HomeMy WebLinkAbout9F - Twin Island Zoning Ord. Amendment
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
Maintenance Center
17073 Adelmann Street S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DECEMBER 4, 2006
9F
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
1104.309 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW 832 SQUARE FOOT
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON TWIN ISLAND
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to consider an amendment to Section 1104.309 of
the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment would increase the size of
allowable accessory structures on Twin Island from 240 square feet to 832
square feet.
Historv
Prior to 2001, the Zoning Ordinance did not permit accessory structures on
Twin Island. In February of 2001, the Planning Commission considered an
appeal to the Planning staff's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. The
appellant contended the provisions of the ordinance allowed accessory
structures on islands. The Commission adopted Resolution 01-04PC
upholding the Planning staffs' interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that does
not permit accessory structures on the islands. However, the Commission
directed staff to research the issue and prepare language for an ordinance
amendment for consideration.
In April, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed
amendment to allow a 300 square foot accessory building on the lots on Twin
Island. The Planning Commission heard testimony from John Meyer, who
stated his need for a 24' by 24' accessory building (576 square feet). After a
lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing and
directed staff to redraft the ordinance to allow an accessory structure which
does not exceed the size of the principal structure, or 576 square feet,
whichever is less. The Commission also directed staff to notify all Twin Island
property owners.
The Planning Commission continued the public hearing until May, 2001. The
Planning Commission heard testimony from Dave Wuellner, a property owner
on Twin Island, who was opposed to the size of the proposed accessory
structure. He felt 576 square feet was excessive, and that most property
owners were able to stay under 120 square feet. The Planning Commission
also heard testimony from John Meyer who stated the square footage was
necessary because the size of the cabins is getting larger, and some people
have more toys than others.
The Planning Commission held a lengthy discussion on the size of the
accessory structures. Some Commissioners felt these structures should be
limited to 12' by 12' while others thought it could be larger. The Commission
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Fax 952.440:9678
compromised on 240 square feet, based on the following factors:
. 240 square feet is large enough to accommodate what is used on the
island during the summer, such as water skis and lawn mowers.
. There are no paved roads on the island, so there should be no motor
vehicles. Large boats should be stored off the island.
. Larger accessory structures would fundamentally change the density
and the character of the island. This amendment does not apply to just
one person, but to every property owner on the island.
. Larger accessory structures would require the removal of more trees.
. Concerns about the amount of impervious surface on the island.
The City Council considered the proposed amendment on June 4, 2001. The
Council voted to approve the amendment to allow accessory structures no
larger than 240 square feet, based on the Planning Commission's
recommendation and the following rationale:
. Twin Island is a very unique piece of property with just seasonal cabins.
. Garages similar to those on the mainland are not necessary since the
accessory structures on the island should be needed only for minimal
storage.
. There is no vehicular traffic on the island so a 240 square foot
accessory structure should be sufficient.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the current proposed
ordinance amendments on November 13, 2006. At the public hearing, Mr.
John Meyer testified in favor of the proposed amendment on the basis the
proposed garage size is consistent with what is allowed in residential areas
other than Twin Island. There was also testimony opposed to the proposed
amendment. Mr. Joe Zieska testified that he was on the City Council when the
current ordinance was adopted, and he feels a 240 square foot accessory
structure is adequate for seasonal storage. Also, as a member of the fire
department, he is concerned about the fire safety aspects of larger structures.
Mr. Earl Drangsveit and Mr. Mike Mills, both cabin owners on Twin Island,
testified that they are concerned about the potential size of accessory
structures and the impact on Twin Island. They felt the current 240 square
feet was more than adequate. A draft copy of the meeting minutes is attached
to this report.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendments. The
proposal prevailed on a 3-2 vote.
ISSUES:
The specific language of the proposed amendments is included within the
attached ordinance. An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow a larger
garage size would apply to all the property owners on Twin Island. When the
Planning Commission and the Council weighed the Meyers desire to build a
576 square foot accessory building (now 832 square feet) against the impact
on the island should all property owners decide to build an accessory building
of this size, they felt the potential impact to the island was just too great.
There are few opportunities to build additional cabins on the island, while any
owner of an existing cabin could build an accessory structure of some sort.
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
This would impact the trees on the island, the impervious surface and the
general look of the island.
It is possible to amend the ordinance to allow a larger accessory building on
Twin Island. An amendment of this type is a policy question to be ultimately
determined by the Council.
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states that recommendations of the
Planning Commission and final determinations of the City Council shall be
supported by findings addressing the relationship of the proposed amendment
to the following policies:
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
The proposed amendment allows the construction of larger accessory
structures on Twin Island. The question of need is a policy question.
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this
Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or
policies of the City.
Goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan include:
. Support development designs that are tailored to environmentally
sensitive areas containing rugged topography, wetlands, and woodlands.
. Promote sound land use; and
. Ensure the security of individuals, human rights, and property.
Purposes of the Zoning Ordinance include:
. Enhance the aesthetic character and appearance of the City.
. Conserve natural resources and environmental assets of the community.
The proposed amendment strives to ensure security of personal property
by permitting accessory structures on Twin Island of the same size as
those in other R-1 districts.
3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or
Federal requirements.
This amendment is consistent with federal and state laws.
The adoption of this amendment has modest financial impact on the City. The
City will incur costs for preparation and publication of ordinance amendments.
The City Council has the following alternatives:
1. Adopt an ordinance amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance as
proposed or with changes specified by the City Council.
2. Deny the amendment to the ordinance.
3. Defer consideration of this item and provide staff with specific direction.
The Planning Commission and staff recommend Alternative #1.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
Motion and second to adopt an ordinance amending Sections 1104.309 of the
Prior Lake City Code.
Reviewed by:
. ", ./1 i
i .:t:J' I
' \tt~'. .
Frank Bo~s,/titY Manager
/
~
Maintenance Center
17073 Adelmann Street S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 106- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1101.400, 1106, AND 1107.2100 OF THE
PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. Section 1104.309 (10) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to delete the
section in its entirety and to add the following language:
1104.309
(10) One detached accessory structure is permitted per lot on general
development lakes subject to the issuance of a building permit and the
following conditions:
~ The lot must meet the minimum area and dimensional requirements
listed in Section 1104.309; and
~ The structures shall comply with all other required conditions and
yard setbacks as stated in Section 1102.800 (8); and
~ The total ground floor area of the accessory structures shall not
exceed the ground floor area oCthe principal structure (seasonal
cabin), 25% of the area between the principal structure and the rear
lot line, or 832 square feet, whichever is less; and
~ The maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 15 feet from
the grade adjacent to the structure; and
~ The structure shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM); and
~ The structure shall not be designed or used for human habitation
and shall not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities.
However, the structure may contain an electrical system, with the
proper permits; and
~ The structure shall be compatible in design and materials with the
principal structure (seasonal cabin); and
~ If the structure is located below the regulatory flood plain elevation it
shall be built in compliance with the applicable flood proofing
requirements of the building code and Section 1105 of this
Ordinance; and
~ The structure shall be attached to a permanent foundation so as to
be immovable from its approved location.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 4th day of December, 2006.
1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\twin islatlWWcEmi~W~f~IDd06-xx.doc
Phone 952.440.9675 / Fax 952.440.9678
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the 9th day of December, 2006.
Drafted By:
Prior Lake Planning Department
17073 Adelmann Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\twin island accessory structures\ord06-xx.doc
2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2006
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Le e called the November 13,2006, Planning Cojunission meeting to order
at 6:00 p.m. Th e present were Commissioners Billington, Fleming, Lemke, Perez and
Ringstad, Plannin ~~ector Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore and
Recording Secretary~nnie Carlson.
,
2. Roll Call:
.\" Billington
'~emke
P'erez /
Ringstad//
Flemilli
f
"
7
f
3. Approval of Minutes: //
The Minutes from the 0.." c,tL ::9, 2006, Plannm~ Commission meeting were approved as
presented. 7v"" ,
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
5. pubr Hearings: \\
\
Commissioner Lemke read the Public Hearing Statement and 'cipened the meeting.
4.
~
A. #06-184 Consider an amendment to Section 1104.309 (10) of the Zoning
Ordinance. This amendment would increase the allowable size of accessory
structures on Twin Island from 240 square feet to 832 square feet.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 13, 2006,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to Section 1104.309 (10)
of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment, initiated by the City Council on
October 16, 2006, would increase the allowable size of accessory structures on Twin
Island from 240 square feet to 832 square feet.
Prior to 2001, the Zoning Ordinance did not permit accessory structures on Twin Island.
In February of2001, the Planning Commission considered an appeal to the Planning
staffs interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellant contended the provisions of
the ordinance allowed accessory structures on islands. The Commission adopted
Resolution 01-04PC upholding the Planning staffs' interpretation of the Zoning
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI I I306.doc
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2006
Ordinance that does not permit accessory structures on the islands. However, the
Commission directed staff to research the issue and prepare language for an ordinance
amendment for consideration.
In April, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed amendment
to allow a 300 square foot accessory building on the lots on Twin Island. The Planning
Commission heard testimony from John Meyer, who stated his need for a 24' by 24'
accessory building (576 square feet). After a lengthy discussion, the Planning
Commission continued the public hearing and directed staff to redraft the ordinance to
allow an accessory structure which does not exceed the size of the principal structure, or
576 square feet, whichever is less. The Commission also directed staff to notify all Twin
Island property owners.
The Planning Commission continued the public hearing until May, 2001. The Planning
Commission heard testimony from Dave Wuellner, a property owner on Twin Island,
who was opposed to the size ofthe proposed accessory structure. He felt 576 square feet
was excessive, and most property owners were able to stay under 120 square feet. The
Planning Commission also heard testimony from John Meyer who stated the square
footage was necessary because the size of the cabins is getting larger, and some people
have more toys than others.
The Planning Commission held a lengthy discussion on the size of the accessory
structures. Some Commissioners felt these structures should be limited to 12' by 12'
while others thought it could be larger. The Commission compromised on 240 square
feet, based on the following factors:
. 240 square feet is large enough to accommodate what is used on the island during
the summer, such as water skis and lawn mowers.
. There are no paved roads on the island, so there should be no motor vehicles.
Large boats should be stored off the island.
. Larger accessory structures would fundamentally change the density and the
character of the island. This amendment does not apply to just one person, but to
every property owner on the island.
. Larger accessory structures would require the removal of more trees.
. Concerns about the amount of impervious surface on the island.
The City Council considered the proposed amendment on June 4,2001. The Council
voted to approve the amendment to allow accessory structures no larger than 240 square
feet, based on the Planning Commission's recommendation and the following rationale:
. Twin Island is a very unique piece of property with just seasonal cabins.
. Garages similar to those on the mainland are not necessary since the accessory
structures on the island should be needed only for minimal storage.
. There is no vehicular traffic on the island so a 240 square foot accessory structure
should be sufficient.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI I I306.doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2006
As with any City Ordinance, the purpose of the Twin Island regulations is to enhance the
health, safety and welfare of the general population ofthe City. At the same time, the
ordinance must consider the property rights of all property owners.
An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow a larger garage size would apply to all
the property owners on Twin Island. When the Planning Commission and the Council
weighed the Meyers desire to build a 576 square foot accessory building (now 832
square feet) against the impact on the island should all property owners decide to build an
accessory building of this size, they felt the potential impact to the island was just too
great. There are few opportunities to build additional cabins on the island, while any
owner of an existing cabin could build an accessory structure of some sort. This would
impact the trees on the island, the impervious surface and the general look of the island.
It is possible to amend the ordinance to allow a larger accessory building on Twin Island.
An amendment of this type is a policy question to be ultimately determined by the
Council.
Perez asked if the impervious surface requirement was different on the island.
Fleming questioned the floor area of the Meyer's principal structure. Kansier responded
she did not know however the Meyers were present to answer the question during the
public hearing.
Fleming asked if staff knew the square foot dimension of the area between the principle
structure and the rear lot line. Kansier responded it would be based on a lot by lot basis.
Some residents have larger lots.
Fleming also asked what the dimensions of the proposed structure would be. Kansier did
not have the information.
Comments from the Public:
John and Linda Meyer, Prior Lake seasonal cabin address - 3313 Twin Island Circle,
presented the Twin Island plat with 64 lots. The floor dimensions of their cabin are
24'x32' for a total of768 square feet. Meyer stated they supported staffs
recommendation to treat (Twin) Island property owners equally regarding the maximum
accessory structure size and height as the wonderful mainland neighbors. Meyer asked
the Commissioners to support the Island property owners to ensure their human rights as
well as their property rights. Meyer pointed out the 20 foot private driveway. Their
property is the highest elevation on the Island. Weather, crime and ordinance consistency
in Prior Lake will be his three main themes.
Weather in Prior Lake - There are significant climate changes in Prior Lake. Meyer
explained the seasons are the same on the Island as the mainland. It would be nice and
neat to store personal items in a garage. Whether your home is on the mainland or the
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI I I306.doc
3
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2006
Island, the maximum size for an accessory structure should be the same. Most homes on
the mainland have 2 to 3 car garages.
Crime - Crime exists in Prior Lake and we need to be proactive rather than reactive.
With growth comes crime. Criminals see growth as opportunities. The number one crime
facing residents is theft. How can residents protect themselves from theft? Meyer went
on to explain criminal activities and opportunities. Meyer said he would like to keep his
personal items locked in a garage the same as mainland residents.
Consistency of Ordinances in Prior Lake - the City must maintain consistency of
ordinances for all residents. The setback and impervious surface regulations are the same
on the Island as the mainland. When it comes to accessory structure size it is not the
same. Meyer is asking for consistency with the same maximum size accessory structures
(garages) for the Island as it is for the mainland.
Commissioner Fleming questioned (the Meyers) ifthey knew the square foot area
between the principal structure and the rear lot line. Meyer stated he owns Lots 43, 44,
and 45 on the other side of the driveway they own Lots 61, 62 and 64. The total square
footage of Lots 61, 62 and 64 is 12,604 total square feet.
Fleming questioned if they had the same aggregate dimensions for Lots 43, 44 and 45.
Meyer responded he did not have it with him.
Fleming asked what the proposed garage dimensions would be. Meyer responded it
would be 24'x 24' for a total of576 square feet.
Fleming said he was to assume Meyer did not build the structure in 2001 at 240 square
feet because he did not feel it was adequate. Meyer said he was told ifhe wanted to have
the garage he felt was sufficient he would have to build a second cabin behind his first
cabin and have a tuck-under garage. They made sure they met all the requirements and
the City issued a building permit in 2002. After he received the building permit they felt
it did not make sense to have a cabin with a tuck-under garage just to store their personal
belongings and decided not to proceed.
Joe Zieska, 5316 Hampton Street, was on the City Council when this ordinance
amendment was considered in 2001. He agrees with one statement by John Meyer - the
residents on Twin Island should have an accessory structure that is reasonable to support
the lifestyle on the Island. He disagrees with every other item pointed out by Mr. Meyer.
Mr. Meyer talks about consistency in ordinances - unfortunately there are many
differences within the City depending on land, use, etc. Look at the "C" zonings, there
are 5 different zones. It will depend what is going on with adjacent properties. Twin
Island has unique qualities different from the mainland. The City has differences in the
residential districts. Example, if they are in the Shoreland District or not.
Zieska mentioned three concerns by the Planning Commissioners and City Council back
in 2001. None ofthe issues have changed since 2001. There are still no automobiles out
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI I 1306.doc
4
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2006
on the Island. Two Hundred Forty square feet is adequate for seasonal items. If you go
with Mr. Meyer's theory then we should have year-round homes on Twin Island because
we allow them on the mainland. However, we realize the Island is unique. These are not
year-round homes. Zieska pointed out how much storage is used in a year-round home
with a two-car garage. The 240 square foot break down is certainly adequate for a
seasonal cabin.
Zieska also pointed out public safety. He is on the Prior Lake Fire Department but in no
way stated he is a spokesman for the Fire Department. If you have questions on his next
comment he suggested tabling the matter until you can talk to someone on staff from the
Fire Department. His concern is for fire protection on the Island. Realistically, their
response time to an emergency would not be adequate. They do not have a fire boat at
this time. There is potential for combustional materials stored in a garage (gas, paint,
etc.) Common sense tells him the larger the accessory structure, the more space you have
to store, the more you'll store. The odds are you are going to have something flammable
and could have a potential problem. Again, Zieska agrees with Mr. Meyer there should
be a storage facility however, he believes the 240 square feet is the correct size for an
accessory structure approved five years ago. Nothing has changed in the last five years to
justify increasing the square foot area of an accessory structure over the current 240
square foot area.
Earl Drangsveit, Island address - 3443 Twin Island, their main address is 14279 Rutgers
Street, questioned ifhe would be allowed to build an 832 square foot accessory structure
in his back yard if it met the impervious surface and setback requirements. Kansier said
it was possible. Drangsveit said he was shocked when he heard the allowed accessory
structure size. His cabin looks directly across the lake to the Willows development where
a $3.6 Million Dollar home is being constructed with a large back yard. Would he be able
to build an additional 832 square foot garage? He does not think we should change this
ordinance just for Twin Island residents, it should be changed for the entire City. In his
opinion, 832 square feet is more than anyone needs in the city limits of Prior Lake.
Drangsveit said he owns Lot 4 and no back lots. Some people own 2 or 3 lots, what's to
keep them from putting up an 832 square foot storage facility directly behind his cabin?
When the economy gets tough in years to come what is to keep residents from selling lots
off and leaving everyone has 832 foot garages? Maybe they can afford the cabin but not
the back lot with the garage. The taxes will kill them. Now someone else owns a back
lot with just an accessory building and they want to split it and add on a cabin or make
the accessory building into the prime cabin. The problem will snowball and the City
Council will be shooting themselves in the foot if they let this happen.
Drangsveit felt if someone needs to build a garage that big then they need to move out of
the City and put up a pole barn on 10 acres. He has no problem storing all his personal
items on the Island at the end ofthe season and has never had a problem with storage
sitting in his yard. He knows for a fact the $3.6 Million Dollar house keeps all their
docks, boats, boatlifts, jet skies and personal items on their shore year round. And so
does everyone else down the line. He would rather live on a lake and look at cattails.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI1 1306.doc
5
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2006
But he doesn't and Prior Lake has boatlifts and storage on the shore all year round. He
would like to keep the Island ordinance the same. If the proposed storage facility is
allowed it would be bigger than 80 percent of the island cabins. Just because someone
owns back lots today and they can build an accessory building, there can be problems in
the future. You don't know what is going to happen in the future. According to the
ordinance every single person in Prior Lake would be able to put up an 832 square foot
accessory shed in their back yard.
Mike Mills, owns Lots 1,2,3,29 and 36; his permanent residence is on Willow Beach
Trail. Mills agreed with Mr. Zieska and Mr. Draegsveit comments. The existing 240
square foot accessory structure would be enormous on the Island. He was astounded the
current ordinance is so ridiculously huge. He can't imagine filling it up with seasonal
storage. He would never store a boat on the Island - how would you get it in and out
without a car that is not allowed on the Island? Where is this going to end? Mills said he
likes to look out the back of his cabin and see trees. He cannot see any of his neighbors
thinking this (amendment) is okay. Having an 832 square foot building on the Island
would be like living in a city.
The public hearing was closed at 6:40 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. Question for staff - Heard from several people in the audience that they own a
number of lots on Twin Island. How often is 832 square feet going to apply on
the Island considering the setbacks and impervious surface? Kansier said she did
know all the cabin sizes. Individual lots probably average 7,000 square feet.
. Guessing the cabin size would be the most limiting factor with the regulations.
. What could happen if someone put an accessory structure on one lot and then
potentially selling it? Kansier explained a provision in the ordinance that applies
to riparian lots. It has been used on Inguadona Beach Circle and Oakland Beach
Trail. The ordinance requires the lots to be permanently combined.
Thanked all who commented on this issue.
. Likes the formula of the ordinance particularly the words "lesser of'.
. Interested to hear comments from fellow Commissioners.
. Leaning towards supporting.
Billington:
. Feels the zoning amendment as proposed is reasonable.
. Given the restrictions mentioned.
. Will support the amendment.
Perez:
. There has been talk of aesthetics and reasonableness. Those are going to be
different from person to person and their point of view.
. There is definitely property owner rights that we need to consider.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI I 1306.doc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2006
. There was also a discussion on consistency. Joe Zieska brought out my concerns.
The districts are different just as the seasonal and year-round homes are different.
. I would say they are not consistent and would wait to hear from other
Commissioners.
Fleming:
. Troubled by the 832 square feet and the 25% area between the principal structure
and the rear lot line. It's going to be all over the place. So then we get into the
subjective nature of what is aesthetically pleasing and what is consistent. In that
scenario we will not have consistency.
. Support the notion and thinking behind the ordinance but not in support of the
25% element of the proposed amendment.
Lemke:
. In no case would there be anything larger than the 832 square feet.
. What is staff s rationale for the 25% between the principal structure and rear lot
line? Kansier said the idea was to scale the average to the lot. If you have a
smaller lot we tried to keep the accessory structure more consistent with the size
of the lot. Kansier went on to demonstrate a potential situation.
. All setbacks and criteria have to be met.
. Kansier explained consistency is not necessarily a criteria. Things do get treated
different pointing out the differences in Commercial districts for example. The
City has standards to try and treat everyone the same but for various reasons
ordinances are not consistent. Not every lot is subject to the Shoreland
requirements. It is not a requirement for a zoning ordinance to be consistent.
. The accessory structures can also serve as the primary garage to a residence.
They are not necessarily a building in the back yard.
. Kansier also explained if you had an attached garage you would still be able to
build a detached garage.
. The previous Council came up with a formula, it's not right or wrong, it's a policy
as far as size, however I will support the amendment as presented.
Open Commissioner Comments:
Perez - Looking at the size, if it were consistent I could see it. I do not look at it as
consistent. It would be somewhere between the recommendation ( square footage) and
where it currently is, not where it currently stands. It is not consistent. I am also putting
reasonableness in with the consistency. That is from my point of view.
Fleming asked if any vegetation will have to be removed and is there a restoration plan
on the Meyer lot. Kansier said they do not have any information at this time.
Ringstad - Looking at the Island, there doesn't look like there is a huge difference
(square footage) in the lot sizes. By and large they are about the same. Kansier said he
was generally correct, several people own more than one lot.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI I 1306.doc
7
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2006
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Billington, Ringstad and Lemke. Nay by Perez and
Fleming. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on December 4, 2006.
B. #EP 0 -182 and 183 VIVUS Architecture and Design is requesftng a
Variance fro the Zoning Ordinance for a reduction in the number.6f required
parking stalls a d a Conditional Use Permit to allow motor vehicle/service and
repair in the C-4 General Business) Zoning District. This prop~rty is located at
16783 Toronto Av ue.
Planning Coordinator anette Moore presented the Planning Report dated November 13,
2006, on file in the offic of the City Planning Department.
VIVUS Architecture and D ign is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Variance on
behalf of Midwest Transmiss n to allow a motor vehicle service and repair use to be
located at 16783 Toronto Ave e. The site is currently occupied by a 5,162 square foot
vacant building and parking area:", The property is ~pned C-4 (General Business). Motor
Vehicle Service and Repair uses art permitted wi~h a Conditional Use Permit in the C-4
district, subject to the conditions listed in the Plarining Report.
\
In 2002 the City purchased approxima:t~ly 7,958 square feet of the subject property to
provide land area for the creation ofPa~ Nicollet Avenue (previously referred to as the
Ring Road). At that time, a portion ofth~ parking area was lost to the future roadway.
,Y
No modifications are proposed to increase or alter the footprint of the existing building.
The applicant will be updating the interior of the building to bring the structure into
compliance with the International Bliilding Code. In addition, the applicant has indicated
the structure will be painted and the trash enclosure replaced.
The interior configuration and qse of the building Will be largely unchanged from how it
has been used by its most rece,it tenants. The applicant is proposing to use 693 square
feet of the building for offic~/and accessory uses (kit~henette, bathrooms, and a
waiting/reception area) an4;4,357 square feet of the building for seven service bays and
accessory uses. II .
Overall, staff believes e Conditional Use Permit request tp allow motor vehicle service
and repair on the site s consistent with the intent of the C-4~Oning District, provided
conditions of appro 1 are met. Based upon the findings set rth in this report, staff
supports approval fthe Conditional Use Permit. In order to et the above-listed
criteria, the PI mg staff recommends the following conditions:
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI I I306.doc
8