Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 18 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, March 18, 2013 1. Call to Order: Chairman Phelan called the March 18, 2013 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Phelan, Spieler, Hite, Roszak, Blahnik, Planner Jeff Matzke, City Engineer Larry Poppler, Community and Economic Development Director Rogness, and Community Development Assistant Peter Aldritt. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE MARCH 18, 2013 MEETING AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes, Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler Roszak and Hite. The Motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of March 4, 2013 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE MARCH 4, 2012 MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes, Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler, and Roszak. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. EP# 13-103 Markley Lake Woods Preliminary Plat. Peter Knaeble is proposing a residential subdivision of approximately 38 single family homes. The subject property is located on the east end of the City of Prior Lake north of County Road 21 and south of County Road 44. Planner Matzke presented Peter Knaeble has submitted request for approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as Markley Lake Woods. The property is located on a 23.5 acre site located northeast of the intersection of CSAH 21 and Fish Point Road, south of the Cardinal Ridge residential development area, east of the proposed Eagle Creek Estates Plat. The development plan calls for a residential development consisting of 38 single family homes. Engineer Poppler presented on the grading of the project. He described the filling of a wetland to make room for a cul-de-sac. He described the utility plan and that it is contingent on Eagle Creek Estates to the west. The utilities need to come across Eagle Creek Estates to connect to Markley Lake. Commissioner Questions: Spieler asked if the parks commission was looking at a wooded along Markley Lake, will that be in place with this development? 1 Planner Matzke responded yes with the construction crews out there that is when parts of the trail would be constructed. Spieler asked who would own that trail? Planner Matzke responded it is being dedicated as outlots so the city would take ownership. Spieler asked there is 2.5 acres of dedicated parkland would that be joined with the park in Eagle Creek Estates? Planner Matzke responded Eagle Creek’s proposed park is on the opposite side. This 2.5 acres is proposed in the trail corridors. Spieler asked will there not be a regular park with kids play equipment? Planner Matzke responded no, not since there is the trail land. Cardinal Ridge and Eagle Creek have neighborhood parks which are in close proximity. Hite asked there is significant grading, will any soils be imported or exported? Engineer Poppler responded, the city does not regulate that, but the developer could answer that. Hite asked with the alternative cul-de-sac design does that still allow a connection to the Cardinal Ridge neighborhood? Planner Matzke responded yes it does. There will be a better grade design for the trail with the alternative design. Roszak asked the trail going around the lake, is that in the Comprehensive Plan? Planner Matzke yes there is discussion in the Comp Plan about trails in this area around Markley Lake. It does not go into specific details of exact location of the trail. Roszak asked would there be outlots around the entire lake? Planner Matzke responded that is one way to design the dedication of trail areas, or it could be done through trail easements. Blahnik asked in regards to tree preservation are the only trees that are part of that along the lake, the trees on the lots those will be planted? Planner Matzke responded yes that is correct. Blahnik asked what if the homeowners want to remove trees from that preservation area? Planner Matzke responded there is a 30 foot wetland buffer that goes around the lake. It is denoted by brown sings that are places at the edge, notifying people of the buffer. 2 Blahnik asked what is the number of feet between the buffer and the edge of the lake? Planner Matzke responded it is 30 feet from the OHW of Markley Lake. Blahnik stated my concern was that the homeowners would start cutting trees to see the lake and open it up. Planner Matzke responded that it is still a great distance to the lake and numerous trees would need to be removed to see the water. Phelan asked if on Outlot C would there be a canoe access? Planner Matzke responded not as of now. It could be a possibility if a redesign indicated a trail placed along the lake. Hite asked can you discuss the 3.5 acre industrial parcel that will be designated. Planner Matzke responded the part of the parcel that is disconnected from the residential area in the southeast portion will be industrial. The developer is currently proposing to place it as an outlot. Phelan asked where are the majority of the heritage tree that will be saved located? Planner Matzke responded the dark area on the plan show the trees that will be saved. The heritage trees are scattered throughout. The main areas are around the wetlands and Markley Lake. Phelan asked is there an additional governing body that regulates Markley Lake? Engineer Poppler responded part of the wetland review, the Army Corps of Engineers is on the review board and they submit any comments. The city conducted a study on the flooding of Markley Lake in 2010. This provided us with data that shows how low homes are able to be built. Phelan asked on the alternative cul-de-sac design how will the trail connection look? Planner Matzke responded there will be park funds to connect the trail from Cardinal ridge to Markley Lake in the future. Blahnik asked where is the ¼ acre of dedicated parkland going? Planner Matzke responded it is for the trail head connections at the north end and at the south end. Peter Knaeble Developer/Applicant presented he has been working with city staff and Ray Brandt the engineer on Eagle Creek Estates for over a year on a plan that work best. He concurred with staff recommendation, but has two issues. One is the trail connection around 3 the lake, and second is approval of the alternative cul-de-sac. The trail connection around the lake is not shown and is not supported. There is an importance for trail connections, but with the topography of the site it does not make sense to have the trail go around the entire lake. There is adequate access for the public from the north and south of the property. In regards to tree removal, the plan show the maximum amount of removal, the intent is to allow the builder design homes that can incorporate the existing trees. Outlot C will allow public access down to the lake. Spieler asked are there sidewalks? Applicant Knaeble responded staff recommended no sidewalks since it is a dead end. The major roads have sidewalks. Roszak asked what is the difference of value of the lakeshore lots and non-lakeshore lots? Applicant Knaeble responded it will be significantly greater for lakeshore lots. Roszak asked would Outlot C provide lake access to non-lakeshore owners? Applicant Keaeble responded Outlot C is planned for non-formal access. Blahnik asked how is the process of not clear cutting the whole site and leaving it up to the builders to take out the necessary trees carried out? Applicant Knaeble responded the current grading plan in preliminary, for final plat we will submit an interim grading plan. The majority of the lots will be mass graded for the lots that are relatively flat and at street level those will be left. Phelan stated he commence for the tree plan and to leave the lots as wooded as possible. Phelan asked are there requirements for parks and the location or is it just a general guideline? Planner Matzke responded the guidelines of the 2030 Comp Plan is what drives this. The idea is to provide trail connectivity throughout the community. There is not a detailed trail alignment. Phelan responded my concern is that the only trail connections are at the north and south, the only way for people to use those is to walk on a public street without sidewalks. He stated he doesn’t see the public benefit of the alternative cul-de-sac design other than cost. Hite stated she sees the benefit of the alternative cul-de-sac as a safer grade and the decreased impervious surface. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECOND BY SPIELER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:56 PM. VOTE: Ayes, Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and, Roszak. The motioned carried. 4 Kathryn Jonsrud 16357 Victoria Curve stated she would like to keep the trail and keep the trails on the North and South side of Markley Lake. She was in support of the minimal grading to protect the lake topography. Since Markley Lake is a land locked lake it is important to carefully consider the stormwater and impervious surface. Kevin Casper 14365 Robin Road stated he really liked the privacy of the development. He would not like the trail along the lake. He stated it would hinder the development. His other concern is where the maintenance shed is located and the proposed park going there. It is a very secluded area and could be a potential for trouble. Phelan asked are you a potential home buyer in this development. Casper responded yes. MOTION BY PHELAN SECOND BY HITE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:02 P.M. VOTE: Ayes, Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and, Roszak. The motioned carried. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Spieler asked if the Park Advisory Committee has reviewed this? Planner Matzke responded they have not looked at it, but that could be a possibility before final plat. Spieler stated it is important that the Park Advisory Committee looks at this to see if these trails make sense. Hite stated she supported how the developer designed the lots, with not showing the trail along the north side of the lake. Since the topography and the grade is the way it is. It would cause more of a negative impact than a positive one. Roszak stated his support for the development and he agreed with commissioner Hite about not having the trail on the north side. He would like to see a better access to the lake than is proposed on Outlot C. Blahnik stated his support for the project. It would be nice to see the trail near the lakeshore but due to the topography. He supports how the plan shows the trail. Phelan stated he would like to see the trail around the lake but due to the grade it does not make sense. He would like to see a better design for access on Outlot C before final plat. He is in support of the plat with recommendations to visit the informal access on Outlot C and have the Park Board review this. 5 MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO APPROVE THE PRELIMARY PLAT OF MARKLEY LAKE WOODS SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS. VOTE: Ayes, Phelan, Roszak, Spieler, Blahnik, and Hite. The motion carried. B. EP# 13-104 Jeffers Pond 7th Addition Preliminary Plat and PUD Amendment. The proposed application is for a major amendment to the Jeffers Pond Planned Unit Development Plan and a Preliminary Plat to be known as Jeffers Pond 7th Addition. The project plans propose the conversion of the previously approved 27 twin home development design to a 23 single family detached home design. Planner Matzke presented the Jeffers Foundation 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 7th Addition. The area of consideration for the major PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plat applies to undeveloped portion of Jeffers Pond known as The Shores. The site is located south of Jeffers Parkway, east of McKenna Road, and ¼ mile west of CSAH 21. The applications include, approve a major Amendment to the Jeffers Pond Planned Unit Development and approve a Preliminary Plat to be known as Jeffers Pond 7th Addition. Engineer Poppler presented, most of the grading has already taken place on this site. The utility is very basic on this plan. The storm sewer will drain to the ponds that are already built. The original development was original plated as a private street. They are re-platting the street as public. Commissioner Questions: Phelan asked how do you go back and get the easements in place along the street? Engineer Poppler responded there might be enough easement there already, or acquire additional easement. Spieler asked the lot design seems quite a bit smaller than the standard lot size? Planner Matzke responded yes they are small lots part of the PUD development they are able to do smaller lot sizes in exchange for a benefit. Spieler asked how many phases are there in the Jeffers Pond Development? Planner Matzke responded with market conditions there has been re-developments and modifications. There are three more outlots for residential that could move forward. There are some phases of commercial. Hite asked will these match the other homes in the phases? Planner Matzke responded yes, this is probably the last detached phase of the project. 6 Blahnik asked 28 twin homes, 54 units were actually originally approved for development? Planner Matzke responded no it was 28 individual units, 14 twin homes buildings total. Blahnik asked was there studies done to determine the different housing needs when it was originally platted? Planner Matzke responded yes, the original plan of Jeffers Pond was to offer homes in a variety of styles and prices and it does today. Phelan asked there are a numerous setback reductions for these lots, if it was not a PUD those would come before the Planning Commission as variances? Planner Matzke responded they are still in line with the original setbacks that were planned for the development. As markets have changed and changes are being made there are some minor tweaks and changes that need to be made. Phelan stated if they were to plat 21 lots verses 23 lots then there would not be as many setback tweaks and would be more in harmony with the standard lot requirements. Is this a cost benefit thing? And since it is a PUD should it not be as much of a concern? Planner Matzke the proposed setbacks are still in line with the original setbacks. Developer Kelly Murray presented on behalf of the Jeffers Foundation. The Jeffers Pond foundation was not originally a developer. A builder was contracted to build these homes. Due to market conditions the property fell back into the Jeffers Foundation. The original vision of the Jeffers development was to offer a variety of living opportunities from entry level to empty nesters. The plan was to be completed as one but as time has gone on the need to amend and change the PUD arose to adapt to market changes. This phases was platted for 28 twin homes and will be re-platted for 23 single family detached homes. This gives more flexibility for market demand. Blahnik asked is this primarily market driven? Developer Murray responded yes the request we got were all for detached homes. MOTION BY PHELAN SECOND BY SPIELER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:37 P.M. VOTE: Ayes Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and, Roszak. The motioned carried. Leonard Kloeber 3655 Jeffers Parkway stated he felt it is important that the street be a public street. If additional easements were needed they would need to be granted by the home owners association and not individual home owners, since the association owns that property. His other concern was to maintain the property values. He asked if there are any proposals for the commercial parcels in the development. 7 Planner Matzke responded the city has not seen a formal proposal, but with the increased activity there could be something in the next few years. Terry Wensmann stated they will be the builders in the development. They plan on these homes being around 375,000. The values probably won’t be any less than is in the Shores currently. Phelan asked if some of the lots were lager would that be more cost prohibitive or is that a possibility? Wensmann responded the current lot dimensions match what is across the street in the Enclave. The lots sizes match the style of homes that are planned to be built. Paul Oberg Executive of the Estate of Robert Jeffers the concept of Jeffers Pond development is to cover all income levels and offer a variety of living styles. With the recent recession it has shown that Planned Unit Communities become difficult to work with. There has to be amendments and changes because properties change hands and the money that was there is not there anymore. MOTION BY PHELAN SECOND BY HITE TO CLOSE THE PUBLI HEARING AT 7:51 P.M. VOTE: Ayes Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and, Roszak. The motioned carried. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Spieler asked do all the phases of Jeffers Pond have associations? Planner Matzke responded not all of them do. Spieler stated his support for the project. The design is similar to the other areas. The lot design does provide enough support and is in line with the original setbacks. Hite stated support for the project. The reduction down to 23 single family homes is a good use of the property. She would like to see some of the lot sizes increased but the current setbacks do match the rest of the area. The improvement to impervious surface is great to see. Roszak stated given the current market condition this is an appropriate amendment to the PUD. Blahnik stated support for the project. It is consistent with other developments in the area. Phelan stated his support. Echoing the other commissioner’s statements and given market conditions this is an appropriate use. There are great trails and movement options for people to travel through the development. 8 MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECOND BY ROSZAK TO APPROVE THE PRELIMIANY PLAT AND TH PUD AMENDMENT FOR JEFFERS POND 7 ADDITION VOTE: Ayes Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and, Roszak. The motioned carried. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: None 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A: Recent City Council Discussions/decisions Director Rogness presented 2013 building permit updates. He presented the action taken by the City Council for a moratorium along the 42 corridor. Hite asked is this just a development moratorium. Director Rogness responded that is correct. Transportation and Land use. Blahnik asked was there $50,000 allocated for the study? Director Rogness responded there have not been funds set aside. Phelan asked was there subdivisions that may be affected by this? Director Rogness responded there is one that was in the works. It was a concept plat that was brought before you earlier this year. They have submitted preliminary plat. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO ADJORN THE MEETING. VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Hite, and Phelan. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Peter Aldritt, Community Development Assistant 9