HomeMy WebLinkAbout0324032.
3.
4.
5.
5
7.
8.
9.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2003
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Ao
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case//03-09 Julie David is requesting an appeal to the Zoning Administrator's
decision to deny a building permit for the property located at 14958 Pixie Point.
Case 03-03 Windsor Development is requesting to rezone 10 acres from A
(Agricultural) t° R-1 (Low Density Residential) and preliminary plat to create 23
lots and one outlot for detached single family dwellings. This property is located
directly north of CSAH 42 and east of CSAH 18, just west of the Prior
Lake/Savage municipal border.
Old Business:
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L,:~03 ~'ilm~03 Plm'mln~ Comm*~G3 pc. Ag~da~.O032403.DOC:
16200 Ea§le 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
aH 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
ill I
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2003
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the March 24, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:34 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, Assistant City
Engineer Larry Poppler 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 March 10, 2003 Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case #03-09: Julie David is requesting an appeal to the Zoning
Administrator's decision to deny a building permit for the property located at 14958
Pixie Point.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated March 24, 2003, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
Julie David is appealing the zoning administrator's decision, as provided for in Section
1109.300 of the Zoning Ordinance, to deny a building permit for the construction of an
addition to an existing single family dwelling located within the bluff impact zone on
property located at 14958 Pixie Point Circle NE.
On February 24, 2003, the Planning Commission tabled this item, upon request of the
appellant, to allow the appellant additional time for preparation.
TW Remodeling, on behalf of the appellant, applied for a building permit to construct a
living space and garage addition to an existing single family dwelling located on a
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinuteskMN032403.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 24, 2003
riparian lot on Prior Lake. Staff determined that the existing dwelling is located in the
bluff impact zone and consequently does not maintain any setback fi:om the top of the
bluff as required by Section 1104.304. Therefore, it is a legal, non-conforming structure.
According to the topographic survey submitted by the applicant with the building permit
application, the existing dwelling is located in the bluff impact zone, and is thus non-
conforming. The Zoning Ordinance and Minnesota Rules specifically state that
structures are prohibited in the bluff impact zone.
The addition is in the bluff impact zone and neither a building permit nor variance can be
granted, pursuant to the zoning ordinance and Minnesota State Rules. The Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) Area Hydrologist Pat Lynch confirmed this interpretation in a
letter to staff dated February 20, 2003.
Furthermore, the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the expansion of a non-conformity.
Therefore, staff recommended the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the
zoning administrator to deny the building permit because the proposed addition is not in
compliance with relevant provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
Criego asked for clarification on the bluff impact requirements. Kirchoff explained how
staff and the surveyor came to the same calculation and conclusion.
Ringstad questioned if the bluff impact zone was a new ordinance and asked for a little
history on the issue. Kansier said it was not a new ordinance; it was established as part of
the DNR's Shoreland Management Requirements. It has been refined by staff. It is a
fairly complex ordinance. The City works very closely with the DNR to make sure staff
is administering the ordinance correctly.
Ringstad described an incident with a home on the bluff causing the City to rethink how
staff calculates the setbacks. Kansier agreed.
Stamson noted State laws prohibits granting variances in the bluff. City Attorney Suesan
Pace responded State law prohibits anything being constructed in the bluff impact zone.
Stamson clarified if this was an empty lot, the lot would be unbuildable within the bluff
zone. The issue is "where is the top of bluff."
Criego asked if this was a buildable lot, would there have to be variances allowed? Pace
responded and explained the bluff impact zone. She went on to say there are situations
along the Shoreland where one wonders how a house could be there given State
regulations and the 1998 amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The point is there can be
no construction in the bluff impact zone. Secondly there is a structure on this property
and this lot is a legal nonconforming use. The fact is you can't expand or intensify
anything that is a legal nonconforming use. That's where it's at.
L:\03' Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinuteskMNO32403.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
March 24, 2003
Comments from the public:
Applicant Julie David, 14958 Pixie Point Circle, asked for the Commissioners support
tonight or table the issue to another night. She had another survey taken and would like
to work with staff. David explained why she wanted to expand her home which would be
behind the bluff. She does not believe the surveyor consultant hired by the City used the
correct measurements. Her interpretations are different than staff's with the bluff line
being at and elevation of 936. She does not feel this is fair as her neighbors have built in
the bluff impact zone. The top ofbluffdoes not follow a contour line therefore she
believes her homes exemplifies keeping the integrity of the bluff. David stated she
supports the integrity of the bluffand water. She also perceives she complies with the
DNR goals.
Architect John Blumentritt, explained photos presented to the Commission pointing out
the size of the surrounding homes. He had his surveyor gloss over some of the issues not
realizing some of the importance of the issues ending up with more problems than they
thought. Blumentritt went on to explain the neighbors housing locations in the bluff
impact zone. They would like to pretend the house is not existence and start with a
vacant lot and build from there. He also pointed out where they feel the bluff line starts.
Blmnentritt stated he was perplexed when the City did not agree with his findings.
Criego noted Blumentritt did not point out the angle of the bluff.
Blumentritt mentioned he works with many municipals and understands what the DNR is
trying to do. He is very convinced there are ways of handling this bluffarea. There can
be some human touches working with this area. Blumentritt described the neighbors'
additions and gradings. They would like to use David's property as a pilot program in
amending the bluff ordinance.
The public hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
Asked staff if they would like to reconsider the new information before they make
a recommendation. Kirchoff commented staff is looking into an amendment and
it is in the concept phase.
Recommend tabling the issue until staff can look at the new information.
Atwood, Ringstad, Lemke and Stamson:
Agreed.
Kansier said April 14, 2003 would be the next meeting. Kirchoffwould ask the applicant
to request an extension in writing.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~1032403.doc 3
ill I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 24, 2003
Julie David said she would agree to extend the issue to April 14, 2003 and will send
verification in writing.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO TABLE THE ISSUE TO APRIL
14, 2003, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Votes taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case 03-03: Windsor Development is requesting to rezone 10 acres from A
(Agricultural) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) and preliminary plat to create 23
lots and one outlot for detached single family dwellings. This property is located
directly north of CSAH 42 and east of CSAIt 18, just west of the Prior Lake/Savage
municipal border.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated March 24, 2003, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
Windsor Development has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Windsor Estates of Prior Lake on property located at 5980 140th Street NE (CSAH 42),
just west of the Prior Lake-Savage municipal boundary. The application includes the
following requests:
1. A Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-1 (Low Density Residential); and
2. A Preliminary Plat to subdivide 10 acres into 22 lots for single family dwellings
and one outlot.
In conjunction with the subject proposal, the applicant is proposing to develop the 10 acre
parcel to the east located in the City of Savage for single family dwellings. The two
subdivisions will be connected via the extension of 141st Street and a shared storm water
pond. On April 10, 2003, the Savage Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public
heating on their proposal. According to City of Savage staff, there may be issues with
the proposed street grade and storm water ponding. Scott County submitted a letter
requesting additional footage.
The major issue pertaining to this development is how the property to the north and west
will develop if this plat is approved as submitted. Both the engineering and planning
staff recommend that a concept plan be prepared for the parcels to the north and west to
verify if street grade and location are appropriate. More important, the applicant shall
gain all necessary approvals from Savage prior to the City approving Windsor Estates of
Prior Lake.
Staff recommended the matter be tabled until the ponding and street issues are
determined by the City of Savage.
Atwood questioned the section line on County Road 42. Kirchoff explained Scott
County's concern.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VlN032403.doc 4
ill i
Planning Commission Meeting
March 24, 2003
Comments from the public:
Debbie Brodshu, the landscape architect for the project spoke on behalf of the developer
noted staff did a terrific job in pointing out the issues. She said it has been interesting
balancing out the two different cities' ordinances to blend the project. The hardest issue
is dealing with the topography, putting the homes and streets to meet engineering
specification and still save a lot of trees. Brodshu summarized the proposed plantings
and buffering between the projects. They do not have a problem with the County asking
for another 20 feet of right-of-way. Brodshu addressed each of staff's recommendations
and did not feel any of them would be an issue. Her only concern was the first condition
asking for an approval from Savage. They would like approval from Prior Lake tonight.
Applicant, Paul Kirschner said he is current working with Savage who is waiting for a
confirmation from Prior Lake's Planning Commission's approval.
Criego said it looks like half the property has significant trees and questioned if they plan
on removing half the trees. Kirschner explained it is hard to creatively plat the homes
and streets. Criego felt there is not much imagination in this development and asked if
there was some way of redeveloping and saving more trees. Kirschner stressed the
County is dictating the road's location. Criego said some of the lots seem close to
County Road 42, and asked the applicant if he thought of buffering the road. Kirschner
responded they didn't. Criego asked what the price range would be. Kirschner said they
would be between $400,000 and $500,000.
Atwood questioned if the cul-de-sac on the adjoining development would be temporary.
Kirschner said it would not.
Ed Gregory lives west of the project and stated he has serious concerns with this
development. He questioned the grading on 141st Street coming from Savage's project.
Kirschner said it would be 6 or 7 percent. Gregory questioned the location of road
grading. His concern is where 141st Street going west. It has a perfect alignment to the
hallway in his home. People have expressed interest in his property and he resents that
his land is worth something but his house isn't. That is a totally different perspective
than what he pays in taxes. He was hoping there could be adjustments made in the road
alignment. Gregory's other concern was the road layout. He spoke with Scott County
Transportation Planner Craig Jenson who has concerns for the access layout to County
Road 42. Gregory questioned the business office designation access.
Kansier confirmed the road access issue dictated by County Road guidelines. There
would be no access from Prior Lake.
Gregory asked what the road setback would be north of County Road 42. Kansier said
there was no specific plan. It wouldn't be a frontage road. Gregory questioned who he
would contact on roads. Kansier responded it would be Scott County.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Cowan\03pcMinutes~VIN032403.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
March 24, 2003
Scott Tschida, 9223 141st owns the property east in Savage questioned the controlled
access. A rumor is that one of the accesses from the Prior Lake is fight-in/right-om. He
also questioned a Savage development. Kansier said it is Savage's jurisdiction. Tschida
is concerned with the additional traffic through Savage's neighborhood.
Dan Wermerskirchen, 9220 141st Street, felt this development should be tabled until
Savage has its final development. The development is coming from Savage - east to
west. He would like to see the proposed park area. There are 7 children under the age of
4 in the area. Several cars will be going through this development.
Tom Stenson, the neighbor to the west, across the access road on Aspen said he
supported the Gregorys' issue with the road aimed directly through their house. It is a
shame to see their house demolished. He does not have a problem with a road, but
cannot see going through with the current plan.
Dan Wermerskirchen asked if this is approved, who decides where the construction
traffic goes. There are only 6 homes on 141st Street. Kansier said Prior Lake does not
have any jurisdiction in Savage but would ask that the construction enter and exit on
County Road 42. Prior Lake can try to dictate that most of the traffic would be off of 42.
Ed Gregory said he resided on the 10 acre parcel for 18 years. It is alarming that in the
winter County Road 42 is the last road to get any attention. There is a lot of traffic and
expressed his concern for safety.
The public hearing closed at 8:08 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
· Staff suggested recommended tabling the matter, the developers asked to consider
the matter tonight. Some of the residents have concerns and asked to table the
matter. After hearing all this, is staff's recommendation to table? Kirehoff stated
staff still recommends tabling.
· Staff's has 17 recommendations and should be cleared up before the Planning
Commission approves.
· Recommended to table.
Atwood: · Agreed with Ringstad on tabling.
· There are grading issues that cannot be underestimated. There is potential and it
will work, but as a Commission we can inform Savage of our concerns and
conditions without passing this tonight.
· Agreed with staff on the additional plantings.
· Add another condition for signs on the temporary cul-de-sac. It is information
letting the new homeowners know it is temporary and will create fewer problems
down the road.
L:~03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXMN032403.doc 6
iii i
Planning Commission Meeting
March 24, 2003
The grading and streets are terribly important. Scott County and Savage need to
address some of the neighbor's concerns. Prior Lake does not have the ultimate
authority on the roads.
Lemke:
Is there any mason the Planning Commission cannot act on the rezoning and table
the preliminary plat?
· At least Savage would know it was acted on. It might help the developer to act on
the zoning.
· Table the preliminary plat until we know where the road is at.
Criego:
· It seems this development lacks a lot of imagination. The same developer should
be working on two 10 acre developments together. I see two narrow strips with
20 odd homes on each strip thus leading to several problems.
· Kansier said if both parcels would be in Prior Lake the entire 20 acres would have
to follow our city ordinances. But there are two different municipalities, two sets
of rules. The two cities will have a joint agreement for the ponding. Prior Lake
has had considerable conversations with Scott County and Savage. There is a
further constraint in servicing the properties from the west. The property in Prior
Lake might not be able to extend west because of the grading and slopes.
· Kansier said there are not a lot of options on redesigning this development.
· Asked staffifthe two parcels could be brought together and be more creative on
the roads and design. Kansier said you cannot split a lot between municipalities.
Each lot has to be in a single municipality. It would be a taxing administrative
· Recommend rezoning tonight and continue the Preliminary Plat. In favor of the
rezoning. Pleased to see that it is single family homes.
· Would like to see something more creative and not see those trees coming down.
In the next go-around would like to see a tree replacement plan.
Stamson: · Did the City of Savage table this issue waiting for Prior Lake's response or are
they a couple of weeks behind us? Kirchoffresponded Savage's public hearing is
scheduled for April l0th. It was just their schedule.
· See the problem for both cities.
· The county road access needs to be where it is. There is no flexibility.
· It is not a very imaginable design, but the County and City dictates. That brings
up the tree issue - running a road down the middle doesn't leave a lot of trees.
· Vote for the rezoning and table the preliminary plat.
· Send a message to Savage with our comments and what is intended.
Criego said a lot of the issues are on Savage's side.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinut~s~fN032403.doc 7
111 i
Planning Commission Meeting
March 24, 2003
Stamson:
· Is 141st Street in Savage already stubbed in? Kansier responded that would be
Prior Lake's biggest concern is changing the road configuration and its affect to
the west.
· No major issue with the development, but Savage has to determine where the road
is going to be.
· In this case, it is Savage's responsibility to set the wheel in motion and let Prior
Lake know where the street will be realigned. It will not be a major change.
· No concerns with the project as long as staff's conditions are met.
Atwood: · Questioned how Savage would receive this information. Kirchoffresponded
Savage would be contacted with the Commissioners' comments.
· The Savage residents should emphasize the road issues.
Lemke:
· The developer was asking for direction on the trail issue - should be paved.
Stamson said that would be determined by Savage. They will decide what side of
the road it will be on since it will be coming from the east.
· Popple said Prior Lake would like to see concrete sidewalks on 141st and
bituminous trails on County Road 42.
Ed Gregory questioned where the utilities are north of County Road 42. Kansier said
they are at the Voss property.
Gregory questioned the design capacity. Poppler said there is a sanitary sewer study
being done on the entire area.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING REZONING
FROM AGRICULTURAL TO R-1 ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5980 140TM
STREET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO TABLE THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT UNTIL APRIL 14, 2003.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Criego said the main issue to send to Savage is the right-in/right-out access.
Lemke felt given the constraints the general layout is acceptable. The other
Commissioners agreed.
Debra Brodshu questioned taking the trees out of the easement. Poppler said he would
work with the developer on keeping the trees.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~fN032403.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
March 24, 2003
Kirchoff said the rezoning will be scheduled to the City Council's April 7th meeting.
Old Business:
New Business:
6. None
7. None
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
None
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesWIN032403.doe 9