Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120897REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1997 6:30 p.m. 2. 3. 4. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: A. Case #97-106 Consider a Schematic Planned Unit Development to be known as Glynwater to allow 123 townhouse units, located west of Fremont Avenue on the south side of County Road 82. B. Case #97-114 Consider approval of a preliminary plat to be known as Red Oaks Second Addition, for the construction of 3 single family dwellings located on a 2.42 acre site along the west side of Breezy Point Road. C. Cases #97-107 and 97-108 Consider a proposed amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and a Zone Change Request for the property located at 4520 Tower Street. D. Case #97-117 Consider a Conditional Use Permit to construct a State Licensed residential facility servicing 10 persons at the property located at 5240 160th Street. 5. Old Business: A. Continue discussion on the zoning ordinance regarding lots in common ownership and garages on riparian lots. 6. New Business: A. Planning Commission Bylaw changes for 1998. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: L:\97FILF~97PLCOM/vlXPCAGENDA~AG 120897.DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 1997 1. Call to Order: The December 8, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Kuykendall Present Criego Present Cramer Present Stamson Absent 3. Approval of Minutes: Cramer- Page 6, 6th bullet, 3rd sentence "limit non kennel to 3 animals." Vohof approved minutes as amended. 4. Public Hearings: Vonhof gave public hearing procedure. Tony Stamson arrived 6:35pm. A. Case #97-106 Consider a Schematic Planned Unit Development to be known as Glynwater to allow 123 townhouse units, located west of Fremont Avenue on the south side of County Road 82. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated December 8, 1998. Wensmann Realty has applied for a Schematic PUD Plan for the property located on the south side of CR 82, just west of Fremont Avenue and directly south off the entrance to The Wilds. This property is currently zoned A-1 (Agriculture). Much of the property is also located within the Shoreland District for Prior Lake and Arctic Lake. This property is designated for Urban Low to Medium Density Residential uses on the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The easterly portion of the property is located within the 2010 MUSA boundary. The westerly portion of the property is still outside of the MUSA. The purpose of a Schematic Plan is to review the concept of a PUD based on the following: L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM1NXg~N 120897 .DOC 1 1. Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the planned unit development requirements. 2. Relationship of the proposed plan to the adjacent property, the Comprehensive Plan, and zoning provisions. 3. Internal organization and adequacy of uses and densities, circulation and parking facilities, public facilities, recreation areas and open spaces. Staff reviewed current zoning and comprehensive plan and MUSA boundaries. The site is 41.5 acres, varied topography with low 910 high point 970, generally drained toward wetlands. Steep slopes exceeding 20% are along east and northerly portions of the property. A wetland borders the site. Historically, the site has been farmed. There are some wooded areas on the perimeter. The three Preservation applies. There are not a lot of significant trees. There are significant wetlands. Applicant is proposing to fill wetland only where road is to be. The access is south of Wilds, and exits on CR 82. The county has no objection to access. Proposed zoning to R-2 is consistent with Comp Plan. Proposal is 2, 3, and 4 unit townhouse units. $110-250+K per unit. 2 unit buildings are along southern boundary. The density is 3.8 U/A. 122 units total. Lot coverage of 12.7% (open space 51%). The City requires 10% Park dedication, 11.69 acres total, 5 acres unbuildable (wetlands), location of proposed park is acceptable however, difference must be made up with cash dedication. City owns 16.5' strip of land on the west under a specific use deed with purpose of trail for access to Arctic Lake. This is future access to Arctic Lake. Plan meets PUD requirements (setbacks). This same type of development can occur under the R-1 or R-2 zoning districts with CUP. R-2 can have 176 units, in R- I they can have 112 units. The only reason for PUD is to have private streets. They would have to meet the other requirements. They are not proposing to preserve significant natural features to warrant the PUD. At this time, the Planning Commission should make a determination on whether or not this proposal is consistent with the purpose and intent of the PUD provisions. The Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Schematic PUD Plan. If the Schematic PUD Plan is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions: I. Further action to approve this PUD is conditioned upon the rezoning of the property to the R-2 district to permit the requested density on the site. II. The developer must submit additional calculations for densities in the Shoreland tiers. The calculations submitted did not appear to subtract the wetlands from the site area for each tier as required by Section 9.11 C of the Zoning Ordinance. III. A phasing plan for the development of this site must be submitted. IV. A revised Tree Preservation Plan, which includes all of the disturbed areas, and an accurate count of significant trees, must be submitted. V. The plan must show contours within 200' of the subject property boundary. VI. Provide a sewer stub on the private street that runs east to the adjacent property. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINhMN 120897.DOC VII. Provide all the submittals required by Section 6.12, B, 5 (Preliminary PUD Plan) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning staff recommended denying the request. With the exception of the private streets, this proposal can be accomplished through the conditional use permit process. For this reason, the proposal does not meet the intent of the PUD provisions. Questions from PC: Criego- Advise developer to go normal route as permitted? Kansier- Yes, we had several meetings, told them of various process, they chose this one. Comments from the public: Terry Wensmann, Wensmann Realty, 122 units with varying styles. He put exterior photo of luxury one level townhomes. 2 Units. 42 of these are proposed. $250+K. He showed exterior elevation of the multi-level to wnhomes. $115-135K. He showed exterior elevation, 24 units proposed on steeper slopes, Coach Homes, one level $140- 190K. Biggest concern of staff's denial is PUD. We can go either way, the R-O-W will be larger on public streets. This pushes the units further into the slopes and wetlands. This is out rational for going with a PUD. The density will not be affected. We are trying to preserve trees and steep slopes. We are losing 9 of 23 significant trees. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof- Likes looks of it. Major geographical features protect the neighborhood. The looped road and access are good. Agrees with staff that a CLIP is proper. The developers request to provide, narrower streets are unjustified. Supports staff recommendations. Kuykendall- Agrees with Vonhof. No argument for private streets and meeting the objects of PUD other than impact on wetland and steep slopes. What steps can be taken to mitigate the impact of public street vs. private street. Nick Pulta, Pioneer Engineering- Street width will be maintained for public vs. private. The difference is ROW, which will be 8' wider. The additional 8' pushes the houses further into the slope. 5-6 feet Vs 30 feet additional grading. Kuykendall-How do you propose top maintain the private streets. Terry Wensmann- 3 different associations will maintain the streets as written in the bylaws and covenants. Kuykendall- Can you explain the parallel street in NW comer? Terry Wensmann-future access can be dedicate to public. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINWIN 120897.DOC 3 Kuykendall- Private Street? Terry Wensmann-NE street and interior cul-de-sac. Kuykendall- no advantage of PUD, developer would accept CUP procedure. Supports staff recommendation. Sidewalk location? Terry Wensmann- on the east side of the street to connect with existing trail. Kuykendall- Public streets require sidewalk on one side. Promoted in city. Is this correct? Kansier- City policy is on collector streets. No sidewalk required on local streets. Kuykendall- Prefers sidewalk. Recommends sidewalk on one side for safety of children.. Stay with Cup and public streets. Criego- We want to protect slopes. With CLIP we can do this. With PUD we can require it and give leeway on other items. Recommends PUD to preserve slopes. Developer need to show PC how to preserve slopes with PUD. How may homes get lost is we save the slopes? Nick Pulta- The property is sensitive with slopes and trees. Need to balance amenities. To redesign without interfering touching 20% slopes would lose 27 homes or 20%. This is major making the project less desirable. SD area places restrictions on # units. However, we are at a higher standard then requires. Criego- Will have the same problem of slopes and trees with Cup or PUD. With PUD will have some leeway. Nick Pulta- We tried to reach a compromise of the natural amenities slopes and trees, cutting and filling. Terry Wensmann- want as much green space to make the project work. The open space will create denser areas within the project affecting the visual impact of the project. Criego- If we go PUD we can keep slopes. Where does stafffit into this? Kansier- Subdivision says should preserve slopes. Under PUD PC could say no cut into slopes at all. Criego- Standard mute will result into wider streets, defeating the purpose of saving the slopes. If we go PUD, then we could preserve the slopes? opposed to public streets you are recommending with wider ROW, eliminating slopes. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~N 120897.DOC Kansier- Place constraints to not cut into slopes at all under PUD. Developer needs to show how to save slopes trees. Cramer- PUD to save slopes is a good idea. Stamson proposed, concurs with staff. With revision to preserve more of the slopes, CUP is appropriate. Stamson- Concurs with staff. PUD is not appropriate as proposed. Cup is acceptable alternative. Kuykendall- Public or private street connections. Nick Pulta- Don't want public traveling on private streets. Private streets to remain private. Kuykendall- Why not hook up to Fremont? Kansier- Intersection distance is an issue for connection. We wouldn't want connection that close. Kuykendall- Should go back to p[planning stage if PUD is desires. Can take as a CLIP or revise plan for PUD. Cramer- If Cup, public street, would a cul-de-sac be required and eliminate a building? Kansier- Yes. Criego- If the developer proposed CLIP, would recommendation be different? Kansier- Our recommendation as a CLIP is unknown based on the Cup review procedure that was not looked at very closely under this process. As a general concept and use as a townhouse development, it is acceptable. Cramer- If Cup and public street, would it change your proposal? DC- Motion to recommend denial of the schematic PUD as presented and suggest the developer revisit the PUD as presented or approach the CUP plan as proposed. 2nd by Vonhof. Discussion: Criego- To save slopes PUD. Developer needs to be diligent to save more slopes. Could be more difficult to get # units, without PUD. Kansier- This goes forward to Council. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM'xPCM~ 120897.DOC Criego- Is developer willing to table? Terry Wensmann- Wants a decision tonight. Have reviewed alternatives. This is the best use of the land. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Kansier- Will be at City Council on January 5th. Herb Wensmann- Only issue is 8 foot ROW? Kansier- Doesn't meet requirements of PUD. Concept is acceptable. B. Case #97-114 Consider approval of a preliminary plat to be known as Red Oaks Second Addition, for the construction of 3 single family dwellings located on a 2.42 acre site along the west side of Breezy Point Road. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff Report dated December 8, 1998. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an application for a preliminary plat for the 2.42 acre site located directly west of Breezy Point Road, south of Prior Lake, and north of Rutledge Street. The preliminary plat is to be known as "Red Oaks Second Addition". The applicant is Michael S. Benedict, 15380 Breezy Point Road, Prior Lake. There is a single family home located on this property. The site is fairly level, and contains a 0.23 acre wetland. The channel between the wetland and the lake bed was artificially created, and is considered part of the wetland rather than the lake. The property is zoned R-1 SD (Suburban Residential Shoreland District). The 2010 Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as R-LMD (Urban Low to Medium Density Residential). The proposed plat consists of 2.42 acres to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family dwellings, for a total density of 1.24 units per acre. This density is well below the maximum permitted density of 3.5 units per acre. All of the proposed lots are riparian lots. The minimum lot size for riparian lots in the R-1 SD district is 15,000 square feet, with 90' of frontage at the front building line, and 75' of width at the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW). Overhead indicating building envelopes and lot sizes. Lots 17,583 - 28,00 Sq. feet. All meet minimum OHW width. Lots 2 and 3 have over 90 feet of lot width above the OHW at the front yard setback. Lot 1 does not. Sewer and water are available. The wetland was once part of Prior Lake. The DNR has declared it a wetland. Tree Preservation applies. 33% of Sig. caliper inches is to be removed for houses. 25% maximum is allowed. Replanting plan is in report. Subdivision ordinance requires two front yard trees per lot. Cash dedication $3,000+ for park dedication is required. Properties have paid for assessments. Storm water management and collector street fees are required. History of property was given. Old plats and variances requested. 1994 a preliminary plat was denied. The difference between those and this is: all 3 lots have frontage, Lots 2 and 3 share driveway. Lots meet minimum lot area, no setback variance required. Issues: L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINkMN 120897.DOC 6 Lot width of Lot 1 is less than 90 feet. Building pads be 30' from 100 year flood elevation of wetlands. Plan shows setback from delineated wetland, not 100 year flood. There is no building pad on lot 1. Staff suggest elimination of Lot 1. Condition o£approval: Lot 1 be eliminated, revised landscaping plan as submitted. If lot 1 is eliminated, then landscape plan is acceptable. Engineering comments be incorporated into the resolution as written in staff memo. Staffrecommends alternative #1, to eliminate lot 1, meeting requirements of subdivision. Question? Criego- elimination of Lot 1 require replat? Kansier- Just incorporate lot 1 into lot 2. Existing house dictates lot line. Public: Bryce Huemoeller on behalf of Mike Benedict, 3 deficiencies can be correct and can be handled by conditions and approval. Proposed plat as drafted, with minor correction will meet lot area and setbacks. Except setback from 100 year flood elevation of wetland. One can fill to meet requirement of setback. Building pad can be filled and retaining wall to meet the requirement. Except lack of frontage is a product of oversight. Mike Benedict owns part of Breezy Point Road. If property was extended and modified, it can meet that requirement. Except tree issue can be compilied with. Other comments grading plan has been approved by watershed district. City has issued exception for wetland fill for culverts. No variance are necessary. Lot sizes exceed minimum requirements. Breezy Point area consists of substandard lots. This exceeds the lots in the areas. Request plat be approved subject to revised grading plan to correct 30' 100 year setback, lot width oversight, and tree planting. Public Hearing closed. Discussion: Kuykendall- Staff and developer should be commended. Excellent presentation. Position of developer seems to be solution to the problem. Filling seems reasonable. Frontage issue appears to be addressed by filling. Kansier- Possible to fill. Need permit and mitigation plan approved. Kuykendall- Go north or south. There are alternative. Supports approval subject to the 3 conditions being met. Criego- Staff comment to 90' frontage? Can this be done? Kansier- The developer can revise plat boundaries to potentially meet the requirements. We would need to see the plan. Recommend the City Council approve with staff's 3 recommendation. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIICaMN 120897.DOC 7 Cramer- Attempts to resolve the issues are fair. Kuykendall suggestion to meet the requirements be incorporated. If the plat is approved does 50' setback apply? Kansier- Plat reviewed based on current OHW setback. We can't change the OHW setback rules for a year. They are grandfather in for 1 year at 50' OHW setback. Cramer- Supports plat. Issues can be addressed. Vonhof- Supports plat with 3 provisions. This plat includes no variance. Exception to past plats. Stamson- Supports staff recommendation that Lot 1 meet current ordinances. Motion Vonhof- Recommend approval of Red Oaks 2nd Addition subject to the 3 conditions listed in the staff report. 2nd- Kuykendall. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Kansier- This item will be considered by the council on January 5. C. Cases #97-107 and 97-108 Consider a proposed amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and a Zone Change Request for the property located at 4520 Tower Street. Applicant is Stonewood Development Corp. Owner is Boderman. Site plan on overhead showing location of property to N, E, S, & W. Comp plan show community retail. Applicant wasn't to be R-HD. Current zoning is B-3, applicant proposes R-3. Staff described adjacent comp plan designations and zoning. Topography- no tree inventory, trees do exist. Sewer and water are directly available. Future development will be multi- family 3 story apartment. Number of units is unknown. Multi -family is permitted in the R-3 zoning district. Staff has no specific site plan. Analysis is based on Comp Plan. Comp Plan is specific to residential, opportunities in housing, location and access. The designation is consistent with variety of housing and comp plan. Conditions have changes or mistake in zoning or comp plan has changed. If comp plan is amended, then zoning change is appropriate. Under current R-3, multi-family is permitted. Under proposed, appropriate use is R-4. Staff recommends alternative #1. Questions: Stamson- vacant A-1 to south? L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CMINNVI~ 120897.DOC Kansier- Windstar development. Map has not been amended. Cramer- Has EDA designated this as retail or redevelopment? Ring Road? Kansier- Not part of Priordale mall or redevelopment or ring road. Public Comment: Jeff Gustafson, Stonewood Development. We do primarily residential, but we are currently doing commercial in Bumsville. Hired by Boderman to determine highest and best use of the property. Property should be apartments. Proximity to commercial. Buffer to mall and residential or other commercial and residential. Highest and best use is apartments. If approve, our intention is move ahead and develop the property within the next year. Maximum outh 14 U/acres. Ideal is to get 16 units per building. Underground parking with units above it. Jim Erickson, 4554 Pondview Trail. Lives behind the property. Comp plans provides guidance to meet need of people. Does not think property should be amended to meek needs of developer. This is a prime area for another business. Commercial land is rare in the city. To change it would be a disservice to the city to remove commercial property from the tax base is not justified. Proposed plan is inconsistent with comp plan. Wants denial of the comp plan change. Justification to change zoning must be consistent with Comprehensive plan. Early learning Center was changed to be permitted in city. Schools not permitted in commercial. Another apartment will cause more problems for neighborhood. Police reports to Tower Apartments are numerous. Kuykendall- You are more comfortable to business next to your home than apartments. Jim Erickson: Yes. Prefers commercial. Office. Day care closes early evening. No disturbance to me. Para Kraska, 4562 Pondview, Lived here 4 months. Residents of PL for 16 years. Seen a lot of positive residential growth. Apartment on Franklin Trail, low income housing, duplexes, Priordale Mall is vacant. Overhead with Hollywood, Hooligans, bars. The Towers, and Townhomes police activity in neighborhood is a lot. Feel her back yard will be a public playground for neighborhood. Land value will drop. Privacy will be gone. Children have no where to go. Suggests: area for seniors if anything. Housing for old people who don't cause problems for neighborhood. Fell very strong about this. James Guston, 4543 Pondview, Windstar develop property was rezoned to be consistent with comp plan. This is a disturbance that the plan could be an error. The city already has apartments. Burnett Realtor informed him that affordable of low income housing will decrease the value of his property. Intemet got statistics 100% more Low Income, 80% more than Rosemount, 100% more than Savage, 100% more than Lakeville. Opposed to rezoning. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMXPCM1NWIN 120897.DOC 9 Neil Boderman, Edina, owner of Priordale Mall. Had a chance to put in a bar, but didn't. Multi-family is a good buffer. Bar is not appropriate. Wants something downzoned from commercial to be a buffer between commercial and residential. Jim Erickson, I would not want a bar behind the house. He lived behind the bowling alley when it was a bar. Does not prefer bar to multi-family housing. It was not so bothersome when it was a bowling alley. Prefers senior housing. Criego- Comprehensive plan was to create more commercial property to diversify tax base. Wants to keep property as B-3. No need to change the zoning. If we are to change zoning, then we should change whole street. Recommends keeping it the same zoning. Cramer- Familiar of property and day care. Kids are escorted to bus stop. Heavy concentration of multi-family will exaggerate existing problems. Buffer area-multi- family is not appropriate buffer to commercial and single family. Keep same, awaiting Priordale Mall outcome. Vonhof- 1st time residents have come forward to oppose residential land to commercial. Vast majority of land in city is R-1. Commercial property is at a premium in City. Disagrees with staff. Kuykendall- What would be allowed in B-37 Kansier- Current ordinance auto sales eating drinking, recreation, food and drinking establishments, etc. gas stations, health clubs, auto repairs are permitted uses in the B-3 district. Kuykendall- Appreciates concern of neighbors. Developer can develop property as needed. Land does change over time. Buffer is good, logical. In practice other valid issues are raised. Doesn't like the ides of piece meal zoning. Resindeit probably wouldn't like auto repair. This is one action you see. Tomorrow it could be something else. Housing section of comp plan addresses affordable housing. We are ahead of game in that. Some of those are dictate by state laws. We have to go along with that to comply and make an effort to comply. Given that, this is not the time to address this one request. Would like to consider the entire picture. Recommends keeping zoning the same. In principle, accepts concept of property. Public must understand permitted uses. Stamson- If zoned R-3 apartments not permitted? Kansier- R-4 under new zoning ordinance. Stamson- Comp Plan is not specific (line or brush stroke). Could have been drawn wither way. Concerned about residential taxes and commercial land availability. No recommendation. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMkPCMINkMN 120897.DOC 10 Kuykendall- Motion to recommend to City council not approve the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change as requested. 2nd- Vonhof Discussion: Kuykendall- Re-looking at commercial/Priordale area. haven't come to grips with what we want to look like when we grow up. Commercial development has to be looked at. Both sides of the issue are valid. Big picture is important. Not ready to do what was recommended by staff. Ask that the developer and neighbors come back to work out a solution. Criego- How much property does developer own? Kansier- No other. Jeffrey Gustafson- Does it make any difference what type of apartments? Not interested gin Low income apartments. Lots of apartments in Edina. Problems in Brooklyn Park. We do know how to build them. Senior High-rise in St. Anthony is going OK. Kuykendall- Maybe come back with a design to satisfy neighbors. Stamson- Is R-3 appropriate? Kuykendall- Yes. Buffer zone is important. Here is best and proper use of the land. Future use of the property is incumbent upon the developer. A separate issue over and above this request. Criego- Developer needs to work out altematives with neighborhood. Jeffrey Gustafson- Can we postpone request to work with neighbors? Kansier- Can table indefinitely if a waive is signed. Kuykendall- Withdraws motion. Cramer- Ponds Edge. Kuykendall- Motion to table until next meeting, 1/22 unless we get a waive. 2nd Vonhof. Discussion: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINhMN 120897.DOC 11 D. Case #97-117 Consider a Conditional Use Permit to construct a State Licensed residential facility servicing 10 persons at the property located at 5240 160th Street. Jenni Tovar explained proposal. One of the conditions is that use is consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Property currently zoned R-3, but is designated for Community Commercial on 2010 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. The City Attorney has advised us to continue this item due to the upcoming zoning ordinance which may have an effect on this property. Dan Saad, 14750 West Bumsville Parkway, Bumsville, operate group home located on Dublin Road in Prior Lake, and is coach at Prior Lake High School. Asking to resolve inconsistency between Comp plan and zoning ordinance, by changing Comp Plan to R- HD. Explained his current operation of group home. Have had no problems in community. Home is located on Dublin Road, in residential area. Has been a great success. Take boys in middle and high school, and let them play football. Are looking for property in R-3 district to allow 7-16 residents in group home. Have chosen this piece of property near high school. Has been residential, but was designated Commercial on Comp Plan in 1996. Surrounding property is R-4, high school, commercial. The justification for change is as follows: property is rather small, changing to R-4 would make it consistent with surrounding area. Are also a business, so have employees. Home would fit in nicely with area. Looking for feedback from Planning Commissioners. Have done extensive work on this property, and have several letters of support. Prior Lake Rotary, $5,000, Edina Realty, $7,500, Lions Club, $1,000, Optimists Club, $1,000. Other businesses have donated products. This inconsistency came up late in the process. Asking to amend the Comprehensive Plan to High Density Residential. Stamson- Staff has asked to table indefinitely to work out legalities. Tovar- Look at this zoning map with discussion of new zoning ordinance. House cleaning Comp Plan amendments would have to be done as a result of new zoning map. Would be done after new zoning ordinance is amended. Open Public Hearing: Doug Boyle, 5140 150th Street, asked is facility. Tovar explained Safe Haven Youth is a state licensed facility for court ordered juveniles ages 8-17, order to live in group home facility. Has some experience with group homes, in Sioux City, Iowa, doesn't want a facility a block away from him. Moved to Prior Lake to get away from gangs and criminals. Has no problem with helping kids. Tovar explained children are there with emotional or behavioral disorders. Police report for existing house, shows seven calls, three for runaways, two harassing phone calls to house, noncriminal activities. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINhMN 120897.DOC 12 Larry, representing mother who owns adjoining property. Concerned about how many residents would be allowed in R-4. Is there a buffer required between R-1 and R-4. Kansier Explained bufferyard requirements. Alex ?, represents mother who owns adjacent residents. Facility is across the street form an elderly home. Have already voiced concerns about safety of children. Also concerned about security. If it is included, can there be request for a security fence. Is not advantageous to area. Has developer talked to neighboring people to get recommendations. She was not notified until found in the newspaper. Dan Saad, incidents at existing house very minor. Runaways went home, but ended up back at house. Facility is set up to be a step up from a foster home. The kids are already in school. We offer a 1:5 ratio ofstaffto kids at facility. State requires a 1:10. Staffis all BA or MA certified. Kids are supervised when they are in the community. Intend on going to neighbors to answer any questions. Want to work with communities. Stamson asked if kids are coming from social services rather than criminal courts. Yes. Goal is to get kids back to their homes whenever possible. Kuykendall- How is program funded. Saad explained funded by a per diem from Scott County, which covers administration. Also do some fund raising to cover costs. Host county contract is with Scott County. Other counties abide by same contract as Scott County. Saad explained they have looked at several sites in Chaska, but could not offer the security he can offer now. Other locations in Scott County, have looked for over a year. Found a rental home on Dublin. Is looking in Prior Lake because of support received in Prior Lake. Bill Schmokel, 4151 Grainwood Circle, owner of property. Would like to speak to process, This process was designated Commercial in June, 1996. Have had numerous meetings with staff over past years about this property. Mr. Saad checked with staff prior to application. When you have a conflict between Comp Plan and Zoning Ordinance, City has 9 months to resolve issue. City has already exceeded this by 5 months. Leaves City opened to liability. Quite dismayed that this type of application can get this far. Kuykendall asked staff to rephrase how this got here. Tovar explained criteria number 6 states use must be consistent with Comp Plan. Right now attempting to change ordinance to be consistent with Comp Plan. Zoning Ordinance is catching up, applicant caught in middle. MOTION BY VONHOFF TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING INDEFINITELY. SECOND BY CRAMER. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Tovar explained new notices will be sent. 5. Old Business: 9:20 p.m. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM1N~N 120897.DOC 13 A. Continue discussion on the zoning ordinance regarding lots in common ownership and garages on riparian lots. Discussion that was tabled: Staff presentation: Kansier- Directed combination of non-conforming lots. Original language included. Any SF dwelling existing on a non-conforming lot destroyed may be re-built if within 365 days and otherwise in conformance with ordinance. Any non-conforming lot may not be developed unless parcels are combined to met lot requirements of the ordinance. Staff was unsure of how to change the ordinance as per previous discussion. 12,000 sq. feet. Proposed language: Nonconforming lots in SD may be combined to meet the following standards 75 lot width and 12,000 square feet. Staff recommends language should remain as written. Accessory structures in front yards as allowed to non-conforming lots in SD for garage. Subject to: accessory building meeting setbacks. Compatible in materials and design with principle structure. No home occupation or commercial use of building. 502.71A accessory structure provision must be met. Consider effect of language. Council has indicated they want to review zoning at 12/15/97 meeting. Changes as moved have been made. Bluff, combined side yard setbacks, removing kennels, include marinas as conditional uses, change OHW setback to 75', revise flood plain regulations as recommended, revised zoning map to change Boudin's property to C-2. Marinas- Memo addresses current CUP. R-2 and C-2 CUP use is required. Waters Edge, Green Heights, and Wagon Bridge marina were discussed. Staff recommends rezoning Green Heights to R-2, and conditions as listed in memo-buffer yards, signs, lighting, public boat launching, boat tour hours, parking, storage, retail sales, and definition of marina to be changed. Mr. Huemoeller is requesting permitted with conditions, signage be allowed, parking for tours, outside storage can be complicated, inside storage should be allowed, outside storage be permitted for equipment rented on site, food and dining left open. The county enforces water craft. Discussion: Cramer- Revised Flood Plain, non -conforming for 1990 or 19787 Kansier- Regardless of when building was built, as long as its built at or above the flood elevation, then it should be conforming. Combination of non-conforming lots. Criego- This allows any additional buildings put on 2,3 lots if they don't meet current ordinance and owned by common owner, in the past one could sell off a lot and build two L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINWIN 120897 .DOC 14 houses. This ordinance says is you own multiple lots, those lots become on lots, unless they meet current requirements. Lake property is valuable, majority non-conforming. To penalize multiple lot owners is unjust because very few lots will fall into this category. We want to maximize the property we do have, without jeopardizing the look from the lake. When I look at housing on a 50' lot, I say nice home, but it has to be substantially large to justify the value of the lot. 2 Lots, 100 feet, is difficult to subdivide, 2 50' lots cannot be justified and meet the intent of the ordinance. But when one has 3 or 4 or more contiguous lots, it could be divided and be appealing. If you had 3 lots you could make 2 lots, if you have 4 lots you could make 2 lots and so on. Current ordinance says you must have 90 feet at street side, so for non-conforming lots in multiply lots 75 street side and 12,000 sq. foot minimum is a solution to the problem, considering that the rest of the city is 75 feet and 12,000 sq. feet. Take into account multiple properties owned by one person. Stamson- DNR has made it clear that they will not approve our ordinance without some sort of lot combination. Problem for people who have been holding onto lots. 12,000 sq. feet is reasonable as is 75 lot width. Vonhof- Change to what is proposed. Agrees with 3 lots to combine to make 2 lots with 12,000 sq. feet and 75 feet lot frontage. Kuykendall- DNR stand? Kansier- DNR rules have non-conforming lot language. 2 or more non-conforming lots must be combined to be conforming. DNR wants this combination and has it under its ordinances. Kuykendall- What ifDNR does not approve it? Rye- Then they would have to enforce it. Kuykendall- Questions DNR enforcement and adopted ordinance. Rye- Clarified. Kuykendall- 75 feet and 12,000 square feet is a compromise. Has a problem with people who have invested in lake property and now cannot use this as an investment property/source of income. Can we entertain grandfather clause. Stamson- that would nullify the ordinance. Kuykendall- Boat houses? Are they grandfathered? If a house on 75' lot bumed, you cannot re-build without meeting this criteria. They should have a reasonable period of time to sell and develop. Wants to be fair. Perception of property owner Vs people who are absentee owners. People who are there, on the lake, it is unfair under certain circumstances to adopt this. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINhMN 120897.DOC 15 Criego- There is an ordinance in place today, that prohibit multiple units on multiple lots. The law has been in place with a loop hole. Kuykendall- Give them a year to sell or develop. This is fair. People who won the property are not sensitive to what is going on. Need to look out for the good old lake people. Supports concept 12,000 square feet, 75 feet lot width. Wants 1 year grace period and property owners notified. Kansier- Difficult to notify. Vonhof- Published in paper. Kuykendall- Opportunity to be proactive, notify people. Rye- There are Supreme Court cases supporting lot combination. Criego- Do we want to do this in our community? Stamson- The DNR may have a problem with the one year grace period. Cramer- Wasn't here when discussed. Support the amendment. Kuykendall- Motion to adopt draft language as proposed in staff report for section 501 with the addition 75 feet frontage at front building setback and OHW, lot must be 12,000 square feet above OHW, effective date is 1 year grace period from adoption of ordinance. Criego- Suggests two motions. One 75,75 issue. One to grace period people with 2 lots. 2nd- BC Discussion: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Garage in front yard setback: Cramer- In some cases, riparian lots, it makes sense. What is the alternative? Kansier- Variance. Cramer- Would staffbe in favor? Kansier- We review hardship criteria to proposal. If there is a legal building envelope, then there are alternatives. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CMllCuMN 120897.DOC 1 6 Cramer- Riparian lots are special. Front yard is lake side or street side is interesting as discussed at last meeting. Conditions as proposed for materials to be consistent. No recommendation, defer to other commissioners. Criego- Understand intent. Long narrow lots are the issue. This language applies to any lot irrespective whether a garage could be attached to the house. Length makes a difference on this. Agrees with concept, language needs to be modified. Are we writing an ordinance to for specific properties or does the variance process take this into account. Could this meet hardship criteria? Why are we bringing this up? Kansier- Because staff was asked to. Criego- What am I overlooking? Rye- reasonable alternative exists. Cramer- Garage would have to be build between house and lake. On riparian lots, people want garage on street side in front, not in back as in other parts of the city. Rye- Why limit to riparian lots. Equal protection. When only alternative is front yard. then it is appropriate. Policy question. Stamson- Lake lots the have a legal building envelope and don't meet hardship criteria, could put garage on lakeside. They don't want to do that, but don't meet hardship criteria. Garages on street side for lake lots are common. Should be considered as a variance. Does not support draft language. Kuykendall- His lot is 350'. Neighboring properties garage is within 10' of property line. Visually interesting. Creates character. Can be dealt with in variance situation. Worried about garages in front of other garages. Looks bad. The example brought forward seems reasonable, variance criteria could be met. Should be handled by variance. Vonhof- Agrees. There are no other variances on this type of lot. Consensus to treat as a variance. Existing language stands. Marinas: Included as conditional uses in R-2 and C-2 districts at last meeting. Criego- Definition of marina is primary use? Kansier- Yes. Criego- Only one of the 3 are truly marinas. Wagon Bridge. Green heights provides slips. Waters Edge provides slips. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIIquMN 120897.DOC 17 Kansier~ That is why we changed definition. Stamson- Green Heights. Kansier- They have 2 uses. Marina and restaurant. Criego- Wagonbridge is a marina. Others leas slips and are not marinas. Green Heights primary use is restaurant not marina. Stamson- Why limit to marina. Rye- Can consider different conditions in different zoning districts. Kuykendall- Why combine these. There are unique situations. Why worry about these 3. Rye- Can make them non-conforming. They are all conforming now. Mr. Huemoeller pointed out that they will be non-conforming as the zoning issue was proposed. Cramer~ CUP allow us latitude to control what is done at the marina. Rye- Yes and no. The use of the property is determined with specific conditions unique to the property. Criego- Green Heights- if we make them R-2, now they quality as a marina with CUP. Now we are saying you have o have a parking spot for all slips and restaurant. So they are non -conforming if they don't meet the requirement because they are grandfathers in. Would not want to make slip rental a marina. Wants 2 separate definitions. Kuykendall- How does this affect Wagon Bridge? Rye- They would need to apply for CUP. Is below 100 year flood. Kansier- Existing marina is a CUP. Definition differs- it may offer supplies. Boudins got a variance to the definition as not to supply services or retail. We tried to say if it has slips and looks like a marina, then it is a marina. Criego- In current ordinance, can have marinas in R-l, R-2 as CUP. Now we are specifying where. Could allow in any district. Kansier- Back to property owner renting out dock space on private dock. Exempt association property. Stamson- Green Height to be R-2, to be conforming? Can leave in R-1. Criego- Can allow marinas in all zones opposed to rezoning Green Heights. Then needs a Cup anyway. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~N 120897.DOC 1 8 Vonhof- Difference between R-1 and R-27 Rye- Lot size. Cramer- Can we state any conditions in CUP? Rye- Danger is anticipating problems. With them written down, there is recourse. Kuykendall- Public owned land. City Marina? Rye- City is bound by its own ordinance pertaining to land use. Maintenance building require CUP. Criego- CLIP can be reviewed yearly? Vonhof- Recommend CUP in R-l, R-2 and C-2. Vonhof- Motion to add marinas in R-1. 2nd- Kuykendall. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Condition to place on Marinas: Stamson- Parking and storage of boats is Commercial district. Some storage is OK. Criego- Be practical with what we have. Vonhof- Public storage is not good. Rye- Prohibition against storage is difficult. Kansier- Clarified if marina owns boats, they can store them. However, they cannot provide public storage. Criego- On site parking is good. 1 for 1 ratio? On weekends it is appropriate. Kuykendall- Based on peak period? Rye- No. Vonhof- Not all boats are used at same time. Kuykendall- What is this ratio based on? Green Heights is not enforceable. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMXPCMIN~N 120897.DOC 1 9 Stamson- Multiple uses require parking for each use. Kansier- Parking, no standard. But we need one. Kuykendall- 1 stall for 10 boats. Vonhof- On site parking shall be appropriate for the number of slips. Each situation will be different. We need regulation, but a determination must be made at the time. Cfiego- Nothing is going to come forward, unless they expand. Vonhof- Wagon bridge has already expanded. Need to be prepared. Stamson- For tour boats, one parking space for four seats on the boat. Buffer Yards should be included. Consensus. Cfiego- Buffer yards in R. Kansier- Clarified. Stamson- Signs permitted in commercial districts. Consensus on sign ordinance as exists. Cfiego- Boat sales. Stamson- Retail sales. Drop boats, water crafts, and recreation equipment from retail sales. Do not want sales in residential districts. Cfiego- These are conditions. Stamson- Can we limited such sales? Kansier- Signs and parking can regulated retail sales. Vonhof- If you rent a boat and they sell them, no one even knows. It is not a big deal. Congruent with the use. Stamson- Changed mind to include retail sales as in memo. Public Boat Launching: Kuykendall- Why eliminate launching? Kansier- Parking and trailer storage. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~N 120897.DOC 20 Kuykendall- Drop boats and park trailers at home. Criego- Find the way it is. Cannot regulate who lives on the lake. Hours of operation- OK. Definition- OK. Stamson- Address specific slips and tours at Cup review. Criego- Slips rather than use. Vonhof- Slips are fine. Vonhof- Motion to adopt conditions as amended for Conditions as previously stated. 2nd- Stamson 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Criego- Safe Haven property. Has no problem of changing property to R-37 Rye -Commercial to the north, residential to the east. Pending building permit on property to the north. Cramer- Is the property really buildable with setbacks? Rye- It is close? 23,000 sq. feet, could be a commercial use. Another aspect is. Stamson- Currently zoned R-3. Rye- Recommend change in zoning to R-4, revisit comp plan. Criego- Motion to change the proposed zoning ordinance and map 5240 160th street to R-4. 2nd Vonhof. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Criego- Direct staff to prepare public hearing for comp plan amendment for 5240 160th Street. Criego- Prior Lake downtown district zoned C-3. C-3 does not permit liquor license. Downtown Prior Lake, should have restaurant and liquor. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN~N 120897.DOC 21 Rye- Oversight. Criego- Motion to add restaurant with liquor as CLIP in downtown area. 2nd Vonhof. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Discussion between Mary Mirsch and Don Rye regarding clarification on 507 p. 59, and appeals of non-conforming uses and structures. Criego- Does staff have any other things we should do? Rye- City Council held a workshop on the Zoning Issues. Issue of Building Chapter of the Code, architectural style of houses. There were other issues that will come back to PC. Kuykendall- Bluff. Wes brought up referring to engineers design. Minnetonka's provision allows for engineer's design. Licensed engineers should be able to come up with a standard. Rye- Council does not want houses in the lake. Does not want to relax the bluff setbacks. Kuykendall- Get engineers approval. Criego- Without revising the ordinance. Ordinance be met and an engineer sign off on the house to insure stability. Rye- They want staff to consult with an engineer to find applicable standards to insure the maximum degree of protection for structures on slopes. Individual determination on a lot may be the result. Council wants to revisits. Kuykendall- Wants to reduce setback with engineers approval. Rye- Their concern is to insure the maximum degree of protection. Stamson- DNR intent is not just engineering. MOTION VONHOF TO RECOMMEND TO FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL THE ZONING ORDINANCE DRAFT AS AMENDED WITH ADDITION, CORRECTION, INCLUDING THE MAP. 2nd Kuykendall. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~N 120897.DOC 22 Kansier to find combination existing in current ordinance. 6. New Business: A. Planning Commission Bylaw changes for 1998. Non proposed. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Criego- Discussed last Monday's Steering Committee meeting. Round table discussion on vision of downtown. Consensus is to connect park to city proper. City proper needs a facelift with residential properties associated with it, should have a community center with open space. A discussion on connection Priordale Mall. A lot of discussion on where this library should be. Close to pond for view? $ for land, library on public land. Keep to city proper with trail to park. Interest is picking up. Chanhassen developer- 15 years and kept to the vision. Long term interest and natural circumstances- Theater and land brought people downtown. Downtown density is key factor. Rye- Paul, Don and Frank are meeting with architect to flush out those issues. Bill Jaffa from Scott County HRA- talked about Shakopee project mixed use. Stamson- EDA meeting with developer and grocery store. Theater in Lakeville next to McStop. No residential within a mile. Jan 5 is next steering committee. 8. Adjournment: Motion by Vonhof, second by Kuykendall to adjourn. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMXPCMINhMN 120897.DOC 23