without a PUD. The plan is consistent with the requirements for a conventional cluster development. The other major issue pertaining to this development is the design of the storm water runoff system. There are several issues pertaining to the proposed design that must be addressed. It is more than likely that the system will need to be redesigned entirely. This site is zoned R-4, and is appropriate for a higher density residential development. Some consideration should be given to the use of this site for multi-family buildings. It may be possible to develop a similar or greater number of units on the site in fewer buildings. Fewer buildings would also potentially disturb less of the site. If the Planning Commission finds that the PUD process is appropriate for this development, the staff would recommend the following conditions be attached: L:\O2FILES\O2planning comm\02pcminutesXaMN0708022.doc 15 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 1. The developer must address all of the issues in the memorandum from the City Engineer dated July 3. 2002. The Planning Staff recommended denial of the request. There are several major issues that must be resolved. Atwood questioned the modifications for building materials. Kansier explained they would have to reduce the units to 4 or less. Atwood questioned 60% of Class I material. Kansier responded. Criego questioned if staff recommended a PUD. Kansier said they had several discussions with the applicant. Kansier explained the difference. Comments from the public: Gary Grant, Vice President of Pulte Homes, said they are happy to be in the City of Prior Lake and gave a brief background on their business. Grant pointed out this property is zoned for 30 units per acre, however they have decided to go with less to blend into the neighborhood. Grant presented diagrams and photos of homes they have built in the Twin Cities area similar to the proposal. The homes are affordable. This project will be built in one phase and a professional association will maintain the project. Ray Brandt from Brandt Engineering responded to some of staff's issues. The street lighting has a plan prepared by Xcel Energy. There would be a greater impact to the site with a higher density. Brandt said there were no major issues and he will do whatever the Engineering Department requests and meet the conditions. The useable open space is more than adequate. Brandt said he didn't think there would be a problem with Pulte Homes for access to the park. Steve Blonigan, 5210 Credit River Road, did not agree with the traffic report submitted by the company hired by the applicant. He interpreted the letter from the Craig Jensen, Scott County Transportation Planner dated March 21, 2002, to Jane Kansier, as not wanting any more traffic on County Road 21. Kansier explained that letter was addressing the proposed access on County Road 21. The access was changed. Blonigan felt that indicated the project should go elsewhere. Blonigan did not feel bigger is better - the City does not need more apartments and did not want the additional vehicles. Robin Grund, 4824 BluffHeights Trail, said her first concern was the existing traffic in the area, especially Franklin Trail and Highway 13. Adding apartments will add to the problem - it is a safety issue. A second new apartment development is going in next to this project. Grand questioned if there was any plans to address Franklin Trail. Kansier responded she would check the Capital Improvement Plan. Grund's other concern was the adequate size of the street to hold the traffic. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN0708022.doc 16 Planning Commission Meeting Jury ,5, 200.2 Tom Klingen, 16516 Franklin Trail, owns the apartment building next to the project, stated his concern was also for the traffic, especially the access. His building is located 20 feet from the property line and is concern for the noise and pollution problems. He felt this site is a very difficult high density site to work. Klingen said he would not consider the higher density with 500 homes a threat on this property. Linda Micko-Rasche, 16461 Franklin Trail, stated she lives on the worst possible comer of Franklin Trail and County Road 21. Other neighbors have left the meeting but their concern is for the traffic.' She called the Prior Lake Police Department for the accidents that occurred at Franklin Trail and County Road 21. Micko presented the report and pictures of an accident. Micko questioned if the City talks to the County about projects. Kansier responded they have frequent discussions with the County. She would like the traffic reduced. Micko questioned the single garage units and wondered where the additional parking would be. Kansier responded. Her final comments to the developers that backfilled around the pond in her back yard that several trees were destroyed. Leo Fecht, 16475 Franklin Trail, lives across from the potential project. He was very happy to move into the area with all the lush green trees. Fecht hates to see all the trees and the nature destroyed especially with the global warming. We are losing all our oxygen and water supply. We are not taking care of Prior Lake itself. Step back and take a look to what people are dong to this world. Fecht suggested a moratorium for Prior Lake and not be concerned with all the tax money. Why bring in more problems? Requested denial of the project. It would be wonderful if the planners would consult with the professionals at the University of Minnesota. Gary Grant said he is not surprised by the comments. This property is a very hard piece of property to work. He too, is very concerned for the trees and the outdoors. They will work with staff and intend to partner with the community. Allan Klugman from Westwood Company, explained the traffic study and average number of units in the report. Over all, these are very low numbers in terms of contribution to the surrounding area. Criego asked Klugman to restate the early morning traffic numbers. Klugman explained the 65 trips are the highest in a 60 minute period. This also includes all traffic, delivery trucks, etc. Atwood questioned the busiest hours - Klugrnan said they counted for a two hour period which was 7:30 am to 8:30 am and then 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm. Atwood questioned the location of the property taken into account. Klugman responded that the location of the land is taken into account. He also explained the different uses. He explained the current traffic counts and added the percentage of the proposed development. Atwood questioned the level of serfice grading. Klugrnan gave a brief description of the grading. He has been in this business for 20 years and these numbers are actually very low. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN0708022.doc 17 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 Lernke questioned Klugman with the numbers going off Franklin Trail to Highway 13. Klugrnan said they would be adding 174 cars in a 24 hour period. Assistant Scott County Engineer Greg Ilkka, briefly addressed some of the issues including the letter from Craig Jensen. Speed limits are set by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the County cannot directly change that. The speeds are set appropriately and the local enforcement is good. The County has no issues with the staff report. Ilkka also reported existing traffic counts. The accidents at Franklin and Highway 13 are a concern for the County. They are working with the City on turn lanes and upgrades. However the projects are not in the current CIP. County Road 21 is approaching capacity. The immediate need is for left turn lanes. Criego questioned the speed limits and why couldn't the speed be reduced around Franklin. Ilkka explained the process. The area through the wagon bridge reflected the comfort of drivers at 35mph. Where there is better access the speed is higher. Criego said everyone has to quit playing the bureaucratic game and reduce the speed limit. Ilkka said the County cannot change the speed limit. Ringstad asked if the County and City supported a reduction would the State reduce it. Ilkka responded it could help the argument. Linda Micko-Rasche said it did not make sense with potentially 300 more cars that rush hour would generate only 65 trips. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: · Questioned staff on the significant issues with the proposal and recommending denial. Kansier said based on her conversations with the City Engineer the problems are not that easily solved. The second issue is whether this development should be a Planned Unit Development. · The property is zoned for high density and cannot deny someone the use of the land. But whether a PUD is appropriate is not the issue. Atwood: · Private streets - cannot support the entrance with Bluff Heights extending so close to County Road 21. · Not opposed to the development. · A PUD is appropriate but not in favor of modifying the building materials. · Felt very strongly for a petition to the State to reduce the speed limit. · Agreed with the residents that something needs to be done on the traffic issue. · Not crazy about the park access on Bluff Heights Trail. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesLMN0708022.doc 1 8 Planning Commission Meeting July s, 2002 Ringstad: · The main concern is the fact the storm water runoff is an issue with the City. Until it is not an issue or I see something in writing that the system has been designed appropriately to handle the ground floor area, I will not support. · It needs to be designed to the City's satisfaction. · Not sure it needs a PUD process. · Will not support at this time. Criego: · There is not enough information to make a decision tonight. Maybe table. · The land use is appropriate - would rather see townhomes than apartments. · The purpose of the PUD is to give and take. The City and the citizens and applicants all receive something. The only benefit for the City is the private streets. It is not a big enough carrot for the City. · The applicant is asking for lenience between units and less than standard material. Kansier said the exterior material is for the 6 and 8 unit buildings. · Go with the normal process, not a PUD. · Personally stay a PUD but there are additional things the citizens would like to see on this project. There are not enough trails and walking paths. There needs to be some clear access to the park from the other neighbors. · There should be sidewalks on at least one side of the street. · Class I should be used on all units and would prefer to see 4 units. · Asking for trouble with single garage. Parking will be a problem. · A PUD will improve the project. · The traffic is a continual problem, this project will not affect that. We cannot stop development. · Table. Stamson: · Concern for open space, there is a lot of slopes but the site is sloped. It is acceptable giving the site. · Drainage has to be to staff's satisfaction before going forward. That is a major concern. · Questioned building height separation. Kansier explained. · Building material has to be Class I. · Traffic problems are not from the residents on site. Its from people using Franklin Trail as a shortcut. Once the ring road is complete, less traffic will occur on Franklin Trail. This development will not be a major impact. · The interchange with the access point is too close to Franklin Trail, but no other alternative. · The PUD was a gray area. Not a lot of benefit to the City - no environmental gains. · Allowing the building separation is better for the townhouse than the rental units. · The drainage must be addressed. · Put in trails and sidewalks. Be creative and benefit the City. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesLMN0708022.doc 19 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 · In the long mn, the drainage must be addressed before moving forward. Ray Brandt addressed some of the Commissioners comments - no problem with walkways around the pond. The private streets are smaller. The storm water issue is just a matter of working it out with the engineering staff. Brandt explained the "Village" townhomes and the slopes. Would like to see it approved with the condition that those issues be worked out with staff. Kansier suggested continuing to the second week in August. There are time limitations. MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY STAMSON TO TABLE THE MEETING TO AUGUST 12, 2002. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Notices will be sent out for the joint city council/advisory meeting July 29, 2002. 9. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:18 pm. Come Carlson Recording Secretary L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN0708022.doc 20