2009 Minutes

MINUTES
ROGERS PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 21, 2009


CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Rogers Planning Commission was held on April 21, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. was called to order with Commissioners Kornovich, Ihli, Breun, Knapp, Noto, Stanley, Denker, and Olsen present.  

Member(s) excused: Terhaar.

Also present were Chief City Planner Burnham, City Administrator Stahmer, City Attorney Carson, Deputy Clerk Splett and Councilmember Rauenhorst.

OPEN FORUM
No one wished to speak.

SET AGENDA
Chairman Noto inquired if there was anyone who wished to place an item on the Agenda.

The agenda was set as submitted.

CONSENT AGENDA*
A.        Approval of the January 20, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioner Ihli moved, Commissioner Knapp seconded a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. 

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.  Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Cub Foods for a Conditional Use Permit
      Outdoor Sales on the Northwestern Portion of the Site, Located at 13855 Rogers 
      Drive

Chief Planner Burnham provided the background and commented on the following:
• This is in conjunction with the temporary use permit that has been granted in the past
• The original site plan did show utility lines
• The hoop house is proposed to go up on April 20th and be taken down on June 30th of each
   year

Chairman Noto opened the meeting for public comment. 

The following comments were registered:
Chrisann Jones, Cub Foods:  The product will begin to arrive next week.
Commissioner Noto provided background on this item over the past couple of years.
Commissioner Knapp inquired if it was going to be the same as it has been in the past.
Chrisann Jones:  Yes, it will be the same setup.
Commissioner Ihli stated that Cub Foods has always complied with the regulations.
Chrisann Jones:  We have always tried to comply with what the City has asked of us.  The garden center is tastefully done and is always clean.  I do have one request.  We usually open the garden center during the 3rd week in April.  Could there be some leeway as to the date that the hoop house can be setup? 
Commissioner Noto inquired if the date would be April 15th would that work for them.
Chrisann Jones:  Yes, that would be fine.  Thank you.

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

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

The Planning Commission discussed the following:
• Chief Planner Burnham explained the temporary use permits from the past and that this
   Conditional Use Permit would allow this use every year without the applicant coming back
   each year
• Opposition was voiced by Commissioner Kornovich on temporary structures allowed.  This
   should have been part of their building with taxes being paid on the additional 4000 sq.ft. of
   retail sales.  It is not right to have retail sales without having to pay taxes on the space.
• It was reiterated that the original site plan did show the utility lines going to this location

Commissioner Breun moved, Commissioner Ihli seconded a motion to recommend approval of the request by Cub Foods for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales on the northwestern portion of the site, located at 13855 Rogers Drive; subject to the following conditions:

1. The hoop house and sales area may be installed on April 15th of each calendar year and
    shall be removed by June 30th of each calendar year.
2. The hoop house shall be a maximum of 60 feet by 20 feet in size, with the total sales area
    including the hoop house to be 100 feet by 38 feet in size.

There was further discussion:
• Does this have to be a permanent Conditional Use Permit?  Planner Burnham answered that
  CUP’s are recorded, and are therefore permanent
• Would like to have this come back annually for review.  Planner Burnham stated that there
   are provisions to revoke a permit if an applicant violates the conditions of the CUP, but staff
   does not recommend annual reviews for CUP applications.

On the vote, members Denker, Breun, Ihli, and Stanley voted AYE, with members Kornovich, Noto, and Knapp voting NAY.  Motion carried.

B. (cont.) Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Tom Gump of Hassan MainStreet,
     LLC for a PUD Along With a Preliminary Plat to be Known as the Stone’s Throw
     Subdivision
  
Chief Planner Burnham provided the background and commented on the following:
• Stressed that this is approval of the Master PUD and rezoning only
• Commented on sheets LUO and DC1
• Any changes to the approved Master PUD would require the applicant to come back to the
  City for approvals

Chairman Noto opened the meeting for public comment. 

The following comments were registered:

City Attorney Carson explained the process of a master planned unit development agreement and the rezoning application by Stone’s Throw commented on the following:
• Explained the process of a master planned unit development agreement and the rezoning
  application by Stone’s Throw
• Approve the rezoning along with the master planned unit development (PUD) agreement
  which will include zoning, ranges of densities, and uses.  This will change the zoning from
  agricultural to developable property. 
• Explained that the developer has a deadline of April 30, 2009 for the purpose of maintaining
  the funding for the project. 
• The developer is not requesting any preliminary or final plat approvals at this time

Commissioner Noto questioned if approved, does that mean that any portion that is sold moves out of the PUD?
Attorney Carson:  No, the overall map of the PUD is in place, unless the property is rezoned in the future.
Commissioner Noto:  When will this receive final plat approval?
Attorney Carson explained that the final developer’s agreement must be negotiated, agreed upon, and executed prior to any preliminary or final plat approvals given.  Then there will be the negotiations for utilities and payments to determine financial requirements.
Commissioner Knapp:  All of this property has been annexed, right?
Attorney Carson:  Yes.
Commissioner Knapp:  I want to make sure that the City and the residents of Rogers are protected, and will not have to pay anything towards this development.
Commissioner Kornovich:  Has number 6 in the PUD agreement been completed yet?
Attorney Carson:  Yes, it has been approved by the State.
Commissioner Kornovich:  Number 7 of the PUD agreement refers to a fiscal study that will be completed by June of this year.  Now, how can we approve this if all the numbers and financial obligations are not completed?
Attorney Carson:  The study will help in determining the financial obligations.
Commissioner Kornovich:  So, the city will be financing this project?
Attorney Carson:  No, it does not imply that.  The financial obligations will be a part of the final development agreement for the Master PUD.
Commissioner Stanley:  Number 7 of the PUD agreement indicates there has been numerous studies done for this development.
Attorney Carson stated that they are all a part of the financial study.
Commissioner Kornovich:  This seems to be open ended, that they can take their time in completing the project.
Attorney Carson:  The City Council doesn’t have to agree with the financial recommendations that they feel are not right.
Commissioner Denker:  They are asking to rezone the property now from agricultural to a Master PUD with phases.  If the entire deal falls through, then what happens to the property?  Can it be rezoned back to agricultural or another classification?
Attorney Carson:  Should the developer be unable to continue with the project, the City Council can rezone the property back to agricultural.
Commissioner Noto:  The options for the developer may fail if the development doesn’t continue.  If they reach a stalemate, can the property be removed from the Master PUD and broken up into smaller parcels?
Attorney Carson:  The property can be rezoned to whatever is deemed appropriate by the City Council.
Commissioner Noto:  We can’t analyze this project from the backside.  We need to make sure that the City isn’t on the hook for any part of this.  I would like to thank Chuck for the excellent report he provided for us on this application.
Commissioner Kornovich:  Does the City inherit the maintenance of the streets within this project with no homes there?  This would be more expense on the City without the homeowner taxes being paid to the City.
Attorney Carson:  We can’t cover each and every item that may or could happen.  If the development proceeds as anticipated, it will be quite the addition to the City of Rogers.
Commissioner Knapp:  I don’t want the residents of Rogers paying for any of this.
Attorney Carson:  We are only voting on the rezoning along with the master planned unit development (PUD) agreement which will include zoning, ranges of densities, and uses tonight.
Commissioner Stanley:  Will the proposed interchange have an effect on this project?
Chief Planner Burnham:  Yes it will.
Commissioner Kornovich:  Number 4 in the development agreement relates to fees.  Are those fees based on today’s fee rates or will they be different?
Attorney Carson explained that the existing fee agreement is based on the fee rates of today until the year 2010.  After that time, it would be based on the current fee rate.

Chief Planner Burnham:
This is laying the basic groundwork for the development.  The guidelines for the Master PUD hold the developer to higher standards than a regular development.  They will be held to architectural standards and performance standards.  There are smaller lots, but there is also more common area and open space.

Dave Sellegren, Attorney for Applicant
The Master PUD that is before you tonight is consistent with your updated comprehensive plan.  We can’t build or do anything at this time.  We are basically begging for the zoning to satisfy our lender.  We are asking for your approval of the Master PUD and rezoning requests.  We will play by all of your rules as they relate to preliminary and final plat approvals.

The plan shows quite a bit of green space which is wetland/floodplain.  Our developed units have dropped to 1008 from 1500+ that was provided to you last year.  We are still debating with the Elm Creek Watershed on what is actually wetland/floodplain and what is not.

We have a unique situation here where the developer and the lender are still actively pursuing the development project.  We are in agreement with the Master PUD Development Agreement and the conditions within it, as prepared by Attorney Carson.  I would like to make it clear with the financial component of the agreement that the City is not taking any risks, it is our risk – not the City’s.

We are working hard on bringing the interchange to this area and also working hard on getting the wetland issues resolved.  We are committed in deeding the road right-of-ways to the City and Fletcher by-pass to the County.  The infrastructure of the development has not been all worked out as of yet.  That will come with time.

We are not asking for any type of preliminary plat approvals at this time.  We are before you tonight to ask you to recommend approval of the Master PUD and rezoning with the conditions that have been provided by Chief Planner Burnham. 

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

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

The Planning Commission discussed the following:
• This item was tabled to February, but it is now April.  Is the application still active then?
• Attorney Carson stated that the City received a letter from the applicant asking for it to be
  tabled to April
• Dave Sellegren stated that the applicant is not requesting any preliminary plat
• Accepting dedication of land in lieu of park dedication fees
• The Master PUD also includes the development codes that will pertain to this development. 
  These are their codes, not the City’s codes.  Their development codes, ie. performance
  standards, architectural standards, etc. are more restrictive.
• Chief Planner Burnham and Attorney Carson did a great job in laying the entire process and
  request out for us.
• Communication towers, where are they going to be placed and why are they allowed –
  generates revenue for the City of Rogers
• The City has requested a location for another fire station
• Concerned if the infrastructure evolves with phases, if the project gets on the fast track, how
  will everything keep up?
• Infrastructure remains to be resolved.  There is a contractual commitment for Phase 1.

Commissioner Noto moved, Commissioner Ihli seconded a motion to recommend approval of the Master PUD plans to be amended as provided and to include the following conditions:
1. Sheet LUO shall include the following statement:  “Layouts are subject to approval and
    change during final development plan review”.
2. The maximum density on Sheet LUO shall be revised for the Wealds of Rush Creek to a
    range of 0.5 to 1.0.
3. Sheet S0 shall be revised in the Commercial Area Freestanding requirements, Section 1b(1)
    to indicate that the maximum square footage for a single freestanding sign is 100 feet, with a
    combined maximum of 120 if located on a multiple street frontages.

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

NEW BUSINESS
A. Review of Comments Received From Other Public Agencies for 2010
     Comprehensive Plan Draft

Chief Planner Burnham provided the background and commented on the following:
• Jeff Miller is here tonight to review the draft
• This will go to the City Council for their approval

Chief Planner Burnham introduced Jeff Miller of HKGI, and he presented the draft Comprehensive Plan to the Planning Commission.  The following are their comments and discussions:
• Priority is the downtown area. 
• The Planning Commission reaffirmed their decision from the public hearing last fall that the 23
   acre Southside Lumber property should be designated as High Density Residential (HDR)
   into the future not only to comply with the density requirements of the Metropolitan Council, 
   but also in order to assist with the redevelopment of downtown Rogers. 
• The consensus of the Planning Commission for the Mid Density Residential that the  dwelling
   units be increased from a density range of 4-8 dwelling units per acre, up to 5.5 – 8 dwelling
   units per acre.
• The updated Comprehensive Plan must be submitted to Met Council by May 29, 2009.
• Planning Commission thanked Jeff Miller and his team for all of their hard work in updating
  our Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Noto moved, Commissioner Knapp seconded a motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following addition:
1.  That the Mid Density Residential range be increased from a density range of 4-8 dwelling
     units per acre, up to 5.5 – 8 dwelling units per acre.
2.  The Commission would like for the Southside Lumber property to be guided for high
     density residential; 10-20 units per acre, even though we have an objection letter from the
     property owner.

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

ADJOURN
Commissioner Breun moved, Commissioner Stanley seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:03 p.m.

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