Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout072604 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 26, 2004 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the July 26, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Assistant City Engineer 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 July 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 #04-80 & 81 Tollefson Development submitted an application for preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan consisting of 24.49 acres of land located on the south side of TH 13 and west of Crystal Lake to be subdivided into 33 lots for single family homes. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated July 26, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Tollefson Development has applied for approval of a development to be known as Maple Glen on the property located on the south side of Trunk Highway 13 and west of Crystal Lake. The application includes the following requests: . Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan; . Approve a Preliminary Plat. The proposal calls for a single-family development consisting of33 dwelling units on 23.65 acres. The development also proposes a public park. L:\04 FILES\Q4 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minute5\MN072604.doc I Planning Commission Meeting July 26. 2004 This property was annexed in April as part of the 2004 annexation area. The developer has previously submitted multiple concept plans for the project site. The Planning Commission reviewed the most recent concept plan on April 26, 2004. At that time the plan involved subdividing the property into 58 single family lots with private streets (65' wide lots instead of 86' wide lots on 28' wide streets instead of32' wide streets) and reduced lot sizes. The plan also included a neighborhood park site on the east side of the property. Moore presented staff s concerns including the PUD requirements and criteria not being met; lot frontage widths; density; sidewalks/trails; park dedication requirements; several outstanding engineering issues; buffering the fen and public versus private streets. At this time, the staff felt there were many issues that have to be addressed and would recommend tabling to a date specific to allow the developer the opportunity to address staff's concerns. . Questions by the Commissioners: Ringstad questioned how many of the proposed 33 lots are under 12,000 square feet. Moore responded there were 11 lots. Lemke asked for clarification on the total acreage. Moore responded it was a difference on the County right-of-way. The 10% minimum park dedication would be about 2.4 acres. Perez questioned the 86 foot minimum lot width. Moore responded that after further review the internal lots can be met. Comments from the Public: Todd Bodem of Tollefson Development said originally they came in with a concept of townhomes. They shifted away from that to 65 foot then to 82 foot lots with the idea of several different builders. The unit prices would be $300,000 to $400,000 plus because of the land costs. If the lots go to 86 feet, they would loose a minimum of 4 lots or over 10% which would hinder the project economically. Also, ifthe standard lots are required, they would have to move into the park area so they could reach their numbers. Bodern felt there is only a 4 foot requirement difference. By keeping the lot width at 82 feet the wetland and green space would be maintain. The development would open Highway 13 and also fit into the surrounding area. Bodem said there were questions on the PUD requirements but did not know if he could answer the affordability question even if they had 65 foot lots because ofthe land values. Randy Hedlund from Hedlund Engineering was present to answer any engineering L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN072604.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting July 26. 2004 questions. The Watershed District is reviewing the project. The closing date is August 31 and they need some kind of approvals to move forward. Randy Hedlund, the engineer for the project, addressed the engineering issues which included: Four foot berming to Highway 13; moved 20 feet back from Highway 13 and took the "hook" out of the cul-de-sac; possible setback variances; deeper frontage along Highway 13; 30 foot buffer yard along the fen wetland; change in trail to preserve area; staff recommended obtaining an easement from the neighbor for runoff; and future outlet. Stamson questioned how the developer will protect the fen. Hedlund suggested fencing. A major improvement would be taking the trail out and slow the water flow. They are open to ideas. Stamson questioned the size of the fen area. Hedlund responded it was 6 to 7 acres. Lemke questioned the side yard requirements. Hedlund explained the 7 Yz foot request was to pick up another 5 feet rather than having 10 and 10 which would pick up 5 more feet of area. It would then actually make it an 87 foot lot compared to a standard R1 zone. They felt they would loose 4 lots. The developer doesn't think it would feasibly work. The 4 feet per lot adds up. Todd Bodem stated it was a small development so any drop off would really make it difficult from an economic standpoint. Atwood questioned the lot footage along Highway 13. Hedlund pointed out the 25 foot back yard setback with a berm. The second revision was to show they can accommodate a more desirable lot - 20 feet further away from the road. The berm would still be landscaped but residents would have more rear yard. Would not like to shift the collector street. Atwood referred to the report referencing "moderately priced homes" however, there were no amounts listed. Todd Bodem responded they would be priced in the $300,000 to $400,000 range. Comments from the public: Dave Brown, 1227 Pioneer Lane, Shakopee, owns the property to the south. At a public meeting few months ago when this area was being re-guided. At that time, the interest was medium density for affordability reasons. No one was in favor of that, now tonight we have a preliminary plat with low density. I am in favor of the proposal as it exists. Commissioners Ringstad requested abstaining from commenting and voting as his company does business with some of the names mentioned that were not disclosed in the report. L:I04 FlLESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN072604.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 2004 Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: . Overall, support what is presented. · There is enough on the list to encourage the matter tabled at this time so the items can be addressed and staff can respond to them. · Liked the trail presentation and drain tile idea under the pond. . Would like to bring up the Tree Preservation ordinance to discuss the "significant" tree list at another meeting. There are a number of trees on this site. · Where is the City and Watershed District with the fen nmoff issue? Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler said staff just found out about the fen a few weeks ago. The City is still learning what can be done to save and protect the area. . Is the 30 foot buffer going to be a big hurdle? Poppler responded it would not. . In favor of the project however, this should be tabled. Lemke: . Would like to hear a little more from staff on the easement mentioned by the applicant. What are they up against? Poppler responded it is another item staff would look closely at. Possibly use drain tile below the pond to provide additional volume in lieu of an easement. It could help the fen as well. Staff just discussed it last week and need to spend more time reviewing. . Kansier added the engineering staff gave the applicant the option of looking for additional on-site volume to maintain the existing pond level. It should be noted that if they can't do that, the City will need an easement. There have been other situations in Prior Lake where the City has ended up paying several Hundred Thousand Dollars to land owners because drainage occurred into an existing wetland and the bounce allegedly created more nmoff in larger ponds. If they cannot keep the water at the predevelopment level then an easement is absolutely necessary. . The concept plan is attractive. · Initially had concerns with the lot size although 82 feet versus 86 feet is not a big difference. · Concerned with side yard setbacks. Its one thing when you have an existing substandard lot and there's no other way to put a house on it. But when you're starting from scratch creating substandard lots - I would like to hear more on why we would relax that standard before I would consider changing it. · Concerns with the nmoffto the fen. Too early to move on this - there are other issues to be discussed. Perez: . Concerned with the minimum lot area and lot widths. · Liked the preliminary concept plan and trails. · Have the same concerns as Lemke with the side yard setbacks. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 po MinutesIMN072604.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 26. 2004 . Questioned the City Councils' thoughts on the concept. Kansier responded the City Council would not be in favor of rezoning to an R2 district and preferred to see single family homes. They may consider smaller lot sizes if it met the PUD criteria. They were vague about the comments until they could see more details. . Agree with Atwood to table until there is more information. Stamson: . Agreed with fellow Commissioners - do not have any problems with the conception or style of housing. It's a nice looking proposal. . I do have a problem with the PUD. Generally, there is a trade-off to the City or trying to preserve an environmental aspect, create a unique development outside the general ordinance rules to make some modifications. In this case, the City is not getting anything out of the PUD. . The developer is using the PUD process to get more lots out of it. It does not meet the PUD criteria. . If they were doing something to protect the fen it could be warranted. Doesn't sound like there is any justification for the PUD. It fails the requirements. . This is a standard development. . Originally the smaller lots were accepted because it allowed affordable housing but that's not the case. There is no shortage of $300,000 to $400,000 houses in Prior Lake. . Deny the PUD. No justification. Developer wants more lots on the property. . Take a look at the fen and see what the Watershed District recommends. Atwood: . Agreed with Stamson. This is not a creative use ofland. Lemke: . Originally I thought the difference between 82 versus 86 feet was not significant - who would know if they didn't measure? . Earlier when talking to staff, I thought the park land would be 2.36 acres. They are donating a net of 4.92 and then take away the wetland. It's more than double the size required. It would more than justify making the park bigger verses the lots smaller. Stamson: . That justification was not presented. It might be warranted, but the parkland is a 3 to I slope and couldn't be built on anyway. . Kansier said the 4.92 acres includes the ponding area outside of the wetland. They exceed the required parkland dedication. Lemke: . Having a 10,500 square foot lot vs. a 12,000 square foot lot is a tradeoff. It is an additional 2 Y:z more park acres. That means something, but don't know if it meets the PUD requirements. L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc MinutesIMN072604.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 2004 The Commissioners decided to table the matter so the developer can give staff more information and justification for a PUD. They also would like to hear from the Watershed District regarding the wetland. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING TABLING THE HEARING TO AUGUST 23, 2004. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: None 8. Announcements and Correspondence: None 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMlSlO4 pc MinutesIMN072604.doc 6