Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071000REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JULY 10, 2000 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. e Ao Bo Co 6. 7. 8. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: Case #00-048 Andrew and Renee Siebenaler are requesting a variance to permit less than the minimum building separation of 15 feet between all structures on thc nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot for the construction of a deck for the property located at 3842 Pershing Street SW. Case #00-049 Alvin E. Miller has requested a variance to vehicular access lower than 907.9 feet, the minimum required 2 feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation. Case #00-050 & #00-051 Shamrock Development is requesting rezoning from PUD 9-93 to R-1 and a preliminary plat to be known as The Wilds 5th Addition. Case #00-002 & #00-003 David Bell & Freedom Development & Consulting are requesting an amendment to the approved plan for the Priorwood Planned Unit Development (PUD 82-12) and for a preliminary plat to be known as Creekside Estates for the property located at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street. Old Business: New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: rl~: \00~FILF~\0OP~CO~.IM~00 p~C.,,A Ut/~N~J0.7100% DOlE 16200 La§~e ~reea ,ave. ~.~., ~norLaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 10, 2000 1. Call to Order: The July 10, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Vonhof at 6:35 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Criego Present Atwood Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: First paragraph change to read "the meeting was called to order by Chairman Vonhof'. The Minutes from the June 26, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as corrected. Vonhof read the public heating statement and opened the first heating. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case #00-048 Andrew and Renee Siebenaler are requesting a variance to permit less than the minimum building separation of 15 feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot for the construction of a deck for the property located at 3842 Pershing Street SW. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 10, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The Planning Department received a variance application from Andrew & Renee Siebenaler proposing to construct a deck attached to an existing single family home. The following variance is being requested: A 6.66 foot variance to permit an 8.34 foot structure separation instead of the required minimum 15 foot separation between structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot. L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMIN~N071000.DOC I Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 The adjacent property owners at 3852 Pershing Street (Lot 35) applied for and were granted setback variances for an addition on July 12, 1999, per Resolution #99-016 dated June 16, 1999. The approved variance permitted a side yard setback of 5.82 feet for the new addition along their common property line. When the addition was constructed a deck landing and stairs were placed into the required setback area. This was done in violation of the granted variance resolution. The deck is in violation of City Ordinance - Nonconforming lots may have side yards of not less than 5 feet. Therefore, the need for a variance in this case was created because of the proximity of the neighbors illegal deck structure. Staff concluded the requested variance for a building separation of less than 15' between the deck additions along the adjoining east property line meets the hardship criteria. This provides for a minimum building setback along the east property line of 5.71 and a variance of 6.66 feet to permit a building separation of 8.34 feet instead of the required 15 feet per City Ord. 1101.502(8). Approval of a variance should not be subject to the conditions created by an adjacent property owner in violation of City Ordinance and an approved Variance. Stamson: Clarification - If the steps on the landing of the neighbors' deck were not present, would the variance be necessary. Horsman responded that was correct. Comments by the public: Applicants Andrew and Renee Siebenaler, 3842 Pershing Street, presented before and after pictures of their home. Siebenalers explained how their neighbors' construction prohibits access to their home. Comments by the Commissioners: Criego: · The reason for the 15 feet between homes is to provide a safety net for any fire. This is a situation asking for a hazard between homes. The applicant is justified in asking for a variance caused by their neighbor's illegal construction. · In favor of the variance. · Aggressively go after the neighbor to remove the steps. Stamson: · First reaction is that this would not need a variance if the neighbor did not illegally construct the stairs. · Would rather see the City aggressively remove the neighbor's stairs. Atwood: · The variance is needed - do not delay the applicant. · The applicant's letter supports her feelings. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn071000.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Vonhof: The variance criteria have been met. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-008PC GRANTING A 6.66 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN 8.34 FOOT STRUCTURE SEPARATION INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 15 FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN STRUCTURES ON THE NONCONFORMING LOT AND ON THE ADJOINING LOT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case//00-049 Alvin E. Miller has requested a variance to vehicular access lower than 907.9 feet, the minimum required 2 feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 10, 2000 on file in the office of the Planning Department. The Planning Department received a variance application from Alvin Miller for the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage. The following variance is being requested: A variance of 4.9 feet to permit a vehicular access to be 903.0 feet rather than the required 907.9 feet, 2 feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) of 909.9 feet. The City Engineering Department has reviewed this variance request and responded that Flint Road is a public roadway, raising the road would affect a lift station located across the street from this property, and would require reconstructing neighboring driveways on the street. Patrick Lynch with the Department of Natural Resources submitted written comments on this request. The DNR believed in this particular case, because the entire length of road would need to be raised significantly, this would not be practical for the individual landowner. The DNR is not opposed to the requested variance with the recommendation that a plan be developed to address access to the property by the owner and emergency vehicles during times of flooding. The staff felt all of the hardship criteria had been met with respect to the variance for a vehicular access elevation more than 2 feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation. In addition, staff recommended three conditions be met by the applicant prior to building permit approval and issuance for the subject lot: 1) Year round occupancy of the property be subject to submittal of an emergency management plan to be approved by the City Police Chief and Fire Chief; 2) All Resolutions adopted by the Commission shall be recorded and proof of recording be submitted, along with the City Assent Form, to the Planning Department; 3) The electrical easements (Document No. 206761 and Doc. No. 189142) that currently intrude into the proposed footprint of the house shall be partially released by the grantor, Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative. l:\00flles\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn071000.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Atwood asked for clarification on the electrical easement. Horsman responded. Criego questioned the lake setback. Horsman explained the setback averaging at 52 feet. Comments from the public: Applicant Alvin Miller, 15276 Flint Road SE, said his objective had been stated by the DNR. It is impractical to raise the road. The other side of the road is undeveloped. Supported the DNR recommendation. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · The variance hardship criteria has been met. · What has been suggested by staff is consistent with previous situations. · Support the request with staff's conditions. Criego and Atwood: · Agreed. Vonhof: Concurred with Stamson, the hardship criteria had been met. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 00-009PC GRANTING A 4.9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A VEHICULAR ACCESS ELEVATION OF 903.0 FEET RATHER THAN 907.9 FEET AS REQUIRED TO BE NOT MORE THAN 2 FEET BELOW THE REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION OF 909.9 FEET. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. C. Case #00-050 & #00-051 Shamrock Development is requesting rezoning from PUD 9-93 to R-1 and a preliminary plat to be known as The Wilds 5th Addition. Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated July 10, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. Shamrock Development has applied for a zone change and a preliminary plat for property located on the north side of County Road 82 and west of Wilds Parkway. A portion of the property is currently in the Wilds PUD. The remainder is a large single family lot which is zoned R-1. The applicant is requesting the zoning on the parcel in the Wilds be changed from PUD to R-1 Low Density Residential. They are also seeking approval of a preliminary plat consisting of 39 lots. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn071000.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 ZONE CHANGE: The applicant is requesting a zone change on a portion of the site from PUD to R-I, Low/Medium density residential. The criteria for granting a zone change include the following: 1. There was a mistake in the original zoning. 2. Conditions have changed significantly since the current zoning was adopted. 3. The Comprehensive Plan has been amended. Any of these criteria may be used to evaluate a request for rezoning. This case is somewhat unique in that part of the site is zoned PUD and part is zoned R-1. Normally, it is desirable to have the same zoning on a development of this nature in order to have consistent regulations over the site. The Comprehensive Plan designation on the site did not change from the 2010 Plan to the 2020 Plan. As noted previously, the Wilds PUD will be the subject of a request to amend the PUD by deleting the subject property from that PUD. It seems reasonable the subject property should be zoned R-1 in it's entirety. PRELIMINARY PLAT: Several conditions need to be met before final plat approval. These are: 1. The lot areas above the 100 year flood elevation need to be determined for those lots abutting the ponds and wetlands. 2. The comments of the Engineering Department need to be reflected in the approved preliminary plat. 3. The need for tree replacement needs to be documented. 4. Lot line easements need to be shown. 5. A copy of the covenants to be recorded on the property need to be submitted. 6. The width and area of the comer lots need to be adjusted to meet ordinance requirements. Criego asked for clarification on the adjoining property and new development with Wensmalm Homes. Rye explained the background and amendment. Comments from the public: Nick Polta, Pioneer Engineering, said they worked out the adjusted lot lines to reflect the comer lot changes and brought the full lot line above the 100 year high water line per the staff's recommended conditions. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · In regard to the zoning change from a PUD to R1 - It is appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding area. It makes sense to remove that portion from the PUD. 1 :\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn071000.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 · Preliminary Plat - Initial intention was apprehensive to approve the permitted plat without seeing the changes. Staff recommended removing the cul-de-sac. But it has been worked out. · Staff's other conditions are appropriate. · Rye commented the cul-de-sac issue was worked out with the engineering department. Atwood: · Concurred with Stamson, staff's conditions are reasonable and have been met by the applicant. Criego: · Concurred with the request for zoning change. It makes sense to have the entire area zoned R1. · It is a good addition to the community. Vonhof: · Agreed with the Commissioners' comments on both issues with the 6 conditions. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM PUD TO R1. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE WILDS 5TH ADDITION WITH THE SIX CONDITIONS STATED BY STAFF. Stamson said his preference would be to not pass at this point and take a minute to look at the re-drawing. Rye said it was fairly common to approve a preliminary plat with conditions. The understanding is, nothing will go forward until the changes and corrections are made. The changes are not significant. Engineer Nick Polta, Pioneer Engineer presented the new layout with the changes. Two lots were eliminated to accommodate all the appropriate setbacks. Vote taken indicates ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. D. Case #00-002 & #00-003 David Bell & Freedom Development & Consulting are requesting an amendment to the approved plan for the Priorwood Planned Unit Development (PUD 82-12) and for a preliminary plat to be known as Creekside Estates for the property located at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street. Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated July 10, 2000 on file in the office of the Planning Director. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn071000.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, and Freedom Development and Consulting have filed applications for the development of the property located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street, directly north of Five Hawks School. The applications include a request to rezone approximately 45,000 square feet of property described as Lots 2, 3 and 4, Holly Court from the R-3 District to the R-4 District, amend the approved plan for PUD 82-12 to include the Holly Court property and to develop the site with 102 units of senior housing, and a request for approval of a preliminary plat for this site, consisting of 12.7 acres to be subdivided into 3 lots and one outlot. Staff felt there were several outstanding key issues that remain with this proposal including the following: 1. The location of wetlands must be identified on all of the lots. This delineation affects the lot area, the density calculation and the building setbacks. 2. Provide preliminary plans for the trail connection between north and south Five Hawks Avenue, including the pedestrian bridge. 3. The PUD plan and the preliminary plat must be revised so the grading plan, landscaping plan and site plan are consistent with one another. 4. The building location on Lot 2 must be revised so the building does not encroach into the drainage and utility easements on Holly Court. 5. The plans should be revised to meet all ordinance requirements, including building setbacks, parking lot setbacks, building materials, building height, landscaping, and lighting. If the developer proposes modifications to these requirements, a list of the requested modifications must be submitted along with the reasoning behind these requests. 6. Identify the open space on the site plan. 7. Provide covenants for both Outlot A and the congregate housing building. Due to the number of outstanding issues with both the PUD plan and the preliminary plat, staff felt it was reasonable to continue this item. This would allow the developer the time to address these issues. By letter dated July 7, 2000, Clint and Nadine Bristol stated their opposition to the proposal. Comments from the public: David Bell, Freedom Development & Consulting, gave an overview of the project including some of the following issues: · The reduction of units from 168 to 102 units. · There will be open space by the Roanoke Street area. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn071000.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2OO0 · The zoning change is to zone property that was outside the PUD approved in the 1980's. · The developer will removing 29% of the trees, well under the 50% allowed under the City's tree preservation ordinance. · Underground parking will help retain the green space. · There have been modifications made to the setbacks. · Clustering the buildings will retain the green space but will require some building setbacks. · The Class I building requirements are met per staff's condition. · The retention pond has been removed and the building moved to the south to be out of the wetland area. The open space has been identified by language. · Bell will be addressing and providing the covenants after discussions with staff. · The biggest issue is going to the Council and make sure the construction approval is met. · Bell asked the Commission to consider approving the application with the conditions. Tom Sylvester, 4031 Roanoke Street, said with the assurance of the land between the creek being dedicated to the school, he would have no problem with the development. Donald Fehr, 4344 Priorwood Street, felt it was important to support Mr. Bell in his latest effort. It is a good effort to save the trees and wetland and reduce the number of units. Don Monnens, 4378 Priorwood, was concerned with the creek flowing through his back yard as the pond is rising. Monnens questioned how far the building would be from the creek? Bell responded the building would be set back 50 feet and explained the proposed building, the catch basins and runoff. Rye also explained the water flow and drainage. Louise Kooiker, 4338 Priorwood, said she was concerned for the east side of the development. She questioned if the tree line was going to stay and where the drainage would be going on the 43-unit building. Bell responded to her questions. Kooiker questioned if the senior housing designation could be changed at any time. Rye responded the original proposal was for assisted living. The current proposal would be just senior living with some services. Bell said the home health care will be provided by private and public entities. Criego asked Mr. Bell to explain the water flow on the east building. Bell explained 25 to 30 feet of the east side would flow to the east. Otherwise catch basins are in place to control the runoff. Bell stated they could put gutters on that side of the building. Grant Heinz, 16493 Five Hawks, wanted to know how many trees were going to be cut down on Five Hawks Avenue. Bell said the majority of the trees on the site have been graded. A total of 29%, probably around 125 trees would be removed but they are also planting 150 trees. Heinz said he likes to hear the birds in the morning and enjoys the wildlife. Criego asked Heinz to identify his home in relation to the project. Bell estimated the distance to be between 150 and 200 feet away with a creek in between. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcrnin\mn071000.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Heinz said his concerns were for the erosion of the area, tree removal, trails, home ownership and was generally against the project. Jerry Kooiker, 4338 Priorwood Street, was concerned the pond is filling up with silt. Kooiker felt the project would have a negative impact on the pond and wanted to make sure the drainage was in place. Atwood commented on her nearby ponds. McDermott explained the N.U.R.P. pond maintenance program the City is working on. Bob Jones, 4266 Priorwood, said Mr. Bell addressed a lot of concems and issues. Jones had one more concern with the traffic count. Bell responded the traffic study was done by a third party and explained the counts. Bell said a stop sign would be installed at the end of Five Hawks. Jones felt Five Hawks Street was not in very good condition and had a lot of parking problems. He would like to see traffic lights with the reconstruction of the County Road. Leon Wegener, 4328 Priorwood Street, indicated in the original presentation Mr. Bell said the north building would be assisted living, now it has been changed to a "for sale" building. Wegener felt the senior campus project has been inconsistent. Pete Lebens, 4172 Cates Street, said all the surrounding residents are concerned for the development. Amanda Kern, 4171 Cates Street, questioned the drainage ponds and the impact of runoff. McDermott said the developer is required to give calculations showing he can control the runoff within his property and that would be by constructing a pond on the north side. The City looks very closely at that and have asked for additional information. Tim Henning, 16411 Albany, stated he was concerned for the material that will flow into the creek. McDermott responded the developers put up silt fences, most of the water will go into the sedimentation basins. Gene Erickson, 4056 Roanoke Street, stated everyone has been patient with the project and thanked staff and the developer for listening. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: Considerable improvements made over the last plan. · Thanked Mr. Bell for listening to the community. Bell addressed many of the concerns. · The number of units per building is fine. · Concerned for runoff into the wetlands and will look closely at that issue. · The traffic study and recommended stop signs will be helpful. · Commend Mr. Bell for giving the acreage to the School District. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn071000.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes July lo, 2000 Stamson: · Agreed with Criego, the developer addressed concerns of the Commission and neighborhood. · This development is a big plus for the community. · With every development plan there is a give and take. This is a better plan for saving the trees. · Agreed with the concerns staff noted. Atwood: · This is a good development, not perfect, but pretty close. It is neighborhood friendly. · It makes sense to amend the PUD. · As long as it does not affect the date going to City Council - would like to have the time to look over the plans submitted tonight. · Questioned if the irrigation plan been added. Bell said they had always planned on all three buildings being irrigated. The plans will be submitted with the construction. It could be a condition of approval. Vonhof: · Agreed with Commissioners this proposal reflects the concerns of the neighbors. It benefits everyone. · Supported the proposed rezoning. · Would like to see the specific changes entered into the record for the preliminary plat. Criego: · Questioned if the trails were going to be connected into the schools trails. Bell said he was not familiar with the school trail system. He was told to connect the north sidewalk to the south. Rye said the school put woodchip trails off Five Hawks Avenue. · With the developer donating 8 or 9 acres to the school, he questioned if the park dedication fee could be waived. Rye said it would be up to the City Council. Vonhof: · Under the ordinance the City cannot accept wetlands as park dedication. Mike Gundlach suggested an amendment to the Council. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO TABLE THE ITEMS TO JULY 24, 2000, AFTER HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE NEW INFORMATION AND ADDRESS ISSUES RAISED DURING THIS MEETING AND THE STAFF REPORT. Vonhof reopened the public hearing to be continued July 24, 2000. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\nm071000.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 A recess was called at 8:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:48 p.m. 5. Old Business: The EDA workshop with the City Council has been rescheduled to Tuesday, July 11, 2000, at 5:30 p.m. Mark Cramer resigned and a Notice has been placed in the Prior Lake American for his position. Research the chairperson position. 6. New Business: 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Come Carlson Recording Secretary l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn071000.doc 11