Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda and Draft Minutes 4646 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2008 City Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Consent Agenda: 5. Public Hearings: A. EP08-123 (Continued) Jeff Wilson is requesting a variance from the minimum bluff setback for the property located at 14970 Pixie Point Circle NE. B. Consider amendments to Sectionll07 of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: LI08 FILESI08 PLANNING COMMISSIONl08 PC AGENDAS\AG062308.~. f . 1 k WWW.ClLyOpnorae.com Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 1. Call to Order: Chairman Lemke called the May 27,2008, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Fleming, Lemke, Perez and Ringstad, Community Development/Natural Resource Director Danette Walthers-Moore, Planner Jeff Matzke, Public Works Director Steve Albrecht, Water Resources Engineer Ross Bintner and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Fleming Lemke Perez Ringstad Present Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the May 12, 2008, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Lemke read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. EP08-115 Scott County is requesting for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for additional height on a proposed 800 MHz antenna to be placed on the water tower located at 4741 Tower Street. Danette Walthers-Moore, Community Development and Natural Resources Director presented the staff report dated May 27th 2008, on file in the office ofthe City Community Development and Natural Resources Department. Scott County has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow additional height on proposed 800 Megahertz (MHz) antennas to be placed on the water tower located at 4741 Tower Street. The property is located within the R-4 (High Density Residential) Zoning District. Antennas are a permitted use in all Zoning Districts. According to Section 1110.503 of the City Code, subject to approval of a CUP, an antenna height may exceed 25 feet above the height of the structure. The applicant is requesting the ability to erect a total of four L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN052708.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2008 antennas - three stick (14'9") antennas and one microwave antenna. The Prior Lake Fire Department is also adding a paging system antenna (20'5"). The maximum height for any of the antennas will be 20 feet 5 inches above the height of the water tower. The applicant has indicated the additional 5.4 feet are necessary to accommodate the essential antenna components for adequate reception. According to the Scott County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, in 2002, a metro-wide radio system was established connecting all public safety, public works and transit departments to allow "interoperability" as well as meet new federal requirements. The Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) and Department of Transportation (MnDOT) initiated the system build-out and installed two radio sites on existing towers in Scott County. The City of Prior Lake has recently received updated radios compatible for 800 MHz to be utilized by the Fire and Police Departments as well as Public Works staff. The applicant has provided plans reflecting the need for a 360 square foot (12x30) equipment building. The building request is consistent with other requests made by cellular and tower companies currently located on the water tower site. The applicant proposes a brick fayade on the equipment building, as has been required for other recent equipment buildings constructed in the City. The plans will need to be modified to add landscaping around the base ofthe structure to provide adequate screening. The proposed heights ofthe antennas are allowed in the district, with approval of a CUP. In order to meet the above-listed criteria, the City Staff recommended the following conditions: 1. The applicant must receive a building permit prior to any construction on the site. 2. The applicant shall revise the plans to incorporate landscaping around the base of the equipment building to provide enhanced screening. 3. Once the City's consultant completes the review of the proposed engineering plans, the applicant shall make any necessary corrections to the plan. Questions from the Commissioners: Billington questioned if there were any comments from the adjoining residents. W althers- Moore responded there were a few calls inquiring what the process would be, however there were no concerns noted. Comments from the Public: Rob Boe, 15606 Skyline Avenue, representing Scott County, explained the on-going metro-wide public safety and public services' demands for an 800 MHz radio system. This will increase the needed radio range and common channels for all metro police, public services and fire. It will also help Scott County cities meet the new Federal Communication Regulations. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN052708.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2008 Billington asked if there would be further additions or modifications. Boe briefly explained the exterior upgrade. Jeff Nelson, PFC Alliance, of Minneapolis, addressed the question of expansion - a possible site could be south in the Le Sueur area around County Road 19 and Highway 169. Prior Lake's ground shelter equipment site should hold for a dozen or more years. Lemke asked if there would be any anticipation of the landscape requirements for the shelter. Nelson responded there are no concerns. The custom is to take direction from the planning officials. There were no comments from the public and the hearing closed at 6:12 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . By approving the CUP we are greatly enhancing the public service for residents. . The general criteria have been met. . I cannot think of a better spot for antennas than on top of a water tower. The antennas will be as hidden as anything. . Support. Billington: . Support staff s recommendation to approve. Perez: . This is needed and will have no adverse impacts. It meets the CUP criteria. . Support. Fleming: . Support the Resolution. Lemke: . Agree with staffs analysis and think it will be a tremendous upgrade for public safety. . Support. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW 2004 FOOT ANTENNAS ON THE WATER TOWER LOCATED AT 4741 TOWER STREET. (RESOLUTION 08-06PC) Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. EP08-123 Jeff Wilson is requesting a variance from the minimum bluff setback for the property located at 14970 Pixie Point Circle NE. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN052708.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2008 The apflicant has requested this request be removed from the agenda and moved to the June 91 meeting to complete revisions to his home plans. There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECOND BY PEREZ, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE JUNE 9TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. Presentation by Public Works Director Steve Albrecht regarding intersection modifications for Arcadia Avenue/County Road 21/Main Avenue and County Road 21/Highway 13. Albrecht gave an overview ofthe downtown intersection projects and presented the preliminary layouts and landscape plans. Albrecht also explained the long range planning with the State and County and funding. The following are questions and comments from the Commissioners: Proposed design for Arcadia and Main Avenues and County Road 12/Eagle Creek Avenue: Fleming: . To staff - Do you have any time coordination with the City Council's downtown redevelopment? Albrecht said staff is aware of the project with timing and funding. The City Council has tentatively adopted a 10 year transportation plan and has identified both of these projects. The Council has narrowed down the Arcadia proj ect to 2011, mainly because of funding. The County believes they can free up funds around that time. Another significant project for downtown that is not part ofthis study is the downtown Main Avenue project where we implement streetscaping. Staff would like to wait and see what the redevelopment project yields. The developers are anxious to see what kind of traffic patterns will be downtown so they can get a good feeling for the area. The redevelopment will happen some time after 2011. Perez: . Questioned the monument and identification signage for downtown. Albrecht responded staff is looking at a "family" of signage which will include some of the lesser intersections (Main, Dakota, and Pleasant etc) will have signage. Even though they are not full entrances, they are significant for getting people in certain directions. As part of the study we are looking at a total signage package. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN052708.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2008 . Regarding Arcadia - is there any concerns for stacking? Albrecht said they would be adding 2 lanes. Also, most likely, Colorado (Street) will have a stop condition for east-west traffic which will allow the "in" traffic to flow into downtown. Staff believes in the near future there shouldn't be a problem with stacking with the 3 lanes. They will have to look at the southern extensions to allow for additional stacking on Pleasant (Avenue). . Questioned stacking on the Pleasant/Highway 13 access. Albrecht explained a left full- length blocked turn lane. The length has not been decided at this time. The stacking will be determined by the peak traffic times. Ringstad: . Follow up on Commissioner Perez' question on the left-in only access on Pleasant. As far a time table - will that be done in the 2011 area with the Arcadia improvements? Albrecht stated the City Council dictated it would be done before Main Avenue closed, however the Highway 13 improvement is a bigger project. A study will be done next winter to see what the future of Main Avenue will hold. It also involves improvement to Highway 13. We can't do anything to Main without involving Highway 13. The Pleasant Street improvements will be tied to the redevelopment. We would build this before any modifications to the Main access so there would be a way to reroute traffic. The State engineers agree this is an appropriate way to handle it. There can be segmented projects from a timing standpoint. Right now we're looking at 2016 or 2017 for the Main project. . Referring to the 35W bridge accident - we have all read and have seen different articles regarding MnDOT's managing styles and potential issues with that - Do we know ifMnDOT has committed to this project? Over the years we (the Commissioners) have heard that Highway 13 was not built to handle the existing amount of traffic. That being a problem, do we know that MnDOT has signed off officially on this project or is it still something of a moving target? Albrecht said MnDOT has verified they will allow this project. That doesn't mean the Transportation Commissioner can't say "We're not going to do it." At this point, we have as much verification from the State that our project is something they will allow. Keep in mind they are a very minor financial partner in this project. This project is mostly a City and County funding project. The most money we anticipate seeing from MnDOT is in the neighborhood of $500,000. That is why we have to stretch out the time period to save up some money to do this. That being the case, the State is much less apt to play with our plans as they do not have a substantial stake in the project. . Does the $500,000 include everything from participation on the Pleasant Street left-turn only to the Highway 13/Main Avenue? Assuming it is not earmarked for anyone particular portion of the improvement - It would be a general contribution? Albrecht responded it would be a cooperative agreement generated for access improvement along Highway 13. It would be a similar agreement to the Highway 13/County Road 12 improvements. The City was allowed to put funds toward any part of Highway 13. This would be the same kind of funding. The State is probably less than 1/10th ofthe funding source. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN052708.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2008 Perez: . Regarding the intersection of County Road 21 and Arcadia - are there any concerns for pedestrian traffic? Albrecht responded their biggest concern is getting people across 6 lanes of traffic. The City is currently working with the County to widen the median to provide an area of safety. With all the elderly and children in the area the staffwants to make this as safe as possible. Underpasses and overpasses are going to be limited. Hopefully we can provide medians so residents can at least stop ifthey don't feel safe crossing the other 3 lanes of traffic. The City would add crosswalk buttons for safety. Main Avenue would be an even bigger animal than Arcadia. No matter what we do, we have to have a means of crossing because people are going to try and get across anyway. . Is there an ideal intersection like this? Is there a comparable situation? Albrecht said Las Vegas has several street situations where you have to cross 4 or 5 lanes of traffic. They have a 10 foot wide median where one can wait until you get another opportunity to cross. There are not a lot of situations like Prior Lake. Other communities can reroute traffic around the downtown, not through it. We can't change County Road 21. Billington: . Certainly in principle this looks like a well designed plan, just a question oftime and money. What is the County's funding and involvement? Albrecht said the County's involvement in the Arcadia project is probably less than $1,000,000. It will be a similar arrangement to what we did at the Fish Point intersection. Prior Lake is competing with other cities for funding. By the County seeing us put forth a little bit more money than normal, we can leverage more money and work with them. I would guess their commitment would be $750,000 to $1,000,000. Staff does not think we can wait, we need to get some ofthese projects in place by 2016 or so. Lemke: . From my perspective this is about as best as we can hope for considering the constraints you have to work with. Proposed Main/Ridgemont Avenues and Highway 13: Perez: . Do you see any issues with the north/south traffic on Main? Albrecht responded they don't at this time. There is a limited amount of traffic (up Ridgemont) and not that significant. It is probably not the ideal situation and staffwill be monitoring the traffic. Albrecht added the staff will be starting the feasibility study and will keep the Commissioners updated. The City is getting more aggressive in our own destiny related transportation projects. We will bring these through the Planning Commission as we move forward. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN052708.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2008 Lemke questioned if staff took into account the recent tax gas increase - will that affect any of these projects? Albrecht responded the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) does take that into account. The City of Prior Lake's actual contribution amount starts out in the neighborhood of$10,000 to $15,000 per year. Over our 10 year transportation plan that does amount to a couple of Million Dollars. It does start out slow, we did take that into account as we looked at funding for our State aid. The City usually gets about $400,000 from the State for construction projects like this. That amount will grow upwards of $500,000 over that period oftime. The City should see in the neighborhood of 1.8 Million Dollars with the gas tax. There are a lot of wild cards in that equation. B. Impervious surface discussions. Planner Jeff Matzke presented the staffreport dated May 27,2008, on file in the office of the Community Development and Natural Resource Department. As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update project City Staffhas been directed by City Council to review the current impervious surface requirements and research possible mitigation alternatives. The Lake Advisory has also reviewed and forwarded on their comments to staff. The current definition of impervious surface is as follows: Impervious Surface. The portion of the buildable parcel which has a covering which does not permit water to percolate into the natural soil. Impervious surface shall include, but not be limited to, all driveways and parking areas, whether paved or not, sidewalks greater than 3 feet in width, patios, tennis and basketball courts, swimming pools, covered decks and other structures. Decks open to the sky and having open joints of at least 1/4 inch, areas beneath overhangs less than 2 feet in width, and sidewalks 3 feet in width or less shall be exempted from the calculation of impervious surface. The impervious surface of a lot shall be documented by a certificate of survey unless exempted from this requirement by the Zoning Administrator. Matzke pointed out the Department of Natural Resource impervious surface regulation is 25%. They constantly remind us that we are above many in the State and giving a variance is certainly above and beyond their regulations. In their mind, Prior Lake is already giving residents a 5% variance. Ross Bintner, Water Resource Engineer, presented his report which included the Lake Advisory comments and concerns. The following are some of his comments from the report: . The"shoreland zone" and its impervious cover limitation are a product ofthe State Rules and Statutes. Minnesota Rules set a limit of 25% maximum impervious on Shoreland zone lots (properties within a 1,000 foot radius of the lake). The impervious limit was one of many mechanisms put into place as a part of statewide rules to mitigate urbanization's detrimental affect on water quality. The L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN052708.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2008 impervious limit was also enacted to provide enhanced wildlife habitat and a natural visual appearance through increased tree canopy and vegetative cover, however these reasons will not be explored in this memorandum. . The urbanization of a watershed leads to increased impervious surfaces. A more impervious watershed causes more direct nutrient transfer, higher peak runoff rates and larger runoff volumes. This increased pollutant load and connectivity of the watershed is difficult to manage in the Shoreland zone, due to the proximity of the lake. . As impervious surfaces increase, groundwater recharge, evaporation and transpiration decrease and runoff increases. The use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is common in water resource management, as engineers attempt to design a sustainable series of treatment devices and practices that route and treat stormwater to mimic the hydrology of an area before development. . All BMPs require monitoring and maintenance to continue functioning and providing a consistent level of service. While all BMPs provide public and private benefit, prevent public degradation of water, not all are publicly maintained. . Bintner went on to explain the technical exploration ofBMP's purpose, benefit, maintenance and designs as well as a potential credit system. . The addition of impervious causes the following: 1) Increased runoffvolumes. 2) Increased runoff rates. 3) Increased pollutant loads. > Phosphorus (organic matter) > Turbidity (suspended sediment) > Heavy metals (pavement and roof) > Salts and household chemicals > Hydrocarbons (cars) 4) Decreased soil stability. 5) Decreased Groundwater Recharge. Because benefits provided by the homeowner-installed and maintained BMPs would need to be sustainable indefinitely, there would need to be a program to ensure monitoring and maintenance was taking place at regular intervals. The recommended protocol has 3 parts: Homeowner Agreements: A legally enforceable tool will be required such that the City can compel current and future owners ofBMPs to maintain all BMPs to an agreed upon level of service. The agreement must be easily enforceable allowing the City to enter onto private property and must be a part of the property Deed so that future buyers are bound to the requirements as well. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN052708.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2008 Design Review and Construction Verification: The design and construction must be approved and witnessed by City Staffto ensure proper methods are used and BMPs will function as planned. The agreement will need to spell out liability issues, such that a failed BMP that causes damage to property or financial hardship does not expose the City to liability since Staffwill review and approve design and construction. Program Manager: To maintain the promised level of service, City Staff must regularly inspect and test BMP function. A program manager will be needed to coordinate program documentation, record keeping, notification correspondence, and other duties. The startup costs of creating a sustainable monitoring and maintenance protocol would be significant, due to the technical and legal nature of the agreement and BMPs. This protocol only puts a basic outline to the program and more thought is needed if a credit system is offered. Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: . This looks like staff would be a lot busier with this package. . Questioned soil conditions for the homeowner - If someone has highly porous soil conditions which would absorb an amount of precipitation perhaps greater than someone else, how is that taken into account for credit? The water would be absorbed and not drained off as impervious surface. Bintner responded there is a credit built in with the design would take care of that on nice sandy soil. When the DNR wrote their rules they knew all shorelines are different with a wide variety of soil types. They knew there would be more run off from the clay and more pollutants coming from the silty erosive soils. The 30% is already an artificial baseline as it is. They have said a one acre lot can have this much impervious surface, we know its causing a detriment to the lake however it's allowable because people have a right to use their property. But that's where they drew a line. Ringstad: . Looks like a lot of work has gone into this report. I have a couple of broad comments. . The DNR is already granting the City of Prior Lake 5% impervious surface above other lake communities - hearing and looking at other issues you've talked about and our (the Commissioner's) background - Bintner brought up 3 excellent points in his summary of recommendations. Looking at the program manager section, the City staff would regularly inspect and test properties - it would be a cost the City currently does not budget for in regulating the homeowner's granted impervious surface. . I also see potential for increases of lot variance requests for impervious surface, which we have on the many small nonconforming lots. It would make the problem even bigger. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN052708.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2008 . I would be very cautious and look at this real seriously - I think the DNR allowed Prior Lake the 30% impervious surface is because we have a 75 foot setback compared to other cities with a 50 foot setback. Again, that is aesthetics. We have seen many variance requests who want to creep a little closer to the lake. . We have been consistent with our rulings. . Very interesting information - glad Ross came tonight. It was a good report. . From my perspective I would be very very cautious... Perez: . Is there any reason sidewalks are exempt from the impervious surface? Matzke responded our ordinance has been that way for some time. Prior Lake is one of the very few communities, if any, that have that type of stipulation. Many communities count all hard surfaces including areas less than 3 feet in width. Staff would like you (Commissioners) to consider this issue with the upcoming zoning review discussions. . Question for Ross on the 25% maximum - Do you know what the limits were prior to '89? Bintner responded he was not sure before that date but the State did impose the 25% at that time as the maximum. The reason the City got to do a little more is because they let us exercise a portion of the State Statute called "Implementing Flexibility". At that time we had a conversation with the DNR about other mitigating factors that the City could be put in place that would allow us that extra 5%. . Has this gone through the DNR's review? Bintner responded the DNR has not seen this report. . How do the impervious pavers work in the winter with shoveling? Bintner responded it is a rougher surface for shoveling but as far as how they function - they have an area underneath that is open graded aggregate, larger stones that actually produce a better melting surface. The water will actually melt because of the air that is allowed to flow. . Agree with Commissioner Ringstad - this is an added cost for city staff and if we were to go forward I would put the entire burden on the property owner. They get all the benefit and should bear the brunt ofthe expense. . Ross did a good job presenting the checks and balances. . Prior Lake is a 5% above the rest ofthe State and should leave it. . I agree with Commissioner Ringstad - I would be leery. Fleming: . Do we have a sense of how many cities are at 30%? Matzke said Prior Lake is one of a few above 25%. . Is it fair to surmise some ofthem might not be implementing some of the BMP? Matzke responded that would probably be correct. Most ofthe other lake communities, Minnetonka as one of them, are implementing a buffer zone or other mitigation alternatives similar to BMPs. Whether it was a mitigation to change their impervious surface, I don't believe that was the case. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN052708.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2008 . For many of the same reasons mentioned, I really think the scope ofthis has a level and a degree of constant complexity, I'm not sure we are ready or should we manage if we had the capacity to do so. Lemke: . Questioned the 3' sidewalk exemption - W althers- Moore responded in one of the most recent zoning ordinance reviews by the Planning Commission, a reduction was one of the recommendations made. Originally that was meant for a smaller 3' sidewalk. It has gotten to the point now where staff sees much longer sidewalks expanding into patios. It does not function as a 3' sidewalk. . Perez questioned if the length (of the sidewalk) should be limited. Walthers- Moore replied that was a good consideration and should be looked into. . Soils are also a concern - are we trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist? I think we should approach this very carefully. What if a house goes into foreclosure, who is going to maintain these practices? There may be other homes not on the lake; we may not have any legal recourse. . I think we are moving in the wrong direction. We should be limiting impervious surface to 25% and mitigate to 30% if mitigation is provided. . At this point in time with current technology as explained by our water resource engineer, we are not comfortable certain mitigations will solve the problems on all properties. That's a flexibility cities and ordinances, rules and regulations don't always have. Perez: . What is Ross's/staff's recommendation? Bintner stated "BMPs if designed right and maintained correctly would be effective, but to build and maintain on a private home with a thousand different contacts (BMPs) would be overwhelming. It could be developed but would need additional staff and would be a political and tricky undertaking at every step. It would be a significant cost to the City." Billington: . The Lake Advisory would be in favor of increasing the impervious surface for smaller lake lots. Bintner thought that came out of a discussion because a number of the small lake lots have already been grandfathered in to the 30% impervious surface. The Lake Advisory wanted to promote the BMPs but did not want it as "fix" approach, but rather an incentive. The Commissioners thanked staff for their reports. This will go before the City Council on June 16th. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Planning Commission Bylaws: L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN052708.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 27,2008 Community DevelopmentlNatural Resource Director Walthers-Moore indicated Jane Kansier, Building and Transportation Services Director is working on revising the City's Advisory Bylaws and asked the Commissioners to review the Planning Commission Bylaws. Walthers-Moore explained this is the annual By-Law update. Fleming - page 4, second line, - suggest inserting "citizens" or "residents". Billington - does the city attorney review the by-laws? Walthers-Moore responded she does. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MN052708.doc 12