Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1113012. 3. 4. A. 5. A. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2001 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Consent Agenda: Case #01-082 Koestering Variance Resolution Public Hearings: Cases #01-062 & #01-063 Merlyn Olson Development is requesting consideration for a preliminary PUD Plan and a preliminary plat consisting of 5.003 acres to be subdivided into 32 townhouse lots on the property located on the south side of CSAH 21, ½ block north of Colorado Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue and east of West Avenue. Old Business: #01-080 David and Rachel Norling are requesting variances for setback to the Ordinary High Water Mark; front yard; side yards; eave encroachment; building wall to side yard and impervious surface to construct an addition on the property located at 15239 Fairbanks Trail. New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: L:\01 files\O I plancomm\O I pcagendaXAG 1 ! 1301.DOC 16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 44%4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2001 1. Call to Order: Chairman Vonhof called the November 13, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Present Criego Absent Lemke Present Stamson Present Vonhof Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the October 22, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: A. Case #01-082 Koestering Variance Resolution Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier gave a brief overview of the report. There were no questions from the Commissioners. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01- 23PC APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 25' FRONT YARD SETBACK. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Vonhof read the Public Heating Statement and opened the meeting. 5. Public Hearings: A. Cases #01-062 & #01-063 Merlyn Olson Development is requesting consideration for a preliminary PUD Plan and a preliminary plat consisting of 5.003 acres to be subdivided into 32 townhouse lots on the property located on the south L:\01 files\01 plancomm\0 lpcminuteskMN 111301 .doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2001 side of CSAH 21, ~A block north of Colorado Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue and east of West Avenue. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 13, 2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Merlyn Olson Homes has applied for approval of a development to be known as Eaglewood East on the property located south of CSAH 21, ½ block north of Colorado Street, west of Duluth Avenue and east of West Avenue. The application includes the following requests: · Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan; · Approve a Preliminary Plat. The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of a total of 32 dwelling units on 4.536 net acres, for a total density of 7.1 units per acre. The proposed development includes 28 dwelling units 7 four-mt buildings, and 4 dwelling units in 2 two-unit buildings. The development also includes a private street and private open space. Meflyn Olson Homes is the developer of this project. The application has also been signed by the current property owners, Lee Klingberg and Gary Staber. There are several outstanding issues, which must be addressed. The first major issue is the need for additional right-of-way as discussed above. Whether or not this right-of-way is dedicated affects the design of the development. This issue should be resolved before the Council approves a preliminary plat. The second major issue is whether the PUD process is appropriate for this development. The primary justification for a PUD appears to be the use of the private streets. A cluster development of this type is permitted with conditions in the R-3 district, so a similar development with public streets could be done without a PUD. Finally, the third issue is the extension of Racine Street to Duluth Avenue. This intersection should be eliminated as recommended by staff. This issue, as well as the remaining issues, are primarily design issues that can be addressed with the final PUD plan and the final plat. If the Planning Commission finds the PUD process is appropriate for this development, the staffwould recommend the following conditions be attached: 1. The access to Colorado Street must be eliminated and Racine Street must be designed with a cul-de-sac or a turn-around on the east end. 2. The unit identified as Lot 1, Block 7, must be located at least 30' from the 100-year flood elevation of the NUR~ pond, or it must be eliminated. 3. The setback between the townhouse buildings must be at least ½ the sum of the building heights of the two buildings. The building elevations must be submitted to scale to identify the height of the buildings, and the site plan must identify the setbacks. L:\01 files\01plancomm\01pcminutes\MN111301 .doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2001 4. The site plan and the building plans must be revised to show all decks and porches. 5. The tree inventory and preservation plan must be refined to indicate whether the trees along the north side of the property are located on the property or on the County road fight-of-way. If necessary, the plan must be revised to include any additional tree replacement required. 6. Revise the landscaping plan to meet the requirements of Section 1107.1900, and specifically to identify the size of the proposed plantings. The plan must also identify how the bufferyard requirements are being met. The landscaping plan must also identify the necessary replacement trees. 7. Provide an irrigation plan. 8. The calculation of usable open space must be revised to eliminate the area for new storm water ponds. 9. A drainage and utility easement must be provided over all of Outlot B. 10. The plat must identify the drainage and utility easements over the wetlands and storm water ponds. 11. The items outlined in the memorandum from the City Engineer, dated August 1, 2001, must be addressed prior to the final plat. 12. All necessary permits from other agencies must be obtained prior to any grading on the site or prior to final plat approval. The Planning staff recommended Alternative #2, to table this item to December 10, 2001 and provide the developer with direction on the issues discussed. Lemke questioned staff's recommendation for a cul-de-sac on the east end of Racine Street. Kansier responded. Vonhof questioned a right-in right-out access. McDermott stated they could look at it. Comments from the public: Merlyn Olson, ofMerlyn Olson Development Company, thanked staff for the presentation and welcomed the neighbors. Olson gave an overview of the project. He would like to see the project attractive to all. The price range for the townhomes would be around $160,000. Olson responded to some of staff's issues and stated he would be in favor of continuing the hearing to the December 10, 2001 meeting for additional time to deal with those concerns. Bill Bleckwenn, the landscape architect explained he had a complete landscape plan meeting the requirements. Bill Jacobson lives on Racine Avenue and felt his residence would be greatly impacted by the project. Jacobson is an attorney with experience in real estate development and felt the density was too high for Duluth Avenue and County Road 21, which is extremely L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01pcminutes~aMN111301 .doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2001 busy and has had many accidents. West Avenue is also impacted because it is the only place people can park and fish on Prior Lake. He had concerns for the wetland, drainage and runoff. Jacobson pointed out there would only be 8 additional visitor parking spaces, which would not be adequate given the surrounding lack of parking space. He stated he is not opposed to development or anti-development, but this is too large a development for the space. Jacobson recommended denial of the development. Lyaman McPherson, 16282 West Avenue, said he spent time today at the Spring Lake Prior Lake Watershed District who were not aware of the project. McPherson read a petition stating opposition to the project that included conditions that it was not consistent with the surrounding housing development, preservation of the wetland and the existing drainage problems on West Avenue and County Road 21 and the increase in traffic will further complicate the already heavy traffic. The existing church and school have congested traffic problems. Property values will be affected. McPherson said the watershed issues must be addressed as well as the parking. There is no play area for the children. The amounts of units should be reduced. The atmosphere will be greatly impacted. They would like to allow the development but not the current proposal. Josie Schmaltz, 16200 West Avenue, across from Racine Street, stated the traffic is excessive on West Avenue. Weekends, morning and afternoon peak traffic is unbelievable. People park on both sides of the street to fish on Prior Lake. Residents have brought petitions for "No Parking" signs to the City only to be denied. She knows Merlyn builds quality homes, but this project does not fit. There are too many units for the area. No one wants it. Every spring County Road 21 floods. Schmaltz explained the proposed park in 1983. She was not against the project, would rather see single-family housing. Greg Ilkka, Assistant Scott County Engineer, Scott County Highway Department, supported staff's recommendation to table the matter. Ilkka explained the request for the additional right-of-way and widening the roadway. Under Design Standards the County needs 120 feet minimum right-of-way to build a 4 to 5 lane road and maintain the existing sidewalks and trails. Ilkka explained they do not have a full plan of the proposed plan for widening County Road 21. It makes more sense to ask for the land on the south side of County Road 21 than come in later and impact the residents. They are trying to avoid that scenario. Heidi Peterson, 4346 Colorado Street said she was extremely disappointed with this development. They bought their property last August because it was a quiet established neighborhood. Some of her concerns are the wetland, the trees, the high traffic and the small amount of parking allocated for the project. She stated she used to live in townhomes and did not want more townhome-type people in the area. The proposed landscaping will change the entire look of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is opposed to the project. Julie Bruha, 4190 Colorado Street, noted the parkway was a Hennepin County Park trail. L:\01 fi les\01 plancomm\01 pcminutcs'uMN 111301 .doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2001 Dan Willgahs, 4432 Colorado Street, said many residents are hitting on the same points, but wanted to reinforce the traffic issues. Questioned the County's traffic proposal. Vonhof responded the City Engineering Department can explain some of the traffic issues. Willgahs pointed out that he lives across from St. Michael's School and many people are using his driveway to tm-around. Willgahs explained the traffic problems with the existing parking and the increased traffic. Anna Mae Ryan, 4296 Colorado Street, questioned the County's painted crosswalk. No one stops at County Road 21. Many of the residents and homes were present before County Road 21. She explained the skateboard problems. Another problem is the increase in parking for fishing and lake usage. Residents have the right to use their own driveways. Ryan pointed out the growing problem with St. Michael's Church and School. There should be stoplights on County Road 21. Vonhof said the crosswalk problems can be forwarded to the police department. Joanne Brandstedter, 4452 Colorado Street, explained situations with the neighborhood racers and an unknown car parked in her driveway. She felt Prior Lake is not a very pretty area. She proposed the City purchase the land from the developer and increase the benefit of the area and put in a small parking lot and reduce the drainage problems on West Avenue and Duluth Street. She explained the drainage problems in her back yard and suggested other changes and alternatives entering downtown Prior Lake. The floor was closed at 7:43 p.m. Kansier did point out the stop sign proposals and the proposed parking lot at Grainwood Park. McDermott said they would like to add 6 spaces. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: · Questioned the R3 zoning. Kansier responded it was there for several years and used to be zoned R4. · What is the Planning Commission's role ifa developer meets the requirements and the Planning Commission does not want it, can the Commission say "No"? Kansier explained the process pointing out it would be difficult to deny the proposal if it meets the ordinances. · What is the market value of the land if the City were to purchase the property? Kansier said she could not guess. Staff did not have that information. Stamson: · Being within the density allowed, given the amount of green space, excluding the ponding, the zoning is definitely what the City had in mind when it was zoned R3. Given that, there is a definite problem of increase of traffic and how to deal with it. · The plan needs to be further reviewed with the traffic in mind. · Against the cul-de-sac proposal, all the traffic is pushed on to West Avenue, which is far less than an ideal street. Duluth Avenue is built to a higher level of traffic. L:\01 files\01plancomm\01pcminutesXMNl 11301 .doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2001 Pointed out the traffic problems for the development turning onto Duluth Avenue. · Maybe a right-in, right-out access would be a preferable solution. · The tree preservation proposal meets the requirements. · Density needs to be looked at. Atwood: Does not like the development. The developer decided to maximize the density. · The buffers are not adequate. · The traffic on Racine will not work. · Does not like the fight-in, fight-out solution. · The streets and project will not support the traffic. · The matter should be tabled. · No problem as a PUD. · This is an already overburdened neighborhood and this project would only add fuel to the fire. · The additional parking of 8 spaces in the project will not work. · Would be more agreeable to a lower density. Vonhof: · Before tabling this issue would like to see a traffic study on Duluth Avenue and West Avenue and estimate of traffic impact by the proposal done by a traffic engineer. · Would like to see an Environment Report done by the developer regarding the wetland. · The City modified the NURP pond, was it done correctly? McDermott responded the NURP pond was redeveloped to take some development on this site into account. Not the entire site, but at least half. The County has addressed the flooding on County Road 21 by adding a catch basin. It probably alleviated some of the problem. She hadn't noticed any problems since. · County Road 21 will be expanded in size. It has shifted the traffic patterns off Highway 13 to County Road 21. This will impact the site. It will be foolish not to heed the County's input. · Would not consider any development without sidewalks. · The density and size of the buildings acts as a buffer between County Road 21 and the existing homes. Is it esthetically pleasing? Probably not. · Would like to see more preservation or something more creative than what is proposed. This is basically a row oftownhomes. · More buffering is needed. · The spirit of the PUD is to make homes cluster and fit into that area and maintain as much natural preservation as possible. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO TABLE THE MATTER TO DECEMBER 10, 2001, TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS AND THE ISSUES IN THE STAFF REPORT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes'uMN 1113 01 .doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2001 A recess was called at 8:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:08 p.m. 6. Old Business: A. #01-080 David and Rachel Norling are requesting variances for setback to the Ordinary High Water Mark; front yard; side yards; eave encroachment; building wall to side yard and impervious surface to construct an addition on the property located at 15239 Fairbanks Trail. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated November 13, 2001, on file in the office of the Planning Department. At the October 22, 2001, public heating, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report, heard comments from the applicant, and discussed the Variances requested. The Commission determined that a revised survey with additional correct information was needed to make a decision, and continued the public heating to the next scheduled meeting date of November 13, 2001. The additional information required includes the existence of a 15' sanitary sewer easement granted to the City of Prior Lake that was not depicted on the survey, and correct information regarding the existing and proposed structures as submitted with the Variance request. As of the date of the staff report, November 6, 2001, the applicant had not submitted the additional information with a revised survey. Staff contacted the applicant for a progress report and was told the survey contractor had not completed their research on this project. The applicant requested additional time to acquire the requested information. The applicant was present and presented the new information. David and Rachel Norling distributed the new survey to staff and the Commissioners. David explained the deck issue and that the setback variance is no longer necessary. Norling went on to explain their proposed reductions with parking and overhangs. Rachel felt a 3-car garage would be standard. She also felt parking was an important safety issue. Comments from the Commissioners: MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO NOVEMBER 26, 2001. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. 7. New Business: None L:\01 fi les\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN 111301 .doc Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2001 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Commissioner Vonhof is resigning from the Planning Commission after the November 26, 2001 meeting. Commissioners Atwood, Lemke and Stamson went on record to say Congratulations and how sorry they will be to see him go. Rye stated in his 35 years as a Planning Director, Tom was one of the best Commissioners he had worked with. Rye noted City Council reviewed the Downtown Zoning District Ordinance and deferred action and is sending it back to the staffto deal with the non-conforming uses and size limitations. A new chair should be elected at the next meeting. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN 111301 .doc 8