Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 November 26 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, November 26, 2018 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, November 26, 2018 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Dave Tieman, William Kallberg, Dan Ringstad, Jason Tschetter and Liaison Zach Braid. Also present were Assistant City Engineer Nick Monserud, Development Director Casey McCabe, City Planner Amanda Schwabe and Community Development Services Assistant Sandra Peppin. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2018 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 3. Election of Officers: Director McCabe: Explained the procedure for the election of officers. Fleming: Stated he would be honored to continue to serve in the capacity as Chair. Tieman: Stated he would be honored to continue as Vice-Chair. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO NOMINATE AND RE-APPOINT COMMISSIONER TIEMAN AS VICE-CHAIR. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad and Tschetter. The Motion carried. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO NONIMATE AND RE-APPOINT COMMISSIONER FLEMING AS CHAIR. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad and Tschetter. The Motion carried. 4. Approval of Monday, October 22, 2018 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, October 22, 2018 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 5. Public Hearings: A. PDEV18-000038 – 2495 154th Street NW – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning – MWF Properties, LLC is requesting to re-guide from R-MD (Urban medium Density) to R-HD (Urban High Density) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Map and rezone from A (Agricultural) to R-3 (High Density Residential) Zoning District. PID: 259330181 and 259330082. Report prepared by Planner Matzke, Presented by Director McCabe: Introduced a public hearing to consider recommendations of an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive lane Use Plan and Zoning Map for approximately 5.5 acres located at 2495 – 154th Street NW . He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, 2030 Comprehensive Plan map and Zoning Map Exhibits as well as a R-3 Zoning District Land Use Table. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming: Asked what number the Met-Council suggests is the target goal of units designated as affordable and what the current number is for Prior Lake. 2 Director McCabe: Responded that 754 was a number provided by Met-Council leading into our Comprehensive Plan process. He explained three recent projects and the number of qualifying affordable units which would reduce that number for Prior Lake. Fleming: Mentioned the current number to date being 228, and said we have a little bit to go to get to the 754 number. Director McCabe: Replied yes, we do. Tschetter: Asked staff to explain the differences in the Medium Density and the High Density. Director McCabe: Explained the differences in the density’s, stating the High Density would have more units per acre. Ringstad: Mentioned the access point at the intersection on 83 and 82 having a stop light that would need to be changed from a three way to a four way and asked who would pay for the stoplight enhancement. Director McCabe: Replied that he would investigate the set up for this light; however, any development related costs specific to this project would be the responsibility of the developer. Tieman: Asked where the SMSC (Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community) properties are in accordance to the project being proposed. Director McCabe: Pointed out which properties are under the jurisdiction of the SMSC. Applicant Comments: Matt Yetzer: Stated he is with MWF Properties located at 7645 Lyndale Avenue South, Minneapolis. He stated Director McCabe covered the proposal well. He commented on a couple projects under construction in the Scott County area, how the proposed area is a great spot and is the best use for this site. He mentioned they are proposing this site to be a High Density Residential Zoning District. Kallberg: Asked if the project would be comparable to the Ron Clark Project on Pike Lake. Yetzer: Replied yes, it would be similar and presented a couple of example pictures of recent projects. Tieman: Questioned the start date of this project, if approved. Yetzer: Explained the estimated completion date of the first and second phases and mentioned it could be a slower process dependent on financing. Fleming: Questioned how Mr. Yetzer might guard/protect against shifts in market conditions. Yetzer: Explained his process to being successful. He said he is not concerned with market cycles for this site as it is located near amenities and job opportunities. Ringstad: Questioned an estimated number of units and how many stories the building will have. Yetzer: Replied they work with cities on what is expected/required. He explained the buildings’ general size, height, design, and number of phases. He commented on the housing demand for this area. Tschetter: Commented on the lack of development on the south side of the proposed site and asked Mr. Yetzer if he has had any communication with the SMSC regarding transit, walking, connections, etc. Yetzer: Replied he has not had any communications with the SMSC; but, with all the entities around the site combined with feedback from the City, he would like to have discussion(s) with the City, County and SMSC for the best solution to make the area a cohesive neighborhood. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 5A AT 6:20 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Kim Churchill: Resides at 16209 Evanston Avenue SE. She explained she is part of the Live, Learn, Earn Work Group that came out of the SCALE project and the goals of the group that they 3 are working towards in Scott County. She commented on affordable housing, the timing of the previous item being a great opportunity and hopes that it is approved. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 5A AT 6:22 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Thanked everyone for comments and public support for this type of housing. He said he doesn’t see an issue with this request and will be supporting. Ringstad: Agreed with Commissioner Tschetter and commented on studies being done and the need for this project. He stated he doesn’t see any downfall to approving both amendments. Fleming: Stated he will be supporting the proposed amendments. He said it does make sense and commented on assisting with over half of our target goal, extensive conversations in the community over the last years, wanting to provide opportunities for a broad range of current and perspective residents to live and work here in Prior Lake; therefore, he will be supporting the amendment. Tieman: Said he is supportive of this amendment. He commented on how this provides for the community, fills a need, being a good location with transit to and from the area, relatively remote, and a win-win for everyone. Kallberg: Commented on attending the recent SCALE Meeting, the need to be able to live and work in our community, supporting the local community and the intersection being intended for a four-way connection. He said there is a lot of planning still ahead before we see the building plans. He said he does support this agenda item. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. B. Text Amendments – Prior lake City Code Section 801: Animals and Fowl, and Section 1102: Use District Regulations related to the keeping of chickens and honey bees in the Agricultural, Rural- Subdivision and R-1, Low Density Residential Use Districts. Planner Schwabe: Introduced a public hearing to consider amendments to Section 801, Animals and Fowl, of the City of prior lake Ordinance including, but not limited to definitions and language permitting the keeping of backyard chickens and honey bees in the A, Agricultural, R-S, Rural Subdivision and R-1, Low Density Residential Use Zoning District. She explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. She presented the proposed Amendments to Section 801. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming: Commented on deliberations in the past year involved variances and asked would we be finding ourselves at some point in the future entertaining variances from the owners of fowls or bees? Director McCabe: Replied no and explained that a variance cannot be issued for a use. Fleming: Asked how licensing is handled for fowl, bees or other animals in the communities that were reviewed/surveyed by Staff. 4 Planner Schwabe: Explained her research related to licensing in other communities. She shared that a majority of the communities do not require licensing and commented that communities she spoke with reported low numbers of complaints. Fleming: Asked how many bees are in a single colony. Planner Schwabe: Replied a colony may contain 20,000 – 30,000 bees. Fleming: Repeated the number of bees and clarified that 40,000 – 60,000 would be the limit, then. He commented on enforcement and asked what recommendations staff would have on how this would impact our compacity to enforce what is being proposed tonight, if approved. Planner Schwabe: Said per her understanding, the limit of bee amount stated is correct. She commented on the approximate number of enforcement cases in Prior Lake and explained that the Code Enforcement Officer has been working with those cases. Fleming: Commented on the finding and purposes of the zoning ordinance and a possibility of neighbors/ children/relatives being allergic to bees. He asked if allergies were brought up in any other communities during Staff’s research and if so, how did the other communities make sure that people living in contiguous areas were not in danger of potentially life-threatening stings. Planner Schwabe: Stressed the importance of encouraging individuals interested in bee keeping, to communicate with neighbors and to be prepared in the event of a reaction. She commented on the difficulty to regulate or enforce notice of allergies at a Staff level; however, if allergies are a serious concern of the Planning Commission or the public providing feedback, that is something that would need to be taken into consideration. Tschetter: Shared concerns of noise and other nuisances. He asked how this would affect the Town Center District and the Shoreland District or if those areas were being excluded. Planner Schwabe: Explained the purpose of this proposal and the districts specified in the proposed text amendment. Tschetter: Asked if there were any concerns voiced from surveyed communities regarding waste, contamination or environmental impacts, given the proximity to the lake. Planner Schwabe: Replied Staff didn’t receive any negative comments regarding those items; however, the proposed setbacks to lakes and waterways could be increased or other provisions included to provide additional separation. In an effort to reduce the potential for nuisances, the proposed text amendment includes language related to maintenance of the coops and animal waste in an effort to reduce the potential for as per Section 605. Tschetter: Asked additional questions about the coop specifications, including size in comparison to sheds and out buildings and how that relates as the coops seem to be more restrictive. He asked how the dimensions for the coops were determined. Planner Schwabe: Explained how the coop size was determined. She commented on what other communities considered for size of coops, what is appropriate for chickens, coops counting as impervious surface and finding a size that would work with the animal, but not too large that it could be used for other types of storage. Tschetter: Asked if there was any provision for dual use structures. He gave an example of a coop on the back of the shed and asked if that would violate the height restrictions? Planner Schwabe: Replied Staff hasn’t exhausted every single scenario, rather tried to determine a size that would provide adequate space for the chickens without requiring additional permits or building code related issues. Ringstad: Mentioned the comment made earlier regarding Code Enforcement actions. He asked how many residents within the City are currently out of compliance and are keeping bees and chickens. Director McCabe: Said he estimated about 10-20 properties with chickens and an unknown number with bees. He stated there are 2-3 code enforcement actions currently in progress. Ringstad: Questioned how this agenda item evolved and asked if it was in response to a comment regarding the benefit of keeping chickens made by a resident at the public forum during the City Council meeting on October 15th, 2018. Director McCabe: Replied yes, that is correct. 5 Ringstad: Said he would like more information regarding the R-1 District. He questioned if this amendment would also include PUD’s with smaller lot sizes or detached townhome developments. Planner Schwabe: Explained how the amendment, if approved as written, would not allow chickens in PUD’s with a density similar to R-2 or R-3. Director McCabe: Said it would be a good comment from the Planning Commission to Staff to clarify limitations. Ringstad: Commented on the 50-foot setback and the proposed barrier requirements. Planner Schwabe: Replied that the 50-foot setback is to an adjacent residential structure; however, she has found other communities who also include a setback provision to the bee keeper or chicken owner’s residential structure. She explained that the proposed amendment does not include a setback residence on the keeper’s property. Tieman: Asked how rear yard is defined per our ordinance. Direct McCabe: Stated that anything behind the rear wall of the principal structure, would be considered the rear yard. He provided a verbal example. Tieman: Gave an example of his own dwelling and asked Director McCabe to explain the rear yard of his dwelling. Director McCabe: Explained the guidelines regarding the example given by Commissioner Tieman, stating there would be a 25-foot setback from the corner side yard and behind the principal structure. Tieman: Asked so the front is the typically the street address side. Director McCabe: Responded, correct. Kallberg: Commented on still having a lot of concerns and questions. He said the verbiage is huge but is still questioned if we should support this amendment. He said after review of the criteria for the amendment, he asked, is there a public need for the amendment and if so what is the need. Director McCabe: Explained how this agenda item arrived at the Planning Commission meeting tonight. He said he is hopeful our residents can share their thoughts on this agenda item. Kallberg: Asked what the purpose of the ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and other adopted plans or policies of the City that this amendment will accomplish. He said he doesn’t feel ready to decide due to all the concerns and questions. Fleming: Asked for everyone to go to the bottom of the 2nd page and top of page 3 of the report and mentioned it might answer Commissioner Kallberg’s last question. Applicant Comments: None. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 5B AT 6:56 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Josh Mankowski: Resides at 16751 Brunswick Avenue SE. He commented on locating language regarding this agenda online and just recently finding out about this subject, zoning district limits, medium density uses, growing up with poultry, rental properties issues, bird flu, allowances and allergies. He asked to keep these issues in mind for future decisions. Logan Cronquist: Resides at 4386 Chestnut Lane NE. He asked if the setback is from the dwelling or the property line. Planner Schwabe: Replied the proposed setback is for a 50-foot separation from the coop to an adjacent dwelling or neighboring house. Kelly Cichosz: Resides at 14100 Rolling Oaks Circle NE. She mentioned her experience in bees and chicken handling stating she has owned both in the past. She commented on the need for 6 chickens, calling the City to get the amendment changed, being excited for this meeting, notice on the City sign, providing food for your own home, educational aspect to raising chickens and bees, noise, bird flu, space for chicken, bee navigators, bee stings and confirmed the number of bees in a colony. She said the want, need and benefit are there, and she is hopeful that this agenda item would be approved. She mentioned the communities around us already allow chicken and bees. Fleming: Asked Mrs. Cichosz, out of the 20,000 to 30,000 bees per colony, what percentage of that number would leave the colony, based on your knowledge. Cichosz: Replied that she took a course through the University of Minnesota and achieved her certificate to have bees on her property and said it is 20 percent. Fleming: Verified 4,000 to 6,000 bees? Cichosz: Replied correct. Eileen Neusons: Resides at 5119 Gateway Street SE. She asked Planner Schwabe if she was aware of the State of Minnesota’s Comprehensive Plan to address the bee issue. She commented on being new to the community, her own research of neighboring counties, having some knowledge on both bees and chickens due to a friend having hives, the swarming of bees, pesticides, dying bees and other states comprehensive plans. She questioned the panel on their experience with bees. Planner Schwabe: Replied she is not aware of a State of Minnesota Comprehensive Plan regarding bees and/or chickens. She said she is aware of several other resources through the University of Minnesota extension office and several other non-profits that are geared towards backyard chickens and the bee population. Kim Churchill: Resides at 16209 Evanston Avenue SE. She mentioned being a bee keeper and said the neighbors were not even aware. She commented on bees being innocuous, licensing or registration be certified through the University of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota courses, chicken coops, the need for chickens, enforcement and being up-to-date with surrounding communities. She explained why she once was stung. Cichosz: Commented on the two hobbies, stating there would be far more interest in chickens as bee keeping is expensive. She explained the costs of bee keeping. Philip Waltz: Resides at 16050 Cambridge Circle SE. He read from Prior Lake Code of Ordinance Section 801 regarding not allowing chickens. He said if the number one question is to ask if we should have chickens or not; then your answer lies there. Neusons: Shared comments about bees in the hive swarming would be dependent on the temperature. Cichosz: Explained the reasons for bees swarming. Neusons: Asked if swarming happens in the winter. Cichosz: Said no and repeated why the bees leave the hive. Neusons: Said she wanted to bring the temperature item to attention. Dan Cronquist: Resides at 4386 Chestnut Lane NE. He commented on his son, Logan, coming up and speaking. He explained Logan’s interest in chickens. He mentioned a coop structure which is movable on the property. Planner Schwabe: Explained how Staff defines a coop per the proposed amendment and explained the requirements of the run. She commented that the described “chicken tractor” would likely be viewed as an exercise yard. Dan Cronquist: Agreed on the definition of the chicken tractor and gave an example of a temporary cage. Planner Schwabe: Replied to Mr. Cronquist’s example, stating the intent of the ordinance as written and compliance with the ordinance, if approved. Logan Cronquist: Asked about an approved signed agreement for people who are within 50 feet of the setback from the adjacent house for people who are short on space options. Fleming: Suggested Staff provide their contact information to Dan and Logan Cronquist so information could be exchanged. 7 MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 5B AT 7:19 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg: Acknowledged the benefit to an individual having 4 chickens in their backyard but showed concern for what would happen to the non-producing older chickens. He said he appreciates the need for populating bee colonies and commented on the bee population diminishing. He said honey is produced by 30,000 to 40,000 bees in a hive and questioned if that is intended for sale or personal use. He asked what the zoning is for Rolling Oaks Circle. Director McCabe: Replied Rolling Oaks Circle is in a R-1, Low Density Residential District. Kallberg: Commented on Rolling Oaks Circle being a busy part of town, needing more input on this agenda item, being educated on the keeping of chicken and bees in a backyard and need for certification and registration. He asked what the effect of this amendment would be for anyone that is already keeping chickens and/or bees. Fleming: Asked for direction on Commissioner Kallberg’s question regarding the impact of this amendment on current owners of fowl and bees. Director McCabe: Replied the current owners of fowl and/or bees that live within the city limits are not in compliance with today’s City Code. He explained how fowl and/or bee owners would need to meet the criteria if the City Council adopted an ordinance in order to be in compliance with City Code. He stated that there would be no allowances for grandfathering or legal non- conforming status if the use was not legal prior to this amendment being adopted. He explained the City’s expectations of meeting the current requirements and commented on staff’s willingness to work with current chicken/bee owners regarding accommodations until owners can comply with the current ordinance. Tieman: Commented on the community desire, how the issue needs to be met, this agenda item is a good start and using the surrounding communities template to get something in place. He said he does support the way we have this agenda items so far. Ringstad: He made mention of the great comments tonight; both for support and against this item. He commented on other communities already allowing these uses, learning a lot through the staff report and listening to public speaking but still feels there is not enough public need to support this agenda item; therefore, he would vote against this agenda item as proposed tonight. He said the owners that are already out of compliance would not be reason to allow this. He commented on the bee statements made tonight, the lack of interest for bees due to expenses and stated he feels some experience or training would make sense. Tschetter: Thanked everyone for coming out tonight and participating in this discussion. He commented on community involvement, Commissioner Tieman’s comments regarding addressing this item, Commissioner Ringstad’s comments regarding education, certifications animal safety, good investments for all, growing trends that are less threating the more you know and stated he would like to see this agenda item move forward with the correct adjustments and clarification to the amendment. Fleming: Commented on his bee research, further conversations on this subject, further due- diligence by Staff, a shorter time frame for removal of deceased chickens, City of Minneapolis , timeframe for addressing and adopting an amendment. He asked how public need is defined and suggested talking to our City Attorney on that matter. He mentioned getting additional information from the University of Minnesota regarding chicken and bees. He stated what he is sensing from the Commissioners is we need more time and more information and if he voted right now he would be voting for this amendment; however, would like more conversation and more information first. Tschetter: Stated he would echo the need to have further discussion. He said we have learned a lot tonight and need to process and reflect what is needed in the ordinance. 8 Kallberg: Suggested an educational workshop which included an expert in the art and science of chicken and bee raising. He mentioned a workshop before the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Ringstad: Commented on the question for the City Attorney regarding public need and said he didn’t believe public need would be based on a number, maybe more of an ambiguous process. He stated he was hopeful for guidance from Staff and the City Attorney for further discussions. Tieman: Stated he echo’s Commissioner Kallberg’s thoughts on needing additional research and time to process the information. Fleming: Suggested Staff schedule a work session prior to the next meeting regarding public need and more information on fowl and bees. Director McCabe: Said the next Planning Commission meeting would be January 14th, 2018 and explained why there couldn’t be a work session prior to this meeting; however, suggested to find a day for a work session on this subject before then. He suggested notice of the chicken and bee ordinance at the January Planning Commission meeting with similar efforts as this meeting Fleming: Agreed to the meeting date and notices to the public and asked if this would work for his fellow Commissioners regarding an educational/training work session on a date which would be before January 14th, in preparation for the January 14th meeting. He asked Director McCabe if he was correct in these dates? Director McCabe: Replied correct. Kallberg: Asked about extending the public hearing to get additional information from the public. Director McCabe: Explained the public hearing has been closed on this item; however, if the public has additional comments they may submit those comments in writing to Planner Schwabe or himself or to the City via the Community Development Department and Staff will make sure those get to the Planning Commission. Kallberg: Asked if we close the public hearing we can’t accept public comment at the meeting; however, written comment can be submitted. Director McCabe: Replied that is correct. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO TABLE DISCUSSION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM 5B TO A FUTURE MEETING DATE (JANUARY 14, 2018). VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 6. Old Business: No Old Business. 7. New Business: No New Business. Announcements: o No Public Hearings scheduled for the December meetings. ▪ Most likely will cancel one meeting. ▪ One meeting date may work for the work session • Will follow up with Commissioners via email to set up work session. 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:37 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Sandra Peppin, Community Development Services Assistant.