Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022800 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2000 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: A. Case #00-010 Affordable Housing Solutions is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for Stonegate, a 43 unit multiple family dwelling, for the property located in the southeast comer of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue. B. Case #00-007 Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church is requesting an amendment to Section 1107.808 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to institutional signs. C. Case #00-012 Eagle Creek Villas, LLC is requesting Rezoning for the property located in Section 2, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County. D. Case #00-013 Eagle Creek Villas, LLC is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property described as Lots 2, 3 & 4, Block 2, Holly Court. E. Case #00-014 Marvin Mirsch, Sr., is appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision to not allow a balcony to encroach into a bluff setback as is permitted for a balcony to encroach into a rear yard setback. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. Annual Capital Improvement Program review. B. Discuss 40' building side yard setback ordinance. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: 16200 E~6~°~~ve~.~.~,~n~)~°~a~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Pn. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2000 1. Call to Order: The February 28, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Cramer at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Cramer, Criego, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Criego Present Cramer Present Stamson Present Atwood Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the January 24, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Public Hearings: Commissioner Cramer read the public hearing statement. A. Case #00-010 Affordable Housing Solutions is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for Stonegate, a 43 unit multiple family dwelling, for the property located in the southeast corner of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated February 28, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. On January 23, 2000, a Conditional Use Permit application was received to allow a multi- family dwelling on the property located at the southeast comer of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue. The proposed building will have 43 units with underground parking. No variances are needed. Staff has reviewed the application, and there are a number of items to be addressed affecting the site plan and grading of the site. Rather than presenting a plan with such changes recommended, the applicant has asked the item be continued to March 13, 2000, addressing these issues prior to Planning Commission review. There were no public comments. L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMINMMN022800.DOC 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 13, 2000. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case #00-007 Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church is requesting an amendment to Section 1107.808 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to institutional signs. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated February 28, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The applicant, Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church, is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow institutional signs greater than six (6) feet in height and to allow illuminated signs within residential zoning districts. Institutional signs and illuminated signs are differentiated within the ordinance. Illuminated signs are permitted only within Commercial and Industrial Use Districts. Institutional signs are defined as signs which identify the name and other characteristics of a public or semi-public institution on the property where the sign is located. A public or semi-public use could include schools, public buildings, libraries, religious institutions, parks, etc. Comments from Scott County Highway Department and MnDOT were regarding the specification of Highway 13 and the glare to motorists. Staff recommended the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. Comments from the public: Corey McDonald, on behalf of Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church Sign Committee, said they would like to see an 8 foot limit. The speed limit is 45 mph on Highway 13 and it is important to have a safe sign with good visibility. Winter months with snow would make it harder to see the sign and therefore McDonald felt it should be raised 1 1/2 to 2 feet. Mr. McDonald presented the proposed sign. The total sign would be 7 1/2 feet in height. McDonald also noted the number of signs along Highway 13 and felt it was important to blend in with the area. Karl Tremmel (representing the Church) would like to have a sign that is easy to read and depicts the information of the Church services without having to slow down. Tremmel said it was a nice looking sign and would blend in with the surrounding area. He did not see any public distraction. It would be a good impression for Prior Lake coming from the south. Mike Nelson (representing the Church) explained they spent a lot of time on the Church Council and meetings trying get a nice looking sign to fit the ordinances. I:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\nm022800.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · Agreed with staff's recommendation except the aspect of the collectors. · Did not see arterial streets as a problem. · Felt strongly there should be no illuminated signs on collectors or less than collectors. The main reason for the ordinance was to reduce the glare in residential areas. · As it relates to Highway 13, a lot of advertising goes on and did not see a problem. Vonhof: · Questioned staff on the height of the entry monuments: Staff said they were over 6 feet. · Rye stated public signs are exempt from the provisions of the sign ordinance. · There are a number of criteria to meet the ordinance. There is a need for some amendment to the language in the ordinance. · Agreed with staff's recommendation on adding internally illuminated signs. · Agreed maintaining 75 square feet for the sign size. · Agreed with staff going 6 feet above the adjacent grade or center line whichever is higher. · In considering the sign ordinance the Commissioners found 6 feet reasonable. · Support other changes. Stamson: · Agreed with Criego that illuminated signs are inappropriate in a residential area. · Has personal knowledge of lit signs. · The majority of the R1 district having any illuminated signs is inappropriate. · Something along the lines of St. Michael's lights would be more integrated. An 8 foot sign or larger would be an eye-sore. · Agreed with Criego, the arterials are a good compromise to allow illuminated signs, but not along collector streets. Atwood: · Passed. Cramer: · Agreed with Stamson and Criego that this should pertain to major arterials not collectors. · Height - 6 feet is reasonable. That decision was made prior to my coming on the Commission. There is no basis or public need to increase the height, especially in a residential area considering it is an illuminated sign. · Support staff's recommendation, except pertaining to arterial roads not collectors. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn022800.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT EXCEPT FOR COLLECTOR STREETS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Rye suggested for clarification purposes, the current ordinance language should read: Institutional Signs: Freestanding or wall institutional signs are permitted in any Use District provided that the total sign area does not exceed 75 square feet. Internally illuminated signs are permitted if the sign is located so it faces an arterial road as identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Freestanding signs may be no higher than 6 feet above the adjacent grade or center line grade of the adjacent street, whichever is higher. Tovar stated this item will go before the City Council on March 20, 2000. C. Case #00-012 Eagle Creek Villas, LLC is requesting Rezoning for the property located in Section 2, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated February 28, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, has filed an application for a Zone Change for the property located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street, directly north of Five Hawks School. The request is to rezone the property from the PUD 82-12 District to the R-4 (High Density Residential) District. Kansier gave a history of the property and zoning. Staff recommended approval of the request as the proposed R-4 District is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. Creigo questioned the most recent PUD number of units. Kansier thought it might be 60 to 90 units. Comments from the public: David Bell, St. Cloud, from Freedom Development and Consulting said they recently purchased the land from Eagle Creek Villas developers. Bell explained the situation with part of Holly Court not being within the PUD. Their intention is not to have Five Hawks Avenue go through to Cates Street, but rather build a walking trail that could be used for utilities and maintenance. The majority of the buildings would be in the present graded area. There would be one small pad built on the other side of the creek with approximately 14 to 16 units. The intent is for a 54 unit assisted care facility. There l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin~m022800.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 would be a 66 unit assisted care facility totally detached from this building. The two would be a facility for residents going from independent to more of a health care provider. The third would be senior condominiums for sale. Bell said their intent is for the area to be developed and totally landscaped, and it makes more sense to access the Holly Court property from Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street. Kansier continued with the next report. D. Case #00-013 Eagle Creek Villas, LLC is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property described as Lots 2, 3 & 4, Block 2, Holly Court. Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located on the south side of Cates Street, south of the platted end of Holly Court. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current R-L/MD (Low to Medium Residential) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation on approximately 45,000 square feet of land. Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The proposed R- HD designation is consistent with the goals and objectives in that it offers a variety of housing, provides open space and preserves of the natural elements of the site. Furthermore, the designation is consistent with the City's Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. The public hearing was opened to the public. Eric Johnson, 4341 Priorwood Street, representing the Eagle Creek Villas Association Board of Directors stating they are opposing the changes: 1) The de-valuation of property values due to increased traffic and congestion. Residents in the Association bought their homes with expectations the zoning would protect their investment and quality of life; and 2) They feel there is inadequate infrastructure to support the proposed project. Johnson said the speeding on Priorwood Street is a consistent problem and very congested with Five Hawks School functions. Regarding Attorney Huemoeller's February 1, 2000 Memorandum to the Planning Department, the Association reject the proposal to vacate PUD 82-12. Johnson said the Board is sympathetic with the need for affordable housing but feel the resident's rights should not be compromised. They are not against the assisted living project, but the high density. Donald Fehr, 4344 Priorwood Street, stated he purchased his home in 1996 and was told an assisted living complex would be built down the street. His concern was the high density with 169 units. Appreciated the assisted living but the streets are not constructed for the traffic. Most residents will have to back out of their driveways onto Priorwood Street. There are a lot of homes in close proximity. It is a public safety issue. Fehr supported the idea of assisted living but hoped the staff and developer can work out a reasonable number of units. 1 :\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn022800.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Tracy Haaland, 4005 Roanoke Street, said he owns the last house on Roanoke backing up to the proposed project. The reason he chose the area to live was the wildlife and privacy. His concerns are for the runoff into the lake and preserving the trees. The area is also used by Five Hawks School. Haaland felt a development like this would negatively affect his property value. Pamela Nelson, 16517 Dutch Avenue, questioned the location map. (Kansier explained the PUD and the R-4 zoning district.) Nelson felt there is enough building going on and there is no need to disrupt the natural environment. Five Hawks School is tied into many projects in this area. Kids need trails and woods to explore. Nelson's other concern was the drainage problems into the lake. JeffNelson, 4024 Roanoke, said he was grateful others addressed conservation, density and safety. He question if City does concept zoning and the owners end up selling, does that forfeit any future zoning. Supports the concept of senior living. Kansier explained the zoning in the R-4 district. Gene Erickson, 4056 Roanoke Street, agreed with previous comments. Erickson said he attended the meetings and stated all of the neighbors next to this property were against the rezoning in 1983. He also wanted to voice his opinion against higher density. Bob Jones, 4266 Priorwood Street, said his neighbors have summarized his concerns. He was not opposed to some sort of development, but concerned for the density and traffic problems. With no traffic light on Highway 13 and Five Hawks Avenue, a lot of traffic is funneled down Priorwood Street. Mary Becotte, 4031 Roanoke, stated her concern is putting a unit at the end of Roanoke. It is a very narrow street with many children. There would be too much traffic for the existing road. David Severson, 16494 Five Hawks Avenue, agreed with the residents on Roanoke. Bill Heptig, 16439 Park, stated he does not want to see high density. He was concerned with high-rise buildings and does not want to put up with the congestion. Leon Wegener, 4328 Priorwood Street, reiterated the egress and regress into the proposed area. Wegener felt the streets are very narrow and should have limited traffic. There is a lot of school buses in the area. One hundred eighty-six parking spots would be added to Five Hawks and Priorwood. Wegener felt the access should be provided before changing to the R-4 designation. Recommend not going to R4 at this time. Dave Bell addressed some of the neighbors concerns. Under the R4 designation the City is capable of developing 30 units per acre and they are proposing 16 or 17 units. In the event Bell did not follow through with the proposal or the zoning designation did not change, his intention is still for senior care. Bell said they are not going to be touching the wetlands and destroying the neighborhood. The path will be untouched. A bridge will l:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcminXnmO22800.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 be built across the creek for residents to use. Regarding the number of vehicles - less than 5% of tenants drive. The vehicle traffic will be staff and visitors. Independent living will have underground parking. They are also looking at dedicating some of the land to the school district. gteve Nicholas, 16370 Albany Avenue, would not like to see the wildlife and woods destroyed in the area. Amanda Kem, 4171 Cates Street, adjacent to Holly Court, would like to see a lower density senior living facility. She would also like to keep the wildlife. Scott Schmokel, 4151 Cates Street, would like to hear more about the effects on the 33 acre nature area. Dar Fosse approached many local clubs for support in the project. It was his understanding John Mesenbrink the developer was going to contribute the land to the nature center. Schmokel's other concern is for the runoff. The amount ofmnoffhas increased considerably in the last 6 years he has lived in the area. The public hearing closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: There has been a long history with this parcel. In 1997 the Commissioners were very pleased to have an assisted living proposal. At the time, the Commissioners felt Five Hawks Avenue should not go through. Instead, a walking trail allowing maintenance and repair should be constructed. The Commissioners did not want a large number of units in that location and felt the assisted living project was right for the area. The townhome area was based on a number of different things. Adding 150 units to that comer, will affect the infrastructure. Approving the PIYD in 1997 was preserving much of the natural area. · Bell explained the new designs and cluster housing instead of the urban sprawl. The three buildings would be 3 stories. The concentration would be on the existing flat area. The 3 main buildings are on 5 acres, the 16 unit is one and 1/2 acres. Total building area would be 6 acres, less than half of the total acreage. · Criego questioned the underground parking. Bell explained the soil boring tests indicate there would be no water problems. · It would be an incon'ect move to change the density from 90 to 169. If the zone is changed to R4, it leaves the door open for other developers that may not need any special approval. · Hesitate to change the PUD set forth in 1997. Vonhof: · Also present in 1997 and agreed with Criego's comments. · Explained a PUD and why it is necessary to protect the natural area. · It is very important to have an assisted living facility. · The right-of-way to Five Hawks Avenue was to be a trail system not a road. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn022800.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 · The townhouse development was phase one and the assisted living was phase two. This was part of the entire plan and that is why the PUD was planned for that density. · Reluctant to consider rezoning at all. The PUD is a strong tool. The developer might want to reconsider. There is no substantial change from 1997. · No justification for changing the PUD. Stamson: · Present in 1997. Was not on the Planning Commission when the townhomes were proposed. · Happy with the PUD approved in 1997. · Questioned staff- If approved as R4, would the developer have to come back with a CUP proposal? Kansier explained the platting and Conditional Use process. · Agreed with Commissioners. Prefer to see a PUD for this property. · Zoning to an R4 also allows the Commission the same controls. The Conditional Use process will control what level of units and density. · The R4 District complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Not strongly opposed to zoning with R4. There are significant controls in the district. Rye commented on Stamson's statements regarding the Conditional Use process. Through the process, if the proposal otherwise meets all the conditions of the ordinance, the Commission is obligated to adhere to that. Basically the only way to enforce some kind of a lesser density through the Conditional Use process would be voluntarily through a developers agreement. If the structure meets setbacks and every other ordinance requirements, it gets difficult to say in a contract the building is too big. Stamson questioned what if it was decided not to zone R4 even though the Comprehensive Plan shows it as high density and there is no PUD approval. What happens? Rye replied the 1997 zoning change was not approved by City Council, so it goes back to the approved 1983 zoning. Stamson amended his statements preferring Rye's comments. There was a brief discussion on townhouse density. Atwood: · Questioned staff on the relationship with the School District. Kansier explained the 1997 school nature center. A portion of the nature center is on the city park land, school land and the private property. The city is not aware of the arrangements made with the property owner. Rye spoke on the consideration in 1997 of amending the PUD through the developer's agreement, if the property was conveyed to the school district, the City could recognize the fact the property would be held as a nature center and consider the overall objectives of the PUD to be met. I:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin~nn022800.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Cramer: · Agreed with Vonhof and Criego that this property defines when a PUD is used. Was not involved in the 1997 request. · Ignore the natural elements and look at the map, the high density in the middle of where street access is not a major arterial area. It doesn't make sense to stick this in the middle of a bunch of neighborhoods and a school. · Support the idea of a senior care facility but at a lower density. · Not willing to risk at this time by changing the zoning to R4. · Redevelop as a PUD. · Agreed with comments with the infrastructure not supporting the area. Criego: · The PUD in 1997 clearly addresses the property in the way the community would like to see it. Mr. Bell said the proposal is the same as 1997 but with a higher density. The community is saying they want the project but not at the high density. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE ZONE CHANCE FROM THE PUD 82-12 DISTRICT TO THE R-4 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Kansier said these items will go before the City Council on March 20, 2000. A recess was called at 8:06 and reconvened at 8:15 p.m. E. Case #00-014 Marvin Mirsch, Sr., is appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision to not allow a balcony to encroach into a bluff setback as is permitted for a balcony to encroach into a rear yard setback. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the staff report dated February 28, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The Planning Department received an Appeal Notice from Marvin W. Mirsch Sr. regarding the Planning Departments decision to not allow a balcony to encroach into a bluff setback at 15432 Red Oaks Road. On December 13, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a variance for the applicant to construct a single family dwelling with attached garage on the subject property (Resolution 99-24PC). The applicant then requested the addition of a balcony and stairs in a letter the City received on January 24, 2000. The Planning Department responded with a decision to deny the request by letter dated January 27, 2000. I:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin~n022800.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 An appeal to the decision of the Zoning Administrator is not site specific and affects the way in which the ordinance is applied in all situations. In summary, the listed encroachments permitted for rear yard setbacks in the general provisions code section are not permitted in the special provisions code section for bluff setbacks. In addition, the proposed balcony is not consistent with the variance approved by the Planning Commission. The staff therefore recommended upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Comments from the public: Marv Mirsch, 2260 Sargent, St. Paul and seasonal residence at 15432 Red Oaks, felt staff's analysis was incomplete and therefore the conclusion faulty. Mirsch said the key words are not congruent with the dictionary explanation of "setbacks". The ordinance commands the word "setback" be replaced with the word "yard". Mirsch explained "Special" and "Encroachment" definitions from Webster's Dictionary. Mirsch felt there is an exception in the definitions of rear yard and bluff setbacks. He also explained several definitions regarding the Shoreland district and the bluff impact zone concluding he did not feel he was intruding in the bluff setback. Criego questioned the size of the eves on the home. Mirsch thought they would be 18 inches, which go over the bluff setback. Stamson questioned setbacks on non-riparian lots. Horsman responded. Criego questioned Mirsch on the distance from the ordinary high water setback on his property. Mirsch pointed out the area on the overhead. Kansier and Horsman explained the bluff impact zone, encroachments and setbacks. Mirsch disputed Kansier's explanations on special requirements and overlays. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · By absence of the ordinance not saying anything, would indicate the decision of the planning department that there should not be any encroachments is correct. There are no statements on what can be encroached. · Common sense says there certainly can be an overhang in the bluff impact zone. And common sense says you could have a deck as long as you are not intruding on the 75 foot setback. · Did not remember the intent of the ordinance. Maybe there should be no encroachments at all. Did not recall hearing the difference in the past. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn022800.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Vonhof: · Complex issue in matters of interpretation and ordinance. There is a guiding provision in the ordinance for interpretation. · Vonhofread Ordinance 1101.38 on conflict with special provisions. · This issue is conflict. Using the paragraph in the ordinance as a guiding sense, there is no other determination that the special provisions prevails. The Commission has to go with the guiding rules. · When there are multiple regulations with land use and building, there will be situations that develop. When matters of interpretation come up, the Commission has to say these are our general rules. And as a general rule, our overlay districts always prevail. This has been for the entire code. · There is a method to deal with conflict and which part of the ordinance prevails. It clearly states the special provision prevails. Stamson: · The definition of rear yards is defined by setbacks. There is no conflict. The setback does not change the definition of year yard. · Stamson read the definition of rear yard. · The yard is the area that your setback is required in the district. The special sections says with a bluff the rear yard is 25 feet from the top of the bluff. The special section says nothing about changing the encroachments in the yard. · The yard section describes the setbacks. · Agreed with applicant. Rye said the issue of rear yard is immaterial. The question is dealing with the bluff setback requirement. The whole issue is there anything in the ordinance that allows one to build closer than 25 feet on the top of the bluff. The answer is "no". That is a special provision. Therefore, it outweighs any other definitions allowing permissible encroachments in the yards generally. Atwood: · Agreed with everyone. It is confusing. Cramer: · Appreciate Mirsch's interpretation. · Look at this intent. A rear yard and bluff setback are put in the ordinance for a set purpose - to protect the bluff. · Agreed with staff's assessment on what the City Code reads. · Support staff's recommendation. The Commissioners and staff discussed the intent of rear yards and bluff setbacks. Criego suggested to wait and see what the DNR thinks of the issue. Rye said he couldn't say for sure, but had a good idea given their take on the rules. The DNR would come down on the side of zero encroachment. h \00files\00plcomm\00pcminXmn022800.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Jim Albers, 16043 Northwood Road, explained the purpose for the ordinance bluff setbacks to the Commissioners. Vonhof commented on Alber's reasoning. Mirsch explained his interpretation of setbacks in the ordinance. The public hearing was closed. Criego agreed with Vonhof. It is a special provision and because encroachments are not specifically permitted, there are no encroachments. The ordinance stands as written. Did not agree it was correct and felt the Commission should look at the ordinance to see if it should be changed. But as it sits, special provisions do prevail. There should not be an encroachment. Stamson understands Mirsch's argument. In the conflict section, the intent is that nothing be built in the bluff setback. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00- 04PC DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO NOT PERMIT A BALCONY TO ENCROACH INTO A BLUFF SETBACK. AMENDMENT BY CRIEGO, TO LOOK AT ORDINANCE FOR MODIFICATION. CRAMER SECOND. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Discussion: Criego commented the applicant brought up some issues that need to be discussed in the bluff encroachments. Suggest staff bring back the matter and interpretation with DNR's comments. Cramer said as the ordinance was written there are no encroachments allowed in the bluff setback. But the Commission needs to look at the issue. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO HAVE STAFF REVIEW THE ORDINANCE AND COME BACK WITH SOME ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES OF HOW IT IS WRITTEN AND INFORMATION FROM THE DNR WITH SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE ORDINANCE. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: l:\00fites\00plcomm\00pcmin~-nn022800 .doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 6. New Business: A. Annual Capital Improvement Program review. Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated February 28, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The Planning Commission's function is to review the proposed projects, determine whether they make sense from the perspective of the Comprehensive Plan and make specific recommendations about specific projects in the CIP or about projects not in the current CIP which the Commission feels would better achieve Comprehensive Plan goals. The Commission does not need to feel constrained to restrict its consideration only to those projects contained in the propose CIP. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: Need adequate funding for downtown. · There is a lot of money going into streets and landscaping, but not adequate amounts of money are going into trails. Felt there should be a higher percentage of funds into maintaining and adding trails throughout Prior Lake. · Rye said a fair amount of trail money comes in with the new developments. Atwood: · Deerfield's trails will connect with neighboring trails. Vonhof: · Highway 13 should be a parkway. The State will provide funds up to the curb. If the City wants trails they have to put them in. When the City improves Highway 13, it should include trails and walkways. · Surprised the fire department does not get their turnout gear under equipment certificates. A new station should have something in it. · Agreed with Criego that trails are important ties in the community. Rye said track traffic has decreased on Highway 13 with all the road redirection on 185th Street and County Road 17. The Commissioners briefly discussed Highway 13. Atwood questioned improvements for the Frog Town area and Shady Beach Road. Rye responded it would be utilities and road construction. In conclusion, the Commissioners recommended stepping up funds for downtown and adding trails to Highway 13. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn022800.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 B. Discuss 40' building side yard setback ordinance. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 28, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. Staff requested direction from the Commissioners. Horsman said in reviewing plans and building permits he is seeing anywhere between 45 and 50 homes this affected by this ordinance. This does not apply to just substandard lots. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · The last place you want a straight wall is on a substandard lot. · The Commissioners need to go back to the basics. Why did the Commissioners pick 40 feet and 18 feet as an important measurement? Vonhof.' · There is a number of substandard lots. Side yard setbacks are l0 & 5 feet, 75 feet from the lake and 25 feet from the street. Much of this came out of the lakeshore lots. It was really driven by thc 50 foot lot width. · Rye said thc DNR had concerns with creating thc "tunnel effect". The square footage on houses is getting bigger. · (30 with more screening on riparian lots. This is more of an aesthetic standard. Stamson: · The real problem is the 18 feet, not the 42 feet. It takes so much square footage out. Criego: · If the idea started with 50 foot substandard lots, the 18 foot measurement was incorrect. There is no way to have a two car garage without asking for a variance. · Reducing the 18 feet to something less may not be the answer. It may be multiple cuts to the side of the building. Vonhof: · A solution could be "A cut can be considered a third of the width of the residence." · Extend the length of the wall to 50 feet. Stamson: · Allowing a 4 foot jog would be fine. It is enough to break a continuous wall. Criego: · Reduce 18 feet for sure. Increase wall to 50 feet. h\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn022800.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Rye suggested taking a couple of recent applications and bring back some scenarios. Commissioners agreed. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: The Commissioners received the 2020 Comp Plans. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m. The Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcminh'nn022800.doc 15