Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121195REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, December 11, 1995 7:00 p.m. Call Meeting to Order/Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: 1. New Business including Public Hearings: 1.A Consideration of an Amendment to Title 5 of the City Code and the Zoning Ordinance 83-06, and Creating a Tree Preservation Program for the City of Prior Lake. 1 .B Public Hearing to Consider Amendment to Sections 3 and 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 83-06. 1.C VA95-42 Consider Variance for Guy and Mary Selinske at 5418 Cottonwood Lane SE. Applicant proposes to modify the drive area which serves their business, American Glass. The planting area would be narrowed resulting in a side setback of the planting area which narrows to 3 feet and 5 feet, respectively. The Selinskes are requesting a 7 foot variance to permit a side yard setback of 3 feet instead of the required 10 feet. 2. Other Business: · Recommended Bylaw changes. · Planning Commission objectives for 1996. 3. Announcements and Correspondence: 4. Adjournment: 16200 Eagl~gek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota'S72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1995 The December 11, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Planning Chair Dick Kuykendall at 7:03 p.m. Present were Commissioners Wuellner, Vonhof and Kuykendall, Planning Director Don Rye, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. ROLL CALL: Criego Absent Loftus Absent (Arrived at 7:05 p.m.) Vonhof Present Kuykendall Present Wuellner Present REVIEW OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AND MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 27, 28 AND 29, 1995 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC HEARINGS. (Commissioner Criego requested by letter a change in the Public Hearing Minutes dated November 28, 1995, page 3, under Criego - Comments: reference to upper or lower Prior Lake - change "or" to "and/or".) MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.A Consideration of an Amendment to Title 5 of the City Code and the Zoning Ordinance 83-06, and Creating a Tree Preservation Program for the City of Prior Lake. The hearing was open to the public and a sign up sheet was circulated. Associate Planner Michael Leek reviewed the information in the Planning Report dated December 11, 1995. A letter from Karen Christofferson of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities was submitted to the Commissioners. Comments from Commissioners: Wuellner: Passed - not present at the first public hearing. MNI21195.DOC PAGE 1 1 1 Loftus: Commented on Karen Christoffcrson's letter regarding the burden of guarantee 125% as part o£ the ordinance. · Leek: In other ordinances the Builders Association encounters, guarantees range from $100% to 150%, therefore it is typical. They will argue £or less security and guarantee because it serves their membership. The 125% is largely in part because the City's Ordinance regarding landscaping and screening requirements establishes 125% as the level at which the City has felt comfortable. The City would be able to come and complete a project if for some reason a developer did not. The logic is the same. The guarantee is in the form of a Letter of Credit. They are not escrowing 125% of thc cost of doing the tree replacement. · Individual lots - Leek: There is a $500 deposit for individual previously platted vacant lots. The City already requires surveys for any sort of construction so depicting the significant trees is just an additional layer of information on the surveys. · PUD allowing latitude from the Ordinance - what kind of controls apply? · Leek: Any tree removal will apply to the Ordinance. Vonhof: · Language clarification on Page 2, (C), second sentence. · Page 4 under Land Alteration - clarification to "public" add "private". · Page 4 (F) first paragraph - permit process explained by Leek. · Page 6 under #4, Applications - Not an issue to change to Zoning Officer. · In favor of the 125 % guarantee to comply with the Ordinance. Wuellner: · Page 3 (C) third line - clarification of sentence. · Rye and Leek explained the grandfathering process and changing the rules in mid- application and the legal problems that would occur. Kuykendall: · Supports cutoff dates and the grandfather clause. The burden is on the new property owner with responsibility to show a tree inventory on the survey which is already required for a building permit. · Definitions should include: civil engineers, landscapers and horticulturist. · Page 5, item 3.B. - do we want to eliminate "City owned" and change to "publicly owned property". Wetlands - Rye: Landscape around settlement ponds, some are around easements. Not all are public. · Page 6, item C - Rye: Same size used in landscaping ordinance. Typical all over the country. It is uniform. Leek: City Council felt the size and height was appropriate. · Page 7, 7 C. add a D. and call it location of Trees - we want to see a drawing. Leek: page 6, item 6 covers this. MN121195.DOC PAGE2 I 1 · Dollar issue - amount determined at the time of application. Rye: The Developers Agreement specifies a time line. · Supports 25% removal. Loftus: · This is not a user friendly document which happens with a new ordinance. Would like to see flow charts with scenarios. · Self-enforcing vs. a forester. Leek: We had information from at least 8 communities. Not all cities can afford a forester. The message from City Council was the City is not in a position to hire a forester. · What kind of information will the public receive? Leek: We can inform the surveying community that serves the area of the requirements needed. · Will this require a variance similar to the coverage ratio? Rye: Only if we apply it to additions on existing homes. Vonhofi · The intent and purpose of the new Ordinance is difficult and we want to make sure we are doing this properly. There should be a little bit of clarification. I will support this. Wuellner: · Paragraph needs to be rewritten - Page 3 C. as well as Page 1, under Application - the last sentence. This applies to the City as well as the private sector. The City has that obligation under law. · Agree with the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Kuykendall: · How do we enforce? Rye: Whatever means we have available. Verify. Should it be percent of trees or caliper? Larger trees have a greater value. This should reflect the value of the trees. Relate to total caliper inches - convert to a total of caliper per inches vs. percent. Wuellner: · Rye clarified caliper inches (total diameter) vs. percent. He also stated there is no right of view over someone else's property. Kuykendall: · Ordinance should go back and be edited and reviewed by the City Attorney. · Run it past a lay person to see if it is user friendly. · Rye: You have to use technical terms. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY VONHOF TO TABLE TO THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY. MNI21195,DOC PAGE3 Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Vonhof, Wuellner and Kuykendall. CARRIED. MOTION 1.B Public Hearing to Consider Amendment to Sections 3 and 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 83-06. The hearing was opened to the public and a sign-up sheet was circulated. Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated December 11, 1995. Comments from the public: Tom Buckingham of Buckingham Disposal said there are a couple of issues that need to be addressed. Page 2, item #4. Outdoor Storage - Mr. Buckingham's concern is the language is vague and he wants to comply with the Ordinance. He complies with the State and County regulations and he feels if he complies with those regulations and does not see where it complies here. The other issue is the operation has been going on for seven months at no fault to the City, but would like to get some help to expedite the Ordinance. He understands they have to go through some other processes, they will have to have deeds, drainage plans, building elevations, landscape plans, planting schemes. Mr. Buckingham stated this was an existing building and would like to get on with the business. Comments from Commissioners: Vonhof: · This is fine as a conditional use in the 12 Zone. · Conditional use in the business office park? Rye: We can address this in the new Ordinance. · Understand City's view to have it zoned in the I2. Wuellner: · Leek updated Buckingham's appeal to City Council. · Understands Buckingham's concern for screening. It should be clearly defined. · Mr. Buckingham stated he does not disagree to the screening. All his outdoor material is in containers. · Neighboring business owners do not object to the screening. Loftus: · Conditional Uses can set criteria and conditions, i.e. hours of operation, storage of materials, etc. MNI21195,DOC PAGE4 1 · Leek: Some standards should be set - County Road 21 will be a thoroughfare into the City. Standards are set across the street. We should be consistent. · Rye: Another thing to do in looking at the site plan is to delineate only that area where storage is occurring. · One of the difficulties with the issues of recycling was it did come through in a round about fashion. Normally if we had this Ordinance in place we would not have this problem. Now we are coming back and designing the Ordinance. · Supportive even if it is vague. Kuykendall: · Primary concern is for outside storage. · Support screening from the public street. · One standard to apply city-wide. · Buckingham stated none of the materials are stock piled. Everything is stored in containers. · This is a gateway to our City and the City is trying to improve its' appearance. · Landscape ordinances should apply. · Issue of facilities located 500 feet from residents. Concern is noise level. Rye stated it is the activity as much as the noise. Traffic (trucks) in and out. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF THE ATTACHED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 3 AND 8 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6 WITH RECOMMENDED CHANGES. Rationale: Restated #4 to say "Outdoor storage of recyclable materials outside containers would not be permitted but in any event outdoor storage in containers would be subject to the landscape requirements found in 6.10." Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Loftus, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Vonhof and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. 1.C VA95-42 Consider Variance for Guy and Mary Selinske at 5418 Cottonwood Lane SE. Applicant proposes to modify the drive area which serves their business, American Glass. The planting area would be narrowed resulting in a side setback of the planting area which narrows to 3 feet and 5 feet, respectively. The Selinskes MNI21195.DOC PAGE 5 ! 1 are requesting a 7 foot variance to permit a side yard setback of 3 feet instead of the required 10 feet. Michael Leek reviewed the Planning Report dated December 11, 1995. Staff recommendation is for approval of the variance requested based on their findings of hardship. Guy Selinske, (19040 Southfork Drive) urged the Commission to adopt the recommended Resolution 9540PC. Comments from Commissioners: Wuellner: · Selinske explained the problem with loading glass with the present overhead doors. Loftus: · No questions. Supports Resolution. Vonhof: · Hardship standards have been met. Support Resolution. Kuykendall: · Supports Resolution. · Selinske explained the slope and grading. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO ACT FAVORABLY ON RESOLUTION 9540PC AND ADOPT ALL FINDINGS. Rationale: All hardship criteria have been met. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Vonhof and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. Other Business: Comprehensive Plan: Planning Director Don Rye addressed concerns the Commissioners had from the public hearings. There was a brief discussion of the changes and clarification; the Met Council's response, and a request for the Scott County Planner to give a presentation to the Commissioners on annexations, especially Spring Lake Township. City Engineer, Larry Anderson was present to answer questions. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE CHANGES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. MN121195.DOC PAGE6 1 Commissioner Kuykendall recognized city staff for all their hard work in putting the Comprehensive Plan together. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Loftus, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Kuykendall requested a newspaper article sent to City Council members in reference to a new suburban development. Recommended Bylaw changes: Planning Director Don Rye presented the information in the Planning Report dated December 11, 1995. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED BYLAWS. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Loftus, Vonhof and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Objectives for 1996: Planning Director Don Rye explained the goals in the Planning Report dated December 11, 1995. Kuykendall would like to see a productive push of certain aspects of the plan that are important but not necessarily costly, i.e., gateway signage, CIP. He would like to project the image of the community. Place a high priority on community image including signature roadways, gateway signage. Also, the Commissioners should have two field trips, at least one for the lake. A workshop and/or retreat to update issues. Also a workshop with City Council. Vonhof would like see more input by the County transportation people, the DNR, Watershed and Sheriff's Department. We should have workshops with agencies of surrounding communities. MN121195.DOC PAGE7 No meeting scheduled for December 26, 1995. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO ADJOURN MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Loftus, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MNI21195.DOC PAGE8 1