HomeMy WebLinkAbout031003REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2003
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda:
5. Public Hearings:
A. File #03-11 Deerfield Development is requesting an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation on 4.25 acres from R-L/MD to
R-HD, 6.14 acres from C-BO to C-HG, and 13.35 acres from C-BO to I-PI on
property located east of the Deerfield development and south of CSAH 21.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
A. File #03-19 Discuss concept plan for Jeffers Pond development area.
B. 2003 Annual Variance Report.
C. 2003 Annual Complaint Summary.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:V?3 Film~03 Plmming Comm~03 i~AG031003.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to
all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to
speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new
information.
Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter.
Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible
except under rare occasions.
The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter.
Thank you.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
ADDRESS
L:kDEPTWORK'tBLANKFRM~HSIGNUP.doc
ill i I
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2003
1. Call to Order:
Commissioner Criego called the March 10, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane
Kansier, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Absent
Commissioner Stamson arrived at 6:34 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the February 24, 2003, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Criego read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. File #03=11 Deerfield Development is requesting an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation on 4.25 acres from R-L/MD to R-
HD, 6.14 acres from C-BO to C-HG, and 13.35 acres from C-BO to I-PI on property
located east of the Deerfield development and south of CSAH 21.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 10, 2003,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Deerfield Development has filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
for a portion of the 60.1 acres of vacant property located east offish Point Road, on the
east side of the Deerfield Development and south of Cottonwood Lane and Adelmann
Street. The proposal includes the following amendments to the 2020 Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map designations:
LA03 Files~03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~fN031003.doc 1
11 i
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10, 2003
Change 4.25 acres from R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) to R-I-ID
(High Density Residential)
· Change 6.14 acres from C-BO (Business Office Park) to C-CC (General Business)
· Change 13.35 acres from C-BO (Business Office Park) to I-PI (Planned Industrial)
The remainder of the site will continue to be designated C-BO (Business Office Park).
This property is the easterly portion of the 260 acres of land, which was annexed by order
of the Minnesota Municipal Board on July 9, 1997. In September of 1997, the owner
submitted an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include this land within the
MUSA, and to designate the easterly 58 acres for Planned Industrial Uses, 140 acres to
the R-I-ID designation and 62 acres to the R-L/MD designation. On October 6, 1997, the
Council approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan including the entire area
within the MUSA. The City Council also approved an amendment to the Land Use Plan
designating the 58 acres for Business Park uses, and the remaining acreage for Low to
Medium Density Residential uses.
The applicant is proposing to develop the Deerfield industrial area in stages. An
apartment complex is proposed for the approximately 4.25 acres of land located on the
east side of the Deerfield development and south of Cottonwood Lane and Adelmann
Street. The applicant has not identified any specific uses for the remaining area.
There are no services adjacent to this site. Development of this property will require the
extension of Adelmann Street to the south and extension of sewer and water. An
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) may also be required for the development
of the site. The need for an EAW would be triggered by the potential amount of floor
area of industrial uses permitted on the property. This would be determined with a
preliminary plat application.
The Planning staff recommended approval in part and denial in part of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. The proposed R-I-ID designation is inconsistent with
the surrounding development of the property. There has been no change that would
justify an amendment to the R-I-ID designation. The staff therefore recommended denial
of the proposed R-I-ID designation. The staffwould recommend approval of the
proposed amendment to the C-CC and I-PI designations. These designations are
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and are not
significantly different from the current C-BO designation.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Atwood questioned staff on the access to the 4 acres. Kansier said it would depend on
what was developed; most likely the access will be through Adelmann Street or through a
private cul-de-sac with an easement near the site. It would be more appropriate though
Adelmann Street.
L:~03 Files\03 Planning Connn\03pcMinutes~NO31003.doc 2
11 I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10, 2003
Comments from the Public:
Harold Jesh, 2055 High Court, Sauk Rapids, spoke on behalf of the property owners.
Jesh pointed out the accesses and zone designations. The owners felt there is interest in
high density. The proposed housing development would be condo units which would be
consistent with the surrounding areas. No building would occur until ample demand is
evidenced and then construction would be done in phases. Jesh indicated there would be
a housing demand from the business office and industrial park employees. An extension
is needed from Adelmann Street for services. Jesh said their proposal is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan's goals and objectives.
Scott Kilau, 5431 Fawn Court Avenue, adjacent to the proposed development, felt the
housing designation should be consistent with the surrounding R-2 area. D.R. Horton
told him when he built that this proposed area would never be built on. He hates to see
the trees removed. Doesn't see this proposal as bad as the former proposal.
Criego asked Kansier to explain the differences between the business office; planned
industrial and general business designations. Kansier responded.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
Visited the site, read the staff report and heard the developer's perspective but
agreed with everything in the staff report. The consistency of the neighboring
housing needs to be preserved.
· This has been the subject of debates at least twice in the last six years, it's not
new.
· Recommend denial of the R-HI) designation and approve the C-CC and I-PI
designations.
Lemke: · Asked staff why condos could not be built with an R-2 designation. Kansier
explained the differences with the density and types of permitted buildings.
· Questioned if the line of trees could stay as a buffer. Kansier said it could.
· Initially was inclined to agree given the history of the property, but after listening
to the developer, condominiums might not be appropriate next to the existing
designation.
· Supports the C-CC and I-IP designation.
Stamson:
· This is appropriate as far as commercial designation. The City needs more of a
varied commercial base. This does a good job laying out that piece of property.
· The high density in the center of an industrial park does not fit. Makes more
sense to make the area C-5 rather than high density.
· Agreed with the developer the City could use some more high density but not
comfortable with the odd site. It's not laid out right - comfortable with it in this
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN031003.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10, 2003
part of town. It's a donut in the middle of a commercial area. Hard time seeing
this site as residential.
Atwood:
· Felt this was inconsistent for high density. Disagreed with Stamson that the City
needs more high density at this time. Not in favor.
· Has reservations based on the staff report with the center area acreage not being
discussed. It has not been identified nor the purpose. Hesitant, but not against the
change for the industrial and business park. It would be helpful to know the
intentions of the adjacent area.
· Questioned condos versus apartments. With all the density talk, felt the envelope
is being pushed. Kansier explained the types of use. Ownership doesn't matter to
the City and explained the use and gave examples of multi-family developments.
Criego:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
The Commission has addressed the high
density on the 4.25 acres before. The Commissioners concluded leaving it the
way it is was best. Not appropriate.
Would like to see the same type of development that is currently west of the
proposal.
Does not have a problem changing the designations from business office to
general purpose or planned industrial. It gives the developer flexibility.
Harold Jesh questioned if the 4.25 acre is not acceptable to the Planning Commission,
would the Planning Commission consent to another location and extend the C-5 to that
parcel under discussion.
Open Discussion:
Criego commented that Deerfield had a large buffer between what is suppose to be C-5
and the current housing. That same buffer separates any commercial activity from
residential. It just so happens there is no other buffer. Would not want to see commercial
property that close to the residential area. He could see a continuation of medium
density, but not commercial or high density.
Stamson disagreed with the commercial area being too close. There's a tree line
between the properties. There is as much buffer with the homes and the new Norex
building. It could go either way. Could easily be C-5.
Ringstad questioned the procedure - if the Commissioners accepted any other change
other than what was presented tonight, it would have to be republished for another public
hearing. Kansier agreed.
Atwood felt the tree line isn't much but it is a good buffer between the Keyland building
but could favor it under the condition it (buffer) would stay.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm~03pcMinuteshMN031003.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10, 2003
Stamson said the unique thing with Keyland is that it existed before the residential area.
There would have to be a fairly good buffer. Rye stated ifKeyland were built today, it
would have to be another 50 feet away from the property and would have more
landscaping. There is a buffer yard requirement and greater setback when the
designations are different between residential properties.
Jesh said at the December meeting there were more residents against the proposal.
Tonight there is only one who indicated if the tree line remains and the proposal are
condos, he wouldn't be in that much of an opposition.
Scott Kilau, 5431 Fawn Court, agreed as long as the tree line remains and the rental and
condos are not more than four stories over the trees. Basically like an apartment
renamed. He would like to see a similar townhome development like the surrounding
area and is against the high density.
Atwood pointed out the condo's proposed are not the same as the existing townhomes.
Criego restated Jesh's question, and said if he wanted to move the high density the
developer will have to come forward with a new proposal and hearing.
Kansier stated if the Commissioners wanted to consider that type of proposal they could
table the proposal and republish to go through the hearing again. Or, vote on what has
been proposed and send on to the City Council.
Jesh asked for a vote this evening.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE C-CC AND I-PI
DESIGNATIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on April 7, 2003.
6. Old Business: None
7. New Business:
L:~03 Files\03 Planning Comm~O3pcMinutes~tN031003.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10, 2003
A. File 003-19 Discuss concept plan for Jeffers Pond development area.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 10, 2003
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Jim Deanovic of the Peter Andrea Company, Wensmann Realty and Paul W. Oberg are
considering development of the Jeffers property, which consists of approximately 320
acres of property located on the west side of CSAH 21, south of CSAH 42 and about ½
mile north of CSAH 82.about 1/4 mile south of CSAH 42. This property is presently
vacant land. The south half of the property is designated for Low to Medium Density
Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The north half of the
site was recently designated as R-HD (High Density Residential). Almost the entire site
is located within the Shoreland District for Jeffers Pond.
The developers have submitted a concept plan which includes a combination of
residential dwelling types, including 92 single family homes, 462 townhonse and
condominium units, 262 apartment units and 40 affordable rental townhouse units. The
concept plan identifies a total of 856 units, for an overall density of 2.5 units per acre.
The concept plan also includes a combined fire station/visitor center/transit station site,
parkland and trails and a future elementary school site.
Architect Gary Tushie, gave the overall presentation. The developers from Wensmaun
Homes and Peter Andrea as well as Paul Oberg, the attorney for the estate were present.
Tushie gave a brief history of the initial development concept starting in 1999 and the
many changes until present. Over the last few months the plan has been modified to
accommodate all the City's needs resulting in the latest plan. Along the way, the DNR
has agreed to redesignate the pond as a Recreational Development Lake and the
Comprehensive Plan has changed the commercially zoned land to high density.
Atwood questioned the outcome of the meetings with Scott County Parks and Three
Rivers Park. Tushie said Mr. Oberg will address that issue in more detail. The thought
was from an operation standpoint, they might be better equipped to operate on an on-
going basis a natural environment park. It has recently come to light the funds are
probably not going to be available for this to occur.
Lee Koppy, of Schoell & Madson Engineering, spoke of the changes based on staff's
suggestions. The plan has been designed with an emphasis on maintaining the amenities
on the site, preserving the trees and work in the parkland. They feel they can meet and
exceed the requirements of the City, Watershed and DNR. One of the ways is to exceed
the DNR's setback requirements. The pending will take the rate control and reduce it to
one half the existing flow rate. The trail system will connect downtown Prior Lake and
ultimately eormect with future trails and developments.
Koppy pointed out the changes on the concept plan. The biggest changes were the
relocations of the fire station and access; transit station and visitor's center. He spoke on
reducing the street width to help reduce impervious surface coverage. The allowable unit
L:~03 Files\03 Planning Conun~03pcMinutes~MN031003.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10, 2003
count for the overall area including Jeffers South was 943. There will be 81 units
constructed in Jeffers South leaving a total of 862 allowable units left for the remaining
320 acres. They attempted to address the City's access concerns, the details will be
defined as they proceed. The other two access points will be on County Road 21 between
· the senior housing and townhomes and another access towards the south end opposite
Coachman Lane. The County agreed with the proposed access points. The EAW will be
completed with the process as well.
Criego questioned if anyone was going to discuss the small single family and condo
units. Jim Deanovic said they are just showing lifecycle housing at this point. They will
present that at a later time.
Paul Oberg, the executor for the Bob Jeffers Estate, stated Jeffers left all but $600,000 of
his estate to charities. One of the charities important to him was the use of Jeffers Pond,
his farm, to create a natural park - no recreation. Over the years the question came as
who was best suited to operate and administer such a park with idea the park would be
used as a teaching vehicle for children. One of the related elements is the location of the
elementary school. Prior Lake School District, as well as other school districts would use
the park as a learning area. The Watershed District has a program for adults on purifying
water, hopefully they would expand that for children.
Oberg submitted a preliminary proposal to city staffwith the idea the estate would
contribute a portion of the parkland and the difference to make up the 10% would be
spent as a credit against the cash differential. He is strongly in support of a regional trail
system. The idea is a regional trail system would be available for maintenance 12 months
of the year to move people within the project so they wouldn't have to go out on the
public roads. The goal would be that the amount necessary to construct the project would
be credited as the project proceeds within the PUD. Oberg pointed out on the map the
area that would be a woodchip trail, not to be available for any kind of motorized
vehicles. It would not be a recreational area.
Oberg went on to explain in keeping with the Jeffers Foundation, dedicating that portion
of the nature park would only be used for public purposes. This would not be included in
the park contribution. The idea is there would be four potential players, the improvement
of that park by the Jeffers Foundation. Second leasing the park to the City for $1.00 if
they agree to construct and maintain it. As alternatives, Scott County and Three Rivers
Park District could operate and maintain the park. It appears at this time everyone is
short of money. He pointed out the area included in the park contribution. The idea is
the City could use it for an interpretive center, nature center or recreational purposes.
Oberg said they need to f'md a player to construct, operate and maintain the facility,
primarily as an education center for the benefit of children. Who is best to do this? The
land will be available owned by the Jeffers Foundation for public use even though it will
not be improved at this time until a player is found with the capabilities.
L:~03 Files\03 Planning Comm~O3pcMinutes~lNO31003.doc 7
'1! [ I'
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10, 2003
Criego questioned if the Jeffers Foundation has long term funds. Oberg replied the
Foundation will have a substantial amount of money, but how much would be allocated is
not known. It is important to Oberg to carry out Bob Jeffers wishes that the land be kept
in its natural state - don't cut down any trees and don't use it for ball fields. Also
maintenance of the park, where he can get the most bang for the buck and use for an
educational tool his other concern. The estate might be willing to can3' it for a time until
things (funds) loosen up. Oberg felt the problem will solve itself. There are no nature
facilities like this south of the river and felt many schools will benefit. Nothing is in
writing at this time.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· As far as the parks go, this is an exciting and potential jewel for Prior Lake. Love
the trails and the regional accessibility.
· Was not at the workshop, does not have a lot of history on the development.
· Likes the proposed concept.
Ringstad:
· Questioned if the proposed setbacks are consistent with other developments in the
City. Kansier said yes and no. Generally speaking it does. The staff hadn't time
to go through those details but felt they could be worked out.
Criego:
· What is defined as small single lots? Kansier said the front footage would be 80
feet and part of the PUD.
Ringstad:
· How does the City feel about the narrower City streets? Kansier said some of
them were acceptable. The 22 foot streets are too narrow, it has to be 24 feet for
emergency vehicles. There are some variations and staffwill work out those
details with the developer.
· Overall, likes what he sees.
Lemke:
· Must be both exciting and frustrating to work with such a unique parcel of land
that holds such promise.
· From his point, the project is on track and looks forward to seeing the preliminary
plans as they develop.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Commissioners. It is exciting to see a development with such
diversity. Everyone worked hard to develop a site using the natural lay of the site.
It really creates an exciting development.
· Very nice property - would like to see more developments come in like this.
L:X03 Fil~03 Planning Cotran\03pcMinut~tN031003.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10, 2003
Criego:
* Agreed with Commissioners on all the positives.
* Asked the developers to look at the 118 condominiums in the northwest corner to
see if that is really appropriate. Originally talked about that area being high
density as it related to the northeast section. Not sure it is appropriate in that
cornel'.
, The nature park and trails are incredible. There are so many pluses to this
development.
· Appreciates all the effort that has gone into this development.
Rye said the developers would like some kind of reaction to the concept Mr. Oberg talked
about park ownership and operation.
Criego:
· Agreed to keep this a natural park.
The more natural, the better offthis whole
park system will be. Hope there are ways of working with the City and County to
ensure the purpose of the park is not turned into football fields and it is left in the
Jeffer's Trust.
· Concern with the long term expenses associated with it and if the Jeffers Trust can
maintain it.
· Probably don't have to do a lot to maintain the current status. That is probably
the reason not to put a lot of money into it and keep it natural.
· Oberg said he discussed the costs of maintaining the park with Bud and A1 from
the Maintenance Departments. They concluded the deadfall trees would be the
main issue. Bud pointed out, maintaining this park could be done in the winter. It
fits into the recreational portion of the park system.
· It might be better a community like Prior Lake maintains it as opposed to other
communities. We have local pride and maybe some extra manpower on the off
season. Oberg agreed and went on to say his concern is maintaining the nature
center. It could be a joint project with Three Rivers where each can contribute
their expertise.
Stamson:
· Agreed to maintain in the natural state. Originally thought the County would be
the ones to control as they tend to keep natural-type parks but it will take a
combination of talented people to make it work.
Atwood:
· Delighted this is in trust to stay a natural state and Mr. Jeffers had the foresight to
keep it natural.
Lemke:
· Maintain as a natural park. It doesn't need to be ball fields.
Gary Tushie said on behalf of the development team he wanted to thank the City Staff,
Planning Commission and City Council. The entire partnering process has really helped
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm~O3pcMinutes~lNO31003.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10, 2003
make the project what it is today. It wouldn't have been the dynamic plan without the
parmering effort. The developers are happy and are looking forward to bringing it
forward.
A recess was called at 8:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:10 p.m.
B. 2003 Annual Variance Report.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 10, 2003
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The variance requests in 2002 are comparable to requests made in the previous 4 years.
There were seventeen applications with 40 requests. Seventeen were approved and 25
denied. Seven were appealed to City Council with 3 overturned. It is interesting to note
all but one of the lots involved in these requests are within the Shoreland District, and 13
of the 16 lots were riparian lots. This indicates the need for variances may be triggered
by the development or redevelopment of smaller lots.
The City adopted 4 amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in 2002.
Kansier pointed out that before a variance request comes before the Commission, the
staff has already spent extensive time with the applicant and talked about different
solutions and ideas trying to reduce the number of variance requests. Staff probably
hands out 3 to 4 times the number of applications the Commission actually sees. Staff
helps residents try to save time and costs to the development. Over the past few years
staffhas been doing a better job. Staffhas been able to tell residents the Commissioners
records and what kinds of variances are more likely to be approved. It helps people make
a decision on what to do.
Criego:
· Questioned if there was anything that would be needed to change thc current
ordinances. Kansier said staff looks at the ordinances regularly, but none of the
variances requested needed amendments. The issues that come before staff are
primarily infill development especially along the Shoreland District. Those lots
tend to be smaller and more difficult to build on. Because they are the higher
priced real estate in the City, they want to build bigger houses and structures and
that accounts for the variances.
Lemke:
· Questioned the number of appeals from 1998 of 1 to 2002 with 3 out of 7.
Kansier said the appeals were from applicants who were a little more
sophisticated with the process and were willing to go through it. Not everyone is
willing. Part of it could be because there was a new City Council.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN031003.doc 10
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10, 2003
Atwood:
· Has received very positive comments from the public who worked with the
planning staff.
Criego:
· Agreed with Atwood. Coming in 6 or 7 years ago, some of the presentations
needed more detail. There has been enormous improvement. It is positive from
the public.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, ACCEPTING THE REPORT
AND FORWARD ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. 2003 Annual Complaint Summary.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report prepared by the Code
Enforcement Officer, Steve Horsman dated March 10, 2003 on file in the office of the
City Planning Department.
The City of Prior Lake experienced an increase of twenty-three percent (23%) in
complaints filed during 2002, compared with 2001. Zoning Ordinance complaints
accounted for the highest percentage of violations this year (29%), and included improper
recreational vehicle parking, shed location and setbacks, vehicles parked in required yard
areas, and permitted uses. Code violations relating to property appearance and health
issues, such as overgrown grass and weeds (22), storage of junk and junk vehicles (30),
improper refuse disposal (21), accounted for forty one percent (41%) of all recorded
violations. Animal control complaints followed in number (14), and included excessive
barking, running at large, waste pickup, and the keeping of more than 3 domestic animals
(dogs & cats). A great majority of City residents have pride in their neighborhoods and
community, and feel an obligation to maintain a neat appearance on their respective
properties, as well as a concern for the adjoining properties.
Criego questioned if all complaints were resolved. Kansier and Rye explained sometimes
it takes a longer time for closure. Rye said in past, everything proceeded to criminal
court. The City's Attorney's office drafted a generic civil complaint so staffcan file with
the Court and make the violator comply.
Atwood commented she liked seeing the annual summaries.
Lemke and Criego would like to see a more complete summary of the open files. Criego
felt it was a manpower issue. Rye said the enforcement on complaints is entirely
different. It's not uncommon to go through several warning letters. Criego questioned
what the average closure time would be on each category. Rye responded each is
different and will keep that information for next year's summary.
L:~03 Files~03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN031003.doc 1 1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10, 2003
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO FORWARD ON TO THE CITY
COUNCIL FOR REVIEW.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye briefed the Commissioners on the meeting on the downtown corridor to the lake. It
had to do with the concept in the 2020 Vision for the expansion of downtown connecting
to the lake. About 40 people attended. Staff wanted to let the neighborhoods know it
would be looked into during the year. Some concern was that a bulldozer would be
coming down the street. Staff assured them that was not the case and would like their
input. The connection might simply be pedestrian as opposed to commercial properties.
Will continue working on the issue.
Criego asked if there were any backlash on the State Funding. Rye responded it would
be about $360,000. The Finance Director and City Manager started anticipating this last
year and the City is making some cuts. The City will take a hit but Prior Lake is in better
shape than other communities. Have to wait for the legislature to decide.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m.
Don Rye
Director of Community
Development
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Cormn\03pcMinutes~VfN031003.doc 12
'11 i I