Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0111992. 3. 4. 5. 6. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1999 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: Old Business: New Business: A. Discuss County Road 42 study and land use in the corridor. Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: rL:L99FILI3~99PI-~CO]k~I~PC31,GI~lqDA~,~G01119~9.DOC 16200 ~agJe ~reeK ave. ~.~., rnor LaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1999 1. Call to Order: The January 11, 1999, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Absent* Kuykendall Absent Criego Present Cramer Present Stamson Present *Commissioner Vonhof arrived at 6:34 p.m. 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the December 15, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Public Hearings: None 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: Planning Director Don Rye gave a short presentation on the work schedule for the Comprehensive Plan update. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: Questioned if the floating MUSA had been around for a long time. Rye responded there was a provision for it in the Council's Community Planning Handbook describing the procedure. Staff had talked to some of Met Council's representatives about the policy, guidelines and concerns. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcminkmn011199.doc A. Discuss County Road 42 study and land use in the corridor. Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated January 11, 1999 on file in the office of the City Planner. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · Questioned the report's comments on average speeds between the cities (Rosemount, Apple Valley, Bumsville, Savage, Prior Lake, Shakopee) surrounding the County Road 42 corridor. Some of the cities have reduced the speed limit. Is Prior Lake forced to comply with a higher speed limit? Rye responded if one accepts the objectives of setting the standards of the corridor, it makes sense. The City would have to look at the local implications of buying into that. That is a concern. It will dictates what development will happen. · Metropolitan Council is asking Prior Lake to plan for something they were unable to plan for 20 years ago. We as a community should not be penalized for something that they misplanned 20 years ago. Rye said the Council has considered a southerly route, something south and parallel to County Road 42. They are encouraging the municipalities to develop the supporting local street system that parallels County Road 42 to handle the short trips. Vonhof: · Explained the County Road 46 corridor plan. · Pointed out the proposed route north of County Road 42. Rye commented on the County's view of the proposal. Cramer: · Disturbed by the report's proposal to create some legislative committee or corridor commission to essentially dictate development for County Road 42. Concern for Prior Lake's commercial area for tax base. Rye responded the language was that they would coordinate the development in the corridor, plan for road improvements and generate funding. One can read a whole lot into that language. It could be joint powers effort. · Rye had some of the same concerns indicating basically this is a recommendation. · Rye also explained Metropolitan Council procedures for approving Comprehensive Plans. · Rye went on to say the County is suppose to create a model land use access ordinance to be implemented by the City. Not clear what the model land use plan would be. Metropolitan Council's concern is to maintain speed and limit access and growth. The County can still control access. Prior Lake area on County Road 42 is restricted with ponds and The Wilds. Prior Lake's biggest concern is working out some sort of circulation pattern around the intersections. · Concern for the development because of the unrestricted growth earlier on, that somehow Prior Lake will have the opportunity taken away from it to develop a commercial tax base on the most viable corridor within the City. Prior Lake has to l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin~xtO 11199.doc maintain its sovereignty being able to say how we want to develop the City to maintain a diverse tax base. Stamson: Agreed with Cramer. The scary thing about the legislative commission is that it is an easy way for other cities to voice their problems and solutions on Prior Lake. They can live with their 20 mph and just say we can fix it out in Prior Lake and use the average. · Concem for Prior Lake giving up too much authority. · Otherwise the report is fairly sound. Cramer: · Referenced Table 6.4 "PM Peak Hour Intersection Level-of-Service". How do they intend to maintain 50 mph average past County Road 21, when they have intersections such as County Roads 83 and 21 graded like "F" on the scale? Rye explained the idea of level of service. Does County Roads 21 and 42 intersection indicate a build through to the bypass? Our City Council/Planning Commission workshops discussed County Road 21 being considered a major thoroughfare through Prior Lake. Rye said the County shows that in their long term plan. · Is the goal to maintain an average speed of 40 mph while saying Prior Lake has to maintain 50 mph at your end? The report seems to be controlling both ends of County Road 42. This might be a pipe dream. · Rye did not disagree but stated there will have to be some kind of improvements along County Road 42. · This report is not addressing the problems. Rye said the City Council is going to be discussing this at an upcoming workshop. Staff will forward on the Commissioners comments for discussion. Criego: · Why should Prior Lake include any of the report items in the Comprehensive Plan when basically none of the items have been basically approved by the legislative bodies? Rye responded the Council will come to some conclusion relatively soon. This plan is not cast in stone. There are probably other communities who would agree with Prior Lake. This is part of the metropolitan system as well as a local street running through the north part of town. · Is it the intent of City Council to come up with their own response? Rye said this group is looking for responses from the communities sometime by the middle of February. · Effectively, this is in our Comprehensive Plan. Vonhof: · Agreed with all comments by the Commissioners. · Questioned some of the assumptions by the study. It gets down to problem definition. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin~mn011199.doc · Traffic patterns are changing. Look what has happened on 42 over the last 20 years. A lot of the stores and traffic generators are located near County Road 5, Cedar Avenue and Judicial Road are now having competition fxom build-out traffic generators. There is a dispersion of traffic. · While this report looked at past experience it does not accurately predict future happenings or what Prior Lake feels will happen. · Mystic Lake Casino is a major impact on County Road 42 and Highway 13. What will happen when people realize you can get to the Casino off 35 and 185th Street? · The growth in the south metro area is not accurately predicted. Scott County is growing more rapidly than Dakota County. · This study is basically flawed in its assumptions, however it does have some good suggestions. · From a traffic engineering point of view, it may be based on sound principles, but I don't know how well it will work in the real world. · There are comments in this study that they know will probably never happen, however it is still part of the plan. · Prior Lake will have to live with the half mile access spacing that already exists fzom the County Roads. It is in our Comprehensive Plan. · Another trend is the counties are trying exercise more control in local planning issues. We don't need another layer ofgovemment. Land use along a roadway should remain with the local body. Rye pointed out there would be four committees formed under these recommendations. The process is fine but there is a limit. Vonhof: · What is the end goal? It is one thing to say "Let's maintain an average speed" but what are you trying to do with the existing roadway? I have problems when one takes a pure traffic engineering approach. · Rye commented County Road 42 is on the National Highway System and is consequently eligible for certain types of Federal funding that normally wouldn't be available. The second part of the study includes County Roads 21 and 42 in the Land Use Plan. Rye explained the area land uses and Kansier explained the major land designations. Cramer suggested using topos for the discussions. Rye said the two things that need to be resolved is the open space property near Pike Lake Trail north of County Road 42 and the quarter section between Pike Lake Trail, County Roads 21 and 42. When the City started their Plan update, a consultant did a market analysis for commercial and industrial land in the community. His report developed estimates of commercial and industrial land use acreages likely to be developed by 2010. The current Plan designates significantly more land for these 1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin'umn011199.doc purposes than the estimated demand in the consultant's report. Shakopee has huge expanses of industrial land to develop, rail access and freeway access. So does Savage. Prior Lake will be different. Prior Lake will tend to have smaller buildings, specialized businesses and uses that do not rely on heavy truck or railroad access. Probably more office warehousing and offices. Criego: · It seems a small business park with offices near a pond would work. Vonhof: · The natural amenities would have multiple story buildings like corporate locations near Eden Prairie. Those areas developed around the fi'eeways. There are opportunities for Prior Lake. Stamson: · Is that a different definition in the land use classification? Rye said "No, it could certainly be accommodated under that designation." Waterfront Passage was set up differently. It was intended for manufacturing and warehousing, but the way it has worked, we didn't get that sort of thing. It has printing operations and some high quality manufacturing. Cramer: · A good example is the building I work in. Basically a bunch of small businesses were focused on that end of town looking for a nice place where they could nm their businesses. The fi'ont faces the road and looks like a two story office building but off the back they have areas where they can load large material into garage doors which is well hidden from the road. It is a well designed building. · Rye said the history in Prior Lake is someone local who wants to set up a business in town. Rather than going up to Shakopee or Edina, they would rather be close to home. · We are not that far away from good transportation. Vonhof: · How does Prior Lake accommodate large businesses that would like to come into the area? Prior Lake is in the in-between stage working in the right direction. We could be very attractive, but how do we get there? The Commissioners decided to leave that area alone for now. Discussion followed with opportunities for businesses and transition areas. The Commissioners would like to look at the park and industrial areas. There are also a number of environmental issues to deal with. Staffwill develop land use alternatives for the County Road 42 area and come back with information at the next meeting. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin~-ma011199.doc Rye highlighted the vacant land in the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA). 7. Announcements and Correspondence: City Councilmember Jim Peterson was introduced as the Planning Commission liaison. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Director of Pl~mi.~ Recording Secretary l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin~n011199.doc