Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 February Planning Commission Minutes� T HERITAGE COMMUNITY 9!/.I'llf% t 1891 i 991 ?(yl ge -iii�F y_' ilil1L �!i t. '+ taay! 7:30 P.M. CALL 10 ORDER 7:30 P.M. MUEP/ MIRUPPS OP PREVIOUS MEErnG * 7:30 P.M. PEXaC HERRIRG 403MRSHMSIVE F[M PROMM PROM LAW m, AKMMU II' RAR, 1a1R IEFMRL6pi 8:15 P.M. HERRING SMISM i LAKW� VAIMAN E JON miAm 8:30 P.M. HERRING LMMSEW i SEPPIC VARL%= HAIR MANn= 8:45 P.M. HIRRIMG SIUMNIW VARU E PR= LME PEP CLIMC/D& 9MMRN= 9:00 F.M. HERRING raw no SEEM= E f am /cam OUm t. SIGN ORDDff= VARIANCE • Indicates a Public Hearing All time stated on the Planning Cotalssien pp 4 , with the eaomptien Of Public Hearings, are approximate and my start later than the scheduled time. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prim Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fat (612) 4474245 O Pu ���k -� T COMMUNITY / i.l. `K/_ t 1991 .2091 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1992 The February 20, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Loftus, at 7:30 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Loftus, Arnold, Wells, Roseth, Director of Planning Horst Graser, Assistant City Planner Deb Garross, Associate Planner Sam Lucast, and Secretary Rita Schewe. Commissioner wuellner was absent. ITEM I - REVIEW MINUTE OF PREVIOUS MEETING MOTION BY WELLS, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN. vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Wells, and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM II - PUBLIC ..H_E ARING- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND The Public Hearing was celled to order by Chairman Loftus at 7:30 P.M. The public was in attendance. Warren Israelson, owns is requesting an amend Comprehensive Plan. low density residentia intersection of Coun brought before the Pla ago and was denied. study to determine if construction. is , stated that he of the Prior Lake rom industrial to outheast of the s application was an Horst Graser presented the information as per the memo of February 20, 1992. The applicant is requesting to change three or the four land use designations for the subject site on the land use plan of the Comprehensive Plan no follows: 1. six acres of agricultural to low density residential. 2. Three acres of public open space to single family residential. 3. Eighty -five acres of industrial to single family residential. The three acres of open space in the southeast corner of the subject site is not included. The applicant has also filed a rezoning application. In the avant the Comprehensive Plan is denied, the rezoning application becomes a mute issue. HERHAGE 1891 of Progress land Cc nt to the Land Use he change requested for 97 acres lyi Road 42 and 21. 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior lake. Minnesota 55372 1 Ph (612) 4474230 1 Fax (61 2) 4474245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 1992 PAGE 2 Mr. Graser presented an illustration of the area in question depicting the plans for the present and the future. Traffic patterns, environmental concerns, trail systems, lake features, and the future industrial site were discussed. Staff recommends approval of the application with the conditions as outlined in the planning report. Donald Abrams, 14877 Manitou Road NE; Obert Tufte, 14937 Manitou Road NE; Thomas Mee, 14957 Manitou Road ME; and Edward Malone, 14969 Manitou Road NE, voiced their support of the amendment and rezoning but were concerned that the small piece of property connecting Manitou Road would become a future roadway. The residents were also concerned on maintaining the natural walkway for wildlife adjacent to the pond. Mr. Israelson stated he would like to meet with the area residents and discuss the proposed plat plans. Discussion by the Commissioners were on, open space, continuation of Manitou Road, walking trails, the amendment and rezoning would be a better land use than industrial. Mr. Israelson was commended on the concept for the area. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND PLAN AMENDMENT FROM INDU SUBJECT SITE AS OUTLINED THE AMENDMENT IS CONS STRATEGY PREVIOUSLY APPR CONDITIONS ARE To BE INC 1. CHANGE THE LAND 'ROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE ISITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE RATIONALE BEING THAT ADOPTED INDUSTRIAL LAND COUNCIL. THE FOLLOWING INDUSTRIAL TO LOW DENSITY THE A F EM FROM THE NATURAL FEATURE IN TH AND SOUTH THEREBY CONNECTING THE NORTH AND EAST -NEST TRAIL n 4w •n& uwwan. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP AN INTERIM ADENDUM To EVELOPNENT CONSTRAINTS PLATE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE i2FATO, Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Wells, Roseth, and Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO APPROVE THE REZONING FEOM INDUSTRIAL TO R -1 URBAN RESIDENTIAL FOR THE 97 ACRE SUBJECT SITE SINCE IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS AMENDED. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Routh, Loftus, and Wells. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC NEARING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. Vote taken signified ayes by Routh, Arnold, Walls, and Lottus. MOTION CARRIED. Pubiic Hearing closed at 8:49 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1992 PAGE 3 MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING. vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold, Loftus, and Wells. MOTION CARRIED. Public Hearing closed at 8:50 P.M. ITEM II - JON MCLAIN - SIDEYARD AND LAKESHORE VARIANCE Julie McLain, 5426 Fairlawn Shores Trail, stated they are requesting a sideyard, lakeshore, and lot coverage variance to construct additional living space. Sam Lucast presented the information as per memo of February 20, 1992. The applicant is requesting a 4.5' sideyard 42.5' lakeshore, and a 9% lot coverage variance. The subject a to was platted in 1923 and a home built in the 1940's. The area is developed with single family dwellings located at a distance which today would require variances. The area in the rear of the house is very steep as is typical in neighboring lots. Variances were granted to the previous owner. DMR has no objections to the application. Recommendation from Staff is to approve the requested variances. Comments from the Commissioners were on, impervious surface coverage, construction time trams and no objections to variances. 5426 THE VIEW OF THE LAKE FOR ADJACENT HOMES, THE LOT I8 A SUBSTANDARD LOT WITH A LEGAL NON - CONFORMING STRUCTURE SETBACK, LARGER SETBACKS FROM THE LAKESHORE AND BIDE PROPERTY LINES WILL BE CREATED WITH THE ADDITION AND ELIMINATION OF PART OF THE EXISTING DECK, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING CODE AND WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. Vote taken signified ayes from Roseth, Wells, Loftus, and Arnold. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM III - MARK MANTHEY - LAKESHORE AND SEPTIC SYSTEM VARIANCE Mark Manthey, 609 South Market Street, Shakopee, MN, stated he is re 9uaeting the variances for Lot Howard Lake Estates, to build a new home. Due to the setback requirements now in force and that Howard Lake occupies one acre of the subject site, variances are needed in order to build. Sam Lucast presented the information as per memo of February 20, 1992. The application is for a 115 foot lakeshore variance and a 70 foot septic system setback variance for 15220 Howard Lake Road. The subject site is a 2.6 acre parcel located in the rural service area adjacent to Howard Lake and County Road 17. Two separate Zoning Ordinances Amendments have impacted the building requirements for this lot. As a result, the hardship is PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1992 PAGE 4 created by the ordinance and not by the applicant. If all setbacks and requirements were enforced the lot would not be buildable. The parcel contains one relatively flat area on which a pole barn is located and the house is proposed for the same area. Lot 1, Howard Lake Estates, was granted a 100 foot lakeshore variance for construction of a new single family home. This lot is similar in topoc1raphy and restrictions as the subject site. DHR has no objections to the requested variances due to the unique circumstances, however, the greatest setback possible should be required. Recommendation from Staff is to approve the variance application with the condition of filing a perpetual driveway easement to ensure future access across Lots 4 and 5 from Howard Lake Road. The proposed location is a logical building site and the variances would not be detrimental to the health and welfare of the community. Comments from the Commissioners were on, combining of Lots 3 and 4, location of house, road easement, and other options should be explored. MOTION BY WELLS, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO APPROVE THE 115 FOOT LAKESHORE VARIANCE AND A 70 FOOT SEPTIC SYSTEM SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 15220 HOWARD LAKE ROAD WITH THE CONDITION THAT A PERPETUAL ROAD EASEMENT BE FILED. RATIONALE BEING THAT THE LOT IS UNBUILDABLE WITHOUT THE VARIANCES, HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES 87 -07 AND 88 -09 AND NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, AND THE VARIANCES WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL To THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. Vote taken signified ayes by Wells, Roseth and Arnold. Nay by Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. Recess called at 9:30 P.M. Meeting reconvened at 9:35 P.M. ITEM IV - DR. CHARLES SCHNANTES -PET HOSPITAL- SIDEYARD VARIANCE Dr. Schwantes, 4136 West 132nd St. Savage, MM, re resenting the Prior Lake Pet Hospital located at 16680 Franklin Trail S.E., stated that due to the fact they have increased staff and business, an expansion to the hospital is anticipated and he is requesting a 40 foot east sideyard variance. Deb Garross presented the information as per memo of FebruarryY 20, 1992. Tha required sideyard setback in the 8-3 General Business District, 19 20 feat. However, when a business is located adjacent to a roeidential zoned lot the setback is increased to 60 feet. The building was built under another government j urisdiction and has a legal non - conforming setback. The rregular, triangular shaped lot combined with the 50 foot front yyard setback and the 60 foot sideyard setback severely limits X options. The site does have a legal non- conforming 17 foot setback to the side property line. Staff's recommendation is to approve the 40 foot sideyard variance. The hardship is not caused by the applicant but by the shape of the lot. The applicant has researched all options PLANNING COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1992, PAGE 5 available for construction possib5lities and the proposed application is the most logical. The variance would not be detrimental to the community and would observe the intent of the ordinance. Consensus by the Commissioners were in support of the variance. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO APPROVE THE 40 FOOT EAST SIDEYARD VARIANCE FOR THE PRIOR LAKE PET HOSPITAL LOCATED AT 16680 FRANKLIN TRAIL. RATIONALE BEING THE APPLICATION Is CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF THE AREA, THAT THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE REALIZED, AND IT WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold, Wells, and Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM V - EZ STOP /CROWN COCO - FRONT YARD SETBACK 6 SIGN ORDINANCE VARIAN David Miller represented Crown CoCo Inc. 319 Ulysses Street, Minneapolis. The subject site in question is the EZ Stop Station located at 16735 Franklin Trail, Prior Lake. Mr. Miller stated that over a year ago Crown CoCo had contacted a sign company to change the face of two signs but had neglected to pull a sign permit. He is now requesting the variances needed to allow continued display of the signs that are already in place. Deb Garross presented the information as per memo of February 20, 1992. The application is for an 8 foot front yard variance from S.T.H. 13 right -of -way, a 21 square foot sign area variance to allow a continued display of a 96 square foot free- standing sign, and a variance from Sign Ordinance 83 -5, Section 5 -7 -4B3 to allow 2 freestanding signs on the site where only one is permitted. In January of 1991, 2 sign faces, a wall sign and a freestanding "EZ Stop' sign were changed without an approved sign permit. On January 22, 1991, a letter was sent to Crown Coco and EZ Stop advising them of these violations. Staff not with Mr. Ray Roemmich of Suburban. Lighting to discuss the sign violations and permit process and a solution was recommended by Mr. Rosmmich. After the meeting, Mr. Roemmich stated he would advise Crown CoCo of the relocation plan. Staff met with Mr. Miller on Ayynil 16, 1992, at which time he received the variance appIicetion materials. On May 21, 1991 Staff again, submitted a letter to Crown CoCo and EZ Stop regarding the outstanding sign violations. They were advised if this was not rectified by June 21, 1991, the file would be forwarded to the City Attorney for possible prosecution. On July 8, 1991, Staff received a letter from Mr. Miller permit swasinthee signs responsibility w of e the i siggn hangger. s The Ci te submitted a formal complaint to the District Court in December or 1991. As a result of that action, Court has granted a continuance to allow the applicant the opportunity to come before the Planning Commission with the variance application, therefore, an on -going legal situation does exist. F;.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1992 PAGE 6 Stiff recommends denial of the variance application as requested. An alternative had been proposed by the sign contractor but was not implemented. The application does not observe the spirit and intent of the Ordinance and is contrary to the public interest. The variances would provide a convenient resolution of the issue for the applicai.t. However, the circumstances that the sign ordinance is intend.:? to prevent would be validated. comments from the Commissioners were, signs too close and too many, unfair advantage for E2 Stop causing hardship to other stations who have complied, negative precedent would be set, ordinances are to be enforced, and all were in agreement for denial. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO DENY THE VARIANCE APPLICATION OF AN EIGHT (8) FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE FROM S.T.H. 13 RIGHT- OF -WAY1 A TWENTY -ONE (21) SQUARE FOOT SIGN AREA VARIANCE, AND A REQUEST TO ALUM TWO (2) FREESTANDING SIGNS FOR CROWN COCO INC. FOR E2 STOP STORE AT 167x5 FRANKLIN TRAIL SE. RATIONALE BEING HARDSHIP HAS NOT BEEN Ri6ffBTRATED, A NEGATIVE PRECEDENT WOULD BE SET, IT WOULD NOT OBSERVE THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE, WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST PUBLIC INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY AND WOULD NOT PRODUCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. Vote `aken signified ayes by Arnold, Rozsth, Loftus, and Walls. MOTION CARRIED. NOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY WELLS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Wells, Loftus, and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 10:17 P.M. Tapes of seating on file at City Hall. Horst Grazer Rita M. Sahave Director of Planning Recording Secretary