The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6A Residential PUD Concept Plan Report 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JANUARY 23, 2017 AGENDA #: 6A PREPARED BY: DAN ROGNESS, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEV. DIRECTOR PRESENTED BY: DAN ROGNESS AGENDA ITEM: PRESENTATION OF A RESIDENTIAL PUD CONCEPT PLAN BY M/I HOMES KNOWN AS CEDAR RIDGE DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to review a concept plan for a low density single family residential development on a 55-acre site submitted by the proposed developer, M/I Homes. A concept plan review allows the Planning Commission and City Council an opportunity to provide in- formal, non-binding feedback to the applicant. History The city’s zoning ordinance allows applicants to review their concept plans with the Planning Commission and City Council in order to help direct them in the preparation of their land use applications (i.e., Rezon- ing, PUD, and Plat). Current Circumstances M/I Homes has submitted a concept plan for a 133 lot low density single family residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as Cedar Ridge to be located at a site north of County Highway 42 and east of County Highway 18. The site is approximately 55 acres. The undeveloped property is designated as R-LD (Urban Low Density) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoned Agricultural. This proposed development will have an overall net density in the range of the R-LD land use designation, which is 2-4 units per acre. The R-LD section in the Comprehensive Plan states that “Typical Uses” include single family detached dwellings and/or other dwelling designs by Con- ditional Use Permit (CUP) and Planned Unit Development (PUD). Conclusion City staff and the developer have discussed their concept plan and hous- ing product type which will be presented at the meeting. The product type is different in the lot size and setbacks than previous PUD develop- ments in Prior Lake. The housing market is identifying smaller lots with more manageable property maintenance structures. The developer’s concept reflects this market shift. The developer will share examples of other projects in the Twin Cities which detail this housing product. 2 The City review process to approve this development project would in- clude: 1. Separate Preliminary and a Final PUD applications (the site will be rezoned to PUD after Preliminary PUD approval); and 2. Separate Preliminary and a Final Plat applications for the 55 acres to subdivide the property into lots; an approved plat appli- cation would include payment development fees. ISSUES: City Staff has reviewed the proposed concept plan and has the following comments: 1. Construction Plans. The lots are designed as 50, 60, and 65-foot minimum width for single family residential detached develop- ment. The developer proposes to create a Home Owners Asso- ciation (HOA) to manage the 50 and 60-foot-wide lots that would include a comprehensive services including all maintenance of the landscaped areas and snow removal. The 50 and 60-foot lots are generally smaller than most previous PUD lots that have been developed within the City. Also 4-foot side setbacks are the smallest side yard setbacks that have been proposed on a de- tached single family home lot. Staff would recommend a side setback of 5-foot minimum and prefer a 7.5-foot side setback based on experience. All streets are proposed as public; how- ever, if any center island areas were approved they would be HOA maintained. A main natural gas line cuts through the center of the property; the developer plans to create open space areas and utility easements to permit the gas line to remain in its loca- tion. 2. Public Infrastructure. Current access is through County Highway 18. A minimum right-in/right-out intersection (or possibly a ¾ in- tersection) would be envisioned for the main access to the high- way. In addition, street connections to the north, east, and three future southern connections are proposed to local streets. While the property to the south (known as Summit Preserve - previous approved preliminary plat attached) is planned to begin develop- ment in the next 12 months and possibly bring sanitary sewer and water connections further north, the timing and phasing of that project remain uncertain. As a result, if the Cedar Ridge devel- opment were to proceed before the Summit Preserve develop- ment brings sanitary sewer and water service northward, connec- tions would need to be made to the Shakopee/Savage infrastruc- ture systems and a lift station would be necessary. City Staff has continually discussed the options of these connections with the developer and previously with members of Shakopee and Sav- age City Staffs. The possibility for these connections appears feasible but would be at the developer’s cost. PUD Benefits. Subsection 1106.600 of the Zoning Ordinance estab- lishes minimum PUD eligibility requirements. In this section, the City Council may impose additional restrictions or requirements on land de- veloped under the PUD process. Staff refers to this as potential “PUD benefits” received by the City. The Developer and City staff have dis- 3 cussed the details behind the PUD benefit analysis. As a result of offer- ing more small lots with less setbacks in the development, the developer is showing additional trail construction along the utility line corridor in the north and in areas around the wetland/future park. Other options to con- sider may be the developer providing funds for future park improve- ments, and/or a commitment to higher quality architectural materials with association maintained landscaping are other options to consider. RECOMMENDED MOTION: No formal action is required now. The council should provide the applicant with comments, questions, impressions, and concerns about this concept plan. Council comments are not binding, and the developer should not rely on any statements made by an individual Councilor as the sentiment of the entire body. However, in the absence the council expressing negative reaction to the concept as proposed; the City Council can expect the applicant may likely proceed with what they have presented. Some potential questions the council could consider asking the devel- oper are: 1. To what extent and for how long does the developer assist the homeowner’s association to assure that the streets and com- mon areas are maintained without city intervention? 2. Why are side yard setbacks of only four feet desired? What ac- tion is the developer taking to enhance the privacy between dwelling units? Does the narrow setback foster drainage is- sues? 3. How does the landscaping plan compensate for the small lots to provide the feeling of privacy? 4. Are all aspects of the roadway standards in conformance with the city’s standards? 5. How does the open space plan for this subdivision compare to the city’s master park plan? Are there park related costs to the city which are different than any other subdivision? 6. What does the developer see in the market which gives rise to this type of development proposal? 7. This property is challenged by the fact there is a major natural gas line running diagonal through its length. What safety pre- cautions and access (to the pipe) considerations are included in the subdivision plan? ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Concept Plan 3. Developer Narrative 4. Summit Preserve Preliminary Plat 140TH ST NE C R E S T A V N E K E N S I N G T O N A V N E Ü Cedar Ridge - M/I HomesConcept Plan Location Map PIKE LAKE NE (820.5) HAAS LAKE NE (907.3) Lower Prior Lake SUBJECTPROPERTY SUBJECTPROPERTY SUBJECTPROPERTY 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 82 81 80 79 78 77 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 76 75 74 73 72 16 17 71 18 19 70 69 20 21 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30292827 26 22 23 24 25 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 24 23 22 21 20 373635343332313029 28 27 26 25 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 44 43 42 41 40 39 Prior Lake, Minnesota  Pond Pond Pond Pond Pond Wetland Gasli n e Gasli n e Wi l d o w e r W a y Ke n s i n g t o n A v e n u e N E 1 3 8 t h S t r e e t W 50’ Lot 60’ Lot 65’ Lot Cr e s t A v e n u e N E SUMMIT PRESERVE (APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT JUNE 2016)