MINUTESROGERS PLANNING COMMISSIONFEBRUARY 18, 2014
CALL TO ORDERThe meeting of the Rogers Planning Commission was held on February 18, 2014 at 7:02 p.m. was called to order with Commissioners Martin, Denker, Knapp, Terhaar, Swanson, Gorecki and Jullie were present.
Also present were City Planner/Community Dev. Coordinator Cartney, Deputy Clerk Splett and Councilmember Ihli.
Member(s) excused: Meadows
OPEN FORUMNo one wished to speak.
SET AGENDAThe Agenda was set as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA*A. Approval of the January 21, 2014 Planning Commission MinutesCommissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Knapp seconded a motion to approve the January 21, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes with the correction discussed tonight.
On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGSA. Public Hearing to Consider establishing Architectural Design Standards for B-1, B-2, B-3, B-C and L-I Districts within the City Zoning OrdinanceCity Planner Cartney provided the background information commenting on the following:• Could add architectural standards for multi-family residential onto this amendment tonight or direct me to bring that back at a different time, whichever the commission would prefer• Does the Planning Commission want to eliminate the HCO district (Highway Corridor Overlay) completely or just the architectural standards portion.
Chairman Denker opened the meeting for public comment.
There were no comments registered.
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Knapp seconded a motion to close the public hearing.
The Planning Commission discussed the following:• Consensus of the Planning Commission is to completely remove the Highway Corridor Overlay district as it is out dated and any standards and/or requirements contained within it can be moved into each appropriate zoning district• On Commercial Business district, where it refers to long horizontal expressions would that be done by a percentage or by measurement? Consensus of the Planning Commission is to use a certain length or measurement not a percentage• In all Commercial districts it states that "the exterior building finish shall consist of the following materials" but in the Industrial district it states "the exterior building finish shall consist of material comparable in grade and quality to the following". Consensus of the Planning Commission is to have it better defined and use the same wording for the industrial district as is used in the commercial district.
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Swanson seconded the motion to recommend approval of the proposed Ordinance 2014-xx amending as written with corrections discussed tonight.
B. Public Hearing to Consider the Following Requests by Scannell Properties:• Preliminary Plat Approval of Elkhorn Addition• Concept Plan Review of the Fed-Ex Distribution FacilityCity Planner Cartney provided the background information commenting on the following:• Proposed plat will be 1 lot and 1 outlot• Concept plan is for a single story 304,809 sq.ft. warehouse building which includes approx.. 16,247 sq.ft. of office; a 2,400 sq.ft. security building and a 5,180 sq.ft. maintenance building. The building is proposed to be a Fed-Ex distribution center.• Plat that was submitted will need to be revised to show the plat name on it, remove the proposed building that is shown on there, provide for additional utility and drainage easements.• Access to this property will not be from Brockton Lane, but through the Henry property to the north. Access to the property will be a condition for approval of the final plat• Property is zoned L-I, Limited Industry and warehouse is a permitted use within that district• Reviewed the proposed concept plan, noting that any outdoor storage will require a Conditional Use Permit• Elevations that were submitted are only concept at this point, don't know what the building materials are at this time, it was just a rendering that they provided• Landscape plan is acceptable, they did agree by email that are shifting the building more and will provide a berm along Brockton for screening• Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with the 7 conditions and is requesting that the Planning Commission provided comments and overall direction on the concept plan.
There was a discussion regarding the access to the site commenting on the following:• Will the access be from Brockton• Only allowed to plat if the access is provided from an existing public street per our code• Applicant asking for access through another lot• City Eng. Bret Weiss provided the Planning Commission with the history on the transportation issues/projects in this area along with the background from the Transportation Study that was done a couple of years ago.• Six different intersections will be improved relating to this project – the most significant one will be Co. Rd. 81 and Brockton – widening the intersection and providing turn lanes. The extension of Rogers Drive from Cabela's across through the Henry property and connect to Brockton Lane. On the north side of this plat there is an existing 124th Ave. N. that connects to Dayton. There wasn't time for moving that and Hennepin County has access guidelines of ¼ mile so we set this extension of Rogers Dr. to be ¼ mile north of 124th Ave. N.• Would like to see a detailed list of corrections for what should be on the preliminary plat and what it is you want removed from the preliminary plat• There will not be a final plat without access to Brockton Lane
The following comments were registered:Mark Anderson, MFRA: Just want to follow up briefly with some of the questions that the Planning Commission had. We provided a preliminary set of documents and met with Bret and the City Planner to talk about the comments that they had. We can fully address them all and we understand that and will move forward with final documents including the access for Brockton Lane once the alignment has been defined.
There was a brief discussion by the Planning Commission relating to the following:• No problem having staff move this along as long as we have all the necessary documents required to move forward
Commissioner Denker moved, Commissioner Jullie seconded the motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Elkhorn Addition with the following conditions:1. Final Plat must be submitted six months after preliminary approval.2. All comments/requirements of the City Engineers memo dated February 7, 2014 shall be met.3. Name of the plat shall be added to the final Plat and building area removed from the plat4. Park dedication, platting fees, and any other fees are to be paid at final plat.5. A developer's agreement shall be entered into at final plat.6. Proof of secured access to the north is required at time of final plat approval7. Additional drainage and utility easements shall be added to the final plat along Interstate 94 and Brockton Lane
There was a brief discussion by the Planning Commission regarding the concept plan commenting on the following:• Traffic that this project will bring to the area• The estimated City cost of traffic/road improvements• Transportation Study showed how to get the traffic in and out of the area, but it did not provide data in the area of the high school at 7:45 in the morning when it is already congested• The interchange that is going to be constructed at TH 101/CR144 will help to alleviate the congestion in this area
The consensus of the Planning Commission was the concept plan looked good.
No action taken.
C. Public Hearing to Consider a Request for the Rezoning of 22101 129th Ave. N. and Outlot C, Verstecker Acker 2nd from Ag and R2 to R-3, Mid DensityCity Planner Cartney provided the background information commenting on the following:• Unique that one parcel has 2 zoning districts on it• Property is surrounded by some large agricultural lots that have not been developed and also single family residential lots• Request is to rezone this from agriculture and R-2, Single Family to R-3 Mid-Density Residential to allow for single family lots that are smaller than the 15,000 sq.ft. required in the R-2 district• Comprehensive plan has designated this area as Single Family Residential• If you are not comfortable with the R-3 Mid-Density rezoning, you could also look at having the developer do a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
The following comments were registered:Troy Jude, 12736 Walter Drive: Wondering when there will be a plan that shows how they or if they are going to access 129th. It is a dead end and what are their intensions for the future? Are they going to push this through to have access to that? I'm sorry – I mean off of 128th. We currently have a dead end for 128th, are they going to blow the road through to get into their development?Commissioner Denker informed him that at this time, they are only requesting rezoning nothing more. Right now there are 2 dead end roads. They provided us with just a concept plan of what may happen here.Troy Jude: My major concern is when you are talking about blowing the road (128th Ave.) to the east, how much more traffic you are going to add within my neighborhood and with all the kids that are in that neighborhood. Why? If off of Brett Trail you are showing a cul-de-sac, why on the dead end of 128th can't that be a cul-de-sac also?The Commission again stated that this is not the agenda item, there is not a site plan or plat before them tonight. The rezoning is the only request that is before us tonight.Troy Jude stated again that this is one of the neighborhood's major concerns. When would the future design be brought to the Planning Commission?Planner Cartney stated that at the time when the applicant decides to submit for preliminary and final plat approval, anyone within 350 feet of the property will be notified of the public hearing.Troy Jude: I'm also wondering when you are going to be developing these neighborhoods, I never see any parks put in there. Just kind of curious why there have not been any parks here. I understand that the developer probably doesn't want to give up any more land than he has too. Is this something that is ever addressed with the developer? We would like to see parks established not only for the families here now but for future families also.Planner Cartney explained the park dedication fund, along with the park plan created by the Park Board and that this used to develop future parks.Lyle O'Bannon, 22371 Brett Trail: I received the notification about 10 days ago, and I didn't have the opportunity to find out any information about it. I'm really concerned about the process. If this is approved and it gets rezoned from ag and R-2 to R-3 mid-density then does that mean that at any time somebody can come along and develop it as R-3?Planning Commissioners stated that yes it can be developed under the code for R-3.Lyle O'Bannon: So, this isn't dependent then on a proposal? I'm thinking that someone proposed something.Commissioner Denker stated that somebody might have an idea of what they would like to do obviously coming in here to request the rezoning. We are only assuming this because we do not have a request before us tonight.Lyle O'Bannon: That really concerns me. They are going to rezone it and that essentially assures at some point that some developer can come along and drop something in there.It was explained to Mr. O'Bannon that someone can't just drop something in there. The request/plan has to come back through the Planning Commission and City Council for approvals. If you are within the 350 feet from the property you will be notified when and if this happens.Lyle O'Bannon: It really concerns me that the property is agricultural and R-2. Then all of a sudden we're talking about going to R-3. I assuming, I haven't had a chance to get any information, but I'm assuming the Planning Commission has a plan and that it was planned as R-2 for a specific reason. That makes me question what would be the justification for changing that other than someone just came along and said this is what I would like to do.Commissioner Denker explained that this is what we are doing now, going through the process..Lyle O'Bannon: I don't do what you do, but it seems to me that would really change the character of the neighborhood if we go from what is there now to just something that is substantially less than that. So if you're going to put more structures on the same amount of land then you're going to have more people, we're going to have more traffic. Then is there a place in the plan where you do something about that? The plan must have had a certain kind of neighborhood, and now you are going to change that. When I do planning, I start at the end with what I want to have, then I planned my way into that. Sounds to me that there is a plan, but to just change the zoning how is that consistent with the current plan.Commissioner Knapp stated that the applicant has the right to request rezoning that property.Lyle O'Bannon: If we are going to do something different, then what are the accommodations that we make for that? The gentleman that spoke before me mentioned parks. Well a considerable amount of that property is low area and you can't build anything there anyway. So it seems to me that if you're going to develop that as more of a park area with some buffer space between the existing neighborhood and what is going to go in. You've done that before I can show you areas where the other higher density residential areas are – they are separated by streets in different areas, they have better access to traffic.Commissioner Denker stated that we will take all of that into consideration, but the primary goal tonight is to listen to everybody here and to determine if this is good for the neighborhood and if this is good for the City.Lyle O'Bannon: I'm just concerned that if it is rezoned, then it just opens it up.Bob Anderson, 22395 126th Ave. N.: With the rezoning tonight, I think this should be R-2 and maybe have a variance to be under the requirements for R-2. Obviously with the neighborhood the way it is now is nice. Personally don't like the density like what is in Edgewater, lots are way too small. It looks nice being more rural, yet not too rural. My other point is about the roads connecting. Obviously I saw the plan that is here tonight. It is not going to 129th but with 128th and 126th all these roads right now are dead-ends. It is just the idea that in the future to avoid connecting these to main roads, don't take them to 129th. There are a lot of kids that do play in these areas and if you start short cutting these things through the neighborhood you are going to get kids to speed through it. Its nice community right now, its family, we hang out on these city streets. To have the roads go through is a concern. There are no reasons to connect those roads through now, there are other things that you can do. You can put a cul-de-sac on the end instead of going through. Keep it as R-2 and have a variance if they want to go under the 15,000 sq.ft. limit.Seth Bollinger, 12734 Adeline Way: There are a few things that I am worried about. One being the safety of my kids with the increase in traffic along Adeline Way. Sometimes you see people speeding through there pretty fast already the way it is. My other worry is that is going to drive my property value down by having much smaller lots and smaller houses by me. Just kind of recovering now.Patrick Ebert, 12632 Adeline Way: I would also like to support keeping it R-2 for all the same reasons.Chris Knopik, 12754 Adeline Way: I live on the corner of Adeline and 128th Ave. N. Just moved there this summer actually, and I also have safety concerns with the increase traffic. But then also I would support the idea of the R-2 development going the route of the Planned Unit Development rather than opening it up to the R-3, that way the Planning Commission can maintain more control over that. Also set additional standards as to help with the property values in the neighborhood.Randy Deninno, 12746 Adeline Way: Both of my neighbors just spoke and I would echo their comments and would rather have the Planning Commission have more control for all the same reasons and concerns of the others.Kristine Bollinger, 12734 Adeline Way: My husband already spoke so I won't repeat his comments. I would like to say that we have a red fox back there, I like the agricultural aspect of it. Understandably it will be developed at some point. We have a deer back there, a red fox, we've seen geese you name it, its agricultural. I would strongly like to see it remain R-2 back there.
Commissioner Knapp moved, Commissioner Martin seconded a motion to close the public hearing.
The Planning Commission discussed the following:• Mr. Benzinger spoke on his behalf commenting that the intention is to keep the same integrity that currently exists in the area. Not developing the property on the north end. This is a concept design of what might work in this area. The values of the new construction will out value what currently is there.• Not comfortable rezoning to R-3, Mid-Density residential without a good reason other than more lots• Option of having a Planned Unit Development to allow for smaller lots• Consensus of the Planning Commission is that the property should remain zoned as R-2, Single Family residential
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Swanson seconded the motion to recommend denial of the rezoning of the parcel located at 22101 129th Avenue from Ag and R-2 to R-3 for the following reasons:• Can't support the smaller lots• Conflict with the Comprehensive Plan• Purpose of the R-3 zoning district is multi-family
D. Public Hearing to Consider the Following Requests by 1st National Bank at Diamond Pointe of Rogers, Located at 13785 Rogers Drive:• Approval of Final Development Plans• Approval of Revised Site PlanCity Planner Cartney provided the background information commenting on the following:• Received approval of a PUD amendment in June 2013• Property was rezoned to PUD in November, 2013• Revised site plan from what was approved in June• No additional freestanding sign will be allowed
The following comments were registered:Kenneth Piper, Tanek, Inc.: Mr. Piper distributed documents to the Planning Commission of the existing center. He stated that they have worked to develop a plan that incorporated the comment from the City Council to have it resemble the existing center. As you can see, there is a skirt that is a stamped concrete that has a little precast sill on it. Our previous submittal we had shown that with more delineation of color. Our approach to that as we said to the Commission last time was that if we consider the size of this proposed building in relation to existing center, it is about 15-16% less. From that perspective we felt that there is a real opportunity to have this accent resemble more of the existing center. So with that approach we have added a brick veneer and that would have the precast sill to it. We have varied the height of that in certain areas to address the scale of the building. We feel that that addition of the color and material can allow that to create some verticality. The sunscreen is an element that we put there, the awnings over power the size of this structure, we feel that the sunscreen is a more appropriate approach. We feel that these are very positive additions to the existing structure.Commissioner Martin stated that he feels they have fulfilled what the Council was asking for.Mike Brady, HOM Furniture: We have a great relationship with our neighbor. I was just checking on the signage that there was a freestanding sign proposed that was not in the proposal, is that correct?
Commissioner Denker moved, Commissioner Knapp seconded a motion to close the public hearing.
There was a brief discussion by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Gorecki moved, Commissioner Jullie seconded the motion to recommend approval of the final development plan for Diamond Pointe of Rogers, with 80 square feet of building signage and no additional freestanding sign subject to the following condition:
1. A Planned Unit Development Agreement must be executed and recorded.
Commissioner Denker moved, Commissioner Martin seconded the motion to recommend approval of the revised site plan as indicated on plans stamped received January 24, 2014 subject to the following conditions:
1. A 3,000 square foot bank with a 4-lane drive-thru is approved as shown on the plans2. Building signage is approved as shown on plans dated received January 24, 20143. No freestanding signage is permitted4. A Planned Unit Development Agreement must be executed and recorded
On the vote, members Martin, Denker, Knapp, Terhaar, Gorecki and Jullie voted AYE. Member Swanson voted NAY. Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESSA. Request by A.L.S. Properties Carefree Self Storage Rogers, LLC for Site Plan Approval for the Construction of a 35,821 sq.ft. Self Storage Building, Located at 13355 George Weber DriveCity Planner Cartney provided the background information commenting on the following:• Property is zoned L-I, Limited Industry and this is a permitted use• In previous plans this phase has been shown as 15,000 sq.ft. building• Addition of an emergency access on George Weber Drive
The Planning Commission discussed the following:• Temperature control building• Addition of 2 fire hydrants• More conventional sprinkler type building• Met with the Fire DeptCommissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Knapp seconded the motion to recommend approval of the Site Plan for Phase III of a 35,821 square foot storage facility at 13355 George Weber Drive according to plans dated received February 7, 2014 subject to the following conditions:
1. All comments of the Fire Department per their memo of February 10, 2014 shall be met2. All requirements of the Fire Department be met.
OTHER BUSINESSPlanner Cartney stated that there is tentatively a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council scheduled for March 11th at 5:30 p.m. to review the Downtown Development Study. She will let the Planning Commission know if this meeting will be held, via email.
ADJOURNCommissioner Swanson moved, Commissioner Knapp seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:47 p.m.