The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7D Concept Plan for Eagle Creek EstatesPLO ti U tr1 �INNESO� 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake. MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JANUARY 18, 2011 AGENDA #: 7D PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER PRESENTER: JEFF MATZKE AGENDA ITEM: PRESENTATION OF CONCEPT PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS EAGLE CREEK ESTATES DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to share the developer's concept for the proposed Eagle Creek Estates Development with the City Council and to provide the Councilmember's with an opportunity to provide infor- mal, non - binding feedback on the concept to the developer. Histo The City's zoning ordinance allows developers to review their concept plan with the city council to help direct them in the preparation of their preliminary plat and PUD. Equity Properties LLC has submitted a revised concept plan for approx- imately 45 acres of property located northeast of Credit River Road /CR 21 ( formerly known as the Snell property). The concept plan reflects a mixed use development of 79 lots for single family homes, park property, and future commercial land. This property is presently zoned R -1 (Low Density Residential) and is designated as R -LD (Urban Low Density Res- idential) and C -BO (Business Office Park) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The easternmost portion of the development is within the Shoreland District for Markley Lake. The purpose of this item is to provide the developer with the opportunity to present the concept for the proposed development to the Council and allow the Council members an opportunity to express any particular con- cerns or comments. This discussion is for informational purposes only and any comments made by members of the Council are informal and non - binding on the Council. The Planning Commission reviewed the cur- rent concept plan at their January 10, 2011 meeting. The Planning Commissioners expressed general support for the overall concept, par- ticularly related to the proposed connections for Fish Point Road and Credit River Road, but did discuss some concerns related to the following aspects of the concept (draft minutes are attached): • Lack of PUD benefits offered by the developer; • Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments to reclassify Business Park land to Retail Commercial and Low Density Resi- dential land; • Sensitivity to the natural environment — in particular the northeas- tern area of the site; and • Small lot sizes and reduced setbacks requested. ISSUES: The developer has submitted a concept plan for the development of this site with 79 single family lots. For discussion purposes, the staff has identified the following issues: 2030 Comprehensive Plan: The site is currently guided as R -LD (Urban Low Density Residential) for approximately 30.92 acres and C -BO (Business Office Park) for approx- imately 14.81 acres on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. If the proposed concept was to come to fruition, the developer would need to apply for the following amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Approximately 0.68 acres would need to be removed from the C- BO (Business Office Park) designation and instead re- designated as R -LD (Urban Low Density Residential). Approximately 7.99 acres would need to be removed from the C- BO (Business Office Park) designation and re- designated as C- CC (Community Retail Shopping). Design /Site Layout: • 79 lots are identified with an average of 12,137 square feet; how- ever, only 19 lots meet the current minimum lot width and lot area requirements of 86 feet wide and 12,000 square feet (103 feet and 14,400 square feet for corner lots). • The developer proposes interior side yard building setbacks of 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other side as well as 20 foot side yard setbacks when abutting a street for corner lots. The Zoning Ordinance requires 10 foot interior side yard setbacks and 25 side yard setbacks when abutting a street on corner lots. • The concept plan indicates the connection of Fish Point Rd as a major north -south collector street. The design indicates a divided roadway similar to the design of the existing Fish Point Road. The developer also identifies the connection of Credit River Road as a major east -west connector through the area. Another road, Markley Lake Drive, is proposed to connect to the future devel- opment of the residentially guided property to the northwest. • Utility connections for the site must connect to the existing sewer & water mains to the southwest of the site and along Fish Point Road. These connections are identified on the conceptual utility layout. Storm Water: • Historically, there have been flooding issues in the Markley Lake Watershed. For that reason, the City is evaluating the long term flood potential for the Markley Lake Watershed, as it relates to fu- ture development in the area. A preliminary drainage study is completed and will be shared with the Council in the near future. 2 As the development moves forward, the developer will want to continue to work with the City to modify the development as needed to accommodate the ultimate findings related to the long term flood strategy for this high risk watershed. Natural Environment: • This site is heavily wooded with significant trees. For this reason, it is understood that any development of the site will impact trees. Nevertheless, the site also lends itself as an opportunity to utilize innovative site planning (clustering, etc.) that would preserve the sites natural features. Possible lot layout modifications may be made to preserve trees located in the northwest corner of the site. Adjacent Land: The layout accommodates road connections to adjacent land. Due to existing grades, existing roadway alignments, and trees on adjacent property, the site has some limitations in regards to the site layout and roadway connections to adjacent properties. Giv- en the existing grades, the locations of road connections to the adjacent properties appear appropriate. An additional road con- nection may want to be considered to the west from proposed Eagle Creek Court. Tree impacts as a result of these connections will be evaluated by City Staff as part of the preliminary plat re- view. Parks: A 1.18 acre public park is identified in the northwest corner of the site. The proposed park area would adjoin the existing Brooks- ville Hills Neighborhood Park. The standard parkland dedication requirement for a development is 10% of the net area. Net area is established by removing wetland area and existing public right of way from the gross land area calculation. The parkland dedica- tion requirement is approximately 4.5 acres. According to Ordin- ance Section 1004.1002 the remainder of the parkland dedication requirement (difference between 1.18 acre public park and 4.5 acre requirement) may be satisfied by a cash payment to the City in lieu of parkland. In addition, the newly configured park will con- tain a new play structure to accommodate 5 -12 year olds. Planned Unit Development Criteria: • The developer is suggesting the use of the PUD to allow a mix- ture of uses and other modifications to the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of a PUD is stated in Section 1106.100 of the Zoning Ordinance: 1106.100: PURPOSE. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is to offer an alternative to de- velopment as outlined in the residential, commercial, and industrial use districts of this Ordinance. The PUD District provides for greater flexibility in the development and re- development process as compared to development under 3 the definitive and precise requirements of the conventional use districts. The PUD District must demonstrate that the particular areas to be developed can offer greater value to the community and can better meet the community's health, welfare, and safety requirements than if those same areas were to be developed in a single purpose zone. The PUD process provides for a joint plan- ning /design effort by developers and City officials. Devel- opment in a single purpose Use District establishes maxi- mum limits within which developers must perform. The Planned Unit Development may be multi - purpose in nature so that not only may it be residential, commercial, or in- dustrial, but also it may contain a combination of these uses. It is not the intent of this Section to allow for reduc- tions or waivers to the standard Use District requirements solely for the purpose of increasing overall density, allow- ing the use of private streets or allowing development that otherwise could not be approved. • Section 1106.501 states the required standards for a PUD as fol- lows: 1106.501 Required Standards. The City shall consider a proposed PUD District from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to achieve a maximum coordination between the proposed development and the surrounding uses, the conservation of woodland and the protection of health, safety and welfare of the community and residents of the PUD. To these ends, the City Council shall consider the location of the buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with respect to the topography of the area and existing natural features such as streams and large trees, the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of internal streets and driveways, the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of parking areas, and such other matters as the City Council may find to have a material bearing upon the stated standards and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. In reviewing a PUD plan, the City Council must also consider the compatibility of the development with the Shoreland and Flood Plain district requirements. In his narrative, the developer states a conformance to the character of the surrounding neighborhood area and current market demands as a benefit to the City for approval of a PUD. The developer has also ex- pressed intention to fund the oversizing cost of the construction of Fish Point Road which the City would otherwise be responsible for paying. Based on past PUD benefits received by the City, staff finds it difficult to establish these items (other than the Fish Point Road oversizing com- pensation) as proper benefits to allow for reduction of housing lots below the 12,000 square foot minimum requirement and building side yard set- backs below the 10 foot and 25 foot minimum requirements. In the past compensation of public infrastructure oversizing costs by the developer, quality job creation, and preservation of natural features over and above 4 the standard ordinance requirements have been some of the major bene- fits which PUDs have offered. The City Council may wish to ask the following questions: ➢ How does this proposal meet the purpose and criteria for a PUD? ➢ What benefits does the City receive in return for allowing the pro- posed modifications to minimum lot size and minimum side yard setbacks? ➢ The developer indicates in his narrative that the market would support a convenience center and pharmacy at this location. Considering the vacancies in retail properties throughout the area, can the developer demonstrate that the market will support the re- tail as proposed? ➢ Can the developer demonstrate that the market would not support a commercial business park? ➢ Can the remaining 5 -6 acre area designated as Commercial Business Park (C -BO) provide adequate space to facilitate this type of use or should it be enlarged? ➢ What, if any, steps are contemplated to preserve desirable as- pects of the existing natural environment? ➢ What steps will be taken to buffer the residential from CR 21 / Fish Point Road and the commercial area? FINANCIAL There is no budget impact as a result of this concept discussion. If the IMPACT: concept is ultimately approved and developed in the future, the project will increase the City tax base. RECOMMENDED No formal action is required at this time. The City Council should provide MOTION: the developer with their comments, impressions and concerns about this concept plan. The City Council's comments are not binding and the de- veloper should not rely on any statements made by individual Council - members. Further, statements by individual members of the Council are not intended to represent direction from a majority of the Council. How- ever, in the absence the Councilmember's expressing their reaction to the concept as proposed, the Council can expect the developer will pro- ceed in general accordance with what they have presented. Any future plans must be processed with the appropriate hearings and public partic- ipation. 5 Narrative for EAGLE CREEK ESTATES In response to the DRC meeting held on 9 Dec 2010, 1 have made modifications to the proposed project. I have also met with Peter Knaeble, as was suggested at the meeting, and have included modifications from that meeting. The connection of Credit River Boulevard was moved to 10 +00 of the proposed Fish Point Road alignment to reduce the length of the cul -de -sac. I also eliminated the northerly cul -de -sac and connected Eagle Creek Boulevard to Fish Point Road. I provided for the street connection to Mr Knaeble's property with Markley Lake Drive. It was suggested that I realign Markley Street to fit a ridge on Mr Knaeble's property. But this connection was eliminated and I am proposing a cul -de -sac. It was requested that I provide a 1.25 acre park area in the westerly part of the property. I have shown a 1.19 acre site. Another comment was that the standard plate doesn't provide for cul -de -sac islands. The City of Burnsville and City of Savage have had these as standards for 25+ years so one can visit one of their streets and observe this type of cul -de -sac. You can also talk to the respective maintenance people for those two cities to see how they work. I think they are very pleasing appearance -wise and easy to maneuver. A traffic study has been ordered as per the DRC request and I have talked to someone about a market study re /the commercial rezoning request. I revised the lots along the north side of Eagle Creek Boulevard, adjacent to BROOKSVILLE HILLS FOURTH ADDITION. Those lots are all 86' wide and at least 12,713 sq. ft. which fits the existing ordinance. I moved the proposed right -turn entrance that goes into the commercial area approximately 100' north of where it was. The County made that request. PUD BENEFITS FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE CARDINAL RIDGE, adjacent to the north, is a PUD community that has smaller lots, width -wise and area -wise, than the proposed lots in EAGLE CREEK ESTATES. It is not adjacent to commercial zoning and our project is. It makes good planning sense to have smaller lots adjacent to commercial and then transition to the larger lots as the lots get farther away from the commercial zoning. Our proposed lots average 12,000 sq.ft. which is what the zoning allows. I don't see our lots as out -of- character with planning principals. A benefit for the City is that Fish Point Road is completed from its ending in CARDINAL RIDGE to its connection with C.R. 21. That is a benefit for the City and for the neighbors northerly of the proposed project and southerly of CR 21. It makes for an easier access for the middle schools and for the high school. The Snell property is most likely not developable (at least not sellable) with the current zoning guidelines. Home buyers are looking for smaller homes and smaller lots with lower costs. (Some experts have said that larger lots and homes may be a thing of the past.) The Comp Guide plan's commercial zoning is for office buildings. The office building business is in a significant depression and when will it come out of it is a good question. There is a need for a convenience center and for a pharmacy and the proposed zoning would allow those businesses. I see the convenience center and pharmacy as assets for the single - family homes and for the City. Maybe that part of the commercial area that lies northeasterly of what will be Credit River Road SE could be an office building area. But I think that type of construction could also be done in the zoning we are proposing. EAGLE CREEK ESTATES is providing a very useable park area for the new proposed homes and for the surrounding developed homes. This is a benefit for the City. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 10, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2011 1. Call to Order: Acting Chairman Fleming called the January 10, 2011, Planning Coml p.m. Those present were Commissioners Roszak, Perez, Billington, F Development & Natural Resources Director Danette Parr, Assistant C Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Services Assistant Joe Sortl 2. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECONDED BY HOWLEY T PI MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Billington, Fleming, Perez zak. eeting to order at 6:00 Howley, Community er Larry Poppler, THE 25, 2010, motion carried. 3. Appoint 2011 Chair: Deferred until later in the 4. Public Hearings: A. #EP 10 -121 Bluffs of Candy Cove. J as submitte lication for Variances related to building setback, lot area, a blu ° on a site c " isting of approximately 1.07 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 lot or sin o This property is located east of Candy Cover Trail, h of TH 13. meeting. Comments from Wommissi rs: None MOTION BY BILLIN CONDED BY HOWLEY TO REMOVE ITEMS 4 -A AND 4 -B FROM THE AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Howle illington, Fleming, Perez and Roszak. The motion carried. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: A. #EP 10 -125 Eagle Creek Estates. Equity Properties LLC has submitted an application for a concept plan for a development to consist of approximately 45 acres of land to be subdivided into 79 lots for single family homes, park, and future commercial sites. This property is located CADocuments and Settings \cgreen\My Documents \SharePoint Drafts\Eagle Creek Estates PC Minutes - Jan 10th.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 10, 2011 northeast of Credit River Road /CR 21, west of Markley Lake, and commonly known as the Snell property. Matzke presented the concept of Eagle Creek Estates. The proposed concept would provide connections for Fish Point Road from the north and the south and Credit River Road from the east and the west. The majority of the site is located outside of the Shoreland District, however there is a portion within. A 1.18 acre park addition to the existing Brooksville Hills Neighborhood Park is a proposed amenity. The developer is proposing the development be a Planned Unit Development. The residential lots are the primary purpose for requesting the PUD. ThZ,. minimum residential lot size is 10,000 square feet, whereas the minimum R -1 Zoning Distric12,000 sq. ft. 19 lots meet the minimum size requirement for lot width and area, 60 lots d the minimum requirements. Ray Brandt, 1713 Southcross Drive West, Burnsville, discus acreage proposed to be changed to Community Retail Shop the property owner and staff, he proposed changing the e road and connecting it with the adjacent eastern prope Brandt stated that he'd had parties express an interest iffi convenience store or gas station. Brandt noted that a gas future growth in the eastern area of Prior Lake. Matzke reminded the Planning Commission gle Creek Esta a concept plan, and there is no formal action taken tonight. Billington rted the gen concel5tof the plan. Billington noted the terrain could be challenging for the draina d wetlands. Brandt acknowle at th ;; pography of the site is difficult. Brandt stated that he initially did not include the eastern s he site in the concept, but included it at the request of the developer. Brandt indicated that ini he created a concept plan that was entirely residential, and later became aware of the comprehe ive plan which included a planned commercial section on the property. Brandt stated that the demand for commercial development is not the healthiest. Brandt stated that he had an interested party in the single family lots. The buyer suggested Brandt explore the option of a convenience store and that the developer requested the 71' foot wide lots. Billington asked Poppler about the drainage and natural resource aspect of the concept. CADocuments and Settings \cgreen\My Documents \SharePoint Drafts\Eagle Creek Estates PC Minutes - Jan 10th.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 10, 2011 Poppler stated that as the concept plan progresses it will have to meet the City standards for drainage. The stormwater and wetland delineation will be reviewed when the developer submits an application for platting. Perez asked about what kind of impacts a change in lot widths would have on the number of proposed lots. Brandt stated that some of the lot widths had been altered on the northern side of the development and that it didn't impact the number of proposed lots. Perez stated that the concept could work as PUD, but there are still iss to address. He acknowledged that the development of Fish Point Road being devel the developer's cost is beneficial to the City. Beyond the development of Fish Point Roa ere not see any additional benefits for the City in exchange for a PUD. Perez asked staff the de r parkland would be. Parr answered that she had spoken with Al Friedges, Par nd Ffeet Superviso arding the park She acknowledged that the current park site is not the t desirable with the curr des found on the site and the play structure. Regrading the Brook ills Nei orhood Park wo eneficial, as would the upgrading of the play structure. Parr note he de ed park land w d not meet the park land acreage dedication required by city standard de ication woul a required in addition. Parr added that Planning Commission may want to rovide the developer and staff with their thoughts regarding the Comprehensi Ian Amendment t uld be required for the proposed concept. The area is currently guided for C siness Office P d would likely provide higher caliber jobs than what would be offered for jo (Communit hopping). Perez asked if the cash instead of land for park as a 909 a for the concept PUD. that he sup d the Ian. He expressed a desire to see more wooded area 3zak had con regar the small lot sizes, and the right turn lane for the •5TiTiir Fleming stated detailed ffic study will be provided as the plan moves forward. Fleming noted that the commissio ad a essed concerns regarding lot sizes and their benefit to the City. He stated that the other oncern were regarding, ponding, drainage and the preservation of the natural resources of thei Fleming encouraged the developer to continue working with city staff, neighbors and adjacen roperty owners to achieve a plan that benefits all. Billington asked how sensitive the project is regarding the number of proposed lots. Brandt answered that the number of lots helps keep the price down. A traffic study is underway but was not available for tonight, as it was not required. Billington asked how many lots would be necessary to make the project achievable. CADocuments and Settings \cgreen\My Documents \SharePoint Drafts\Eagle Creek Estates PC Minutes - Jan 10th.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 10, 2011 Brandt answered that changing the lots to be in conformance with the city standard would require him to revise the plans to determine how the concept would be affected. He noted that the drainage to Markley Lake shown in the concept plan is adequate. Howley asked Poppler why the County did not include a right turn lane onto Fish Point Road when County Road 21 was reconstructed. Poppler agreed that a turn lane will be necessary for a future project. Howley asked if the County conducted any forecasting for a right turn Ian ish Point Road from County Road 21. Poppler answered that he was unsure, but would look into it. 7. Appoint 2011 Chair: MOTION BY PEREZ, SECONDED BY BILLI THE PLANNING COMMISSI0 VOTE: Ayes by Howley, B' eming, 8. Announcements nce: ING AS THE CHAIRMAN OF motion carried. armed: a City Council will discuss the C -2, General o restaurants, clubs and lodges serving alcohol ,Jan u a ry , 2011 at 6:30 p.m., in the Parkview Conference ;ity Co ` " � I to discuss the County Road 21 scenarios is scheduled for 30 to :55 in the Parkview Conference Room at City Hall. The three ssing across County Road 21, constructing a bridge over County ignment of County Road 21. The work session is not a public hearing n and the Planning Commission is invited. Parr also announced th a January 24, 2011 Planning Commission meeting will be cancelled. Staff anticipates that the ne tanning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, February 14, 2011. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Joe Sortland, Development Services Assistant CADocuments and Settings \cgreen\My Documents \SharePoint Drafts\Eagle Creek Estates PC Minutes - Jan 10th.doc 4 w a W w = go Eva M N ye�6 w r Z Y In W �l� I � • � / – � cc 2y co z o n co r o Ln lu PO co z r \\ s Pa ¢ t0 m i s lie C q 3M O r, ,I B f^ t r Ot n` •a' "�+�OI•Jih.�'pt fig' / /g/ 7 ti 4r Y , 9 C4, p� �\ '�SCasr ys 7 / 3 s�. N= P � ]J to ° O a S 2 M M� P _ gg \ y r em ? c) IN M M 3N I _ _ x ayes -s `o I— L.Li t E IS r E.I.. L 5 E�5 z H N N ka Y 0 s w a W w = go Eva M N ye�6 w r Z Y In W �l� I � • � / – � cc 2y co z o n co r o Ln lu PO co z r \\ s Pa ¢ t0 m i s lie C q 3M O r, ,I B f^ t r Ot n` •a' "�+�OI•Jih.�'pt fig' / /g/ 7 ti 4r Y , 9 C4, p� �\ '�SCasr ys 7 / 3 s�. N= P � ]J to ° O a S 2 M M� P _ gg \ y r em ? c) IN M M 3N I _ _ x :., a �, � - ii � � ao i>Sg � � � $thy ^1 � � �`i U O � — •:Fu V -� ' � N / � � a �YT�a co II Li �_ y. Face 1 /- / J