Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 23, 2005 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, MAY 23, 2005 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. #EP 05-144 The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to add additional parking spaces and reconstruct the boat launch at the DeWitte public access. B. #EP 05-145 The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to add additional parking spaces to the Sand Pointe public access. C. #EP 05-137 Wensmann Homes is asking for consideration for a Planned Unit Development to be known as Jeffers Pond for an approximate 340 acre mixed use development on land located at the southwest intersection ofCSAH 42 and CSAH 21. D. #05-141 Fairview Health Services is requesting a rezoning for the Fairview Clinic property from R-l to C-l (Neighborhood Commercial) located at 4151 Willowwood Street SE. E. #05-139 Tollefson Development has submitted a petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include approximately 18.25 acres ofland located on the north side of 1 80th Street, south of Maple Glen on the City Land Use Map. F. #05-148 Consider an Amendment to Section 1109.400 of the Zoning Ordinance to amend language related to Council actions for an appeal. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: 1.;\05 FlLES\OS PLAN COMMISSION\OS AGENDAS\AGOS230S.DOC www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 23, 2005 1. Call to Order: Chairman Lemke called the May 23,2005, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez and Ringstad, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Present Present Present Present Absent 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the May 9, 2005, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Lemke read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. #EP 05-144 The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to add additional parking spaces and reconstruct the boat launch at the DeWitte public access. Director of Planning Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 23,2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has applied for a conditional use permit to create an additional trailer parking area for the DeWitte Lake Access. The proposed parking lot is located south of Kent Street and east of DeWitte Avenue, one block south of the DeWitte access. The proposed parking lot will be paved and include eight spaces to relieve some of the on-street parking. Access to the parking lot is from Kent Street and DeWitte Avenue. This project also includes reconstruction of the existing boat launch and the existing parking area adjacent to Prior Lake. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMN052305.doc 1 Planning Commissum Muting May 23,2005 The proposed parking lot is allowed in the R-l district with approval of a conditional use permit. In order to meet the above-listed criteria, the Planning staff recommends the following conditions: 1. A grading plan and storm water runoff calculations must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer before any grading or surfacing occurs on the property. 2. Provide a cross walk on Kent Street. Questions by the Commissioners: Perez asked if this request came before the Traffic Safety Committee. Kansier said the Traffic Safety Committee would not be part of this process. They only review requests for parking signs, etc. Perez questioned if the Committee looked at the on-street parking in this location. Kansier said not that she was aware of. Comments from the Public: Kent Skaar, Water Recreations Program Coordinator for the DNR, Division of Trails and Waterways, was present representing Suzanne Wilhite, the local Trails and Water Supervisor, which incorporates the City of Prior Lake. Skaar said as a general form State-wide, the State uses an equation of I public boat per 20 acres for surface area of the lake itself. In essence, one public parking space for each boat on the surface of the water. The DNR feels the parking is less on Prior Lake. With the additional proposed parking at Sand Pointe the parking spaces will be at the maximum of 59 parking spaces for Prior Lake. This has been a 20 year proposal. The De Witte property was purchased about the mid-80's. This is a started over a decade ago in an effort for free public parking. Michael Mahaney, 3290 Todd Road, wanted to address the congestion at the access. The neighborhood congestion is backed up with cars and trailers to County Road 12 on busy weekends. The area is tight and the access is bad. He checked with the DNR about 6 years ago to dredge the launch. The DNR investigated the lake material and judged it to be silt and runoff, so there was no permit necessary. Mahaney and his neighbors had dump truck loads of silt up hauled out and brought to the side of the access at a cost of $1,000. The DNR said they would take care of it later. When the water is down, people are basically launching into a small pond. Mahaney is not saying he doesn't want the access, it's been great. However, to go through all the trouble to add eight parking spaces the safety factor has to be considered. Mahaney pointed out the new proposed parking layout will not work. It is a terrible layout. Drainage is another pressing issue. The silt comes from all the street runoff. The best thing for the proposed parking area should be used as a collection pond. He has watched the area for over 20 years, eight spots are not going to alleviate congestion. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMN052305.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting May 23, 2005 Buford Newbour, 3161 Vale Circle SW, expressed his concerns at the DNR meeting year ago. Agreed with Mahaney on the road runoff problems into the lake. Spring Lake is a direct feed into the Prior Lake bay at the access. The silt and runoffhas risen significantly in the last 5 years just from Spring Lake. Neighbors removed the silt and bog at their own expense. The monies involved could be directed in the healthiness of the lake. Fish are not coming through the Spring Lake creek into the lake. Newbour explained a similar access parking situation on Lake Marion. The DNR only put in 40 parking access. He asked the DNR why there were so few parking spaces and they told him the capacity of the lake is at its peak. The activity on Prior Lake is at it capacity on the weekends in the summer. This is not being selfish as a Prior Lake resident. It is a fact. Something is going to happen when activities are at over capacity. Chris Henkels, 3272 Kent Street, stated his concern is with the proposed parking layout. It won't work. His other concern is for safety. Adding eight spots in this tight area will not solve the traffic problem. The access is so small; more vehicles will cause more congestion. People easily wait a half hour to one hour on busy weekends. They pull out of the access and throw their garbage in the neighborhood. This is also too big of a safety issue not to be addressed. The layout needs to be seriously looked at. He is not against the access and agrees with the DNR there should be more parking, but not at this access. Henkels pointed out the launching differences at the DeWitte and Sand Pointe launches. Another concern is the night noise and lights. People are loud and noisy coming off the lake at night. Todd Swank, 3313 Todd Road, noted the parking situation is a bad idea. Swank wanted to speak on the improvement on the launch. Even if the parking lot is not approved, it is still important the launch is corrected. Dan Jaskowick, 3286 Vale Circle, said his concerns are for the angled lights shining into the back yards of the three neighbors as well as the tight parking. He noted the landscape around the parking lot will not be sufficient. It would be better to berm and landscape with pine trees. The lot slants and there is a lot of runoff. The neighbors' sump pumps run constantly. Jaskowick did not feel the proposed parking design will work. Dana Krakowski, (6701 Featherstone Drive), said she lived at 16921 DeWitte Avenue, where the boats sat right in front of her house every hot Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The street is blocked many, many times - it is hazardous. She was constantly concerned for her children's safety. The eight parking spots will not help the flow of the access. Something has to be done with the lot, it has become a dumping site for many of the neighbors. It needs to be something, but not a parking lot. Krakwoski explained it is hard for the emergency vehicles to get down to the launch. With the additional parking lot there will only be more congestion. The access was not cleaned. There were fish guts, beer cans and tons of garbage. Do you want to bring that mess up to the neighborhoods? The outhouse smells. People come in and out all hours L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMN052305.doc 3 Planning Cammlsslon Muting May 23, 2005 of the night. Agreed something needs to be done with the lot, but the eight parking spots will not help. Craig Gillen, 3356 Todd Road, agreed with the neighbors' comments. There is a safety issue. No has mentioned it is just as busy in the winter as the summer. Trash is also a big concern. It is not the residents throwing garbage in their own back yards. And, it is not the neighbors' job to clean up the area, but they do. Another issue is the runoff into the lake and thermal pollution. It is not a healthy area of the lake. A fence is not an adequate buffer zone especially for the noise. You can't stop late night partiers. This is not a Sand Pointe access. There is just not the space at the De Witte access to make this work. Buford Newbour, 3160 Vale Cir SW, stated his neighbor, Pat Worrell's concern is the dumping in the DNR lot. Obviously, there is no support for this from the neighbors. Why don't we take these resources and clean up the area and have parking access only for the DNR officer and Sheriffs patrol. It would be a win-win situation. It would help the neighbors as far as dumping and a parking area for enforcement. I'm sure they have to pay to park their boats at the marina. Toni Henry, 3289 Todd Road, agreed with the neighbors, the public access is good. However to help with the congestion maybe a solution for parking could be in the Sunset park. It is only 2 blocks away. It would help a lot. She did not feel their neighborhood should carry the burden of this access. Myrl Mahaney, 15304 Jeffers Pass, stated he spends a lot oftime down at the access. There has been a lot of discussion on the conflicts it is causing however he has not heard any estimate of the cost. This has to be a substantial cost for the drainage, grading, landscaping, etc. Is this going to be cost prohibited or cost effective? It is fair to state the information. Paul Schweinsberg, 3333 Todd Road, said there is quite a bit of congestion in the neighborhood. Who is responsible for picking up the trash? The one barrel is quickly filled. There is a tremendous amount of stress in the neighborhood. The lake is open 365 days of the year. There is no consideration for emergency vehicles. Schweinsberg said he could go on for hours on how long it takes to get out of Todd Road. All of the neighbor activities and projects are worked around the weekend traffic. There are times the neighbors can't even get out of their streets. Doubling the parking is not going to work. Some boaters are very courteous others are bloody assholes. There is no question. Michael Mahaney, 3290 Todd Road, is a neighbor to Jane Wicker who lives next to the access. Jane stated she did not want to come up and speak because minds are made up and nothing will make a difference. She was afraid the City or the DNR will take her property if she makes a fuss. Another neighbor, Jeff and Michelle Stoltz, are presently out of town and are concerned for the traffic issues. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMN052305.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting MGY 23, 2005 Billington questioned Mahaney what he felt would be a solution for the public access. Mahaney said the access itself is the problem - that is where the congestion comes in. An idea would be to open an access at the Spring Lake Park where it opens at the end of Prior Lake. There is a lot of room that would not affect homes. It is part of the park - it would be a great use. Maheney suggested this idea to Suzanne Wilhite from the DNR who responded they would have to dredge the lake. However, it has to be dredged anyway. Spring Lake Park is the perfect area. The 8 additional spots will fill up instantly and the traffic will still be there. It will be the same complaints. Now is the time to fix the problem with the park access. Kansier asked for clarification on the Spring Lake Park area. Mahaney pointed out the dredging will occur no matter where the launch and access will be. If dredging is an issue then why did the DNR say the silt in the lake was washed in and we did not need a permit. If you want to alter the bottom of the lake you need a permit. Junk washed in does not need a permit. Turn the proposed lot into a drainage area and begin to improve the water quality of Prior Lake. It makes sense to use the Spring Lake Park and put in a proper access. Martha Dill, 16982 DeWitte Avenue, stated she wanted to go on record that if the DNR does not go through with this plan, the traffic congestion still exists. Residents cannot get out of their driveways on busy days. There is also a garbage and litter problem. It is embarrassing to have guests. Hope the Commissioners look at other solutions. Dan Jaskowick, 3286 Vale Circle, said it might be a better idea to make a holding pond out of the proposed parking lot. The City has to come out and clean up after every rain from the runoff of County Road 12. It makes more sense to clean up and improve the area. Kent Skaar, DNR, said he understands the concerns being expressed. These are the same concerns and comments from the public meeting a year ago. The neighbors wanted the boat ramp repaired, it's difficult to maneuver, fencing and screening, clean up the area, address the water drainage, improve the level of maintenance and provide better parking. Skaar believes the DNR has addressed some of the concerns. The DNR is aware accommodating the number of cars is not the goal. To provide supplement parking is the goal through a combination of sites. The principal reason was to fix the existing site and improve the efficiency. Admittedly, a very difficult situation to get at. The parking will be tight. Cars and boats are substantially bigger than they were 15 years ago. Skaar explained how they are going to remove the island of trees - the ramp will be widened so there will be a dramatic increase in the efficiency of the launch. The eight parking spaces are for additional parking and will not alleviate the traffic congestion. The DNR will accommodate the neighbors' request. The proposed overflow parking site is not the best. The DNR engineers have designed the land not to restrict the flow but it will not improve the existing problems. An outlet will be provided for the flow. There is L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMN052305.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting May 23,2005 a retention basin on the west side is intended to hold water. They do not have a planting in place at this time but there will be plants. Skaar said the last concern is the level of maintenance. State-wide, the DNR facilities are "No trash" "If you bring it you take it." is basically the philosophy. We admit that it doesn't always work in an urban setting. All we can say from our point of view is that they will increase their presence on the site. There will be a section for enforcement officers only. It will not be open to the public. He will start using this access. There was a designated spot at Sand Pointe but it was difficult to use. This will provide a direct in- out access. The City is going to be addressing some of the storm water. The DNR is going to start construction after the city project. The lakeshore curvature will be changed. There will be a small area of sand for beaching. Basically improve the ability for people to get off the water. The rest ofit will be re-vegetated and naturalized. It is another way of filtering the water before it hits the lake. Lemke questioned what the budget would be. Skaar said the complete redevelopment on DeWitte (all new surface, curb and gutter, ramps and additional lot) will be $120,000 entirely funded by the DNR. The timeline would start after the City's project which will start in August. Lemke asked if the launch upgrade area will continue even if the parking area would not pass. Skaar said he wouldn't rule it out. Lemke asked Skaar what his sense of the idea of the separate access where the realignment of County Road 12 will go. Skaar responded there are certainly 2 existing facilities and the improvements at those two, in a limited fashion would address the minimum needs of the lake. We wouldn't pursue that. Suzanne Wilhite was not incorrect in her statement of dredging. Dredging is never taken lightly, although there will have to be some done at DeWitte. Going into the western bay because of its shallow nature is not a good option. It opens another set of issues separate from the ones being equally important. Lemke pointed out the low water level in 1987 and 1988. Mahaney agreed and explained the problems with the access at that time. Michael Mahaney, 3290 Todd Road said he does not want to get rid of the access but looking at the big picture this proposal will not work. He finds it very interesting the DNR came up with a budget of$120,000. It should be much higher. He is also familiar with dredging. It is going to cost more money to do it right. Why do it wrong and everyone will be back again? The current access is washing away on the concrete tiles. The silt issue is not going to contain all the silt. It is a continuing problem. Add up all the costs and build a correct access. Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler, said the City will be upgrading the lift station bringing up the elevation so in high water events it would not be saturated. A new force main will have to be run through the area. Also, new storm/sump manholes and a L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMN052305.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting May 23, 2005 sediment trap manhole will be constructed. It will be a large structure under the pavement. The City is tying their work in with the DNR. Kansier pointed out the City would not be contributing to the DNR project. The City is just trying to work in the same time frame. The public hearing closed at 7:45 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . Was there any impervious surface calculations submitted for this project? Poppler responded the DNR official was still working on it. Ringstad said it looks pretty substantial. Kansier said under Shoreland Ordinance, commercial and recreational uses are allowed up to 75% impervious surface. Poppler pointed out there will be three rain gardens. . Drove through the neighborhood and discovered there is no street parking for boat trailers. . Some of the comments tonight have changed my mind. I agree with the neighbors, adding eight spots will only compound the current traffic problems. More boaters will flock there. The solution will be part of the problem. . The streets are narrow with many driveways. I have not been there on a Saturday morning but believe it will become worse. . We see a lot of variance requests, with all the requests the DNR get to weigh in on their opinion. There has only been one instance in the last 3 Y, years where the DNR said they didn't have a problem with exceeding the impervious surface requirement. . Even with the parking at 75% the runoffhas to go somewhere. To add this to the shoreline district would adversely impact the lake. Weare trying to protect the lake. The DNR has not supported a fraction of impervious surface increase in all my years as a Commissioner. . This is not consistent with the DNR overall protection of the lake. . Will not support the eight additional parking spaces. . Hope to move forward with the improvements to the current launch. Billington: . Difficult project. The goal of the project is to expand access to the lake but with the parameters of the site, it is impossible. . I don't see how the goal will be achieved. . Then you have the traffic congestion, safety issues, the operation of 24 hours and the lights. These are major league issues for the neighbors. They are catastrophically to the stage where you can't deal with them. I don't know how this can be accomplished considering what is best for the neighborhood. . Given what I've heard so far, hard pressed to support. L:\05 FlLES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMN052305.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting May 23, 2005 Perez: . Agreed with Ringstad, it seemed like a pretty easy fix at first glance, however I do have a problem with the overall goal and whether this is going to be accomplished. . Regarding #5 of the conditions - does this improve the problem? There is doubt in my mind this will improve the problem. . I cannot support it. Lemke: . I came to this meeting with concerns for impervious surface and other concerns Commissioner Ringstad addressed. . I thought maybe as a condition the DNR could use rain gardens and pavers. . In discussions we find out one of the spaces is used for the conservation office, now we're down to 7 spots versus what appears to be a lot of adverse impact on the neighborhood. . Putting 7 parking spaces will not solve the problem. . I have been using the De Witte access since 1986 and I can see trying to get in and out of that lot when people are backed up on DeWitte is going to be a major problem. . I would like to see this lot developed with rain gardens and basins, with one or two spaces for the conservation officer and sheriff's department but not open to public parking. There is a need for public parking but this is not the space for it. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: INCREASED TRAFFIC; CONGESTION AND SAFETY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Kansier explained the appeal process and clarified the CUP was for the overflow parking not the launch. B. #EP 05-145 The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to add additional parking spaces to the Sand Pointe public access. Director of Planning Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 23, 2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has applied for a conditional use permit to expand the existing trailer parking area for the Sand Pointe Access. The proposed expansion is located on the south side of Carriage Hill Road, east of the boat launch access road and west of the Sand Pointe Park entrance. The proposed parking lot will be paved and will include 12 spaces. The access to the parking lot is from the existing L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MN052305.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting May 23,2005 access. The applicants are not proposing any additional screening, fencing, landscaping or lighting. The proposed parking lot is allowed in the R-I district with approval of a conditional use permit. In order to meet the above-listed criteria, the Planning staff recommends the following condition: 1. A grading plan and storm water runoff calculations must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer before any grading or surfacing occurs on the property. Comments from the Public: Kent Skaar, Water Recreations Program Coordinator for the DNR, Division of Trails and Waterways, said they would be working with the City to expand existing conditions. The impact would be minimal to the area, as it is adjacent to the existing access and use area. This would be the first phase of what has to be a multiple phase of redevelopment for Sand Pointe. The two issues at last years' meeting were the ramp and parking on and off site. The intent is to come back (based on funding) and look at the ramp area in 2007 for a full redesign. This year they will be replacing the planks at the launch. It's a straight forward expansion. Rain gardens will be on both sides of the expansion. The existing parking lot will not change. Changes and modifications will take place when the surfacing has to be done. David Evans, 5665 Birchwood Avenue NE, said his concern is the imbalance of accesses on the north side of the lake. It is dangerous with so many boats in the area. This access is already close to a swimming area. The boats line up dangerously close to the Sand Pointe beach area. Being a former lifeguard, he knows boats cannot be within 200 feet of the beach area. The boats are within 50 or 60 feet. The best idea would be to expand a new access in the Spring Lake Park. It is a better choice over all and the answer to all needs. The public hearing closed at 8:08 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Perez: . This CUP does meet the criteria and findings. . Approve. Billington: . Agreed. The general statement is that these public access issues are very difficult. Somehow there has to be an access. . Given what I've read in the report and comments from staff-would support. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMN052305.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting May 23,2005 Ringstad: · The difference between the public hearing on DeWitte and this is that there is going to be a lower impact on the neighborhood. Crest Avenue is a wider road than any of the roads in the DeWitte neighborhood. The increased parking is immediately adjacent to the existing parking. . For those reasons and the fact it meets the eight Findings - I will support. Lemke: . Questioned how many paid trailer parking spots are in the City parking lot. Kansier said the City would have approximately 20 with a fee. . Initially concerned for runoff. These spots are used 2 or 3 days per week during the summer. The other 340 days of the year it is going to be empty pavement. Since there are going to be rain gardens that will be mitigated. Parking is an issue. . Fully understand the lake is crowded and have great concern. . Don't know if having 12 parking spots will not make it any worse or better. . Support. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 05- 08PC APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE EXISITNG TRAILER PARKING LOT FOR THE SAND POINTE PARK ACCESS, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Kansier explained the appeal process. C. #EP 05-137 Wensmann Homes is asking for consideration for a Planned Unit Development to be known as Jeffers Pond for an approximate 340 acre mixed use development on land located at the southwest intersection of CSAH 42 and CSAH 21. Director of Planning Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 23, 2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Wensmann Realty and Paul Oberg, executor for the Jeffers Estate, have applied for approval of a development to be known as Jeffers Pond on the property located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection ofCSAH 42 and CSAH 21. Jeffers Pond is a 336 acre mixed use development. The first phase of the development includes lots for 96 single family homes, 67 townhomes, the school site and the park. The remainder of the site is platted as outlots for future development. On January 18,2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance #105-03 amending the Zoning Ordinance to designate the entire 336 acres as a Planned Unit Development. The ordinance listed the elements and conditions of the approval. L:\05 FlLES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMN052305.doc 10 Planning Cammlsslon Muting May 23, 2005 The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved preliminary plan. The staff recommends approval of the Final PUD Plan is subject to the following condition: The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council. Questions by the Commissioners: Ringstad: Usually the City gets some kind of benefits or concessions from a PUD. What are the specific benefits or concessions from the developer that fit the criteria? Kansier responded the most significant benefit would be the large amount of park land on the site. The City has about 174 acres of park land including the wetlands and lake. The plan also preserves a ridge of hard trees. Also, the 50 foot buffer around the lake provides better water quality and gives the City a recreational trail system. The school site and satellite fire station dedicated to the City were benefits the City would normally not receive. Lemke pointed out the reduction of density. Kansier explained the original proposal started with a density of 900+ units. The final plan is at 693 units. Billington asked if there were any other changes. Kansier said this first phase is pretty simple. It contains a simpler element of the PUD with single family homes. The larger developments will be scrutinized a little more. Those are future phases. Billington asked if Jeffers Pond is a pond or lake with any kind of recreation. Kansier said it is lake and the City can control the access. There is no private access. It is public however, the City has no intention of allowing motorized vehicles. Billington asked if staff knew the lake depth. Kansier staff did not know that information at this time. The outlet channel for Prior Lake also runs through the pond. Comments from the Public: Terry Wensmann, Wensmann Homes, said he did not have anything to add different from staff's comments. The plan has been before the Commission several times. They have met with many different agencies and tweaked the plan. He sees no other challenges at this point. The public hearing was closed at 8:26 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: . It is an excellent plan. Do not see any particular surprises or problems. This has been scrutinized by many regulatory agencies. . No issues at this point. Support. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMN052305.doc 11 PlIJnning Commission Meeting May 23, 2005 Ringstad: . Agreed. We have seen this many versions of this over the years. Staff pointed out the benefits of the PUD. . Support. Perez: . Agreed with Commissioners and staffs report. There has been a lot work done between the developer and City staff. . Approve. Lemke: . Agreed with Commissioners - the Final PUD is consistent with the approved preliminary plan. Support. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PUD FINAL PLAN SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE PLANNING REPORT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on June 6, 2005. A recess was caUed at 8:27 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m. D. #05-141 Fairview Health Services is requesting a rezoning for the Fairview Clinic property from R-l to C-l (Neighborhood Commercial) located at 4151 Willowwood Street SE. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated May 23,2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Fairview Health Services is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to change the use district from R-l (Low Density Residential) to C-l (Neighborhood Commercial) on property located at 4251 Willowwood Street SE. The property is designated C-NR (Neighborhood Retail) on the 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. The applicant is not proposing to change the use or the existing structure. Rather, the applicant would like to update the sites signage and will need to rezone the site to utilize the permitted signage within the C-I Zoning District. Staff recommends approval. Comments from the Public: Dan Harrington, Real Estate Management for Fairview Health Services, noted there have been concerns from physicians for signage, especially for urgent care. Exploring that we discovered we were zoned improperly for a sign on Highway 13. The sign would be a monument located in the middle of the property. L:\05 FlLES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMN052305.doc 12 Plllnning Commission Meeting May 23,2005 Perez asked for the sign measurements. Moore responded the displayed sign is too big for the site. Staff did not have a revised sign. Harrington said it would be a lighted sign with a timer so the neighbors would not be disturbed. Eli Gaffke, 4113 Willowwood, said his only concern was for the area turning into future retail. If the clinic moves out, could someone put in a retail store? Moore responded it would be a permitted use. C-I is meant to be more of a compact commercial use for the surrounding neighborhood. A 24-hour use would exceed the use. The public hearing closed at 8:42 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . This is a housekeeping issue. It is a rezoning of what the property is being used for. Support. Billington: . It is consistent with the current use of the property. Support. Perez: . Agree to approve. No issues. Lemke: . The current use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should be brought into compliance. Support. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM Rl TO Cl DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on June 6, 2005. E. #05-139 Tollefson Development has submitted a petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include approximately 18.25 acres ofland located on the north side of 180tb Street, south of Maple Glen on the City Land Use Map. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated May 23, 2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. L:\05 FlLES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMN052305.doc 13 Planning Commissum Muting May 23, 2005 Tollefson Development has applied for an amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map to add approximately 18.25 acres to the City of Prior Land Use Plan Map and to designate this property as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential). The property is located north of 180th Street, east ofFairlawn Shores, west of Rice Lake, and south ofTH 13. This site consists ofa total of 18.25 acres of unplatted land. The property is the site of a single family home and outbuilding annexed by the City on April 4, 2005 and currently does not have a Comprehensive Plan designation. Designation of the property for Low to Medium Density Residential (R-L/MD) would seem to be the appropriate designation for this property, given the nature of existing and proposed developments in contact with, or in close proximity to, the subject property. Access and visibility issues would preclude designations of commercial use and industrial uses here would likely result in land use conflicts with adjacent properties. Staff therefore recommended approval. Comments from the Public: Todd Bodem, Tollefson Development, said this is probably the most benign use of the three properties (Maple Glen development). This section is intended for access to 180th Street. It will be very low density as they worked around the wetlands. Molly Grenz, 17910 Wedgewood Lane, asked what the density was for low density. Moore responded it was 3.6 uuits per acre. Chuck Towne, 18325 Country Squire eir, said his concern is for the wetland area and runoff. There has been no information provided on this issue by the City or County. He would like to see a site plan for this project. Poppler explained the proposed project. Bill Steigauf, 17820 Wedgewood Lane, questioned when the neighboring property was annexed into the City. Kansier responded it was not annexed. Barbara Kane Johnson, 3450 E. 180th Street, questioned if it was appropriate to speak to the future plans on the adjoiuing Barber and Goodlund property. Moore thought it would better discussed at the preliminary plan stage so there would be more information. Tim Krideva, 17776 Wedgewood, stated this area was not in the orderly annexation area and now it's going to be annexed. He would like to see the land developed just "low density" . The public hearing closed at 8:55 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: L:IOS FILESIOS PLAN COMMlSSIONlOS MINUTES'MNOS230S.doc 14 PIIlnning Commission Meeting May 23,2005 Perez: . There is no current designation. Agreed with staff's land designation that this would be the most appropriate use. . It meets the suitable housing and environment goals. Approve. Ringstad: . There is no development plan before us tonight. There will be one at some point. With respect to the runoff, Commissioner Billington answered the question very well. Staff and the Commissioners look at runoff very closely. . The low to medium designation is the least intrusive. Support. Billington: . This is a reasonable adjustment. Support. Lemke: . This is the lowest density. Moore explained annexed land would be automatically zoned RI. . Agree this is a logical use for the land. There will be several more plans coruing forward. Support. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-LMD, LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on June 6, 2005. F. #05-148 Consider an Amendment to Section 1109.400 of the Zoning Ordinance to amend language related to Council actions for an appeal. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated May 23,2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. In response to a recent appeal, the City Council directed staff to review the City Code to clarify potential actions that could be taken by the Council in cases of appeals. At the time of an appeal hearing, the Council may have a situation where additional conditions would be appropriate to mitigate potential neighborhood or land use concerns. Section 1109.400 does not specifically state the Council's ability to apply additional conditions. The amendment will eliminate confusion and further clarify the Councils options when addressing an appeal. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota Statutes. Based upon the fmdings set forth in this report, staff recommends approval. Comments from the Commissioners: L:IOS FILESIOS PLAN COMMISSIONlOS MINUTES'MNOS230S.doc 15 PIIlnning Commission Meeting May 23, 2005 Perez: . The amendment is in the public interest. It gives City Council more leeway. . It is needed. There have been several cases where this is needed. Approve. Ringstad: . Can't help thinking a case earlier this year was before us that ruight have something to do with this amendment. . The criteria have been met. Support. Billington: . It defines the parameters for the record. It is a positive step - support. Lemke: . Agreed. One of the worst things for government at any level is to have a rule or law that is not clear. I believe this will clarify it. Staff laid out the information well. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AS INDICATED IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on June 6, 2005. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: None 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Staff will be bringing the proposed City Hall site plan before the Commissioners. Not for action, just for review. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:IOS FILESIOS PLAN COMMISSIONlOS MINUTES'MNOS230S.doc 16 PUBLIC HEARING Conducted by the Planning Commission ~ 2.- ~ I if{)D'::J- '14 ( 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. ATIENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT NAME I L:\DEPTWORKIBLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP.doc ~.,.. "'-" PUBLIC HEARING Conducted by the Planning Commission ~ 2~ ,/)lJD'5' ._~ The Planning Commission welcoliieryour 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. (hL 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 L:\DEPTWORKIBLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP.doc