HomeMy WebLinkAbout1014024.
A.
$.
A.
Bo
e
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY - OCTOBER 14, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Case 02-088 Gau Variance Resolution
Public Hearings:
Case 02-097 Mark Liesner is is applying for a 52,492 square foot variance from
the required minimum 2 acre lot area in the RS (Rural Subdivision Residential)
zoning district and a 76 foot variance from the required 100 foot minimum
setback from a tributary river for the construction of a single family dwelling on
Lot 13, Block 2, Titus 2"a Addition
Case 02-108 Jim Deanovic - Peter Andrea Company, Wensmann Realty and
Jeffers Estate are requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map to designate the north ½ of the Jeffers property from R-L/MD and C-BO to
R-HD. This property is located west of CSAH 21 and south of CSAH 42.
Old Business:
New Business:
Case 02-071 Ray Brandt is requesting to vacate the drainage and utility easements
located on the Timber Crest Park property. This property is 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. New easements for the existing and
relocated utilities will be rededicated as part of the final plat.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcagenda\AG 101402.DOC
16200 Eagle 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 welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to
all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to
speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new
information.
Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter.
Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible
except under rare occasions.
The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter.
Thank you.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
NAME
ADDRESS
L:\DEPTWORK~,BLANKFRM~HSIGNUP,doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the October 14, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 7:02 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane
Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff 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 September 9, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Correction in the September 23rd, Minutes - Page 10, Criego: relates to driveway entrance
should be "to reduce the width of the driveway". The Minutes were approved as
amended.
4. Consent:
A. Case 02-088 Gau Variance Resolution
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated October 14, 2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
Ringstad did not remember the committee approving the driveway variance. After
looking at the Minutes, they agreed the variances approving the setbacks for the stoop
and eave.
Criego believed there were other requests for variances that the Commission did not vote
on.
Kansier said there was another Resolution denying the requests. The Commissioners can
make another motion denying the requests.
Criego recalled a third request. Lemke pointed out it was not a separate request, it was
part of the front yard setback. Kirchoff stated there were only 2 requests. She also
confirmed there were 2 Resolutions attached to the original report.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN 101402.doc
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-
011PC APPROVING VARIANCES TO PERMIT A 14.9 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR A 5 FOOT STOOP AND 5 FOOT EAVE AND DENY A VARIANCE
FOR A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Heating Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case 02-097 Mark Liesner is applying for a 52,492 square foot variance from
the required minimum 2 acre lot area in the RS (Rural Subdivision Residential)
zoning district and a 76 foot variance from the required 100 foot minimum setback
from a tributary river for the construction of a single family dwelling on Lot 13,
Block 2, Titus 2no Addition
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated October 14, 2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
Mark Liesner is requesting variances from zoning ordinance provisions to permit the
construction of a single family dwelling on property zoned R-S (Rural Subdivision
Residential) and SD {Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 4525 Jackson Trail (Lot
13, Block 2, Titus 2n° Addition). The property is guided Urban Low/Medium Density
Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
The site is a vacant, riparian lot, as it abuts an unnamed tributary watercourse connected
with Pike Lake. Trees are scattered throughout the property. Municipal water and sewer
is currently unavailable to the site. The applicant requests the following variances:
1. A 52,492 square foot variance from the required minimum 2 acre lot area in
the R-S zoning district to allow a 34,628 square foot lot.
2. A 76 foot variance from the required 100 foot setback from an unnamed
tributary watercourse.
The applicant is requesting variances to construct a single family dwelling on property
zoned R-S and SD. The subject lot does not comply with the minimum lot area
established by the zoning ordinance, because it was platted in 1974, prior to the current
ordinance being adopted in 1999. Moreover, the proposed dwelling does not comply
with the minimum setback from the tributary watercourse that extends along the east
portion of the site.
Since the property is a legal, nonconforming lot of record and the required watercourse
setback significantly constrains the site's buildable area, variances are warranted. The
property owner cannot construct a reasonable use without relief from the zoning
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN 101402.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
ordinance. However, the 76 foot setback variance seems excessive considering a
dwelling can be constructed on the property while maintaining a greater setback.
Staff supports the lot area variance, but not the 76 foot tributary watercourse variance.
reduced 40 foot setback variance is appropriate, because it provides more protection to
the tributary. This is also consistent with the variance approved by the Planning
Commission in 1999.
A
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was noticed about the variance requests
and recommended the house pad be reoriented to increase the setback from the
watercourse. If this relocation is not feasible, the DNR expects that at least the 30 foot
setback, approved in 1999, would be met.
Staff recommended approval of the requested 52,492 square foot variance from minimum
lot area and a 40-foot tributary watercourse setback, subject to the following conditions:
1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption.
Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be
submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state
agency regulations
3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for an Individual Sewage
Treatment System (ISTS) from Scott County.
4. The ISTS shall comply with applicable regulations.
5. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted with the building permit application.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Criego questioned why the 1999 variance was approved at 70 feet but now staff suggests
a 60 foot variance. Is that directly related to the DNR request? Kirchoff stated the staff
was recommending a 40 foot variance based upon the DNR recommendation.
Ringstad questioned if the DNR was involved in the first request in 1999. Kirchoff said
they did respond to the lot area at that time. There was no mention of the setback
variance.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Mark Liesner, 8679 Sunset Court, Shakopee, stated he was confused on the
staff's recommended changes on setbacks from 1999. He felt the setback was doubled.
Liesner said the location of the house proposed by the DNR does not result in a different
elevation. It is also a different orientation causing the neighbor to look at the entire rear
of the house. Liesner felt the DNR was not so firm on their 60 foot setback. He felt the
60 foot setback makes it impossible to build a home. If the variance was not possible he
would want at least the 30 foot setback as proposed in 1999. He felt the DNR took the
L:\O2FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~VlN 101402.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
liberty of changing the design of the house and then suggested it would allow a 60 foot
setback. Liesner went on to give a brief history of the lot.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Remembered this clearly in 1999. The variance provided in 1999 should be the
same as today. Does not see any reason to change it.
· Approve the lot area and setback from the unnamed stream to allow a 70 foot
variance.
Lemke:
· Agreed.
Atwood:
· Agreed.
Ringstad:
· Agreed. If it was good in 1999 and extended in 2000, it should be approved as
well as the additional variance request.
Stamson:
· Concurred. Believed it was excessive in 1999, but if they proved the request at
that time, then willing to stick with it this time.
· It worked in the past.
· Approve a 30 foot setback.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, APPROVING RESOLUTION 02-
014PC APPROVING A 54,492 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM
2 ACRE LOT AREA FOR PROPERTIES ZONED RS (RURAL SUBDIVISION
RESIDENTIAL) AND A 70 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 100 FOOT
MINIMUM SETBACK FROM AN UNNAMED TRIBUTARY WATERCOURSE A
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, APPROVING RESOLUTION 02-
015PC DENYING A 76 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 100 FOOT MINIMUM
SETBACK FROM AN UNNAMED TRIBUTARY WATERCOURSE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Stamson explained the appeal process.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~MN 101402.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
B. Case 02-108 Jim Deanovic - Peter Andrea Company, Wensmann Realty and
Jeffers Estate are requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map to designate the north ~A of the Jeffers property from R-L/MD and C-BO to R-
HD. This property is located west of CSAH 21 and south of CSAH 42.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 14,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Jim Deanovic, the Peter Andrea Company, Wensmann Realty and the Jeffers Estate have
filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located on the
south side of CSAH 42 and west of CSAH 21. The proposal is to amend the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current C-BO (Business Office Park) and
R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) designations to the R-HD (High Density
Residential) designation on approximately 160 acres of vacant land.
This property is presently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-5 (Business Office
Park) and is designated as C-BO (Business Office Park) and R-L/MD (Low to Medium
Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. At this time, the
applicants are in the process of developing a plan for the entire 320 acre Jeffers parcel.
The most recent concept plan identifies a mixed use development consisting of single
family homes, townhouses, senior housing, and apartments. The development could also
include parkland, a transit hub, a fire station site, and a potential school site. The site
would most likely be developed as a Planned Unit Development.
This property is also located within the Shoreland District for Jeffers Pond, which is
currently classified as a Natural Environment Lake. The DNR is in the process of
reviewing the City's request to reclassify this lake as a Recreational Development Lake.
In any event, the overall density of this development will be determined by the lot area in
the Shoreland District.
Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as requested.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Atwood questioned if the recreational lake designation is compatible with the density.
Kansier said the density would be significantly less than what would normally be
permitted under a high density designation. It would allow clustering. The overall
density would be scattered throughout the site. The density would be consistent with the
recreational development lake.
Atwood questioned if staff is assuming the DNR is going to go ahead and approve the
reclassification. Kansier responded staffwas just trying to move the development
process along and when the classification is known, the developer will have to make a
decision whether to go forward.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN 101402.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
Criego questioned the Business Office Park zoning/high density and suggested leaving
the remaining portion of the 160 acres a Low to Medium density. Kansier said there was
no specific indication of the area involved. At this point, the developer asked for the
designation for the whole northern portion because it gets very limiting to specifically
define, especially at the Comprehensive Plan stage. The next stage, should this go
forward, would be a Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Rezoning application. They
then could more definitely identify the high density residential areas and provide a legal
description.
Criego questioned seeing the PUD in conjunction with the zoning. Kansier said the
applicant will probably file all the applications together.
Criego questioned the 50 foot OHWM (Ordinary High Water Mark) setback. Why the
change from Prior Lake's 75 foot OHWM? Kansier explained it does not affect the
setback of the lake. It would remain the same. The drawing identifies a trail or easement
to buffer the lake itself. Adjacent lots would still be required to meet the 75 foot setback.
Comments frorn the public:
Gary Tushie, of Tushie Montgomery, the architect representing both developers, stated
the staff had done a great job reviewing the project. Tushie clarified the 50 foot
conservancy area around the lake is not a setback area. That area will be put into public
ownership. The high density areas will be very low. The only portion of the high density
in the project will be the senior rental, which is the only area even close to the
requirements. Overall, the densities are low.
Jim Deanovic, developer, wanted to point out they have changed their plans due to the
input in the 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan meetings. One of the most important changes
was the 50 foot buffer to preserve as much existing vegetation and included the park.
What the Commission is looking at tonight would reduce the impervious surface to
protect the waterway and lower the density. During the 2020 Vision meetings it was
important there would be a school site and fire station. Many participants at the meetings
would like to see all types of lifecycle housing. Another important factor in the meetings
was the trail and parks. All changes in our proposal were made due to the 2020 Vision.
Criego stated he felt the project was wonderful, but questioned the high density and
commercial acreage designation. Why the purpose of the entire 160 acres? Deanovic
responded there are pockets of higher density uses and it will be in the PUD. This
process is the only way to get it through the ordinances. It is complicated because of the
overlay districts.
Kansier said the applicants gave the simplest legal description which was for the north
half of the property. It would be very hard to write a legal description to describe a
concept plan. That is why they gave the description for the entire north half of the
property. Kansier explained the proposed designations.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXlVlN 101402.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
Criego questioned the high density area falling into the R1 zone. Kansier and Deanovic
responded.
Criego questioned Deanovic why he felt it was necessary at this time to amend the
Comprehensive Plan. Kansier stated under ordinance, the applicant is required to follow
this process. The applicant needs the designation for the use, not the density.
Paul Viereck, 3465 140th Street, Shakopee, questioned the selling price on the walkout
townhomes on the lake. Deanovic responded they would be as low as $150,000 to
$250,000. Viereck did not want to see a low-end housing project. He felt it is a concern
along County Road 42 and didn't want a similar Five Hawks housing project.
The public heating was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
Recalled an earlier meeting that Mr. Jeffers had a desire to keep a large portion of
the 320 acres a significant park/educational center. Is that going to be in the
southern part?
· Kansier said the park will be in both areas. Mostly the southern half of the
property.
Paul Oberg, the executive for the Jeffers Estate, spoke on the wetland and
vegetation. Mr. Tushie stepped in and clarified his comments.
The physical characteristics of the north 160 acres, especially the lake, stream and
some topography changes, seem to be consistent with the 2020 Plan.
· It is the best use of the property.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation and supported the request.
Atwood:
· Believes it will be a beautiful developed area with the trails and parks.
· However small the Business Park area, felt she could not support reducing the
business office park area in Prior Lake. The topography may need to be
addressed, but did not feel the Comprehensive Plan should be amended at this
time.
Criego: · It looks like there could be 980 units on the 160 acres. The developers agreed.
· Questioned staffon the density. Kansier said the number of units would be well
below a straight zoning. If it was just R1 it would be around 1,200 units.
· Is that taking out wetlands? Kansier said it was. The percentage of wetlands in
the entire property is about one-third.
· Overall it is a good plan, have concerns on the high density for the entire 160
acres. But will go along with staff's recommendations.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~MN 101402.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
Lemke:
· Commercial and Business Office land is precious in this City. Wish there was a
way to replace this.
· Appreciate Commissioner Atwood's concern. Familiar with thc property and
agreed with staff, thc topography does not lend itself for that usc.
· Support the amendment. It is a wonderful development.
Criego:
· The City needs more commercial property, but early on in the conversations, there
were some comments made in allocating other commercial acreage in Prior Lake.
That should solve the problem.
· The topography is tough, even for the developer.
· Asked staff on their thoughts of additional acreage identified for commercial use
in Prior Lake.
Lemke spoke of swapping back land.
Rye explained the zone change along County Roads 42 and 18. He went on to give a
brief explanation on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 1995. If the City looses
whatever this is, 40 acres or so, is that significant in light of the other properties? It's
open for argument. In the past, City Council asked us to go back and look into the
community for other areas of replacement. The Planning Commission can raise the issue
in a recommendation to the City Council.
Stamson: · Generally agreed with Criego's concern on designating the whole are as high
density.
· Recalled if it's designated all high density and try to zone only part if it low
density, where there is a conflict, the Comprehensive Plan takes precedence. Rye
said generally that is true, but the Shoreland District makes it different. The
Shoreland District changes the density. That is the protection.
· The Shoreland designation will rule on density. It's just the uses on this land.
· Agreed with the other Commissioners' concern on loosing the Business Office
space. Have to question if the City is really loosing it. In reality, the area is not
suitable for the business office park. Nothing is lost.
· Overall, it is a great development.
· Need to recognize the south half is largely public space.
· Asset to the City. Support the recommendation.
Open discussion:
Atwood:
Questioned if there would be lifecycle housing. Kansier said there would be, but there is
a lot of reviewing to be done.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN 101402.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD
DESIGNATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson. Atwood nay.
MOTION CARRIED.
This matter should go before the City Council on November 4, 2002.
A recess was called at 8:05 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:11 p.m.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
A. Case 02-071 Ray Brandt is requesting to vacate the drainage and utility
easements located on the Timber Crest Park property. This property is 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. New easements for the existing and
relocated utilities will be rededicated as part of the final plat.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 14,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Ray Brandt has filed an application to vacate the existing drainage and utility easements
located within the Timber Crest Park property. New easements for the existing and
relocated utilities within the existing easement will be dedicated as part of the final plat
of Timber Crest Park.
There is no need for the retention of the existing easements once the new development
has been platted and the new easement is dedicated. The Planning staff therefore
recommended approval of this request, subject to the condition the documents vacating
the existing easement will not be recorded until approval of the final plat.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Criego questioned why there wasn't any discussion on the easement during the original
public hearings. Kansier responded it was identified in the plans for relocation. Staff had
several discussions with the developer. It is no surprise. Sewer pipes are relocated all the
time, prior to the final development.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Generally, the hurdle to a vacation is that there is no public need. The intention is
to provide sewer service which will be accomplished through the redevelopment.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN 101402.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
* Supported the vacation.
Lemke:
· Support staff's conclusion and recommend approval to the City Council.
Criego:
· Still have a problem with the overall development. Against this particular PUD
and still feel the same way.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with Stamson and Lemke, approve the vacation.
Atwood:
· Concurred.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION OF THE EASEMENT SUBJECT TO THE
LISTED CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Nay by Criego, MOTION CARRIED.
This matter is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on October 21,
2002.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Commissioner Lemke will not be able to attend the October 28, meeting.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjoumed at 8:17 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Community
Development
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN101402.doc 1 0