HomeMy WebLinkAbout032601REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
A.
Bo
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Case Files #01-005 & 006 Pavek Family Investments Company/Hodgson Trust is
requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat to be known as Regal
Crest to allow a cluster townhouse development consisting of 25.58 acres to be
subdivided into 78 lots for townhouse units on the property located on the west
side of CSAH 21 approximately ¼ mile north of CSAH 82. (Continued from the
February 26, 2001 meeting)
Case File #01-010- Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is requesting a
Conditional Use Permit to allow grading and excavation for an access drive to
Mystic Lake Casino on the property located on the west side of CSAH 83,
approximately 3/4 mile south of CSAH 42 and ¼ mile north of CSAH 82.
Case File #01-017 -Mark Crouse is requesting variances for impervious surface
and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck on the property
located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Case Files #01-008 and 00-009 Centex Home is requesting a preliminary plat and
Conditional Use Permit for 38.9 acres of vacant land located on the west side of
CSAH 83, ¼ mile south of CSAH 42, in the East 1/2 of the NW ¼ of Section 28,
Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The proposal is to create 54 single family
lots and to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow a cluster development of 68
townhouses. (Continued from the March 12, 2001 meeting)
5. Old Business:
None
L:\O 1 filcs\O 1 plancomm\O I pcagenda~AG032601,DOC
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. New Business:
Ao
Case File #01-013 - Wensmann Realty is requesting a vacation to an existing 10
foot wide drainage and utility easement in Wensmann's First Addition on CSAH
82.
Bo
Case File #01-018 - Shamrock Development, Inc. is requesting a vacation to an
existing 10 foot drainage and utility easement across Outlot A of The Wilds
Second Addition.
Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcagenda~AG032601.DOC
?lanning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the March 26, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer
Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Stamson Present
Vonhof Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the March 12, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Vonhof read the Public Heating Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case Files #01-005 & 006 Pavek Family Investments Company/Hodgson
Trust is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat to be known as
Regal Crest to allow a cluster townhouse development consisting of 25.58 acres to be
subdivided into 78 lots for townhouse units on the property located on the west side
of CSAH 21 approximately ¼ mile north of CSAH 82. (Continued from the February
12, 2001 meeting)
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 26, 2001
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Pavek Family Investments Company and Hodgson Trust have applied for approval of a
development to be known as Regal Crest on the property located on the west side of
CSAH 21, ¼ mile north of CSAH 82. The application includes the following requests:
· Approve a Conditional Use Permit for a cluster development;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The original proposal called for a cluster townhouse development consisting of a total of
78 dwelling units on 23.81 net acres, for a total density of 3.3 units per acre. The
proposed development includes 20 dwelling units in 6 four-unit buildings, 48 dwelling
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesXmn032601 .doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
units in 16 three-unit buildings and 10 dwelling units in 5 two-unit buildings. The
development also includes private open space.
The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on February 12,
2001. The staff and the Planning Commission identified several issues pertaining to this
development. The Planning Commission tabled this item until March 12, 2001 to allow
the developer the opportunity to address the outstanding issues. The developer then
requested this item be continued to March 26, 2001 to allow additional time to address
the issues. Owners of property within 500 feet were notified of the new hearing date.
The staff and Planning Commission originally identified 10 issues at the last meeting.
The developer responded to those issues.
The major outstanding issue pertaining to this development is the staff recommendation
for the elimination of certain units. This has an effect on the design of the site. However,
it is possible to allow this application to move forward with a specific recommendation to
the Council. The design issues, including the number of units, the landscaping and tree
preservation plans, and the submittal of building elevations must be addressed prior to
City Council review. On that basis, the staff recommends approval, subject to the
following conditions:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
The plans must be modified to remove the unit identified as Lots 6, Block 1, 2nd
Addition.
The landscaping plan and tree replacement plan must be modified to meet the
minimum ordinance requirements. The landscaping plan must also be prepared and
signed by a registered landscape architect. In addition, an irrigation plan must be
provided.
Provide building elevations, including all sides of the building, and floor plans for
all proposed building styles.
The plans should be revised to combine more of the driveway openings, especially
on Jeffers Pass.
Address the following comments from the City Engineer:
(a) Submit a wetland replacement application.
(b) Provide an additional low point on Jeffers Pass, north of Thatcher Lane, to
direct runoff into the southwest wetland on the property.
(c) Maximum slope of grading in maintained areas is 4:1. Some graded areas are
shown with a greater than 3:1 slope. Provide retaining walls as necessary to
create 4:1 slopes in maintained areas.
(d) Refer to the Prior Lake Design Manual for preparation of plans and
specifications.
(e) Look at alternative ways of connecting to the existing sanitary sewer.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesh-nn032601 .doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
6)
7)
8)
(f) Catch basin 15 is located in a driveway. The driveway location must be
moved.
(g) The intersection of Lauren Lane and Jeffers Pass must be constructed in
Phase 1 to eliminate the need for a temporary cul-de-sac.
(h) The developer must obtain temporary construction easements where off-site
grading is occurring. These easements must be provided to the City prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
(i) The street grade shall not exceed 2.00% for the first 100' approaching the
intersection with C.R. 21.
Address the following comments from the Scott County Engineer:
(a) Provide a right-turn lane, designed to County standards, on CSAH 21 at
Jeffers Pass.
(b) Remove the existing driveway on CSAH 21 and grade to match right-of-way.
(c) Obtain permits from the County for any work in the County right-of-way.
Obtain a permit from the Watershed District.
All necessary permits from other agencies must be obtained and submitted to the
City prior to final plat approval, or prior to approval of a grading permit.
Comments from the public:
Peter Knaeble, Civil Engineer with Terra Engineering representing the developers, Don
and Darrin Pavek, said they have made substantial revisions to the plan. They removed 4
of the units and saved 112 additional trees based on Staff's and the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Knaeble concurred with all of staff's conditions except
the first condition regarding removal of the last unit. The concern is a portion of that unit
encroaching into the existing 20% slope. Their calculations indicate 530 square feet of
encroachment. Knaeble felt it was an insignificant encroachment into the area and it is
not reasonable to remove that unit. He respectfully asked the Planning Commission to
omit that recommendation to the City Council. Knaeble pointed out the adjoining
Wensmann's 1 st Addition development has encroachments into the 20% slope.
Criego questioned Knaeble on staff's recommendation on reducing the driveways.
Knaeble responded the developer did combine some driveways and were working with
the architect and staff. Criego then went on to explain Wensmann's plat and why the
Planning Commission made the decisions Knaeble referred to in his statement.
Dan Metzger, 2130 Windsong Circle, pointed out Scott County Public Work's letter to
the City indicating they would support any additional effort made by the developer or
City to explore alternative locations for access to this development. Metzger did not feel
Scott County's access guidelines were correctly used. He also felt Scott County was
evasive and omitted sight line guidelines in their letter to the City. The Windsong
residents feel the access is still dangerous and requested the developer identify alternative
accesses that meet the road specifications.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn032601 .doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
Kansier reiterated the concern on the 720 feet not having the distance is mitigated by the
fact there are two southbound lanes on County Road 21, which allow people to pass a
slower vehicle.
Metzger felt the entrance to the development should be on the crest of the hill where
people can see in both directions. The matter should be looked into.
Don Pavek, Pavek Family Investments, indicated at the last meeting the hardships of
eliminating units. Pavek pointed out there is a lot of open space and the encroachment
should not a real big issue. His other concern is the parkland dedication requirement.
The cash amount is the same as in previous reports but this reports includes an additional
$850. Kansier explained that this development is subject to the previous parkland
dedication requirements. The City recently adopted new parkland dedication
requirements. The previous ordinance had two parts, one initial dedication at the plat and
a second payment with each building permit. The new study requires a far higher
dedication. Under the new study one would pay around $1,600 per unit. Pavek said this
was never brought up in any of the previous staff meetings and he had budgeted $33,254.
The floor was closed at 7:05 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke: · Agreed with the developer. He made significant changes to the plan and removed
the unit to the north. 530 feet into the slope is a small issue. He started with 80
units now it is down to 74.
· Allow the developer to keep the units.
· It is a good plan.
· Not sure about the access. The County has more control over that. They are
saying it is where it should be.
Criego: · Agreed with the plan. It is a good layout.
· Like the reduction to 4-unit buildings and the idea of saving as many trees as
possible.
· The plan as laid out is ideal for this piece of property. Back it 100%.
· Concerned with the traffic issues. There is a conflict with the County's
guidelines. City Engineer Sue McDermott responded the road is not medium to
high volume. It is a low volume non-continuous street. With that consideration,
the guidelines are 1/8 mile. The County saw it as low volume as well as the City.
When this connects to the Jeffer's property there will be an increase in volume. At
the development stage it is low volume and after the connections take place it will
be medium volume. Metzger is correct in his calculations. For an undivided 4-
lane street the spacing is 1/4 mile. Eventually the County will eliminate access
onto County Road 42 with medians. When the development is full the access will
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes~nn032601 .doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
be at Lord Street and this access will eventually be eliminated to right-in, right-
out.
· Dan Metzger said today, County Road 21 does not have a median. It is a
problem.
· Does the City see any issues with the access? McDermott felt the City should go
by Scott County Public Works' letter and guidelines. The County did the study.
Access has to be allowed to this property:
· McDermott pointed out the County's property on the map. She felt it would be
difficult to create some sort of access at this point. The land to the south is
privately owned. The County did not mention their property in the letter.
Stamson: · Concurred with fellow Commissioners - the development has improved. It is
very nice.
· Appreciate developer's efforts to remove some buildings as requested to preserve
more trees and open space.
· The encroachment is small and insignificant. Support allowing that unit to
remain.
· The access is not ideal but there are no reasonable alternatives.
· Concurred with the balance of staff's recommendations and support forwarding to
the City Council.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Commissioners' comments including the encroachment onto the
steep slopes.
· Not comfortable with the access. The County stated in their letter, they would
fully support any effort made by the developer or the City to explore alternative
accesses. There could be some energy put forth to explore another access.
· Would not support this request. There has not been enough effort into changing
the access.
Vonhof: · Agreed with Commissioners regarding the staff's recommendations.
· The developer has made substantial improvements and complied with all
recommendations.
· The encroachment of 520 feet is not significant. Comfortable leaving the unit.
· The access is a difficult situation. Ultimately Lord Street will be the superior
access.
· Do not know of a better access at this point or what the solution would be.
Open Discussion:
Stamson:
· Maybe there should be a requirement that Jeffers Pass not connect to the
Wensmann property until the improvements are made to Lord Street. That retains
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn032601 .doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
the fact that this is not a non-continuous street until the extra connection has been
made. Next year or the year after there may be a significant increase in traffic and
would hold it down. The trouble is that a development is created with only one-
way in and out. There is a trade off.
Atwood:
· The County seems eager to explore alternatives to this development.
· Questioned the time limit. Kansier said the problem with exploring an alternative
access is property ownership. If the developer owned the property it would be
different.
Criego:
· The property owned by the County is not even mentioned. That tells me they are
not interested in using that particular parcel or they know it is not large enough to
be used. The County is saying maybe the developer and City should look at it.
What about the County? The answer is, they feel the existing access is
acceptable. Believe the County's conclusion is the road is safe.
Stamson:
· The County's piece of land does not even go up to the Lord Street access. The
property to the south is privately owned land.
· Does not see exploring eminent domain by putting a strip through someone else's
property in order to put in a street.
Rye explained the adjoining Jeffer's property access.
Atwood: · Sounds like all the Commissioners are concerned with the access, but do not feel
there is a viable option.
· Criego made good points on behalf of the County.
· Her take on the County's letter is that the engineer was having a bad week and did
not research the issue.
· Agreed with Metzger's concern for traffic.
Criego:
· The County is very strict. They take the time and energy to look at the issues. If
they found a problem they would tell the City. You cannot prohibit development
of a property when there is a development going to take place. The access is in
place.
Rye said the County is not bashful on suggesting alternative access or just saying "No".
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRELIMARY PLAT SUBJECT TO
THE CONDITIONS #2 THROUGH 8 OF THE STAFF REPORT EXCLUDING ITEM
#1 WHICH IS REMOVING THE BUILDING ON LOT 6.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesh'nn032601 .doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The earliest this item would go to City Council is April 16, 2001.
B. Case File #01-010 - Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is requesting
a Conditional Use Permit to allow grading and excavation for an access drive to
Mystic Lake Casino on the property located on the west side of CSAH 83,
approximately % mile south of CSAH 42 and ¼ mile north of CSAH 82.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 26, 2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) is proposing to grade and
excavate approximately 10,000 cubic yards on the property located on the west side o
CSAH 83, approximately 3A mile south of CSAH 42 and ¼ mile north of CSAH 82. The
purpose of this excavation is to create an access drive to the Mystic Lake Casino. Section
1101.509 Grading, Filling, Land Reclamation, Excavation requires a Conditional Use
Permit for excavation of more than 400 cubic yards.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to beginning any work on the site, the applicant must obtain approval of the
wetland mitigation plan.
2. Prior to beginning any work on the site, the applicant must obtain a permit from the
Watershed District and from any other agency as required. Copies of the approved
permit must be submitted to the City.
3. An Irrevocable Letter of Credit, on a form prepared by the City and approved by the
City Attorney, is to be submitted prior to the recording of the resolution. The amount
of the LOC is for 125% of the cost of the landscaping. Bids or estimates for the
required landscaping must be submitted to the City for review and approval.
4. The excavation must be done according to the approved plans.
5. The clean up of gravel as a result of spills or general transportation of gravel on any
public road shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
6. Hours of operation are 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (weekdays) and
8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays.
7. Watering for dust control shall be done on an as needed basis or within 24 hours
written notice from the City. Such notice shall be transmitted by facsimile to the
applicant. Dust control includes the entire project area and is not limited to roadways.
Water for dust control shall be provided from an off-site source.
8. The CUP is valid for one year, but is revocable at any time for noncompliance with
any condition contained herein. At the expiration of its one (1) year term, the
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn032601 .doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
property owner may make application to the City to renew the CUP. The initial
approval of this CLIP does not create any right, in law or equity, to the renewal
thereof. Any renewal of the CUP is subject to City Council approval and is to include
any information as requested by City staff or the City Council that would aid the City
Council in determining whether the excavation activities conducted pursuant to this
CUP created any adverse impacts to the health, safety or welfare of the City or its
residents.
Atwood:
· Questioned the Letter of Credit. Kansier explained the landscaping escrow and
requirements. It is a tool for the City to ensure the requirements are met.
Stamson:
· Docs this become a public road? Kansicr said it would not.
Comments from the public:
Stan Ellison, representing the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, presented the
layout of the road and extensions. Native grass will be planted in the medians. Maple
and Basswood trees will be planted along the roads. Other trees being removed will be
replaced with a broad spectrum of species on the trust land. It will all look natural. A
number of impacts have been addressed. The Community feels there will be many
benefits to this road. It will decrease traffic on County Road 83. The intention is an
alternative to County Road 83. If County Road 83 ever needs to be worked on, it will
provide alternative routes. This will also allow additional water mains to tribal
subdivisions. Ellison understands the Letter of Credit, however the applicant is not a
developer, it is another government. He felt the issue is not that the Community could
not afford it, they can. It is another government and should be treated as that, not another
developer.
Mike Witt, Environmental Specialist with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Community
Sioux, spoke with Water Resource Coordinator Lani Lechty from the City and other
government agencies that are satisfied with the wetland impacts.
The floor was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
Questioned the future plans relating to the northern property and east of the
proposed road. Ellison responded it will be a vegetated cover in the short term.
The long-term plan is for institutional use. There are no details at this time.
· How does Staff want to address the government-to-government Letter of Credit?
Rye said there may be a valid point. Will explore with the city attorney.
· The plan is fine with no problem removing the Letter of Credit.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn032601 .doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
Stamson: · Concurred with Criego.
Should explore Letter of Credit issue and remove it if possible.
· Move forward.
Atwood, Lemke and Vonhof: · Agreed with the comments.
· Request the Letter of Credit issue be reviewed by the City Attorney.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT
CONDITIONS EXCLUDING ITEM #3 REGARDING THE LETTER OF CREDIT TO
BE ADDRESSED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND BASED ON THAT DECISION
GOES FORWARD.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case File #01-017 - Mark Crouse is requesting variances for impervious
surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck on the
property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
There were no comments from the public.
Vonhofread a letter submitted by Mark Crouse requesting a continuance of the hearing to
April 23, 2001.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING
TO APRIL 23, 2001.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
D. Case Files #01-008 and 00-009 Centex Home is requesting a preliminary plat
and Conditional Use Permit for 38.9 acres of vacant land located on the west side of
CSAH 83, ¼ mile south of CSAH 42, in the East ~ of the NW ¼ of Section 28,
Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The proposal is to create 54 single family lots
and to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow a cluster development of 68
townhouses. (Continued from the March 12, 2001 meeting)
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented a letter from Centex Homes requesting a
continuance to April 9, 2001 to give the developer time to address the issues.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO
APRIL 9, 2001.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesh-xm032601 .doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
5. Old Business:
None
6. New Business:
A. Case File #01-013 - Wensmann Realty is requesting a vacation to an existing
10 foot wide drainage and utility easement in Wensmann's First Addition on CSAH
82.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 26, 2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
This easement is located in the westem portion of Wensmann 1 st Addition, and is
included within Lot 4, Block 1, Lots 29-32, and 37, Block 5, and Lots 4, 10, 11, 30-33,
Block 6. The easement was originally platted in The Wilds 4th Addition.
Wensmann 1st Addition was platted in 2000. This existing 10' wide easement was not
vacated prior to the final plat approval, so the easement encroaches into the buildable
area of the new lots. The vacation of this easement is necessary to build on the affected
lots.
The necessary easements were included in Wensmann 1st Addition. There is no public
need for this 10' easement. Vacation of the easement will allow construction on the new
lots. The Planning staff therefore recommended approval of this request.
Kelly Murray, representing Wensmann Realty said it was partly their oversight when
platting and should have been taken care of at that time.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· The public goal has been served.
Criego:
· No problem and recommend approval.
Atwood, Lemke and Vonhof: · Agreed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED VACATION OF THE EASEMENT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshnm032601 .doc 1 0
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
B. Case File #01-018 - Shamrock Development, Inc. is requesting a vacation to
an existing 10 foot drainage and utility easement across Outlot A of The Wilds
Second Addition.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 26, 2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Outlot A of The Wilds 2nd Addition was originally platted in 1996. A 10' wide drainage
and utility easement was platted along the south property line of the outlot. Shamrock
Development is in the process of replatting this outlot, along with the property to the
south, as The Wilds South. Although the majority of the outlot is identified as parkland,
there are some lots included within this area. The existing easement will encroach into
the buildable area of these lots.
The Planning Staff recommended approval of the vacation.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Concurred with staff.
Lemke, Criego, Stamson and Vonhof: · Agreed.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL VACATE THE 10 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OUTLOT A, THE WILDS 2Nv ADDITION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye distributed the proposed draft Capital Improvement Plan 2001-2006 for future
discussions. Any clarification or questions call staff.
The joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop on April 2 will be relating to the
downtown redevelopment design.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\O 1 files\Ol plancomm\Olpcminuteskmn032601 .doc 11