HomeMy WebLinkAbout041398REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1998
6:30 p.m.
Bo
Co
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Case #98-040 Eagle Creek Villas, Inc., is requesting a 22.45 foot variance to
permit a 62.46 foot setback from the center line of a County Road (Franklin Trail)
instead of the required 85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance to lot coverage of 21.2
percent rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent.
Old Business:
Case #98-039 (Continued) David Berens requesting front yard and lot coverage
variances for the property located at 16345 Duluth Avenue.
Cases #98-016 to 98-018 (Continued) Consider an Amendment to the original
Windsong on the Lake Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat to be
known as Windsong on the Lake 3rd Addition.
Cases 97-107 & 98-108 (Continued) Consider a proposed Amendment to the City of
Prior Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change request for the property
located at 4520 Tower Street.
New Business:
Discuss televising Planning Commission meetings.
Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
r.L: \91t FIL,~$\98 PI,~CO,ldM~C~M~li~'DA~Ca0413 ~8. [~)C
16200 r.ag~e u. reeK ~ve. ~.r.., rnorLaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 13, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The April 13, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni
Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Absent
Kuykendall Absent
Criego Present
Cramer Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the March 23, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Vonhof arrived at 6:34 p.m.
4. Public Hearings:
Case #98-040 Eagle Creek Villas, Inc., is requesting a 22.45 foot variance to
permit a 62.46 foot setback from the center line of a County Road (Franklin
Trail) instead of the required 85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance to lot coverage of
21.2 percent rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated April 13, 1998 on file in the office of
the City Planner.
Eagle Creek Villas is proposing to construct two 4-unit townhomes on the Apple Valley
Ready Mix site. A demolition permit has been issued for the structures existing on the
site. The property is zoned R-3 Multiple Family Residential and is designated as R-HD
Urban High Density in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The applicant is requesting
the following variances:
· A 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a county
road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback from the centerline.
A 1.2% variance to permit lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the maximum
allowed of 20%.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398 .doc 1
The lot is a comer lot approximately 223 feet by 150 feet. The total lot area is 33,220
square feet (0.76 acres). Section 5-4-1 (M) of the City Code requires structures to be
setback 85 feet from the centefline of county roads. Section 5-4-1 allows for a maximum
lot coverage of 20% for townhomes. The maximum permitted density for townhomes in
the R-3 is 14.0 units per acres. The applicant is proposing 10.5 units per acre. The
applicant will have to subdivide the property prior to obtaining a building permit for the
proposed townhomes. As the lot exists, only one building permit can be issued on the lot.
Staff has concluded that as submitted, the proposal does not meet the hardship criteria.
The site plan can be modified to meet all ordinance requirements.
Comments from the public:
Attorney Bryce Huemoeller, 16670 Franklin Trail, representing the applicant, gave a brief
overview on the proposed townhomes. The intention of the developer is to develop this
as a condominium which would address the 20% versus 30% impervious surface
coverage issue required for townhouses. Huemoeller explained the double frontage
creates additional issues. By combining the buildings and moving 10 feet to the east, the
setbacks would be met, but it would not be a reasonable use of the property. He feels
there is a hardship and the proposal is reasonable. It is a key intersection in the City and
the applicant would like to build an attractive, cost effective building. Moving the project
to the west allows the developer to do several things that are beneficial; enhance
appearance, allow for windows in the interior buildings, yet be cost effective. They do not
feel the movement of the building to the west will interfere with public health and safety.
It is an R3 project and allows adequate view for the intersection for access and safety.
Mr. Huemoeller quoted the Rowell case. He also feels these issues would not be a
problem under the new zoning ordinance. They also feel this meets the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Larry Gensmer, a partner in the development was also present for
any questions.
Pat Sotis, public housing manager for Scott County HRA, manages Prior Manor adjacent
to the lot in question. She said they do not have anything against the variance requestand
would like to work with applicants. She was also representing the residents of the Manor
and asked the following questions. Would there be fencing along the parking lot property
line? And, because the grading has been changed would there be runoff on to the Manor
property? Kansier explained no fencing is required by the City and the developer has to
address the grading runoff to adjoining property. It is not allowed unless there is an
easement.
The public hearing was closed at 6:47 p.m.
1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398 .doc
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof.'
· Asked staff to respond to Huemoeller's question regarding the setback from the
county road under the new zoning ordinance. Kansier said they would have to go
through the conditional use process under the proposed zoning ordinance. Rye said a
potential ordinance does not provide legal basis to approve a variance.
· Regarding thc setback from the county road, a hardship could be madcdue to thc
uniqueness of two county roads. That in a sense, might constitute a variance
hardship.
Criego:
Question to staff. Because it is two buildings the lot would have to be divided in two.
If it was divided in two, would there be a variance on the side? Tovar explained the
applicant is planning to plat as a condominium. Kansier said they would not need to
go through the subdivision procedure even to create the envelope lot. They could plat
one large lot. A variance would not be required if they create an envelope lot.
· Tovar read the definition oftownhomes.
· With 33,000 square feet one could still build 6 to 8 townhomes. The applicant is
creating his own hardship by splitting the building.
Cramer:
· Agreed with Criego.
The hardship is created by what is being put on the lot as
opposed to circumstances being unique to the property. The building envelope is
very large. There are alternatives.
The 20% lot coverage should be met.
Do not meet the variance hardship criteria at this time.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Cramer and Criego. The ordinance does not create an undue hardship.
There any number of reasonable uses that can be applied to this property. Just
because the ordinance does not accommodate this one particular design does not
create an undue hardship.
· Concurred with staff.
Vonhof:
· Disagreed. Although the lot size is substantial, in view of the spirit and intent of the
ordinance, one large building versus two smaller building, and the fact it is on two
county roads, if you looked at it without the roads, the setbacks would be met and
there would not be a problem. The hardship criteria have been met.
Stamson:
· By using a different configuration the townhomes could be built.
Vonhof.'
· Comer lots with dual setbacks are an issue. There are unique setbacks.
h\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc 3
Criego:
· Understands
Vonhof's comments. In most cases, it was almost impossible to
construct a building without the variances, but here a suitable housing configuration
can be achieved without a variance. That is the difference.
· What are the new setbacks and coverages with the new zoning ordinance? Kansier
explained the new changes.
· Under the new ordinance it would be a conditional use permit, but the setbacks would
be met. This proposal was not reviewed under the new ordinance.
· When is the new ordinance going to be passed? Rye said it would be close to six
months.
· If the applicant wants to build under the new ordinance, he would have to wait.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-
11PC DENYING A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD
OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE AND A 1.2%
VARIANCE TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20%.
Discussion:
Criego understood Vonhof's concern for two county roads creating a hardship. Criego's
concern is the building on the west side is five feet closer to the road than he would like.
The east side building is 15 feet from the property line. Criego would consider some type
of request if approved to move the building over. Vonhof pointed out the Commissioners
could approve a variance for less than requested.
Tovar said the applicant has the choice to remove one of the units and still meet the lot
coverage.
Cramer noted in the past the Commission has asked applicants to reduce the coverage and
therefore not need the variance. By reducing one of the building units by one, the
developer could create what the developer is aiming for and meet the requirements.
Stamson feels this is a design issue. Not comfortable passing a variance on that basis.
Vonhof believes there is an argument for hardship, as proposed.
Cramer feels the hardship is being created by the design.
Vote taken signified ayes by Stamson and Cramer, nays by Vonhof and Criego.
MOTION FAILED
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT
AVAILABLE MEETING, MAY 11, 1998.
1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398 .doc 4
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #98-039 (Continued) David Berens requesting front yard and lot
coverage variances for the property located at 16345 Duluth Avenue.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated April 13, 1998 on file in the office of
the City Planner.
The Planning Commission originally heard this request on March 23, 1998. The item
was continued to allow the applicant time to revise the plan and variance requests. The
applicant is requesting the following variances:
· 12 Foot Front yard setback variance to allow front yard setback of 13 feet rather than
the required 25 foot setback.
· 6.5% Lot coverage variance to permit lot coverage of 28.5% rather that he maximum
coverage allowed of 22%.
The Planning Commission also directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial relating to
the applicant's original request. Resolution #98-10PC was drafted.
The lot is a comer lot 40.0 feet by 130 feet. Section 5-4-1 of the City Code requires that
comer lots maintain the required front yard along each street of frontage. Therefore, the
required garage setback is 25 feet from the property line facing Duluth Avenue. The
requested variance is to allow a front yard setback of 13 feet rather than the minimum
required of 25 feet. The applicant is also requesting a variance to lot coverage for the
proposed garage. Section 5-4-1 of the City Code allows for a maximum coverage of 22%
(structures only) in the R-2 Urban Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing
building coverage of 28.5%.
The survey indicates the revised layout of the garage and driveway. The applicant has
significantly reduced the size of the garage from 792 square feet to 484 square feet. The
garage now faces south, rather than west in the original proposal, allowing for a turn
around and eliminating the overhang of parked vehicles into the right of way.
Staff concluded the revised proposal meets the four hardship criteria.
Comments from the public:
No comments from the applicant.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc 5
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· The applicant has submitted the revised plans with our recommendations.
hardships have been met.
The
Cramer, Vonhof and Stamson.
· Concurred.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-09PC
GRANTING A 12.0 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF
13.0 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET AND A 6.5% LOT COVERAGE
VARIANCE TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 28.5% RATHER THAN THE
MAXIMUM COVERAGE ALLOWED OF 22% FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
DETACHED GARAGE.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-10PC DENYING A 12.0 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT
A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 13.0 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET
AND A 12.5% LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF
34.5% RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM COVERAGE ALLOWED OF 22% FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Cases #98-016 to 98-018 (Continued) Consider an Amendment to the
original Windsong on the Lake Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat
to be known as Windsong on the Lake 3rd Addition.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated April 13, 1998 on file
in the office of the City Planner.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 23, 1998, to consider this
request. The Planning Commission continued action on this item until March 9, 1998,
and suggested the applicant work with the homeowner's association on this request. At
the developer's request, this item was continued again until April 13, 1998.
A meeting with the developer and Windsong Homeowner's Association was held on
March 17, 1998. The only information the staff has received about this meeting is a letter
from the developer, received on March 23, 1998. The developer has also submitted a
draft of the revised homeowner's association documents. The City Attorney's office is
reviewing these documents.
The proposal for this development has not changed significantly. Since this original
report was written, the developer provided a revised measurement for the lake frontage,
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc 6
increasing this frontage from 165 feet to 171 feet. The difference in this measurement is
the fact the measurement was taken at the 904' Ordinary High Water Elevation rather
than along a straight survey line. The increased frontage will allow 11 additional boat
slips, rather than the 10 mentioned in the earlier report.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet is required by the Department of Natural
Resources.
The proposal consists of a PUD Plan Amendment and a Preliminary Plat. The proposed
PUD amendment is consistent with the existing development. If the development is to
proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions:
1. No more than 11 additional boat slips shall be permitted. The developer must provide
a copy of the revised DNR permit allowing the additional boat slips to the City
Planning Department.
2. The Homeowner's Association documents for Windsong on the Lake must be
amended to include the new area, and the amended documents must be recorded with
the final plat documents. A recorded copy of the amended documents must be
submitted to the Planning Department within 10 days after recording the final plat.
3. There shall be no filling or grading on Outlots A and B, as shown on the preliminary
plat for Windsong on the Lake Third Addition without the issuance of a separate
filling and grading permit. Any alteration to the existing vegetation on these outlots
must also be consistent with the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. There shall be no filling or grading on Lot 1, Block 2, as shown on the preliminary
plat for Windsong on the Lake Third Addition without the issuance of a separate
filling and grading permit. Any alteration to the existing vegetation on this lot must
also be consistent with the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
The preliminary plat is consistent with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance
requirements. If the Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Homeowner's Association documents for Windsong on the Lake must be
amended to include the new area, and the amended documents must be recorded with
the final plat documents. A recorded copy of the amended documents must be
submitted to the Planning Department within 10 days after recording the final plat.
Staff recommend approval of the amendment to the PUD Plan subject to the above listed
conditions, and the Preliminary Plat subject to the above listed condition.
Chair Stamson opened the public hearing.
Comments from the public:
Ralph Heuschele stated he had another meeting with 15 people from the Homeowners
Association with discussion lasting about two hours. It was his feeling at the end of the
meeting they had adequately explained what they wanted to do and there was a level of
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm041398.doc 7
acceptance. They are in the process of obtaining consents and at this time there has been
about a 50% response. They need 90%. Heuschele said they moved the configurations a
little bit. Forty feet was added to one dimension which Mr. Heuschele presented and
explained. The change was to deal with a safety hazard in the swimming area. This was
an important item to several people at the public meeting who also were at the
homeowners meeting.
Kansier said staff had not reviewed this new proposal.
Heuschele apologized to staff and said the change was made tonight.
Heuschele said they have 26 slips
development scheduled to go to 38.
slips they were able to get approval.
at the present time. There are 24 lots with the
One lot has a significant soil problem. With 36 boat
When H & H Development acquired ownership of this property they were presented with
a situation where a great amount of sand was dumped on the beach. The approach was
then to create another shoreline that was more natural. They can only go so far out into
the water without getting into a permit situation. This made sense to put the boat docks
in that area. Heuschele said no other changes would be made.
There were no other comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Cramer:
Suggested at the last meeting to continue this issue to let the homeowners understand
the proposal. The homeowners have been notified.
Based on the conditions set by staffin the Resolution, his concerns have been met and
supports the request.
Vonhof:
· Concurred. Concerns by homeowners are taken care of.
· Recommends approval.
Criego:
· Agreed, but for a different reason.
· Understands over 90% of the homeowners have to approve this. That gives a comfort
level they will be represented.
· Approve.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PUD PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF REVIEW THE NEW SUBMITTED
DRAWING.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhnn041398.doc 8
Discussion:
· Homeowners Association Bylaws must be amended.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Cases 97-107 & 98-108 (Continued) Consider a proposed Amendment to the
City of Prior Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change request for the
property located at 4520 Tower Street.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated April 13, 1998 on file
in the office of the City Planner.
This item was originally considered by the Planning Commission on December 8, 1997.
The Planning Commission tabled action on this item to allow the applicant to meet with
the residents of the adjacent neighborhood to discuss his plans for this property. The
applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on January 27, 1998. The staff has not
received any information on the outcome of this meeting.
At this time, no specific plans for the property development have been submitted,
although the applicant has verbally indicated his plans to construct a three story
multifamily dwelling. Under the present Zoning Ordinance, multiple family dwellings
are a permitted use in the R-3 district, with a maximum density of 14 units per acre, and a
maximum coverage of 20 percent.
An analysis of each component of this application follows.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives
which are applicable to this request are as follows:
GOAL: SUITABLE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT: Encourage the development of
suitable housing in a desirable environment.
OBJECTIVE No. 1: Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable high quality
housing.
OBJECTIVE No. 2: Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality
residential environments.
OBJECTIVE No. 3: Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of the
natural environment and the enjoyment of residents.
The R-HD designation is intended to provide an opportunity to create population centers
near community activity areas. This designation is consistent with the above stated goals
and objectives in that it offers a variety of housing, and it is consistent with the City's
1 :\98 files\98plcomm\pcminhnm041398, doc 9
Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. The R-HD
designation is also consistent with the designation of the property to the east.
Zone Change: The criteria for granting a zoning change include the following:
1. There was a mistake in the original zoning
2. Conditions have changed significantly since the current zoning was adopted.
3. The Comprehensive Plan has been amended.
Any of these criteria can be used to evaluate a request for rezoning.
Action on this zone change depends on the outcome of the amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
is approved, the proposed zone change is consistent with the revised Land Use Plan
designation. If the Comprehensive Plan amendment is not approved, the zone change
should also be denied.
When the Planning Commission originally considered this request, one of the concerns
was the availability of commercially zoned land in the City. Approval of this request will
reduce the amount of existing commercially zoned land by approximately three acres.
The size of the parcel is not conducive to a large scale development; however, the parcel
can accommodate several different types of commercial uses. If the property remains
zoned B-3, any of the uses permitted in that district may be developed on this site.
If the property is rezoned, any of the uses permitted in the R-3 district may be developed
on this site. A list of the uses permitted in the R-3 district is also attached for your
information. It is important to remember the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone
Change process cannot be used to designate a specific development. Rather, this process
is used to determine if a Land Use Plan and zoning designation are appropriate for a
specific site.
Staff feels the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning district is
compatible with the designation and zoning of the property directly adjacent to the east.
For this reason, staff recommends the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and zone change as requested.
Cramer asked if that section of Tower Street would be part of the ring road. Kansier
explained the zoning of the adjacent properties.
Vonhof asked if there was anything in the CIP to pave the gravel road? Kansier said
"No."
Criego verified the coverage.
1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcminXnm041398 .doc
10
Comments from the public:
Jeffrey Gustafson, Stonewood Development Corporation, developer for this site, felt this
was a good project. There were neighborhood concerns, which when they met turned the
developer's thinking around. Owner-occupied units rather than tenants would be a better
fit in the neighborhood. They researched the market and at this point are proposing the
building marketed by an Edina based company to make it a for sale owner-occupied
project. This is what the neighbors wanted.
Stamson questioned why Stonewood would see the benefit of residential over the
commercial zoned property. Stonewood said there was no exposure. The bowling alley
and restaurant failed. Retail needs exposure. The Priordale Mall will eventually be
redeveloped. The owner was thinking it could be offices.
Michael Mann, architect was concerned with how you could get any exposure from this
property. There is an opportunity to use it as a buffer between Priordale and the
residential neighborhood. Cannot see as commercial property. They have looked at the
existing and proposed zoning. Mr. Mann passed out a concept development.
Dale Kramers, of Home Equity Program, offers a full range program for people wanting
to get into condominiums. This is a national program geared for the elderly, singles and
first time home buyers.
James Gustin, 4543 Pondview Trail, opposed the rezoning. He attended the meeting with
the developer a few months ago and missed the part where this project was going to be
turned into condominiums. Why abandon this plan and adversely affect the
neighborhoods? He was told by a realtor it would lower his property values if apartments
were built on this site. Kuykendall stated at the December meeting that Prior Lake was
ahead of the game with regard to rental units. Gustin said Prior Lake has 100% more
housing units than Savage, 110% more than Lakeville, 100% more than Apple Valley and
80% more than Rosemount. Do we really want to rezone more property for apartments?
People will not want to look at the back of the Priordale Mall. There have been safety
problems with the existing townhomes.
Gustin pointed out Criego stated at the December meeting the Comprehensive Plan was
designed to create more commercial property to diversify the taxes. Vonhof disagreed
with the rezoning. Stamson had concerns with residential taxes and available commercial
land. Commissioners have stated in previous meeting they are against the rezoning and
nothing presented tonight has changed those concerns.
Jim Erickson, 4544 Pondview Trail, said every time they meet with the developer it
seems to be getting worse and worse. The number of apartments keep changing. Now its
low income housing. It only adds to the existing problems. All five Commissioners were
ready to deny this.
1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcminknm041398.doc 11
Dale Kramers, addressed the comments on the lower income. He feels it is not low
income. It is affordable to good citizens by minimizing a down payment allowing many
people a nice place to live.
The public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Does not have any qualms about the project. The issue before the Planning
Commission is a comprehensive plan change. The last time this was presented I
could have gone either way. Good case for R3 or B3. Looking at the map it could go
either way. Since then, I stood on the property and looked at the ring road system the
City is going to put in and feel the property itself it should be B3. The residents seem
to think it would be a better buffer.
· Looking at tax base issues it should stay in its current zoning.
· Does not support the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Criego:
· Agreed it could go either way. The project as laid out could work. What we are
looking at is a zone change.
· The City needs more business area. This is a buffer zone between R1 and B3 and he
does not feel the residents want some of the commercial which could go into a B3
area. The question is "What is best for the community?"
Cramer:
· The development on its own looks okay. Agreed there is enough high density in the
area.
· No one knows what is going to happen to Priordale Mall or the neighboring area.
· Keep commercial as is.
Vonhof:
· Concur with Commissioners.
· Good proposal for an R3 district.
· It is not appropriate in the City to change any B1 or B2 to residential. The City is
overwhelming R1. It would be premature to know what is going on around the
development. At best it would be premature not knowing what is going on.
· There will be substantial development in the next 5 years.
Neil Boderman, the land owner and owner of the Priordale Mall, said he understands the
Commissioners reluctance to rezone the land and put into a residential zone. But he feels
the land should have never been zoned commercial. Boderman just came from meeting
with someone who wants to put in a motorcycle store in Priordale Mall. He has been
trying to work with the Priordale Mall for the last 9 years. Now the Commissioners are
trying to plan for the next five years. This proposed project would be the lesser of two
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc 12
evils. The ring road will not enhance the area. Most retailers do not want to be that far
off Highway 13. The only reasonable approach is to come up with a different proposal.
Criego:
· Agreed with Mr. Boderman that the property will not be used for any high standard
use.
· Not sure the neighborhood would like that.
· Priordale Mall has been a sore spot in Prior Lake for years.
· Recommend going with staff's recommendation.
Stamson:
· Agreed it is not high profile but there are other uses that can go in.
· It sets a bad first step to rezone and create residential. It is the City's intent and desire
to develop commercial.
· Not willing to jump the gun and rezone residential at this time. It is too early.
Vonhof:
· Does not totally disagree. In a sense there is some transitional value between zones.
· Sympathetic to property owner but it is premature. The City has seen 4 different
projects in the last 18 months.
Criego:
· Why did staff come up with their recommendation?
Kansier said they looked at the
same issues as the Planning Commission. The property does not have access and
visibility.
Feels it should be R3. Get movement in the area. Concerned the residents in the area
do not realize what can happen with a B3 district.
It could be either.
It is a good project.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT TO R3 FROM B3. IN ADDITION AN
ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY TO R3.
NO SECOND. THE MOTION DIES.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION BASED ON SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF
FACT.
There was no discussion.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Stamson and Cramer, nay by Criego. MOTION
CARRIED.
Kansier explained the City Council approval process.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminknm041398 .doc 13
6. New Business:
A. Discuss televising Planning Commission meetings.
Rye explained the current proposal is to start televising City Council meetings in June.
Their plan was to take on the advisory committees in September.
The commissioners felt the meetings should be televised. "The sooner the better."
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Cramcr spoke on the workshop. Some of the issues were mazinas, maximum garage size
and not allowing any buildings over 35 feet. No shoreline issues have been discussed yet.
Questioned staff on City Council's decision on the Burdick property. Rye and Tovar
responded.
Briefly discussed:
· City Council's concern over downtown's zoning.
· Questioned if the library project was on schedule.
· Question what is going to happen with the 904 lake level.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Come Carlson
Recording Secretary
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc
14