HomeMy WebLinkAbout041204
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 12,2004
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. Case #03- 48 Deerfield Development has submitted revised plans for a Preliminary Plat
consisting of 60 acres to be subdivided into 4 outlots for future commercial and industrial
development, and 1 outlot for future high density residential development. This property
is located south and west of CSAH 21, directly east of CSAH 87, and south of Adelmann
Road in Section 12, Township 114, Range 22.
B. Case #04-45 Deerfield Development is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
designation on 13.86 acres from C-BO to I-PIon property located east of the Deerfield
development.
C. Case #04-43 and 04-44 Shamrock Development is requesting an amendment to The
Wilds PUD Plan and to approve a preliminary plat consisting of 51 acres to be
subdivided into 63 lots for single family development. This property is located south of
CSAH 42 and Haas Lake, and east of Wilds Parkway, at the northeast end of Wilds
Ridge.
D. Case #04-41 Wensco, Inc., is requesting an amendment to Section 1102.1202 of the
Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required 200 foot setback from arterial roads for day
. care center outdoor play areas.
E. Case 04-20 Consider an Amendment to Section 1101.400 of the Zoning Ordinance
including boat lifts and track systems as recreational equipment.
6.
7.
Old Business:
New Business:
None
A. Discuss Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives.
B. Discuss Comprehensive Plan Draft Map.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMlS\04 pc Agenda\AG041204.DOC 'ty f . 1 k
WWW.Clopnorae.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 12,2004
1. Call to Order:
Vice Chairman Atwood called the April 12, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and
Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane
Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording
Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Lemke
Perez
Ringstad
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the March 22, 2004, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Stamson arrived at 6:34 p.m.
4.
Consent:
None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case #03- 48 Deerfield Development has submitted revised plans for a
Preliminary Plat consisting of 60 acres to be subdivided into 4 outlots for future
commercial and industrial development, and 1 outlot for future high density
residential development. This property is located south and west of CSAH 21,
directly east ofCSAH 87, and south of Adelmann Road in Section 12, Township 114,
Range 22.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 12, 2004,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Deerfield Development has applied for a Preliminary Plat for the property located east of
Fish Point Road, on the east side of the Deerfield Development and south of Cottonwood
Lane and Adelmann Street. The preliminary plat consists of60.93 acres to be subdivided
into 6 outlots for future development~
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
I
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2004
On March 17, 2003, the City Council approved an amendment to the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan Map redesignating 6.14 acres of this site as C-CC (General Business) and
13.35 acres as I-PI (planned Industrial). On May 5, 2003, the Council also approved and
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map redesignating 4.25 acres to R-HD
(High Density Residential). These amendments were subsequently approved by the
Metropolitan Council. On July 7, 2003, the City Council adopted an ordinance rezoning
the property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The property is now
zoned R-4 (High Density Residential), C-4 (General Business), C-5 (Business Office
Park) and 1-1 (Industrial).
The size of this development triggered the preparation of an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EA W). The 2 potential impacts identified by the EA W included storm water
and traffic. The City Council reviewed these impacts and determined there are measures
that can be taken by the developer to mitigate the potential impacts. On January 20,
2004, the City Council reviewed the EA W and determined there was no need for further
environmental review.
In general, the proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision
Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. In addition to the issues raised by the EA W, there are
some engineering and ordinance requirements which still must be addressed prior to
approval of this preliminary plat.
The first issue is the extension of Adelmann Street across City property from Cottonwood
Lane to the north property line of the Deerfield property. In order to build the Deerfield
Industrial Park, Adelmann Street, and the corresponding utilities must be extended across
City property. The City staff believes this extension should be completed with this
development, and the City should participate in the cost. The level of City participation
is ultimately determined by the City Council.
If the Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions:
1. Adelmann Street and the corresponding utilities must be extended across City
properly to the north properly boundary as part of this development.
2. The minimum right-of-way dedication for CSAH 87 must be 60' from the
centerline. Left and right turn lanes must also be constructed on CSAH 87.
3. The developer must provide $125,000 for the construction of a left turn lane on
CSAH 87. This amount will be placed in escrow as part of the development
contract with the final plat.
4. A wetland mitigation plan must be approved by the City Council prior to any
grading on the site.
5. The developer must submit revised storm water runoff calculations to the City for
review and approval prior to any grading on the site.
6. Revise the Tree Preservation Plan to include a breakdown of the percentage of
caliper inches removed for roads, utilities and drainageways, and for building pads
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
2
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2004
and driveways, and if necessary, submit a tree replacement plan. This work must
be completed prior to any grading on the site.
7. Provide a landscaping plan for the subdivision trees with the final plat application.
Separate landscaping plans will be required as part of the development application
for each individual lot.
8. Submit all of the necessary permits and approvals from other agencies, including
Minnesota Department of Health review for watermains, MPCA permits for
sanitary sewer, and Scott County permits for construction activity in the Scott
County right-of-way.
9. The following comments in the memorandum from Larry Poppler, Assistant City
Engineer, dated April 5, 2004 (see attached) must be addressed as part of the final
plat application:
General
a) Provide a geotechnical report and pavement section calculations.
b) Design plans shall foUow the requirements of the Public Works Design
ManuaL
c) Plan sheets should be sized to be 22" x 34".
d) The line types are too similar to each other. Revise line types.
Utilities
e) A 12" watermain located at the north end of Deeifield 12th must be connected
to the watermain on Adelmann Street.
f) Use 8" sanitary sewer stubs out of manholes.
g) Provide sewer and water to the lot at the northeast corner (RLS 98).
h) Use environmental manholes, 3' sumps, at the last structure which is road
accessible prior to discharge into any water body.
i) Use RCP for all storm sewer, since it is future parking is not yet determined.
j) Show gate valves at Adelmann and CSAH 87.
k) Provide 8" watermain to the property to the northeast.
/) Provide water service to the property south of the Prior Lake Maintenance
Center.
Streets
m) Provide a 36' wide street width face of curb to face of curb and 80 feet of right
of way.
n) Show typical section for the roadway, including B618 curb and gutter, right of
way line, and traiL The thickness of the pavement section may need to be
increased due to the proposed commercial loading.
0) Build roadway to property in northeast corner (RLS 98).
p) Check cul-de-sac dimensions. Larger cul-de-sacs may be necessary to
accommodate trucking. Show radii for cul-de-sacs.
q) Show trail or sidewalk on the south side of Adelmann.
r) Show drainage and utility easement for the wetland adjacent C-5.
Wetland Plan Comments
s) Wetlands E, F, and H were determined to be exempt per the Wetland
Conservation Act Notice of Decision dated October 16, 2003. However,
Wetlands E and F are exempt provided that the drain tile within these wetlands
is maintained. Based on these plans, it does not appear that they are
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
3
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12. 2004
maintaining the drain tile. If this is the case, the fill would not be allowed
under the exemption permit.
t) Wetland fill of non-exempt wetlands is proposed on the plans. A sequencing
discussion, including avoidance and minimization alternatives, needs to be
completed along with a Replacement Plan Application. Based simply on the
plans, it appears that much of the wetland impad could be avoided or
minimized.
u) We have concerns that the 12-foot deep NURP pond (Pond II) has the potential
to drain the existing adjacent Wetland G and a portion of Wetland D.
Information regarding this potential needs to be included in the permit
application.
v) Wetland replacement is not shown on the plans. A replacement plan
application needs to be developed discussing wetland mitigation.
w) A 30-loot buffer around the existing wetlands needs to be shown on the plans in
conformance with City Standards.
x) Show elevations of the existing wetlands.
Hydrologic/Hydraulic, Water Quality, and Grading Comments
y) Please specify that slopes greater than 4:1 shall have erosion control blanket
installed immediately after finished grading. Maximum grades of 4:1 are
required in maintained areas. Provide note stating the benchmarks for the site.
z) A rock construction entrance must be installed on the site during construction.
Show location on the plan.
aa) Please include a storm sewer profile with the final plan.
bb) Skimmer structures shall be installed at the outlet of all NURP ponds. Please
include details of these structures with the plan.
cc) All NURP ponds shall have a defined EOF that has been protected against
erosion.
dd) Maintenance hard surface access routes shall be defined for all treatment
ponds.
ee) The erosion control fence should be extended to the north of block 1 lot 1.
If) Grading plan incomplete for the northeast corner of outlot B.
gg) Show calculations for a infiltration / storage system that has the storage
capacity to accommodate at least all runoff from 1 year 24 hour rainfall event.
This system should also have the capacity to infiltrate all runoff from the 1 year
runoff event within 72 hours. Show that the infiltration rates proposed are
consistent with the soil types.
hh)NURP Pond II shall be a minimum of one foot higher than the HWL of the
pond (show contour / spot elevation)
Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the above conditions.
Stamson questioned condition #3 "left turn lane on County Road 87". Jane clarified the
condition.
Atwood questioned Poppler's comments under letter "d". Poppler responded it refers to
easement lines.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12,2004
Atwood questioned the streets and trails on Adelmann - Poppler pointed out it would be
on the south side.
Comments from the Public:
Applicant John Mesenbrink, Eagle Creek Development said staff addressed all the
concerns.
Scott Kilau, 5431 Fawn Court, said he wanted to plead to save the tree line as a buffer
between the zoning districts.
John Kowalsky, 17392 Deerfield Drive, questioned what was planned for the wetland.
Kansier said nothing was going to be filled. Discussions with the developer would
continue to figure out some kind of trail system to the island. It would not be filled in
and developed.
The public hearing was closed at 6:55 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Agreed with sharing the costs of extending Adelmann Street.
. Questioned the definition of "significant trees". Kansier responded trees that
were 6 caliper inches and above, hardwood trees like maples, oaks, spruce and
pine. Not included are elm, box elder, willow and cottonwood trees for the reason
they tend to become diseased.
. Propose to amend the tree preservation ordinance to exclude maple, oaks and
pines from being taken at all, regardless of size. Unless the trees are in direct
relationship with the building pad, it can be a casual clearing. It is a big concern
with the residents.
. Kansier said it could be discussed at another meeting and went on to explain the
calculations.
. Questioned how many net acres in Outlot F. Kansier responded the outlet itself is
over 33 acres. The island is about 6 or 7 acres; however staff does not have a
calculation.
. In favor of support with all the conditions. Would like to see the parkland
dedication worked between the developer and City to include access to the
wetland.
Ringstad:
. In favor of supporting the preliminary plat. Staff did a very good job in outlining
the conditions 1 through 9. Nine being long with several conditions.
. Appropriate to revisit the tree ordinance at another time. Not sure he shares the
same amount of passion as Commissioner Atwood, but it is a subject that deserves
further review.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
5
Planning Commission Minutes
April J 2, 2004
. If Outlot F cannot be used as a park in the sense that the City would want a park
to be used, he would be in favor of the cash dedication. If the island can be
accessed and a trail system can be built and truly beneficial to the community
would accept, then looking at Outlot F in lieu of a cash dedication would make
sense. But would be very cautious just accepting that.
. Recommend supporting.
Lemke:
. Agreed staff did a good job in laying out the conditions for the preliminary plat to
move forward.
. Agreed with Atwood that the wetland and island would be a lovely parcel of land
for a park. Not sure how to access it at this time. Would like to see staff continue
in those discussions with the developer however, a cash dedication may be better.
. Support moving the plan forward.
Perez:
. Agreed with all the Commissioners. The EA W has been completed as it was a
big obstacle. Everything else falls into place.
. Agreed with Atwood on the park and trail systems. It would benefit the residents.
. Approve.
Stamson:
. Agreed with Commissioners, the preliminary plat is uniform with the
Comprehensive Plan and discussions. The staff's criteria and conditions cover the
Issues.
. Make sure condition #3 is correct to left turn lane on County Road 21 on to
County Road 87.
. Not sure that piece of land is a great park - it is a small dedication. Would rather
have the cash. A walking trail is nice but would not trade a lot away for it. It's up
to City Council to decide.
. Support moving forward with the recommendations.
Larry Poppler asked if another condition could be added. The wetland comments and
grading comments be addressed prior to any grading permits on the site. Stamson agreed.
Lemke:
. Questioned the traffic trip numbers and if the numbers were broken down to how
many semi's. Kansier said it was a total traffic figure based on the potential types
of uses as it is presently zoned. It assumed a number of employee trips.
Rye said it is question of the assumptions they make when they do the study, how they
allocate the trips. It will depend on the development.
Atwood:
. Asked if the applicant stated a time table for development. Kansier said not at
this time. The utilities will have to come from the north.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
April]2, 2004
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO STAFF'S CONDITIONS WITH THE
ADDITIONAL CONDITION BY ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER LARRY POPPLER
THAT THE WETLAND COMMENTS AND GRADING COMMENTS BE
ADDRESSED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING PERMITS ON SITE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on April 19, 2004.
B. Case #04-45 Deerfield Development is requesting an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation on 13.86 acres from C-BO to I-PI
on property located east of the Deerfield development.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 12, 2004,
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 is to change 13.86 acres from C-BO (Business Office Park) to I-PI
(planned Industrial) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
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, 1997, the owner
submitted an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include this land within the
MUS A, and to designate the easterly 58 acres for Planned Industrial Uses, 140 acres to
the R-HD designation and 62 acres to the R-L/MD designation. On October 6, 1997, the
Council approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which included 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.
In 2003, the applicant requested the following amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
for the area within the Deerfield Industrial Park:
. 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)
. Change 4.25 acres from R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) to R-HD
(High Density Residential)
The City Council approved these amendments on March 17,2003, and on May 5, 2003.
The remainder of the 60 acres, approximately 35 acres, continued to be designated as C-
BO (Business Office Park).
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
7
Planning Commission Minutes
April}2, 2004
This application pertains to 13.86 acres of land located on the west side of the property,
immediately east of Deerfield 11 th. This property is identified as Outlot D on the
proposed Deerfield Industrial Park preliminary plat.
This property is presently designated as C-BO, and is zoned C-5. The applicant is
proposing to change the Land Use Plan Map designation from C-BO to I-PI (planned
Industrial). The remaining acreage will continue to be designated as C-BO.
The applicant is proposing to develop the Deerfield industrial area in stages. According
to the letter submitted with the application, there have been more potential clients for
land designated and zoned 1-1 than for the C-5 area. The applicant has not identified any
specific uses for this area.
The proposed I-PI designation is consistent with these goals, as is the existing C-BO
designation. The area is currently designated for a combination of business and industrial
uses. The proposed I-PI designation allows a more intensive type of use, including
outdoor storage, than the C-BO designation. In addition, there are more design controls
within the C-BO designation than in the I-PI. However, the Zoning Ordinance still has
design criteria for this district.
The recent McCombs study identified the need for an additional 135-185 acres of
additional Business Office Park area. The proposed amendment, while allowing many of
the same warehouse and office uses, will reduce the amount of available C-BO
designated land. The amendment will also increase the potential for higher intensity
industrial uses.
Atwood questioned the differences with the industrial and commercial districts. Kansier
explained.
Perez asked if the proposed amendment would have any affect on the preliminary plat.
Kansier said it would not.
Lemke asked to list some of the uses and types of businesses that fit this designation.
Kansier said the area would be subdivided and explained the C5 district uses. The
biggest difference is the outdoor storage and the intensity of the uses permitted. The
industrial district allows auto repair, body shops, etc.
Comments from the public:
John Mesenbrink, Eagle Creek Development said he would be available for questions.
Stamson asked why he wanted to change the designation when nothing is built in the
other I -district. Mesenbrink responded the other "I" is pretty much sold. If everything
goes good and continue with the plat there will not be a lot left in the first phase. There is
absolutely no one showing any interest in the C5. One customer is looking for 45,000
square feet and needs outside storage.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
8
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12. 2004
Stamson asked what kind of uses are interested in this area. Mesenbrink responded there
was a potential for four different uses. Prior Lake Blacktop, a bus transportation company
and an insulation company. Most need outside storage that cannot be provided in the C5.
Originally they had a lot interest in the C-5 area however; they do not have the interest at
this time. That is why they are requesting to rezone to the I district.
There were no comments and the hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. The part that tips for me is the McComb Study indicating there is a need for
business office park. Does not see the need to change. With that in mind, will not
support unless he hears compelling arguments.
Lemke asked if he knew what the use would be for the one customer. Mesenbrink said
he did not want to reveal the name at this time as they have another year and half left on
their lease. They have between 35 and 40 employees.
Lemke questioned if the McCombs Study identified the need for any industrial?
Community Development Director John Sullivan said the McComb did address the needs
for different categories and space. One category mentioned was a business park. Another
thing is that it was lumped in one category as far as the business park is concerned. In
that business park you could have manufacturing and enclosed areas. The study's real
focus was on retail so there was room for the industrial district.
Sullivan said he was working with 16 different businesses that are either interested in
expanding or locating in Prior Lake. Many would not fit in the C5 zoning. They would
fit in the 11 zone because of needed outside storage. They make a product, have active
inventory and may have truck deliveries and so on. Meeting with businesses as they
come in Sullivan feels there is a need for an Industrial area that would meet most needs.
Sullivan supported the rezoning amendment.
Rye pointed out the Commissioners would be talking later in the meeting about the
potential comprehensive changes. One of the things that came out of the McComb Study
is that under our current Comprehensive Plan the City probably has more land designated
for business park use than we could reasonably expect to use up over the next 20 to 25
years.
Rye went on to say although he (McCombs) did not come out and say it in the report but
in conversations, indicated this area does not lend itself way to the heavy kind of
manufacturing activities. It does lend itself to the kind of things the City has been seeing.
There is a lack of opportunity for some of these other uses that tend to be a necessary part
of the community. It is very difficult to find a place to put them.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
9
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri/12.2004
Lemke:
. Gave this a lot of thought, and realizes there is a residential neighborhood area
near it. Although there are a lot of trees and not so sure when someone came to
do something that leaving the trees there may not be the adequate buffer we're
looking for.
. Looking at our City goals we want to encourage a diversified economic base and
a broad range of employment opportunities. This very well meets the City's
objectives.
. Nobody was present to speak against it.
. Will support the change.
Perez:
. Saw both sides of this. John Sullivan had good points. Would rather capture some
of the businesses now rather than waiting. Then again no really came with an
dissenting objections.
. Support.
Atwood:
. Asked if the surrounding residents were notified. Kansier said they were.
. Would not recommend support because of the McCombs study. There are other
areas that will meet the needs of light industrial.
. This area is so small and close to a residential area that we can find another site.
. Accelerating development does not make a case for supporting this request. Does
not see this as important and neighbor friendly.
Stamson:
. Started out more skeptical that we didn't need anymore 11 districts, however the
applicant and Community Development Director (Sullivan) convinced me this is a
reasonable request. We tend to think of industrial as smokestacks and large
commercial manufacturing. We have a lot of businesses around town that need
outside storage. I do see the need for more 11.
. Came to a different conclusion than Atwood with the McComb Study.
. The biggest concern is the adjacent neighbors.
. Questioned the buffer requirements between the districts. Kansier said outside
storage requires a conditional use permit which would require a public hearing.
. Rye explained the general buffering requirements between the districts would be
the most stringent and highest category of buffer setbacks.
. There would also be a Conditional Use Permit process.
. Comfortable this would not have negative impact on the neighborhood. Will
support the amendment. There is a need for it in the City and appropriate
safeguards in place to make sure the neighborhood is not hanned by it.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
10
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2004
Perez:
. Regarding Atwood's comments on accelerating this. The applicant stated one
company is looking at this fairly quick, Would hate to loose a company because
we didn't do this.
. Atwood disagreed stating this should not be business driven by a request that is a
"potential". There is nothing concrete.
MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO
AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AS REQUESTED.
All in favor Perez, Lemke and Stamson, nays by Atwood and Ringstad. MOTION
CARRIED.
This item will go to City Council on May 3, 2004.
C. Case #04-43 and 04-44 Shamrock Development is requesting an amendment
to The Wilds PUD Plan and to approve a preliminary plat consisting of 51 acres to
be subdivided into 63 lots for single family development. This property is located
south of CSAH 42 and Haas Lake, and east of Wilds Parkway, at the northeast end
of Wilds Ridge.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 12, 2004,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Shamrock Development has applied for approval of a development to be known as The
Wilds Ridge on the property located south of CSAH 42 and Haas Lake, at the north end
of Wilds Ridge. The application includes the following requests:
. Approve an amendment to The Wilds Planned Unit Development Plan;
. Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a development consisting of 63 lots for single family dwellings on
51 gross acres. The development also includes public streets and parkland.
The proposed PUD amendment and preliminary plat are generally consistent with the
provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The staff recommended approval,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Demonstrate how sewer service to this plat can be provided from the west.
2. Identify the use and ultimate ownership of the outlots.
3. Provide net lot areas for Lots 10-12, Block 2. The area of these lots must be at least
12,000 square feet above any ponding or wetlands.
4. Dedicate Outlot C as Park on the final plat.
5. Obtain a permit from the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District prior to any
grading on the site.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
11
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2004
6. No grading will be permitted until the following Engineering issues have been
addressed:
Gradin2 and Erosion Control
a. Show top and bottom of wall elevations.
b. Show pond access location. The pond access should have a maximum grade of
8% and shall have a solid surface.
c. The drainage east of station 44+00 Wild's Ridge does not match the grades along
the east property line. Proposed contours do not connect to existing contours in
this area.
d. Basin G should be cleaned out and the outlet cleaned up with this project.
e. Show the OHW for DNR wetland #151 W.
L Show easement for the pond on the civil drawings.
Hydrolo~ic/Hydraulic and Water Quality
g. The second table on the hydrology summary sheets shows the existing and
proposed columns in reverse order.
h. The hydrology summary shows an increase in rates for the various design storms.
Additional ponding may be necessary.
1. The summary references pond 1, Should this read basin W?
J. The pond sizing calculations show an impervious fraction of 0.366, the individual
area calculations show an impervious fraction of 0.392. Verify the calculations.
7. Address the following Engineering issues in the fmal plans:
General
a. Show the City project # 04-36 on all plan sheets
b. The final plans should follow the requirements of the Public Works Design
Manual.
c. Revise lots 6 and 9 so that lot 9 is not bisected by the pond.
d. Grading easements will be required for the work outside the property lines.
Water main
e. 12" water main should be shown for water main on Street C, Street B south of
Street C, and Wild's Ridge east of Street B.
Sanitary Sewer
f. The sanitary sewer connection to the west has not yet been installed. The
connection location and elevation will need to be coordinated with the work to the
property to the east.
Storm Sewer
g. Provide pipe sizing calculations.
Streets
h. Show temporary cul-de-sacs at street dead end locations.
i. Show concept plans showing the grading for street connections to the north.
J. Show right turn lanes for Streets B and C.
k. Streets Band C should be 36 feet in width.
1. An easement should be shown along the east property line of lot 1 for park access.
The easement should be 15 feet in width.
m. A trail should be shown for Wilds Ridge and Streets B and C.
Staff recommended approval with the above conditions.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
12
Planning Commission Minutes
April J 2, 2004
Stamson - regarding the park - here again there is a park with no access. They added a
street and surrounded with houses and there's no access to the park except from the
Jeffer's property. If it doesn't develop then there's no access to this park. Larry Poppler
said they talked to the developer about having an easement on the east side, south of the
property line. Staff is hoping the property to the east has parkland that is connected to
this too. Kansier said it would probably be a strip of land for trails or walkways into
J effer' s property.
Lemke questioned the street width. Poppler explained the proposed changes and
connections. No additional right-of-way would be required.
Ringstad questioned the steep grade and access to Outlot C through D seems
questionable. Kansier responded that this could be added as a condition.
Ringstad questioned if the two and half acres is reducing the parkland. Kansier said they
did not include Outlot D, she netted out the original area. Two and a half acres is without
any other parkland shown. The wetlands were not taken out. In 1993, wetlands were
part of the parkland dedication and the City wanted to be consistent.
Comments from the public:
Jim Stanton of Shamrock Development agreed the parkland is somewhat reduced, but
after meeting with the engineering staffhe agreed to a proposed trail and a trail along the
lake that will leave 75 feet from the shore. It has not been added in yet. If it is not
sufficient he will write a check (parkland dedication). Stanton felt all the other
conditions will be met before final approval.
Ringstad questioned the easement between the proposed parks. Stanton said he would
meet with staff and look at it before final plat and have it more centrally located.
Lemke questioned the 36 foot street width. Stanton said it would not be a problem.
The public hearing was closed at 7:59 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. Concerns with the development have been addressed.
. Have to make up for the two and one-half acres of park land.
. Support.
Perez:
. The conditions will be met.
. Stanton will negotiate the issues from staff and Commissioners.
. Approve.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
13
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2004
Atwood:
. Originally agreed with staffabout Outlot D piggybacking on to Jeffers property;
however now concur with Commissioner Ringstad's suggestion of making the
park more accessible and better situated for the entire addition.
. Support the 32 to 36 foot wide street.
. Looks great.
Ringstad:
. Question for staff - Assuming additional parkland is collected through 75 feet
near the lake or other things. What formula is made to make up Y4 of an acre?
Kansier explained how staff would calculate the difference.
. All questions and concerns addressed.
. Agreed with Commissioners to approve. Like to see a more centrally located
easement between the lots.
Stamson:
. Respectfully disagree with Commissioners. Would recommend this not be
approved by City Council. The problem with the park is they essentially took a
preplanned PUD and made the lots smaller, put more houses on it and then made
the parkland smaller. There is a proposed park adjacent but when you look at the
whole PUD initially and planned so much parkland and houses, now they've
increased the housing and decreased the park. They added a street and cut off
access to the park.
. We are getting a lot of "I think this will happen" on the next piece of property.
Look how often we've had developers come in and say they can't give us
parkland because the need to put a road here or there. It would be different if we
could see the adjoining parcel.
. We are going to end up with two little trails between a bunch of houses and we
shouldn't trade for parkland elsewhere. This ends up not being a very useable
piece of parkland.
. How much use are the neighbors going to get out of it? Ifwe knew what Jeffers
was going to do it would be different. There's too many questions.
. Now we've added more people and it's not a good trade. We need to see what is
on the other side.
Atwood:
. Can we place that as a condition until we get more definitive answers?
Stamson:
. For me this doesn't work.
Atwood:
. How far along is Jeffers' plan? Kansier said they are working on the plan and
have a ways to go but staff has a pretty good idea. The leverage is whatever
comes first. We can't condition this plat on adjoining property. It's not fair.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
14
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12. 2004
. We can condition adding access to the park.
Perez:
. We can address this at final plat.
Stamson:
. Generally from this time to final plat there isn't that many changes. This needs
major reworking without some kind of assurances from the Jeffers property.
. The City is not getting a useable park.
Ringstad:
. Weare getting a useable park for the neighborhood. If Outlot D works fine for a
park, great, if not, we should get a much larger cash dedication. It should not be
jammed down the City's throat, we should be careful on how we look at Outlot D
or the other proposal.
. If some of these other items can make up the difference, wonderful, but if not, the
City will benefit from a larger park dedication.
There were further discussions by Commissioners regarding parkland.
Kansier explained because it is an amendment the City has to follow the original PUD.
Jim Stanton was recognized by Commissioner Lemke and addressed the park concerns.
The land to the east has one of the largest park in town and this will adjoin it. He went on
to explain the trail system. If the Commissioners have a problem with the wetland to
exclude it and not include it as park, he will pay the park dedication fees. Stanton said he
did not want anyone to feel they were shorted.
Stamson:
. Asked if the wetland was included in the original parkland dedication. Stanton
responded it was. Herb Wensmann owns the adjoining land and they will work it
out. He also explained putting the housing in the north area was to connect the
two plats.
Atwood:
. Has great faith it will continue as planned. The adjoining larger park will have
different accesses.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE WILDS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS SHOWN ON THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE WILDS RIDGE WITH STAFF'S CONDITION.
ADD A CONDITION OF A SECOND OR MORE CENTRALLY LOCATED ACCESS
EASEMENT FOR THE PARK.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Lemke, Atwood, Ringstad and Perez. Nay by Stanton.
MOTION CARRIED.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
15
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2004
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING A PRELIMINARY
PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS THE WILDS RIDGE, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED
CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Lemke, Atwood, Ringstad and Perez. Nay by Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED.
This will go to the City Council on May 3, 2004.
The meeting recessed at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:22 p.m.
D. Case #04-41 Wensco, Inc., is requesting an amendment to Section 1102.1202
of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required 200 foot setback from arterial roads
for day care center outdoor play areas.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated April 12, 2004, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
WENSCO, Inc. is requesting a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to reduce the required 200
foot setback from roads designated as principal arterials in the comprehensive plan for
day care center outdoor play areas in the C-4 (General Business) use district.
The applicant has a concern with the 200 foot setback requirement. Specifically,
"WENSCO, Inc. has an interested Day Care business that has currently grown out of their
facility located within the City of Prior Lake. The business is interested in re-Iocating to
the Fountain Hills Business Park. However, the setback requirement from Co Rd 42
would virtually make the location financially impossible due to the additional area that
would need to be purchased to accommodate the required play area and the area within
the setback that would virtually be useless. It is imperative to the successful operation
that the business is located on or adjacent to an arterial street."
Based upon this information, the applicant has submitted language that would either
eliminate the setback or required a 50 setback "if a physical barrier (i.e., ditch, retaining
wall, elevation grade change, etc.) is present." If one is not present, then the 200 foot
setback would apply.
In summary, the Zoning Ordinance requires that outdoor play areas must be 200 feet
from a principal arterial roadway as identified by the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant
has proposed to either eliminate this setback or reduce it to 50 feet when a physical
barrier, as defined by the ordinance, is present. Although the applicant has provided
information from other communities indicating the setback is not appropriate, staff does
not support a 150 foot setback reduction because the proposed setback appears to be
based upon the characteristics of one specific property in Fountain Hills Business Park.e
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.d~
16
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12. 2004
Perez questioned the setback for playground equipment. Kirchoff responded it depended
on the zoning district; typically parks are in the RI district and have a 25 foot front yard
setback if the specific structure met the definition of a structure.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Kelly Murray, Wensco, Inc., said they were contacted by a business in Prior
Lake to expand to a new location in the Fountain Hills Business Park. Most child care
facilities have playgrounds on three sides. In contacting staff, they were informed of the
200 foot setback requirement, making virtually everything from the back of the building
unusable. The building could be set to the minimum setback but the playground could
not which didn't make sense. Wensco felt they would not have a lot of support from staff
in requesting a single use variance. After doing a little research, Wensco did not know
the rationalization for the 200 feet setback. Murray gave an example of a possible
situation that could occur with a car going off the road.
Murray contacted a surveyor who found a 22 foot difference on the grading. The staff
report talks about pollution and noise but there are other daycare locations in town that
are in the middle of a parking lot. Is that safer? Wensco is asking for the amendment to
give flexibility for each site and situation. She contacted other cities to find out there
were no other setbacks from parks and playgrounds. Murray said nothing is regulated by
the State, it was something put into the ordinance and she still sees no good reason to
keep it at 200 feet. She presented photos of play areas.
Stamson questioned the lot depth. Murray thought it was deep with the height difference
between the trail and County Road 42 and the top of the lot, the 50 foot setback will
basically be a retaining wall. Kirchoff stated the lot depth was 332 feet.
Murray said technically the building could be built 50 feet from the lot line. She did not
feel the building could be reconfigured. It was her idea on the proposed language but
welcomed anyone's revision. She felt the ordinance was too rigid.
There were no other comments and the public hearing closed at 8:37 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Perez:
. The first thing that strikes me is that staff states there is no public need for the
amendment but there is a public need for the setback. Agree with staff
. The Zoning Ordinance states one of the objectives is to ensure new developments
includes design features such as buffering, screen and space separation from
arterial streets, etc. By changing this amendment the ordinance becomes
inconsistent.
. Agreed with staff to deny the amendment.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
17
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2004
Atwood:
. Agreed with Perez (on the ordinance objectives) - not only that, believes by
implementing a subject provision ''the City believes that children who attend
daycares abutting principal arterial roadways should be provided greater
protection from the negative affects of the principal arterial roadways than those
who attend daycares not on principal arterial roadways."
. It is different for a daycare abutting County Road 42.
. Will not support the change.
Ringstad:
. Agreed - The Commission does not need to apologize to having more stringent
requirements for health and welfare of children in daycares.
. There is not a need for a public amendment. It looks like we would be designing
the amendment for the specific tailored use for one individual.
. Will vote against it.
Lemke:
. Read through three different goals and objectives of the City to support the
amendment.
. County Road 42 would be a convenient place to drop off their children. The
loading and unloading is clearly off the street. It is not a safety issue. It will be
fenced. It comes down to whether the children in a play center are near County
Road 42 are subject to pollution than they would be in the parking lot at Rainbow.
. All the State inspection stations have been closed because they found cars are not
polluting. It is not in the public interest.
. A park could be closer than 200 feet where children play.
. Support changing.
Stamson:
. The difference is that a park would not be built near County Road 42.
. Lemke's argument would be solid if Prior Lake was a much more developed city.
The reality is there are plenty of other places in town where a daycare could be
built to meet all the conditions. Every lot in town is not going support every
possible use. This is just a situation where this lot won't work for this particular
business. The City could go through a lot to rewrite this to make the lot work
with retaining walls and all that but we can't write an ordinance for every lot in
town. We would be changing ordinances constantly. And we are not in a position
we need to.
. There is plenty of available land where this would work.
. Does not justify changing the ordinance. There is no public interest. The industry
can be supported with what exists.
. The fact other cities do something different doesn't necessarily make them
smarter than us. Maybe we're smarter than them.
. Recommend not changing.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
18
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri112, 2004
Lemke:
. Allowing this does not necessarily make the business successful. Parents have to
make the decision. If they do not want their children near a major road, let the
parents decide.
MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Perez, Ringstad, Atwood and Stamson. Lemke nay,
MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on May 3, 2004.
E. Case 04-20 Consider an Amendment to Section 1101.400 of the Zoning
Ordinance including boat lifts and track systems as recreational equipment.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 12, 2004,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The City staffhas received some complaints about the use of temporary structures for the
storage of recreational vehicles. These structures generally include a fabric or metal roof
or cover supported by poles anchored to the ground. Given the escalating price of off-
premise boat storage, staff expects to see more structures of this nature.
The primary complaint about the temporary boat covers is aesthetic. In addition, these
"temporary" structures may eventually become permanent. On the other hand,
recreational equipment is a fact of life in a lake community such as Prior Lake. The
temporary storage structures provide an economical means to store this equipment.
An amendment addressing these structures in the same manner as other recreational
equipment may be in order. An amendment written in this manner would ensure the
structures remain temporary, but would also address some of the aesthetic concerns by
limiting location and the amount of time a structure could remain in place.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the enabling legislation set forth in
Minnesota statutes. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommended
approval.
Comments from the public:
John Craig, 2855 Spring Lake Road, felt the language in the public notice was not clear.
He was concerned with enforcement if the proposed ordinance regarding boatlifts is
approved. Craig questioned the purpose of the amendment. Stamson explained why the
issue came up as a housekeeping matter the City is identifying the problem. Craig
discussed portable car ports not being included in the public notice. Kansier explained
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
19
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2004
this ordinance does not apply to carports, is ordinance is strictly for boat lifts, the covers
and raillifts.
Stamson explained the purpose of the amendment.
Ray Sharp, 6591 Harbor Beach NE, President of the Harbor Association stated they have
a DNR permit with 35 rail systems. He did not feel they were a building structure. The
covers just are designed for recreational uses. Nowhere else in Minnesota would anyone
consider this a building structure. Stamson advised they are in the State Building Codes.
Sharp concurred with staff but said he was amazed it was even an issue.
Kansier said many lake communities do not allow boatlifts on shore. They are only
allowed in the water.
Stamson pointed out Mound specifically prohibits them from being on shore.
John Ellis, 6594 Harbor Beach NE, said a neighbor gave him a notice of a hearing in
September of 2003 of the discussions. At that time, the discussions went from accessory
structures to building structures. Ellis disagreed with the interpretation of the ordinance.
Ellis also presented photos of The Harbor and felt it was more aesthetically pleasing to
have canopies than have a bunch of boats wrapped up in different colored tarps.
Sherry Newtson, 14330 Rutgers St, said she owns the canopy structure under discussion
and wanted to submit 13 pages of information for public record. She asked the
Commissioners to consider the amendment.
Marv Mirsch, 15432 Red Oaks Road, felt a statement in the Watercraft Canopy definition
was not correct and explained a rail system. He did not feel the State Building Code
required a building permit for a rail system or canopy. If the requirement remains in the
ordinance the rail system will not be allowed. Several people leave a canopy over their
boat all year round. He did not know of any rail system that has a mechanical link to hold
up a canopy. If this is not clarified it will be the fatal flaw in the amendment.
Building Official Bob Hutchins addressed Mirsch's concerns and explained you can have
a rail system but the canopy has to be structurally designed to withhold all the wind loads
and setbacks ofa structure. It is not restricting the use of having the canopy on the shore
at all. The structure turns into a year round building on the lake. Its not that you can't
have it, it has to meet the impervious surface and setbacks from the side yard. The lifts
come out of the water in the winter. When someone has a rail system the canopy
structure is located there 365 days a year. This will regulate where they are set - ordinary
high water mark, side yard setbacks, impervious surface and structure requirements for
the canopy. It's not that you are being restricted at all.
Marv Mirsch, 15432 Red Oaks, said he did not understand that at all. If the setbacks are
75 feet from the lake, a canopy and rail system has to be 75 feet. Kansier clarified the
setbacks for accessory structures are 50 feet unless there is a slope if it is intended to be a
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
20
Planning Commission Minutes
April J 2. 2004
permanent structure. Mirsch argued these are open structures and not a building. Kansier
explained under the Building Code they are considered a structure and require a building
permit and have to meet the wind and snow loads. What staff is trying to do is strike a
compromise between some of the issues and the fact that people still want to use this type
of equipment. Staff is trying to address both the safety issues and building code concerns
and still allow people to use them.
Mirsch said the building codes are for people activities and structures. Rail and boat
systems are not a people rated structure.
Building Official Bob Hutchins addressed Mirsch' s comments and explained the code.
The City is trying to protect the public and the neighbors from the covers from lifting up
in the wind. Structures that are up 365 days a year affect the impervious surface as well
as the look of the lake shore.
Tom Reichert, 6586 Harbor Beach NE, said the Harbor has 30 or so rail systems each of
which is $7,000 or $8,000 a piece. One of the advantages is they can get the boats out of
the water to protect them. If someone says there is more chance of a wind blowing the
canopy off - that is ridiculous. The real storms come in the summer. Reichert said he did
not understand what is going on. He sees canopies all over. There is a big cost. If the
boats are left in the water the life span of the boat would be shorter. This is so obvious
that a rail system is the way to go anywhere in Minnesota. The Crosslake area has them
all over. He couldn't believe the City would say this is wrong.
Stamson again explained the propose of the amendment.
A fairly lengthy discussion followed by the public attending and Commissioners
explaining the purpose of the amendment, impervious surface and setbacks. The public
speakers were primarily concerned about the impacts of the proposed amendment. The
Planning Commission and staff clarified the proposed amendment.
The public hearing was closed at 9:35 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. Staffhas hit the spirit of the amendment.
. Support the change.
Lemke:
. Explained his interpretation of the definitions. Weare trying to subtract not add
problems.
. Support the integral definition. If that's not the definition then I can not support it
when it comes to rail systems.
. It's a fact of life on the lake, would rather not get into a situation where someone
is building a 4x4 structure, throwing it up and saying it's a canopy. It would be
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
21
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2004
better to have a kit where it meets the fire codes. The manufacturers are
somewhat responsible.
· Lived on the lake through the late 1990 sUIrtmer stonns and had to replace the
roof. Respectfully disagree with the Building Official as the building he says
does, didn't and the canopy stayed in place.
Perez:
· Agreed with the definition. It seems to have clouded some perceptions. If that is
the direction staff wants to go it needs to be attached, then I would take the
"integral" part out of the definition.
· The Commissioners have talked at length on this. The proposed amendment is as
close as we are going to get.
. Support with the change.
Stamson:
· There was a great deal of discussion on this. It is a difficult issue because there
are so many possibilities that you need to define what you are looking for.
· The proposed ordinance does an excellent job of solving the quandary for people
who currently own boatlifts that technically could be considered noncompliant. It
solves boatlifts, to some extent rail systems.
· Many people tonight were confused by the definition.
· Agreed the manufactured canopies are correct and acceptable. There are others
who simply went out and bought blue tarps with some kind of hoop system and
they are an eyesore. The difficulty has been defining one versus the other. This
ordinance does a good job in addressing 90 percent of the covers. The other 10
percent is staff s working definition of "integral", what they decide "integral" is.
· My recommendation is that canopies built and installed by the same manufacture
is an integral part of the system whether they are attached or not.
. Comfortable with the amendment and should move forward.
Ringstad:
· The word "integral" at face value is not suppose to be a subjective word. With
everything we heard for the last hour, there is some subjectivity to go with it.
· With respect to the same manufacturer purchasing it at the same time, to me that
is an integral part of the entire unit or system.
· Ninety percent of this will be achieved with the language, maybe there might be a
little more work, but this is better than where we've been.
Kansier said staff can define "integral". If the word is removed, it will be further
limiting. The Commissioners agreed.
Commissioner Atwood left the meeting.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
22
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2004
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on May 3~ 2004.
6.
Old Business:
None
7. New Business:
A. Discuss Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives.
B. Discuss Comprehensive Plan Draft Map.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated April 12, 2004, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
As part of the on-going Comprehensive Plan update process, staff has prepared some
suggested modifications to the Goals, Objectives and Policies section of the Plan as well
as a first cut draft Land Use Plan for Planning Commission consideration.
The Goals and Objectives form the framework upon which the rest of the Plan is built.
For that reason, it is important that Commissioners carefully review the attached Goals
and Objectives. The modifications suggested are intended to reflect changes having
occurred since the original Goals and Objectives were adopted in 1999 as well as to
eliminate some redundancy. Commissioners should also determine if any of the Goals
and Objectives are inconsistent with community values and be prepared to suggest any
changes as necessary.
While a final decision on the map will not be made for some time, it is important to begin
finalizing the map.
Goals H and I are new - Rye briefly explained the Urban Expansion Area (yearly
annexation area) and Efficiency in Government (exploration of partnerships with other
agencies - other governmental agencies, businesses, citizens).
The City is also working closely with the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District. A
brief discussion followed with the newly annexed areas developing and potential runoff
Issues.
Most of the draft information will be done in July. The model and system development
will not be finished until the end of the year.
Lemke felt there was nothing in the document he could disagree with.
The Commissioners felt it was a straightforward document.
The map is a work in progress. There are a number of park things to be added.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
23
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2004
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Comprehensive meetings are set for April 13, 15,21 and May 4th. The City will be
taking comments from the public and will pass on the information to City Council.
Kansier wanted to know if the Commissioners would like Community Development
Director John Sullivan to give an overview of the McComb Study at the next meeting.
The Commissioners agreed.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 10:14 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.doc
24
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the 1an!ling Commission
IL
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
N~
IVF
p,<: lOv lit k.
L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP .doc