Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 01 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, July 1, 2013 1. Call to Order: Acting Chairman Roszak called the July 1, 2013 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Roszak, Blahnik and Hite, Planner Jeff Matzke, Community and Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, Engineer Seng Thongvanh, Engineer Peter Young, and Community Development Assistant Peter Aldritt. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE JULY 1, 2013 MEETING AGENDA VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Hite, and Roszak. The Motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of June 17, 2013 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE JUNE 17, 2013 MEETING MINUTES WITH A FEW GRAMITICAL CHANGES. VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, and Roszak. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV-2013-0007 Bluffs of Shady Beach Preliminary Plat & P.U.D. Greg Schweich on behalf of Copper Creek Development is proposing a Preliminary Plat and P.U.D. development consisting 22 lots on an 8.09 acre parcel to be known as the “Bluffs of Shady Beach”. The subject site is located south of County Road 42 north of Shady Beach Trail between Birchwood Ave and Meadow Ave. Planner Matzke presented that Copper Creek Development has applied for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as the Bluffs of Shady Beach. The property is located south of County Highway 42 between Shady Beach Trail and Aspen Ave. The proposal calls for a subdivision of the property into 22 lots and 2 outlots for the development of single family homes. Engineer Thongvanh presented on the grading and topography of the site. He discussed stormwater and the proposal of the two stormwater ponds. The storm water ponds have been oversized to receive additional water from surrounding property. This is part of the benefit that the developer is providing the city in support of a PUD. He reviewed the street connections, including recommendations city staff has made to the developer for the different connections. Planner Matzke stated the developer has submitted an alternative concept plan; however, staff has not had time to fully review it. 1 Commissioner Questions: Blahnik asked about the percent of tree removal being done. Planner Matzke responded about 70 percent. Blahnik asked why the alternative plan is being proposed? Planner Matzke responded that the developer will go into more detail; it is another design alternative. Hite asked about the pond that would collect additional water from the north and whether that water currently goes directly into the lake? Engineer Thongvanh responded yes; the site sheet drains across property to the lake. Hite asked whether the proposed pond would treat water from the new homes as well as the existing ones. Engineer Thongvanh stated yes. Hite asked about traffic counts. Engineer Thongvanh responded that no counts exist, but that is something that could be looked at. Hite asked if it common to have a double frontage lots? Planner Matzke responded there are some properties that back up to a collector road for the second frontage. For example, properties along Crest Ave have double frontage. Hite asked whether the double frontage lots would deviate from the current standard lot size and whether that allows him to save some trees for a buffer to Shady Beach? Planner Matzke responded yes. Hite asked if the developer could conform those lots by removing those trees and reducing the buffer to Shady Beach? Planner Matzke responded yes, possibly. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:28 P.M. VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, and, Roszak. The motioned carried. Applicant Greg Schweich presented on his proposed alternative concept plan. He stated that after listening to the neighbors, he made some changes to the road connections. He felt 2 strongly as a long time Prior Lake resident that it is important to work together as a community and listen to neighbors. He will continue to work with city staff on some of the small engineering comments, but feels this plan is a better overall design. Blahnik asked whether the lots on the revised plan are the same number as the original plan? Applicant Schweich responded that the original 22 lots are reduced to 21 lots. Blahnik asked how many lots do not meet the minimum standards? Applicant Schweich responded he did not have the exact number. Hite stated she had closely reviewed the original plans to prepare for tonight’s discussion and was caught off guard by the proposed plan. She could better discuss the alternative if it had been given to staff in enough time to review and all the information was there to assist in her decision process. Roszak asked for more explanation of the new cul-de-sac design. Applicant Schweich responded that the road bed can be raised, which allows the south lots to be look-outs or maybe walk-outs. Whereas with the other design, most of those homes would have been tuck-under. Public Comment: Sylvester Hommerding, 5901 Cedarwood St . stated his concern on the steep grades eroding and the houses not being stable in the development. Brian Lompart, 14223 Shady BeachTrail stated his concerns on the increased traffic. He was in support of the alternative plan. He asked if the trees could be saved or preserved along Shady Beach. Bob Kelly, 14277 Shady Beach Trail stated his concern on the sewer connection and the increased sewer flow. The elevation changes are significant and the water runoff is substantial. How will the existing lots be protected from the additional runoff? Janine Alcorn, 14283 Shady Beach Trail she stated her concern on the runoff and the increased traffic. She asked about the holding pond aesthetics. The current roads are in poor condition and need to be updated. Preserving the trees is also a concern. Roger Kamin, 14253 Shady Beach Trail stated his concern on the additional road connection and the traffic that would be caused. He thought the new proposal is better. He would like to see the trees preserved, especially along Shady Beach Trail. It would be much better to have larger lots. Keith Randa, 14112 BayviewCircle stated his concern in regard to the ravine and how the grading on the property would tie into that. He was concerned with tree removal; the trees should be preserved. The traffic flow and road connections need to be closely considered. 3 Norma Tschida, 14837 Estate Ave stated her concerns about the tree removal and that the developer will take care of the empty lots until they are occupied. Vicki Cirillo, 14166 Aspen Ave stated her concerns about the tree removal and the preservation of the natural life on the property. Louis Skoczek, 14174 Aspen Ave stated his concern about the increased traffic. He asked if there be a 35 foot barrier behind Aspen Avenue as a buffer. Jilleen Cade, 14138 Orchard Circle stated her concern about the increased traffic and asked if a trail system could be incorporated in the development. There is a lot of great nature on the property. Harry Alcorn, 14283 Shady Beach Trail stated his concerns on the access points, road connections and the increased traffic. John Hewitt, 14100 Meadow Ave stated his concern about the wildlife on the subject site. Marlin Sabourin, 14320 Shady Beach Trail stated the second proposed plan is an improvement from the original plan in regard to lot design and road connections. He was concerned with the wildlife and tree removal. Brian Roth, 14271 Shady Beach Trail stated concerns on the traffic and safety on Shady Beach Trail. Colleen Hurlbert, 5754 Birchwood Ave stated her concern on the road connections and the increased traffic. Joan Lompart, 14223 Shady Beach Trail stated concerns on the smaller lots; she believes that larger lots would be better. Roszak asked if the public hearing can be continued. Planner Matzke responded yes, that is up to the Planning Commission. Hite stated she would be in favor of continuing the public hearing. The residents should have the opportunity to come back when the second submitted plan can be fully reviewed. Blahnik stated he would be in favor as well of tabling the public hearing and the project. He appreciated the developer modifying the plan from the original concept plan and listening to the neighbors’ concerns and comments. He liked that the revised plan had larger lot sizes with less lots deviating from the minimum standard. The shorter lot depth does make sense with the type of topography that is on the site. He was concerned with the tree preservation along Shady Beach. He would like some way to assure they could be preserved so that homeowners are not able to cut them down just to view the lake. He asked if the city is only concerned with significant trees. 4 Planner Matzke responded yes, the amount of caliper inches counted is from significant trees listed in the City’s Ordinance. Blahnik asked whether the two stub streets off Aspen are currently public. Engineer Thongvanh responded yes. Blahnik asked if this second alternative were to go through, could either of those be removed? Engineer Thongvanh responded yes, we could look at that. It does seem that it would be fairly easy to run curb and gutter along Aspen Avenue. Roszak stated that he agreed with his fellow commissioners. Hite stated that the commission wants to see this development done right. It is crucial that the applicant take the time to submit all the proper material to insure that staff can fully review it and provide a detailed report. Planner Matzke stated with the public hearing being kept open it needs to be tabled to a specific date. There has been discussion with the developer that he would be ready by the July th 15 meeting. Roszak asked whether additional notices go out. Planner Matzke responded no. th Applicant Schweich stated they could be ready by the 15. th Hite felt the 15 seems tight, especially in light of the upcoming holiday; there is still a lot of information that needs to be submitted and staff needs time to review this. She stated a traffic report should be done as well. Engineer Thongvanh responded that it will be tight to review, but staff can do its best if the developer gets the plans in on time. Applicant Schweich stated the revisions are minor. He felt that his team could get the th revised plans in and additional information by July 15. TH MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO TABLE ITEM 4A UNTIL THE JULY 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Spieler, Roszak and Hite. The motion carried. B. EP13-103 Markley Lake Bluff Variance. The City of Prior Lake is requesting a variance to allow grading within a bluff impact zone for construction of lake compensatory storage area in the I-1 (General Industrial) Zoning District. 5 Planner Matzke presented the variance request is in conjunction with the Markley Lake Woods project and the Welcome Ave improvement project. The City is acquiring additional land to assist with the flooding to Markley Lake as it is a land locked basin. Water Resources Engineer Pete Young presented the City of Prior Lake, on behalf of Peter Knaeble, owner of the proposed Markley Lake Woods development, is requesting a variance from the City’s vegetation alterations requirements on a property located adjacent to Markley Lake, north of County State Aid Highway 21. The parcel (PID #259010230) currently has no permanent structures. The variance from the prohibition of intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes adjacent to Markley is being requested. The applicant proposes to construct a compensatory flood storage area adjacent to Markley Lake. The proposed compensatory flood storage area includes approximately 8% of the compensatory flood storage volume (1.5 acre-feet) that the City will create as a result of the Markley Lake Study. The current City Ordinance prohibits intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes; the proposed project would result in intensive vegetation clearing within these regulated areas. Planner Matzke presented on the variance criteria and how the project meets the criteria. Commissioner Questions: Hite asked if the Markley Lake flood storage area is smaller because of the Welcome Avenue flood storage? Engineer Young responded the pond is sized as large as it can to be fit in that area and that the grades will allow. Hite asked if it is needed to alleviate flood storage from the residents? Engineer Young responded yes; this pond is needed to keep the surrounding homes from flooding. . Blahnik asked if Markley Lake is not being expanded, will it just have a small pond next to it? Engineer Young responded there will be a pond separated by a berm at a set elevation; when the water reaches that elevation it will then spill into the holding pond. Planner Matzke responded that as more development occurs, there will be more run-off, and the lake levels will change more directly. Roszak asked about maintenance on this pond. Engineer Young responded there is maintenance costs, but this is needed for the City’s stormwater infrastructure. A maintenance plan will be established for the pond. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:46 P.M. VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik, and Hite. The motion carried. 6 Commissioner Comments: Blahnik is in support of the variance; there are practical difficulties given the narrow nature of the topography. Hite stated support for the variance; there are practical difficulties, and this is a practical location for the pond to meet the stormwater needs. Roszak stated support of the variance; there are practical difficulties and this is needed for stormwater storage. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR GRADING IN A BLUFF IMPACT ZONE OF A RECREATIONAL ENVIRONMENT LAKE IN THE I-1 (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. VOTE: Ayes Hite, Roszak, and Blahnik. The motion carried. 5. Old Business: nd A. DEV-2013-0006 Heritage Landing 2 Addition Combined Preliminary/Final Plat and P.U.D. Amendment. Tradition Development is proposing an amendment to the Heritage Landing PUD to re plat 7 attached lots to 5 detached lots. The subject property is located in the south east part of Prior Lake, west of County Road 23 east of Turner Drive and south of T.H. 13 off of Heritage Lane. Planner Matzke On May 20, 2013 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the PUD Amendment and Combined Preliminary and Final Plat. Members of the Heritage Landing Homeowners Association were present and expressed both optimism to see activity in the development as well as concerns regarding the architectural style and marketability on the proposed detached housing units. They also explained that the HOA had not yet voted on whether to accept the detached design according to the homeowner’s covenants. At the meeting the Planning Commission voted to table the discussion of the item until the Homeowners Association vote could take place. The homeowner’s votes were cast on or around Thursday, May 30, 2013. On June 3, 2013 the Planning Commission continued their discussion of the item; however, City Staff had not been given an official decision by the homeowner’s association. Therefore the Planning Commission voted to once again table discussion of the item to a future meeting pending the result of the homeowner’s association decision. On June 21, 2013 the City received the attached copy of the homeowner’s association approval to amend the covenants to allow the conversion of the 7 attached units to the 5 detached units. Hite asked whether the five individual homes as townhomes should be referred to as single family homes? Planner Matzke responded a townhome can be a single family home as well. Hite stated her support for the project. It very closely matches the originally proposed development. Impervious surface is decreasing and the artistic renderings very closely match what is there. 7 Blahnik asked about the lot take-down schedule and the process of how the homes will get built. Applicant Rob St. Sauver, Tradition Development responded this re-plat allows them to not have the financial burden of the attached units. It provides them with greater flexibility. For example, if the current builder falls through, Tradition Development could pick it up and build them. The design would not change from what is being proposed today. Blahnik stated his concerns that the design would change and there were a lot of comments from the public hearing with similar concerns. He thanked the developer for clarifying. Blahnik asked about the final vote. Applicant St. Sauver responded 23 yes, 9 no, out of 32 total votes. Blahnik stated his approval for the major amendment. Roszak stated his approval for the project. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A COMBINED PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT AND A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL PUD PLAN FOR HERITAGE LANDING. VOTE: Roszak, Blahnik, and Hite. The motion carried. 6. New Business: A. DEV-2013-1018 Elliason and Hejhal Vacation. Jim Elliason and Pat Hejhal are requesting to vacate a portion of the Butternut Circle & Northwood Rd right of way located . adjacent to 16553 Northwood Rd and 3121 Butternut Circle Planner Matzke presented Jim Elliason and Patricia Hejhal are requesting vacation of a portion of right-of-way along frontage of the properties at 16653 Northwood Road and 3121 Butternut Circle. The properties are located along the western shores of Upper Prior Lake, north of County State Aid Highway 12. Much of the right of way for the public street, Northwood Road and Butternut, was platted with the Northwood plat in 1911. In addition roadway easements were granted in 1977. As indicated by the attached survey, the paved roadway of Northwood road does not follow the platted right-of-way alignment in this area. Utility lines, both public and private are located in proximity to this roadway corridor. CenterPoint Energy has identified a concern in regards to the location of the gas line within the platted right-of-way, however, they do indicate that the granting of an easement in place of the current road right-of-way for their gas main line would alleviate their concern. A condition of approval has been attached to City Staff’s recommendations requiring that an easement be granted by the property owners which would be sufficient for the maintenance of the CenterPoint Energy gas main. Commissioner Comments: Blahnik asked if the garage is in an easement? 8 Planner Matzke responded that piece was vacated years ago; the pie shape piece is what is under consideration. Hite asked if it is required that the property owners grant an easement to CenterPoint? Planner Matzke responded it could be a contingency that the final approval includes the easement. Hite asked whether the property owners will pay for the recording of the easement. Planner Matzke responded yes. Roszak stated his support. Blahnik stated his support if the easement is granted for CenterPoint Energy. Hite stated her support; the vacation of the existing easement does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VACATION SUBJECT TO THE GRANTING OF THE EASEMENT. VOTE: Ayes Roszak, Blahnik, Hite. The motion carried. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: th Director Rogness presented items from the June 24 City Council Meeting. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO ADJORN THE MEETING. VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Hite and Blahnik. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Peter Aldritt, Community Development Assistant 9