HomeMy WebLinkAbout090803REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2003
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
o
Ao
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case #03-98 & 03-99 212 Development has submitted an application for a
townhouse development known as Crystal Bay Townhomes consisting of 24 units
on 10.62 acres of land zoned R-1 SD. The property is located on the south side of
CSAH 82, east of Fremont Avenue and ~A mile west of CSAH 21. This
application is a revised proposal to the previously approved preliminary plat and
preliminary PUD plan.
Case #03-92 The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community has submitted an
application for a Conditional Use Permit fOr the grading and reconstruction of the
former Lone Pine Golf Course.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
ge
Ao
Case #03-94 The City of Prior Lake is requesting a vacation of the existing storm
sewer easement on the property located at 6063 150~ Street SE.
Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:\03 File~\03 Planning Corem\03 pcAgtmda~AG090803.DOC
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. $.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 647-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
iai I
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
Ook~- o~,6
/S'o~71
I
L:XD EPTWORK~BLANKFtLM~HSIGNUP .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2003
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the September 8, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, Assistant City
Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the August 25, 2003, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case #03-98 & 03-99 212 Development has submitted an application for a
townhouse development known as Crystal Bay Townhomes consisting of 24 units on
10.62 acres of land zoned R-lSD. The property is located on the south side of CSAH
82, east of Fremont Avenue and ½ mile west of CSAH 21. This application is a
revised proposal to the previously approved preliminary plat and preliminary PUD
plan.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 8,
2003, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
212 Development, LLC, has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Crystal Bay on the property located south of CSAH 82, directly east of Fremont Avenue
and approximately ~A mile west of CSAH 21. The application includes a Planned Unit
Development Preliminary Plan and a Preliminary Plat.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes~lN090803.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of 24 dwelling units on 10.62
acres. The development also proposes private open space and 21 boat slips for the use of
the residents.
The City Council approved a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan for this
development on October 7, 2002. However, when the developer submitted the final plan,
there were some changes that were inconsistent to the approved preliminary plan. As a
result, the developer has chosen to resubmit a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan
application. The general provisions of the proposal have not changed.
Staff recommended approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat
subject to the following conditions:
1. The tree inventory must be revised so it is consistent with the revised grading plan.
2. The landscaping plan should be revised to meet all ordinance requirements.
Replacement trees must be included on the landscaping plan.
3. The private streets must be platted as outlots. A 13' wide drainage and utility
easements must be provided on either side of the outlot.
4. The developer must provide easements for the storm water pond.
5. All driveways in the development must be constructed with permeable pavement.
The design and installation of these drives must be approved and inspected by the
City.
6. Fremont Avenue must be improved adjacent to this site. The City will participate in
the cost of the project.
7. The homeowners' association documents must address the maintenance of the
permeable pavement.
8. Address the comments identified in the memorandum from Larry Poppler, Assistant
City Engineer, dated July 23, 2003 .All public improvements must be constructed to
the standards of the Public Works Design Manual. Revised plans must be submitted
for review by the City.
9. Provide a phasing plan for the project.
10. The height of the units on Lots 23 and 24 may not exceed 35' along Fremont Avenue
or CSAH 82.
11. Provide plans for the entry monument signs. These signs must be located at least 10'
from any right-of-way line and may not be located within the clear view triangle.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Ringstad questioned how much additional dedication the developer is giving than what is
normally required. Kansier said it was an additional 25 feet along the entire north
boundary of the property which is at least a quarter mile.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesLMNO90803.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
Criego questioned if the 25 feet on the north side has already been dedicated. Kansier
said it would be dedicated as part of the final plat.
Criego questioned if the calculations included the 25 feet? Kansier responded it did
include the 25 feet.
Comments from the public:
John Klingelhutz said they changed the design of the building because of the land value.
The size of the building did not change the impervious surface. There were some
mistakes made in the original calculations. It is a 7/10th percent difference over the
requirement. They feel they have a good plan and do not want to change the layout of the
building.
Atwood questioned if the 23rd and 24th units have height problems. Klingelhutz said the
height of units would be reduced by 10 feet if they did not make them walk-outs.
Criego asked what the additional footage was added to the footprint. Klingelhutz
responded they did not add to the footprint, they added another level inside the home.
Tom Finn, 15672 Fremont Avenue, was at the 2002 presentation and felt everyone left as
friends. The developer has a nice product. Finn expressed the following concerns: the
value of the homes; tree removal; the dock length, the dock covenants and what would be
allowed and the entrance and lighting on Fremont Avenue.
Kansier pointed out the proposed access offFremont is 250 feet from the CSAH 82
intersection. She went on to explain that generally the homeowner's documents are not
reviewed by the City for specific requirements. Staff looks at the general provisions and
how they coincide with City regulations. Kansier said the developer would take care of
lighting for the development. The City would be involved in any public street issues and
lighting could be part of the County Road 82 project in 2004.
Bill Rudnicki, 2330 Sioux Trail NW, stated he has known the developer for over 10 years
and wanted the public to know the developer is concerned with the neighbors' issues and
this will be a first class development.
Tom Sheele, 15601 Highland Avenue, had a number of questions and concerns: the
acreage difference from the first proposal to the second proposal. What numbers were
used in the density calculations? Kansier explained the calculations and what was
excluded. Sheele felt the PUD regulations had to be 10 acres. Kansier said the gross
acreage is over 10 acres. Sheele asked to look at the landscaping plans and vegetation
regulations. He went on to question the traffic study. Kansier said it was public
information and he would be welcome to review the documents at City Hall. Sheele also
felt the developer does not meet the PUD requirements as there is no general benefit to
the community.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXaMNO90803.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
Kyle Schroeder, 15557 Highland Avenue, questioned the tree removal. Schroeder
presented photos of the area and questioned if the trees were going to be removed. He
would like the developer to come out and mark the trees. Schroeder said he did not
understand why the pavers had to be tested so close to the lake and "the maintenance"
should be in the covenants. Schroeder went on to explain his experience with
homeowner associations and would like to know who is going to inspect the pavers.
Stamson responded maintenance would be part of the PUD process and inspection would
be a simple procedure.
Kansier pointed out Schroeder's property and where the significant trees lay on the
development.
Schroeder asked for an explanation on the impervious surface and pavers. Stamson
explained the pavers were being treated as though they were concrete. The developers
are not getting a credit for impervious surface on the pavers.
Schroeder stated he would like to see the developer provide a noise barrier.
Kendall Larson, representative for the impervious pavers addressed the issues brought up
by the public. In reference to Schroeder's comments that the pavers have never been
tested - Larson pointed out the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum tested and monitored
this product with other products. There are numerous projects around the State and Twin
Cities who have successfully used the pavers.
Criego questioned the percentage of runoff permeating the pavers. Larson said he can
not give an exact amount but he explained the paver opening is 13% of the brick. He said
he is not an engineer and is not able to address the question. The engineer was not able to
make the meeting.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
There are several ways of addressing the noise abatement on County Road 82.
There are a number of trees along County Road 82. Kansier responded a
significant number of evergreen trees will be planted along the right-of-way for
screening and some noise abatement.
Hoped the applicant would try to address that issue and reduce the noise.
· Surprised the neighbors have not spoke on the height of the buildings. However,
it is within the regulations. It went from a two-story to a three-story complex.
· The additional square footage being requested is .7%. The overall concern is 30%
on the property, not the 25% on the tiers. From a lake preservation standpoint this
is not a major issue. It is well under 30%. The drainage goes to the sides.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3peMinutes~VlN090803.do¢ 4
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
Lemke: · Skeptical at first for any increase on impervious surface but after hearing Criego
remembered Tier 2 does not run into the lake.
· Everything is really the same and there have been improvements.
· The dockage issue was covered a year ago and the number of docks is the same.
· It is a worthwhile project that meets all requirements. Support.
Atwood: · Agreed with the Commissioners. The covenants and noise abatement issues have
been addressed.
· Suggested a neighborhood informational meeting where the developer could
present the project including the landscape and covenants. It doesn't need the
neighbors' stamp of approval but they could see the efforts by the developer.
· All the information is public.
· Agreed with the Commissioners on the impervious surface. It is not an issue.
· There has to be a second access to the development.
· Support the development.
Ringstad: · This was a good process - a year ago there were negotiations between the
developer and the neighbors. There are a lot of positive comments.
· A little disappointed this is back before us tonight. The neighbors are bringing up
issues addressed a year ago.
· Surprised the height of the buildings was not brought up by the neighbors but it is
within the code.
· Agreed with Commissioners on the impervious surface issue, especially with the
drainage moving away fi.om the lake.
· Support the development.
Stamson:
· The two big changes are the design of the building, although it meets regulations.
The second is a minor calculation error on the impervious surface. Generally the
Commission is looking at single lots, this development as a whole is under the
30% requirement. The tier discrepancies are further back and drain away from
the lake.
· The County Highway requirements pushed the driveways into Tier 2. There was
no credit given to the pavers.
· Comfortable with this project - will support.
· There is a number of ways to mitigate noise. Landscaping is a very efficient way
of mitigating noise. Residents can also take care of their own properties. Noise
walls work well for adjacent property owners but as you get away from them the
wall is not effective. Noise increases from bouncing off walls. You cannot lump
the noise issue on a single developer when hundreds of cars are coming from
other places.
· Homeowners should take it upon themselves to handle the noise.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinutes~lN090803.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
· Approve the request.
Lemke:
· One of the speakers made the comment the road dedication is required under law.
If no one was buying this land, the County would have to come in and buy this
land. Kansier responded that was correct, the County would normally have to buy
the 25 feet of right-of-way. Dedicating the right-of-way would not be required.
Criego:
· Asked the applicant the unit price range. Klingelhutz responded the units would
start at $850,000 to 1.1 Million. Association fees will be around $350.00 a
month.
· Klingelhutz said they looked at the noise abatement issue. They are concerned
and will do the best they can to address the noise - that is why the landscape plan
shows a lot of trees. It is in our best interest.
· Klingelhutz did not send out the notices for a neighborhood meeting in time.
· Regarding the homeowner's association - they might have to put up money first
so the City is assured the driveway maintenance is done.
· Klingelhutz said there are no buildings in Tier 2 - only driveways.
· Asked if the developer knows where the dredged area of the lake is. Klingelhutz
responded he did not know and would research the matter.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS CRYSTAL BAY SUBJECT TO THE 11
CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on September 15, 2003.
B. Case #03-92 The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community has submitted
an application for a Conditional Use Permit for the grading and reconstruction of
the former Lone Pine Golf Course.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report on file in the office of the City
Planning Department.
The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) is requesting a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) to place more than 400 cubic yards of fill and excavate over 400 cubic
yards of material on the property located on the north side of CSAH 82, and west of
CSAH 83 and the Mystic Lake Casino and zoned A (Agriculture) and SD (Shoreland
District).
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN090803.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
The Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for the filling and excavation of
more than 400 cubic yards of material. The purpose of this grading and excavation is to
redevelop and expand the existing Lone Pine Golf Course into an 18 hole golf course. A
golf course is a permitted use in the "A" use district.
SMSC is requesting a CUP to fill and excavate land to create an 18-hole golf course on
property within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Prior Lake and outside the
jurisdictional limits on trust land. Since an excess of 400 cubic yards of material is being
filled and/or excavated within the City a CUP is required.
Mystic Lake Golf Club will consist of an 18-hole course, clubhouse, driving range,
concrete cart path, relocated existing clubhouse, and maintenance building. Four shelters
will also be constructed on the course; however, only two are within the City. A large
portion of the Mystic Lake Casino parking lot will be removed for the golf course. The
project is proposed to be complete June of 2005.
Overall, the site plan is consistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan as well as
applicable provisions of the City Code, provided all conditions of approval are met.
Since the majority of the site is currently a golf course and municipal water and sewer are
unavailable to the property, the proposal is an appropriate use of the site.
The staff recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. Excavation and grading must be done according to the approved plans.
2. Submit impervious surface coverage for the portion of the site within the Howard
Lake Shoreland Overlay District.
3. Submit an inventory of significant trees pursuant to Sections 1107.2105 and
1107.2106 of the Zoning Ordinance so mitigation can be accurately calculated.
4. Install tree protection fencing at the drip line of all preserved trees to protect the root
system prior to the commencement of grading on the site.
5. Submit a letter of credit in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated cost to furnish
and plant replacement trees.
6. Revise landscape plan to include a minimum of 25 percent of the required 138 trees
to be coniferous. At least 10 percent of the required deciduous plantings shall be 3.5
caliper inches.
7. Obtain building permits prior to relocating the existing clubhouse and constructing
shelters within the City of Prior Lake.
8. Revise the plans to indicate the OHW of DNR Public Water #70-80P is 945.2'.
9. Quantify proposed fill below the OHW of DNR Public Water #70-80P. Grading or
filling below the OHW requires a DNR Work in Public Waters permit.
10. Obtain a permit for proposed dredging in DNR Public Water #70-80P.
11. Provide information for the DNR concerning the hydrology of the storm water ponds.
12. Indicate Riprap quantities for all storm sewer outfalls per MnDOT Plate 3133.
13. Revise the plans to indicate that the last 3 joints of all storm sewer pipes are tied.
14. Provide a detail of the sluice gate located in the northwest comer of pond GC20.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN090803.doc 7
III I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
15. Verify the information in Item 6 of the Pond Outlet Structure table detail on sheet
3.09.
16. Reroute the storm sewer from structure 12 to structure 10 through the regional
treatment basin.
17. Illustrate the emergency overflow from pond GC12 on the plan.
18. Obtain an Excavating and Filling Permit. The permit fee is $2,379.00.
19. Provide a certificate of insurance from the grading contractor listing the City of Prior
Lake as additional insured prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
20. Prior to commencing work on the site, the applicant must obtain a permit from any
other agency as required. Copies of the approved permit must be submitted to the
City.
21. Gravel clean up as a result of spills or general transportation of gravel on any public
road shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
22. Watering for dust control shall be done on an as needed basis or within 24 hours
written notice from the City. Such notice shall be transmitted by facsimile to the
applicant. Dust control includes the entire project area and is not limited to roadways.
Water for dust control shall be provided from an off-site source.
23. The CUP is valid for one year, but is revocable at any time for noncompliance with
any condition contained herein. At the expiration of its one (1) year term, the
property owner may make application to the City to renew the CUP. The initial
approval of this CUP does not create any right, in law or equity, to the renewal
thereof. Any renewal of the CUP is subject to City Council approval and is to include
any information as requested by City staff or the City Council that would aid the City
Council in determining whether the excavation activities conducted pursuant to this
CUP created any adverse impacts to the health, safety or welfare of the City or its
residents.
Kirchoffnoted that many of the conditions are standard and the rest can be easily met
with simple revisions to the plan.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Criego questioned if the conditions apply to the trust land. Kirchoffresponded the
conditions pertain to property in the City's jurisdiction.
Comments from the public:
Bill Rudnicki, 2330 Sioux Trail, Tribal Administrator for the SMSC mentioned the
concept plan was presented to the City Council in July and would answer any questions.
Paul Miller, the golf course architect, gave a brief overview of the golf course. Some of
the comments included the championship level course; all skills and levels will be able to
play; 20 acres of natural areas have been set aside; extension of cart paths throughout the
length of the course to maintain a high quality turf; many water features and bunkers;
Construction will start this fall and open the Spring of 2005; this will be one of the top
golf courses in the State of Minnesota.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinutes~VlN090803.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
John Oys, 15231 Howard Lake Road, said one of his main concerns is the water runoff.
Oys questioned why this meeting is being held because the SMSC have already started
grading and moving dirt. Another concern is for Mystic Lake taking responsibility for
workers and traffic issues.
Oys felt traffic is a huge issue as well as noise. Who makes Mystic Lake responsible?
The process is already taking place. Mystic Lake should take the neighboring land into
consideration. There are many other existing wetlands.
Joe Kreuser 15271 Howard Lake Road, stated he did not have complaints with the golf
course but his driveway is an easement with the golf course and a neighbor. He had to
repair the driveway the last time the golf course made improvements. The Watershed,
DNR and City's regulations should take care of the runoff.
Francis Battcher, 15251 Howard Lake Road, said the water from Howard Lake runs
under the highway into his yard. He battles the runoff every spring. If there is a heavy
rain the golf course will not be able to hold the runoff. There are hundred of acres of
swamp, it is never dry. He is concerned with adjusting the water tables and the existing
problems. He has to live with the runoffnot Mystic Lake. He is against it because he has
lived there since 1977 and knows the problems. Traffic is also a problem especially the
trucks jake-braking. He has bushes and trees in front of his house as a sound barrier but
the County will take those when they expand.
Bill Rudnicki addressed the residents' concerns. He felt SMSC does care about the
neighbors, they complained to Scott County in 1997 on the traffic issues on the
intersection of County Roads 42 and 83. In 1999 they offered the County 2.5 Million
Dollars to improve the road intersection. It took the County several years to rebuild and
grade the road. The SMSC is working with the municipalities on the County Road 82
improvements. They paid 100% for the signal light on County Road 83. The message
that the SMSC does care is not coming through.
Rudnicki explained the dirt Mr. Oys referred to is on trust land for other projects. They
are here tonight to follow procedures and requirements and work with the City.
Criego asked Rudnicki if they have talked to the neighbors regarding the golf course
issue. Rudnicki said he believed some of the staffhas talked to them but he has not.
Stan Ellison, 2230 Sioux Trail, the Land and Natural Resource Manager addressed the
additional traffic issue. The golf entrance will be to the north on Dakota Parkway, a
private road built by the Community decreasing traffic on County Road 82. All ponding
is designed to be internal, everything drains inside. Nothing will go to the DNR wetland.
The Community plans to use storm water to irrigate the golf course. All ponds are
designed to interact with each other and act as a large treatment system. There should be
a water quality improvement.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes'uMN090g03.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
Stamson questioned if the water ponding areas tied together. Ellison said they were and
explained the process.
Ellison said the dirt is part of a hotel construction project on trust land and under the
jurisdiction of the Federal government. All documents are public and welcomed the
inquiries. There will be a significant increase in the water quality. The drainage will be a
huge impact on the Community's storm water management, however it will give them a
way to manage the water where they couldn't do that before. They do not plan on
hauling anything through Mr. Kreuser's property. Any hauling will come from the
northeast to the southwest. They understand there is an easement that needs to be
maintained.
Ellison spoke on the process regulated by Federal, State and local government. Twice as
many permits are required because of the jurisdictions. Ellison went on to explain the
runoff and wetland. They can demonstrate the water quality will improve.
Criego questioned how Howard Lake and the adjacent properties are affected and if all
the runoff goes to the Community property does that indicate some of the runoff that
previously drained into their property is not going to drain with this project?
Ellison responded with the drainage and mnoffplan.
John Oys, said he did not know the intent of the dirt but his concem is for additional
rainfall running into his property. Oys stated if the Community can take care of the
runoff and traffic that's great but he wants his concerns considered.
Stamson pointed out all the permits required by the DNR and municipalities who are very
careful with runoff.
Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler said the Community is not creating any more
impervious surface. They are reducing the runoff.
Kansier said the City has a very extensive storm water study.
Margaret Hecker, 15484 Howard Lake Road, explained the drainage problem when they
built the golf course.
Ellison said they will replace the existing pump and drain it to the north.
Hecker questioned how much land would be taken by the County to widen County Road
82.
Kansier said they cannot address the County Road 82 improvements. It has not been
designed and the County will inform the property owners of the issues.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VlN090803.doc 10
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
Kreuser questioned if the golf holes will be driving towards his back yard. Golfers would
go into his yard is the past. Architect Paul Miller responded that hole #15 would be near
his property - not very different from where it is fight now. They will provide a buffer
from his house. Miller also addressed erosion control concerns.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
The new location of the club house will not increase traffic on the County Road.
· With respect to Mr. Kreuser's driveway concern, the Community will not use his
driveway for construction.
· New pumps will be installed and runoff will be addressed.
· In favor of approving.
Atwood: · Agreed with Ringstad and support the request.
· A hand is being extended for information. If there are any problems it appears the
Community would address the concern.
Lemke:
· Satisfied the water issue will be taken care of through a number of agencies. It
will be better than before and less of a problem.
· This is unique; it is the first time a golf course has been proposed while on the
Commission. Surprised - thought everyone would say this is wonderful Now
there is going to be a green open space instead of apartments or townhouses.
· Support the Conditional Use Permit.
Criego:
· How is the expansion of the County Road being handled? If any of the neighbors
have questions or issues, who would be the best contact to help them understand?
· Miller responded to the expansion on County Road 82. Bill Rudnicki sits on the
joint planning committee for the expansion. Miller explained the buffer and
grading.
· What is going to happen to the old club house? Miller said it will be shifted to the
northwest. The ultimate use has not been determined.
· Contact Bill Rudnicki for any other questions or concerns at 952-445-8900. He
hopes everyone sees this as a positive addition to the City of Prior Lake.
· The drainage concerns have been answered. There are enough regulatory bodies
to oversee this project.
· Contact the City staff or Bill Rudnicki if the neighbors have questions.
· This will be an improvement to the property. This is positive as long as some of
the concems are addressed.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinutesXlvlN090803.do¢ 1 1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
· The traffic issues will be a continual problem and will not be solved tonight. It
will take a long time to get the roads to the degree they need to be. Everyone is
trying to do the right thing.
· In favor of the development.
Stamson: · Concurred with fellow Commissioners. It will be a nice project. The course
designers and Community have done a good job. They are concerned with the
runoff and have taken environmental concerns with reusing the storm water.
· The agencies (DNR, Federal and City) will control a development of this type.
· The golf course currently exists. It is appropriate and allowing a Conditional Use
Permit to excavate to improve the course is fine.
· Supports the proposal.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE
LISTED CONDITIONS BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on September 15, 2003.
6. Old Business: None
7. New Business:
A. Case #03-94 The City of Prior Lake is requesting a vacation of the existing
storm sewer easement on the property located at 6063 150th Street SE.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report on file in the office of
the City Planning Department.
In 1978, the City of Prior Lake acquired a storm sewer easement on the property located
at 6063 150th Street SE. As part of the City's street reconstruction project this year, the
City has relocated the existing storm sewer on this lot, and obtained a new easement. As
a result, the original easement is no longer needed. The City, in conjunction with the
property owner, has therefore filed a petition to vacate the existing easement.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed vacation.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· The statute states it has to be in the public best interest and this is for the City's
benefit. It allows the property owner more use of his property since the City has
moved the utilities.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinutes~lN090803.doc 12
Ill ; ·
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
· Support.
Lemke, Criego, Ringstad and Atwood. · Concurred.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION AS REQUESTED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on September 15, 2003.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The Commissioners suggested postponing the bluff discussion to the first meeting in
October.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VlNO90803.doe 13