Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 09 2012 PC meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES th MONDAY, April 9, 2012 1. Call to Order: th Chairman Phelan called the April 9, 2012, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners, Roszak, Blahnik, Spieler, and Phelan, Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, City Engineer Larry Poppler, Planner Jeff Matzke, and Community Development Assistant Peter Aldritt. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO APPROVE THE APRIL 9, 2012 MEETING AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes, Spieler, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan. The Motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of March 26, 2012 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY ROSZAK, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 9TH, 2012 MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik, Spieler and Phelan. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: None 5. Old Business: A. #EP 11-101 , Consider a Preliminary Plat to be known as Eagle Creek Estates consisting of 61 residential lots and 14.18 acres of commercial designated property. The property is located northeast of the intersection of CSAH 21 and Fish Point Road. Planner Matzke presented a request from Equity Properties LLC for approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as Eagle Creek Estates. The property is located on a 45 acre site located northeast of the intersection of CSAH 21 and Fish Point Road and south of the Cardinal Ridge residential development, consisting of 61 single family homes and 12.7 acres of commercially designated property. City Engineer Poppler presented information about the utilities and street connection along Fish Point Road. The connection of Fish Point Road will allow better access to other developments and schools that are north of the site. From a utilities perspective, this new development allows the citty to better . serve Cardinal RidgeThis site is very challenging in in terms of grading and drainage. There are . numerous landlocked wetlands that drain into a landlocked lakeStaff has worked with the developer to design a grading plan that will work with this site. Staff feels that the major storm water concerns have been worked out with the developer. After reviewing the traffic study that was conducted, a decision was made to place a roundabout at the intersection of Fish Point Road and Credit River Road, which was the best solution to keep traffic moving and to prevent back-ups. Planner Matzke added a phasing description of the development in relationship to the utilities. 1 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN040912.doc Commissioner Comments and Questions: Roszak asked whether rain gardens were looked at as opposed to tying all the ponds together? Engineer Poppler responded that there will be infiltration features on this site. Spieler askedabout the number of cars predicted to use Fish Point Road? Engineer Poppler responded that the 2030 Comp Plan forecasts about 12,000 trips per day. Spieler asked if there a median on Fish Point Road? Engineer Poppler responded yes. Spieler asked if the roundabout is going to minimize traffic? Engineer Poppler responded that it is not to deter traffic, but rather, it will be sized to handle daily traffic in the area. Blahnik asked what about the definition of an over-story tree? Planner Matzke responded that these trees are known as deciduous trees, but not coniferous, decorative or ornamental trees. Blahnik asked about requirements for the hardwood verses softwood trees? Planner Matzke responded that the tree preservation standards list the types of trees allowed. Phelan stated that he likes the roundabout, and further asked whether there is a sense of the range of values of homes that we will be built. Planner Matzke responded that house prices are likely to be in the $300,000-$400,000 range, but that . it is difficult to say in this type of market Phelan asked if there are any means of using or keeping the virgin timber in this site? Planner Matzke responded that there is massive grading that will take place that will result in a substantial loss of trees. However, there are construction limits that define a line on the site with some . trees to be saved Blahnik asked whether the developer needs to obtain permits from different agencies? Engineer Poppler responded that a number of permits are required from different agencies that the developer will need to obtain in order for the project to move forward. MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECOND BY SPIELER TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOW AS EAGLE CREEK ESTATES UNDER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. VOTE: Ayes, Spieler, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan. 6. New Business: A. #EP 10-122 , Consider an Access Easement for the approved Combined Preliminary and Final Plat to be known as Bluffs of Candy Cove 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 Cove Trail, north of TH 13. Planner Matzke presented information related to a combined preliminary and final plat known as The Bluffs of Candy Cove that was approved by the City Council on December 19, 2011. The resolution indicated that an access easement shall be granted for the properties of the Bluffs of Candy Cove Plat 2 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN040912.doc through the City owned property located at the northeast of the intersection of Candy Cove Trail and State Trunk Highway 13. The purpose of this item is for the Planning Commission to consider whether a proposed access easement is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Engineer Poppler presented information on the grading portion of the project within the easement area. The property has very steep terrain and bluffs. In order to gain access to the site, the hill needs to be cut and removed, and retaining walls need to be placed at various locations. Without the cooperation of the neighbor to allow grading a portion of that property, a 20 feet high retaining wall must be constructed. For fairness of the easement, staff drew a straight line between the existing driveway and the proposed driveway through the city property up to a point that is equal in distance from the two driveways. This has a 20 feet wall up at the property line point, but it then tapers down to zero height at . the entrance of the propertyStaff believes this is a good compromise for the city property. Planner Matzke stated that ultimately the details of the easement are the City Council’s decision because it is city-owned property. The reason this item is presented to the Planning Commission is that their duty is to analyze proposed easements in conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Phelan askedwhether there is an agreement between the neighbors whether there will be any issues between the neighbor if this moves to the City Council? Engineer Poppler responded that it is up to the developer, but that he wants the city to define that easement for him. Staff has worked with the neighbor and the developer to try to get the existing retaining walls removed but have been unsuccessful. Spieler asked how easements are interpreted in regard to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan? Planner Matzke responded that the City’s objective is to provide reasonable access to buildable lots of record. The parcel that is in front of these lots was given to the city by MNDOT to allow for access to the lots. Spieler asked whether there is a height requirement in regard to the retaining wall? Engineer Poppler . responded that there is not a height requirement Roszak asked whether the commission can hear about the other easement option from the applicant? Planner Matzke responded that the applicant provided a letter regarding the other option as part of the Commission’s packet in order to show his view point as to a reasonable easement. Jason Miller Developer, Minneapolis stated that he had originally drafted a larger easement in order to give himself more flexibility to install trees and sound buffers. Roszak asked whether trees can be installed in the temporary easement? Engineer Poppler responded that the developer could if he wanted to pay for them. Roszak asked whether that would help accomplish some of the developer’s goals? Applicant Miller responded that it would, but also asked whether he could put some of the retaining walls out of the easement? Engineer Poppler responded that the city wants the walls under permanent easement because they do not want to be responsible for the maintenance of the walls. 3 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN040912.doc Blahnik asked about the purpose of bringing this easement in front of the Planning Commission as to whether it is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and whether to move it forward, table it or deny it? Engineer Poppler responded that it is their duty to take action. Phelan stated that he agrees that it is in conformance with the 2030 plan and wondered if this moves forward whether the Council is then burdened with deciding temporary verse final location of the easement? Planner Matzke responded that the reason the Planning Commission reviews this is to make sure it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The City Council will still be determining the final location as part of their review. A MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECOND BY SPIELER TO APROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING OF A PREPETUAL EASEMENT FOR THE ACCESS DRIVEWAY VOTE: Ayes, Spieler, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan. B. #EP 12-110 , Consider a Concept Plan from Deerfield Development related to a change in land use from industrial to residential in support of a townhome development project on 8.6 acres. The property . is located in the southwest corner of Deerfield Industrial Park south of CSAH 21 Community and Economic Development Director Rogness presented information related to a Concept Plan submitted by Deerfield Development Inc.for a land use and zoning change, a housing development project, and a future final plat in the Deerfield Industrial Park. The site is approximately 8.6 acres. A concept plan review process is allowed in Part 10 of City Codes for Subdivisions. Section 1002.100 “Concept Plan”, which states that discussions of the concept plan shall be advisory and not considered binding in regard to subsequent plat review. Mike Podawiltz, Podawiltz Development St. Cloud, MN presented information about the proposed residential development in Deerfield Industrial Park. This proposed site has residential housing on two sides already. In terms of the industrial park, they view this area as more of a mixed use park since it does have different uses, including residential, commercial and industrial. Their proposed development includes affordable workforce housing. According to the Met Council, there is a need for this type of housing in Prior Lake. The majority of the medium/high density residential in the comprehensive plan is primarily located north and south of the 42 corridor. There is not any medium density zoned land in close proximity to the industrial park where the growth of the work force housing will take place. Mike feels there is a need for this type of housing, and the site is surrounded by different zoning classifications and that this would be a logical extension of the residential area currently in place. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Spieler asked whether this is subsidized housing? Podawiltz responded that it is workforce housing using federal housing tax credits to keep rents affordable with no direct subsidy. Spieler asked whether there is a cost of living increase each year? 4 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN040912.doc Podawiltz responded that there is not such an increase. Spieler asked whether there a manager on site? Podawiltz responded that there is an onsite manager. Spieler asked where there is a community that has something similar to this? Podawiltz responded the closest one developed by Podawiltz is in Buffalo. Roszak askedabout the application process for the tenants? Podawiltz responded that the tenants apply through the management company. Roszak asked whether tenants need to reapply every year? Podawiltz responded that they do not. The average turnover rate about three years, which seems to be about enough time for people to save money and get into the single family home market. Blahnik asked whether they complete any specific study to determine the need of this type of housing in Prior Lake. Podawiltz responded that they look at local sources to help them determine if there is a need, as well as Met Council and Minnesota Housing Finance data. Blahnik asked about the process they went through with the other two developments and what the vacancy rate is on the other developments? Podawiltz responded that they have experienced an occupancy rate of 98 percent. Phelan asked how they track to make sure the tenants do not go over the income cap? Podawiltz responded that they check tenant incomes each year, and if they do not meet the requirements, time is allowed for them to relocate. Phelan asked more about the time allowed for the tenants to relocate? Podawiltz responded that it is one calendar year. Director Rogness presented more information on the history and the background of the Deerfield Industrial Park. He further summarized five questions the Planning Commission should consider and discuss when evaluating this Concept Plan. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Phelan stated that in regard to the positive and negative land use aspects, that taking more industrial land away from the city is then taking away potentially higher property tax rate in the future. His own perception seems to be contrary to what the studies have now shown with an ample amount of industrial land. If this is an opportunity to generate some shorter term tax revenue through a medium density development, then it may mitigate some of the property taxes on the neighbors. There appears to be nothing alarming about this item now. Blahnik stated the Deerfield Industrial Park has been there for quite awhile, and that there are substantial vacancies within the area. The Maxfield report appears to say that if this development were to go forward, there would still be enough industrial land. If there is a need now for medium density residential, it would make sense to potentially rezone this site. Roszak stated that he agrees with his fellow commissioners. He would prefer to see a bustling industrial park there. However, that is probably not the economic climate right now. Given that there is 5 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN040912.doc a need and a developer willing to take on the risk of the development, it should be supported. It fits with the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan. Spieler stated he think this is a good idea, with one question asked about the occupancy rate of affordable housing around the city? Director Rogness responded that he does not know the vacancy rates in Prior Lake, but it is typical that affordable housing is fully occupied with waiting lists due to the lower rents. Spieler stated that he has concerns about tenants going from one apartment to the other with some older buildings then becoming vacant. Phelan stated that this looks like it would attract additional school-aged which may further add to the schools already getting close to their capacity, which would be something to take into consideration at a later date. Planner Matzke responded that the City meets regularly with the Prior Lake Savage school district to plan for future developments. Phelan stated in regard to Spieler’s comment about the vacancy rate, it would fall on the developer to take address that issue. Blahnik asked whether one of the potential problems with Deerfield is that the surrounded growth to the south has significantly slowed? Director Rogness responded that industrial development does not tend to expand based on housing developments. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: nd Director Dan Rogness presentedan update from the April 2 City Council Meeting. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY SPIELR SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO ADJORN THE MEETING. VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Roszak, and Phelan. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:39 p.m. Peter Aldritt, Community Development Assistant. 6 L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN040912.doc