MINUTESROGERS PLANNING COMMISSIONMAY 23, 2013
CALL TO ORDERThe meeting of the Rogers Planning Commission was held on May 23, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. was called to order with Commissioners Martin, Meadows, Denker, Busch, Swanson, Ende, Terhaar and Burr were present.
Also present were City Planning Consultant Steve Grittman, Deputy Clerk Splett and Councilmember Ihli.
Member(s) excused: Knapp.
OPEN FORUMNo one wished to speak.
SET AGENDAThe following changes were made to the Agenda:• Table items 8A and 8B to the June meeting• Move item 6A to 6D
CONSENT AGENDA*A. Approval of the April 25, 2013 Planning Commission MinutesCommissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Ende seconded a motion to approve the April 25, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes with the one correction discussed.
On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGSB. Public Hearing to Consider the following Requests by Northridge Fellowship Church, Located at 12522 Main St.:• Variance for a Front Yard Setback from 50 feet to 30 feet• Variance to Waive the Requirement for a Fence Abutting R-2 Zones• Site Plan Approval of a 6,925 sq.ft. Addition on the East Side and a 5,810 sq.ft. Addition on the West Side of the BuildingPlanning Consultant Grittman provided the background information commenting on the following:• Expansion of an existing building to the east and the west – east will encroach into the setback.• Second variance request is to waive the screening requirements along parking lot and where it abuts residential properties. Based on existing conditions of encroachments of residential areas (sheds, existing plantings, etc.) the fence would be costly to neighbors• Allow for a landscape screen without interfering with existing structures. Reasonable way to meet the code requirement.• Intent of the ordinance where the property is located is the variance for the setback would not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Reasonable request for the setback.• Site plan meets code requirements, meets parking standards
Chairman Denker opened the meeting for public comment.
The following comments were registered:David Kane, Kane & Johnson Architects, Inc. I want to emphasize that this does not increase the use to the site. The addition is not to increase the use of the worship area, will be used as additional classrooms. It is to provide adequate space to serve the church. On the east side we will be removing a few parking spaces, which would abut the residential zone to the ease, but the headlight glare should not be a problem. The church has an excellent relationship with the neighbors and has not received any complaints. If you would we would like to reduce the screening on the east side of the property, and increase the screening on the north and south sides of the property. In order to put the fence up, neighbors would have to move their sheds and things that encroach onto the church property. Physical fence would involve removing a number of structures and there would be trees that would need to come down also. To increase landscaping on the east would diminish the areas for the placement of snow during the winter months. Ask some thought/discussion about that portion.Teri McEachern, Northridge Fellowship: My husband Ben is the Pastor for Northridge Fellowship. What to agree with what was already said. This is to add space for the children.Steve Scharber, 12513 Otto St.: My house is about in the middle of the addition on the east side. I have the pine tree that the gentleman referred to. I have lived there since 1980 and I have had the church in my back yard for a long time. There have been no problems with the church. The issue I had when the City bought the property was that they were thinking of making into a police station, that would not have been a good use for that property. I don't have a problem with the proposed expansion or with no fence being required. I would not like to see a fence along there, the screening done with plantings would be good. Look at your staff recommendation and approve that because this is a good use.Commissioner Ende inquired about the loss of lawn space on the property for the kids.David Kane: The interior of the building will have a large multi-purpose area to be used year round.Teri McEachern: We do not need an outside play area for the children. With the addition it will all be held indoors. We make use of the parks in Rogers also.Commissioner Swanson inquired about the setbacks in the front of the building with the addition. Planner Grittman stated that this portion of the addition will be encroaching into the setback and this is the reason for requesting the setback variance.Commissioner Martin stated that a variance is to demonstrate a practical difficulty and has no bearing on the legal description of the property. What is the unique practical difficulty for this property?Planner Grittman stated that the use is in the R-2 district and is unique. This is different from the previous demonstrating a hardship. The expansion is a reasonable use for the property.Commissioner Martin stated that they must establish a hardship or uniqueness for this property.Planner Grittman stated that the use and the shape of the property is unique along with the character and locality of the building. Significant amount of this property fronts on the street with a different setback.Commissioner Martin inquired if the screening in the back, is there a compromise of screening? Both ends of the property (north and south) abut residential.Planner Grittman stated that it is the intent of the screening requirement is to mitigate the traffic headlights from the residential neighbors.Commissioner Martin inquired if it would be a reasonable thought to screen those parking lots off along the north and south sides?Commissioner Meadows stated screening along the north and south sides would be reasonable.Debbie Stoddard: The north parking lot has a large structure that is actually a garage if we put a fence there that garage would have to be removed. That is a concern to us.Commissioner Martin stated that some of these obstructions could also work as screening for the property.Commissioner Denker inquired if the church is open to the vegetative screening for the entire length of the property.David Kane: We prefer not. There is about 55% of the property is already screened. There are only 6 stalls on the east side. Landscape on north and south side would be okay but not along the east side. Night time use at the church is minimal.Debbie Stoddard: You talked about providing a hardship for this. If we were to move the addition back 20 feet, this would restrict the ability for it to function for the uses we need. It would cut the room size in half almost.David Kane: One of the design issues is that the sanctuary is a fairly tall structure and we are trying to line it up. It would become a total wall if it is moved back.
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Meadows seconded a motion to close the public hearing.
The Planning Commission discussed the following:• Encroachment in the setback in the front of the building to Main Street• Like the current design of the building• Landscaping – screen the south and the north parking lots and infill a little bit along the east side where all the trees are• Aesthetics of the building• Entire back lot line should be filled in with landscaping materials
Commissioner Denker moved, Commissioner Burr seconded the motion to recommend approval of the setback variance to allow the expansion of the church facility to a 30 foot setback from Main Street (County Road 150.
On the vote, members Denker, Ende, Burr, Busch, and Meadows voted AYE and members Martin and Swanson voted NAY. Motion carried.
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Ende seconded the motion to recommend denial to waive the screening requirements for non-residential properties that abut residential properties based on the finding that the screening requirement is in place to prevent or mitigate problems caused by the incompatibility between large parking lots and residential neighborhood lifestyles. Also to request that the applicant, through vegetation landscaping, screen both the south and north parking lots completely and in-fill where the trees already exist on the east property line with vegetation.
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Swanson seconded the motion to recommend approval of the proposed site plan subject to the following condition:1. The applicants develop a landscaping and screening plan to be submitted for subsequent review and consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
C. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by 1st National Bank at Diamond Pointe of Rogers for a PUD Amendment to Allow the Construction of a 1 Story 3000 sq.ft. Building, Located at 13785 Rogers DrivePlanning Consultant Grittman provided the background information commenting on the following:• Amendment of the PUD for a freestanding commercial building at a retail center• Bank structure on the east side of the property that would share primary access to the site• Bank itself served by a drive through loop• Parking and curbing improvements have been in place for some time• Modifications will be made to the site to accommodate the bank• No subdivision proposed, there will be 2 separate buildings on this site• Remote trash – bank has security requirements
The following comments were registered:Kenneth Piper, Tanek, Inc., 118 E. 26th St.: Originally approved the PUD in 2007, The pad was approved for a fast food operation. Working ourselves from the outside in – parking is in, curbing is in. The drive through is still there. Pad site roughly 3000 approved for 3700 stWe concur with the recommendations as made by Mr. Grittman. I have the revised drawings.Commissioner Martin inquired if the drive through here would require a conditional use permit.Planner Grittman stated that under the current zoning it does not require a conditional use permit.Kenneth Piper: The assumption is made that as a drive through for a fast food operation in the original PUD approved that it would not require a conditional use permit.Commissioner Martin stated that we have done that before when there were other pads included in the original PUD and then it is amended later. One anchor gets approval and then amend it along the way. I assume this was done in the beginning and met the requirements.Kenneth Piper: Documentation from 2007 shows a monument sign right on the corner of the service access road and Rogers Drive. We would like to propose that for a sign for the bank. Our signage package shows that in our documents. We are proposing a smaller sign.Planner Grittman stated that we don't have a signage plan submitted right now. We would review it the way the original PUD was reviewed.Commissioner Meadows stated that as long as it incorporates the code the way it should be, we could have staff review it and approve it.Kenneth Piper: One final item is the final development plan review. Very anxious to get going on this project and if you would allow staff to review those items that would be much appreciated.
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Ende seconded a motion to close the public hearing.
On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.The Planning Commission discussed the following:• Like the plan, but would like them to come back to the Planning Commission to make sure everything is done• The PUD has already been established, don't think it needs to come back• As long as there are no deviations whatsoever from what we have seen tonight I do not think it needs to come back
Commissioner Meadows moved, Commissioner Martin seconded the motion to recommend approval of the Master Development Plan for the First National Bank PUD Amendment, subject to the following:1. The site plan is amended to reflect additional drive-through stacking separation, similar to the staff sketch in the attached exhibit.2. The applicant prepares and submits lighting plans for Final Plan Review.3. The applicant prepares and submits landscaping plans for Final Plan Review.4. The applicant prepares and submits architectural details for the trash enclosure for Final Plan Review.5. The applicant prepares and submits signage plans for Final Plan Review, including any directional signs that would be proposed.6. Incorporate into our approval for staff to make sure that all items listed meets code and PUD intent.
Commissioner Denker amended the motion to remove item number 4 relating to the trash enclosures from the motion.
D. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Michael Dickie for a Conditional Use Permit to Facilitate the Construction of an Accessory Building with 14 foot Side Walls, Located at 11240 Park DrivePlanning Consultant Grittman provided the background information commenting on the following:• 1900 sq. ft. maximum for accessory buildings within the RE-5• The sidewall height for accessory buildings in our code allow for a 12 ft high sidewall anything over that requires a conditional use permit• This can only be used for personal use, not storage for others or a business• Doesn't create any negative impacts for surrounding property
The following comments were registered:The City received the following email from a neighbor of Mr. Dickie's:
Rogers planning commission and city council,
I am writing this letter due to the fact I am unable to attend either of the meetings because I will be out of town for work. I strongly urge you to vote to allow Mike Dickie to build the 14 foot sidewall out building. If any of you have any questions about why I feel it should be approved please contact me.
Jeremy Halek11175 Park DrRogers, Mn 55374
Michael Dickie, 11240 Park Dr.: I just want to make sure that the overhangs of my building can be 12" as my house. Building is going to match the house. I have a 12' high boat that I will be keeping in here.
There was a brief discussion by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Swanson moved, Commissioner Martin seconded the motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for an accessory building with 14 foot side wall height.
A. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Grady Kinghorn for the Rezoning of Approximately 70 acres from MU-R, Mixed Use Regional to L-I, Limited IndustryPlanning Consultant Grittman provided the background information commenting on the following:• 70+ acres is zoned and guide as MU-R, Mixed Use Regional• Recently rezoned the Clam site from MU-R to L-I also found at that time that Met Council was not going to make us amend the Land Use Plan• Need to determine if this is the intent of the Land Use Plan to change the zoning• By taking this out of the MU-R district, we are losing the ability to create the MU-R district that is required by the Comp Plan• Provided potential user for proposed site• Potential user would generate approximately 4,000 to 5,000 vehicle trips per day, possibly lower. Traffic standpoint not a lot of ways to predict the actual traffic use.• Distribution facilities are lower users, offices and retail higher users• Concern intensity of development – site may be under utilitized• If this is rezoned to L-I, there would only be 1 remaining parcel that would be zoned MU-R.• Fiscal responsibility – make sure we develop land responsibly in a way that we conserve it and has long term fiscal ramifications for the City of Rogers over the next several decades• Recommend denial of the rezoning of this property as this would be inconsistent with our Comprehensive Plan
Commissioner Martin inquired if we are hearing this tonight as strictly a request for rezoning or is it rezoning with an applicant?Planner Grittman stated that this is a general rezoning to the district, but there is also an interested party that the applicant is working with, but they are not an applicant to the rezoning request.Commissioner Martin asked that everyone take into consideration of all uses that would be allowed even with a conditional use.
The following comments were registered:Grady Kinghorn: I appreciate you hearing this tonight. I would like to make a clarification. I was on the comp plan committee along with Mr. Martin and Ms. Ende. I received all the memos, went to all the workshops and meetings. You can go to everything and still miss something every once in a while. In one of the memos, land uses included industrial. If you have talked with Dayton, they too are looking to bring in Clam type businesses across the street. I have brought a lot of businesses to the City of Rogers and I think we have done well. I would like to take a second to review some history on this. The property is on the eastern edge of Rogers. Rogers' downtown is getting a grant for redevelopment. I think that residential moving over to this side of Rogers is highly improbable. Business campus might work. I don't see a business park moving to Rogers that will have more than 6000 sq.ft. Looking at the trends, I thought that industrial was the way to go. I always thought industrial would go here. I was surprised when I found out that this was not what was wanted here either. So, we do have an interested party in the property. I am going to have Tim Elam of Scannell Properties do a presentation to you of what it could be here. Any building going on this property has to go through the site process on its own. Seems like our industrial is filling up in Rogers and here are a couple of lots that could get things going. If you want mixed use the entire Stones Throw area would be a good place for this.Commissioner Swanson asked if we were talking about the rezoning itself, not any particular tenants?Commissioner Martin asked if we are tying this to this property?Grady Kinghorn: This is just to give you an idea of what could be there.Commissioner Martin stated that we have an idea of what warehousing and distribution is.Grady Kinghorn: If you don't want to take the time, then that's fine. He is here and he is prepared to give you some information. The memo stated that there wasn't any information as to what would be going in here and I thought I would provide that to you and why we want to do this.Commissioner Swanson stated the he would like to discuss zoning only tonight, not a potential tenant.The Commission stated they would like to hear what Mr. Elam had to say in a brief presentation.Tim Elam, Scannell Properties: We are a national real estate development company that does office industrial product throughout north America. Have been working with Mr. Kinghorn a couple of times regarding a 55 ac parcel. There is 55 net acres after you take out the wetland areas. Have a commitment to this site with FedEx Corporation. It will be very similar facility as to what is going in Maple Grove, it's a 300,000 sq.ft. facility that broke ground this week. There are seven divisions to FedEx and this is the ground/home delivery division. Currently are expanding the Shakopee facility and would be happy to give anyone on the Planning Commission a tour of the facility and show you what they do. I brought a couple of exhibits to show you what we are trying to do out here. I think it is very important to the Commission not only to look at the zoning but the use of the property too. If you allow specs warehouse/distribution buildings you don't know what you are getting. This is a 305,000 sq.ft. distribution facility with a lot of green space and trees that we will try to preserve. We have donated $100,000 towards a traffic study as part of the EAW, which we look as at the first step of the process. We have asked city staff to possibly look at the extension of Rogers Drive. All over the road packages, nothing to do with the airport. This is the division where someone orders something off of the internet it goes through this facility and is delivered to the home. There is a fleet of 3 different sizes of delivery vans that we have. We would construct the road extension, put in the traffic signal if we were asked to do so. The total investment would be over $50 million dollars. A company like this will be bringing 500 jobs to the city. The fiscal impact of the development will also have indirect benefits to the City. These are all new job positions, not relocating existing positions. FedEx is very cautious of its brand and will do whatever it takes to be pro-active to the community they are coming to. We will be glad to submit an application to show us as partners on the Kinghorn application.
Tim Elam provided some exhibits – close up renderings of the building, aerial view of the area and property.
Planning Commission thanked him for his presentation.
Wayne Elam, Commercial Realty Solutions, broker for the Kinghorn Property: I just want to point out a couple of things. In reviewing the City's 2030 Comp Plan it shows approximate 350 acres of regional mixed use property in the southeast corner of the city. Directly following that is the Stones Throw development that is advertising 620 acres of regional mix use property. So you have 1000 acres of regional mixed use property available. This site (Kinghorn) would not make a good residential site. You all have your own vision of what would fit out in that area. Not a good area for high density residential or apartments. Retail property is driven by access – quick in and quick out which is not viable here. Retail migrates to other retail. How do you actually envision that whole 1000 acres being used?
The Planning Commission discussed the following:• Not sure that L-I is the appropriate rezoning for this property. Maybe B-2 would be a better fit and allows more options, with restrictions to other options• Comp Plan wrong? Look at the area, the zoning, the comp plan instead of rezoning of one lot for one user• Wait for the results of the traffic study to see if this would even work for this property• Don't want to tie the traffic study to one applicant. If it is rezoned to industrial we would still be able to talk with other users.• Without all necessary information submitted at one time as one package it is difficult for the city to approve• Less traffic that if it were zoned residential or business campus• Several hundred trucks within 1 hr.• Need to review the entire area – discussion to figure out what we actually would like here• Traffic study is the key component
Councilmember Ihli stated that City looks for good partners and we have found a lot of them. Fed Ex would be another piece of the puzzle and an asset to our community. People gravitate to areas like ours that have this much to offer. The City has to work hard to put this piece in place. If it takes rezoning of 70 acres then I say lets do it. These are projects that have to get done and it is important for the future shaping of the city. Traffic study is important and due in July.
Commissioner Ende moved, Commissioner Meadows seconded the motion to recommend tabling this item to the June Planning Commission meeting.
E. Public Hearing to Consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the Agricultural District, Sec. 125-193 and Section 125-323 Accessory Building of the City of Rogers CodePlanning Consultant Grittman provided the background information commenting on the following:• Add new language that updates the recent changes to the City's code
There were no comments registered.
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Ende seconded the motion to recommend approval of amending the Agricultural District, Section 125-193 and Section 125-323 Accessory Building of the City of Rogers code.
F. Public Hearing to Consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the B-3 District, Sec. 125-202 (e) of the City of Rogers CodePlanning Consultant Grittman provided the background information commenting on the following:• Clarify the outdoor display within the B-3 district
Commissioner Denker moved, Commissioner Martin seconded a motion to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Swanson moved, Commissioner Martin seconded the motion to recommend approval of amending the B-3 District, Sec. 125-202 (e) of the City of Rogers Code.
G. Public Hearing to Consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the RE-5 District, Sec. 125-191 (f)(8) of the City of Rogers CodePlanning Consultant Grittman provided the background information commenting on the following:• Clarify language relating to lot size
Commissioner Swanson moved, Commissioner Martin seconded a motion to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Swanson moved, Commissioner Martin seconded the motion to recommend approval of amending the RE-5 District, Sec. 125-191 (f)(8) of the City of Rogers Code.
NEW BUSINESSA. Request by Liberty Property Trust for the following:• Final Plat Approval for Liberty Industrial Park at Diamond Lake 3rd Addition• Site Plan Approval for the Construction of a 227,054 sq.ft. office/WarehouseConsultant Grittman provided the background information commenting on the following:• Replatting into a single lot• Meets the zoning ordinance standards• Site plan meets city standards
There was a short presentation provided by Rick Wieblen, Liberty Properties and Ed Farr.
Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Denker seconded a motion to recommend approval Final Plat approval of the Liberty Industrial Park and Diamond Lake 3rd Addition subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Plat shall be recorded prior to the commencement of building construction activities.2. Comments and recommendations of other City Staff, and completion of a Development Contract as necessary.
Commissioner Ende moved, Commissioner Burr seconded a motion to recommend site plan approval to allow the construction of a 227,054 square foot warehouse upon Lot 1, Block 1, Liberty Industrial Park and Diamond Lake 3rd Addition subject to the following conditions:1. The City approve the Liberty Industrial Park and Diamond Lake 3rd Addition Final Plat.2. The City shall reserve the right to require the construction of additional "proof of parking" stalls should the need (as determined by the City) arise.3. Signage upon the subject site shall meet the Ordinance requirements as specified in the Industrial General Sign Overlay District regulations.4. Grading, drainage, utilities, and related services shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Staff.5. Comments and recommendations of other city staff.
OTHER BUSINESSA. Comprehensive Plan – Update on Revisions to Plan following AnnexationTabled to the June Planning Commission meeting.
B. Adult Use Regulations – Update on Revisions to Ordinance and MapTabled to the June Planning Commission meeting.
C. Kennel Regulations DiscussionPlanning Consultant Grittman commented that sections within the code that relate to kennels, private kennels, and residential kennels have discrepancy in the terms. This would clean up these ordinances and address the conflicts in the language relating to kennels.
Consensus of the Planning Commission is to hold a public hearing at the June Planning Commission meeting.
D. Housekeeping ItemsTabled to the June Planning commission meeting.
Commissioner Swanson inquired where the city was at with the Hardee's code violations. Planning Consultant Grittman stated he has sent letters and has not heard back.
ADJOURNCommissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Meadows seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.