Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012698REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1998 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: A. Consider Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the City of Prior Lake for regulations for Adult Uses, Communication Towers and Antennas, and Architectural Standards. 5. Old Business: A. Case #97-132, Continuation of Burdick Properties variances for rear yard setback and berm slope for 14162 Commerce Avenue and 14180 Commerce Avenue properties. 6. New Business: A. Case #97-118 Potential sale of City Property - Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center First Addition. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: L598FILES\98PLCOMM~CAGENDAXAGO 12698.DOC 16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1998 1. Call to Order: The January 26, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, City Engineer Greg Ilkka Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Come Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Kuykendall Present Criego Absent Cramer Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: Page 6, Kuykendall statement "Concern the documents were not drawn to scale." Page 1, Vonhof arrived at 6:36 p.m. Page 5, Vonhof stated "The existing grading does not match the approved plan." The Minutes from the January 12, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved as amended. 4. Public Hearings: A. Consider Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the City of Prior Lake for regulations for Adult Uses, Communication Towers and Antennas, and Architectural Standards. Planing Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 26, 1998. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 22, 1997, to discuss the proposed zoning ordinance and zoning map. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on November 24, 1997, and further discussed the ordinance on December 8, 1997. After that discussion, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to City Council on the information included in the proposed ordinance. Tonight's public hearing is to discuss additional items which were not included in the draft of the proposed zoning ordinance. Specifically, these items are additional architectural design requirements currently found in the Building Code chapter of the City Code, provisions for Antennas and Towers, and provisions for Sexually Oriented Uses. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn012698.doc 1 There are currently architectural requirements located in the Building Code Section of the City Code (Section 4-7-1 to 4-7-6). Since the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes architectural design requirements, it makes sense to incorporate these existing provisions into the Zoning Ordinance, and delete them from the Building Code provisions. The staff reviewed the existing provisions and determined only a part of the requirements are relevant. Portions of Section 4-7-1 have been incorporated into the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Sections 4-7-2 through 4-7-6 can be deleted, since these provisions are already covered in the new Ordinance. Section 510.1 O0 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance outlines "Uses Subject to Change", such as antennas and towers and sexually oriented businesses. Due to the sensitive nature of these uses, they are often subject not only to local zoning regulations, but to State and Federal regulations as well. The Towers and Antennas provisions outline where these uses are allowed with specific criteria. Briefly, they are permitted in all use Districts as Uses Permitted With Conditions. Height and setbacks are more restrictive in the Residential Use Districts than in the Commercial and Industrial Districts. The regulations also discuss amateur radio antennas, which are primarily regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. Vonhof questioned if water towers were exempted. Kansier responded water towers are public utilities and explained how antennas on water towers are regulated. Cramer questioned the number of antennas on the water towers. Kansier explained the provisions. While the need to regulate sexually oriented businesses is apparent, it is important the regulations are not so severe as to preclude the uses or regulate free speech. The uses are permitted in the C-3 (Specialty Business), C-4 (General Business) and I-1 (Industrial) districts and in the A (Agricultural) district. The uses are subject to a 350' distance separation from any residential use, and from other uses associated with children, such as playgrounds, schools and libraries. The uses are also subject to a 1,000' separation from any other similar use. In the A district, the uses require a minimum 40 acre lot area, and a 500' lot width. The Ordinance also restricts the size of these uses, and applies regulations to the operation of these types of businesses. Kuykendall questioned why square footage was regulated. Kansier explained the control. Vonhof commented on the adult uses and questioned control on the licensing. He thought the requirements should include background checks before issuance. Kansier said a more appropriate place to put the license provision is in the City Code. The staff can have that provision ready to go before the City Council as part of the Code. Kuykendall commented on regulating new technology. Cramer gave some background on the issue. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXnm012698.doc 2 Cramer questioned violations. Kansier explained most violations are civil, not criminal. There were no comments from the public. The public heating was closed at 6:59 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · This is under permitted uses with conditions. Would it be better to go with conditional uses? Kansier explained it was difficult to deny in this manner. There is a great number of conditions that need to be met. It would be less subject to appeal. · I will make a companion motion for a recommendation for licensing to go with this. Cramer: · Supported recommendations. Kuykendall: · Supported Stamson: · Agreed MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THESE SECTIONS AS PART OF THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, THAT ALL SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES BE LICENSED AND THAT APPROPRIATE STANDARDS BE DRAWN LIP UNDER THE LICENSING ORDINANCE TO COVER THE COST OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS AS WELL AS THE ONGOING REGULATIONS OF THESE TYPES OF BUSINESS. AND ALSO ALLOW FOR ON- SITE INSPECTIONS AND PROVISIONS FOR REVOCATIONS OF THE LICENSE. Discussion: Kuykendall - this would exclude the reservation. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn012698 .doc 3 5. Old Business: A. Case//97-132, Continuation of Burdick Properties variances for rear yard setback and berm slope for 14162 Commerce Avenue and 14180 Commerce Avenue properties. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report. On January 12, 1998, the Planning Commission heard the request for variances on the respective lots on Commerce Avenue. The requested variances relate to two existing commercial properties located on Commerce Avenue. 14180 Commerce Avenue was built in 1994 and 14162 Commerce Avenue was built in 1997. At that hearing, the applicant stated he is not applying for a variance to berm slope or fence height. The Staff had asked for this in writing and has yet to receive anything. Staff had also asked the applicant to submit a revised completed landscape plan for review and to address the issue of the trash enclosure on the easement. The revised landscape plan is still outstanding. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Kelly (applicant's representative) on January 21, 1998, the submittal of a revised landscape plan is pending specific feedback from the adjacent residential property owners. A memorandum from City Attorney Suesan Pace, relating to the history of James 1 st Addition and Burdick #3 discusses the legal issues of what has happened with respect to the Zoning Ordinance. This memorandum has the necessary related minutes and documentation relating to the issues brought up by residents and information as requested by the Planning Commission. As stated in the staff report dated January 12, 1998, staffhas 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. Considering the trash enclosure is located in the drainage and utility easement, staff recommends a "Use of Public Easement" agreement be signed and recorded by the applicant (as amended in Resolution 98-01PC). Stamson questioned allowable tolerance of grading. Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott explained the elevation allowed is a plus or minus .3 (three-tenths) of a foot. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: Attorney Mark Kelly (applicant's representative) clarified the intent was to complete the berm as designed. The slope on the berm is a 2 to 1 ratio. Another layer of retaining wall will make up the 1 to 1 1/2 foot difference. · Concerned all the information was not obtained from the developer. · Would like to see the line of site information. The drawings are not drawn to scale. Would like to see the landscape plan. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin'mm012698.doc 4 · Feels all action on this matter should be continued. Crflmer: · Has enough information to address the variances. There are some separate issues. · The landscape plan is needed. · The trash enclosure is a concern. · With all the mistakes made hopes people learn a lot of lessons from this. · Separate all three variances into separate items. Vonhof: · Until the criteria is corrected, the Commissioners cannot make decisions. The property is not in compliance. · The trash enclosures are located where they should not be. · Admittedly the City said "We made a mistake." His opinion is the developer should know where to put things. The developer failed. There is nothing from the developer saying he will comply with the existing grading plan. · The property is not conforming by applicant's own design. Cannot support the requested variances. · The developers have made mistakes as well. Stamson: · Upon reading the brief, felt there was enough information. · Agreed the garbage enclosures should be a separate issue. It is one of the biggest problems. · Supports the 2' fence height. The hardship criteria has been met. · Variance of large berm - Does not favor a slope of 3.1. There are other ways to meet the screening. · Could work on all variances. Kuykendall: · Not favor the location of the trash enclosures. · Commissioners should act on individual items. · Reality is the building exists. The building codes should be met. · Would like to see all the information in front of the Commissioners. · If this is continued, the 60 day rule will mn out on February 21, 1998. · Other issues have to be worked out. Vonhof.' · Not opposed on acting on the variances tonight. Kuykendall: * Feels the right information has to be available and would like to continue the meeting. · If the developer cannot meet the requirements all variances should be denied. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~012698.doc 5 Mr. Kelly pointed out the grading plan before the Commissioners is 2 to 1. The applicant has been waiting for a response from the neighbors on the proposals. He stated the applicant would like to work out an amicable resolution with the neighbors. To date there has been no comments from the neighbors. Discussions continue on what happened in 1979 when the applicant did not own the property and does not know what happened back then. 1-1is client is being held responsible to activities of City Council members, neighbors and prior owners. Mr. Kelly said they will submit a new landscape plan but feels the applicant had been forthcoming with information. They want a consistent landscaping plan across the lot line. Mr. Kelly asked the Commissioners to point out exactly what they want and they will provide the information. Vonhof: · The reason for the variances is because of the applicant. · The plans dated 1997 are not complete. Kuykendall: · Plans should be drawn to scale. · Assure the landscape architect has the appropriate information. Direct line of site. Understands it will not be a clear. · The neighbors are most concerned with what the see. · Applicant's screening proposal is reasonable. Cramer: · Asked for a line of sight - possibly tree height. Give an idea of what the blockage would be. Right now people are guessing what the line of site would be. Mr. Kelly asked for the next meeting to extend the 60 day deadline. Maureen Hermann, 14151 Timothy Avenue, commented everyone keeps on talking about building #3. The neighbors want the same thing done on building #2. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 23, 1998, MEETING. Vote taken signified 3 ayes and 1 nay. MOTION CARRIED. PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 23, 1998, THE DEVELOPER SHOULD IDENTIFY THE LOCATION AND HEIGHT OF THE BERM AND FENCE ON THE SITE BY USING POSTS AND STRING OR SOME OTHER SIMILAR MEANS TO GIVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THE APPROXIMATE LEVEL OR ELEVATIONS OF THE TOP OF THE FENCE AND THE BERM. A LANDSCAPE PLAN AND ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE FENCE AND BERM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF PRIOR TO THE MEETING. A recess was called at 7:53 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:04 p.m. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn012698.doc 6 6. New Business: A. Case #97-118 Potential sale of City Property - Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center First Addition. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated January 26, 1998. The City of Prior Lake received a request to sell a piece of property located at the south east comer of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue, legally described as Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center First Addition. State Statute requires the Planning Commission determine if such a sale of property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan designates this property as Residential High Density. While the future land uses of a private developer are unknown, it is known the City has no immediate or long range plans to develop the property as high density residential. The City purchased this property for the connection of Toronto Avenue to property now known as Woodridge Estates. The City held the property with the idea the remaining parcel to the east of Toronto Avenue could be used for a future dance studio. However, considering the recent referendum and location of the future dance studio downtown, the need for the City to hold the property has been eliminated. While the request was from a specific person, the property would be sold through the bidding process. The Development Review Committee has reviewed the request. The Planning Commission finding will be forwarded to the City Council. The City Council will need to determine whether or not to proceed with the sale of the property and to direct staff accordingly. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof questioned if there is anything in the Comprehensive Plan addressing this issue? Kuykendall asked if the money would go into the capital improvement fired. Rye responded the sale would go into the general fund. Cramer and Vonhof commented on the high density and commercial property. The size of the property is about 1.7 acres. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO FIND THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY BE DIRECTED TOWARD OTHER STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~-rmO 12698 .doc 7 Announcements and Correspondence: There was a brief discussion on the County Road 42 access and Timothy Avenue. Discussed a Scott County Planning Commissioner workshop. Tovar gave an update. Tentative dates are March 24, March 30 or March 31, 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Find out concerns of the other cities - take time to discuss. The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary 1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm012698 .doc 8