Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 07 2014 PC meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, July 7, 2014 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Hite called the Monday, July 7, 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 BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, JULY 7, 2014 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Larson The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, June 16, 2014 Meeting Minutes: NOTED BY HITE TO TABLE THE MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2014 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DUE TO INSERTION OF COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS TO CERTAIN APPLICATIONS OR VARIANCES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THESE MINUTES. 4. Public Hearings: None. 5. Old Business: None. 6. New Business: A.Conformance with Comprehensive Plan The City is proposing to acquire property at 4577 Colorado Street related to a future extension of Arcadia Avenue between Colorado and Pleasant is in conformance with the 2030 comprehensive Plan. Director Rogness introduced the proposed property acquisition at 4577 Colorado Street. He explained the history, current circumstances, conclusion and issues. He stated staff recommends a motion and second to approve the proposed property acquisition of 4577 Colorado Street as being in conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He supplied a map of the proposed property acquisition site, an Amended Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan, and an approval letter dated May 20, 2014 from Metropolitan Council. Commission Comments/Questions: Spieler asked if we are reviewing only one of the four properties tonight? 1 Director Rogness replied yes, that is correct. Spieler asked if this parcel has a house on it? Director Rogness responded yes. Spieler expressed his concerns for the purchase of only one of the four houses and asked why the purchase of only one house versus purchasing all? Director Rogness replied the homeowner came to the City for this purchase of this parcel. Spieler stated are we looking into this purchase now because this road project is a long term strategy and could take years to complete? Director Rogness replied that is correct. Blanhik questioned the planned roadway off of Pleasant proposed to connect with Franklin project and asked historically how projects similar to this are planned? He stated his concerns about the City owning a single property when other property is needed to complete the road project and asked what would be Director Rogness replied there is no standard process. He gave examples of different situations and suggested in this case it is considered to be long term or land banking. He mentioned if the city has the opportunity to acquire property that could be used in some other future use that it could be redevelopment in some way. He stated when the property owner approaches the City, many times staff will bring that opportunity to the attention of the City Council, which is what is being done today. Blanhik asked is our determination on this issue the potential acquisition of this property to be consistent with the comprehensive plan that otherwise provides support to an adequate system of roadways to ensure access to the downtown commercial areas? Director Rogness replied exactly, that is correct. Larson asked would the list of properties directly align with the road or would the four homes have to be reshifted? Director Rogness replied there should be a slight curve to the roadway once the road heads south of Colorado. He said the City Engineer has not completely designed this, however it is believed that the four parcels that are outlined would be sufficient to allow that street connection to occur. Larson stated his concerns of the buffer between the street and the home. Hite asked about the proper location of the extension of Arcadia south of Pleasant connection to Highway 13? Director Rogness replied the city has not accepted or approved any specific alignment of Arcadia if it continues south. He stated the alignment is probably less questionable between Pleasant and Colorado. 2 He made mention the importance to the connection between Pleasant and Colorado for the South Downtown area. Hite stated she understands the change to the Comprehensive Plan; however, she felt this is premature. She asked if the City is only considering this right now because the homeowner approached the City with the sale of this parcel? Director Rogness replied yes. He stated that at this particular time it is proposed to be acted on by the Planning Commission and the City Council only because of the inquiry of the owner to the City. Hite stated she appreciates the long range plan for the City and understands that it can take a great deal of time to assemble the correct parcels. Phelan is there a cost on this particular parcel? Director Rogness replied yes, the cost is being negotiated by the City Manager; however he believes the agreed upon proposed purchase price is between $110,000 and $115,000. Phelan asked if that is comparable with other parcels of land in the area? Director Rogness replied he believed so; however, he was not involved in negotiations. Phelan asked is there different phases of this process? Director Rogness replied there is not; primarily because the City Council has not yet adopted any particular alignment. Phelan stated he felt this is premature. He questioned why we are investing all this money to buy a piece of property if this is not the direction the City Council will choose to go? He stated concerns of this project not working and questioned this property being marketable. Director Rogness replied the one parcel is an entire parcel. Phelan asked what if there is no other meaningful use for this property should the City Council decide to go a different direction? Director Rogness replied this extension into downtown is envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and acquiring these properties is meeting this intent. Blahnik stated the Planning Commissions role for this parcel is the deciding factor for the potential acquisition of this property to make sure it is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The plan now states that it supports adequate systems and roadways to assure effective egress and access for the downtown to and from other commercial areas. He mentioned that it would be brought before the City Council for the decision of purchase of this parcel. Phelan thanked Commissioner Blahnik for the verification and stated he agrees that we are only making a recommendation; it is City Council ultimate decision whether to acquire the property. He agrees that it is consistent and feels it would help effect the adequate egress. 3 Spieler stated he does support this in regards to having a corridor that goes from County Road 21 to Franklin Trail. Hite stated she does support this action with a little hesitation. She stated it does feel premature; however, she understands the parcel that is under consideration for acquisition in conformance with the 2030 that area. She stated it should make for an interesting discussion years from now when the extension of Arcadia can really come into play, but for now she is supporting this issue. Larson stated he would recommend purchasing the property for the amended 2030 Comprehensive Plan; he stated he would support this action if it was implemented along with the amendment. Blahnik agreed that this would be a potential acquisition of this property that is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he echoes the sediments of his fellow commissioners being that this is premature to purchase; however, that is a decision for the City Council to make. Phelan asked if the property is an opportunistic acquisition right now rather than condemnation, and we three parcels, what would be required by the City for the maintenance and upkeep of this parcel until the other three parcels could be acquired? Director Rogness replied he was uncertain; however, he suggested that demolition of the home would be one consideration. Phelan asked what the total budget for this parcel would be, and how does the city finance such a transaction? Director Rogness explained that staff is recommending to the City Council that it consider taking from reserves. With demolition costing an estimated $10,000, and certain closing costs added, he said a complete budget should be between $125,000 to $130,000. Phelan stated he felt this is premature, but it is still consistent in a one-step progression to move forward for long range planning. He stated concerns about the cost to the City, especially if the project is not moved forward. He said he has a little bit of fiscal concern about spending reserves for something without a clear direction from the Council, but in regard to being consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, he will be supporting this. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED PROPERTY ACQUISITION OF 4577 COLORADO STREET AS BEING IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Larson The Motion carried. B.Ordinance Amendments Discussion of Amendments to Sections 1102 and 1104.402. Planner Matzke introduced the consideration of a request to initiate the review of amendments to Section 1102 and Subsection 1104.402. He explained the current circumstances, issues, conclusion and alternative. He stated staff recommends a motion and second initiating the review of amendments to Section 1102.405 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. 4 Commission Comments/Questions: Phelan asked if there are safety concerns or just general aesthetic concerns with the bowling alley type appearance? Planner Matzke replied it is mostly aesthtic and not a safety concern because the setbacks are there rega related to grading and drainage between walls that are seventy to eighty feet wide. Phelan asked has there been any comparisons with other municipalities as a guidance on a similar process? Planner Matzke replied we just started this process to see if there was any extra verbage. He stated that some of this language has come from other communities to help clarify. He said further evaluation of other communities, if initiated, will be done. Phelan stated he would be supporting a motion to initiate the review of the amendment. Blahnik stated he will be supporting the review of the amendment; however, he feels the language is difficult and would like to see clarification and modifications. Larson asked if there is any other reasoning behind the two inches (if the wall is over sixty feet) for the breakup of the bowling alley effect? Planner Matzke replied it is basically because of the aesthetics viewpoint. He explained the rule of sixty feet or a long wall. He said there are a lot of inquires about this due to side loading three car garages that gives a bump out towards the front of the house and lengthens the home. He explained the likeliness of having relief to put air conditioning units in the area behind the garage, as well as the challenges of some properties. Hite stated she appreciates a review of the amendment; however, with all the building permits that are issued, she is not understanding why the City has an issue with the aesthe said if you are in a large new home development, usually there are development standards that are reoccurring. She said she felt there are any number of architectural amenities, changes in stone, colors and such that could create that change rather than a bump-out or inset. For drainage, she stated that if someone were to construct an inset you could have potential of creating more of a drainage issue. She asked whether we should consider language that specifies that a break must occur in the middle one third of the wall section, rather than saying it cannot occur at the entire wall section? She stated she agrees to initiate the review. Spieler questioned a situation for the tear down of the house and the rebuilding. If the foundation stays, would it be okay to have sixty feet and beyond without bump-out? Planner Matzke explained with an example: When a house is removed, remodeled or a new construction, it is factored in to meet the current zoning ordinance bump-outs. He explained if a house was to be removed down to the foundation that is going to be more than fifty percent of the value, and a bump-out would need to be added. 5 Spieler asked if they take a house down to the foundation or tear out the foundation, as it would be the top part, that would be over fifty percent? Planner Matzke replied correct. If the remodel stays under fifty percent, a bump out would not be necessary. He stated if the remodel does exceed that fifty percent the builder/homeowner would need to come up to current standards, setbacks, impervious surface and all new building standards. Spieler asked would it be more of a challenge for people who are looking at tearing down homes on the lake? Planner Matzke replied yes. A tear down could be more challenging on some of the lake lots. He stated most of the lakeside properties are not necessarily deep enough lots, particular on the north side of town, but this is something we have already talked about as the water level lowers. Spieler questioned the property angles being from the point end, not just the vertical lines that is seen and asked would this be okay at seventy feet long and ten feet away from the side yard with no bump-out? Planner Matzke replied correct. It is all with the degree of the angles to the property line. Phelan echoed statements of his fellow commissioners and stated he is not sure that he is congruent with the thought of how to word this. He supports the initiation of the review process at this time. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO INITIATE THE REVIEW OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 1102.405 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE. Phelan suggested as a housekeeping item Sections 1104.402 should be added as it was not in our language at the bottom. AMENDED MOTION WITH A NEW MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO RECOMMEND TO INITIATE THE REVIEW OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 1102.405, 1108.500 AND 1104.402 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Larson The Motion carried. 7. Announcements: A.Recent City Council Discussions/Decisions. UPDATES The Godsons Way Final Plat received a Comp Plan update that was for the o sewer extention permit. Approved Markley Lake Woods Final Plat o Holding extension pending approval Easement Vacation Cedarwood Street o Approved Marina Ordinance (updates) o Approved with removal of permitting procedure required for the lake association. 6 Phelan asked if there was any discussion at the City Council meeting regarding continued high water levels, emergency actions or fund allocations needed by the City? He stated he knew Highway 21 is shut down and most likely will be for the foreseeable future and asked if there was any discussion of concern about road damage from when the water does recede? Planner Matzke replied the City Council did have some extensive discussions on this matter. He stated they have been doing a lot of fact finding with some other area community officials that have dealt with flooding on a more usual basis to help with preparedness and relief effort. He mentioned a meeting on Monday, July 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss and update the situation on the flooding. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO ADJORN THE JULY 7, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Larson The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 7