HomeMy WebLinkAbout061200 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JUNE 12, 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 File #00-032 Consider an amendment to sections 1101.400 and 1101.503 of the
Zoning Ordinance relating to the definitions of lot area and front yard on a lakeshore
lot and the allowed setback encroachments to the required lakeshore and bluff
setbacks.
B. Case File #00-037 Consider an amendment to Section 1102.1104 (5) of the Zoning
Ordinance adding a condition prohibiting the use of public sidewalks or right-of-way
for outdoor sales in the C-3 (Specialty Business District).
C. Case File #00-029 Consider an amendment to Section 1102.800 of the Zoning
Ordinance to permit accessory structures in the front yard on riparian lots.
D. Case File #00-039 Consider an amendment to Section 1106.401 of the Zoning
Ordinance deleting the density increase allowed in a Planned Unit Development.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case File #00-022 D.R. Horton is requesting a Final PUD Plan for 165 acres to be
developed with 540 townhouse and single family homes.
B. Comprehensive Plan discussion.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 E~3Xg°~[J~[~vve~.~.,~rl~r~°°La~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000
1. Call to Order:
The June 12, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Cramer at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Cramer, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Assistant City
Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Criego Absent
Cramer Present
Atwood Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the May 8, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Cramer read the public heating statement and opened the first public
hearing.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-032 Consider an amendment to sections 1101.400 and
1101.503 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the definitions of lot area and front
yard on a lakeshore lot and the allowed setback encroachments to the required
lakeshore and bluff setbacks.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 12, 2000,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
This amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is to clarify the allowed encroachments into the
required lakeshore and bluff setback requirements. The amendment was initiated by the
Planning Commission in response to an appeal from the decision of the Zoning
Administrator denying an encroachment into the bluff setback. The Planning
Commission directed staff to review the definitions of yards on a lakeshore lot and to
clarify the allowable encroachments into a bluff and lakeshore setback.
Marvin Mirsch submitted a letter dated June 9, 2000, stating his objection to restricting
encroachments for riparian lots.
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMINWIN061200.DOC 1
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12,2000
The DNR had no objections to the amendments.
Staff's recommendation was to approve the amendments as proposed as they are
consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· The language clarifies what the intent and implementation of the ordinance. This
does not change the original intent. It is just clarification language. It is fairly well
done.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Vonhof, it is just a clarification and easier to understand.
Stamson:
· Agreed the application has not changed, the only concern is the way it reads. It would
make more sense to leave in all the provisions in Section 1101.503 and then make a
section for exceptions in the Shoreland District. Add a sentence allowing ornamental
items. This section does not apply to the Shoreland District. It is contrary to our
argument in March.
Cramer:
· Agreed with Stamson, maybe the ordinance should be reworded. Add a sentence to
indicate those items that do not require a building permit, birdbaths, air-conditioning
units, etc.
Vonhof:
· Approve thc language considered at thc May $, 2000 meeting and add a sentence that
this would also exclude ornamental items from thc Shorcland District.
Rye clarified leaving the general encroachment language in place and then add specific
language to the Shoreland District that says "these are permitted encroachments".
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF TO ADOPT THE LANGUAGE
FROM THE MAY 8, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING STATING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE 1101.503 1 THROUGH 8 SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE
LAKESHORE OR BLUFF SETBACKS REQUIRED IN SECTION 1104 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE; ALSO ADD LANGUAGE TO SECTION 1104 STATING
THAT THE ITEMS LISTED IN SECTION 1101.503 (2, 3, 4, 6 AND 7) ARE
PERMITTED AS ENCROACHMENTS IN THE LAKESHORE AND BLUFF
SETBACKS.
h \00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn061200.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12,2000
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY STAMSON, BY SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 00-XX AMENDING SECTIONS 1101.400 AND
1101.503 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DEFINITIONS OF
LOT AREA AND FRONT YARD ON A LAKESHORE LOT AS RECOMMENDED
BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go to the City Council on July 17, 2000.
B. Case File #00-037 Consider an amendment to Section 1102.1104 (5) of the
Zoning Ordinance adding a condition prohibiting the use of public sidewalks or
right-of-way for outdoor sales in the C-3 (Specialty Business District).
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 12, 2000 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
In August, 1999, the City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow outdoor
display and sales in the C-3 Zoning District (downtown area). This amendment allowed
outdoor sales as an accessory use with five conditions. Following adoption of the
amendment, the Council asked staff to consider other conditions that might be applied to
outdoor sales in the downtown area. On May 1, 2000, the staff submitted a report to the
Council suggesting the current conditions were adequate for this use. The only other
condition that could be added is one prohibiting the use of public sidewalks or fight-of-
way for outdoor sales.
Staff felt the current ordinance seemed to be adequate for the control of outdoor sales in
the downtown area. The additional condition proposed by staff will serve to protect the
integrity of the public fight-of-way.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Questioned the gross floor area and how it applies. Kansier explained.
· It is straight forward. Supported as is.
Vonhof:
· Recommend there should be a prohibition of outdoor sale of alcoholic beverages.
· Also a condition that prohibits any outdoor sales that would violate any State Statute
or City ordinance. There should be no conflicts with outdoor sales. Examples would
be cigarette sales, beer garden or adult materials.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn061200.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12,2000
· Kansier said there is a provision in the ordinance allowing restaurants to serve food
and beverage sales in an outdoor seating area.
Cramer:
· Questioned the language for outdoor sales.
· Discussed language conflict.
· Agreed with Vonhofto add the condition for permitted outdoor sales.
· Supported the amendment.
Stamson:
· Supported staff's recommendation.
· Open to Vonhof's proposed language.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE 00-XX AMENDING SECTIONS 1102.1104(5)
OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AS PROPOSED WITH A CONDITION (#6)
PROHIBITING THE OUTDOOR SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES UNLESS
OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PERMITTED WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on July 17, 2000.
C. Case File #00-029 Consider an amendment to Section 1102.800 of the Zoning
Ordinance to permit accessory structures in the front yard on riparian lots.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 12, 2000 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
allowing garages and accessory buildings to be located in the front yard on riparian lots.
This amendment was initiated by the City Council on May 15, 2000.
In 1999, the Planning Commission considered a variance to allow a garage in the front
yard. The Planning Commission denied this request, and the applicant appealed that
decision to the City Council. The City Council determined the request met the hardship
criteria. At the same time, the Council directed staff to prepare language pertaining to
accessory structures located in the front yard. In April and May, 2000, the Council
considered a report prepared by the staff outlining several approaches to this issue. The
Council ultimately decided front yard garages were most appropriate on riparian lots.
The Council then directed staff to schedule a public heating for this amendment.
Staff had no objection to the proposed Amendment.
A letter dated June 12, 2000, from Shery Newtson was submitted in support of the
amendment.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn061200.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12,2000
Comments from the public:
A1 Joscher, 14872 Estate Avenue SE, said he is for the amendment.
Mary Newbaur, 3160 Vale Circle SW, stated she and her neighbors supported the
amendment.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· This came about originally as a variance request.
· Agreed with the proposal.
· There are a number of narrow riparian lots on the lake that have homes where this is
appropriate.
Cramer:
· Recalled the variance situation.
· It does not make sense not to be able to replace a garage.
· Supported amendment.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Commissioners.
· Strongly felt this should have been included when the initial Zoning Ordinance was
written.
· Would like to add "one detached building would be allowed" as opposed to allowing
multiple buildings - garages and sheds. There are residents who have multiple sheds
where it does not look very good.
Rye pointed out there are limitations on total square footage for accessory buildings.
Atwood:
· Questioned if a shed was defined by size. Kansier explained the dimensions for sheds
and garages.
· It would not hurt to state "one accessory structure". It would be consistent with other
language.
· Supported the recommendation.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE 00-XX AMENDING SECTION 1102.800 OF
THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE INCLUDING THE WORDING CHANGE UNDER
"K", TO READ "ONE DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING DESIGNED AND
USED AS A GARAGE."
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
l:\00files\00plcornm\00pcmin\mn061200.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12,2000
The Council will considered this item on July 17, 2000.
D. Case File #00-039 Consider an amendment to Section 1106.401 of the Zoning
Ordinance deleting the density increase allowed in a Planned Unit Development.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 12, 2000 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
This amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would delete the allowable density increase
allowed in a Planned Unit Development. This amendment was initiated by direction of
the City Council. Section 1106.401 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the City Council to
increase the permitted density in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) by 10 percent. This
increase may be allowed if it meets the objectives of a PUD. The City Council recently
stated it is uncomfortable with the increase in density, and directed staff to initiate an
amendment removing this provision.
The purpose of the provision is to provide some incentive to a developer to be more
creative in designing a subdivision. Generally, the idea behind such a modification is a
"give and take" between the developer and the City. The City allows additional density
for better design. Eliminating the density modification will not eliminate all incentives
provided by a PUD, although this may be the incentive developers find most attractive.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment.
Atwood questioned the Council's concern with density. Rye responded density is a very
sensitive issue, especially in a growing area.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Cramer:
· Has seen changes with the attitude from the public heating at the Planning
Commission level to the City Council level. There is a danger if a public heating is
held and the Commission says this is what is agreed to and recommends the Council
allow some leeway, it may create something very different from what the public or
neighbors were expecting.
· Supported the issue.
Stamson:
· Does not support this issue.
· Has not seen this as a problem in the past. Council has it in their descretion to
decrease the density.
· Why not leave it in the ordinance?
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\nm061200 .doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12,2000
Vonhof:
· From a planning sense it is a tool as an incentive. There can be an incentive clause as
well as a penalty clause to balance it out. There would be two tools.
· The City Council can vote against density, but this sets it up if the proposal doesn't
meet the requirements, it automatically gets a 10% decrease.
· Why take a tool out of the ordinance? It may be used in the future.
· Asked for clarification. Rye read the ordinance.
· Had a problem supporting it.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Stamson and Vonhof. Why take out a tool that could be to the City's
advantage?
· Agreed with Cramer the issue can take on a different complexion by the time it is
heard at the City Council level.
· Rye said the application will come before the Planning Commission first as part of
the application.
· Kansier said it seems the concern is the Planning Commission could recommend
against an increase in density and the Council approves it. The public will have the
opportunity to see what the developer will probably propose as their ultimate plan
with as many units as they can get.
Cramer:
· Concern that the public may not have the opportunity to give their opinion on
whatever the final plan would be.
· Rye said if a developer comes in and is told he can have 200 units, here's the plan at
the public hearing, forward it on to the Council where the developer says he would
really like 220 units. Now everything changes and it should go back to the Planning
Commission for a new public heating.
Atwood:
· Questioned why the Council would take out a tool.
· Rye said he felt the Council did it as a philosophical reaction to density. Something
that is perceived as being already high density now, the City is going to reward them
by giving more density. The Council wanted this as an option.
Crflmer:
· Has been swayed from his original objection to this. The public would have their
input.
· Concurred with fellow Commissioners.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE 00-XX AMENDING SECTION
1106.401 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
I:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn061200 .doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12,2000
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case File #00-022 D.R. Horton is requesting a Final PUD Plan for 165 acres
to be developed with 540 townhouse and single family homes.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 12, 2000,
on file in the office of the City Planner.
D.R. Horton applied for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Plan for
the property located south and west of CSAH 21, south of Fish Point Road and
Wilderness Trail and east of the Ponds Athletic Facility. The total site area includes 165
acres, zoned both R-1 (Low Density Residential) and R-2 (Low to Medium Density
Residential). The development consists of 540 units, along with a park and common
open space. The proposed PUD consists of a mixed use development consisting of single
family dwellings, two-unit townhouse buildings, two-, three- and four-unit coach homes,
and four-, six-, eight- and ten-unit villa homes.
Staff recommended approval of the PUD Final Plan subject to the conditions stated in the
Planning Report.
Atwood questioned if staff knew what the proposal was for the adjoining 4 acres.
Kansier commented there is no site plan but speculation of multiple family housing.
Comments from the applicant:
Mike Suel representing developer D.R. Horton said they are asking for approval and felt
with staff's help they have come up with a very good development for Prior Lake.
Atwood requested clarification on the park design. Suel explained the proposal.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· As far as the park area goes, it is a sensitive design and good use of the area.
Vonhof:
· Supported staff's recommendation on the final. It is consistent with the preliminary
plat.
· Agreed with the comments from Commissioner Atwood regarding the park design.
Cramer and Stamson:
· Agreed with Commissioners and support staff's recommendation. It is consistent
with the approved preliminary plat.
l:\00flles\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn061200.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12,2000
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF PUD FINAL PLAT SUBJECT TO THE 4 CONDITIONS IN THE PLANNING
REPORT AND THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN REFERENCE TO THE PARK AREA
AND BOARDWALK.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on July 17, 2000.
B. Comprehensive Plan discussion.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report on file in the office of the
Planning Report.
When the Deerfield development was considered by the City Council, there was
considerable discussion about the Comprehensive Plan designation of Low to Medium
Density Residential. The developer argued that virtually any combination of low to
medium density housing was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan while the Council
felt that they should be able to make the determination. Subsequently, the Council asked
that the Planning Commission consider this issue and bring back a recommendation to
the Council.
The degree to which the City wishes to predetermine the use of specific properties is a
matter of policy. As a rule, many comprehensive plans are fairly prescriptive in
designating land uses but others are less definitive and provide more flexibility. Care
must be taken not to make the plan too general. If there is not sufficient basis in the Plan
to guide the designation of specific zoning districts, there is a risk that future zoning
decisions may be overturned for lack of adequate criteria.
Comments from Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Comfortable with the status quo. Prefer over the alternatives.
· Liked the flexibility.
· Deerfield is a good example of why the current system works. Five years ago
Deerfield would have likely been zoned R2. What it is ending up is a far better plan.
This would not have happened without a good plan from the developer, the neighbors
and the Board.
· Drawing specific spots on a flat map is not going to give the City a better result than
the policy the City has now.
· Rye stated no one knows what the future markets will be.
· Look how thorough the City looked at Deerfield.
· What the City has in place is a better system.
Vonhof:
· Rye said there is probably 60% to 70% low to medium density in the City.
I:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn061200.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12,2000
· Traditionally, areas around the lake are high density yet, there are large tracts of land
in the southeastern and northern corners. There is a wide range of density.
People do not talk about the low end of density, they use the high end. What is the
maximum use?
· The sense is there is confusion with the map. It is not as clear as we would like it.
· Developers look at the maximum density.
There was a brief discussion on density and marketing.
Rye said the goal is to achieve a well-balanced marketing. There needs to be a more
definitive way to make a decisions.
Atwood:
· Recalled the problems with the Deerfield development.
· Likes alternative #3. There are unique areas in Prior Lake. It should be decided on a
case by case basis.
· Agreed with Stamson that Deerfield ultimately did work out. There was a lot to go
through.
Vonhof:
· There should be flexibility.
How does it work into the existing housing in the area?
What about the topography and environmental concerns? How is it going to work
into the over-all plan of the City?
The Planning Commission and City Council should have some guidelines to say why
or why not it will work.
Support case by case basis guided by criteria.
Cramer:
· Go along with some criteria to not only help the Commissioners but for the developer,
so he knows what the City is looking for. The developer can come right to staff with
a plan that will be acceptable rather than have staff and the neighbors fight 9 months
to a year until they come up with a compromise.
Vonhof:
· The more direction you give the developer on the criteria, the better the product.
· A developer will look at the maximums.
· It should have more general criteria. No one can foresee the marketing.
Rye commented that right now there are basically three criteria. Maybe clarify some of
the points - topography, geography, access and transportation. To what extent does the
City take market conditions into effect and consideration? At some point there needs to
be some level of predictability.
Staff will bring back items and ideas from the discussions.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn061200.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12,2000
The Commissioners discussed realtors disclosing surrounding property use to home
buyers.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
1 :\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn061200 .doc
11