Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 November Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF PRIOR LAKE PRIOR LAKE PLAM4ING COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 15, 1979 7:35 P.M. Abrams, Keenan, Lynch, Spagnalo Conditional Use 8:00 P.M. 8:15 P.M. i Anthony Thelen Al Borchard Variance Parking Variance (612) 447 -4230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA W,72 r�_A CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Afto olle PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COWISSION MINUTES November 15, 1979 The November 15, 1979 meeting of the Prior Lake Planning Commission was called to order. Present at the meeting were Commissioner's Johnson, Fitzgerald, Warmka, Chairman Speiker, Councilman Busse, and City Planner Graser. Commissioner Arnold was not present. Motion was made by Warmka to approve the minutes of the November 1, 1979 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Fitzgerald. Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed and the minutes were approved as published. Item I on the agenda, a Conditional Use application by Abrams, Keenan, Lynch, and Spagnalo Representing the applicant was David Flemming, clinic administrator of the Shakopee Med- ical Center. Staff gave a presentation to the Commission as per his memorandum dated November 8, 1979. Mr. Graser noted that the use proposed is a health clinic and additional office space -gin a B -3 zone. The subject parcel consists of 1.24 acres and fronts on Franklin Trail _.htd future Gateway Street. Sewer and water are available to the site. The proposed struc- ture is 70' x 120' with 66 parking spaces which is more than adequate for the number of doctors, employee's and patients anticipated. Staff recommendation was to approve the request under the following conditions: 1) The use shall be landscaped to produce aharmonious relationship to the other two professional uses adjacent to the northwest; 2) this permit shall not be cancelable or terminable pro- vided, however, that the use of the premises must be in accordance with the terms of this permit. Commission members were concerned with the parking and the proposed landscaping. They questioned what type of landscaping would be done. Also there was concern about the access points to the proposed parking lot, it was felt that there were too many drives along Franklin Trail. Motion was made by Fitzgerald to approve the conditional use permit application with the following contingencies: 1) the use shall be landscaped to produce a harmonious relation- ship to the other two professional uses adjacent to the northwest; 2) this permit shall not be cancelable or terminable provided, however, that the use of the premises must be in accordance with the terms of this permit; 3) the construction be in keeping with the concept and quality as seen here on the plans; 4)a strong recommendation to staff to reconsider the access onto Franklin. Trail and to relocate a singular one directly across from Eveleth Street, seconded by Johnson. Upon a vote taken the motion was duly passed. Item II, a variance request by Anthony Thelen. Mr. Thelen was present at the meeting. Mr. aser gave his presentation. He stated that Mr. Thelen is requesting a 5' side yard variance from the south property line for Lot 5, Boudin's Manor 2nd addition. The lot is approximately 58' x 200' lakeshore with an existing 44' x 26.5' home and a 16' x 24' garage which is 5' from the south property line. The property to the south consists of three lots (612) 447 -4230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 and is being utiIi -ell for hack lot access by the Oan,land Reach .Association. The appli- c:�nt is p wposing to remove the existing garage and rcn L -ce it with a new detached three car garage with the total coverage heing I5° of the lot. Staff made note that the application xs not meet the first requirement of the ordinance which states literal enforcement woul'' result in undue hardship with respect to the property. it was noted that the applicant can move the garage over S' and make it srnaller than proposed and be within the set backs. Staff stated that in heing consistent with previous recommendations, there would he no choice hot to deny this request from a planning stand point because the ordinance could be met without undue hardship to the applicant. Fitzgerald questioned whether the applicant would he able to add onto the existing garage without a S' variance. Mr. Graser stated that if the applicant added onto the back of the existing garage he would need a 5' variance. Fitzgerald felt that because of the flexibility of the lot the plans could he changed in order to make this workable. Motion was made by Fitzgerald to deny the request for a variance, seconded by Warmka. Upon a vote taken motion was duly passed. Item III, request for waiver of parking requirements in downtown area. Staff noted that he had received a letter from Melvin Borchardt regarding a single family home owned by Mr. Borchardt located between the Union 11 76 " Station and Dr. Lukk's office on Highway 13. The house is now for sale and the only legitimate use for the property would be some type of commercial business. With a commercial business some type of off street parking must be provided. It was noted that the back portion of the lot was sold to the B$D Bar and is now being utilized for their parking, the remaining part of the lot would not allow enough; room for parking with the building on the lot. Staff felt that the best alternative would; be for someone to buy the property, tear the building down and use the property for parking, the other alternatives available would be to amend the ordinance to exempt the B -2 district "'rom all off street parking requirements or to amend the ordinance with qualifying languag%vN, _..hich would provide opportunities to provide the off - street parking on another lot but within a specified amount of footage from the proposed use. In polling the commission members regarding the alternatives available, it was their'opinion they obviously had no control over the first option and it was not their desire to recommend that the City Council change the ordinance in regards to parking and they did not wish to qualify the language to allow a detached parking facility from the property. After further discussion amoung the Commission members, Speiker asked that a recommendation be made to the City Council. Motion was made by Warmka to deny the request for a waiver of parking requirements in the downtown area, seconded by Johsnon. Upon a vote taken, the motion was: duly passed. Motion to adjourn the November 15, 1979 Planning Commission meeting was made by Johnson, seconded by Warmka. Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed and the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 1, 1979 7:35 PM. Keith Travers Conditional Use Permi; 8:00 PM. Delta Associates, Inc. Non - Conforming Use Review (612) 4474230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 1, 1979 The November 1, 1979 meeting of the Prior Lake Planning Commission was called to order. Present at the meeting were Commissioner's Johnson, Fitzgerald, Arnold, Warmka, Chairman Speiker, Councilman Busse, and Consulting Planner Tooker. Motion was made by Fitzgerald to approve the minutes of the October 18, 1979, Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting, seconded by R'armka. Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed and the minutes were approved as published. Item I, Conditional Use Permit application by Keith Travers. Mr. Travers was present at the meeting, he had no comments regarding this application. Staff gave a presentation to the commission. It was noted that the applicant is asking for a conditional use permit for a mobile home to be used as living quarters in an A -1 - ricultural district while being employed on the Klimmek farm. It was noted that in ,76, a conditional use permit was approved to accomodate hired help. Mr. Travers has now purchased this mobile home. It was staff's recommendation to approve the application since the request is within the intent of the ordinance and with the following conditions: 1) the permit be valid for five years. 2) the mobile home be used exclusively for the purpose of accomodating employees of the principle use of the subject parcel. Fitzgerald felt that the second condition recommended by staff should be more clearly defined. He felt that if the property would be sold, the conditional use permit would again have to be re- evaluated and would not necessarily flow with the property. Councilman Busse felt that if the permit would be granted for a five year period, it should be reviewed every year in case of a change in property ownership. Motion was made by Fitzgerald to grant thetonditional Use Permit for five years on the following conditions: 1) the mobile home be used exclusively for the purpose of accomo- dating employee's of the principle use of the subject parcel under the current use; 2) the conditional use would basically terminate upon transfer of the real estate, seconded by Johnson. Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed. At this time a recess of 8 minutes was called by Chairman Speiker. The meeting was reconviened at 8:00 P.M. and Item II, a review of a non - conforming use by Delta Associates, Inc., was called to order. Representing Delta Associates was Mr. Belfry, the Vice President. Mr. Belfry stated that they wanted to replace a collapsed building with a new 26' x 66' metal building, he stated that this would be the same size the collapsed building. This building would be used for storage. He noted that they '.meant to put up a diagonal wood fence around the front of the building and around the east side of the building, on the south side of the lot they would be grading and putting up a fence. There would also he some landscaping done around the building. -I- (612) 447 -4230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 Staff gave a presentation as per the memorandum dated Ncvember 1, 1979, it was noted that iff felt the proposed 26' x 66' building appears to be considerably larger than the fall- _.,g down building, it was also noted that staff did not measure this building. Staff noted that as a non conforming use, the overall size of the building is critical, as the existing non conforming use may not be expanded. Mr. Belfry stated that the collapsed building is 26' x 66 Another concern of staff is related to the landscaping and fencing. Staff felt that the fencing should remain at the building set back line which would be at least 25' from the street right -of -way or preferably at the existing building line. The landscaping should be as if it were part of the residential neighborhood, and there should be no parking in front that would allow backing out onto Pleasant Avenue. Staff also felt that the storage area in back of the building should be fenced, in order to give the residential neighborhood some protection. There was concern shown by the commission members of the location of the fence. They felt that this should be moved back to the building line. There was also concern about the proposed parking on Pleasant Street. They felt that there should be no parking on Pleasant where the cars would have to back out onto the street. Johnson stated that perhaps there could be parking spaces inside the fence to accomodate the employees. Fitzgerald felt that the proposed 26' x 66' metal building would be in direct conflict with the City Ordinance that specifies that a non - conforming use will not be replaced or remodeled in such a manor as continuous life. He felt that this particular non conforming use should be discontinued` as there are other uses for the property that could be had under R -1 zoning. Chairman Speiker also felt that putting up a new building would be expanding the life expectancy of that r =operty. He felt that whatever work that is proposed to be done, is just prolonging _.unsatisfactory sitv:.cion in the community. Mr. Belfry stated that they were not trying to expand the business by putting up a new building. It was his feeling that they would not be at this location for longer than five years. Motion was made by Fitzgerald to deny the request for a 26' x 66' building, seconded by Warmka. Upon a vote taken, motion was duly passed. Motion to adjourn was made by Arnold, seconded by Johnson. Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed and the Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M. -2-