HomeMy WebLinkAbout1009002.
3.
4.
0
Ao
Ao
Ao
Bo
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2000
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Case #00-074 Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing the
Senior Care Overlay District in the C-l, C-2 and C-4 Use Districts.
Old Business:
Case #00-070 Bob Dittman Variance Resolution.
Case #99-067 Mark Liesener Variance extension.
New Business:
Case #00-073 Consider a vacation of a utility easement located on the south lot
line of Lot 17, Block 1, Northwood Oaks Estates 2na Addition.
Case #00-076 Comprehensive Plan discussion regarding relocation of 20 acres of
commercial property.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM~00PCAGENkAG 100900.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2000
1. Call to Order:
The October 9, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Vonhof at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman, City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary
Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Criego Present
Atwood Present
Stamson Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the September 25, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Commissioner Stamson arrived at 6:34 p.m.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #00-074 Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing the
Senior Care Overlay District in the C-l, C-2 and C-4 Use Districts.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 9, 2000,
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The public hearing is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow the Senior Care
Overlay (SC) District in the C-1 (Neighborhood Business), C-2 (Community Business)
and C-4 (General Business) districts.
On July 24, 2000 and August 14, 2000 the Planning Commission held public hearings to
consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance establishing a Senior Care Overlay
District. The Planning Commission recommended approval of an SC district that would
be allowed in the R-2, R-3, R-4, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Use Districts. The Council considered
this ordinance on September 5, 2000. The Council approved Ordinance #00-20,
approving the SC district, and applying it to the R-2, R-3, R-4 and C-3 districts only. On
September 18, 2000 the City Council initiated an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
that would allow the SC district to be utilized in the C-l, C-2 and C-4 districts.
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMIN~ 100900mn.doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2000
The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan to provide a range of housing options for the
population. This amendment will also allow the development of housing fulfilling a need
in the community.
Staff recommended approval of this amendment with the modification to remove the
reference to the C-1 district.
Comments from the public:
Larry Johnson, President of Crystal Care, stated they are working with the City on
developing a 40 unit senior assisted living with 20 units of regular care. Crystal Care
supported this amendment.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Supported the recommended changes as they are consistent with the Planning
Commission's original recommendation on this issue.
Stamson:
· Agreed
Atwood and Vonhof:
· Support the amendment as proposed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL AMEND SECTIONS 1103 AND 1106 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE.
Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #00-070 Bob Dittman Variance Resolution.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated October 9,
2000 on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider 4 variance requests by Bob
Dittman for the proposed construction of additions to an existing single family dwelling,
and one new accessory structure to replace two existing accessory structures on the
property located at 16530 Dunkirk Avenue. After reviewing the applicant's proposal
with regards to the variance hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\ 100900mn.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2000
draft a resolution approving the front yard setback with respect to the house additions,
and to prepare a resolution denying the accessory structure setback and impervious
surface variances.
The following variance is approved in Resolution 00-013PC:
A 17.4 foot variance to permit a covered deck addition to a principal structure to
be setback 7.6 feet from the front property line rather than the minimum
required setback of 25 feet
The following variances are denied in Resolution 00-011PC:
1. A 15 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 10 feet from a
property line abutting a public street rather than the required 25 feet.
2. A 13.5 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 11.5 feet
from a property line abutting a private street rather than the required 25 feet.
A 91 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface area of 2,467
square feet (36.7%) rather than the existing impervious surface coverage area of
2,376 square feet (35.3%).
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Questioned what would happen with the current sheds around the property.
Horsman said they would be removed.
Stamson:
· Both resolutions reflect the Findings. Supported both Resolutions.
Atwood:
· Agreed
Vonhof.'
· Concurred with Commissioners.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 00-
013PC GRANTING A 17.4 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 7.6 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK TO A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED
25 FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\ 100900mn.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2000
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 00-
11PC DENYING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK 10 FEET FROM A PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING A
STREET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET. A 13.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK 11.5 FEET FROM A
PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING A STREET, AND A 91 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE
TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA OF 2,467 SQUARE FEET (36.7%)
RATHER THAN THE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA OF 2,376
SQUARE FEET (35.3%).
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case #99-067 Mark Liesener Variance extension.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated October 9,
2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a written request for a one year extension of an
approved variance from Mark Liesener. The Planning Commission approved a variance
to the minimum lot area that expired on September 27, 2000. The time extension request
was submitted on September 26, 2000, after notification by this office of the impending
expiration. Variance Resolution 99-021PC, originally adopted on September 27, 1999
approved a variance to the minimum lot area for a single family dwelling as follows:
A 52,496 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 34,628 square feet rather
than the minimum lot area of 2 acres (87,120 square feet) required to be
buildable in an R-S District (Rural Subdivision Residential) [City Code ].
The original owner and applicant, Mark Liesener, decided not to build on the subject lot
and has recently sold the property to Daniel Pinkevich. The new owner intends to build a
single family dwelling in the Spring of 2001. Without the variance extension the lot
would become unbuildable again and the new owner would be required to apply for the
same variance that was approved on September 27, 1999.
The Planning Staffhas reviewed the extension of time requested. The lot in question is a
nonconforming lot of record. A variance is required before any construction will be
allowed on the property. Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the
extension of time request for one year from the original termination date, or until
September 27, 2001. This will allow the new property owner time to apply for a building
permit and commence construction in the Spring of 2001.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\100900mn.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2000
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· The extension should be granted.
Criego:
· There is no reason not to extend.
Stamson:
· Agreed. Supported the request.
Vonhof:
· Supported the extension.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-
14PC APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF T1ME TO SEPTEMBER 27, 2001, FOR A
52,496 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 34,628 SQUARE FOOT LOT
AREA INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM AREA OF 2 ACRES (87,124
SQUARE FEET) TO BE A BUILDABLE LOT IN THE R-S AND SHORELAND
DISTRICTS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Case #00-073 Consider a vacation of a utility easement located on the south
lot line of Lot 17, Block 1, Northwood Oaks Estates 2nd Addition.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 9, 2000,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
Northwood Oaks Estates 2na Addition was originally platted in July, 2000. A 25' wide
drainage and utility easement was platted along the south property line of Lot 17, Block
1, to accommodate the placement and maintenance of a sewer line. While the final plat
identified a 25' wide easement at this location, the construction plans indicated a 20'
wide easement.
Karl and Denise Tremmel are in the process of purchasing this lot. The house they plan
on the lot was based on the 20' wide easement shown on the construction plans. The 25'
wide easement was discovered when the purchasers had a survey drawn to locate the
house on the lot. The applicants are requesting the vacation of 5' of the 25' wide
easement. The purpose of this petition is to allow the construction of a new dwelling on
this lot.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\ 100900mn.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2000
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego: · Questioned the discrepancy. McDermott explained the five foot distance
difference on the plat and survey. Engineering felt the five feet could be given up.
· Concurred with staff.
Stamson:
· There is no need for the five feet. Supported the request.
Atwood:
· No reason to deny.
Vonhof:
· The public impact issues are not impacted.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED VACATION OF THE EASEMENT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case #00-076 Comprehensive Plan discussion regarding relocation of 20
acres of commercial property.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated October 9, 2000, on file
in the office of the Planning Department.
The City Council recently approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment for Shepherd of
the Lake Church at McKenna Road and County Road 42. This amendment changed the
designation of 20 acres of property from Business Office Park to High Density
residential. Following this action, the Council directed staff to bring back an amendment
to the Planning Commission that would establish an additional 20 acres of commercially-
designated land elsewhere in the City.
Following a review of the available properties in the City, staffbelieves there are three
alternative locations where lands currently designated for residential use could be
considered for a change to a commercial designation. These areas were shown in the staff
report and overheads. The first area is located at the northeast comer of County Road 42
and County Road 21. Existing land use is three single family homes on large lots. The
second area is located on the northeast comer of County Road 42 and Pike Lake trail.
Existing land use is agricultural with an existing single family home. The third area is
located on the northeast comer of County Road 42 and County Road 18. Existing land
use is three single-family homes on large lots.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\100900mn.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2000
Staff recommended Alternative 1.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
Alternative 1 makes the most sense. It is adjacent to the narrow strip after the
City rezoned. The other two sites seem like an island.
· Usability-wise Alternative 1 is the best. It can be combined with the adjoining
property.
· Or rezone the adjoining high density property and make the 40 acres some place
else. It might work well with the County Road 18 area.
Atwood: · Had same thoughts as Stamson for Alternative #1. The location is good.
· There is an island feeling with the other alternatives.
· Agreed with Stamson on rezoning the adjoining property.
Criego:
· Questioned staff on the business office park space. Is 20 acres a reasonable piece?
Rye concurred with Stamson. Twenty acres is marginal.
· It is ideal next to the extension for County Road 21.
· Rye stated if the City has concerns with the business office park and its viability
with that size and configuration, it might make more sense to look at a community
commercial designation.
· Consider the number of homes on the property. Acquisition costs would be
higher with multiple homes.
· Rye said this is fairly long term. Utilities are a concem. The Comprehensive Plan
designation would have to be changed indicating the long term use. It would not
be rezoned until developed.
· Questioned the Agriculture Preserve designation on County Road 42. Rye
pointed out the area (between County 18 and Pike Lake Trail) coming out of the
program next year.
Vonhof:
· Understands Alternative #1 and the rationale. It is an important location, but
Alternative 3 is critical in that there are 160 acres across the street designated for
business office park. There is an opportunity to capture commercial traffic at that
intersection. It would be an oversight to bypass the opportunity.
· The development on County Road 42 is growing east to west. The City should be
prepared.
· Staff has done an excellent job in terms of locating land and looking toward the
future.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\ 100900mn.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2000
Alternative 3 would be best with Alternative 2 as a second choice. The City does
not have enough commercial and retail opportunities along the County Road 42
corridor.
Comments from the open discussions:
· Combining lots and expanding for larger commercial areas.
· Good location is County Roads 18 and 42.
· Retail shopping designations over commercial.
County Road 21 will be a major entry into the City.
· Traffic flows.
· Shakopee will also be developing parts of County Road 18. The areas can
compliment each other.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, DIRECTING STAFF TO
SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ON PROPERTY #3 WITH THE ADDITION OF THE TWO PROPERTIES ON THE
EAST PART OF PROPERTY #3 FOR BUSINESS OFFICE PARK DESIGNATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Announcements and Correspondence:
A joint workshop with the City Council has been scheduled for Monday, October 30,
2000 at the fire station.
The status of the vacant Planning Commissioner was briefly mentioned.
The City Council approved a lease for "Flowers Naturally" for the old library building.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\100900mn.doc 8