HomeMy WebLinkAbout092704
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27,2004
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda:
S. Public Hearings:
A. #04-108 Deerfield Development, LLC, is requesting to amend the Zoning Map
designation on 13.86 acres from C-5 (Business Park) to 1-1 (Industrial) in the
Deerfield Industrial Park.
6. Old Business:
A. #04-117 Manley Brothers Construction is requesting an amendment to change the
style of the approved townhomes in the Crystal Bay Planned Unit Development.
B. #04-72 Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amend Section 1106: Planned Unit
Developments of the Zoning Ordinance to designate Planned Unit Developments
as a distinct Zoning District rather than an overly district, and to establish the
standards and criteria for a planned unit development.
7. New Business:
A. #04-116 Consider the vacation of the easement for roadway purposes adjacent to
Velishek's Auto Sales, Park Nicollet Clinic and the Hollywood Restaurant and the
portion of the Toronto Avenue right-of-way located south ofTH 13 and north of
the Ring Road.
B. Officer Elections.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Agenda\AG092704DOC f
www.cityopriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27,2004
1. Call to Order:
Commissioner Atwood called the September 27, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Perez and
Ringstad, Planning Director Jane Kansier and Planning Coordinator Danette Moore.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Lemke
Perez
Ringstad
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the September 13, 2004, Planning Commission meeting were
approved as presented.
4. Consent:
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Atwood read the Pubiic Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. #04-108 Deerfield Development, LLC, is requesting to amend the Zoning
Map designation on 13.86 acres from C-5 (Business Park) to I-I (Industrial) in the
Deerfield Industrial Park.
Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated September 27,
2004 on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Eagle Creek Development is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to change the use
district from C-5 (Business Park) to I-I (General Industrial) on property located within
the Deerfield Industrial Park, south of County Road 21, and west of Revere Way. The
property is designated I-PI (Planned Industrial) on the 2020 Comprehensive Land Use
Plan.
The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the 13.86 acre area in order to provide for the
increased demand of property zoned I-I, versus C-5. The current C-5 zoning of the
property is inconsistent with the I-PI (Planned Industrial) land use designation on the
2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. The proposed I-I zoning is the only zoning
use district consistent with the I-PI designation. Accordingly the requested zoning map
L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN092704.doc
1
Planning Commissioner Meeting
September 27,2004
amendment will carry out the goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the
comprehensive plan. Therefore, the staff recommended approval of the request.
There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. The zoning change makes sense and will support.
Perez/Lemke/Atwood:
. Agreed
Atwood questioned the size of the area to the west. Kansier said it was about 30 feet to
the east property boundary. A significant wetland is in the industrial area. As part of the
review of each use, landscaping and buffer yard will be included. Atwood said her
concern was adequate buffer yards.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE AMENDMENT TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO THE II DISTRICT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. Old Business:
A. #04-117 Manley Brothers Construction is requesting an amendment to
change the style of the approved townhomes in the Crystal Bay Planned Unit
Development.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 27,2004
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Crystal Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved by the City Council on
December 1, 2003. The approved PUD Plan included 24 townhouse units in 12
buildings. The proposed townhouses were a 3-story walkout, attached single family style
dwelling with an attached garage. Each ofthe units in these buildings included a 3-car
garage, rear yard decks, and approximately 4,610 square feet of floor area. The buildings
are 34' high at the front, with exteriors consisting of a combination of brick and stucco.
212 Development Group and Manley Brothers Construction are proposing a minor
amendment to the approved PUD. The proposed amendment affects the style, size and
exterior elevations of the proposed townhous(: units. The 3-story walkout buildings are
proposed to be replaced with a rambler style lmit, with a 3-car attached garage, a rear
yard deck and a four season porch. The exterior of the building will consist of Hardie
Board siding and shakes, rather than stucco and brick. The ground floor area of the units
remains the same, and the units will fit into the existing envelope lots.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN092704.doc
2
Planning Commissioner Meeting
September 27.2004
The major issue is whether or not the proposed amendment will change the character of
the PUD. The amendment does not change the number of units or the ground floor area
of the buildings. The proposed amendment does decrease the amount of floor area and
the height of the buildings. The amendment also changes the look of the buildings. The
major change is the price point of the buildings, therefore staff recommended approval.
Ringstad questioned Kevin Manley of Manley Brothers Construction, 9479 Aladin Trail,
Inver Grove Heights, why the change in design and the change in price per unit. Manley
explained the house was very complicated and preferred to change it down to one story.
The original prices were a guess with the lot values. The average lot is $400,000.
Manley said they are offering four or five different floor plans. There will be a reduction
in impervious surface.
Ringstad commented on a previous public hearing discussing the driveway and drainage
on this PUD, depending on what people select; will the same drainage system be part of
the plan? Manley responded they were not changing the plan.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Perez:
. Agreed with staff. These are minor changes and will not alter the character of the
PUD.
Lemke:
. Agreed - it is a minor amendment and possibly an improvement with the lower
price range and style fitting with the neighborhood. Support.
Ringstad:
. Liked the fact a neighborhood meeting was held to go over the change with the
neighbors. This was a sensitive subject in the neighborhood. Commend the
builder.
. Support - minor changes.
Atwood:
. Agree with Commissioners and Lemke regarding the building heights.
MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
THE AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL PUD PLAN FOR CRYSTAL BAY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on October 4, 2004.
B. #04-72 Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amend Section 1106: Planned Unit
Developments of the Zoning Ordinance to designate Planned Unit Developments as
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN092704.doc
3
Planning Commissioner Meeting
September 27.2004
a distinct Zoning District rather than an overly district, and to establish the
standards and criteria for a planned unit development.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 27,2004
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On September 13, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to Section 1106 (Planned Unit
Developments). The purpose of this amendment is to establish each PUD as its own
Zoning District, rather than as an overlay disuict. This will allow more flexibility in uses
and other standards. The amendment also includes language that requires a high standard
of development in exchange for mixed uses and flexibility in selected bulk standards.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment, subject to some
changes in language. Specifically, the Planning Commission recommended the
following:
· Require a submittal of a market study, but be sensitive as to the scope of that
study.
· Change the process so an ordinance is adopted at the preliminary plan stage. The
final plan process should still require a public hearing.
. Define a reasonable time as I year after approval of the preliminary PUD plan,
but include an opportunity to request an extension.
. The City Attorney has also suggested the minimum area for a PUD be increased
to 40 acres. This is to avoid the appearance of spot zoning.
Staff would like the Commissioners' comments at this time.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Wejust looked at properties north of County Road 42 where they requested a
PUD and generally speaking we were uncomfortable with some of the tradeoff
because there wasn't enough to meet the requirements. Recently turned down
another PUD request, what was the size? Kansier responded Maple Glenn was
about 25 acres.
. First thought was it was a big jump but on the other hand it lies out pretty clearly
- the developer has to come up with the justification. There is a lot of flexibility
to make it work. Part of this was for mixed use.
. What about downtown - retail with living above it? It is less than 10 acres, how
does that fit in? Kansier said the downtown district provides for some of those
uses. However, it would be difficult if someone bought a couple of blocks and
wanted to do something a little different. It would be hard in the downtown or
any commercial area to achieve that PUD.
L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN092704.doc
4
Planning Commissioner Meeting
September 27,2004
· Is that the only way to do a mixed use? Kansier said generally "yes" unless you
are in the downtown where multiple uses are provided in a single building. That
is the only district where it is provided.
Perez:
· Agree - at 40 acres there are also tradeoffs available with a PUD. This looks like
under 40 acres the developer would gi ve up even more for open space and trails.
I think we can get that without raising it to 40 acres.
Atwood:
· Are there any examples of spot zoning - 10 acre increments that may have come
along? Kansier responded 10 acres is not really spot zoning. Spot zoning has
always been single lots. Example if there was a lot in the middle of downtown
zoned "residential". Or a lot in the middle of a residential area zoned
"commercial". Kansier gave examples of Crystal Bay, The Harbor and Fountain
Hills projects around 10 acres.
. Ten acres is a well suited number.
Lemke:
. It appears the City Attorney is being cautious with spot zoning. Am not sure what
we had was not working. I don't feel strongly about it. Have there been any
problems? Kansier responded not in Prior Lake. As a general planning principle
it is not a good idea. It happens less often at this time because the requirements to
follow the Comprehensive Plan. The other thing the City Attorney is trying to
avoid is single lot PUD's, or very small PUD's. Some of the very things the City
is trying to avoid through this process. This will give the Planning Commission
and City Council the flexibility to say "No" to those types of developments. Tell
them to go back to the drawing board.
. Agreed.
Atwood:
. Concurred. Comfortable with the other changes. It was everything discussed at
the previous meeting.
This will go to the City Council on October 4, 2004.
7. New Business:
A. #04-116 Consider the vacation of the easement for roadway purposes
adjacent to Velishek's Auto Sales, Park Nicollet Clinic and the Hollywood
Restaurant and the portion ofthe Toronto Avenue right-of-way located south ofTH
13 and north of the Ring Road.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 27,2004,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN092704.doc
5
Planning Commissioner Meeting
September 27.2004
The Prior Lake City Council initiated the vacation of the 20' wide easement for roadway
purposes located adjacent to TH 13 and to the B-Z Stop gas station, Velishek's Auto
Sales, Park Nicollet Clinic and the Hollywood Restaurant along with the vacation of the
portion of Toronto Avenue located south ofTH 13 and north of the Ring Road.
One of the main purposes of constructing the Ring Road was to eliminate the need for the
"frontage road" along TH 13 between Franklin Trail and Toronto. With the construction
of the Ring Road, there is no longer a direct connection to the segment of Toronto north
of the Ring Road up to TH 13. This are therefore becomes a parking lot for Hollywood
and Hooligans and no longer serves a public purpose. The Ring Road is to provide a
safer access to the properties adjacent to TH 13 between Duluth and Franklin Trail. The
road takes short trips off of the high speed arterial, TH 13, and provides people with safer
access from the back of the properties on the slower speed Ring Road.
The "frontage road" was forced upon the City in the late 1990's through the City's
maintenance of this "road". Over the years the public had used the joint parking lots of
the businesses in the area between Franklin and Toronto as a through street. These
businesses include the Hollywood Bar, Velishek's Auto Sales, Park Nicollet Clinic, and
the E-Z Stop gas station. For many years the City provided snow plowing and patching
of this "street". Through the process of platting the Park Nicollet Clinic property, it was
eventually proven legally to be the responsibility of the City, since the City had
maintained it for more than 7 years. With the Ring Road now in place, which provides
access to the same businesses in a safer manner, this "frontage road" no longer serves a
public purpose and should be vacated.
The segment of Toronto Avenue north of the Ring Road used to provide access to the
Hollywood and Priordale Mall properties. However, with the Ring Road providing direct
driveway access to these parcels, this segment of Toronto serves as a parking lot to the
two businesses and not a City street. By definition it should also be vacated since it no
longer serves a public purpose. The Planning staff therefore recommended approval of
this request subject to the condition that an easement for drainage and utility purposes is
maintained across the existing street.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Who maintains the snow plowing on the private road? Kansier responded the
adjacent property owners will probably move up to the Highway 13 because they
have access from the back (Village Lake Drive).
Lemke:
. Questioned if the access to Toronto Avenue off Highway 13 would stay open.
Kansier said it would and explained the process. She did not anticipate it closing
m soon.
. This is just a vacation for the roadway.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\Q4 pc Minutes\MN092704.doc
6
Planning Commissioner Meeting
September 27,2004
Ringstad:
. Staff articulated the reasoning very well. It is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. With the exception for keeping the easement for utility easements would
support the change.
Perez:
. Agreed, it does follow the Comprehensive Plan with the backstreet connection.
. It will be a better, safer access for goods and services.
. Approve.
Lemke:
. The frontage road was a poor design. Will support.
Atwood:
. Whole heartedly support with the emphasis on safety. It is a public need to do so.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE V ACA TION OF THE EASEMENT SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITION THAT AN EASEMENT FOR UTILITY PURPOSES IS MAINTAINED
ACROSS THE EXISTING STREET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go to the City Council as a public hearing on October 4, 2004.
B. Officer Elections.
Commissioner Atwood requested the Board wait until all members were present.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The joint City Council- Planning Commission workshop is changed to October 4, 2004
at the Fire Station.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\04 FILES\Q4 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN092704.doc
7