2013 Agendas / Minutes

MINUTES
ROGERS PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 22, 2013

CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Rogers Planning Commission was held on August 22, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. was called to order with Commissioners Martin, Swanson, Meadows, Denker, Knapp, Ende, Burr, and Busch were present.

Also present were City Planning Consultant Steve Grittman, Deputy Clerk Splett and Councilmember Ihli.

Member(s) excused: Terhaar.

SET AGENDA
The following was added to the agenda under "Other Business":
• Sign standards discussion

CONSENT AGENDA*
A. Approval of the July 25, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Knapp seconded a motion to approve the July 25, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Streeter Companies/Park Nicollet for a PUD Amendment to Request for Additional Exterior Signage, Located at 13688 Rogers Drive
Planning Consultant Grittman provided the background information commenting on the following:
• Last year approved an amendment to the PUD for the freestanding sign
• Requesting addition signage on the east and west walls
• Both signs are less than what our code requires for size
• No changes proposed to the freestanding sign

Chairman Denker opened the meeting for public comment.

The following comments were registered:
Jim Holm, Park Nicollet: I want to clarify that we are requesting a larger wall sign on the west wall in addition to more signage on the east wall. We are the only tenant in the south building, it is off the main road so we are trying to get more signage out there so that people will see us. The present sign is too small and doesn't even have the word clinic on it so we think that people aren't seeing us there. We are looking for better visibility on the main west wall with a larger west wall sign. We have submitted two different styles, and would like to receive approval for the larger styles. The east wall sign is the back of the building and the employee entrance.
Commissioner Denker commented that the east elevation shows 2 options.
Jim Holm: We have two different styles there. We would prefer the panel that is all purple.
Commissioner Denker asked if they were asking for 75 sq. ft alone on the east side and an overall total of 280 sq. ft or 80 sq.ft.
Planning Consultant Grittman stated that 280 sq.ft. would be what is potentially allowed. A single tenant would be allowed up to 80 sq.ft.
Commissioner Martin each tenant is allowed up to 80 sq.ft. How many different departments are in the clinic.
Jim Holm: This is mainly a family medicine clinic with some Pediatrics. We are open some evenings at this location and the signage would help people find it easier.
Commissioner Martin asked what are the lengths of these sections approximately?
Jim Holm: The entrances are approximately 3 ft. wide – I didn't bring that information with me.
Commissioner Martin commented that at a minimum you could consider 2 occupancies per side. Is there a door in every one of the sections?
Jim Holm: If there is we are not using them. We only use the main entrance door on the west wall.
Commissioner Martin inquired if they are also asking for another sign that says open or something like that.
Jim Holm: I think that has already been approved. Its just a small neon open sign that goes in the glass above the entrance there.
Commissioner Martin stated that an auxiliary sign cannot be a neon sign.
Jim Holm: Well, its going to be LED I guess.
Commissioner Martin stated that it cannot be illuminated.
Planning Consultant Grittman stated that the sign is on the inside.
Commissioner Martin stated that the last PUD amendment last year was for a freestanding sign that will take care of both of the buildings located there. Have you thought out this signage completely now on what you want and that this is going to be it?
Jim Holm: Yes, this is it.
Commissioner Martin stated that this is not too much, not unreasonable particularly over on the theater side.
Jim Holm: We are looking for better visibility in the community.

Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Ende seconded a motion to close the public hearing.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

There was a brief discussion by the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Meadows seconded the motion to recommend approval of the PUD amendment permitting additional wall signage on the Park Nicollet building, not to exceed 80 square feet on the front building façade (in accordance with Regional Sign Overlay District standards), or 33 square feet on the rear building façade (reflective of the applicant's current request).

Commissioner Ende asked Mr. Holm which of the signs they were looking for approval on, option 1 or option 2.
Mr. Holm stated that they would like the approval for the larger concept for both of the walls, which is option 2.

Commissioner Martin amended the motion, Commissioner Meadows seconded to include that the approval is for option 2 that was submitted for this application.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

B. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Grady Kinghorn for the Rezoning of Approximately 76.11 acres from MU-R, Mixed Use Regional to L-I, Limited Industry
Planning Consultant Grittman provided the background information commenting on the following:
• The parcel just to the south of this one was recently rezoned from Ag to LI
• This completes the rezoning of the vacant land on the west side of Brockton Lane
• There is currently not a specific user to this site
• An amendment to our Comprehensive Plan is not required for this rezoning
• Primary concern with industrial on this parcel may be the impact on the Henry Woods open space area
• Buffering of Henry Woods is a site plan issue rather than a zoning issue

Chairman Denker opened the meeting for public comment.

The following comments were registered:
Grady Kinghorn, 14198 Northdale Blvd.: I agree that the buffering is more a site plan discussion with future client and staff. There is no specific user at this time, I am talking to a number of people.
Commissioner Swanson stated that his concern is Henry Woods.
Commissioner Martin commented that he too is concerned with Henry Woods. He asked if Mr. Kinghorn would mind being asked to add on the 50 feet area between Henry Woods Park and the north side of this property as buffer area. He would like to see a 50 foot buffer between this site and Henry Woods Park. That is to be a passive park and would hate to have people look at large concrete building.
Grady Kinghorn: when you say 50 foot buffer is it 50 feet in addition to the normal setback? That would be a lot of land for that long.
Commissioner Martin stated that he would like to see additional buffer similar to what is on Northdale Blvd. next to the residential area. What was put into Henry Woods I would like to see the park shielded more than 20 feet from a concrete building. I think that in considering this, we have to have something solid that will protect the park. Something more than just a handshake
Grady Kinghorn: You are asking for 50 feet instead of the 20 feet?
Commissioner Martin stated that yes, he would like to see an additional 30 feet to create the buffer, with some type of screening like vegetation or something.
Grady Kinghorn: There will be screening along that side of the property.
Commissioner Ende commented that the Henry Woods park is a great asset for a new business coming in there and would not like to see it encroached upon.
Grady Kinghorn: 50 feet would be okay, as long as we are just adding an addition 30 feet to the required 20 feet.
Commissioner Martin stated it would be 50 foot buffer like what is required in the B-3 district. Attaching that requirement to the rezoning would not be that unreasonable. I mean attaching it in the rezoning of this property.
Planning Consultant Grittman stated that just to be clear when you are taking rezoning action, you don't have the ability to add conditions to a rezoning ordinance, like you can to a variance. The conditions would be added at the time of site plan review. You can make the recommendation that there be a 50 foot buffer between this development and the park, but you cannot make it a condition of the rezoning application.
Commissioner Martin stated that this could be a several of years from now and if we don't have things the way we want them now, they could get lost.
Planning Consultant Grittman responded that this could only be a recommendation at this point, not a condition. That is the only way you can do it with a rezoning action. The way to solidify that is you want to is you could rezone Henry Woods to residential or you could add a specific code to change the side yard setback to public parks. If that is what you want to do that should be done by ordinance, not by a condition.
Grady Kinghorn: Yes, we can look at the buffer at the time of site plan review.
Commissioner Martin stated that this decision will stand on its own without the consideration of the buffering and any action to remedy that will have to be initiated by us or by the council and follow through the process.
Commissioner Swanson commented that we could do this next month.

Commissioner Knapp moved, Commissioner Martin seconded a motion to close the public hearing.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

The Planning Commission discussed the following:
• Buffering requirement/discussion at the time of site plan review
• Consistency with the previous rezonings on the west side of Brockton Lane
• Road to go along the property line

Commissioner Meadows moved, Commissioner Ende seconded the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from MU-R, Mixed Use Regional to L-I, Limited Industry

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

Commissioner Martin asked that the Council direct the Planning Commission to have a discussion next month on either a zoning amendment to L-I, Limited Industry, or a zoning amendment to Henry Woods to address the issue of buffering that area.

C. (cont.) Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Adult Use Regulations
Planning Consultant Grittman provided the background information commenting on the following:
• This item was removed from the agenda last month for City Attorney review
• Purpose is to create limitations around where these business establishments can be located within your community. Identify zoning districts where these would be allowed and then create a buffer area around certain uses – residential areas, schools, etc.
• Buffer concept in Rogers code 1320 feet, which is ¼ mile spacing that any one of these business uses would need to be that far away from the list of your protected uses
• The ¼ mile spacing is much larger than what other cities have which is usually in the 100s of feet
• Reducing buffer area from protected uses
• Add public parks and churches to protected uses list
• Require licensing for this type of business and also for new spas/massage businesses which is very common around the metro area
• Currently have licensing section within the code for adult uses
• Addition of a disclaimer section added to the code

Chairman Denker opened the meeting for public comment.

The following comments were registered:
Commissioner Martin inquired if under adult use principal under C-1E and 2 are those the same thing.
Planning Consultant Grittman stated that yes it was the same thing and we should delete number 2.
Commissioner Martin inquired if residential zoned property also the statute allows residential use property no matter what its zoned, correct?
Planning Consultant Grittman stated that the statute would allow you to do that yes.
Commissioner Martin asked if we chose not to do that for a reason.
Planning Consultant Grittman stated that it can complicate your regulations by allowing non-conforming residential use, this is to limit your distance requirements.
Commissioner Martin stated he is uncomfortable with C a public private education classified as elementary, junior or senior. We are mostly middle school, daycare, charter school, academies and stuff like that. Can't that be broaden to just private, public, or education or something like that?
Planning Consultant Grittman stated that would be a good idea to broaden that.

Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Knapp seconded a motion to close the public hearing.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

There was a brief discussion by the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Denker seconded the motion to recommend adoption of the changes as proposed with the corrections discussed here tonight.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

Commissioner Martin stated that he would like to follow up in L-I that we put this as you recommended that this is a permitted use with licensing. I want that stated in there also. We have it in the code, but I don't want that to get separated.

So identify it in the list as submit to use with city licensing.

D. (cont.) Public Hearing to Consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Kennels
Planning Consultant Grittman provided the background information commenting on the following:
• Change to kennel language in the definitions sections
• Update set of definitions from last year
• Consistency with changes originally developed by the Joint Planning Board
• Discussed corrections submitted by Commissioner Denker

Chairman Denker opened the meeting for public comment.

The following comments were registered:
Commissioner Martin Private or residential kennels. We found private kennels in all of the zones, correct? Private and commercial kennels were in the zones. Change everything to meet the code that was uot of date. Now with the real definitions we are trying to change them again. I think we should leave it alone.
Planning Consultant Grittman stated that we should change the City Code definitions. Because it refers to residential and commercial.
Commissioner Martin stated that this never got passed by the Council.
Planning Consultant Grittman stated that these are zoning definitions, not general code definitions.
Commissioner Martin stated that Chapter 2 needs to be updated in its entirety. Changed planners during this time and things didn't move forward. To change it all back we are going the wrong direction.
Planning Consultant Grittman Are you worried that the City Code didn't get updated?
Commissioner Martin Yes. We don't want to drag everything back to what it was before and then bring it forward again.
Commissioner Denker asked if the concern is with having residential versus private? As long as we have it all in there. I like the terms residential and commercial.
Commissioner Martin commented that you just decided a few months ago that you didn't. We established this code, and this came directly from the joint committee. And we all went over every one of these and agreed that this is what it was going to be. It isn't a matter of which one is right and which one is wrong, but we cannot change the code every time that somebody finds a different word that they like. We have nothing in here that says it matches the city code.
Planning Consultant Grittman stated that kennels is only referred to in the one section of the zoning ordinance and in the city code. We can leave this and take it back to the council then to change the city code so that it is consistent with the zoning ordinance rules.
Commissioner Martin asked if the easiest thing now is to go ahead with what we have here and then we will review the City Code to see if it needs a major update or something. Something is wrong. Does anyone care if we change all of this to residential?

At this time, the Planning Commission reviewed the definitions page by page.

Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Meadows seconded a motion to close the public hearing.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

There was a brief discussion by the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Ende moved, Commissioner Denker seconded the motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with the corrections and additions discussed tonight.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS
A. SSTS Ordinance Discussion
There was a brief discussion commenting on the following:
• Hassan required pumping of tanks every 3 years
• Hennepin County took over all septic inspections and they do not have the staff of dollars to do the inspections properly
• Create a new ordinance or use Hassan's former ordinance for septic systems
• The City has lost all of their rights for septic systems when Hennepin County took over
• Ask City Council to direct the Planning Commission to look into septic issues

Commissioner Denker moved, Commissioner Ende seconded the motion to recommend that the City Council direct City staff to review septic issues within the City and what we can do to enforce inspections and pumping of septic tanks.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

OTHER BUSINESS
A. Changing the Meeting Day of the Rogers Planning Commission
Deputy Clerk Splett stated that the meeting day was changed to accommodate our consulting planner's schedule so that he would be able to present the Planning Commission items to the City Council. We would now like to go back to having the meeting on the third Tuesday of each month.

Consensus of the Planning Commission was they were in favor of changing the meeting date back to the third Tuesday of each month.

B. Sign Standards
Commissioner Martin stated that PUD amendments can't and shouldn't be used to allow changes to signage on the property. If there were no sign standards approved at the beginning of the project, then all signage should fall back to what is allowed within that specific zone. The sign standard adjustment creates more problems.

No action taken.

ADJOURN
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Swanson seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:34 p.m.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

Members

Bernie Terhaar
Alternate #1
Brian Denker
Member
Bruce Gorecki
Member
Carl Knapp
Member
Dennis Meadows
Member
Dick Martin
Member
Kevin Jullie
Member
Steve Swanson
Member
Tom Burr
Alternate #2
Rick Ihli
City Council