HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 11, 2000
NOTICE
The City of Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Monday, August 28,
2000, has been cancelled. The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting
will be on Monday, September 11,2000. Please contact the City of Prior Lake Planning
Department at (952) 447-9810 if you have any questions.
16200 Eh~W'~~~~?~~~~~9I~sota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 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 #00-062 St. Michael's Church is requesting a preliminary plat
consisting of a total of 3.842 acres to be subdivided into 1 lot for future building
addition for the property located at northwest quadrant ofthe intersection of
Duluth Avenue and Pleasant Street.
B. Case File #00-023 Consider an amendment to the text of the City of Prior Lake
2020 Comprehensive Plan relating to the location criteria for property to be
designated as low to medium density residential.
C. Case File #00-064 Consider an amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2020
Comprehensive Plan for the property located at 5680 and 5690 Credit River Road,
the site of Prior Lake Baptist Church.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:IOOFILESIOOPLCOMMlOOPCAGENlAG091100.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, AUGUST 14,2000
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V onhof called the August 14, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Stamson and Vonhof,
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording
Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
V onhof
Criego
Atwood
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the July 24, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #00-002 & #00-003 (continued) David Bell & Freedom Development &
Consulting are requesting an amendment to the approved plan for the
Priorwood Planned Unit Development (PUD 82-12) and for a preliminary
plat to be known as Creekside Estates for the property located at the
intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 14,2000,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, and Freedom Development and Consulting have filed
applications for the development of the property located at the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street, directly north of Five Hawks
School. The applications include a request to rezone approximately 45,000 square feet of
property described as Lots 2,3 and 4, Holly Court from the R-3 District to the R-4
District, amend the approved plan for PUD 82-12 to include the Holly Court property and
to develop the site with 102 units of senior housing, and a request for approval of a
preliminary plat for this site, consisting of 12.7 acres to be subdivided into 3 lots and one
outlot.
The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on July 10, 2000.
The developer submitted some revised plans at that meeting; however, due to the number
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\mn081400.DOC 1
.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 15, 2000
of issues involved, the Planning Commission continued this item until July 24, 2000.
Because the developer had not completed the revisions in time for staff review, on July
24,2000 the Planning Commission continued this item until August 14,2000.
While the revised plans have addressed some of the issues raised by the staff, there are
still several outstanding issues that remain with this proposal. Staff recommended
approval ofthe rezoning, the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat$ubject to
the following conditions:
1. The building plans must be revised so at least 60% of the exterior materials of the 24-
unit buildings are Class I materials.
2. The building plans must be revised so the 54-unit building is no more than 35' in
height.
3. The lighting plans for the parking lots must include a design of the light fixture and a
luminaire calculation to ensure the ordinance requirements are met.
4. The landscaping plan must be prepared and signed by a registered landscape architect
and must be revised to meet all ordinance requirements, including numbers, size and
species ofthe plantings. This plan mu.st also identify whetherornot an irrigation
system will be provided, and an irrigation plan must be provided.
5. Identify the open space on the site plan.
6. Outlot A must be dedicated as parkland on the plat.
7. The developer must provide covenants for the congregate housing building. These
covenants must be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and must be recorded
with the final plat.
8. The signage plan must be revised to meet ordinance requirements.
9. All issues identified by the Engineering staff must be addressed prior to final plan
approval.
10. The issues identified in the memorandum from Robert Hutchins, Building Official
must be addressed prior to final approval.
11. Application for approval of a PUD Final Plan must be submitted within 90 days of
the date of approval of the preliminary PUD plan by the City Council.
Comments from the public:
Applicant, David Bell, Freedom Development, agreed with staffthat he could meet all the
conditions and will do whatever it takes to make the modifications as soon as possible.
Bell addressed each of staff s concerns in the Planning Report. McDermott commented
on Engineering's concerns and felt those issues would be met by the developer.
There were no other comments from the public. V onhof closed the public hearing.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn081400.doc
2
~
Planning Commission Minutes
August 15, 2000
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Asked staff for clarification on the building setbacks. Kansier responded.
. The condos will be purchased, not rental.
. Make sure there is a three-way stop sign at the intersection. McDermott said it could
be part of the Developer's Contract.
Stamson:
. The developer has done a good job of meeting the Commissioners' concerns. The
details will be worked out.
. The PUD is appropriate. The modifications are appropriate as well. It saves impact
on other parts of the site.
. Overall, supportive of the project.
Atwood:
. . No questions.
V onhof:
. Concurred with Criego's suggestion on making a condition for a three-way stop sign.
. Kansier said it would be at the discretion of the City council.
. Agreed if the conditions are met with the stop sign - the plan should go forward.
Criego:
. Commented on putting up a 35-foot building in the middle of a residential area.
Not convinced it is not causing problems for the neighbors.
. Questioned why would the City allow any structure closer than the 100-year flood
plain. Bothen::d with the proposed distances. The concern is for the northerly
setback on Lot 1. and easterly. setback on Lot 3.
Starnson explained the setbacks. McDermott stated they do meet the elevation
requirements. There is only a small area that has not been met. Criego also questioned
the trail. Kansier said it was not park land and therefore not a concern. Stamson said he
was not sure the northerly setback was not met.
Atwood:
. Agreed there should be a three-way stop sign.
. Happy to see the outlot is going to be a dedicated park.
. Questioned the building and engineering departments with the additional conditions
that differ from the July 10, meeting. Kansier explained many of those items need to
be identified at the final plat stage. It is a way of making sure the items are addressed.
Kansier said it appears there are a number ofthings, but most of them are design
requirements. Staff does not see a problem.
1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn081400.doc
3
Planning Commission Minutes
August 15, 2000
.
~onhof explained the calculations on the setbacks to Criego. Vonhofwas not concerned
rith that issue. He felt Lot 2 would have more of an encroachment.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRE (LOTS 2, 3 AND 4, HOLLY
COURT) FROM THE R-3 DISTRICT TO THE R-4 DISTRICT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT
TO BE KNOWN AS CREEKSIDE ESTATES SUBJECT TO STAFF'S CONDITIONS
1 THROUGH 12 LISTED IN THE PLANNING REPORT. ITEM 12 BEING A THREE-
WAY STOP SIGN AT FIVE HAWKS AND PRIORWOOD.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ArWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS CREEKSIDE
ESTATES, SUBJECT TO STAFF'S CONDITION LISTED IN THE PLANNING
REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will be scheduled before the City Council on Tuesday, September 5, 2000.
A recess was called at 7:42 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:48 p.m.
A. Case #00-00-053 Prior Lake Baptist Church is requesting a Zone Change
from the current General Industrial (1-1) District to the Low Density
Residential (R-l) District for the property located at 5680 and 5690 Credit
River Road.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 14,2000,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Prior Lake Baptist Church and Judith Anderson have filed an application for a Zone
Change for the property located at 5680 and 5690 Credit River Road. The request is to
rezone the property from the I-I (General Industrial) District to the R-l (Low Density
Residential) District.
This property is the site of a single family home and the Prior Lake Baptist Church. Both
the house and the church have existed on the site for more than 20 years. Prior to 1999,
the property was zoned C-l (Conservation). Churches and single family dwellings were a
permitted use in that district. When the current Zoning Ordinance was adopted, the C-l
I :\OOfiles\OOp1comm\OOpcmin\mn081400.doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
August 15, 2000
District was eliminated. This property was rezoned to the I -I District, in conformance
with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. At that time, the existing use of the property
became nonconforming.
Staff recommended approval of the zoning change as requested. It appears this property
has been improperly zoned because of its actual use is and has been residential in nature.
With the proposed rezoning, the existing uses would conform to the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Comments from the public:
Scott Crosby, the architect for the Prior Lake Baptist Church, explained they would like
to have the zoning changed to make possible future additions by the church.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. This is an oversight on the map. It is appropriate to rezone.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Stamson.
Criego:
. Agreed with staffs recommendation.
V onhof:
. Felt it was appropriate to rezone, as it is consistent with the surrounding area.
MOTION BY.CRIEGO, SECOND BYSTAMSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE ZONE CHANGE FROM THE I-I DISTRICT TO THE R-I DISTRICT FOR
THE PROPERTIES AT 5680 AND 5690 CREDIT RIVER ROAD.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT
TO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP FROM THE I-IP TO THE R-
L!MD DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 5680 AND 5690
CREDIT RIVER ROAD.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on Tuesday, September 5, 2000.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn081400.doc
5
Planning Commission Minutes
August 15, 2000
A. Case #00-038 (continued) Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
creating an overlay district for the development of senior care facilities.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 14,2000,
on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department.
On two previous occasions, the City Council has discussed the idea of seniorcar~
facilities and their treatment in the zoning ordinance. Because ofthe special needs of
persons living in such facilities, the Council asked staff to research thejsslle and report on
the results. Following extensive review of the planning literature, staff coriclllded that an
overlay district approach in several zoning districts made the most sense as aWay of
dealing with the issue. Council concurred and referred the matterto the Planning
Commission for it's review and input.
Staff recommended approval of the draft ordinance.
There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Questioned the 20% of residents under the restricted covenants. Kansier said it is a
Federal restriction.
V onhof:
· Questioned why the R1 district was not included. Kansier explained the R1 district is
mainly single family and this type of project would not be placed in an R1 district. It
would be more appropriately placed in a higher density district.
Stamson:
. Overall it is a good approach.
· Questioned the building height as an incentive.
· The sentence under "Modifications" - eliminate the word "only". The sentence
should read: "Any modifications shall be consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and shall be approved upon a finding that the modification does
not adversely affect surrounding properties."
· Asked for clarification on the height restrictions for safety. Kansier and Vonhof
responded.
. Suggesting a recommendation from the Fire Department.
Atwood:
· Agreed with the building height issue.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn081400.doc
6
~
Planning Commission Minutes
August 15, 2000
. Concerned with the incentive wording. Kansier explained the difference between
incentives and modifications. It is discretionary, based on findings. The City Council
has the sole discretion to make the decisions.
V onhof:
. The overlay district is an important tool.
. Supported staffs recommendations.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE OO-XX AMENDING SECTION 11 03 OF THE
PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE. ALSO, AMEND SECTION 1106A.600 - 5THLINE OF
THE PARAGRAPH - ELIMINATE THE WORD "ONLY" AND ADD THE WORD
"SIGNIFICANTLY" SO THE SENTENCE SHOULD READ "ANY MODIFICATIONS
SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND ,POLICIES OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SHALL BE APPROVED UPON A FINDING THAT
THE MODIFICATION DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSELY AFFECT
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Continue discussion on Comprehensive Plan (Low to Medium Density).
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 14,2000,
on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department.
On March 6, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider the issue of
the Low to Medium density land use classification in the Comprehensive Plan with the
idea that the City Council would have the sole authority to determine whether a project
could be built at the lower R-l density or the higher R-2 or R-3 density. The
Commission considered this issue on June 12,2000 and after discussion, deferred action
on the request and asked staffto provide it with further input.
Staff recommended approving the draft language and to direct staff to set a public hearing
date to consider the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Open discussion:
Criego:
. Questioned why this issue came about? Kansier gave an example of a past
development.
. Not sure the new paragraph is effective.
. Did not see a need for change.
1:\OOfiles\OOp1comm\OOpcmin\mn081400.doc
7
Planning Commission Minutes
August IS, 2000
~
· The current paragraph gives the City as much control as it wants.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Criego. The current wording gives the flexibility. The strength in
the original wording is better. The Commissioners did not have a problem.
V onhof:
· Concurred with Commissioners.
· The Commissioners looked at these issues under the Comprehensive Plan and do
more interpretation compared to the Council.
· The Council would like specific direction.
· From the Commissioners' perspective this is more limiting.
Stamson:
· The proposed language makes it easier, but not for.better decisions.
· The end results have been good. Why change it?
Criego:
· The new paragraph does not give any direction. It should be one way or the other.
V onhof:
· A compromise is to add the last sentence of the new paragraph to the old
language.
Stamson:
· The existing language is working well.
· Add the last sentence of the new language to the existing paragraph. The Council
has the ultimate decision anyway.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT
TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD "THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE
ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IN MAKING THE DETERMINATION OF HOW THIS
CRITERION IS APPLIED IN ANY GIVEN SITUATION" TO THE DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION CRITERIA FOR URBAN LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcrnin\mn081400.doc
8
Planning Commission Minutes
August 15, 2000
The August 28, 2000 meeting has been cancelled. The next meeting will be September
11,2000.
Criego suggested discussing the bluff encroachments with City and DNR and how the
Commission allows permits. Kansier said the DNR will speak with staff at the end of the
month on this issue.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Conhi~ Carlson
. Recording Secretary
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn081400.doc
9
.;;..-
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS ST.
MICHAEL'S ADDITION
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an application for a preliminary plat for
the 3.85 acres located on the west side of Duluth Avenue, south of Colorado Street and
north of Pleasant Street. This property is the site of St. Michael's school. The proposed
plat will combine all of the property owned by the school into a single lot to allow for a
future building addition. A building permit cannot be issued over lot lines or on
properties described as outlots.
ANALYSIS:
Applicant:
The Church ofSt. Michael of Prior Lake
16311 Duluth Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Project Engineer:
Valley Surveying Co., P A
16670 Franklin Trail SE
Suite 230
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Location of Property:
This property is located on the west side of Duluth
Avenue between Colorado Street and Pleasant Street.
Existing Site Conditions:
St. Michael's school is located on a portion of this
site. There are also some existing dwellings that will
be removed prior to construction.
Zoning and Land Use
Designation:
The property is zoned R-2 (Low to Medium Density
Residential). The 2020 Comprehensive Plan
1:\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\stmikes\stmikepc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Proposed Development:
Streets/Access/Circulation:
Grading/Erosion Control:
Sanitary Sewer and
Watermain:
Landscaping:
Parkland Dedication:
Finance/Assessment Fee
Review:
ANALYSIS:
"
...
identifies this property as R-L/MD (Low to Medium
Density Residential).
The proposed plat consists of 3.85 acres to be platted
into one lot.
The proposed lot meets or exceeds the minimum lot
area and frontage requirements for the R-2 district.
There are no new streets located within this plat.
Access to the property is from Pleasant Street and
Duluth Avenue.
Grading on the site will occur when the new addition
is constructed. This grading will be reviewed as part
of the site plan and building permit application for
the addition.
Sanitary sewer service and water service are located
in the existing right-of-way. Any new sewer and
water connections will be reviewed as part of the site
plan and building permit applications.
The landscaping requirements will be reviewed as
part of the site plan application for the new addition.
This development is not subject to the requirements
of the Subdivision Ordinance landscaping.
A portion ofthe property has been previously platted.
Park dedication requirements for this subdivision do
not apply.
This subdivision is not subject to any additional fees.
The property has previously been assessed for street
ant utility improvements. There are no outstanding
special assessments. Tax status is current.
The proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and
Zoning Ordinance. If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the
following condition:
1. The existing dwellings on the property must be removed prior to approval of a
building permit for the school addition.
1:\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\stmikes\stmikepc.doc
Page 2
;,
,~
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the preliminary plat of 81. Michael's Addition as
presented and subject to the condition listed above, or with specific changes directed
by the Planning Commission.
2. Table or continue the public hearing to a date and time certain and provide the
developer with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future
Planning Commission review.
3. Recommend denial of the application based upon specific findings of fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
8taffrecommends Alternative #1
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat of 81. Michael's Addition is
required.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Preliminary Plat of 81. Michael's Addition
2. Applicant's Narrative
1:\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\stmikes\stmikepc,doc
Page 3
~'.';:'
". :
'. .:
........
~~~
liS
..;:;c:s
Hk
~~: ~~~ ~ (
",," ii
~ ~~ 2I~:; ~~~ ~
lL... ~~~ llllll II
0 -I!! ~~ll "" " I~
~ 8iii . .. ~~~ I ~I
Ulll - ggg
~"'~ z ...
~.I" ~~
is ~~ ~ ~a~~ ~l;... ;
!~;~! ~~~~J. "ill
~"':: ~~~
,Q~~~ ~eJ~~ e ~
o3-.!e.
r-r Li~;~
~~ f
~~
~
n
[ill
~
~
.,
s.
~
a n
,
0' j
w l
.
.
~
Co
f
2
z ii
0 6
"
~ .
Q- ~
"'-
~K
., .~ <
-- ~ >;
~~. .
'"~ l
.,jj!
fOlD ..
~,o 00
'- ~~
,.:3
N_ ''':;
_ 0 ~.t
~] .0
I"R ~~
;>; ~~
~l E!
~;; -5.~
.::1:
li~
, l~
~j
~j
~~ ..;~l
mm
!!;~:'O~
a"5~ ~~
~~~e2~
~lbj~B
f. O'~ DIll
l~o~.~~
.. 0 'o~:....
5 ~ 0'0 ~:
;'::~-i:~
- .~o G--
J;i~r;l
_~__DDg.D
E-6"bi:oo
t;H ii~
"'!Io<_n
~o~i~~E
: j~~ ~~:
J!~:65~';
-D2g"~1Il
~c;J~~~:
;H~~ii
~QO. -0
.i~i~~~
iSba8a:!
~jU~i~
l~:i~;'~
Ji1315 t; ~6
.~
~. - ~
~., ~~
:I: SA
~ -J
'" -
"
.'
, . . .~.:..-w _-'_'.....,__..:,., .-......;._,~._~......~ - ;"~'-"" _. -.... .'.';"~'---""""' ...__._.~.!--_...----~-:"~""-"':':"':"--'''''-'.''-_.- _.~ ---
CHURCH OF ST. MICHAEL OF PRIOR LAKE
LAND USE APPLICATION
The Church is planning to expand its Education Center to
serve anticipated enrollment increases in the short and long
term. In order to facilitate that expansion, neighboring
properties were acquired. Because the current school facility
was constructed on unplatted land, and the neighboring properties
on which a portion of the improvements will be constructed
are platted lots, the City is requiring that the Church combine
all of its property on a single plat.
The precise development details will be provided in
connection with the site plan approval process. Phase I of the
project will be a two story addition comprised of eight
classrooms, a media center, and a cafeteria, along with related
support space. A new 56 stall parking lot will be added at the
south east corner of the existing property and a new bus
loop/parking lot also with 56 stalls will be added to the west of
the school on the platted property. The new addition will
extend perpendicularly south from the center of the existing
school. The school offices will remain in the existing location.
Parental drop off will be located at the north end of the
southeast parking lot.
AUG I I 2(00
i
i: j
, i;
:~/
- .._-,---,_.._-~.---
..__..~-'-" - --..------..-..
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4B
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATING
TO THE LOCATION CRITERIA FOR PROPERTY TO
BE DESIGNATED AS LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
SEPTEMBER 11,2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION: On March 6, 2000, the City Council directed the Planning
Commission to consider the issue of the Low to Medium Density Residential land use
classification in the Comprehensive Plan with the idea that the City Council would have
the sole authority to determine whether a project should be built at the lower R-I density
or the higher R-2 or R-3 density. The Commission considered this issue on June 12,
2000, and again on August 14, 2000. After considerable discussion, the Planning
Commission concluded the text of the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to add
language specifying the discretion of the City Council in these matters. The Planning
Commission then initiated this amendment and directed staff to schedule a public
hearing.
DISCUSSION: The current criterion in the Comprehensive Plan for locating zoning
districts reads as follows:
Determination of specific districts characteristic of this classification will be based upon
consideration of several factors including but not limited to topography, geography,
existing development and character of the surrounding area, transportation system
access and market conditions.
This language is very general. While it provides little direction in determining the proper
zoning district to be applied on a given piece of property, it does provide general criteria
to consider in making those decisions.
1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-023\00023 pc.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The staff suggested the text be amended to include a more specific set of criteria by
adding the following language:
In deciding whether an area should be zoned for Low or Medium density development,
the above criterion should be applied so that areas zoned for Low-density development
would generally be in areas of relatively flat topography, areas in proximity to existing
low-density development and served primarily by local streets. Areas to be zoned for
medium density development will typically be areas having more rolling topography, not
in close proximity to existing low density development and having good access to
collector and arterial streets. The City Council has the ultimate authority in making the
determination of how this criterion is applied in any given situation.
During its discussions, the Planning Commissioners noted they were comfortable with
the existing language. However, in order to make it clear how this language would be
applied to any specific application, the Commission suggested the following sentence be
added to the existing language:
The City Council has the ultimate authority in making the determination of how this
criterion is applied in any given situation.
The text of the Comprehensive Plan and the location of the land use designations are
policy decisions. The proposed language does not add additional criteria nor does it
specify when or how the given criteria should be applied. Rather, it spells out the fact the
City Council has the ultimate decision making authority in these cases.
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 Planning staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan.
1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-023\00023pc.doc
2
Planning Commission Minutes
August 15. 2000
. Concerned with the incentive wording. Kansier explained the difference between
incentives and modifications. It is discretionary, based on findings. The City Council
has the sole discretion to make the decisions.
V onhof:
. The overlay district is an important tool.
. Supported staffs recommendations.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND .CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE OO-XX AMENDING SECTION 1103.oF THE
PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE. ALSO, AMEND SECTION 1106Ai600 - 5THLINE OF
THE PARAGRAPH - ELIMINATE THE WORD "ONLY" AND ADD THE WORD
"SIGNIFICANTLY" SO THE SENTENCE SHOULD READ "ANY MODIFICA'DIONS
SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND,POLICIES OF THE
COMPREHENSNE PLAN AND SHALL BE APPROVED UPON A FINDING THAT
THE MODIFICATION DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSELY AFFECT
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Continue discussion on Comprehensive Plan (Low to Medium Density).
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 14,2000,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On March 6, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider the issue of
the Low to Medium density land use classification in the Comprehensive Plan with the
idea thatthe City Council would have the sole authority to determine whether a project
could be built at the lower R-l density or the higher R-2 or R-3 density. The
Commission considered this issue on June 12,2000 and after discussion, deferred action
on the request and asked staff to provide it with further input.
Staffrecommended approving the draft language and to direct staff to set a public hearing
date to consider the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Open discussion:
Criego:
. Questioned why this issue came about? Kansier gave an example of a past
development.
. Not sure the new paragraph is effective.
. Did not see a need for change.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn081400.doc
7
Planning Commission Minutes
August 15. 2000
. The current paragraph gives the City as much control as it wants.
Stamson:
. Agreed with Criego. The current wording gives the flexibility. The strength in
the original wording is better. The Commissioners did not have a problem.
V onhof:
. Concurred with Commissioners.
. The Commissioners looked at these issues under the Comprehensive Plan and do
more interpretation compared to the Council.
. The Council would like specific direction.
. From the Commissioners' perspective this is more limitmg.
Stamson:
. The proposed language makes it easier, but not for,better decisions.
. The end results have been good. Why change it?
Criego:
. The new paragraph does not give anydiiection. It should be one way or the other.
V onhof:
. A compromise is to add.the last sentence of the new paragraph to the old
language.
Stamson:
. The existing language is working well.
. Add the last sentence of the new language to the existing paragraph. The Council
has the ultimate decision anyway.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT
TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD "THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE
ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IN MAKING THE DETERMINATION OF HOW THIS
CRITERION IS APPLIED IN ANY GIVEN SITUATION" TO THE DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION CRITERIA FOR URBAN LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn081400.doc
8
..
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4C
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2020
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PRIOR LAKE
BAPTIST CHURCH FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
5680 AND 5690 CREDIT RIVER ROAD (Case File #00-
064)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
On August 14,2000, the Prior Lake Planning Commission considered an application for a
Zone Change for the property located at 5680 and 5690 Credit River Road. The request
was to rezone the property from the 1-1 (General Industrial) District to the R-l (Low
Density Residential) District. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
proposed rezoning. At the same time, the Commissioners initiated an amendment to the
2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan to designate this property for Low to Medium
Density Residential uses.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Existin2 Use: This property is the site of a single family home and the Prior Lake
Baptist Church. Both the house and the church have existed on the site for more than 20
years. Prior to 1999, the property was zoned C-l (Conservation). Churches and single
family dwellings were a permitted use in that district. When the current Zoning
Ordinance was adopted, the C-l District was eliminated. This property was rezoned to
the I-I District, in conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. At that time,
the existing use of the property became nonconforming.
Adjacent Land Use, Zonin2 and Comprehensive Plan Desi2nation: The property to
the east is vacant land, zoned R-l and planned for Low to Medium Density Residential
Uses. To the north and west are industrial buildings, zoned I-I and planned for Industrial
uses. To the south, across CSAH 21, is the City maintenance building and other
office/industrial uses, zoned C-5 (Business Office Park) and planned for Business Office
Park Uses.
1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-064\00064pc.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
"
Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for Planned Industrial
uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The existing use is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation.
ANALYSIS:
On September 5, 2000, the City Council approved the rezoning ofthis property to the R-l
district. The proposed R-L/MD designation is consistent with this district. Minnesota
statutes require the zoning of a property be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map designation.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
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:
1. A motion and second to recommend approval of the amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Change from the PI (planned Industrial)
designation to the R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) designation is
required.
I :\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-064\00064pc.doc
Page 2
Location Map
Prior Lake Baptist Church Rezoning
~
N
800
o
800 Feet