Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 10 2011 PC Meeting MinutesPlanning 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 Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Roszak, Perez, Billington, Fleming and Howley, Community Development & Natural Resources Director Danette Parr, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler, Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Services Assistant Joe Sortland. 2. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY BILLINGTON. SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 25. 2010 MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Billington, Fleming, Perez and Roszak. The motion carried. 3. Appoint 2011 Chair: Deferred until later in the meeting. 4. Public Hearings: A. #EP 10 -121 Bluffs of Candy Cove. Jason Miller has submitted an application for Variances related to building setback, lot area, and bluff impact on a site consisting of approximately 1.07 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes. This property is located east of Candy Cover Trail, north of TH 13. B. #EP 10 -122 Bluffs of Candy Cove. Jason Miller has submitted an application for a combined preliminary and final plat consisting of approximately 1.07 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes. This property is located east of Candy Cover Trail, north of TH 13 Parr stated that the developer requested that the Bluffs of Candy Cove development application be removed from the agenda and not considered at the current meeting. The applicant requested that the hearing for the subdivision and variance be heard at a future meeting. The applicant will incur all costs related to the delay and necessary future publication. Due to MN Statute notification and timing requirements, the project can be heard no sooner than the February 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Comments from the Commissioners: None MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO REMOVE ITEMS 4 -A AND 4 -B FROM THE AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Billington, 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 L: \11 FILES \11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MNO11011.doc 1 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 for the proposed Eagle Creek Estates development. Matzke shared how 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 would be made to the existing Brooksville Hills Neighborhood Park as a part of the development. The developer is proposing the development be a Planned Unit Development. The quantity and size of the proposed residential lots are the primary reason for requesting the PUD. The proposed minimum residential lot size is 10,000 square feet, whereas the minimum R -1 Zoning District standard is 12,000 sq. ft. 19 lots meet the minimum size requirement for lot width and area, while 60 lots do not meet the minimum requirements. Ray Brandt, 1713 Southcross Drive West, Burnsville, discussed the amount of Business Office Park acreage proposed to be changed to Community Retail Shopping. Brandt stated that after meeting with the property owner and staff, he proposed changing the easterly most road from a cul -de -sac to a thru- road and connecting it with the adjacent eastern property. Brandt stated that he'd had parties express an interest in the commercial lots of the project for a convenience store or gas station. Brandt noted that a gas station and pharmacy would be beneficial to future growth in the eastern area of Prior Lake. Matzke reminded the Planning Commission that Eagle Creek Estates is a concept plan, and there is no formal action taken at this time. Howley was uncertain if smaller lots warranted a Planned Unit Development. He supported a convenience store or pharmacy for the commercial use. Asked staff about the city owned land north of the proposed Eagle Creek Estates. Matzke answered that the City owned land is very steep and that there is no intention to turn it into active park land. Matzke indicated that the most he foresaw was a trail on the site to connect the trail system. Howley supported a trail through the City park land. Howley thought the layout of Eagle Creek Estates would be better with standard zoning, and did not think that smaller lots would be beneficial. Howley would want to see more protection of the natural resources in the case of a PUD. Billington supported the general concept of the plan. Billington noted the terrain could be challenging for the drainage and wetlands. Brandt acknowledged that the topography of the site is difficult. Brandt stated that he initially did not include the eastern section of the site in the concept, but included it at the request of the developer. Brandt indicated that initially he created a concept plan that was entirely residential, and later became aware of the comprehensive 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. L: \11 FILES \11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MNO11011.doc 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 issues to address. He acknowledged that the development of Fish Point Road being developed at the developer's cost is beneficial to the City. Beyond the development of Fish Point Road, Perez did not see any additional benefits for the City in exchange for a PUD. Perez asked staff what the desire for parkland would be. Parr answered that she had spoken with Al Friedges, Parks and Fleet Supervisor, regarding the park. She acknowledged that the current park site is not the most desirable with the current grades found on the site and the play structure. Parr noted that the dedicated park land would not meet the park land acreage dedication required by city standards and cash dedication would be required in addition. Parr added that the Planning Commission may want to also provide the developer and staff with their thoughts regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would be required for the proposed concept. The area is currently guided for CBO (Business Office Park) and would likely provide higher caliber jobs than what would be offered for jobs in C -CC (Community Retail Shopping). Perez asked if the cash instead of land for parks was a benefit or negative for the concept PUD. Parr answered that it's even, meaning that the combination of land and cash dedication would meet the minimum park dedication requirement, but not exceed it as is often the case with PUD's. Perez said he shared Howley's concern regarding the natural resources. He acknowledged that it is challenging due to the number of lots being requested. Perez added that a lot of time was spent on the creation of the Comprehensive Plan and that the Council would need to look closely at the possibility of changing the site from Business Office Park to Community Retail Shopping. Roszak stated that he supported the general plan. He expressed a desire to see more wooded area preserved. Roszak had concerns regarding the small lot sizes, and the right turn lane for the commercial lot. Fleming stated that a detailed traffic study will be provided as the plan moves forward. Fleming noted that the commissioners had expressed concerns regarding lot sizes and their benefit to the City. He stated that the other areas of concern were regarding, ponding, drainage and the preservation of the natural resources of the site. Fleming encouraged the developer to continue working with city staff, neighbors and adjacent property 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. L: \11 FILES \11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN011011.doc 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 lane onto Fish Point Road from County Road 21. Poppler answered that he was unsure, but would look into it. 7. Appoint 2011 Chair: Parr stated a new Chairman for the Planning Commission would need to be appointed. Parr asked if any of the Planning Commissioners wanted to volunteer for the position or nominate a fellow Commissioner. Perez presented himself as the most senior member of the Planning Commission, but indicated that he'd be ok with Commissioner Fleming serving as the Chair. Fleming indicated that he'd be honored to serve as the Planning Commission Chair. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECONDED BY BILLINGTON TO APPOINT FLEMING AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Billington, Fleming, Perez and Roszak. The motion carried. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Parr announced that two work sessions are planned: The City Council will discuss the C -2, General Business Zoning Ordinance amendment as it related to restaurants, clubs and lodges serving alcohol adjacent to residential uses on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 at 6:30 p.m., in the Parkview Conference Room at City Hall. A second work session with the City Council to discuss the County Road 21 scenarios is scheduled for Monday, February 7, 2011 from 4:30 to 6:55 in the Parkview Conference Room at City Hall. The three scenarios include: a pedestrian crossing across County Road 21, constructing a bridge over County Road 21 at Main Avenue or a realignment of County Road 21. The work session is not a public hearing but is open for general information and the Planning Commission is invited. Parr also announced that the January 24, 2011 Planning Commission meeting will be cancelled. Staff anticipates that the next Planning 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 L: \11 FILES \11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MNO11011.doc