Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030394REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, March 3, 1994 7:30 p.m. 7:30 p.m. 1. 8:00 p.m. 2. 8:30 p.m. 3. Call meeting to order. a) Review minutes of previous meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - Sign Ordinance PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - to consider an amendment to Section 6.5 (Off-Street Parking) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance VARIANCE - Dave Bergeron All times stated on the Planning Commission Agenda, with the exception of Public Hearings, are approximate and may start a few minutes earlier or later than the scheduled time. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,1994 An announcerrent was made by Chairman Arnold at 7:30 EM. as there was not a quorum the meeting will begin as soon as the Commissioners arrive. Commissioner Roseth arrived at 7:33 Pa'VI. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. Those present were Cann-fissioners Amol& Vonhof, Roseth, Assistant City Planner Deb Garross, Associate Planner Gina Mitchell, and Secretary Rita Schewe. Conanissioner Loftus arrived at 7:34 P.M. REVIEW MINUFE~ OF PREVIOUS MOTION B Y VONHOF, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO APPROVE THE MINLrIF3 AS WRITIEN. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Vonhof, and Arnold. MOTION CARRIED. The Public Heating was called to order at 7:34 P.M. The public was in attendance and a sign-up sheet was circulated. Stephen Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., 5775 Wayzata Blvd., presented the information as per memorandum of February 25, 1994. The changes that were discussed at the February 3, 1994, meeting had been incorporated into this draft. The 75% figure has been incorporated into the window sign text. Wkh regard to liquor store advertising, the statute restricts liquor stores from advertising price in any media advertising, which they do. It is not a sign regulation. There is no restriction on price advertising on-site, other than local sign regulations. On the balloon sign issue, the only dhnension in which these devices are categorized by the suppliers, or regulated by cities, is by height. Capacity or cubic feet is not calculable and such a regulation would not make sense for enforcement efforts. A 20 foot height restriction has been inserted which is a typical height regulation for conamnifies that allow these devices. There are balloons 35 feet high if the City wishes to include the full range of possible balloon signs. Dick Casey, of V'fldng Liquor, 16290 Hwy 13 South, comrmnded Ma: Grittman on the draft of the Sign Ordinance. Ma: Casey comrmnted on the window coverage signage and was pleased with the 75% coverage but questioned the time limit of 21 days instead of 30 days. He also commented on neon signs and that they should be displayed longer. Ray Lemley, of Hollywood Bar & Grill, 16701 Toronto Ave. SE, was glad to see the issues were taken into consideration and comrrended Staff and Ma: Grimnan for their efforts. Comments from the Con'anissioners were on; co~ding Staff and/vic Gfittman on the work put into the draft, definition of time limit, multiple signs in window, deleting the wad and number "one" to indicate the number of interior sign(s) per window, and should have 75% coverage for window signs. Deb (3mss stated that a time limit is needed to prevent temtx)rary signs from becoming permanent A 2i day limit gives the City a remedy to deal with a situation if the need arises. Ma Garross stated that other PLANNING COMMISSION March 3, 1994 Page 1 changes to be considered are, dealing with a sign in a legal non-conforming use through a zoning ordinance amendment, remove "string of bulbs" from Item O on page 8, and remove the word "restaurant" from Item E onpage 10. MOTION BY LOF1XJS, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO CONTINUE THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO MARCI4 17, 1994, AT 8:30 P.M. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Roseth, Arnold, and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM II - TO CONSIDER AN AMMNDMENT TO SECTION 6.5 (OFF-STRF~TF PARKING) OF THE IIIIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE The public hearing was called to on:lex at 8'.25 EM. The public was in attendance and a sign-up sheet was circulater[ Tm O'Brien 14375 Watersedge Trail NE, stated he feels the ordinance discriminates against bnsiness owners that need to park tracks on their property and he is proposing a change to the zoning ordinance to allow this. His vehicle in question is approximately 36 feet long and the complaint made against him is unfounded in his opinion. He felt the ordinance imposed a financial burden on him. Gina Mitchell, Associate Planner, presented the information as per memo of Mm~ch 3, 1994. Ma Mitchell reiterated the presentation made on February 17, 1994, stating the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance is set up to separate cowanmcial uses from residential neighborhoods. The purpose of these regulations as well as off-street parking regulations (Section 6.5), are to protect the character, aesthetics, property values, and integrity of the residential zones. Recomrnmclafion from Slaff is to deny the request as it is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comtaehensive Plan. Hans Heamansen, 16316 Park Avenue, spoke against the proposed anxaxtrrent as Prior Lake has wca-ked hard to create a pleasing atsmophere in this community. There is one place for residential living and one place for con'nmmial business. The shoreland management does not allow this. Kenneth Lillyblad, 16287 Lakeside, voiced his opposition against the proposed ameaxtnxmt. Comnents from the Commissioners were on; survey of other comnamities, applicant was asked to describe his type of vehicle (36 ft. slralght truck, enclosed body, general frieght hauler, 11,500 lbs.), historically enforcement of ordinances is by a complaint process, and consensus was that the proposed arnmdnx~t would cause m(xe problems than it would solve. Commissioner Loftus was son'mvhat in support of the applicant's position with modifications. Mc O'Brien was asked to restate his proposal and added that he felt pafldng his vehicle off-site causes hardship, vandalism polential, financial burden, and he did not see the difference between a gm'aged vehicle or tm-garaged vehicle. Ms. Gan'om informed the Commissiorma's of the ordinances for the City of Prior Lake and that the ordinance in place does not prohibit someone from having a track just that it needs to be enclosed from view. Mc Hermansen suggested that maybe two different laws are needed. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO DENY AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-5-5:E OF THE PRIOR LAKE C1TY CODE AND SECTION 6.5:E OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. RATIONAl F~ BEING IT IS INCONSISTENT WII'H THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMI:Rt3IENSIVE PLAN. PLANNING COMMISSION March 3, 1994 Page 2 Vo~e taken signified ayes by Roseth, Vonhof, and Amold. Commissioner Loftus abstained. MOFION CARRIED. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Loftus, Amold, and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. The Public Hearing closed at 9:12 P.M. ITEMm - VARIANCE- DAVE BERGERON Dave Bergeron, 15291 Edgewater Circle, stated he wishes to add a 420 foot addition to their home. The construction would consist of a bathroom and a sitting mom/nursery addition to the master txxiroorn. The request is for a nine (9) foot lakeshore variance from the 904 contour line. Deb Gms.s, Assistant City Planner presented the information as per planning report of March 3, 1994. The subject site is appoximately 45,000 square feet and located in the Shcaeland District. The lot is located on the southeast edge of Martinsons' Island and contains lakeshore on two sides of the property. The site was developed in the 1960's and 1970's and homes were built under the jurisdiction of Eagle Creek Township. l~ecedent has been set by variances granted in the neighborhoock The irregular shape of the parcel and location at the point of an island create a unique c~ with respect to the subject site. The applicant has planned the addition in regard to preserving the trees and blending with the neighborhood. There are no building coverage or impervious surface area variances required. The recon~rdation from Staff is to approve the variance as requested. Hardship is caused by the unique circumstances related to the property being located on a island, configuration of the property, and the variance does observe the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. The DNR was notified and did not have any comments. Comrmnts from the Commissioners were; type of construction, setbacks, and all were in favor of the variance. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO Al:PROVE THE NINE (9) FOOT LAKF_SHORE VARIANCE FOR 15291 EDGEWqATER CIRCLE. RATIONALE BEING IT HAS MET THE CONDITIONS FOR HARDSHIP, PRECEDENT HAS BEFN SET AND IT WOULD NOT BE D~AL TO THE HEALTH AND Wlel FARE OF THE COMMUNITY. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Vonhof, Arnold, and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Arnold announced that the new Commissioner would possibly be at the next meeting pending approval by the City Council. An update was given on the Planning Comnmon retreat scheduled for March 5, 1994. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND B Y VONHOF, TO ADJOURN THE MFFYrING. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Vonhof, Arnold, and Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 9:28 P.M. Tapes of the meeting are on file at City Hall. Deb Garross Assitant City Planner Rita M. Schewe R~,ording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION March 3, 1994 Page 3