HomeMy WebLinkAbout121100REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2000
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
Bo
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Case File #00-072 Holiday Station Stores are requesting a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a gas station/convenience store and carwash for the property
located north of Fountain Hills Drive at the southwest quadrant of the intersection
of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail.
Case File #00-078 Robert Jader is requesting variances for a minimum structure
setback, less than allowed combined side yards, and encroachment less than 5 feet
of an adjoining lot for the property located at 14962 Pixie Point Circle.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #00-077 Angie Cawley Variance Resolution.
6. New Business:
Ao
Centex Homes presentation of concept plan for development of 40 acres located at
CSAH 83 and CSAH 42.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L: \OOFI LES\0OPLCOMMX00PCAGENh~ 121100. DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., l>rior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2000
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the December 11, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, City Engineer Sue McDermott, Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Stamson Present
Vonhof Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes fi.om the November 27, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Chair Vonhof read the Public Heating Statement and opened the first public hearing.
Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-072 Holiday Station Stores are requesting a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a gas station/convenience store and carwash for the property located
north of Fountain Hills Drive at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of CSAH
42 and Pike Lake Trail.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated December 11, 2000, on
file in the office of the City Planner.
The City of Prior Lake recently received an application for a Conditional Use Permit
(CLIP) to allow the construction of a gas station, convenience store and automatic car
wash on the property located at the southwest comer of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail.
This site is zoned C-4 (General Business). The applicant has not requested any variances
for this project.
The site in question was platted in 1999 as Lot 2, Block 1, Fountain Hills Addition. This
lot is 2.13 acres in area, and is bounded by CSAH 42 on the north, Pike Lake Trail on the
east and Fountain Hills Drive on the south. The proposed development includes a
5,404.4 square foot convenience store, a 1,439.1 square foot automatic car wash, and 5
pump islands located under a 4,080 square foot canopy.
L:\00FI LES\00PLCOMM\00PCM INhmn 121100.doc 1
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
At this time, staff felt there were several outstanding issues to be addressed in order to
ensure the proposal meets the ordinance requirements. The plans must be revised to
address the following issues:
1. The site grading and drainage issues as outlined in the memorandums from the
Engineering Department.
2. The Building Code issues listed as items 1-5 in the attached memorandum from the
Building Official.
3. The parking plan must provide the minimum parking spaces.
4. The driveway widths must be reduced to 36 feet. In addition, an access easement for
the shared driveway must be submitted.
5. The landscaping plan must be revised to meet the Ordinance requirements. Also, an
irrigation plan must be provided as part of the landscaping plan.
6. The signage plan must be revised so the signs do not exceed the maximum size. The
site plan must also be more specific about the location of the fxeestanding sign. Signs
must be located at least 10' fi'om any lot line, and may not be located within the
traffic visibility triangle.
7. The lighting plan must be revised to ensure the illumination does not exceed 1.0 foot-
candles at the property lines.
8. Drainage and surfacing plans for the car wash must be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
Due to the number of outstanding issues, staff recommended the public hearing be
continued to January 16, 2001, to allow time for the applicant to submit revised plans and
for staff review.
Staff received a letter fi:om Kevin and Barb Lilland dated December 11, 2000 requesting
certain conditions be imposed on the project including buffering/landscaping and hours
of operation.
Comments from the public:
Victor Sacco, representative and manager for the Holiday Companies, said they have
reviewed the staff report and concur all changes and conditions meet with their approval.
Holiday Companies will work with staff to make the necessary changes. Sacco asked if
the Commissioners would consider approving the request.
Mike Vierling, 13985 Pike Lake Trail, stated his family owns on the adjacent land and
have a fence dispute with Wensmann (property owner) on the northeast side of the
property. He would like to have the issue settled up before the project is started.
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCM INN-nn 121100.doc 2
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Vonhof asked Rye to address the issue. Rye said this particular property is an approved
lot of record. The preliminary plat covered the entire 38 acres. The final plat only
included about half the site. The remainder of the site includes the property Mr. Vierling
is referring to. At the time final plat is brought in for approval the title issue has to be
resolved.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Questioned if there would be an issue of swapping the pumps and store locations.
Mr. Sacco said they would need to expose the pumps to the main access. The
public is looking for a location that looks attractive from the street level. It makes
a better presentation. He also pointed out the higher elevation in the back.
· When was Fountain Hills graded? Rye responded it was last week.
Stamson:
· The overall proposal is consistent with the goals and commercial plans for the
area. There are no real design issues.
· A gas station was specifically stated for this site last year with the rezoning. It is
a good plan.
· Supported - stating no hesitation to forward on to the City Council with the
understanding the revisions are to be made.
Rye pointed out in switching the location of the pumps and station there would be a fair
amount of noise with the carwash. If they were to switched it, the carwash would be on
the Pike Lake Road side closer to the residential properties.
Criego:
· Questioned the shared/common driveway. Sacco said they would have common
access with the adjoining west property, which would keep down the number of
accesses into Fountain Hills. The utilities will have to be relocated. The cost
benefit has not been determined.
· If the cost was out of line would the applicant put the driveway on their own
property? Sacco said they would, but did not see a problem.
· Not practical to swap the pumps and store but there should be some buffer.
· Questioned how the applicant would buffer. Sacco explained the wrapped
canopy. The neighbors are on a higher location. The south side of the canopy
would not be illuminated. The northeast side could be softened by light.
· Someone should take a look at the buffer zone. Maybe trees. Sacco said they
would consider it.
· Rye pointed out the landscaping plan could be addressed with Criego's concerns.
· Atwood questioned if the neighborhood could be involved. Sacco said they
would try to meet those conditions.
L:\0OFILES\00PLCOMM\00PCM~ 121100.doc 3
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Lemke:
· Questioned if it is the store's policy to be open 24 hours a day. Sacco responded
it was the intent, but not all stores are open 24 hours. If they are open 24 hours
and not doing any business they will shut it down. The time is used for stocking
and general maintenance. It is important to be open 24 hours to be available and
help people.
Questioned the zoning on this property. Rye said the Comprehensive Plan
designated this area commercial in 1995. The actual zoning was about 2 years
ago.
Vonhof: · The entire building will be brick.
· Questioned the elevations. Sacco explained the residential elevations are higher.
It is above Pike Lake Trail and Fountain Hills Trail. The site will blend in.
· When the Commissioners first looked at this site, they did consider a gas station.
· There should be some buffeting and the other conditions need to be in
compliance.
Open Discussion:
Atwood would like to see more on paper and believed the buffering issue should be
addressed.
Vonhof felt the plan should be more concrete. The canopy gives off a lot of light.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO JANUARY 16, 2001.
Criego stated he felt this is a good location for a gas station but the buffering has to be
addressed with the neighbors.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #00-078 Robert Jader is requesting variances for a minimum
structure setback, less than allowed combined side yards, and encroachment less
than 5 feet of an adjoining lot for the property located at 14962 Pixie Point Circle.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated December 11,
2000, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On June 28, 1999 the Planning Commission granted Robert Jader a 33 foot variance to
permit a 24 foot setback from the top of bluff to construct a single family dwelling at
14962 Pixie Point Circle. On June 20, 2000, Mr. Jader's builder, Charles Cudd Co.,
LLC, was issued Building Permit #00-0478 for the proposed structure as surveyed by
Brandt Engineering & Surveying.
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCM INhmn 121100.doc 4
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Upon commencing construction, the footing contractor apparently mistook the wrong
side yard setback mark and placed the front southwest comer of the building 1.17 feet
closer to the side property line for a 3,83 foot side yard setback rather than the required 5
foot setback. On October 13, 2000, the property owner made application for the
following variance: A 1.17 foot variance to permit 3.83 foot structure setback from
one side lot line rather than the required minimum 5 foot setback.
On November 27, 2000, the Planning Commission deferred action on this Variance
request, at staff's recommendation, to gather additional information regarding the
building's dimensions. After permit approval the original building plans were revised in
the field, but the revision was not accurately reflected on the as-built survey submitted by
the applicant for this Variance request.
Staff concluded the variance request met the nine hardship criteria required for variance
approval, because of the narrow lot dimensions at the building setback line. In addition,
the builder inadvertently erred in the placement of the structure on the lot.
The adjoining property owners submitted a letter expressing no opposition to the
requested variances. In addition, another resident submitted a letter in opposition.
Comments from the public:
Robert Jader, 14962 Pixie Point, stressed this project has been a two and a half year
process with variances. Jader explained the mistake with the stakes and it is actually 41
square feet. It was a discrepancy between the surveyor and the masonry contractor.
Jader notified the City and his attorney. His attorney and Mr. Rye felt the easiest way to
remedy the situation was to get a variance. Jader indicated his neighbor had no problem
with the situation. He went on to explain swapping property with the neighbor, but his
attorney suggested getting a variance.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson: · The overriding issue is that it was not an intentional action by anyone. It was a
mistake.
· For the most part the hardships have been met.
· It is only a little over a foot along the property line. To make the owner adjust to
the property line is not justified.
· Grant the variance.
Criego:
· Why is the building 6 feet longer than the original plan? And if it wasn't 6 feet
long, how far would it be from the sideline setback?
· John Sontag from Charles Cudd Company (the builder), stated they had a survey
out at the site that was red-stamped by the City when they added on the 6 feet.
They actually changed the house a couple times after that to fit on the site. It
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCM INh-nn 121100.doe 5
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
would not fit on the original site. Part of loosing the closet and foyer adjusted the
garage. He was sure the survey he had was stamped by the City.
If the 6 feet was not added what would the setback be? Sontag responded it
would probably be one foot.
· Horsman ran calculations. It did not make a difference - 8/100 of an inch.
· By adding 6 feet, the applicant's house sticks out in front of his neighbors. The
original intent was to keep those houses on a plain and now yours sticks out.
· Questioned if there is a setback requiring 84 feet on one side.
· Horsman explained this variance was submitted under the old ordinance and so it
has been applied. The applicant still met all the required setbacks. There was no
setback averaging applied.
· The applicant did not meet the 5 foot setback in the beginning. Horsman
confirmed they did not.
· Question to Sontag: Why did you continue building when you knew it was
wrong? Jader replied when the builder noticed it was incorrect the first thing they
did was call the homeowner (JadeD. The builder and surveyor met with the City.
The City said there were two options: Swap property with neighbor or apply for a
variance. After talking to the neighbor the plan was to swap. Jader explained
they later determined if he swapped land with the neighbor, the neighbor would
loose his impervious surface area.
· Questioned applicant why the City allowed him to continue building without a
variance. Jader responded the City notified the builder of the problem and to
continue would be done at his own risk.
· Jader said he felt he had an option of swapping land. Changing the foundation
would cost $40,000 to $50,000. They still can swap the land. Nothing was done
to avoid any responsibility. He did not want any problems with the City.
· The Commission has seen this property many times and thought the problems
were solved.
Lemke: · The Planning Report stated the building inspector approved the location.
Horsman confirmed he did.
· Under those circumstances the request is not out of line.
Criego:
· Maybe the Planning Commission should state the liability as it relates to
inspectors and the City when approvals are made.
· Rye responded the City is obligated to enforce the ordinances. If a permit was
issued in error for whatever reason, that does not negate the need to comply with
the ordinance.
Atwood:
· Inclined to vote for the variance.
· Agreed with some of Criego's thoughts. In viewing the property, the additional 6
feet is a big difference and is not attractive.
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMINhrm 121100.doc 6
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Surprised it got to this point with the builder and City.
· Inclined to go ahead with granting the variance.
· Horsman said the original survey submitted by the builder and approved by staff
was correct. The as-built survey added the 6 feet and was not part of the original
submittal material. The City has copies of the same survey the builder is referring
to and it does not show the 6 foot addition at the time the permit was issued. At
the time the materials were submitted it showed a garage depth at 26 feet, not the
32 feet they have today.
· Is it correct the 6 foot expansion came after that and was blue-lined and signed off
by the City? Horsman said that was not correct. The revisions were never
brought to the City for approval to his knowledge. It was done in the field.
· Jader said it was his understanding everything done to the house was passed by
the City. He was not familiar with the conversations between the builder and the
City. His discussions were with the builder. They discussed extending the garage
because they had room based upon the required setbacks.
· John said he would get the survey and present the notes. The senior draftperson
has a lot of experience and would not add something that was not approved by the
City.
· Horsman stated the City has a copy of the survey. The Plans Examiner who
reviews the survey said he had no knowledge of changes.
Sontag said he would not try to get anything past the City. He will speak with the
drafrperson and get more information. He felt there are two different issues. The
variance is different fi.om the additional 6 feet added to the garage.
Atwood felt there was some intention and quoted the staff report. Sontag responded they
met with City Staff and found there was a solution. After leaving City Hall he felt there
were two good solutions.
Stamson: · The additional 6 feet to the garage is not part of the problem.
· Criego said the intent is the issue, not the 6 feet. Movements were taken place on
the development that were not approved by the City.
· They did not intentionally go into the setback. The stake was placed in the wrong
spot.
· Would there be an issue with the City if the 6 feet were added? Horsman said if it
met zoning ordinances - it would be an issue between the builder and building
department.
Atwood asked Criego for background on the property.
Criego explained the Commission and applicant had a number of go-arounds with the
bluff setback. When this was approved, it was the intent that the three homes would
come together. That is why the house was 6 feet further away fi.om the street. The
Commissioners assumed if the variances were approved what was presented at that time
would be developed. And it was not. It is distressing.
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCM INhmn 121100.doc 7
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Criego went on to say there is no hardship for a variance. There are no financial
hardships. The hardship criteria is to the area, the community, the lay of the land, etc.
The reality is this will probably pass tonight. It is sinful it got this far. The Commission
is rubberstamping something he does not agree with. A lot of time was spent on this
property, it should have never happened. Everyone knew this was a sensitive issue.
Vonhof:
· It is disturbing a professional contractor would misplace the foundation when thc
lot had several variances.
· It is disturbing the City Inspector did not find that.
· It is disturbing the Commissioners go through the process of granting or denying
variances apparently with different structures going up as built. Perhaps the
process has to be looked.at. There is a level of trust being extended out that is
not occurring.
· When people walk out of a meeting with a variance, the assumption is the
applicant is building what we allowed them to build with regard to the variance.
Apparently our inspection department is not checking and going off assumptions
what is being built is on the paper. There is a significant problem. Agreed with
Criego this is disturbing.
· Questioned the variance standards being applied. Will support the variance
request but it does lead to much greater issues and not pleased.
Atwood:
· Would it alter the process if the Commission obtained the paper trail? Vonhof
said it sounds like a lot of this was verbal and did not have a paper trail.
Conversations were on site.
Stflmson:
· It should be pointed out this was not intentional. There was a mistake. In
general, supports the variance.
· Don't like being pushed into a coruer.
· Concurred with Criego's feelings.
MOTION BY STAMPSON, SECOND BY LEMKE APPROVING RESOLUTION 00-
019PC GRANTING A 1.17 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 3.83 FOOT
STRUCTUR]~ SETBACK FROM ONE SIDE LOT LINE INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED SETBACK OF 5 FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMINh-nn 121100.doc 8
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #00-077 Angie Cawley Variance Resolution.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated December 11,
2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Angie Marie Cawley for
the proposed construction of a detached accessory structure (garage) on a lot with an
existing single family dwelling. A public hearing was convened on November 27, 2000.
After review of the applicant's proposal with respect to the hardship criteria, the Planning
Commission directed staff to draft a Resolution approving the variances.
The Commissioners agreed the Resolution was consistent with the variances granted.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, GRANTING RESOLUTION 00-
020PC APPROVING A 3 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 22 FOOT ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM A PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING A STREET; A 4
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK
6 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE; AND A 582.6 SQUARE FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF
2,847 SQUARE FEET (37.7%).
Commissioner Vonhof abstained from voting.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Centex Homes presentation of concept plan for development of 40 acres
located at CSAH 83 and CSAH 42.
Steve Ach of Centex Homes presented a concept development of approximately 40 acres
of property located on the west side of CSAH 83, about 1/4 mile south of CSAH 42. This
property is presently vacant land. The property is designated for Low to Medium Density
Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and is presently zoned
A (Agricultural). A portion of the property is also located within the Shoreland District
for Mystic Lake. Centex is proposing 65 townhomes and 60 single family lots. Base
prices begin at $150,000 to $160,000.
Vonhof:
· Make sure there is adequate buffering along County Road 83. The
Commissioners commonly have county road residents come before them
indicating there is not enough buffering. That includes berms, vegetation,
fencing, multiple layers. This is high traffic area.
· There is a maximum cul-de-sac length, which would be exceeded.
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMIN%mn 121100.doc 9
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Too many driveways.
Look at the feeder roads. Discourage commercial traffic.
Rye said the County spoke favorably for the entrance offCounty Road 83.
Basically from the north end of this property. From the City's standpoint, that
would be the primary entrance to the commercial area, rather than this road.
Criego:
Asked Mr. Ach to give the Commission a little background on Centex Homes.
Ach gave a brief history. They are in their fiftieth year.
· This would be a two year project.
· Prior Lake loves trails, especially around the wetlands.
· Recommend some type of trail to the commercial area instead ora road or some
system for emergency trails.
· McDermott said Engineering's concern was the way the property was laid out,
one-way in and out.
· Concern for the layout and snow disposal. Can't push it on the neighbor's
property.
· McDermott said the Engineering Department would probably require a temporary
cul-de-sac at that location.
· Rye confirmed it met the R-1 density.
· Like the idea of single family and townhome combination.
· The cul-de-sac length should be able to be worked out.
Stamson:
· It is definitely single family price range.
Lemke:
· Questioned the park area. A trail should be designed so the neighbors can easily
get to the park.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Come Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCM IN'btm 121100.doc 10