Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 22, 2006 Maintenance Center 17073 Adelmann Street S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, MAY 22, 2006 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. Consider revisions to the Prior Lake Local Surface Water Management Plan and Public Works Design Manual. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. EP 06-113 John Bizal, owner of Midwest Military is requesting the vacation ofa portion of the former Fifth Street right of way at the end of Evanston Avenue and an alley south of his business located at 16075 Highway 13 South. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Consider change of meeting time for Planning Commission meetings. 9. Adjournment: Ll06 F ES\06 PLANNING coMMISSIONlAGENDASIAG0522olWWW.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.440.9675 / Fax 952.440.9678 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 22, 2006 1. Call to Order: C irman Stamson called the May 22,2006, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6: 0 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and St son, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planner Jeff Matzke, Assistant City Engineer La y Poppler, Water Resource Engineer Ross Bintner and Recording Secretary Connie C lson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Present Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: Th Minutes from the May 8, 2006, Planning Commission meeting were approved as pre ented. 4. Consent: None. 5. Public Hearings: missioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. Consider revisions to the Prior Lake Local Surface Water Management Plan Public Works Design Manual. er Resources Engineer Ross Bintner presented the Planning Report dated May 22, 6, on file in the office of the City Engineering Department. Wi hin the municipal boundary of the City of Prior Lake are two water management ent ies, the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District (WD) and the Scott Water Ma agement Organization (WMO). Each of these organizations has authority for ma agement of water resources; however the rules and approaches ofthe WMO and WD var effort to streamline water resource management within the municipality and tain local control of water resource management, the City of Prior Lake has rtaken an effort to update its rules and regulations to meet the requirements of both o and WD. In addition to streamlining, State Statute requires the City of Prior Lake L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN052208.doc 1 Pl nning Commission Meeting M y 22, 2006 to maintain a Local Water Management Plan that is consistent and equivalent with WMO pI s. T is process of revising City planning documents, rules and regulations is consistent with th active role the City has pursued in managing its water resources and will ensure co pliance with State Statute. Through application of its modem rules and its prudent pI ing efforts, the City of Prior Lake will remain a leader in the management of its w ter resources. F review and approval are two documents used by the City to plan for and enforce w ter resource management issues within the City. The Local Surface Water M agement Plan (LSWMP or Plan) sets forth a framework for the management of water re ources; serving as a guide, establishing policy, highlighting and detailing the overall w ter system, and providing a plan for implementation, the LSWMP serves as a co 'Prehensive planning document. The Public Works Design Manual, Hydrology A pendix (PWDM, or Rules) gives specific engineering standards that govern the de elopment and redevelopment of land consistent with the policy spelled out by the 0, WD and City. A eries of comparisons were highlighted with the differences between the existing and pr posed rules. The revisions will trigger changes to some sections of the Subdivision Or inance. These changes will also be reviewed at a future public hearing. Bi tner also wanted to remind the public that both documents are available to the public on he web site or at the Maintenance Center for review May 1st through May 31 st. Re idents can make comments for the record by phone, email and mail as well. Co ments from the public: Th re were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed at 6:44 p.m. Co ments from Commissioners: Ri gstad: · There is a lot of information in our packets. To hear the overview was really helpful. With all the developments currently going on, future projects, and 7 to 10 lakes in the area, it's important to get a handle on all ofthis. This will change the way developments are done in the future. · The proposals in front of us tonight have been thought through carefully by City staff and I'm sure in the best interest ofthe City. Bil .ngton: Impressed with the documents - it is a huge work effort for a lot of people. It is necessary given the amount of development in the City. Also see an intense effort to work with other agencies that cut across the lines in many ways. L:\06 ILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN052208.doc 2 Pl nning Commission Meeting M. 22, 2006 · Staff did a great job trying to get a handle on this and bodes well for the future development of Prior Lake. L mke: · Echo Billington's comments. Obviously a lot of work has been put into this and I appreciate it. · Is there anything that Prior Lake has added that wasn't already required by either the Watershed District or the Scott Watershed Management? Bintner responded "Yes", but it is hard to quickly summarize and went on to explain combining the two sets of regulations. There have been negotiations with both. i.e. the City approaches the rate schedule differently from the other two agencies. · The Met Council has already approved, was there any comments from the Met Council? Bintner said the Met Council is using Prior Lake's ordinances as a model proj ect. · Were there any public notices sent out? Bintner said only to the papers and website. · Impressive. Support recommending to the City Council. Pe ez: · There appears to be a little more self management with this document. Bintner agreed. · Does this help the staff or is it more work after its implementation? Bintner has only had portions ofthis before. It will be more work for the staff but will also provide one single roof rather than two agencies. It is almost a simplification for the developer but more work for staff. · Agree with fellow Commissioners - this is a very comprehensive document. · The PWDM is very comprehensive. · It's a compliance issue and we are ahead of other cities. Good job. Sta son: Agreed with Commissioners. The amount of work the staffput into this is impressive. The fact the Met Council is holding this as a model for other cities speaks for the quality of work. Proud to live in Prior Lake and be part of a city where they take water quality management seriously. We have always been a leader in water management and resource management. I think is says something ofthe quality of staff and elected officials and the seriousness the community taking on these types of community goals and resources. It's great. Support. M ION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING AP ROYAL OF THE PROPOSED REVISIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. Vot taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Thi will go before the City Council on June 26, 2006. L:\06 ILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN052208.doc 3 Pl nning Commission Meeting M 22, 2006 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. EP 06-113 John Bizal, owner of Midwest Military is requesting the vacation of a portion of the former Fifth Street right of way at the end of Evanston Avenue a an alley south of his business located at 16075 Highway 13 South. PI er Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated May 22, 2006 on file in the of Ice of the City Planning department. Bizal, owner of Midwest Military, is requesting the vacation of both a portion of the er Fifth Street right-of-way at the northerly end of Evanston Avenue and an alley th of his business located at 16075 Highway 13 South. B h the former Fifth Street right-of-way and the alley were dedicated to the City as part of he Schmokel's Addition to Prior Lake in the year 1914. Both areas ofland have no ve icular access to them due to the engineered curb and gutter that has been placed along Ev ston Avenue, Oak Street, and St. Paul Avenue. The proposed vacation of Fifth St et right-of-way is a rectangular area 66 feet wide and 145 feet long (9,570 square fe ). The proposed alley vacation is an area 10 feet wide and 260 feet long (2,600 sq are feet). If the vacation were approved the Fifth Street right-of-way would become p of Lot I & 2 ofSchmokel's Addition. The vacated 10 foot alley would be added to ea h of the southerly adjacent properties. No utilities currently run across these public are s. Th re is no public need for the portion of right-of-way which is proposed to be vacated. Th areas are remnants of a section of former Fifth Street and an alley which are no lo er in use. The staff therefore recommends approval of this request. son - In the past with right-of-way vacations, the property was attached to either sid of the adjoining property. Why is this different? Matzke said in this case the area is nplatted lot and has to be added to the platted area. St son said he did not disagree the public probably has no use for the property but the Sta e requires the vacation is in the best interest of the City and that was not presented. at is the advantage to the City? Kansier responded in this case the adjoining lots are owed by the applicant and will probably go back on the tax rolls and there are possible op ortunities for future redevelopment. The right-of-way is almost large enough for a lot. "I don't know if that's their plan. However, it would provide opportunities for future red velopment." Sta son - Does the piece of right-of-way actually become a separate parcel or part of the oth rIots? Kansier said it would be combined with the adjacent lot. It they wanted to ere te a separate lot as it is zoned R2. L:\06 FILESI06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN052208.doc 4 Pl nning Commissioll Meeting M 22, 2006 C mments from the Commissioners: B. lington: · Have no particular issues with this. It's straight forward. Understand why this would be taking place. Support. L mke: · Agree with staff's analysis. It's landlocked, there are no utilities. No need to keep it as a right-of-way under those conditions for an easement or access. There is no benefit. · It is in the public interest for future development. Support. ez: Agree with staff and Commissioners. gstad: · It meets the criteria and complies with the Comprehensive Plan. There does not seem to be a need for the City to retain these easements any longer. Support. St mson: . Agrees with staff and Commissioners. · Staff's reading on the public benefit justifies the request. There is a better use of the property. Support. M TION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING CITY C UNCIL APPROVE OF THE PROPOSED VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY. V te taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Th s item will go before the City Council on June 5, 2006. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: A. Consider change of meeting time for Planning Commission meetings. Th City Council recently changed the starting time for City Council meetings to 6:00 P . At the last meeti ng, the Planning Commission members asked that a change in ting time be discussed at an upcoming meeting. ing Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 22,2006, on in the office of the City Planning department. Th 6:00 start time is consistent with the City Council meetings, and should have no af ct on public participation. The earlier time might increase public participation be ause items will be earlier in the evening. L:\O FILESI06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN052208.doc 5 Pl nning Commission Meeting M, y 22, 2006 A change in the starting time for the Planning Commission meetings can be ac omplished through a change in the Bylaws. The City Council must approve any c ges to the bylaws. The Council will be considering other changes to the Bylaws on J e 5, 2006, so this can be included at that time. A hange in the start time should become effective as of July 1,2006. The change needs to be delayed due to publication deadlines for the June 12th meeting. C mments from the Commissioners: St mson: · Opposed to changing from 6:30 to 6:00. It's been a long time since the Planning Commission has had late meetings. The City Council's change was a good idea because of all their late meetings. The Council's meetings are pretty consistent running to 10:30 to 11 :00 p.m. on a regular basis. · We need to recognize Prior Lake is a bedroom community. People generally do not work in town and are coming from further away. · There are a number of things the City Council deals with and the public hearings do not start until mid to late into the meeting. · A half hour difference for the Planning Commission will not make the difference. We start our public hearings right after the roll call at 6:30. It's not a situation where people are here until 9:00 at night waiting to speak. · My feelings are that it hasn't been a problem. I don't know that we are gaining anything starting at 6:00. Potentially we are putting off public comments. · Our meetings start and finish at fairly reasonable times. We get through the public hearings quickly and early in the meeting. · Does not feel it is an issue and allow people the extra half hour. Stay at 6:30. Pe ez: · Agreed with Stamson, it is a rare occasion the Planning Commission meeting goes late. Have not heard any public input that starting time is a problem. · Questioned staff on any feedback - Kansier responded the City Council holds very few public hearings and they tend to start later because of the "Business" that comes first. Tony is correct, the City Council's public hearings start much later. The Council's point wasn't so much getting things started earlier but maybe not extending the meetings so late into the evening. We have all been here when an item comes on at 11 :00 at night and still have people waiting to speak. I haven't heard any negative feedback from the Council. · While I agree with Commissioner Stamson I do not have strong feelings either way. Le ke: · I think there are a lot of arguments for both sides. Moving it to 6:00, the same time as the City Council would give the public some consistency. The City Council has always started their meetings with public comment. As I recall, they L:\O FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN052208.doc 6 Pl nning Commissioll Meetillg M, y 22, 2006 were not getting a lot of response at their meetings at 7:00 so maybe 7:00 is too late and 6:30 is just right. · My own feeling is that people who attend the Planning Commission meetings are people who are directly affected by an issue and would attend either 6:00 or 9:00. I don't think it would make a difference. · There is some benefit to staff being overworked starting at 6:00 versus 6:30. They give a lot of their time to these as well as other meetings. · To me it doesn't really matter. Lean toward the 6:00 start time for the consistency with the Council and the benefit to staff. Unless there is some negative impact, I would go with 6:00. St mson: · Questioned if the City Council actually starts at 6:00. Kansier responded the meeting starts at 6:00 with the public form and business part of the meeting following shortly after. Bi lington: · I like the idea of people getting in early and out early. Generally speaking, I think as far as evening meetings, get in and get out at the end of the day. · I like the uniformity with City Council- there is no confusion. . Support early start time. Ri gstad: · Personally, I do not have a huge opinion other way. I can be here either time. · My comments actually mirror Lemke's comments. The people affected are going to be here at the proposed time. Like we all do, make arrangements to be there. · With the advanced notices to the public, I do not see it as a problem. Like Billington's comments of "early in early out". There are advantages to that at the end of a long day. . Agree going to an early 6:00 start. St mson: · Given the timing issue is not a big deal, if its not a big deal to be here early then its not a big deal to be here late either, because that was kind ofthe impetus on the Council. They thought the meetings were going too late but if we're going to agree that people will get here at 6:00 or 9:00 if it affects them doesn't make much difference. · Going forward changing the start time to 6:00 may lessen our pool for future Planning Commissioners. Will we limit people from attending meetings? Commissioners discussed working times. sier pointed out all the other advisory committees (Lake Advisory is at 5 :00; Park isory is at 6:00; Traffic Safety is at 3:00) meet before 6:00 p.m. From a staffs pective, they are available, either way. Same with developers, it's their job, they will t the meeting whenever the set time. The people to think about would be applicants L:\O FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN052208.doc 7 Pl nnillg Commissioll M eetillg U y 22, 2006 However people tell us their availability and staff mson: · Felt the difference from 7:00 to 6:00 is a big difference with City Council. I guess I didn't see it as an issue for the Planning Commission. It is not that big of a change either way. A es by Billington, Lemke, Perez and Ringstad. Stamson nay. MOTION CARRIED. TION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, RECOMMENDING A 6:00 . START TIME STARTING JULY I, 2006. K sier asked for a response on the Land and Lake Tour with City Council, Lake A visory and Planning Commission, Tuesday, June 13th - 5:00 at Lakefront Park. Adjournment: T e meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. L:\O FILESI06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN052208.doc 8 PUBLIC HEARING Conducted by the Planning Commission IJ\~ ~ad-Q(, 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 jJv. ,~ S 1V'1N ~{LL S5311- L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP .doc