HomeMy WebLinkAbout011298REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 1998
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #97-132, Burdick Properties request variances for rear yard setback and
berm slope for 14162 Commerce Avenue and 14180 Commerce Avenue properties.
B. Case #96-126, Kelvin Retterath requesting a side yard variance for the property at
16520 Inguadona Beach Circle.
C. Case #97-128, City of Prior Lake considering a proposed amendment to the City
of Prior Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan for the property located at 5240 160th
Street.
D. Case #97-117, Safe Haven Shelter for Youth requests a Conditional Use Permit
for State licensed residential facility serving 10 persons in the R-3 District for the
property located at 5240 160th Street.
E. Case #97-127, City of Prior Lake considering a proposed amendment to the City
of Prior Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan changing the designation of the property
located at 6867, 6885 and 6899 Boudin Street from Low to Medium Density Residential
to the Community Retail Shopping designation.
6.
7.
8.
Old Business:
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L A98FILESX98PLCOMM~CAGENDA~.G011298.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek A~d. S.Ei~Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 12, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The January 12, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Assistant
City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
Roll Call:
Vonhof Absent
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
Cramer Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the December 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Commissioner Vonhof arrived at 6:36 p.m.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #97-132, Burdick Properties request variances for rear yard setback
and berm slope for 14162 Commerce Avenue and 14180 Commerce Avenue
properties.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated January 12, 1998.
14162 COMMERCE AVENUE:
A 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential
of 58.00 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and
· A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum
allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential
properties; and
· A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for
additional screening between the adjacent residential properties.
14180 COMMERCE AVENUE:
· A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned
residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and
1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\rra~011298.doc 1
· A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned
residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash enclosure;
and
· A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum
allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential
properties; and
· A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for
additional screening between the adjacent residential properties.
The lots are located in the subdivision known as James 1st Addition (1981). The
properties are located within the B-1 (Limited Business) district.
14162 Commerce Avenue is 9,350 square feet with 37 parking stalls required The site
has 37 stalls. There is no undeveloped land where the trash enclosure can be relocated.
Building Permit #97-274 was issued after the site plan was approved by the Development
Review Committee (DRC). The approved plans indicate a 60 foot setback to the face of
the building. The as-built survey indicates a utility area was constructed on the west side
of the building without prior approval from the city. The bump-out on the north end of
the building encroaches two feet into the required 60 foot setback from the residential
property to the west. Therefore, a 2 foot variance is being requested.
14180 Commerce Avenue is 10,400 square feet with 42 parking stalls required if the
building is used entirely as office use (1 stall per 250 square feet). With the recently
added parking to the west (rear of building), the site has 51 parking stalls. If the use
changes to entirely retail, then the parking requirement will be 52 spaces (1 stall per 200
sq. feet of retail space). Current uses are professional offices and a day-care.
Considering retail uses are permitted, the entire building could be used for retail activities
and then there would not be enough parking on the lot. The approved plans indicate a 59
foot setback to the face of the building on the west side, adjacent to the residential
properties. The as built survey indicates a utility area was constructed on the west side of
the building without prior approval from the city. The 2.5 foot bump-out on the south
end of the building encroaches into the required 60 foot setback from the residential
property to the west. Therefore, a 2.7 foot variance for the principal structure is being
requested.
The trash enclosure (14180 Commerce Avenue) was constructed on the lot in 1994 and
expanded in 1997 to accommodate the recently constructed building at 14162 Commerce
Avenue. The city approved the construction of the trash enclosure and addition in error.
The trash enclosure is located 16.3 feet from the west property line abutting residential.
The required setback is 60 feet. Therefore, a 43.7 foot variance is being requested for the
trash enclosure.
The applicant is also requesting a variance to fence height to allow for increased
screening between the commercial uses and the adjacent residential uses. Zoning
Ordinance Section 6.11 C and 6.11 E allow for a maximum fence height of 6 feet. The
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhrm011298.doc 2
applicant is requesting a fence height of 8 feet. The applicant has also met with the
adjacent residential property owners in an attempt to resolve the ongoing screening issue.
City Code Section 6.10 H allows for a maximum slope of a berm to be 3:1. As part of the
screening of the adjacent residential areas, the applicant is requesting a variance to the
slope of the berm. As of yet, staff has not received the specification on the proposed
slope as indicated in the variance application. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission continue this specific request until specifications are submitted to the
Planning Department.
Staff concluded the hardship criteria have been met, considering the structures are
existing and both sites are at maximum build out with respect to parking and setbacks.
Due to lack of pertinent information the variance request to berm slope should be
continued.
Comments from the public:
Mark Kelly, attorney for the applicant, B. C. Burdick and Burdick Properties, submitted
official written comments for the record. Mr. Kelly felt the requested variances are good
housekeeping matters. His client did not plat the property and was not present for any
discussions prior to the sale which included the neighbors and previous developer. Other
than the signed plat, there are no records in the Scott County Recorder's Office. The
applicant met with the Timothy Avenue neighbors and City Staff on December 4, 1997 to
discuss screening. The meeting resulted in proposals outlined in Exhibit A. Mr. Kelly
explained the housekeeping variance on the 2 foot setback. They do not feel it
encroaches into the setback. The setback was measured from the building foundation not
the overhang.
Mr. Kelly went on to point out the trash enclosure and the effective screening which
would meet code. The proposal is intended to exceed the City's Code requirement for
screening for a maximum height of 10 feet. The neighbors are requesting a 4 foot
retaining wall with additional fencing. This request would triple the cost of the landscape
plan. There was also a question of neighbors maintaining their side of the fence. The
neighbors have no ownership in this project. Applicant is trying to make the property
attractive, not high maintenance.
Eldon Hugelen, 7473 West 142nd Street, Apple Valley, the landscape architect for the
applicant presented the landscape proposal which included the grading and plant
screening. He feels this will solve the screening element and meet the landscape
requirements.
Harry Ray, 5726 West 98 1/2 Cir., Bloomington, stated he was representing the neighbors
on Timothy Avenue. Mr. Ray explained his interpretation of an agreement from 1979
with the residents and developer. The berm has been changed for the last building. Mr.
Ray mentioned Timothy Avenue resident, Maureen Hermann inquired at the City as to
how the berm was going to be changed and was assured there would be no changes. He
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298 .doc 3
went on to say there was a comedy of errors with this building because this building was
in the master plan in 1979 and did not have to go before the Planning Commission. The
neighborhood does not like the lights shining in the back of the building nor the garbage
pickup in early morning. In summary, the neighborhood would like to see higher
screening.
Maureen Hermann, 14151 Timothy Avenue, felt the zoning was different in 1979 with no
retail and perceives the City is violating Minnesota State Statutes.
Kansier explained the City Attorney pointed out the discussions back in 1979 in the
minutes are not enforceable.
Harry Ray stated the City has not been able to come up with the original plan. Therefore,
this plan should have gone before the Planning Commission. There is also a question of a
large pipe that stops at the end of the development. One of the main concerns of the
neighbors is the removal of the trash enclosures. The developer knew the setbacks and
went ahead and built on the line and then come back to the City and ask for a variance.
The neighborhood would like to resolve the matter before a variance is granted.
Maureen Hermann, 14151 Timothy Avenue, said she is really thrown by this whole
rezoning issue. She revealed they found the approved plans from the Assembly of God
archives. Mrs. Hermann felt this issue should be before a judge. She felt the berm has
been there since 1981. Now there is parking behind the building and she is just finding
out there might be retail in the building. She questioned how the City can just change the
zoning and asked if a nuclear waste dump would be put in. The foreman on-site told the
neighbors the berm was going to stay and concluded the matter is a mess.
Mr. Ray displayed a berm article from a magazine and remarked the neighbors are
entitled to have the berm the way it was intended to be.
Stamson questioned staff on the discussion referenced in the Minutes.
Tovar said there was reference but they did not state any specifics. The issue was sent to
the City Attorney for review and the City Attorney responded that the minutes are not
enforceable.
Ross Stewart, 14122 Timothy Avenue, feels the enclosure is in an easement. He has a
document at home indicating the restrictions in a B2 Zone. Mr. Stewart spoke on
landscape and trash enclosure encroaching on the neighbors. He was told this summer
Burdick was going to put a fence 18 inches from his property. He questioned how can
this be allowed. Another main concern is a parking lot. Mr. Stewart said if the Planning
Commission grants the variances the City is taking away the neighbor's legal rights.
Sandy Wright, 14300 Timothy Avenue, stated she does not own property next to the
Burdick property but her neighborhood is affected and she was concerned. She felt the
City's errors or oversights should not be paid by the neighbor's tax dollars. The City has
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc 4
back tracked. The neighborhood remembers the issues. Ms. Wright also stated the City
is afraid of being sued and is buckling under the City Attomey's advice. The Planning
Commission is the only hope for the neighborhood for mistakes made by the staff and
developer.
Maureen I-Iermann, presented the document she obtained from the Assembly of God
archives. She feels the neighborhood is suffering from lower property values.
Additionally she now sees cars, snowplows and can even see in the windows of the
building. The existing trees are too small. There is no privacy. She talked to the people
planting the trees who told her they had to be planted the way they were because of the
utility lines running through the area. A 4 foot wall and 8 foot fence is not asking too
much. Mrs. Hermann pointed out the two zoning ordinances at City Hall.
Ron Olson 14291 Timothy Avenue, stated he lived in the 27 years and remembers James
Refrigeration said they would give until the neighbors would agree. He assumed there
would be records kept. Now the garbage and snowplows mn all night long. He contacted
the garbage hauler and told him not to pick up the trash during the night. He also does
not like the snowplowing during the night as well. He feels this is a white wash and
hopes it all works out.
Mr. Ray is seeking some uniformity with the undeveloped property to the north.
The public heating was closed at 7:54 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Clarification from staff regarding setbacks. Tovar recited the zoning ordinance and
side note relating to overhangs.
Kansier explained the policy and the differences.
· Maureen Hermann, presented an ordinance dated 5/25/96. Staff will make a copy
and return the document.
· Mark Kelly said they do not know the exact height of the original berm. It was
removed to accommodate the original plat submitted in 1997.
· Tovar presented the grading plan with the existing grades. The existing grading does
not match the approved plan.
· Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott stated the developer is not in compliance
with the approved grading plan.
Stamson asked developer to explain the proposed elevation height. Eldon Hugelen asked
the architect for the original grading plans and never received them.
Criego showed the original grading plan with the elevations in 1981.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc 5
Vonhof:
Questioned engineering staff on the drainage issue brought by the neighbors.
McDermott stated to her knowledge, the catch basin was connected to the storm
sewer.
Kuykendall:
· Appreciates the neighbors being present.
· Concern the documents were not drawn to scale.
· Eldon Hugelen explained the vertical elevations change as you go east. His drawings
are a concept as opposed to an engineer's drawing.
· Mark Kelly stated it is not the intent to misrepresent anything. The drawings are to
reflect the discussions from the neighborhood meeting on December 11, 1997.
· Needs a drawing to scale showing existing conditions and then overlays with
proposed concepts.
· This is beyond the level of detail the Planning Commission gets involved with.
· Empathize the sound issue with the maintenance.
· Concern a parking lot was built without a final grade.
· Stamson questioned the variances before the Planning Commission.
· Tovar said the applicant has stated their intent to withdrawn the 8' fence and berm
request. She also explained the ordinance allows for a 30 inch berm.
· Criego said it seems the developer has proposed something beyond what is the
ordinance and now add a 6 foot fence.
* Tovar explained the variances
· Mark Kelly explained the proposal is a combination of satisfying the neighbors and
meeting the City Codes. The display is a visual affect.
Criego:
· Questioned the master plan of 1979.
· Tovar stated the City does not have copy of what the neighborhood has presented
tonight.
· The application did not have to go before the Planning Commission because what the
applicant is asking is a permitted use.
· The building was not on the approved plans.
· Tovar said the berm is 20 feet wide adjacent to building #3. The berm was taken
down on building #2 for more parking. The old berm was wider than 20 feet.
· Would like to see the Minutes of this covenant in 1979.
· City Minutes are not enforceable.
· What are the ordinances relating to evening garbage pickup? Kansier explained there
are no hours for garbage pickup in a commercial districts.
· Highly recommend the neighbors to contact the garbage collector.
· Harry Ray said Mr. Boyles was going to propose to the city an ordinance that the
garbage not be taken before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. Mr. Ray feels neighboring
cities have requirements.
· Questioned the restrictions on the utility easement across the property. Kansier said
you can build anything that is not permanent.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhnn011298.doc 6
Questioned trash container. Tovar said one trash enclosure was put in 1994. The
expansion was 1997. Tovar pointed out the enclosure is on the plans.
Cramer:
Trash enclosures - Has the City recommended anything different? Tovar said the
City Attorney recommended the applicant apply for a variance.
· Questioned ordinance requiring trash enclosures in the back of a building. Tovar said
setbacks would still have to be met.
· Question to developer regarding the parking plan? Kelly said they did respond to the
concerns expressed by the neighbors at the December 4, meeting.
· Question to developer regarding feeling they are at an impasse with the neighbors.
Kelly said the neighbors have many suggestions. They all vary. The application is to
the City not the neighbors. But they are trying to come to some solutions with those
issues. They are trying to accommodate the neighbors and City Code. The City has a
$20,000 Letter of Credit on the landscaping. The landscaping may take a year after
the issuance of occupancy. The City is the legal authority on the issues not the
neighbors.
· Questioned the neighbors regarding drainage with the old berm and how it has
changed with the new berm. Maureen Hermann said they did not have problem with
the old berm. The concern with the new berm is that all the drainage from buildings 1
and 2 come to the middle and a pipe to the hexagon drainage. They are also
concerned the additional hard surface (parking lot) would drain up to the homes. She
went on to say no one has given them any information regarding capping the end of
the catch basin.
Kuykendall said they need to determine the drainage issue. Is it capped? At who's
expense? Also the Commissioners would like to see overlays. The meeting needs to be
continued. He would like to see the Minutes.
Vonhof agreed with Kuykendall and would like to see elevation maps. If the elevations
are not in compliance with the grading plan. The zoning has not changed. When there is
a change it is published in the newspaper and nobody comes to the hearings. Also, a
commercial district is next to a residential use. The Planning Commission does look at
those issues a little bit different trying to make those zones compatible. There are
solutions to make this matter compliable. Recommend to continue. Would like to see
full size maps on the elevation and approved plan. There was no requirement to have this
matter before the Planning Commission because it is a permitted use in the district.
Criego added it is important the City Engineer determine the capacity of the drainage
issue. Sue McDermott said the developer has submitted that information. The trash
containment should be properly shield and/or moved by developer. Possibly give up a
couple of parking spots.
Cramer commented on the proposal submitted by the neighboring residents and the
developer. Encouraged neighbors and developer to work together.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc 7
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO
THE JANUARY 26, 1998, MEETiNG TO CONSIDER THIS MATTER FURTHER
AND OBTAIN INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED RELATIVE TO
THIS MATTER.
AMENDMENT BY KUYKENDALL, ADD A NOTE THAT THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR FIND OUT WHAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DID THAT TOOK
PLACE. HAVE THE SAME STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT AT THE NEXT
MEETING. VONHOF AGREED TO AMEND, SECOND BY CRIEGO.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 9:01 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:11 p.m.
B. Case #96-126, Kelvin Retterath requesting a side yard variance for the
property at 16520 Inguadona Beach Circle.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report.
On October 28, 1996 the Planning Commission approved a 7 foot front yard setback
variance for Dave Yearling and Karlynn Benson, to allow a front yard setback of 18 feet
rather than the required 25 feet for a proposed garage and residential addition. The time
period to obtain necessary permits expired on October 28, 1997. Upon request of the
applicant, on December 15, 1997 the City Council granted a 90 day extension to allow
the applicant until January 28, 1998 to obtain the necessary building permits for the
project.
The ground level of the proposed addition will be a garage and the upper level will be
living space consisting of a bedroom and bathroom. The living area of the addition will
be attached to the existing structure over the front entry. On November 11, 1997 the City
received a building permit application for the proposed addition. The survey indicated a
24 foot wide garage with an 8 foot side yard setback. This is different from Resolution
96-35PC which indicates a 22 foot wide garage with a 10 foot side yard setback.
The applicant contends the change was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting
on October 28, 1996 and was given approval to make the change. Discussion by the
Planning Commission specifically raised the question of the necessity for a side yard
setback variance. Further discussion indicates that staff was under the impression this is
a substandard lot. This conclusion was made using the width at the front property line of
80.6 feet. The required front lot width for R-1 SD riparian lots is 90 feet. The actual lot
width is determined at the front yard setback. Due to the pie shaped lot, this scales out to
be 104.5 feet. Therefore, the lot is not substandard as originally thought and the required
side yard setback is 10 feet on both sides.
The applicant is requesting a 2 foot side yard setback variance to allow the project to
proceed as planned. Based on the outcome of the October 28, 1996 Planning
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc 8
Commission meeting, the applicant had revised all plans for a 24 foot garage and was
proceeding as approved and discussed on October 28, 1996 at the Planning Commission
meeting. The reasoning for the delay in applying for a building permit were delays in
obtaining financing for the project.
The applicant contends the misunderstanding by staff on the determination of a
substandard lot and the approval of the variance by the Planning Commission knowing
the garage would be 24 feet wide is hardship to grant the side yard setback variance. The
applicant would have asked for a side yard setback variance at the time, if that what was
necessary.
The staff has concluded the size and physical characteristics of the lot are hardships
outside the applicant's control. Staff recommends approval.
Comments from the public:
Kelvin Retterath, 2618 Grove Lane, Mound, represented the applicants stating Planner
Jenni Tovar explained the proposal very well. He reviewed the proposal and explained
the change in the plan.
The public hearing was closed at 9:21 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Reiterated the Minutes from the October meeting and concluded there would be a 5'
side yard setback. The Commission gave the applicant the impression they could go
to 5 feet.
· Kansier explained the substandard lot ordinances.
· Based on original conversations, supports variance request.
Cramer:
· Was not part of the Planning Commission, the encroachment is very minimal and the
Planning Commission gave the impression it was okay.
· Approve variance.
Stamson:
· Does not agree.
· Based on the discussion with the last hearing, the Minutes are not enforceable.
· Concern the Planning Commission is basing the decision on the Minutes from
October 1997.
· However, given the hardship criteria - agreed to approve the variance.
· Commissioners Vonhof and Kuykendall support variance.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXrnn011298.doc 9
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND AN AMENDED
RESOLUTION 96-35 GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD
SETBACK OF 18 FEET FROM INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE RATHER THAN
THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 25 FEET AND A 2 FOOT SIDE YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 8 FEET RATHER
THAN THE REQUIRED 10 FEET FOR A PROPOSED GARAGE AND
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case #97-128, City of Prior Lake considering a proposed amendment to the
City of Prior Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan for the property located at 5240
160th Street.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 12,
1998.
The purpose of this public heating is to consider an amendment to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan
changing property currently designated as Community Retail Shopping to the High Density
Residential designation. This amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission on
December 8, 1997. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the development of the property.
This site consists of approximately 1.1 acres of vacant land and is located at 5240 10th Street.
This site is at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Franklin Trail and 160th Street (CSAH
44). This property is identified as C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) on the 2010
Comprehensive Plan. This designation is characterized by retail shopping centers designed to
provide shopping and convenience facilities to a broader residential area.
The applicant is requesting the property be designated R-HD (High Density Residential). This
designation is characterized by dwellings other than single family detached houses at densities
up to 30 units per acre.
Safe Haven For Youth is proposing to construct a licensed residential facility for 7 to 16 clients
on this site. An application for a conditional use permit for this use is presently pending before
the Planning Commission.
Adjacent Land Use, Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning: North: Across
Westwood Drive is vacant land, designated as C-CC and zoned B-1 (Limited Business). The
owner of this vacant land is in the process of applying for permits to construct a commercial
building. South: Across 160th Street (CSAH 44) is an abandoned ready-mix plant and senior
housing, designated as R-HD and zoned R-3. East: To the east are single family dwellings,
designated as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) and zoned R-1 (Suburban
Residential). West: Across Franklin Trail is a multifamily dwelling, designated as R-HD, and
zoned R-3.
This property has access to both Franklin Trail and Westwood Drive. The Scott County
Highway Department has indicated no access will be permitted on 160th Street (CSAH 44).
There are no sewer and water connections to this site; however, both sewer and water are
available from the existing mains located in Westwood Drive to the north.
1 :\98 fil es\98plcomm\pcmin'mm011298.doc 10
This amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map was initiated by the Planning
Commission at the request of the developer of the site. The discrepancy between the existing
zoning of the property (R-3) and the Comprehensive Plan designation (C-CC) was discovered
during the staff's review of the conditional use permit application.
One of the criteria for granting a conditional use permit, as stated in Section 7.5 C of the Zoning
Ordinance, states "the proposed use shall preserve the objectives of this Ordinance and shall be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan ". The proposed use of this site, a licensed residential
facility, is not consistent with the C-CC designation of the property, although it is permitted as a
conditional use permit in the R-3 district. This discrepancy is the basis for the amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Amendment as requested. The
proposed designation of this site is consistent with the existing zoning of the site, and is
compatible with the adjacent property. This Amendment will not significantly impact
the amount of available commercial land in the City.
Comments from the public:
Larry Blakeborough representing his mother who has the neighboring property
understood this property was zoned C 1.
Dan Saad, applicant 14750 West Bumsville Parkway, said he would explain more in the
next item. Feels staff did a good job in explaining the proposal and supports the change.
The public hearing closed at 9:35 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· The original intent was to designate the property residential.
· This information is sufficient.
Criego:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
· Approve.
Cramer:
· Concur with staff's recommendation.
residential area.
There is a school, park and neighboring
Vonhof:
· Hates to give up an acre at the intersection.
· The neighboring areas are residential and park.
· Not in favor.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcrnin\mn011298.doc 11
Stamson:
· Three of the four sides are surrounded by residential.
· Identified in the Comprehensive Plan as residential.
· The use would be appropriate. Rezone the rest of the block or amend the
Comprehensive Plan.
· R-3 is appropriate.
MOTION BY STAMSON, RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY FROM THE CC DESIGNATION
TO THE R3 PROPERTY, SECOND BY CRAMER.
Discussion:
Kuykendall could rationalize either way but agrees with staff. It makes a better
transition. The use is not there today and nothing is taken away.
Vote taken signified 4 ayes, 1 nay. MOTION CARRIED.
D. Case #97-117, Safe Haven Shelter for Youth requests a Conditional Use
Permit for State licensed residential facility serving 10 persons in the R-3 District
for the property located at 5240 160th Street.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated January 12, 1998.
The City received an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from Dan Saad on
November 17, 1997. This item was originally scheduled to be heard by the Planning
Commission on December 8, 1997. Due to inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan
(guided commercial) and the proposed change of zoning to commercial (as part of the
revised Zoning Ordinance), the item was continued. During the continued public hearing
on the revised Zoning Ordinance, the applicant requested this property remain zoned
residential. The Planning Commission amended the proposed zoning of the lot to remain
residential and directed staff to prepare a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate
the land use guide as residential. The applicant has requested the CUP be reviewed
concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Notices were re-sent regarding
this public hearing.
The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling for the purpose of a state
licensed residential facility serving 10 persons. The property is on the northeast comer of
Franklin Trail and 160th Street (Exhibit A). The proposed split level home will have a
total of 2,700 square feet on two levels with a 624 square foot attached garage (Exhibit
B). The house will have typical single family kitchen and dining area and living rooms
with 2 or 3 bathrooms and 6 bedrooms. The property is zoned R-3 Multiple Residential.
"State licensed residential facilities serving 7 to 16 persons" is a conditional use in the R-
3 zone.
Safe Haven Shelter for Youth is a non-profit organization, licensed by the state, to
provide group residential facilities. This is a Rule 8 group home for youth ages 8-18.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc 12
MN Statute 462.357 (or 245A. 11, Exhibit C) Subdivision 3, provides for legislation
regarding zoning of group homes. Safe Haven currently has a home serving 6 persons
located at 16706 Dublin Road in Prior Lake, which opened in February 1997. Attached is
a copy of the police report for the facility on Dublin Road (Exhibit D). Group homes
serving 6 or fewer persons are permitted in the R-1 Residential zoning district. The home
will serve the counties of Dakota, Scott, Le Sueur and Carver. The youth are referred by
county social services or are court ordered to the group home.
Activities at the facility are very similar to those at a single family residence. Visually,
the house is designed to blend in with the neighborhood. Vehicles on site include a van
for transporting the residents and employee vehicles. There are scheduled outdoor
recreation activities such as football. The property is maintained by the staff or hired
contractors including lawn maintenance and snow removal.
Upon request of the Planning staff, the applicant held an informational meeting on
Tuesday, January 6, 1998 to answer general questions from the neighborhood
The proposed CLIP should be reviewed in accordance with the criteria found in Section
7.5(C) of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 7.5(C) provides A conditional use shall be
approved if it is found to meet specific criteria.
Staff concluded the proposed use would be appropriate to the location and blend into the
neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the CUP with the condition two front yard
trees be planted in each front yard as required in the Subdivision Ordinance for new lots
of record and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Residential High Density (R-HD)
be approved.
Comments from the public:
Applicant, Dan Saad, 14750 West Bumsville Parkway, said he is familiar with Prior Lake
and has been a High School coach since 1993. He explained the boys are appropriate for
the community and are active in community programs. Staffing ratios are 1 to 3
supervision. Mr. Saad read a letter of support from Ted Newcome, a neighbor on Dublin
Road. A similar letter of support from a neighbor on Erin Circle was submitted. The
program director for the facility was also present for any questions.
Stamson asked what the plan was for the Dublin Road facility. Saad explained the boys
will transfer to the new facility and hopefully start a girl's facility on Dublin Road. The
facility will be finished right away.
Kuykendall asked if they were non-profit. Saad said they are tax exempt just like a
church would be.
Criego questioned the floor size. Saad responded the home on Dublin Road works very
easily for 6 clients. The proposed downstairs will be recreational with three bedrooms. It
is a 6 bedroom home. The office will be in the porch.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn011298.doc 13
Dallas Blakeborough, representing his mother with the neighboring property said he was
hoping the zoning would stay the same because then part of her (his mother's) property
could be in the commercial district. He is concerned with the nmaways in the police
report noting an elementary school and elderly home is right next door. He asked Mr.
Saad about the availability of boys from other counties. He said Saad responded that the
counties are playing hardball, if they do not agree with the program they will not use it.
Mr. Blakeborough said a halfway house was stopped from coming into the neighborhood
a while back.
Peggy Howell, 9642 86th Street, Program Director for the existing facility addressed
some of the issues above. First, the elementary school - she was a program manager for a
10 bed facility next to an elementary school. There were no problems and had a very
comfortable position with the school. Safe Haven has also been a very comfortable
relationship with the neighbors. Secondly, Scott County is very limited in where they are
placing children. They may not meet the strict criteria of Safe Haven. It terms of
runaways - one of the things you will find that differentiates other facilities, it is a strict
environment. Once a child leaves the facility they are considered a runaway. There are
continual head counts regarding the care of the children.
Stamson asked about where the children are coming from. Ms. Howell responded there
are many scenarios and gave examples. The foster care homes are overloaded. The
majority of children come from lack of foster care. She also explained age limit
openings.
Lawrence Blakeborough, is very concerned for the safety of the neighborhood, bringing
in boys from other counties and lowering property values.
Renee Kaiser-Muelken, 15053 Green Oaks Trail, has been working as a counselor at Safe
Haven. She has two children age 8 and 5 and feels her children are very safe with the
clients of Safe Haven. She is also comfortable with her own safety. It has been her
experience it is safe.
The public hearing was closed at 10:15 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Cramer:
While it is difficult for some neighborhoods, this sounds like it was a very sound mn
facility. There should be some conditions.
· It meets what we are trying to do in this community.
· Supported request.
Vonhof:
· Is this going to be a lock down facility? Saad responded it would not.
· What type of fire protection? Saad said they have to have meet State Fire Code.
1 :\98 files\98plcomm\pcminh-nn011298.doc 14
Going to recommend additional fire protection and prevention via a sprinkler system.
· Support.
· Under new zoning ordinance for use with conditions with 6 to 12.
Kuykendall:
· Agreed with Commissioner Vonhof.
Criego:
· Agreed
· Add condition indicate the quality use for EBD only. Any other need or use they
would have to come forward.
Stamson:
· Support the CLIP.
· Needed in the community.
· Appropriate area.
Tovar read through the conditions.
1. The Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan amendment must be approved. The
amendment changes the land use designation from C-CC Community Commercial to R-
HD High Density Residential.
2. The applicant must submit a landscape plan indicating size, species and location
of two 2½" trees per front yard prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner must sign and
record the necessary document granting the 1 foot sidewalk easement to the City as
indicated on the survey including legal description as per amended Exhibit A.
4. The improvements must be done before certified copies of the resolution are
released for recording at the county. The applicant has 30 days to submit plans that are
meet the requirements of the ordinance and conditions set forth upon approval (City Code
Section 5-6-5B). The applicant has until one year from the date of adoption of the
resolution by the City Council to complete the required improvements and record the
resolution or the Conditional Use Permit becomes null and void (Section 5-6-8).
5. The applicant must comply with engineering memo dated January 9, 1998,
including 85 feet from the center line of Franklin Trail.
6. The group home is for youths only aged 8 to 18.
7. The group home will be used for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD)
clients only.
8. Limit to 10 clients.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc 15
9. The building must have internal sprinkling system for additional fire protection.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR SAFE HAVEN AT 5240 160TH STREET, WITH THE
CONDITIONS NOTED ABOVE AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
E. Case #97-127, City of Prior Lake considering a proposed amendment to the
City of Prior Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan changing the designation of the
property located at 6867, 6885 and 6899 Boudin Street from Low to Medium
Density Residential to the Community Retail Shopping designation.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 12,
1998.
The purpose of this public heating is to consider an amendment to the 2010
Comprehensive Plan to the Community Retail Shopping designation. This amendment
was initiated by the Planning Commission as a result of discussion on the proposed
Zoning Ordinance.
This site consists of approximately 2.98 acres of land and is located at 6867, 6885 and 6899
Boudin Street. This property is located on the west side of Highway 13, directly south of Boudin
Street, and is the site of the Watersedge office building and marina.
This property is identified as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2010
Comprehensive Plan. This designation is characterized by a low to medium range of residential
densities.
The proposal is to designate this property for C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) uses. This
designation is characterized by retail shopping centers designed to provide shopping and
convenience facilities to a broader residential area.
Under the proposed Zoning Ordinance, this property will be zoned C-2 (Community Business).
The purpose of this district is to allow the concentration of general commercial development for
the convenience of the public.
This property is the current site of an office building and marina. There is no proposal to change
these land uses.
This amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map was initiated by the Planning
Commission as a result of discussions on the proposed Zoning Ordinance. The property owner
requested the C-2 zoning district in order to allow uses more suitable to property with highway
frontage, than uses in the C-1 district, which are primarily neighborhood oriented. The Planning
Commission agreed the property should be zoned C-2. Upon review of the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map, it was discovered the designation of this property is not consistent with the
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~mn011298.doc 16
proposed zoning, or even the existing zoning. Therefore, the Planning Commission initiated this
amendment.
Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as requested. The
designation of this site is consistent with the proposed zoning of the site.
Comments from the public:
Bryce Huemoeller, 16670 Franklin Trail, was present on behalf of the Haleks who own
the marina and building. The owners of the lot support the proposed amendment and ask
the Planning Commission to do the same. The property is adjacent to Highway 13 and
the structures on the property make it appropriate for the zone change. It is ideal
designation use and would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Bill Allen, 6823 Boudin, lives in the neighboring townhomes, has a concem for changing
the zone to complete commercial with bars and restaurant. Kansier explained restaurants
are permitted now and went on to explain the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the
zoning. It also allows the marina to continue as a conforming use. It maintains the
existing uses. Concern for the private road that runs along the property. Traffic would be
a problem.
The public hearing was closed at 10:36 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Supports Comprehensive Plan
Kuykendall:
· Supports
Criego:
· Supports
· It is really reflecting what it is now. The use is not changed.
Commissioners Cramer and Stamson supported the amendment with out comments.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATING THIS PROPERTY C-
CC.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Old Business:
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn011298.doc 17
Commissioner Kuykendall would like Staff to obtain a comprehensive plan map or
zoning map for Savage.
Commissioner Kuykendall gave a overview of the Downtown Steering Committee.
Concern for high traffic on County Road Rd 21.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\rrm011298.doc 18