HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 25, 2005
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JULY 25,2005
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda:
4. Public Hearings:
A. #EP 05-110 Deerfield Development is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to
allow two multiple family buildings in the R-4 use district. This property is
located south and west ofCSAH 21, east ofCSAH 87, and south of Cottonwood
Lane along Adelmann.
B. #EP 05-175 Consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a
public service structure located on the south side of Wilds Parkway.
6.
Old Business:
None
7. New Business:
A. #EP 05-178 Coen and Partners will present a concept for a Planned Unit
Development creating 35 single family homes, 54 twinhome units and 36 triplex
units including amenities. This property is located south of County Road 42,
west ofFerndale Avenue, east of Rolling Oaks Circle bordering Prior Lake on the
south.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:I05 FILESI05 PLAN COMMISSIONl05 AGENDASIAG072505.DOC
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 25, 2005
1. Call to Order:
Commissioner Lemke called the July 25,2005, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore,
Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Billington
Lemke
Perez
Ringstad
Stamson
* Stamson arrived at 6:37 p.m.
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent*
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the July 11,2005, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4.
Consent:
None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Lemke read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. #EP 05-110 Deerfield Development is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to
allow two multiple family buildings in the R-4 use district. This property is located
south and west of CSAH 21, east of CSAH 87, and south of Cottonwood Lane along
Adelmann.
Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated July 25,2005,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Eagle Creek Development has filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
allow two 54-unit multiple family dwellings on the property located south of CSAH
21/Cottonwood Lane, east ofFish Point Road, west of Adelmann StreetJRevere Way, and
north of Deerfield Drive. The property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential) and is
guided R-HD (Urban High Density) on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map.
Multiple family dwellings require a CUP within the R-4 Zoning District. The total site is
4.15 acres.
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MN072505.doc
1
Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 2005
Some information was received just before the meeting and is not in the planning report.
Staff recommends approval of the CUP with the following conditions:
1. Submit an irrigation plan.
2. Revise the photometric lighting plan to show light spill to the property boundary.
3. The applicant must revise the plans to show that a ground floor area of .25 is not
exceeded.
4. The applicant must receive a building permit prior to any construction on the site.
5. The landscaping plan will need to be revised to meet the minimum tree perimeter
requirements.
6. The applicant will need to provide elevations for the building that detail the
percentage of exterior materials being utilized.
7. The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County no later than
60 days after approval.
8. The applicant must submit a sign permit for a sign permit prior to construction of the
proposed sign.
9. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit revised plans reflecting
changes and conditions as indicated in the staff report.
Comments from the public:
Scott Kilau, 5431 Fawn Court, stated his concerns are with the building height and the
setbacks. He felt the outer edge of the condo units are literally next to the tree buffer and
asked for clarification.
Moore addressed the questions. The building height is below 35 feet. Kansier also
responded the grade offthe property line is 960/958 the closest unit will be at 955. Staff
did not know the elevation of the speaker's building.
Kansier addressed the existing tree line. Not all the existing trees on the site are
significant trees and will probably be removed. Kilau said the property is marked and it
looks like the building is right on the tree line. Moore went on to address the setbacks.
The public hearing was closed at 6:46 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. Questioned Condition #3 regarding ground floor area. Has that been met? Moore
responded it had.
. Agreed with staff's assessment. The area was rezoned a few years ago.
. Surprised we are looking at this project at this time. The developer said this
apartment complex would be built several years from now.
. Support with conditions.
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MN072505.doc
2
"'.M'_""~'_'~'~___ __,'.'m'.__~.,..' .~.'M ~"',"",'___'~+""O' ,_->,~__~_,_._.~.._,_.~.__'_.... ---'-'''-'~ ."..----
Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 2005
Billington:
. Will support if the builder complies with the regulations in place.
Lemke:
. Stafflaid out the criteria and how it's met. The project is below density.
. Support with conditions.
. Questioned #8 ofthe conditions regarding the Sign permit. Moore responded the
applicant just needed a sign permit.
Perez:
. Regarding the Findings for the CUP - supporting the affordable high quality
housing - we've looked at this and have proposed to reduce it in the
Comprehensive Plan, which I agree with. However, this looks appropriate.
. Likes the access point off Adelmann. There won't be any issues with traffic in
that area. It is a good transition.
. Approve.
Stamson:
. Agree with staff and the Commissioners that this is an appropriate use for the
parcel. It meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
. Support with staff's conditions.
Larry Poppler would like to add an additional condition for engineering comments.
Engineering has some comments remaining on this project.
MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO A MULTIPLE F AMIL Y DEVELOPMENT IN
THE R-4 ZONING DISTRICT WITH STAFF'S LISTED CONDITIONS INCLUDING
THE ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING CONDITION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the Appeal process.
B. #EP 05-175 Consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to
construct a public service structure located on the south side of Wilds Parkway.
Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated July 25,2005,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The City of Prior Lake has filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
allow the construction of a public service structure on the property located 17073
Adelmann Street SE. This site is zoned C-5 (Business Park). No variances are required
for this project.
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MN072505.doc
3
Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 2005
The site is the location of the City of Prior Lake maintenance facility. The proposed
improvements to the site include a 1,024 square foot pump house, which will house the
well pump and other mechanical and electrical equipment for City Wells #8 and #9. The
proposed building will be constructed to resemble the adjacent maintenance facility.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request, subject to the following
condition: Revise the landscaping plan to provide the required plantings along the south,
east and west boundaries.
Questions from Commissioners:
Lemke asked what sort of noise would be expected from a structure like this. Poppler
responded there would no noise from the structure; any noise would only be traffic.
Billington questioned the times of operation of sale on site. Poppler said they anticipate
some kind of card system. A contractor could come in late at night and get water.
Comments from the public:
There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed at 6:55 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Perez:
. Looks pretty straight forward. There shouldn't be any issues. Support with the
condition.
Lemke:
. We need water - in favor.
Billington:
. Reasonable and necessary use - support.
Ringstad and Stamson:
Agreed with staff and Commissioners' comments- all criteria are met.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 05-XX APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW A PUBLIC SERVICE STRUCTURE IN THE C-5 ZONING
DISTRCT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MN072505.doc
4
~,_,~,_______,~'>'~~~"<'_______'M_'_'_~~__'___'''''.'.__'.__-~~~--"----_._--"_.-~,---~-,--_.~_._.,,...__.~-.._--,.-._-,._--,,-_.~~_...
Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 2005
6.
Old Business:
None
7. New Business:
A. #EP 05-178 Coen and Partners will present a concept for a Planned Unit
Development creating 35 single family homes, 54 twinhome units and 36 triplex
units including amenities. This property is located south of County Road 42, west of
Ferndale Avenue, east of Rolling Oaks Circle bordering Prior Lake on the south.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 25,2005, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Coen and Partners, on behalf of Meadowlawn Development Corporation, LLC, has
submitted a concept plan for the Bolger property. This site is approximately 79 acres in
size, and is located on the south side ofCSAH 42, north of Prior Lake, and directly east
of Carriage Hills Parkway. This property is presently vacant land zoned R-1 SD and
designated as Low to Medium Density Residential on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map.
The developers have submitted a concept plan for the development of this showing the
development of 110 units. The plan includes a mixture of single family homes and
townhomes. The plan also includes a dock with 7 slips, and common open space. Staff
presented a few concerns for the Commissioners to be aware of.
The purpose of this item is to discuss the concept development ofthe site, and to allow
the Planning Commission to voice any particular concerns or ideas about the proposed
development. This discussion is for informational purposes only. This concept plan,
along with any Planning Commission comments will be forwarded to the City Council on
August 15,2005.
Stamson questioned the housing/driveways on collector streets. Kansier pointed out this
was not desirable as it is only a 20 foot road.
Stamson also questioned a stubbed street from Sand Pointe development. Kansier said it
looks like the park.
Lemke questioned if there were any parks on the west side of the proposed development.
Kansier pointed out Knob Hill's park.
Shane Coen of Coen and Partners presented a power point overview of their proposed
proj ect.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Billington asked how many acres were wetlands. Coen responded "6 acres".
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MN072505.doc
5
V'.m".,."_k',_~,w_____~""~_______"_,,,,,>~,,,,,._ .._",,_.~..,_,___________,_._..~.".__~_.r~."__m_~_'___"~~~~'"_._~-~~.~--".."'--".~...~.._..~.,~._.",,
Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 2005
Billington questioned Coen regarding the road width concerns of staff. Coen spoke of a
study conducted showing wider road widths and speeding indicating there is a
compromise. He felt Prior Lake has wide street widths compared to most of Minnesota.
Many cities recommend 26 foot wide streets. Coen suggested 24 foot street widths with
sidewalks.
Billington spoke on parking concerns. Kansier felt the parking would be tight with buses,
delivery and utility trucks etc. would have a hard time maneuvering.
Coen felt the trends from years ago were wide and now the trend is to reduce.
Perez brought up staff's concern - Carriage Hills is a collector street and that's been
planned for this area. Not sure this is going to work in this situation. Coen explained his
research and recommendations of narrow roads and landscaping. Said he is not opposed
to making the street "pedestrian".
Lemke asked how they would change Carriage Hills as a 4-1ane road but how do you
change to a narrow road? It would be a choke point going down to one lane in each
direction. How is that going to affect safety?
Stamson said he appreciates what Coen is trying to do but there is not enough roadway to
accomplish it. It would be one thing if you were coming in from one end and had another
half mile to work with. Coen responded they would work with City. They want the
neighbors to use the road and trails. It's not a private trail system. Is it a good place for a
pedestrian crossing? Maybe add stop sign. We would work with staff to come up with an
appropriate way to do that. Coen believes in 15 years the City would narrow the road.
Ringstad said his concern is for consistency and explained potential problems with
Carriage Hills and the traffic. Doesn't like the idea of choking the traffic down. It's not
consistent with the rest ofthe streets. There will be a lot of traffic on this road. Coen said
he did not understand why most of the traffic is being collected on this road.
Kansier explained the City's plan and "collecting"streets. In terms of the width, a PUD
provides the City with flexibility. Staff looks at what a street is going to be used for and
the public benefit in relaxing the city standards. Coen felt the public benefit would be
another way of preservation. It is a "whole" feeling they are trying to create. He did not
feel it would be a problem, acknowledging there should be consistency.
Stamson explained how he felt Carriage Hills Road would be a cut-through road. The
idea is valid to reduce the road width and stop the traffic and speed, but questioned how it
would be accomplished. Stamson suggested the developer try to provide a desirable
connection. The key is transition. The developer will to have to address how they plan
to do that and how it's going to work.
Coen noted the entry road is being recommended at 38 or 42 feet. Kansier responded the
standard width is 36.
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MN072505.doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 2005
Coen said they are only proposing private streets because they do not want 32 to 36 foot
width.
Lemke asked if they considered a roundabout to slow traffic down. Coen responded
there are many ways to slow down traffic.
Lemke questioned the large group of trees that need to be removed. Coen said they do not
create building pads - they site each house onto the lot.
Coen said multiple developers approached the land owners however, they did not want to
have such a high density. The land owners would like to retain the farm field and small
town feel.
Perez:
. Likes the mixed development and open space.
Billington:
. This can be beautiful development if the issues can be worked out with staff.
Kansier explained mixed use developments and a comprehensive amendment to change a
portion ofthe land to commercial. Staff would look at the McComb Study which
stressed not having commercial cross the County Road 42 frontage.
Lemke said he liked the idea of not having curb and gutter and the piping of water. Coen
said the soils in Prior Lake do not perkvery well for that. They actually designed the
system for the worst case scenario. The engineers feel we will have better conditions.
Coen said they would love to eliminate curb and gutter. Not sure how to go forward
before the City Council meeting the 15th.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The August 8th, 2005 Planning Commission meeting is cancelled.
Kansier gave a brief overview of the City Hall departments moving into the Fire Station
and Maintenance building.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MN072505.doc
7
PUBLIC HEARING
y the Planning Commission
'lr -
I' c::7'-:) \ ',)
The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to
all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to
speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new
information.
Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter.
Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible
except under rare occasions.
The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter.
Thank you.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
~~. W"'-~ PVcMJ!<-.-L .
L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP .doc
".'_ .....~_"__._.~~ d~~~~_,"_^_~''''~'''_'____'''_.' _.__"~..~._.~_.~~~_.,_.._.___o.,__"_~.".,_~.~....._,.~ __._ _,~.__._..'''___'__''''',_~ .. -~-,._.._._~-~..".~~_._".._-"---,,--~._~~---_._._,._,--~.~..~-_..,---,--~_.----,--