Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032596/NNE$0 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, March 25, 1996 7:00 p.m. 2. 3. 4. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: mo "Pheasant Meadow" continue public hearing to consider the Schematic PUD, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat. 12.5 acres located North of STH 13, South of 170th Street and East of Sunset Hills Addition. Home Occupation Request tbr floral design by Leslie Huntington, 4087 Raspberry Ridge. Variance Request by Richard & Julie Warner, 3814 Green Heights Trail. Request side yard setback for construction of a garage. Variance Request by Thomas & Cheryl Vidmar for the property located at 4307 Grainwood Circle. Request for front and side yard setback and lake side setback average for construction of a new home. Variance Request by Gene & Coleen Tremaine at 16500 Inguadona Beach. Request for front, side and lakeshore setback; setback average; lot area variance; and impervious surface for construction of a new home. Variance Request by John Schiffman at 15220 Howard Lake Road. Request for lakeshore setback to construct a garage. Go Variance Request by John Schoeller for Carol's Furniture at 16511 Anna Trail. Request for a front yard setback for an addition on property. 5. Old Business: 16200 ~l~oCar~ek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota~a~372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 6. New Business: A. Planned Unit Development Report B. Capital Improvement Plan review. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: AG032596.DOC PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 The March 25, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Kuykendall at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Loftus, Wuellner and Kuykendall, Planning Director Don Rye, Assistant Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. ROLL CALL: Criego Present Wuellner Present Loftus Absent Vonhof Absent Kuykendall Present APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Remove Commissioner Criego and insert Wuellner from the first paragraph. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE THE MARCH 11, 1996 MINUTES. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner and Kuykendall. Criego abstained. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Loftus arrived at 7:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4.A 96-001 - PHEASANT MEADOWS: CONTINUED HEARING ON THE SCHEMATIC PUD, REZONING FROM R-1, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT, PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. (Property located between Trunk Highway 13 and County Road 12, east of Sunset Hills Addition.) Don Rye, Planning Director, gave an overview of the Planning Report dated March 25, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the Schematic Planned Unit Development, zoning change from suburban Residential to PUD and the Preliminary Plat for Pheasant Meadow as recommended or with specific changes. John Wingard, Assistant Engineer, presented the information from the Engineering Staff Report. His summation concluded the additional 50 unit townhomes when fully developed would add approximately 400 trips per day to the streets in this area. Estimation is 90% of the trips would be on 170th (County Road 12) and 10% would travel across Balsam Street. The Sunset Hills development currently handles a traffic load of 300 to 500 trips per day. The additional traffic generated by the Pheasant MN032596.DOC PAGE 1 Meadows development and future commerical development to the east could add another 10% to this amount in Sunset Hills. The streets in the development can easily handle the projected traffic volumes. The City has several local streets with volumes of 1,000 vehicles trips per day. Terry Schneider from Project Developers, 600 South Highway 169, St. Louis Park, along with David and Jeff Williams, He builders were present to answer questions. Mr. Schneider explained the two changes recommended by staff. 1) Deletion of the small pond; and 2) Moving the road with the connection to the commerical area farther to the south. The location of the park trail will be subject to staff's review. The developer will eliminate the Balsam Street connection if the Planning Commission dictates. Comments from the Public: Carl Tremmel, 3399 Balsam Street, spoke on behalf of 91 residents who signed a petition in opposition of the Balsam Street connection to the Pheasant Meadow development. Mr. Tremmel presented the petition into the record. The Sunset Hills residents' concerns are: 1) Increase traffic in the Sunset Hills development; 2) By increasing the traffic flow on Balsam Street the City will decrease the safety of the residents and children; There are many children and no sidewalks forcing people to walk on the street. 3) By the support of the petition from the Sunset Hills residents, residents are clearly against the Balsam Street connection but not opposed to a biking or walking trail. The Willow Street trail connection works well for the residents in the Willows. Mr. Tremmel also feels the walking trail meets the vision of the Mission Statement stating "Strong neighbo, rhoods and homeowner associations will characterize most development. Most neighborhoods will be connected by transportation amenities for pedestrians and/or motor vehicles." He also said the residents feel the development is right for the community and creates a nice buffer between Sunset Hills and the commercial area. Their only objection is the connection of Balsam Street. Comments from Commissioners: Wuellner: · Major concern for the development is where it is situated with respect to the adjacent neighborhood and Willow Park. It is a public safety issue with all the kids in the Sunset Hills area crossing to the Willow Park area. · Like to see ~ bike path through the Balsam Street entrance to relieve fear of the potential danger in the area. It would be a great alternative. · Would support the development if the City entertains that alternative. It seems to fit everyone's agenda. Criego: · Whether the development has a bike path or road the units would be reduced to 48 instead of 50. MN032596 DOC PAGE 2 Terry Schneider suggested the 4 unit building be changed to a 3 unit leaving an extra 30 feet of space between the buildings and put a trail between. · Question to John Wingard in regard to the amount of increased traffic. · Wingard pointed out Exhibit B "Traffic Volumes". The majority of the traffic is headed north to get out to Highway 13. The traffic in the Sunset Hills development at buildout would increase from 300 to 400, equal to about 10%. Another option is to have the trail go along 170th_ Street. · Mr. Schneider said he did not see a problem with the trail location. It accomplishes the same purpose of getting pedestrian traffic east and west. Loftus: · One thing the City has tried to do is connect neighborhoods. · Made reference to the Willows' trail with the same rationale of serving pedestrians and eliminating motor vehicles. · Rye stated staff's recommendation has not changed for a couple of reasons. The Comp Plan speaks very strongly of connecting neighbors. There is a policy in the Subdivision Ordinance which in effect requires a subdivision to connect to a street that comes up to a common property line from an adjoining subdivision. The fact remains there is an Ordinance requirement the street be connected. The Commission has to decide whether in the long run it is more important to maintain a full connection between neighborhoods and not just between Sunset Hills and this neighborhood but other areas further to the east. Or is that purpose served by a pedestrian/bikeway connection? · Maybe this could be phased in. Remove the two townhome units and make the connection later. · Rye explained the difficulty of doing an analysis of neighborhoods and tailor-making the transportation system for whatever the condition is at a particular point in time. · Now the responsibility is on the developer. Later on it would be on the townhome association. · Maybe they would put a street in, maybe not. The City can not predict what the association will do. · Concurs with the zoning change. Supportive of staff recommendation with the exception of the Balsam Street connection. Kuykendall: · Studied the issues and looked at the alternatives, looked at what the statutory requirements are in both the Comp Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. There are sound engineering reasons as well as planning and residential reasons to connect Balsam Street. I have seen nothing in the staff report indicating it should not connect. · 91 people say they are not interested in the street connection but there are no engineering reasons not to connect. · Sometimes perceived traffic problems look worse than they really are. The traffic trips in the report are minimal. Mlq032596.DOC PAGE3 · The sad issue is there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood. There should be pathway connection but it should be part of the total street improvement. Balsam Street should continue on through as it was originally proposed. This is for safety as well as engineering. · Should not be the burden for some future association to work into these issues and deal with them later on. Support Balsam Street as a standard improvement. · Safety and maintenance vehi_cles should have access. · This will be a continual problem for the City because Balsam Street is not a cul-de- sac. It had a future and this plan is to eliminate that. It is not a good design. Open Discussion: Wuellner: · If Balsam Street was a reasonable distance from County Road 12 and a reasonable length of block, he could understand the reason for putting in a connection because there would be a public safety issue. Balsam Street is just one block depth away from County Road 12, it would be hindering traffic or emergency services into either Pheasant Meadow or Sunset Hills. · A second issue is the lack of a cul-de-sac on the Balsam Street stub. There are no houses at the end. There is one house on each side which have access to Spruce Trail as well as Balsam Street. So there is no need for a cul-de-sac. The issue is to get children safely from neighborhood to neighborhood. The Willows trail has been extremely successful. · Commissioner Vonhof brought up a point last meeting in regard that there were no boulevard trees. This is important. · Terry Schneider said it was at staff's request to take the boulevard trees and shield and buffer Highway 13 and 170th. He would be willing to add some trees to the interior, foundation plantings around the townhomes will be done as well. Criego: · If we decide on a bike path along 170th why is it necessary to have a road from Spruce Street to the commercial area? A few months from now when the commercial area goes in the City will have the same reasoning. If the logic is right for Balsam, the logic is right for Spruce. Kuykendall: · At some time there should be a sidewalk along 170th but it is not the Commission's objective to design streets. · Balsam Street should be connected. · The desirable developments in the Twin Cities have many trees. · This subdivision is nice. · The City should not compromise our standards on engineering and street design. · The added traffic is not significant as far as a traffic hazard. MN032596. DOC PAGE 4 Rye expressed his concem for a similar problem with subdivisions up and down Highway 13 whose only access is from Highway 13. There is no connection between them and everyone is forced to go out on the Highway for any trip beyond their neighborhood. In a more perfect world and this was designed differently we would not be arguing about this. Rye said he hated to see the City eliminate an option for an alternative access. The City is dealing with a county road which is potentially facing doubling in traffic in the next 20 years without any current plans.9oming from the County for upgrading. Loftus: · Compelling arguments on both sides. Understand staff's concern for the connection. · This development will bring more traffic through Sunset Hills. · For the larger public good it would be beneficial to have a street connecting. It would allow alternative ways to get in and out of the neighborhoods. · Hear the argument for a trail similar to the Willows, but it will put more traffic on County Road 12. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-04. DISCUSSION: Wuellner: · A bike connection has to be part of this project. It is an important issue the City cannot overlook. Criego: · If the logic is correct for Balsam Street the logic is correct for Spruce Trail. You can't go to every 50 unit PUD and just have private entries. It is important to open up to the greater community. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO AMEND AND ADD A SIDEWALK TO BALSAM STREET TO BE DETERMINED BY STAFF. Criego: · It is my understanding the developer had enough trees in the development and staff asked to put them near the road. Even though the developer said he would add trees from a marketing standpoint, it puts an added burden on him. · Schneider explained when the City adds things in it requires bonding and it complicates how the developer intends to accomplish them. The developer has more than the ordinance requires and will not leave the middle of the development bare. Wuellner: · Our standards is to have boulevard trees in our neighborhoods. If the standard is to connect neighborhoods then the standard should be to have boulevard trees. MN032596.DOC PAGE Kuykendall: · Agrees with Coramissioner Criego. It is an added burden to what would be expected of the developer. From a developer's marketing standpoint they were going to landscape it anyway. Mr. Williams, the builder, commented they would like to work in as much landscaping and trees as they can. The perimeter trees serve as a buffer along the outside. Mr. Schneider said he had a solution. If the developers agreed to add one tree per space between the buildings it would accomplish the boulevard issue. Then work with staff in relocating some of the exterior trees to make up the difference. Staff could say what would be appropriate. Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Loftus and Kuykendall. Nay by Wuellner. MOTION PASSED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO APPROVE 96-05PC WITH AN AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER CRIEGO THAT TREES BE ADDED TO THE BOULEVARD USING THE TOTAL TREES WITHIN THE PERIMETER. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Criego, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO ACT FAVORABLY ON ORDINANCE 96-10. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Criego, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. 4.B 96-021 - LESLIE HUNTINGTON, REQUEST FOR HOME OCCUPATION FOR FLORAL DESIGN AT 4087 RASPBERRY RIDGE. Assistant Planner Michael Leek presented the information from the Staff Report dated March 25, 1996. Staff's recommendation was to approve the request with the standard conditions. Leslie Huntington of 4087 Raspberry ,Ridge Road, was present for any questions. Comments from Commissioners: Criego: · Recommend the Resolution as stated by staff. Mlq032596DOC PAGE 6 Loftus: · Ms. Huntington said she was presently working in a floral design shop in Shakopee. This business could mm into a full time job. She would be doing weddings with fresh flowers and arrangements with silk and dry flowers. · Supportive of request. Wuellner: Ms. Huntington does not feel sh~ would buy a delivery truck in the future, maybe a mini- van. She doesn't feel there would be a large volume of deliveries to her home. Kuykendall: Supportive of the Resolution as stated. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-06PC. Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Wuellner, Loftus and Kuykendall. MOTION PASSED. 4.C 96-020 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE BY RICHARD AND JULIE WARNER, WHO PROPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 5 FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARAGE ON THEIR PROPERTY AT 3814 GREEN HEIGHTS TRAIL. Assistant Planner Michael Leek presented the Staff Report dated March 25, 1996. Staff recommends approval of the request based on their conclusion reasonable use 6f the property currently does not exist. Richard Warner, 3814 Green Heights Trail, explained the garage addition is part of the remodeling with their home. The only variance needed was for the garage. Mr. Warner read a letter into the record from a neighbor, Dave Miller, in support of the request. Leek pointed out the DNR indicated they did not have any objections to the request. Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: , · Supportive of the Resolution. Wuellner: · Knows the property and applicant had no other alternative. Supportive. Criego: · With the letter from the neighbor, will support Resolution. MN032596DOC PAGE7 Kuykendall: This is an improvement and compliment applicant on existing structure. Supportive. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96- 07PC. Vote taken signified ayes by L0_ftus, Criego, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION PASSED. A recess was called at 8:26 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:32 p.m. 4.D 96-023 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCES BY THOMAS AND CHERYL VIDMAR, FOR PROPERTY AT 4307 GRAINWOOD CIRCLE. The Planning Department received a variance application from Thomas and Cheryl Vidmar, who proposed to remove an existing cabin and construct a new house on the subject site. Construction of the house would result in the following variances and setbacks; 1. A 5' front yard setback variance to permit a 20' setback instead of the required 25'; 2. A 5.57' side yard setback variance to permit a side yard setback of 4.43' instead of the required 50.5'; 3. A 5.5' variance from the lakeshore setback permitted under Section.9. l(D)2 to permit a lakeshore setback of 45' instead of the required 50.5'. Michael Leek presented the Staff Report dated March 25, 1996 with a recommendation of denial based on the lack of hardship and the fact the applicants have legal alternatives which would allow reasonable use of the property. Thomas Vidmar, 14300 Salem Avenue South, Savage, stated they are proposing a change in plans. The home was designed in what he considers "in the spirit" of the neighborhood. He feels the deck size is not oversized for the home. It is three feet in front of his neighbor's home. Mr. Vidmar also feels his home design is comfortable for a growing family. Mr. Vidmar said they would like to shrink the garage down to a 10 foot third stall which would bring it up to a six and one half foot side yard setback. There is 24 feet from the garage door to the street. He does not think they overstepped their bounds for what they want to do and are open to suggestions. Comments from Commissioners: Wuellner: MIq032596.DOC PAGE · Distance from garage to street. Leek explained the measurement is from the property to the right-of-way line. It is 20 feet from the right-of-way line. In this case the right- of-way is narrow compared to what would be done today. · Appreciate the property owner is willing to deal with the width of the third stall. The Commission has granted 5 foot side yard variances in the past. Mr. Vidmar presented a new plan_ to the Planning Commission. The staff had not seen the plan before and could not verify the dimensions. Criego: · The neighbor's setback is around 20 feet. · The front yard setback is okay from the garage to the street; would rather give that up than the lakeshore variance because it is consistent with the neighbor's variances. · Concern lies in the side yard. There is plenty of room to bring back to 10 feet. · A three car garage is nice but not necessary. · Supportive of the lake shore and road side variances. Loftus: · Agree with comments by Commissioner Criego. · Neighboring Lot 17 had a smaller building envelop. · A three car garage is not a hardship. · Stay within the ordinance guidelines. · Supportive of the street variance and a small deviation to the deck. Kuykendall: · Applicant proposing a three level home with a total floor area of approximately 3,400 sq. feet. · Neighbors (Lot 17) proposed a three car garage and ended up with a two and one-half car garage. · There was no hardship on the side yard variance. · Difficulty finding a hardship on the 20 foot street side. · Mr. Vidmar said their plan has been considerably down sized to get an impervious surface coverage of 30%. Criego: · The applicant has tried to reduce the impervious surface by building three levels. Kuykendall: · The neighborhood is unique and is the only hardship. Leek said there had been one or two constructions in the area that were less than 20 feet. Probably around 18 feet. · Support front yard setback. · No lakeshore setback ~ only for a suspended deck. MN032596.DOC PAGE 9 Loftus: Suggestion to the applicant to get a new design and review with staff. Leek said staff's recommendation would be the same with a two car garage. Wueliner: Applicant has to work within th~ building envelop. A two and one-half garage is reasonable and it is not a hardship to want a three car garage. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST TO APRIL 22, 1996. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION PASSED. Commissioner Criego requested staff to look into a comment made regarding the neighbor who did not follow the setback requirement. Leek said he would check into the matter and report back. 4.E 96-017 - VARIANCE REQUEST BY GENE AND COLEEN TREMAINE FOR PROPERTY AT 16500 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE. The Planning Department received a variance application from Gene and Coleen Tremaine, who propose to construct a new house on the subject site. Construct'ion of the house would result in the following variances and setbacks; 1. A 2,302 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 5,198 square feet instead of the required 7,500 square feet; 2. A 2 foot lakeshore setback variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 48 feet instead of the 50 feet permitted under Section 9.3(D)2; 3. A 7% variance to permit impervious surface coverage of 37% instead of the permitted 30% 4. A 14 foot variance to permit a front yard setback of 11 feet instead of the required 25 feet; and 5. A 2 foot variance on the West to permit a side yard setback of 8 feet instead of the required 10 feet. Michael Leek presented the Staff Report dated March 25, 1996 with a recommendation to approve the requested variances. Staff concluded the hardship criteria were met with respect to the lot area, impervious surface coverage, and perhaps front yard setback, but not with respect to the requested lakeshore and side yard setback variances. Staff recommended the request be tabled to allow applicant to consider alternative designs. Pat Lynch of the DNR faxed a minor modification of the deck which was consistent with staff's recommendation. MN032596.DOC PAGEI0 Gene Tremaine, 16500 Inguadona Beach, said he had changed his plans and pointed out the proposed changes. He agreed to modify the deck and withdraw the lakeshore variance request. The size of the home would be 2,000 square feet with Mr. Tremaine's proposed changes. Comments from Commission~ers: Loftus: · This is one of the small lots that always require multiple variances. The applicant should be complimented on modifying the plan. · Supportive of request because it is reasonable and necessary. Wuellner: · Concurs with Loftus. · Applicant is fitting a reasonable size house on an extremely small lot. Criego: · Supportive of first variance which takes into consideration the size of the lot. The second variance is no longer required. The 7% variance is okay because of the size of the lot. The 9.25 variance for the front yard is acceptable without the deck. Agrees with applicant moving the house over so his neighbor can have a view of the lake. · Supportive to request. Kuykendall: · Requests are reasonable except #4 requesting the front yard setback. There will be a problem in the roadway. There needs to be access for safety equipment. · Neighboring Lot 19 has a driveway access. Only two lots use the private driveway. · Tremaine said the deck will be raised 8 feet. · Leek said with the deck redesign the lakeshore setback will be met. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY LOFTUS, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 16500 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE, TO APPROVE A 2,300 SQUARE FOOT LOT AREA VARIANCE; A 7% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE; A 9.25 FOOT VARIANCE ON THE FRONT YARD SETBACK; AND A 2 FOOT VARIANCE ON THE WEST SIDE YARD PROPERTY. RATIONALE: It is extremely small lot in square footage and width. The property owner has made allowances to minimize the variances. The variances are consistent with the neighborhood. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Loftus, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. MN032596.DOC PAGEI I - A recess was called at 9:37 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:42 p.m. 4.F 96-015 - VARIANCE REQUEST BY JOHN SCHIFFMAN OF 15220 HOWARD LAKE ROAD; REQUEST FOR A LAKESHORE SETBACK OF 70 FEET INSTEAD OF THE 150 FEET TO CONSTRUCT A 26' x 22' GARAGE. Michael Leek presented the M~ch 25, 1996 Staff Report with a recommendation of denial based on the lack of demonstrated hardship. There are other alternative locations for an additional garage structure which would meet the setback requirements in the Shoreland District. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. John Schiffman, 15220 Howard Lake Road, Shakopee, explained his rationale of meeting the four hardship criteria as stated in his letter attached to his application. Comments from Commissioners: Wuellner: · The DNR had indicated a certain area for constructing a new garage. · Mr. Schiffman pointed out the topographic elements on the overhead. He feels the requested area is the only appropriate area to construct an additional garage. Criego: · Leek explained the setbacks on Howard Lake are the same as a general developed lake. · Rye stated the setback from a wetland is 30 feet. · Leek pointed out on the overhead the 150 foot setback. · Does not meet hardship criteria. Loftus: · Mr. Schiffman stated he already has a 3 car garage but does not have enough room for his families' vehicles and the yard and snow equipment. · Leek said Schiffman would need variances on either adding to the existing garage or constructing a new one. · Would be more supportive to adding to existing garage. · The setbacks with a natural lake does shrink down the building envelop. Kuykendall: · Cannot accept applicant's hardship rationale. You are either in the area or not. This is an environmental impact. It is a negative impact either way. · Sewage treatment brought up by the DNR. · Does not see a tree hardship based on the information. Applicant has space to build it. It is the applicant's choice - tennis court or garage. · Will not support. MN032596.DOC PAGEI2 MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY CREIGO, TO DENY THE VARIANCE AN 80 FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK REQUESTED FOR THE PROPERTY AT 15220 HOWARD LAKE ROAD. RATIONALE: Them are other reasonable alternatives for the property owner to utilize and build an additional garage. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Criego and Kuykendall. Loftus abstained from voting. MOTION CARRIED. 4.G 96-022 - JOHN SCHOELLER/CAROL'S FURNITURE, 16511 ANNA TRAIL, VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 15 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. Michael Leek presented the Staff Report dated March 25, 1996. Staff concluded the applicant had legal alternatives which would allow reasonable use of the property, and thus the Ordinance criteria had not been met. Recommendation was for denial. John Schoeller, 3570 Basswood Circle, presented a draft of the existing building and the proposed addition. Mr. Schoeller bought the property in 1986 with an existing steel building on the property. At the time the staff indicated he rebuilt for aesthetic reasons but he did not. The building was not where he would have liked it. Mr. Schoeller explained the need to get semi-tractors into the building. The City's proposed addition would end up blocking the road and driving up over the curb. Mr. Schoeller feels the hardship is the building existed on the property when he bought it. If he shifts .it to the north there is not enough room with the building's 4 foot overhang. He feels there is a hardship where he can not get delivery with Staff's proposed change. The previous Planning Commission was happy he was rebuilding. It was in the public's interest to eliminate the metal building and this is the natural place to put the building. Mr. Schoeller presented a case law with the Board of Adjustment. His feelings were it is not only expensive to relocate but it is not practical. It is unreasonable to change his warehouse and showroom, redo the parking lot to get the merchandise in the building. Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: · Remembers the history of the property and metal building. The ordinance now states the building has to be aesthetically acceptable. Mr. Schoeller took the eyesore and improved the building. This is a situation where there is an existing building and needs to expand and has a restrained building envelop. The ordinance now requires 50' right-of-way. It did not require a setback at the time. MN032596.DOC PAGEI 3 Wuellner: · Addition to the north end is not reasonable. It would be a big detriment to the business. · On paper it looks like it would be reasonable but it is not. Mr. Schoeller would be completely cutting off the supply to his business. He has to stay in business. · A hardship does exist. Supports to continue the building along Highway 13. Criego: · When the variance was approved in 1986 did the applicant have one year for all items for future expansion? · Rye said he believed that is how the ordinance was read at the time. The ordinance changed in 1985. · Leek said the motion was to grant a 30' front yard variance for 16511 Anna Trail. If you continue the building line it clearly grants more than a 30' variance from the 50'. It was not intended to cover a future expansion. The ordinance changed in 1985 which was one year before Mr. Schoeller bought the property. · Mr. Schoeller said he bought the property with the intention of expanding. · Good faith to approve the variance as stated. The diagram is the exact diagram presented in 1986. Kuykendall: · Understands Criego's rationale. · Measure from the center line of the right-of-way. · Leek stated the ordinance is very clear on Highway 13. There is no consistency with the rationale. · There are other ways to make it more marketable. · Schoeller's concern is for the semi-trailers to get into the building. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE 15 FOOT FRONT YARD HIGHWAY 13 RIGHT-OF-WAY SETBACK TO PROCEED WITH THE BUILDING PLANS AS SUBMITTED. RATIONALE: Literal enforcement would result in undue hardship to the business because the legal alternatives would significantly disrupt business operations. There is an issue of health, safety and welfare with the traffic. Commissioner Kuykendall expressed his concem for reasonable alternatives. ~ Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Criego and Loftus, opposed by Kuykendall. MOTION PASSED. A recess was called at 10:57 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:00 p.m. MN032596DOC PAGEI4 NEW BUSINESS: 6A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REPORT - Planning Director Don Rye All the City's PUD's are complete or proceeding in a satisfactory fashion. Priorview Development has been on hold. for 10 years. There is interest in the vacant property. The parties are talking about an elderly housing complex. They have an alternative to amend the PUD. Mr. Rye suggested City Council reconsiders the remainder of the Priorview PUD in the context of a potential developer showing some interest. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL PUD REPORT DATED APRIL 1, 1996, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW THE STATUS OF THE PRIORVIEW PUD 82-12 DEVELOPMENT. RATIONALE: Nothing has happened with the development for 10 years and there is no clear indication as to what the developer intends to do with the property. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Loftus, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. 6.Bo 1997-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - Planning Director Don There was a discussion of the importance of a trail system for public safety reasons along the arterial and collector streets especially County Road 12. Rye explained the Park and Recreation Department show trails and unless the City wants to take it on themselves, it is up to the County to decided what is going to be upgraded. Part of the problem all the platting was allowed earlier is very narrow. The question is timing. Commissioner Kuykendall spoke on the issue of signage and promoting the image of Prior Lake. There is no street naming system. Signage should support the Comp Plan. The first thing is gateway signage "Welcome to Prior Lake". This should fall in the street budget. "Way Finding Signs" should be in the major intersections. It is a part of the economic redevelopment. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO SUPPORT THE 1997-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AS PRESENTED WITH THE SUGGESTIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. A lake tour/workshop is set for Thursday, July 11, 1996, at 4:00 p.m. MN032596.DOC PAGEI 5 A MOTION TO ADJOURN BY LOFTUS, SECONDED BY WUELLNER. Vote taken signified ayes by Loft-us, Wuellner, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was adjourned at 11:29 p.m. Don Rye Planning Director Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MN032596.DOC PAGEI6