Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout061499REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999 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 #99-027 Robert Jader is requesting a bluff setback variance for the property at 14962 Pixie Point Circle. B. Case File #99-029 H. E. Westerman Lumber Company is requesting a variance to the sideyard setback for a driveway located at 15338 Schroeder Circle. C. Case File #99-029 Paul and Mary Viereck are requesting an amendment to Section 1102.1104 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to Outdoor Display and Sales within the C-3 Specialty Business Use District. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. Presentation by Northview Development - Jeff Gustafson 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: L:\99FILESX99PLCOMlVlWCAGENDAXAG0614~9.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 14, 1999 1. Call to Order: The June 14, 1999, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, and Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Kuykendall Present Criego Present Cramer Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the May 24, 1999 Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Public Hearings: A. CASE FILE #99-027 ROBERT JADER IS REQUESTING A BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 14962 PIXIE POINT CIRCLE. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated June 14, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. The City received a variance application from Bob Jader, who is proposing to remove an existing structure and construct a new single family dwelling on the property located at 14962 Pixie Point Circle. The applicant is requesting a variance to the bluff setback to allow a 17' foot setback rather than the required minimum of 57 feet from the top of the bluff, determined by the 18% slope. She also explained the Planning Commission had considered a variance request for this property in August, 1998. A variance to lot width was approved at that time. The variance request to the bluff setback requirement was eventually withdrawn by the applicant. Ms. Tovar also presented a letter from Pat Lynch, MN DNR Area Hydrologist, dated June 11, 1999. In this letter, Mr. Lynch notes that the variance request can be reduced further to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning staff recommends denial of the variance on the basis that the request does not meet the four criteria for granting a variance. Reasonable use of the lot is available 1:\99fil es\99plcomm\pcmin~nn061499 .doc 1 with the reduction of the building footprint, the hardship is a result of the actions of the applicant, and the requested variance does not meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The topography of the lot is unique; however, all four of the criteria must be met. Kuykendall asked for clarification on the original action in August. Tovar explained the original bluff variance request was continued to allow the applicant to modify his request. however, the applicant never submitted any new information, and eventually withdrew his application. The variance to the lot width was approved on August 10, 1998. The Commissioners asked Pat Lynch, DNR Area Hydrologist, to comment on this request. He reiterated his comments in his letter dated June 11, 1999. He stated this request is an improvement over the last request. He noted that the DNR does not like to see structures located within the bluff impact zone, for both slope stability purposes and for room for equipment during construction. The proposed garage is very deep, 38', for a typical garage. There is still some opportunity to reduce the encroachment. Criego asked about the letter from the August variance when the DNR suggested the setback be reduced from the 15' to 20 additional feet recommended. Has the DNR position changed. Lynch said no, he has picked up 11 feet since August. Comments from the public: Bob Jader, applicant, hopes the Commission will grant this variance. He noted the erosion problem which has occurred on the neighboring property occurred because of poor planning, and poor design on the part of the builder, not because of the bluff set back. The setback ordinance would not have made any difference. Jader also asked where the top ofbluffis located. Is it a visual location, or is it based on a formula. Most people would say the top of bluff on his property is many feet towards the lake compared to the calculated top of bluff. His proposal meets all requirements except the calculated top of bluff. Jader stated the unique shape of the lot reduces the building envelope to about 1500 square feet. If you take 650 square feet out for the garage, this leaves about 850 square feet of living area. Bill Bonner, Architect, feels the lot next door has no retaining wall or landscaping to protect slope. Worked hard to design a home which would meet the setback average and in keeping with the neighborhood. He is already pushing the house further back from the lake than he would like. They are trying to strike a balance that meets all of the other setbacks. The house is less than a 2000 square foot footprint, and allows for only a few square feet of deck. Would prefer to be closer than the house. He noted the visual top of bluff on the drawing. It is obviously the top of bluff as opposed to the arbitrary line imposed by the formula. Criego asked where the width of the property on the southeast portion of the lot becomes 50 feet. Bonner noted it on the drawing. It is about 80 feet back from the front lot line. 1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn061499 .doc 2 Criego asked how far the house could be moved forward if it were 35 feet wide. The architect stated it would be about 5 - 10 feet forward. This house is designed as a walkout rambler. Kuykendall asked about the floor plan. Bonner explained that the floor plan has been flipped. Kuykendall noted that eliminating the deck would allow another 12 feet, which would bring the setback to 29 feet. Kuykendall asked if the deck were not attached and sitting offthe ground, would it be considered a deck. Tovar noted if the deck were less than 30" off the ground, it would meet the requirements of a platform. She also noted the house design as submitted would not allow a platform deck. Kuykendall asked if they would be opposed to a detailed landscape plan requirement. Bonner stated no, the best way to control drainage is through landscaping and retaining walls. Cramer asked what the distance from the visual top ofbluffto the top of bluff is. Bonner stated approximately 19 feet. Tovar noted the setback from the top of bluff is based on the slope of the site, so in this case it is 57 feet. The City does require structural engineering for retaining walls and recommends gutters for control of runoff. Jader noted the Harts are proposing some type of water control. He is not opposed to leaving the bluff in its natural state. Commissioner Stamson closed public hearing. Comments from Commissioners: Vonhof: He has viewed the site. He asked staffto clarify what variance is requested at this time. Tovar explained they are requesting a 40' variance to the required setback from the top of the bluff. There are no other variances requested. The variance to lot width is good until August 10, 1999. · The drop in grade from the street level almost requires a walkout rambler. The visual top of bluff is a severe drop off. Understands the difference between this and the calculations. · Still has problems with the variance hardship criteria. There are still problems with two of the criteria which have not been met. Kuykendall: · Concurs with Vonhof comments. Asked for some clarification of the variance hardship standards. · Rye noted the state statutes are fairly clear that there must be certain findings in order to grant a variance. The key finding is that undue hardship will result with the strict 1 :\99fil esk99plcommkpcmin\mn061499 .doc 3 application of the ordinance. Undue hardship is denial of a reasonable use of the property. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide what is reasonable. Kuykendall stated there are ways to design around the required setback. · The use of landscaping and so on is not unreasonable. · He would need additional information to determine if the drainage and slope stability could be mitigated. · We have had others come in with requests for the same variance and we have held to the standards. Criego: · Does see a hardship. · Does not have a problem with a setback of 50' from the visual top of bluff. DNR did not seem to have a problem with that, and they are the experts. · Pushing the house back would allow only a 35' wide house. Most people wouldn't build a house less than 35' wide. · Shape of property is unique. A house meeting the setback could also stand out above the other houses in the neighborhood and above the existing vegetation. · Would propose accepting a variance of 27-30' from the assigned top of bluff which is 45 - 50 feet from the visual top of bluff. · Asked staff if this applicant is not successful, would he also have to abide from the street setback. Tovar noted the current ordinance would require an average front yard setback. This application is being processed under the zoning ordinance since the application was received prior to May 1, 1999. · Should give the applicant leeway. Cramer: · Concurs with Commissioner Criego. There are a number of hardships. · Building a smaller house in this neighborhood would not fit. The circumstances are a result of the uniqueness of the property. Would cut offthe sight-lines to the lake. · Would like to see the house set back an additional 10 to 15 feet to protect bluff. Stamson: · Agrees with Criego and Cramer. · There is a hardship due to the uniqueness of the property and the slope on the site. · The proposal submitted is not the minimum required to make reasonable use of the property. This proposal goes beyond what is reasonable use. · Does not support this proposal, but may be open to some type of variance with a new design. Kuykendall: · Stated the point is that you must mitigate the issues by providing some assurance from professionals which prove that drainage will be handled. Must list the mitigating actions in writing. We do not have enough information to do that at this time. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn061499.doc 4 Stamson: He is not so concerned with erosion control. His opinion is that we have an ordinance the applicant must meet. · In this case, there is some undue hardship with respect to the narrowness of the lot. · He does not have an engineering problem. However, this proposal goes beyond the reasonableness. Criego: · Quoted August, 1998, letter from Lynch about supporting a structure and additional 15 to 20 feet from top of bluff. He is proposing a bluff setback of 24 feet. Kuykendall: · He is concerned about what a compromise would do to the ordinance. Criego noted there is a hardship with respect to the lot. Tovar noted each variance is considered on a case by case basis, and is based on the conditions of the lot. Stflmson: · Noted hc is usually not in favor of bluff ordinance variances. He states the shape of the lot in this case is unique. Cramer: · Commented the previous request was different due to the shape of the lot. Vonhof: · Agrees this property is unique and that two of the standards are met. He still is not comfortable that Criteria #1, literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in undue hardship, is met. There is a reasonable use of the property. Also, Criteria #3, the hardship is caused by the provisions of the ordinance and not the result of the actions of the applicant, is not met by this proposal. Kuykendall: · Said the argument on #1 is that it is not unreasonable to see the lake. He is more concerned about the stability of the bluff. Criego: · Addressed Mr. Vonhof's issue about the other two criteria. He said strict interpretation of the ordinance would result in a 57' setback, and a very small footprint. At some point this will require a variance. A setback of 24-25' from the assigned top ofbluffis reasonable. A variance will most likely be required for this lot. Kuykendall: · Agrees with Criego if the variance permits a 24' setback. This is only a 7' difference from the proposal. He thought the DNR would support some type of variance. · Would also not be opposed to 5' side yards. Rye commented there is no request before the commission relating to side yards. 1:\99flles\99plcomm\pcmin\mn061499.doc Cramer: · Commented that the ordinance requires an engineering report, and wondered if this could be attached as a condition of approval of a variance. Tovar noted that the engineering report is required before any building permit may be issued. She read the section from the Zoning Ordinance. This requirement requires the engineer review site conditions, and include the engineer's recommendations for construction. Kuykendall: · Stated he will support 24' setback based on the engineering report required. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH FINDS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS APPROVING A 33' VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SETBACK OF 24 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 57 FEET AND TO REQUIRE GUTTERS DRAINING TO THE STREET AND AN ENGINEERING REPORT AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. Kuykendall asked that the need for an engineer's report be highlighted in the minutes and included in the resolution. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 (VONHOF VOTING NO). Bo CASE FILE #99-029 H.E. WESTERMAN LUMBER COMPANY IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE SIDEYARD SETBACK FOR A DRIVEWAY LOCATED AT 15338 SHROEDER CIRCLE. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated June 14, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. The City received a variance application from H. E. Westerman Lumber proposing to allow an existing driveway constructed over the side lot line to be set back 2 feet from the property line rather than the required 5' setback for driveways. Staff has concluded the variance request for driveway setback is partially substantiated with hardships pertaining to the existing position of the structure on the lot that the applicant has no control over. The staff recommends approval of a variance allowing a two foot setback for the portion of the driveway located on the private property portion of the lot. The portion of the driveway located between the curb and the property line must be at least 5 feet from the side property line as extended. Approval of this variance should also be subject to the condition that the applicant obtain an easement for snow storage from the owners of adjacent Lot 4 or the applicant constructs a permanent fence to minimize the amount of snow thrown from Lot 3 onto Lot 4. 1:\99fil es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn061499 .doc 6 Cramer asked if the house being built on Lot 5 will not have the same problem with respect to snow storage. Horsman noted that is why we recommended the width be at least 5' within the public tight-of-way. Stamson asked how this setback would be measured in the tight-of-way. Horsman explained the lot line as extended would be used as the measuring point. Criego asked why this is a problem now. Tovar showed photos of the existing condition. Horsman explained the existing situation. The driveway was built directly on the property line. The house does not have a permanent certificate of occupancy. Horsman explained the proposed variance is for a 2' setback along the side lot line to the curb. Staff recommendation is to allow a 2' setback to the side property line, and require a 5' side setback in the public tight-of-way to the curb. Kuykendall asked if they could use landscaped rock for the 5' setback. Staff stated that is one of the possibilities. Comments from the public: Bob Rotter, Vice president of Westerman Lumber company, and current owner of the property said they are hoping to resolve this situation. They would like to leave the driveway as it currently exists. He noted the driveway has been there for 2+ years and no one had objected. The City only commented after receiving a permit for Lot 4. They have contacted the owners of Lot 4, who have no objections to the driveway as it currently exists. He does not see how 5' on the tight-of-way will improve this condition. There is 13' from the garage to the point where the driveway would have to be cutback. This would make it very difficult to get any car in the garage. He is requesting that the garage be allowed to remain where it is. He does not think getting an easement from the neighbors would be a problem. Criego wondered if there was any consideration about buying some property from the neighbor. If this variance had come before the PC before the building was built, it would not be approved. Have the applicant's considered any other alternatives. Rotter stated they have not considered that at this time. Kuykendall noted he does not see any gain in purchasing additional property. The other commissioners pointed out the setback on lot 4 is only 5 feet also. Brad Busse, Prior Lake, stated he and his wife have signed a purchase agreement for this property. The staff recommendation would make it very difficult to get into the garage by creating a severe left mm. This would detract from the value of the house. Ralph Heuschele, H & H Land Development, developers of Windsong on the Lake commented that it seems unfair that the City is now requiting Westerman Lumber to 1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcminh-nn061499.doc 7 obtain a variance and to narrow the driveway. We should let these people have the property as is. Criego asked if he is suggesting the City is responsible for reviewing every sale. He said the idea that the City is responsible for this mistake is not acceptable. Heuschele said the City is no more responsible than the current owner. The City should not be blameless. Joan Waund, 15196 Edgewater Circle, a local realtor stated she was aware that the driveway was not built according to the approved permit. Requiring a reduction in the width of the existing driveway would cause a hardship in using the garage, and would devalue the property. Criego asked staff if the 5' setback was in effect when this home was built in 1996. Tovar noted the standard was in effect at that time. The City did know about this situation a year ago which is why a permanent certificate of occupancy has not been issued. The information about the actual location of the driveway was not received until the permit for the adjacent property was submitted. The current owners are applying for a variance in order to receive a permanent certificate of occupancy. Kuykendall asked if the home has been built in the approved location. Staff responded we have not received an as-built survey to make that determination. Cramer asked if City Public Works has been made aware of this, and did they have any idea where they would push the snow at the end of the cul-de-sac. Horsman noted that they had made no comments on this. Bud Waund, 15196 Edgewater Circle, stated this is a situation where the house was built and lived in before the City, or the current owner had any knowledge of the driveway encroachment. This is different from normal types of development because of Architectural Control Committee and Homeowner's Association. There was a list of the code violations in the house sent to the previous owners; was the driveway included in that list? Would like to see some consideration given to the owners due to the mistakes made in the past. Stamson stated that he is suggesting that if someone builds something incorrectly and lives there for two years, the City should allow the mistake to continue. Mr. Waund stated he thinks the City should make some concessions in this case. Stamson stated that there may be some hardship in this case, but the suggestion that it is existing and should be allowed is ridiculous. Commission Stamson closed the public heating. Comments from Commissioners: l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn061499.doc 8 Kuykendall: · The bottom line is how does this variance contribute to the welfare of the neighborhood. Some action has been taken to alleviate this problem. Some compromise must be made. · Nan'owing the driveway will make it very difficult to maneuver. An easement is not needed or practical. · Supports the request. Stamson: · The variance hardship standards are met, especially due to narrowness and shape of the lot. · It is um'easonable to not allow the use of a portion of the existing structure due to the narrowness of the driveway. · Supports a variance allowing 2 feet along the entire length of the driveway. Criego: · Asked staff if recommendation is denial, what is the proposal for access to this garage. · Horsman noted that the staff recommendation is to allow a 2' setback to the front property line and a 5' setback between the curb and the property line. In other words, the staff is recommending approval with conditions. · He also noted City Engineering is asking for an acknowledgment that if the City must replace or repair the utilities, the owner will not hold the City responsible for damage to the driveway. Cramer: · If the variance is granted, should there be an easement on the adjacent lot. Staffis recommending this easement. · Noted the 5' setback will not work. He is concerned about snow storage at the end of the cul-de-sac. · The easement should be required. Kuykendall: · Suggested that the owner of the lot be responsible for providing an area for snow storage other than on the adjacent lot. Stamson stated there is really not a snow storage issue. There is plenty of room on the lot for snow. Cramer: · Noted he does support the variance. However, because this is a cul-de-sac, there is a snow storage problem. Vonhof: · His knowledge of snow removal is usually that the snow is stored in the middle of the cul-de-sac, if there is room, and then later removed with a front end loader. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcminh-r~061499.doc 9 Cramer: · Discussed the need for snow storage on both lots Vonhof: · Believes criteria for the variance are met. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND KUYKENDALL, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99- 08PC APPROVING THE VARIANCE FOR A 2' DRIVEWAY SETBACK AND INCLUDE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ENGINEERING CONCERNS AND AS-BUILT SURVEY REQUIREMENTS Kuykendall withdrew second for clarification of actual application. Vonhofrecognized Bob Rotter, Westerman Lumber. He stated the original application was made to leave the driveway as currently is, with driveway on lot line. Vonhof stated it is clear that the intent of the applicant was to apply for a 5' variance. Vonhof withdrew his motion. Rye read the application information submitted. It is somewhat unclear as to what was being requested. Stamson asked if a variance greater than the request published can be granted. Vonhof wondered if the record could contain the intent of the applicant. Rye noted there was a motion to approve a variance to allow a 2' setback. The applicant does have the option of appealing this decision to the City Council. The Commission discussed what different options are available. The Commission could republish the hearing for the 0' setback. Asked the applicant if it is acceptable to consider and vote on the 3' variance, rather than 5' variance. Bob Rotter, Westerman Lumber, asked if republishing this will require additional information, or is it a matter of waiting an additional 3 weeks to republish. If there is no as-built survey required, the applicant will agree to remove 2' of the driveway. Rye stated the staff made an exception to the requirement for a survey as part of the variance application due to the fact that there was a survey of the adjacent property showing the driveway. Vonhofrestated his motion as follows: MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND KUYKENDALL, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99- 08PC APPROVING A 3' VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 2' DRIVEWAY SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5' SETBACK SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SIGN AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT HOLDING THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE HARMLESS FOR ANY LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE 1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn061499 .doc 10 CAUSED TO THE DRIVEWAY FOR ACCESSING/REPAIRING UTILITIES WITHIN THE EASEMENT AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The Planning Commission took a 5 minute recess. The meeting resumed at 9:03 PM. CASE FILE #99-029 PAUL AND MARY VIERECK ARE REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1102.1104 OF ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO OUTDOOR DISPLAY AND SALES WITHIN THE C-3 SPECIALTY BUSINESS USE DISTRICT. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated June 14, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. On May 18, 1999 the Planning Department received an application from Paul Viereck requesting a text amendment to permit permanent outdoor display and sales in the C-3 Zoning District (downtown area). The applicant is requesting this amendment in order to allow year-round outdoor storage and display area at his business. The attached is a site plan submitted by Paul Viereck shows this area located between the existing fireplace showroom and the adjacent structure (previously JB Furniture and Remax office). The area exceeds 100 square feet, and would be permanent, thus the need for the amendment. The proposed amendment would not apply just to the applicant's property, but to all properties located within the C-3 district. The staff recommends denial of this request based on the finding that there is no public need for this amendment, and the amendment will not accomplish one or more of the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Criego asked where the lot line is located between the two properties. Tovar noted the amendment would apply to all properties within the C-3 district. We do not have a survey to identify the lot line. Comments from the public: Paul and Mary Viereck, 3465 140th Street, the applicants, stated the side lot line of the property is actually located 3' into the building. Did not intend to store anything year- round, just April through November. Tried to create a cohesiveness between the two buildings by pouting concrete and creating a drainageway. The outdoor storage area would also keep people from driving through this area. They intend to put a picket fence between the buildings. Access to the parking in the back is via a City alley. Mary Viereck noted they put a lot of time and effort to improve this area and the downtown area. 1 :\99files\99pl comm\pcmin\mn061499.doc 11 Stamson noted what is proposed is an amendment to the entire area. How do you feel outside storage will fit with the rest of the downtown area? Viereck stated he is looking for a clean image. There is a need for this situation. Mary Viereck stated the outdoor sales would be a great idea for the downtown area. Stamson noted this amendment would allow the use of chain link fences for all other businesses. Tovar noted that outdoor storage is not permitted in any commercial district without a principal use. Outdoor storage is usually linked with outdoor sales and display. The Commission may want to consider placing conditions on the use. Rye added that storage and sales are generally one in the same. That is the perception. The use can be allowed as a conditional use permit if the commission has particular concerns about outdoor sales and display. Stamson asked what is the area of outdoor display and sales. Viereck replied that area is approximately 893 square feet. Tovar commented that Viereck currently has a change in use permit and a temporary outdoor storage area for 100 square feet. Viereck commented they don't want to wait until October for the ordinance to be amended. They have items to display outdoors now. Commissioner Stamson closed the public hearing. Comments from Commissioners: Criego: · No problem with beautifying the downtown area. What do we do with other areas. · The applicant's request is easy, however, we are not just dealing with the applicant, but with the entire. · This type of use should be a conditional use. · What were the provisions under the previous ordinance. Tovar noted that outdoor sales were not permitted in the previous B-2 district. There was no direct change in the May 1 ordinance. · Why did staff recommend denial. Tovar explained that the request did not meet the criteria. For example, temporary outdoor sales are allowed on a limited basis. Also, based on the results of the Downtown Redevelopment Task Force, specific uses were discussed, and these did not include outdoor sales. · Has no problem with this amendment, but how do you regulate it. Cramer: · Would like to see staff prepare ordinance with something similar to a conditional use permit with conditions such as area, type of display, etc. · The fact that this was not permitted was an oversight. Vonhof: · Have staff prepare an ordinance allowing this as a conditional use permit. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin~nn061499.doc 12 Kuykendall: · Supports this proposal. People are already doing this. Stamson: · This use may be beneficial to the downtown. Applicant has done a nice job with his property. · We are in the middle of a study of the entire downtown. It is inappropriate to change the ordinance until the study is complete. Criego: · We have an applicant trying to improve his property, and we should take advantage of that. This could be a real benefit to the City. We should go forward with a conditional use permit. Vonhof: · Agrees with Commissioner Criego's comments. Cramer: · We have to show we area committed to businesses existing in the downtown. Kuykendall: · Asked if it necessary to do a full-scale study of the types of conditions to place on this use. Rye stated that staff would like to make careful recommendations. Criego: · Is there a way to grant a temporary permit so the outdoor sales could be allowed. Tovar noted that if the area exceeds 100 square feet, it is limited to 12 calendar days per year. Vonhof: · Can staff discuss this matter with the consultants. Rye explained we would discuss the issue generally, but not as a specific zoning application. Criego: · Stated if we waited until the study was completed, the applicant would lose a season. If we cannot come up with standards for a conditional use permit, we can change ordinance to allow seasonal storage of grills and hammocks as an accessory use. · Rye stated that this would require an additional public hearing and notice. The quickest action at this stage is to direct staff to prepare an ordinance allowing this use as a conditional use permit. There is no quick process to change the text of the ordinance. Rye explained the options to the Planning Commission. A text amendment is not property specific. It applies to all properties. The Planning Commission can direct staff to prepare an ordinance allowing this use. The ordinance would come back to the l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn061499.doc 13 Planning Commission at the next meeting. The Planning Commission could then forward a recommendation to the Council. The Planning Commission discussed the various options. Criego asked for a clarification of the current ordinance. Rye reiterated the amount of area and the amount of time it is allowed. Tovar and Rye explained the process for the amendment of the text if the proposal is any different than currently proposed. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO JULY 12, 1999, AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO BR1NG AN ORDINANCE ALLOWING THE OUTDOOR DISPLAY AND SALES AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. Criego noted we wanted the applicant to go forward with this request, but this is as quick as we can do this. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 (STAMSON VOTING NO). 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: A. PRESENTATION BY NORTHVIEW DEVELOPMENT - JEFF GUSTAFSON Mr. Jeffrey Gustafson, discussed the status of the property located on Tower Avenue South of Priordale Mall and west of the school district property. He noted he previously applied for a rezoning of this property, but the application was denied based on the lack of commercial land in the City. He stated this property is not a good commercial site. It is better suited to high density residential uses. He understands the neighbors fear about high density residential, but believes that a quality project will benefit the area. They tried to make this a commercial use and contemplated a mini-storage use of the site. They then discovered that a sewer line ran through this property which would require shifting the building. The common lot line between the commercial and residential zoning also requires a 60' setback. They could not make this site work. He is here tonight to take a reading of the Planning Commission to find if they would be receptive to reviewing the R-4 Zoning. He displayed a possible layout of this site. Tom Baxtrom, Pinnacle Realty Management Company, explained the local market. Research indicates that Prior Lake needs rental housing. There are not a lot of sites available. They manage all types of rental property and do not have complaints because they maintain their properties. This is an ideal site that would make sense. Stamson asked what makes this the ideal site. Baxtrom noted that quick access and the adjacent wetland make it a highly desirable area for residential living. 1 :\99fil es\99plcornm\pcmin\mn061499 .doc 14 Criego asked how the 60' setback would affect the commercial use of this site. Gustafson noted the site was 125,000 square feet. There is residential zoning to the south and the east. Criego asked about rent prices in the area. Baxtrom noted rents would be $600 to $700. Vonhof stated that one of the greatest challenges is the transition between uses. How will this site work that way, and why is it more appropriate than C-47 Gustafson stated he has not seen any problems with the transition. Most people in single family houses do not like to look at commercial buildings. Most people are afraid of the unknown, but once built, they are generally accepted. Market rate apartment buildings, properly built and properly managed, are an asset to the community. Criego commented that his feeling has not changed. It is probably a better use of the property than C-4. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Rye explained the US Post Office is looking for a site to expand the existing facility. They have solicited sites, and have 6 proposals. They will be holding a public hearing in the next couple of weeks to discuss those proposals. Rye explained the potential sites. It is still not entirely clear how they plan to use the new building. They are still in the process of collecting information. This is something the Planning Commission may want to think about as a land use. We will try to distribute additional information as it becomes available. Rye explained we have asked them to consider complying with our ordinance, but they are not obligated to do so. Kuykendall explained a facility such as this can help kick off redevelopment. Rye explained that the question of location is important. Generally, in terms of what is happening downtown, this can be another development. Rye updated the Planning Commission on the status of the library and Lakefront Park. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Jane Kansier Recording Secretary 1 :\99fil es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn061499.doc 15