Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 21 2014 PC meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Phalen called the January 21, 2014 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Jeff Phelan, Adam Blahnik, Eric Spieler, Perri Hite and Wade Larson, Community and Econonic Development Director Dan Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke, and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY SPIELER, SECONDED BY LARSON TO ADOPT THE JANUARY 21, 2014 MEETING AGENDA. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of January 6, 2014 Meeting Minutes: , MOTION BY HITESECONDED BY SPIELER TO APPROVE THE MONDAY JANUARY 6, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A.Amendment to Section 1104, Shoreland Regulations of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance The City of Prior Lake is proposing an amendment to Subsection 1104, Shoreland Regulations of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance to review ordinance amendments to Section 1104 of the Shoreland District. Planner Matzke stated the City Council annexed in a portion of land in the Southeast quadrant of our City (known as the Hunter Annexation). He gave some history, zoning, shoreland overlay buffer and stated that the buffer does encroach upon the Cleary Lake Shoreland District and per DNR regulations and the need to add Clearly Lake as a listed lake within our shoreland district. He then explained the current circumstances of Subsection 1104.900 (Development on Nonconforming Lots). He discussed the conclusion and issues regarding this ordinance amendments to Subsection 1104. He mentioned the need for these amendments, accomplishment purposes, and State and/or Federal requirements. He also stated some alternatives and recommended a motion and second to recommend amendments to Subsection 1104 of the Zoning Ordinance. Planner Matzke explained attachments regarding Ordinance Amendments and map exhibits of Cleary Lake Shoreland District Boundary. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY LARSON TO OPEN THE PUBLICAT 6:07 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. Public Comment : None. 1 MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO CLOSE THE PUBLICAT 6:08 P.M. . VOTE: Phalen, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. Commissions Comments: Spieler asks does the buffer actually stops on county road 87? Planner Matzke replied it overlaps county road 87 very slightly and goes onto the private property on the other side, which is the reason for the request. Spieler asked about the property to the north and if it was to annex in to the City, would it fall under the same regulation? He asked is there any impact to the current owner of that property and are they subdividing this area into four or five different houses? He also asked if there is any impact to Scott County or the Three Rivers by adding this to our regulations? Planner Matzke replied it would fall into the same regulations. He also stated that there would be some additional regulations that they would have to govern. He then explained the areas of the wetland and the usable land. Planner Matzke stated there would be no impact to Scott County or the Three Rivers. Blahnik stated he will be supporting this amendment. Larson asked what is encompassed on the shoreland overlay buffer? Matzke replied it is all the land that is within a thousand feet around the high water mark of any of the lakes and anything that effects the water quality of the lakes surrounding them and is mandated by the DNR and the State of Minnesota. Phelan stated he will be supporting the application as it is consistent with the zoning ordinance with the neighboring communities as well as consistent with our 2030 Comp plan. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PHELAN TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED AT 6:12 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: None at this time. 6. New Business: nd A. The Enclave at Cleary Lake 2 Addition – Vacate Public Utility Easement. Planner Matzke introduced the request to vacate a drainage and utility easement located within the nd proposed Enclave at Cleary Lake 2 Addition. He described the location, history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion and a second to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed vacation, subject to City Council’s approval of the Final Plat of The nd Enclave at Cleary Lake 2 Addition, as presented or with changes recommended by the Commission. He demonstrated exhibits of a general location map and an illustrative sketch of the easement area. 2 Commissions Questions/Comments: Phelan will be supporting this vacate public utility easement under the conditions that the vacations do not take place until the final plat is approved. Hite is supportive of this vacate public utility easement. Spieler asked why this was not done as part of the preliminary plat? Planner Matzke responded this is a phasing stage of the preliminary and final plat. It comes up during our review and the vacation needs to be handled at a public hearing with the City Council and cannot be completed before the final plat goes through for review. Spieler stated he will be supporting this. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS BE VACATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED ND ENCLAVE AT CLEARLY LAKE 2 ADDITION AT 6:19 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. B.Zoning Ordinance Amendment Discussion – Section 1102 Use District Regulations – Alternative School. Planner Matzke introduced this amendment discussion as a part of a process that the City Council has initiated in November of 2013. He explained the history, current circumstances, and conclusion of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. He presented alternates for recommendations directed by the Planning Commission. He used the exhibits of Bridges Area Learning Center location map and Prior Lake zoning map. Commentary from Planning Commission would be appreciated. Commissions Questions/Comments: Spieler asked is the charter school part of the alternative school or is this separate in regulations? And questioned the areas of alternative school locations in correspondence to strip malls and establishments. Planner Matzke replied charter school is similar to any other public or private school therefore is not an alternative school and there could not be an alternative school in any area that has a liquor license because this would cause a conflict in our ordinances with the proximity of those two businesses. Our City Attorney Office is looking into applications on locations of alternative schools due to liquor licenses being renewed yearly by the establishments that already serve liquor. Hite asked did the City extended the original interim use permit for another five years, therefore are they permitted to be there until July of 2019? Planner Matzke replied correct. Hite asked are we being asked to consider switching from a interim use to a conditional use and have any of these dates been triggered at all? 3 Planner Matzke replied the council is investigating whether this type of use could be seen more as a permanent use, basically taking that temporary status off. None of the dates have been triggered. Hite asked are there other uses that are permitted on an interim bases? Planner Matzke responded not right now. It has been a good use for the site, they are just looking to see if we could consider on a more of a long time bases. Blahnik asked could the interim use be renew every five years? Planner Matzke replied the permit could be renewed but no more than ten years in a row. At 2019 they will reach the deadline. It can be renewed but no more than ten years. It would lose it temp status. Blahnik asked with the modification of the ordinances, would this allow schools with the conditional use permit to be in the C-2 Zoning areas? And if it was to occur would it still be assessed on a case by case basis? Planner Matzke replied correct, but it would require Planning Commission approval. Blahnik expressed his concerns about the status and restrictions on liquor license of an establishment and the restaurant not being able to establish itself, hence leading to restaurants not wanting to move into Prior Lake. Larson asked other than the three hundred feet for the existing shopping complex is there any other establishments that would be effected? Planner Matzke replied the ordinance states the premise to be licensed is located three hundred feet of any church or school. The premises is seen as the building line itself, not property line to property line. Phelan asked if an establishment with a liquor license is grandfathered in, would this amendment prohibit them from renewing their license? And would it be discussed during a conditional use permit or discussion before the permit could be issued? Planner Matzke replied that this question has been directed to our City Attorney’s Office. There is no restriction on the City Council making an amendment to the liquor license. Phelan expressed that the information is incomplete. He recommend tabling this amendment. Blahnik asked if nothing is done, does Bridges need to vacate no later than July 2015? Planner Matzke replied yes, this is being brought up now so the planning of long term plans can be adjusted. Blahnik stated modifying the language would be desirable. He would like more information and therefore feels this amendment should be tabled. Hite mentioned she agrees with Commission Blahnik and would table this ordinance amendment as well. 4 MOTION TO TABLE BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO TABLE THIS AMENDMENT AT 6:45 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. C.Zoning Ordinance Amendment Discussion – Section 1102 Use District Regulations – Senior Care Facilities in Commercial Zoning Districts. Director Rogness introduced the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as a discussion only topic. He explained the history, current circumstances and the conclusion. He expressed the issues and alternates with a staff recommended motion and second to approve a Zoning Ordinance amendment for Senior rd Care Facilities in the C-2 Use District to be proposed at the February 3 public hearing. Director Rogness asked for a new definition and a way to deal with this amendment. He used Keystone as an example. Attachments that were reviewed included Ordinances No. 00-20 and No. 00-24, amending Section 1106A, Senior Care (SC) Overlay District (which was subsequently deleted in 2009); Subsection 1101.1000, Land Use Descriptions, Senior Care Facility and Subsection 1102.1102; and Uses Permitted with Conditions, C-2 Use District, Senior Care Facility. There has been scheduled a rd public hearing for this item at the next Planning Commission Meeting on February 3, 2014. Commissions Questions/Comments: Phelan stated he is comfortable with the language however would like to get public input. Spieler stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Phelan and asked how does the forty percent get reported back to the City? Director Rogness replied there would be an enforcing document and the percent of units that have senior care services could not go below forty percent. If they started with forty percent and decided to go higher in the care units that would be okay. Spieler stated that it seems to go back to the management working with the city. He expressed his concerns of change over time and that city would not be acknowledged. He asked is there a certain side of the building is that part of the regulations? Director Rogness replied not necessary, but typically the facility is set up that way. Hite stated this is a good use, but the conditions should be added for the parking and different types of uses in the facility. She mentioned concern about the definition and how the property manager will fulfill the type of management. Larson asked if staff could research within the industry on other senior housing. Blahnik stated his concerns about the proposed definition of senior care facility. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDEDMENT FOR SENIOR CARE FACILITY IN THE C-2 USE DISTRICT TO BE PROPOSED RD AT THE FEBRUARY 3, 2014 AT 7:02 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. 5 D.2040 Comprehensive Plan Process. Director Rogness introduced the discussion for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Process to get a thought process going as the Metropolitan Council has mentioned a extensive growth path and the City of Prior Lake has seen a dismissed result. He explained the history, order, time-line, current circumstances and conclusion. He mentioned the issues and there be no recommendations at this as this is for discussion only. He mentioned a consultant was hired for the 2030 plan. Attachments referenced included Thrive MSP 2040 Summary, Thrive MSP 2040 Outcomes, Thrive MSP 2040 Draft Plan and Met Council 2040 Forecast Response. Commissions Questions/Comments: Phelan stated concerns of what the future would hold and would like to believe Met Council did research, but if we feel it should be reviewed then we should look into it. Spieler recommend we do as we have in the past. We got all the right people involved we just need to review the history, going forward. Hite stated she looks forward to the level of engagement. She suggested being an advocate and asking the Commission member and the other advisory board to be engaged and advocates for the City as we launch into this. Larson stated building is increasing and maybe we will have the references from the 2030 Comprehensive and look into where we are and work from there. Director Rogness explained the end of year issued housing permits status stating there were One Hundred Eight-Eight housing permits issued in 2013, One Hundred Seventy-Four for 2012, One Hundred and Six in 2011, Ninety-Four in 2010, and Sixty-Two in 2009. The outcome appears to be seeing a trend upwards. The forecast we are updating to the met council is Two Hundred households a year. Blahnik agreed with his fellow Commissioners and looks forward to the process. Phelan stated he is concerned with the two hundred number knowing that the sixty-two is artificially depressed. He stated he would like some additional data going further and is looking forward to the process as well. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A.Recent City Council discussions/decisions. th Director Rogness stated at the January 13 City Council meeting there were approved text amendments for the ordinance amendments. The approved ordinance amendments are: the setbacks for R-1 zone, recreational storage and removing variances on state statues. Approved preliminary plat for the Enclave nd at Cleary Lake 2 addition. We had a couple of meetings from the Marina task force. Hite stated last week Director Rogness got a group of three committee members together who volunteered to help support the Marina Task Force. Also, attending the meeting were two members of the DNR, representatives of our current marina owners, Scott County Sheriff Department and Prior Lake Police 6 Department. There was very good representation at the meeting, all of who are volunteering their time to help funnel information to the Marina Task Force in order to help guide the City in management of the Marinas. She stated it was a good meeting and is looking forward to future meetings. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY PHELAN,SECONDED BY HITE TO ADJORN THE MEETING. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 7