Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout112398REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1998 6:30 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: A. Case #98-152 Consider an amendment to Section 5-5-15 (D) of the City Code and Section 6.15 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the hours of operation for a gymnastic school in the Business Park (BP) Zoning District. 5. Old Business: A. Case #98-019 Consider an official map for a ring road in the southeast corner of Highway 13, from Franklin Trail to Tower Street. 6. New Business: 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. AdjoUrnment: rL:~9 ~ILI~9 g PL~CO]~'d~I~C.~,GI~A~,G.1123~.DQC 16200 ~ag~e ~reeK ~ve. ~.~., ~nor LaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1998 1. Call to Order: The November 23, 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, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Kuykendall Present Cramer Present Stamson Present Criego Absent 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the November 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Public Hearings: Ae Case 098-152 Consider an amendment to Section 5-5-15 (D) of the City Code and Section 6.15 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the hours of operation for a gymnastic school in the Business Park (BP) Zoning District. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 23, 1998 on file in the office of the City Planner. Staff recommended denial of the amendment. The gymnastic school use has the potential of creating parking conflicts and traffic conflicts with customers and employees of the permitted businesses in the Business Park district. In order to minimize this impact, specific hours of operation were imposed on this use. The hours of operation for the gynmastic school limits the use to hours outside of the normal business hours. The requested hours of operation will allow the school to function during regular business hours, thus increasing the potential for the conflicts. The hearing was open to the public. Comments from the public: Chuck Rutz, 15691 Santee Circle, wanted to make it clear changing the hours a few days a week was to accommodate the Prior Lake High School, not the Gleason Gymnastic l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~m 112398.doc 1 Program. Mr. Rutz said there would probably be 6 additional cars by the High School team. Stamson questioned the leasing arrangements. Rutz did not know the arrangements with the High School and Gleason. Chazy Rutz, 15691 Santee Circle SE, said she is on the gymnastic team at the High School and would like to use the facility in Prior Lake. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · This is a conditional use within the business park - suggest a compromise, the hours remain the same 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., Monday through Friday unless it is a school district activity. Rye said the concern is limiting the use according to the sponsoring agency. Instead of regulating the land use, you're trying to regulate the impacts of the land use. Arguably the impacts are the same whether private or public sponsor. Before we go too far, the City Attorney should be contacted and see if there is a way to do that. · This is not an expansion of the retail use of the facility. · This is a legitimate activity. · Do not change the hours. Kuykendall: · This issue is one of potential traffic safety consideration. It also relates to the availability of parking. · We could propose parking on the street and limit it to one hour between the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.. What we are doing is regulating City owned property to solve a problem on the private side of the property line. Go back to the school and have them help solve the problem. Crflmer: · Questioned staff on the original conditional use approved by City Council that they were not to hold meets or any of that type of activity at this location. Staff did not recall City Council restricting that specific condition. Recollect discussing that issue. If it was not specifically addressed, the concern if there are no meets, based on the fact we have limited the size of the facility to eventually establish something so they can move on later. That will restrict the parking enough. · Noticed other cities have gymnastic facilities in business parks and do not have a parking problem. · Insure there will not be any meets and I will support moving this up to 3:00 p.m. Stamson: · Originally had concerns with this conditional use and the compatibility of this type of use in the business park. One of the major things I had been comfortable with l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~mn 112398.doc granting it was the limitations of the hours at 5:00 p.m. I am very hesitant to moving them to 2:00 p.m. Agree with Vonhof, if we can draw up something limiting the use to a school function I would be more comfortable with it. Do not agree reducing to 3:00 p.m. Open Discussion: Kuykendall: · Traffic control is a key issue. This should be checked out legally. This conditional use will be checked in one year. · Was opposed to this originally but now let's try it. We opened the door. · If its not working, come back in a year and put other controls on the conditional use. Rye: There are two issues - the first is the zoning ordinance, the second is the conditional use. Stamson: · Could we review in less than a year? May be at the end of the school year. Kansier said that was part of the Conditional Use Permit, not the ordinance itself. Kuykendall: · This will apply more broadly to Gleasons. · Support the change and deal with it on a periodic basis. Cramer: · Concern for language restricting meets or not. · Rye suggested adding zoning language in the recommendation to the Council. Kuykendall: · Would rather see restrictions on the Conditional Use Permit, not the zoning. · Which is easier to enforce from an administrative standpoint? Rye said either. Crflmer: · Has staff checked into other cities with this problem? · Rye said one thing different here is the whole industrial park is a TIF district and qualified uses in the district for TIF purposes are limited to manufacturing and warehouse distribution. So you have a limit that does not fall into one of those two categories. The whole purpose of the TIF district was to create jobs and a tax base. Vonhof: · As far as the parking and traffic - controlling hours of operation would solve that. Churches are similar with Sunday morning services. Neighborhoods are use to it. While the primary uses of the business park are for commercial activities Monday through Friday, at other times there are opportunities for other uses. 1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcminhr, n 112398.doc Stamson: · Normal business hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., that is why we created the 5:00 p.m. time limit. Vonhof: That is why we should restrict the time at 5:00 p.m. to school activities. We don't want to compete with other business park activities at that time. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-5-15 (D) OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 6.15 (D) OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6 SPECIFICALLY UNDER ITEM 7. GYMNASTIC SCHOOLS, PROVIDED THAT SUCH USE OCCUPIES NO MORE THAN 4,000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA IN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, HOURS OF OPERATION ARE LIMITED TO 5:00 P.M. TO 11:00 P.M., MONDAYS THROUGH FRIDAYS AND 7:00 A.M. TO 11:00 P.M. 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 HOURS OF OPERATION FOR A SANCTIONED SCHOOL SPONSORED EVENT MAY BE EXTENDED TO 2:00 P.M. TO 11:00 P.M. ON MONDAYS THROUGH FRIDAYS. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter will go before the City Council on December 7, 1998. 5. Old Business: A. Case #98-019 Consider an official map for a ring road in the southeast corner of Highway 13, from Franklin Trail to Tower Street. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 23, 1998, on file in the office of the City Planner. Staff recommended approval of the Official Map as proposed or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. 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 fi:om Highway 13 to a local street. In the past year, the Planning Commission reviewed several proposed alignments which would 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. The alignment ultimately suggested by the Planning Commission 1:\98 fil ~s\98plcomm\pcminh'nn 112398.doc is shown on the attached survey. This alignment has the least impact on existing development. The public hearing was reopened. Comments from the Public: Lorraine Borka, 14384 Rutgers Street, stated she attended the October meeting and gave testimony and asked to take into consideration her building and property. She will not benefit if the road goes through. Renting out her building is her sole income along with Social Security. Mrs. Borka suggested moving the road down further between Hollywood Bar & Grill and her property. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: · Went out on the site and studied the drawings and was involved in the original discussions on the alignment. A number of options were considered and this proposal had the least impact, yet the most public good. Understands Mrs. Borka's concern and under the proceedings Mrs. Borka would be compensated. · This is a very common procedure. · Support staff's proposal. Cramer: · Understands Mrs. Borka's concern. There will be a fair compensation with the City. There will be no loss. · This proposal impacts the least amount of people, yet allows a safe transition of traffic between the two areas. · Supports. Vonhof: Went out to the site. Question to staff regarding thc curvature of the road. Would a "T" in the road be better for traffic flow? Rye said it came out of discussions from the Planning Commission. The idea was to square it out. In the long term, Toronto may cease to exist in the future. · Propose a straight "T" under the current road construction. · Stamson said they decided long term Toronto would not be as busy. · It is different now, originally the thought was Priordale Mall would have more development. · As a result of the discussions the ring road would be the major street. · Not sure now this is the best way, we had different assumptions. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn 112398.doc Stamson: Would agree if there was some potential for Toronto becoming a more major street, then you could "T" the ring road to it. Vonhof: · Toronto connection would be lost eventually. · Why curve off now when we don't know? What's the difference if we make it a "T"? Kuykendall: · Recall this alignment was selected to avoid the structure. It was the least amount of negative impact on the existing buildings and development. · This is the proper design. Cramer: · It has to be made clear the ring road is the primary road, not Toronto. Stamson: The proposed alignment actually covers the land acquired in the case of being a "T". Vonhof: · Want to make sure our rationale is strong. There is nothing on the table for Priordalc Mall. · The area was poorly designed. Cramer: · There is no connection between north and south Prior Lake other than Highway 13. This would provide a safe transition whether the Priordale Mall is developed or not. Rye pointed out the purpose is to establish an alignment where there is no alignment today. First concern was getting a connection between Franklin and Toronto. Remember the basic concept has been around for a long time and I don't know if we should try to anticipate a specific layout of some future development in order to lay this thing out. At some point you have to say "this is what we're going to do". Vonhof: · This is also redevelopment. Not saying this is wrong, it should be part of an over-all plan that someone can look at and say "The road is going to curve here." · Questioned if there is a plan for a semaphore at Tower and Toronto at some point when the traffic count picks up. Kuykendall: · Meets all the criteria - it is well designed. It provides what the public needs with the least impact to the property owner. You still get people to bypass Highway 13. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhnn 112398.doc 6 Stamson: · Concurs with Kuykendall, this is the best possible solution. Cramer: · Supportive as well. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ALIGNMENT OF THE RING ROAD AS PROPOSED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This issue will go before the City Council December 21, 1998. 6. New Business: There was no new business. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: · Workshop meeting on November 30 with City Council. · The December 14 meeting is rescheduled to Tuesday, December 15. Commissioners Kuykendall and Cramer will not be able to attend. · The December 28 meeting was canceled due to a lack of quorum. · The Council is down to 5 specific items for discussion and is holding a workshop December 7. · Kuykendall brought up the traffic issues and concerns on Highway 13 to discuss at the November 30, workshop. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Come Carlson Recording Secretary 1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcminL, rm 112398.doc 7