Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 January 14 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, January 14, 2019 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, January 14, 2019 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, City Planner Jeff Matzke, and Community Development Services Assistant Sandra Peppin. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, November 26, 2018 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2018 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV18-000042 – 15230 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE – Variance – Matthew Marschall, on behalf of property owners Roy and Danita Marschall, is requesting a variance to increase the size of a non-conforming lot on a property in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District. PID: 25936035. Schwabe: Introduced a public hearing to consider a variance to consider approval of a resolution approving a variance to increase the size of a non-conforming Lot on a property in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District located at 15230 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE. She explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. She presented a resolution, location map, site plans and the applicant’s narrative. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming: Asked if the applicant has purchased the adjacent property. Planner Schwabe: Suggested the applicant speak on that; but, per her knowledge they were hopeful to close within the week. Applicant from the audience: Specified they did close. Ringstad: Questioned if a survey on the second lot would be required if approved to establish a correct legal description. Planner Schwabe: Explained the options including the lots being metes and bounds parcels, expectations of City Code, staff recommends, working with the City Council to obtain a waiver to the platting requirements and following up with an Administrative Subdivision. Tieman: Asked if the sale of the lot would need to stay in this configuration and if any changes would require a variance, again. Planner Schwabe: Replied that is correct and explained the process of a new legal description for the two lots. Kallberg: Asked if the purchase of the westerly half of lot 2 could be held as a separate parcel or is this necessary to conclude any future subdivision that would allow construction on that lot/parcel. 2 Planner Schwabe: Explained how the current City Code would not allow staff to approve a Subdivision of Lot 1 as a stand-alone parcel and how the applicant could accomplish his goal. Kallberg: Questioned the purchase being a separate or single parcel, not selling this land as an easement for access in the future, being all one piece and cannot be re-divided in the future. Planner Schwabe: Explained how they would not be able to separate lot 2 with an easement for access solely and how the lot would need to be combined with one of the adjacent parcels, which is what Mr. Marschall is proposing to do. Applicant Comments: Matthew R. Marschall: Resides at 15230 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE. Thanked Planner Schwabe and stated he is available for any questions. Fleming: Asked Mr. Marschall if he could confirm the purchase closing date of January 4 of this year. Marschall: Replied that is correct. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 4A AT 6:16 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:17 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Said this is a straight forward administrative action and he has no issues or concerns. Ringstad: Agreed with staff’s recommendations and said the requirements should be approved and moved forward. Kallberg: Said he has no further comments. Tieman: Stated he has no concerns, glad that the forest area will be maintained. Fleming: Said he will be supporting the proposal as he doesn’t have any deep concerns and it does meet our variance criteria. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 15230 FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL SE, PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 ENLARGING A NON-CONFORMING LOT IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT WITH THE LISTED CONDITIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. B. PDEV18-000039 – 15981 Jordan Avenue SE – Suite 100 – Conditional Use Permit – Pampered Paws Resort & Spa is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow Animal Handling in the C-2 (General commercial) zoning District. Applicant is proposing to operate a pet retail and grooming business. Planner Matzke: Introduced a public hearing to consider a conditional use permit for an animal handling business in the C-2 (General Business) Zoning District. The subject property is located at 15981 Jordan Avenue, east of TH 13, south of CSAH 44, and north of Gateway Street. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a resolution, location map and site plan. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Asked if the building across the street is in the same zoning district. 3 Planner Matzke: said yes. He explained the zoning district and what buildings are included in this zoning district. He noted the vet clinic building as predating the Grainwood residential apartment building and explained the approval was within City Code at that time. He pointed out that the Grainwood Apartments site was zoned commercial. Tschetter: Commented on the existing precedent at this location and said it doesn’t serve as a precedent for future businesses. Planner Matzke: Said that is correct. Ringstad: Questioned the responsibility for dogs/potential noise impacts on the other suites located in the building businesses. Planner Matzke: Explained the history and types of businesses at this location and commented on legal non-conformities in this area due to construction in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Ringstad: Asked if noise impacts issues would be handled through building owner/tenant. Planner Matzke: Replied yes, that is correct. Kallberg: Asked about minimum parking requirements and lack of customer parking. Planner Matzke: Explained the non-conforming uses and parking areas on the site. He pointed out how the Planning Commission could designate parking on the proposed site and commented on street parking, minimum parking requirements and minimum standards being brought into a non-conforming perspective. Applicant Comments: Timothy Duffrin and Kim Duffrin: Resides at 9260 E 275th Street, New Prague, MN with a proposed business at 15981 Jordan Avenue SE. Kallberg: Asked what the outcome is if an owner needs to leave their pet overnight. Mrs. Duffrin: Replied they would manage as the time comes or take the animal home with them. Kallberg: Repeated the question regarding taking the animal to their home overnight. Mrs. Duffrin: Replied yes. Tschetter: Asked the applicant if they have concerns regarding parking at this site. Mrs. Duffrin: Explained what she observed about the prior business and the traffic flow. She said their business is a pick up/drop off and clients are not at their facility long. Mr. Duffrin: Stated they don’t have concerns. Tschetter: Confirmed the applicants previous location area and asked if they are still in that location or if they are moving to prior lake. Mrs. Duffrin: Confirmed the prior location and said no they are not still at that location. Mr. Duffrin: Replied it is just a move, not an additional office. Fleming: Questioned the fluctuation in hours of operation and what their office hours would be. Mrs. Duffrin: Explained why the time would fluctuate. Mr. Duffrin: Shared how Mrs. Duffrin sets her appointments, why there would be some side/additional appointments and why she is flexible for her customers. Fleming: Asked if they envision being open until 10:00 at night. Mrs. Duffrin: She no, she hopes not to. Mr. Duffrin: Said no. Fleming: Asked the applicant if there was anything else to know or consider on this proposal. Mr. Duffrin: Said no. Mrs. Duffrin: Said no. MOTION BY TSCJETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 4B AT 6:34 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Kevin Busse: Resides at 5101 160th Street SE. He said he is not opposed to a new business and shared his concerns regarding the neighborhood. He commented on current businesses, issues with the current car wash and concerns of the new business moving in. He also commented 4 on dog barking, parking challenges, Grainwood Apartments, traffic, snow removal, road widening, dog walkers and picking up waste from dogs. Dr. Bruce Viren: With River Valley Veterinarian Service located at 15900 Jordan Avenue. He thanked Mr. Busse for his comments and apologized about the lights at the corner stating they are required by city code. He shared concerns on the general parking, apartment parking, smokers, snow plowing/removal, issues with neighbors, Dominium’s residents that own animals and maintenance for his property. He asked the applicant how many employees they will have, if they are doing daycare, where they plan to park and where the animals will go to the bathroom. He asked staff about drainage in the area and commented on being a permitted use for animal handling in 1989. He said he gets a little upset when the neighborhood is not taken into consideration. Fleming: Asked the applicants how many employees they anticipate having and if they anticipate running a daycare facility for animals. Mr. Duffrin: Said the space is not large and Mrs. Duffrin has typically only had 2-3 employees. He commented it was implied to have a daycare based on their customers’ requests. Fleming: Asked what the longest duration a pet would stay with them. Mrs. Duffrin: Explained that it is not her preference to have dogs stay; but, also thrives to be convenient for her customers by allowing a dog to be there for the day. Fleming: Asked if it would be a whole work day. Mrs. Duffrin: Said yes, if that was needed, but she prefers not to. Ringstad: Asked how many dogs would be groomed and dealt with on an average day. Mr. Duffrin: Said on average day, that being busier on the weekends, about 8-10. Mrs. Duffrin: Confirmed the 8-10 and explained her busy and slow times. Ringstad: Questioned where the dogs take bathroom breaks with little to no green space. Mrs. Duffrin: Explained a location inside the garage stall where they would have a green patch. She commented on inside and outside green spaces, saying they prefer the dogs stay inside. Ringstad: Commented on the garage green area and the possibility of a limitation to the use that would limit the dogs to only use the inside green space in the garage rather than taken outdoors. Mrs. Duffrin: Explained how breaks outside would be nice and doesn’t feel she, herself should have to be limited to stay inside. Mr. Duffrin: Explained the difference in some dog’s matter of routine business. He said some dogs would need to be walked to complete their tasks. Ringstad: Asked the location of where they would take the dogs, if they needed to go outside. Mrs. Duffrin: Explained the area where she would walk her dog or take a break, commented on her dog being a creature of habit, and how being outside would be an appreciated break for herself while she is working. Ringstad: Said some of the concerns are legitimate. Mrs. Duffrin: Pointed out where her dog would rather be, explained their policy for cleaning up after dogs and iterated she would not be outside except for breaks and customer greetings. Tschetter: Said he doesn’t have concerns about the practices or the running of their business, just the location/density and logistics of the site. Busse: Asked if the carwash recycles their ground water and if so, will this end up in the water that the car wash uses. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 5B AT 6:55 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg: Commented on the use of this site, the current car wash, different uses for this area, and said he doesn’t feel this is a good use/application for this location Tieman: Stated he has the same concerns as Commissioner Kallberg. He mentioned the ordinance regarding outdoor animal areas as needed for a potential animal handling site. He stated he cannot support this agenda item. 5 Tschetter: Shared concerns about parking, traffic and noise for adjacent residential properties. He stated he is not concerned with waste issues. He said he is unable to support this agenda item. Ringstad: Said he is unable to support this agenda item due to lack of outdoor green space for the dogs. He said he will be voting against this agenda item. Fleming: Said regrettably, he cannot support the recommendation. He said staff did an outstanding job of preparing the report; however, there are too many conditions listed in the report. He said he agrees with the concept, not with all the residential comments; however, doesn’t think the site is the best solution at this time and concurs with the other Commissioner comments. Planner Matzke: Suggested tabling the agenda item as there is not a resolution drafted for a denial. He said he would like to get all the items arranged for the next meeting for the Planning Commission to review. Fleming: Commented on the approval is to approve the CUP subject to the conditions. Planner Matzke: Replied correct. Fleming: Said he trusts that his Commissioners are as thorough as he is, and they read through the conditions. He said he is not anticipating that new information would shift the decision of the Planning Commission from a denial of the CUP request. Planner Matzke: Suggested on getting the findings of fact on a draft denial resolution for the Planning Commissioners to review prior to a vote and explained that we don’t have a denial resolution in front of the Planning Commission at tonight’s meeting. Fleming: Said that makes good sense and the tabling will not occur to provide additional direction or commentary guidance to the applicant or staff but rather to allow City Staff to prepare a draft resolution for denial of the request. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO TABLE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PREPARATION OF A DENIAL RESOLUTION FOR CONSIDERATION ALLOW ING ANIMAL HANDLING BUSINESS IN THE C-2 (GENERAL BUSINESS) ZONING DISTRICT. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. C. PDEV18-000040 – 16268 Eagle Creek Avenue SE – Text Amendment – Consider recommendation for an amendment to Subsection 1102.806 of the Zoning Ordinance, Dimensional Standards, to amend the minimum CSAH 21 setback, east of Main Avenue from ten (10) feet measured from the right-of-way to zero (0) feet. Planner Matzke: Introduced a public hearing to consider recommending to the City Council related to a request by Richard Gross to amend Subsection 1102.806 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance at a property in the TC (Town Center) Use District. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented location map. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming: Asked about any concerns/issues related to safety and welfare. Planner Matzke: Explained the knowledge of the alignment of property, the right-of-way acquisition understanding, and will not impede upon any future structure of the road. He said there is no qualms about the safety and general welfare on that front. Tschetter: Questioned the setback from the right-of-way required by the City, County and the State for the major two thoroughfares running through town. He asked if the right-of-way and the public use requirements have already been met. Planner Matzke: Replied yes, correct. Kallberg: Questioned if the 30 feet was previously changed to 10. Planner Matzke: Said yes, correct. Kallberg: Said we want to eliminate the 10, so the building owned by Mr. Gross will be on the zero setback. Planner Matzke: Said correct, if the redevelopment were to happen, buildings could be moved closer to Highway 21. 6 Kallberg: Asked if the building was on the property line/right-of-way. Planner Matzke: Replied it is very close and explained it is about 12 feet away. Kallberg: Said it is about 2 feet outside of the right-of-way. Planner Matzke: Said correct. Kallberg: Asked if we are going to allow a building addition. Planner Matzke: Replied the right-of-way won’t change at this point. Kallberg: Commented on the parking lot parcel with the parking lot being closer to the road than the rest of the building and asked how we deal with this situation. He questioned the parking necessity for the downtown businesses and if the parking lot would be closer to the road than Mr. Gross’ building. Planner Matzke: Explained the wider right-of-way area near Mr. Gross’ building and how the property lines would remain unchanged stating the parking lot is closer to Highway 21 than Mr. Gross’ building. Kallberg: Asked if the right of way will accommodate the 2019 street construction. Planner Matzke: Replied yes. Kallberg: Questioned the buildings on the other side of Highway 21 expanding towards the road. Planner Matzke: Explained the changes that might be seen to the area including bringing the buildings closer to the road which would create the desired downtown feel the City Council is reaching for. Kallberg: Commented on other business that could expand. Applicant Comments: Rich Gross: Business located at 16268 Eagle Creek. Said he is happy with city staff’s report and doesn’t have anything to add to it. He commented on the original zero setback, recently finding out there was a setback, being thrilled with the new road, more parking and mentioned an offer he has on the property. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 4C AT 7:15 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4C AT 7:16 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Commented on the firm plan that is in place with this intersection and stated he will support this action. Ringstad: Said staff laid out pre-bullet points that make an excellent case for approval. He said he will be voting yes tonight. Tieman: Stated he also supports this text amendment. He said it is a good change. Kallberg: Said he has no problems with this item and commented on the intersection plans and what they were going to be for that intersection; therefore, this makes sense now. Fleming: Stated he too will be supporting this text amendment based on the confidence of the staff report. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO RECOMMEND TO THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION 1102.806 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 7 5. Old Business: A. Text Amendments to the 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: Re-introduced the consideration of 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: Stated the public hearing has been closed; therefore, we will not be entertaining any commentary. Tschetter: Thanked Planner Schwabe on the education. He commented on the need and asked if we are aware of how many coops currently are in the community. Planner Schwabe: Replied the Code Enforcement Officer is working on two to three cases right now and are anticipating the outcome. She said we do not have a total number of how many coops are in the community as of right now. Tschetter: Asked if she had a sense on how many, an estimate. Planner Schwabe: Gave an estimate and stated if there are coops in locations that are not readily reviewable or we are not receiving complaints on, there could be more in the area that we are not aware of. Ringstad: Commented on how his vote has changed with education and community comments. He gave a comparison to having chicken versus dogs in the neighborhood. He stated he will be supporting this agenda item to the City Council. Fleming: Stated he will be supporting the recommendation to move this item to the City Council. He expressed that he is proud that Prior Lake is growing on this topic. He said the text amendments are strong and was pleased with city staff on the education. Tieman: Thanked staff on the detail of education that was brought in to the Commissioners. He said he will be supporting this agenda item. Kallberg: Commended staff on the amount of effort in drafting this amendment. He explained his reservations on this item and commented on enforcement, existing illegal activity, grandfathered in and the handling of older and non-producing chickens. He said he cannot support this item. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO RECOMMEND TO THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 801 OF THE CITY CODE AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Tschetter and Ringstad. Nay by Kallberg. The Motion carried 6. New Business: No New Business. Announcements: o NO ANNOUNCEMENTS 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:32 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Sandra Peppin, Community Development Services Assistant.