Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 04 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY NOVEMBER 4, 2013 1. Call to Order: Chairman Phelan called the November 4, 2013 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Jeff Phelan, Adam Blahnik, Perri Hite and Eric Spieler, Planner Jeff Matzke, Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 4, 2013 MEETING AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, and Blahnik.The Motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of October 21, 2013 Meeting Minutes: , MOTION BY SPIELERSECONDED BY HITE TO ADOPT THE OCTOBER 21, 2013 MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler and Blahnik. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A.DEV-2013-0012 15760 Highway 13 South, Conditional Use Permit. Prior Lake Bait & Tackle is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage on property located at 15760 Highway 13 S. The site is located north of Gateway Street at the intersection of Franklin Trail and Highway 13. PID 25-936-016-0 Planner Matzke provided a presentation describing the location, size, outskirts, parking, elevations, access and zoning of the site in which this Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is being requested. Planner Matzke explained this CUP is to allow motor vehicle sales and define a parking area on the site as well as intended for rental storage of eight vehicles and/or rental equipment. The applicant is proposing to pave an area 20 feet in width along the western edge of the current parking lot for rental spaces. Planner Matzke defined CUP criteria that apply to this application as well as the zoning ordinance requirements for motor vehicle sales. Commissioner Comments/Questions: Hite asked is the request for motor vehicle sales or rental? Planner Matzke replied as listed in the operation, the land use definition they need to go by includes anything defined as sale or rental use of a vehicle. The site is proposed to have no more than 8 vehicles stored at one time, keeping the limit of sale operations they can have. 1 Applicant: Lance Schmitt – Prior Lake Bait & Tackle - 15760 Hwy 13 South. Mr. Schmitt explains that he manage the bait store for Stuart Bell, the owner of the property. Mr. Schmitt explained that they would be running up to 8 U-Haul trailers and/or vehicles for storage. He mentions the purpose of this proposal is to fill in the gap through the slow times of the year for the bait store to keep income flowing with the U-Haul rentals. He explained the schedule of the rotation of the U-Haul business on site. Commissions Questions: Phelan asked about the 20 x 100 foot paved area that the U-Haul trailers in, is this what is needed to store 8 trailers/vehicles? Lance confirms with yes, it makes sense to extend the parking lot and states also for extra parking for the bait store. Hite asked if there was any plans of adding any additional signage to the building to promote the rentals for the U-Haul? Lance replied we have no plans on expanding the signage. We have one sign 2 ½’ x 3’ and that is significant. Spieler asked are there vehicles stored there right not? Lance replied yes there are some right now. We have been working through the purchase of property from a previous owner. It took longer than we thought so they have been there for about a year or so. Spieler asked do you own the property? Lance responded, no I do not own the property, Stuart Bell owes the property. The transfer from the previous owner took a while to get signed over. Spieler asked how the parking will be arranged? Lance replied the vehicles will be parked straight in. The lot will be 10 feet wider, basically to gain 2 more parking stalls for the Cove or the restaurant and the rest for parking of the U-Haul trailers/vehicles. Blahnik asked have you been operating business there or just storing? Are you just now purchasing the property and this is the reason for the application to move forward? Lance agreed that they have been there for about a year and the property was acquired in late April/May and we have been working through the process. Blahnik asked is this exclusively for rentals of U-Hauls? Lance responded that yes that is correct and it happened to fall under motor vehicle sales only because of the rentals. 2 MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:11 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, and Blahnik The motioned carried. Tom Zimmeth – 15721 Mitchell Circle SE – Located behind the Cove and Bait store. Mr. Zimmeth asked if they will be adding any lights to light up the parking area. And if so where will they be aiming these lights at? He described his current location as being able to see traffic from Hwy 13, so would prefer to not have the lights shooting back behind the lot towards the neighborhood. Mr. Zimmeth also asked about installing any fencing at any time? MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:13 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, and Blahnik. The motioned carried. Commissions Questions: Phelan asked Planner Matzke is it correct that if the applicant puts lighting in the parking area per our lighting and zoning ordinances the lighting would need to be contained within 3 to 4 foot radius off the edge of the parking lot with down casts? Planner Matzke replied yes to Commissioner Phelan’s question and explains the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance does have a section that limits outdoor lighting and we have tools that measure the cast shadows off the lights. The requirement allows a little more light than more than 3 to 4 feet from the devices, however shadow boxes can be installed to help shine the light directly towards the parking lot not toward the back. Phelan mentioned it appears that the parking lot would be 250 feet from to the edge of the nearest residential inhabited yard, therefore with the ordinance requirements, lighting should not be a problem. Lance Schmitt, applicant replied no lighting will be placed. The hours of operation are 8:00am to 5:30pm on the U-Hauls. The bait store is open longer than the U-Hauls are operated. Mr. Schmitt also stated they don’t perceive putting up a fence at this time, for security or anything else. Phelan stated based on the application, consistency with the goals of the 2030 comprehensive plan, consistency with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, and no undo or adverse impacts on neighboring properties, he will be supporting this application. Spieler asked does the approval for CUP allow for car sales in the future. Could they be selling cars there as well? Planner Matzke responded it would allow for car sales only because it falls under the same use, however that use would be restricted to 8 and most car sale businesses would usually have more than 8 vehicles. Spieler asked it is limited to eight? There would there be no way to add more rental? Matzke replied if it is in the conditional use permit as a condition of the permit, it would need to be followed. If they decide to increase that amount they would need to amend the conditional use permit. 3 Spieler stated he supports this application as it is in alignment with our plan and has addressed all of the concerns stated. Hite stated she concurs with the statements made by our chairmen, I would like to note that there is a number of conditions that the city is proposing. I am in favor of approving this subject also to the conditions advised by staff that is in the report. Blahnik stated he supports this application, subject to the 15 conditions as enumerated by city staff, since it is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and serves a good purpose within the community. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PHELAN TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE FIFTEEN CONDITIONS AS INDICATED BY STAFF. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, and Blahnik. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. Waters Edge Marina CUP – DEV-2013-0011. Action to cancel the public hearing due to the application being withdrawn by the applicant. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CANCEL ITEM DEV-2013-0011. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, and Blahnik. The Motion carried. 6. New Business: A. Tree Preservation Ordinance Amendment. Director Rogness mentioned the staff’s discussions of the tree preservation ordinance amendment and asked for feedback and discussion from the commissioners with a suggestion of a motion and a second, if so desired, to add a clause which states vacant property of at least one half acre with at ten or more significant trees, would be defined as a woodlot. Further in the ordinance, (1107 page 6) a provision would be added on woodlots that would give some language of what applies in the application of our general performance standards regarding property that is vacant and not being proposed to be developed. Director Rogness explained the allowance to remove up to thirty-five percent of significant trees with the need to apply for an Alternation Application if more than the thirty-five percent is being requested. He also explained the penalty of two year moratorium for issuance of any grading or building permit, plus a higher level of replacement. He also mentioned the method of implementing this research was comparative with other cities, however would be willing to return with more research if needed. Director Rogness used an example of an area at Duluth and County Road 21 where many trees have been removed, which is why this ordinance amendment is being mentioned. Phelan asked on 1107.2107 Page 9 does not apply to dead or diseased trees, therefore do we know why these other lots got cleared? Was there intent of the example area you mentioned? Planner Matzke responded he believed this was a twofold intention, one being over all maintenance of the site grades, the second intention was also to open the site, for potential commercial use. 4 Phelan mentioned replacement is the right mechanism and don’t need to be over restricted. Phalen supports to open a public hearing to cover the bases, is his recommendation on this subject. Hite asked what is the evaluation of public benefit versus private rights? And what are the private rights to the owner of the lot, being able to clear their lot or sell their trees. Director Rogness responded we get resident calls about tree removal and we try to be good stewards. If it doesn’t fit into an application process, we try to advise them to keep as many mature trees as possible. We tried to keep it at the half an acre or more and the ten or more significant trees because of the need to balance private rights of property versus public benefit. Hite asked what other communities did you go to see what provisions they have that are similar to guide the city? Director Rogness replied our adjacent cities Shakopee and Savage, then branch out to communities that our south of the river and our size, Farmington, Rosemount. Chaska and Chanhassen, for being our close neighbors. Spieler asked is this only for vacant lots or if there is a house on that lot would it still apply? Director Rogness replies it applies to vacant property, therefore if there happened to be a house on a once acre or more lot this would not apply to that. Spieler asked how many lots in Prior Lake do we have like this? Does it make up ten percent of Prior Lake? Or five percent? Director Rogness replied we would need more research on this. There are large parcels that this would apply to up in the north part of the city, however we would like to look more into this and present it at the Public Hearing. Spieler stated that would help out quite a bit on the grounds that if you look right behind the Cove for example there are 250 feet of all trees and if someone was to own some of those trees and decide to get rid of them, would that qualify? Blahnik stated he does support a public hearing on this and mentioned he does like the definition to propose as restricting to a half acre with ten or more significant trees and is concerned about overly restricting our individual private rights. Commissioner Blahnik asks if it is limited to half an acre, if this is per lot, for example if someone was to own two adjacent lots one third acre lots, would that apply? Would someone use this as a loop hole? How would enforcement work for replacement if someone replaced all the trees and stumps with no inventory of all the trees in Prior Lake, however he does like the objective to saving our trees in the community. Phelan asked 1107 page 2 and into page 3 calls out the tree species, is that for replacement or is that part of the existing inventory? Is this for the replacement of is this all inclusive? Planner Matzke replies it is all inclusive for all inventory of trees considered a significant species that count towards these inches, so removal of some trees do not fall under our criteria. The inventory is more for guidelines to replace more significant and desirable trees. 5 Phelan mentioned there are a few species not included such as birches and aspen, but am assuming that it is including the whole popular family within cottonwoods. Commission Phelan mentioned that he doesn’t have any issue with this MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PHELAN TO INITIATE A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMMEND SUBSECTION 1001.2100 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE TREE REMOVAL PROCESS VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, and Blahnik. The Motion carried. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A.Recent City Council discussions/decisions. Director Rogness commented on the study for the county road 42 corridor and the comprehensive plan amendment. He then mentioned the second item which is another comprehensive plan request to the th planning commission which was made by the city council and believed to be scheduled on December 4 and is relating to the south downtown study. Director Rogness also mentioned the Rolling oak feasibility study was denied from moving forward. Director Rogness explained the Building permit activities stating through September 30, 2012, 120 building permits were issued (93 single family, 27 townhome units) and the building permit activities through September 30, 2013, 143 residential permits were issued (108 single family and 35 townhome). This does include commercial, industrial and all additions to home and etc. The lot inventory as of September 30, 2013 include 226 single family lots available, 40 townhome lots available. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO ADJORN THE MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, and Blahnik. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 6