Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1108992. 3. 4. A. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1999 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: Case Files 99-056 and 99-057 D.R. Horton, Inc. is requesting a Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan to allow a mixed use development consisting of a total of 632 dwelling units on 133 net acres, for a total density of 4.75 units per acre and a Preliminary Plat consisting ora total of 165.03 acres to be subdivided into 632 lots for the dwelling units and the parks and common open space for the Project to be known as "Deerfield". Case File 99-075 Ryan Contracting is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for grading, filling, land reclamation and excavation. The applicant is intending to operate a sand and gravel mining operation. Old Business: New Business: Case File 99-083 Chris Anderson is requesting a vacation of a portion of frontage road located adjacent to 16020 Eagle Creek Avenue. Case File 99-069 Charlotte Roehr is requesting the vacation of a portion of Red Oaks Road adjacent to Lots 27-37, Red Oaks. Announcements and Correspondence: Proposals for Planning Commission Bylaw changes. Adjournment: rL:L09~IL~L09PI4UO ~t~PC3/,0~A~G 11 16200 ~agm t~reel< ~ve.~.t:., t~rior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1999 1. Call to Order: The November 8, 1999, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Kuykendall Absent Criego Absent Cramer Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the October 25, 1999 Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. Commissioner Stamson read the Public Heating statement and opened the first meeting. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case Files 99-056 and 99-057 D.R. Horton, Inc. is requesting a Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan to allow a mixed use development consisting of a total of 632 dwelling units on 133 net acres, for a total density of 4.75 units per acre and a Preliminary Plat consisting of a total of 165.03 acres to be subdivided into 632 lots for the dwelling units and the parks and common open space for the Project to be known as "Deerfield". Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 8, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. D.R. Horton has applied for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Plan and a Preliminary Plat for the property located south and west of CSAH 21, south of Fish Point Road and Wilderness Trail and east of the Ponds Athletic Facility. The application includes a request for a PUD Preliminary Plan to allow a mixed use development consisting of a total of 631 dwelling units on 133 net acres, for a total density of 4.7 units per acre. The proposed development includes 77 single family dwellings, 46 dwelling units in two-unit buildings, 220 dwellings in three and four-unit buildings, and 288 dwellings in eight and ten-unit buildings. The development also includes public parkland and private open space. L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM~PCMINkMN 110899.DOC 1 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Staff felt with the number of outstanding issues (11) with both the PUD plan and the preliminary plat, it seemed reasonable to continue this item and allow the developer time to address these issues. In light of the fact the Council cannot take any action on this application until after the EAW comment period expires, continuing the item would not cause undue delays. Kansier addressed Cramer's concem for traffic control and park dedication. Acting City Engineer Sue McDermott addressed Cramer's question on water flow and redirection of the sewer. Don Patton, representing D.R. Horton, introduced Dick Krier, from Midwest Planning and Design and Bob Wiegert from Paramount Engineering and Design. Krier distributed a letter to the Commissioners requesting the Commission to take action at this meeting and forward the recommendation to City Council with conditions. He felt the issues could be resolved and did not want to delay the project. Krier gave an overview of the process and addressed some of staff's conditions and concerns. Comments from the public: Jerry Michels, 6166 Birch Road, Credit River Township, said his biggest concern is the runoff on Markley Lake. It is no longer a holding pond. He feels there is no reduction in the wetland area. Michels said he heard the wetlands will drain north to Cleary Lake. Michel questioned the impact on Markley Lake. Bob Wiegert, of Paramount Engineering and Design, the site civil engineer, said the project was designed so runoff to Markley Lake would not increased. The runoff currently drains to the north and is controlled through a storm system. The development will not increase runoff to the north but allow low storage areas to replenish the wetlands. Stamson questioned what would happen during high water periods. Wiegert responded there is an outlet control on Fish Point Road directing water to the DNR wetland to the south. A formal application has been made to the DNR for that purpose. Margi Atwood, 16992 Crimson Court, stated she and her neighbors are happy to have the beautiful land behind them developed, however they are not happy with the housing numbers. One of her concerns is for the traffic on Fish Point Road. She said she has not seen the traffic study but felt this was a major implication and should be looked at. Another concern is for the overburdened school district and quality of education. She felt the landowners and developers are holding out with the adjoining land and would like to know their intentions. Atwood feels the housing numbers presented are bogus. The quality of life she and her neighbors are enjoying will diminish with this development. Their concern for the development is not how it looks or the quality of the product. It is density. It is too high. How will this density benefit the citizens of Prior Lake? l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 110899.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Tom Stanley, 6221 Sue Ann Lane, a resident on Markley Lake, said he was suspicious of this subdivision and the direction water will runoff. One of his concerns was the increased volume of water to Markley Lake. He felt there will be additional development on Deerfield. The water level in Markley Lake has gone up 9 feet in the last 10 years. The pumping of Markley Lake is going to Credit River which is not a permanent solution. Savage will not want any more water. The DNR has said no more pumping until a permanent solution is resolved. The decisions the Commissioners make will effect his property in Credit River. The public hearing closed at 8:01 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · Appreciate all comments. However there are a number of concerns from the staff. · Questioned the upgrade and right-of-way from Fish Point Road - McDermott said the City has 66 feet of right-of-way and at this time the City has no cost estimates for upgrading. · Chuck Rickart, WSB Associates, explained the traffic study, There would be 4,000 trips per day generated from this development. They looked at the worst case conditions if the project is built-out and the resulting traffic flow. Rickart said the roadways and intersections will work satisfactory with those numbers. Depending if the road to the south connects and what percentage of traffic heads south, by the year 2020, a right turn lane would be needed at the intersection ofFish Point Road and County Road 21. A normal single family residence generates about 10 trips per day. Rickart explained a collector roadway (Fish Point Road) with 4,000 trips per day can easily be handled by a two lane facility with shoulders. Page 7 of the Traffic Report shows the trip generation. * Questioned the runoff. Wiegert explained how the engineers determined runoff and redirection. · At least six of the criteria for a PUD fails. The greatest problem is the grid system and the concentration on the villa units. Cramer: · Vonhof addressed most of his concerns. · Questioned adjoining acreage to the northeast - Patton responded it was about 4 acres. · Questioned if anyone is aware of the adjoining project outside the city limits. Rye responded there were a few houses along the county road to the east and Cleary Lake, quite a distance from the wetland. There are some properties along the south, but did not have exact numbers or information in the township. · Believes the R1 zone is acceptable. Has concern for the R2 density. The developer is pushing the envelope taking the PUD process trying to get as many units on the parcel as possible. A developer's desire to maximize their investment should not be done at the expense of the surrounding neighborhood and the community as a whole. He is disappointed in the proposal. · Fish Point Road was never designed to handle this type of density. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn I 10899.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 · There is a neighborhood park at the end of Wilderness Ponds. The amount of traffic will put children at a safety risk. · The City's only fire station is at the end ofFish Point Road. Emergency vehicles need to get out quickly. · The density is too high for the sewer capacity. · It is unknown how many units will go in the undeveloped north end parcel. · Disappointed there is only 10 acres for parkland. A full park dedication should be made. This is important. The burden for high density will fall on Wilderness Ponds park. The developer owes it to the City to provide a park. · The R2 district in the Zoning Code indicates 4 units per building. I expected to see this when I supported the R2 zone. · Shared staff's concern with parking. The parking in the villa area is inadequate and unacceptable. There must be greater parking - two car garage for each unit. · The PUD does not meet the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance. · The Commissioners have always been concerned with runoff and impervious surface. The EAW indicates a significant amount of runoff. The best way to reduce impervious surface is to reduce density. · Spoke to the same school board member as Margi Atwood. It is a fact, this development affects the school district. This is not advisable for the City. · Would like to see the developer go back to the drawing board and come up with something that meets the R2 district. It is detrimental to the neighborhood and community. · The entire request should be denied. Stamson: · The biggest concerns are density effecting traffic, schools and runoff. · The developer states it will create 4,000 trips per day. If platted under single family, this development would have 5,000 trips per day. This proposal creates 1,000 less trips per day, than a typical detached single family subdivision on the same site. · Regarding schools - Using the standard criteria and past experience this development expects to have roughly 174 students. One hundred forty come from the single family district. If this development had 500 single family (allowable under R1 district), it could create 750 students. The proposed development would have 600 less students than the single family homes. · Runoff- The allowable impervious surface coverage is 30%. The proposal is half at 15%. · This is a lot of misconception with this development. The numbers are favorable. The Metropolitan Council stated in the Sunday Star Tribune they were in favor of this type of development. The project is a more efficient use of land than the traditional large lot development. It is a very positive development to the community providing a variety of housing styles which the City is lacking. The developer has gone to great lengths to preserve and utilize the natural features. · Supported the R2 district. It has more density on the east, allowing larger lots on the west where there is more natural features to be avoided. This proposal allows more green space than single family homes. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn I 10899.doc Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 · This type of density has more tax advantages to the City than single family. It provides more tax dollars per acre than other types of residential developments. City services are in a joint area. It also produces fewer children in the school district than single family homes. That is positive. The impact on adjacent development should be more positive than negative. Over 50% of the homes anticipated sale price is equal to or greater than the homes in Wilderness Ponds. The housing immediately adjacent to Wilderness Ponds are planned to be of higher value. This can only positively effect property values in the neighborhood. · The neighborhood amenities are improved with parks and trails. · The street layout has been designed to minimize traffic on existing streets. · This development is very positive to the community. Although there are a number of concerns from the staff, they can be addressed without major redrawing of the plan. · Agreed with Vonhof and Cramer the villas need some work. The density in the grid is too dense. Would like to see those redesigned. · Fish Point Road should be upgraded, probably plan for a signal. · There should be a sidewalk behind Wilderness Trail through the cluster homes. · The other concern is for usable space. The R2 district seems to be dense without much useable open space. Would like to meet R2 open space requirements within the area. Do not expand outside the R2 zone. · This is a high quality development and all parties should find a way to make it work. Open discussion: Vonhof: · Stamson brought up very good points and comments. · Pointed out the 24.8 % impervious surface area. · Before considering this development. Staff's concems have to be addressed. · Need more information on the impact on Outlot A. Stamson: The proper step would be to continue the matter and address the issues. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE TO THE DECEMBER 13, 1999 MEETING TO ADDRESS THE 11 CONCERNS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT. ADD THE COST OF UPGRADING FISH POINT ROAD AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND THE COST OF A SEMAPHORE ON COUNTY ROAD 21 AND FISH POINT ROAD. ALSO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF PRIVATE TRAILS AND ROADWAYS IN THE DEVELOPMENTS AS INDICATED IN THE STAFF REPORT. INCLUDE AN EXPLANATION OF OUTLOT A - THE OWNERSHIP AND USE OF THE LOT. ADDRESS THE DESIGN OF MAPLE CURVE - RECOMMEND INCREASING THE 24 FOOT WIDTH TO 32 FEET. ALL PRIVATE STREETS IN THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE BUILT TO PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 110899.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 CRAMER AMENDED THE MOTION TO UPDATE THE TRAFFIC STUDY TO THE NORTH INCLUDING THE EXTENSION. SECOND BY STAMSON. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. B. Case File 99-075 Ryan Contracting is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for grading, filling, land reclamation and excavation. The applicant is intending to operate a sand and gravel mining operation. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated November 8, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. On September 29, 1999, a completed application was received for the excavation of sand and gravel from property located in the SE ¼, Section 22, Township 115, Range 22. This property is owned by Richard McKenna and Joseph and Carolyn Kinney. Due to an error in the legal description, upon recommendation staff, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on October 25, 1999 and continued it to November 8, 1999. Ryan Contracting is proposing to operate a sand and gravel mining operation. The operation will consist of mining and processing including descreening, stockpiling, and sale of product. Aggregate washing or operation of an asphalt plant is not a part of this operation. Ryan intends to operate at the site for approximately 10 years and remove 500,000 cubic yards of materials. The materials mined will be used for road construction and general fill. The operation will run from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays. Staff received necessary information on Wednesday but were unable to review before the packets went out. The staff has since reviewed the information and felt the outstanding conditions and concerns were met. Staff recommended approval with the 5 conditions listed in the Planning Report. Tom Ryan, President of Ryan Contracting, explained the Conditional Use Permit request was to use the natural aggregate resources in the property and through the process address all environmental issues and concerns by staff. Comments from the public: Craig Ahlman, 13799 McKenna Road, said he did not want this project next to his property. His other concerns are the track traffic and times of operation. It is a long and big operation for the area. Rick Palla, 13755 McKenna Road, said he and his neighbors fought a gravel pit 10 years ago when the same family was trying put in an adjoining pit. Many residents fought the proposal and won. In the end, the Dakota Community bought the land. Palla felt his 1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 110899.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 weekends offwill be spent next to a mining pit. Tovar explained the surrounding properties. Palla felt there was a lot of traffic in the area right now and was concerned for truck traffic. He felt the hours proposed are unreasonable and stated no one wants to live next to a gravel pit. Tovar explained the City sent notices to residents within 350 feet of the project. The City also sent out a review request to the Dakota Community prior to the report. There is a letter in the Commissioner's packets from the Community with their concerns. Tom Ryan, the applicant, commented they had a grading permit two years ago and voluntarily stopped mining until the City could change their conditional use permit process. Ryan said they want to be a positive force in the community. He went on to say they might be done in 3 years, hopefully they would not be mining in the area for 10 years, but it is unknown. They felt 10 years was suitable. The renewal is on an annual basis and if there are problems they can be brought up yearly. Concerning the hours of operation, Ryan said it is very unlikely they would be working during non-construction season. One of the conditions is no lighting. They cannot work in the dark and do not like to work on Saturdays. They are just trying to leave some leeway to work sufficiently. Evonne Anderson, 13222 Pike Lake Trail, representing the Southdale YMCA questioned the County Road 21 expansion and how it fits in the Watershed District. They are concerned with the high water at Pike Lake. Anderson also questioned the track traffic on County Roads 16 and 42. They want to make sure there are safety precautions. Rye responded the County Road 21 alignment will be 300 to 400 feet from the property. McDermott pointed out a letter from the Watershed District indicating they would not look at the permit until the City approves the project. Tyler Enright of Ryan Contracting explained the proposed traffic flow stating County Road 16 will not be used. The public hearing was closed at 9:12 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Cramer: Did not agree with staff's recommendation to approve. Shepherd of the Lake Church is proposing a campus at the comer of County Road 42 and Pike Lake Trail. That portion of County 42 and McKenna is cut down to 2 lanes and is notorious for being a danger area. The Dakota Community indicated they had concerns with a nearby well. McDermott responded the issue is addressed in Ryan's proposal and is within the guidelines issued by the Department of Health. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\nm I 10899.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 · Does not feel this development is appropriate for the location given the other types of developments in the area. Will not support. Vonhof: · Disagreed with Cramer. Felt this Conditional Use Permit is an interim use and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It comes back for renewal every year. · The 11 issues in the Planning Report have been addressed. Any approval would have to address the concerns as part of the plan. · Regarding the off-site traffic and impact, Ryan agreed to maintain the road. It is also part of the condition. · Another concem is regarding noise on the site. The decibel level has been addressed and is adequate. · This is not a permanent long term use. It is appropriate and the conditions are met. Stamson: · Agreed with Vonhof, it is a temporary use and expires within thc time frame of the 2010 Plan. It is appropriate within the Comprehensive Plan. · His concerns have been addressed by staff. · One concern is the hours of operation. What are Savage's time for operation? Never had a problem with neighboring Savage's pit. Tovar responded the hours of operation are consistent with the City's combustion engine ordinance which allows lawnmowers and other types of machinery allowed within the hours. · Six p.m. deadline is more appropriate. · Tom Ryan said thc reason for the hours requested is because it is consistent with thc City's hours of operation. He also addressed Vonhof's concern of decibels. Their loudest decibel is in the 70 to 80 range. · Ryan said it is not their intent to occupy the pit full-time. Vonhof: · Be consistent with the time and noise ordinances. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EXCAVATION OF SAND AND GRAVEL AT THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 114, RANGE 22, LOCATED ON MCKENNA ROAD, INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT. INCLUDE THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY RYAN EXCAVATING TO AMEND HOURS OF OPERATION FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 12:00 P.M. ON SATURDAY. Vote taken indicated ayes by Vonhof and Stamson. Nay by Cramer. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on December 6, 1999. Dick Krier, Midwest Planning and Design requested a date change for continuing the Preliminary Plat and PUD for Deerfield to November 22, 1999 rather than December 13. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 110899.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Krier said he would like to address some of the Commissioner's concerns. The Commissioners felt it was not appropriate to reconsider this issue because of staff's concerns about review time and the fact that persons appearing for the public hearing were not present. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. Case File 99-083 Chris Anderson is requesting a vacation of a portion of frontage road located adjacent to 16020 Eagle Creek Avenue. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated November 3, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. The Planning Department received an application from Chris Anderson requesting the vacation of the portion of public roadway located in front of his property. The purpose of the vacation is to give Mr. Anderson more property in the front yard, resulting in a private area for a future garage. While variances would be needed for a future garage, the variance request would be minimized with greater lot area. Mr. Anderson is proposing to vacate 26.50 feet of right-of-way with 13 feet being retained in a utility easement for the City. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan will be met, however, there is a public interest in retaining the entire right-of-way as platted. Planning staff recommended denial of the request as submitted. Comments from the public: Chris Anderson, 16020 Eagle Creek Avenue, felt there was adequate distance to the road for utilities. He would like to build a garage stating his neighbors would like to see him complete it as soon as possible. Anderson would like to expedite the process. Neighbors signed a petition in support. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · Concurred with staff to vacate the entire portion of properties along the frontage road. It would solve the problems and make the neighborhood more attractive. · There is no public interest. · Agreed with staff to deny this request and vacate the entire roadway. Do not vacate the right-of-way in a piecemeal fashion. Vonhof: · Agreed. As an action of this now, it should be denied. There should be a companion motion brought before the Commission for the entire area. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcminkrnn 110899.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Cramer: · Agreed with the Commissioners' views. Vacate the entire portion. Tovar said this action will go before the City Council on December 6, 1999. The process of vacating the entire roadway by the residents could take 3 to 6 months. It could be a costly project for the City. Anderson said the entire street was surveyed in 1994 by Valley Survey. It would only have to be updated. Rye said the City needs a survey of what needs to be vacated. It is a private roadway. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO DENY THE VACATION REQUEST AS PRESENTED. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL RESEARCH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR VACATION. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case File 99-069 Charlotte Roehr is requesting the vacation of a portion of Red Oaks Road adjacent to Lots 27-37, Red Oaks. Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated November 8, 1999, on file in the office of the Plan Director. City Ordinance Section 1105.402 requires road access for uses permitted within designated flood areas to have road access at or above an elevation of not more than 2 feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation. Therefore, the minimum road access for structures on Prior Lake is 907.9. Charlotte Roehr has received an OHW setback and driveway width variances. A condition of the variance was the road be elevated as required by City Ordinance. Considering the road is public, there are options for a private property owner to construct such improvements. Such options include entering into a "Private Use of Public Property" Agreement, petitioning the City for a public improvement project, or requesting the City vacate the road. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan will be met as well as satisfying the public need for the utility/drainage easements. The Planning staff recommended approval of the vacation of the roadway subject to the granting of a drainage and utility easement over the roadway being vacated. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcrnin\mn 110899.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Comments from the public: Bryce Huemoeller, representing Charlotte Roehr, said they were present to support the request. Huemoeller explained this is an unusual plat, the road does not meet City standards and has never been maintained by the City. They tried to do an agreement to approve public property but felt that type of agreement was not appropriate for this use. There are no other public interests that need to be considered. This affects 2 properties. The utilities are not effected by the vacation. It solves an unusual and complicated problem for the City by approving the vacation. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · Concurred with staff and their conditions. · If the applicant has to maintain it, she should own it. Cramer: · Concurred with staff's recommendation. This is a very amicable solution. Vonhof: · Agreed. · Noticed the Declaration of Driveway Easement has not been signed by the property owners. · Huemoeller said the neighbors will sign after the approved vacation. · A signed copy should be included in this vacation. There should be a legal instrument. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. A. There were no concems for changes. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Announcements and Correspondence: Proposals for Planning Commission Bylaw changes. Donald Rye Director of Planning Recording Secretary l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 110899.doc 11