Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 17 2014 PC meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, March 17, 2014 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Phelan called the March 17, 2014 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Jeff Phelan, Perri Hite, Adam Blahnik, Eric Spieler and Wade Larson,Community and Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke, and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY SPIELER, SECONDED BY PHELAN TO ACCEPT THE AGENDA FOR THE MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2014 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler, and Larson The Motion carried. 3. Approval of March 3, 2014 Meeting Minutes: , MOTION BY PHELANSECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2014 MEETING MINUTES AS ADJUSTED IN BULLET NUMBER THREE. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler, and Larson The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A.DEV-2014-0006 Twin Oaks Middle School Track & Field School District 719 is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the import of more than 400 cubic yards of fill for the construction of a synthetic field and track surface. The property is located north of County Highway 44 and West of Fish Point Road. PID 25-039-022-1. Planner Matzke introduced the proposed conditional use permit and explained the current circumstances, physical site characteristics, issues, conclusion and alternatives. He stated staff is recommending a motion to approve the conditional use permit subject to conditions mentioned in the conclusion. He provided exhibits, including a resolution, location map, Public Works Staff Memorandum dated March 13, 2014 and Project Plans dated February 20, 2014. Commissions Comments/Questions: Spieler asked whether the seating area will stay the same or change? And will the elevation change? He also asked if there is fencing around the track and will this be removed and replaced? Planner Matzke replied the seating will stay the same and the elevation will not change. He stated there may be some chain link fencing around the track that will be removed for access and most like replaced. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGAT 6:09 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler, and Larson The Motion carried. 1 Public Comment : None. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO CLOSE THE PUBLICHEARING AT 6:11 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler, and Larson The Motion carried. Commissions Comments/Questions: Spieler is in agreement with this conditional use permit and felt it is within conditional use analysis for the three items discussed and addressed by Pete Young. Jay Pomeroy introduced himself, stating he is with Anderson-Johnson & Associates. Mr. Pomeroy stated Jim Dellwo from the school district and Tom Richter with Nexus Solutions were also present to answer questions. Hite asked whether the number and size of trucks carrying the thirteen thousand cubic yards of fill will be accessing Candy Cove? Mr. Pomeroy replied the project is out for bid and once a contractor is on board, they will have a better understanding of what kind and size the trucks will be used. Hite asked whether the trucks that are going to Candy Cove Trail will be accessing the site from County Highway 44 or from State Highway 13? Mr. Pomeroy responded from Highway 44 to Candy Cove and into the site. Larson asked which collector drain will be used; the eight-inch or the ten-inch collector drains? Mr. Pomeroy replied they will be going with the eight-inch collector drain, as the track in the field th currently drains to the southeast corner of the track and then southward down to 160Street. He stated the main pipe is eight-inch, so it cannot be increased any more than that amount; he stated the detail was an error. Larson asked what will happen to the fill that is taken out of this location? Will it be dumped somewhere else? Mr. Pomeroy responded at this point it is out for bid and hopefully a contractor that bids on it will have a project close by where they could haul the fill. He stated the asphalt will be reclaimed and/or recycled. He said the base aggregate and fill are all granular material, good fill type material that can be used elsewhere. He stated the track and the turf field will require a more sandy material than what is currently there; this material will be imported. Spieler asked what is the timeline of this project? th Mr. Pomeray replied it would be started around May 10, right as road restrictions end, before school gets out, and ideally, finished by mid-August. 2 Hite thanked the applicant and stated she will be supporting this conditional use permit on conditions as noted by City Staff. She stated the development standards do fit in the analysis for a conditional use permit, and the use is consistent with our comprehensive plan. She finds that the use is really just reclaiming and Blahnik stated he is supportive of this application; the application is more of a formality with the amount of fill that is necessary for th impact on the neighboring properties as it is actually enhancing the track and field. Larson is supportive of this conditional use permit and the enhancements it will bring. He believes it will bring more individuals to the community for activities which would make a greater use of the track and field. He does have one concern on the eight-inch compared to the ten-inch drainage, and he would like staff to look at the drainage capability. Phelan, echoing the comments of his fellow Commissioners, said he will be supportive of this application. It is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; it will not involve any adverse impact on the community as a whole or the neighboring properties. He is excited to see this project more forward and feels it will be nice for the community to have synthetic turf. He feels this will allow a lot more use in the community. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR GRADING AND LANDSCAPE RECLAMATION IN EXCESS OF FOUR HUNDRED CUBIC YARDS AT TWIN OAKS MIDDLE SCHOOL SUBJECT TO THE SIX CONDITIONS AS ARTICULATED IN THE STAFF REPORT. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler, and Larson The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. No Old Buisiness 6. New Business: A.DEV-2014-0007 - Meadowlawn (Pulte) Concept Plan Pulte Group is requesting a review of a concept Plan for Meadowlawn. The existing zoning is R1/R1SD (Low Density Res/Low Density Res Shoreland) with a comprehensive plan of R-LD (Urban Low Density). Planner Matzke introduced the purpose of this agenda item is to review a concept plan for a Low Density single family residential development on an 85-acre site submitted by the proposed developer, Pulte Group, Inc. He explained the history, current circumstances, conclusion and issues. Planner Matzke also stated that no formal Planning Commission action is required at this time. However, the Planning Commission can expect the applicant will proceed with what they have presented. Presented materials were a Meadowlawn Concept Plan map, narrative and emails from Larry Poppler to Jeff Matzke, Dan Rogness and Seng Thongvanh. Applicant Ian Peterson Vice President of Pulte Homes Mr. Peterson introduced the team of Pulte Homes and partners. He stated Pulte Homes operates under three district brands and currently has three different types of homes for Meadowlawn. He explained the vision of this property and introduced Paul Heuer of Stantec. 3 PaulHeuer with Stantecexplained the site location, site attributes and constraints including wetlands, woods, shoreland district and complex drainage. He explained the City goals and five specific goals, including minor issues. He stated key facts about the project and asked for questions and comments. Commission Comments/Questions: Phelan asked what is the d water feature? Mr. Heuer explained that it is a process for them to prepare a site plan that has some logic to it. He stated thoughts on that particular area, which would have that water go east to the pond located on the north side of Carriage Hills Parkway. Phelan asked is there any plan to have a dock or lake access? He questioned plans by Pulte to incorporate having a private association with dock access to add value for the home owners? Mr. Heuer replied Carriage Hills Parkway is a heavily traveled road once a full east-west connection is made with the development. He stated that most residents would have to cross that busy road to get to a publicly shared lake access. Phelan asked where would Phase One start, and what are their ideas on future phases? Mr. Heuer responded they Spieler asked would the Pulte development lake lots be sold or built upon by Pulte? Ian Peterson replied the lake lots would be developed and built on; one master Homeowners Association would govern. Spieler asked if there are any concerns regarding traffic, particularly at the entrance on the east side of the development? Ian Peterson stated this comment came up at the City Council meeting and is being considered as a rendering that will be fixed in working with the engineers. Spieler asked about the percentage of the trees that would be removed from the northern part of this development? Ian Peterson replied a detailed grading plan has not yet been established; however, trees are surveyed and they are looking for some feedback in terms of the infrastructure, lot character and road ways. Hite asked whether they can confirm the north-south collector road at County Road 42 will have a signalized intersection? Mr. Heuer replied not until it meets County warrants based on traffic demand. Once development is further completed north of County Highway 42, it may meet warrants. Hite asked about car stacking with concerns of exiting onto County Highway 42. 4 Mr. Heuer answered these lots explained some natural buffering along that highway. Blahnik stated the road layout with the trail system and this entire development as one is nice to see. He said approach is good and he likes that they used the feedback from previous Planning Commission meetings. Blahnik further stated the street connections with Cardinal made sense, and that he is looking forward to seeing the upcoming preliminary plat. Larson stated his concerns on the size of the park, Carriage Hills Street crossing, and safety/parking issues. He would like consideration by Pulte of a gathering point for community events near the lake with a safe environment rather than homes on the lake. Phelan stated this obviously has one continuous plan and is more ideal than a more fragmented concept that they have seen earlier. He mentioned he would be interested in seeing ghost plat for the Bolger property. Overall, Pehlan said that good feedback has been offered by the Commission. Sign Ordinance Amendments (Discussion) B. Director Rogness introduced the purpose of this item is to discuss potential amendments to Section 1107 of the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to signage. He explained the history, current circumstances, conclusion, issues and alternatives. Staff recommended this for discussion only. Commissions Comments/Questions: Larson asked whether there have been complaints from the community on any of the implementations? Planner Matzke replied that staff has not had complaints because of upholding the same procedure that is currently in ordinance. He stated that staff does not have issues with the actual permits or permit procedures for sandwich board and banners; rather, concerns and issues relate to the placement of sandwich boards and banner signs. Larson stated that there was a common issue with the Parade of Homes signs and asked whether these issues have been resolved? Planner Matzke replied that staff is in the process of discussing this and trying to resolve a different solution. He explained all directional off premises signs are grouped into the same category, even though there are many different types. He expressed the concerns of having signs on private property as well as the safety issues of rights-of-way. He stated weekend signs generally do not cause commotion; however, it is difficult from a legal perspective to allow one type of sign in a location and not another based on the City Attorney. Larson stated concern with balloon signs and asked if there is a pamphlet to give to new business owners that would explain acceptable signs and permits? Planner Matzke replied that the City does currently offer a series of handouts and other types of City regulations; however, updating handouts and creating some information on city websites would help. 5 Hite asked are there any restrictions on the number of banner signs or sandwich boards signs that a business can have? Planner Matzke stated one banner location and one sandwich board per street frontage per business. Director Rogness stated he would like to discuss electronic message signs (Ordinance 1107.06). He mentioned how technology is advancing and how more businesses are showing interest in these signs. He explained that research shows there is quite a variety among cities related to these signs. Phelan asked is the idea that moving messages are more distracting to drivers and intended for safety reasons, where a static sign would fade in and out and not being as distracting? Director Rogness replied yes; all restrictions related to some sense of safety. He stated research on safety might be dependent on who is preparing the research. He questioned what the city should allow in advanced sign technology, including scrolling signs. Phelan stated being an updated community is important, although being the most restrictive area or lenient in the community would not be desirable either. He asked for additional research from staff on thes type of signs in the seven county metro area. He explained some of his business travels to cities show scrolling or moving animation on a regular basis with public transit in those areas. Hite said that technology is changing; however, she is in favor of static image signs that would instantaneously change every ten seconds or so. She expressed concern of LED lighting being too bright at night, especially if they are close to a highway. She does find the lighting and color changes to be distracting as well as constantly scrolling. Additional community research would be beneficial. Spieler stated he agrees to benchmarking other cities. He questioned if transit would be a factor. He stated it would be nice to plan for the future especially with the County Highway 42 development and more retail businesses arising in that area. Blahnik asked whether there have been resident comments wanting to change the sign ordinance? Planner Matzke replied there are business owners that would like to have updated signs. The city hoping to let businesses use the latest technology, but not at the expense of safety and consideration. Most of the signs have options with activated or change animation using a computer switch. Brightness of a lighted sign must meet our lighting ordinance or have the technology to dim the sign. Blahnik stated he is echoing some comments made by his fellow Commissioners regarding the difficulty to comment without knowing or understanding why there are restrictions in the first place. He stated safety comes first. He explained different types of businesses need different types of signs. He mentioned he would like to see studies of the reasoning of the current restrictions. Larson stated he would like to see research on police reports and the percentage of signs being responsible for car accidents. He mentioned his concerns about Deerfield desire to put an off-premise sign on County Highway 21. He suggested re-evaluating some ordinances. Phelan stated that there is some split feedback on static versus scrolling, and he suggested more research before looking at any formal amendments. 6 Director Rogeness stated that there was more of the sign ordinance to review; however, most is related to housecleaning. He explained new definitions of types of signs, including employment opportunities signs, home occupation sign and no-trespassing signs. He mentioned that construction signs have been re-written in a different format. Hite asked about three as a magic number for construction signs? Director Rogness replied no; he does not believe there is a magic number to that number. He mentioned Deerfield, such as an off-premise sign definition, including the challenges with these businesses wanting off-site signs. Hite stated in regards to benchmarking, in all the projects that she has developed around the country with Target, no off-premise signs are allowed. Director Rogness stated that billboards are typically the type of off-premise sign allowd; however, most cities are restricting billboard signs. Phelan mentioned a comment he heard about monument signs not being in compliance with the own sign ordinance; if correct, this needs to be corrected. Director Rogness replied, yes; he stated that the downtown monument sign has electronic messaging and is scrolling. Although reduced, he stated staff will look further into this and correct it. Phelan stated a formal request to do what needs to be done to make our monuments only be static images, until such time an amendment to the ordinance is made to allow scrolling. Director Rogness agreed with Commissioner Phelan and stated he will carry that formal request. 7. Announcements: th Council Meeting on Monday, March 10, 2014 included a couple items of interest: Hickory Shores South Plat Remove an old easement for utilities and replaced by the o new drainage and utility easement in the new plat was required to have a public hearing. There was a public hearing and the plat was approved for Hickory Shores South and approved the final flexible development plan. Ordinance amending certain subsections related to Alternative Schools in the general use o district was reviewed and approved by City Council with no changes. Tree Preservations and Restoration Tabled by City Council. o Concept plan for the Pulte proposal went before the City Council ahead of the Planning Commission because the City Council was not able to meet at their second meeting in March. Phelan asked about the Councils feedback. Director Rogness replied that the Council had some comments about making sure the developer and the City work with the Rolling Oaks homeowners if utilities are to be extended through that area. The Council liked what they saw with the two sides coming together. 7 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO ADJORN THE MEETING. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler, and Larson The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 8