Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020998REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1998 6:30 p.m. e Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: (The minutes of the 1/26/98 Planning Commission Meeting have not been completed at this time; therefore, no action is required.) Public Hearings: Ao Consider approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as Woodridge Estates 4th Addition, consisting of 2.79 acres to be subdivided into 2 lots for single family dwellings and 1 outlot (Case #98-004). 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: e A. Review 1997 Variance Summary Report Bo Discussion on Proposed Official Map for the Ring Road between Franklin Trail and Tower Avenue Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment L:\98FILES',98PLCOMM~CAGENDA'~AGO20998.DOC 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake~ Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax {612) 447-4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1998 1. Call to Order: The February 9, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Come Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Kuykendall Present Criego Present Cramer Present Stamson Present Vonhof Absent Commissioner Vonhof arrived at 6:34 p.m. 3. Approval of Minutes: (The minutes of the 1/26/98 Planning Commission Meeting were not available at this time.) 4. Public Hearings: A. (Case #98-004) Consider approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as Woodridge Estates 4th Addition, consisting of 2.79 acres to be subdivided into 2 lots for single family dwellings and 1 outlot. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated February 9, 1998. The City received an application by Mesenbrink Construction for a preliminary plat for the 2.79 acre site located at the intersection of Mushtown Road and Ridgewood Court, just west of The Ponds Athletic Complex and east of Parkwood Drive. The preliminary plat, to be known as Woodridge Estates 4th Addition, is the final phase of the Woodridge development. The site is fairly level and contains a wetland approximately 1.5 acres in size. The existing significant trees on the site are located along the southern boundary of the plat, adjacent to Mushtown Road. The property is zoned R-1 (Suburban Residential). The 2010 Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as R-LMD (Urban Low to Medium Density Residential). The proposed plat consists of 2.79 acres to be subdivided into 2 lots for single family dwellings and one outlot. The total density of this development is 1.4 units per acre, which is well below the maximum permitted density of 3.5 units per acre. The proposed lots are 22,258 square feet and 17,408 square feet in area, and the frontage on the lots is also at least 86 feet. The minimum lot size in the R-1 district is 12,000 square feet and l:\98files\98plcomm\pcrnin~nn020998.doc 1 the minimum frontage requirements is 86 feet. Both of the proposed lots are consistent with these standards. Outlot A is 1.88 acres in area, and primarily consists of wetlands. There are no new streets located within this plat. Access to the lots is from Ridgewood Court, which was platted as part of Woodridge Estates 3rd Addition. The only grading on this site is for the house pads on Lots 1 and 2. The applicant has submitted a preliminary grading plan which, for the most part, meets City standards. The grading plan also indicates each of these lots will be custom graded, meaning more detailed grading plans will be required at the time a building permit is obtained. There is a 1.5 acre wetland located on this site, in Outlot A. The developer does not intend to disturb this wetland. Sanitary sewer service and water service are located along the westerly boundary of this plat in Ridgewood Court. There are three existing service lines to this property, two serving Lot 1, and one serving Lot 2. One of the service lines to Lot 1 must be abandoned. The Developer will be required to dedicate drainage and utility easements over the wetlands. This development is subject to the provisions of Section 6.16 (Tree Preservation) of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has provided an inventory as required by this ordinance, which shows the majority of significant trees located along the south boundary of the plat. There is one 6" maple on Lot 1 which will be removed for the house pad on the site. These 6 caliper inches total 2.2% of the total caliper inches on the site. The Tree Preservation Ordinance allows removal of 25% of the caliper inches, so no tree replacement will be required. This development is also subject to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which requires one (1) street tree per lot frontage and one (1) front yard tree per lot. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan showing the proposed location of the required trees, as well as the minimum size and types. This plan is consistent with these requirements. The park dedication requirements have been met for this subdivision. A preliminary plat identifies proposed lot locations, areas and dimensions, road locations, storm sewers, grading, location and grade of sewer and water, landscaping and tree replacement plans, and other improvements to an undeveloped site. A preliminary plat for the entire Woodridge Estates development was approved in 1991. This portion of the preliminary plat included a cul-de-sac with seven lots, approximately 10,000 square feet in area. However, since a final plat for this site was not submitted within a year after approval of the preliminary plat, the development became subject to current regulations, including wetland rules and lot area. In 1995, the developer submitted a proposal to subdivide this site into three lots and one outlot. While this proposal preserved the wetland and created lots meeting the minimum lot area, it also proposed two "flag" lots which did not meet the minimum lot frontage requirements. The City Council denied the preliminary plat in January, 1996. This proposal is different from previous proposals in that it complies with all current regulations. The wetland is not disturbed, and the proposed lots meet the minimum lot area and frontage requirements. No additional infrastructure is required to serve this plat. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn020998.doc 2 Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat of Woodridge Estates 4th Addition subject to the ownership and maintenance of Outlot A condition listed in the staff report. Comments from the public: The applicant was present to answer questions. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: No sidewalks - in the interest of public safety the applicant should consider sidewalks. Criego: · Agreed with staff's recommendation. Cramer: · Questioned the location of Lot 2 and the wetland. Kansier explained. · Agreed with the staff's recommendation. Vonhof: · Questioned the improvements on Mushtown Road. Kansier said the road was completed. · Agreed with staff's recommendation. Stamson: · Concurred with staff. Kuykendall: · Questioned sidewalks on Mushtown Road. McDermott said it is a township road. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WOODRIDGE ESTATES 4TH ADDITION AS PRESENTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE STAFF REPORT. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. Review 1997 Variance Summary Report. Rye presented the annual variance summary report. Noted the lower number (17) of variance requests. Some of the changes are due to substandard lots allowing a 5' side l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn020998.doc 3 yard setback and the change of the 50' ordinary-high-water level setback for decks. In the last 2 years there were 15 appeals to City Council with only 3 being reversed. In all other cases, City Council agreed with staff. Vonhof: · Should see the number of building permits for '95, '96 and '97. Are we getting more building permits? Could be new homes or build-ons. · There should bca base line. How many people nccd variances compared to thc number of people who can comply to thc code. · Believes there will be more height variances as Commissioners hold the line on impervious surface. · Many applicants modified their requests before they appeared before City Council on appeals. · Good job by staff. Kuykendall: · Given the City is dealing with a new zoning ordinance, there are no recommendations. Commissioners have been using the criteria. · Commented on City Council's rationale for reversing appeals. · Felt City Council should provide the Planning Commission their rationale for reversing the appeals. Criego: · No further comments. Cramer: · This information should be reviewed at the City Council workshop especially when discussions come up with the ordinary-high-water. · Commented on City Council's reasons for reversing appeals. Attended both appeals where additional information provided at the Council level that was not presented at the Planning Commission meetings. In both cases, the applicants changed their information significantly before the Council. Stamson: · We should see how many building permits were in the Shoreland. How many needed variances? MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn020998.doc 4 B. Discussion on Proposed Official Map for the Ring Road between Franklin Trail and Tower Avenue. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report. The City of Prior Lake has, for several years, anticipated the construction of a ring road between Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue. This road is shown on the Transportation Map in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The recent construction of the Park Nicollet Clinic and the changes to the access points on Highway 13 has facilitated the need for this road. In order to better plan for this road, the City staffhave proposed an official map for the right-of-way. An Official Map is an ordinance in map form adopted by the City that conclusively shows the location and width of proposed streets or future public land and facilities. The requirements for an Official Map are identified in the State Statutes. The purpose of an Official Map is to prevent private development from encroaching on sites for proposed public improvements. The adoption of an Official Map does not give the City any fight, title or interest in areas identified for public purposes, but it does authorize the City to acquire such interests without paying compensation for buildings or structures erected in such areas without a permit or in violation of the conditions of an approved permit. The Official Map also governs the issuance of building permits in that it is not required to issue a permit for a structure within the public area defined by an official map. The statute also provides a property owner with an appeal process. The purpose of the proposed ring road is to provide access to the commercial properties on the southwest side of Highway 13, and to reroute that traffic from Highway 13 to a local street. The proposed alignments will accomplish this by directing traffic from Franklin Trail to Toronto Avenue, and provides access to the properties adjacent to Highway 13 and the properties to the south. At this time, the staff is asking the Planning Commission to provide some direction about which alignment is most desirable. Once staff has direction, a survey of the property will be prepared, and a public hearing scheduled to review the Official Map. The City Council will ultimately determine the alignment of the road with the final approval of the Official Map. Comments from the Commissioners: Cramer: · Questioned the wetlands and potential redevelopment of Priordale Mall. Kuykendall: · What is the projected traffic? Kansier said they do not have exact numbers. · Rye explained the frontage road in front of Highway 13 is a private road. · What is the State's role in this? It is an impact on the City. · The State has an obligation. · Rye explained there is another option. Criego: · From a safety standpoint, a 30 mph speed limit would be acceptable. Option C would be the best alternative. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn020998.doc 5 · The landscaping will look nice. · The property with Option C would be less costly. Vonhof: · Why does it come in at an angle? Kansier explained the traffic flow process. · Recommend Option C. Stamson: · Would the City end up buying the block building on Toronto? Kansier said probably. · Option C would be best. · The City could take out some of the curve. Cramer: · Option C will work. Kuykendall: · Favors Option A. Concerned with the way Toronto is connected. Bring it in at 90 degrees. There should be a right-of-way. Make it an attractive facility for people to use. Prefers the flat curve. It should be designed for people to use. There should be a stop sign on Toronto Avenue. Criego: · Option C goes into two properties. By bringing the road further south, the City would only have to deal with the brick building. · Go back and put a "T" on it. McDermott said they can look into it. The commissioners decided to have staff review and bring back a new drawing. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: · Downtown Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for February 10, 1998. · Kansier is working with the City Attorney finalizing the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council will review. · The joint Scott County Planning Commission meeting is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, March 31, 1998. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:39 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn020998.doc 6