Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0626002. 3. 4. A. Bo 6. 7. 8. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: Case File #00-040 Consider a proposed Amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan for the property located in Section 22, Township 115, Range 22. Case File #00-046 Consider an Amendment to Section 1101.501 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the combination of nonconforming lots divided by a private street but under single ownership. Old Business: New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM~00PCAGEN~GO62600.DOC 16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Pr. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000 1. Call to Order: The June 26, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Vonhof at 6:34 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Criego Present Cramer Absent Atwood Present Stamson Absent 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the June 12, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. Vice Chair Vonhofread the public heating statement and opened the first meeting. 4. Public Hearings: Ae Case File #00-040 Consider a proposed Amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan for the property located in Section 22, Township 115, Range 22. Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated June 26, 2000, on file in the office of the City Planner. Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church has filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located on the north side of CSAH 42 and east and west of McKenna Road, about 1/8 mile west of CSAH 21. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current C-BO (Business Office Park) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation on approximately 20 acres of land. This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural) and is designated as C-BO (Business Office Park) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. At this time, the applicant is considering developing this property in conjunction with the property to the west, which is designated as R-HD (High Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. In order to ensure the designation and zoning of this property is consistent with the adjacent property, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMIN~MN062600.DOC 1 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment is approved, the applicant will file an application for a rezoning on this site. Staff recommended approval of the amendment. The proposed R-HD designation is consistent with the stated goals and objectives in that it offers a variety of housing and it provides open space and the preservation 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. Atwood questioned the high density to the east with the business office park. Rye explained the Comprehensive Plan Map and the subject site. Comments from the public: Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church, Senior Pastor Steve Haschig, introduced Shepherd's Path Development Chief Financial Officer Kermit Mahlum and Steve Erickson with BWBR Architects. Mr. Erickson pointed out the staff report was consistent with all the discussions of the applicant and City. The primary reason for the request is based on the functions envisioned for the site. He felt they were more consistent with the high density residential uses. Erickson explained the concept project. The first phase would be a worship facility. The other components would be elderly housing, perhaps a social recreational area and retreat center. They intend to use the DNR wetland as a focus for the property where the buildings would surround the wetland area. The first phase (church facility) would start in approximately one year. Criego commented on the parking and the elderly housing. Pastor Haschig explained one option would be to sell the present site and move everything over to the new property or maintain the two sites. Those decisions would be made in the next six months by the congregation. September of 2002 would be the moving target date. Erickson distributed the concept brochures to the Commissioners. Paul Oberg, the executor of the estate of Robert Jeffers, stated he supported staff's recommendation and hoped to develop their land in a complementary way to Shepherd of the Lake. Bill Rudnicki, Tribal Administrator for the Shakopee Sioux Community, stated they will oppose the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. One concern is for spot zoning. It was their understanding County Road 21 will develop to the north. Under the current zoning, the area has a business office designation. This area is a major intersection and it is important to retain the present zoning designation. Their other concern is with the realignment of McKenna Road that currently serves their residential area with 60 homes. Rudnicki said there has been a visible increase of traffic and speed. He also felt he City of Prior Lake needs more businesses. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn062600.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Atwood questioned Rudnicki and staff on the traffic on County Roads 42 and 21. Rye explained the County's plan for rerouting and connecting the roads to County Road 18. County Road 42 will be upgraded from McKenna Road to the west. Rye also commented on the rolling topography. The heating closed at 7:06 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · Did not oppose the use of the property. · Understood the issues with County Road 21. More concerned about the noise level from the road and the proposed housing. · There is plenty of acreage left to the south of County Road 42 for a business park. This project will add to the community. · Agreed with staff's recommendation. Atwood: · Agreed with Criego on the assets for the community. · Does not jeopardize future business office considerations. · Supported amendment. Vonhof: · Agreed with the Commissioners. · There are existing sites that have not developed. There is a far better site to the east for a business park. · County Road 21 will be a major intersection when completed. · It is more appropriate to amend the ordinance at this time. · Supported amendment. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter should go to the City Council on July 17 or August 7, 2000. Be Case File #00-046 Consider an Amendment to Section 1101.501 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the combination of nonconforming lots divided by a private street but under single ownership. Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated June 26, 2000, on file in the office of the City Planner. l:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mnO62600.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the treatment of nonconforming lots under common ownership but divided by a private road. The staff brought this issue to the Planning Commission as a result of a request for a garage permit by a property owner of two such lots, where the house sits on one lot, and the garage sits on the other. There are a number of areas in the City, especially in older subdivisions, where this is a common occurrence. Staff felt the proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan to limit or reduce the number of nonconforming lots. It also provides property owners the option of utilizing both nonconforming lots. Comments from the public: Jennifer Bamcart said she will be closing on the lot in question. Ms. Bamcart questioned if the original development was intended for garages. Rye explained the development was platted in the 1920's and the lots were probably intended for lake cabins. The private streets also include walkways down to the common waterfront area. Back then, there were no controls on subdividing land in terms of lot size. Criego questioned Bamcart on the garage lot location. She responded it was on the street side, not on the lake. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: · Questioned the private vs. public roads which divide properties. Criego: · Questioned if there are homes on the adjacent lots? Could there be a devaluation or degradation of the area ifa garage was set between homes? Barncart said there is an adjoining vacant lot and garage. · Concern for a blanket ordinance like this. It could be a problem for the neighbors. · Questioned the lot size. Rye said approximately 50 foot wide by 75 foot deep. · Agreed with the example but not a city wide ordinance. · Another concern is the deed restrictions and combining lots. Vonhof: · If this is allowed, the lot should be combined. There has only been one time when the Commission allowed a lot across a public roadway to be considered with impervious surface. · If this is allowed, it has to be looked at legally as one lot and tied together forever. · No problem with it, but it may need a condition subject to working with contiguous lots and be in character with the neighborhood. There should be requirements. · Private or public streets are not that significant in a residential area. Many of the private streets are almost built to public standards. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn062600.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Change to include "public or private residential streets". Then you eliminate the possibility of collectors and above that qualify. Criego: · Agreed if there is verbiage to fit into the community. Does not want to leave it open- ended where you can put a garage in-between homes. Rye commented there could be general language then clarify with examples. Vonhof: · There should be an ability to have the City or the Planning Commission look at the situation and say this is or is not appropriate. Jennifer Bamcart explained the neighborhood layout. Vonhof: · Pointed out the garage area would have to have some kind of landscaping. It is appropriate but think about the implications to make it apply. This could be done administratively, but staff needs direction. Rye suggested coming back with some language. The Commissioners agreed. Ken Lillyblad, questioned the location of the proposed property and commented on the private road. The Commissioners agreed there should be language where a person may apply for a garage in a certain situation subject to conditions. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JULY 24, 2000, AND DIRECT STAFF TO COME BACK WITH LANGUAGE BASED ON DISCUSSIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: 7. Announcements and Correspondence: There should be another downtown redevelopment workshop tentatively set for July 10, 2000. The Planner position currently held by Jenni Tovar will not be replaced. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcminXrnn062600.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary 1 :\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn062600.doc 6