Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 26 2012 PC meeting minutes PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, March 26, 2012 1. Call to Order: Chairman Phelan called the March 26, 2012, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan, Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, City Engineer Larry Poppler, Planner Jeff Matzke, and Community Development Assistant Peter Aldritt. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY ROSZAK, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE MARCH 26, 2012 MEETING AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan. The Motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of January 9, 2012 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY ROSZAK, SECONDED BY PHELAN TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 9TH, 2012 MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik, and Phelan. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. #EP 12-101 Self Storage Facility. Paul Anfinson and Tom Meschke have submitted an application to amend the C-2 (General Business) Zoning District to allow Self Storage as a conditional use. This application proposes changes to sections 1101.1000, 1102.1103, 1107.304 and 1107.305 of the Prior Lake City Code. Planner Matzke presentedPaul Anfinson, Danette Hill, & Tom Meschke have applied for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would allow a Self Storage Facility land use in the C-2 (General Business) Zoning District. The applicant is proposing to amend section 1101.1000, 1102.1103, 1107.304, and 1107.305 of the City Zoning Ordinance. The amendment would allow a Self Storage Facility land use in the C-2 (General Business) Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit. Questions from the Commissioners: Blahnik asked I have a few about the conditions that you listed, the first one indicating that no compartment door would face a residential area, you mentioned that you contemplated this issue if there was, that fencing would be there to block it and another requirement is that there be an 100 percent opacity wall if it faces a “R” district of a minimum 6 feet. There could be an 8, 10 foot wall that could completely block the door? Planner Matzke responded we looked at it both ways; at minimum there will be a 6 foot fence that will block the use. We felt that maybe the actual building wall had to be what would block that use because of the traffic and the types of activities taking place. Blahnik asked more noise consideration? 1 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN032612.doc Planner Matzke responded yes that’s more what we were concerned with. Blahnik asked on the fence/ wall requirement, is there any requirement if it does not face a residential area? Planner Matzke responded we focused more on what materials that we would not like to see, we did not to restrict to a choice few but more wanted to restrict the ones that we felt were inappropriate to the area. Blahnik asked as far a screening from trash and dock areas you have the City Ordinance 1107.1900, is that otherwise required in a C-2 Zoning District? Planner Matzke responded yes that is actually in all of our Commercial Districts. Blahnik asked there is a recommendation of no activity which amplifies music or noise made by auctions or retail sales. Planner Matzke responded in regards to the parking, when there is an auction or sale there would be more people brought to the site than what the normal use would be. These facilities are not set up for a retail use; they are for storage uses. City Staff felt that there would be a strain on the parking and access to the site if those types of events were allowed. Blahnik asked the exclusion of auctions was more due to the parking restraints then the amplification of noise? Planner Matzke responded yes, the amplified music was actually to restrict people from renting out a unit to host a garage type of band practice. It was focused restricting on amplified music in regards to our noise ordinance. Blahnik asked in relation to the materials can you clarify the percentages of each material needed? Planner Matzke responded on the side of the building with the doors, if the area was taken away that the doors occupy then we would just evaluate the portion of the walls that were left. Blahnik asked in regards to the landscaping cleanup and maintenance portion is that a reference to an ordinance? Planner Matzke responded yes that is in regards to our landscaping requirements and property maintenance ordinances. Roszak asked Self storage is allowed in the C3 and I Use districts, would these staff recommendations be applicable in those use districts also? Planner Matzke responded no they would not be, since they are allowed in the more industrial use districts, staff felt that if it were to be allowed in the more general commercial use districts that there would need to be tighter restriction on the building. Roszak asked is there a reason that the applicant did not decide to just rezone the site? Planner Matzke responded to change the zoning on a specific use district if it is not next to similar zoning districts is a poor planning practice. It is better to add it in as a conditional use which then allows staff to imply certain conditions and best fit the business to that zoning district. 2 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN032612.doc Phelan asked in regards to the building materials it stated that the requirement on the wall with the doors is 25 percent, why not 50 percent or 60 percent? What was the reasoning to deviate from that requirement? Planner Matzke responded the reasoning for the deviation was that this type of use has a lot of doorways on the on the building wall, where a restaurant or retail building do not have these large doors that occupy the majority of the space, the doors break up the building wall. We wanted to have requirements that were in line with the other zoning districts but also kept the building looking like it would fit in the C-2 Zoning District. Phelan asked can you discuss the parking requirements and how you came up with these requirements? Planner Matzke responded we felt that 1 per 10 units was a very strict parking requirement. We looked at what industry standards are for this type of use and felt that the a minimum of 5 parking spaces or 2 parking spaces plus 1 parking space per 75 units, whichever is greater is a standard that fits this type of use. Phelan asked if the amendment were to be passed would it already be stated that this use would need a C.U.P to be allowed or do we as commissioners need to add that in? Planner Matzke responded the applicant is proposing that and that is in the language in the staff report that a C.U.P. would be needed. If you as commissioners feel that it is important to have a C.U.P. needed make sure you state that in your comments. A MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECOND BY ROSZAK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:43 PM VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan. The Motion carried. Applicant Tom Meschke Chaska, MN stated Jeff thank you for the nice presentation. We brought our builders from Pella Iowa. If there is any questions related to the building I will have him come up and respond. Dave Fegley Builder, Des Moines Iowa stated we are the developer and builder of mini storages; we have built many storage facilities, the list of recommended conditions we have and are following pretty much all of them. The standards in the storage industry have changed over the years, they have become much more ridged, refined and as the business have progressed they have become more sophisticated. This facility will be approximately 200 units, with a state of the art computer gate system and a kiosk where tenants can come there without having a manager there on weekends, nights or holidays. The facility will be manned by a manger during daylight hours about 9 am to 4 pm there will be a 24/7 electronic gated coded access. The facility will have a lock down entrance gage as well as rod iron fencing. The façade is made of 20 gauge steel with a crushed marble acrylic paint on the ends that break up the look. There is also a climate controlled building that allows the inside units to be heated and cooled. On the outside there is the standard rental units that tenants can drive up to and drop off there items. Another building has larger units for boats and larger storage items there is about 12 to 15 of those units. This is an all-round storage facility, not just 10 by 20 or 10 by 15 garage units. There are units that are climate controlled, smaller non-climate controlled and larger units. Blahnik asked the recommended standards that we went over previously those are pretty standard with the industry that you have seen? 3 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN032612.doc Fegley responded yes pretty much, what Jeff has mentioned is spot on. We do not allow any hazardous materials and we have a unit that is just used for trash. Blahnik asked when the compartment doors are facing a residential area are these requirements standard? Fegley respondedtypically when we are next to a residential area we require that there be a berm or a buffer area in place or to build the building without any doors facing the residential area. All the lighting is directed downward. We do not put any electricity in the units at all so there is not the ability to have light or other power equipment. Roszak asked in the units for boats or R.V.s there isn’t any power or floor drains or anything like that? Fegley responded no we do not. Possible on the larger units we would put a light in there since it can get dark at the night. Roszak asked are they condos ore rental units? Fegley responded they are rentals. Phelan asked where is the current site being proposed, is it next to residential? Fegley responded no I don’t believe it is next to residential. Planner Matzke responded it is in Fountain Hills. Blahnik asked on the auction topic, what is your process for getting rid of goods that are left behind or units that are not paid for? Fegley responded typically if we do have auctions to get rid of the material. Usually the door is open for 5 minutes the bidders look in the unit. Then the auction is held and the top bidder has an hour to remove the goods. It is not like what you see on TV with Storage Wars. It is low key and quite. Blahnik asked would it be referred to as an auction? In the conditions listed this use would not allow auctions. Fegley responded yes it is considered an auction and there are certain State Statutes stating that it must be posted that we will be holding an auction. We do have the option of moving the material off premises and then having the auction take place at a remote location. Blahnik asked by including the word Auction in the new ordinance that would not be allowed. Would this have an adverse impact on your storage facility? Fegley responded no it wouldn’t, we want to get rid of the stuff in the most efficient way possible and an auction is the most efficient way. Blahnik responded my inquiry on this is I would rather remove the language that prohibits the use of auctions. Fegley responded that would be nice if that language was removed. Roy Stromme 4913 Beach St. asked what are the setbacks? 4 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN032612.doc Tom Meschke responded 10 feet on the side 20 or 25 feet from the rear. Phelan responded there are standard setbacks for that use district. Stromme responded I think it is important to look at the driveway widths and how fire trucks can enter the property. Planner Matzke responded we do have standards in the Zoning District that address setback and drive width in regards to fire access and turnarounds. This type of use would be held to those standards. Stromme stated in regards to the auctions the applicant is correct they are not frequent and low key events. It would be a good idea to allow auctions. A MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECOND BY ROSZAK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:02 PM VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan. The Motion carried. Commissioner Comments: Roszak stated it is nice to see some activity, I can support this with staff recommendations and as long as a C.U.P. is required. Blahnik stated as far as the recommended conditions, I would propose two amendments to the proposed conditions one is to remove the reference to the auctions. The second would be in regard to the compartment doors facing residential areas. I would like to amend that language to say that compartment doors facing residential areas could be allowed as long as a berm is in place that would conceal the compartment door and mitigate the noise. The rest of the recommendations are consistent with the public need for storage, there is activity and when there is activity there is a need for people to store their stuff. It is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. It is consistent with Federal and State laws I will be supporting these recommended conditions. Phelan stated I too would support it with the recommended elimination of the auction language. I think it is asking for trouble down the road. We should take the ambiguity out of it. I have some concerns about the conditions around the R-1 district, as long as each application requires a Conditional Use Permit it could be reviewed and implemented on case by case.. There is a public need. It is consistent with State and Federal requirements. With the elimination of the auction language and adherence to existing zoning ordinances and a Conditional Use Permit I would support recommending the amendment. Blahnik asked just for clarification the proposed motion would be eliminating the auction piece but it would still include the requirement for the disallowance for a compartment door to face a residential area even is a berm was in place. Phelan stated I agree. Blahnik asked I was hoping to amend it to include a berm. 5 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN032612.doc Phelan I don’t believe including the language to allow a compartment door facing residential area is a bad idea. A MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECOND BY ROSZAK TO ADOPT THE CIT’Y RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS EXCLUDING THE AUCTION REQUIREMENT AND INCLUDING THE ALLOWANCE OF A COMPARTMENT DOOR FACING A RESIDENTIAL AREA IF A BERM IS IN PLACE. VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Roszak, and Phelan. The Motion carried. B. #EP 12-102 5035 Beach St. Conditional Use Permit. Richard Langer has submitted an application for a C.U.P to allow grading in excess of 400 cubic yards on his property, which is located on the Northwest shore of Prior Lake at the end of Beach Street Planner Matzke presented Richard Langer has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow grading and land reclamation of his property located at 5035 Beach Street. The site is located on the Northwest shore of Prior Lake, South of County Hwy 82. The project calls for the importing of 6,000 cubic yards of fill to the site. City Engineer Poppler presented we did provide a memo in regards to this project that would look at the erosion control and how the water would drain. In addition to the Conditional Use Permit we would require a Grading Permit in which we would have additional conditions of approval. We do collect an escrow for the project along with the application fee. We would require a storm water pollution prevention plan as well that would need to be submitted with the grading permit. Commissioner Questions: Roszak asked would we be losing a lot of trees? Engineer Popple r responded it is grassy area as you can see in the area photo. Roszak asked will the applicant seed after the grading? Engineer Poppler yes stabilization is required. Blahnik asked is there any restrictions on the type of fill? Engineer Poppler no it is up to the applicant just clean fill. MOTION BY ROSZAK SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:20 PM VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan Applicant Richard Langer 5035 Beach Street as the applicant I would be happy to answer any questions on the project. Roszak asked is the fill being brought in for a building pad or being used to re-grade the entire site? Langer responded yes, right now we do not have a long term comprehensive plan for the site. I was able to get some cheap fill to fill in the low area. We may eventually develop the property. 6 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN032612.doc Blahnik asked this was prompted by the availability of the fill and where is the material coming from? Langer responded yes that is correct. There are some homes going up on the other side of the lake that are being re-graded. Phelan asked if this does move forward what is your time table? th Langer responded we would either get it done before May 15 or we would then delay until the fall. We do not want to disrupt the area during the summer. Roy Stromme 4913 Beach Street stated my comments are directed to the area outside of the affected land site. The neighborhood is a small neighborhood. There is only one entrance to this site. I am concerned with that route. I wanted to see if there could be possible restrictions on the trucks weight and maybe a speed limit? Beach Street is not in the best of shape and it is very narrow. There are many different school bus stops on that route if the hours of operation could be limited to 9:00 am to 2:00pm. There should be a deposit collected to ensure the cleanup of the property after the project is finished. I think that the residents along the entire route should be notified of when the grading will take place. Dale Getz 4987 Beach Street stated my concern is the road it is not in the best shape and with this heavy traffic will the road deteriorate and then we will be assed for the damages now as opposed to 10 or 15 years from now. ROSZAK MOTIONED SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:31 VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan Roszak asked can staff address the cleanup of the streets? Engineer Poppler responded we would use the letter of credit to pay for the cleanup if the developer failed to do so. The streets themselves, it is a 7 ton street and the trucks would need to abide to those restrictions. On regulating the hours of operation and speed limit, I would leave that up to the commission to impose those conditions, but it might be hard for our police department to enforce those restrictions. Planner Matzke responded we do have construction hours, if I remember right they are 7:00 am to 7:00 pm and I think Saturday is 8:00am to 7:00pm. That is an ordinance and the truck traffic would need to abide by that restriction. Roszak asked would the fill be coming all at once or be broken up? Langer responded it would be coming all at once. The goal is to get it done in as short of time as possible to limit the impact in the neighborhood. Talking to the developer it would be about a two week time. Blahnik stated I will be supporting this request; I do appreciate the concerns the neighbors have with the safety of the neighborhood and the children in the area. Limiting the hours would just extend the timeline for the project. Changing the speed limit and putting weight restrictions on the road would be difficult to enforce. The overall project would not have a negative impact on the area. It is not detrimental to the health safety or morals of the community and there are no undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of the property. I will be supporting it. 7 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN032612.doc Phelan stated in regards to the speed limit I would say to look to city ordinance and any deviation from that would be difficult to enforce. Limiting the hours between 8:00 and 9:00 and 2:00 and 4:00, you are going to take 3 hours out of 12 hour day which is 25 percent if its 2 weeks you are looking at extending the project 3 days. In regards to the safety of the children I don’t think that extending the project will be that more of an inconvenience. I would propose that we could discuss and consider some limitations on the hours. Roszak stated limiting the hours maybe a great idea but I think it would be difficult to do. Could we send out a notice to the neighbors? Notifying them of the two week period that this project will take place? Planer Matzke responded that is a condition that the Planning Commission can impose. Either the applicant or City staff could send out the mailings. Roszak stated if it is possible to send out a mailing notifying the residents of the time line of the grading. I think that would be important. Blahnik asked is the fill coming straight from the area to your property or is it being excavated and stored and then coming to your property. If we restrict the hours are we also restricting the hours on the other projects excavating? Langer responded they would have to stage the fill and idle truck time is not good. Phelan stated I would support the motion with either limiting the hours which may be a financial or logistical burden on the applicant or have City Staff send out a memo to the residents along Bluebird Trail and Beach Street explaining the project and giving a timeline. A MOTION BY ROSZAK SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 12-03 APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT SEND OUT A LETTER TO ANY NEIGHBORS ON BEACH STREET AND BLUEBIRD TRAIL AND THE LETTER BE REVIEWD BY CITY STAFF PRIOR TO BEING MAILED DETAILNG WHEN THE PROJECT WOULD BE IN OPERATION. VOTE: Ayes Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan. C. #EP 12-105 Peterson Driveway Variance. William Peterson is requesting a variance from the minimum side yard setback required for a driveway in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. The property is located at 15291 Edgewater Circle NE on the West Shore of Prior Lake across for Lake Front Park. Planner Matzke presented William Peterson is requesting a variance to allow the realignment of an existing driveway completely onto the applicant’s property located at 15291 Edgewater Circle NE. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and guided R-LD, Urban Low Density on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The variance request and driveway realignment are submitted in connection with an overall future building permit for a new house at 15291 Edgewater Circle NE; a previous single family residence has already been removed from the property. 8 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN032612.doc Commissioner Questions: None A MOTION BY ROSZAK SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 PM William Peterson 1423 Guild Ave. Apple Valley MN We are trying to move the driveway onto our property. To my knowledge the current driveway has been located on our neighbor’s property for 20 years and now that we are redoing it we are going to move it completely on out property. The neighbors on both sides of us are completely fine with us doing so. If we are granted this variance we will then be submitting a building permit to build our house. MOTION BY ROSZAK SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:53 PM VOTE: Ayes Roszak, Blahnik, and Phelan Commissioner Comments: Roszak statedI do not have any comments or questions. I will be supporting it. Blahnik stated I will be supporting this. In the world of practical difficulties this is about as practical difficult as it comes. This is necessary for them to put in the driveway. A MOTION BY PHELAN SECOND BY ROSZAK ADOPTING RESOLUTION 12-03PC APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1107.205 (1) OF THE ZONING CODE REQUIRING DRIVEWAYS TO BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINES VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan. D. #EP 12-106 Spring Lake Park Variance. Stantec Consulting on behalf of Scott County is requesting a variance to allow a gravel parking lot within the city limits of Prior Lake. The proposed lot is located in the Northwest corner of Spring Lake Regional Park, south of County Road 82 and west of County Road 81. Planner Matzke presented Stantec Consulting on behalf of Scott County is requesting a variance from Section 1107.204 to allow a Class 5 gravel parking lot in the Agriculture Zoning District. The property is located in the northwest corner of Spring Lake Park south of County Road 82 and west of County Road 81. The construction of the parking lot is a temporary improvement to allow citizens to utilize the dog park that will be part of developments in Spring Lake Regional Park. There are plans to pave and expand the parking lot once the park is further developed. Commissioner Questions: Phelan asked is there any way to use the gravel that is already out there on the road? Planner Matzke responded the applicant can answer that question. A MOTION BY ROSZAK SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 PM VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan Applicant Mark Themig Scott County Parks Manager Jeff covered the project very well in his presentation. The park is mostly natural; in 2006 community members got together with staff and developed a master plan. With the funding we have as of now the 9 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN032612.doc dog park and bituminous paths were what we are able to develop. There are plans to develop along Spring Lake as well. Part of the master plan was to work with Prior Lake and Scott County on meeting both entities needs and desires for the park. That is why we are looking at this interim stage to get the regional park up and going and then as the City develops and designs their plans for the park, we will be able to incorporate that into the entire park. The timeline is uncertain as of now because it depends on what the City decides to do and when the collector street goes in along the west side of the park. To answer your question Mr. Chair we do plan on reclaiming as much of the gravel as possible. Blahnik asked is there any type of estimate on when it will be paved? Themig responded I do not have a timeline, it is contingent on the City’s plans and when the County can secure more funds. Blahnik asked in regards to maintaining the parking lot is there a plan on that? Themig responded it will be maintained similarly to how the gravel road is done now. If grading or filling is needed the streets crew will take care of it. We are also in partnership with Three Rivers Park District and they will help with some of the maintenance. A MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECOND BY PHELAN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:09 PM VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Phelan and Roszak Commissioner Comments: Blahnik stated I will be supporting this it meets the allowable use of the property, I am happy to see this moving forward. Roszak stated I too will be supporting this. Phelan stated I too will be supporting this A MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECOND BY ROSZAK TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 12-04PC APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CLASS 5 GRAVEL PARKING LOT IN PLACE OF THE REQUIRED BITUMINOUS SURFACE PARKING LOT REQUIRED IN SECTION 1107.204(5) VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Phelan and Blahnik 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: None 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 10 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN032612.doc rdth Economic Development Director Dan Rogness presentedupdates from the January 3, February 6 stth February 21 and March 19 City Council meetings. Phelan asked the on Pike Lake acquisition it appears that there is a building on that property, was this property tax forfeited, what is the background on this property? Director Rogness responded yes there is currently a single family home and occupied by the family it has not gone through any tax forfeiture or foreclosure. The family is willing and ready to sell the property. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO ADJORN THE MEETING. VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Roszak, and Phelan. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Peter Aldritt, Community Development Assistant. 11 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN032612.doc