HomeMy WebLinkAbout1028022.
3.
4.
Bo
Eo
e
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case #02-110 Mark Danes, is requesting a variance from the average shoreland setback,
a variance from the minimum 15 foot side yard setback separation between buildings on
adjacent nonconforming lots, and a variance from the side yard setback required when a
building wall exceeds 50 feet in length for the construction of a single family dwelling
for the property located at 16308 Park Avenue.
Case #02-113 Randy and Patrice Simpson a variance from the 25 foot front yard setback
for the construction of an addition to a single family dwelling for the property located at
2933 Spring Lake Road.
Case #02-106 Consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance concerning the height and
opacity of fences on comer lots.
Case #02-115 Consider amendments to Sections 1101.1000 (Definitions of Temporary
Uses) and 1101.510 (Allowable Temporary Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Case #02-114 Consider an amendment to Section 1102.1105 (Dimensional Standards in
the C-3 District) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Old Business:
Case #02-112 Ray Brandt is requesting consideration for a final PUD plan consisting of
28.19 acres to be developed with 148 townhouse units and open space. This property is
located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and TH 13, on the north
side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\O2FILES\O2planning ¢omm\02pcagenda~AG 102802.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Dh. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
- PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to
all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to
speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new
information.
Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter.
Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible
except under rare occasions.
The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter.
Thank you.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
NAME
ADDRESS
L:\DEPTWORK\B LANKFRIVIkPHSIGNUP.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the October 28, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Ringstad and Stamson,
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff and Recording Secretary
Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Absent
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the October 14, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4. Consent:
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case #02-110 Mark Danes, is requesting a variance from the average
shoreland setback, a variance from the minimum 15 foot side yard setback
separation between buildings on adjacent nonconforming lots, and a variance from
the side yard setback required when a building wall exceeds 50 feet in length for the
construction of a single family dwelling for the property located at 16308 Park
Avenue.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated October 28, 2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
Mark Danes (representing David and Sheryl Colucci) is requesting variances from the
zoning ordinance for the construction of a single family dwelling on property zoned R-1
(Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) located at 16308 Park
Avenue (Lot 11, Lakeside Park). The property is guided Urban Low/Medium Density
Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is a riparian lot, and is
served by a private driveway. A seasonal dwelling, constructed in 1920, currently
occupies the site.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN 102802.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
In order to construct the proposed dwelling, the following variances are required:
A 7.3 foot variance from the required 65.2 foot average shoreland setback to
allow a 57.9 foot shoreland setback.
A 2.6 foot variance from the required 15 foot separation required between
structures on adjacent nonconforming lots to a allow a 12.4 foot separation.
A 6.3 foot variance from the 13.6 foot side yard setback required when a building
wall exceeds 50 feet in length to allow a 7.3 foot setback.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was noticed about the variance requests
and recommended denial of the shoreland setback variance because the dwelling can be
shifted to east to maintain the average shoreland setback.
Staff recommended denial of the 6.2 foot variance from the 65.2 foot shoreland setback
and the 2.6 foot variance from the 15 foot side yard separation setback, based upon the
following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant the granting of variances.
2. A reasonable use can be constructed on the site without these two variances.
Staff recommended approval of the 3.6 foot variance from the 13.6 foot additional
setback required when a building wall exceeds 50 feet in length, with the following
conditions:
1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of
recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
3. The driveway shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width.
4. Impervious surface shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area.
Comments from the Public:
Mark Danes, Danes Construction, 1100 Butterfly Lane, Jordan, noted the survey
indicates a potential 12 foot porch which is really for a deck. Danes pointed out the 65
foot setback is not where the shoreline exists at this time. The applicants would not be
opposed to reducing the size of the deck to meet the 65 foot setback. Danes felt they
could make the 10 foot driveway work as well.
Atwood questioned the side yard separation. Danes explained the problem with the
existing neighbors' setbacks and structures that were 5 feet from the property line.
Stamson clarified there was a 15 foot separation between the homes.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN102802.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
Kirchoff stated the structure setback was 7.3 feet on the south side and 5.1 from the
garage to the lot line. The neighbor's house is 10 feet from the lot line and the applicant
is proposing an additional 7.3 feet from the line.
Criego questioned the straight wall of 96 feet on the south side. Danes said it was
actually 72 feet with the garage. The applicants are not opposed to jogging it over 2 feet.
The ordinance requires an additional setback for anything over 50 feet.
Stamson suggested moving the garage over. Kirchoff explained the problems with
shifting the structure.
Danes pointed out the neighbors have their structures at the 5 foot setback line restricting
the applicants from building.
Dave and Sheryl Colucci stated they would work with the City in anyway and would like
to live on the lake as he has been a resident for many years.
Bruce Lind, 16316 Park Avenue, said he has some concerns with the proposed house.
The space between his existing house and proposed house will be approximately 17.3 feet
meaning most the windows on the south will be facing directly into his master bedroom
and bath. He also had a concern with the proposed garage being 10.6 feet between the
two garages. Another issue was his retaining wall. By digging a walkout, there is
potential for wall failure. He is also concerned with the elevations and runoff. Lind felt
the applicant's proposed house will be looking down into his house.
Mark Danes addressed Lind's concern for grading.
Criego pointed out the concern for runoff.
Danes continued to explain the walkout grading and slope, as well as the proposed house
plan. Lind questioned the height of the windows. Danes responded.
The hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego: · Agreed with staffthe average shore line setback should be at 65.2 feet. The
applicant is willing to do that.
· The 72 length building seems to be incredibly long. Recommend moving the
garage over a couple of feet just to break it up. That will solve the 15 foot span
between houses, which is important for safety/fire issues.
· Move the garage 2.6 feet to eliminate the variance.
· Approve the length of the building with the variance.
· Make the driveway 10 feet.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 102802.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
· Usually the plat has the drainage plan on it. This doesn't seem to have it.
Kirchoffpointed out the directional arrows indicating drainage on the survey.
· Kansier explained this was a preliminary drawing. It will be more specific at the
time the permit is submitted.
· Recommended a condition to put in gutters to help the neighbor with runoff.
Atwood: · In favor of the variance to retain the shoreland setback at 65 feet.
· Mr. Danes has shown sensitivity to the neighbors.
· Continue to be sensitive to the retaining wall.
· Agreed with Criego on the 10 foot driveway and the 2.6 garage movement.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with the Commissions that moving the garage over 2.6 feet should solve
the variance request.
· Legitimate concern with the runoff. Engineering would not approve until the
runoff issue was addressed. Kansier responded the engineering department is
pretty conscientious about making sure the drainage will work. They also do
inspections on a regular basis to make sure there is no runoff or damage to the
adjacent property.
· The permit process will take care of the neighbor's concern.
Stamson: · Agreed with the Commissioners. The 65.2 foot setback is easily obtainable on
this lot, so there is no hardship.
· By pushing the garage over, the applicant can eliminate the need for a 2.6 foot
variance without any major impact on the design. No hardship.
· There is a hardship with the 3rd request. By moving the structure from the south to
the north does not solve any problem.
· Agreed with Criego to add gutters as a condition.
· Questioned the boathouse on the site plan. Kirchoffresponded there is not a
provision in the ordinance that requires it be removed. But as long as they don't
touch the boathouse, it can remain. It was also included in the impervious
surface.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO BRING
BACK A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ON THE
SHORELAND SETBACK THAT IT BE AT THE 65.2 FOOT AVERAGE. A MOTION
TO INCLUDE APPROVING A 6.3 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE LENGTH OF THE
BUILDING. AND A MOTION DENYING A 2.6 FOOT VARIANCE ON THE
SOUTH END OF THE PROPERPTY. ALSO INCLUDE THE CONDITIONS TO
ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY AND ADD GUTTERS ON THE NORTH AND
SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~vlN102802.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
B. Case #02-113 Randy and Patrice Simpson a variance from the 25 foot front
yard setback for the construction of an addition to a single family dwelling for the
property located at 2933 Spring Lake Road.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated October 28, 2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
Randy and Patrice Simpson are requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance for the
construction of a garage addition to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned
R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 2933
Spring Lake Road (part of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite and 30
feet of vacated 6th Street right-of-way and a portion of the platted Reserve). The property
is guided Urban Low/Medium Density Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
The property is a riparian lot abuttint~ Spring Lake. The property is also a comer lot with
frontage on Spring Lake Road and 6 Street (an unimproved road). A single family
dwelling, constructed in 1969, currently occupies the site. In 1992, an addition was
constructed to the dwelling that does not comply with the minimum front yard setback
from the 6th Street right-of-way. At its closest point, the dwelling is 19.3 feet from the
property line. In order to construct the proposed addition a 15 foot variance from the
required 25 foot front yard setback is necessary to allow a 10 foot setback.
Staff recommended denial of the requested 15 foot front yard variance to allow a 10 foot
setback from the 6th Street right-of-way based upon the following:
1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship exists to warrant the granting of
the variance.
2. A large garage addition can be constructed within the buildable area of the property.
3. The addition would expand the nonconformity of the existing structure.
Should the Planning Commission approve this request, staff recommended the following
conditions:
1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of
recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Ringstad questioned how the City classified the addition in1990. Kansier said there was
no information available at the time. She also pointed out she did not know what the
required setback was on comer lots at that time.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN 102802.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
Criego questioned the vacation of 6th Street. Kansier responded only a portion of the
street was vacated. It is a platted right-of-way and winter access to Spring Lake. There is
traffic.
Stamson also pointed out the neighbor's garage access is on 6th Street.
Comments from the Public:
Randy Simpson, 2933 Spring Lake Road, said the road is used by ice fishermen as a
winter access, not a boat access. Simpson said the staff in 1990 did not interpret the lot
as a comer lot. He had to downsize his plan at that time. He questioned if it is still really
a street. He also pointed out other vacations in the platted subdivision. In response to
staff's hardships, Simpson questioned if the street was partially vacated, is it really a
comer lot? The ordinances pertain to streets not half streets. The street is maintained by
the homeowners and Sportsmen's Club, not the City. Simpson pointed out staff felt the
applicant created the problem, but he did not agree. There are other locations on the
property to place the garage but he feels this location is aesthetically the best. He felt he
was penalized to have setback averaging from the neighbors' homes. Simpson pointed
out the other options would block his view of the lake as well as the neighbors. He said if
he did not get the requested variance there are other options to vacate the street.
Stamson questioned the applicant's existing tarred driveway onto 6th Street. Simpson
said he uses it for parking his boat trailer and equipment.
Criego questioned the applicant having a driveway on 6th street, implying that it is a
street. Simpson responded it needs to be determined.
The public heating was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
Simpson made some excellent points, but concerned in keeping some continuity
from 1990.
* Could possibly support to continue the current garage line to eliminate additional
new setback requirements toward the street or alley.
· Simpson said one reason to stagger the garage is the length requirement in the city
ordinance. Kirchoff said the ordinance was for a side yard - not a front or comer
lot. It implies to only interior side lot lines, not side streets or comers.
Atwood: · Interested in the comer lot issue, it seems to be repetitive.
Sympathetic to the applicant with the uniqueness of the lot.
· It is not a busy road or alley.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesLMN102802.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
Criego:
· Questioned staff if there was a limitation on garage size? Kirchoff said "No".
· Did staff ask legal advice if that was considered a street? Kirchoff said legal staff
stated it was a street.
· Kansier clarified it was a platted 60 foot wide street, although never improved to
that width. Half of it was vacated so there is still a 30 foot public street width.
There are a number of platted streets in the City that have nothing on them. In
this area, the City still applies the comer setback, even though the street is
unimproved.
· This is never going to be a street, but will be an access to the lake.
· Kansier said it is technically a platted street - there is access to the neighbor's
garage as well as the applicant's access. It is used by the public for access as
well.
· Questioned when was the adjacent garage put in and how far from the line is that?
Kirchoff responded she did not have any information when it was constructed but
it is 25 feet from the property line.
Atwood:
· Questioned if the structure was built in 1990. Simpson indicated it was. Kansier
said the information provided is very sketchy. Assumed it was put in as an access
or more of a parking or storage pad.
Stamson: · As far as determination as a street - it has a platted right-of-way, has two accesses
and is used by the public. There is no question it is a street.
· Staff's interpretation is correct.
· As far as a variance and hardships - it is a tougher call.
· One thing the Commission looks at is the hardship created by the application of
the ordinance alone. The ordinance is written for the entire City.
· In this case, the 25 foot setback throughout the city is valid. In applying it to this
situation it is a little overkill. Maybe one of the hardships has been met, but not
all, not enough to grant a variance.
Open Discussion:
Criego:
· If you believe it is a street, you have to abide by the 25 foot setback. There are
other ways of adding to the garage.
Ringstad:
· Getting back to what happened in 1990 - what was the City classifying the street
at that time?
Criego:
· What was done 12 years ago may not be valid now. Times change. Ringstad
came up with an alternative that works. It would have a 5 foot variance.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN102802.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
Stamson:
Starting to define streets is going to be a problem. There are several unusual
streets in the City. The Commission just looked at one (Oakland Beach) where
the street does not sit on the right-of-way.
· There is other ways to build a garage on this property.
· Leaning towards denying. It does not qualify for any of the hardships.
Ringstad:
· Agreed to deny the request as presented. Having a tough time not granting some
sort of variance from 12 years ago. It was not that long ago.
· Suggest tabling this to see if the applicant and staffcan come to some sort of
compromise.
Criego:
· The applicant currently has a two car garage. Now he wants to add another garage
and a half. How does that fit into a variance request? Look what the
Commissioners have done in the past.
Stamson:
· Agreed. In the past the Commissioners felt not having a two car garage was a
hardship, a third car garage is a convenience and not warranting a variance.
· Including that as well as the previous discussions - there is no hardship.
· There is no denial of the property. He can build a fairly good size garage addition
within the ordinance requirements.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Ringstad to see if the applicant and staff can work something out.
Ringstad:
What I am hearing from everyone is that were not in favor of supporting what is
before the Commission. If something comes before the Commission that is new,
it is a new consideration.
Stamson:
· Does not have a problem tabling so the applicant may want to alter or change his
request, but the concern is the way it has been presented. It gives the appearance
that the Commission is negotiating a variance. It either warrants a variance or not.
Hate to give the impression that we are allowing staff to negotiate a variance with
an applicant. It is not proper.
· Kansier agreed. Staff does not have the authority to negotiate a variance.
Atwood: · The applicant stated he had other options.
· Kansier explained they did speak to the City Attorney about vacating the right-of-
way. The attorney felt at this point in time, it would be difficult to show it was in
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN 102802.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
the public's interest to vacate. It was basically their opinion the City would be
causing problems for themselves.
Criego:
The other issue is that it is not a hardship to add a stall and a half to an existing 2
car garage, whether it is to the front, back or side. A two car garage is sufficient.
If there is a need for additional storage then the property is certainly large enough
to adapt.
Stamson:
Concurred. That has been the Commission's stand in the past. Denied a third car
garage on more difficult lots.
In the interest of being fair, the criteria the Commission has consistently used has
not been met.
The Commissioners agreed to deny the request.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY R1NGSTAD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02-
019PC DENYING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
C. Case 002-106 Consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance concerning
the height and opacity of fences on corner lots.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated October 28, 2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
The following zoning ordinance amendment is based upon a request from a resident, who
resides on a comer lot abutting Carriage Hills Parkway. The property owner would like
to construct a fence 6 feet in height along Carriage Hills Parkway; however, the current
ordinance only allows a 4 foot fence in front yards.
On September 23, 2002, the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of amending
the fence ordinance concerning comer and riparian lots. Overall, the Commission felt as
though the existing ordinance is adequate, and did not recommend changes to the
ordinance. However, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment
to allow comer lots to have a fence six feet in height along a side street.
Whether or not comer lots shall be given the fight to have a 6 foot tall fence along a side
street is a policy issue. The current ordinance provisions were generally intended for
aesthetic as well as visibility purposes. Provided the fences are only placed along arterial
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN102802.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
and collector roadways, these intentions should be carried through with this proposed
amendment.
The staffhas no objections to the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment will
offer visual protection for the "rear yard" of corner lots located on collector roadways.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Did City Council recommend this change or the applicant? Kansier said it was
brought before the City Council by Mr. House in an open forum. The City
Council asked to bring it to the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
Comments from the Public:
Tim House, 14458 Nightingale Circle, explained everything staff presented is what he is
looking for. House read a statement for the record in support of the amendment.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood: · Suggested reopening the discussions the Commission had back in September
when the decision was made not to change the ordinance.
· Not of the mind to change the ordinance at this time.
Ringstad:
· Felt the Commission did not want to do anything at that time until it was opened
at a public meeting, which is occurring tonight.
· Could support the change.
· City Council brought it back for a public hearing. After hearing Mr. House speak,
would be in favor.
Criego:
· Couple of concerns: 1) of safety; If this amendment takes place, it could be a case
where stopping at any of the stop signs moving onto a parkway like that could
cause visual problems. That needs to be addressed. 2) Aesthetics of fence and the
type of fence along those parkways are important along with the maintenance of
them.
· Historically the Commission and staff have considered comer lots as two front
yards. If there are 4 foot fences, as the applicant indicated, it seems to be
appropriate on the sides except for one thing - it eliminates his concerns except
for passersby looking into his yard. It would stop the dogs and snowmobiles.
That may have more of a pleasing appearance than a 6 foot 100% privacy fence.
· These issues need to be discussed.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN102802.doc 1 0
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
Understands Mr. House's desires but have to look at safety and the aesthetic
value.
Atwood:
Part of the Commissioners' discussions in September revolved around a case by
case basis. To change the entire City ordinance for one person is not right.
Criego:
The issue - Is there one unique situation or is it a City problem? To the best of
the Commissioners knowledge there were no other issues raised to change the
ordinance.
Stamson:
· Strongly opposed to allowing 6 foot privacy fences for any side yard that fronts a
street. The ordinance asks if there is a public need for the amendment. The
ordinance now allows ample opportunity to put in a fence to stop foot traffic or
plant landscaping to provide privacy.
· Alter discussing this issue in September, drove around town and observed a
number of people who addressed the problem within the ordinance.
· Lives on a collector street. Apple Valley must have allowed this with privacy
fences which created a tunnel effect with mismatched fences along the street. It is
not aesthetically pleasing. It is wrong to think that doesn't have an effect on the
City as a whole and the neighborhood.
· The fence ordinance was rewritten a few years ago and the Commission went
through this extensively. Several meetings, workshops and polling other cities
were done. At that time, the Commissioners didn't feel there should be a fence
allowed in the front yard.
· Lots of discussion on this issue.
· Strongly against amending this ordinance.
Ringstad:
· Questioned surrounding city surveys. Stamson and Criego responded there many
discussions and the Commissioners felt strongly on this issue.
Atwood:
· Well aware of the mismatched fences in Apple Valley and how unappealing it is.
Criego
·
asked Stamson to summarize:
The Commissioners and staff extensively researched this issue two years ago in
writing the current ordinance. Very comfortable with the existing ordinance.
There has not been a rush of calls to City Hall to change. It works well.
Additionally there is ample opportunity to address all the concerns presented by
dual frontage lots in the current ordinance. Drive around town and see all the
residents who have 4 foot fences with landscaping meeting all the criteria. These
issues can be addressed.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN102802.doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
* As a City as a whole, the Commissioners have to maintain the standards that have
been set forth. This one goes against what is to be achieved. What is in place has
worked very well.
· Also, there is a safety issue.
Criego:
· Most comer intersections will have stop signs, if people start putting up privacy
fences there is a probability the view of oncoming cars will be reduced and those
particular streets are traveling 30 to 40 mph. The longer distance to view
oncoming cars is important.
· Agreed with Stamson. As a city-wide ordinance this will affect every property.
· Stamson explained 3 comer lots and vision problems created with privacy fences.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Criego and Atwood, nay by Ringstad. MOTION
CARRIED.
A recess was called at 8:06 pm. The meeting resumed at 8:14 p.m.
D. Case #02-115 Consider amendments to Sections 1101.1000 (Definitions of
Temporary Uses) and 1101.510 (Allowable Temporary Uses) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 28,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to temporary uses within Non-Residential districts. This amendment was
initiated by direction of the City Council.
The proposed amendment has two parts. The first part is an amendment to Section
1101.1000, adding a definition of temporary uses. The second part is an amendment to
Section 1101.510, expanding the types of temporary uses permitted in nonresidential
districts and establishing a procedure for those types of uses.
Staff recommended the amendment as proposed.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· What brought up this ordinance change? Kansier said the City was asked to see if
a nursery school facility could be established in a Business Office district for a
temporary use. It is not a permitted use at this time. There is currently
construction going on in their facility.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN102802.doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
Atwood:
Staff seems comfortable with it as it is. What would be the process for this
nursery school? Kansier explained the process.
Criego:
· This could also be an outdoor use as well. Kansier said it could as long as it did
not construct new structures. It would have to go before the Commission as a
Conditional Use Permit. Kansier said this offers a little more flexibility. This
temporary use provision would apply only to uses not normally permitted in the
district.
Stamson:
· Does this apply to community carnivals, like downtown Lakefront Days? Kansier
responded it was still in the ordinance as a temporary use. A permitted temporary
use.
· What about reoccurring temporary uses? Should there be some limit? Kansier
said it was a good question. By continuing reapplying, it is not a temporary use.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· No problem with the ordinance if there is flexibility to deem it worthwhile or not.
It could help the City in this growth period, as long as it stays in the C1 and C5
District. Keep it out of the Residential areas.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Criego, it makes it more flexible for the City to address temporary
issues relating to growth and accommodate businesses and opportunities that
become available without changing the character of the district by making it
permanent.
· Does a good job and strengthens the controls the City has on temporary uses.
· Recommend passing.
Ringstad and Atwood:
· Agreed to approve.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVING
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~VlN102802.doc 13
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
E. Case #02-114 Consider an amendment to Section 1102.1105 (Dimensional
Standards in the C-3 District) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 28,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this public heating is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to the required rear yard setback in the C-3 (Specialty Business) district. This
amendment was initiated by direction of the City Council.
The purpose of the minimum and maximum setbacks and the build-to line is to fully
utilize the lot area within the downtown district and to create a pedestrian-friendly
streetscape. This is best accomplished by building as close to the street frontage as
possible. Parking and landscaping requirements are not applicable in the C-3 district.
Staff recommended approval of proposed amendment.
There were no public comments.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Tried to eliminate this in the draft stages in writing the ordinance. Thought it was
a bad idea at the time.
· Support eliminating it at this time.
· Support the amendment.
Ringstad:
It seems to go along with everything we are trying to promote with downtown.
Support.
Atwood:
Agreed. In favor of recommending.
Criego:
· Would approve based on a proper answer to the question of how does the safety
issue take place with fire. Normally there would be a front, rear or side exist. If 3
sides are eliminated, that leaves one side. How is the safety issue addressed.
Kansier said that requirement would follow under the building code and fire
codes, rather than the zoning ordinance.
· In favor of the change.
MOTION BYATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN102802.doc 14
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
This will go before the City Council on November 4, 2002.
6. Old Business:
B. Case//02-112 Ray Brandt is requesting consideration for a final PUD plan
consisting of 28.19 acres to be developed with 148 townhouse units and open space.
This property is located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21
and TH 13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 28,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Ray Brandt and Pulte Homes have applied for approval of a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Final Plan for the property located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of
CSAH 21 and TH 13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail. The
total site area in the PUD includes 28.19 acres, zoned R-4 (High Density Residential).
The development consists of 148 townhouse units and common open space.
The Planning Commission must review the Final PUD and make a recommendation to
the City Council. The staff suggests the following findings:
1. With the above listed revision, the Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved
preliminary plan.
2. The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the criteria for a PUD listed in Section
1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. This plan is also consistent with
the City Council findings listed in City Council Resolution #02-134.
The staff also recommends approval of the Final PUD Plan be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The following revision must be made before the plan proceeds to the City Council:
a. The plan must be revised to include the location of the monument sign.
2. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council.
3. A signed PUD agreement must be approved by the City Council.
4. Upon final approval, the developer must submit two complete sets of full-scale final
plans and reductions of each sheet. These plans will be stamped with the final
approval information. Once set will be filed at the Planning Department and
maintained as the official PUD record. The second set will be returned to the
developer for their files.
Ray Brandt, of Brandt Engineering, said he will revise the survey before it goes to the
City Council indicating the monument on County Road 21 and Highway 13.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~VlN102802.doc 1 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Overall, the plan is fundamentally what was presented. Comfortable with staff's
changes.
Add a Planning Commission recommendation to City Council to consider the
importance of the intersection of Highway 13 and County Road 21 and work with
the developer to provide some kind of landscaping identifying Prior Lake. It is a
prime opportunity to provide some identity features at the intersection. It would
be something the City participates in.
Ringstad:
· Liked the idea of working with the City on the landscaping. Something special
could be done.
· Add the recommendation as a condition.
· Concurred with all the comments.
Atwood:
· Agreed with the Commissioners. The City's participation in the landscaping could
be a condition.
Criego: · Agreed with Commissioners' recommendation.
· Did disagree with the project as a PUD but it will go forward.
· One of the concerns of the project was that there was no substantial advantage to
the City or citizens. It felt like this was going in with no specific advantage. If
something can be done with the comer, and the applicant can make it happen, that
will add some substance to sway me the other way.
· Have City Council work closely with the applicant and improve the comer.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE FINAL PUD SUBJECT TO STAFF'S FOUR
CONDITIONS WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT
SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL DEVELOP A LANDSCAPE DESIGN
THAT ADDRESSES THE CORNER OF HIGHWAY 13 AND COUNTY ROAD 21,
TO PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN AND FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT INCLUDING A
UNIQUE IDENTITY TO PRIOR LAKE.
Vote taken indicated by ayes. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on November 18, 2002.
7. New Business: None
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~IN102802.doc 16
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The next Planning Commission meeting will be scheduled Tuesday, November 12,
because of Monday's holiday.
The Commissioners should let staffknow if there will be present for the second meeting
in November as it is the week of Thanksgiving.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjoumed at 8:43 p.m.
Planning Coordinator
Jane Kansier
Recording Secretary
Connie Carlson
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN102802.doc 1 7