HomeMy WebLinkAbout042798REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1998
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #98-056 Consider a two foot setback variance for monument sign for Nordquist
Signs on behalf of Park Nicollet Clinic.
B. Case #98-043 Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the
permitted uses in the Business Park Zoning District.
C. Case #98-048 James Nerison is requesting variances for impervious surface and side
yard setback for the property at 14294 Aspen Avenue.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #98-019 Discussion on proposed Official Map for the Ring Road between
Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
r,L:X911 FI L,F~X98 PI~COhMlVI~C&GFr~DA~G0427 ~. DQC
16200 ~a§~e cree}~ ~ve. ~.m, rnor t~a}m, Minnesota 5,5372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-424,5
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 27, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The April 27, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni
Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Kuykendall Absent
Criego Present
Cramer Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the April 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #98-056 Consider a two foot setback variance for monument sign for
Nordquist Signs on behalf of Park Nicollet Clinic.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated April 27, 1998 on file in the
office of the City Planner.
Staffrecommended this item be continued so the applicant can redo their survey. The
space is larger than they thought. The applicant has indicated to staff a revised survey
will be submitted by May 1, 1998. A continuance of the variance tmtil May 11, 1998 will
allow the applicant time to submit a revised survey, and staff time to review the new
information.
There were no comments from the public or commissioners.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO TABLE THE REQUEST TO
MAY 11, 1998 TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO SUBMIT A REVISED
SURVEY.
Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc I
B. Case #98-043 Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to
the permitted uses in the Business Park Zoning District.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated April 27, 1998 on file in the
office of the City Planner.
The hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the
permitted uses in the Business Park Zoning District. The proposed amendment will allow
Gymnastics Schools as a permitted use in the Business Park (BP) Zoning District.
This amendment was initiated by Charles and Bev Rutz of Prior Lake Gynmastics,
currently located on Main Avenue in the site previously occupied by the Star Tribune
distribution center. They are requesting the zoning ordinance amendment to allow them
to occupy space at the Prior Lake Business Center building (Dave Hansen site). The use
of a gynmastics school requires large open spaces with high ceilings. Buildings in the
Business Park are designed as office warehouse and manufacturing facilities with large
open interior spaces and high ceilings. Such design also accommodates space needs of a
gynmastics school.
Section 6.15 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the permitted and conditional uses in the
Business Park (BP) Zoning District.
Business Park uses listed as permitted and conditional are those which provide for basic
employment within the city. Such uses are office, warehouse, and fabrication. Business
service industries are permitted uses. The district is designed via development standards
to accommodate such specific land uses and promote a business park atmosphere. One of
the implications of allowing gymnastics schools as a permitted use is inadequate parking
on existing sites. The sites were designed as office warehouse with parking based on
number of employees or office use.
Under the current ordinance, gynmastics schools fall under the use of Private club, health
club. Private clubs are permitted in the B-2 Community Business and B-3 General
Business districts and are conditional uses in the B-1 Limited Business District. The
petitioner has had difficulty locating in an existing building due to the height needed for
gymnastics activities. The costs to renovate an existing structure are significant.
Staff feels the request to allow gymnastics schools in the Business Park (BP) Zoning
District is an inappropriate use of the Business Park zoning district. The district is not
designed to accommodate recreational activities. These recreational uses are allowed in
all of the other business districts.
Staff recommended denial of the proposed amendment.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc 2
Comments from the public:
Applicant Bev Rutz, recommended approving this facility for the youth's gynmastic
program. This facility will not be a permanent site in the Business Park. There are no
other areas in the community available. The problem is finding a building with adequate
ceiling height. Right now they are in a garage. Parents would like to stay in Prior Lake.
It is a feeder program into the high school. There are 150 children involved ages 4
through high school. This fall there were 190 participants. The high school is pushing
and supporting this program. This would be a nonprofit organization with the parents.
Mrs. Rutz and her husband are running the program for the sake of the community. She
feels there were no parking problems at the existing site. It would be an evening event
and parking would be available in the Business Park. The businesses are closed. Do not
say "no" to the children of the community.
Stamson: How many square feet are you requiting? Rutz responded it was 2,400 feet.
Creigo asked how many students were enrolled. Rutz said tight now they had 150
children from age 4 on up to seniors in high school. The high school is supporting this
program. This would be a non-profit organization.
Ctiego also asked what would happen if the request was turned down, what is the
alternative? Rutz said there is no alternative but they would want to continue the
program. Rutz said they checked with the schools and told them they would buy the
equipment and give it to the schools just let the community use it. The high school said
they do not have any place to store the equipment. Parents would like a year round
program. P.L.A.Y. ran previous gynmastic programs (six to eight weeks). Last year there
were no programs. Rutz and her husband started this program 8 weeks ago.
Rutz explained 99% of the participants are from Prior Lake. The other 1% is from
· Savage, but it is the Ptior Lake/Savage School Disttict.
Chuck Rutz, 15691 Santee Circle, said they really do not want to change the ordinance
but there are no other options. His real drive would be to have their own building, but to
do that immediately is out of the question. The only location in Ptior Lake is the business
park. He would like to function for a year or two in the business park until they can find
another building. He would like to see a way for a one or two year period. Looking at
the business park tonight, there is no parking problem. The city is trying to promote
community togetherness. The city runs a dance program.
Criego asked if it would only be mn in the evening. Rutz said their parent survey
indicated they wanted evenings. If it functions well, the program would like to build their
own building.
Stamson asked how this would affect the new ordinance. Would it be a non-conforming
use? Kansier said they would not be able to expand.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc
Cramer: Are there any conditions for public buildings? Kansier said this use does not
meet the definition for public use and public programs.
Bruce Monson, 15491 Stefan Circle, stated he was a parent of one of the students. Is it
possible to change the ordinance and is it justified? Speaking from the justification point,
gynmastics requires specialized coaching and it is remarkable what the Rutz's have done
with their money. To get adequate training, Prior Lake parents have to drive to Eagan,
New Prague or Northfield. Other communities are filling this void. There is great interest
and demand for the program. Parents are supportive and would like to keep this program
in Prior Lake.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
Question to staff- Why was this recommended as a permitted use rather than a
conditional use? Tovar said that was the application. It was faster for them to amend
as a permitted use in the business park. The Commissioners could recommend a
conditional use.
· It's interesting, the Fire Hall with public meetings is here in the business park. I
remember when we talked about this, having this building in this business park, one
of the reasons for allowing it as a conditional use was that it serves an obvious public
good. Although this is a private venture it is a public issue. There is justification for
it.
· The only issue is the idea for the business park is not having heavy manufacturing or
things that would affect the surrounding area, like parking. Could be addressed.
· Most of the parking would be at night. Not a traffic concern and ample parking is
available.
Criego:
· It is a very worthwhile program.
· Can't see a reason why something like this could not be in the business park.
Concern for parking during the day, but that problem can be solved.
· It does serve a public good and the community has a need for the use.
· Permit a conditional use at this type. Staff would have to convince us what the down
side is. Tovar explained the City built the business park to create jobs and industry
for Prior Lake and part of that came with Tax Increment Financing (TIF). The
particular building they are interested in is a TIF building from the City. With that
being the intent, it should be for jobs in the City. This does not meet the commitment
the City was given for the money and building.
· Tovar said the biggest problem is the parking. Example Mauri's Dance Studio in
Bumsville. It is in an industrial district and the parking is not adequate.
· Rye mentioned there is no guarantee the tenant in the building might add a second or
third shift. Ask yourself if this is an appropriate use in an industrial district. If yes,
what else does this open itself up for. What other kinds of requests do you entertain?
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc 4
Cramer:
· Commissioners Vonhof and Criego put it well. Figure out a way to make this
happen.
· Understands staff's concerns about what this is leading up to.
· Gymnastics are usually under the health club regulations. You can't really deny one
and permit another.
· Asked staff if there was any way around this.
Stamson:
· Agreed with staff- in general the City's allowing a private club in an industrial park.
Feels it is inappropriate. However, this particular program is very valuable. Would
like to see the program succeed. Hopefully there would be a way to allow it without
opening up a can of worms. If we change the ordinance but fail to change the
proposed ordinance it would give them four months to move in and be operating. It
would be a temporary situation. It would be worthwhile for the City.
Criego:
· Is there anyway to recommend a short term use?
· Kansier said "No". The use is either permitted as a conditional use or not.
Cramer:
· If it as made a conditional use, would there be any legal ramifications by limiting to
nonprofit organizations with operations on weekends and nights only? Rye said you
cannot specify things like profit status or ownership.
Stamson:
· The change is city-wide. Other than this proposal it will create problems. Kansier's
concern is what would happen if this particular organization moved on and another
move in. How would we explain it was okay once. It would be hard to argue.
Criego:
· A conditional use has to be approved by this committee and the City Council, if it
meets the conditions. So if any other party came it under a conditional use it would
have to be approved by both the Commissioners and City Council.
· The question is whether it is suitable in an industrial park or not. Under everybody's
normal rationale it is not but we're trying to make it work.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL TO
THE PROPOSED REQUEST.
Discussion:
Criego:
· It is a worthwhile endeavor but it does not fit in the industrial park.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn042798.doc
Vonhof.'
· There difference is industrial park vs. business park. The use would be more
appropriate in an industrial park. It is within shouting distance from a R1 District.
Recommend as a conditional use. The prospect of another group coming in could be
reviewed.
· Comfortable with a conditional use.
Stamson and Criego withdrew their motion.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONSIDER AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT A GYMNASTIC
SCHOOL IN THE BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT AS LONG AS THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE INCLUDED:
1)
2)
3)
Limit to 3,000 square feet.
Limit participation to evenings and weekends.
Minimum of 10 parking spaces.
Discussion:
· Some of the conditions should be square footage, limited to evening and weekends,
safety during the day, minimum 10 parking spaces, 3,000 square feet.
· Parking is compatible. Should be controlled. How can it be regulated?
· Rutz explained most people drop off their kids and come back and pick them up. The
building probably has 40 parking spots. A good gymnastic program would require
5,000 square feet. Try to keep 4 to 6 kids per instructor. In an hour there are
probably 20 kids involved. Events would take place at the high school or other
towns.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier explained the procedure with the conditional use and City Council.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO MAY 11, 1998 TO ALLOW THE STAFF TO DEVELOP
LANGUAGE ADDRESSING THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case #98-048 James Nerison is requesting variances for impervious surface
and side yard setback for the property at 14294 Aspen Avenue.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated April 27, 1998, on file in the
office of the City Planner.
On February 23, 1998, Mr. Nerison applied for a building permit to allow for the
construction of a three season porch, which he had already begun construction on without
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~mn042798.doc 6 ~
obtaining a building permit. His property is located at 14294 Aspen Avenue in the Sand
Pointe 2nd Addition. The property is zoned PUD and is within the SD Shoreland
District. Upon review of the building permit it became apparent the proposed porch does
not meet the required setback and impervious surface ordinances.
On April 3, 1998, the Planning Department received a variance application from James
Nerison. The survey indicates a proposed impervious surface of 35.2% and the proposed
porch is setback 9.9 feet from the side property line. The lot is approximately 65 feet by
130 feet and is 8,733 square feet. Therefore, this lot is a substandard lot and can utilize
one 5 foot side yard setback (Section 5-4-1 City Code). The PUD provisions for Sand
Pointe also allow one side yard setback of 5' on the garage side of the house. Section 5-
8-3 of the City Code allows for a maximum impervious surface coverage of 30 percent.
Lot 16, Block 4, Sand Point 2nd Addition was platted in 1982. The house was
constructed in 1983, with the garage side of the house setback 5' from the side property
line. The proposed porch is located on the opposite side of the house. In 1985, Mr.
Nerison added a deck and finished the basement. In 1983, when the house was built,
there was no impervious surface requirement. The impervious surface requirement was
adopted on May 4, 1987.
The impervious surface on the lot, when the ordinance was adopted was 26.4% (as the
house was originally built). On November 13, 1987, Mr. Nerison received a permit for
garage addition. Based on the survey submitted for the garage addition, the impervious
surface became 29.0% upon completion of the garage addition. Sometime between this
approval and February 23, 1998, the applicant expanded the driveway to the property line
and added a brick patio. While permits are not required for such alterations, property
owners must comply with the ordinance. These additions and the recent construction of
the porch increased the impervious surface to over 30 percent.
The applicant is now requesting a variance to allow impervious surface of 35.2% rather
than the maximum of 30% and a side yard setback variance to allow a setback of 9.9 feet
rather than the required 10 feet for proposed porch. No previous variances have been
granted for this property. Mr. Nerison has owned this property since at least 1985 when
the deck permit was issued.
Staff has concluded the variance request to impervious surface can be reduced or
eliminated upon redesign of the structure or driveway and patio. The setback variance
can be eliminated by relocating the proposed porch.
Cramer questioned the surveys. Tovar explained the proposed and the as-built drawings.
Comments from the public:
James Nerison, 14294 Aspen, said he built his deck without a permit. The City sent him
a letter and came down to find out what to do to make it right. He was told he needed a
new survey which he got. His old survey showed 11 feet to his property line. The new
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhrm042798.doc 7
survey shows he's 1 and 3/16th inches too close to the property line. So he's asking for a
variance for 1 and 3/16th inch because his house was not where the survey said it was.
Only part of his lot is in the Shoreland District. He feels he is not in the Shoreland
district. He is only on the edge and he did not do anything his neighbors did not do. His
neighbor did not care he extended his driveway. His patio is made up of bricks in sand
and does not feel it is impervious. He feels he's only on the edge of the district and he's
only asking for a short variance. Mr. Nerison submitted a letter from his neighbor in
support.
Rye asked Mr. Nerison what was his source of information as to the location of the
Shoreland District. Mr. Nerison said he came to the City and was told he was in the
watershed area and wanted to see on a map. He felt the City measured every way they
could to find him 1,000 feet from the lake. Tovar said she did not have the information
with her.
Stamson asked if it has been legal in the past to build up to the property line. Nerison
responded it was. Rye said it was not.
Creigo asked when he replaced the deck, did the deck have a roof on it? Nerison said
"No it did not." Criego went on to say Nerison went beyond and put a roof on. Nerison
admitted he did.
Tovar explained putting a driveway to the property line and utility easement is not legal.
Nerison said several people in his neighborhood have extended their driveways over the
property line.
Criego explained the issue is his driveway is over an utility easement rather than up to the
property line.
Warren Busch, 14287 Aspen Avenue, does not see a problem with the 1 3/16 inch. His
concern is the driveway to the property line. His neighbor does not care if he builds his
driveway to the property line. Obviously there is a problem if it is on an easement. Mr.
Busch questioned if the existing driveways will have to be removed. Tovar responded
there was insufficient staff to accomplish this. Vonhof explained the 5 foot setback from
the property line based on the ordinance passed in 1995. Busch said he wanted to put in a
driveway. Vonhofwent on to explain one cannot build any structure or driveway over an
easement.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Nerison already has most of the unit set up and not going to argue over the inch or so.
The main concern is the impervious surface. It has to be determined if it is in the
impervious surface.
1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcminkmn042798 .doc 8
Cramer:
· Agreed with Criego. The setback is not an issue.
The impervious surface is an issue.
· Is unsure where the shoreline district comes into play when part of the lot is divided.
Need more information before making a decision.
Vonhof:
· Agreed with previous comments by Commissioners.
Impervious surface is an issue. There are alternatives to this.
· The setback is not an issue.
Criego:
· Question to staff: Do we know where the 1,000 feet intersects on this property?
Tovar said part of the property is in and part is out. She did not have a scale or half
section available.
Stamson:
· Agreed with staff that the hardship criteria has not been met. If Mr. Nerison had not
built his structure already pushing it back an inch. I still would not have given him a
variance. He could have easily pushed it back. My concern is that granting a
variance based on that, ifI have one that encroaches a few feet, I'll just go slap the
deck up and expect a variance in hind sight.
· Avoiding the process and allowing something that would not otherwise be allowed.
In this case it's only an inch, next time a few inches, and on and on.
· The 35% is still an issue. His property is in the Shoreland District. The impervious
surface is a problem.
Criego:
· Agreed Stamson with the 1 inch setback. The survey in possession said 11 feet and
does not feel it was intentional.
· There has to be more information on the impervious surface.
Cramer requested staff to research the definition of Shoreland District. Rye said the
ordinance says "Lot", without reference as to how much is in or out. There is no
reference to percentage in or out. Interpretation in the past has been any portion of the lot
in the Shoreland District.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO
MAY 11, 1998.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #98-019 Discussion on proposed Official Map for the Ring Road
between Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc 9
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 27, 1998
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The City of Prior Lake has, for several years, anticipated the construction of a ring road
between Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue. This road is shown on the Transportation
Map in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The recent construction of the Park Nicollet
Clinic and the changes to the access points on Highway 13 has facilitated the need for this
road. In order to better plan for this road, the City staff have proposed an official map for
the right-of-way.
An Official Map is an ordinance in map form adopted by the City that conclusively
shows the location and width of proposed streets or future public land and facilities. The
requirements for an Official Map are identified in the State Statutes. The purpose of an
Official Map is to prevent private development from encroaching on sites for proposed
public improvements. The adoption of an Official Map does not give the City any right,
title or interest in areas identified for public purposes, but it does authorize the City to
acquire such interests without paying compensation for buildings or structures erected in
such areas without a permit or in violation of the conditions of an approved permit. The
Official Map also governs the issuance of building permits in that it is not required to
issue a permit for a structure within the public area defined by an official map. The
statute also provides a property owner with an appeal process.
The purpose of the proposed ring road is to provide access to the commercial properties
on the southwest side of Highway 13, and to reroute that traffic from Highway 13 to a
local street. The proposed alignments will accomplish this by directing traffic from
Franklin Trail to Toronto Avenue, and provides access to the properties adjacent to
Highway 13 and the properties to the south.
On February 9, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed three alignment alternatives.
After reviewing the proposed alternatives, the Planning Commission requested the staff
look into the possibility of providing a 90° angle at the intersection of Toronto and the
ring road.
At this time, the staff is asking the Planning Commission to provide some direction about
which alignment is most desirable. Once direction has been established, a survey of the
property will be prepared, and a public hearing scheduled to review the Official Map.
The City Council will ultimately determine the alignment of the road with the final
approval of the Official Map.
There were no comments from the public.
Discussion by the Commissioners:
Criego asked the speed limit. Kansier explained it was 30 mph.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc 10
What is the advantage of going around the building? Kansier said it gave more options
and helps property owner.
Can the landowner effectively use his property? Kansier said if the landowner cannot use
the property the City would be liable to buy it.
Creigo feels the options are open to the City not the land owner.
Stamson disagreed, the landowner has options.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND OPTION D TO
CITY COUNCIL AS DIRECTION TO THE RING ROAD.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A zoning ordinance meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 28, 1998 at the Fire Hall.
Cramer and Vonhofwill try to make it. No other dates have been set.
A geotech gave a presentation to the City Council on the slopes and bluff.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminLmn042798.doc 11