HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.09.93 Planning Packet1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M.
2. APPROVE MINUTES
a. October 12, 1993 Regular
b. October 26, 1993 Special
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. 7:00 P.M. Variance Request from John Ristow to Divide Lot 5,
Mickelson's Addition
b. Continuation
c. Continuation
4. DISCUSSION
a. Planning Commission By -Laws
5. ADJOURN
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR
NOVEMBER 9, 1993
Wetland Alteration Permit Prairie Creek
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Reducing Landscaping
Requirement between Public Streets and Loading Areas
1. Call to Order
2. Approve Minutes
AGENDA REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR
NOVEMBER 9, 1993
3. Public Hearings
a. Variance Request from John Ristow to divide Lot 5, Mickelson's
Addition
The survey for Lot 5 indicates a total land area of 16,013.15 square feet.
The request is to divide the lot into two parcels. The west portion will
contain 6,498 square feet and the east portion with an existing duplex
will contain 9,516 square feet as shown on the survey. The application
indicates a somewhat smaller lot on the west side providing an additional
500 square feet for the duplex property. In essence, the size variation
between the description and the request are not meaningful. The issue
being discussed is that the current City code requires 11,000 square foot
lots for duplexes and 6,000 square foot lots for single family dwellings
in the R -2 district. The total land area needed for this division is
17,000 square feet. The variance being requested is for approximately
1000 square feet.
A density variance has not been granted before this by the Commission.
The application does not include any unusual circumstances unique to the
property which would justify granting the request. The lot is being used
at an intensity like other lots within the R -2 Residential District. The
property could be divided if the existing structure was a single family
dwelling rather than a duplex. On the other hand, the orientation of
the divided lot will be toward a County Road which is also a designated
minor arterial street in the City Thoroughfare Plan. Usually, it is a
better practice to orient the lot toward a neighborhood or local street.
Recommendation
Deny the request based upon findings which do not include any circumstance
unique to this property which creates a hardship relating to density.
b. Continuation of Hearing for a Wetland Alteration Permit requested
by Progress Land Company for Prairie Creek
The City Engineer has been away from the office for two weeks. Since
his return he has been negotiating with both the developer and the DNR
for details relevant to the request and a response from the DNR staff.
The information has been made available but, without any response from
the DNR, _it.is._difficult to bring this issue to closure.
c. Continuation of Hearing for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment requested
by the developer of City Center to reduce the landscaping requirement
between public streets and loading areas.
Because the City of Prior Lake once had a requirement similar to Section
10- 6 -9(A)2 regarding landscaping in front of loading areas, and it has
an older traditional downtown similar to Farmington's, the staff spent
some time with the Prior Lake staff to ask about their current require-
ments. During the past year, Prior Lake has developed an extensive land
scape ordinance which is in the process of being integrated into the
zoning ordinance. In concept, the policy of the City is to provide
green space adjoining all of the business districts except in the down-
town area. They look upon the downtown as a special area which will be
controlled by a redevelopment plan for the entire area rather than lot
by lot. Therefore, when they addressed city wide landscaping standards,
the reference to landscaping under off street loading was eliminated.
As a practical matter, it is very difficult to provide landscaping within
downtown areas because of the space restrictions. In developing areas,
it is much more easily accommodated. Even so, the landscaping require-
ments in Prior Lake are 10 feet in depth along all city streets except
arterials and collectors where they are increased to 30 feet for developing
commercial centers.
The recent history of the Farmington Planning Commission includes variances
in both the B -1 and B -2 District which have established 5 feet as the
minimum width to be used for landscaping and /or screening. Both variances
were granted because of their location in developed areas of the community.
The proposed amendment possibly could be changed to address the entire
issue based upon existing front yard setback requirements in the ordinance.
This would range between 50 feet in the B -1, I -1 and C -1 District to zero
feet in the downtown, including 20 feet in the R Districts. If the set-
back requirements of the ordinance are reasonable as they stand, land-
scaping within these yard areas should provide adequate protection for
either structures or loading areas.
4. Discussion
a. Planning Commission By -Laws
Member Rotty has asked for a discussion of this item by the Members of
the Commission.
aa„ 0,4%.
Charles Tooker
City Planner