Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 December Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF PRIOR LAKE 7:35 PM 8:15 PM 8:45 PM 9:15 PM PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DECEMBER 6, 1979 URBAN SCOPE DONALD LOEHR /JIM ROSS PHILLIP FREEMAN JIM DUNN CONDITIONAL USE CONDITIONAL USE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST TO EXPAND NON_ CONFORMING USE (612) 447 -4230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE AftPro PRIOR LAKE PLA\d'IS'C, CO ^fkfISSION MINUTES December 6, 1979 The December 6, 1979 meeting of the Prior Lake Planning Commission was called to order Present at the meeting were Commissioner's Fitzgerald, Arnold, Warmka, Chairman Speiker, Councilman Busse, and City Planner Graser. Commissioner Johnson was not present. Motion was made by Arnold to approve the minutes of the November 15, 1979 Prior Lake Planning Cormission meeting, seconded by Warmka. Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed and the minutes were approved as published. Item I, a Conditional Use application by James Refrigeration. Present at the meeting representing James Refrigeration were Charles James and Stelios Aslanidis. Staff gave a presentation to the Commission as per his memorandum dated December 6, 1979. He noted that the application is for a conditional use for a PDQ Store with two gas pumps, on Lot 5, Block 2 of the James Refrigeration Plat. He noted that there is no sewer and water or any utilities in this area. These will have to be constructed ')efore a building )permit can be issued. Also of concern is the intersection of County Ro.id 42 and Country Lane, there is further studying being done on this. It was Staff's recommendation that the site plan be approved as submitted with the conditions under the Prior Lake /James Refrigeration development covenants and restrictions as filled. Mr. Don Williams stated that he would prefer to see a full service gas station go in rather than the one that has been proposed along with the PDQ store. Mr. Charles James of James Refrigeration made a few comments to the Planning Commission regarding this plat. He stated that he did not know what the future uses would be but that they have tried to specify the shape and form and cha- acteristic that the develop- ment might have. lie stated that because he didn't get the 3 -2 zoning it is impossible for him to build spec space because all buildings would have to come before the Planning Commission for approval. Fitzgerald did note that there are permitted uses under B -1 that would not have to come before the Planning Commission, these would be professional type businesses. The Commissioners questioned whether or not there would be a pump expansion in the future and if so, would they have to appear before the Commission before ad& tional pumps could be installed. It was noted that they would have to appear. Motion was made by Warmka to approve the site plan for the PDQ Store consisting of 2504 sq. ft., with two outside gas pumps with the following conditions: The store would be built as shown in the rendering received by the Planning Commission and this would be subject to the conditions of the James Refrigeration= /Prior Lake Development Covenant restrictions, seconded by Arnold. Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed. Item II, Conditional Use Permit request by the Laken Drive-An. The applicant was present at the meeting. Jim Ross of J $ D Sporting Coods gave a presentation to the Coy +mission. (612) 447 -4230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 5537). At this time he noted that they are proposing a SO' x ;" addition onto the Laker Drive In for the retail business of J , D Sporting Goods. They are also proposing a 20' x 40' addition to the rear of the restaurant for the same use. Staff gave a presentation to the Commission as per his memorandum dated December 6, 1979. Staff noted that the property consist5of approximately three acres and is presently zoned B -1. Mr. Graser noted that the use has in existance for approximately 14 years. Staff recommends approval upon the following conditions: 1.) site plan and elevation plans be made a part of the record and a building permit be issued corresponding to those plans; 2) One free standing sign be removed; 3) The blacktop be removed from state property and reseeded; 4) The parking lot to be squared off and to consist of at least 34 striped spaces; S) The additions shall be painted in a color identical to or compatible with the existing structure; 6) some type of planting or landscaping plan should be submitted to staff within one year. ``% Audrey Loehr who is the owner of the property questioned as to why the one sign would have to be removed. Mr. Craser noted that the ordinance has changed and because they are apply for a Conditional Use Permit, this is one of the conditions that the Planning Commission can place on the lot, or as a condition of development or approval. Fitzgerald questioned whether J f, D Sporting Goods would be intitled to a sign. Staff` noted that they would be intitled to a sign but there could only be one free standing sign per lot, they could have a sign attached to there building advertising there busines Motion was made by Arnold to approve the Conditional Use for the Laker Drive In with following conditions as per staffs recommendation, with the landscaping plan being su to staff within one year, seconded by Warmka. Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly At this time there was a five minute recess called by Chairman Speiker. The meeting was reconveniened at 5:45 P.M. Item III, a request for a Conditional Use Permit by Phillip Freeman. Mr. Freeman was pre: ent at the meeting. Mr. Freeman stated that he is proposing to build - P .duplex on Lots 35 $ 36, Fairlawn Shore: He noted that at present there is a cabin on this property. He felt that the proposed hom would improve the property. Staff gave his presentation to the Commission as per his memorandum dated December 6, 19 The applicant is requesting to construct a two family townhouse, the proposed structure ! consists of a four stall garage and three story constur � ion demensions being 53 x 52 excluding decks and elevated walkways. It was also noted that the requests consists of a 4 front yard variance to minimize cost of construction. The area is zoned R -1. Staff recommended denial of the request because of the R -1 zoning in the area he felt the uses should remain the same. He felt that the proposed town home would 'be cause a potential . conflict with the existing area. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned whether the neighbors in the area had been notified. stated that he had tried but was not extremely successful in his attempts. Mr. Freeman noted that the neighbor to the East would have no complaints about building the home, and he also noted that the home to the West was a cabin and for summer use only and he had not had a chance to talk with them. Fitzgerald felt that there would be no problem with this type of use on the property if it is done sensibly. He would rather see one large home go up than two small homes. Warmka stated that she would like to see the setbacks in relation to the homes on either side to see if this would be cutting there view or is in some way larger and over powering with them. Speiker stated that he was not comfortable with the proposed plans and he would like to see the area remain single family dwellings. Fitzgerald g questioned whether the Commission could send Mr. Freeman back for additional information with regard to the neighbors, site rendering showing the other lots. Staff noted that this could be done if Mr. Freeman was willing to do so. Motion was made by Fitzgerald to table this item until additional information is received including notifi cation and the feelings of the immediate neighbors and also specific site renderings of the full parcel that will show set backs and also immediate adjacent properties this was seconded by Arnold. The hearing was tabled until the 3rd of January 1980 at 7:35 P.M.. Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed. At this time a five minute recess was called by Chairman Speiker. The meeting was recon- veniened at 9:15 P.M. Item IV - Expansion of a non - conforming use by James Dunn. Mr. Dunn was present at the meeting. Mr. Dunn gave a presentation to the Commission,at this time he noted that he is proposing to expand his Marina due to the increase of business over the past few years.` Mr. Dunn went on to comment on the renderings given to the Planning Commission. Staff was called upon to give his presentation. He noted that Mr. Dunn is proposing to to add a 30' x 35' addition to the existing 28' x 48' structure for service and retail. Staff noted that he would be in favor of this addition but that the flood plan ordinance may not allow this construction. Mr. Dunn is also proposing a50' x 35' floating service building which would be situated about 80' out from the existing service building. The building would be a year round building anchored down. This building would probably be used for sales of marina related items. Staff felt that this building would be detri- mental to the entire area and is not for the service needs of the on lake customers on Prior Lake. The other addition proposed would consist of a 92' x 195' building to house storage of boats,trailers and other related items. It is staffs opinion that such a construction would be out of proportion with the existing character of the area and it would constitute industrial use in a single family area. At this time Chairman Speiker entered into the record a letter that was received from Mr. Edwin A. Martini, Jr. who is an adjacent property owner. This letter was also written for Mr. Percy Kassberg who could not be present at the meeting._ The letter noted that that it was their opinion that the proposed development would propose many problems and that they are opposed to the changes. Input was taken from the public at this time. Mr. Arthur Reemer also representing Martha,z Reibel stated that he was opposed to this expansion of the Marina, especially the 92' x 195 building. Mr. Wayne Miller, President of the Grainwood West Association stated that he was opposed to the expansion of the Marina. Mr. Rollie Theiling, developer of the Townhouse'" project stated that he was opposed to the expansion. Mr. Joe Carroll, Vice - President of the Grainwood West Townhouse Association was opposed to any expansion. He would prefer to see no expansion at all. Mr. Ben Baer who is a resident of the area was opposed to any expansion of the Marina. Mr. Dunn at this time made a few more comments regarding his proposal. Mr. Dunn noted that this Lake could support 2 if not 3 full service Marina's. He also noted that no matter what happens in these hearings between here and the Council level that the Planning Commission and the Council and the people in the Community should try to make some space available J for the basic services that are involved in having a lake for the people in the community and the people outside of the community. Mr. Dunn noted that the floating building would be the best way in exercising services offered. The large buiding would solve boat storage assembly of docks, and the storage of items needed to be in the Marine business. Mr. Dunn noted that lie would be willing to do some sub - planning on this in order to camouflage this building. Mr. Dunn noted that his main emphasis is they cannot service total amount of demands on the lake let alone outside the area. a The general feeling of all the commission members was not favorable to the proposed r. buildings. Fitzgerald felt that this should be approached on a conceptional approval basis where there would be more input. As proposed, he would have to deny this request. Warmka was concerned about the amount of slips to be added. She also questioned the acquistion of additional land that was sold according to the letter for residential use and is now used for commercial land, could he legally expand his commercial operation onto this land. Staff noted that he could not. She also felt that the townhouse owners were promised that the area would not be expanded and this should be taken into consider- ation. She stated that maybe something could be worked out that would be acceptable on a small scale. Mr. Graser noted that you cannot promise someone that a use cannot be expanded, everyone has the right to apply for expansion. Arnold felt that they would have to something more detailed to work with. Speiker stated that he understood that this was a non conforming use and that it would not be expanded. He also noted that there were some options available here but it would have to be done in concert with the neighborhood. He was definetly opposed to the proposed plans as received, for any addition to be made. Motion was made by Fitzgerald to deny the request as presented to' expand a non- confooming use, seconded by Arnold. Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed." Motion to adjourn the December 6, 1979 Planning Commission meeting was made by Arnold seconded by Warmka. Upon a vote taken the motion was duly passed and the meeting was adjourned.