The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9A - Nonconforming Use Expansion Ordinance Amendment PR"2 U 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake,MN 55372 `�rNxsso'�A CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 2015 AGENDA#: 9A PREPARED BY: DAN ROGNESS, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PRESENTED BY: DAN ROGNESS AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1102, USE DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AS SUB- SECTION 1102.1600, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING RESTAURANT USE DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed amendment to the city's Zoning Ordinance related to the regulation of an expansion of a nonconforming restau- rant at 3950 Green Heights Trail SW. The current restaurant and marina business is known as Captain Jacks; the proposed name will be the Prior Lake Shore Club & Marina. History In 1984, a Conditional Use Permit was issued to allow for the renovation of a restaurant and bar on this site (then known as McWillies). In addition, this prop- erty has been issued a DNR permit for the marina to allow 80 boat slips with a certain dock configuration that is currently be used annually. Current Circumstances Laker Holdings LLC has a signed purchase agreement on the Captain Jack's restaurant site that includes the existing restaurant and marina, as well as the site of an existing residential home across the street from the restaurant. The restaurant is currently closed for business pending negotiations for this redevel- opment. Land Use: The lakeside property (3950 Green Heights Trail - Captain Jacks) is currently zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential). The marina use is a permitted use within the R-2 Zoning District; the restaurant and bar is allowed per the CUP issued in 1984. The existing restaurant building is not constructed at the Regulatory Flood Elevation, nor does it meet mini- mum setback or impervious surface standards in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed new parking lot does not meet current setback or bufferyard requirements. Therefore, any allowed expansion (redevelopment) of the restaurant use would require an ordinance amendment as allowed by Min- nesota Statutes 462.357, Subd. 1 e(Attachment 6).The site located at 3931 Green Heights Trail (currently a single family home) is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). The existing marina use will not change per the exist- ing DNR permit. The level of expansion is summarized as follows: Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245/www.cityofpriorlake.com I. The total site area for the restaurant, parking lot and marina will change from 43,600 to 58,600 square feet (due to an additional parking lot). 2. The building footprint will change from 4,256 to 3,928 square feet. 3. Seating capacity will change from 336 (114 indoor + 222 outdoor) to 284 (104 indoor+ 180 outdoor). 4. The amount of off-street parking will change from 52 to 84 stalls. Parking: Current parking regulations for a restaurant with liquor is based on the gross floor area of the principal building. Using an estimated current floor area of 3,900 square feet,78 off-street parking stalls would be required (not counting any more for the outdoor deck area). In addition, 20 more parking stalls would be required for the marina at a ratio of 1 stall per 4 boat slips, resulting in a total requirement of 98 parking stalls. Another common parking ratio standard used by cities for restaurants is one parking stall per three seats, which would translate into 95 parking stalls for the combined indoor/outdoor seating capacity of 284. On-street parking is restricted on the public streets surrounding the restaurant site. The number of parking stalls next to the restaurant and marina will not change at the current number of 52. However, the new owner is proposing to add 32 more off-street parking stalls on the lot across the street, which would bring the total number of parking stalls to 84. The existing house on this lot would be demolished and replaced with a parking lot surrounded by a retaining wall and screening. In order to maximize the property by fitting two rows of parking, a normal 20-foot setback on both sides cannot be achieved. The ordinance for this proposed project would specify the design and corresponding number of off-street parking stalls. Off-street parking spaces are listed in the Zoning Ordinance as an allowed accessory use in the R-1 District. Setbacks: The current building setback to the lake is nonconforming at 10 feet. The new owner's proposed building setback would remain noncon- forming at 25 feet, still less than the required 75 feet lake setback (or 50 feet with setback averaging). The owner will also remove all areas of the deck which overhang the 904' Ordinary High Water Level elevation. Flood plai n/Shoreland: The lowest floor of the current structure lies at 906.4' elevation. This is over 2 feet below the regulatory flood elevation of 909.9'. The new owner proposes to reconstruct the building at a low floor elevation of 910', thereby protecting the structure within the floodplain of Upper Prior Lake. The maximum impervious requirements include 30% maximum for residential property in the Shoreland District compared to 75% for commercial property, including marinas. Restaurant Floor Plan/Exterior Elevation: The new owner proposes to con- struct a two-story restaurant building with a main floor area of 3,587 square feet(approximately 1,400 square feet of main floor dining)and a lower floor area or 3,468 square feet. The majority of this floor area will be dedicated to kitchen and employee only areas while the dining areas are divided as follows: Main Floor— 1,400 sq. ft. indoor/625 sq. ft. outdoor, Lower Level— 905 sq. ft. outdoor plus a 16 foot linear bar. The total proposed seating 2 capacity of the restaurant is 104 indoor seats and 180 outdoor seats. The exterior elevations consist of a mixture of brick, fiber cement siding, and shingled roofing. A parapet tower is proposed over the building entrance. Conclusion The proposed expansion of nonconformities related to the restaurant, bar and associated parking lot may be approved by a special ordinance specific to this property. It is somewhat like a Planned Unit Development (PUD), but addressed according to Minnesota Statutes. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Monday, February 2 with four of five members present. Seventeen people spoke at the hearing with a mix of support and non-support of the proposed expansion. Other comments were re- ceived by email and distributed to the Commissioners as part of the public hearing process. After deliberation, the Commission voted 3-1 in favor of the proposed ordinance as a recommendation to the City Council. The largest single negative issue related to the parking issues, both historically and looking forward. Although additional parking is proposed to help address the shortage, many residents were against adding a new parking lot between existing homes. This would not only change the character of their residential neighbor- hood, but it would also introduce other negative factors beyond the restaurant site itself, such as noise, light and possible disruptions by marina/bar patrons. On the other hand, on-street parking has long been a concern in the neighborhood, so it would appear that parking is an issue in either case. The city council may wish to consider greater buffering and/or regulation of the existing and/or new parking lot to mitigate against such issues. ISSUES: As the site of Captain Jacks has been a unique, long-standing lakeside commu- nity land use in the middle of a residential area, specific regulations are necessary to allow for expansion of its nonconformities. By creating an ordinance amend- ment, the City is able to condition its approval. The draft ordinance amendment (Attachment 4)defines the parameters for the proposed project. Three more have been added by City staff beyond the Planning Commission's recommendation for further City Council consideration, including: 1. The Restaurant/Bar operations shall be limited to the following hours: Mon- day-Wednesday = 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.; Thursday-Friday = 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.; Saturday = 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.; and Sunday = 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 P.M. 2. Seating for the Restaurant/Bar shall be at a maximum capacity of 105 indoor and 180 outdoor. 3. The number of boat slips associated with the DNR-approved dock/slip con- figuration shall not be expanded (DNR Transferred-Amended Public Water Permit dated April 5, 2007). ALTERNATIVES: 1) Motion and a second to approve an Ordinance adding Subsection 1102.1600 to permit an expansion of a nonconforming restaurant, as proposed or as may be further amended by the Council. 2) Motion and a second to table action and provide further direction to city staff. 3 RECOMMENDED Alternative#1 MOTIONS: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 2. Location Map 3. Developer Narrative 4. Redevelopment Plans (Site and Building) 5. Proposed amendments to add Subsection 1102.1600 6. Minnesota Statutes 462.357 4 U 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake,MN 55372 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 115-xx AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1102, USE DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AS SUBSECTION 1102.1600, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING RESTAURANT USE The City Council of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota, does hereby ordain that the following Subsection is added to Section 1102 of the City Code: 1102.1600 Expansion of a Nonconforming Restaurant Use. The purpose of this Subsection is to permit the expansion of a nonconforming restaurant use on Upper Prior Lake upon the conformance to certain conditions and regulations as set forth below. (1) Findings. The City Council finds that the City and its residents will benefit by establishing conditions for parcels of property that conditions the expansion of a nonconforming use to the site and neighborhood based on the conditions set forth in 1102.1600(3) based upon the following findings: a. Based upon Minnesota Statutes 462.357, Subd. 1e, the City of Prior Lake is authorized to permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare or safety. b. Property legally described as Lot 20, Green Heights First Addition, Lying East of a Line Commencing 50 feet East of the South Corner Northwest to a Point 63 Feet Northeast of the Northwest Corner of Lot 20, City of Prior Lake, Scott County, Minnesota, Parcel ID 251020220 ("Project Site A") has a nonconforming use due to the principal building's lake setback and its first floor elevation in the floodplain. The lot is conforming in the Shoreland District by meeting zoning minimum lot dimensional standards for the Medium Density Residential (R-2) Use District per Subsection 1102.505 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. C. Property legally described as Lot 7, Green Heights First Addition, City of Prior Lake, Scott County, Minnesota, Parcel ID 251020060("Project Site B") is a nonconforming lot in the Low Density Residential (R-1) Use District with a 75-feet lot frontage compared to the 86-feet minimum. The lot area of 15,000 square feet is above the 12,000 square foot minimum d. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ("DNR"), on April 5, 2007, approved a transfer of an amended DNR Permit#1988-6299, authorizing a specific dock layout for this Mooring Facility with the restaurant known as Captain Jack's. e. An application was received by the City of Prior Lake from Water Street Restaurants Group, LLC(the"Developer")to reconstruct an existing marina and associated restaurant on Project Site A with additional off-street parking to be constructed on Project Site B (both combined as the"Project Site"). (2) Definition. Nonconforming or nonconformity means any development, including but not limited to structures,signs,site lighting,off-street parking,bufferyards,land uses,or parcels which were legally constructed or established prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, or subsequent amendment to it,which would not be permitted by or is not in full compliance with the provisions of the City Zoning Code. (3) Authorization. The expansion of the existing restaurant on Project Site A, and the construction of a parking lot on Project Site B is permitted upon the following conditions: a. The Project Site shall be developed in accordance to the Site Plan revised January 27, 2015, or as may be further amended and approved by the City, and hereby incorporated into this Ordinance. b. Project Site B shall always be used in conjunction with Project Site A. C. The restaurant building shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the 904' Ordinary High Water Level elevation of Upper Prior Lake. d. The restaurant building shall be set back a minimum of ten(10)feet from the side property lines, and a minimum of twenty-five(25)feet from the front property line. e. No deck area shall encroach upon the Ordinary High Water Level elevation of 904 feet. f. The maximum impervious surface for the Project Site shall be seventy-five (75) percent. g. A minimum of 80 off-street parking stalls shall be provided on the Project Site. h. The restaurant/bar operations shall be limited to the following hours: Monday-Wednesday = 11:00 a.m to 11:00 p.m; Thursday-Friday= 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.; Saturday= 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.; and Sunday= 10:00 a.m to 11:00 p.m. i. Seating for the bar/restaurant shall be at a maximum capacity of 105 indoor and 180 outdoor. j. The number of boat slips associated with the DNR-approved dock configuration shall not be expanded (per DNR Transferred-Amended Public Water Permit dated April 5,2007). k. All other City Code regulations not exclusively specified herein shall be followed. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this day of , 2015. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the day of ) 2015. 2 3950 & 3931 GREEN HEIGHTS TRAIL ORDINANCE AMENDMENT LOCATION MAP h ' ' 4 I SUBJECT ` PROPERTY � .1` d.�l .� i GREEN HEIGHTS TRL SE Ilk* G� t • x ROAN.OKE�ST s w SE t a ♦ F,�pkk y�F"'. 0 170 340 680 Feet ar S t e <c Prior L=16 Shore Club & Marina Mission Statement The Shore Club provides guests with an experience unlike one y ou would find in a National Chain Restaurant. Caring for each and every need of our guests,The Shore Club takes the approach that we treat everyone as family.We only hire happy people that share our philosophy; "Have Fun,Treat People Right,Serve Great Food and Make Money". Concept Clarity &Positioning The Shore Club will be a great addition to Prior Lake.A warm,inviting place where the staff knows your name,the food is fresh and the service is genuine.To truly feel welcome and cared for is what all patrons long for.The Shore Club is a bright and lively neighborhood spot with high energy that will surely become a family favorite. Support Strategy 1) All of our food is made fresh to order using only the highest quality ingredients. Signature items will include appetizers such as,Shrimp and Lobster Pops,Twice cooked Buffalo Wings,Maryland Crab Cakes and Marinated Steak Quesadillas. Maine Lobster Rolls,Poor Boy Sandwiches,Gourmet Burgers and a Grilled Shrimp Club Sandwich will highlight our Sandwich selection.We will offer fresh made Pizza and Entrees including Pastas,Steak and Chicken dishes.The Specials program will include Fish Fry's on Friday and Prime Rib on Saturday nights.The Wharf will house a second Kitchen offering a wide variety of Sandwiches,Burgers,Tacos and Appetizers.A weekend Brunch will have items such as,Prime Rib Hash with Poached Eggs,Huevos Rancheros,Crab&Spinach Benedict and French Toast that will,undoubtedly,become a favorite.Many additional soups,unique salads, appetizers,and a fun kids menu will round out our offerings.All menu items will be available to dine in,carry out and boat ready. 2) The preparation of the menu items will be carried out by a well-trained kitchen team.The consistency and quality of products will evidence the skill and pride in which the kitchen staff performs their culinary talents. 3) The Beverage program will play an integral part of the experience.A wide selection of Beer including local Micro brews will be offered.A well rounded wine selection and specialty cocktails will be make The Shore Club a great place to hang out and enjoy life. 4) The guests initial introduction to,and the impression of The Shore Club will be greatly influenced by the staff.A warm and friendly welcome,a sincere smile and genuine care for each and every guest will set the tone for the entire experience.The serving staff will be friendly and have(a vast knowledge in order to be qualified to discuss food ingredients,preparation techniques and tour guide guests through the menu in order to have the best experience possible.The enthusiasm and knowledge of the bartending staff will contribute greatly to the personality of The Shore Club. Our bartenders eyes are always fixed on the bar top and/or the guests eyes.Our guests don't ask us for a drink,we ask them. The management team is always in sight,always involved,always upbeat and always one step ahead.Our managers speak to every guest,everyday no exceptions. All team members including managers,upon being hired,must sign and agree to a "Happiness Contract"that states they will smile be happy,have energy,have fun and always do the right thing during every shift or they will be asked to leave. 5) We believe that our guests are truly that,"Guests".We start outside where it is always clean,well lit and free from snow,ice and garbage.We make sure our guests feel at home through friendliness and clear communication.We make sure our guests have good lighting,the right music at the right level,the perfect temperature and comfortable seating.We offer great food for a fair price.Kids will always feel welcome and be kept entertained.All of our guests are thanked and asked to join us Main.We strive to provide an experience that will make our guests tell every one they meet,"You have to go there." Phgsiml Description The best way to describe The Prior Lake Shore Club&Marina is;a lake side neighborhood Spot that is comfortable and relaxing,colorful and stylish while energetic and exciting.A lighthouse inspired entry will greet all guests as them enter The Shore Club.The staff and Management will be casually dressed and alwaijs well groomed. Lighting will be fused and warm.Music will be current and at a level that makes it easy to carry on a conversation.Hi-definition TV's will be easily viewed from anywhere in the place featuring sporting events.Flooring will be made from reclaimed wood and stylish tile. Windows will stretch from wall to wall featuring panoramic views of beautiful Prior Lake. Three levels of outdoor decks will be the best seats in town on a warm summer night.Our Marina operation will offer approximately HO Boat Slips of which GO+will be seasonallij rented with the remaining Slips open for In&Out docking for Restaurant Patrons.A future parking expansion will be located across the street in an effort to alleviate neighborhood parking issues.The Shore Club will be a family friendly,inviting and comfortable destination for all seasons. Marketing&Events The bulk of our marketing and promotions will occur within the four walls of The Shore Club.During the opening month we will cast a wider net to introduce the concept and create curiosity.The density of businesses in the area creates an opportunity for cross promotions.We don't feel we need to"Give away the house"to entice customer loyalty. Fair pricing,a competitive happy hour and unique promotions will draw guests in and our great service and quality products will keep them coming back.A unique and creative web site will act as our cyber newsletter and information center.Other avenues include; interior signage,table tents,contests,direct mail,fliers,Facebook,Twitter,viral marketing, local newspaper,coupons,school programs,community involvement and being members of the Chamber of Commerce. Schools and Education play a big role in our focus for advertising and contributions to the communitij. We plan on carrying on the long tradition of participating in and potentially hosting many local events including;Parades,Festivals,Classic Car Shows,Boat Shows,Fishing Tournaments,Water Sports Events and Winter Festivities. Our Neighbors,Our Pledge The Prior Lake Shore Club&Marina sits in the heart of a beautiful residential community. We are proud to bring over 100 jobs in the community.We will operate our Restaurant with the utmost respect for our Neighbors.We will control noise levels,light levels,crowd control,cleanliness and goodwill.We will always be available to discuss any issues that arise which may concern our neighbors.We will follow all noise ordinances which include no amplified music outside after 10 p.m.Our proposed Hours of Operation will be; Monday—Wednesday-11a.m.-11 p.m. Thursday--Fridaijr 11a.m.-1 a.m. Saturday--10a.m.-1 a.m. Sunday-10a.m.--11 p.m. LEGEND )� ° �Samh&k °°Bxwt D ---- B"rp_ ww.aem6etek.com - ew[rt°,ux vxD s vwmut a xe . 1W Mi ,am 3w Y.. Emm"'vo6wYR. M8.R.7W, - at�RR1a18RgaalRYaEylBMoeNaw — Q T w x,e ugxa5 "CeO Be • Client xux,e00DBe,B.xD o WATERSTREET RESTAURANTS " ♦ DEVELOPMENT NOTES GROUPS It ♦ ,tt°Nfxs�°xs,eexwx°f°,o*x,x..e°s,T,x.x w°.. LL c A1tnp TREET 1111 III TI 11 uo o,a,x[xe,nf sou1111T�e"or cu"B uxt[ssmI—IR vwrto. EXCEMO30 R,MNSS / � r 4 i E%CELSIOR,MN 55331 k )69 \ c Boc To`♦ °. ,lt enau nC. 111 SIA-1100.5 xw DTx aro 10 NIFNGix oNlFssoINERWIBF NO GTED. Bv4 \ � , Project a, oM. . D , °` PRIOR LAKE 1.BnxD ;� xw�DTe"DNxD i`sxllxn�ut[[tt�i cv"xesv�aosl�vI...: De,x .fn°"DfDxx"TTB�.us,1cDT.°fx5x»."x,,te°D��re°fBmDweD..xxxDDD"x�m,xxD.,D,DS,,xT.ex,DBe�rT.u�DDexrDmu,SB,Tu,.Rx,"tD�,DvxBox°Bs,xx°1c,�D.,[ts5DoLLx"as5x`,mRx,0xtB,".xe�Dfv.u,xe �. SHORE CLUB& MARINA =,D1l,B11T-111 r11111EI-fDS.xfDw nF �.BDrf wLLN.Dx„BURfDx1 ,.,. eDDSmwDe..awx�"TxDrcxNxxf" )T"..xDwD". IT =1 xaxDf"AIL fDTBfwD11I—xDxlD,DteDf.1 Location PRIOR LAKE,MN �0 r KEY NOTES e BsvDcaxce0nvcue*a,xoaun pgrss00 xxcx iOcruMteuxs. p—GREENHEIGHTSTRAIL ' c. sfcrafxixl uac00 iurxD wnu RIOR ME,MN SS372 %' )BO uxosux w,LL Certification Oner.q nnMrn.<me ex.,.�vnio.or aNlDN ueEEH eEx<f rM gmeerun rmv uxtttcwvE w,u xfm uMerrne i.�I�ane Incl U Summary J o —: .x BfxrExaJ .-. oI»�DM�x,..D=�u�q� i Revision History D 4yt�°))e No.DrteSBy Submetal/sR v Sheet Title \ SITE PLAN ALTERNATE Sheet No. Revision NORTH C3.0 Project No. CAP20248 ARCHITECTURAL CONSORTIUM L.L.C. 901 NOM TIYrtl Street suite 330 612-060 M-p.b MN 55401 Fe 612693-9960 PREPARED FOR �va.stolr.a ------------- NMI I cuc.uwNM e11Rr ncna nm.e wu eromms. deal ceetr nloaa,n �w rawovrz roan 111wmtwt. ❑� Mark Revision/Issue Date rm oeu 11xn lerr�,l+r oar�c 1r' Neiweownoo 1.�nw oirs+nls W RTH ELEVATION -r 92COD �P Q � ��5Ik-` 9"W L, � �web9 u.tM u4 Wa�,Wke9atw.v.ywt PRIOR LAKE >oo SHORE CLUB& ttMn MARINA PROPOSED 4 ST ELEVATION -a sof-1AIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ® ELEVATIONS AND PLAN 5,--ALE: AS NOTED ERE Al Architectural Consortium,L.L.C.2013 Zoning Ordinance SECTION 1102 USE DISTRICT REGULATIONS SUBSECTIONS 1102.100: Residential District Regulations 1102.200: "A" Agricultural Use District 1102.300: "R-S" Rural Subdivision Residential Use District 1102.400: "R-1" Low Density Residential Use District 1102.500: "R-2" Medium Density Residential Use District 1102.600: "R-3" High Density Residential Use District 1102.700: Residential Performance Standards 1102.800: "TC" Town Center Use District 1102.900: "TC-T" Transitional Town Center Use District 1102.1000 "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial Use District 1102.1100: "C-2" General Business Use District 1102.1200 "C-3" Business Park Use District 1102.1300: Commercial Restrictions and Performance Standards 1102.1400 1-1" General Industrial Use District 1102.1500: Industrial Performance Standards 1102.1600: Expansion of a Nonconforming Restaurant Use [ADDED] 1102.1600 Expansion of a Nonconforming Restaurant Use. The purpose of this Subsection is to permit the expansion of a nonconforming restaurant use on Upper Prior Lake upon the conformance to certain conditions and regulations as set forth below. (1) Findings. The City Council finds that the City and its residents will benefit by establishing conditions for parcels of property that conditions the expansion of a nonconforming use to the site and neighborhood based on the conditions set forth in 1102.1600 (3) based upon the following findings: a. Based upon Minnesota Statutes 462.357, Subd. le, the City of Prior Lake is authorized to permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare or safety. b. Property legally described as Lot 20, Green Heights First Addition, Lying East of a Line Commencing 50 feet East of the South Corner Northwest to a Point 63 feet Northeast of the Northwest Corner of Lot 20, City of Prior Lake, Scott County, Minnesota, Parcel ID 251020220 ("Project Site A") has a nonconforming use due to the principal building's lake setback and its first floor elevation in the floodplain. The lot is conforming in the Shoreland District by meeting zoning minimum lot dimensional standards for the Medium Density Residential (R-2) Use District per Subsection 1102.505 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1106/pl Zoning Ordinance C. Property legally described as Lot 7, Green Heights First Addition, City of Prior Lake, Scott County, Minnesota, Parcel ID 251020060 ("Project Site B") is a nonconforming lot in the Low Density Residential (R-1) Use District with a 75-feet lot frontage compared to the 86-feet minimum. The lot area of 15,000 square feet is above the 12,000 square foot minimum d. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ("DNR"), on April 5, 2007, approved a transfer of an amended DNR Permit #1988-6299, authorizing a specific dock layout for this Mooring Facility with the restaurant known as Captain Jack's. e. An application was received by the City of Prior Lake from Water Street Restaurants Group, LLC (the "Developer") to reconstruct an existing marina and associated restaurant on Project Site A with additional off- street parking to be constructed on Project Site B (both combined as the "Project Site"). (2) Definition. Nonconforming or nonconformity means any development, including but not limited to structures, signs, site lighting, off-street parking, bufferyards, land uses, or parcels which were legally constructed or established prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, or subsequent amendment to it, which would not be permitted by or is not in full compliance with, the provisions of the City Zoning Code. (3) Authorization. The expansion of the existing restaurant on Project Site A, and the construction of a parking lot on Project Site B is permitted upon the following conditions: a. The Project Site shall be developed in accordance to the Site Plan revised January 27, 2015, or as may be further amended and approved by the City, and hereby incorporated into this Ordinance. b. Project Site B shall always be used in conjunction with Project Site A. C. The restaurant building shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the 904' Ordinary High Water Level elevation of Upper Prior Lake. d. The restaurant building shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from the side property lines, and a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the front property line. e. No deck area shall encroach upon the Ordinary High Water Level elevation of 904 feet. f. The maximum impervious surface for the Project Site shall be seventy-five (75) percent. g. A minimum of 80 off-street parking stalls shall be provided on the Project Site. h. The restaurant/bar operations shall be limited to the following hours: Monday-Wednesday = 11:00 a.m to 11:00 p.m; Thursday-Friday = 11:00 City of Prior Lake June 1,2009 1106/p2 Zoning Ordinance a.m. to 1:00 a.m.; Saturday = 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.; and Sunday = 10:00 a.m to 11:00 p.m. i. Seating for the bar/restaurant shall be at a maximum capacity of 105 indoor and 180 outdoor. j. The number of boat slips associated with the DNR-approved dock configuration shall not be expanded (per DNR Transferred-Amended Public Water Permit dated April 5, 2007). k. All other City Code regulations not exclusively specified herein shall be followed. City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1106/p3 I MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 462.357 462.357 OFFICIAL CONTROLS: ZONING ORDINANCE. Subdivision 1. Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare,a municipality may by ordinance regulate on the earth's surface,in the air space above the surface,and in subsurface areas,the location,height,width,bulk,type of foundation,number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces,the density and distribution of population,the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry,residence,recreation,public activities, or other purposes, and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, agriculture, forestry, soil conservation, water supply conservation, conservation of shorelands, as defined in sections 103F.201 to 103F.221,access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems as defined in section 216C.06,flood control or other purposes,and may establish standards and procedures regulating such uses. To accomplish these purposes, official controls may include provision for purchase of development rights by the governing body in the form of conservation easements under chapter 84C in areas where the governing body considers preservation desirable and the transfer of development rights from those areas to areas the governing body considers more appropriate for development. No regulation may prohibit earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, relocated residential buildings, or manufactured homes built in conformance with sections 327.31 to 327.35 that comply with all other zoning ordinances promulgated pursuant to this section. The regulations may divide the surface, above surface, and subsurface areas of the municipality into districts or zones of suitable numbers, shape, and area. The regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings, structures, or land and for each class or kind of use throughout such district, but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts. The ordinance embodying these regulations shall be known as the zoning ordinance and shall consist of text and maps. A city may by ordinance extend the application of its zoning regulations to unincorporated territory located within two miles of its limits in any direction, but not in a county or town which has adopted zoning regulations;provided that where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the zoning of land on its side of a line equidistant between the two noncontiguous municipalities unless a town or county in the affected area has adopted zoning regulations. Any city may thereafter enforce such regulations in the area to the same extent as if such property were situated within its corporate limits, until the county or town board adopts a comprehensive zoning regulation which includes the area. Subd. la. Certain zoning ordinances. A municipality must not enact, amend, or enforce a zoning ordinance that has the effect of altering the existing density, lot-size requirements, or manufactured home setback requirements in any manufactured home park constructed before January 1, 1995, if the manu- factured home park, when constructed, complied with the then existing density, lot-size and setback re- quirements. Subd. Ib. Conditional uses.A manufactured home park,as defined in section 327.14,subdivision 3,is a conditional use in a zoning district that allows the construction or placement of a building used or intended to be used by two or more families. Subd. lc. Amortization prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, a municipality must not enact, amend, or enforce an ordinance providing for the elimination or termination of a use by amortization which use was lawful at the time of its inception. This subdivision does not apply to adults- only bookstores,adults-only theaters,or similar adults-only businesses,as defined by ordinance. Subd. Id. Nuisance. Subdivision lc does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing an ordinance providing for the prevention or abatement of nuisances, as defined in section 561.01, or eliminating a use Copyright©2014 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. 462.357 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 2 determined to be a public nuisance, as defined in section 617.8 1, subdivision 2, paragraph(a), clauses (i) to(ix),without payment of compensation. Subd. le. Nonconformities. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement,but not including expansion,unless: (1)the nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year;or (2) any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its estimated market value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of damage, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, a municipality may impose reasonable conditions upon a zoning or building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property or water body.When a nonconforming structure in the shoreland district with less than 50 percent of the required setback from the water is destroyed by fire or other peril to greater than 50 percent of its estimated market value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of damage,the structure setback may be increased if practicable and reasonable conditions are placed upon a zoning or building permit to mitigate created impacts on the adjacent property or water body. (b)Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. A municipality may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable reg- ulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health,welfare,or safety.This subdivision does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing an ordinance that applies to adults-only bookstores,adults- only theaters,or similar adults-only businesses,as defined by ordinance. (c)Notwithstanding paragraph(a), a municipality shall regulate the repair, replacement, maintenance, improvement,or expansion of nonconforming uses and structures in floodplain areas to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program and not increase flood damage potential or increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the floodway. (d) Paragraphs (d) to 0) apply to shoreland lots of record in the office of the county recorder on the date of adoption of local shoreland controls that do not meet the requirements for lot size or lot width. A municipality shall regulate the use of nonconforming lots of record and the repair,replacement,maintenance, improvement,or expansion of nonconforming uses and structures in shoreland areas according to paragraphs (d)to 0). (e)A nonconforming single lot of record located within a shoreland area may be allowed as a building site without variances from lot size requirements,provided that: (1)all structure and septic system setback distance requirements can be met; (2)a Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules,chapter 7080, can be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and (3)the impervious surface coverage does not exceed 25 percent of the lot. (f) In a group of two or more contiguous lots of record under a common ownership, an individual lot must be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purpose of sale or development, if it meets the following requirements: Copyright©2014 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. 3 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 462.357 (1) the lot must be at least 66 percent of the dimensional standard for lot width and lot size for the shoreland classification consistent with Minnesota Rules,chapter 6120; (2)the lot must be connected to a public sewer, if available, or must be suitable for the installation of a Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, and local government controls; (3)impervious surface coverage must not exceed 25 percent of each lot;and (4)development of the lot must be consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan. (g)A lot subject to paragraph(f)not meeting the requirements of paragraph(f)must be combined with the one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more conforming lots as much as possible. (h)Notwithstanding paragraph(f), contiguous nonconforming lots of record in shoreland areas under a common ownership must be able to be sold or purchased individually if each lot contained a habitable residential dwelling at the time the lots came under common ownership and the lots are suitable for, or served by, a sewage treatment system consistent with the requirements of section 115.55 and Minnesota Rules,chapter 7080, or connected to a public sewer. (i) In evaluating all variances, zoning and building permit applications, or conditional use requests, the zoning authority shall require the property owner to address, when appropriate, storm water runoff management,reducing impervious surfaces,increasing setback,restoration of wetlands,vegetative buffers, sewage treatment and water supply capabilities,and other conservation-designed actions. 0)A portion of a conforming lot may be separated from an existing parcel as long as the remainder of the existing parcel meets the lot size and sewage treatment requirements of the zoning district for a new lot and the newly created parcel is combined with an adjacent parcel. Subd. 1 f.Substandard structures.Notwithstanding subdivision 1 e,Minnesota Rules,parts 6105.0351 to 6105.0550, may allow for the continuation and improvement of substandard structures, as defined in Minnesota Rules,part 6105.0354, subpart 30, in the Lower Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway. Subd. Ig.Feedlot zoning controls.(a)A municipality proposing to adopt a new feedlot zoning control or to amend an existing feedlot zoning control must notify the Pollution Control Agency and commissioner of agriculture at the beginning of the process, no later than the date notice is given of the first hearing proposing to adopt or amend a zoning control purporting to address feedlots. (b)Prior to final approval of a feedlot zoning control,the governing body of a municipality may submit a copy of the proposed zoning control to the Pollution Control Agency and to the commissioner of agriculture and request review, comment, and recommendations on the environmental and agricultural effects from specific provisions in the ordinance. (c)The agencies'response to the municipality may include: (1)any recommendations for improvements in the ordinance; and (2)the legal, social,economic, or scientific justification for each recommendation under clause(1). (d) At the request of the municipality's governing body, the municipality must prepare a report on the economic effects from specific provisions in the ordinance. Economic analysis must state whether the ordinance will affect the local economy and describe the kinds of businesses affected and the projected Copyright©2014 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. 462.357 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 4 impact the proposal will have on those businesses. To assist the municipality, the commissioner of agriculture,in cooperation with the Department of Employment and Economic Development,must develop a template for measuring local economic effects and make it available to the municipality. The report must be submitted to the commissioners of employment and economic development and agriculture along with the proposed ordinance. (e)A local ordinance that contains a setback for new feedlots from existing residences must also provide for a new residence setback from existing feedlots located in areas zoned agricultural at the same distances and conditions specified in the setback for new feedlots, unless the new residence is built to replace an existing residence.A municipality may grant a variance from this requirement under section 462.358, sub- division 6. Subd. 1 h. Comprehensive plans in greater Minnesota; open spaces. When adopting or updating a comprehensive plan in a municipality located within a county that is not a greater than 80 percent area, as defined in section 103G.005, subdivision 10b,and that is located outside the metropolitan area, as defined by section 473.121, subdivision 2, the municipality shall consider adopting goals and objectives for the preservation of agricultural, forest, wildlife, and open space land and the minimization of development in sensitive shoreland areas. Within three years of updating the comprehensive plan, the municipality shall consider adopting ordinances as part of the municipality's official controls that encourage the imple- mentation of the goals and objectives. Subd. 2. General requirements. (a) At any time after the adoption of a land use plan for the mu- nicipality,the planning agency, for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals of the land use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance and submit it to the governing body with its recommendations for adoption. (b) Subject to the requirements of subdivisions 3, 4, and 5,the governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a majority vote of all its members. The adoption or amendment of any portion of a zoning ordinance which changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a two-thirds majority vote of all members of the governing body. (c) The land use plan must provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls to ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consistent with the land use plan. Subd. 3. Public hearings. No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or by the governing body.A notice of the time,place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners,or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made. Subd.4.Amendments.An amendment to a zoning ordinance may be initiated by the governing body, the planning agency, or by petition of affected property owners as defined in the zoning ordinance. An Copyright©2014 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. 5 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 462.357 amendment not initiated by the planning agency shall be referred to the planning agency,if there is one,for study and report and may not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received the recommendation of the planning agency on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of reference of the amendment without a report by the planning agency. Subd. 5. Amendment; certain cities of the first class. The provisions of this subdivision apply to the adoption or amendment of any portion of a zoning ordinance which changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial of a property located in a city of the first class, except a city of the first class in which a different process is provided through the operation of the city's home rule charter. In a city to which this subdivision applies, amendments to a zoning ordinance shall be made in conformance with this section but only after there shall have been filed in the office of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of two-thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situate within 100 feet of the total contiguous descriptions of real estate held by the same owner or any party purchasing any such contiguous property within one year preceding the request, and after the affirmative vote in favor thereof by a majority of the members of the governing body of any such city. The governing body of such city may, by a two-thirds vote of its members, after hearing, adopt a new zoning ordinance without such written consent whenever the planning commission or planning board of such city shalt have made a survey of the whole area of the city or of an area of not less than 40 acres,within which the new ordinance or the amendments or alterations of the existing ordinance would take effect when adopted, and shall have considered whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such changes and alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent impractical, and such planning commission or planning board shall report in writing as to whether in its opinion the proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably related to the overall needs of the community,to existing land use,or to a plan for future land use,and shall have conducted a public hearing on such proposed ordinance,changes or alterations,of which hearing published notice shall have been given in a daily newspaper of general circulation at least once each week for three successive weeks prior to such hearing, which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such hearing, and shall have reported to the governing body of the city its findings and recommendations in writing. Subd. 6.Appeals and adjustments.Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance.The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision,or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2)To hear requests for variances from the requirements of the zoning ordinance including restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties,"as used in connection with the granting of a variance,means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.Practical difficulties include,but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance.The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be,may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone where the Copyright©2014 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. 462.357 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 6 affected person's land is located.The board or governing body as the case may be,may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances.A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Subd. 6a.Normal residential surroundings for persons with disabilities.It is the policy of this state that persons with disabilities should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions 6a through 9, "person" has the meaning given in section 245A.02, subdivision 11. Subd. 7. Permitted single family use. A state licensed residential facility or a housing with services establishment registered under chapter 144D serving six or fewer persons,a licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer persons,and a group family day care facility licensed under Minnesota Rules,parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 to serve 14 or fewer children shall be considered a permitted single family residential use of property for the purposes of zoning, except that a residential facility whose primary purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses shall not be considered a permitted use. Subd. 8. Permitted multifamily use. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 7 or in any town, municipal or county zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivision,a state licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 persons or a licensed day care facility serving from 13 through 16 persons shall be considered a permitted multifamily residential use of property for purposes of zoning.A township,municipal or county zoning authority may require a conditional use or special use permit in order to assure proper maintenance and operation of a facility,provided that no conditions shall be imposed on the facility which are more restrictive than those imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property in the same zones,unless the additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the residential facility. Nothing herein shall be construed to exclude or prohibit residential or day care facilities from single family zones if otherwise permitted by a local zoning regulation. Subd. 9. Development goals and objectives. In adopting official controls after July 1, 2008, in a mu- nicipality outside the metropolitan area,as defined by section 473.121,subdivision 2,the municipality shall consider restricting new residential, commercial, and industrial development so that the new development takes place in areas subject to the following goals and objectives: (1)minimizing the fragmentation and development of agricultural,forest,wildlife,and open space lands, including consideration of appropriate minimum lot sizes; (2)minimizing further development in sensitive shoreland areas; (3) minimizing development near wildlife management areas, scientific and natural areas, and nature centers; (4) identification of areas of preference for higher density, including consideration of existing and necessary water and wastewater services, infrastructure, other services, and to the extent feasible, en- couraging full development of areas previously zoned for nonagricultural uses; (5) encouraging development close to places of employment, shopping centers, schools, mass transit, and other public and private service centers; Copyright©2014 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. 7 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 462.357 (6)identification of areas where other developments are appropriate;and (7)other goals and objectives a municipality may identify. History: 1965 c 670 s 7; 1969 c 259 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 379 s 4; 1973 c 539 s 1; 1973 c 559 s 1,2; 1975 c 60 s 2; 1978 c 786 s 14,15; Ex1979 c 2 s 42,43; 1981 c 356 s 248; 1982 c 490 s 2; 1982 c 507 s 22; 1984 c 617 s 6-8; 1985 c 62 s 3; 1985 c 194 s 23; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 333 s 22; 1989 c 82 s 2; 1990 c 391 art 8 s 47; 1990 c 568 art 2 s 66,67; 1994 c 473 s 3; 1995 c 224 s 95; 1997 c 113 s 20; 1997 c 200 art 4 s 5; 1997 c 202 art 4 s 11; 1997 c 216 s 138; 1999 c 96 s 3,4; 1999 c 211 s 1; 2001 c 174 s 1; 2001 c 207 s 13,14;2002 c 366 s 6;2004 c 258 s 2;2005 c 56 s 1; 1 Sp2005 c 1 art I s 92;art 2 s 146;2007 c 140 art 12 s 14; 2008 c 297 art I s 60,61; 2009 c 149 s 3; 2011 c 19 s 2 Copyright©2014 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. ***** ROUGH DRAFT ***** PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, February 2,2015 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Hite called the Monday, February 2, 2015 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Adam Blahnik, Perri Hite, Wade Larson and Mark Petersen; Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE MONDAY,FEBRUARY 2, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, December 22,2014 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2014 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV 15-001001 —Shore Club & Marina Ordinance Amendment—Waterstreet Restaurants Group is requesting a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for expansion of a nonconforming use of 3950 and 3931 Green Heights Trail South West to reconstruct a 3587 square foot restaurant at the current "Captain Jacks Restaurant"site and place a 9000 square foot parking lot on Lot 7 across the street. PID's: 25-102-022-0 and 25-102-006-0. Director Rogness introduced the Ordinance Amendment at 3950 and 3931 Green Heights Trail South West and explained the history, current circumstances, conclusion, issues and alternatives. He provided a location map, developer narrative, redevelopment plans (site and building), proposed amendments to add Subsection 1102.1600 and Minnesota Statutes 462.357. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson inquired whether the wooded lot by the proposed parking was a private lot being used, asked about the process for notifying residents and about the existing conditional use permit on the property. Director Rogness explained that the wooded, unplatted outlot was zoned R-2, has been a past discussion of both possible parking for Captain Jacks or for townhomes, and the applicant is required to notify property owners within 350 feet surrounding both parcels by mail within 10 days prior to the public hearing and public hearings are published in the official newspaper. Further explained that the 1984 1 conditional use permit records were only in minutes and referred to renovation of the existing restaurant. Noted the history of the property was unclear but the bar/restaurant use was permitted for this property under the conditional use permit and therefore the use may continue as the conditional use permit runs with the land. Added that the commercial marina use and configuration, as it exists currently and is proposed, was a permit issued by the DNR which was properly transferred to the current owners. Blahnik asked whether there would be any variations to the front and side yard setbacks,inquired whether the parking lot across the street constituted an expansion of a nonconforming use, and asked about Minn. Stat. §462.357, subd. 1(e)which doesn't allow expansion of nonconforming uses and alternatively,Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. I(e)(b), which allows municipalities to permit an expansion by ordinance. Pointed out that Commissioners should consider the reasonable regulations allowed under the statute for the application. Director Rogness explained the lake, front,and side yard setbacks and noted the applicant was proposing to reconstruct the building above the flood plain. Stated lake setback and parking requirements would remain nonconforming on the site. Clarified that if the parking lot across the street was not included, the site reconstruction would still be considered an expansion of a nonconforming use but that Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1(e)(b)was the applicable statute to which the application was being submitted. Hite clarified the with Director Rogness the parking spaces classified as on-site and off-street as well as the minimum of 80 parking spaces required. Also confirmed the additional parking lot was zoned R-1 which allows for parking as an accessory use but would be nonconforming; however, the intent was to consider the two parking lots as one thereby creating a conforming use. Peterson asked about the overflow parking when Captain Jack's was operational and whether parking was available on all streets in the area. Stated if not, customers were parking where parking was not allowed. Director Rogness replied that according to residents in the neighborhood, overflow parking was along the local streets and advised there were many "no parking" signs throughout the neighborhood. Pointed out where street parking was allowed in area surrounding the property. Applicant Roger Burks, applicant, Waterstreet Restaurants, introduced himself as well as Jeff Petschl, local resident, and Bill Kranz, builder. Stated the idea for the building was to look like a house and create a restaurant that is community friendly and family oriented. Blahnik confirmed with the applicant the timeline to begin and complete construction was as soon as possible with an anticipated opening the first week of July, if approvals are in place, and that a purchase agreement which includes both properties is finalized but the property has not closed as it is pending city approvals. Inquired about the lot across the street and whether there were any discussions to acquire additional adjacent properties for parking or other uses. Jeff Petschl stated the group would like to acquire additional property for parking but it was not the plan now 2 � Hite inquired about how the restaurant would operate in the community,whether they would have control of their customers and how they would accomplish that so as not to have continuing issues. Also asked whether the group has run a restaurant with a marina and what kind of events the proposed restaurant would hold. Further inquired about lighting and signage commending the proposed architectural design. Roger Berks explained that they have not run a restaurant with a marina as these types of properties are difficult to come by. Further explained the staff will be trained to work both inside and outside, managers will supervise people, crowds, and over drinking, and lighting will not shine into neighbors' yards or homes as it would be a back glow. Stated family oriented and community friendly begins with the menu and what is offered to attract families and local events. Added that they will not have drink specials or loud music and what the restaurant to be family oriented. With regard to events,Berks explained that they would work with the City and would like to participate in street fairs, parades and other local events. Peterson asked about how many employee parking spaces were expected and where they'd park as well as signage for the parking lot. Also inquired about containing street parking. Roger Berk advised employees could range from 25-100 but that the additional parking lot was intended to be primarily as an amenity for rented boat slips. However, it could serve as employee and valet parking at times and that signage for the lot would state that. Explained that the plan was to contain street parking to the extent possible but they could not guarantee street parking would not happen. Larson asked about the 220 down to 180 outdoor versus indoor seating. Roger Berk explained the outside bar there now will no longer exist and will be replaced with approximately 10 bar stools along the counter with the bar area inside the building and seating outside the building. Additional tables and seating will be placed in the deck area which will be reduced in size from the existing. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:47P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Valerie Schueler resides at 3904 Green Heights Tr. SW directly next door to the Property and represented about 20-24 residents in the area directly affected by the application. Stated the mailing was inefficient and should have been noticed to surrounding neighborhoods outside the 350 feet perimeter of the properties on the routes to and from the location. Additional concerns included: potential major impacts to property values, vehicles turning around in residential driveways, encroachments in neighborhoods, opposed to allowing a parking lot in a residential neighborhood, increased impact on community and potential for increased sexual activity and bodily functions in yards, hours of operation, inability for residents to sleep with windows open, potential for loud music and sleep disturbances, loss of enjoyment of the neighborhood as there were many elderly and children in the neighborhood, vehicle alarms and door locks, special events in the area substantially increasing concerns, environmental concerns such as cleanliness of the area and littering, loss of substantial trees in the area, increased safety concerns, additional traffic congestion and deterioration of roads, narrow turns in the neighborhood, potential for .-� increased illegal drug activities, drunkenness, fights, and foot traffic, insufficient background checking completed on the establishment, suggestion for no lake events due to minimum outdoor seating requirements, request to not rezone R1 properties, lighting concerns, due diligence not completed as 3 receiving different answers at each meeting,parking lot dedicated to slip owners only and now employees and special events. John Granlund resides at 3893 Green Heights Tr. with family including 3 children and 3 grandchildren. Has issue with parking lot as presented noting seating is reduced but parking has increased and stated he did not like the bar or the restaurant. Felt it wouldn't be patrolled and there was a lot being carved out. Noted accidents on Green Heights Tr. in the wintertime and that setbacks created an inconvenience for residents. Stated impervious surface has been a problem and additional pavement will increase issues. Stated there was a four acre property down the hill and suggested they buy this property and add 100 parking spots stating that since Captain Jack's has been closed, it finally fits into the neighborhood. Alex Marchessault resides at 3915 Green Heights Tr. stated he lives next door to the parking lot and is happy with redoing the bar, but putting the parking lot next to his house, he will not be able to sell in the future. Stated if the parking lot is there, compensation is necessary. Jennifer Nemecek resides at 3880 Green Heights Tr. stated these residents live in the neighborhood with a bar and noted that they want the bar to be updated, which the group is trying to do and make better than what it was. State her thoughts were to have someone come in to take care of this place and believed that this group would be doing that. Randy DeMent resides at 16536 Spring Ave. SW and showed photos to Commissioners and described what it would be like to have a parking lot. Stated the neighborhood didn't want a parking lot there noting Prior Lake is a wonderful place to work, live and play for a lifetime. Mark Leuthard resides at 3904 Green Heights Tr. and stated he just moved into the neighborhood in march knowing there was a neighboring bar and suggested they give more focus to the lake. Robert Lemna 16517 Dutch Ave. SE recently moved into the neighborhood stating he supported the upgrades to the restaurant/bar and the proposed stop sign but was opposed to the parking lot. Dick Hadley resides at 15297 Edgewater Cir. and stated he has lived there since 1993 and supports the restaurant update. Jen Wocelka resides at 3874 Green Heights Tr. SW and didn't think many had a problem with the restaurant and felt that upgrading a parking lot is going to better the community and home values. Stated she previously had a slip in savage and never used it as there was no parking. Herb Vanvalkenburg resides at 3945 Green Heights Tr. on the opposite side of the proposed lot and feels his issues have all been address with the proposal. Noting,he has lived in this community since 1991 and there have been over 2000 meetings about these issues. Liz Weninger resides at 2591 Spring Lake Rd. and is chair of the Lakes Advisory Committee. Preferred a parking lot to cars parking on streets as oil and parking lot runoff will be channeled so as not to run into the lake. She agreed with a stop sign and feels having a neighbor living down the road from the restaurant/bar in the planning process would propose ideas to be better controlled. As far as the lake is concerned, she stated a parking lot would be better than cars on the road. 4 Susan Hadley resides at 15297 Edgewater Circle and noted that similarities to Lake Minnetonka. Stated residents should view this as a restaurant rather than a bar. Felt it will be upgraded and is looking forward to enjoying the restaurant. Added that the parking lot was a problem that she would not like to live next to a parking lot but that they needed a quality restaurant on this lake. Jay Nemecek resides at 3880 Green Heights Tr. and recognized it was an emotional night for everyone but felt the bar and restaurant is a need.Noted he lives across the street from the parking lot and everyday there is parking up and down the street and driving around the neighborhood looking for a parking spot and the parking lot may increase the safety of the neighborhood. DeAnn Anderson resides at 4014 Green Heights Tr. and is on the east side of Captain Jacks and inquired about increased boat slips. Also noted they deal with a lot of beer bottles in the street and would love to see a better clientele based restaurant but in the event it didn't work out, would they turn it into a bar. Applicant Petschl advised there wouldn't be any increase. Herry Alcorn resides at 14283 Shady Beach Tr. and stated he was looking forward to the new business as it was a great opportunity to have the safety needs addressed and moving the parking off the street into a controlled area was a great idea. John Bohr resides at 3552 Basswood Cir. and owns the lot referred as an outlot stating he initially purchased that land with the intent to develop and then market crashed. However, in the planning discussions with the City, Spring Street does not have a turnaround and was wondering if the planning has considered a potential connector to the parking lot and Spring Street for safety reasons and to offset traffic issues on Green Heights. Noted City Council approved a CUP for parking at Captain Jack's in 2004 and the parking lot was a good idea to take care of beer cans, garbage, etc. Hite asked if he owned the land on southwest side. John Bohr explained where his land was and was planning a Planned Use Development or single family. Renee Hengemuhle resides at 3827 Islandview Cir. and faces the property. Asked about boat slips stating she would like to see more and stated that people that live on the lake cannot enjoy the restaurant. Applicant Petschl stated the plan was to rent 60 and have 20 open for boat traffic from the lake. Hite suggested the applicants go back to the podium for additional questions and asked in the planning of the redevelopment have you conducted a traffic study. Hite asked if they plan to do a traffic study. Applicant Petschl said no they do not. Hite asked what percent of sales they anticipate coming from liquor versus food. .-. Applicant Burks replied 35% liquor 65% food; as that is their business motto. 5 Larson asked if they could explain a little more about their business motto and how they would like to have their business incorporated into the community; history etc. Applicant Burks stated they are changing the name and decorating the interior of the restaurant with old maps, old photos of lodges; Applicant Petschl stated they got a lot of history from Jean Simkins and other people they know has offered old photos and etc. to be incorporated into the decor of the inside of the restaurant. He stated that Roger does a great job of running restaurants and if there is any concern of how the restaurant would be ran in the neighborhood, he suggested if you go look at the current other two locations, they would get a good idea of how Roger runs a restaurant and how the employees are and how everything is taken care of. He mentioned how they are woven into the community in Excelsior as local schools are represented on hats and jackets and clothing as they are on their way to a practice on their way home from school. Applicant Burks said the restaurant is their first concern and the bar is just the balance of a good restaurant. Larson commented about space availability compared to parking space and appreciated the decline in 222 to 180 in outdoor seating as well as also moving the bar from the outside inward to control some of the noise complaints. He asked some of his background in the restaurant business. Applicant Burks replied he has been in the restaurant business for 35 years and listed his experiences in restaurants. He also stated he lives in Chanhassen about a half a mile from one of his restaurants in excelsior. Applicant Petschl stated that one of the brother in law is one of the owners as well, so there would be two official owners to get in contact with. Larson made mentioned the previous owners and the neighborhood frustrations and wanted to know how he plans to handle neighborhood frustrations. He asked if there was going to be any ongoing neighborhood communication/discussion regarding any issues that may come up, especially since one of the owners in a resident in the neighborhood. He stated being a business owner you want to be involved with people that are in the community that are local to being able to patronize your facilities as well and knows that the community is looking for more restaurants to build as an establishment. He stated he has heard from residents that they would like to boat to his establishment and asked if the applicant could comment on ongoing communications with the neighbors and or community. Applicant Burks explained that they have an open door policy, like a neighbor. He explained an experience of his other restaurants and how neighbors have asked for favors and he has followed through. He wants every neighbor to feel like a neighbor/guest and wants to be on a first name basis and would like the guests to feel like they are stepping into a friend's house and they would be taken very good care of. He stated that the amenities that he was really happy, stating how they plan to make this amenity best for the city and the lake. Petersen asked about security cameras. Applicant Burks said absolutely in both parking and building 6 ,-� Petersen asked about lighting and how they plan to light the proposed parking lot in a way that wouldn't create a lot of pollution so that neighbors don't need black shades. Bill Kranz replied on the lighting stating who their electrical contractor was and stated they are out of Prior Lake and they hired a company to do a lighting survey and design that will meet City criteria and neighborhood criteria, specifically lighting that is down lit to a certain lighting that will not interfere with neighbors, but still allow for proper security. John Granlund stated he wanted to reiterate the fact that everything about this residential lot is a variance; this is a R-1 property that is being taken off the tax roll, please don't forget that in making your decision as nothing in that parking lot is in conformity with current regulations. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:53 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen stated that most of the complaints seem to be about wandering through neighborhood at early hours of the morning,people driving around looking for parking and parking where they are not supposed to and with this he stated it seems like this parking lot would relieve some of these problems and even though he wouldn't necessarily want to live next to a parking lot, he stated he doesn't know exactly how to reconcile that face. He stated he would encourage the applicants if this does get approved to work very �-. closely with the people that would be most affected by this. He will be supporting the applicant's requests. Larson stated he looks at this with two thick, one being without any variances the way Captain Jacks zoning is processed there stating there is potential for only being a nightclub and a bar,so it could continue the problems the neighborhood has seen over the years. He stated with everything he is hearing from the applicant with his years of experience,percentage of alcohol compared to food sales,being involved with the community and the history of the community and having one of the applicants living six houses down (he would want to be a presence in the neighborhood where he can continue to live in the community that his business will be established), therefore he thinks that there is going to be quite a bit of effort in how the organization will be run. He stated unfortunately this will be a parking alleviation for some of the parking in the neighborhoods that always have had an ongoing problem to have no parking signs,however at this time there doesn't seem to be any willing parties, outside this particular lot where we could have a parking lot,as it is unfortunate to have a parking lot next to residential lots. He said from what he is seeing about this business and hearing from the owners and what there menu selections as well, it is not going to be a burger and fries kind of bar; it is going to be a restaurant that the community will be proud to have. The residence of the lake participate at an establishment here too. He mentioned he did have concerns about the boat slips,as it would be nice to have boat slips for the residence to come in off the lake to come in, or having get-togethers as this is what this restaurant sounds like it is making an effort to accomplish. He said when it comes to balancing one way or another, what sways him in his supporting the applicant with the parking is safety, especially with getting emergency vehicles in the area as this has always been an issue. He mentioned the one owner that has to keep up with one of the lots, because people are continuously using those areas, hopefully this will also alleviate some of those situations as well. Also cutting down the seating for the restaurant confirms this is more of a restaurant than a bar as if you have a bar you are packing in seating. He believes the applicant is taking great measures with reducing seating, bring the bar inside and etc.to be communicating to the community and also to bring a brand new building into the area instead of using the same building that could potentially hold issues in the future and should 7 increase the value for the homes in the area as we have a great amenity here in the community. He is in support of this applicant's process for this parking issue as it should help alleviate some of the situations we do have and we cannot look at the past and the problems that were here then as we have a new applicant coming into our community that is family orientated and wanting to communicate with the community. Blahnik asked Director Rogness if the current parking lot of 52 stalls with the proposed building which reduces the seating in the building to get up to current parking requirements it would require 78 off street parking spots for the building itself and an additional 20 for the marina;per ordinance it would require 98 parking spots. Director Rogness replied that is correct. Blahnik asked it a safe statement to make that this project will not go through if it is limited to the existing 52 parking spots; if Captain Jack's building is torn down and a new building was built that proposal is keeping 52 parking spots which is just under half of what is required. Director Rogness replied this property, for better or for worse, has received approvals for the restaurant/bar. He said he believes the 52 stalls is probably about what they have had and has never met the parking requirements, which makes in non-conforming. He said the additional parking has been an issue all along in staff discussions with the applicant, and it is one of those difficult issues with arguments on both sides of the positive and the negative. Blahnik stated with the existing 52 parking spots were otherwise 98 would be required, the choice is either we keep Captain Jack's as it is or we put up this new restaurant that is being proposed but cannot have both, and feels this new restaurant is wonderful. He stated it would be nice to have a few more restaurants on the lake, not only for the residents that live on the lake to boat up, but for the people that don't live on the lake as well as it is their only opportunity to enjoy the lake with a meal. He said a proposed restaurant in his opinion is absolutely great for the community and the residents to enjoy the lake that we have. He said the big issue we have obviously for this public hearing is the parking and in particular the parking lot across the street and there does not appear to be any other option available here, as we need additional parking for this project to go through and this is an opportunity to put a parking lot here. He stated it is still less than the required, however it is 32 more parking spots to help alleviate the parking congestion on the streets, which is viewed as a safety issue and he interrupts this statue for a specific ordinance for the expansion of this nonconformance use under Minnesota Statue 462.357, it is our requirement to provide that this expansions in necessary to prevent and abate nuisances and protect public health and/or safety. He stated he also interrupts the expansion being the inclusion of this additional parking lot that is needed. He said the statue excludes from this requirement the replacement of the structure, as if the structure was simply being replaced, this need would not be triggered for our requirement to provide that the expansion is to prevent abatement nuisances and to protect the public health at all fair safety. He sees this applicant looking at the need for additional parking for this restaurant and feels the additional parking to limit the cars to the two parking lots does abate potential nuisances as alluded to during this public hearing. He said littering on the street now would be littering in the potential parking lot and would be easier to clean up, people walking down the street late at night would also be a hazard, which would lead less of a hazard if just crossing the street from the parking lot to the restaurant itself. He does see the incorporation of this additional parking lot as an improvement to public health, wealth fare and safety of the area. He stated as indicated by the applicant and how he sees it as well this additional parking lot is more of an overflow parking lot for extremely busy times, for people who are docking out on the lake and the vast majority of the time the parking would be a lot of back and forth from 8 this particular parking lot. He stated similar sediments of his fellow Commissioners is that he does sympathies with the individuals who are directly adjacent to the proposed parking lot; it is not ideal, but this is the situation that presents itself and it appears that what is being proposed is this parking lot is going to have landscaping and would be bermed, the applicant will do what they can to make it ascetically pleasing as possible. He stated his interpretations on of Minnesota Statue 462.357 subdivision lb, suggested that it is within our authority to allow this expansion of the existing non-conforming use because this expansion would be necessary to prevent an abatement nuisances and to protect public health at all fair safety by limiting the parking to this particular lot and it is worth noting that the applicant is reducing the number of seating both inside and outside which potentially reduces the amount of traffic which were concerns about. He said this will be a higher quality building, higher quality restaurant and if this project goes through he is looking forward to this and is in support of this. Hite stated she is grateful for everyone who came out to speak, as the public meeting process is intended to engage the community so that the planning commission and the city council can hear what the concerns of our citizens are. We as the planning commissioner and city council also know that it is our job as a commission on the city council to promote business in our community so she feels it is great that we have some entrepreneurs that want to come in and create a new restaurant concept at a place that we all like to have on a lake. Captain Jack's location is a huge amenity and we are known for that as Prior Lake has a great reputation and having that amenity on the lake is part of the great Prior Lake reputation and she is very intrigued by the concept that the new owners tend to bring to us. She expressed concern as she loves the existing structure will come down and that a new building will go up; she likes the layout,the esthetic qualities that they are going to bring to the exterior and interior,reconfiguring the parking. She stated that her big issue is the parking lot as she thinks the addition of the parking lot,while needed,will not alleviate some of the nuisance that exist today. She thinks that for a resident that still has to tolerate the congestion on the street, but not get out of their driveways, this is not a conclusion to that. She said it gets people off the streets which is a good thing but doesn't feel it will alleviate the congestion and friction with residents. If this project related to the original Captain Jack's footprint she would not have an issue with it;however, she does have an issue with the lot, as well as doesn't think it fits in the location that it is proposed. She stated she would love to see the parking solution that fits the neighborhood and fits the development, and increases safety, reduces friction for the neighborhood. If there was an opportunity to partner with the owner who owns the southwest quadrant and provide that approved connectivity, there may be an opportunity for the City and the applicant to work there, but is unsure if that is feasible. She appreciates the fact that they are reducing the footprint a little bit and reducing the seating, because that will have an improved impact to parking needs, however she believes one of the issues remaining is that 60 slips are still rented and in her opinion those are people who are driving to the site and while she understands that they want to provide permanent parking to those people, it is rare that all 60 people would show up and want a boat on the same day, but she could see some conflicts there. She stated for the reasons that she has mentioned she is not supportive of this as we owe more to our community,and success of this business (as she has been at their excelsior location and stated they offer phenomenal products. She stated the other restaurants should be visited as they are putting out there to the community representing what they can offer) as it would be wonderful to have this establishment on the lake, but cannot support having the parking lot as proposed as part of the project. Rick Keeney, City Council Liaison to the Planning Commission, said he would like to make a couple suggestions on the process; this is a recommendation from the Planning Commission and will also come to the City Council and presumes that the City Council will struggle with the same topics from the recommendations to crack the actual final ordinance. He stated that there is an opportunity here that if the Planning Commission is recommending proceeding with the ordinance to allow especially the parking 9 .-� lot there is an opportunity to put some conditions on that may help mitigate some of the future concerns that we heard from residents. He said he would like to invite the Planning Commission to consider what recommendation they may wish to make along those lines of additional conditions, and perhaps the applicant could give their input on what conditions would be acceptable to them, such as hours, restricted usage on the parking lot to certain purposes, restricting the number of outdoor seating that may serve as a tradeoff this expansion and some of the concerns of the residence and not leave the door open for this to be a permanently expanded use without community giving some of the benefits back that have been promised. He said as he contemplate himself sitting at the City Council meeting deliberating on this matter, he would want some expert template as to what kinds of conditions maybe appropriate, certainly there may also be an opportunity with the design of the parking lot to look at perhaps a different number of stalls,and consider additional buffering concerns,perhaps some way to address these. He said that this would most likely be a broad recommendation tonight but it might be something to bring to the City Council. Blahnik suggested after Council member Rick Kenney if we would like to further discuss the issue of the parking lot as it is his understanding that the applicant intends include a retaining wall, screening and landscaping. Therefore, is there anything further that the applicant wishes to share in regard to what is being proposed with the parking lot across the street. Applicant Kranz state the design of the parking lot will be lowering the grade to approximately three feet as it comes up from the street, alongside of that will be about a four foot retaining wall and a screened fence or privacy fence between the property lines and the parking lot. The intent is to try to lower the parking lot for drainage and usage and also to limit the lights and lights of cars as they pull in and out of the parking lot. At one of the staff meetings landscape was discussed with additional trees and bushes, the positive of this is it does hide the parking lot the negative of this is security issues with large screening off the street. Blahink asked if they would be open to either option based on further discussion as far as screen versus security. Applicant Kranz replied yes, definitely and stated the property lines would be for privacy. He said the height right now is proposed at four feet, plus the height of the retaining wall, if it had to go higher we would be fine with that or what the City Ordinance states for fencing. He stated the property directly to the west has an eight foot fence and felt it is a little tall as it is sticking out of a parking lot, especially when the parking lot is being lowered,but any additional landscaping that would not interfere with security yet still give it some push off of the street, and even off of the south property line we are open to that. Blahnik asked about the existing proposal across the street to add 32 additional parking stalls; however, the proposed ordinance is to require a minimum of 80 total off-street parking stalls rather than the proposed 84 stalls, leaving 4 stalls to play with if needed in order to reduce that for screening or landscaping. He asked if he was reading that correctly and if so, would you be open to that? Applicant Kranz replied yes, representing the group, we are open to that number. Hite asked without changing any of her opinions, if there was to be a screened fence, she would like to see the applicant work with the neighbors on the type and quality of fencing that would fit into neighborhood. It would be good to provide as much screening as possible with conditions of first class maintenance of the fence so that neighbors don't have to look at a deteriorating fence. Additional 10 .—� landscaping should be offered to neighbors and put landscaping on their lots if they want it in order to increase the buffering from their side. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE SUBSECTION 1102.1600 AS PROPOSED IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING RESTAURANT. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Larson and Petersen. Nay by Hite. The Motion carried 3 to 1. 5. Old Business: A. Ordinance Amendments -Architectural Design Standards—(Continued) City of Prior Lake is proposing an amendment to the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance to change the architectural design standards for commercial and industrial development, including the prohibition of pole buildings. Director Rogness reintroduced the recommendation to amend subsection 1107.200,Architectural Design and explained the history, current circumstances, conclusion, issues and alternatives. He mentioned some additional cities were contacted for what they do allow in there industrial park. Hite mentioned that on behalf of the Planning Commission, she would like to thank Director Rogness for his continue research in many communities for different architectural designs in buildings to protect our integrity of our industrial and commercial areas in Prior Lake and to also be in a position where our city is poised for new businesses and we can offer a variety of building types to fit the needs of business without being exclusive. She stated she has reviewed the amendments as proposed and when the language was called where Director Rogness gave the example in 1107.2207 6c she feels this can be removed as the text is descriptive enough, that an example is not necessary. She stated she is comfortable with the du-diligence that Director Rogness has done as it is inclusive,yet protective of the existing businesses and the investments that they have made in their buildings. She said maintaining flexibility and drawing new business to the commercial areas where pole barns already exist. Larson stated the language is too strong to prohibiting pole buildings other than Welcome Avenue area. He mentioned that it was specifically for the one development, but to have it moving out of that development area, concerns him. He explained that sometime pole buildings helps a business get started and therefore he is not in support of banning pole buildings completely, just for the Welcome Avenue area. And is still in favor of the high end of Deefield area. He asked Director Rogness if he could expand on other developments set aside for industrial parks. Director Rogness replied there is Waterfront Passage next to Deerfield and Deerfield has 2/3`d vacant and Welcome has some redevelopment. And that is our Industrial Business Park areas now. There may be some up and coming in the 42 corridor, which is more Business Park and our Business Park is C classification which leans more towards commercial. Larson asked about the pole buildings statement regarding pole buildings not being allowed in commercial use and industrial use districts. Director Rogness explained the one area that this would applies to the Industrial zoned property in Deerfield; they would have the prohibited pole barn provision unless if there were pole buildings in this area, which is not the case. 11 Larson thinks having the prohibited in the C-3 Deerfield Industrial Park is acceptable but wording it differently would be ideal as we don't know what will come into the 42 area. He stated having pole building worded prohibited in the C-3 Deerfield Industrial Park would be acceptable. It is all in the way it is worded. He stated he would not like it limiting to other Industrial parks that may come into our future community or other areas. Hite stated to be affirmative with its location. Director Rogness asked Commissioner Larson for clarification. Larson asked about the zoning in Deerfield Park. Director Rogness stated if the comfortable place would be excluding in just industrial zones, it could be initialized by the Planning Commission. Blahnik shares the sediments of Commissioner Larson which include issues with the absolute prohibition and is not comfortable with it. He stated he feels we would be limiting ourselves to prospective businesses. He would be in support if it was not complete absolute prohibition of pole buildings. He said it would be nice to see softer language. He mentioned how maybe some businesses may need a pole building behind the main structure for storage. He would be in support of this with the exception of total prohibition of pole buildings. Petersen is in favor of this change as written and thinking long term,ascetics,property value,and if filled up with quality structured buildings, the quality will continue and attracts more of the same. He asked if someone had a reason for building something that resembles a pole building, could we take it in case by case or does prohibition mean there is no exceptions ever. Director Rogness replied a variance would be a difficult one as it doesn't have a practical difficulty and it could not be financially related and typically that would be the argument, however all pole building require an applicant to apply for a conditional use permit and the planning commission then would be reviewing these on a case by case basis. There would need to be some kind of conditions that would help the planning commission decide. Hite asked Commissioner Blahnik if we could construct language that allowed pole buildings more proportioned to architectural featured building,which would be more ascetically/architecturally appealing feature promoting the entrance into what is still a pole barn and asked can we find some component that has architectural upgrades to it. Blahnik stated we are not promoting pole buildings, rather keeping them as an option with language to have architectural details. Hite asked if a certain percentage of the total floor area contains architectural design elements comprising three of five... Director Rogness said they would still have to meet three of the five designs standards, the seventy-five percent and the three of five design standards. 12 Hite said we are already protected that way as you can still have a pole barn but would need design elements on it somewhere correct. Director Rogness replied correct. Blahnik said but what is being proposed is the absolute prohibition of pole buildings, regardless of the design criteria, with the pole building being defined as how it is internally structured. Hite said so we would still need wording to define this, so that a pole building is permitted provided that a certain percent of the total building floor area consists of two of four architectural design elements. Director Rogness said if you remove the prohibition it is in there and pole buildings are allowed and they would have to meet the same design criteria and we applied that to the pole building in Deerfield; what we heard from some of the people in the Deerfield Park was despite that, it still is a cheaper building that brings down the prices of the other buildings in Deerfield.He suggested to move this along,there is enough of you that are supporting removing the prohibition or at the very least remove it with the industrial classification identified. Blahnik asked this is a recommendation to the City Council correct. Director Rogness replied correct. Hite suggest to remove the prohibition against pole buildings but would still be required to meet the design criteria. Larson said he would still like it to go through the conditional use permit. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY LARSON TO RECOMMEND THE CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION 1107.2200, ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED BY CITY STAFF WITH THE EXCEPTIONS THAT THE PROHIBITION OF POLE BUILDINGS BE REMOVED AND INSTEAD MODIFIED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POLE BUILDING WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Larson and Hite. Nay by Petersen. The Motion carried 3 to 1. 6. New Business: A. Preliminary PUD Plan Application Less Than 10 Acres—Dominium is proposing a Planned Unit Development project on a site less than three acres; Subsection 1106.601 allows an exception to the 10-acre requirement upon approval of the Planning Commission. Director Rogness explained the .... Four criteria to move this forward. Small public park 165 senior housing development Petersen the car wash is part of 13 Rogness it is not a done deal it is an add on that is a positive. Redevelopment would Petersen seems like a a good idea. Hite—based on the layout of the land, preliminary plan of this would move to the next step. Blahnik—building would be demolotished. Particular unique, Agrees with fellow commissioners and will update this area and willb e a good use of that space. Is in agreement withthis going to the next stage. Larson—recommendation to city council, moving expensives for the businesses there to continue within prior lake. Need to keep businesses in prior lake and would be a great amendity to keep these It is a unique concept. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. 7. Announcements/City Council Updates: • Boat Slips for direct access lots • New applications o Dominium 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO ADJORN THE FEBRUARY 2, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 14