Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 June Planning Commission MinutesIsm TttANe REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, June 3, 1993 7:30 p.m Call meeting to order. a) Review minutes of previous tweeting. 7:35 p.m. 1. Public Hearing to consider a Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance amendment to add Twin Home regulations. 8:00 P.M. 2. Public Hearing to consider a Zoning Ordinance amendment to add licensed Residential Cate Facilities regulations 8:15 p.m. 3. Public Hearing to consider a Zoning Ordinance amendment to add Single Family Residential as a Conditional Use within the I -1 Special Industrial Distrim - Consider conditional use permit application for Ed Vierling. 8:30 p.m. 4. Consider variance application for Mike Brauland. 9:00 P.M. 5. Consider variance application for Doug Brinkman. Other Business a) b) C) 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. SE., Prior [akG Minnesota 55372 1 Ph. (612) 4474230 1 Fax (612) 4474245 /OF PRIOR a � V t�i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES "'�rv.vrao a JUNE 3,1993 e Line 3, 1993, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Roseth at 7:30 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Roseth, Amold, Greenfield, Wuellner, Director of Planning Host Graser, Associate Planner James Hayes, and Secretary Rita Schewe. Commissioner Loftus arrived at 8:25 P.M. Commissioner Greenfield requested that his two page dissenting opinion be added as an amendment to thr minutes of May 20, 1993, to support his nay vote on the adoption of Resolution 93-04 for Cardinal Ridge. Discussion followed on the amendment. Commissioner Wuellner recalled the procedure outlined at the Commissioner's Workshop in that when a vote is taken even if there is a nay vote, the Commissioners should support the motion after the vote is taken. The rational for a nay vote shall be given at the time of the vote and not brought in at a later date. An established protocol should be in place. If the amendment was entered in to the record, it would only be this once and not allowed again. As a consenus could not be reached, the approval of the minutes was placed at the end of the agenda The Planning Commission moved to allow Commissioner Greenfield's addendum to be added to the minutes. The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:42 P.M. The public was not in attendance at the beginning. Horst Graser Director of Planning presented the information as per Planning Report #1 of June 3, 1993. The proposal is a housekeeping amendment proposed in order to provide an ordinance process to divide the land beneath twin homes into separate parcels for private ownership purposes. A second amendment to increase the minimum lot size of single flintily lots within the A -1, Agricultural Zone from 1 acre and 150 feet of lot width to 10 acres and 330 feet lot width is also proposed. Ordinance 93 -15 was drafted by City Attorney, Glen Kessel, to permit the conversion of rental to owner occupied status for twin homes constructed upon conforming lots of record. The Ordinance specifies four conditions under which a twin home property may be divided, without variance. Discussion followed by the Commissioners on the amendment. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 93 -15 AS PROPOSED. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Wuellner, Roseth, and Greenfield. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PLANNING COMWSSION 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, MinnesotA :) !aPh. (612) 447 / Fax (612) 4474245 FJJ EQUAL O EMPLOYER Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Arnold, Greenfield, and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. The public hearing was closed at 7:58 P.M. The Public Hearing was called to order at 8:00 P.M. Public was in attendance and a sign -up sheet was circulated. Horst Graser presented the information as per Planning Report #2 of June 3, 1993. The proposal is a housekeeping amendment proposed in order to bring the Zoning ordinance into consistency with Minnesota Statutes 462.357 Subd.7 and Subd g. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Prior Lake City Code and Zoning Ordinance to allow day care and residential care facilities as permitted and conditional uses within the R -1, R -2, R -3, and R -4 Residential Zoning Districts. Comments from the Commissioners were on; if neighbors were notified on this type of business, question on permitted use for lower number of children, and R -2 definition. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY GREENFIELD, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 17, 1993, AT 9:00 P.M. TO RESEARCH THE THE ISSUES IN QUESTION. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Greenfield, Roseth, and Arnold MOTION CARRIED. The Public Hearing was called to order at 8:15 P.M. The public was in attendance and a sign -up sheet was circulated. Mr. Graser presented the information as per the Planning Report #3 of June 3, 1993. The request is unusual as it is seldom done unless to accommodate an individual. Mc Ed Vierling wishes to construct a single family home in an I -1 Industrial District of which the permitted uses are industrial. The property is owned by Mr. Vierling's father, Leo, and wishes to build on the family land. The process that is being followed is to amend the I -1 district, introduce the conditional use for single family home and then consider issuing a permit for a single family home via the conditional use permit. This is the process recommended by Attorney Robert Hoffman. This area is proposed to be rezoned residential and neighborhood commercial when the 2010 Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Thus, this amendment to the code would be consistent with the future Comprehensive Plan for this area of the community. The City of Prior Lake is considering locating the Industrial Park in a different location as the land in this area is not conducive to industrial development and the Industrial Standards are in the process of being rewritten. When this takes place the application will become a legal non - conforming use. This application, although cumbersome, provides a limited window of opportunity for Mr. Vierling to a single family home on his land. Ed Vierling, 14091 Eagle Creek Avenue NE, stated that he wanted to build his house on the family property as his brother has done. Mr. Vierling has tried different locations over the last year on placement of the house and this seemed the most logical for hL.w He thanked the Commissioners for their consideration of the application. The Commissioners were all in consensus of the proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION June 3,1993 Page 2 MOTION BY GREENFIET -D, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO AMEND SECTION 3.2 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83 -06, TO PERMTr A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN AN I -1 SPECIAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Vote taken signified ayes by Greenfield, Wuellner, Arnold, Roseth, and Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Arnold, Roseth, Greenfield, and Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. Public Hearing closed at 8:27 P.M. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THIS PROPERTY AS PER APPLICATION, CONTINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING CODE 83 -6 SECTION 3.2. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Arnold, Greenfield, Loftus and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM V - MIKE BRATTLAND - VARIANCE Mike Brattland, 12914 Abbott Circle, Burnsville, stated he is applying for a variance to build a hone and requests the Planning Commission to grant a coral area density variance for the SE quarter of the NW quarter of Section 34, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County. Mr. Brattland felt that building where it was allowed would be in the wooded area and put him further from the road which would be a hardship for him. He also stated that urban services would be installed soon and would benefit the City with a shorter installation distance. This application would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in a few years. Horst Graser presented the information as per Planning Report 84. The request is to waive the ordinance and allow 5 units per quarter /quarter section. The ordinance is quite clear and only allows 4 units per quarter /quarter section and the application is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brattiand spoke again on the fact that a house will eventually be close to the road after The Wilds development becomes a reality and it could be his now. Martha Hoover, 15509 Red Oaks Road, Prior Lake, stated she is the owner of Parcel F and wanted to know if the variance is granted would the applicant have a building permit for the other half of the lot located in the other quarter section. Ms. Hoover felt the area is already urbanized and when sewer & water comes in, it would be less costly than installing a septic system. Commissioner Loftus commented on the timing was a little premature on the sewer and water issue and applicant should wait until the utilities are installed Commissioner Arnold stated the Zoning Ordinance is quite specific and feels hardship is not shown but does agree with the applicant on his location of the house. Commissioner Greenfield also agrees on the logical location of the house but the code does not allow an increase in density and the hardship criteria has not been met. Conunissioner Wuellner outlined the Zoning Ordinance, hardship not demonstrated, and the applicant is a victim of timing and will have to wait until utilities are in. Commissioner Roseth concurred with the Commissioners. PLANNING CONOMSION June 3,1993 Page 3 Mr. Brattland asked if he had two building permits for his property to build in the SE comer of the NW section and the NE corner of the SW section. Mr. Graser stated he would have to research the issue and advise the applicant at a later date. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO DENY THE APPLICATION OF THE VARIANCE FOR A RURAL AREA DENSITY VARIANCE FOR THE SE QUARTER OF THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 115, RANGE 22, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA. RATIONALE BEING THE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Wuellner, Roseth, Loftus, and Greenfield. MOTION CARRIED TO DENY THE APPLICATION. A recess was called at 9;15 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 9:25 P.M. ITEM VI - DOUGLAS BRINKMANN - VARIANCE Doug Brinkman, 4579 Lord's Street, stated he is proposing to add a 4 foot by 26 foot balcony over the existing driveway to square up the dimensions of the house and enlarge the entryway to 3 feet by 6 feet. Jim Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the information as per Planning Report ti5. The variances requested are a 56 foot lakeshore variance from the 75 foot setback and a 13% impervious surface variance from the 30% impervious surface requirement. When the applicant applied for a building permit it was found that these variances were needed to continue the construction. The existing dwelling already has a legal non-conforming setback 19 feet from the lakeshore and the proposal will not encroach any further on the existing setback. Precedent has been set by granting variances for similar setbacks on other structures in the neighborhood Hardship is not caused by the applicant nor the City of Prior Lake, but the result of former platting and zoning standards of a previous government. Comments from the Commissioners were on; hardship is proven. DNR notified, question on the existing impervious surface, and all were in support of the application. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO GRANT A 56 FOOT LAKESHORE VARIANCE AND A 13% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR 4579 LORD'S STREET. RATIONALE BEING PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SET, HARDSHIP IS NOT CAUSED BY THE APPLICANT NOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE BUT BY THE ACTIONS OF A PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT AND WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Greenfield, Roseth, and Arnold. MOTION CARRIED. Horst Graser requested the Commissioners when making motions to speak clearly, and distinctly into the microphone, try to formulate the motions before stating them so they are clear and concise. Discussion followed on the minutes in regard to the dissenting opinion. Commissioner Wtellner again reminded the Commissioners on the procedure agreed upon at the workshop. When a nay vote is given the person disagreeing should take notes and then qualify his/her disagreement in a clear and concise manner that would be entered into the minutes. When the vote is finished and the motion has passed, the Commissioners are then one voice in support of the [notion even though you disagreed and that this was agreed upon by all the Commissioners. To add a two PLANNING COhOMSION June 3,1993 PsV4 page dissenting opinion at a later date would be inappropriate. If this is allowed this title, then it should not be allowed again. Commissioner Arnold agreed on this procedure. Commissioner Loftus stated Cottunissioner Greenfield should take his opinion on to the City Council. Commissioner Greenfield felt the opportunity should be allowed to formulate a more complete opinion if needed and a-Ad laten jW tss H ayes read from the 'Robert's Rules of Older" the following text "Minutes have not been approved thus they may be amended before they are approved. Dissenting opinions should be entered at the time of public hearing but awry be amended as part of the minutes when approved ". While Robert's Rules allows for the minutes to be amended before approval, Staff recommended that any additions be made at the public hearing in the future. MOT10N BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFI'US, TO APPROVE THE MINUTE, AS AMENDED. Vote taken signified ayes, by Arnold, Loftus, Roseth, and Greenfield. Wuelbter abstained as he was not present at the meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Greenfield spoke on the procedure on the neighborhood tteedngs. W. Hayes showed the sample he had compiled. Mr. Glaser stated the consultant will have a proposal put together soon in regards to incorporating the information collected from the meetings. Mr. Gram suggested to the Commissioners to fort the nee preservation ordinance and forward this to the City Council to see if there would be support for this type of ordinance, then rewrite the information into an ordinance form This item will be plated ar the end of the agenda at the special public hearing on June 15, 1993. MOTION BY LOFfUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Wneffner, Roseth, and Oteenfeld. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Tapes of the meeting are on file at Cky Halt. Horst W. Glaser Director of Planning Rita M Schawe Recording Secretary PLANNM QOaICSSM I PW5 To: Prior Lake Planning Commission Prom: Commissioner Greenfield Subject D ssenting Opinion of Pt JD Preliminary Plat Cardinal Ridge After extensive and careful consideration of the Cardinal Ridge application, there are several unadressed or unresolved issues which I believe warrants denial for application under the provisions of our City Zoning Ordinance section 6.11 - PUD, and should only receive approval for development under the R -I Single - Family. Three specific areas are in Question: 1) Outlot property dedicated to our City are largely unusable and of poor park quality. Reference the Memorandum from Bill Mangan, Director of Parks and Recreation: Outlot A has several topographical constraints in addition to being part of a ponding easement and has little of no value as pubkc open space for park purposes. Oudot B will also be used for storm water management but it will also be used as park land. There will be storm water retained on this parcel at tunes but will eeneraLly drain off and will_be usefid open space Oudot C will be used primarily as storm water management purposes and has not been considered for open space. Outlot D is the largest parcel of open space and includes some severe topographical constraints that render it desirable for open space but is not real conducive for any development accept on the far east side. There will be extensive trail work along the southern edge of the plat. Outlot E is comprised of severe topoeraphy and does contain a large ponding easement on it and this oudot's primary purpose will be for storm water management. Outlot F is a remnant parcel that is of little or no value to either the developer or to the city. In summary, much of the dedicated outlot property given as open space park credit is either for storm water management with ponds, steep slopes or unusable for park or development. If you factor out the unusable land due to severe slopes and water, the following "usable" park land exists; Outlot A - 0 acres, Outlot B - 3.5 acres, Outlot C - 3.6 acres. Outlot D - 4.3 acres, Outlot E - 2.3 acres. Outlot F - 0 = 13.7 acres /147 acres or actual usable park land of 9.3 %. Using the same criteria on Westbury ponds, a recent R -1 development, 6 acres/59.8 acres or actual usable park land of 10 %. Since there is not adequate quantity and quality open space there is no justification for PUD status. (1) I 1 The Developer has not complied with manv components of Z.O. Sec.6.1 1 par.3.4, 5. Speciticaliv, there are no written or contractual covenants to provide for "iiipher standards of site and building design through the use of experienced land Planners, Registered Architects and/or Landscape Architects to prepare plans for all FT IDs. The Developer has not demonstrated "Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics and open space." " Vlore efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities." Since there is no demonstration of higher standards of site design, enhancement of site characteristics or a more efficient and effective use of land, there is no justification for PUD status. 3) The Developer has failed to submit any building and site design plans reference Z.O. See. 6.11 par 12b. "Architectural style of buildings shall not solely be a basis for denial or approval of a plan. However, the overall appearance and PLnidna Commission and Cormcrl , Since there is no demonstration of compliance with the overall appearance and compatibility of individual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development, them is no justification for PUD status. This Development should not receive approval as a Planned Unit Development unless the City receives written agreement for compliance with our Zoning Ordinances. Additionally, any PUD that does not meet the city's criteria should not be granted a request for density increases, decreased lot frontage and side yard dimensions. As the dissenting opinion for the PUD Cardinal Ridge, I request the following explanation be added to the minutes of The Planning Commission for May 20, 1993. Sincerely; C. Men Greenfie! (2) c PI2lO O Q N SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, June 15, 1993 7:00 p.m. Call meeting to order. 7:00 p.m. 1. Public Hearing to consider Industrial Standards for Business Office Park. Other Business a)Discussion on Tree Preservation Ordinance proposal 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 / Ph (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245 M EQUAL OPPORRJM E eUNER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 15, 1993 The June 15, 1993, Special r!anning Commission Public Hearing Meeting was called to order by Chairman Roseth at 7:00 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Roseth, Arnold, Greenfield, Director of Planning Horst Graser, and Secretary Rita Schewe. Comntissioner Loftus arrived at 7:10 P.M. c The Public Hearing was called to order by Chairman Rosette at 7-OD EM. The public was not in attendance. Horst Graser, Director of Planning, gave a brief outline of the proposed Industrial Park and introduced Kay Kuhlmann, Assistant City Manager. Kay Kuhlmann gave a brief history of the industrial park site and the duties of the committee that was formed to draft the Industrial Park Standards. These standards are being upgraded and redesigned in order to accommodate the goals of the newly created Waterfront Passage Business Office Park. Phil Carlson, a consultant from Dahlgron Shatdlow and Uban was hired to complete this draft and finalize the standards. Mr. Carlson conducted a slide presentation showing each section of the draft listed. These standards are for properties that are or will be zoned BP (Business Park Zone). Discussion occurred on the various sections of the draft: Permitted Uses; Conditional Uses; Accessory Uses; Lot Requirements; Required Setbacks; Design Standards in the BP District; Additions, Alterations and Accessory Structures; Other Structures; Paving and Curbing; Utility Equipment; Loading and Service Areas; Trash Handling; Lighting; Signage; Noxious Matter; Restricted Operations; and Exceptions for Legal Non - Conforming Structures. Mr. Carlson stated that the business park being proposed here, considering the size and the location of Prior Lake, it would be appropriate to have a park that can nompt a wider variety of businesses. When a community is closer to the metro area, then you can specialize on the type of businesses a community will allow. Development plans would be reviewed by fix Development Review Committee. Two versions of the signage standards were shown. Number one was recommended by Staff which would only allow address numbers from 4" to 12" and one free-standing ground sign no higher than 6 feet and no more than 80 square feet Number two was recommended by the Economic Development Committee which was the same for the address numbers and ground sign but would also allow 7% of the area of the building elevation facing the public street for signage. Such signage may include wall signage, ground signage, and a pylon sign. Cormnents were made to having a monument entrance sign possibly constructed by the (Sty. PLANNING COMMISSION June 3.1993 Page 1 Height regulation for buildings was debated. Mr. Graser stated this was covered by the Zca.iaag Ordinance. Extensive discussion by the Commissioners, followed on all segments of the draft Changes were made on the following items to read: PERMITTED USES: c) Utility services. CONDITIONAL USES: I) Retail sales or services to the public, provided that such uses occupies no more than two thousand (2000) square feet ofjloor area in the principal structure. OTHER STRUCTURES: Garages, screen walls, exposed areas of retaining walls, signs supporting structures, and other areas of exposed permanent materials shall be of a similar type, quality and appearance as the principal structure. These provisions shall not prevent the upgrading of the quality of materials used in a remodeling or expansion project. TRASH HANDLING: Dumpsters, trash, trash handling equipment, and recycling equoneent shall be stored within a principal structure or within an accessory structure of the same materials as the principal structure which is completely enclosed with closed doors and a roof. SIGNAGE: (Staff recommended signage was agreed on by Commissioners Roseds. Arnold, and Greenfield. Commissioner Loftus abstained.) The addition of a second paragraph is to read as follows: In addition to the allowed individual business signage, a common ground sign no taller than 10 feet and no larger than 120 square feet in an area shall be allowed at each major entrance Into the Business Park for the sole purpose of identoing the Business Pant and listing the businesses therein. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS FOR BUSINESS OFFICE PARKS AS AMENDED. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Greenfmd, and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Greenfield, and Routh. MOTION CARRIED. Public Hearing closed at 9:35 P.M. OTHER BIfSiNFSS _TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. PROPOSAL. Commissioner Greenfield presented a document for consideration on a tree preservation ordinance to be forwarded on to the City Council in order to solicit support before writing the ordinance. Commissioner Loftus questioned the regulation on "Preservation and seplecernent criteria for existing residents ", as this would interfere with an individuals rights on their wm property. A change to the heading was made to, "Proposed Ordinance should include the following: ", and the removal of underlines was discussed. PLANNING O0b04W1ON Ium 3,1993 Par 2 MOTION BY GREENFIELD, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO FORWARD THE PROPOSED TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AS AMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL. THE CHANGES ARE; "PROPOSED ORDINANCE MAY INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING BUT NOT I MTED TD:" AND THE UNDERSCORING LINES IN THE DOCUMENT WILL BE REMOVED. Vote taken signified ayes by Greenfield, Arnold, Roseth, and Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO ADJOURN MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Greenfield, and Rosette, MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 9:55 P.M. Horst W. Graser Director of Planning Rita AL Schewe Recording Secretary PLANK iO COAGGLMM hoe 3, 1993 PW 3 REGULAR PLANNING 4 AGENDA Thursday, June 17, 1993 6:30 p.m. Call meeting to order. a) Review minutes of previous meeting. 6:35 p.m. 1. NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING DLSTRICT MEETING Five Hawks, Spring LakelWillows 8:30 p.m. 2. VARIANCE- Rick Steinhoff 9:00 P.M. 3. PUBLIC HEARING- CONTINUED Rezoning Ordinance Amendment RE: Licensed Residential Facilities Other Business a) b) c) All times stated on the Planning Commission Agenda, with the exception of Public Hearings, are approximate and may start a few minutes earlier or biter than the scheduled time. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Cake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 M EQUAL OPPORNNfrY ENDWYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17,1993 The June 17, 1993, Neighborhood District Meeting and the Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Roseth at 6:50 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Roseth, Arnold, Greenfield, Director of Planning Horst Graser, Assistant City Planner Deb Garross, Associate Planner James Hayes, and Secretary Rita Schewe. Commissioner Loftus arrived at 7:10 P.M. ITEM i - REVIEW MINUTEC OF PR VIO i��FET16C Commissioner Roseth suggested the word 'motion' be changed to 'vote' on page 1, paragraph 2, line 5. Upon being advised that those were the words used by Commissioner Wueliner, the minutes were left as recorded. MOTION BYARNOLD, SECOND BY GREENFIELD, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Greenfield, and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. Horst Graser, Director of Planning, stated it is critical that Prior Lake obtain the input, thoughts, feelings, and issues for future growth. Prior Lake needs to be prepared for this growth when applications and developers come before the City, they can be evaluated on the terms of the values of this community and the people of this community. That is the reason for these meetings, so as to incorporate the community's values into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Graser introduced Blair Tremere, who has been contracted as a special consultant to formulate the input of the public and interpret that information into goals and policies which can be translated into the comprehensive plan. John O'Loughlin, 2988 East Valley View Road, Shakopee, MN, stated he had land in the city limits of Prior Lake but was not a resident and wished to participate in the meetings. Dana McKenna, 4112 C.J. Circle, fell the community should have paths that connect neighborhoods, parks and trails. Ms. McKenna was asked to comment on the parks housing values, and parking situations. Tom Stevenson, 3547 Willow Beach Trail, Officer of the Willow Association, stated the community should strive for mixed housing as development will be here when the County Road 18 bridge is open. There should be more zoning options to accommodate all financial levels of buyers. Traffic should be addressed at the time of development. Mr. Stevenson was not in favor of linking the road systems or in having too many businesses in Prior Lake. PLANNING 00hO SSION Jw 17.1993 PWI Mr. Graser spoke on the possibility of impact fees to developers to help pay for future development. Michele Lein, 3852 Pershing, stated that communication is important, Mystic Lake is an asset and Prior Lake should expand on the possibilities connected with that asset. Ms. Lein felt a family restaurant is needed in the City, roads need to planned according to usage, and had questions on forming a lake association and on Westbury Ponds. Mr. O'Loughlin thought a radio station should be built in Prior Lake. Commissioner Roseth thanked the audience for attending the neighborhood meeting and for their participation. A recess was called at 8:25 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 8:30 P.M. ITEM III - RICK STEINHOFF - VARIANCE Rick Steinhoff 3124 Butternut Circle, stated he is proposing to add a three season porch over the existing deck. Mr. Steinhoff applied for and received a building permit for this project and started construction. When he called for a footing inspection it was determined he was too close to the lake. After applying for a variance, the survey showed the existing structure was only 4 feet from the property line. Therefore two variances are being requested to complete the project. There would be no further encroachment on the existing setbacks. James Hayes, Associate Planner presented the information as per planning report of June 17, 1993. A 7 foot Lakeshore variance from the 75 foot setback requirement and a 6 foot north sideyard setback from the 10 feet setback requirement is requested in order to construct a 12 X 15 foot 3- season porch. The existing deck already has a legal non - conforming setback of 68 feet from the lakeshore and 4 feet from the north side property line. The subject site measures 53 X 433 feet and contains 22,000 square feet. Precedence has been set in the neighborhood for granting similar variances. Hardship in this application is not the result of actions by the applicant nor the city of Prior Lake but of a previous government platting and zoning standards, precedence has been set in the neighborhood, literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property, and the variance observes the spirit of the Ordinance. Comments from the Commissioners were on the following; question on the footings, no further encroachment, criteria was met, if any variances were requested previously, and all were in favor of the variances. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO APPROVE A SEVEN (7) FOOT LAKESHORE VARIANCE AND A SIX (6) FOOT NORTH SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 3124 BUTTERNUT CIRCLE. RATIONALE BEING THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY, THE PROPOSAL WILL NOT CAUSE FURTHER ENCROACHMENT OF THE EXISTING LEGAL NON CONFORMING SETBACKS, HARDSHIP RESULTS BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, HARDSHIP IS NOT THE RESULT OF THE APPLICANT NOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE BUT OF A FORMER GOVERNMENTAL BODY, PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SET AND IT WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. PLANNING COMMISSION June 17, 1993 Page 2 Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Roseth, and Greenfield. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Greenfield reviewed the upcoming schedule for the Planning Commission. Discussion followed on the results of the Neighborhood District Meetings. Deb Gsrross, Assistant City Planner, presented the information as per planning report of June 17, 1993. An outline of the proposed amendment for Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83 -6 was given. The proposal is a housekeeping amendment in order to bring the Zoning Ordinance into consistency with Minnesota Statutes 462.357 Subd.7 and Subd.8. The change in this Ordinance specifies that the licensed residential care facilities cannot be restricted from single family and multifamily residential zoning districts. The statute requires that state licensed residential facilities serving six or fewer persons; licensed day care facilities serving 12 or fewer persons; and group family day care facilities licensed under Minnesota Rules which serve 14 or fewer children 'Shall' be a permitted use within single family zoning districts. Therefore, the proposed amendment lists those uses as permitted uses In the R -1, Urban Residential Zone. Even though the existing Zoning Ordinance does not list the uses proposed in the amendment, an individual could not be prohibited from conducting the use within the specified zones, provided that the use is consistent with the statute. Discussion followed on the amendment. MOTION BY GREENFIELD, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE 83 -6 AND TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 93 -14. RATIONALE BEING THIS AMENDMENT WILL BRING THE ZONING ORDINANCE INTO CONSISTENCY WIT.' MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.357 SUBDIVISION 7AND SUBDIVISION 8. Vote taken signified ayes by Greenfield, Arnold, Roseth, and Loftus. MOTION CARMED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY GREENFIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Greenfield, Lotus, and Rossth. MOTION CARRIED. Public Hearing closed at 9:15 P.M. MOTION BY GREENFIELD, SECOND BYARNOLD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Greenfield, Arnold, Roseth, and Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 9:16 P.M. Tapes of the meeting are on file at City Hall. Horst W. Graser Director of Planning Rita M. Schewe Recording Secretary PLANNING CQbA4ssIGN rum 17.1993 Page 3