Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 February 2 2015 Meeting Minutes Edited PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, February 2, 2015 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Hite called the Monday, February 2, 2015 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Adam Blahnik, Perri Hite, Wade Larson and Mark Petersen; Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, December 22, 2014 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2014 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV15-001001 Shore Club & Marina Ordinance Amendment Waterstreet Restaurants Group is requesting a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for expansion of a nonconforming use of 3950 and 3931 Green Heights Trail South West to reconstruct a construct an off-street -102- 022-0 and 25-102-006-0. Director Rogness introduced the Ordinance Amendment at 3950 and 3931 Green Heights Trail South West and explained the history, current circumstances, conclusion, issues and alternatives. He provided a location map, developer narrative, redevelopment plans (site and building), proposed amendments to add Subsection 1102.1600 and a reference to Minnesota Statutes 462.357. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson inquired whether the wooded lot by the proposed parking was a private lot; he asked about the process for notifying residents about this ordinance, and the existing conditional use permit on the restaurant property. Director Rogness explained the wooded, unplatted outlot is zoned R-2 and stated there has been past discussion of either possible parking for Captain Jacks or attached housing development. He explained the process for notifying residents which includes the applicant submitting mailing labels to the City of property owners within 350 feet surrounding both parcels. The City mails out a notice within 10 days prior to the public hearing; hearings are published in the official newspaper. Further, he explained the 1984 conditional use permit records referred to renovation of the existing restaurant. He stated that the history 1 of the property was unclear, but the bar/restaurant use was permitted for this property under the conditional use permit. Therefore, the use may continue since the conditional use permit runs with the land. He also mentioned the commercial marina use and configuration permitted by the DNR, which was properly transferred to the current owners. Blahnik asked whether there would be any variations to the front and side yard setbacks, inquired whether the parking lot across the street constituted an expansion of a nonconforming use, and asked about MN Stat. § 462.357, which allows municipalities to permit an expansion by ordinance. He suggested to the Commissioners consideration of reasonable regulations allowed under the statute for the application. Director Rogness explained the lake, front, and side-yard setbacks and noted the applicant was proposing to reconstruct the building above the flood plain. He stated that lake setback and minimum parking requirements would remain nonconforming on the site; he clarified that if the parking lot across the street was not included, the site reconstruction would still be considered an expansion of a nonconforming use. Hite clarified with Director Rogness the parking spaces classified as on-site or off-street as well as the minimum of 80 parking spaces required. She also confirmed the additional parking lot was zoned R-1 which allows for parking as an accessory use. However, the new parking lot would be nonconforming due to the side yard setbacks not meeting the 20-foot minimum. Peterson was available on all streets in the area. Director Rogness replied that according to residents in the neighborhood, overflow parking was along the local streets, including parking within those areas with neighborhood. Applicant Applicant Roger BurksJeff Petschl representing Waterstreet Restaurants, introduced himself as well as , Bill Kranz local resident, and , builder. Roger stated the idea for the building was to look like a house and create a restaurant that is community-friendly and family-oriented. Blahnik confirmed with the applicant the timeline to begin by July of 2015. He inquired about the lot across the street and whether there were any discussions to acquire additional adjacent properties for parking. Jeff Petschl stated the group would like to acquire additional property for parking, but that is not realistic right now. Hite inquired about how the restaurant would operate in the community, whether they would have control of their customers and how they would not have continuing issues. She also asked whether the group has experience in running a restaurant with a marina and what kind of events the proposed restaurant would hold. She further inquired about lighting and signage. Applicant Burks explained that they have not managed a restaurant with a marina, but they operate two other restaurants in the Twin Cities. He explained how the staff will be trained to work both inside and outside, managers will supervise people, crowds, and drinking; 2 yards or homes. He stated that family-oriented and community-friendliness begins with the menu and what is offered to attract families and local events. He added that they will not have drink specials or loud music. Mr. Burks explained that they would work with the City and would like to participate in street fairs, parades and other local events. Petersen asked about how many employee parking spaces were expected, where employees would park, and signage for the parking lot. Applicant Burks advised that employees could range from 25-100 and the additional parking lot was intended to be primarily as an amenity for rented boat slips; however, it could serve as employee and valet parking at times. He explained their plan to contain street parking to the extent possible but they could not guaranty that street parking would not happen. Larson asked about the outdoor versus indoor seating. Applicant Burks explained the current outside bar will no longer exist, but it will be replaced with approximately 10 bar stools along the counter inside the restaurant; there will be additional tables and seating outside on the deck area, but that capacity will also be reduced in size. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGAT 6:47 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen The motion carried. Public Comment : Valerie Schueler, 3904 Green Heights Tr. SW. She represented about 21 residents in the area directly affected by the application. She stated the mailing was inefficient and the noticed should have been sent to surrounding neighborhoods outside the 350 feet perimeter. Additional concerns included: potential major impacts to property values, loss of privacy, vehicles turning around in residential driveways, encroachments in neighborhoods, a parking lot in a residential neighborhood, increased impact on community for increased sexual activity and bodily functions in yards, hours of operation, inability for residents to sleep with windows open, potential for loud music and sleep disturbances, loss of enjoyment of the neighborhood, vehicle alarms and door lock noises, special events, environmental concerns such as cleanliness and littering, loss of substantial trees and wildlife in the area, increased safety concerns, additional traffic congestion and deterioration of roads, narrow turns in the neighborhood, delivery trucks, lighting, potential for increased illegal drug activities, drunkenness, fights, and foot traffic and insufficient background checking. She explained the history of the restaurant/marina. She asked not to rezone R-1 properties. She shared concerns about due diligence not being completed by the new owners as she received different answers at each meeting regarding the new lot dedicated to slip owners only and now for employees and special events. John Granlund, 3893 Green Heights Trail. He has issues with the parking lot as presented, noting seating is reduced but parking has increased. He stated he did not like the bar or the restaurant as it patrolled. He noted accidents on Green Heights Trail in the winter and that setbacks created an inconvenience for residents. He stated impervious surface has been a problem and additional pavement will increase negative impacts on the lake. 3 Alex Marchessault, 3915 Green Heights Trail. He lives next door to the parking lot and is happy with re-doing the bar, but a new parking lot next to his house would make it difficult to sell in the future. He stated that compensation is necessary. Jennifer Nemecek, 3880 Green Heights Trail. She stated that residents in the neighborhood know a restaurant and bar is there, and that they want the bar to be updated. She feels this group would be doing a better job. Randy DeMent, 16536 Spring Ave. SW. He showed photos to Commissioners and described what it would be like to have a parking lot next door. He stated the neighborhood d further noting Prior Lake is a wonderful place to work, live and play for a lifetime. Mark Leuthard, 3904 Green Heights Trail. He stated he just moved into the neighborhood in March; he knew about the neighboring bar and suggested they give more focus to the lake. Robert Lemna, 16517 Dutch Ave. SE. He recently moved into the neighborhood stating he supported the upgrades to the restaurant/bar; he further proposed that a stop sign in the area would be nice, but was opposed to the parking lot. Dick Hadley, 15297 Edgewater Circle. He stated he has lived there since 1983 and supports the restaurant update project. Jen Wocelka, 3874 Green Heights Trail SW. She neighborhood residents have a problem with the restaurant project, and she felt that upgrading a parking lot is going to better the community and home values. **Herb VanValkenburg, 3945 Green Heights Trail. He noted he has lived in this community since 1991 and there have been many past meetings about these issues. He feels the new business has good intentions, however stated good intentions in the past followed through for a short time only. Liz Weninger, 2591 Spring Lake Road. She is Chair of the Lakes Advisory Committee and prefers a parking lot to cars parking on streets; oil and parking lot runoff will be channeled rather than running into the lake. Susan Hadley, 15297 Edgewater Circle. She noted similarities to Lake Minnetonka, stating residents should view this as a restaurant rather than as a bar. She felt it will be upgraded, and she would not like to live next to a parking lot; however, they needed a quality restaurant on this lake. Jay Nemecek, 3880 Green Heights Trail. He recognized that this is an emotional night for everyone; however, the bar and restaurant is needed for the community. He noted he lives across the street from the parking lot and that every day there is parking on the streets. People drive around the neighborhood looking for a parking spots, and the new parking lot may increase safety of the neighborhood. DeAnn Anderson, 4014 Green Heights Trail. She is located on the east side of Captain Jacks and inquired about increased boat slips. She also noted they deal with a lot of beer bottles in the street. Applicant Petschl to boat slips. 4 Harry Alcorn, 14283 Shady Beach Trail. He stated he was looking forward to the new business as it was a great opportunity to have the safety needs addressed; moving the parking off the street into a controlled area was a great idea. John Bohr, 3552 Basswood Circle. He owns the lot referred as an outlot near Captain Jacks. He stated he initially purchased that land with the intent to develop and then the market crashed. However, in discussions with the City, Spring Street does not have a turn-around and he was wondering if anyone has considered a potential connector to the parking lot to Spring Street for safety reasons. He noted the City for an additional parking lot on the outlot. Renee Hengemuhle, 3827 Island View Circle. She lives across the lake from the proposed restaurant property; she would like to see more boat slips for people that live on the lake. Applicant Petschl stated the plan was to rent 60 slips and to have 20 open for boat traffic from the lake. Hite asked the applicant if they have conducted a traffic study or if they have not, if they plan to do so. Applicant Petschl said no, they have not and have no plans to conduct a traffic study. Hite asked what percent of sales they anticipate coming from liquor versus food. Applicant Burks replied 35% liquor and 65% food. Larson asked if they could explain more about their business motto and how they would like to have their business incorporated into the community, history, etc. Applicant Burks stated they intend to change the name and the interior of the restaurant with old maps, old photos of lodges; Applicant Petschl mentioned how the other restaurants are woven into the community; explaining how the Excelsior restaurant represents local schools. Applicant Burks said the restaurant is their first concern and the bar is just the balance of a good restaurant. Larson commented about space availability; he appreciated the decline in outdoor seating as well as moving the bar from the outside inward to control some of the noise complaints. Applicant Burks commented on how has been in the restaurant business for 35 years and listed his experiences in restaurants and the restaurant business. He also stated he lives in Chanhassen about a half a mile from one of his restaurants in Excelsior. Larson wanted to know how the applicant plans to handle neighborhood frustrations. He asked if there is any plans of on-going neighborhood communication/discussion regarding issues that may come up, especially since one of the owners is a neighborhood resident. He feels the community is looking for more restaurants to build as an establishment, and he further stated that he has heard from residents that they would like to boat to this establishment. 5 Applicant Burks explained that they have an open door policy, like a neighbor. He wants every neighbor to feel like a neighbor/guest/friend, being on a first-name basis, being taken very good care of and to feel like they are . Petersen create a lot of light pollution. Builder Kranz replied that they will meet city and neighborhood criteria, specifically lighting that is down-lit that will not interfere with neighbors, but still allow for proper security. John Granlund wanted to reiterate the fact that everything about this residential lot is a variance; this is R-1 property. He pleaded for the Commission not to not forget that in making their decision, nothing in that parking lot is in conformity with current regulations. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO CLOSE THE PUBLICHEARING AT 7:53 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen stated living next to a parking lot would not be ideal and encouraged the applicant to work Larson stated he looks at this in two ways. Without any variances, the current zoning for leaves potential a continuation of the restaurant/bar. On the other hand, he is hearing the applicants willingness to be involved with the community as well as the history of the community. He said the parking lot will alleviate the neighborhood street parking issues, and that he feels it is unfortunate to have a parking lot in between two residential homes. However, there is no other willing parties, outside of this particular lot to have a parking lot area. He said he appreciates what the applicants are bringing to Prior Lake. He is in support of this process for the parking issue based on parking safety and seating reduction. He feels the city needs to look to the future, not only at the past, and that a new applicant coming into our community is family orientated and is willing to communicate with the community. Blahnik asked Director Rogness if the current parking lot of 52 stalls with the proposed building, which reduces the seating in the building, would require 78 off street parking stalls for the building itself and an additional 20 stalls for the marina. He asked per ordinance whether it would require 98 parking spots. Director Rogness replied yes, that is correct. Blahnik asked if a safe statement to make would be, this project will not go through if it is limited to the existing 52 parking spots; therefore, if the built, that proposal is keeping 52 parking spots which is just under half of what is required. Director Rogness replied this property has received past approvals for the restaurant/bar by a conditional use permit. He said he believes the 52 stalls is approximately what they have had, and this number has never met the parking requirements per zoning code requirements; therefore, it is non-conforming. He said the need for additional parking has been an issue all along in staff discussions with the applicant, and yet, it is one of those difficult issues with arguments on both sides of the positive and the negative in terms of impacts to the residential neighborhood. 6 Blahnik stated with the existing 52 parking spots, and otherwise, 98 would be required, the choice is either to ke this new restaurant. He said the proposed restaurant is absolutely great for the community. He stated the issue is the parking; additional parking is essential for this project and this is an opportunity to have a parking lot. Although parking is still less than the required amount, 32 more parking stalls would help alleviate the safety issue of parking congestion on the streets. He interprets MN Stat. § 462.357 as a specific ordinance for the expansion of this nonconforming use as well as the inclusion of this additional parking lot. He feels this additional parking would abate potential nuisances and improve the public health, and welfare and safety of the neighborhood. His interpretation of MN Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1(b), suggested that it is within authority to allow this expansion of the existing nonconforming use because this expansion would be necessary to protect public health and safety by addressing parking needs. It is worth noting that the applicant is reducing the number of seating both inside and outside which potentially reduces the amount of traffic. He said this will be a higher quality building and higher quality restaurant. Hite stated that tion is great based on amenities. She said she is intrigued by the concept of the restaurant, expressing gratification for removal of the existing structure and a new building in its place. She feels the parking lot is needed and will get people off the street; however, she is concerned it will not alleviate some of the nuisances, congestion on the street, and the inconveniences/friction with residents that exist today. Hite does not have an issue with the restaurant, but she has concerns with the additional parking lot. She think it fits in the location that it is proposed, and would love to see the parking solution that fits both the neighborhood and development. She mentioned an opportunity to partner with the owner of the outlot; the City and the applicant should work there while unsure if that is feasible. Hite understands that for the marina boat slips, it is rare that all 60 people would show up and want a boat on the same day, but she could see some conflicts there. For the reasons mentioned, she is not supportive of this proposal since the city owes more to the community and to the success of this business. She thinks this establishment on the lake would be wonderful, but she cannot support having the second parking lot as proposed. Rick Keeney , City Council Liaison, said he would like to make a few suggestions on the process. He stated that there is an opportunity for the Commission to recommend some conditions on what might help mitigate some of the future concerns that were heard from residents. He would like to invite the Commission to consider additional conditions, and perhaps, the applicant could give their input on what conditions would be acceptable to them, such as hours, etc. He contemplates sitting at the City Council meeting deliberating on this matter; he would want some conditions that may be appropriate. Perhaps a different number of stalls and additional buffering is one way to address neighbor concerns. Blahnik suggested at this time to further discuss the issue of the parking lot as it is his understanding that the applicant intends to include a retaining wall, screening and landscaping. He asked the applicant is there anything further they wish to share in regard to what is being proposed with the parking lot across the street. Builder Kranz explained the design of the parking lot to be lowered in the grade to approximately three feet as it comes up from the street, along with a 4-feet high retaining wall and a screened fence between the property lines and the parking lot. The intent is to try to lower the parking lot for drainage and usage and also to limit the lights of cars as they pull in and out of the parking lot. 7 Hite stated she is not changing any of her opinions; however, if passed, she would like to see the applicant work with the neighbors on the type and quality of screen fencing for the type and quality to fit the neighborhood. She supported additional landscaping to be offered to neighbors as well as landscaping their lots if they want it in order to increase the buffering. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE SUBSECTION 1102.1600 AS PROPOSED IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING RESTAURANT. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Larson and Petersen Nay by Hite. The Motion carried 3 to 1. 5. Old Business: A.Ordinance Amendments - Architectural Design Standards (Continued) 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. Director Rogness reintroduced the recommendation to amend subsection 1107.200, Architectural Design and explained the history, current circumstances, conclusion, issues and alternatives. He mentioned some additional cities were contacted for what they do allow in their industrial parks. Hite mentioned that on behalf of the Planning Commission, she would like to thank Director Rogness for his continued research which was done in many communities for different types of architectural building designs. She has reviewed the amendments as proposed and feels the example in 1107.2207 6(c) can be removed as the text is descriptive enough. She stated she is comfortable with the protection of the existing businesses and the investments they have made in their buildings while maintaining flexibility and drawing new business to the commercial areas where pole barns already exist. Larson stated the language is too strong regarding the prohibition of pole buildings other than Welcome Avenue area. He mentioned that it was specifically for one development that led to proposed changes that concerns him. He explained that less expensive pole buildings can help a business get started; therefore, he is not in support of banning pole buildings completely. He asked Director Rogness if he could expand on other developments set aside for industrial parks. rd Director Rogness replied that Deerfield has 2/3 vacant land, and that Welcome has some redevelopment opportunities. There may be some in the future along the County Highway 42 corridor, which could be more Business Park with a commercial emphasis. Larson asked whether pole buildings are not being allowed in commercial use districts versus industrial use districts. Director Rogness explained that pole buildings were explicitly prohibited recently in the Business Park C-3 Use District, but that this discussion relates more to the General Industrial I-1 Use District. He suggested maybe a comfortable place would be excluding pole building in just industrial zones. Blahnik shares the sentiments of Commissioner Larson which include issues with the absolute prohibition of pole buildings; he is not comfortable with that direction. He feels the city would be limiting itself to prospective businesses. He would be in support if it was not an absolute prohibition of pole buildings. He mentioned how some businesses may need a pole building behind the main structure for storage. 8 Therefore, he would be in support of design amendments with the exception of a total prohibition of pole buildings. Petersen is in favor of the proposed amendments as written; thinking long term, he believes that aesthetics, property values and quality buildings attracts more of the same. He asked if someone had a reason for building something that resembles a pole building, could the city address that on a case-by-case basis, or does prohibition mean there are no exceptions. Director Rogness replied that if all pole buildings require a conditional use permit, then the Planning Commission would be reviewing these on a case-by-case basis; however, he would recommend that the Commission propose some kind of conditions that would assist in their decision. Hite asked if pole buildings would still need to meet the amended architectural design elements comprising three of five. Director Rogness said they would still have to meet the seventy-five percent material standards and the three of five design standards. Hite said that the city is protected that way whereby pole buildings would need to meet all design elements. Director Rogness replied that is correct. He further said the pole building is removed, they are allowed and they would have to meet the same design criteria that was applied to the recent pole building in Deerfield. Property owners in Deerfield testified that it pole building is a cheaper building that brings down the values of other existing buildings in Deerfield. Blahnik asked if this is a recommendation to the City Council. Director Rogness replied correct. Hite suggested removing the prohibition against pole buildings, but they would still be required to meet the design criteria. Larson said he would still like it to go through the conditional use permit process. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY LARSON TO RECOMMEND THE CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION 1107.2200, ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED; HOWEVER, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POLE BUILDING WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONES. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Larson and Hite Nay by Petersen. The Motion carried 3 to 1. 6. New Business: A.Preliminary PUD Plan Application Less Than 10 Acres Dominium is proposing a Planned Unit Development project on a site less than three acres; Subsection 1106.601 allows an exception to the 10-acre requirement upon approval of the Planning Commission. 9 Director Rogness introduced the proposed preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan and explained the current circumstances, issues and alternatives. He presented a site and locations map, PUD concept plan and project examples. Petersen asked about the car wash property. Director Rogness replied the car wash is a positive aspect; however, he stated redevelopment could include the car wash property based upon a willing seller, and it provides more area to potentially add some park/open space. Petersen stated it would be a good fit and mentioned it would be a great addition for this corner. Hite stated based on the initial layout of the plan and the green space, parking and amenities, this should move to the next step. Blahnik asked if the entire building would be demolished at this location. He also asked about the four requirements that the applicant would need to meet and stated that he felt these requirements were unique considering a parcel that is smaller than the required ten acres. He further stated he agrees with his fellow Commissioners that this proposed projects looks nice, and that the area needs an update. He said he is in support of this continuing on to the next level. Larson supports moving this forward. He suggested work within the PUD program to keep these existing businesses within Prior Lake. He said that he has seen some other location changes and he felt this is a unique concept. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY STAFF TO ACCEPT AND PROCESS THE APPLICATION FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROJECT WHICH IS LESS THAN TEN ACRES. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 7. Announcements / City Council Updates: Boat slips for controlled access lots - Council directing a similar process that was done with marinas o New applications/developments Dominium senior housing project o Variances for lake front lot o 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO ADJORN THE FEBRUARY 2, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 10 11