HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting Minutes 02-20-10PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2010
Call to Order:
Chairman Ringstad called the February 22, 2010 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00
p.m. Those in attendance were Commissioners Billington, Howley, Perez and Ringstad, and
Planner Jeff Matzke. Commissioner Fleming was absent.
2. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the January 11, 2010, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
There were no items on the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Ringstad read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. EP10-100 Wyatt Pudel Pointer II LLC has submitted a preliminary plat consisting
of approximately 30 acres of land for the development of 5 single family lots and
an outlot to be known as Maple Glen 3'd Addition.
Planner Matzke began the Public Hearing by presenting the preliminary plat of Maple Glen 3~d
Addition. Maple Glen 3~d Addition is located south of TH13, north of 180th Street, and west of
Wedgewood Lane on 30 acres of land south of the existing Maple Glen 1~t ft 2"d existing
development.
Planner Matzke explained that Maple Glen 3~d was initially proposed by the developer in 2006 as
a 55/56 lot subdivision. This proposal is to develop four lots at the north side of the
development located off the Sunray Court cul-de-sac and an outlot area that has access off
Wedgewood Lane. The area would be subdivided as its own parcel. The remainder of the
subdivision would not be platted at this time. The rest of the area would remain an outlot.
There will be no further impact to that area that would require grading, utilities, streets or
tree removals at the present time.
The total site area consists of 29 or just under 30 acres. There is approximately one acre of
wetland on the site as a whole. Outlot A consists of 25 of those 30 acres. The project site
contains 36,361 square feet of wetland and is near the cul-de-sac on the northwest corner of
the subdivision and will be protected by a conservation easement.
Access to the site is from Sunray Boulevard, originating at TH13, north of the site, through the
Maple Glen 1~t and 2"d Addition developments. Future access to Outlot A would be from 180th
Street on the south. That access will be deferred until the remainder of the project is
developed and some of Outlot A is subdivided.
The property is designated for Low Density Residential (R-1 Zoning District) on the 2030
Comprehensive Land Use Map and is currently designated as R-1 Low Density Residential zoning
on our Zoning Map. The district permits a maximum density of 4.0 units per acre. The density
for the proposed platted area is 1.3 units per acre.
L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINU1'ES\MN022210.doc
Planning Commission Meeting
February 22, 2010
The area consists of 5 single family residential lots and one large outlot on 28.86 acres of land.
The lots range in size from 13,362 square feet to the large existing single family home which is
94,449 square feet.
This plan does not include streets improvements. The proposed lots have current aces from
existing streets (Sunray Court and Wedgewood Lane. The plat does include the dedication of
public right-of-way for the extension of Sunray Boulevard to the south past the platted lots.
The developer will extend utilities in accordance with City standards and the Development
Contract will contain language specifying that sanitary sewer and water service will be
extended to Lot 1, Block 1, when Outlot A is developed.
Section 1004.1000 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that 10% of the net area of the site be
designated for parkland dedication. The net area for the project is 28.86 acres, which would
require 2.89 acre park. The site benefits from an adjacent 4.9 acre park located to the north
in Maple Glen 1~t and 2"d Additions. The developer will be required to make a cash dedication
in lieu of land.
Sanitary sewer and watermains are currently in place along Sunray Court for Lots 1-4, Block 2.
The Development Contract will contain language specifying that sanitary sewer and water will
be extended to Lot 1, Block 1, when the Outlot A is developed.
Planner Matzke explained that the Zoning Ordinance allows up to 35% of the significant caliper
inches of trees to be removed. This plan proposes to remove 33.95% of the caliper inches. The
tree inventory will need to be revised in the future to confirm which trees will be impacted by
grading of the future phase. Landscaping will be required of a minimum of at least two trees
per lot and corner lots will require four trees. The developer will be required to submit a
landscape plan indicating the location and species of proposed trees.
The development will be subject to the standard development fees including park dedication,
street and utility service charges, and utility connection charges in the Development Contract.
In staff memorandums from the Engineering and CDNR Departments, it was noted that the
developer must refine the plans to assure compliance with the Public Works Design Manual
requirements and City Zoning Ordinance. The general design meets standards for an R-1 Low
Density Residential Development at this time. If any significant modifications to the plat are
necessary, the developer will be required to resubmit the Preliminary Plat consideration and a
new public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission
finds it appropriate, the plat will proceed to the City Council subject to the conditions set
forth.
Planner Matzke asked the Planning Commission for their recommendations of the proposed
Preliminary Plat, discuss the issues outlined and provide the developer with direction. If the
Commission thought the proposal should proceed to the City Council, then staff recommends
the following conditions be attached: Comments from the City Engineering and CDNR
Department memorandums, dated February 2, 2010 and February 8, 2010 be addressed with
the final plans.
Planner Matzke presented the following three alternatives:
1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions stated or other
conditions identified by the Planning Commission.
L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMIAISSION\10 MINUTESNAN022210.doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
February 22, 2010
2. Table the item to a specific date and provide the developer with direction on issues
discussed.
3. Recommend denial of the request.
Planner Matzke recommended Alternative t#1.
Action required would be a motion and second recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat
of Maple Glen 3~d Addition subject to the listed conditions that are required.
Ringstad asked if there were any further questions for staff. There were no further questions.
CHAIR RINGSTAD READ THE PUBLIC HEARING STATEMENT
Comments from the public:
Matthew Weiland, Planning Consultant for Wyatt Pudel Pointer II LLC introduced himself as
representing Wyatt Pudel, the developer and Jim Deanovic, the owner of the property who was
in attendance. Beth Timm, their attorney was present for questions. They requested a change
regarding the wetland buffer on L4, B2 not be placed in the outlot. They requested that it
remain a conservation easement. The buffer would exist as an easement and have the
necessary signs, etc. His concern was by putting that area into a large outlot, that it would
impact the building size of the lots by increasing the setbacks.
Weiland also addressed concerns of neighbors as to the size/type of homes being proposed. He
stated that the applicant would be holding a meeting in the near future to answer any concerns
they might have.
Ringstad questioned why they wanted to develop four building sites and a large outlot when
there is a large inventory of other vacant lots available.
Weiland said because no improvements are necessary to plat the area and as the economy
turns around, these lots will be ready to go.
Ringstand asked Larry Poppler, Asst City Engineer, how he felt regarding an outlot versus the
conservation easement idea. Poppler, said that there are more trespassing issues with the
outlot compared to a conservation easement.
Perez questioned Poppler whether there were conservation easements or outlots in other
phases. Poppler answered that outlots were platted with drainage easements over them.
Weiland answered that he thought that they were conservation easements.
Howley questioned if the building pad setback is the only reason why they were requesting
wetland conservation.
Weiland said that the developer wanted to make the most out of the lots and protect the
assets that were there and that a conservation easement would do that.
Howley added that by adding the outlot, the resulting lot configuration does not make it
unbuildable.
L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMIAISSION\10 MINUTESNAN022210.doc
3
Planning Commission Meeting
February 22, 2010
Weiland stated that it would limit the building pad of the lot by 10 feet.
Howley questioned the benefit of making the driveway connection for the existing homestead
(L1, B1) to Wedgewood Lane opposed to another connection being stubbed out.
Weiland said that it was not a feasible connection especially since the existing home might be
sold in the future.
Howley asked if the developer had looked at the possibility.
Weiland said they had looked at it but the plan had been designed with the existing home being
sold. The connections to 180th Street in the future are adequate and all of the area may be
developed.
Beth Timm, attorney for the developer/owner said she had paperwork showing a Declaration
and Acceptance of a conservation easement in favor of the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed
District that was filed at the Scott County Courthouse on January 11, 2006.
Barbara Kane Johnson, 3450 E. 180th St., a Spring Lake Township resident, stated that her
property adjoins the area on the north and west borders. She said that the area has a lot of
trespassing and snowmobiling in the area. She wanted to obtain the owners name and address
to report trespassing on the property.
Tim Kvidera, located at 17776 Wedgewood Lane, said that his property adjoins the east and
northeast end of the lot. In going through the agenda packet he questioned that in the past
the developer could only take 25% of the tree inventory versus 35%. Planner Matzke said that
the 35% was an ordinance change that occurred after the original plat was submitted. Kvidera
asked about the 10 tree replacement and if that was two per lot and what it would be on the
corner lot. Matzke responded that there is a landscaping requirement of two trees per lot for
newly platted lots and four trees for a corner lot.
Kvidera said he was disappointed with the elevation not being quite right on the plan and was
concerned about drainage and silt fence requirements. Poppler referred to the construction
limit line. Kvidera said that they would be grading Lot 1, elevating the lot, and making a
raised corner. He was concerned that the silt fence wouldn't extend far enough to the north
and that water would run onto his property. He questioned whether the silt fence portrayed
on the plans was adequate. Poppler explained that the lots would be custom graded lots and
when the builder comes in for a building permit, silt fence would be required. Kvidera asked if
there was a plan for using part of Outlot A materials for grading new platted lots. Poppler said
he was not sure how the site was balanced but thought they would have to do some import of
materials. Kvidera asked if individual lots would be graded and Poppler answered yes.
Kvidera inquired about the crossed out significant trees on Outlot A. Did they use what
Tollefson had. Planner Matzke said they went with the original plat and the tree preservation
can change in the future from what was originally phased in.
Kvidera talked about the drain the not being quite right and wanted to go on record. He
mentioned that the shoreland district is not where it was historically drawn. Matzke indicated
that the Rice Lake shoreland district boundary line should be 1,000 feet from the high water
mark of the major lakes in town. This line, 1,000 feet from the Rice Lake boundary line would
actually cut a little bit further to the east. He mentioned that it could impact a portion of
L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMIAISSION\10 MINUTESNAN022210.doc
4
Planning Commission Meeting
February 22, 2010
Outlot A but that it doesn't go that far to the west including Outlot 1 and that we have asked
for revisions.
Kvidera asked if all of the lots adjacent to his property would be need to have the 20,000
square feet. Matzke said that if any of the property is within the shoreland district or within
1,000 feet of the high water mark of Rice Lake it would have to be at that larger lot size.
CHAIRMAN RINGSTAD CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:30 P.M.
Questions from Commissioners:
Perez said staff laid out the information well and outside of the questions about the
conservation easement or outlot, he agreed with the staff report.
Billington questioned Poppler regarding the engineer's report, saying that outlot A "should"
have a conservation easement and drainage and utility easement over the entire property.
Poppler explained that the wetland buffer needs to have a conservation easement whether it is
in an easement or not. Poppler added that the City does not have a strict requirement on it.
Matzke commented that the applicant understands that the wetland buffer signs will go up. If
you move the property line by making an outlot larger and you include the entire wetland
buffer now you have a setback that is closer to your building pad. The builder would have to
stay out of it with construction. The applicant will still preserve it. He added that staff is fine
with the conservation easement being there.
Billington asked if the Engineering Department had any problem with removing that
recommendation from the Engineer's report. Poppler said that he was okay with the Outlot
part of it. Billington supported the project.
Howley supported the project but wanted to see natural resources protected and would push
for the Outlot concept and its enforcement. He added that Lot 1, Block 1 and the five lots will
have some creative design changes in alignment and lot layouts. Lot 1, Block 1 will be an
important piece to the puzzle and he reiterated that he would push for an outlot.
Ringstad added that the conservation easement would help the builder and had his full
support.
Perez commented and supported the conservation easement.
Ringstad asked for any further comments. There were none.
COMMISSIONER PEREZ MADE A MOTION RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF MAPLE GLEN 3RD SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. THERE WAS NO SECOND.
RINGSTAD SUGGESTED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT GOING WITH THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
RATHER THAN THE OUTLOT.
PEREZ MADE A MOTION RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MAPLE
GLEN 3RD WITH A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. BILLINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Vote taken indicates ayes by all. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMIAISSION\10 MINUTESNAN022210.doc
5
Planning Commission Meeting
February 22, 2010
The item will go to City Council tentatively on Monday, March 15, 2010.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
New Business: 2009 Variance Report
Planner Matzke stated that the 2009 variance requests are comparable to requests made in the
previous five years. The variances were requested to make improvements in required front
yards of existing single family dwellings. In 2009, there were two applications for variance
totaling three requests. All three were in the Shoreland District and were approved, one of
which was a riprarian lot. All three were for front yard setback requirements. One was for a
sign variance in the Windsong area where they were replacing signage when it was impacted by
the expansion of CR21. The other front yard variance was riprarian lot on a tight non-
conforming lot.
In 2009, various portions of the zoning ordinance were amended including modifications to
zoning districts classifications (added TC-Town Center, TC-T Transitional Town Center) and
changes to residential accessory structures requirements, bluff determinations, driveways and
sign regulations, clarifying language definitions, and adding more permitted land uses. The
amendments were to bring the former Zoning Ordinance up-to-date and consistent with the
newly adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Staff has continued to work with applicants to
reduce the number of variance requests by reviewing submitted documents and eliminating
requests through plan design when possible.
Billington questioned Matzke regarding the setback situation and modifying the plan before
applying for a variance. Matzke said that staff has tried to educate and explain hardships
before the application to avoid disappointment. Billington said that the report is reflective of
a proactive approach in resolving issues.
Howley agreed with Commissioner Billington's comments.
Perez also agreed that the Planning Department has addressed issued in giving good advice to
customers.
Ringstad agreed that the report doesn't happen by accident and praised staff for the reduction
invariance requests and the consistency of decisions.
Planner Matzke added that the recent zoning updates that the Planning Commission accepted
has greatly improved the process.
BILLINGTON RECOMMENDED THAT THE REPORT BE ACCEPTED AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY
COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW. HOWLEY SECONDED THE MOTION
Vote taken indicates ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. Announcements and Correspondence:
Planner Matzke announced that there will be no meeting on March 8, 2010.
L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMIAISSION\10 MINUTESNAN022210.doc
Planning Commission Meeting
February 22, 2010
Howley asked how the Boudin Street development was progressing. Matzke answered that the
NAPA auto parts store was already open. The daycare is presently being constructed and will
open sometime in April. A Chinese restaurant is planning on going into the development and
they are working on finishing the area. The rest is open tenant space for now.
7. Adjournment:
Judy Pint, Engineering Secretary
L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMIAISSION\10 MINUTESNAN022210.doc