Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 August 28 2017 Meeting Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, August 28, 2017 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, July 28, 2017 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Dave Tieman, Mark Petersen, William Kallberg and Dan Ringstad. Also present was Director Casey McCabe, Planner Jeff Matzke, Planner Amanda Schwabe, Project Engineer Nick Monserud, and Community Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: Fleming: Stated one change on the agenda was an item that was a notice of public hearing to consider an amendment to Subsection 1107.2200 Architectural Design of the Prior Lake Ordinance. This issue was to be considered tonight; however, the applicant decided not to pursue the ordinance amendment at this time. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2017 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, July 17, 2017 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, JULY 17, 2017 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV17-001032 – Deerfield Mini Storage – 17101 Adelmann Street SE – Conditional use Permit – James O’Meara is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit a Self-Storage Facility within the C-3 (Business Park) Zoning District at 17101 Adelmann Director McCabe introduced the request to consider approval of a conditional use permit located in the C-3, Business Park Zoning Use District. The subject site is located within the Deerfield Industrial Park 2nd Addition and has been vacant since it was platted in 2004. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented a location map and a site plan and exterior elevations. Commission Comments/Questions: Tieman: Questioned the lack of striped parking. Director McCabe: Responded, correct there is no proposed striped parking. Petersen: Asked how many different owners in Deerfield and how many lots are available. Director McCabe: Replied three to four individual land owners; there are seven to eight available lots. Rinstad: Questioned the security and twenty-four-hour access to each unit. Director McCabe: Replied the applicant is proposing a security gate with twenty-four-hour access to the site with an access card. Ringstad: Asked if this falls into a normal CUP. Director McCabe: Stated no hourly restrictions were proposed as there are no adjacent residential lots. Petersen: Asked about the other storage unit on County Road 42 hours of operation. Director McCabe: Stated he doesn’t recall the hours of operation; however, due to the townhomes across the street a condition may have been imposed at the Planning Commission Meeting. 2 Fleming: Questioned the eleven conditions stipulated in the 1102.1203 and asked if the applicant can meet these conditions. Director McCabe: Responded during numerous meetings with the applicant, they have stated they can meet the eleven conditions mentioned in the ordinance. Applicant James O’Meara, 5299 Candy Cove Trail: Stated he also owns a townhome in the Deerfield Development facing the Industrial Park area. He said Director McCabe covered everything well. He commented on working very hard on this, talk ing to other business owners in the development and felt he had pretty strong support from everyone with an exception to a couple people he talked with were a little hesitant due to the outside panel that was approved by the City. He explained the paneling he will be using and asked if anyone had questions for him. Fleming: Said he appreciates the feedback and asked about the feedback that wasn’t so positive initially. O’Meara: Mentioned the one to two people that were hesitant and said he felt it was just due to the standards fifteen to twenty years ago. Petersen: Asked if this is his first type of business. O’Meara: Replied he is involved with real estate rentals; however, something like this is new to him. He said he does have investors that are involved with this type of business. Tieman: Asked if he planned on having any striped parking. O’Meara: Responded he doesn’t. He explained how the storage system works and mentioned handicap parking. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 6:15 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Michelle Choudek, 16644 PARK Avenue SE, Prior Lake and a building owner adjacent to the subject’s property. She stated comments regarding the development itself; buildings built ten years ago, and stringent requirements; she explained those requirements and stated these requirements have changed. She commented on not opposed to change, keep the integrity of the neighborhood and value of the current buildings not be compromised. She mentioned if something needs a CUP, it is non- conforming and there are other places in the city to conform. She said she understands the applicant has done a lot of work to meet the needs the best he can; they are not in the business of wanting someone else’s business to be troubled. Fleming: Asked staff to provide a brief chronology of evolution of the regulations and ordinances ten years till now and then talk a little bit of evolution of the policy and why this proposal does conform. Director McCabe: Suggested Ms. Choudek was correct in the requirements being stringent in the business park and he explained the requirements ten years ago. He mentioned suggestions from property owners to relax the standards about five to six years ago, explained what was relaxed, the outcome and what the City did to meet in the middle. He explained the difference in applicants versus current property owner’s requests. Fleming: Asked is there any substantive evidence of the materials that we approved as a body with significantly devalue existing buildings from a taxation perspective. Director McCabe: Explained the analysis of what the Council and Commissioners consideration of the use of material value per square foot for improvements and comments and questions from the Scott County Assessor’s Office. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:22 P.M. on ITEM 4A VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 3 Commissioners Comments Kallberg: Stated he cannot oppose this; conditions that have been opposed are detailed as alluted to what is the long-term impact on the adjacent property in terms of property values not for tax purposes but for someday resale purposes. He said he does support this. Tieman: Said he does support this; he looked at the area and this is a good use for this area. Ringstad: Agreed with his fellow Commissioner comments; the standards for the conditional uses have been made. He said he understands the comment from Ms. Choudek regarding not having level playing field with ten years ago to now; however with Director McCabe’s explanation on evolution of building material and reacting to the economy, moving ahead with this does make sense and stated he supports this agenda item. Petersen: Explained his thoughts on the use and how it would cause some opposition; however, it sounds as the applicant has done his homework. He commented on the building materials, his research and this being a legit building process to not only save money. He said it is not a pole bard and stated stated he is in favor of this CUP. Fleming: Stated that he is supporting the Conditional Use Permit; it does meet the eight-point threshold for 1108.202. He commented on liking the photometric plan and the lighting plan; it was very well designed and conceived. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY WITHIN THE C-3 (BUSINESS PARK) USE DISTRICT AT 6:25 VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. B. PDEV17-000002B – Haven Ridge – Final Planned Unit Development – MI Homes of Minneapolis, LLC is proposing a final planned unit development for Haven Ridge within an (A) Agricultural Zoning District consisting of approximately 54 acres, and includes 133 single family homes and sixteen acres of private open space. The subject torth of County Road 42; directly on the east side of County Road 18, south of Whispering Oaks Trail. PID’s: 259240020 & 259240010. Planner Matzke introduced the request to consider approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Haven Ridge to be developed as a 133 – lot, low density residential subdivision. The subject site is located north of County Highway 42 and east of County Highway 18. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a location map and development plans dated August 16, 2017. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen: Asked why the changes in the services/utilities and questioned phase one roadway; what is the road made of for two years. He questioned the trees under the utility poles and the trees in-between the existing property to the north. He mentioned drainage and asked Project Engineer Monserud if he felt confident that will eliminate or make better than it is now. Project Engineer Monserud: Explained the situation to use Shakopee’s services and stated it was more economical for them to utilize our system with the lift station. He explained the slope stabilization. He stated the amount of water will be reduced as it currently flows today; there is no homes or roads today, they are reducing the rate to the existing condition of the ponds before they go Shakopee; Shakopee has reviewed these and provided comments. Planner Matzke: explained the trees under the powerlines is maintained by the utility company. He said they are proposing some small vegetation in the area around the ponding or trail area or not elimating some of those as they are not grading in those areas as much except for the aspects of putting in ponding. There is not a lot of vegetation in that area right now that is under the lines. Because of the easments they don’t have a lot of control; however, will be planting as much as they can to help improve the look of the landscaping along the trails. 4 Kallerg: Asked about the previous hearing having concern about screening and the lots that back up to the powerline easement for purposes of the trails and such; he doesn’t see anything in the planting plan to reflect that increase in trees along there and he was under the understanding that would be considered. Planner Matzke: Explained the plantings, landscaping and the grading to get into the trail and the stormwater water pond. He mentioned the HOA and being restricted to what the HOA allows. He iterated the maintenance responsibilities. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 6:40 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Applicant John Raasch, MI Homes, 941 Northeast Hillwind Road, Fridley, MN: He addressed a couple of the issues that came up this evening; the final plan is the same plan, nothing has changed except the direction of sewer flow. He commented on why they are not going with Shakopee Utilities, the City council plan recommendations/conditions and what changes were made, property lines, the trees along the utilities, stormwater ponds, easements, landscaping, agreement with the power company, erosion control, ponding and drainage. He said they continue to work with City Staff to finalize plans with no areas of concern at this point. Fleming: Questioned the analogy; more effort. He said at the last hearing we talked about the trees and asked if more effort could be made to erect that number up and be more specific about the exact number of trees. Applicant Raasch: Mentioned there is a specific plan that should be presented; tree count was just summarized that way. Planner Matzke: Stated he should have the plan and offered to present this specific plan. Applicant Raasch: Said because the tree preservation ordinance measures caliber inches. He explained the required number of trees and caliber inches of trees and what has been updated. Ringstad: Asked for definition on how many different style of Villa and Single Family. Applicant Raasch: Explained the variety of floor plans and the variety of elevations on each; one of the standards that we brought forward at the preliminary plat was some architectural monotony standards. At this point we have about six standard plans we are offering; each having four to six different elevations, leaving thirty six different homes, even though there are only five or six different plans. He commented on the variety of architecture and customization, ranch homes, two stories, rambler homes and the exteriors on front elevations. Ringstad asked the price points. Applicant Raasch: explained the price differences on the Villas and single family; stating there is not much difference between the two. He explained the different models. Tieman: Asked about 138th and Grainwood Roadway completion. Applicant Raasch: Responded this would be done with the first phase. He explained the area that would be worked on and said it would be done by June or July; weather dependent. Kallberg: Mentioned working for a utility company and dealt with developments and pipeline; he questioned if they were in full concert with Center Point Energy on this proximity of homes to their line. Applicant Raasch: Replied they have been out on the site twice now with Center Point and have exposed the pipe at number of points along it to get elevations in check; they have reviewed our plans and have issued us a letter proving the project as submitted because really the only approach we have is public streets and utilities will cross as we will not be building any homes on their easement. He explained the easement. Public Comment: Paul Burns, 13772 Kensington Avenue NE: He mentioned it seems a little redundant on our behalf. We live on the back of the cul-de-sac. He commented on the entrances into the development and asked if it is necessary to come into from Kensington and if so how does that impact us as homeowners. Project Engineer Monserud: Explained Kensington’s cul-de-sac was built as a temporary cul-de-sac which would be extended. He explained what would happen with the road edges, yards and street. 5 Burns: Asked about the requirement to match up the existing driveway that is there today; concrete to concrete, stamp to stamp, asphalt to asphalt, etc. Project Engineer Monserud: Said that would be our expectation. Burns: Asked if there is a tree mitigation plan so we can see what trees are coming out; is there a plan out there that shows us what trees are being removed. Planner Matzke: Explained the tree plan. He offered to meet with them to share the plan. Burns: Questioned the conveyance being established and if so would it be public knowledge. Applicant Raasch: Replied yes and yes it would be public knowledge; not sure when though. Fleming: Stated Staff will work with you to get you that information. Mark Thompson, 9048 Whispering Oaks Trl, Shakopee, MN: Acknowledged the nice job on the last meeting and appreciates all the feedback. He commented on future homeowners going to a subdivision; we would also benefit them to have screening from the power lines for the Villas in their backyard they are only showing a twenty-foot setback from the back of the house and also backing up to Woodhill. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO CLOSETHE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:59 P.M. ON ITEM 4B Commissioners Commets: Kallberg: Stated he would like to see a planting plan on the northerly boarder or the back yards that abut to the powerline easements. He said he understand how you are going to leave that up to the individual homeowners or property owners; certainly, they still would have to varieties that are acceptable for the City. He stated other than that he supports this plan. Tieman: Stated he supports this plan and appreciates the developers listening to the Planning Commissioners comments and trying to adapt. Petersen: Said at the beginning his two biggest complaints were trees and drainage and those two issues have been explained; so, he is in support. Ringstad: Stated he is in support; very close with some slight modifications that we saw a couple months ago. He said it meets the PUD criteria and will be voting in favor of it tonight. Fleming: Said he will be supporting the PUD, and thanked the applicant and team for listening to the Planning Commissioners and neighbors’ concerns. He stated that this does meet our PUD requirements. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVED OF THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HAVEN RIDGE SUBJECT TO THE TWO LISTED CONDITIONS; INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL, MORE ROBUST PLANTING PLAN OR OTHERS THAT MAY BE ADDED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 7:01 P.M. ON ITEM 4B VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. C. Amendments to the Prior lake City Code – Decisions of the Zoning Administrator Board of Adjustments and City Council – Consider Amendments to the Sections 1101; General Provisions, and Section 1109; Administrative Procedures of the Prior Lake Zoning of the Zoning Ordinance related to appeals to decisions of the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the City Council. Director McCabe introduced the request to consider amendments to the prior lake city code related to appeals to decisions of the Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the City Council. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a proposed Amendments to Section 1101 and proposed Amendments to Section 1109. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming: Stated he feels this is helpful and clear with communications with residents and manage expectations. Petersen: Asked when referring to hearings is it always by definition as a public hearing. Director McCabe: Said it is two different meanings; he explained how it was confusing and now is more defined and how the new process would be. 6 Petersen: Suggested to somewhere differential between the two. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4C AT 7:07 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Applicant: No one present in the Chamber. Public Comment: No Comment. No one present in the Chamber/Audience. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO CLOSE AT 7:07 P.M. ITEM 4C VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commissioners comments. Ringstad: Stated it all looks good; he will be supporting this. He said it looks a little bit more than housekeeping and anytime we are simplifying ordinance language is a good thing. Petersen: Said with the one suggestion made earlier; somehow making clear that a hearing is not the same thing as a public hearing will be supporting. He said it is a good change. Fleming: Said he would be supporting the change as it will help our efforts to be more clear with our continuance and expectations and Agrees with Commissioner Petersen’s good suggestion regarding making sure that the final language distinguishes between the various types of hearings. Tieman: Agrees with fellow Commissioners and good changes. Kallberg: Stated he is trying to absorb all the portions of this that have been stricken which has mostly to do with the role of the Zoning Administrator. Director McCabe: Replied that is correct; the Community Development Director/Zoning Administrator. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1101 AND SECTION 1109 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ON ITEM 4C. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. D. Amendment to the Prior lake City code – Communicaiton Towers amd Antennas – Consideration of amendments to the prior Lake City code Part 11, Zoning ordinance, relating to communication Towers and Antennas. Planner Matzke explained the consideration of amendments to City Code Section 1110 related to antennas and towers in the right-of-way. In concert with those revisions, staff has been working on similar revisions for towers outside of the right-of-way. This ordiance updates the City’s regulations for towers outside the right-of-way and centralizes and clarifies the regulations for ease of administration and understanding. The City Attorney has drafted this ordinance revision following direction from the City Council. He explained the issues and recommended a motion. He presented the Ordinance. Commissioner Qutestions/Comments Kallberg: Asked of the changes in comparison. Planner Matzke: Explained the main changes related to the towers stating we have required some of these towers to have storage of equipment to be changed for technology. He said the setbacks have not changed at all, nor have some of the applications of it. He explained the requirements and equipment. Kallberg: Said we don’t have anything to relate to before, correct? Planner Matzke: Said correct and explained that when you have technology change that drastically; looking at this with the City Attorney it was mentioned that it should start from the beginning and in today’s standards. Tieman: Asked about the maximum height; where the standard numbers came from. 7 Planner Matzke: Explained they came from our last standards; our old ordinance and that is a standard height. He explained the technology and the looks of them; from a tree to antenna’s. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4C AT 7:16 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Applicant: No one present in the Chamber Public Comment: No Comment. No one present in the Chamber. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD AND KALLBERG TO CLOSE AT 7:16 P.M. ON ITEM 4C. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commissioner Comments Ringstad: Stated he will support this tonight; looking to the forward to the future we might be doing the same thing due to technology revolution. Petersen: Said there is nothing in here that he would see why he would not support this; therefore, he will be supporting this agenda item. Fleming: Stated he will be supporting the Amendment. Tieman: Said it seems like a reasonable Amendment change. Kallberg: Mentioned he understands that technology changes, conditions change, situtations change; it is easier to start from scratch then try to modify a whole lot of terms and conditions. He stated he supports this. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE REVISION AS PROPOSED AT 7:18 P.M. ON AGENDA ITEM 4D. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: No Old Business 6. New Business: 7. Adjournment: Announcements: • Planner Amanda Schwabe welcome • Number of vacancies on our advisory committees Deadline sept 12 Fleming: Mentioned that his position is up and he is reapplying. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, JULY 17, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:20 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Sandra Woods, Community Development Service Assistant