Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-13CITY OF LAKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 17, 2013 Chair Lillehei called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was given. Members Present: Chair Brooks Lillehei, Bob Boerschel, Joe Blee, Linda Maguire, Bart Davis, Gerry Grenz, Karl Drotning, and ex- officio Shawn Fitzhenry. Members Absent: Paul Reuvers. Others Present: Daryl Morey, Planning Director; Zach Johnson, City Engineer; and Penny Brevig, Recording Secretary 3. Approval of the Meeting Minutes The December 6, 2012 Planning Commission meeting minutes were approved as presented. The December 6, 2012 Planning Commission work session minutes were approved as presented. 4. Announcements Mr. Morey stated that the following items were distributed to the Planning Commission at tonight's meeting: A. Draft motion from the January 16, 2013 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee meeting regarding the commercial /industrial park dedication. Mr. Morey reminded the Planning Commission of the work session immediately following the regular meeting tonight. Mr. Morey congratulated Commissioner Drotning for being chosen the 2012 Business Person of the Year by the Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce. 5. City of Lakeville Chair Lillehei opened the public hearing to consider an amendment to the Staged MUSA Expansion Areas component of the City of Lakeville's Comprehensive Plan concerning MUSA Expansion Area A. The Recording Secretary attested that the legal notice had been duly published in accordance with State Statutes and City Code. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, January 17, 2013 Page 2 Associate Planner Allyn Kuennen presented the planning report. Mr. Kuennen stated that staff has completed an update to the 2010 MUSA study and determined the overall acres of available land and the number of lots had not significantly changed from the study that was done in 2010. However, further research found that many of the undeveloped properties within the current MUSA required significant extensions of trunk sanitary sewer or watermain services and potentially sanitary sewer lift stations for those areas to develop, while some properties had City services within close proximity. Therefore, Mr. Kuennen indicated that it would be reasonable to review the 2010 MUSA based on what areas could be serviced rather than based on the amount of available land in the current MUSA. He stated that in evaluating the 2010 MUSA, according to the property's proximity to City services, staff can determine areas that are available for immediate development with nominal costs associated with connecting to City services. He indicated that this evaluation method also provides a guide for an orderly pattern of development capitalizing on existing infrastructure in a fiscally responsible manner. Mr. Kuennen stated that staff is recommending that in addition to the map, the following four criteria be used when considering and evaluating individual development proposals for properties within the 2010 MUSA: 1. Are public sanitary sewer and water utilities in place adjacent to the site and do the existing downstream facilities have the capacity to serve the site? 2. Will allowing the property into the current MUSA unduly burden the City or adjacent properties due to development related costs or long term maintenance (i.e. trunk oversizing and /or regional ponding credits, collector roadway financing, park development)? 3. Does the development of the property provide for or include a public purpose (i.e. major street connections, community park and recreation facilities, regional stormwater drainage basins or other municipal needs)? 4. Is the proposed development compatible with present land uses and future land uses guided by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan within the area? Mr. Kuennen stated that the City Council and the Planning Commission previously expressed support for the study and the accompanying policy and recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, as presented. Chair Lillehei opened the hearing to the public for comment. Gene Jacobson, 8472 195 Street Mr. Jacobson asked for an explanation of why his one piece of property is split with one half being labeled yellow and the other half labeled red on the 2010 MUSA Serviceability Map. He asked if sanitary sewer is extended to the yellow section of his property, then can the red section of his property be developed. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, January 17, 2013 Page 3 Rick Murray, Meridian Land Company, 3500 W. American Boulevard, Bloomington Mr. Murray wanted his property to be included in the green area on the 2010 MUSA Serviceability Map. Mr. Morey suggested to the Planning Commission that instead of considering the merits of servicing individual properties within MUSA Expansion Area A tonight, they instead address the Comprehensive Plan amendment as a whole and staff will follow up with property owners after the meeting. Mark Zweber, P.O. Box 809, Lakeville Mr. Zweber attended tonight's meeting to say thank you to staff and the Planning Commission for putting together the MUSA study and Comprehensive Plan amendment. Jacob Fick, Tradition Development Mr. Fick supports staffs ability to logically determine whether property owners within MUSA Expansion Area A can develop or not Motion was made by Davis, seconded by Boerschel to close the public hearing at 6:17 p.m. Ayes: Blee, Maguire, Boerschel, Lillehei, Davis, Grenz, Drotning. Nays: 0 Chair Lillehei asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Discussion points were: • The Planning Commission asked that staff re- explain how the MUSA map works. Mr. Kuennen displayed the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Staged MUSA Expansion Areas Map. He indicated that everything in white is within the Current MUSA and can be serviced with water and sewer. The area in green is the MUSA Expansion Area A (not before 2010). Mr. Kuennen stated that the study divided MUSA Expansion Area A into 3 categories — green, yellow and red. Any property with water and sewer immediately available is green. Any property where both sanitary sewer and water is within '/ mile is yellow, and property where either sanitary sewer or water is more than ' / mile away is red. • The Planning Commission agreed that this map makes sense and gives greater flexibility to staff and property owners when determining if a particular property within MUSA Expansion Area A can be developed. • Regarding Mr. Jacobson's question about his property being divided into yellow and green, Mr. Morey explained that even if the yellow half of Mr. Jacobson's property were to develop, it does not necessarily mean that the red half would automatically be available for development. Various factors need to be considered such as topography, there may be two different sanitary sewer lines Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, January 17, 2013 Page 4 serving the property, the red half of the property may require a lift station, etc. Mr. Morey stated that all requests will be looked at on a case by case basis. He also indicated that the City's Subdivision Ordinance includes premature subdivision criteria that would have to be met. • Commissioner Grenz commented that the last sentence in the first paragraph of the planning report that it states "Urban growth in Lakeville is directly related to the supply of buildable land and the availability of utility services." But in the second paragraph, it indicates that the economy is also a factor. He feels this is a contradiction. Motion was made by Maguire, seconded by Davis to recommend to City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment concerning MUSA Expansion Area A, as presented. Ayes: Maguire, Boerschel, Lillehei, Davis, Grenz, Drotning, Blee. Nays: 0 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. The Planning Commission immediately went into a work session. Respectfully submitted, i Penny Br , Recording Secret ry Brooks Lillehei, Chair