Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 03 2014 PC meeting minutesPRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, February 3, 2014 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Hite called the February 3, 2014 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Perri Hite, Adam Blahnik, Eric Spieler and Wade Larson, Project Community and Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke, Project Engineer Seng Thongvahn and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 3, 2014 MEETING AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of January 21, 2014 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY SPIELER, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 21, 2014 MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV- 2014 -0001 — Godsons Way Preliminary Plat Jack Hunter is proposing a preliminary plat to be known as Godsons Way for 4 single family lots. The subject property is located west of County Road 87 (Revere Way) and north of Natures Way. Planner Matzke introduced the proposed preliminary plat and explained the location, history, current circumstances, physical site characteristics, issues and alternatives. He stated that staff is recommending a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to any conditions identified by the Planning Commission. With approval, the next step would be to continue onto the City Council for the final approval of the preliminary plat. Provided exhibits included a location map, development plans, community development department memorandums and engineering/public works department memorandum. Commissions Comments /Questions Blahnik asked for clarification on net acres regarding the letter to the applicant dated January 21, 2014; there is some breakdown of the development fees and a reference to cost per net acre. Planner Matzke replied that the net acreage would discount any of the acreage that is below the high water mark or delineated edge of the wetland so they are not charged that acreage for undeveloped area protected by the wetland conservation act. Spieler asked whether Outlot A will be owned by the homeowners or the City? Planner Matzke replied they are proposing to plat it to the City and deed it to the City. That information would come along with the final plat application. Spieler asked what would be the best way to handle the logistics of the unusual cul -de -sac? Planner Matzke replied that the original Pulte Homes proposal was to put in a street connection; however, the City desired a turn around access and worked with the property owner to have a temporary cul -de -sac. Spieler asked whether the park dedication goes directly to the park and neighborhood, or does that go back to the City to use towards other parks? Planner Matzke responded that it goes into the general park fund, which is a fund that the City uses for all parks within the City. The City has a park matrix that is envisioned to directly allocate funds to various parks within the City and park development. Hite asked if Outlot A is a wetland area? She stated concerns about the possible confusion of Godsons Way being at the end of Natures Path. Planner Matzke replied yes, Outlot A is a wetland area. He stated that an applicant can choose whichever plat name they would like to have as long as it has not been used in Scott County. He said Godsons Way is the proposed plat name and Natures Way is the street name in the existing plat. MOTION BY SPIELER, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC AT 6:12 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. Applicant: No comment at this time. Public Comment Brian Smith - 17645 Natures Way. Mr. Smith stated his concerned with assurances on home values in the neighborhood. He questions the builder's next steps. Planner Matzke stated this will go through a final plat process. He explained house values, sizes and styles. He said builders usually will stay in the same range in similar areas for the continuity of a subdivision. Applicant Jack Hunter - 2245 Wagon Wheel Trail, Lakeville, MN / Property owner of the applied Godsons Way. Mr. Hunter stated they have an agreement with Cuddigan Custom Homes and assured the homes will be of the style and value that will fit with the neighborhood. He mentioned Cuddigan would be using all four lots, one of which will be owned by Mr. Hunter. He also stated that Cuddigan Custom Homes has constructed many homes in Prior Lake. Spieler asked about the timeline once the final plat is approved? Mr. Hunter replied they are hoping to begin as soon as the road restrictions are removed. He mentioned they would like to increase the size of the cul -de -sac and have things ready for house construction by late June early July. 2 Spieler asked if all four homes will be completed by the end fall? Mr. Hunter responded that it would depend; two houses are spoken for, but the other two are open. Spieler asked if the remaining lots would have for -sale signs, or are they stock homes? Mr. Hunter replied they would be Cuddigan Custom Homes, as there is an agreement with them on those lots. Buffy Mobroten with Cuddigan Custom Builders. Ms. Mobroten expressed her appreciation with the concerns of the homeowners; however, she stated they already have two custom homes with designed plans. She invited everyone to look at the model homes in Shakopee priced at $489,900. She stated that all the homes in the cul -de -sac would exceed this price based on the price range of the lot. Spieler asked whether Cuddigan will do all the grading or contracted with an outside service? Ms. Mobroten replied that Kallio Engineering would be able to answer any grading questions as the engineering firm. She also stated they we will be starting the first house in July with an October finish date, and all lots should be closed and sold by the end of the year. Spieler asked if there will be a parade home in that cul -de -sac? Ms. Mobroten responded that at this time, they are not anticipating a parade home since they are hopeful that all the houses will be sold after the spring preview. MOTION BY SPIELER, SECONDED BY LARSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:20 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. Commissions Comments /Questions Spieler asked Planner Matzke if there are any plans for this to become part of the Enclave development once it is completed? Planner Matkze replied that this is a question for the builder or property owner; however, they do not fall under the same ownership or jurisdiction, and they would have to be part of the Enclave at Cleary Lake as a subdivision or covenant. Spieler asked whether they could join the existing Homeowners Association? Planner Matzke replied they can, but the City does not require this per regulations. Hite stated she will be supporting the approval of the preliminary plat. Blahnik stated he does support this preliminary plat. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY STAFF TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED PERMITS AND SUBJECT TO ALL COMMENTS IN THE CITY'S MEMORANDUM DATED JANUARY 21, 2014 AND JANUARY 24, 2014. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. B. DEV- 2014 -0002 — Geister Addition Preliminary Plat On -Site Marketing Company is proposing a preliminary plat to be known as the Geister Addition of nine single family lots. The subject property is located south of County Highway 12 along Sunset Avenue. Planner Matzke stated this proposal requires a 9 -lot single family subdivision of a 4.15 acres along the west side of Sunset Avenue, which has been annexed into the City in the last few years. He explained the history, site characteristics, proposed plan, issues and alternatives. He stated staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions that may be identified by the Planning Commission. Presented exhibits included a location map, development plans, ghost plat, memorandums from Community Development and Engineering/Public Works departments. Engineer Thongvanh explained the grading site plan. He explained the additional design work that needs to be completed by the contractor and that this work is scheduled to be completed shortly. He also discussed the situation of the utilities and services to each lot and the installation of lateral mains to the proposed property. Commissions Comments /Questions Spieler asked why they are not going through the final plat process right now? Planner Matzke replied that it is up to the applicant. In this case, there are assessments for these nine lots due as a result of the Sunset Avenue public improvement project. Spieler asked about the right -of -way and the stub - street. Engineer Thongvanh replied that if the stub - street left as an outlot, it would not need connections. He continued to explain the options of street connections. He stated that the City envisioned a street going toward the north through future planning and platting phases. Spieler asked who will be building these homes? Planner Matzke replied that JB Woodfitter is the builder. Blahnik asked whether each of the nine lots will have an individual driveway onto Sunset Avenue. Planner Matzke replied yes, the nine lots are single family lots with straight driveways, all independent of each other; the majority of the driveways across the street also have independent driveways. Blahnik asked about the speed limit. Engineer Thongvanh replied thirty miles per hour. 11 Larson asked about the natural grades on Lot 6, 7 and 8. Engineer Thongvanh said that the project engineer is still working on that portion of the grading. Hite asked whether the storm sewer be able to catch all the run -off from the nine lots and will any of this cross Sunset to the adjoining lots on the lake. Engineer Thongvanh replied that the roadway is crowned; therefore, most lots will drain back. At the end of the cul -de -sac, there will be a rain garden type storm water feature placed there. MOTION BY SPIELER, SECONDED BY LARSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:39 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. Applicant: Ted Kowalski co -owner of On -Site Development Company & co -owner of 7B Woodfitter. Mr. Kowalski stated that On -Site has been in Prior Lake for about twenty -five years. He stated that On -Site typically does the land development and 7B Woodfitter does the building of homes. Blahnik asked for further information on the house designs. Mr. Kowalski explained the home prices, locations and stated that he envisions the values to only increase. He also expressed that they made the front yard lots a little deeper, due to the lots across the street having shorter front yards and to make a gradual slope for the driveways. Spieler asked about timing of building the homes. Mr. Kowalski stated it will take about two years. Spieler asked whether all of the grading be done at once? Mr. Kowalski replied yes, probably, as they would do all the grading if all the infiltration basins can be built at one time. Spieler stated his concerns about safety in the neighborhood and asked if there is only one way to get construction traffic in /out of this neighborhood? Mr. Kowalski stated yes, it is the only way in for construction traffic on Sunset Avenue. Public Comment Sara Raines 17161 Sunset Avenue. Ms. Raines asked where the project starts; is there a certain address; where will it stop? Engineer Thongvanh replied that a good visual of where the project will start is the cornfields, and it will stop north of the cornfields. Ms. Raines asked whether there will be lake access for these lots? 5 Planner Matzke stated that the applicant would be better to answer that question; however, if they do have any lake access, it would be deeded to any ownership rights. Patsy Lundquist 1712 Sunset Avenue. Ms. Lundquist asked about the general neighborhood traffic going in and out with one access point. Engineer Thongvanh stated that this is envisioned in the City's future comprehensive plan to continue access through a secondary street system near County Highway 17. Ms. Lundquist asked whether this development will impact the current watershed? Engineer Thongvanh replied no, it will not impact that area. He said this part of the road was built to the standard for additional traffic that was envisioned coming through that area in the future. Ms. Lundquist stated her concerns about the lack of sidewalks and lights with nine new homes coming into the neighborhood. Commissions Comments /Questions Spieler asked if there any plans for sidewalks or lighting? Engineer Thongvanh responded there are light plans in the City's Sunset 2013 project. These lights have not been installed yet; however, they are proposed to be installed. He said the City does not typically install sidewalks in a dead -end cul -de -sac. Blahnik asked if sidewalks are planned within the ghost plat area at a future date? Engineer Thongvanh replied that there are trails proposed in the area at the end of the wetland restoration project that would connect to the street extension beyond Sunset Avenue to the southwest. Spieler asked whether County Highway 12 has a trail system or sidewalk. Engineer Thongvanh replied that County Highway 12 has sidewalks and trails installed as part of the county project. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC AT 6:53 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. Commissions Comments /Questions Hite stated that she is recommending the approval of the preliminary plat under the conditions of obtaining required permits from the State or other local agencies prior to commencing any work on the site, revising the plans and addressing all comments in the memorandum from the City Community Development Department and revising plans to address comments from City Engineering and Public Works (both dated January of 2014). 0 MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS GEISTER ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS NOTED ABOVE VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Section 1102 - Use District Regulations — Senior Care Facilities in Commercial Zoning Districts. Director Rogness stated the EDA recommended and the City Council initiated discussion of this proposed amendment with the Planning Commission due to economic development potential for this type of land use. He explained the definition, history, current circumstances, parking, housing care options and conclusions regarding this zoning ordinance amendment. He stated the issues and alternatives with a staff recommended motion to a zoning ordinance amendment for Senior Care Facilities in the C -2 Use District as proposed, or as further amended by the Commission. Commissions Comments /Questions Hite asked whether Senior Care in Section 1106A.100 is defined. Should the term Assisted Living be Assisted Living Facility? And should the term Congregate Care really be Congregate Care Facility? Director Rogness stated there was a previous ordinance that no longer exists. The terms referenced by Commissioner Hite was in the overlay district that was completely removed from the ordinance. Hite stated she is okay with the unit percentages; however, she still has concerns with the guest parking. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:09 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. Commissions Comments /Questions Hite mentioned the statement "maximum net density should not exceed thirty dwelling units per acre" and asked about parking to accommodate those units for staff and guests. Director Rogness explained the parking situations and percentages. He agreed with Commissioner Hite that maybe the parking space requirement is not enough to meet demand. Hite stated that Prior Lake does not have the public transportation system to take employees to a Senior Care Facility; therefore, a number of employees would still need parking. Director Rogness stated that he would like to do further research on other similar facilities before making a firm recommendation to the City Council. Hite stated she would like to validate this and mentioned Burnsville's Senior Care Facility as an example. Speiler is in agreement with commissioner Hite with benchmarking other cities. Otherwise, this proposal is very adequate with the percentages. Blahnik stated that he does like the percentages and agrees with Commissioner Hite regarding further parking research. 7 Larson stated that he has seen some of these senior facilities and asked if short -term care is included in this Senior Care Facility definition? Director Rogness stated he believes it is, due to the definition stating "including but not limited to assisted living, memory care and skilled nursing ". Hite asked about the maximum net density, which shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acres; therefore, the structure be a vertical building and another ordinance that would then dictate the maximum height and number of stories? Director Rogness replied yes; there is a financial model to dictate that a typical facility will be 3 -4 stories, which is usually more efficient. He mentioned that thirty units per acre was retrieved from the previous overlay district. Public Comment No Comment. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC AT 7:19 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. Commissions Comments /Questions Hite stated she would make a motion to amend the zoning ordinance as discussed regarding the Senior Care Facilities in the C -2 Use District. Spieler asked whether after suggested research is completed, will staff change the amount of parking spaces, and if so, would this be changed before going to City Council? Director Rogness stated staff will be review neighboring communities. He stated it would only change to a higher number based on the additional research, and yes, it would be changed before going to the City Council. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO RECOMMEND A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT IN THE C -2 USE DISTRICT AS PROPOSED BY CITY STAFF. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. D. Amendment Section 1102 - Use District Regulations — Alternative Schools in Commercial Use Zoning Districts. Planner Matzke stated that the current ordinance lists Alternative School as permitted by Interim Use Permit in the C -2 Use District. He explained the history, definition, conditions, conclusion, issues and alternatives of approval for an Alternative School land use. Exhibits shown were Bridges Area Learning Center Location Map and Prior Lake Zoning Map. Larson asked if the 300 hundred feet would encompass the current restaurant on the northern C -2 District by the bait shop? Planner Matzke responded that he didn't believe it would because the distance is the actual building line instead of the property line. Spieler asked whether the city could ever put an alternative school in the area of Lund's or that shopping center? Planner Matzke replied it is a use that is not very common to commercial districts and it does come up in other communities. He said the school district has voiced that an alternate school functions better in a separate facility setting from the school building itself because they have non - traditional students. Therefore they look for spaces that are prone to a commercial office buildings. Spieler asked that if there is a desire to locate alternative schools in the downtown area as there are many bars and restaurants in those locations? Planner Matzke replied yes; the City Council and School District could evaluate the site selection, and further stated the council could consider all the circumstances. Spieler asked whether Deerfield Business Park could be considered a different variance? Planner Matzke stated what is being considered is only the General Business C -2 change that was brought to staff by the City Council. City Council didn't mention the industrial or business park; however, the city could allow business schools or trade schools in the industrial park areas. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNEK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC AT 7:31 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. Public Comment No comments. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC AT 7:32 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. Commissions Comments Spieler supports this amendment. He stated the documentation is thorough and felt it would replace the every five year renewal. Blahnik struggles with this amendment. He stated that he feels the city is amending its ordinance to accommodate a specific business or organization; however, he feels that having alternative schools is a good thing, but hesitates to see preferential treatment. He stated he would like to see this be open to options, but feels there are not many options. He feels that it should not cause problems with the proximity of the three hundred feet. Larson stated he is echoing the prior Commissioners concerns and is concerned in the adjustment for particular business. 0 MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO RECOMMEND AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL LAND USE AS PERMITTED WITH APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITHIN THE C -2 BUSINESS DISTRICT. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. Nay by Hite. The Motion carried by majority vote. 5. Old Business: None at this time. 6. New Business: None at this time. 7. Announcements 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO ADJORN THE MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Spieler, Blahnik, Hite and Larson. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 10