Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 24, 2005 Maintenance Center 17073 Adelmann Street S.E. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 24,2005 Fire Station - City Conncil Chambers 6:30 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: Z. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Consent Agenda: 5. Public Hearings: A. EP05-184 Busse Student Transport is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage within the I-I zoning District. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. EP 05-208 Cardinal Development Group has submitted concept plan for the development of approximately 45 acres to create a PUD containing retail, attached townhomes, office, clinic/medical office, and high density residential housing. This property is located at the northeast corner of cSAH 42 and cSAH 18. $. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:\05 FILESIOS PLAN COMMISSION\OS AGENDASIAG10240S_1J8lW\..V .cityofpriorlake .com Phone 952.440.9675 / Fax 952.440.9678 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2005 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the October 24, 2005, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Perez, Ringstad and ~:Hamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, Assistant City Engineer Larry Popp1er and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Present Absent Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the October 10, 2005, Planning Commission meeting were approved liS presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. EPOS-I84 Busse Student Transport is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to ~Ilow outdoor storage within the 1-1 zoning District. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated October 24, 2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On August 22, 2005 a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to discuss an application request by Busse Student Transportation for a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage on a site located south of Adelmann Street and west of [Revere Way, within the Deerfie1d Industrial Park. After the public hearing was closed, the Planning Commissioners discussed the concerns raised during the public hearing and directed the applicant to review the site plan and consider possible revisions to provide additional visual and noise mitigation through the use ofberming or increased landscaping. The application was continued to the September 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. At the September 12th meeting the Planning Commission approved (2-1) Resolution 05-11PC, granting the applicants request. L:I05 FILESI05 PLAN COMMISSIONI05 MINUTES\MNI02405.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 2005 After the September lih meeting it was discovered that there had been a discrepancy in the legal description in the public hearing notice. However, it was determined the intent of notification had been met and proper notification given. Nonetheless, in the interest of assuring that public input had been given, the applicant and staff agreed that it was appropriate to republish and rehear the public hearing before the Planning Commission. Since the September 12th Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has taken into account adjacent property owner concerns and further altered the site plan to include an additional berm along the southwest edge of the reconfigured parking lot, as well as numerous15 ft to 18 ft in height Colorado blue spruce trees along the top of the newly proposed berm area. Overall, staff believes the outdoor storage is consistent with the intent of the I-I use district provided the conditions of approval are met. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the Conditional Use Permit, the planning staff recommends the following additional conditions: I. The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County no later than 60 days after City Council approval. 2. A plan must be provided that details the materials used for the construction of the gates to the fenced enclosure areas. 3. A zoning permit shall be issued prior to the installation of the fence. 4. All vehicles within the outdoor storage area must be operable, licensed, and registered. 5. A sign permit application must be submitted to the City prior to the installation of any signage on the site. 6. Revise the lighting plan to show light spill not exceeding 1.0 at the property line. 7. Prior to site plan approval, the applicant shall submit revised plans reflecting plan changes and conditions as indicated. 8. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1503(8) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met. 9. All conditions listed in the August 17,2005 Engineering Department memo. 10. The plans must be revised to show the access road as Granite Court. Comments from the public: Applicant was present to answer any questions. Keith Dahnert, 17440 Deerfield Drive, stated they had neighborhood meetings and felt .he conditions of the Conditional Use Permit have not been met. Dahnert's comments included the following: . The Mayor's 2030 Vision posters. . Commented on the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan reflecting modest outdoor storage. . Misunderstanding by the neighbors that the district was "light industrial". . This application fails to comply with the "Vision". L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSIONl05 MINUTES\MNI02405.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 2005 . Safety, environmental and health concerns. . The visual, traffic and sound affects. . The neighbors cannot see a mutually acceptable plan for the bus storage. . Retaining property values. . Zoning transitions (Industrial district next to a R2 residential district.) . Suggested other locations for the bus storage. . Neighbors do not feel the project has been mitigated to their satisfaction. . Submitted a petition objecting to the Conditional Use Permit. . The neighbors are prepared to appeal to the City Council. . Gave their 3 options for the Planning Commission to decide from. Pat Wilson, 17444 Deerfie1d Drive, emphasized the health issues from diesel fumes. She did not feel the berming or landscaping would help. You are asking residents to inhale fumes from 110 buses. Residents in the area already have cancer. Alice McCauley, 17448 Deerfie1d Drive, also felt the screening would not be affective. Allowing 110+ buses will impact the neighborhood. She did not feel how this is modest. Noted there would be affects on the wetlands. Buses are on the road at all times during the day. Buses will be warmed up for a minimum of time, but past experience shows they will run at least 45 minutes before driving. No one has mentioned the traffic with potentially 1 10 buses. Bill Dillingham, 17459 Deerfield Drive, said City staffto1d them the II District would have minimal outside storage. One hundred buses are not minimal. Ifwe knew that, we would not have bought here. No one has talked about the traffic with the other new development (Enclave at Cleary Lake). Margaret Squires, 17320 Deerfie1d Drive, said she bought a townhome on the wetland ~d paid $8,000 more for the lot. Squires said the diesel fumes will ruin the wetlands. The public hearing closed at 7: 19 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . Complimented Keith Dahnert and the neighbors on the presentation. . A month ago voted to allow this to go through as I am tonight. We are here tonight because of a technicality on a legal notice. The information in the report is the same. . Heard a lot of emotional testimony. For the reasons I voted for this a month ago the reasons are the same tonight. . This project is located in an industrial park. These districts were platted the same time. No matter what goes in, the neighbors will object. As is sits right now, the view of the wetland is beautiful. . Keith did not want to hear the word "mitigated", however it does not mean "eliminated". The berming and landscape to help the sound. L:105 FILESI05 PLAN COMMISSIONl05 MINUTESIMNI02405.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 2005 . A lot of time was spent on decibels from the MPcA wet site. . The reconfiguration of the parking space will make a difference. . For those reasons, I am voting in support. Billington: . Agreed with Ringstad - the information is comprehensive in terms of factors brought up with the diesel fumes. . I don't recall exactly, but the applicant stated there will not be a concentration of 100 buses at anyone time on the site. Busse can address that further. . My statements in support ofthis application are on the record from August. . The fact is this is an II District. . The Council will ultimately rule if it' s appealed. But this is an acceptable for the zomng. . The applicant has more than met the conditions of the CUP. He has taken additional steps way and above the requirements by staff. . Given all of that, there is no basis for me to change my position on this matter. . Support the request. Perez: . Questioned applicant Jim Busse ifthe 53 parking stalls were all buses. . Busse said that was correct, the other spaces were from mini-vans. The majority of buses and all smaller vehicles are gas engines. . Perez stressed we are not talking 100 diesel engines. . Perez asked if there was talk of using backup alarms. Busse said he has not heard but ifthere is legislation it could be mandated. Generally backup alarms are not used. The buses are not allowed to back up around the schools. The schools are designed for angle parking. Students are taught in bus safety to never go behind the buses. Busse briefly spoke on turnarounds and site lines. . Perez and Busse spoke briefly on what would happen in the evenings if backup alarms were mandated. Busse didn't feel there would be a problem. . Perez clarified information because ofthe neighbor concerns - some of the public hearings are pretty clear cut - this one is not. . Looked at the sight from both sides. Perez was on a resident's second-story deck. . The II is the appropriate zoning. Five Hundred feet is significant - it is not right next to a "residential" area. So I agree with the zoning. Proper screening is in place. . As far as the visibility - its one and a half football fields away and significantly bermed and landscaped. Looking around from the deck ofthe residents - the view of the property is only 1I6th ofthe view. The severity has been cut with the berming and additional trees. . The backing up noise could be a condition. Do not feel it will as significant as the neighbors claim. . The issue from the diesel fumes - I pulled the information from the Minnesota Statues. Perez quoted the statement. L,I05 FILESI05 PLAN COMMISSIONl05 MINUTESIMN102405.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 2005 . Picked up his own students at school and saw several buses running. Did not seem to be an issue. Now we're talking one and a half football fields away with fumes. I don't see the issue there. . Hard to say what the traffic would be by the applicant. . Based on the information I will approve with the additional backup alarm condition. Stamson: . The applicant has done a great job in mitigating the situation. . The 2030 Vision is what I envisioned for Deerfie1d and that is modest exterior storage. I still feel this is not an appropriate use for that zone. Would love to see Mr. Busse have a site in Prior Lake to store the buses but just don't think this is what I had in mind for the industrial park. . Vote against. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 05-19PC APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE IN TH I-I ZONING DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS, INCLUDING IF BACKUP ALARMS ARE USED THAT THE BUSES BE BACKED IN TO THE STALLS AT NIGHT. Vote taken indicated ayes by Billington, Ringstad and Perez. Stamson nay. MOTION CARRIED. There was a brief discussion on the appeal process. Moore noted the appeal must come from someone who lives within 350 feet of the subject property. A recess was called at 7:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:38 p.m. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. EP 05-208 Cardinal Development Group has submitted concept plan for the development of approximately 45 acres to create a PUD containing retail, attached townhomes, office, clinic/medical office and high density residential housing. This property is located at the northeast corner of cSAH 42 and CSAH 18. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 24,2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Cardinal Development Group has submitted a concept plan for approximately 45 acres of property located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection ofcSAH 42 and cSAH 18. This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural) and is designated as c-BO (Business Office Park) and R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSIONl05 MINUTESIMNI02405.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 2005 The developers have submitted a concept plan for a mixed use development on this site. The concept plan identifies a mixture of commercial and residential uses, including 64 townhome units, 80 condominium uses in two 4-story buildings, 60 units located above the retail space, 142,000 square feet of retail space, 100,000 square feet of office space, and 50,000 -75,000 square feet of medical space. Comments from the Commissioners will go to the City Council in November. Ringstad questioned the access allowed by the County. Kansier responded with possible points. Perez questioned if there would be a safety concern. Kansier said staff and the developer would have to discuss this with Scott County. This development may trigger the need for road improvements, stoplights, and turn lanes, whatever the need may be. The developer may be responsible for some ofthe costs. Ultimately we need to see several ways in and out. Billington questioned staffs major concerns and obstacles with this project. Kansier said it is pretty early in the staging. The main concern is the benefits this PUD offers to the City. Staff would like to see a market study that shows Prior Lake can support what the applicant is proposing (in terms of retail/office, medical and high density residential). Staff would also ask for a very thorough traffic study because ofthe access limitations at the site. Billington questioned an EA W -type of approach. Kansier responded the site is not big bnough to require an EA W. There are some wetlands on the site but nothing staff does not encounter everyday. Those issues would be addressed at the time of development. Presentation from the Developer: Kurt Larson, Cardinal Development, 3720 Knollridge Drive, felt this is an ideal location for a gateway into Prior Lake and are very excited for the project. Larson spoke on the concept of their project fitting into the "Vision" for Prior Lake. It's a small town, yet growing community. There would be a medical clinic, general offices, retail, and condominiums - a village type environment. Trails and walkways would be incorporated throughout this project. Their preliminary research states there will be a high demand for this project. Viren Gori, the lead architect for the project distributed colored proposed layouts. Gori Wanted to address one concern of the City regarding allowing a higher residential density to allow for more green space. The overall density would still be R3. Two Hundred and six units would be allowed for the entire project where they propose 204 units. They heed a PUD designation to enable to increase the density of each building thereby creating more open space and more of an opportunity for open space, parks and trails. L:\05 FlLESI05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMNI02405.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 2005 Maybe we would have to just change a few buildings. It is their intention to stay within the land use designation and hopefully apply for a PUD. Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: . Questioned the sidewalk layout and how it would connect with other developments and County Road 42. Gori explained their idea of connection with the existing residential areas including a walk-over (pedestrian) bridge on County Road 42. . Billington pointed out safety concerns that go along their pedestrian movement idea. Gori agreed and said there were still a number of issues to be addressed. But conceptually they want to connect with the other developments. Perez: . Questioned the benefit of this PUD to the City. Larson said the City is ending up with a user friendly area. There would be less control by using a regular zoning. It would have greater open space for everyone. . Questioned the parkland of 4.2 acres. Larson said ifthe project was done conventionally it would have a park area of 4.2 acres. They would designate an area to the north knowing other parcels will develop and make up part of a central park. There would be a cash contribution for what is not used. . Larson also stated there were a number of details to work out with the walk-over bridge. Billington: . There would be a huge benefit to the City in a tax base. The project could have a lot of merit. Perez: . Questioned the developer on the tree preservation. Larson said initially they are dealing with the concept and feel there are a lot of trees they can save. . What is the benefit of housing above the retail/commercial? Larson said their research indicates it will work. Probably not as much housing on County Road 42 as buildings back off of 42. Stamson: . Could you detail the retail besides a coffee shop? Larson responded there would not be large retail because there won't be a base to support it. It would be more boutiques, food and wine market, art gallery, a fitness store - destinations. They have had informal talks with medical clinics and other professional offices that are interested in the area. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSIONl05 MINUTESIMN102405.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 2005 Ringstad: . Agree with Billington that this could be a potential jewel for the community as long as it can be done with the City gaining some benefit with respect to the PUD process. Like to see this keep moving forward. . How long do you think this project take beginning to end? Larson responded about 3 years. Kansier questioned who was going to pay for the pedestrian bridge. Larson said they are looking into the possibility of doing it. They haven't got that far - just want to see the viability of building it. They would entertain the idea ifit was part of the PUD. Stamson pointed out the water tower is on the comer. Kansier said it could be possibility worked out but the point is - neither the City nor County have the funding to build a pedestrian bridge at that location. It's not within the budgets at all. A.ssistant City Larry Poppler said the location right next to the stop lights may not be a good area for a pedestrian bridge. It may have to go further to the east. Larson said they do not know the safety issues and it would have to be explored. Perez questioned the zoning west of County Road 18? Kansier said it is currently zoned agriculture. The land use plan is some kind of commercia1- maybe business office park. Perez suggested the developer come back with the detailed benefits for the City. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Kansier pointed out the Commissioner handout for performance evaluation discussions. Sometime down the road staff and the Commissioners could have a workshop. Perhaps a joint workshop with the City Council. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\05 FILESI05 PLAN COMMISSIONl05 MINUTESIMNI02405.doc 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY,~~~(O:JO) SIGN UP ATTENDANCE SHEET Please print your name and address. Thank you. NAME I L:\DEPTWORK\Public Hearing Sign Sheet.doc PLANNING COl\jJ\'!lS,8ION ~Ji:TING_ MONDAY'~~l2xJD'J SIGN UP ATTENDANCE SHEET Please print your name and address. Thank you. NAME ADDRESS 1/:f;6 tttr 1(., ~r>:c~ 17 Y.;t I 1?8J<-MI:>tt> tU- s;;r Illl'o.<- C/Vct:!- ',(hv) (' Il.- A. it.'? ()4..k j./, /I Circ k 0, L , u , L:\DEPTWORK.\Pub1ic Hearing Sign Sheet.doc