Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 January 17 2017 PC Meeting Minutes Draft 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, January 17, 2017 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Tuesday, January 17, 2017 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Mark Petersen, and Dan Ringstad. Also present were Liaison Zach Braid, Director Dan Rogness, Project Engineer Nick Monserud and Development Services Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2017, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Tuesday, January 3, 2017 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY RINSTAD, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2017 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV16-000002 – Maple Park Shore Acres Second Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat – GreenWood Design Build is requesting approval regarding a combined preliminary and final plat into a three-lot subdivision. The plat will change from the original Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Subdivision of Outlot A, C.O. Hannen’s Maple Park Shore Acres to Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Maple Park Shore Acres Second Addition. Property address is 15242 Edinborough Avenue NE. PID: 25-038-003- 0. Director Rogness introduced the request to consider approval of Combined Preliminary and Final Plat to be known as Maple Park Shore Acres 2nd Addition to be developed as a three Lot, low density residential subdivision. The subject property is located east of County Highway 21 and south of Lords Street. He explained the history, current circumstances, physical site characteristics, proposed plan, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, development plans dated January 12, 2017 and Engineering/Public Works Department Memorandum dated January 12, 2017. Project Engineer Monserud explained two primary comments from Engineering that staff would like to see addressed before we continue through with the approval process; infiltration basin on this lot where the house currently sits limiting city access to this and the wetland pond use for part of storm water requirement, the outlet needs to be modified. Director Rogness concluded with staff comments regarding outstanding issues are only those which Project Engineer Monserud addressed, otherwise the lot layout itself and overall plat design meets our minimum standards in Prior Lake. He said staff is recommending that this agenda item be Tabled to the February 6, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting. 2 Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen asked what the infiltration basin is and what the main pipe does. He asked Director Rogness for definition of the private and public road and if this road is being plowed by the City. Engineer Monserud explained what the infiltration basin is; a depression that will hold water and infiltrate it over time. He said that is the main drainage channel for Prior Lake. Director Rogness explained the utility easement further and the City allowance on the private street to install and maintain structures; however, stated the private street is not plowed by the City. Petersen asked if it was correct to say we are waiting for the Watershed District. Are we confident that it can be resolved by the next meeting? Engineer Monserud said that is correct. Director Rogness replied we will be ready due to the third Monday this month; our next meeting is in three weeks. Engineer Monserud said the Watershed District seemed optimistic about having an answer for us. Ringstad questioned the lots size meeting requirements with about a third of the lot being wetland. Director Rogness explained the wetland is included in the area and stated the importance of the setback from the wetland buffer; so it does impact setbacks, but doesn’t impact the minimum lot areas. Ringstad asked what the setback is from a structure to a wetland. Director Rogness replied thirty feet. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 6:18 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Applicant: Scott Loehrer – Greenwood Design Build, (5555 West 78th Street, Suite L, Edina, MN 55439). He said he was open for questions. Petersen asked if he had any reason that they would not be able to meet staff’s requirements. Applicant Loehrer explained they think it is better for everyone. He said this was talked through and felt it was better for future home owners and for city access. He commented on the end of the lot being unbuildable and explained why. He said they gave the Watershed District larger easement then they used to have as part of this; therefore, being hopefully they will work with us on this. He talked of a second pipe the City may want and stated they have given extra space to do that. Ringstad asked about the two lots that are proposed but not yet built have soil issues or elevation changes that would need to be made. Applicant Loehrer said no not much at all. He explained they removed the existing house and built up that elevation and stated it probably needs a little dirt to get everything up to the right grade but very little. Fleming asked what the anticipated timeline for complete build out would be. Applicant Loehrer explained they will be, for sale lots; so hopeful to get them out this year. He said we need to see how that goes and commented on the Model Home that is done and has a lot of interest in it. He commented on the need to get this portion done first as we cannot sell until we split. Public Comment: Victoria Wright, (15247 Nautica Circle NE) She said they are the home on the corner of Nautica and Lords. Fleming asked for the aerial to see her location. Wright pointed out the location of her property and commented on the lake view. She stated concerns of property lot size accommodating two houses, the look after completion, large pine trees, blocking views, Engineer’s issues, impact on Lord’s Street and the impact of her yard 3 Engineer Monserud explained they will be enhancing the existing culver, adding a structure to limit the flow to meet the storm water requirements. He said once we get the plans we will have a better understanding of what it will look like. Petersen asked if we would have a better idea what this would look like at the next meeting. Engineer Monserud replied, that is our hope. Wright asked if their yard is to be dug up again. Engineer Monserud explained the digging would remain within the city easements, and explained the limits of Mrs. Wrights yard. He said the culvert would stick to where it currently is. Fleming said that this probably feels wishy-washy to Mrs. Wright and would like to continue the public hearing to get some definition to inform our fellow residence about the impact on their property. Wright said just because that pond/wet area is directly behind her house, she is concerned about any of the shifting of that property and easements will do to our property. Petersen asked how tall and wide the houses will be and commented on concerns he would have with any exceptions or variances due to new lots as this would be the opportunity to create a lot size in our standards; therefore, huge houses are unlikely to happen. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO CONTINUE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4A TO FEBRUARY 6, 2017 PLANNING COMMISION. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: No Old Business. 6. New Business: A. DEV16-001035 – Cedar Ridge – Concept Plan - M/I Homes, is requesting a discussion of their concept plan for approximately 55 acres that would include 133 single family homes on smaller lots and 16 acres of open space. The site is located east of County Hwy. 18, north of County Hwy. 42, and south of Whispering Oaks Trail in Shakopee. The property, owned by Frank Muelken, is currently guided for Urban Low Density (R-LD) in the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and zoned Agricultural (A). PID: 25-924-001-0 and 25-924-002-0. Director Rogness introduced the request to review a concept plan for a low density single family residential development on 54-acre sit submitted by the proposed developer, M/I Homes. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues and stated there is no formal Planning Commission action required at this time. He presented a short video from the development team, location map, concept plan, developer narrative and Summit Preserve Preliminary Plat. John Rask, with M/I Homes, 941 Northeast Hillwind Rd., Fridley, MN 55432. He explained M/I Homes current status and background for the company, including M/I Homes purchase of Tom Hagen Homes. He commented on the name of the subdivision, the joy to be here tonight, broader concepts moving forward and the uniqueness of this site. He explained the site as two different product line ups for the neighborhood, the Villa and single family lots. He commented on specifics on the homes, demographic changes, Prior Lake market in relation to Savage and Shakopee, empty nesters, senior housing, different communities they have built in, twin homes and town homes versus the Villa’s and single family homes, size of homes, slab on grade, two story homes and small homes with good quality architecture. He said the other part of this is the component to the association; explaining the cost and what they maintain. He presented a short video what other neighborhood homes look like on smaller lots and explained the architecture, home and Lot sizes, setbacks, common areas, perceptual easements, maintenance between each home, how they address the narrow setbacks and drainage, swales and the upkeep of them. He talked of the maintenance for landscaping, landscaping approvals, landscaping reviewals on an individual basis and setback issues. He explained how they got the right plan, types of floor plans and back yard space with rear yard landscaping, sunrooms and privacy in the 4 backyard for the homeowners. He used the City of Blaine as an example, showed some interior plans and a site map layout of locations, explained single family homes, talked of topography and his meetings with City Staff. He asked for any thoughts or direct ion from the Commissioners at this point. Fleming asked what their reaction to Staff’s recommendations/preference on side setbacks that are ranging from 5 feet to 7.5 feet. Applicant Rask said they prefer four feet, but understands that has not been achieved before in Prior Lake. He explained how the four to five works, stating it works well as the homeowner will have ten feet to work with. He explained the five-foot setback and why they don’t go larger than five. He gave a selling price range with options and the smaller lot keeps the price down, as the homes are not inexpensive. He said the five feet is pretty critical to the success of the project. Fleming asked if the association amenity includes snow plowing and what else? Applicant Rask explained what the association includes; lawn care and snow removal and explained and what extent each amenity included. He explained individualized services. Fleming asked if garbage service is considered in the package. Applicant Rask explained they are doing this in a number of their neighborhoods and would likely do it here too. He commented on city dictated hauler. Ringstad (no mic), Asked about the house prices. Applicant Rask explained the house prices ranging in $350K to $375K, not including options sometimes ranging over $50K. He said the Villa homes will price out at or above $500K, and single family in the low $400K to $500K depending on the product, finishes and options. Ringstad agreed with Chair Flemings comments on the thought of setbacks; and asked what happens if setbacks go to 5 or 7.5 feet. Applicant Rask said it effects prices. He explained how it is based on front footage and how it is better for customers to put the money into the homes rather than into the land as the market is asking for this type of living; creating a better looking neighborhood. Ringstad questioned what does this do to numbers; What do you lose going from four to five and also from five to seven and a half? He asked how many lots do you lose. Applicant Rask said it gets really site specific to know how much it would cost; one or two lots depends on the length of the street and so forth. He explained the economics; stating if you lose lots, the price goes up. He said he would rather put the money into buyer’s values, so to save money on the lots we can offer an unique, better architectural home. Ringstad gave feedback; stating four feet does feel too small, five to seven and a half certainly preferable. He said he does appreciate the honesty on the economic and stated it has to work for the Community, Prior Lake and the applicant coming in making an investment. Petersen asked about the setbacks, the Villas on the east being the bigger lots; would you prefer four foot setbacks on those as well? Applicant Rask said the larger lots would be the traditional seven and a half; just on the Villas it would be reduced setback due to the association maintenance. He explained the Villa’s would be mandatory for association, but the single family and Villa’s would be mixed neighborhoods and the reasoning behind this mixed neighborhood. He explained the al a carte service for the single family homeowners. Petersen asked what neighborhoods have the four foot setbacks. Applicant Rask explained the different locations that have the four foot setbacks and how it all worked. Petersen asked if they have experienced sandy/clay soil and if the app felt he would run into this here. Applicant Rask replied in Lake Elmo we have a very clay soil. He explained the rock between the homes and perimeter rock as part of landscaping, draintile, eves, swales and the control these items have. Petersen asked if these are slab on grade. Applicant Rask said correct. Petersen questioned if there is water in the basement. Applicant Rask replied no and this actually makes it easier when you have a full basement. He explained he would not build basements with a four-foot setback. Petersen said he has not heard why the Staff is not crazy on the four-foot setback; he said personally he does not have a problem with this, if you can sell them and what people want to have the money in 5 their house rather than in the yard, he doesn’t have a problem with it. He asked Staff why the concern with the four-foot setback; was some of it due to emergency vehicles couldn’t access backyards, or what was the main concerns about the small setbacks? Director Rogness replied it was typically looking at individually lots, even if they are small. He used Jeffers Pond as an example as they have fifty-five-foot-wide lots but they have five or ten foot setbacks or seven and a half foot setbacks. He explained the reason why five is the minimum due to drainage and utility easements. He explained Mr. Rask is bringing in some new thinking; slab on grade with rock between the homes and association maintained. Petersen said if they are all slab on grade that does change things part of the easement is not only allowing the water where it naturally should go but also the issues of water in people’s homes. Director Rogness gave an example of air conditioning units in the side yard and said we tend to play it more traditional in terms of those types of aspects of lot development. Petersen asked does this change if we are in the middle of planning for 2040 Comp Plan; When the met council looks at a project like this or any project are they looking strictly at numbers or are they looking at zoning. Is this better for us or not matter because of low zoning with high number of houses. Director Rogness said staff’s comments were leading up to the Guided Urban Low Density; he explained the Guided Urban Low Density units per acre, PUD’s variety and Comprehensive Plan for Low Density Residential uses. He explained what the Met Council would like to see in comparison to our Comprehensive Planning default numbers; stating Met Council would prefer the higher range. He commented on when he first looked at this concept plan; being more like a R-2 development not an R-1 and explained why and how we could meet the required density of 4.1 or greater. He explained how this is different from what we seen traditionally in Prior Lake. Petersen asked about the sidewalk/path running south and north, why not east and west. Applicant Rask said they talked with staff about this and there would be a sidewalk on one side of the street going east and west. He commented on the trail being an important part of the neighborhood concept. Petersen asked if the HOA would be maintaining the sidewalks Applicant Rask said yes, they plow all the sidewalks, driveways, walks up to stoop within the neighborhood. Petersen said he is not opposed to the four foot setbacks if they are slab on grades. Fleming asked why Prior Lake. Applicant Rask explained their desire to be in Prior Lake. He explained the second/third ring suburb, demographic standpoint, buyer profile, empty nesters and population; and said the people in Prior Lake fit this profile. He said they are not accommodating the eldering/assisted living, it is really that window that you see providing the biggest demand. Fleming said that makes sense from a Performa, but are there any features of our community that attracted us to you. Applicant Rask explained how they were looking for a place that they were familiar with and have the familiar commodities of church, social activites, goods and services are close by and have lived in for the last fifteen to twenty years; active people with boating/golfing/trails. He said we look for those higher amenity communities that offer all these things. Fleming asked Staff to see the slide again regarding the Summit Preserve position with the proposed concept. Director Rogness explained they were showing a park which would join the park of Summit Preserve and anticipate all the undeveloped property to add to the accentual park. He pointed out that the north west street would make the connection to the proposed area being discussed this evening. He explained another area of the more traditional lots being north. He said Kensington ends with a temporary cul-de-sac and that would extend into their development and the other streets that would also extend and showed future connections. He said another area is a gap of property that is not part of either developments and in a perfect world we would love to see them all come together at once but with different land owners that is a wishful thought more often than not. Fleming asked for an additional areal. 6 Director Rogness pulled up the slide and pointed out where Kensington comes in on a street from Savage and another street coming in from Shakopee. He said we do look at what is surrounding this and typically what we want is neighbors comments. He commented on the surrounding areas having somewhat traditional single family neighborhoods, with more like eighty foot lots; that maybe a little bit of a challenge if and when it goes through the processes is hearing from neighbors what they expect to be next door to them. Fleming asked the status of Summit Preserve. Director Rogness explained how Summit Preserve received a Preliminary Plat approval that switched developers. He said the new developer is proceeding with the preliminary plat and continuing to the final plat stage. He commented on what the new developer would need to do if any changes were to occur; stating so far the changes seem to be minor and should be able to move to the final plat stage quickly and are hopeful to see an application within a month or so. Fleming asked if the minor changes were so good due to the preliminary plat being good or avoidance of the Planning Commission Meetings. Director Rogness explained they are just changing the townhome footprint different than DR Horton. B. Revisions to the 2017 Meeting Schedule - Discuss meeting changes regarding the motion made at the January 9, 2017 City Council’s Agenda Report (changing the Planning Commission meetings from the 1st and 3rd to the 2nd and 4th Monday’s of every month). Fleming explained the reasoning for this agenda items and the proposed changes. He said we have poled ourselves and are in support of the change per the City Councils timeline. He said in his conversations with the Mayor and City Manager they are suggesting or recommending that there would need to be some lead time before implementing this schedule. He said the Planning Commission is amenable to moving to the second and fourth Mondays per the City Councils timeline for implication of the revised schedule. Petersen stated he agreed with Commissioner Fleming’s statement. Ringstad stated agreed with Commissioner Fleming’s statement too; as he said it well. C. Comprehensive Plan Discussion – Tabled for full Commissioners attendance 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:17 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen, Kallberg, Tieman and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant