Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 18 2013 Planning Commission Meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, November 18, 2013 1. Call to Order: Chairman Phelan called the November 18, 2013 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Jeff Phelan, Tom Roszak, Adam Blahnik, Perri Hite, Eric Spieler and Wade Larson, Planner Jeff Matzke, Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, Water Resoures Engineer Peter Young, Project Engineer Seng Thongvanh and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 18, 2013 MEETING AGENDA. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Larson The Motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of November 4, 2013 Meeting Minutes: , MOTION BY PHELANSECONDED BY SPIELER TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 4, 2013 MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Larson. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV-2013-0007 Bluffs of Shady Beach Final P.U.D. Greg Schweich, on behalf of Copper Creek Development is proposing a Final P.U.D. consisting of 21 lots on an 8.09 acre parcel to be f County Road 42 and north of Shady Beach Trail between Birchwood Ave and Meadow Ave. Planner Matzke described the location of this project and explained the P.U.D. modifications and benefits as part of the planned unit development, stating there has been no changes since the preliminary plan was proposed and approved in September 2013. Planner Matzke described the public benefit, site details, P.U.D. purposes and benefits versus modifications. Planner Matzke mentions the final P.U.D., final plat, development contract and PUD contract would still need to be reviewed by the City Council for approval and explained the developer would need to pay contract development fees before they could start street and utility construction on the site. Commissioner Comments/Questions: Spieler asked are the setbacks still the same? Nothing has changed in regards to having a smaller lot size? Planner Matzke replied yes, since the last time it was at the Planning Commission, very little has changed. The applicant made some modifications to their storm water, but nothing has changed in regards to setbacks. 1 Spieler asked is the additional 8,247 cubic feet through the run off enough to prevent any water from going into the neighboring yards and going into the lake or going into the lake itself? Water Resoures Engineer Young responded that the storm water infiltration has been reviewed and it does not involve the neighboring properties and is a separate issue. Spieler asked if there is any concern about the runo Water Resoures Engineer Young replied that this issue was separate from the infiltration P.U.D. benefit, but the applicant did address this issue with separate submittals therefore assuring us the requirements will be met. Hite asked are Outlots A, B, and C dedicated to the city for access easements? Planner Matzke replied that is correct. Outlot C will be for utilities lines to run between Shady Beach Drive and Shady Beach Trail, and Outlot A and B will also be for utilities lines to access the storm water pond as well as the outlots for that pond area. Phelan asked does Outlot A and B provide a east and a south access to what would be the north pond area? Where is the north pond located? Planner Matzke responded that is correct. The north pond area is located in the rear yards of the area per the grading plan. Applicant Comments: Greg Schweich 14332 Watersedge Trail NE, Prior Lake Mr. Schweich mentioned he felt most everything was covered by Planner Matzke and staff in the report; however, he would like to express that they have obtained Planning Commission and City Council plat approval. They removed trees and were stopped by a court order because the neighbors sued his development company and city. They obtained a temporary restraining order, and Chard Tile & Excavating mobilized to a different sight and it ll be coming back to grade the site this fall. They stabilized it and hydro seeded until work continues next year. Commissions Questions: Blannik asked Mr. Schweich if he was willing to follow all the recommendations in the memorandum th dated October 18, 2013 from the city? Applicant Greg Schweich replied yes and mentioned that he has been communicating with Planner Matzke as far as conditions. Phelan asked Mr. Schweich if his intentions were to continue development in the spring? Applicant Greg Schweich replied that they will mobilize in spring and start grading. 2 MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:14 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Larson The motioned carried. Judy Kelly - 14277 Shady Beach Trail NE Ms. Kelly is concerned about erosion of the propert soil with the tree removal and winter coming. She noted the seeding taken place on only one end by lots A and B. It is her hope that this issue has or will be addressed. Applicant Greg Schweich mentioned before and after they started tree removal, a silt fence was installed per recommendation and guidelines from the MPCA. The silt fence is in place and a permit is approved from the MPCA and the City. They did hydro-seed and had an inspection about ten days ago. Mr. Schweich stated there were some corrections that needed to be completed by November 14, 2013 and they are complete. The property and the site is stabilized and available to review. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO CLOSE THE PUBLICAT 6:17 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik, and Larson. The motioned carried. Commissions Comments/Questions: Phelan mentioned to staff that he would like to see a confirmation of inspection of the site on November 14, 2013, and assure that corrections were made and staff is comfortable with stabilization going into winter. Water Resoures Engineer Young replied that he was there on Friday of last week, and all the corrections had not been accomplished by this date; however, Mr. Schweich assured him that they would be completed this week. There are some further things to accomplish to make sure that they are compliant with the permit Mr. Schweich just mentioned. Hite asked are there things that can be done in the timeline? Water Resoures Engineer Young replied there is one more row of silt fence at the west end between the lake and the site, additional straw in the flat areas to cover and make sure the soil is stable, and in the slope areas such as the ravine enhanced such as hydro mulch or a blanket as requirements. Basically, the site needs to be covered up before winter. Spieler stated he does support this on conditions of the applicant following up with the recommendation of staff as mentioned by Water Resoures Engineer Young, as well as an approval by the city. Hite suggested she is supporting the final plat as long as compliance with the conditions that are stated by th the city in the October 18 report. Blahnik mentioned that he will be supporting this application subject to the recommendations by the th Cit October 18 memorandum and other requests and conditions as stated by the City. th Larson commented that he agrees with fellow commissioners on the October 18 City recommendations. Phelan stated he is in agreement with his fellow commissioners and feels it is an effective and efficient use of the land and has seen significant improvements since the original design months ago. He will be 3 supporting this application with a couple of conditions. First, what was laid out in the staff report and the second being the additional improvements that need to be done per Water Resource Engineer Young. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS P.U.D. SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS INDICATED BY COMMISSIONER PHELAN. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Larson. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. No Old Buisness Items 6. New Business: A. Discussion: List of General Industrial (I-1) Conditional Use Permits. Director Rogness stated staff requests the following topic to be for discussion and direction only at this time and presented three handouts. The first handout showed Industrial Zoning Comparisons. The second handout showed the Industrial Park, handout showed Excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance. Director Rogness stated there are some problem areas as staff works with potential businesses that want to locate in the General Industrial Zone (specifically Deerfield). For example, there is a larger than fiftwhether the city should limit the amount of storage in the industrial zone for one use versus another? Director Rogness further showed how other uses, such as a Contractor Yard does not limit outdoor storage, while Self- Service Storage Facilities do not allow any outdoor storage. Director Rogness also identified some uses that were not allowed at all next to residential property. Commissioner Comments/Questions: Phelan mentioned he would like to understand some of the wisdom behind different classifications and stated he is not sure of the logic when the zoning ordinance was put into place. Phelan suggested that the condition restricted certain development next to residential is of sound logic, and he mentioned he would personal property by putting intentionally noisy, destructive uses next to residential. Phelan asked Director Rogness and staff if someone came in, could they apply for a variance or would a CUP application allow them to go beyond the amount of the storage in the current zoning ordinance? Direct Rogness replied that someone could apply for a variance to go beyond the fifty percent limit; however, the applicant would need to make a case that there are practical difficulties. He mentioned another option that could be a possibility, which would be to have outdoor storage that goes beyond fifty percent be processed as a conditional use. It is a way to still apply and receive a permit to have more than fifty percent outdoor storage with conditions. Phelan stated that he understood the Contractor Yard allowance whereby typically the contractor would have larger footprint equipment. He felt Self-Service Storage would look cluttered; put four walls and a roof over it. Both of these then would allow for a public hearing and public input on a specific application, and if there is overwhelming public input against said application and there is a practical difficulty, then a process would be followed without rewriting ordinances on a regular basis. 4 Spieler mentioned that the categories are very similar to each other, making it difficult to decide how to move further with it. He asked staff if it the actual property or the building on the property that is used to apply the fifty percent standard? Director Rogness replied that it would be the structure upon the property, the principal building. Spieler asked for clarification of how the outdoor storage standard is determined for different uses? Director Rogness responded the staff always defines the principal land use first; what is the principal use of their business and how does it best match zoning categories. Spieler asked about the paving of the area and not exceeding the impervious surface? Director Rogness replied that even if it is gravel or crushed bituminous, it is still considered impervious surface; therefore, the standards of industrial uses require the paving of parking areas only and not the storage area. Hite stated it is a complicated issue. She stated she appreciates Directors Dan instruction and would be happy to research and have it be reviewed in a work session to have more dialog on this subject. However, rather than going forward and doing a lot of amendments, she would like to continue to have the CUP process continued to protect the residential property rights for those lots abutting the residential lots. Blahnik asked if staff has looked into other communities on this issue to what they are doing in regard to these regulations? Direct Rogness replied that staff has looked at numerous communities when the amendments were made in the industrial zone last year. In terms of the fifty percent limitation, staff is struggling with the rational due to this standard not being applied equally to all industrial uses. Staff may have missed this type of detail during its previous research with other communities. Blahnik mentioned he would like to see what other communities are doing with these type of regulations and agrees with the general confusion on this issue. Is it an absolute on the restriction about uses not being allowed abutting residential, or are there conditional uses that would allow this? And, he asked if the fifty percent outdoor space is also absolute? He does want to protect residential rights; however, there are ways of building these structures in areas that can accommodate neighboring properties if the neighbors support it. With these restrictions, it appears to be all residential, so there is no differentiation between R1, R2 or R3? If certin industrial uses are next an apartment building, then maybe it should potentially be treated differently than from a single family residence. Director Rogness stated that it is an absolute regarding certain industrial uses not be allowed that abut residential as well as the fifty percent standard. There is no differentiation now for types of residential uses. Phelan asked for clarification on the current zoning ordinance and mentioned that an applicant would have the opportunity to apply for a variance or a conditional use permit, and therefore, effectively work around providing either of those avenues as approved by the Planning Commission. 5 Director Rogness replied that anyone can apply for a variance; therefore, they have the opportunity to do so. However, they cannot apply for a conditional use because it is not listed under the conditional use category. Directory Rogness showed examples of variance vs. CUP depending on location. Phelan asked to clarify that someone could apply for a variance from various standards or conditions in the zoning ordinance? Director Rogness answered yes, as a variance but not as a conditional use unless it is listed as such. Phelan mentioned that there is a review process that could be followed and approved; therefore, it is not an absolute. Director Rogness agreed. Larson asked if more information from land owners could be heard, and he hoped that the city could determine how to best plan and develop their land? Owner Feedback: Brad Rothnem mentioned that he and Larry Genzmer are developers of Deerfield. They have owned the farm that this development sits on since 1978, including the land which was sold to DR Horton for housing. He mentioned there are two particular pieces of land that many people have been interested in, including a self-service storage facility. One of his interested clients wants to have self-storage, both inside and outside. He also mentioned that they have had some problems selling land adjacent to residential due to the strict restrictions. Phelan mentioned he would like a little more homework on the matter. Director Rogness agreed. 6. New Business continued: A. Discussion: Commercial Land Uses at County Highway 12 and 17 Intersection. Director Rogness explained this is as being a discussion more at the Comprehensive Plan level. He gave some history of the intersection area around County Highways 12 and 17. He identified the property to the east of CSAH 17 as a R-1 Zone and the Sailor Greenhouse as being rezoned to agriculture after annexation. At that time, the City Council asked staff to further evaluate land around this intersection as becoming commercial versus residential. He explained the Commercial/Industrial land analysis done in 2011 by Maxfield Research. This research shows a 20 year demand of 150 acres of commercial and industrial land translating into about 900,000 square feet. This demand can really be absorbed alone in the County Highway 42 corridor, with additional commercial/industrial land being available in the Orderly Annexation Area. He stated that the intersection should be evaluated as County Highways 12 and 17 are improved. Around this intersection, there is approximately, 80 acres as potential commercial property. Phelan asked whether the eighty acres are included in the orderly annexation area? Director Rogness replied no, it would be in addition to that area. 6 Phelan mentioned that he can envision this as commercial to bring another area of economic vitality to this city. He would like to see if a potential developer brings a opportunity forward before staff or the commission looks at any rezoning or reclassifying it. Spieler concurred with Commissioner Phelan. Hite concurred with fellow commissioners. Blahnik concurred as well. Larson asked Director Rogness if there are sewer/water utilities in that area? Direct Rogness replied yes, utilities have been extended down Sunset this year, which is the street serving all of the lake-front properties. A large oversized lift station was constructed serve the annexation area. Utilities are being designed to eventually connect to the full extent of the annexation area which is around three thousand acres. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A.Recent City Council discussions/decisions. Director Rogness mentioned the City Council action on a moratorium related to marinas due to the significant input from the public on the past marina C.U.P. proposal. Council directed the formation of a task force during the six month moratorium process. Director Rogness said both Phelan and Hite had B.2013 Accomplishments and 2014 Goals (11/25/13 Work Session) Director Rogness mentioned that the upcoming City Council Work Session requires a Planning Commssioner to identify a list of 2013 accomplishments and 2014 goals. Staff will email a draft list tomorrow to all commissioners for review and comment. Phelan volunteered to present. Phelan mentioned deferring nominations for Chair and Vise-Chair until next meeting. Phelan introduced and welcomed Commissioner Larson and stated he has a great deal of experience with the city on the EDAC; Phelan is happy to have him on as the newest Planning Commissioner. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO ADJORN THE MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Larson. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 7