HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 October 17 2016 Meeting Minutes draft
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, October 17, 2016
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, October 17, 2016 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting
to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Wade Larson, Mark Petersen,
William Kallberg and David Tieman. Also present were Director Dan Rogness, Planner Jeff Matzke and
Development Services Assistant Sandra Woods.
2. Approval of Agenda:
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 17,
2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried.
3. Approval of Monday, September 19, 2016 Meeting Minutes:
MOTION BY KALLBERG & PETERSEN, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY,
SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Amendments to the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance - Consider Amendments that relate to the City’s
Ordinance on Tree Preservation and Restoration (Subsection 1107.2100 of the Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinance). The proposed amendments include the removal of ash trees as an acceptable tree
species, and the addition of more options on how the City will accept/allow tree replacements.
Planner Matzke introduced the request for the consideration of a request to recommend amendments
to Subsection 1107.2100 (Tree Preservation and Restoration of the City Code) to address updates and
allow additional options for tree replacement. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues,
alternatives and recommended motion. He presented amendments to Subsection 1107.2100 of the City
Code and an example of possible landscape plan in compliance with proposed amendments.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Fleming questioned the redlined language and other items regarding guidelines and historically
trends/patterns. He said he is curious in looking at the language and asked how do we provide comfort
to the citizens of predictable practices that they can rely on as well as new employees have a subjective
arrangement; he questioned what the implication of this would be.
Planner Matzke said consistency over time is something we strive for as a City Staff. He commented
on adding additional language of the points being made verbally tonight of the intension of the ordinance
and the intent of possibly listing these as go to options. He commented on the number of trees, agreed
with additional language to satisfy the intent and explained the reasoning for Staff position rather than
the Planning Commissioner or City Council decision.
Kallberg asked about the initial installation requirement, long term enforcement of property that has
changed hands and the homeowner’s options for removing trees.
Planner Matzke gave examples of opening the door for more options and explained the City’s governing
of the placement of trees and the outcome of private property. He explained the reasoning behind the
options.
Larson stated what he felt was originally intended and clarified if we were looking at twenty-five percent
of shrubs and etc.
Planner Matzke explained the percentages, where the focus is and other options for a complete
package.
Tieman said he likes the intention of more options; however, has concerns about the cash portion, how
it is calculated and asked if there any way to put some rigger around that.
Planner Matzke said we could put a dollar amount to it, as we actually have a dollar amount per inch.
Fleming suggested adding the word “the” between “to” and “City”.
Petersen explained a similar situation and outcome of what happened to a neighbor. He asked in the
future who is going to decide where and when the trees will be planted. He commented on if he had to
pay for trees and asked if the applicant gets to pick the type and location of the trees.
Planner Matzke said each situation is different and gave examples of how we try our best to work with
the property owners and nearby residents. He mentioned some examples and stated the City tries to be
as accommodating as they can. He explained how a dispute could end in a Zoning Administrative Appeal
and be in the hands of the Planning Commission and even onto the City Council. He said there has not
been a lot of this in the past. He commented on how the City works on this by a Lot by Lot scenario;
usually there is some way to make it work out.
Petersen asked about removing the Ash trees as a possible option. He questioned what other Cities are
doing in this situation and if there is a successful plan that they are currently practicing.
Planner Matzke explained this came up from the Public Works and Parks Department and explained
how it would be hard to even find an ash tree at this point due to the ash bore bug. He explained the
reasoning of elimination of ash and talked about using or removing ash trees. He explained we are not
giving up on the fight with ash bore, the cure and/or treatments.
Petersen said clarified he was interested in what other communities are referring to as far as lots and
replacement trees, and dealing with developers. He asked if we know what their rules are and are they
similar to what is being proposed.
Planner Matzke explained the similarities and differences between some Cities in comparison to the City
of Prior Lake. He said the City of Prior Lake had a task force look into this ordinance ten years ago;
stating we are a little stricter in keeping an urban forest in all the areas of our community.
Petersen said so you have taken a look at what other Cities are doing?
Planner Matzke replied yes, we have looked at a few.
Director Rogness pointed out Shakopee’s various options as an example and stated with the
adjustments made from our City Attorney, that is what is being proposed.
Petersen asked and is it being used successfully? Did we get any feedback from them?
Director Rogness replied he would check on how successful it has been for Shakopee or how many
times they have used the various options.
Petersen questioned the list of acceptable trees. He said he searched the desirable trees list on the
internet; he commented on fast growing trees and pollen of trees and asked if we consult with anyone
about this.
Planner Matzke replied the list Commissioner Petersen is referring to is over eleven or twelve years old,
with possibly a few minor alterations. He explained what kind of trees we look for, gave examples of
hardwood and softwood trees and explained the hardwood is what is recommended as they are hardy
and resistant to disease and insects.
Kallberg explained the wetland encroachment and the similarities between the prioritizing and options
of a wetland versus what is being proposed today, stating he understands the priorities that we are trying
to lay out.
Planner Matzke said we will look at the language for prioritizing and stated that it is the exact same
ideology that we are trying to achieve with the ordinance.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO CONTINUE THE OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON
4A AT 6:33 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
None.
MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT
6:34 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Fleming said he would like to table this item for further discussion after more research is completed by
staff regarding intent and pick up of where we left off.
Petersen stated he would like to get more feedback regarding what is working for other Cities. He is not
in favor of the bush/shrubbery plan, as mentioned as he doesn’t see how this is going to add anything.
Kallberg mentioned the kinds of trees listed and questioned the prioritizing of species. He questioned
the mixing of tree species and asked if this is planned out in the landscape plan.
Petersen said he would be interested to see if there are high problem trees and used an example of
allergic reactions. He would like this looked into, but doesn’t see the need to hire an arborist.
Larson asked a couple questions regarding development around highway 42 prior to and after 1996. He
questioned how this would affect some of the recent decision we have versus previous ordinances and
changing this midstream.
Planner Matzke replied explaining where the tree ordinance first started to occur in Prior Lake; prior to
1996 and he further explained the elements to try to define at which point we are going to look at the
ordinance and scrutinize it
Larson asked about an owner having a wooded lot and wanting to remove all the trees before they sell
the lot to make it more marketable; is that pretty much included in this as well.
Planner Matzke explained that we try to indicate as much as possible and touched base on limitations
allowances with property rights. He said most people do understand and appreciate wooded lots or
having trees on their property and don’t always view it as a liability. He explained there are some cases
of removing trees and stated the main intention of this ordinance is to keep an urban forest at every site.
Director Rogness said staff looked at that very issue at one point and he would like to look for the results
and hopefully have this information in our next meeting report.
Larson suggested continuing with the platting process unless it has been changed.
MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY PETERSEN & KALLBERG TO TABLE ITEM 4A TO THE NEXT
REGULARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 6:43 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried.
5. Old Business:
A. Comprehensive Plan Discussion
Staff held workshop to discuss the following items: (1) downtown tour – the Commissioners discussed
their thoughts and conclusions regarding the downtown tour of Chaska and Excelsior; (2) timeline – staff
presented a revised timeline for what to expect for the planning process through the remainder of 2016
and into 2017; (3) public engagement – staff reviewed some preliminary public engagement ideas with
the Commission based on a recent panel discussion hosted by the Met Council, including some examples
from Hopkins (“Cultivate Hopkins”) and Rosemount; (4) public uses – staff discussed appropriate types
of land uses for public uses, such as parks, open space, schools, city facilities and golf courses; and (5)
Maxfield housing presentation – the Commissioners briefly discussed the recent Maxfield Housing Needs
Assessment presentation on October 10 for Prior Lake.
6. New Business:
None.
7. Adjournment:
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY LARSON TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2016
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 6:43 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen, Kallberg and Tieman. The Motion carried.
Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant