Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0609032. 3. 4. 7. 8. 9. Ao REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2003 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Consent Agenda: Public Hearings: Case #03-24 and 03-25: Farmington Development is requesting consideration for a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a townhouse development consisting of 11 units on the property located north of CSAH 82, west of CSAH 21, south of Regal Crest. Case #03-47: Deerfield Development is requesting to amend the Zoning Map designation on 4.25 acres from R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) to R-4 (High Density Residential), 6.14 acres from C-5 (Business Office Park) to ¢-4 (General Business), and 13.35 acres from C-5 (Business Office Park) to I-1 (Industrial) in the Deerfield Industrial Park. Case #03-51: Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow religious institutions as uses permitted with conditions in the C-l, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Commercial Use Districts. Old Business: New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: LA03 Files~03 Plnnnin~ Comm~03 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER II! i i PUBLIC HE G Conducted by the Planning Commission The Planning Commission~elcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to ali who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once, you allow everyone else to speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to clairLfication or new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further tesitmony or comment will not be possible except under rare conditions. The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you. ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT NAME ADDRESS PH~IST. DOC PAGE 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2003 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the June 9, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson, Plarming Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff and Recording Secretary Come Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Absent Criego Present Lemke Present Ringstad Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the May 27, 2003, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. Case #03-24 and 03-25: Farmington Development is requesting consideration for a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a townhouse development consisting of 11 units on the property located north of CSAH 82, west of CSAH 21, south of Regal Crest. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier stated staff determined the above applications were complete on May 14, 2003, and scheduled the public hearing for June 9 . However, upon complete review of the application, there were some outstanding issues that affected the overall design of this development. In order to allow the developer to address these issues prior to the hearing, the staff suggested the hearing be held on June 23rd, and the developer agreed. Since this item was published in the newspaper, it will be necessary to formally continue the public hearing to June 23, 2003. Notices have been sent to the owners of property within 500' of the site advising them of the new date of the hearing. The staff has also republished notice of the hearing and will resend notices 10 days prior to the hearing. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~lN060903.doc I Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 2003 MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PRIOR LAKE PONDS ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO JUNE 23, 2003. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case #03-47: Deerfield Development is requesting to amend the Zoning Map designation on 4.25 acres from R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) to R-4 (I-Iigh Density Residential), 6.14 acres from C-5 (Business Office Park) to C-4 (General Business), and 13.35 acres from C-5 (Business Office Park) to I-1 (Industrial) in the Deerfield Industrial Park. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 9, 2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Deerfield Development has filed an application for a rezoning for a portion of the 60.1 acres of vacant property located east offish Point Road, on the east side of the Deerfield Development and south of Cottonwood Lane and Adelmann Street. The proposal includes the following amendments to Zoning Map: · Change 4.25 acres from R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) to R-4 (High Density Residential) · Change 6.14 acres from C-5 (Business Office Park) to C-4 (General Business) · Change 13.35 acres from C-5 (Business Office Park) to I-1 (Industrial) This property is presently zoned R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) and C-5 (Business Office Park). On March 17, 2003, the City Council approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map redesignating the 6.14 acres to C-CC (General Business) and the 13.35 acres to I-PI (Planned Industrial). On May 5, 2003, the Council also approved and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map redesignating the 4.25 acres to R-HD (High Density Residential). These amendments were subsequently approved by the Metropolitan Council. The applicant is proposing to develop this property as part of the Deerfield Industrial Park. An application for a preliminary plat for the entire 60 acres has been submitted; however, this application is incomplete. There are no services adjacent to this site. Development of this property will require the extension of Adelmann Street to the south and extension of sewer and water. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will also be required for the development of the site. The staffis in the process of selecting a consultant to prepare the EAW, in anticipation of a complete preliminary plat application. Staff recommended approval of the rezonings as requested. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Cornm\03pcMinutes~fN060903.doe 2 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 2003 Questions from Commissioners: Criego questioned who owned the adjoining southerly property. Kansier responded it was part of Deerfield which will be the last phase of the development. Comments from the public: Scott Kilau, 5431 Fawn Court, said he was surprised to see the City Council overturned the Planning Commission's decision. His main concerns are for the building height and maintaining the tree line. Mike Gressman, 17260 Revere Way, owns the southerly property adjoining the proposed development. Gressman has a privacy berm around his property. However, when the survey company came out to stake the property, the privacy berm appears to be in the middle of the property line. He was wondering what is going to happen and could he get it moved to his side of the property line. Stamson said generally the developer will berm the area under the ordinance. The issue is rezoning at this time. They have to have some kind of setback space. Kansier said it is something he can negotiate with the developer during the grading. It would be more appropriate to discuss during the Preliminary Plat process. In the meantime he can contact the developer. Renae Shrader 5425 Fawn Court, just recently bought the property because of the trees and privacy. They had no idea the intention of this area and would also like to keep the privacy with the trees. Lee Redman, 17355 Wilderness Circle, said he missed something, does the City know what business are going in? Kansier said the City does not have the specific plans or business in£ormation. Kansier explained it is not required at this stage to know the businesses. Redrnan question the residential density. Stamson explained that is part of the discussions but the City had previously held a public meeting. He did not see any credible information to support the need to add high density housing, with the exception that these businesses would be importing workers who are below the average income. In order to import the businesses, do we need to import some lower income housing or smaller condos that sell for less? Redman said it is clear to him the developer has some plans to bring those types of folks to Prior Lake and that is why we have to rezone. His concern is not so much for the tree line. He questioned "As a concept for this community are we deciding to move in the direction of bringing in lower per capita income and heavy industry in this particular arena of our town? And if so, it is important to know." Criego responded there is very little commercial property in Prior Lake and the property in question is one of the first developments the City has undertaken. The City would like to see more but there is limited space for it. That particular area is good for commercial because there are akeady a number of properties that are commercial. The real question is do we need high density next to it? That is the issue the Commissioners have to L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~lN060903.doe 3 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 2003 address tonight. The City Council will take the information from tonight's meeting into consideration. Redman questioned if it is pretty much the only reason to have high density next to commercial areas. Kansier explained the City Council's goal is to facilitate commercial and nonresidential development in the City. That is why they amended the Comprehensive Plan. Tonight's action is the public hearing then on to the City Council. There will be opportunities to discuss the specific development of the whole parcel and probably each individual lot as it proceeds. Redman said he works for Norex and moved here because of Norex. His concern is if the City is looking to attract businesses like Norex there is no need to rezone and second, he would expect the City to detract from that type of organization (lower income) moving in. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · This is very familiar, we did discuss this a number of months ago as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan. My thoughts have not changed. · Do agree that rezoning to C4 and I1 is appropriate for the area. The 13.5 acres which is requested to be rezoned to I1 and the 6.14 acres being requested to C4 is consistent with the entire industrial area developed over the last 10 to 15 years. There is long term benefits for that area. · The 4.25 acres in Deerfield is requested to be high density. The surrounding community helped the City zone it R2. To spot zone 4.2 acres for R4 is not an appropriate use. · There is no reason someone cannot rezone R4 on the south portion of Deerfield that is not developed. In my opinion, the City would have hard time justifying not rezoning. · The City has designated the area north of County Road 42 to be high density. It is appropriate in that location. · Agree with zoning the I-1 and C4, against rezoning the current R2 to R4. Lemke: · Criego made compelling arguments. When I looked at the property it seemed a higher density was appropriate as a buffer between the neighborhood and the commercial area. Agree with that and the other rezoning requests as well. · Questioned staff on the permitted uses in an industrial area? Kansier explained the uses. · This entire area has been intended to be named Deerfield Industrial Park for some time. · Supported staff's recommendation. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Corrma\03pcMinutes~Vl'N060903.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 2003 Ringstad: · Relying on Criego and Atwood's memory of the development. Both agree that the discussions that took place were with the neighborhood residents that 4.25 acres should be R2. · Did not support this two months ago when this was before us as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. See nothing more to compel me to support. The current R2 zoning ties in well with the surrounding community and for those reasons can support the 6.4 acres and 13.3 acre zoning change. · Cannot support 4.5 acres from R2 to R4. Stamson: The C4 and I1 districts make sense for a healthier business mix. It would provide better sales and tax base. The layout works. Supports. · Agree with the Commissioners feelings on the R4 issue, however, since the buck stops at the City Council and they decided to designate this R4 on the Comprehensive Plan, I will respect that decision. As far as the zoning, it is high density in the Comprehensive Plan. Although I did not vote for it to be R4 in the Comprehensive Plan, it will make sense for R4 zoning. · Do not see a massive negative if it is R4, it is an unusual spot, would rather see it commercial and build on the commercial base. · Support staff's recommendation. Open Discussion: Ringstad said being respectful to the City Council's overrule, do not necessarily agree with the reasons for rezoning. It will end up back in the City Council's decision however; he would like to stay consistent with his beliefs. MOTION BY LEMKE SECOND BY RINGSTAD to rezone 6.14 acres from C-5 (Business Office Park) to C-4 (General Business) and rezone 13.35 acres from C-5 (Business Office Park) to I-1 (Industrial). Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY STAMSON, to Rezone 4.25 acres from R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) to R-4 (High Density Residential) Vote taken ayes by Lemke and Stamson, nays by Criego and Ringstad. THE MOTION FAILS. After a brief discussion, the Commissioners decided to forward the Motions as is to the City Council for their July 7, 2003 meeting. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO DEFER THE REZONING OF THE 4.25 ACRES FROM R2 TO R4 TO CITY COUNCIL WITH NO RECOMMENDATION. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comra\03pcMinutes~ffN060903.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 2003 Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. C. Case #03-51: Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow religious institutions as uses permitted with conditions in the C-l, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Commercial Use Districts. Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the planning report dated June 9, 2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow religious institutions as uses permitted with conditions in the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial), C-2 (Community Business), C-3 (Specialty Retail), and C-4 (General Business) use districts. This amendment would provide additional use districts for religious institutions, such as churches, to locate within the City. The impetus for this amendment is the potential reuse of the Assembly of God Church located at the intersection of Boudin Street and TH 13. The property to the north is zoned and designated for commercial uses. Furthermore, it is located on an arterial roadway, which lends to more intense land uses. The proposed amendment would allow a religious institution as a use permitted with conditions in the C-l, C-2, C-3, and C-4 use districts. The purpose of the change is to allow the reuse of existing churches as commercial uses. Any adverse impacts on adjacent residential uses would be mitigated with the proposed conditions. Staff recommended approval of the amendment as proposed. Questions from Commissioners: Stamson questioned if the City currently has any churches in the commercial districts as a nonconforming use. Kansier said "No". At the time the City did the 1999 Comprehensive Plan they made sure all the churches were out of the commercial districts. The Prior Lake Baptist Church is currently zoned Industrial and in order for them to do an addition, it was rezoned to a residential district. Stamson asked why it couldn't be rezoned when a church sells it property. Kansier explained a situation and the problems that would occur. This issue has come up because of the Assembly of God Church near commercial property. Kansier explained the marketing situation. The staff is looking at all churches and zoning when looking at the Comprehensive Plan. Criego questioned if this is for existing churches or new churches. Kansier responded it is for both. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinuteshMN060903.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 2003 Criego felt it was not logical for churches to purchase commercial-zoned land. Not sure the City would want to create a zone for that. Kansier said that would be the down side of it. A hindrance to that would be the cost of land. Criego questioned if there was any other way of solving the issue. Kansier said there was no other way, either churches would be in the district or not. The City cannot say some are okay and some are not. Criego questioned the zoning areas for Highway 13 and County Road 42. Kansier responded it was currently zoned C 1 and C2. The downtown area is zoned C3. Other areas are zoned C4. There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: · Staffdid a great job in outlining the advantages and disadvantages of the issue. · Appreciated Criego's comments, however, if the Commissioners approve this tonight it does not mean 20 churches are going to relocate to the Prior Lake area. Things like parks and churches add value to the community. · Support proposal. Lemke: · Did not want to put up a road block to any church. · Staff has convinced me that this is an appropriate use. · Questioned permitted use with conditions - would it be automatic if someone went into a C1, C2, C3 or C4 and proposed to build a church? The building permit would be issued and that would be the end of it? Kirchoff said that is correct and there wouldn't be a public hearing. · Staff's comment with the price of land would probably inhibit the change. · Agreed with staff. Stamson: · Echo Criego's comments. The City does not currently have churches in the commercial district. And we are not looking at any thinking about being reused. · Stamson read the rezoning criteria. The procedures are in place to handle those situations. · We should look at providing the procedures when a church wants to change. · On the other hand, to open commercial land which is needed for churches is not unheard of. We allowed Shepherd of the Lake to rezone 40 acres that was designated as commercial land and do not see the benefit to the City. · It is going to get harder and harder to swap land. · The Commission can make a strong argument for rezoning. Many churches are in residential areas - this only applies to 2 churches. It is not necessary. There is more than ample opportunity to address the issue. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinuteshMN060903.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 2003 · Oppose the change. Criego: · Agreed 100 percent with Stamson. Open discussion: Lemke asked what would happen if this was not approved and the language was changed to a conditional use? Stamson said it would still be permitted; it would just have to meet certain criteria. Criego felt everyone is trying to do the right thing with the current church at issue, but going about it the wrong way. We should not expose all our commercial property because of this situation. It is not right to allow a use when we know it will reduce the mount of commercial land in the community. Prior Lake has very little commercial land available. Stamson stated in contrast there is ample residential land. The argument cannot be made that churches are being hindered or redeveloping because there is not enough R1 land. If that was the case, this might make sense. Criego felt the answer is not to change the ordinance every time there is a unique problem. Ringstad questioned if the issue before them because of the Assembly of God Church situation or is there a broader reason. Kansier said the Assembly of God situation was the trigger. If churches had been allowed in commercial districts that property would not be designated residential. It would be zoned commercial, which is more appropriate. An ordinance cannot be written to fit every need. Staff looked at other cities ordinance and considered the pros and cons and came to the conclusion that churches are generally permitted in all districts. If the Commissioners feel more public review is necessary, it could be made into a conditional use permit. It is correct that churches could buy commercial property. It is a risk but commercial land values are very high compared to residential land. Stamson felt Kansier's argument is right for other communities. Prior Lake has very little commercial areas. There is plenty of R1 land. This would allow building in any of the Commercial districts and that does not make sense. In the case of downtown, the VFW could sell to a church. Same with the Priordale Mall. That is not the types use we want to promote in those areas. There are some situations where churches are sitting on R1 land but the ordinance and State law gives us a procedure to look at these incidents. That is a far better approach than opening up "C" districts to churches. Lemke and Ringstad stated they were swayed by Criego and Stamson's arguments. Ringstad is not convinced that it would not be a problem or abuse to rezone to commercial at this time. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN060903.doc 8 Iii i i Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 2003 MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, RECOMMENDING DENYING ORDINANCE 03-XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1102.902, 1102.1002, 1102.1102, AND 1102.1202 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE Vote taken indicated ayes by all. 0 Old Business: New Business: Ringstad nay. MOTION CARRIED. Announcements and Correspondence: Kansier reminded the Commissioners of the second annual Surf and Turf workshop on June 30th. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN060903.doe 9