HomeMy WebLinkAbout10B-Comp Amend Duluth&West
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JULY 7, 2003
lOB
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CSAH 21, ~
BLOCK NORTH OF COLORADO STREET, DIRECTLY WEST
OF DULUTH AVENUE AND EAST OF WEST AVENUE (Case
File #03-069)
History: The City Council has initiated an amendment to the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map on approximately 5 acres of land
located on the south side of CSAH 21, ~ block north of Colorado
Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue and east of West Avenue, from
R-LIMD (Low to Medium Density Residential) to C-TC (Town
Center).
This site consists of a total of 5.003 acres of unplatted, vacant land.
This property is presently zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential)
and is designated as R-LIMD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on
the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. In 2001, the property
owners, along with Merlin Olson Development, submitted an
application for a Preliminary PUD Plan for 32 townhome units on the
site. The applicant ultimately withdrew the application in December,
2001.
More recently, the City Council initiated this amendment and directed
the staff to schedule the item for a public hearing before the Planning
Commission.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request at a public hearing on
July 14,2003. Four neighboring residents testified about the proposed
amendment. They were basically concerned about the traffic and
parking in the area. The Commission voted to recommend denial of
this Comprehensive Plan amendment on the basis that it is
inappropriate to review the plan on a piecemeal basis. The change
should be reviewed as part of the overall downtown plan. This review
1:\03 files\03 comp amend\staber property\cc report.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
is scheduled to occur in the next several months. A copy of the
minutes of the July 14,2003 meeting is attached to this report.
Current Circumstances: The total site consists of 5.003 acres. The
net area of this site, less wetlands and existing storm water ponds, is
4.536 acres.
This site includes several trees. Any development on this site is
subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Tree Preservation Ordinance allows removal of 25% of the total
caliper inches for grading and utilities, and removal of an additional
25% of the total caliper inches for building pads without tree
replacement. Removal of additional caliper inches requires
replacement at a rate of 1/2 caliper inch for each caliper inch removed.
Initial calculations indicate tree replacement is required.
Access to the site is from West Avenue on the west side of the
property. There is an existing private street, Racine Street, which
provides access to two houses at the southwest comer ofthe site.
To the north of this property, across CSAH 21, is existing residential
development, currently zoned R-l and designated for Low to Medium
Density Residential (R-L/MD) uses. To the south and east are existing
dwellings, zoned R-2 and designated for R-L/MD uses. To the west
are single family dwellings, zoned R-1 and designated for Low to
Medium Density Residential uses.
The Issues: Frequently, some of the same criteria that are applied to
the evaluation of requests for zoning changes are also applied to
Comprehensive Plan amendments. In particular, the criterion that the
land or areas immediately adjacent to the land are changing or
demonstrate an inappropriate designation for the property is applicable
here. The property in question has been guided for Low to Medium
Density Residential Use for many years and has remained undeveloped
during that time. The recent withdrawal of a request for a residential
Planned Unit Development strongly suggests that the current
designation for the property is inappropriate.
The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives that are applicable to
this request are as follows:
GOAL: ECONOMIC VITALITY: Pursue a prudent use of
available resources and the optimum functioning of economic systems.
OBJECTIVE No.1: Determine and strivefor a balance of commerce,
industry, and population.
1:\03 files\03 comp amend\staber property\cc report. doc
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
OBJECTIVE No.2: Encourage a diversified economic base and a
broad range of employment opportunities.
OBJECTWE No.3: Promote sound land use.
OBJECTIVE No.4: Maintain high standards In the promotion
and development of commerce and industry.
The City of Prior Lake 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan also includes a
Downtown Redevelopment element. Some of the tasks within this
element include:
. Complete construction of Lakefront Plaza.
· Complete redevelopment plan tying Downtown to the Lake.
· Expand Downtown for commercial/condominium development.
The City Council desires to extend the downtown along CSAH 21 to
the lake. A meeting was conducted with residents of the downtown
area to share this objective and discuss concerns. The proposed C-TC
designation is also consistent with the goals of the 2020 Vision and
Strategic Plan. A Comprehensive Plan amendment would prevent this
property from developing in a fashion which is not consistent with the
2020 Vision and Strategic Plan.
Conclusion: The Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed
amendment with the finding that the Comprehensive Plan designation
is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
and with the 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan. The Planning
Commission, on the other hand, believes this area should be reviewed
as part of an overall review ofthe Comprehensive Plan designation for
the Downtown area and therefore recommends denial of this request.
Budflet Impact: There is no direct budget impact involved in this
request.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt a resolution denying the proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
2. Continue the review for specific information or reasons per City
Council discussion.
3. Approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as proposed.
In this case staff should be directed to prepare a resolution with
findings of fact.
1:\03 files\03 comp amend\staber property\cc report. doc
Page 3
MOTION:
The Planning Commission recommends Alternative # 1. In this case,
the following motion is required:
. A motion and second to adopt a resolution denying the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate the property as
Town Center (C- TC) is required.
The staff recommends Alternative #3. In this case, the following
motion is required:
. A motion and second to direct staff to prepare a resolution
approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate the
property Town Center (C-TC) for review and approval of the City
Council as part of the Consent Agenda at the August 18, 2003 City
Council meeting. Approval of this amendment requires a 4/5 vote
of the City Co il.
REVIEWED BY:
1:\03 files\03 comp amend\staber property\cc report. doc Page 4
RESOLUTION 03-XX
RESOLUTION DENYING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CSAH
21, % BLOCK NORTH OF COLORADO STREET, DIRECTLY WEST OF DULUTH AVENUE
AND EAST OF WEST AVENUE
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake City Council initiated an amendment to the City of Prior Lake
2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the R-UMD (Low to Medium
Density Residential) designation to the C-TC (Town Center) designation for the
property legally described as follows:
All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and the
Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and that part of Government Lot 1,
all in Section 2, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described
as follows:
Beginning at a point on the west line of Block 16, Prior Lake, distant 145.00 feet
north of the southwest corner of said Block 16; thence westerly to the northwest
corner of Lot 2, Block 2, West Side Addition to Prior Lake; thence continuing
westerly along the north line of Block 2, West Side Addition to Prior Lake, to the
northeast corner of Lot 10, Block 2, of said plat; thence northerly along the
northerly extension of the east line of said Lot 10, to the southerly right-of-way
line of County Road No. 21; thence southeasterly along said southerly right-of-
way line to the intersection with the west line of said Block 16, Prior Lake; thence
southerly along said west line of Block 16, to the point of beginning. Excepting
therefrom the east 13.00 feet.
And
Commencing at the northwest corner of Lot 14, Block 2, West Side Addition to
Prior Lake; thence North on the northerly extension of the west line of said Lot
14 a distance of 100.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described;
thence continuing north along said northerly extension of said west line to the
southerly right-of-way line of County Road No. 21; thence southeasterly along
said right-of-way line to its intersection with the northerly extension of the east
1:\03 files\03 comp amend\staber property\cc deny res.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
line of Lot 10 in said Block 2; thence southerly along said northerly extension to
a point distant 100.00 feet northerly of the northeast corner of said Lot 10 in said
Block 2; thence westerly to the point of beginning.
And
That part of the North Half of Section 2, Township 114, Range 22 and Lot A,
Block 2, West Side Addition, in the Village of Prior Lake, Scott County,
Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at a point 207.7 feet west and 5 feet south of the southwest corner of
Block 16, in said Village; thence north parallel with the west line of Block 16, 150
feet; thence west 30 feet; thence south 150 feet; thence east 30 feet to the point
of beginning.
and
WHEREAS, Legal notice of the public hearing was duly published and mailed in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake City Code; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 14, 2003, for
those interested in this request to present their views; and
WHEREAS, On August 4, 2003, the Prior Lake City Council considered the proposed
amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the
designation of the above described property to the C-TC (Town Center)
designation and;
WHEREAS, The City Council received the staff reports, Planning Commission minutes and
other information; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has carefully considered the testimony, staff reports and other
pertinent information contained in the record of decision of this case.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA, that:
1. The above recitals are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
2. The City Council hereby adopts the following findings of fact:
(a) Any change to the area should be reviewed as part of an area-wide Comprehensive Plan
amendment rather than in a piecemeal fashion.
(b) There has not been a material change in the area or conditions affecting the site since
the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1999.
1:\03 files\03 comp amend\staber property\cc deny res.doc
Page 2
3. The proposed amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the
above described property as C-TC (Town Center) is hereby denied.
Passed and adopted this 4th day of August, 2003.
YES NO
Haugen Haugen
Blomberg Blomberg
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager
City of Prior Lake
1:\03 files\03 comp amend\staber property\cc deny res.doc Page 3
Location Map for
Staber/Klingberg Property
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
~
~~IJ i
COLORADO ST
1r~MI]J~
_EASANT ST
-- .-........, ~c A~::il::it:
i;
,
~~;w;J]l
. . ../
'~C/~ ~\_~ CIIIDIIillID
!-d l]?L)
ST SE ---
w
::c
~
400
I
o
400 Feet
I
N
+
Aerial Photo for
Staber/Klingberg Property
A
N
()
Ox
3..
-0::0
"tJm
-::l
O)::l
::s _.
-:::J
gea
3~
-0""
-0 .2.
-CD
0) 0
::s_
. en
0)-
-0
...,
~
co.
-00
a."'S.
O)CIl
- a.
CD ..
?-z
s:~
0) CD
a 3
::TO"
l\)CD
0""
0......
(,.)<0
<0
00
I DDI~II~III
o :::
iii ::J
~ j; AJ;;V AJUlJi \lg.\l ~() \l
~~~~g~~~9:i5 g
o ;u!!t.wm!!.:I:-1g
-g ~ ~oSf.i051~3
!!1. ., Ciliillli"iiiUl~()3
r- "< g ~~Ul~"5
a ~ ig~~~;
o !:lt6'iil !
~ ;II ~ !.
<n ;!- Ii
~ ~.
.. ..
..
;0
ell
Ul
a:
<D
;l.
;p ~ r-
AJ 0 ~
o or a..
~ III c
~ if Xl
!!l.
~ g l?
.; (I) 6"
:J
!
S"
::J
Ul
il
ell
Cl
\l ~ l' l'
~ 0 is ~
if ~ c ~
<ii -. i ;+
':1' ~ ~ At
~ g ~ ~
~ 1il l? I
~ ~ j!
o '" :i'
~" B" "
.5 ~ ..
.5 ~
r- '''''' :::::='l
f6 i> 0
~r-- ~ \
!!l 0
f---- '"
-i
t------ ~~~ I :rJ1~
BIRCH AVE BIRCH AVE
"0
r-
~ 0
I I U> 0 ~ J i V ______I--r-
)> r-
:z 0
-i ~ I ;' -~~
U>
-i I--- 0
0
Ul \
-i
-
.-- AVE
1 1 If .$'1
I 8
z i! I--
m !1(j I
~
~I -1
c
0 ~
0
r- It f2
0
~ $
8 ;0
- 6
Ul -j G)
-i m
0
/ ~
\ ~
\ ()
~
'-\
en ~;
I S'
n." "TCI A\Je I
1 C"
I I CD
I 0 I !l! ~ '\
0 If! ~
r-
0 J(i ::J
- ;>J
~ J$ co
0 C"
!!l /~ CD
~ ca
frI ""tJ
"0 ~CAOl a
r- Alll;
~ "0
!--- ARc CD
z ~OIA A Ill; ~
-i
Ul
-i -
/-f>
1>'"
I
,..N
.2
zo
an
cO
filS
m.,.
.,.::a
~~
zrn
SZ
.!
.,.<
In
{QJn
~
~ 0
:i' ....
~ :J "'U
aID...
2. o'
DI ..,
..+z
'"
t:'
~
CD
~ ~ - ~~ -I
-"I>> 0"'0 - 8"'"
(Il :S" ",!!l. c 8 ,,-"
~.."< i5: 30."
~-Q.af:f5-g,1ii;
5 = ~~ c~g:~~.
~" c II II l a." -"10
., i ~~ ",," a i Iii"
CDUl~(Duii~~
""il-" Ill:: 118 2-~
o o""Q i5.".
5iif;[!f:!!e-S'~
~Q.2::;::'I>>(D~w ICTAl
.., ;;;"< " il.. :S" " it
5"'< 0 0 (Ii I>> 'OlIO
IIO'go~O"3 II
Ie;~~~~a ~
8~ ~-<. :;-g'= i
""$!iZ!!! oel
Ra-cri:g[~~
goiil a a~ ~ Q.-iQ.
"o3ctl!i~""'il
o~ ~5i i\i!ll 10 Ill'..,
~2l'l'8~-ia~"
O=:TI>>ct.;;r.3~Q
;; o. e- g: g ~ ~ ~. I>>
"'~S-:Jin'O cccn
Q"~~ ~=l g g"lii~
(;'~ fll:T~ 3 en A)..
>< ~~I 011111 II I tU-c1i",~,
:..:- {Qj
""0
ii) N 0
::s C en r ;>J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ?J ?J ?J ~ ;>J > 0 ~
::s -0 g1 ~ fn
"'0)> c '!:: .. cD" '" ... to> '" ... to> '"
::s a. a. 0 0 en ~ ~ c Z 3: 2-
.. 0 l/l
CO 1>>0 &' iii" GJ llJ GJ en () z J: 3:: r r ;>J > (J) - S'
- -'"0 " --l lD c:: lD " 0 lD cO" lD ~ ~ c:: '!;! I\)
c:: 2 ~ Z
""0 (1)- " a. " .. " ~ 3 cO" ". a. ~ 1'i" 0 0 ::I 'tI
0.(1) a. 0 !1l. lD :'i" lD ~ ". c" '!:: 0 c:: 0 (D
.2. .. '< Ii lD Ii Di" .,. 0 3 ~ lD en 2' !a: Q (.0) en :!.
.. a. -< ~ r .. ~ 0 ~ " " 0 0
il- ill :;- .. llJ ~ 3- .. 0 c" .. 8: Ii ::I. m
CD s:" " a. a. -0 c:: llJ 0 ~ lD 3 ~ 0 ..,
a '< c:: !l .. c:: III &. " ~" lit !:
ms; !1l. ,.. 5" .. c:: ;l] .. ~ ;:0 .i" !;
S" ~ lD
(I) ~ 1I lD .. 0 lD .. o' :a-
N CJm .. .. 5" 0 .. ;>J c: "
lD 3 c: .. ~
::r'< .. CD ~ ! ;>J ." ,.
.. ~ CD .. lD CD
0 .. ;a c: .. ~ ~.z
::s "'-...... 0 !: lD ;:0 !!!.
" II lD
:i" _0...... ~ .. ii: "
!!!. ..
CO ",<0 CD !!!.
"
N ct" m
0<0 !!!.
0 0<0
::s c.>
5" '<<Q
(Q
iu
'"0
..,
~ ~ rol> ~~ -i
-"~"o"'o- 8"'"
11 ,,~ac:: 8 ,,-"
0; 1 (j'i5:r:.a ~~
,,- a...,." =.. ;;;
!!l"-o2"lD.:;t..,,~
!l"1l: il"" "i!!l 8' a,,"
(Ii r::: ""'I fit 0. =' -'CD
= ~ r"g a h"
(Dcn~I~&i[i
0'5~:;,[s-~l~
5ii';[~1li~6"~
.a.!l"..~Sl. <T"
" ~'< !l (l 1II S" CD ..
5" Q.. mAJO'CfO
!!lO'~5;o":j!l!"
CD;;!t ~~D.ii Q.~
8~ !"C" ~8'1ll it
3.lD~!iZ!!i"oll
Ka::,5"~~~~~
~iilO!1"g5;a.--la.
lD03ql!li""'~
0;;!i::t' !~-o
~il"~8!)!--la i!l il
S.~.Q.~6'~3 ~.;
4l g ~ g' ~. g- ~ .6 fit
~~~:"'3 g g"iil~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 14, 2003
1. Call to Order:
Chairm Stamson called the July 14,2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. ose present were Commissioners Atwood, Crie , Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Co unity Development Director Don Rye, P er Cynthia Kirchoff,
Assistant City ineer Larry Poppler and Recording cretary Connie Carlson.
The Minutes from the Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
emke
R1 s Q
St
Present
Present
Absent*
Present
Present
3.
4. None
Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
*
A. Case #03-69 Gary Staber, LeArnold and Judy Klingberg are requesting an
Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map on property located on the
south side ofCSAH 21, ~ block north of Colorado Street, west of Duluth Avenue
and East of West Avenue from R-L/MD to C-TC.
Director of Community Development Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated July
14,2003, on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department.
The City Council has initiated an amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map on approximately 5 acres of land located on the south side of CSAH 21, ~ block
north of Colorado Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue and east of West Avenue, from
R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) to C-TC (Town Center).
This site consists of approximately 5 acres of unplatted, vacant land. In 2001, the
property owners, along with Merlin Olson Development, submitted an application for a
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN071403.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2003
Preliminary PUD Plan for 32 townhome units on the site. The applicant ultimately
withdrew the application in December, 2001. More recently, the City Council initiated
this amendment and directed the staffto schedule the item for a public hearing before the
Planning Commission.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed C- TC designation as it is consistent with
the goals of the 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan.
Atwood asked staff for the definition ofthe C-3 District and the C- TC designation. Rye
explained the design standards and criteria. Neighbors within 500 feet were notified.
Criego questioned the original Downtown Redevelopment Plan regarding this property.
Rye said it was not included. Criego did not see the tie between downtown and the lake.
Rye explained the 2020 Vision expanding the downtown area to the lake. Criego felt the
entire downtown plan should be looked at in a broader scope and see how this property
fits into it.
Comments from the public:
Grace Swanson, 16130 West Avenue, pointed out the noise and existing heavy traffic on
County Road 21. She would like to keep the property zoned residential. Atwood
questioned what she would rather see on the property in a cluster development. Swanson
did not want to see high density or commercial/retail rezoning, she felt single family
homes were more appropriate. There is generally high traffic with St. Michael's School
and the Casino. It is only going to get busier. People are not going to stop for shopping
in that area. Traffic is the main concern.
Jo Brandstedter, 4452 Colorado Street, questioned ifthere is any public input on the
rezoning ofthe property. Her main concern is parking. The fishing people park on the
roads every day. Brandstedter understands the property owners need to develop. She
would like to see the area more appropriately changed to a park with a parking lot to fit
into the 2020 Vision. Her other concern was to maintain a high quality project.
Rye explained the C-3 District is traditional downtown uses. It does not provide for fast
food restaurants and things of that nature. The design standards for that district are very
high quality. One example is the Lakefront Plaza. There may be public hearing input,
depending on the type of use, but not in all cases. If there are uses allowed outright, there
will be no public hearings.
Stamson questioned if gas stations would be allowed in the C-3 District. Rye said new
ones would not be allowed.
Brian Sorenson, Transportation Engineer with Scott County, spoke on the right-of-way
needs on County Road 21. The current right-of-way along County Road 21 would not
accommodate the high density proposed 2 years ago. This could be a potential issue with
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN071403.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2003
rezoning even though the setbacks are a little different. The other concern is for the
potential access on Duluth Avenue. There is not a lot of room between the potential
access and County Road 21. Scott County would like to work with staff on the proposal.
Scott County is also in the process of hiring a consultant for County Road 21 to
accommodate traffic and access needs.
Rye questioned ifthe study would be dealt with or without this project, as far as access.
Sorenson responded it would, but is concerned with the change in the zoning and how it
lays the road groundwork. The study will take until June of 2004 to complete. It would
be beneficial for the City and County to discuss what this rezoning would mean in the big
picture of County Road 21.
Lemke questioned what the County's recommendation would be and if the County thinks
it needs land, shouldn't they buy the land now. Sorenson said he wouldn't disagree, there
needs to be discussions. When this proposal came through 2 years ago the County
needed at least 10 feet of right-of-way to deal with the left turn issues at that intersection.
They are limited with the wetland on the north side of County Road 21. The County
would like to take a bigger picture ofthe entire area and County Road 21 before they can
answer questions.
Dan Willgohs, 4432 Colorado Street, said his understanding was the 2020 Vision
included this area. He agreed with the Commissioner's comments and the County that
the bigger picture should be looked at before jumping into a rezone.
Sandra Huderle, 4345 Colorado Street, asked for an update on the 2020 Vision of
expanding the downtown to the lake with buy-outs. Rye said there were no plans.
Stamson explained the Comprehensive Plan. Huderle questioned the wetland on the
property. Rye responded it was protected and would be worked around.
Jo Brandstedter, questioned if this property was designated a different zone, what would
happen if the County came through and changed the designation from the City's. Rye
explained the City's and County's jurisdictions.
Council Member Joe Zieska, addressed some ofthe concerns. One ofthe advantages of
the C-CT designation; is the setbacks which is closer to the road, an advantage to the
residents. Criego felt it was spot zoning. Criego questioned if there as an immediate
need to rezone. Zieska responded there will be some piecemealing. They do not intend
on buying up residential housing. This is a vacant piece of property and it makes more
sense to zone it for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. It could take 17 years, but the
downtown area is going to look different in 17 years as well. There are no development
plans at this time. This is a long term development project.
Lemke pointed out the issue is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment not rezoning.
The public hearing was closed at 7:08 p.m.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN071403.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2003
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· This does not sound like a bad idea, but should be tied into a bigger plan.
· There is no immediate need for this.
· The direction should be a long range vision and try to apply it to the plan set for
downtown Prior Lake and develop a Comprehensive Plan for the entire strip.
Would rather do that than piecemeal it.
· The Planning Commission and City Council should develop a plan.
Lemke:
· Agreed with Criego, but there are not a lot of vacant parcels along this route. It is
not appropriate to change homes. The Comprehensive Plan should accurately
reflect what the future use is.
· The issue before us is rezoning to C-CT appropriate? If not, what is?
Atwood:
· Agreed with the Commissioners, but this will not be developed tomorrow.
· Was going to suggest tabling this until the City Council and Planning
Commission could give a specific vision of this area. After listening to
everyone's comments, can support staff's recommendation. This can be pieced
m.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with Lemke, we are putting the residents on notice for this property. This
is a vacant parcel and will not develop in the next 6 months, but it is going to
change.
. Support staff's recommendation.
Stamson:
· Can agree with both Criego and Lemke, but they are different ideas. We need to
look at the 2020 Plan which has not been discussed this evening. Does this really
meet the 2020 Plan? We talked about Lakefront Plaza's neighboring property at
the last meeting.
· Should go back and discuss before taking action on this. It is a fairly drastic
change and should consider the neighbor's concerns and take a look at it. Have a
workshop with the City Council and discuss.
Ringstad said he assumes if this matter was coming down from City Council they must
have some sort of approval. Rye replied he never assumes anything.
Criego feels this is a great vehicle to discuss the downtown area and how to connect the
lake. There is time. The other concern is the County Road 21 study and use. Who
knows how that will turn out?
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN071403.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2003
Ringstad pointed out with the proposed Comprehensive change on Dakota Street and this
would be a good time to look at the entire downtown area. Rye said staff is looking at a
proposal for a consultant to do market research on the downtown services and housing.
Criego asked for Planning Commission workshops to start discussing the area.
Stamson suggested scheduling a workshop every 6 months to keep up with the
Comprehensive Plan and downtown developments.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE C-TC DESIGNATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO DENY THE REQUEST AND
SCHEDULE WORKSHOPS TO LOOK AT REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN MAIN
STREET AND ANY OTHER PARCELS AS IT RELATES TO DOWNTOWN AND
THE LAKE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on August 4th.
Stamson and Criego suggested workshops and a public forum for input.
Atwood questioned how long the area was zoned R3. Rye responded since the railroad
gave up the property.
B. Case #0 -64 Mark and Cindy Hess are req esting front and side yard
variances for the at 6442 Conroy Street NE.
. g Report dated July 14,2003, on file in
ariances from the zoning ordinance for the
construction of a garage and stai I a: ition on property zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and SD (Shoreland verlay . trict) and located at 6442 Conroy Street NE.
The property is guided Urb ow/Medium sity Residential in the 2020
Comprehensive Plan.
1. An 11. 04 at variance from the required minimum 20
setbac
2. A 2. foot variance from the required 5 foot side yard separation setback.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN071403.doc 5