HomeMy WebLinkAbout051198REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998
6:30 p.m.
Se
e
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Case #98-055 John Beaupre is requesting a 2 foot variance to permit an 8 foot side
yard setback for the construction of an attached garage on property located at 16290
Park Avenue.
Old Business:
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.
Case #98-043 Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the
permitted uses in the Business Park Zoning District.
Case #98-048 James Nerison is requesting variances for impervious surface and side
yard setback for the property at 14294 Aspen Avenue.
Case #98-056 Consider a two foot setback variance for monument sign for Nordquist
Signs on behalf of Park Nicollet Clinic.
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
~L.:'O I~ F I L,F~ LO 8 P I~ C O~.fiM~ C.~i-Fi~lD/,~,4 G0 $119~8.D9C
16200 r_.ag~e ~reeK ~ve. ~.~., ~nor t~aKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 11, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The May 11, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall
and Stamson, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner
Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof
Kuykendall
Criego
Cramer
Stamson
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
Correction: Page 3, third paragraph "Criego".
The Minutes from the April 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved as
corrected.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #98-055 John Beaupre is requesting a 2 foot variance to permit an 8
foot side yard setback for the construction of an attached garage on property
located at 16290 Park Avenue.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated May 11, 1998 on file in the
office of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application from John Beaupre proposing
to construct an attached garage to an existing house. The proposed garage will be setback
59.2 feet from the front property line, 5 feet from the southerly side lot line and 8 feet
from the northerly side lot line. This lot is a substandard lot. Section 5-4-1 of the City
Code requires side yard setbacks to be 10 feet; however, substandard lots can maintain
one side yard setback of 5 feet, as long as a minimum separation of 10 feet is maintained
on the adjacent lot. The applicant is therefore requesting a variance of 2' to the required
side yard setback.
The applicant will also need a variance to driveway setback. Section 5-5-5 requires a
minimum 5 foot side yard setback for driveways. The applicant is proposing to pave the
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn051198.doc 1
existing driveway, which is 10 feet wide, centered on the front lot line. The front lot line
is 16.7 feet wide. This results in a side yard setback of 3.35 feet for each side of the
driveway. Therefore, a 1.65 foot variance to driveway setback (for each side of the
driveway) is required. The proposed driveway setbacks are based on a verbal
conversation with the applicants surveyor, Allan Hastings (4/30/98). A revised survey
indicating these dimensions will be required.
Lot 12, Lakeside Park was platted in 1921. The property is located within the R-1 and
the Shoreland district. There is no bluff on the property and the proposed structure is
located out of the flood plain. The impervious surface coverage will be less than 30%.
The applicant is in the process of purchasing this lot and does not own either of the
adjacent parcels. The legal building envelope is approximately 2,818 sq. feet. In 1974 a
variance was granted to allow a 9 foot setback on the south property line and an 8 foot
setback from the north property line for an addition. The DNR has not commented on
this request.
Staff concluded the ordinance criteria have been met. The applicant has no control over
the hardships pertaining to the lot.
Criego asked if it was in the bluff area. Tovar said "No" and explained the elevations.
Comments from the public:
John Beaupre, 4251 Quaker Trail NE, said he did not have anything to add to Tovar's
comments and stated he would like to have a garage.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· Reasonable request. Tovar clarified request and setbacks.
· Agreed with staff. Consistent with current setback from house. No other issues.
· Support request.
Criego:
· Agreed. Applicant met the hardship criteria.
· Substandard lot.
· Full concurrence with staff.
Cramer:
· Agreed with Criego. Hardship met.
Stamson:
· Generally opposes variances for garage structures unless there is absolutely no other
legal alternatives, then only for the minimal amount. In this case, both issues have
been met.
· In favor of request.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn051198.doc 2
Kuykendall:
· Supports the two car garage because it is consistent with setbacks from the existing
house not because they could not live adequately with a one car garage.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-13PC
GRANTING A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN 8 FOOT SIDE YARD
SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET; AND A 1.65 FOOT VARIANCE
TO PERMIT DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 3.35 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED
5 FEET. ALSO ADD THE AMENDED SURVEY DATED MAY 4, 1998 AS EXHIBIT
A.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #98-040 (continued) Eagle Creek Villas, Inc., is requesting a 22.54 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 Planning Report dated May 11, 1998 on file in the
office of the City Planner.
The Planning Commission heard this request on April 13, 1998 and continued discussion
until May 11, 1998 when all of the Planning Commissioners would be present. The
original request included a 22.54' variance to the setback from the centerline of Franklin
Trail, and 1.2% variance to the maximum lot coverage requirement. The applicant has
since revised his plans showing a setback from the centerline of Franklin Trail at 72 feet
rather than the original request of 62.46 feet.
As previously stated, the staff concluded as submitted and revised, the proposal does not
meet the hardship criteria. The site plan can be modified to meet all ordinance
requirements.
Comments from the public:
Bryce Huemoeller, attorney for the applicants, stated this parcel is unique because it is
bordered by two county roads. The problem is not the owners'. The setbacks are 85 feet
from the center line. It is a substantial increase in the normal right-of-way which tums
out to be a 25% reduction in building area. The County has offered to turn County Road
39 (Franklin Trail) over to the City. Once this is complete, the road will be a minor
collector street with setbacks less than 85 feet, therefore, a variance would not be
required. The applicants feel, with respect to the variance from County Road 39, the
County will tender the road to the City, and the Planning Commission should evaluate the
matter under that transfer. Under the lot coverage issue in the ordinance, townhouses can
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm051198.doc 3
have 20% coverage, multi-family dwellings can have 30% coverage. These buildings
have townhouse qualities but will be considered condominiums. This lot would easily
conform to 8 townhomes. Huemoeller quoted Rowell vs. City of Moorhead case.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Questioned the County proposing to turn the road over to the City. Rye said it is not
a done deal and has been going on for a few years.
· Was there some discussion at the last meeting regarding the ordinance? Rye
responded one cannot evaluate a variance request based on what may or may not
happen.
· Kansier said under the proposed ordinance, the setback on a side street would be 15
feet and the ground floor area ratio would bc 35%.
This is an adequate use of the property. Two buildings will add a better look to the
property.
There is a future possibility Franklin Trail may become a city street.
The proposed ordinance will probably make this an acceptable use.
Allow the hardship to carry because of the dual county roads.
Crflmer:
· Agreed with Criego that it looks like a good development.
· However, the hardship is based on the design.
· Reasonable use can be made of this property - a 6 unit townhome would be better.
· Deny request.
Kuykendall:
· Kansier and Tovar explained the setbacks.
· If the road (Franklin Trail) is going to be a minor collector street, it is low volume.
· It is a reasonable use, but notes that it has not happened yet (road transfer). There are
reasonable alternatives.
· There is no hardship.
· The developer should wait until the changes take place.
· Unfortunately there arc two jurisdictions.
· Support staff's recommendation.
Tovar pointed out under the proposed ordinance this would not be a permitted use.
Stamson:
· Does not believe the existing ordinance denies potential development.
· There is plenty of space to create other designs that would work.
· Opposed to granting variances.
1 :\98files\98pl comm\pcminh-nn051198.doc 4
Open discussion:
Criego:
· Other applicants have had two frontages and this is no different.
· What would be better, apartments or townhomes?
Cramer:
· There are apartments next door right now.
· Make a decision on what is before the Commission today.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE
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 AND THE MODIFIED
SETBACK REQUEST OF 13.00 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 72.00 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL)
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2% VARIANCE REQUEST TO
PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 % RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWED OF 20%.
Vote taken signified ayes by Cramer, Kuykendall and Stamson. Nay by Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier explained the appeal procedure.
B. Case #98-043 (continued) Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
relating to the permitted uses in the Business Park Zoning District.
Planning Coordinator Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated May 11, 1998 on
file in the office of the City Planner.
On April 27, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed a request to allow gynmastic
schools in the B-P (Business Park) District. It was the consensus of the Planning
Commission that this use should be permitted as a conditional use in the B-P district.
The Planning Commission continued this request to allow staff to address the conditions
proposed by the Planning Commission.
The applicant's original proposal would have included gynmastic schools as a permitted
use in the B-P District. However, the Planning Commission felt this use was more
appropriate as a conditional use. The Commission also suggested the standards for
maximum floor area occupied by the use, hours of operation and required parking must
be addressed before the amendment proceeds to the City Council.
Maximum Floor Area: The Planning Commission suggested the maximum floor area
for these uses be limited to 3,000 square feet. The effect of this limitation is that any
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn051198.doc 5
gynmastic school established in the B-P District will remain relatively small. Larger
operations will be required to relocate.
Hours of Operation: The applicants indicated the general hours of operation for the
existing facility are evenings and weekends. The Planning Commission members felt by
limiting the use to these hours, there would be less interference with the business park
operation. Suggested hours of operation are 5:00 PM to 11:00 PM, Monday through
Friday, and 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM, Saturday and Sunday. This restriction limits the use
of the gymnastic facility even when school is not in session. The hours also will also
have less impact on the business operations, unless a business chooses to run a third shift.
Required Parking: The Planning Commission suggested 10 parking spaces should be
provided for this use, which equals one parking space for each 300 square feet of floor
area. One important fact to remember here is that the design and number of parking
spaces in the B-P District was intended for industrial/office uses. These uses typically
require far less parking than other business uses. Devoting parking to the gymnastic
school will eliminate parking available for the business use, especially in the event of a
third shift.
If approved, the following language should be incorporated into Section 6.15 (D)
(Conditional Uses in the B-P District) of the Zoning Ordinance:
7. Gymnastics Schools; provided that such use occupies no more than 3, 000 square feet
of. floor area in the principal structure, hours of operation are limited are limited to
5:00 PM to 11:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, and 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM on
Saturday and Sunday, and a minimum of one parking space per 300 square feet of
floor area is provided. The minimum parking requirement is not to be combined or
shared parking with other uses in the business park.
The staff recommended denial of the proposed amendment. While gynmastic schools are
certainly beneficial to the community, the B-P District is not designed or intended for
these uses, and the use is allowed in the other commercial districts in the City.
Criego questioned dedicated parking. Tovar said the impact of use was discussed. The
proposed ordinance allows shared parking.
Kuykendall requested background on the issue. Tovar explained the problems and
situation.
There were no comments from the applicant. The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhxm051198.doc 6
Cramer:
· Questioned if the conditional use in this case would be reviewed on an annual basis.
Kansier said it can be, but as long as they are meeting the conditions the use would be
allowed to continue.
· Concern for parking.
· Trying to make this situation work. Value to the community.
· There are enough limitations to make this work and yet provide this gymnastic
program until they can find a more suitable place for the school.
· Support the amendment.
Stamson:
· This is a valuable use for the community, however this type of use is inappropriate for
an industrial park. The increase in traffic, the parking situation and the general design
of the industrial area does not lend itself to this type of use.
· There was a lot of past discussion of increasing B1 style businesses. This would fit
appropriately.
· Part of my concern is granting variances like this, is the City's undercutting the
natural market which we are relying to create the development that the City wants in
the end.
· Having second thoughts on this amendment, but given this particular use, would like
to find a way to allow this in the community.
Criego:
· Agreed with both Commissioners.
· Delayed until wording was generated to determine a way to allow the use to stay
within Prior Lake.
· Feels it is a worth while program, not interfering with the industrial park, evening use,
little parking, the conditional use permit can be reviewed annually.
· Why can't gynmastics be allowed in the industrial park at their cost?
· Reasonable for the community to want to insure this stays in Prior Lake.
· Supports the amendment.
Kuykendall:
· Questioned where the B-P Districts are located. Rye explained Waterfront Passage,
Pike Lake Trail and County Road 42; The Comprehensive Plan designates other areas
as Business Park.
· With housing immediately adjacent to the Business Park, this feels different than an
Industrial Park.
· Different from industrial areas in Bumsville where traffic is a real problem. The
roadway system here is not congested.
· If there is dancing in the library why can't there be gymnastics in the business park?
· Maybe the City should be looking at a structure to make this happen.
· Ideally this would not be in a business park. Would like to address this as a
temporary use.
· Encourage the applicant to work with the City Council for downtown space.
1 :\98 files\98plcomm\pcmin'umn051198.doc 7
· Hold to ordinance.
· Agree with staff and deny the applicant the proposed change.
· Recommend the City Council investigate some temporary use.
Planning Commission to decide.
It is not for the
Open Discussion:
Criego explained discussions from the last meeting. The reason the Planning
Commission limited the use at the last meeting was to allow it with restrictions. This
body has to have a human element into it. If the Planning Commission doesn't do
something here the City is going to lose a great asset to the community.
Cramer recalled P.L.A.Y. ran the program and dropped it. The applicant tried to
resurrect the program on their own. There was a definite interest by the community.
Agreed with Criego it is a valuable asset.
Kuykendall does not believe we should change the entire ordinance for one issue. The
City Council should deal with the issue. Do not use a band-aid approach.
Stamson questioned the ordinance allowing a "temporary verbiage". Rye said there is a
section in the State Planning Statutes that provides for what is called "Interim Uses".
That would entail a zoning ordinance amendment so staffwould have to do work on that
and bring it back, have hearings on that and establish whatever procedure for what might
happen. Rye said he does not know any community that has worked with it.
Criego questioned what would this hurt by allowing gymnastics. It can't wait. All that
needs to be done is to add a use to the district. It is not unusual, many cities do it on a
regular basis.
Stamson responded it clearly did not meet the intent. It is not being fine tuned. Felt there
are problems with expanding. Specific wording could be used for gynmastics and not
just clubs in general.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, RECOMMENDING THE
AMENDMENT AS MODIFIED IN ITEM 7 WITH THE ADDITIONAL WORDING
STATING GYMNASTIC SCHOOLS ARE UNIQUE IN THE REQUIREMENT OF
SUBSTANTIAL CEILING HEIGHT. REMOVE THE SECOND "ARE LIMITED"
AND MODIFY THE LAST SENTENCE TO READ "THE MINIMUM PARKING
REQUIREMENT FOR GYMNASTIC SCHOOLS SHALL NOT BE COMBINED OR
SHARED PARKING WITH OTHER USES IN THE BUSINESS PARK."
Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Stamson and Cramer. Nay by Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case #98-048 (continued) James Nerison is requesting variances for
impervious surface and side yard setback for the property at 14294 Aspen Avenue.
1 :\98 files\98plcomm\pcmin'unn051198.doc 8
On April 27, 1998, the Planning Commission continued the discussion on this request
until May 11, 1998, in order to allow the staffto gather additional information. On May
4, 1998, the applicant submitted a letter requesting the item be continued until the May
26, 1998, meeting due to scheduling conflicts on his part.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER TO CONTINUE TO MAY 26, 1998.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
D. Case #98-056 (continued) Consider a two foot setback variance for
monument sign for Nordquist Signs on behalf of Park Nieollet Clinic.
On April 30, 1998, the Planning Department received a letter from Nordquist Signs
withdrawing the requested variances. No action was required.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Zoning Ordinance workshop dates are May 27, June 9 and June 23.
Kuykendall and Criego will not be able to attend the Downtown Steering Committee
meeting May 21. Stamson will try to make it.
There was a brief discussion on the Rainbow Foods development on County Road 42.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:54 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcrninhmn051198.doc 9