Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 06 2014 PC meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, January 6, 2014 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Phelan called the January 6, 2014 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Jeff Phelan, Adam Blahnik, Eric Spieler, Perri Hite and Wade Larson, City Planner Jeff Matzke, Project Engineer Seng Thongvahnand Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 6, 2014 MEETING AGENDA. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of December 16, 2013 Meeting Minutes: , MOTION BY HITESECONDED BY SPIELER TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 16, 2013 MEETING MINUTES. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A.Subsection 1107.2100, Tree Preservation and Restoration Continued The City of Prior Lake is proposing an amendment to Subsection 1107.2100, Tree Preservation and Restoration to include a new section related to the removal of mature trees on vacant property. Planner Matzke explained the history, current circumstances, conclusion and issues regarding this ordinance amendments to Subsection 1107.2100. He mentioned some alternatives and recommended a motion and second to recommend amendments to Subsection 1107.2100 of the Zoning Ordinance, as may be further amended by the Commission. Planner Matzke explained attachments, including tree removal on vacant land and maps of highlighted vacant parcels. Commissions Questions: Phelan asked about the language explaining the removal of up to thirty-five percent of the trees and how it is included with the clarity of health and well-being of given woodlot? Planner Matzke replied there is information in the ordinance defining a tree preservation plan and what it would entail. He explained what the process would be if a questionable application was submitted. Hite asked about the language in the amendment according to vacant property and how City Staff arrived at these numbers? Matzke explained that City Staff reviewed other community ordinances and found they each have their own basis, but all keying in on the areas of large groves of trees. 1 Hite asked if the intent throughout this ordinance is included in the amendments? Matzke replied yes; he explained what is considered to be significant, being coniferous (over 12 feet in height) or a deciduous (over 6 inches in width) and also the listed species. Spieler asked how staff determined the thirty five percent of the trees? Matzke explained the process including the need for the applicant to hire a surveyor, arbitress, or forester. He explained a woodland alteration application would also need to be submitted to confirm percentage of tree removal. Spieler asked if the thirty-five percent was not met, is there a need for the City to approve this application nor a need to apply for one? Matzke responded yes; he explained the steps that would need to be followed if the applicant felt they were going to get close to the thirty-five percent. Blahnik mentioned his concerns about the language referring to the non-vacant property portion of this amendment and asked if this wording expressively excludes occupied ten acre lots? Matzke replied that it was written to exclude some of those smaller non-vacant or developed lots and mentioned the intention was to include the lots that are available for future large scale development and larger projects. Larson asked what is the heritage tree? Matzke explained that it as very large in size, old and viewed as esthetic value; they are considered an amenity to property. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY BLAHNEK TO OPEN THE PUBLICAT 6:18 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. Public Comment : None. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO CLOSE THE PUBLICAT 6:19 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. Commissions Comments: Spieler asked if someone could cut down their percentage each year and continue to chisel away yearly until they have removed over their thirty-five percent limit? Planner Matzke replied yearly permits will be limited; tracking would be easily done. He mentioned applying yearly would get costly to the applicant. 2 Spieler stated he is supportive of this amendment; however, it needs to be communicated to the community. Hite stated this is forward thinking with future development and preservation of parcels and a goal of the Comprehensive plan, but she also mentioned concerns of private property owners rights. Blahnik supports this amendment; however, he would like to see different wording about the vacant property to state 2.5 acres or greater and non-vacant properties to state 10 acres or greater rather than greater than 2.5 acres and greater than 10 acres. Larson asked if there is a special form application that states proof of any tree removal under thirty-five percent? Matzke replied the community is active in contacting the City on large tree removals. However, it is not intended to remove property rights, but more to preserve the urban forest. This is where the government interaction would take place for permitting, not for anything less than that standard. Larson asked if a document could be created to keep track of the trees being removed, so each property can be tracked for total percentage of tree removal? Planner Matzke replied that the city does request photos or survey documents for an inquiry. There is not a permit for every land alteration activity that is taken place in the City. Larson stated his concerns of the tracking of tree removal and mentioned that it would be nice to have a file to show that the City was notified on procedures such as tree removal. Planner Matzke replied that, like speed limits, this too has to have a limit with a set standard. If the city required a permit for everything being done, it would be viewed as a encumbrance to the residents. Phelan agreed with Planner Matzke on the encumbrance to the residents and also agreed with Commissioner Hites concerns about private property; he asked about forestry in Prior Lake. Planner Matzke mentioned that forestry is one of the land uses allowed within the agriculture district. It is something allowed if they could define it as use of their property. Hite confirmed the new definition of woodlots and questioned the remedy of cutting down more than their limit without a permit and how that would effect a private home owner. She asked if City Staff is comfortable with the language Planner Matzke explained the typical procedure that would be followed; the replacement would be per formula, which is replacement at one-hundred percent if the ordinance was not followed. Hite asked if the remedy for the moratorium rather than Planner Matzke replied yes; the moratorium can be reviewed by the City Council in order to investigate with flexibility given to the decision. 3 Hite clarified that the moratorium may be issued and the tree replacement required. Planner Matzke replied correct because the moratorium is issued by the City Council. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND SUBSECTION 1107.2100 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF EXCEPT THAT THE APPLICABLE LANGUAGE IN THE DEFINITION OF WOODLOT BE DEFINED AS 2.5 ACRES OR GREATER AND 10 ACRES OR GREATER. Commissioner Phelan commented on the correction of the subsection number that being 1007.2100 or 1107.2100. Planner Matzke confirmed 1107.2100. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: nd A. DEV-2013-0014 Enclave at Cleary Lake 2 Addition Preliminary Plat Continued The Ryland Group, Inc. is proposing a preliminary plat application for a 64 lot single family residential subdivision on a 30 acre property. The property is located east of Revere Way (Hwy 87) north of 180th Street. PID 25-454-055-0 Planner Matzke stated not much has changed since the Planning Commission Meeting of th December 16, 2013; therefore, only a brief discussion was given. This discussion included information about the Public Hearing, staff recommendation and an explanation of the location, site details and landscape plan. Project Engineer Thongvahn explained the grading plan, stormwater updates, paving and utilities. He mentioned that the stormwater questions/comments needed to be researched, and staff has addressed these questions/comments. th Planner Matzke mentioned the reconstruction of 180 recommendation for this project would be to approve this Preliminary Plat. The developers will eventually be going through final plat approval on the project. Commissioner Comments: Hite stated she supports this Preliminary Plat. Spieler asked about the water and the new layout related to flooding along the trail system. Project Engineer Thongvahn replied staff reviewed the grading through that section and requested additional shots from the developer and/or engineer to see what the flow is. Staff will review the grade again and if there is an issue, City staff should be able to work with the developer to get this resolved. Spieler asked about the phases of Trail Head and Cleary Trail and fixing the grading issues before 4 Construction. Project Engineer Thongvahn stated yes; staff will definitely be looking into this before the houses are built. Blahnik asked if the two cul-de-sacs (Blue Stem Court) are in compliance with the current codes? He stated it is a good use of this land and will be supporting this preliminary plat. Project Engineer Thongvahn replied yes; it is in compliance with the current codes. Larson asked about the statement regarding extending the application for 120 days, which would be th March 19 of 2014? Matzke explained the application timeframe according to Minnesota Statue Law to complete review of projects. Phelan is supporting this preliminary plat it is stipulated that the developer continue to work with the city in the event that the grading plan needs to be amended based on spring water flow levels. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE, TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS PROPOSED, SUBJECT TO THREE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. 6. New Business: A. Election of Officers Planner Matzke explained the process for nominations or volunteers to take on the Chairman and Vice- Chairman position. Vice Chairman would take on the Phelan mentioned he will continue his Chair position into the next term. Hite re-nominated Phelan to continue in the role of Chairman. Hite volunteered to BE Vice-Chair. Phelan nominated Commissioner Hite to serve as Vice-Chair. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER PHELAN S CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER HITE AS VICE-CHAIR. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A.Recent City Council discussions/decisions. 5 Planner Matzke stated there are no updates on the City Council. He stated the next Planning Commission stth meeting will be held at 6:00 pm on Tuesday, January 21, 2014 rather than Monday January 20, 2014 st because of the observed holiday referring to Martin Luther King Jr. Day. At the January 21 meeting there will be one public hearing item as well as a couple agenda discussion items which are based on some ordinance amendment updates in relation to shoreland district amendment changes as well as senior care facility amendment discussion, an alternative learning center amendment discussion and an update on the 2040 comprehensive planning process. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY PHELAN,SECONDED BY HITE TO ADJORN THE MEETING. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Larson The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 6:54 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 6