Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-10 PC Agenda PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 City Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Approval of Minutes: A. September 13, 2010 3. Public Hearings: A. Consider an amendment to Section 1102.1103(5) of the City Zoning Ordinance related to restaurants and clubs and lodges with liquor in the "C-2" (General Business District). 4. Old Business: 5. New Business: 6. Announcements and Correspondence: 7. Adjournment: L:A10 FII.EStlO PLANNIlS6 CONIlVII55IONI1 O A6ENDA5~09Z110 Agendedoc Planning Gommission Meeting Minutes September 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 Call to Order: Commissioner Fleming called the September 13, 2010, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:04 pp The Minutes from the August 9, 2010, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 3. Public Hearing: A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1102.1103(5} OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE TO RESTAURANTS AND CLUBS AND LODGES WITH LIQUOR IN THE "C-2" (GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT}. p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Howley, and Fleming, Community Development Director Danette Parr, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler, Planner Jeff Matzke, and Development Services Assistant Joe 5ortland. Commissioners Ringstad and Perez were absent. 2. A royal of Minutes: r the entire Planning Commission be Ordinance Amendment be pulled from was properly published in the Prior Lake feet from the C-2 General Business ing meeting. Billington moved to move Howley VOTE: Ayes by Billin 27, 2010. would like to comment on the motion to move the ordinance No GTON AND SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO MOVE THE PUBLIC NDMENT TO SECTION 1102.1103(5) OF THE CITYZONING AND CLUBS AND LODGES WITH LIQUOR IN THE "C-2" UNTIL SEPTEMBER 27. 2010. and Fleming. The motion carried. B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE HICKORY SHORES PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT Matzke and Poppler presented the request for an amendment to the Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for the Hickory Shores subdivision. The amendment to the Planned Unit Development for 1St Addition would allow detached single family homes rather than attached townhomes. The Preliminary Plat for the 2"d and 3rd Additions would increase the number of single family lots from the previously approved 43 lots to 45 lots. L:'~,10 FILES110 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES1IvIN091310.doc Planning Gommission Meeting Minutes September 13, 2010 Questions by the Commissioners: Howley asked if any neighborhood parks are proposed. Matzke answered that there is an existing park, Heritage Park, nearby and the future Golden Pond Property would have a future park. Howley asked if there should be two motions: one far the PUD Amendment and one for the Preliminary Plat. Matzke agreed that there should be two motions. Poppler answered that inner-connectivity Howley asked if the three lots on the south sid utilities will not be constructed until the lots are Poppler answered that the utilities will be Howley asked if the city is burdening the property to tl temporarily located with a temporary pond in Outlot A. Poppler be discus boring lots was not taken into consideration. will be served with utilities, or if the three south lots are developed. in regards to stormwater being Golden Pond Property, stormwater ponds will Howley commented that the wetland buffer should be in an easement, or buffers should be located in Outlots, due to the city doing this for stormwater management. The city should consider using conservation easements for stormwater management. Billington asked if Matzke has met with the Heritage Landing Townhome residents regarding the project. Matzke answered that he has had a few telephone conversations with the residents of the Heritage Landing Townhome Association. They were notified as part of the required public notice process which notifies property owners within 500' of the development. Billington asked about the tree buffer mentioned in the letter from Heritage Landing Townhome Association. Matzke said he did not speak with the author of the letter specifically regarding the tree buffer. L:\10 FILES110 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES1IvIN091310.doc 2 Planning Gommission Meeting Minutes September 13, 2010 A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Billington, Howley and Fleming. The motion carried. The Public Hearing began at 6:41 p.m. Comments from the Public: Kevin Clark, Vice President of K. Hovnanian Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Eden Prairie, spoke on Due to conditions changing, and the new pipeline plan, changes were the plat. behalf on K. Hovnanian Homes. Clark presented a short history on the K Hovnanian Homes company. Clark acknowledged that because the subdivision was originally planned with the proposed Golden Ponds subdivision to the south being constructed concurrently, there are still issues which need to be solved, such as the final layout of the stormwater ponds. Adjustments were made to the lots of Hickory Shores in an effort to accommodate the outlots. The construction timeline anticipates completing units for development of the second addition will be driven by the to protect required for preview of 2011. The developer ownership. The developer wants be approved, prior to ownership of the land. ~I of their proposed requests before the City. homeowners last week to discuss the current per would require approval of the HOA to ands the units, known as Lot 39. The for the HOA. A general insurance policy common interest. would be two stories with two car garages known as the .m 1,748- to 2,120. Base prices would be starting at of $250,000. There are 144 variations being proposed ding, brick, stone, and other accents. They would be an association. The proposed homes would have The proposed homes on the single family lots in the central and southern areas of the development Clark explained that the reason for the lot adjustment was a result of the platting of the temporary pond. Collaboration with the Golden Pond property owner may allow for a joint pond venture rather than the would consist of the Lakeland Series of models. These models are two story homes with three-four car garages Additional options would include choices for increased exterior and interior enhancements such as additional brick and stone exteriors and landscape packages. These homes range from 2,290- 3,220 square feet. Base prices for the homes may range from $285,000 - $345,000 with an average final price of $350,000. Clark answered that the reason the PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plat are being requested together is because the seller's agreement required K. Hovnanian to purchase all three of the phases, hence the combination of the requests. L:'~,10 FILES110 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES1IvIN091310.doc Planning Gommission Meeting Minutes September 13, 2010 designed temporary pond but the temporary pond provides a short term option to handle the storm water. The three final "ghost lots" in the 3rd Addition on the south side of the subdivision will be developed contingent on the economy and timing of lot sales. Billington asked Clark what his opinion is regarding the neighboring properties. Clark answered that this has been the number one question from the beginning because they are proposing something different. It would be neutral, at worse, for new housing stock to be developed next door to the existing homeowners. He feels that what is being propose d is appropriate and safe for the marketplace. Building out the community, with housing stock that will a ppreciate, will be beneficial for the community and existing homes. He acknowledged that the homes w ill be costing less than what is for sale in the Heritage Landing subdivision, but that the square footage o f the attached Heritage Landing townhomes is greater than K Hovnanian's proposed detached tow nhomes and therefore comparable home values between the two types of units may not be appro priate. Fleming asked Clark if he feels K. Hovnanian addressed Clark clarified that he met with the homeowners of the Landing, and he did not see the letter from Heritage La to contact Heritage Landing. Clark explained that a Hui the development and he feels that the existing buffer is Fleming asked if Clark would be open to d wi II of the Heritage townhomes, n Horning, so he trees were prE nding owners Landing. ;had time between levelaping and attempting to revitalize :ape buffer is substantial. Scott requested and Heritage Landing be provided. He also Matzke answered that the townhomes will not Chang approved. ned that tf- tlly been a Scott Poppler Scott explained that I Hovnanian, but would be improved. r f low the He .a me. Because the property lines for the getting closer than what was originally significantly different. The location of a retaining wall directed toward Heritage Landing. direction will not be altered from what was originally approved. in development and that he understands the predicament of K. that the landscape buffer between Heritage Landing and Hickory Shores Kate Leslie, 4045 Heritage Lane, said that she lives along the tree line. The tree cover that they originally had previous to the development of Hickory Shares has been reduced, and it no longer is appealing. She said that the proposed townhomes are taller than what they originally were expecting, instead of the ramblers which were originally approved. She said the Heritage Landing home prices have been affected by the downturn in the economy, but they would appreciate an improved landscape buffer. L:'~,10 FILES110 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES1IvIN091310.doc Planning Gommission Meeting Minutes September 13, 2010 Frank Fertal, 3911 O'Brien Court, stated that he welcomes the new building. He stated that when they purchased their home, they were advertised as premier homes. He had concerns regarding the homeowner's association, and he does not know what will happen in respect to the single family homes. The original builder failed to maintain the original landscaping, and is wondering would will happen to the common areas when K. Hovnanian takes over ownership. He understands that the economy has suffered, but he is concerned about the architectural standards and the quality of the proposed homes. Heather Pilakowski, 3929 O'Brien Court, stated that she was frustr with the proposed future developer. She has concerns regarding the recognizes that they paid more for the existing homes than the home for the original builder to install the amenities, and she hopes that the into consideration. Connie Roesler, 170x9 Kennett Curve, is one of the town She met with Kevin Clark and K Hovnanian last week and stated that they bought their townhome as a foreclosure prc accordingly; however, they expected a townhouse commun She believes that her townhome will look significantly differE constructed, and is concerned that they will face difficulty in townhome. She is also concerned about Julian Davis, 4057 Heritage Lane, will be a futurE additional building will occur as a result of the proK changes being proposed will affect the price of sqr development will maintain the road. Davis said the asked if traffic control has been given consideratio builder has the financial leverage to undertake the developer hold a A MOTION WAS MADE HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by ng closed Commiss Howley asked if Matzke answered that driveways will be indet .h the residents in the p.m. of the ho r in Her Invents. He welcomes that concerned that the ge. He asked if the homeowners in the ~ BY HOWLEY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC fic flow into the area may be a concern. He ;viewing the requests. He asked if the He said it may be beneficial for the Landing development. The motion carried. designed to have shared driveways. will all be front-loading garages, and that the majority of the separate driveways. Howley asked about the limited grading which will occur, and if any of the mature trees in that region will be removed during grading. Matzke answered that the mature trees will not be affected by the proposed grading. Replacement trees, which are not mature, may be affected and removed during the grading, but will be replaced. lack of communication ral standards, and i today. It took a while the homes will be taken rs in Hickory Shores 15t Addition. their communication. She eceived a discount on the price re single family units are when they attempt to sell the association. L:'~,10 FILES110 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES1IvIN091310.doc Planning Gommission Meeting Minutes September 13, 2010 Howley stated that the change in the development will not be any different, from a landscape buffer aspect, than what was originally approved. He believes that the developer should be able to appease the neighboring residents by planting several more trees. Howley asked Kevin Clark if the smaller townhomes would be constructed in the large home areas. Clark answered that they will only be building the small detached homes where attached townhomes were approved. K. Hovnanian will be constructing the homes with the architectural designs presented to the Planning Commission. Howley asked if they have an attached townhome plan. safeguards will protect the community. He while the project may not raise the property tax-base. He believes that the developer sl Billington stated that he supports the amen Fleming supports the pr~ meet with the neighbors. the developer. ndment. H ~qed the re Fleming asked any construction which occurs will be an asset, and t will stabilize them and will be an asset to the city open to discussing concerns with the neighbors. I that he strongly encourages the developer to of the community to communicate with staff and he predicts the units to become sold and occupied. Clark answered that they are projecting two townhomes and two single family homes per month, for the first eighteen months, and then hopefully transitioning to three homes of each building product type per month. However he added that the market would influence, positively or negatively, the actually number of sold units. Fleming stated that he does not expect the developer to build units they cannot afford in respect to architectural features within the homes but he would like to see comparable architectural elements as in the existing homes in the development. Clark answered that there are no covenants specified for architectural elements by the original developer, but rather representations of the architectural intentions. Clark stated in answer to a previous question that K. Hovnanian Homes is financially stable and would become the titled owner of the development upon purchasing the project. Fleming stated that he encourages dialogue to occur between the developer and the neighbors. Howley asked about the homeowners association within the southern single family homes. L:'~,10 FILES110 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES1IvIN091310.doc Planning Gommission Meeting Minutes September 13, 2010 Clark answered that covenants regarding the existing single family units apply to general enforcement standards, as well as maintenance to the common areas. Taking ownership of the existing units would give the developer "declarent" control and they would be willing to meet with the existing homeowners to work on any concerns regarding the covenants. Howley asked staff regarding condition #4 in the planning report is redundant. Matzke answered that Howley is correct in that the comment is also included within the listed staff memorandums, but was placed as a separate condition for clarification. The original placement of pipes is in some conservation areas and that the conservation of trees would be taken into account if any unforeseen displacement of trees was proposed. Howley stated that he supports the amendment and would like to add a condition of approval that the driveways for the detached homes have a shared driveway instead of a separate driveway. Clark answered that separated driveways enhance the detached units, which also results in less impervious surface and an increase in grass. Clark believes that the streetscape will be more appealing. X: Howley clarified that the idea was in regards to engineering. Poppler acknowledged that the driveway did not have any strong opinion on whethE A MOTION WAS MADE AMENDMENT. VOTE: Ayes by A MOTION WAS MADE PRELIMINARY PLAT. BY HOWLEY TO APPROVE THE PU D The motion passed unanimously. D SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO APPROVE THE VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Billington, Howley. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Old Business: None 5. New Business: None 6. Announcements and Correspondence: Matzke noted that the proposal will be going before the City Council on September 20, 2010. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Joe Sortland, Development Services Assistant L:'~,10 FILES110 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES1IvIN091310.doc O~ PRIp~ u r'" 4 64 6 Dakota Sts~eet SE PriorLake> RAIN 553"2 M~NNES~~P PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: 3A SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1102.1103(5) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PREPARED BY: DANETTE M. PARR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEARING: X YES NO DATE: SEPTEMBER 27.2010 INTRODUCTION: In response to concerns related to economic development and the City having limited locations to accommodate restaurants which may serve liquor, the City Council directed staff to review Section 1102.1103 of the City Code and prepare amendments for consideration by the Planning Commission (June 7, 2010 City Council minutes attached). The purpose of this agenda item is for the Planning Commission to hold the public hearing related to this amendment and to make a recommendation to the City Council. DISCUSSION The G2 District is located in six areas throughout the City and collectively is approximately 149 acres (map attached). Areas zoned C-2 include: Crossroads (Commerce ! TH 13), Boudins (Boudins Ave ! TH13), Gateway (TH 13 ! CR 44! Franklin Trail), Wilds (CR 83 ! CR 42), Fountain Hills Business Park (Pike Lake Trail! CR 42), South Lake Village area (Park Nicollet AveITH 13), and Deerfield (CR 21 !Revere Way). Under current regulations, if a prospective restaurant, club, or lodge serves liquor and is located in the G2 District of the City, the establishment must comply with the following: 1. Must meet all Zoning Code requirements, including the conditions detailed in Section 1102.1103(5) of the City Code (detailed later as a part of this report}. 2. Must have a Conditional Use Permit granted for the use and be able to meet any additional conditions the Planning Commission finds appropriate (and City Council in cases of appeals). 3. Must be located over 300 feet from a church or school (MN State Statute requirement that applies to establishments that sell liquor in all Zoning Districts); 4. Must have a liquor license granted by the City Council (the Council may also place additional conditions as part of granting the license). Phone952.447.9~00 1 Fax 952.447.4245iwww.cityofpriorlake.com Section 1102.1100 of the Zoning Ordinance regulates C-2 land uses as permitted uses, uses permitted with conditions, and uses permitted by a Conditional Use Permit. In the case of restaurants, clubs, and lodges with liquor, they are permitted by a Conditional Use Permit and regulated with the following conditions: Section 1102.1103(5) Restaurants and Clubs and Lodges with Liquor. Conditions: a. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property located in an "R"Use District. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A bufferyard, as determined by subsection 1107 2003, shall be installed and maintained along any abutting property in an "R"Use District. The C-2 (General Business) Zoning District is the largest commercial district in Prior Lake. For that reason, when a prospective business looks to locate in the City, the subject site commonly involves property in the C-2 District. Approximately 97 of the total 149 acres of the C-2 District have parcels within 100 feet of residentially zoned property, which can create challenges in relation to locating restaurants that may serve liquor. ANALYSIS: As a part of evaluating all aspects of the issue, Ciiy staff has sought to determine the rationale that was used to establish setback/separation requirements for restaurants, clubs, and lodges serving liquor and those of residential areas. After reviewing files, talking to staff involved in the Ordinance update at that time (1999) and talking with the Planning Commission Chair from that time, the following reasons were noted: A 100 foot setback from the establishment serving the alcohol and residential areas was chosen as a reasonable separation distance to mitigate possible negative impacts (noise, etc). At that time, many communities in the metropolitan area had similar setback requirements. A recent review of Zoning Codes from various communities across the metro area revealed that while most communities still specify setback/separation requirements from commercial outdoor patio areas to nearby residential areas, many no longer specify a required setback from establishments that serve alcohol within a commercial building (in a general business district, similar to the C-2 District in Prior Lake) and those of residential areas. However, two of the communities that continue to contain setback/separation language in their Zoning Codes are Shakopee and Savage, which state the following: Shakopee (Section 1317): The CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District states: If serving liquor, shall not be located on a lot or parcel of land adjacent to any low density residential R1A urban residential R1B or Old Shakopee residential R1 C zones; if located within 100 feet of a residential use shall limit its hours of operation to between 5:00 am and 10:10 pm. Savage (Section 152.097): Bar, nightclub or similar liquorestablishment. Any use that generates more than 50% of its revenues from the sale of alcohol shall require approval of a conditional use permit, pursuant to 152.031 when located closer than 500 feet to any existing school, church, day care facility or residential use. The distance shall be measurec from the nearest property line of the school, church, day care facility or residential area to the main entrance of the liquor establishment. (It should be noted that Prior Lake has previously had conditions related to the percentage of revenue from the sale of food versus liquor but found that there was noway to adequately track that indicator. Savage has indicated that no establishments currently utilize this aspect since they are unable to accurately track that standard). In recent years, the City has worked with potential restaurant owners who were interested in locating in various vacant buildings in Prior Lake. However, in many of these cases, the setback distance requirements from the adjacent residential areas kept the project from locating in the desired location. In some of these cases the restaurant ultimately located in other communities. As the Planning Commission is aware, many of the commercial areas in Prior Lake are smaller in area and "shoe-horned in" around residential areas. For that reason, in certain areas where commercial and residential land uses are directly adjacent to one another the Ciiy Code needs to be sensitive to this fact. However, in cases where a restaurant serves food as its primary purpose and liquor is only a secondary offering, circumstances may exist that would allow for consideration. Some of the circumstances Ciiy staff has considered and will discuss with the Planning Commission include the following: Position of the building entrance in relation to the residential receiver (i.e.: the entrance facing the opposite direction of where the residential district is located). Noise generators (such as parking) being blocked by physical barriers such as the commercial building. Changes in physical topography between the commercial and residential uses. Access points located in such a way that they will not generate traffc in the adjacent residential neighborhood at the least desirable times. Limitations on hours for the sale of alcohol, meant to exclude bar/tavern uses in these areas. Code language revising where the setback is measured from. It should be noted that any changes to Section 1102.1103(5) of the Code would apply to all restaurants, clubs, and lodges in the C-2 (General Business) Use District. For that reason, and the fact that each C-2 site is unique in respect to layout and physical features, it's difficult to fnd conditions that would adequately mitigate impacts in every situation. The required Conditional Use Permit will assist in providing conditions to mitigate site specifc impacts to each residential area. However, in some situations, such as a restaurant with a bar component that remains open late at night into the early morning hours, there may not be adequate conditions that could be applied to adequately mitigate undesirable impacts. In these cases, limiting the hours for the sale of liquor may more adequately address these concerns. ISSUES: As the City of Prior Lake has continued to grow, so have citizen's requests for the City to actively work to attract local restaurants that community members can frequent. In order to facilitate this economic development, while also protecting the integrity of adjacent residential areas, the City needs to assure that Zoning regulations are not overly restrictive and thus putting the City at a competitive disadvantage to other communities. One possible way staff recommends addressing this concern would be to amend Section 1102.1103(5) of the Code as follows: Restaurants and Clubs and Lodges with Liquor. Conditions: a. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Th.. h~dWl.,.. h..~~~l.,.. 4h.. ~ ~h~ll M 1....~4...J ~ ..f 7M f ..4 fr.. ", ~ .....4~. 1....~4...J rn ,,., ~~o~~ 11~,, nr~f,r,.f If the building housing the use is located within 100 feet of any property located in an "R" Use District , liquor may only be served from the hours of 7 am to 10 pm on Sunday thru Thursday and from 7 am to 11 pm on Friday and Saturday. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A bufferyard, as determined by subsection 1107 2003, shall be installed and maintained along any abutting property in an "R"Use District. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FINDINGS 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. There is a public need for the amendment. The proposed amendment would create economic development opportunities while also protecting adjacent residential areas. 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. Objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan include: • Encourage a diversifed economic base and broad range of employment opportunities. • Promote sound land use; and • Enact and maintain policies and ordinances to ensure the public safety, health, and welfare. Purposes of the Zoning Ordinance include: Provide for compatibility of different land uses by segregating, controlling, and regulating unavoidable nuisance producing uses. Maintain a tax base necessary to promote the economic welfare of the Ciiy by insuring optimum values for properly in the Ciiy. The proposed amendment strives to accomplish these objectives and purposes by strengthening the existing ordinance, and by providing incentives and alternative methods for development of establishment which serve liquor. 3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State andlor Federal requirements. This amendment is consistent with federal and state laws. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan and the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommends approval. ALTERNATIVES: Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with changes specifed by the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specifc purpose. TION: The staff recommends Alternative #1. ATTACHMENT: City Council minutes -June 7, 2010 Zoning Map showing C-2 areas with 100 ft buffer June 7, 2010 Council Minutes: Consider Approval of a Report Recommending Amendment to Prior Lake City Code Section 1102.1103 Uses Permitted by Conditions Use (5) Restaurant, Clubs and Lodges with Liquor. City Manager Boyles spoke of the provision in'the City Code regarding distance from any property in the R use district. Gave examples of businesses iri commercial zones, such as restaurants, that would not be allowed to apply for a liquor license due to confusion in administering the existing ordinance. Commented that the ordinance does not necessarily address where noise could becoming from such as parking lots or front doors; nor does it address where the receptors would be. Comments: Hedberg: Stated that the Planning Commission and staff should focus on protections that should be achieved, get public input and provide clarity. Agreed that focus could be on where there are entrances to buildings and parking lots are as that is where noise would emanate from. Would like to see businesses find a way to develop in the community. Seeks less ambiguity and more consistency in the codes, Mlllar: Commented that the City needs to be mindful of the type of businesses we want to attract, especially in areas that are near to residential properties. Restaurants where food is the priority, rasher than a bar, would be preferred. Erickson: Added that a good example is the Cove. Myser: Concurred with comments to have intent of the code clarified, as well as the opportunity to develop more business in the City. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT A PUBLIC HEARING, VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg and Millar. The motion carried. City of Prior Lake Minnesota N 2010 W ~ E S ZONING USE DISTRICTS 100' Buffer from C-2 Zoning District R-S: Rural Subdivision Residential R-1: Low Density Residential R-2: Medium Density Residential - R-3: High Density Residential - C-2: General Business PUD: Planned Unit Development LAKE City of Prior Lake GIS X:1Planningl0rd_AmendlC-2 Residential Buffer.mxd ~~ /% V Thls drawing Is neithera legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information and data from various city, county and state offices and othersources. This document should be used for reference only. No representation is made that features presented accurately reflect true location. The City of Prior Lake, or any other entity from which data was 8 obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein ~ ~ ~~~ If discrepancies are found, please contact the Gity of Prior Lake.