HomeMy WebLinkAbout040901REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Ao
Case Files #01-008 and 00-009 (Continued) Centex Home is requesting a preliminary
plat and Conditional Use Permit for 38.9 acres of vacant land located on the west side of
CSAH 83, ¼ mile south of CSAH 42, in the East ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 28,
Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The proposal is to create 54 single family lots and
to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow a cluster development of 68 townhouses.
B. Case File #01-012 A Zoning Ordinance Amendment to permit accessory structures on
Island developments.
C. Case File # 01-014 Shepherd of the Lake Church is requesting a zone change for the
property located in Section 22, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott County.
Old Business:
A. Case File #01-025 Steven and Susan Balaam are requesting a vacation of a 10 wide
drainage and utility easement for the property located at 6096 150th Street.
B. 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Program review.
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\O I pcagendaXag040901 .DOC
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Commissioner Stamson called the April 9, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:36 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke and Stamson,
Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue
McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Stamson Present
Vonhof Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the March 26, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Heating Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case Files #01-008 and 00-009 (Continued) Centex Home is requesting a
preliminary plat and Conditional Use Permit for 38.9 acres of vacant land located
on the west side of CSAH 83, ¼ mile south of CSAH 42, in the East ½ of the NW ¼
of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The proposal is to create 54
single-family lots and to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow a cluster
development of 68 townhouses.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 9, 2001, on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
Centex Homes and John O'Loughlin have filed an application to develop the property
located on the west side of CSAH 83, ¼ mile south of CSAH 42, in the East ½ of the
Northwest ¼ of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The request includes
the following:
· Approve a Conditional Use Permit for a cluster development;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes'trnn040901 .doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
The Planning Commission originally considered this request at a public hearing on March
12, 2001. The Planning Commission deferred action on this request until the City
Council acted on the proposed rezoning of the property. At the same time, the Planning
Commission and the staff identified some of the outstanding issues with the original
proposal. Among other items, these issues included the proposed parkland, the need to
extend proposed streets to adjacent properties and the 20% slopes on the site.
On April 2, 2001, the City Council approved the rezoning of this site to the R-2 District.
The applicant also submitted revised plans on March 30, 2001.
The original proposal included 122 dwelling units on 33.87 net acres, for a total density
of 3.6 units per acre. This development included 54 single-family dwellings and 68
dwelling units in 17 four-unit buildings.
The following outstanding issues pertaining to this development include the following:
1. Eliminate lots along the north side of Street "A" to provide a more usable park area.
If it is determined a park is not required at this site, the park should be platted as
common area or a part of the proposed lots.
2. Identify the usable open space for the townhouse development on the site plan and
provide the necessary calculations to determine the minimum requirements are met.
3. Eliminate Outlot A since there is not access to this outlot.
4. Revise the landscaping plan to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. An
irrigation plan for the townhouse portion of this development must also be submitted.
5. Include the necessary replacement trees on the landscaping plan.
6. Provide plans and elevations for the proposed monument sign.
7. Submit homeowner's association documents for the townhouse development.
8. Provide a name for the proposed subdivision.
9. Provide street names for the public streets.
10. Address the following comments from the Engineering Department:
(a) Provide a grading plan at a scale 1" = 50' or larger.
(b) Show OHWL for DNR wetland #158w.
(c) Provide revised storm water calculations, along with a drainage boundary map.
(d) Coordinate runoff from C.R. 83 with Scott County. The County has a NURP
pond shown on the SE comer of the property on their preliminary plans.
(e) Provide an access road to the NURP pond for maintenance purposes with a slope
_< 8%, and a width of 10'.
(f) Maximum slope of grading in maintained areas is 4:1. This affects the entire
grading plan. Redesign to 4:1 slopes or use retaining walls as necessary.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesXmn040901 .doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
(g) Check backyard swales in Block 3, eliminate/minimize where possible. Try to
eliminate backyard catch basins where possible. Several side and back yard
swales appear to be outside of drainage easements.
(h) The pads on Lots 41 & 42, Block 3 must be 1 foot higher than the E.O.F.
(i) Extend water main along the westem part of the property to the north property
line for future looping.
(j) The water main from the connection at Wilds Parkway extending through to the
north end of Street "C" should be 12" in size. The City will pay over sizing costs
through the Development Contract.
(k) Eliminate the 8" water main loop along C.R. 83.
Staff felt some of these issues could be addressed at the final plat stage. The major
design issues pertaining to the CUP must be addressed before the proposal can be
forwarded to the City Council.
Staffnoted the applicant must submit a signed waiver to the 60-day deadline for action.
If the applicant fails to submit this waiver, the Planning Commission should forward this
matter to the City Council with a recommendation for denial on the basis the plan does
not meet minimum ordinance requirements.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
Questioned the elimination of an outlot. Kansier explained the process.
Comments from the public:
Steve Ach, Centex Homes, addressed the issues in his letter to Jane Kansier dated April
9, 2001, which included the park area, useable open space, Outlot A, landscaping,
vegetation/tree replacement and the entrance sign.
Stamson:
Questioned the marketing target for single family. Ach responded late twenties,
early thirties, second-time homebuyers, young professionals, starting families.
The townhomes would be for people moving down or young professionals
looking for a maintenance-free lifestyle.
· Questioned Ach if he had a preference for park design between Plans A and B.
Ach stated Plan A was fine; it would function well. Plan B addresses more of
staff's concern regarding open space.
· Questioned if staff felt the plans would work. Kansier said this is the first time
staff has seen the revised plans and would have to talk it over with the public
works director and maintenance.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn040901 .doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
~4pril 9, 2001
Atwood:
· How much land is gained by eliminating the two lots?
acres.
McDermott responded .4
Criego:
· How does one pull out of the townhome garage? And how is that affected when
Street C is connected to the northern boundary? Ach said the townhomes were
designed so that the residents would have to back straight out into the street.
There is no opportunity to turn around and drive out.
· Okay for a cul-de-sac or dead-ends, but when it connects to another street it could
be a serious problem. Ach responded the key is how the road connects to the
north.
· How much acreage to develop vs. wetland and pond area? Kansier responded the
developable acreage is 33.78 acres.
· The requirement is 10% park area of the total. Conservatively that would be 3.8
acres.
· How large is outlot A? Ach said it was .7 acres.
· Ach responded part of their proposal would be to satisfy the dedication with land,
cash, installing some (playground) equipment in the park and building the trail.
· Concerned that area is almost landlocked with county roads and trust land. If
there is going to be a park, this is where it needs to be.
There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke: · The property seems very difficult to work with.
· Maybe they put forth their best plan but would like to hear other comments.
Criego: · Liked the layout for the single-family homes.
· There needs to be adequate parkland.
· Concerned for the pullouts for the townhomes as it relates to future developments.
There will be problems. Similar traffic problems with Eagle Creek/Priorwood
residents pulling out into the street.
Atwood: · Agreed with Criego regarding the parkland.
· Inclined to go with Plan B and remove the 2 single-family lots for more open
space.
· A 70-foot playground area is small. This issue should be addressed.
· Will go along with staff's conditions.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesknm040901 .doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
Stamson: · Agreed with fellow Commissioners on the parkland issues.
· Plan B is a better option. Liked the increased land and how it opens to the street.
· This design is the best with the slopes.
· Probably looking at a variance with the streets.
· Not as concerned as Criego with the backing out of the townhouses. Will have to
look at the street going to the north. This street will not be a shortcut. The
alternative is to put in a cul-de-sac, but no one liked that option.
· Overall the plan works well.
· Agreed with most of staff's concerns.
· Questioned the 4 to 1 slope. McDermott said the City's concern was with the
single-family area where there is common area that an association will maintain.
In a single-family area, it is more of a concern, as most people want a well-
maintained yard.
· Overall supports the project.
Kansier:
· The City needs to know if the developer has signed the 60 Day Waiver. Ach then
submitted the Waiver.
Lemke:
· Agreed it is a difficult piece of property. There is no other alternative but to have
the cul-de-sacs.
· Concern for the park and the elevation of the terraced retaining walls. Ach
explained the contours did not require retaining walls. Plan B is a good option. It
will be visually more pleasing.
Criego:
· With 122 units on small lots, it seems there will be a lot of children, which will
require more park area. 10% of the area is park dedication. There should be
more acreage. They are short with 1.9 acres. There is no other area for children
to play. Maybe some townhouses will have to come out.
· Regarding pulling out of the driveways at the townhomes - Agreed with Ach
when the property to the north is developed, make every effort to ensure there is
not a stream of traffic.
· With staff's recommendations, agreed with the development except for the park
dedication.
Stamson:
· What acreage is needed for a development this size? Ach said average lot size is
over 13,000 square feet. People may want to put a play area in their own yards.
Criego:
· Questioned the lot sizes. Nick Polta, from Pioneer Engineering responded.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn040901 .doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 200!
Atwood:
· With the wetland, the development could err on the side of going smaller on the
park because it is going to feel wide open.
· Ach said the key is to connect whatever park space to future developments to the
north and west. There are further recreational oppommities to the west.
Stamson:
· Said this is probably an adequate amount of land for a neighborhood playground,
given the lot size. These will not be fields for organized sports.
Criego:
· Why can't Outlot A be dedicated as a parkland area? Ach said the issues were
crossing the wetland and maintenance.
· Rye said it would be hard to maintain a bridge or boardwalk and then get
equipment over it to maintain the land.
· Satisfied if Outlot A would be common area.
Stamson:
· Maybe take the outlot as parkland and not develop it until the property to the
north is developed.
· Kansier said the same problem would exist if it was common property, there's no
connection. How does anyone get to it? It is a lot with no access. Would rather
see it as an outlot to provide opportunities for future development. It will not be
maintained if it is park or privately owned. It will stay natural grasses.
Atwood:
· What are the contours around the wetland? Concern for small children being
drawn to the wetland. McDermott responded Outlot A is part of a higher knoll
and did not know how usable it would be.
Criego:
· What is wrong with leaving Outlot A a common area and not maintain it? There
is nothing wrong with leaving it natural. Kansier said the City's concern as an
outlot is that there is no access to it. As a City, we would be responsible for this
or to provide access to it because it is a lot. It does not solve the problem.
· It is a compromise.
· Change it to a park. It opens up the area.
Stamson:
· It does not solve the park issue. It makes the technical definition of the park
larger but it doesn't expand the usable space for park.
Lemke:
· Does the City have a separate category for non-maintainable parks? Other than
marshland? Kansier responded the City has a list that determines how much
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn040901 .doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
.4pril 9, 2001
credit a developer gets for different types of land. When the area to the north
develops it will create some potential for trail connections.
Any issues with parkland abutting up to commercial development? Kansier said
there are no problems.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, FOR A VARIANCE ON THIS
PARCEL FOR CUL-DE-SAC STREETS A AND B AS PRESENTED BY THE
APPLICANT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL BASED ON THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OUTLINED BY THE STAFF 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUDING
OUTLOT A BECOMING PART OF THE PARK AREA, AS WELL AS PARK PLAN
B PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE PROVISIONS OUTLINED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE SAME CONDITIONS AS
APPROVED IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The earliest it would go before the City Council would be May 7, 2001.
B. Case File #01-012 A Zoning Ordinance Amendment to permit accessory
structures on Island developments.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated April 9, 2001,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
that would allow accessory structures to be located on general development lake island
lots. This amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission at the public heating on
February 12, 2001. On that date, the Planning Commission considered an appeal to the
Planning staff's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellant contended the
provisions of the ordinance allowed accessory structures on islands. The Staff, however,
concluded the ordinance prohibited accessory structures on islands.
The Commission adopted Resolution 01-04PC upholding the Planning staffs'
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that does not permit accessory structures on the
islands. However, the Commission directed staff to research the issue and prepare
language for an ordinance amendment for consideration. Currently, the ordinance on
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn040901 .doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
island development does not allow for accessory structures because accessory structures
are considered a "Use" and "Accessory Uses" are not a listed permitted use under this
ordinance section.
Hydrologist Pat Lynch with the Department of Natural Resources submitted comments in
his letter dated March 29, 2001. Lynch stated the DNR would not oppose adoption of the
proposed amendment.
Criego:
· What happens when the cabin is smaller than 300 feet? Would the proposal still
remain at 300 feet for the accessory structure? Horsman said it has not been
addressed in this amendment.
· What size lot can this be put on? Horsman said Condition #4 states the minimum
lot size on Twin Island is 15,000 square feet or two contiguous side-by-side
lakeshore lots, whichever is less. This would also apply to the accessory
structure.
· What happens with the common roadway on Twin Island? Horsman said it does
permit lots separated by a private roadway to have accessory structures.
Stamson:
· Questioned the lot sizes on Twin Island.
· The average lot may not meet the requirement, but several lots are side-by-side
and contiguous and owned by the same property owner.
Comments from the public:
John and Linda Meyer, 3313 Twin Island Circle (Prior Lake address), thanked
Commissioners and staff members for their time and suggestion for going forward with
this topic. Meyer addressed some of the above issues including access to the island.
There are a total of 64 lots. Meyers own Lots 43, 44, 45, 62 and 64. They would like to
store vehicles and equipment in a garage on the island. It will make the neighborhood
more appealing. Year-round residency is not permitted on the island. It is not secure or
pretty to have storage outside. Accessory structures will enhance the beauty of the area.
Allowing owners to store grills, lawn equipment, etc., is important. Meyer explained his
proposed garage would be 7% of the impervious surface lot area. Meyer also felt their
property is unique because their lots are interior and at the highest elevation no one will
be able to see the garage. The lots are 26 feet higher than the ordinary high water mark.
The proposed garage is 24 by 24 square feet. Meyer felt the size of the garage should not
be larger than the resident's primary structure. Suggested a detached private garage
should not exceed 25% of the lot area, whichever is less.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn040901 .doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
Atwood: · It is hard to know. Felt a 300-foot accessory structure was reasonable.
· The amendment was well done and addressed our concerns.
Stamson:
This issue was discussed at length over a couple of meetings; the general
consensus was not to promote garage-type structures on the island. Mr. Mcycr's
circumstances wcrc not unreasonable but did not square with the rest of the island
and what it would create.
· At this point, there has never bccn any accessory structures allowed on thc island,
or any gmat clamoring for them. It came about because of Meycr's issues.
Through the Commissioners' discussions it was felt it would be reasonable to
have some type of structure. The island community did not initiate thc issue.
· Largely what is before the Commission is what was discussed and agreed upon.
· Would like to see the 100-foot setback or setback from the primary structure
whichever is greater. It is not a water-oriented structure; it is simply a storage
structure.
· The rest of the language is what had been discussed in previous meetings.
Criego: · Agreed with 100 foot setback and would make that a condition. The structures
should not be visible.
· Questioned the drain field and wells. Horsman said you can't go over the drain
field.
· Rye said under the current regulations it would be difficult to meet the
requirements to put in a new drain field for sanitary systems. Maybe for a gray
water system. The County rules on that. The City does not have the information
for gray water. Depends on the amount of water coming out of the structure.
· A well has to be put in or use the common well.
· There is not a lot of room for accessory structures.
· Mr. Meyer is unique owning 5 lots on the island.
· Three Hundred feet is adequate for the average property owner.
· Should the accessory structure be measured by the size of the lot?
· Kansier said you could make the size a percentage of the lot area. It will be
restricted by the amount of impervious surface (30%). Administratively it is
easier to pick a number.
· Vehicles should not be stored on the islands. The garage is not for auto use.
· Most cabins and out buildings are hidden in the summer. In the winter they stand
out.
· Why do we want to change this ordinance? Most residents on the island have
accessory structures and it makes sense to have something there. It should be
legalized. Okay with 300 square feet for storage area.
· Ownership should have some play into the size of the building.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes'xmn040901 .doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
Lemke: · Meyer's situation is unique with 5 lots. His proposal does not seem unreasonable.
· The garage is 7% of the coverage of the lot. His size is not unreasonable.
· Which is better aesthetically, a well-designed garage or docks covered with tarps?
· What about limiting the garage to no more than a percentage of the principal
structure?
· Can something be drafted to allow Mr. Meyer to build his 500+ foot garage? No
one else has his situation.
· What about a variance request? Rye said it would be a hardship criteria issue.
Criego:
· There are other islands to consider.
might solve everyone's problem.
If the language was made a percentage, it
Stamson:
· Concern for others constructing garages. It will make a big impact on the island.
The City is introducing something to the island that was not there.
· Questioned the DNR rules. Their maximum square footage is 400. Rye explained
the slopes and setbacks. The DNR has to approve it any change.
· Questioned DNR's accessory structures on the lake compared to water-oriented
structures. Kansier said if it is not on an island, it is just like any other lot. They
are limited in impervious surface and a maximum detached structure size with
minimum ground floor area. The DNR does distinguish between island and non-
island structures. All the runoff from islands will run into the lake. Riparian lots
have at least some runoff directed away from the lake. As the ordinance is
written, the DNR and City do not allow accessory structures on islands.
Criego: · Questioned lot size and impervious surface.
· Kansicr explained thc gray water conditions and setbacks. Standards have to bc
met.
· Basically it is only residents with larger lots who can build accessory structures.
· Surprised there arc not more island owners present to discuss this matter.
Lemke:
· This issue should be revisited and let the DNR comment on this. They seemed
happy with structures up to 400 feet.
Stamson:
· That is DNR's existing rule. They do not allow general accessory structures. The
City has a more restricted standard than DNR's water-oriented structures so they
are okay with it. Now all of a sudden if we expand it to something they don't
allow at all, it will be a different scenario.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn040901 .doc 10
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
Atwood:
· Questioned staff mentioning it would be easier administratively with a number.
Kansier explained when someone calls and asks what kind of accessory structure
they can have on an island lot, staff can say a maximum of 300 square feet. If it's
a percentage then we say how big is this lot? Percentages are harder to deal with.
But it is workable.
· Horsman said there is limited island development. Percentages would probably
work.
Rye said if there is going to be a sliding scale is should be based on the primary
structure, not the size of the lot.
Stamson: · We are discussing an island with a platted road that is rarely used. There have
been no previous requests for this type of building. Now it's going from one
extreme to another based on one request.
· We are introducing or promoting vehicles where there never has been traffic.
· Large structures are not needed on the island.
· The use is not appropriate for the islands.
· There has only been one request.
Lemke:
· Meyer's request does not seem unreasonable given the size of the lot.
Stamson:
· Not arguing the structure, arguing the use. It is not appropriate on an island. It is
an awful big step to take without other input other than one request for it.
The Commissioners agreed on the 100-foot setback from the ordinary water line.
The property owners on Twin Island were notified of the ordinance. It was not specific
to size of accessory structures.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER
DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES NOT TO EXCEED THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SIZE AND IN NO
CASE EXCEED 576 SQUARE FEET; A 100 FOOT SETBACK NOT CLOSER THAN
THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER ISLAND
REQUIREMENTS.
Criego:
· We are solving problems for multiple islanders not just one.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Atwood and Lemke, nay by Stamson. MOTION
CARRIED.
Atwood requested staff to notify the island residents.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn040901 .doc 11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
Criego:
· Encourage island residents to come forward and give the Commission input.
C. Case File # 01-014 Shepherd of the Lake Church is requesting a zone
change for the property located in Section 22, Township 115 North, Range 22 West,
Scott County.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 9, 2001, on
file in the office of the City Planner.
Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church has filed an application for a zone change on the
property located north of CSAH 42 and east and west of McKenna Road, about 1/8 mile
west of CSAH 21. The proposal is to rezone the property from the A (Agricultural)
district to the R-4 (High Density Residential) District.
Staff felt the proposed R-4 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designation. The R-4 district allows residential development with densities up to 30 units
per acre. In this case, the applicant is proposing to develop the entire site as a faith based
community, consisting of religious worship, senior housing, community recreation and
social space, education, daycare and a conference center. The first phase of this
development will consist of a church building. There is no timeline for the development
of future phases.
Lemke:
· Question on extension of services.
developer's contract.
Kansier explained the process and the
Comments from the public:
Steve Erickson, BWBR Architects, said the first issue was to have the Comprehensive
Plan amended. The next process is that the rezoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and uses. The applicant's estimation is that the process is moving
along at the appropriate pace. The only other issue is the schedule for water extension on
the site. In the event, the construction on County Road 42 does not coincide with the
Church's schedule of the construction, they would accelerate their plan and enter into a
developer's agreement with the City. They will continue ahead with plans for the
property but have no definitive schedule for breaking ground.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· The request is valid and should be rezoned.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn040901 .doc 1 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
Criego:
· Agreed. The Comprehensive Plan was changed last year and this is step two of
the process.
Atwood
Concurred.
Stamson:
· This was discussed at length at the time the Comprehensive Plan was changed. It
is moving along in the process.
· This proposal will be an asset to the community.
· Supported request.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND A ZONE
CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURE TO HIGH DENSITY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on May 7.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #01-025 Steven and Susan Balaam are requesting a vacation of a
10 wide drainage and utility easement for the property located at 6096 150th Street.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 9, 2001, on
file in the office of the City Planner.
Steven and Susan Balaam are requesting the vacation of a 10' wide drainage and utility
easement located on the east side of the property at 6096 150th Street. This easement was
dedicated to the City in 1994 when the three lots, described as Lots 10, 11 and 12,
Eastwood, were combined into two new buildable lots. A new house was built on the
west lot in 1994; there has been no construction on the east lot. Mr. and Ms. Balaam own
both lots at this time and have requested the two lots be combined into a single lot.
If the two lots are combined, there is no need for the existing easement. The Planning
staff therefore recommended approval of this request subject to the condition that the
resolution vacating this easement will not be recorded until the combination of the lots is
approved and recorded.
Criego:
· Questioned the minimum lot frontage. Kansier explained the minimums and
combination for lots.
L :\01 files\01 pl ancomm\01 pcminutes\mn040901 .doc 13
Planning Commission Meeting
~4pril 9, 2001
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson: · Agreed with staff. The public goal served here is that it allows someone to
enhance their property.
· No problem vacating the easement and recommend approval to City Council.
Criego: · We would not normally request an easement? Kansicr explained casements
surrounding lots. Ordinance requires easements around all new lots.
· McDermott responded on the ordinance requirements.
· It will enhance the area.
· Full agreement with staff's recommendation.
Lemke:
· Agreed with Criego. It is nice to see people combining lots.
Atwood:
· Concurred.
MOTION BY CRIEGO; SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APROVE THE VACATION OF EASEMENT AS PRESENTED IN THE
STAFF REPORT.
Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Program review.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated April 9, 2001, on file in
the office of the City Planner.
Rye gave a brief overview of the draft proposed 2002-2006 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP), noting the redevelopment of downtown.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· We need to keep emphasis on redeveloping the downtown area. Keep money in
the CIP each year. It doesn't have to be specifically identified other than the fact
the money is for downtown. This is extremely important. There should be an
actual number.
· Regarding trails - As the senior development gets developed along Five Hawks,
trails will be developed by the developer and school, is there additional money for
the rest of the project? Rye said the developer is responsible for the trail
connection from Five Hawks through the site. It should all be covered by the
developer.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn040901 .doc 14
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
Stamson: · Agreed with Criego on the downtown redevelopment.
· Should include landscaping and lighting for the year 2002 redevelopment.
· There should also be funds earmarked for Main Avenue. It could be for parking
lots, acquisition of land or whatever comes up. There should be something in the
budget.
Criego:
· There are multiple purposes for funds. It will depend on the development and
what phase the City is in.
Atwood:
· Questioned Stamson's concern for Main Avenue's accessories for 2002.
· Stamson felt lighting and benches should be included with the reconstruction of
Main Street. The landscaping plan should be done with the reconstruction as
opposed to doing the street now and trying to go back later to do the landscaping.
· McDermott said they have been directed to send out requests for proposals to do
the redesigning. The intention is to tie in any street lighting and landscaping at
the same time.
Stamson:
· The impression around town will be that redevelopment will never get done if it is
not developed with the Main Avenue project.
Criego:
· Downtown should be Dakota/Main/Colorado down to County Road 21.
· There should be a budget and leave it to the City Council and EDA to decide how
to best use the funds when the opportunity arises.
· Put money in a budget every year and label it "Prior Lake Downtown
Redevelopment". It has to be developed, but the Commission does not know
what the phasing will be.
Stamson:
· Both should be done. Downtown needs to be reconstructed and there should be a
budget for expanding the streets as Dakota and Colorado develop. Money should
also be in the downtown budget for long-term projects.
Lemke:
· It would be nice to have downtown redevelopment funds listed for every year.
Criego:
· Prior Lake is big on trails. Don't see a lot of trails. Rye said there are 3 trail
projects in 2002.
· McDermott said they moved some of this year's proposals. They will finish this
year. The developer puts in most of the trails.
L:\01 files\01plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn040901 .doc 1 5
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
Lemke: · Put more money in shoreline stabilization.
· McDermott said the City was only stabilizing the public shoreline.
Stamson:
Questioned the ring road. McDermott said if it's not in next year it is because the City is
trying to get part of it done this year. It is in 2004 with the Five Hawk/County Road 23
intersection phase.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Vaughn will be out of town for the next meeting and asked that the Island Ordinance be
continued to first May meeting. The Commissioners agreed.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Donald Rye
Planning Director
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:k01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn040901 .doc 16