Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9B Majestic PUD Report Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 21, 2018 AGENDA #: 9B PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER PRESENTED BY: JEFF MATZKE AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER THE MAJESTIC PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN DISCUSSION: Introduction Hunter Homes LLC, on behalf of the property owner, has applied for approval of a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan to be known as Majestic to be developed as a 20-lot residential subdivision. The subject site is located north of County Highway 82, west of County Highway 21, and east of Majestic Lane. History The City has discussed multiple concepts with developers for a potential development of the site over the last several years with varying layouts of single family detached homes and/or attached townhomes. On February 12, 2018 the Planning Commission approved a resolution which allows the site to be proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 23, 2018. At the hearing nearby residents provided a number of comments (draft meeting minutes attached), including: • General support for the housing type and style. • Many concerns over the connection of the temporary Majestic cul-de- sacs into a thru street, including safety sight lines for driveways, slope of the connecting street, increased traffic and vehicular speeds. • Concerns with grading/drainage particularly around the connection of Majestic Lane as a thru street and how it may affect adjacent properties. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the preliminary plat and PUD application and decided to table further discussion of the item to the next scheduled meeting, directing the applicant and City Staff to provide more information regarding increased traffic and any recommendations related to traffic calming methods. The Planning Commission continued the discussion of the item on May 14, 2018 and offered an approval recommendation to the City Council by a 4-1 vote. Meeting minutes of both the April 23rd and May 14th Planning Commission meetings are attached. The attached traffic memorandum details the increased traffic which may be borne by the street from the new development and the surrounding residential area. The estimated trips per day by connecting Majestic Lane (434 trips) is we ll below the design capacity of a local street. In addition, the applicant has provided a revised street plan indicating a narrow street section (28 feet from 32 feet previously proposed) to create a traffic calming effect on the sloping section of the street. No parking is also proposed along the sloped section of the street to ensure adequate sight distance for residents backing out of driveways. Current Circumstances The current proposal calls for a 20-lot single family subdivision and PUD on the site. The area encompasses land with wooded areas to the east, a wetland that runs from northeast to southwest, and an open field area in the west. The following paragraphs outline the physical characteristics of the existing site, the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations, and a description of some of the specifics of the site. PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Total Site Area: The total development site area consists of approximately 7.6 acres. Topography: This area has varying topography, with elevations ranging from the 920’ MSL along the southern property line near the City park land to 958’ MSL at the high point in the southeast corner of the property. Wetlands: A wetland runs from the northeast to the southwest through the center of the site. The developer proposes some impacts to this wetland which will be evaluated under the regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act. Access: The main access to the site is currently from a single driveway which is located in the right-turn lane at County Hwy 21. This access is proposed for removal (along with the existing home). 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 Lots: The development plan calls for 20 lots to be constructed of single family detached housing styles. The lot sizes range in size and width. Requested PUD modifications to the typical lot minimum sizes and widths are as follows: Min. Lot Area Min. Lot Width Single Family 6,256 sq. ft. proposed (12,000 sq. ft. required) 50 feet proposed (86 feet required) Density: Density of the development is based on the net area of the site, which is approximately 5.0 acres. There is a total of 20 units proposed, for an overall density of approximately 4.0 units per acre. This is consistent with the density in the R-1 district. Building Setbacks: The developer requests PUD modifications to the building setbacks as follows: Parks / Trails: No parkland is proposed with this site therefore a parkland dedication fee payment will be applicable to the project. The sidewalk extension along Majestic Lane will connect the 2 temporary cul-de-sac sidewalks. Existing trails serve the site both along CR21 and CR82. Tree Replacement: There are many significant trees on this site particularly in the east half of the site. Due to the need to install street and public utility connections throughout the ever-varying existing topography, it is difficult to preserve many tree areas with the exception on the site perimeter and around the wetland area. The developer has prepared a landscape plan which will incorporate over 225 inches of trees on the private lots and outlots. The amount of required tree replacement is 125 inches so the additional 100 inches of trees on the landscape plan can be incorporated into the PUD benefit. Access/Street: The developer proposes to connect the temporary cul-de-sacs on Majestic Lane north and west of the site. These cul-de-sacs were designed to be connected in the early 2000s when the two adjacent developments (Regal Crest and Executive Ponds) were completed. Specifically, at the time of the Executive Ponds development in 2004, the former property owner of the Majestic development site was not interested in allowing the connection of Majestic Lane across the site. Therefore, the City collected a cash escrow from the developer of the Executive Pond Plat ($36,856) to contribute to the future Majestic Street connection. This cash escrow would be paid to Hunter Homes LLC upon approval of the pending Majestic Final Plat. In addition, the existing CR21 driveway access for the single-family home on the site will be removed (along with the home). This access is a safety concern of the County Highway Dept. due to its location in the right-turn lane of Highway 21. The developer proposes a single cul-de-sac street which will meet City standards. Sanitary Sewer / Water Mains: Sanitary sewer and watermain service will be extended from the existing services in Majestic Lane. Shoreland District/Impervious Surface: The maximum impervious surface allowed in the Shoreland District is 30% of the lot area. The only area within the shoreland district (within 1000 feet of Prior Lake) is the area at the east end of the development. This area will meet the shoreland district impervious surface requirement. Grading / Storm water: The developer proposes to grade the entire property with the exception of the wetland and perimeter areas. A storm water pond will Single Family Required (R-1 Zoning) Proposed Front 25’ 25’ Side 10’ 5’ Rear 25’ 25’ County Highway 35’ 35’ be constructed at the southwestern corner of the development to meet applicable storm water requirements of the site. Fees and Assessments: This development will be subject to the standard development fees including park dedication and trunk street and utility service charges. Conclusion The developer and City Staff have met to discuss the many aspects of the site. The developer has also hosted a neighborhood meeting to present the development plan to nearby property owners. City Staff believes the developer is identifying PUD benefits within the site including the connection of Majestic Lane, removal of the existing driveway in the turn lane of Hwy 21, and installation of additional landscaping above the ordinance requirement. As noted in the attached staff memorandums, the developer must refine the plans to assure compliance with the Public Works Design Manual requirements and City Zoning Ordinance; however, City Staff has presented these comments to the developer and feel they will not drastically alter the design of the development plan or preliminary plat. Therefore, City Staff does advise the City Council to consider recommending approval of the Majestic Preliminary Plat and PUD Plan with the following conditions: • The developer shall revise the plans according to the April 6, 2018 City Engineering & Public Works Dept. Memorandum • The developer shall revise the plans according to the April 16, 2018 City Community Development Dept. Memorandum • The developer shall revise the plans according to the April 13, 2018 County Highway Department Memorandum • The developer shall obtain a grading permit from the City Engineering Department prior to any grading or tree removal on the site. • 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 critical street/access improvements. Despite smaller lots in this plan, the overall net housing density remains low (4.0 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 Majestic 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 housing units in ways that preserve and enhance natural features of the site. (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 27% of open space on the site. (3) Create a sense of place and provide more interaction among people; The PUD plan proposes a critical street connection of Majestic Lane for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The lot sizes proposed are similar to those of nearby existing housing lots. (4) Increase transportation options, such as walking, biking or bussing; The plan proposes a critical street and sidewalk connection for improved emergency access. (5) Provide opportunities for life cycle housing to all ages. This PUD does not provide a specific life cycle housing opportunity. (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 connection of Majestic Lane will provide for improved access to nearby arterial streets (Hwy 82 and 21) and will eliminate a safety concern of the existing driveway in the right-turn lane of Highway 21. A looping of the existing public watermain is also proposed with the extension of Majestic Lane. (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 installation of an additional 100 caliper inches of trees in the landscaping plan above the required tree replacement formula. This will provide additional screening and natural features to the site. (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 the dedication of easements and public outlots around the wetland areas to protect these sensitive natural features. (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 uses. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and a second to approve the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan for Majestic subject to the listed conditions, or others that may be added or modified by the City Council. 2. Motion and a second to deny the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan for Majestic based upon findings of fact. 3. Motion and a second to table this item to a future City Council meeting and provide the applicant with direction on the issues that have been discussed. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Alternative #1 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Revised Street Plan (Option B Site Exhibit) 3. Traffic Memorandum 4. Development Plans - March 21, 2018 5. Applicant Narrative – March 21, 2018 6. Engineering/Public Works Dept. Memorandum - April 6, 2018 7. Community & Economic Development Dept. Memorandum - April 16, 2018 8. County Highway Dept. Memorandum – April 13, 2018 9. Planning Commission minutes (April 23rd & May 14th) Page 1 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 118-_____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1101.700 OF PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS: Hunter Homes LLC has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development to be known as Majestic; and WHEREAS: The Prior Lake Planning Commission considered the proposed Planned Unit Development at a public hearing on April 23, 2018; and WHEREAS: Notice of the public hearing on said PUD has been duly published in accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS: The Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issue and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the PUD; and WHEREAS: The Prior Lake City Council considered the proposed PUD for Majestic on May 21, 2018; and WHEREAS: The City Council finds the PUD is compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the Section 1106 Planned Unit Developments of the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: 1. The above recitals are herein fully incorporated herein as set forth above. 2. The Prior Lake Zoning Map, referred to in Prior Lake City Code Section 1101.700, is hereby amended to designate the following legally described property as the Majestic Planned Unit Development (PUD). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The south 28 rods of the North 72 rods of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 115, Range 022, except the West 593.80 feet thereof, Scott County, Minnesota PID: 259340020 3. The Majestic Planned Unit Development includes the following elements: a. The PUD is a single-family development consisting of 20 lots for single family homes. b. As part of the park development, the developer is responsible for grading, topsoil, turf establishment and construction of the trails/sidewalks to the specifications provided by the City as indicated on the approved PUD plans. Page 2 c. The elements of the plan will be as shown on the plans dated March 21, 2018, except for modifications approved as part of the final PUD plan. 4. It hereby adopts the following findings: a. 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 housing units in ways that preserve and enhance natural features of the site. b. 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 27% of open space on the site. c. Create a sense of place and provide more interaction among people; The PUD plan proposes a critical street connection of Majestic Lane for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The lot sizes proposed are similar to those of nearby existing housing lots. d. Increase transportation options, such as walking, biking or bussing; The plan proposes a critical street and sidewalk connection for improved emergency access. e. Provide opportunities for life cycle housing to all ages. This PUD does not provide a specific life cycle housing opportunity. f. Provide more efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities that support high quality land use development at a lesser cost. The connection of Majestic Lane will provide for improved access to nearby arterial streets (Hwy 82 and 21) and will eliminate a safety concern of the existing driveway in the right-turn lane of Highway 21. A looping of the existing public watermain is also proposed with the extension of Majestic Lane. g. 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 installation of an additional 100 caliper inches of trees in the landscaping plan above the required tree replacement formula. This will provide additional screening and natural features to the site. h. 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 the dedication of easements and public outlots around the wetland areas to protect these sensitive natural features. Page 3 i. 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 uses. 5. Final plans for the Majestic Planned Unit Development are subject to the following conditions: a. The developer shall revise the plans according to the April 6, 2018 City Engineering & Public Works Dept. Memorandum b. The developer shall revise the plans according to the April 16, 2018 City Community & Economic Development Dept. Memorandum c. The developer shall obtain a grading permit from the City Engineering Department prior to any grading or tree removal on the site. d. The Developer shall obtain the required permits from other state or local agencies prior to applicable on the site This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 21nd day of May, 2018. ATTEST: _________________________ __________________________ Frank Boyles, City Manager Kirt Briggs, Mayor This Ordinance to be published in the Prior Lake American on the 26th day of May, 2018. 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 18-___ A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 118-_____ AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, In accordance with Minnesota Statute, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding an amendment to Subsection 1101.700 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance, Official Zoning Map, related to the Majestic Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan on April 23, 2018; and WHEREAS, The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission, city staff reports and others pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance amendments; and WHEREAS, On May 21, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance 118-____ amending Subsection 1101.700 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes requires publication of an Ordinance in the official newspaper before it becomes effective; and WHEREAS, WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes also allows the publication of a summary of an ordinance if the City Council finds that the summary is an accurate representation of the Ordinance; and The City Council desires to publish a summary of the amendment to Subsection 1101.700 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance relating to the Majestic Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan and has determined the publication of a summary of this ordinance will meet the intent of the statute. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. Ordinance No. 118-____ is lengthy. 3. The text of summary of Ordinance No. 118-____, attached hereto as Exhibit A, conforms to M.S. § 331A.01, Subd. 10, and is approved, and publication of the title and summary of the Ordinance will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance. 4. The title and summary shall be published once in the Prior Lake American in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type. 5. A complete text of the newly amended City Code will be available for inspection at City Hall or in the Document Center on the City of Prior Lake website after May 21, 2018. 2 Passed and adopted by the Prior Lake City Council this 21nd day of May, 2018 VOTE Briggs McGuire Thompson Braid Burkart Aye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ______________________________ Frank Boyles, City Manager 3 Exhibit A SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 117-___ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 1101.700, OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE TRILLIUM COVE PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PLAN The following is only a summary of Ordinance No. 117-____. The full text will available for public inspection after May 22, 2017 by any person during regular office hours at City Hall or in the Document Center on the City of Prior Lake Website. SUMMARY: The Ordinance amends the Official Zoning Map for the City of Prior Lake by amending the Zoning Use District from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for the following parcel identification numbers (PIDs): 250520130, 259250272, and 259250271. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 22nd Day of May, 2017. ATTEST: _________________________ __________________________ Frank Boyles, City Manager Kirt Briggs, Mayor Summary Ordinance to be published in the Prior Lake American on the 27th day of May, 2017. 1 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 18-___ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS MAJESTIC Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 23, 2018, to consider a request from Hunter Homes LLC (the “Developer”), on behalf of the owners, to approve a Preliminary Plat for the following property: The south 28 rods of the North 72 rods of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 115, Range 022, except the West 593.80 feet thereof, Scott County, Minnesota. Address: 15420 Eagle Creek Avenue NE PID: 259340020 WHEREAS, Notice of the public hearing on said Preliminary Plat was duly published and mailed in accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission heard all persons interested in the Preliminary Plat at the public hearing, and the Commission recommended approval of the plat for Majestic to the City Council on a 4-1 vote subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the proposed Preliminary Plat for Majestic meets the requirements of Subsections 1002.200 and 1103.200 (Preliminary Plat) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. The City Council approves the Preliminary Plat for Majestic subject to the following conditions: a. The developer shall revise the plans according to the April 6, 2018 City Engineering & Public Works Dept. Memorandum. b. The developer shall revise the plans according to the April 16, 2018 City Community & Economic Development Dept. Memorandum. c. The developer shall obtain a grading permit from the City Engineering Department prior to any grading or tree removal on the site. d. The Developer shall obtain the required permits from other state or local agencies prior to applicable on the site. 3. The applicant shall submit an application for Final Plat within twelve (12) months after approval of this Preliminary Plat. 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ND DAY OF MAY, 2018. VOTE Briggs McGuire Thompson Braid Burkart Aye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ______________________________ Frank Boyles, City Manager 154TH ST NW EA G L E C R E E K A V N E HI G H L A N D A V N W SK Y L I N E A V N W JEFFERS P A S S N W C A L M U T A V N E E A U C L A I R E T R L N E MARSH ST NW 154TH ST NEFO X T A I L T R L N W MA J E S T I C L N N W Upper Prior Lake Lower Prior Lake Scott County GIS Ü 15420 Eagle Creek Avenue NE - Majestic Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Location Map U P P E R P R IO R L A K E G D (9 0 4 ) S P R IN G L A K E G D (9 1 2 .8 ) LO WE R P R I O R L A K E G D (9 0 4 ) P IK E LA K E N E (8 2 0 .5 ) MY S T IC LA K E N E H A A S LA K E N E (9 0 7 .3 ) B L IN D LA K E R D (9 4 8 .7 ) A R T IC LA K E N E (9 0 6 .7 ) MA R K L E Y LA K E R D ( ) H O WA R D L A K E N E (9 5 7 .3 ) C R Y S T A L L A K E N E (9 4 3 .3 ) R IC E L A K E N E (9 4 5 ) C L E A R Y L A K E N E C A MP B E L L LA K E N E (N o t E s t a b .) Scott County GIS SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECTPROPERTY 00-ENG-117318-EXIB-SITE-OPTION B 1OPTION B SITE EXHIBIT I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c OFMAJESTIC PRIOR LAKE, MN HUNTER HOMES, LLC. 7034 167TH CROSSING NW 3-21-18 JMM JMM/JDM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1.Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 45831 03-21-2018 John M. Molinaro RAMSEY, MN 55303 CITY PROJECT #DEV18-000XXX 1 MAJESTIC - Traffic Memorandum Prior Lake, MN BACKGROUND Majestic is proposed as a residential development that will add 20 single family detached villas near the northwest quadrant of CSAH 21 & CSAH 82 in Prior Lake. The site would create a new intersection at Majestic Lane with a new local Street A. The site will also complete Majestic Lane, connecting the two existing Majestic Lane Cul-de-sacs. CSAH 82 is a 4 lane divided and considered an “B” Minor Arterial in the City Transportation Plan. CSAH 21 is a 4 lane divided and considered an “A” Minor Arterial in the City Transportation Plan. Majestic Lane is classified as a local road in the city transportation plan. The proposed development will connect the existing Majestic Lane Cul-de-sacs, connecting the Executive Ponds subdivision with the Regal Crest subdivision. ANALYSIS Traffic Forecast The Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation Report, 6th Edition states that a single family home will generate 9.57 trips per day on average with 50% of the trips entering and 50% of the trips exiting the home, and that a residential townhouse will generate 5.86 trips per day on average with 50% of the trips entering and 50% of the trips exiting the home. The 20 new homes proposed on Street A in Majestic will generate approximately 192 trips per day. The 11 existing townhomes on Majestic Lane in Executive Ponds generate an estimated 65 trips per day. The 74 existing townhomes on Jeffers Pass NW from CSAH 21 to Fairway Heights Rd NW and Regal Pass in Regal Crest generate an estimated 434 trips per day. Road Capacity A local street such as Majestic Lane can physically accommodate several thousand vehicles per day, but this much traffic would impact the quality of life of the people living along the road. Transportation planners try to keep traffic volumes less than 1,000 vehicles per day on local streets in suburban subdivisions. Including the proposed Majestic Subdivision, it is estimated that Majestic lane and Jeffers Pass NW will not exceed 1000 trips per day in a full buildout scenario for the neighborhood. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS The Majestic development will have no significant impact on the adjacent roadway network. No mitigation measures are necessary to accommodate the traffic that will be generated by the Majestic development. 00-ENG-117318-SHEET-SITE 2.5PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 15OFMAJESTIC PRIOR LAKE, MN HUNTER HOMES, LLC. 7034 167TH CROSSING NW 3-21-18 JMM JMM/JDM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1.Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 45831 03-21-2018 John M. Molinaro RAMSEY, MN 55303 CITY PROJECT #DEV18-000XXX 00-ENG-117318-SHEET-EXCON 2.1EXISTING CONDITIONS c 15OFMAJESTIC PRIOR LAKE, MN HUNTER HOMES, LLC. 7034 167TH CROSSING NW 3-21-18 JMM JMM/JDM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1.Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS RAMSEY, MN 55303 I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota 42299 Peter J. Hawkinson 03-21-2018 CITY PROJECT #DEV18-000XXX 00-ENG-117318-SHEET-GRAD 3.1PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 15OFMAJESTIC PRIOR LAKE, MN HUNTER HOMES, LLC. 7034 167TH CROSSING NW 3-21-18 JMM JMM/JDM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1.Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 45831 03-21-2018 John M. Molinaro RAMSEY, MN 55303 CITY PROJECT #DEV18-000XXX 00-ENG-117318-SHEET-SSWR 5.1PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER & WATERMAIN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 15OFMAJESTIC PRIOR LAKE, MN HUNTER HOMES, LLC. 7034 167TH CROSSING NW 3-21-18 JMM JMM/JDM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1.Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 45831 03-21-2018 John M. Molinaro RAMSEY, MN 55303 CITY PROJECT #DEV18-000XXX 00-PLAN-117318-SHEET-LAND L1LANDSCAPE PLAN c OFMAJESTIC PRIOR LAKE, MN HUNTER HOMES, LLC. 7034 167TH CROSSING NW 3-21-18Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1.Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS RAMSEY, MN 55303 I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson CITY PROJECT #DEV18-000XXX TML TML 1 To: City of Prior Lake From: Kurt Manley Re: Majestic March 21, 2018 I am pleased to submit a preliminary plat for Majestic for review by the City of Prior Lake. The Property The property is located at the northwest corner of 154th Street and County Road 21. The gross area is 7 acres with about 1 acre of wetland. The property is surrounded by row townhomes to the north and west, County Road 21 to the East, and 154th Street to the south. The property is rolling with existing vegetation and two wetlands. There is currently a home on this property that directly accesses County Road 21. Zoning and Land Use The property is zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential (RLD) allowing for 0-4 units/acre. The neighborhood adjacent to the west and north is comprised of row townhomes. We are asking the City to allow us to complete this small remnant piece in keeping with the surrounding development but allowing us to build a detached product as opposed to an attached product. This request would remain in keeping with the intent of the comprehensive plan. PUD In order to build these single family homes, we would like to keep the zoning R-1 but ask for a PUD allowing smaller lots. We are requesting 50’ lot widths giving us 20 lots. This is about 3.3 units/acre in keeping with the comprehensive plan. As part of the PUD we will keep as many of the existing trees as we can along the east, north, and south and enhance that existing vegetation with new landscaping to ensure nice buffers along the perimeters. We will also be removing the existing driveway access on County 21. This development will finally provide the last piece of Majestic Lane that has been missing in order to provide more complete and desirable traffic circulation in this area. The Product This reduced lot width product is in high demand in the Twin Cities Metro and provides a type of life cycle housing that is attractive to multiple demographics. Rather than complete this area with townhomes similar to the adjacent neighborhoods, we are asking the City to allow us a PUD in order to build these high demand detached single family homes on 50’ wide lots. Please let me know if you have any questions and I look forward to working with the City of Prior Lake on what will be an attractive new addition to this area. Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com Memo Date: April 6, 2018 To: Community Development Department From: Nick Monserud, Assistant City Engineer Pete Young, Water Resources Engineer Subject: Majestic Preliminary Plat Plan Review (Project #DEV18-000002) The Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary plat plans for the subject project with a plan date of 3/21/2018. 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. City Project #DEV18-000002 should be shown on all plan sheets. 4. A digital copy of the plans in pdf format is required. 5. During construction it is expected that the residents at the end of the existing cul-de-sacs will be able to get to their driveways every evening at 7pm. Construction hours are 7am- 7pm Monday to Friday and 8am-5pm Saturday. Weekly updates and coordination with impacted home owners will need to take place during the connection of Majestic Lane. Plat 1. Please extend property lines for lots 5 & 9 in order to remove the portion of Outlot B between the lots. Provide D&U easements as necessary. 2. Please extend property lines for lots 1 & 6 in order to keep the proposed retaining walls on private property. 3. Provide a 50’ site triangle easement on lot 1 block 1. Nothing will be allowed to be planted other than grass in this easement. 4. Are Outlots A and B to be dedicated to the City or will they be maintained by an HOA? 5. Block 3 Lot 1 – please move the rear D&U easement past the swale shown on this property since it will take the drainage from lot 2 as well. 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/site plans that were submitted with the preliminary plat. 2. The angle of the connection of Street A to Majestic lane is concerning. Please show angles of this intersection for further review. 3. Please show horizontal curve data on sheet 6.5. 4. No Parking will likely be required on the new portion of Majestic Lane in order to allow for better visibility. 5. Plan sheet 4.3 shows plate 600 with a 30’ roadway while sheet 2.5 shows a 32’ roadway. Please revise plate 600 to show the required 32’ roadway. 6. Please show road and right-of-way widths for Majestic Lane on sheet 2.5 as well. 7. Please add a street light on the east property line of lot 5 block 2. Lighting in this development shall meet the City of Prior Lake street lighting policy. Street lights shall be the traditional style. 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. Sheet 5.1 – Please add valves on the north and south legs of the new Tee for the proposed Street A water main. 3. Sheet 5.1 – Please move the valve at the new connection point on the north end of Majestic Lane to the connection point. 4. Sheet 5.1 – Please add a note to lower the existing sanitary sewer rim and new elevation. 5. Hydrant spacing shall meet the spacing requirements of the Public Works Design Manual. (450’) 6. The connection to EX MH-B shall be 90 degrees or greater. Acute angles for sanitary sewer connections are not allowed. 7. Please show watermain pipe material and pipe class on the plans. Grading Plan 1. Remove retaining walls from Outlot A. Retaining walls shall be on private property and privately maintained. Extend lot lines and move walls as necessary. 2. There are several instances of grading outside of right-of-way and off of your property. Please revise grades to remain on your property or within the right-of-way or get construction easements from the neighboring property owners to allow grading. 3. Please add retaining wall elevations. 4. Block 3 lots 1, 2, 8 and 9 appear to have slopes steeper than 4:1. Please revise accordingly. Storm Sewer 1. Provide storm sewer design calculations. 2. Provide pipe type and class to plans. 3. FES-111 riprap should extend to the filtration basin in order to prevent erosion and future maintenance issues. 4. The pipe between FES-280 and FES-281 should be sloped toward the filtration basin. 5. There are a number of pipes that have slopes less than the minimum slope of 0.50% allowed. Please revise accordingly. 6. Contours on the plan show that Wetland 1 has an elevation of 926+/-. It is concerning that the proposed outlet to Wetland 1 is shown at 923.95. Please add extra detail to show how this wetland will remain hydrated and not be fully drained with the lower outlet elevation. Stormwater Management 1. Access must be provided for all stormwater infrastructure. Extend basin access along south side of Block 2, Lots 1-5. 2. The MN Stormwater Manual recommends Mix C or Mix D for filtration basins to limit phosphorus release. Please use Mix C (with 8% fines), detailed here: https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Design_criteria_for_bioretention 3. To promote infiltration, the underdrain should be perched above the bottom of the filtration basin. 4. Stormwater basin cross section should include filtration basin, not infiltration basin. 5. Include more detail for the draintile outlet of the filtration cell. 6. Verify that there is a 10’ aquatic bench below the NWL of the stormwater pond (show 1’ contours). 7. Detail Stormwater Management Calculations review will occur after updated plans are submitted. Wetlands 1. The wetland delineation was approved on 4/10/2014 and is valid for 5 years. A wetland replacement plan application is required for wetland impacts. Applicant must follow all Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) procedures and PWDM wetland requirements. 2. Provide MnRAM assessment when available and update Stormwater Management Calculations accordingly. 3. All wetland buffers within the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District must be at least 20’ wide (30’ average). A 20’ foundation setback and a 10’ no-grade zone are also required. Buffers may be located on private property as long as they are covered by a drainage and utility easement. The lot lines for Block 1, Lot 6 and Block 3, Lot 1 may be adjusted due to the retaining walls (see Grading, comment 1 above) and still meet wetland requirements. 4. Show locations of wetland buffer signs on the plans. Erosion and Sediment Control 1. Provide additional grading and erosion/sediment control details for the EOF at the low point of Street A. The EOF route will be very close to the stormwater basin access. Seeding plan (Sheet 3.2) calls for no planting on the basin access. 2. A SWPPP that meets the requirements of the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit must be prepared for this project. SWPPP must be reviewed and approved by the City before a grading permit will be issued. SWPPP items noted on sheets 3.2 and 4.1. Detail SWPPP review will occur after updated plans are submitted. 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 3-21-2018 and we have the following comments. General 1. Development Fees – The following development fees are to be collected prior to recording of any approved 2018 final plat application: Park Dedication of unit(s) at $3,750 per unit, Trunk Water ($7,217/net acre), Trunk Sanitary Sewer ($4,046/net acre), Trunk Storm Sewer ($3,713/net acre), Street Oversize ($6,549/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). 2. PUD Benefits – City sees the street connection of Majestic Lane, removal of the private driveway from Hwy 21 access, and additional landscaping proposed above the required amount are as PUD benefits. 3. Warranty Deeds – Submit draft warranty deeds for future public ownership Outlots with Final Plat application. Preliminary Plat/Site Plan 4. Impervious Surface – Lots 1-5, Block 3 are located in the shoreland overlay district. These lots would be applicable to the 30% maximum impervious surface requirement. 5. Remove “20 foot setback – street side” from R-1 lot detail on Site Plan. Building setbacks indicated on plan are 25 feet from side street. 6. PUD Zoning Modifications – In addition to other proposed public improvement modifications, the developer requests modifications to the typical R-1 zoning requirements in the following areas: a. Lot size – Min. proposed – 6,256 sq. ft., avg. proposed 8,534 sq. ft. Min. required (R-1) – 12,000 sq. ft. b. Lot width - Min. proposed – 50 feet, avg. proposed – 53 ft. Min. required – 86 ft. c. Side Setback – Min proposed – 5 feet, Min. required – 10 feet d. Front Setback – Min. proposed 25 feet, Min. required – 25 feet e. Rear Setback – Min proposed 25 feet, Min. required – 25 feet Date: April 16, 2018 To: Kurt Manley, Hunter Homes From: Jeff Matzke, Planner Subject: Majestic Preliminary Plat and PUD City Project #DEV18-000002 7. Setback Table – Indicate setback table on plans with proposed yard encroachment details (The City has done this for other PUD developments such as Jeffers Pond and it allows for more efficient building permit review process. Please consider all encroachments including A/C units, cantilevers, roof overhangs, window wells, etc.) Grading Plan 8. Retaining walls – Walls exceeding 4 feet in height will require a building permit application. Tree Preservation/Landscape Plan 9. Tree placement – On landscape plan/details plan, indicate note that placement of all trees shall be a minimum of 10 feet from front property lines within front yards. 10. Tree replacement formula – Total tree replacement inches as proposed is 125 inches. The total proposed inches on the landscape plan is 225 inches (extra 100 inches of trees are part of the PUD benefits). 11. Final tree locations – Tree locations may be subject to change depending on field construction of public/private utilities and maintenance access locations for ponding and utilities. SCOTT COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST · JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 (952) 496-8346 · Fax: (952) 496-8365 · www.scottcountymn.gov April 13, 2018 Jeff Matzke City of Prior Lake 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Majestic Preliminary Plat CH 21 and CH 82 Dear Jeff: We have reviewed the preliminary plat for Majestic and offer the following comments:  All access shall come from the local street/Majestic Lane. A requirement of the plat shall be no direct access is permitted to CH 21 or CH 82.  The plans do not show the existing driveway removal, including from CH 21. The plans shall be modified to reflect the driveway removal, driveway apron removal, mailbox removal, and fence relocation/gap closure along CH 21. The driveway removal shall require a County permit.  The minimum right-of-way along CH 21 shall be 75’ from centerline.  We shall require a minimum 15’ drainage and utility easement along CH 21 instead of the 10’ easement as shown.  No berming, ponding, landscaping, or signage shall be permitted in the County right of way.  Noise levels will increase over time as traffic levels increase on the County roadways. Noise attenuation for the new homes is the responsibility of the City and/or developer.  Any work within the County right-of-way shall require a County permit. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Craig Jenson Transportation Planner PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 Monday, April 23, 2018 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV18-000002 – 15420 Eagle Creek Avenue NE – Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Hunter Homes, LLC is requesting a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development application for a residential development project at 15420 Eagle Creek Avenue NE to subdivide 6.83 acres into 20 single Family Lots. The property is located north of CH85 (154th Street NW) and west of CH21 (Eagle Creek Avenue NE) off Majestic Lane NW in the R1-SD, Low Density Residential Shoreland District. PID: 259340020. Planner Matzke: Introduced the request regarding the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to recommend to the City Council to be known as Majestic and be developed as a 20 – lot residential subdivision. The subject site is located north of County Highway 82, west of County Highway 21, and east of Majestic Lane. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, development plans dated March 21, 2018, applicant narrative dated March 21, 2018, Engineering/Public Works Department Memorandum dated April 6, 2018, Community & Economic Development Department Memorandum dated April 16, 2018 and County Highway Department Memorandum dated April 13, 2018. Project Engineer Monserud: Explained the history of this area, listing the past interested Developers and their layouts for Regal Crest, Executive Ponds and the current Majestic Plat. He explained the reasons Majestic Lane had not been connected with the Regal Crest or Executive Ponds subdivisions, some of the benefits of connecting Majestic Lane between the two temporary cul-de-sacs, the development plan and concerns raised by neighborhood residents to City Staff. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg: Asked the grade of the connecting streets between the two cul-de-sacs. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied it is proposed at 9.5 percent. Kallberg: Asked is that a typical city street grade. Project Engineer Monserud: Responded there are many instances that are at that grade or steeper; it is not and unusual grade in Prior Lake. Kallberg: Questioned the installation of traffic calming devices to assist with speeding up the hill. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied it is an option, but maybe premature. He said the curve already serves as a traffic calming option. Kallberg: Commented on the current tree trimming and asked if it is in anticipation of this development. Planner Matzke: Replied it is something else going on; it is not anticipated with this development now. Tschetter: Asked what is the expected speed limit on this street. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied it will be 30 mph street. Tschetter: Asked if it is right-in/right-out on Majestic from County Road 82. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied yes, that is correct. Tschetter: Asked what street runs east and west and if that street is a right in, right out onto County Road 21. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied that street is Jeffers Path and yes, it is a right in, right out onto County Road 21. Tschetter: Asked if there is any way to project traffic volumes based on that type of a street configuration. Project Engineer Monserud: Responded no traffic study has been performed by him. He commented on the proposed street configurations being a benefit to the neighborhood and the fastest way to County Road 82 would always be County Road 21. Tschetter: Asked if the cul-de-sac is conforming to the 47-foot radius. Project Engineer Monserud: Responded yes. PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 Ringstad: Asked questions regarding the cost estimate, escrow, and responsibility of payment. Project Engineer Monserud: Explained the cost is covered by the developer and the escrow would be contributed toward the cost. Ringstad: Asked what the benefits are for additional tree amounts; would it be in inches or physical trees. Planner Matzke: Replied it would be 100 caliper inches of additional trees. Ringstad: Estimated to be about 40-50 trees. Planner Matzke: Responded yes correct, 40 to 50 trees. Fleming: Mentioned the 63 comments and questioned if the developer would have any issues with being able to satisfy these comments. Planner Matzke: Explained the comments are typical between preliminary and final plat process. He reassured they are not critical comments that would alter the design of the plat very much. Applicant Kurt Manley: Resides at 755 Diffley Road in Eagan. Said staff was very thorough in their report. He addressed the costs, introduced his partners and offered to be available to answer questions. Fleming: Commented on the concerns from residents and asked how the applicant has reacted to the resident concerns. Applicant Manley: Explained how concerns were addressed, mentioned the neighborhood meeting they held and that they encouraged the neighbors to attend the Planning Commission meeting and commented on the traffic report/conclusion they performed. Tschetter: Asked what the residents anticipation of preliminary disruption during the construction and connection of the two roads. Applicant Manley: Explained the process to minimize disruption, operate within the constraints per City Code, complete construction quickly and professionally and mentioned weekly meetings with residents. Tschetter: Asked if any adjustments or considerations to the plan were considered after the feedback from the community meeting. Applicant Manley: Explained how they are restrained to keep the latest plan and said adjustments had been already made. He commented on the grade change from 13.5 to 9.5 percent grade on Majestic Lane. Tschetter: Asked if the concerns they are reacting to are based around the development overall or primarily to the connection of streets. Applicant Manley: Replied the street connection were the bulk of the comments at the neighborhood meeting. He said there were some additional questions regarding product and builders. Ringstad: Asked what is the type of product, the builder, footprint and price points. Applicant Manley: Explained the potential builders, type of homes, how many lots and said there will be no age restrictions. Ringstad: Questioned the price points; cost of lots and total package for the end users. Applicant Manley: Replied under $500,000. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AT 6:33 P.M ON ITEM 4A. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Ringstad, Kallberg and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Larry Arends: Resides at 3790 Majestic Lane. Questioned how many substandard turnarounds were approved in the new developments and is the 47 feet for turnarounds standard. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied no substandard turnarounds were approved and said are all turnarounds 47 feet. Arends: Commented on the lower cul-de-sac, upper cul-de-sac, thru street signs, and the slope on the hill. He asked where else does Prior Lake have a 9.5 percent slope over the same length. Fleming: Reiterated what has been said on how many 9.5 percent slopes are in Prior Lake, that a 9.5 percent grade is not atypical and stated there are many of examples. PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 Project Engineer Monserud: Explained there are several of these types of grade percentages in town; including up to 15 percent. He explained the roads that were at this or similar percentages. Arends: Questioned the length versus the grade and asked the Commissioners to visit the site. He suggested options for the cul-de-sacs. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied he was unsure of the length of other grades throughout Prior Lake and specified the bottom cul-de-sac size. Fleming: Mentioned all five Commissioners did travel to the site and look at the property. Arends: Asked if the Commissioners felt if it was a short drop off. Fleming: Said he does not necessarily agree. Arends: Suggested thinking about stopping at 30 mph when someone is backing out of their driveway. Fleming: Mentioned the reasoning for Planning Commission Meetings was to gather comments. James Hubbs: Resides at 15316 Jeffers Pass NW. Commented on the 500 radius for getting notification letters, traffic concerns such as: stop sign on Majestic Lane and Jeffers Pass, speeding, blind curves, through traffic, right turns, stopping along Jeffers Pass. He asked if the utilities would be underground. Fleming: Replied it is his assumption that utilities would be underground. Project Engineer Monserud: Responded it is a city requirement that utilities get buried. Hubbs: Asked about the relocation of fire hydrants on Majestic Lane. Project Engineer Monserud: Explained the watermain connection and the hydrant replacements. Hubbs: Said his primary concern is the new street and the street going through. Steve Weisser: Resides at 3854 Majestic Lane NW. Commented on the meeting with the developer, the cul-de-sac being a done deal, better traffic flow, excess traffic through neighborhood, specs on the cul-de-sac, driveway length and safety issues. Fleming: Replied this is never a done deal, that is why we have Planning Commission meetings. Rod Glaesman: Resides at 3778 Majestic Lane NW. Asked for clarification on how adding more vehicles to Jeffers Pass is a benefit. Planner Matzke: Explained the purpose of a PUD and the PUD benefits for the community as a whole, rather than a neighborhood benefit. Glaesman: Commented on the two existing exits, U-turns on busy streets, slope of the road, waiting on problems before addressing them, speed limits, traffic controls, and traffic volume on 21 and 82. Fleming: Asked when the appropriate time for a comprehensive traffic study would be recommended. Planner Matzke: Explained when a traffic study is generally needed and stated the Planning Commissioners could recommend one; however, it is not typically done for projects of this scale. He commented on the local traffic study that was prepared by the developers engineer. Glaesman: Reiterated a question made earlier regarding how to control having to make the U-turns. Fleming: Stated this is a step taken as the process evolves. He mentioned he would like to have a condition that a comprehensive traffic study be explored; taking in to consideration that we are reviewing a number of homes that is less than the typical standards by 800 or more and doing so to responded to Mr. Glaesman’s question. Judith Burman: Resides at 3852 Majestic Lane NW. Shared concerns of not being happy regarding the proposed changes, checking with police regarding traffic/speeding issues, speed traps, losing contracts on the sale of her house due to the through street, Scott County real estate and signs at the end of the cul-de-sac. David MacLeod: Resides at 15314 Jeffers Pass NW. Shared comments on the advantages of the through street, concerns of the distance of the grade, the comments made by staff, assessments and the consideration of townhomes rather than single family. Nancy Berg: Residing at 3856 Majestic Lane NW. Commented on location of her home, grade, backing out of driveway, curve and the through street to making access to Mystic Lake. Chad Lemair: Resides at 16345 Stemmer Ridge Rd NW. He commented on property having constraints, keeping an open mind, speed signs, future development, adding homes, taxes, doing due-diligence with the comprehensive plans, and this would be a win-win for residents and City. He gave some examples with his own neighborhood going through a street connection project and stated it is a good addition to the neighborhood. PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 Becky Glaesman: Residing at 3778 Majestic Lane. Stated she can appreciate the comments given by Mr. Lemair to keep an open mind. She shared the concerns of the roads and the issues with U-turns on 82 to get onto 21. She suggested working together to figure this out. Don Morrison: Resides at 3798 Majestic Lane NW. Commented on the knowing the development was going to be there someday, traffic and asked what will happen to the trees on the hilltop. He shared concerns of the road and asked for an overlay for the two cul-de-sacs to examine location of driveways. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:10 P.M. ON ITEM 4A. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Ringstad, Kallberg and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Commissioners Comments: Kallberg: Stated there are many issues here. He shared concerns with speed limits, U-turns, stop lights, entering downtown, elevation, controlling speed, traffic movements, site lines, backing out of driveways, cul-de-sacs, private property and he reiterated some of the comments made by neighbors. He verified the size of cul-de-sac radius versus diameter and stated he is unsure of his decision at this moment. Tieman: Said he had drove through this area and with hearing the neighborhood concerns he is struggling with the advantages of this through street for Majestic. He suggested some solutions to the through street that would get the benefits without sending more traffic through the neighborhood. He stated he does agree with the residents and has a problem supporting this. Tschetter: Stated he is equally vexed by this proposal. He said he sees a lot of tradeoffs that are being considered as well as a lot of benefits and merits on both sides. He commented on the agreement for the need and opportunity to develop the property; however, the focus of the discussion is on the roads. He asked Staff, is it possible to build an elbow opposed to a cul-de-sac to connect street A; basically, extending that cul-de-sac into the new development. Project Engineer Monserud: Asked for clarification Tschetter: explained there is a nonconforming cul-de-sac right now on lower Majestic Lane; if that became a 90 degree turn into the development; is that an acceptable option. Project Engineer Monserud: Explained the problem is, the road is too long of a dead-end street for our city standards. Tschetter: Said so a different type of variance but it would be an option. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied Staff would not be in support of that variance. Tschetter: Explained his reasoning for his prior questions. He said he heard both sides of the discussion around U-turns, but also heard that this opens a connection to a neighborhood network of roads that takes you to stop lights and controlled intersections to enter the streets safely. He commented on overlooking significant cost benefits and safety benefits if we do not open this connection. He said as much as we have concerns with speed, grade, ice, and traffic control in the community network, it is also important how we control traffic and maintain safely in the county network and said there is a significant benefit here. He asked if there are traffic calming options being considered and gave an example of a stop sign at Jeffers Pass and Majestic; would there be a similar option on Majestic and Street A. Project Engineer Monserud: Stated a stop sign is not used for speed calming, rather assigning right - of-way and said if they could explore some of other traffic calming mechanisms if the Commissioners felt this to be a beneficial recommendation. Tschetter: Commented on understanding neighbor’s anxiety, the streets having sidewalks, traffic calming efforts needing to be considered for this development to move forward and speed monitoring systems. Ringstad: Listed the benefits that come to the city with the PUD and development in itself, the through street, elimination of the private driveway on 21 and the additional 100 calipers inches of trees. He explained the details of each benefit, stating the city is getting a little better than a marginal benefit by considering the approval of the PUD. He mentioned a comment made by a resident regarding building townhomes rather than single family and commented on traffic controls, main issue at hand, development approvals, what is being opposed tonight, traffic, road configurations, his visit to the site, U-turns, and a PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 traffic study. He stated in respect to the 20-unit planned unit development; he does support with regards to the road set up. He said he would like to hear a little bit more or see other ideas or options. Fleming: said he shares the concerns about how to integrate what is a great plan and this application does meet our PUD requirements from Section 1106 of our Code of Ordinance; however, doesn’t think we are completely there and feels we need more information. He commented on conversations and comfort levels from some residents and more information. He recommended/directed staff to have a plan/traffic study/feasibility report on the elbow, drainage and traffic calming and then if he had that information layered on or coupled with any modifications or creative thinking on behalf of Mr. Manley that could marry with that feasibility study, we would be in a better position to feel good about this regarding a denial or approval. He would like to propose to table this item until next meeting or the meeting after that (2-4 weeks from tonight). He offered to open this up to the Commissioners reactions on what was just shared. Tieman: Asked if we table this would the public hearing be closed. Fleming: said yes, the public hearing has been closed. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOLLOWING THIS MEETING. Ringstad: Stated regardless of the cul-de-sac or through street, he would like some additional information, as he sees valid points on both. He commented on the development itself not being opposed besides drainage and he is reassured by staff in past developments on that subject. He mentioned more information regarding road configuration. Tschetter: Asked for clarification based on if the traffic concerns were normally addressed in the PUD preliminary discussions. He commented on traffic concerns are an on-going discussion in all our neighborhoods and gave an example of Mushtown Road. He said he felt they are separate items from the PUD. Project Engineer Monserud: Said as you allotted to; yes, traffic safety is a moving target in perpetuity throughout the community. He commented on the studies, reviews and the reason why we have a traffic safety committee Tschetter: Stated with that clarification he is trying to separate that this is two different discussions. He explained the two-different discussion taking place; merits and the five criteria and traffic. He stated he didn’t feel this is the proper forum for traffic. Fleming: Replied that it is an analysis or a calculus of distance of the two discreet issues. He explained how he would feel more comfortable versus how he feels now about this situation. He therefore, doesn’t feel comfortable of unsettled questions regarding traffic concerns and feels it would impact the value of the nine conditions. City Engineer Wedel: Stated he respects the line of discussion this evening and sending this back for further study; however, there was a tremendous amount of study that went into the plan to get it to where it is today. He stated there will not be a different recommendation regarding street connection if this is tabled tonight and returned to a future Planning Commission meeting. He explained the reasoning why street connection is important from a staff’s perspective and the opportunity of having versus not having a cul-de-sac. He commented on the consideration and steps taken prior to decision of a cul-de-sac changing into a through street including street grade, transition, not impeding anyone’s home or driveway, safety, stopping sight distances, traffic speeds, volumes of cars and stated if there was a safety issue, they would not recommend approval of the plan. He felt offended with the insinuation the staff has not done the due-diligence on these matters. Fleming: Gave an example of his job and explained a similar situation that used the process of exhausted strategies in interventions. He said he doesn’t think anyone is purposely or intentionally trying to denigrate the staff; rather, that he would like to exhaust the creativity before a decision is made. He stated if in two to four weeks we feel it has been exhausted, then great; however, there still could be more options for us to consider. Tschetter: Asked if he could re-state the motion or if he could re-frame it, potentially. PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 Fleming: Replied the motion is to table the item to a future Planning Commission meeting and believes all the comments are noted regarding feasibility to traffic study including incorporating the elbow which was mentioned. Applicant Kurt Manely: Said he appreciates everything that has been said. He commented on the amount of time put into this project including working closely with staff and the desire for the connection of streets to be made. He said they based their entire plan, time and money on the direction of staff. He mentioned their contract is completed on May 1st and asked for a decision either way so this can move to the City Council. He stated comments made by their Engineering firm, fulfilling requirements by City Staff, meeting with the neighbors and encouraged neighbors to come to this meeting tonight. Tschetter: Proposed a motion to approve this is contingent on the developer and City Staff putting together a proposed plan or approach to address traffic and safety in the course of development and work on that concurrently. Planner Matzke: Stated a point of order on more discussion can be made; however, since there is one motion on the table right now, that motion would have to be acted on whether approved or denied and a new motion brought forward as a point of order for clarification through that. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOLLOWING THIS MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Ringstad, and Kallberg. Nays by Tieman and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Monday, May 14, 2018 5. Old Business: A. PDEV18-000002 – 15420 Eagle Creek Avenue NE – Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) CONTINUED FROM APRIL 23, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – Hunter Homes, LLC is requesting a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development application for a residential development project at 15420 Eagle Creek Avenue NE to subdivide 6.83 acres into 20 single Family Lots. The property is located north of CH85 (154th Street NW) and west of CH21 (Eagle Creek Avenue NE) off Majestic Lane NW in the R1-SD, Low Density Residential Shoreland District. PID: 259340020. Planner Matzke: Stated the public hearing was closed at the last meeting; therefore any discussion with the applicant or others at tonight’s meeting would be at invitation only per Commissioner’s request for comment. He then re-introduced the request regarding the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to recommend to the City Council to be known as Majestic and be developed as a 20 – lot residential subdivision. The subject site is located north of County Highway 82, west of County Highway 21, and east of Majestic Lane. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, development plans dated March 21, 2018, applicant narrative dated March 21, 2018, Engineering/Public Works Department Memorandum dated April 6, 2018, Community & Economic Development Department Memorandum dated April 16, 2018 and County Highway Department Memorandum dated April 13, 2018. Project Engineer Monserud: Reviewed the history of the last meeting including development areas; Regal Crest plans, Executive Ponds and Majestic Plat (present). He pointed out how the existing cul-de- sacs were designed as temporary and not intended to be permanent. He explained the benefits for connection for Majestic Road, shared an overview of the plat for Majestic and mentioned comments that were received from residents at the April 23, 2018 public hearing and addressed each comment individually. PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 Planner Matzke: Reiterated the status of the Public Hearing being closed at the last meeting and explained how commentary could continue for the applicant or staff per the Commissioner’s request. Commissioners Comments: Fleming: Commented on the cost benefit of the cul-de-sac becoming a through road especially with snow plow savings. He asked what the fiscal savings would be to the city with respect to snow plowing. City Engineer Wedel: Stated he talked to public works staff and they explained to City Engineer Wedel the safety concerns, time and cost it takes to plow these two cul-de-sacs. Mr. Wedel provided an estimate of the additional cost to maintain the temporary cul-de-sacs over the years. Ringstad: Asked for clarification regarding the history of the cul-de-sacs being a through street. Planner Matzke: Mentioned the meeting minutes form 2001 and 2004, for both Regal Crest and Executive Ponds and stated the through street was discussed in both reports. He commented that the City obtained an escrow for future street connection costs with the plat of Executive Ponds. Tschetter: Stated the options and details presented today were needed on April 23, 2018 Meeting; therefore, he appreciates staff taking the time to go through them. He feels comfortable with answers to his questions and the clarification of issues and concerns to this proposal. Tieman: Asked the estimated amount of time it takes the fire department and police to go through these cul-de-sacs. City Engineer Wedel: Explained police and fire staff didn’t give a specific time; rather, both made statements regarding emergency responses with two points of access would assist in arriving to the area quicker than having cul-de-sacs. Kallberg: Asked what is the grade of Indian Ridge Circle SE. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied 9.5 to 10 percent grade; which is a similar grade as is being proposed today for this Majestic project. Kallberg: Commented on stopping sight distance and passing sight distance. He asked City Engineer Wedel to comment on these two items. City Engineer Wedel: Explained stopping sight distance is the concept of a driver based on the design speed of the road and having enough visual sight distance to see an object and be able to stop in time without hitting it. He said both stopping sight distance and passing sight distances were reviewed and based on the design of this street, we would meet stopping sight distance for 30 mph road. Kallberg: Asked what is the calculation for stopping sight distance. City Engineer Wedel: Replied it is about 200 feet. Kallberg: Stated most vehicles at 60 mph, full breaking stop at 160-170 feet on level ground. Fleming: Stated he would like to echo Commissioner Tschetter’s comments regarding not being fully ready to commit to an agreement at the last Planning Commission meeting. He commended Staff, the developer and the residents regarding the hallmark of this community with tough conversations, exhausted strategies, interventions and creativity. He stated he will be supporting this proposal, largely informed by tonight’s updates and information. He stated this project does meet city requirements and guidelines in Section 1106. He reiterated the pride of the collaboration and energy to where we arrived at. Tschetter: Addressed the audience members that we have been deliberating on this topic for two meetings now. He commented on spending time in the community, better understanding of the project, win-win projects, better awareness on discussions that were presented tonight, and being more informed with the updates. He believes there is better service with the connection, the proposed development is consistent with what our community wants, desirable products in the community and consistent with the neighboring streets. He noted Fairway Heights Road NW; stating that street has the same feel of what is being proposed for this connection. He commented on the best practices, safety concerns and commended staff and police on a job well done. He reiterated that we have explored options that make sense and the opportunity to develop this parcel and allows us to move forward. He said he will be supporting this project. Ringstad: Said he will be supporting; especially with the information about additional trips making right turns and U-turns. He feels this is the best option. He commented on the cul-de-sacs being temporary as they don’t meet city’s requirements and said the connection makes a lot of sense due to safety, cost, PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 and the additional right hand turns on to County Road 82; therefore, he will be in support of this agenda item tonight. Tieman: Stated looking through this PUD, he keeps coming back to the criteria used for PUD’s; one of those is create a sense of place and provide more interaction among people. He said this project potentially does provide more space and interaction, however, he feels this existing neighborhood will be affected and they don’t want this road to go through. He is opposed to this item. Kallberg: Stated staff has been very diligent in exploring all the issues and alternatives. He reiterated comparisons to Indian Ridge Circle and commented on the de-icing in the winter months. He said it is a good use of the property, it does eliminate the hazardous private driveway entrance from the right turn lane southbound on County Road 21. He stated he will support this project. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MAJESTIC SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING 15420 EAGLE CREEK AVENUE NE. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Ringstad and Tschetter. Nay by Tieman. The Motion carried.