HomeMy WebLinkAbout042604
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 26,2004
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda:
5. Public Hearings:
A. Case #04-34 & 04-35 Tradition Development has submitted an application for a
preliminary plat and a preliminary PUD plan for the Busaker/Blumberg property
consisting of 11 acres to be developed with 33 townhouse units. This property is located
south of 170th Street, west of Panama Avenue and north of Crystal Lake in Section 11,
Spring Lake Township.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
A. Community Development Director John Sullivan presenting the McComb Study.
B. Tollefson Development presenting a concept plan for the Lally property.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. DNR handout.
9. Adjournment:
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Agenda\AG042604.DOC
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the Monday 26, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Steve Albrecht, Assistant
City EngiJ:1eer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Lemke
Perez
Ringstad
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the April 12, 2004, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4.
Consent:
None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case #04-34 & 04-35 Tradition Development has submitted an application
for a preliminary plat and a preliminary POO plan for the BusackerlBlumberg
property consisting of 11 acres to be developed with 33 townhouse units. This
property is located south of 170tb Street, west of Panama Avenue and north of
Crystal Lake in Section 11, Spring Lake Township.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 26, 2004,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Tradition Development has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Heritage Landing on the property located south of 170th Street and north of Crystal Lake.
The application includes the following requests:
. Approve a Zone Change to the R -1 (Low Density Residential) District
. Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
. Approve a Preliminary Plat.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN042604.doc
1
Planning Commission Meeting
Apri/26,2004
The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of 33 dwelling units on 11
acres. The development also proposes a public park and private open space.
There are several issues pertaining to this proposal. These include the following:
1. The development is subject to the impervious surface requirements of the Shoreland
District PUD regulations. As mentioned above, the developer has not submitted
impervious surface calculations. These calculations must be provided. If a
modification is required, the developer must provide the rationale for this
modification.
2. There are many significant trees on this site, the majority of which are maples and
oaks. While it will be necessary to remove some of these trees for development, the
number may be reduced by redesigning the storm water pond system. This could be
done as a linear system or perhaps through the use of a vortex system. The Prior
Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District has approved the proposed plan, but they are
willing to look at a revised system.
3. The developer is. also requesting a modification to the Shoreland setback which would
allow the density bonus. The proposed setback is consistent with the minimum
setback. In addition, if the area immediately adjacent to the lake is public park, this
I
provides more protection to the lake. The proposal is consistent with conversations
between the developer and the DNR.
4. The parkland area must be revised to include what is currently identified as Outlot A
on the plat. In addition, the park should be revised so it does not jut out behind Unit
9.
5. There are several outstanding Engineering issues, as noted in the attached
memorandum from the Assistant City Engineer. Most of these issues can be
addressed prior to final plat; however, no grading will be permitted until all of the
grading and hydrologic issues have been completely addressed.
The staff recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. The tree inventory must be revised so it includes the proper breakdowns as required
by the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The landscaping plan should be revised to meet all ordinance requirements.
Replacement trees must be included on the landscaping plan.
3. The private streets must be platted as outlots. A 13' wide drainage and utility
easements must be provided on either side of the outlot.
4. The developer must provide easements for the storm water pond.
5. Provide full-scale building elevations and floor plans, including height and building
materials.
6. Provide the required calculations for impervious surface and floor area ratio.
7. Include Outlot A as parkland. Also, revise the configuration of the proposed park so
the west boundary is an extension of the easterly lot line for Unit 9. Include
calculations of the net area (less wetlands) to be dedicated as park. Parkland must
be identified as Park on the final plat.
8. Address thefollowing Engineering issues:
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN042604.doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 2004
General
a. Show the City project # 03-42 on all plan sheets
b. Show utility easement for all utilities and pond.
c. The final plans should follow the requirements of the Public Works Design
Manua/.
GradinJ! and Erosion Control
d. Show top and bottom of wall elevations.
e. The pond access should have a maximum grade of 8%.
f Show EOF for street drainage.
g. Verify that drainage structures D are to be catch basins.
HydroloJ!ic/Hydraulic and Water Quality
h. Provide storm sewer pipe sizing calculations.
i. The pond sizing should be for the 100 year storm.
Watermain
j. Loop the watermain so that there are no dead end lines. Revise connection point
on 170th Street north of unit 10.
k. Straighten watermain connection point at west entrance.
/. Provide watermain to the west property line.
Sanitary Sewer
m. Provide sanitary sewer to the west property line.
Storm Sewer
n. Use RCP for pond outlet.
Streets
o. Show proposed street location and proposed sidewalk along 170th Street.
Staff felt in general the project meets the PUD criteria. The Preliminary Plat is also
consistent with the Zoning and Subdivision requirements. There are engineering issues
but staff believes they will be addressed with the final plans.
Questions by the Commissioners:
Lemke questioned the potential park problems behind the last unit. Kansier responded
the playground equipment would impede a view. There could also be interference. The
City prefers to see boundary straightened out.
Lemke questioned the effectiveness of the stormwater ponding (linier and vortex).
Kansier said there would not be any problems.
Stamson questioned the park location. He did not feel it was accessible to many
residents. Kansier responded there will be more annexed areas that will attract more
participants. City Council also directed staff to obtain parkland in new developments.
Stamson said the trail system makes a lot of sense. Kansier added the park area will also
preserve trees.
Ringstad requested abstaining from the discussions as he is associated with the builder.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN042604.doc
3
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 2004
Atwood questioned the traffic study. Kansier explained the study and trips. The City is
continuing to look at the Comprehensive Plan,
Comments from the public:
Scott McMahon of Tradition Development briefly gave an overview of their projects in
the metro area. Tradition looks for special and unique properties for their projects. They
felt the proposed layout is considerate of the trees. The considered the City, Council,
DNR and the Watershed's concerns to design the development. McMahon explained the
building setbacks, unit floor plans, grading, pond design and tree preservation. Tradition
is working closely with staff with all concerns. Dan Schaffer from Rock Creek Homes
was also available for questions.
Lemke questioned the vortex system. McMahon explained the design.
Atwood questioned the unit prices. Dan Schaffer of Rock Creek Designers and Builders
responded the base price would start at $400,000 to $500,000. The main floor would be
1,650 square feet including the sun porch. There will be options for finishing the lower
levels. Total finished units would be somewhere around 2,800 to 3,000 square feet.
Schaffer went on to pointed out the nautical theme and building materials.
Perez asked if they knew the building heights at this time. Schaffer said the height would
be 25 feet at the peak.
The public hearing was closed at 7:08 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Agreed with staff regarding Outlot A - should be a trail. Applaud the foresight to
see a trail around the lake.
. Agreed with staff on the impervious surface calculations, landscape requirements
and tree preservation.
. It is a unique piece of land and the project looks wonderful.
. In favor of reducing the number of trees that will be taken out.
. Concern with the ponding issue - vortex and linier ponding is of interest. City
Engineer Steve Albrecht explained the ponding system is water quality and soils.
The City is currently looking at what will be running off into Crystal Lake. Staff
will work with the developer and will speak with the Watershed.
. Support the project.
Lemke:
. Had some initial concerns with the density factor in Tier 2; however there appears
to be a lot of positive things that will mitigate the density. The shoreline and tree
preservation is tremendous.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN042604.doc
4
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 2004
. Had a concern with the trails but staff addressed the issue. If this can be worked
out, I can support this pretty easily.
Perez:
. The proposed zone is appropriate for the site.
. Agree with Atwood with the wetland and park concerns.
. Agree the trail should go near the lake.
. The setback issues are okay and approved by the DNR.
. Agree with the impervious surface.
· The developer did an excellent job in preserving as much of the site
characteristics.
. Support.
Stamson:
. Agreed with Perez - this area is appropriate with the Rl zoning designation.
. The PUD is appropriate due to the uniqueness of the area.
. Overall the development is very nice. Originally was concerned with the
impervious surface.
. The modifications for the front yard setbacks are warranted with starr s
recommendations.
. The only concern was the 42% impervious surface area which is a lot in my mind.
Hesitant to send forward, but staff is confident this will workout.
. Everything else is positive.
. Traffic will not be an impact.
. The density is not a concern.
. Leaning toward approving.
Kansier said the developer will submit this information before the City Council meeting.
Stamson also felt the landscaping and tree preservation are not complete at this time and
did not feel comfortable recommending with the primary issues not complete.
Lemke pointed out the overall density is 20% and not disturbing the shoreline is
important.
Kansier suggested the Commissioners could see this again on May 10, before it went to
the City Council. Atwood felt it was a reasonable request.
Impervious surface, tree and landscaping, exterior and surface calculations can be
submitted quickly.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING
TO MAY 10, 2004.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN042604.doc
5
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 2004
Vote taken indicated ayes by Atwood, Lemke, Stamson and Perez, Commissioner
Ringstad abstaining. MOTION CARRIED.
6.
Old Business:
None
7. New Business:
A. Community Development Director John Sullivan presenting the McComb
Study.
Sullivan gave a brief overview of the study. (A handout was distributed indicating Scott
County is now the 15th fastest growing County in United States.) The McComb Study is
being guided by our Comprehensive Plan. There are three major areas of the community
that service the commerciaVindustrial and retail development - Priordale, downtown and
the Gateway areas. That is not to say the City does not have other retail development
areas especially County Roads 42, 21 and 18 that have been guided in the future for some
commercial and retail development. Basically the study indicated those three areas
should be focused on for development and redevelopment. Other surprises that came out
of the report was the retail demands by the year 2025; multi-residential demands along
with the income and demographics.
The Commissioners briefly discussed the areas and opportunities.
Stamson asked Sullivan what his observati~ns were now that he was has been working
the area for a few months. Sullivan said there are a wide variety of options and a lot of
potential. One of the problems in marketing Prior Lake is that there is a lot of residential
space but not a lot of "ready to go" industriaVcommercial spaces. There are great
candidates ready to go. He is currently working with 17 businesses. Deerfield Business
Park needs to be up and running and the downtown area needs to be developed.
B. Tollefson Development presenting a concept plan for the Lally property.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 26, 2004,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Tradition Development is considering development of the Lally property, which consists
of approximately 23 acres of land located on the south side of Trunk Highway 13 and
west of Crystal Lake. This property is presently vacant land designated zoned R -1 Low
to Medium Density Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
The developers have submitted a concept plan for the development of this site, which
subdivides the property into 58 lots for single family homes, for a gross density of 2.45
units per acre. The concept plan includes smaller lot sizes along with private streets. The
plan also includes a neighborhood park site on the east side of the property.
Staff's two basic issues are density and how does this proposal meet the PUD criteria?
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN042604.doc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 2004
\
Todd Bodem from Tollefson Development will be the project manager if accepted.
Bodem found the staff helpful with working on the density. He presented a revised lower
density concept. The new plan is sensitive to the wetlands and park preservation. It also
includes is a trail system. They are asking for suggestions. .
Stamson questioned the narrower streets. Bodem will get back to him on that. Their
engineer was unable to attend to answer questions. Price points will be in the $300,000
range. Another option is to bring a lower density requiring a PUD. Right now they
prefer public roads over the private roads.
Ringstad agreed with the road systems.
The Commissioners discussed the standard 85 foot lots versus the 65 foot frontage width.
The City does not have a lot of the lower price point for housing. It might be a better
trade off The Commissioners like the idea of the lower density.
Bodem said Tollefson Development does not build the homes.
Stamson said he did not have any major concerns with the concept at this time. The
Commissioners agreed. I
Albrecht said the average lot size will be around 10,000 square feet.
This concept will go before the City Council on May 17, 2004.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
A newspaper story and copy of the judge's Order regarding a variance appealed by the
DNR.
The commissioners enjoyed the information.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN042604.doc
7
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
~81oJ Olf-
The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to
all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to
speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new
information.
Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter.
Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible
except under rare occasions.
The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter.
Thank you.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
NAME
~"': 1[. c f'c "J
)TfJ~
L:\DEPTWORK.\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP .doc