The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJune 26, 2000 . REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: A. Case File #00-040 Consider a proposed Amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan for the property located in Section 22, Township 115, Range 22. B. Case File #00-046 Consider an Amendment to Section 1101.501 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the combination of nonconforming lots divided by a private street but under single ownership. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: L: IOOFILESIOOPLCO MM\OOPCAGEN\AG062600. DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 12,2000 1. Call to Order: The June 12,2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Cramer at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Cramer, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Criego Cramer Atwood Stamson Present Absent Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the May 8, 2000, Planning Commission .meeting were approved as presented. Commissioner Cramer read the public hearing statement and opened the first public hearing. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case File #00-032 Consider an amendment to sections 1101.400 and 1101.503 ofthe Zoning Ordinance relating to the definitions oflot area and front yard on a lakeshore lot and the allowed setback encroachments to the required lakeshore and bluff setbacks. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 12,2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. This amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is to clarify the allowed encroachments into the required lakeshore and bluff setback requirements. The amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission in response to an appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator denying an encroachment into the bluff setback. The Planning Commission directed staff to review the definitions of yards on a lakeshore lot and to clarify the allowable encroachments into a bluff and lakeshore setback. Marvin Mirsch submitted a letter dated June 9, 2000, stating his objection to restricting encroachments for riparian lots. L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN06 I 200.DOC 1 Planning Commission Minutes June 12.2000 " The DNR had no objections to the amendments. Staffs recommendation was to approve the amendments as proposed as they are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. There were no comments from the public. Comments from the Commissioners: ................. ...... .......... ...... .......... ...... .......... ...... .......... ...... .......... ...... .......... ...... .......... ...... .......... ...... .......... ...... .......... . ...... .......... ......... .......... V onhof: \::ii:i> ...... .......... ..... .......... . The language clarifies what the intent and implementatiqgiefJ!1i ordinan2e;....ffipis does not change the original intent. It is just clarificaHgrillirlgtiage. It is faidY~rg:: ~~. ~ Atwood: "::::::::::::::::::'. ,:::::::::.:.........::::::::::.. .......... ..... ..... .......... ..... .... . Agreed with V onhof, it is just a clarification and easieH~~::~derstand. . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stamson ::t::::.\ii:):::}: . Agreed the application has not change~~th~:giMY:F9.ncern is th.i'way it reads. It would make more sense to leave in all the pro\q~ionsl#S~9tj,99!J9E503 and then make a section for exceptions in the Shoreland n~~~IjgtlAddlii~iit=ence allowing ornamental items. This section doe~:H9~~Pl?}y to the S~8reland Dismct. It is contrary to our argument in March. ...... ...... ....... ..... ...... ....... ..... ............ ............. .......... ...... ...... ..... . ...... ......, ..... .. ...... ...... ..... ... ...... ...... ..... .... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... ...... ............. ...... ..... ............ ...... ...... .........-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . ...... ..... .......... ...... ...., ......... ...... ...... ........ Cramer:/):\:? ..i: . Agreed with St<lfusdh1lmllYP';eth~:B!9~fi~~@should be reworded. Add a sentence to indicate those items tlilitl9pot reql.ilie~Huilding permit, birdbaths, air-conditioning units, et~:~::::::::: . ................. .................. ................... .................. V on~:!'(:\iiiii\:i)/ .Ipprove the languag#::Epnside'fed at the May 8, 2000 meeting and add a sentence that ::'thiSiwould also excludiFornamental items from the Shoreland District. ........... ..... Rye clarifie4.:ii~AAving tb~:::general encroachment language in place and then add specific language to the'~n9~~Hind District that says "these are permitted encroachments". MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF TO ADOPT THE LANGUAGE FROM THE MAY 8, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING STATING THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1101.503 1 THROUGH 8 SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE LAKESHORE OR BLUFF SETBACKS REQUIRED IN SECTION 1104 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; ALSO ADD LANGUAGE TO SECTION 1104 STATING THAT THE ITEMS LISTED IN SECTION 1101.503 (2, 3, 4, 6 AND 7) ARE PERMITTED AS ENCROACHMENTS IN THE LAKESHORE AND BLUFF SETBACKS. ] :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn061200.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2000 Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY STAMSON, BY SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE OO-XX AMENDING SECTIONS 1101.400 AND 1101.503 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DEFINITIONS OF LOT AREA AND FRONT YARD ON A LAKESHORE LOT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter will go to the City Council on July 17, 2000. ..... ......... ..... .......... ...... .......... ..... .......... ..... .......... . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..... .......... ..... ..... .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ..". .......... ......... ..... .......... ........... .... .......... ............ .... .......... .............. ..... .......... ............... .... .......... B. Case File #00-037 Consider an amendment to S~H6fi:if(}2.1104 (5)"6t't.b.~/ ...... ................ Zoning Ordinance adding a condition prohibiting th~Use o!public sidewalksgf':?' right-of-way for outdoor sales in the C-3 (Speci~~~lpsinessD~~trict). ..... . .......... ................ .......... ................. .......... ....... ....... .......... ...... ...... .......... ..... .... Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning~@p8rt dai~d June 12,2000 on file in the office of the Planning Department....... . .......... ... .......... .... .......... ...... .......... ........ .......... . ......... .......... .. ..........- .......... ... ............ .......... .... .............. .......... ...... .............. .................. ................ ................. ................. ................ In August, 1999, the City Council amend'tfi~~*Wn~ Ordinance~9hllow outdoor display and sales in the C-3 Zoning DistricfKflowm9Bm;~fl:). This amendment allowed outdoor sales as an accessory use with five 29pdi!j.pns.P6n9~rlg adoption of the amendment, the Councilask~4~~Mlto consid~tother cond@H6ns that might be applied to outdoor sales in the downYt$irl3Hj~t::::pn May W7000, the staff submitted a report to the Council suggesting theppttent con~!~i.ons were il.9t9:y,ate for this use. The only other condition that could.p~:'i~ded is on#prohibiting !uWuse of public sidewalks or right-of- way for outdoor saHl~s:: ..... .......... ........................................................... .......... ..... ................................. .,........ ..... ............................. .......... ..... ........................ . . . . . . . . .. ..... - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . ............... ....,.......,... ....'...............'...... ...........'.... ............ .. Staff felt thesHfr~Atordinari6~~~tmed to be adequate for the control of outdoor sales in :~~e:~;#1g'~::~~~i~I~~h~~~!:~'~~~pdition proposed by staff will serve to protect the ThgN!W~re no comment~r.~om the public. ":::;::::;;:;::::::::. :::::::::::: '.:-:.;.;-:-:-:-:.:.:-- .:-:-:-:-:.; Comm;~ii:ftom the GdEmissioners: Vonhof: · Recommend there should be a prohibition of outdoor sale of alcoholic beverages. · Also a condition that prohibits any outdoor sales that would violate any State Statute or City ordinance. There should be no conflicts with outdoor sales. Examples would be cigarette sales, beer garden or adult materials. I :\OOfi les\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn061200.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 12.2000 . Kansier said there is a provision in the ordinance allowing restaurants to serve food and beverage sales in an outdoor seating area. Cramer: . Questioned the language for outdoor sales. . Discussed language conflict. . Agreed with V onhof to add the condition for permitted outdoor sales..id . Supported the amendment. Stamson: . Supported staffs recommendation. . Open to Vonhofs proposed language. ..:::it=;:::;." . ....' "::::~~rrr~:::::::::::~f> ............ ......................... ...... ........... ............ ................... MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY ATWOOD,J5.ECOMN!pNDING CITY{/' COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE OO-XX AM:6.NE:l.NG SEQWIONS 1102.1104(5) .... .......... ............. OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AS PROPOSED '\\IW!:I.o:,' CONDITION (#6) PROHIBITING THE OUTDOOR SALE OF ALCOHOLte::liYERAGES UNLESS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PERMITTED WITHIN THE ORPlNANCE. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTlO);l::C~~g\ . ..... ....... ................. ................... .................... ..................... ..... .......... .... ..... ..... ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ..... .......... ..... ..... .......... This item will go before the C~.~::S;ouncil on:::~1t!xT7, 2000.: ................... ....."............. . ..................... . . . . . . . . .. ............. . . . . . ..............,.. ......................... .......... c. Case File #00-O~2:?Consid~ian amendment to Section 1102.800 of the Zoning Ordinance to permi~fflf.tessory stQl.ttures in t6:~~ront yard on riparian lots. .':.:.:';':':-:':-:';';';';'. .';':':'.' ..:.:-:-:.' Planning Coordinatb;.J~I~:.:~gsilpfij~ntli~Ji~Planning Report dated June 12,2000 on file in the office of the PlartlijpgDepartmeni~ The PUl;:pp~~'6:f'thi'~P~~ljp hearirig~~~6consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allo\ywg garages and ac.9i~,sory bwldings to be located in the front yard on riparian lots. Tp~~itp.~ndment was iniiji\ed by the City Council on May 15,2000. ......... In 1999;tij~:glanning CgPftnission considered a variance to allow a garage in the front yard. TheNlming c;Qffunission denied this request, and the applicant appealed that decision to the~~]Y:961.mcil. The City Council determined the request met the hardship criteria. At the ~prle time, the Council directed staff to prepare language pertaining to accessory strucHires located in the front yard. In April and May, 2000, the Council considered a report prepared by the staff outlining several approaches to this issue. The Council ultimately decided front yard garages were most appropriate on riparian lots. The Council then directed staff to schedule a public hearing for this amendment. Staff had no objection to the proposed Amendment. A letter dated June 12,2000, from Shery Newtson was submitted in support of the amendment. 1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin \mn061200.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2000 Comments from the public: Al Joscher, 14872 Estate Avenue SE, said he is for the amendment. Mary Newbaur, 3160 Vale Circle SW, stated she and her neighbors supported the amendment. Cramer: . Recalled the variance situation. ......... . It does not make sense not to be able tgf~~f:f~a garage. · Supported amendment. ................i..................... ..................................................... Comments from the Commissioners: V onhof: . This came about originally as a variance request. . Agreed with the proposal. . There are a number of narrow riparian lots on the appropriate. Stamson: . Agreed with Commissi9M~f$;.....<> . Strongly felt this sh~Mtifhave B~,p included~?e~ the initial Zoning Ordinance was written../? )}) . Would like to agd~~9P:~detasn~~PHUgigg:y9Uld be allowed" as opposed to allowing multiple buildings -g~I&~aiktS}.Mas;*~ere are residents who have multiple sheds where it does not look veorgood. Rye POjpt@a~~~~~~f~~r~)imi~~~~~i~9ritotal square footage for accessory buildings. :1~::~:;! '~::e~:c::s::.s::,e::::::: ::s:::~:~:~:~ ::: language. ........? . Supported tgiffecommendation. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE OO-XX AMENDING SECTION 1102.800 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE INCLUDING THE WORDING CHANGE UNDER "K", TO READ "ONE DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING DESIGNED AND USED AS A GARAGE." Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin \mn061200 .doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes June /2,2000 The Council will considered this item on July 17,2000. D. Case File #00-039 Consider an amendment to Section 1106.401 ofthe Zoning Ordinance deleting the density increase allowed in a Planned Unit Development. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 12,2000 on file in the office of the Planning Department. ................. ................. .................... .................... .................... ........- ....... ....... ..... ......- ... ...... -, This amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would delete the allowable.J~~ity increase allowed in a Planned Unit Development. This amendment was il}~~~~e(r~~qirection of the City Council. Section 1106.401 of the Zoning Ordinance alldws. the City BPuncil to increase the permitted density in a Planned Unit Developme!\t:(EYJ.?) by 1 0 pe~9~p~, This increase may be allowed if it meets the objectives of a Pu.;g~:Th(fCity Council reqmUX? stated it is uncomfortable with the increase in density, i:illa:airect~d staff to initiate.tm:>. ...... ..... amendment removing this provision. H<. The purpose of the provision is to provide some incentivg:t,q::l.:l;::a~~el<>per to be more creative in designing a subdivision. Generally, the idea behlnd::li!ij.ch a modification is a "give and take" between the developer aqg~h~.:Pty. The Cityat!9W~:ii!.dditional density for better design. Eliminating the densitymBd~1j~ti8P. will not elWJhate all incentives provided by a PUD, although this may be tl).~ inceftt.iy~j;!xy~lop~df'find most attractive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "::::::::; ,,:::::::>' .,.:.:;:::::::;:::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.' ..... ..... ................... ........ .........- ................................. ..... ..... .............. ..... ..... ............. .... ..... ........... ......... .......... ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff recommended approval9:f~rproposed:~wendment. :i)>> ........... ............... ......... Atwood questioned th~w.thincil's cgptem with a~B~~ty. Rye responded density is a very sensitive issue, espe.9:i:~U}r in a gro:%~ng area. There were no commen~i~'m..:~h~~tbti2.:::((? Commentstt6ftr:m~€pmmis~:i~h.~n{. Cramer: .::Hi:~~ten changes wit~~e attitude from the public hearing at the Planning Coffim,~.~ion level tot,lje City Council level. There is a danger if a public hearing is held aRij::lw Coml1}i,~Slon says this is what is agreed to and recommends the Council allow som~::l~~'YJ!l;y;=lt may create something very different from what the public or neighbors we,{~:expecting. . Supported th:e>issue. Stamson: . Does not support this issue. . Has not seen this as a problem in the past. Council has it in their descretion to decrease the density. . Why not leave it in the ordinance? 1 :\OOfiles\OOp1comm\OOpcmin\mn061200.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes June J 2,2000 V onhof: . From a planning sense it is a tool as an incentive. There can be an incentive clause as well as a penalty clause to balance it out. There would be two tools. . The City Council can vote against density, but this sets it up if the proposal doesn't meet the requirements, it automatically gets a 10% decrease. . Why take a tool out of the ordinance? It may be used in the future. , . Asked for clarification. Rye read the ordinance. . Had a problem supporting it. ................. .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... ............. . . ................. Atwood: {',{{{ "",:""{,},,. . ~fv:~~~ Stamson and V onhof. Why take out a too~,~!id be tc?t~~~'s ... . Agreed with Cramer the issue can take on a different,pSmplexion by the timett~~::i} heard at the City Councillevel.,dd."."," .. . Rye said the application will come before the P,J~~~~,CO~~~!,?n first as part of the application.:.,:""'})' . Kansier said it seems the concern is the Planning Comilii~~j,2n could recommend against an increase in density and theJf9pncil approves iC+1p$puplic will have the opportunity to see what the developef'Wi1~RfQP<lbly proposea~iiHr ultimate plan with as many units as they can get. dd d..)" nddd MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE OO-XX AMENDING SECTION 1106.401 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn061200.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2000 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. Case File #00-022 D.R. Horton is requesting a Final PUD Plan for 165 acres to be developed with 540 townhouse and single family homes. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated:Jprle:T1~/2000, on file in the office ofthe City Planner. .. .. ...... .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D.R. Horton applied for approval of a Planned Unit Developmenf::rrOO).FilHplan for the property located south and west ofCSAH 21, south ofF~:~hEp.~it, Road and...:. Wilderness Trail and east of the Ponds Athletic Facility.J;p#l6tM'slte area inch1(l:~19? acres, zoned both R-l (Low Density Residential) and ~tf'(tow.Jo Medium Density::::} Residential). The development consists of 540 unit~~::~19Pg witH.~p'ark and commofl open space. The proposed PUD consists of a mixediise::p~y'elopViiit11ponsisting of single family dwellings, two-unit townhouse buildings, two-, t~t:~a fotif~unit coach homes, and four-, six-, eight- and ten-unit villa homes. ......... . .......... .. .......... .... .......... ...... .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... .......... .. ........... .......... ... ............ .......... .... .............. .......... ...... .............................. ......................-............ ................. ................ Staff recommended approval of the PUD<~W~lB~~g~~bject to the':9.9rtditions stated in the ................. I . ................. ................. PannIng Report. .... ..-:-::::::Jtrrr:r~t::::::.:... ..... ..... ...... ................ .... ..... ...................... ..... ..... .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....- ..... ................. .... ..... ................ ..... ..... .-............ ..... ..... ............. .... ..... ........... ... ..... .......... ..... ..... ......... Atwood questioned if staffkI.J::~Yf::yypat the pr6p:~~&1 was fo\!the adjoining 4 acres. Kansier commented therej~h6sit~1?~an but sp:e,2plation of multiple family housing. Comments from tb~::ipplicant: .......... ........................................ Mike Suel representing cieyilgp~rt:rR.H8rt8rtsaid they are asking for approval and felt with staffs l1~!Rtq~y have c6m~NP with a very good development for Prior Lake. Atwood r.~qllestedq~~p.cationBu~~park design. Suel explained the proposal. condft'~nts from the c61Il1issi()b~rs: ................. ..... .......... ..... .......... .... .......... ... .......... .. .......... . .......... Atwoodt::i..(: . As far'a~!:'lli.~ park ~~.. goes, it is a sensitive design and good use of the area. ............ ...... ........... ...... ........... ...... ........... ...... ........... ...... ........... ...... ..........- ...... ..........- ...... ..........- ...... V onhof:::::/ . Supported stiitfs recommendation on the final. It is consistent with the preliminary plat. . Agreed with the comments from Commissioner Atwood regarding the park design. Cramer and Stamson: . Agreed with Commissioners and support staffs recommendation. It is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. 1 :\OOfiles\OOp lcomm\OOpcmin \mn061200 .doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2000 MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PUD FINAL PLAT SUBJECT TO THE 4 CONDITIONS IN THE PLANNING REPORT AND THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN REFERENCE TO THE PARK AREA AND BOARDWALK. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter will go before the City Council on July 17, 2000. ................. .................. .................... ............... .. B. Comprehensive Plan discussion. ........ .......... ....... .......... ...... .......... ...... .......... ...... .......... ...... .......... Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report oq:B~~Jn.:the offid~:~ft:J;1e Planning Report. . dd::::::'d.::::: ...... . ...... ." ...... .,. ...... .... ...... ..... When the Deerfield development was considered bym~~ity CdYnCil, there was .............. ......... considerable discussion about the Comprehensive PfaH::4~~!gnaH9n:~f.Low to Medium Density Residential. The developer argued that virtually ..~hM:GpihbinaHon of low to medium density housing was consistent with the ComprehenS~'y~:plan while the Council felt that they should be able to make the q~t'rm~nation. Subseqli~!t!y..:Jhe Council asked that the Planning Commission consider thi~ls$~~Mftbring back~:.t~commendation to the Council. .dd ..... ..................... ..... ........................ .... ..... .................. ... .... ..... .................. ..... ..... ..... ......................... ..... ..... ....................... .... ..... ...................... ..... ..... .................... ..... ..... ................... ...., ..... ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . ..... ..... .............. . . . , , . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . .... ..... ........... .... ..... .......... ..... ..... ......... The degree to which the City.'Wm8t~. to predet~qHlne the ~~hf specific properties is a matter of policy. As a rult:l~pia:hy~9mPrehensiv~plans are fairly prescriptive in designating land uses bH~Bthers are~iss definitiv:~~g provide more flexibility. Care must be taken not to.m~.~ the plar;@oo general. It~bere is not sufficient basis in the Plan ~~;i~~~~:~:~i;~~~~~~.;;~1~~~?'~'t~I~:t~ri~~~r:. is a risk that future zoning . .......... .......... .......... .............. .......... Commentsrf.6fuCtimmissio~~t~: Vonhof: . Rye said there is probably 60% to 70% low to medium density in the City. I :\OOfiles\OOp1comm\OOpcmin \mn061200.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes June J 1.1000 . Traditionally, areas around the lake are high density yet, there are large tracts ofland in the southeastern and northern comers. There is a wide range of density. . People do not talk about the low end of density, they use the high end. What is the maximum use? . The sense is there is confusion with the map. It is not as clear as we would like it. . Developers look at the maximum density. There was a brief discussion on density and marketing. ................ . ...... .......... Rye said the goal is to achieve a well-balanced marketing. There;Hfitls to.::~~::e more definitive way to make a decisions. ';;::':'ddd Atwood: ..::::~~fj{::::"'" ..... . Recalled the problems with the Deerfield developI,n~t. Hd 'dd . Likes alternative #3. There are unique areas in;_~rkake. it:::i.b.~;)Uld be decided on a case by case basis. d d . Agreed with Stamson that Deerfield ultimately did WOtKg'Ht There was a lot to go through. .................... ..................... ...................... V onhof: ..::::)<.~)).~.~.:.:.:.:.... ... .................. .... .... ................. ... . There should be flexibility. How does Hwork~p.t8tui~J.9~!ing housing in the area? What about the topographYd'Y.),4 envirolll1'l@pJ~Fconceni~r)fIow is it going to work into the over-all plan of~~:ij~~*f\";} . The Planning ComIIl~~Si6n andB~ty Council~pol.lld have some guidelines to say why or why not it will;;:lpfk.'/,':::/} . Support case byHis~p~sis gY!9~PY9jJt::n;:l:;/ ......... ... .................... ............... ............... ........................... ....,............. ............ .. Cramer:::)) . Go aI9pg:Wii~9nW critenMt9P~t9nly help the Commissioners but for the developer, sohpllliows wli~b!n~Pty is lq9~ihg for. The developer can come right to staff with fl,phin that will be aC9~ptable rather than have staff and the neighbors fight 9 months /iijixear until they CQ~~ up with a compromise. .......... ...... ........... ...... ........... ~..... ...................... ........... ........... ...... ..........- ..... ..:.:-:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:-. .-:.:.:.:.:. Vonhofo'';;;;:;;:;;:;;;:;::;;;,. .;}::}; or;::) . The moi%;q~fncti.9P::You give the developer on the criteria, the better the product. . A developef\iVi.ll100k at the maximums. . It should hayifinore general criteria. No one can foresee the marketing. Rye commented that right now there are basically three criteria. Maybe clarify some of the points - topography, geography, access and transportation. To what extent does the City take market conditions into effect and consideration? At some point there needs to be some level of predictability. Staff will bring back items and ideas from the discussions. 1 :\00files\00p1comm\00pcmin\mn061200.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes June J 2.2000 The Commissioners discussed realtors disclosing surrounding property use to home buyers. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: Donald Rye Director of Planning The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. 1 :\OOfi les\OOp1comm\OOpcmin\mn061200.doc II PLANNING REPORT PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4A CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE SHEPHERD OF THE LAKE PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 115, RANGE 22 (Case File #00-040) JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES NO-NI A -- - JUNE 26, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church has filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located on the north side of CSAH 42 and east and west of McKenna Road, about 1/8 mile west of CSAH 21. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current C-BO (Business Office Park) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation on approximately 20 acres of land. BACKGROUND: This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural) and is designated as C-BO (Business Office Park) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. At this time, the applicant is considering developing this property in conjunction with the property to the west, which is designated as R-HD (High Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. In order to ensure the designation and zoning of this property is consistent with the adjacent property, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment is approved, the applicant will file an application for a rezoning on this site. PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Total Site Area: The total site consists of approximately 25 acres. Topography: The site generally drains to the wetland at the southeast comer of the site. A portion of the site also drains to the wetland to the west. Vegetation: This property has been cropland for several years, although there are some existing trees located in the northeast comer of the site. 1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-040\00040pc.doc Page I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER << Wetlands: The site is subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act. A specific delineation will be required as part of the development application. Access: Access to this property is presently from McKenna Road off of CSAH 42. As part of the development of this parcel and the property to the west, McKenna Road will be relocated to the west and either a private or public road will be extended to serve this site. The property may also maintain some access from CSAH 42, depending on Scott County approval. Utilities: Sewer and water services must be extended from the existing services located in CSAH 42 to serve this site. Sewer service presently stops at McKenna Road. Water service must be extended from the Pike Lake Trail intersection or from the CSAH 21 and Carriage Hills Parkway intersection. The extension of this service is planned as part of the CSAH 42 improvement project. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: To the north and west of this property is agricultural land, currently zoned A and designated for Low to Medium Density Residential uses. To the south is the Jeffers property, presently zoned R-l and C-5, and designated as R-L/MD and C-BO. To the east is a single family dwelling on 15 acres, zoned A and designated as C-BO. MUSA Designation: This property is currently outside of the MUSA boundary. However, this property is consistent with the criteria for the extension of MUSA as listed in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan (see attached). ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to develop this property in conjunction with the property to the west, for a total development of approximately 60 acres. According to the attached letter, the proposed development is a religious/spiritual community, consisting of religious worship, senior housing, community recreation and social space, education, daycare and a conference center. The property to the west is currently designated as R- HD (High Density Residential). This request is consistent with that designation. The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives which are applicable to this request are as follows: GOAL: SUITABLE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT: Encourage the development of suitable housing in a desirable environment. OBJECTIVE No.1: Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable high quality housing. I :\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-040\00040pc .doc Page 2 . OBJECTIVE No.2: Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality residential environments. OBJECTIVE No.3: Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of the natural environment and the enjoyment of residents. The proposed R-HD designation is consistent with the above stated goals and objectives in that it offers a variety of housing and it provides open space and the preservation of the natural elements of the site. Furthermore, the designation is consistent with the City's Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. The question here is whether the supply of land planned for future commercial and office park uses should be reduced. There are several large tracts of undeveloped land located both north and south of CSAH 42 planned for commercial and office park. The elimination of this area will not significantly reduce that supply. Furthermore, unless this tract of land is developed in conjunction with the land to the east, the access to this site is more conducive to the R-HD designation than to the C-BO designation. Finally, the terrain of this site lends itself better to a residential or mixed use development. AL TERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as requested. 2. Recommend denial of the request. 3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the R - HD designation. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map 2. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map 3. MUSA Expansion Criteria 4. Letter from the applicant dated May 23,2000. 1 :\OOfiIes\OOcompam\OO-040\00040pc .doc Page 3 " 4 Shepherd of the Lake Comprehensive Plan Amendment J ~ N 1000 I o 1000 Feet I 9 3 "0 [Um ::J ::J'" a.~ -a c ~. ~ ~ C6 # at i ~~~ii ~I n'i' I '~ilg. 9- '.:. ~(5"~ ~1m. m ~Q~~ ~ *-b~m. ~ I at::J!::J ~;;!'-col<S-~~::II(t) _~: '< folo ~ ~ Sl ~ ~ ~.~. Iii' ~ .z i. ~ I\) ~!/!. ::I. g @ m co co 01 _. ~ '" o :::l::ll Ql e: ~ ill ~~ g -' C ..... o (J)Kl!/!. ..,- g~ = ~3 ~a. o ale!: ~ ^~ ~tg:~ 15l @ i . -. 2 g Kl :::l C 9 ~ ~3- e!: ~ ~ III $~ i ~.z '" en :::T CD ""C ::T CD a Q, r-+ :::T CD b) ffi ~ ::J C. ~ ::1 ~ CRITERIA FOR EXTENSION OF MUSA In order to insure that development which is proposed does not strain City resources, the City will apply the following criteria in judging whether a proposed development is eligible to have sanitary sewer services extended. . Property shall be contiguous to property already within the MUSA. . MUSA designation shall only be given to developments having a recorded final plat and a signed developers agreement with surety covering necessary infrastructure improvements to be installed as part of the development. . Where applicable, utility improvements will address health, safety and environmental issues and concerns. . The development will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. . The development will provide adequate water supplies. . The development will provide adequate roads and streets to serve the development. . The development will provide for adequate sanitary sewer facilities. . The development will proceed consistent with applicable environmental policies and regulations. . The developer and benefiting property owners shall assume the primary responsibility for financing improvement costs. The City will participate in such financing only under extraordinary circumstances. . Preliminary plan approval shall not constitute a guarantee that a MUSA allocation will be made to the subject property. . The development shall proceed under the understanding that the project will be maintained in accordance with the limitations imposed by the City and the Metropolitan Council regarding MUSA availability and potential sewage flows from the project. The City and Metropolitan Council shall be indemnified by the developer against any claims arising as a result of future limitations on MUSA availability. . The City agrees to annually report on all allocations of undesignated MUSA reserve to the Metropolitan Council. I: \comp2020\musacrit.doc " BWBR Architects \i-,,'i1!\,:'.:t;.:;-:..: . j lL'''-:'':il ;'1 "':' ,: "L_''--' ."' i i.,' 5 i ii) '" ~ ! J, : . \; ,-' " I, \ : ~l ~ _.; l () 1 !)~ i ~=2 .~-ilj ~- '10 rnH:~4a:li May 23,2000 Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue, SE Prior Lake, MN 55396 Re: Shepherd's Path BWBR Commission Number 1999.030.01 Dear Ms. Kansier: Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church is requesting the comprehensive land use plan be amended to change the designated land use for the parcel of land described in the attached legal description and illustrated on the attached site plan. The current land use designation for this parcel is "urban high density" west of McKenna Road and "business office park" east of McKenna Road. Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church requests that the parcel of land east of McKenna Road be changed to urban high density. This change would designate the entire parcel of land described in the legal description as urban high density. The proposed use of this land is for the development of a religious/spiritual community. The components of the development would be religious worship, senior housing, community recreation and social space, education, daycare (child and senior), and conferencing. The proposed reconstruction of County Road 42 will modify the current McKenna Road intersection to a right-in and right-out for westbound traffic only. The limited access would make the proposed business office park land use east of McKenna difficult to access. The remaining business office park land use area east of this parcel will have frontage on and access to the proposed northerly extension of Highway 21. The City's intent of business office park land use on three of the four comers of the County Road 42 and Highway 21 intersection is maintained with our proposal. The proposed change in land use creates a consistent land use for the parcel described herein and provides for a transitional zoning between the existing urban low density and the business office park. IA .i , PLANNING REPORT PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4B PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE COMBINATION OF NONCONFORMING LOTS DIVIDED BY A PRIVATE ROAD BUT UNDER SINGLE OWNERSHIP (Case File #00-046) JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR ---X-YES NO JUNE 26, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the treatment of nonconforming lots under common ownership but divided by a private road. The staff is bringing this issue to the Planning Commission as a result of a request for a garage permit by a property owner of two such lots, where the house sits on one lot, and the garage sits on the other. DISCUSSION: A nonconforming lot is defined as a lot of record which does not meet the minimum lot area or lot width requirements of the Zoning District. Section 1101.501 of the Zoning Ordinance further clarifies when a nonconforming lot is buildable. Subsection 3, c also addresses the combination of nonconforming lots as follows: If 2 or more lots or combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record at the time of or subsequent to the passage or amendment of this Ordinance, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot area and lot width, the lands involved shall be considered to be an individual parcel for the purpose of this Ordinance, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot area or lot width requirements established by the Ordinance, nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with area or width below the requirements of this Ordinance. If necessary to assure compliance with other provisions of this Ordinance, the lots shall be combined. except that owners of nonconforming lots of record in common ownership may convey ownership of one or more lots to another owner until January 20, 2000. 16200 E~~?~I~i8~9<~(ll~.~~~\~1~t6t9gR~~~~rl'gesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E"IPLOYER .. ~ This section applies only to nonconforming lots that are adjacent or contiguous to one another. It does not address situations involving nonconforming lots in common ownership but divided by a private or public street. Under the above provisions, and the provisions of Section 1101.501, each of the nonconforming lots in this case are considered separate buildable lots. There are a number of areas in the City, especially in the older subdivisions, where this is a common occurrence. For example, the attached map identifies a situation where the property owner owns a lot adjacent to the lake and a second lot across the street. In this case, the owner would like to utilize the second lot for an accessory structure, but is unable to do so because the Zoning Ordinance does not allow an accessory structure on a lot without a principal building. The provisions of Section 1101.501 are intended to reduce the number of nonconforming buildable lots. It seems reasonable, therefore, to extend these provisions to lots separated by a street. The provision should be limited in two ways. First of all, it should give a property owner the choice of combining the lots, although the provision should be written so that once combined, the lots cannot be subdivided. Second, the provision should be limited to lots separated by a private street. Private streets are generally controlled by a homeowners association or some other entity in which the property owner has an underlying interest, as opposed to a public right-of-way which is controlled and maintained by the City. In order to accomplish these objectives, the staff recommends the following language be added to Section 1101.501: Two or more nonconforming lots of record under single ownership separated by a private road or driveway may be combined and used as a single buildable lot under the following circumstances: ~ The combination of the lots must be approved by the City. ~ The developer must file a deed restriction or covenant in a from acceptable to the City Attorney with the Scott County Recorder. This deed restriction or covenant must include provisions restricting the sale of the lots as one lot. ~ Any structures on the combined lots must meet the minimum setbacks of the Use District in which it is located. RECOMMENDATION: Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states specific findings which must be met to change the ordinance. 1. There is a public need for the amendment. 1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-046\00046pc.doc Page 2 , 2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies ofthe City. 3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements. In this case, the proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan to limit or reduce the number of nonconforming lots. It also provides property owners the option of utilizing both nonconforming lots. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the Council approve the amendments as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendments. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance Amendment 2. Illustration of Lots I :\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-046\00046pc.doc Page 3 ... t HH'H ...... ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. ................. ................. ................................. .........,........ . .... ......... ....... ... ...... ... . ................ .'... ........ .... .,............"...... ... ........ .......... ............................... ............................................................... ...nHH...RA................E.H.m.H.H..(}...H...RBH...HH...1H.[NH..H}tN................C...H[E................................................. .. . ..." ..... .. ... . ...................... .. ....... . ... .. ....... . .. ...................... .. .. ...".. .. ... ... . ..... ... ........................ .....".. .', ',' ..... ...... ......,' ,". ,', ',' ,", . ....... ............................................... ... ...... n... ... .... .. .... ....................... .. .. . . ... ... ... .. -... .... . ... .. ...................... .. .. .. . .. ..... .. ......... ... ...................... .. .'. '. ..... ........ .'. .' .'. . ....... ............................................ .............................................. ....................... ....................... ................... UHHHUl ... ....... ................ ... .................... . ......................................... ........ ....... ................ ................... . ..................... .................. . CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 00- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1101.501 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: 1. Section 1101.501 (3,d) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby deleted as currently written and amended to include the following language: Two or more nonconforming lots of record under single ownership separated by a private road or driveway may be combined and used as a single buildable lot under the following circumstances: >- The combination of the lots must be approved by the City. >- The developer must file a deed restriction or covenant in a form acceptable to the City Attorney with the Scott County Recorder. This deed restriction or covenant must include provisions restricting the sale of the lots as one lot. >- Any structures on the combined lots must meet the minimum setbacks of the Use District in which it is located. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of ,2000. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of ,2000. Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 I: \OOfi les\OOordamd\zon ing\OO-046\draftord. doc PAGE 1 , Ordinance Amendment 1 2 18 19 Too Substandard Lots 20 Same OMler Divided by Road 60 23 19 18 59 20 24 58 ~ en 27 57 23 29 28 56 30 31 55 a:: (3 33 J: 32 u 54 U'i '" <( z 34 35 0 0 53 :5 Cl ~ 40 52 39 38 37 36 41 51 42 49