HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 13 2012 Agenda Packet
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, August 13, 2012
City Council Chambers
6:00 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Approval of Agenda:
3. Consider Approval of July 30, 2012 Meeting Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
None
5. Old Business:
None
6. New Business:
A. #EP 12-107 Maple Glen 4 Vacation. D.R. Horton has submitted an application to vacate a utility
th
easement located within Maple Glen 3 Addition.
rd
B. #EP 12-121 Jeffers Pond 6 Vacation. Ryland Homes has submitted an application to vacate drainage
th
and utility easements located within Jeffers Pond 2.
nd
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Recent City Council discussions/decisions.
8. Adjournment:
Adjourn to a Work Session on future Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
L:\12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 AGENDAS\052912 Agenda.doc
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, July 30, 2012
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Phelan called the July 30, 2012 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those
present were Commissioners, Blahnik, Phelan, Hite, and Spieler, Planner Jeff Matzke, Community and
Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, Engineer Seng Thongvanh and Community
Development Assistant Peter Aldritt.
2. Approval of Agenda:
MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE JULY 30, 2012 MEETING AGENDA
AS PRESENTED.
VOTE: Ayes, Spieler, Hite, Phelan and Blahnik. The Motion carried.
3. Consider Approval of July 16, 2012 Meeting Minutes:
MOTION BY BLHANIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE JULY 16, 2012 MEETING
MINUTES.
VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, Phelan, and Spieler. The Motion carried.
4. Public Hearings:
The City of Prior Lake is initiating a process to change
the zoning designation of approximately 28 acres of property from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to A
(Agricultural) on the City of Prior Lake Zoning Map. This property was recently annexed into The City
of Prior Lake and is located northeast of the intersection of CSAH 12 and CSAH 17.
Director Rogness
stated that on June 18, the City Council initiated a rezoning process for three
parcels that were recently annexed into the City of Prior Lake. They are located near the northeast
th
portion of two intersecting county highways, #12 (170 Street E.) and #17 (Marschall Road). Land
uses within these parcels include rural low-den
Greenhouse). Upon annexation, all property is automatically zoned R-1,and it was decided that some
property may need to be rezoned. Staff recommended that the City Council consider initiating a
rezoning process for three parcels in Sub-Area 6.2 to an Agricultural Zoning District. Each parcel is
nearly ten acres, and two are in Green Acres status. All three include Parcel IDs 119050190 (8.82
acres), 119050192 (8.96 acres) and 119050195 (9.91 acres). Two of these parcels are related to
Greenhouse, which is a permitted use in the Agricultural Zone.
MOTION BY SPIELER SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:12 PM.
VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, Phelan, and Spieler. The Motion carried.
No Public Comment
MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECOND BY PHELAN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:13 PM.
VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, Phelan, and Spieler. The Motion carried.
1
Commissioner Questions and Comments:
Spieler
asked if there is a benefit to go either Agricultural or Residential?
Director Rogness
responded that at this time, zone that is necessarily better than the
other. Since the property is currently an agriculture use, staff felt that it made sense to zone it
Agricultural.
Hite
asked whether we know how many properties are serviced by septic and well in this proposed
rezoning area?
Director
responded there is a well and septic for the Peterson property, but there is only a well on
Blahnik
asked if Peterson were to sell the property, could a new owner bring in different farm animals?
Director Rogness
responded that only those animals existing at the time that the annexation occurred
are allowed to continue.
Phelan
stated that he will be supporting this rezoning since it makes sense to have it agriculture due to
some animals being there surrounded by agriculture land. It is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Spieler
statedthat he will be supporting this proposal based on feedback tonight from staff. And, with
the current uses that are in place today, it makes sense to have it be zoned for agriculture.
Hite
stated that she will be supporting this as well. She believes that the existing uses for these
properties are consistent with the Agricultural Zoning District, which is also consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Blahnik
stated that he will be supporting this; common sense dictates that this area has more
agriculture land uses.
MOTION BY PHELAN SECOND BY SPIELER TO APPROVE A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO AGRICULTURAL, INCLUDING ALL THREE PARCELS.
VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Hite, Blahnik, and Spieler. The Motion carried
B. #EP 12-121 JEFFERS POND 6TH ADDITION.
Ryland Homes has submitted an application for a
Major Amendment to the Jeffers Pond Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat known as
Jeffers Pond 6th Addition.
Planner Matzke
stated that Ryland Homes has applied for approval of a major amendment to the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as Jeffers Pond and approval of a Preliminary Plat to be
known as Jeffers Pond 6th Addition. The area of consideration for the major PUD Amendment and
Preliminary Plat applies to Jeffers Pond section known as The Hollow. The site is located on the north
side of Wilds Ridge, east of McKenna Road, and ½ mile west of CSAH 21. The current proposal calls
for a redesign of five of the remaining 15 single-family detached home lots yet to be constructed within
Jeffers Pond 2nd Addition (The Hollow of Jeffers Waterfront).
2
Applicant Michael Ramme with Ryland Homes 7599 Anagram Dive Eden Prairie, MN
presented a
brief history of the Ryland Company and their history in Prior Lake. Pending approval, Ryland plans to
start building as soon as possible. They constructed a model unit, but rather, Ryland will use
the model located in The Pointe. homes will have a few different design options, which will all
have three car garages. Their unit layouts on the existing lots will require some adjustments, including
the combination of some lots resulting in the loss of two lots, and some adjustments to backyard
setbacks from the wetland area.
Hite
asked why the proposed building location on Lot 4 is close to the other existing home?
Applicant Ramme
responded that he believes it is due to the wetland buffer setback that is required on
the other side of that lot.
Blahnik
asked why Ryland is re-platting five of these lots?
Applicant Ramme
responded that their current building design does not fit with how some of the lots
are currently platted.
Spieler
noted that Ryland is proposing to combine two lots, and asked about pricing of a larger lot?
Applicant Ramme
responded that it is a larger corner lot, but it really depends on the market in terms
of how it will be priced.
MOTION BY PHELAN SECOND BY HITE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:44 PM.
VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, Phelan and Spieler. The Motion carried.
Bob Nordine, 3890 Trail Pt Ct.
stated that he is concerned about the design of the homes with his
desire that they match the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. The association wants it to look like
a finished community. He would also like to see the private street become a public street. The
closeness of housing units on Lots 3 and 4 is another concern.
Angela Heikes, 15017 Jeffers Pass
stated that she is new to the area and was first attracted to the
Planned Unit Development because it ensured the consistency of the neighborhood while allowing
great amenities. When they built there, she said they followed strict requirements as far as setbacks
height restrictions and architecture standards. She does not understand why this builder is allowed to
change the requirements to fit their needs.
Sandra Palteg, 15430 Jeffers Pass
stated that she would also like to see Ryland present a design that
matches the neighborhood, blending more in with the existing houses.
Gary Branch, 2591 Waterfall Way
stated his observation about the PUD being a very vital part of city
development, and he thinks it is important to keep the integrity of the PUD. There is a lot of careful and
good planning that goes into these planned developments.
Craig Jensen, 14922 Jeffers Pass
stated that he believes it is important to keep the architecture
standards intact in order to ensure Ryland builds a good product. He does not live in the association,
but he still wants to see homes that match the neighborhood.
MOTION BY PHELAN SECOND BY SPIELER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING at 6:57 PM.
VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, Phelan and Spieler. The Motion carried.
Commissioner Questions:
3
Spieler
asked whether there are city architecture standards for residential homes like those for
commercial buildings?
Planner Matzke
responded there are not specific architecture standards for residential homes.
Architecture standards are typically in the covenants of a homeowners association.
Hite
statedit would help her immensely if the covenants was at the meeting to review in order to
compare it to what Ryland is proposing. She is hopeful that Ryland will respect the covenants and
match them.
Phelan
asked what is legally binding when it comes to covenants and bylaws? And, he asked what the
difference is between a public and private street. What would it take to become a public street?
Planner Matzke
responded that homeowner covenants are usually a recorded legal document with the
county, which legally binds these property owners. The City is not a party to covenants, nor does the
city enforce them. It is up to the individual homeowners to enforce them. Architectural standards are
found in association covenants, and they can specifically control how the homes will look.
Engineer Thongvanh
responded to the street question. This street was probably not built to a public
standard. The width would meet city standards but the cul-de-sac, and the end would be too tight for
city maintenance equipment to maneuver.
Phelan
asked whether future amendments could take place to make this a public street?
Planner Matzke
identified a city process whereby the homeowners could petition to change the street
from private to public subject to engineering department analysis.Staff indicated that it is doubtful it
would gain support to be a public street.
Phelan
asked whether there are other areas like this with private streets?
Engineer Thongvanh
responded that there are other areas similar to this, but not that many.
Planner Matzke
responded in the Jeffers Pond Development, there is another private cul-de-sac.
Phelan
asked whether Central Bank mentioned an amount for its financial commitment to help upgrade
the city storm water facilities?
Planner Matzke
responded the exact amount would be approved at final plat stage. The preliminary
estimate to do those improvements is around $50,000. Central Bank said they would pay a third of the
cost up to $17,000.
Phelan
asked about compliance with the other
homes in the neighborhood. He is sympathetic to the homeowners if there will be drastic changes
impacting aesthetics and financial aspects.
Applicant Ramme
responded that he does have a copy of the covenants here. As it pertains to
architecture review, the developer is currently the declarant, which is Central Bank. The declarant or
developer is the governing body that has the power to approve all exterior designs and elevations until
the development is built out to a 75 percent. Then it is turned over to the current homeowners. At this
time, Central Bank has approved the unit designs being proposed by Ryland Homes.
4
Spieler
asked what percent is built at this time?
Applicant Ramme
responded that 35 percentof the development is currently built. As in
other communities in the area, they will apply a monotony clause stating that there cannot be the same
color same, design and elevations right next to each other. Ryland feels their product will match the
neighborhood quality, while adding a different character without significant change.
Blahnik
asked whether Ryland was involved at the time with the original plat?
Applicant Ramme
responded no.
Commissioner Comments:
Spieler
summarized that 8 homes are finished and another 16 will be built in The Hollow. He wants to
ensure that the new homes fit the neighborhood and match the design. He would like to see the
association and Ryland meet again to discuss design issues.
Hite
stated that she is torn about the design issues discussed tonight, but that the issue at the end of
the day is the amendment to the PUD. Ryland has come here to build out the development, which is a
positive sign to see homes being built there once again. The covenant issue that has come up is a
private matter, and the commission is here to look at the approval of the PUD amendment.
Blahnik
stated this is a difficult issue, seeing that existing residents prefer to see a similar design that
fits the community. He believes or hopes that Ryland will build a home that will fit the general style
because they want to build homes that sell to homebuyers. He will be recommending approval of the
proposed amendment.
Phelan
responded that he will echo his fellow commissioners by confirming his sensitivity to the
neighbors. However, since the covenant control by residents is under the 75 percent mark, and the
power is given to the owner for the architecture review, he would encourage Ryland and Central Bank
to work closely with the neighbors. He will be supporting the Preliminary Plat and PUD Amendment.
A MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECOND BY PHELAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD
AMENDMENT SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITONS BY STAFF.
VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, Phelan and Spieler. The Motion carried.
A MOTION BY HITE SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY
TH
PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS JEFFERS POND 6 ADDITION.
VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, Phelan and Spieler. The Motion carried.
5. Old Business:
None
6. New Business:
None
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Director Rogness
presented two items from the
rd
July 23 council meeting related to the Fountain Hills CIC Plat and the plat for Berggren Beach.
5
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY PHELAN SECONDED BY HITE TO ADJORN THE MEETING.
VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, Roszak, and Spieler. The Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m.
Peter Aldritt, Community Development Assistant
6
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:6 A
SUBJECT: REVIEW REQUEST TO VACATE A UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED
WITHIN MAPLE GLEN THIRD ADDITION
PRESENTER: CASEY MCCABE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO-N/A
DATE: AUGUST 13, 2012
INTRODUCTION:
On September 27, 2005, Tollefson Development, Inc. granted a permanent easement to the
City of Prior Lake for utility purposes over, under and across that portion of property described
as follows:
The West 750.00 feet of the North 35.00 feet of the South 180.00 feet of the Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, and
The West 35.00 feet of the South 145.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter, and
The North 200.00 feet of the West 35.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter,
All in Section 10, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota.
The easement was granted for the purpose of locating, construction, installing, and maintaining
utility lines over, under and across the easement area. The purpose of the utility easement
was to provide a necessary utility connection between Sunray Court SW and Maple Drive SW,
as well as provide a storm water utility connection to the wetland located south of Maple Drive
SW.
D.R. Horton is in the process of acquiring property within the Maple Glen subdivision for the
purpose of constructing single-family detached homes and has submitted a request for final
plat approval of Maple Glen Fourth Addition. The City Council will review the request for final
plat approval of Maple Glen Fourth Addition within the next 30 days.
The necessary drainage and utility easements have been dedicated on the final plat of Maple
Glen Third Addition, which was approved by the City Council on June 7, 2010, and will be
dedicated on the new plat of Maple Glen Fourth Addition; therefore, the easement dedicated to
the City of Prior Lake on September 27, 2005 is no longer necessary.
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com
As required by State Statute 462.356 Subd.2, the Planning Commission is required to make a
recommendation to the City Council regarding the disposal or acquisition of public lands as it
relates to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Upon proper notification, State Statute 412.851 allows the Council to vacate easements by
resolution. The statute also states
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of the existing
easement comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public need or anticipated future
need for the dedicated property?
Comprehensive Plan Review
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss utility easements, other than as a
function of ensuring access to public utilities. The vacation of these easements is not
inconsistent with any specific goal or objective of the Comprehensive Plan. The final plat of
Maple Glen Third Addition, which was approved by the City Council on June 7, 2010, and the
new plat of Maple Glen Fourth Addition will dedicate necessary easements for this area.
Public Need
As noted above, the final plat of Maple Glen Third Addition and new plat of Maple Glen Fourth
Addition will dedicate necessary easements for this area.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the proposed vacation, subject to City Council
approval of the Final Plat of Maple Glen Fourth Addition, as presented or with changes
recommended by the Commission.
2. Continue the discussion to a date and time certain to allow the staff to provide additional
information specifically requested by the Planning Commission.
3. Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny part or all of the
application based upon inconsistency of the proposal with specific regulations of Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinances and/or specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approves the vacation as requested,
subject to City Council approval of the Final Plat of Maple Glen Fourth Addition.
EXHIBITS:
1. General Location Map
2. Illustrative Sketch of Easement Area
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:6 B
SUBJECT: REVIEW REQUEST TO VACATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN JEFFERS POND SECOND
ADDITION
PRESENTER: CASEY MCCABE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO-N/A
DATE: AUGUST 13, 2012
INTRODUCTION:
On August 7, 2006, at the request of Wensmann Realty, Inc., the City Council approved the
final plat known as Jeffers Pond Second Addition. The plat included 5.16 acres which was
subdivided into lots for 23 single family detached dwellings. Following final plat approval, the
initial developer, Wensmann Realty, Inc. constructed eight single-family homes within Jeffers
Pond Second Addition.
Ryland Homes is in the process of acquiring the fifteen remaining vacant lots within Jeffers
Pond Second Addition. As the Planning Commission will recall from their July, 30, 2012
meeting, Ryland Homes desires a different lot configuration than was approved in Jeffers Pond
Second Addition and has applied for a major amendment to the Planned Unit Development
known as Jeffers Pond and approval of a preliminary and final plat to be known as Jeffers
Pond Sixth Addition.
The desired configuration of the lots has changed and Ryland Homes is proposing to redesign
the seven lots identified on the attached vacation survey sketch (Exhibit B) into five single-
family detached home lots. For that reason, Ryland Homes has requested the designated
drainage and utility easements lying over, under and across Lots 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14,
Block 1, Jeffers Pond Second Addition be vacated to allow for the reconfiguration of the lots.
As required by State Statute 462.356 Subd.2, the Planning Commission is required to make a
recommendation to the City Council regarding the disposal or acquisition of public lands as it
relates to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Upon proper notification, State Statute 412.851 allows the Council to vacate easements by
resolution. The statute also states in
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com
DISCUSSION:
An application for final plat approval of Jeffers Pond Sixth Addition, which dedicates the
necessary drainage and utility easements for this area, has been submitted by Ryland Homes
and will be reviewed by the City Council in September 2012. Should the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the request to vacate the drainage and utility easements, said
recommendation will be subject to City Council approval of the final plat of Jeffers Pond Sixth
Addition.
The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of the existing
drainage and utility easements comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public
need or anticipated future need for the dedicated property?
Comprehensive Plan Review
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss utility easements, other than as a
function of ensuring access to public utilities. The vacation of these easements is not
inconsistent with any specific goal or objective of the Comprehensive Plan. The new plat of
Jeffers Pond Sixth Addition will dedicate necessary easements for this area.
Public Need
As noted above, the new plat of Jeffers Pond Sixth Addition will dedicate necessary
easements for this area.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the proposed vacation, subject to City Council
approval of the Final Plat of Jeffers Pond Sixth Addition, as presented or with changes
recommended by the Commission.
2. Continue the discussion to a date and time certain to allow the staff to provide additional
information specifically requested by the Planning Commission.
3. Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny part or all of the
application based upon inconsistency of the proposal with specific regulations of Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinances and/or specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approves the vacation as requested,
subject to City Council approval of the Final Plat of Jeffers Pond Sixth Addition.
EXHIBITS:
1. General Location Map
2. Vacation Survey Sketch
EB
VSS