Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4A Haven Ridge Prelim Plat PUD PC Report 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 19, 2017 AGENDA #: 4A PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER PRESENTED BY: JEFF MATZKE AGENDA ITEM: HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE HAVEN RIDGE PRE- LIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN DISCUSSION: Introduction M/I Homes, on behalf of the property owner, has applied for approval of a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan known as Haven Ridge, to be developed as a 133-lot, low density resi- dential subdivision. The subject site is located north of County Highway 42 and east of County Highway 18. History M/I Homes submitted a concept plan to the City of Prior Lake in early 2017. The Planning Commission and City Council provided feedback on the concept plan and M/I Homes has since moved forward with this cur- rent Preliminary Plat and PUD application. Current Circumstances The current proposal calls for a 133-lot single family subdivision and PUD on the site with a mix of housing product types and lot sizes. The area encompasses land with wooded and open areas, large electric and natu- ral gas utility easements and two wetlands. The following paragraphs outline the physical characteristics of the exist- ing site, the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations, and a descrip- tion of some of the specifics of the site. PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Total Site Area: The total development site area consists of approxi- mately 55 acres. Topography: This area has varied topography, with elevations ranging from the 988’ MSL along the western property line near CSAH 18 to 1050’ MSL along the Savage border to the east. Wetlands: Two wetlands exist on the proposed site. No impacts are proposed to the wetland areas. Access: The main access to the site is currently from a single driveway at County Hwy 18. 2 2030 Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for Low Density Residential uses on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Zoning: The site is presently zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. PROPOSED PLAN Phasing: The developer expects to complete this project in two phases, beginning in 2017 and potentially ending in 2018 or 2019. A mixture of housing types is proposed for construction in the first 2 phases. Lots: The development plan calls for 133 lots to be constructed of single family housing styles. The lot sizes range in size and product type includ- ing 76 detached villa lots and 57 single family detached lots. Requested PUD modifications to the typical lot minimum sizes and widths are as fol- lows: Min. Lot Area Min. Lot Width Villa Lots 5,650 sq. ft. proposed (12,000 sq. ft. required) 50 feet proposed (86 feet required) Multi-Story Single Family 7,800 sq. ft. proposed (12,000 sq. ft. required) 65 feet proposed (86 feet required) Density: Density of the development is based on the net area of the site, which is approximately 36 acres. There is a total of 133 units proposed, for an overall density of approximately 3.69 units per acre. This is con- sistent with the density in the R-1 district. Building Setbacks: The developer requests PUD modifications to the building setbacks as follows: Multi-Story Single Family Setbacks Required (R-1 Zoning) Proposed Front 20’ 20’ Side 10’ 7.5 Rear 20’ 20’ Parks / Trails: The developer proposes parkland dedication around the trail system that separates the Villa lots and multi-story single family lots. Parkland is also proposed around the wetland in the southwest corner. This area will serve as a future neighborhood park location for the entire residential area. Villa Lots Required (R-1 Zoning) Proposed Front 25’ 20’ Side 10’ 4’ Rear 25’ 20’ 3 Tree Replacement: There are many significant trees on this site, partic- ularly in the north half of the site. Due to the need to install street and public utility connections throughout the ever-varying existing topogra- phy, it is difficult to preserve many tree areas, with the exception on the site perimeter and around the large wetland. The developer has prepared an extensive landscape plan which will incorporate over 430 trees (1,300 inches) of replacement on the private lots, outlots and parkland. Access/Street: The developer proposes to connect streets to the exist- ing Shakopee and Savage neighborhoods as well as future connections to the south and east. Few driveways are proposed off 138th Street which will eventually extend to a full intersection with Hwy 18 to the east. Sanitary Sewer / Water Mains: Sanitary sewer and watermain service will be extended from the City of Shakopee in the north (with an agree- ment for this service) and from the existing utilities within the Kensington Avenue right-of-way to the southeast. Grading / Storm water: The site is very complex from a grading and storm water perspective. The developer proposes to grade the entire site prior to the construction of the first phase because of all the street, utility, and storm water features which are ultimately planned. Multiple storm water basins are proposed and the city staff has recommended increased regionalization of storm water basins on the site. Home Owner’s Association: The developer proposes the creation of a home owner’s association which will incorporate the commitment to higher quality architectural materials with association maintained land- scaping. Fees and Assessments: This development will be subject to the stand- ard development fees, including park dedication and trunk street and util- ity service charges. Conclusion City staff and the developer have discussed their plan and housing prod- uct type which will be presented at the meeting. The product type differs in lot size and setbacks than previous PUD developments in Prior Lake. The housing market is identifying smaller lots with more manageable property maintenance structures and the developer’s project plan reflects this market shift. The developer has also hosted a neighborhood meeting to present the development plan to nearby property owners. City staff believes the developer is identifying unique PUD benefits within the site, including the preservation of open space, mix of life cycle housing types and regional trail connections. As noted in the attached staff memorandums, the developer must refine the plans to assure compliance with the Public Works Design Manual re- quirements and City Zoning Ordinance; however, City staff feels these comments will not drastically alter the design of the development plan or preliminary plat. Therefore, City staff does advise the Planning Commis- sion to consider recommending approval of the Haven Ridge Preliminary Plat and PUD Plan with the following conditions: 4 1. The developer shall revise the plans per the June 12, 2017 City Engineering & Public Works Department Memorandum 2. The developer shall revise the plans per the June 13, 2017 City Community Development Department Memorandum 3. The developer shall obtain a grading permit from the City Engi- neering Department prior to any grading or tree removal on the site. 4. The Developer shall obtain the required permits from other state or local agencies prior to applicable on the site ISSUES: PUD’s provide a flexible approach to development that allows creative, efficient and effective use of land, including the mixing of land uses. The proposed project includes a mix of housing types and lot sizes. A PUD tends to preserve more unique features on site and provides more open space. The overall net housing density remains low (3.4 units per acre). The PUD must be reviewed based on the criteria found in Section 1106 of the Zoning Ordinance. The criteria which are applicable to the Haven Ridge PUD are discussed below: (1) Provides a flexible approach to development which is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designations on the entire site. The PUD approach allows the location of the different land uses in ways that preserve and enhance the natural features of the site with open space areas. (2) More creative, efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses. The proposed PUD plan clusters the residential areas, and provides over 30% of open space on the site. (3) Create a sense of place and provide more interaction among people; The PUD plan proposes trails, and other pedestrian elements to connect the residential elements. HOA and public open space areas throughout the development create a sense of place. (4) Increase transportation options, such as walking, biking or bussing; The plan includes a network of trails that will connect to the regional trail system including a connection to Hwy 18, the existing regional trail in Savage, and a future connection to the residential areas and parkland to the south. (5) Provide opportunities for life cycle housing to all ages. The PUD plan includes a mix of housing types, including one-story villa dwellings and detached multi-story traditional single family homes. This mix will provide housing options to many different buyers. 5 (6) Provide more efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities that support high quality land use development at a lesser cost. The development utilizes a mix of public streets that will enhance the traffic flow of the region in both a north-south and east-west direction. (7) Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space components in the development which may be made more useable and be more suitably located than would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures. The PUD district also encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over and above required dedications, by allowing a portion of the density to be transferred to other parts of the site. The PUD incorporates preservation of open space and a greenway corridor around the trail system. (8) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics and open space, and protection of sensitive environmental features including, but not limited to, steep slopes, wetlands, and trees. Where applicable, the PUD should also encourage historic preservation, re- use and redevelopment of existing buildings. The plan includes a regional trail corridor connection to Savage and the south residential development. (9) High quality of design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. The proposed design is compatible with the surrounding low density residential land use. ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: 1. Motion and a second to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan for Haven Ridge subject to the listed conditions, or others that may be added or modi- fied by the Planning Commission. 2. Motion and a second to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan for Haven Ridge based upon findings of fact. 3. Motion and a second to table this item to a future Planning Commis- sion meeting and provide the applicant with direction. Alternative #1 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Development Plans – May 19, 2017 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Engineering/Public Works Dept. Memorandum – June 12, 2017 5. Community Development Dept. Memorandum – June 13, 2017 5800 13755 591058505800 13625 13855 13900 2560 5560 2450 8808 9032 14044 8832 8932 14081 6121 8948 14044 9040 14041 93289342 8916 14052 14012 8844 14070 14100 14013 9333 14034 94239447 9048 9125 14090 9096 9112 91179109 9104 9120 9345 8856 14025 14101 9430 9471 9356 9435 9411 9394 9451 9459 9085 9055 13991 14098 9495 9483 14093 14030 13953 1392113918 9370 9351 14061 13772 13896 13884 13862 13850 13826 13814 13788 13853 13899 13865 13887 13829 13817 13791 13775 14031 14037 14043 14049 14055 9357 14042 14048 14030 14036 14054 5874 14106 14109 8820 14040 90268968 14060 9314 13972 9215 9018 14109 8980 9223 9337 9072 5610 9226 5634 9339 90568892 5395 5409 9300 9064 5850 9063 5620 9220 8868 54105396 9079 8880 8853 595414016 5545 9071 5644 9220 8841 9490 8905 9400 14019 9445 5375 9460 88778865 8889 9327 9340 9328 9302 9403 5511 5746 5654 9240 8876 9260 9304 93399301 13967 5926591458905900 5936 9311 5834 5500 9345 9415 9321 5699 9317 9305 9047 5671 5469 9315 9312 9309 9324 5674 14060 9317 14045 14111 5820 5698 9251 14060 5851 5732 9323 5666 5646 14019 14104 5470 5808 14026 5678 569257045716 57305744 57585770 5784 5796 5658 9258 5901 14112 9010 14025 5953 141065720 5913560714100 14114 14018 14024 5599 14050 9200 59255835 5561 5488 58115633 57085587 5575 5619 5799 5889 5787564557735761574957355721 570914070 593714092 9066 14113 8840 14072 5634 5657 14086 5823 14072 8828 54835497 5622 8852 9058 14115 9307 14120 9202 8817 Scott County GIS Ü Haven Ridge Preliminary PUD Location Map UPPER PRIOR LAKEGD (904) SPRING LAKEGD (912.8) LOWER PRIOR LAKEGD (904) PIKELAKE NE(820.5) MYSTICLAKE NE HAASLAKE NE(907.3) BLINDLAKE RD(948.7) ARTICLAKE NE(906.7) MARKLEYLAKE RD( ) HOWARD LAKENE (957.3) CRYSTAL LAKENE (943.3) RICE LAKENE (945) CLEARY LAKENE CAMPBELLLAKE NE(Not Estab.) Scott County GIS SUBJECTPROPERTY SUBJECTPROPERTY SUBJECTPROPERTY Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com Memo Date: June 14, 2017 To: Community Development From: Engineering Department – Larry Poppler, City Engineer Engineering Department – Nick Monserud, Project Engineer Public Works Department – Pete Young, Water Resources Engineer Subject: Haven Ridge (Project #DEV17-000002) The Engineering Department and Public Works Department have reviewed the preliminary plat for Haven Ridge with a plan date of May 19, 2017 and we have the following comments. Comments highlighted in bold text are of particular concern: General 1. The final plat plans should follow the requirements of the Public Works Design Manual (PWDM). 2. Permits from the Met Council, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Scott County, and Department of Health are needed. 3. A digital copy of the plans in pdf or tif format is required prior to construction. All drawings should use the Scott County Coordinate System. 4. Outlot G should be shown as Park. Grading 1. Please review the grading plans for Summit Preserve and match the contours with this approved plan. As shown there is a 4’ elevation difference. 2. Retaining walls over 4’ in height will require a retaining wall permit from the City. They must be designed and reviewed by a Structural Engineer. 3. Retaining walls within public right-of-way and Outlots to be dedicated to the City shall be modular block. 4. Any backyard drainage paths must be sodded and protected at the conclusion of grading activities. Please label these areas on the grading plans and show silt fence protection. 5. Show slopes for maintained areas at no more than 4:1, unmaintained at 3:1. Areas that are shown or seem steeper than 3:1 include: Lots 65, 66 and 67 on Street A. 6. Show construction limits in all areas (including areas adjacent to tree preservation areas). Silt fence will also be required in these areas. 7. Proposed grading beyond property lines will require easement/agreement or revise grades to stay within project area. 8. Provide easements for all storm sewer pipes, structures and drainage swales located within common lots. 9. Please review roadway grades at property lines to assure proper elevations at adjacent properties. Provide ghost plat review. 10. Show the 1006 elevation contour around BB-8742 on the grading plan. 11. Show lot corner elevations. Utilities 1. A detail review will take place once final plat (plan and profile) has been submitted. Below are general comments regarding the utility plans that were submitted with the preliminary plat. 2. If Summit Preserve to the South is delayed, the water booster station will still be necessary for Haven Ridge. It may require that the booster station be constructed on Haven Ridge. This would require mains to be extended down CSAH 18. 3. If Summit Preserve does not develop or lags behind Haven Ridge, it will become M/I’s responsibility to re-route the sanitary sewer in Meadow Ave and Cedarwood St. This will allow sewer to flow to the West. 4. Sanitary sewer casing and pipe must be extended under CSAH 18 for future connection to the west. City will review capacity to the south as a part of the Comprehensive Plan to determine if it is necessary to extend casing under CSAH 18. 5. Coordination with the City of Savage is needed to determine if a watermain interconnection is needed on 138th Street. 6. Watermain can be PVC. 7. Watermain on Street A should be 12” pipe. 8. Watermain north along CSAH 18 is unnecessary. 9. Sanitary sewer south on Wildflower Way should be evaluated. 10. Coordinate sewer connection with the City of Shakopee. This would be considered temporary until the land west of CSAH 18 develops. 11. Add additional hydrant on Kensington Ave. The max hydrant spacing is 450’ for residential developments. Add hydrants throughout the development as necessary. 12. Provide additional details for utility connections (i.e. pavement removal limits, connection notes, etc). 13. The minimum storm sewer pipe size allowed is 15 inches. 14. Provide storm sewer sizing calculations. Streets 1. A detail review will take place once final plat (plan and profile) has been submitted. Below are general comments regard the street plans that were submitted with the preliminary plat. 2. Several low points on the streets are extremely close to high points and may be unnecessary considering the overall grade. 3. Provide street and storm sewer sheets. 4. The Kensington Avenue cul-de-sac could be shifted to the south to reduce public infrastructure. 5. Provide details of connections to existing streets and Summit Preserve. 6. Provide blow up intersection details. 7. Show removal of the temporary cul-de-sac with the connection to Kensington Avenue. Add curb and gutter to the west side of Kensington. Show resident driveway connections. 8. Provide trail on CR 18 to South property line. 9. Avoid unnecessary watermain crossings with the sanitary sewer. 10. Trail connection must be coordinated with the City of Savage. 11. Several locations on the streets show slopes of less than 1.00%. The minimum allowed street grade is 1.00% per the Public Works Design Manual. Hydrology and Stormwater Management 1. Review lots for compliance with low floor/low opening requirements. Low floor elevations shall be at least 3 feet above the OHW or highest known water elevation (whichever is greater) and 2 feet above the HWL. Low opening elevations shall be at least 2 feet above the EOF. 2. Review lots for compliance with EOF requirements. Please address the following: a. The EOF elevation on all ponds should be 1-foot higher than the HWL. b. The EOF south of Street C flows water over a retaining wall. c. EOF routes should have a minimum of 20 feet of unoccupied easement d. The EOF for 8000P flows into Shakopee. Coordination with Shakopee is needed to assure this plan meets Shakopee’s stormwater plan. e. The low opening of Lots 49-51 encircled by Street B, does not meet the criteria for being 2-feet above the EOF, along with Lots 57 -60, south of Street A. f. Lots 37-39, south of Street B, and Lots 38 and 39 on Kensington, do not meet the criteria for having the low opening at least 2-feet above the EOF elevation. g. Show the EOF location and elevation for the backyards of Lots19-21, south of Street D. These lots do not meet the HWL plus 2-feet to low opening elevation. h. Show the low point EOF at station 3+45 on 138th Street. i. Show the EOF location for pond 12P on the grading plan. j. All other low points should be evaluated for the 2-foot elevation to low opening elevation. 3. Provide a maintenance access to all ponding areas and infiltration BMPs. When trails are to be utilized as maintenance accesses, the trail must be 10’ in width and have a pavement section that can accommodate maintenance equipment. Please show maintenance routes and pavement sections for these areas. 4. The storm sewer south of Street B could be routed to basin 8800P. 5. Backyard swales exceed standards. Maximum length for drainage swales shall be 300 feet or a total of eight lots draining to a point. 6. Show NWL for all ponds and OHWL for water bodies/wetlands. The HWL labeled for the ponds on the grading plans does not match what is shown on the pond contours. 7. The top of pond dikes must be 2-feet above the HWL of each pond. 8. Provide details for the outlet control structures for each pond. 9. Pond 200P appears to be a water quality pond and not a volume control BMP. Please provide additional detail for this basin, along with a pretreatment BMP. 10. Provide design and details for the proposed infiltration BMPs that meet the requirements of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Additional review of the proposed BMPs will occur after this information is received. 11. The MN Stormwater Manual list SP soils at 0.8”/hr and SM soils at 0.45”/hr infiltration rate. An average of these two rates is 0.63”/hr, which may be used for design until actual rates are determined in the field at the location and elevation of the proposed infiltration systems. 12. Stormwater Management Calculations Comments: a. The proposed broad-crested weir elevations and HWLs for pond 2000P and 2W in the HydroCAD model do not match what is shown on the grading plan. b. The starting elevation for pond 200P should match the outlet elevation. c. The EOF elevation for pond 880P in the HydroCAD model does not match the storm sewer plan. d. The outlet control structure was not included in the HydroCAD model for pond 600P, please include this in the model. Also, the outlet elevations on the storm sewer plan do not match the HydroCAD model. e. The secondary outlet in pond 810P does not match the outlet from pond 600P in the HydroCAD calculations. f. The outlet diameter from pond 890P in the HydroCAD model does not match the storm sewer plan. SWPPP 1. A SWPPP that meets the requirements of the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit must be reviewed and approved before a grading permit will be issued for the site. Full SWPPP review will occur after updated plans are submitted. 2. Redundant sediment control BMPs are required for areas draining to ponds and wetlands. Wetlands 1. Please provide calculations showing that existing wetland hydrology will be approximated in the developed condition. Run back-to-back 100-year storms for wetland 1W to determine the HWL for this basin (appears to be landlocked). 2. Delineated wetland lines and buffers should be shown beyond the property lines. 3. Include details for any wetland buffer re-establishment including native seed mix. 4. Show wetland buffer monuments on the plans. A monument shall be required at each parcel line where it crosses a buffer strip and shall have a maximum spacing of 200 feet along the edge of the buffer strip. An additional monument shall be placed at the midpoint of each lot and/or as necessary to accurately define the edge of the buffer strip (considering curvature). A monument shall consist of a post and a buffer strip sign. The signs shall comply with City Plate #203, Wetland Boundary Signs. Buffer strip signs must be purchased from the City at a cost shown on the latest fee schedule. Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com Memo The Community & Economic Development Department has reviewed the Preliminary Plat and PUD plans for the subject project with a plan date of 5-19-2017 and we have the following comments. Comments highlighted in bold text are of particular concern: General 1. Development Fees – The following development fees are to be collected prior to recording of any approved final plat: Park Dedication of 121 unit(s) at $3,750 per unit, Trunk Water ($6,960/net acre), Trunk Sanitary Sewer ($3,678/net acre), Trunk Storm Sewer ($3,376/net acre), Street Oversize ($5,953/net acre), $9,000 Water Connection Fee, $9,000 Sewer Connection Fee, and a 4% administrative fee and 5% construction observation fee based on the total estimated construction costs (which include landscaping, streets, public trails, and public utilities). PUD/Site Plan/Landscape Plan 2. PUD modifications – The developer requests modifications to the typical R-1 zoning requirements in the following areas: a. Lot size – Min. proposed – 5,650 sq. ft., Min. required (R-1) – 12,000 sq. ft. b. Lot width – Min. proposed – 50 feet, Min. required – 86 ft. c. Side Setback – Min proposed – 4 feet, Min. required – 10 feet d. Front Setback – Min. proposed 20 feet, Min. required – 25 feet e. Rear Setback – Min proposed 20 feet, Min. required – 25 feet Date: June 13, 2017 To: Jason Biederwolf, M/I Homes From: Jeff Matzke, Planner Subject: Haven Ridge Preliminary Plat and PUD City Project #DEV17-00002