Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 April 18 2016 Meeting Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, April 18, 2016 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, April 18, 2016 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Wade Larson, Bill Kallberg, Mark Petersen and Dave Tieman. Also present were Director Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke and Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, APRIL 18, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, April 4, 2016 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. Amendments to Subsection 1101.503 (Yard Encroachments) and Subsection 1102.700 (Residential Performance Standards) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance – Consider Amendments that relate primarily to; (1) clarifying yard encroachments in all zoning districts; and (2) clarifying setbacks for accessory structures in residential zoning districts, all part of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. Director Rogness introduced the consideration of a request by City Staff to amend two sections of the Zoning Ordinance. These sections relate to yard encroachments and accessory structure setbacks. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented proposed amendments to Subsections 1101.503 and 1102.700 showing amendments and clean version. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen questioned the bump out as part of a house. Director Rogness replied explaining the encroachment allowance of no closer than 5 feet; 5 feet is the magic line and how we are proposing, due to easements. He said typically a bump out would not exceed into the full setback area. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:10 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. 2 Public Comment: None. MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY PETERSEN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:10pm. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg stated it is a clarification of languages and a clean-up of repetitious language that appears in many places including other ordinances and makes reference to others in that regards. Larson stated he believe this amendment is in support of clarification with builders and he supports this agenda item. Petersen said he concurs with his fellow Commissioners and will be in support of this agenda items. Tieman stated he supports this agenda item and said it looks like good clarification. Fleming said he supports this this amendment as it has been clarified and refreshed after the City Council had an opportunity to review our February 16th recommendation. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO REFRESHED AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION 1101.503 AND SUBSECTION 1102.700 AT 6:13P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. B. Amendments to Section 1104 (Shoreland) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance – Consider a request to recommend Amendments that relate to regulations for bluff and steep slope areas within the Shoreland District. Planner Matzke introduced the consideration to amend Section 1104 (Shoreland Regulations) of the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to bluff and steep slope areas. The Primary purpose of these ordinance amendments is to consider objective criteria that would be allowed for construction within a bluff impact zone. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented proposed amendments to Sections 1104 and bluff cross-section exhibit. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg questioned the substantial jump in areas square footage and asked where is this coming from and does it need to be that great. Planner Matzke explained the number for he square footage and where the number is coming from stating it is on the waiver inclusion for the engineering requirements. He said if the number seemed high, it is a flexible number for the Planning Commission to decide. He explained why it is on the waiver inclusion and how it benefits flexibility. He commented on bluff failure, erosion control, soil borings, size of bluffs and additions in correspondence to this number and explained the DNR’s comments to this number. 3 Kallberg questioned the limitation on the time of year this work can be done. He explained a situation of a northern Minnesota lake, where replacing a bluff in the wrong season compromised the home in the spring and was a pricey fix. Tieman asked about importing or exporting of soils; do we allow for soil corrections at all to be made by bringing in soil. Planner Matzke replied stating there have been a few soil corrections made and he explained the situations; generally, there is stable soils at some depth. He commented on steep slopes and soil corrections, introducing new soil, compaction and stability and said it is more of an Engineering Department question. He commented on the recommendations of Geo-Technical Engineers reviews. Tieman asked if it would be a variance then. Planner Matzke replied yes, with importing or exporting material is could go through a variance process. Tieman asked on the 4-foot wall, how is the 4-foot determined. Planner Matzke explained how the 4-foot wall is determined. He talked of structural setbacks, engineering and non-slope areas. He explained a bluff zone that was 15 to 20 feet from the lake versus a 6-foot wall. Petersen questioned the engineering fees and asked if they are for typical retaining walls that are not on a slope or bluff. He asked if the Building Department Staff makes the determination if En gineering is needed or not and questioned the outsource of Engineers. He asked if the applicant is required to get an Engineering report and then the City hires out to another Engineer. He questioned our Engineer’s capability of qualifications to engineer this rather than outsourcing. Planner Matzke explained the typical fees, stating consulting fees on the City’s end are similar. He explained the need for two Engineers review. He explained the scale of some bluff projects. He commented on the Staff’s ability for determining if Engineering is needed or not and explained different situation of slopes and how they are handled and analyzed. He explained City Staff Engineers are Civil Engineers not Structural Engineers. He gave examples of outreach in other matters that goes beyond the City Staff expertise and the ability to outsource and the costs are passed along dependent to the project. Petersen asked the difference between our engineers being capable of saying these need Civil Engineers when they are not Civil Engineers. Planner Matzke explained the review process for past practices regarding how the retaining walls and structural stabilities have been in the last 10-15 years. He explained the protection of the lake and erosion control areas. Petersen said for future reviews he would like to take a look at the kind of fill being used. He gave examples of putting down a heavy clay and no drainage on that type of fill. Kallberg asked if there is any requirement for minimum compaction requirements; in adding, moving or disturbing the soil. 4 Planner Matzke explained there is not a specific number of compaction and said there are some general guidelines for Engineering analysis based on the slope angle. He explained the types of things the City Engineers are more consistent on and what is asked of the applicant’s hired Engineer. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:52 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Jason Miller, (5614 Candy Cove Trail SE) He explained his past history with bluff zones and bluff areas. He discussed the large retaining walls on County Road Highway 13 and commented on bluff zones being too expensive in Prior Lake versus other cities. He commented on additional costs, extra Engineers, City Staff experience with basic inspections, client’s choices, responsibility for failing walls, City’s responsibility, over-seeing applicant’s hired Engineer, specifications, retaining walls around Candy Cove, rail road ties, different walls and slopes, flexibility, creativity in the bluff zones, fees not being minuscule and explained what is needed to build a retaining wall and inspection process. He gave examples of costs and reiterated the additional Engineering costs. He talked of grading guidelines being too stringent and a better way to do things. Kallberg asked Mr. Miller for clarification; was he objecting to the whole Agenda Item or just the double Engineering requirement provision. Miller said the double Engineering is his biggest objection and shared concerns about how long this fee has been in place and if it is even legal, as in some cases Council would need to approve this action. Larson questioned the costs of the bluff on Candy Cove. He asked what the percentage or cost to what the total costs of the project for that $20,000.00 and what was the total value of the construction costs of that project? Miller said he doesn’t have those figures. Petersen asked Mr. Miller if he knew about the extra cost of the Engineering firm or if he was notified at all on this fee. Miller said no not that he was aware of. He said it is unusual for the City to make another Engineering firm check my engineering firm, at lease in retaining walls. He explained building a large commercial building and some special inspections and who would do these inspections. Petersen asked if the City’s Engineer require any changes and if he recalled what they were. Miller replied only minor plan changes. Tieman asked Mr. Miller, how did your Professional Engineer fees compare to the City’s Professional Engineering fees. 5 Miller replied he was paying his Engineer about half the amount to design and draw the walls, as well as take responsibility for those walls and have insurance for them. Tieman asked around $10,000.00 for his Engineer? Miller responded yes, approximately. Tim Wilfond, (17051 Sunrise Avenue SW) He stated he is a retaining wall builder/installer. He commented on Mr. Miller’s project. He explained his project and commented on material that is allowed in the City. He shared concerns of water flow, stairs, walls, bluffs, creating water falls, and engineering involvement. He commented on smaller projects and the lack of needing a permit if the retaining wall is less than four feet anywhere else in the City. He said there is only one way to build a staircase and didn’t feel that an Engineer would be necessary. Greg Thomas, (5038 Condons Street SE) He stated Mr. Wilfond is his contractor and asked Planner Matzke what the ordinance timeframe would be if these changes go through and does the scope of the bluff come into the calculations for how much engineering is needed. Planner Matzke explained the process of ordinance changes, stating he is hopeful to be finished by mid to end of May 2016 at the earliest. He commented on the scope of the bluff and how much engineering would be needed. He explained the average slope guidelines and the engineering requirements. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:14 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen stated there are four different items; however, he is concerned with engineering the most. He asked Planner Matzke why the twice payment on engineering and what other Cities are doing in the double review process. He questioned if this is a DNR requirement and if an Engineer has had action against them due to failure. Planner Matzke explained the other cases, the City Staff confidence in review and the need for asking for additional approvals. He stated due to the recent failures and issues, there is need for additional requirements. He explained other Cities procedures and said it is per demand needed bases. He said this is not a DNR requirement and commented on a couple cases but was unsure of what kind of reimbursement was made. Petersen recapped the comments and brought out points of responsibility. He commented on avoiding the stairs, scaffolding, above ground stairs, four foot walls and flexibility, building latterly and stated the only issue he has is with the engineering report; however, is supportive of all the other things. Tieman said all that is being proposed is a good addition; adding a better definition to the process. He agrees with Commissioner Petersen on the doubling up on Engineering not making sense. 6 Kallberg is in agreement with Commissioners Tieman and Petersen on the double engineering. He asked who is responsible for this cost on the city’s engineering and questioned the why the stairs cannot be replace with timber/railroad ties. Planner Matzke replied the City’s Engineer is put into the building cost and paid by the applicant. He explained why the different types of material, stating it is more for the grade materials. Fleming stated he feels like we should table this and for the record that the amendment proposals for 1104.308 sub 5 and 1104.402 the Commissioners are fine with those two items, but doesn’t want to take up a motion and second on the entire package until there is a little more information. He asked for research on, similar situated communities with prescribed or similar topography, grading and bluff areas like ours and within the three to five years in these communities, how many failures there were, how did the community address to these failures from a policy and/or practice perspective and what is the cost and/or fees associated with whatever the new policy of practice was identified. Petersen said it might be hard information to come by, but would like to know what other communities with bluff situations are doing as far as the double engineering and if there were failures and why they happened. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO TABLE, WITH THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTION GIVEN TO STAFF AND CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON MONDAY, MAY 2, 2016 AT 7:27P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. C. Amendments to Subsection 1108.200 (Conditional Use Permit) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance – Consider certain request to recommend certain amendments relating to Subsection 1108.217 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to extensions of time for Conditional Use Permits. Planner Matzke introduced the consideration to certain amendments of Subsection 1108.217 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to the extensions of time for Conditional Use Permits. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen commented on the wording, stating it seems to be in increments in years; maybe change the wording a bit. Kallberg asked if there could be a requirement of documentation progress, when some progress is shown with a substantial reason why they haven’t completed the project yet under the Conditional Use Permit process. He said we need to know that they were working on it, show progress reports. Planner Matzke said there is not a progress report statement now, but could be with the option of the Planning Commission. He agrees with progress reports and said City Staff does not recommend extensions due to not enough being done for a year; usually they would need a good excuse. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:34 P.M. 7 VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:34 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming said it does make sense to him, he commented on the clarity as well as State and Federal guidelines. He will be supporting the recommendation. Petersen stated he will be supporting the recommended change; with the comment that it is worded clearly regarding up to a year not year increments. Tieman stated he supports this change. Larson said he with his fellow Commissioners supports the change. Kallberg said no questions or comments. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION 1108.217 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AS PROPOSED AT 7:37 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Fleming left the building at 7:39PM Larson took over chair at 7:39pm 5. Old Business: A. Comprehensive Plan Discussion Director Rogness explained two items on the updated forecast adjustments by the Met Council and he handed out a forecast count on populations/household/employment figures, based on the removal of SMSC property from the Comprehensive Plan. He said they were in a preliminary status, as it has not gone before the City Council or Met Council. He commented on numbers decreasing. Kallberg commented on the numbers and said he met with the finance director and a few board members from Prior Lake school district and they are not in agreement with the decrease. He said the school is seeing an increase in population. He asked for communication between Prior Lake Council and their schools. He said School district only going on five years for this referendum. Director Rogness said generally checking in would be beneficially. He said it is really a crystal ball. 8 Kallberg asked if the numbers are different than the last meetings. Director Rogness said yes, and explained the last meeting update was more specific to the reduction in 2040. He said he is not sure how much of an update it will have to our land use plan and explained land to area for housing. He presented some slides regarding regional trends in economic well-being and explained each one. 6. New Business: A. DEV16-001009 – 5832 Industrial Lane SE – Vacation – Port City Bakery, Inc. is requesting the consideration of vacating a portion of public access at 5832 Industrial Land SE. PID 25-449-001- 0. Planner Matzke introduced the request to vacate an access easement located within the Deerfield Industrial Park 6th Addition Plat located on Lot 1, Block 1. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommen ded motion. He presented a general location map and an existing access easement document. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg questioned the fire hydrant. Planner Matzke replied it is worked out with the City and owner. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED VACATION. VOTE: Ayes by Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. Fleming absent. The Motion carried. 7. Announcements / City Council Updates:  April 11, 2016 City Council Meeting o Crystal Bay Amendment Minor Amendment  Change two units from 3 to 2 car units.  City Council Recon Reports o Sandy is sending them to Commissioners  Leave open Announcements for questions. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, APRIL 18, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. Fleming absent. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant