Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 03 2014 PC meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, November 3, 2014 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Hite called the Monday, November 3, 2014 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Adam Blahnik, Bryan Fleming, Perri Hite, Wade Larson, and Mark Petersen; Community and Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2014 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 3. Election of Officers Hite thanked the former Chairman, Jeff Phelan and stated that he did a fine job in leadership of the Planning Commission. She stated she would also like to thank former Commissioner Eric Spieler who served the Commission and the community for a number of years. She mentioned a new Chair and Vice- Chair need to be appointed tonight and asked the attending Commissioners to offer their name or names by nomination for Chair and Vice-Chair. Blahnik nominated Perri Hite as Chair. Hite asked for any other nominations for Chairperson; seeing none, she stated she would serve in this capacity. HITE ASKED FOR A VOTE ON PERRI HITE AS CHAIR. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Hite asked for nominations of Vice-Chair. HiteLarson nominated Wade Larson for the position of Vice-Chair; nominated Bryan Fleming for the position of Vice-Chair. Fleming stated he was honored and appreciated the sentiment; however, he respectively declined, as it is his first meeting back new to the Planning Commission. HITE ASKED FOR A VOTE ON WADE LARSON AS VICE-CHAIR. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 4. Approval of Monday, October 6, 2014 Meeting Minutes: Hite stated that Commissioner Blahnik is the only person present this evening to approve these minutes based on him being the only one in attendance at that meeting. 1 Blahnik said he reviewed the minutes from the October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting and stated everything to be accurate. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2014 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik The Motion carried. 5. Public Hearings: A.DEV14-000022 – Kwik Trip – Conditional Use Permit – Kwik Trip is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to approve a motor fuel station in the C-2 General Business Use District. This station will include a convenience store with a fuel station and a double bay automatic carwash. The property is located on the east corner of Fish Point road and the northeastern side of Eagle Creek Avenue; legally described as Outlot G, Eagle Creek Estates, Scott County, Minnesota. PID 25-500-066-0. Planner Matzke introduced the conditional use permit and explained the current circumstances, building design, future commercial business access points, landscaping, car wash, impervious surface, issues, conclusion and alternatives. He stated staff recommends a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to certain conditions. He provided a resolution, location map, site plans and building plans, and memorandums from the Engineering and Community and Economic Development Departments. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson asked about the location of stacking for the car wash. Planner Matzke explained the stacking to be by the loading zone and will divide into two separate lanes. He stated there is enough room for multi-directional drive-thru lanes going east and west. Hite asked Planner Matzke if there is any research on vehicle counts on Fish Point Road now that the road is connected, and how this might change by the addition of Kwik Trip. Planner Matzke replied there has been no updated counts. He stated forecast counts prior to connection anticipated number of traffic did plan for a commercial area to be in this sector. He explained the roundabout being a key aspect to maintain and slow traffic through the area. Hite asked about access points from Fish Point Road, and asked if there is any stop signs on Credit River Road? Planner Matzke replied that there are only two-way stop signs from the side streets on to Credit River. Hite asked about requirements for landscaping the Outlots until they are developed. Planner Matzke replied the developer will seed with a grass mix. 2 Hite referred to the memorandum dated October 28 stating a letter of credit will be posted, as well as an obligation of Kwik Trip; she asked should this be approved, do they provide as-built plans after the fact and asked if the letter of credit will continue to be held until the as-builts are received. Planner Matzke replied yes; this is standard practice to hold escrow until all close-outs are satisfied. Petersen asked will this be in operation twenty-four hours a day and will the operation of the car wash be 6 p.m. – 10 p.m.? Planner Matzke replied Kwik Trip will be operational for twenty-four hours a day. He stated the car wash is usually a requirement per City Code that if it operates beyond 6 -10 p.m., the car wash door is closed. Petersen asked about what would be going in the other commercial lots, and voiced concerns about noise and traffic impacts to the residential area. Planner Matzke replied that nothing is planned beyond Kwik Trip at this time. Fleming asked how many coniferous trees staff is recommending. Planner Matzke explained the number and location of coniferous trees; staff would recommend every fifth or sixth tree be a coniferous. Fleming asked if Planner Matzke was confident with the conformance of impervious surface being at 75 percent or less. Planner Matzke replied yes; working with the Engineering Department and the applicant, staff is confident that this impervious surface would be at 75 percent or less based on possible modifications. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGAT 6:27 P.M. Applicant : Leah Berlin representing Kwik Trip Store, Inc. located at 1626 Oak Street LaCrosse, Wisconsin stated that she did not have a formal presentation prepared. However, she would like to share some comments. She stated the developer had installed evergreen buffers along Credit River, which will be helpful to the neighbors as a buffer. She stated they did request outdoor storage or merchandising for propane, video kiosk, and water softener salt; however, she did not see it noted in the report and was not sure if that is a conditional use request or staff level approval. She also stated that delivery trucks would arrive on Credit River Road due to challenges of trucks traveling through the roundabout. Larson asked Applicant Berlin about the location of tankers delivering fuel to ground pumps. Applicant Berlin replied the drops for the tanks will be to the southwest side of the canopy. Blahnik asked if sales and displays are consistent with other Kwik Trip Stores. Applicant Berlin stated this store being consistent with nothing out of the ordinary. 3 Fleming asked about hours of operation and if there was any discussion/consideration in reducing hours of operation? Applicant Berlin replied no, not for this store. Hite said that Land Use Conditions Subsection 1102.11031 states outside seller display is permitted for gasoline seasonal items and other good consumed on the normal operation of a car, including, but not limited to, gasoline. Therefore, she asked if mulch, salt, etc. has been addressed. Planner Matzke replied these are the ancillary services that come with a convenience store. He also noted the limitations of no displays in the required yards, parking areas or drive isles. Hite asked if there is a sign exhibit to specify size and location for the monument sign. Matzke displayed the sign to be installed and stated this sign has been reviewed for the corner of Fish Point Road and Highway 21, and it appears to meet City standards; however, a sign permit along with the building application would be required at a later time and the detail of this sign will be reviewed then. Public Comment : None. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO CLOSE THE PUBLICHEARING AT 6:35P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Blahnik stated he would be supporting this conditional use permit request and is appreciative of a gas station on the east side of town. He said it is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain high standards in the promotion and development of commerce and industry. He mentioned based on this proposal he didn’t see any adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in close proximity and the store and gas station with over 200 feet of separation from any housing. Larson stated he echoes Blahnik’s sentiments with the Comprehensive Plan. He welcomes Kwik Trip back to Prior Lake as well as the jobs it will provide in the community. Petersen stated concerns about the retail and residential buffer with the 24 hour service, but stated it appears to not be a problem. He stated it will be a welcome addition to Prior Lake, especially that side of town. He will be supportive of this conditional use permit. Fleming said he agrees with his fellow Commissioners and said that Kwik Trip will be a great amenity to the City and the residents. He mentioned his concerns related to hours of operations, which appears to have been addressed and resolved satisfactorily. He will be supporting the resolution. Hite stated she is in support of the conditional use permit. She noted staff’s six conditions as stated in the report. 4 MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. B.Ordinance Amendments – The City of Prior Lake is proposing an amendment to the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance to change the architectural design standards for commercial and industrial development, including the prohibition of pole buildings. The amended subsection will more closely match existing design standards in the cities of Savage and Shakopee. Director Rogness introduced the recommendation to amend subsection 1107.2200, Architectural Design, and discussed the history, current circumstances, issues, conclusion and alternatives. He presented images of different buildings in industrial areas in Scott County, concentrating on Prior Lake, Savage and Shakopee. He summarized specifications of exterior building design percentages of material. He represented images to show the differences in the elements of approved versus not approved and explained examples of materials that are not allowed. He provided Subsections 1107.2200 amendments in amended version and clean version as well as a memorandum to Deerfield Business Park businesses and owners. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson asked whether an association in Deerfield Business Park has the ability to put restrictions on these buildings exteriors. Director Rogness replied yes, but he believes that this Business Park does not have an association. He stated that the regulations that we are talking about tonight would be the only ones that would apply. Blahnik asked could an individual deviate from this through a variance upon request? Director Rogness replied yes; however, they are judged by practical difficulties and other standards in the city’s ordinance. Fleming asked if Director Rogness knew why Shakopee is reticent on having an exclusive prohibition of pole buildings. Director Rogness replied that Shakopee staff said they would not allow a pole building despite the fact that it is not defined or specifically prohibited. Savage does prohibit pole buildings. Fleming asked are there implications for existing buildings that don’t or won’t conform to the proposed design features. Director Rogness replied yes. He referred to the existing buildings in the Welcome Avenue area with a number of pole buildings. He explained what the proposed standards say for existing pole building additions or expansions. He spoke of three projects already being proposed, including one in Deerfield as a non-pole building and two in Welcome as pole buildings. Only one has gone through the site plan approval process. Fleming asked what the receptiveness on the part of owners is. He asked if the new design features would be too strict and potentially cause too much pain. 5 Director Rogness explained the changes are not dramatic and would likely not cause harm to anyone. They would be in conformance with Savage and Shakopee. He used an example of a nice industrial building on Cottonwood that may only need paint and something in the entrance to meet standards. Petersen asked if anything more than fifty percent added to buildings would require them to meet these new standards. Director Rogness replied yes, that is correct. Petersen asked if the side and back yards need to conform with these rules as well. Director Rogness explained certain situations that could have allowance for lower standard materials if a building side is not permanently visible, such as a hillside blocking any views. He further stated that it may be easier to have every side of the building meet the same design standards; he suggested more research from staff. Hite asked where a pole barn would be allowed in the City of Prior Lake. Director Rogness replied pole barn buildings are allowed in the agriculture zones; some of these are holding zones until they get developed. Hite stated that in Prior Lake, people who have boats and corresponding storage needs. She stated if we don’t want those types of buildings in Prior Lake, they are pushed out somewhere else. She said she is trying to think broader and would like to have more time to think about this She said when talking about a pleasing front or main entry, that is very vague. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGAT 7:12 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Public Comment : Rick Chrysler resides at 14561 Alabama Avenue in Savage and he is the owner of building in Deerfield. He stated his concern has been addressed with the definition of a pole building. He stated he was one of the building owners that expressed concern about one of the recent buildings that was constructed; he was surprised that this building was in the industrial park. He stated this building had a pitched roof with shingles which is not an industrial type building. He has a sizable investment and buildings should be built meeting the same criteria. He is concerned with the value of the current businesses and buildings in this Industrial Park. He asked for further clarification of a pitched and metal roof in the new guidelines. Director Rogness replied these design standards apply equally to all commercial and industrial areas, as well as multi-family housing. He explained the latest new commercial building in Prior Lake was Honest One Auto Care that does have a pitched shingled roof and does meet the current standards. Therefore, the standards do not say anything for or against a pitched roof with shingles. He stated that having a flat roof is a good point because someone could argue that a pitched roof is not the proper look for architectural design for industrial buildings. He felt that more research could be done on this topic. 6 Planner Matzke stated it depends on the scale of the building; for example, a building size of 20 to 40 thousand square feet would likely result in a flat type roof. With a smaller building, a pitched roof is definitely a consideration at that scale Mr. Chrysler stated his concerns of the businesses having very large investments and would like to be on the side of keeping standards to a minimum. He appreciates what the City has done in the past, making buildings look good and professional, and he believes that future business owners would want to come into the park to see the continuance of building design with their values higher. He stated his concerns of the one recent pole building that was constructed in Deerfield. Jim McMann is with Wreck-A-Mended Auto Body in Deerfield Business Park. He stated his concern is when he moved in ten years ago, he felt Prior Lake was over-restrictive when he developed his property. He feels that the City is trying to undo something that was made as a mistake years ago. However, people that are already out there met certain high design standards. They will ultimately lose if any other type of building is allowed, which has already been done with the recent pole building. Ten years ago, he tried to tell the City that this is not what an Industrial Park should be since a metal frame structure would look as nice as concrete panels. Now, if the City were to let substandard building in this Park, it makes their buildings unsellable, or the market value goes down. He knows there are people that want to go into this Park, but the City cannot undo the current buildings there. However, the City should compensate the building owners already there. He stated that with this particular Industrial Park, he believes it was set up backwards where industrial should have been close to the highway. Every time a project is proposed in the industrial area, someone from the Deerfield townhomes area objects. He named Jim Busse’s project as an example. He is unsure of how new businesses would ever make it because of the tax structure and the building cost. He recognizes there are some nice pole buildings that are metal structured buildings that may be a consideration. However, any building that goes in the Park that will depreciate his value would need to be addressed. In conclusion, he said that they were the pioneers in Deefield, and the City should not let people now construct substandard buildings. The City should compensate existing owners. Petersen asked Mr. Mc Mann if he approves with the increased building standards. McMann stated there is a grey area. He stated that a building can be constructed and it has to be a certain material. He is unsure of what the interior building material must be. He said someone can put up a metal building, but then have seventy-five percent rock on the outside and twenty-five percent windows. He stated this is what he was trying to tell the City years ago to allow metal buildings, but the city resisted. So, if any of the buildings being built in the Park that are substandard to what is already there, he feels that the people should be compensated somehow from the City to make us happy. Fleming asked Mr. McMann if he supports the City’s efforts to increase design features and believes that his building is the model for design features. Does Mr. McMann have an issue with a building owner coming in and putting up a building that doesn’t match or meet his building? McMann replied that the business owners in Deerfield need to create an association before something is built out there. Fleming said to Mr. McMann that he does appreciate his comments and he empathizes with him. It makes the City’s job more challenging as we want to be responsive to you; however, we also have to be responsive to the change in times and various builders that want to build buildings that can be used for 7 various things. So, we have to allow for some variation to occur within reasonable building guidelines and design features. Petersen asked Director Rogness if these new standards are less or more stringent than they were eight years ago? Director Rogness replied the big change was a point in time where the City Code prohibited pole buildings, although the City Council could allow them on a case-by-case basis; this ordinance was removed from the City Code. He stated there has not been any new code addressing pole buildings. He felt the material standards were about the same. He believes that nearly every development in Deerfield went through a conditional use process, which resulted in standards being applied to each project based on things like neighborhood input at those public hearings. Planner Matzke agreed with Director Rogness and stated it is not so much the standards that are being proposed tonight from what was applied years ago, but it has more to do with the review and approval process. In other words, outdoor storage and other uses which required a conditional use permit review at the time are no longer required to have those type of permits with public hearings. Jim Sexe from Prior Lake Blacktop stated that he owns a 2-acre lot in Deerfield. He is confused about what is going on. He said that a pole building was allowed and wants to know if it is still going to be permitted in the industrial area. In his opinion, the City is going from a three-hundred thousand dollar building to a million dollar building by increasing the standards and prohibiting pole buildings. Hite replied that the commission is evaluating comments tonight about design of buildings and is being asked to recommend amendments related to architectural design. She explained that the commission is listening to public comment to help them understand what kind of a recommendation should be made to the City Council for changes in the City Code. She is hearing tonight that land and building owners who have very nice structures in the commercial and industrial areas want heightened standards applied equally. However, she is also hearing that some people cannot afford high standard buildings. She is hearing both sides. Jim Sexe said that you could put a nice pole building there and make it look a lot nicer than the one that was recently constructed without putting up a pre-fab building. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLICHEARING AT 7:33 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson asked Director Rogness would this amendment for pole building storage be in a separate category as if a large warehouse company would come into town. Director Rogness replied that typically the pole type construction is for smaller buildings. The one that was recently built in the Industrial Park is roughly a five-thousand square foot building. A large facility, say 10,000 square feet or larger, would most likely be precast or material. He also mentioned an existing building in the Welcome Industrial Park of 10,000 square feet that is a metal building with large steel support structures on a foundation; it looks like a pole building from the outside, however it is not a pole 8 building based on its structure. Additionally at a recent EDA meeting, most members agreed that the type of existing buildings (i.e., precast) in Deerfield is what should continue. Hite recognized that these amendments were increasing architectural design standards in order to protect the value of the businesses and buildings that exist today in Deerfield. However, if someone wants to construct a 10,000 square foot pole building for a business, where do they go? Director Rogness suggested some of the business parks in the County or Townships. Hite suggested that she was not being argumentative; rather, she is asking if the City is trying to promote business with a goal of protecting architectural building design, is the City also saying no to some businesses? She questioned where do those people go? She stated she would like to make sure we inclusive and have a variety of zones and building criteria so that the City can accommodate growth while protecting values for existing business owners. Director Rogness explained there was some discussion at the EDA wanting to explore if, for example, pole buildings should be allowed in the Welcome area since a lot of that exists there now. A lot of options were discussed, but staff is proposing a complete prohibition of pole buildings in the commercial and industrial zones. The commission may want to further discuss somewhere that allows pole buildings in Prior Lake other than just for agriculture. Hite stated she was trying to be broad-minded and inclusive of business owners. Fleming echoes the Chair’s comments stating inherent tension between wanting to tighten up ordinances and preserve values, honor the voice of citizens and promote business in order be economically viable. The City should promote businesses as well as be welcoming and inviting. Hite asked about the types of permitted architectural exterior materials and whether they are standard terms in the industry. Director Rogness replied that staff tried to be current and standardized. Blahnik explained the definition of pole buildings as written in the report and said it appears the concern here is for the outward aesthetics throughout the community. Although the pole building has a certain less costly internal structure, he said it appears to him that the whole pole building may meet visual standards by its outward appearance with specified design elements. The balance is how to allow people into the community to start a business without creating a cost barrier. He said he was struggling with this issue since it’s possible to have a cheaper building be designed aesthetically pleasing. Director Rogness said that per the City’s building official and others, a pole building will not look as good after a certain amount of time because it is a more inferior type of construction. The exterior may look good initially, but over time, it just doesn’t stand up and the quality is then diminished. He checked with the County Assessor, who agrees the value of this type of building is less. So, there is an argument that if the exterior looks like it should with the required materials, then what is the problem? The significant problem is that the longevity value of that structure diminishes more than other buildings. Blahnik said he understood the material is less costly, but he doesn’t see a pole building blowing over. If the City adequately defines what the materials are for the outside structure, he understands the building 9 may be less valuable. However, that is what the particular owner is wanting as they don’t need a building of a different magnitude if, for example, they just need storage space. He feels it is up to the owner/builder and that the exterior should be all that matters to the neighborhood and community. Petersen asked if Shakopee and Savage had any comments on how this has worked for them or any problems they have had working with their design standards. Director Rogness stated that he has not heard anything said from staff that it does not work for them. Blahnik would like to see more of a perspective to see what other communities are doing, especially from cities that are similarly situated to ours on the verge of the city and country. Hite agreed with Commissioner Blahnik comment and would like to table this item until staff can come back with an overlay map that shows the different districts, more information and visuals. There could be a place for pole buildings. We are still trying to understand where other types of structures might fit in to continue to attract businesses to Prior Lake. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO TABLE AND DEFER THIS TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND ASK STAFF FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 6. Old Business: None. 7. New Business: A. 2014 Accomplishments of the Planning Commission & 2015 Goals Director Rogness stated on November 24, 2014 at 5 p.m., all Boards and Commissions are invited to meet with the City Council at a work session to share three primary accomplishments 2014 and three primary goals for 2015. He proposed some 2014 accomplishments and 2015 goals: 2014 Accomplishments  Evaluated and approved various zoning ordinance amendments including those related to alternative schools, senior care facilities, marinas and signage.  Reviewed preliminary information related to the Metropolitan Council Thrive 2040 process including population and household employment forecast.  Recommended amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive plan related to a newly annexed area in South East Prior Lake, called Godsons Way. 2015 Goals  Continue to make decisions and recommendations on Subdivisions and Zoning Applications throughout the year.  Evaluate the Subdivision Ordinance including but not limited to lot combinations.  Establish a local process and timeline related to Thrive 2040 in corporation with the Met Councils 2040 Comprehensive Planning Guidelines. 10 Hite is okay with the 2014 accomplishments and does not have any changes. She stated hearing no comments, she assumes all commissioners are in approval of the 2014 accomplishments. She stated the 2015 goals appear acceptable to her and asked for comments from fellow Commissioners. She said she th will be at the meeting on November 24 meeting and invited other commissioners. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED 2014 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND THE 2015 GOALS TO BE SHARED ON NOVEMBER 24, 2014 AT THE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 7. Announcements: A.Recent City Council Discussions/Decisions.  Eagle Creek Estates One residential lot that was previously platted as an Outlot close to the round- o about because there was a County easement across the whole lot. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO ADJORN THE NOVEMBER 3, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 11