MINUTESROGERS PLANNING COMMISSIONMARCH 18, 2014
CALL TO ORDERThe meeting of the Rogers Planning Commission was held on March 18, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. was called to order with Commissioners Martin, Denker, Terhaar, Meadows, Swanson, Gorecki and Jullie were present.
Also present were City Planner/Community Dev. Coordinator Cartney, Deputy Clerk Splett and Councilmember Ihli.
Member(s) excused: Knapp.
OPEN FORUMNo one wished to speak.
SET AGENDAThe Agenda was set as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA*A. Approval of the February 18, 2014 Planning Commission MinutesCommissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Jullie seconded a motion to approve the February 18, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted.
On the vote, all members Martin, Denker, Terhaar, Swanson, Gorecki and Jullie voted AYE and member Meadows abstained. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGSA. Public Hearing to Consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment for GreenStep CitiesCity Planner Cartney provided the background information commenting on the following:• City is currently at a Step 2 and is working towards reaching Step 3• This is not mandatory, the City has been working on this for a couple of years now• Gave a brief explanation of the GreenStep Program
Chairman Denker opened the meeting for public comment.
There were no comments registered.
Commissioner Denker 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 relating to the ordinance amending Chapter 125.
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Gorecki seconded the motion to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 105 of the City Code as presented.
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Denker seconded the motion to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 125 (Zoning) with the correction to leave the existing Section 125-3 as it is with the existing 5 purposes and the addition of the new regulations as presented.
Commissioner Swanson questioned what is Step 3 and is going to reach a point where we are told we have to have this in our ordinances. Planner Cartney responded that this is voluntary.
On the vote, members Martin, Denker, Terhaar, Meadows, Gorecki and Jullie voted AYE and member Swanson voted NAY. Motion carried.
B. Public Hearing to Consider Requests by Crow River Storage, for Site Plan and CUP Amendment, Located at 14450 James RoadCity Planner Cartney provided the background information commenting on the following:• There was a Conditional Use Permit approved in 2000 to allow the 8 mini-storage buildings• Currently there are 5 buildings and are proposing to add 3 more buildings for a total of 8 buildings• Proposing a two phase project – Phase I is a climate/temperature control building and Phase II is two cold storage buildings• There is outdoor storage on site without a Conditional Use Permit allowing this• Change in site plan to increase the previously approved total square footage of the 8 buildings• Applicant is also requesting that they do not have to improve the surface area for the outdoor storage at this time
The following comments were registered:Jake Hendricks, one of the owners: I think that Ms. Cartney pretty well covered our application. I do have the site manager here tonight also to answer any questions that you may have. We have been working with City staff on our project.Commissioner Swanson asked if the property/business used to be owned by Rabe?Jake Hendricks: Yes, we purchased it from them.Commissioner Denker questioned if there were issues with the Fire Dept. concerns?Jake Hendricks: We have worked with the Fire Dept. The building will be sprinklered and we will be adding an additional hydrant on the property.Commissioner Martin commented that it looked like part of the berm is going to be removed. Are you reshaping it or removing it.Planner Cartney responded that a portion of it is being removed and will be replaced with a retaining wall.Commissioner Gorecki asked for some clarification on the Elm Creek Watershed.
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Meadows seconded a motion to close the public hearing.
There was a brief discussion by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Meadows moved, Commissioner Gorecki seconded the motion to recommend approve a Conditional Use Permit for 14450 James Road to allow 8 mini-storage buildings as shown on the site plan dated received March 12, 2014 and to allow outdoor storage on the north end of the property; subject to the following conditions:
1. The mini-storage is limited to 8 buildings for a total of 48,651 square feet.2. The fence around the parameter be expanded to include all storage buildings.3. All comments/requirements of the Fire Departments memo dated March 3, 2014 shall be met.4. All comments/requirements of the City Engineers memo dated March 10, 2014 shall be met.5. Phase II shall be constructed by June 1, 2017 in which time the outdoor storage will be removed, if phase II is not constructed and outdoor storage remains the surface must be paved to meet city standards.
C. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Jeff Benzinger for the Rezoning of 22101 129th Ave. N. and Outlot C, Verstecker Acker 2nd from Ag and R-2 to a Planned Unit DevelopmentCity Planner Cartney provided the background information commenting on the following:• Before Planning Commission last month• Unique in that one parcel has 2 different zoning districts• Request is to rezone to single family PUD with varying lot sizes• As a PUD the applicant is looking at reducing the lot size and width• In exchange for the reduced lot size and width, the applicant will provide for this PUD higher building standards such as the minimum finished floor space not including garage or open porches; 3 car garage required, siding/exterior requirements, color scheme etc.
The Planning Commission discussed the following:• Master plan – concept plan should be reviewed by the Planning Commission• Application materials• Concerns with lot sizes
The following comments were registered:Pat Ebert, 12632 Adeline Way: I was here at the last meeting. I'm a little concerned because this sounds like the exact same question that we discussed last time, just a different approach. I'm not against the development, but I would prefer that it be R-2. Just make the agricultural portion be R-2 and keep it consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Same issues, same conversation over again.Lyle O'Bannon, 22371 Brett Trail: I have had the time to think about some more. What's the core for me? To me when I get down to it, I have heard no compelling arguments for how changing this that benefits the community. If we have a plan and there isn't a compelling argument for why making a change benefits the community, I don't see any way to justify that. I can come back every month to restate that. But I don't just believe that from the property next door to mine, that is what I believe should be one of the criteria for making any kind of a change. Does it benefit the community? If anyone has an argument why it would benefit the community I would really like to hear it.Christine Bollinger, 12734 Adeline Way: I have not been against development in Rogers. My husband and I came up here about 10 years ago from Prior Lake. The thing that drew us to Rogers besides the commute is the lot size. I do have concern about the smaller lot size. I do have a concern with rezoning to a PUD with smaller lot sizes. This will throw the balance off, cohesiveness of the neighborhood will be lost with the smaller lot sizes. The lot sizes in Rogers allow you to have a side yard for the kids to play in, you don't see that in a lot of places. I would be really disappointed in Rogers if they allow this.Jeff Benzinger, property owner: I came back because I listened to what the neighbors had to say and their concerns with the smaller lot sizes. I thought that the design we brought in now meets those concerns with the average being 14,975 sq.ft. – only 25 sq.ft. less than what is required. As far as setbacks, part of this PUD we have 30 ft. in front, 30 ft. in back, 10 ft on each side no difference that what R-2 is. There are a couple of lots that are less in width but that is because I don't have the full wetland delineation done. My surveyor is just finishing up on the project. As far as the design on it, if you are going to look where you are going to place each home on there, it is not going to look any different that the existing neighborhood there, there will be just as must width between the homes as the existing homes have. Most of the homes built today range between 60-65 feet with a 3 car garage. These are big generous lots.Commissioner Martin inquired if Mr. Benzinger had looked at doing just a R-2 development.Jeff Benzinger: R-2 zoning I would get 10 lots with the lots being approx. ½ acre in size. The other way that you could do it is leave an outlot for future development. The area where the cul-de-sac is shown would be developed and that would eliminate any through traffic.Commissioner Martin asked if he would do that with 90 foot frontages on the cul-de-sac and have 15,000 sq.ft. lots.Jeff Benzinger: That is what is proposed there now. There are a couple lots that are smaller and that has to do with the delineation and some of the others are larger.Commissioner Swanson asked if he would be willing to come back as R-2 rather than a PUD?Jeff Benzinger: I would do what makes sense here. The design is right here. Are we saying in the City that everything is going to be a 100 x 150 lot? Are we going to be that cookie cutter?Commissioner Denker stated that we are not pretending to be that way. We have different zoning districts with different requirements.Jeff Benzinger: If you average out the lots it is 25 sq.ft. difference than what the zoning district requires. It will be mixed in between all of them and you will not know the difference.Commissioner Denker stated his opinion is that it will show, it will drastically show. The minimum lot size is 15,000 sq.ft.Commissioner Martin stated that on the application you were asked to provide topo maps, inventories of the natural resources, contours at a minimum of 2 foot intervals, easements on the property, quite a few things to provide us with an application for a master plan. We don't have that. My question is if you are a serious developer, unless you are just taking a shot at it being a PUD why wouldn't we have a completed application from you. It's a lot of work, I understand that.Jeff Benzinger: Yes, it is a lot of work, a lot of expense, and in talking with Ms. Cartney if this was brought in and the design was acceptable then with the preliminary plat you get to look everything all over at that time to make sure it all works.Commissioner Martin stated that it is required for a Master Development Plan review and that is what we are doing tonight.Jeff Benzinger: Generally a master plan is larger developments with 100s of lots. This is only for 12 lots. You are talking an extreme cost for that also.Commissioner Denker stated that it is required.Jeff Benzinger: When I talked with the planner she said that this was fine.City Planner Cartney stated that she told him his application was complete, not knowing at that time that all of this was needed/required for a 12 lot master plan.Jeff Benzinger: I think if the concept can be approved, then all the information will be provided and brought back to you at the time of the preliminary plat. Can we tweak the 2 lots at the beginning of the cul-de-sac to make them a few more square feet?Commissioner Martin inquired what does this PUD bring to the general public that we wouldn't have or offer to the City.Jeff Benzinger: Its bringing 12 more lots to the city. 2 more than allowed in the R-2 district. It is difficult to bring lots into the market and not knowing if they will sell. I'm trying to get as much as I can on this property.Shannon Weaver, 12686 Adeline Way: I am right on the corner of Adeline and Brett Trail. I am not opposed to the development coming in and putting houses on that land. I don't like the idea of having smaller lots, it could bring down the value of our houses. It scares me not to have a completed concept plan here tonight to be approved. If a concept is not written up and gets approved tonight he could still change it to townhomes.Commissioner Denker stated that could and would not happen.Shannon Weaver: I understand that lots are expensive and that you are trying to development the best you can, but at the same time, we live there. Our kids play in the street. I hope that you take that into consideration.
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Denker seconded a motion to close the public hearing.
The Planning Commission discussed the following:• Consensus that this should be developed as R-2 and be consistent with the existing neighborhood• Would like to see larger lots – closer to the 15,000 sq.ft. minimum
Commissioner Swanson moved, Commissioner Martin seconded the motion to recommend denial of rezoning the parcel located at 22101 129th Avenue from Ag, R-2 to Planned Unit Development (PUD) based on the findings that the R-2 zoning is the correct zoning for that area and would like to maintain it as an R-2 zoning district.
OTHER BUSINESSCity Planner Cartney stated that there will be a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting prior to the next City Council meeting on April 8, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. The joint meeting will be the kick-off for Downtown Redevelopment project.
ADJOURNCommissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Swanson seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:58 p.m.