Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111794REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, November 17, 1994 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 1. 7:15 p.m. 2. Call meeting to order. a) Review minutes of previous meeting. Consider variance request for Scott Roth. Public Heating to consider adoption of sidewalk amendment to subdivision ordinance. DISCUSSION: LJA Ring Road - Transportation Plans. DISCUSSION: Street Light Policy ordinance All times stated on the Planning Commission Agenda, with the exception of Public Hearings, are approximate and may start a few minutes earlier or later than the scheduled time. AN1794 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION November 17, 1994 The November 17, 1994, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Vonhof at 7:01 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Roseth, Arnold, Loftus, Kuykendall and Vonhof, Acting Planning Director Blair Tremere, Associate Planner Gina Mitchell, and Secretary Connie Carlson. REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEErI'ING MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFFUS TO APPROVE THE MINUTF_S AS WRITIEN. Vote taken signified ayes by Amold, Roseth, Kuykendall, Loftus, and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. ITEMI - VARIANCE REQ~ FOR SCOrIT ROTH: The Planning Commission received a variance application from Scott Roth of 6394 Conroy Street. The applicant proposes to construct a single car garage addition. The specific variances requested are a 7' west side yard variance from the 10' side yard setback requirement and a 6% impervious surface variance from the 30% impervious surface maximum. Associate Planner Gina Mitchell presented the November 17, 1994, staff report. In 1980, the Planning Commission granted a 50' lakeshore variance and a 15' from yard variance. These variances mn with the land and are not necessary at this time since the proposed addition does not encroach further. It was noted that a hard surface driveway for the addition was not included in the impervious surface calculation. The Planning Commission will have to continue the impervious surface variance if the applicant would like a hard surface driveway. Staff does not support the 7' side yard variance because the applicant currently has a two stall garage on the site, and the four hardship criteria have not been met. Craig Gutoske of 5511 Cedarwood Street NE, Prior Lake, representing the adjacent property owner to the south, Joyce Gutoske, stated concern for future building oppommities on their property. Mr. Gutoske was informed by staff that this proposal would not limit their building opportunities. Comments from the Planning Commissioners included: proposed variance is too excessive; size of eaves and roof pitch; negative precedent could be set; reasons for additional storage; no support for the side yard variance as proposed; there may be support for a 5' side yard variance; a revised plan should be done by the applicant and staff to address a lesser side yard variance; a new publication of the impervious surface variance to include a driveway. MOTION BY KUYKENDAI I4, SECOND B Y ARNOLD, TO TABLE THE MATFER SO THAT THE APPLICANT CAN REVISE HIS PLAN AND THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE CAN BE RE-PUBI ,ISHED IF NF_L'F__~SARY. PLANNING COMMISSION November 17, 1994 Page 1 Vote taken signified ayes by Amold, Roseth, Kuykendall, Loftus, and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM II - PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND (ADOPTION OF A SIDEWALK ORDINANCE) Acting Planning Director Blair Tremere presented a memorandum dated November 17, 1994. Earlier in the year, City Council directed staff to prepare a policy and o~rlinance which would address the installation of sidewalks in the commmity. The Parks Advisory Committee reviewed the draft ordinance language and voted to recommend approval at their September 12, 1994 meeting. The Subdivision Ordinance Amendment to be considered tonight would affect new development only. Bill Mmgan, Parks and Recreation Director stated that the Parks Advisory Committee did a survey in 1990, with the results indicating that the nurnher one priority in the community was a safe pedestrian walkway system. A review of critical sidewalk and trail linkages was done by the Planning Staff and reviewed by the Development Review Committee. The Park Advisory Committee evaluated those findings and established a priority for those linkages and made a recommendation to the City Council on when these linkages should be made. It is likely that a 20 year capital improvements plan would need to be done so as to not adversely affect taxes. Larry Anderson, Public Works Director, discussed the City's proposed Capital Improvement Program and the financial constraints that will impact any sidewalk construction program. He also answered questions about a "warrant system" for determining the type and location of sidewalks. Blair Tremere explained that the issue before the Commission is the amendment to the Subdivision Code and is not the endorsement of a program to install sidewalks in developed areas. The draft "policy" language is an excerpt of language from the draft Comprehensive Plan Update; it probably will appear in the transportation section. Tim Williams of 16843 Willow Lane SW, questioned how to find out what is going on in particular projects. Chairman Vonhof stated that a call to the City could be made to answer those questions. Comn~nts from the Planning Commission included: prioritization of sidewalk linkages should be made based on warrants; warrants should be established for sidewalk placement; further review of the sidewalk policy should be done to include separation of vehicular and txxtestrian traffic; criteria used to determine what side of the street the sidewalk is on; sidewalks should be required in new subdivisions on both sides of the street regardless the road classification; bituminous versus concrete sidewalks; cost of maintenance; and importance of safety. MOTION B Y LOFrUS, SECOND BY KUYKENDAI I. TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE DRAFT SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET EXCEPT WHERE A STUDY BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DEEMED THEM NOT APPROPRIATE. Motion withdrawn. MOTION BY KUYKENDAI I., SECOND BY ARNOLD TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL STAFF CAN MAKE THE SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE DRAFT POLICY AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING SIDEWALKS AND BE POLICY AND RErURN THEM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT A FUTURE ~G. Vote taken signified by Arnold, Roseth, Kuykendall, Loftus, and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. PLANNING COMMISSION November 17, 1994 Page 2 MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified by Arnold, Roseth, Kuykendall, Loftus, and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 9:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. ITEM m - DISCUSSION OF THE RING ROAD TgllrORY FOR TI-IF. BUSINESS DISTRICT IN THE SOUTH END OF THE COMMUNITY Public Works Director, Larry Anderson explained the transportation problems between Franklin Trail and the Pdordale Mall including the lack of a frontage road adjacent to State Trunk Highway 13. Several altematives where studied, with the ring road being the one selected. The criteria used to choose the ring road system were the desire to meet Municipal State Aid funding qualifications, spacing needs for signals so that a safe crossing could be established for the schools adjacent to the north, access that would be desirable and beneficial to the businesses in the area, and a solution to an area wide circulation problem. Comments from the Commissioners included: the cost of the realignment of County Road 23; how the ring road study came about; Scott County's construction plans for County Road 17; plans for State Trunk Highway 13 upgrading; development of the old drive-in theater property; and possible redevelopment of other parcels in that area. ITEM IV - DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED STREI~ LIGHTING POLICY Bob Barth, Engineering Intem presented the staff report that will be presented to the City Council on November 21, 1994. The City Council directed staff to research a new street lighting policy that would address the disparity between street lights in existing areas and those in new developments. The existing policy warrants street lights at intersections where high volumes of traffic exist. Street lights are not provided between intersections. Staff recommends that the new policy require developers to: pay the full capital cost of the street lights in their development; pay operation and maintenance costs through the warranty period; have a homeowners' association be responsible for the costs of non-standard lights or additional lights beyond what the policy requires. In areas of existing development, staff proposes that a petition process be used for lighting requests, and at a minimum, residents pay the full capital costs of the lights requested. Also reconuamded is the lighting of collector streets be done on a project by project basis. Comments from the Commissioners included: to what extent should lighting be provided; what style of lighting should be used; who should pay for ongoing power costs; alternate program that residents could do to provide safety such as leaving an outdoor light on all night; cost of retrofitting lights; light pollution; pedestrian scale lighting in residential areas; sidewalk standards should be in ordinance rather than policy form; assessments should not be used to cover costs; and annual cost for operation and maintenance. ITEMV - OTI-IER BU~ Discussion occurred on the upcoming Ccamcil Workshop that will be held on Monday, November 21, 1994, to review the proposed comsmmial and industrial land use guide plan map. MOTION B Y ARNOLD, SECOND BY KUYKENDAI l., TO ADJOURN THE MFEFING. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Kuykendall, Roseth, and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. PLANNING COMMISSION November 17, 1994 Page 3 The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m. Tapes of the meeting are on file at City Hall. Blair Tremere Connie Carlson Acting Director of Planning Recording Secretary lv~q1794 PLANNING COMMISSION November 17, 1994 Page 4