Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020904 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2004 Fire Station - City Co'uncil Chambers 6:30 p.m. 1. . Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Consent Agenda: 5. Public Hearings: A. Case #04-16 William and Vi Stemmer are requesting to amend the Zoning Map to include approximately 3.9 acres of land and to designate the property as R-1 (Low Density ResideJ:ltial) for the property located on the north side of CSAH 12 immediately west of Spring Lake Reg;ional Park. B. Case #04-12 An amendment to Zoning Ordinance to add Section 1113 regulating signage for Facilities of Regional Significance. C. Case #04-01 An amendment to Section 1104.201 of the Zoning Ordinance adding Campbell L(;Jke, Crystal Lake and Rice Lake to the Shoreland Ordinance. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. Discuss Class I architectural materials. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pcAgenda\AG02Q904.DOC 'ty f . I k WWW.Clopnorae.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2004 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the February 9,2004, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Present Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the January 26, 2004, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: There was no public attendance. A. Case #04-16 William and Vi Stemmer are requesting to amend the Zoning Map to include approximately 3.9 acres of land and to designate the property as R-l (Low Density Residential) for the property located on the north side of CSAH 12 immediately west of Spring Lake Regional Park. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 9, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On October 21, 2002, the City Council adopted a resolution annexing approximately 80 acres of land located on the north side of Shoreline Drive directly west of Spring Lake Park. On January 6,2003, the City Council also approved an amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan to include this property on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map and to designate this property for Low to Medium Density Residential uses. On February 2, 2004, the City Council approved the rezoning of the Stemmer Ridge property to the R-l (Low Density Residential) district on the City Zoning Map. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN020904.doc 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 9.2004 When the Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning request for the Stemmer Ridge property, the staff noted the William and Vi Stemmer property, located at 2080 Shoreline Boulevard, should also be designated as R ...1. When this property was annexed, there was no zoning designation applied to the property. The Planning Commission initiated this rezoning on January 12, 2004. The purpose of this zone change is to provide the property with a zoning designation. Currently, the property is not zoned, which can present some problems with determining the uses permitted on the site, the issuance of building permits, and so on. There is no development proposed on the site. The staff recommended approval of the R-l District. There were no comments from the public. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: . Agreed with staff's findings to rezone. . Support. Ringstad: . The property is entirely surrounded by R1 zoning. The designation makes sense. . Support. Lemke: . Rl is the proper designation. . Agreed with staff. Perez: . Consistent with surrounding zoning. It does need a designation. . Agreed to support. Stamson: . Agreed with fellow commissioners. It is the appropriate use. . It is consistent with what will automatically happen with the remainder of the annexation area. We already looked at the surrounding area and deemed it R-1. . Support. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT REZONING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE R-l DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on March 1, 2004. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN020904.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 9,2004 B. Case #04-12 An amendment to Zoning Ordinance to add Section 1113 regulating sign age for Facilities of Regional Significance. City Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated February 9,2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On December 15,2003, the Planning Commission and City Council held ajoint workshop to discuss several potential ordinance amendments, including off-premise signage for regional facilities. Staff was directed to prepare language for the Planning Commission's review. The purpose of this Zoning Ordinance Amendment is to provide for off-premise directional signage for Facilities of Regional Significance. Section 1107.400 of the Zoning Ordinance regulates the location and size of commercial on-premise signage. On-premise signage can be defined as "any sign identifying or advertising a business or facility located on the premises where the sign is installed and maintained." Whereas, an off-premise sign can be defined as "any sign advertising goods, products, or services, not located or sold on the premises on which the sign is located." Off-premise signage is prohibited, with the exception of temporary off-premise directional signage for a new residential or institutional development. Such a sign may be displayed for a maximum of one year and is limited to 25 square feet. Billboard signs are considered off-premise signage, and are prohibited within Prior Lake. The proposed amendment is consistent with the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes. Based upon the findings in this report, staff recommended approval. Stamson asked for clarification on the minimum of four sides. Kirchoff explained the difference between billboards and a monument base with four sides. Atwood asked why the amendment is not being incorporated into the existing sign ordinance. Kansier responded these types of ordinances can be challenged and in order to simplify matters staff separated the issues. That way, if it is challenged it is a matter of eliminating that section rather than try to go through the ordinance and delete. Ringstad questioned the signage criteria on State Highways and 2500 generated trips per day. Kirchoff responded any facility of regional significance that would meet the four criteria. Kansier gave potential business examples. Staff was looking towards the future. Lemke questioned the criteria was safety for directing pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Kansier explained the necessity of the four sided signs. There were no comments from the public. Comments from the Commissioners: Commissioner Perez is abstaining from the discussion on this issue. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN020904.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 9,2004 Ringstad: . It does appear there is a public need for this amendment. The public needs adequate direction to facilities of regional significance. . This is consistent with State and Federal Laws. . It protects residential neighborhoods. . Support the proposed amendment. Lemke: . Staff researched this well and presented a compelling argument for the need. It will accomplish one or more of the Comprehensive Plan goals. Atwood: . Support staff's findings. . The specific limitations on size and lighting requirements are fair. Stamson: . Questioned if the dimensions of 20 feet and 100 square feet are adequate to meet the demands? Kirchoff said the number is the largest size sign allowed in the City limi ts. . Prefers the shorter wider sign as opposed to longer higher sign. . Staff displayed various signage in the community. . Kansier said the square footage is a policy issue. . Preference is to have a shorter monument sign as opposed to a billboard-style sign. The monument-style is much more pleasing. . Kansier said potentially there can be a billboard-style sign. More than likely it would have the larger base. It is unknown at this time. . Atwood questioned if there could be exceptions or restrictions. . Kirchoff pointed out the ordinance does require a base foundation. The poles would have to be surrounded by foundation. . Considering Class I materials are involved - will support. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Commissioner Perez abstained. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before City Council on March 1,2004. c. Case #04-01 An amendment to Section 1104.201 of the Zoning Ordinance adding Campbell Lake, Crystal Lake and Rice Lake to the Shoreland Ordinance. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 9, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN020904.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 9,2004 In 2003, the City Council and Spring Lake Township entered into an Orderly Annexation Area that includes approximately 3,000 acres of land to be annexed over the next 20 years. Included within this area are three DNR public waters: Campbell Lake, Crystal Lake and Rice Lake. The purpose of this amendment is to include these lakes, along with the corresponding ordinary high water elevations in the City of Prior Lake Shoreland Ordinance. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulates public water basins throughout the state. The DNR has classified these public waters as Natural Environment Lakes, Recreational Development Lakes or General Development Lakes. Local governments must adopt the Shoreland Management rules, including the lake classifications, for the lakes within their jurisdictions. Under the Scott County Zoning Ordinance, Campbell Lake, Crystal Lake and Rice Lake are classified as Natural Environment Lakes. As property is annexed, the City must also apply the Shoreland District requirements. The proposed amendment adds the three lakes located within the Orderly Annexation to the City Zoning Ordinance in order to assure the relevant Shoreland District provisions are applied. The amendment maintains the lake classification and the Ordinary High Water Elevations established by the DNR. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommended approval. Atwood questioned why an ordinary high water mark has not been designated for Campbell Lake. Kansier explained establishing the ordinary high water mark is usually developer driven and the DNR process. Lemke questioned the process. Kansier responded that most developers are aware of the process and start working with the DNR. It is a matter of the area hydrologist making a determination. Lemke suggested asking the DNR to start the process. Kansier said staff would. She pointed out other wetland/lakes within the City that do not have ordinary high water determinations. There were no comments from the public. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . There is obviously a public need. Staff did an excellent job. . Support. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN020904.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 9,2004 Perez: . This is a natural step in annexation. . Agreed to follow through with the DNR. . Approve. Atwood: . Agreed with Commissioners - the amendment is consistent with the goals of the Zoning Ordinance. . Support. Ringstad: . It will bring the same designation into the City as they are being annexed. . Support. Stamson: . Agreed with Commissioners that staff did an excellent job in laying out the process. . Support. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on March 1, 2004. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. Discuss Class I Architectural Materials. Planner Cynthia Kirchoff gave an overview of the architectural material standards for the City. Staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission concerning a Zoning Ordinance amendment to add materials to the architectural standards. Currently, Class I materials consist of products such as brick, stone, and plaster stucco. On residential structures with four or fewer units, wood and vinyl siding are considered Class I materials. At least 60 percent of each residential (with more than four units) or commercial building face visible from off-site must be constructed of Class I materials. The staff recommended fiber cement siding be included in the approved architectural materials, but not specifically Class I material. Staff prepared a draft Ordinance Amendment to the City Code attached to Staff's Memo dated February 9,2004. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN020904.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 9,2004 Open Comments from Commissioners: · Interesting roofs are not part of this amendment and maybe should discuss including them. Kirchoff said staff wanted to bring this to the Commission's attention. · Does anyone from staff feel there is a problem with the roofs? Kansier said staff did not have a problem however there are more requests for siding. Staff just wanted the Planning Commission to be aware. · What are we trying to accomplish? Are we more restrictive than other communities? Kirchoff responded staff doesn't believe this is any more restrictive than what currently exists. It would be expanding the list of materials. The materials in the ordinance are more specific than the other communities - this just adds to the Class I material list. . It is good to identify new materials. . As technology moves forward, there are going to be better materials. · A developer brought up "cost" a couple months ago. Hate to see the City compromise the aesthetics and character for cost of putting up multiple units. Building Official Bob Hutchins gave an overview on a new product called "EFIS" (Exterior Installation Finish System). Hutchins agreed to include with the Class I material but to condition it with an 8 foot height requirement. Stamson: . Overall liked staff's approach. Might consider doing something a little different on a wall adjoining a front yard - the face of the building (front door) has to be Class I materials. Then maybe allowing a greater percentage on the rear and sides. Maybe 20% instead of30%. . Likes the brick requirement on front elevations. . Expectation by some is not to see brick in the rear. . Make EIFS siding Class I. It is the same as stucco, even better. This is really about aesthetics. . Require it to be 8 feet higher, as the one downfall is the Styrofoam backing. . Agreed with staff. It addresses most of our aesthetics. It is a good change. . We hear a lot from developers on this issue. The product is durable. . This will also help keep affordable housing. Lemke: . Agreed the EIFS siding should be in the Class I materials. . The finish is pretty much flawless. It looks nice. . Noticed the problems with EIFS along the sidewalks; however, that can be dealt with. . Preference would be for the residential districts to require "durable" materials and not specify the type similar to other communities. . Cost is an issue. Affordable housing is a goal in the 2020 Vision. . In today's market, builders are not going to put up cheap-looking structures. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN020904.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 9,2004 Perez: . Can see staff s concern with the natural definition for Class 1. There is differentiation - it is a durable product. · Fiber cement siding does meet the Class I requirement. . The EIFS is aesthetically pleasing. . Agreed with staff's recommendation. Atwood: . Is there a need to pull a piece of material from the Class I? Kansier said it really is aesthetics. Most products address the durability issue. Kansier went on to explain the earlier material requirements for durability and aesthetics. The ordinance can be split into sizes of residential buildings or expand the units as the Commission feels appropriate. . Suggestion to keep two classifications and discuss and decide on the cement fiber board as it is aesthetically different. Have amount specifications included in the Class I requirement. . Disagree with Lemke that there are builders who may not use quality materials. Error on the conservative side and specify and list the materials. Be open to look at new materials on the market. . Keep two different classifications adding language to Class I materials. Ringstad: . Great points made - Liked the idea of keeping Class I in the front of the buildings and compromising somewhat on the building backs and sides. . Agreed with Atwood that some builders will put up a cheap product and leave. These discussions and ordinances are important. . A developer brought up this issue because of a price point and it got my attention. There are certain limitations with mortgages with lenders. Builders will try to stay within those guidelines. . We need to make sure the community is protected yet maintain affordable housing. Where we can make a difference we should. This is a very good step. Open Discussion: . There is a bit of a break between commercial buildings and at least small residential. Ifwe could allow 6 unit townhomes and give a little more leeway by bumping the number up and basically allow fiber cement as a option on residential. . Regarding the commercial area - would like to see the more restrictive Class I requirements at least on the street side. . The dwelling units are a different call. Should be treated separately. . The new fiber material is good too. It is more durable than vinyl and cost effective. We could eliminate vinyl and replace with fiber cement, at least on the bigger apartment and townhouse buildings. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN020904.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 9,2004 . The Commissioners agreed. . Like the idea of townhome unit requirements of low maintenance materials. Some communities do not specify residential materials. Are we trying to fix a problem that really doesn't exist? . It is important to maintain Class I material on commercial buildings. . Are durable materials specifically identified? Kansier said it makes it harder. Staff deals with many builders trying to persuade the City on what is durable. The City can make a decision what is durable but hit opens the door. . Strongly urge fellow Commissioners to keep the requirements specific. We could be sorry ifit was just "durable". . This should be reviewed periodically. Technology changes and there are always new products on the market. Discussions like this are appropriate. . Kansier said staff can tweak the ordinance and work within the specifics. The next meeting will be a public hearing and there will be opportunities to change or continue. . Any concerns with keeping the residential buildings at 6 or 8 units? . Right now an 8 unit would not be able to use wood, cement board or vinyl. . Not comfortable with more than 8 units, 6 would be better. . The Commissioners briefly discussed the vinyl grades. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Kansier said the next meeting should wrap up the ordinance amendments. Shannon Lotthammer, the Manager from the Watershed District will speak at the next Planning Commission meeting. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN020904.doc 9