Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 12, 2005 Maintenance Center 17073 Adelmann Street S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 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: A. #05-209 Gregory Schweich - Variance Resolution. 5. Public Hearings: A. #05-219 Alexander Design Group representing Gerard Hughes is requesting a variance from the minimum bluff setback for the property located at 5724 Fairlawn Shores Trail. B. #EP05-213 & 213 Giles Properties, Inc., have submitted a preliminary plat and planned unit development application for a development to be known as Hickory Shores. The development proposes 80 single family homes and 38 townhomes. This is formally the Clarence O'Brien property located south ofMN TH 13, west ofCSAH 23, east of Sunray Boulevard, and north of Rice Lake. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:\OS FlLESIOS PLAN COMMISSION\OS AGENDAS\AG12120S.rMM1W. cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.440.9675 I Fax 952.440.9678 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28,2005 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the November 28, 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, Planner Jeff Matzke, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Present Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the November 14,2005, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None. 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. #05-214 Dennis Perrier is asking for consideration for a detached accessory structure to be located on a portion of the lot which is separated from the principal structure by a private roadway. This property is located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle. Planner Jeff Matzke presented the planning report dated November 28,2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Dennis Perrier is proposing to place a detached garage on the portion of his lot that is separated from the principal structure by Inguadona Beach Circle, a private roadway. According to Section 1101.501 (3d) in the General Provisions of the Zoning Code the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the request upon receipt of an application. The proposed structure is located on Tract B, south of Inguadona Beach Circle across from Mr. Perrier's house at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle. L:lOs FILESIOs PLAN COMMISSION\Os MINUTESIMNI1280s.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2005 The location ofthe structure upon the lot meets all setbacks requirements. The property owner plans to use the garage for hobby, motorcycle, and boat storage purposes. The garage will not be the primary garage for storage of daily used vehicles. The primary garage for daily used vehicles is the existing garage attached to the house across the street. Because of the minimal impact upon the access area to the garage and impervious surface limitations concrete treads of 3 feet in width are proposed for access to the structure. The Planning staff has determined all setbacks have been met for the proposed site plan. Staff also deems the structure is architecturally compatible with the surrounding properties; therefore, based upon their findings, staff recommended approval of this site plan. Stamson questioned the impervious surface. Matzke eXplained the impervious surface calculation is under 30%. Comments from the Public: Applicant Dennis Perrier, 16502 Inguadona Beach, briefly explained a change on the plan by relocating the garage door to the east wall. There were no other comments and the hearing was closed at 6:37 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . Agree with staff. Architecturally it fits with the neighborhood. Support. Billington: . Meets zoning criteria. Given the layout and what it is used for I am going to support. Lemke: . It fits in architecturally and building material wise. Supports. Perez: . Questioned ifthe change proposed by Mr. Perrier would affect the agenda item. Matzke responded it would not. Staff may review it one more time before the building permit. . Fine with the design and location. Support. Stamson: . Agreed with staff and Commissioners. The design is appropriate. It is nice looking structure. . I do not see any problems that it would create. Support. L:lOs FILES\Os PLAN COMMISSIONlOs MINUTESIMNI I 280S.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2005 MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 05-23PC APPROVING THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. #05-217 Roger and Susan Ferguson are requesting variances to the minimum front yard setback and minimum road access elevation in the flood plain for the property located at 4500 Lords Street. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the planning report dated November 28, 2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Roger and Susan Ferguson are requesting variances to construct a new single family dwelling on the on the property located at 4500 Lords Street. The new structure will replace an existing single family home. The applicant is proposing to construct a single story, ranch style house, with a 3-car garage. The house is 102' long and 87' deep along the west side. The floor area of the house includes 3,263 square feet, and the garage includes 986 square feet. To construct the home the following variances are required: 1. A 2.25 foot elevation variance from the required minimum of a vehicular access of not more than 2 feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation within the flood plain (Section 1105.402 (4)). 2. A 20 foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback (Section 11 02.405 (3)). 3. A 6.17 foot variance from the required side yard setback for a wall exceeding 50' in length (Section 1102.405 (6)). The property is zoned R-1SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland District). The existing lot is unplatted and included a 25' wide roadway easement across the southerly end of the lot. This is the road right-of-way for Lords Street. The existing house on this lot was built in 1962, with a deck and ramp addition in 1988. The lot in question, according to the Impervious Surface Calculation Worksheet, is 25,258 square feet in area, with approximately 284' feet of frontage at the front lot line and approximately 280' feet of frontage at the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW). The lot area measurement does not appear to include the road easement, but this must be verified by the surveyor. The lot does not include any bluff, but it is located within the flood plain. Any new construction on the site must be elevated at least l' above the 100 year flood elevation (908.9' MSL). The application has no control over the road elevation; therefore the strict application of this requirement constitutes a hardship. For this reason, the staff would recommend approval of this variance, subject to the condition the applicant provide an emergency evacuation plan L:IOs FILESIOs PLAN COMMISSIONIOs MINUTESIMNl1280s.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2005 The strict application of the front and side yard setbacks, however, does not create an undue hardship. Rather, it is the proposed design of the single family dwelling which creates the need for variances. A single family home with a comparable area but a different style can be constructed on the lot without the need for these variances. Based upon the findings in their report, staff recommended denial of the setback variances requested. Billington asked if there are other similar (elevation) situations in the area. Kansier explained this happens in older developed areas of the town i.e. Beach Street, Watzl'slRed Oaks, Shady Beach. Comments from the Public: Applicant Roger Ferguson, 4500 Lord Street, said he and his wife Susie have been working with the City on this project for 18 months. His house is two-levels and use the lower level for storage. It is also located in flood plain. Ferguson felt they are restricted on rebuilding and explained the 50% value regulation. He does not feel the road would ever be moved to the exact easement due to the topography of the islands, therefore the easement is not relevant. The impact of moving the road would impact all neighbors. Ferguson explained the proposed home. He feels his new home would benefit the City, FEMA and his neighbors. He would like the easement changed to meet his needs as it would not be used by the existing road. Ferguson would then have the flexibility to use his lot to meet his needs. He was not aware of the side yard variance until he received the planning report and does not know his options. They will come up with a way to change the side yard setback eliminating the need for a variance. The neighbors have two-level homes built on hills. Ferguson felt he was restricted with building due to the flat lot in the flood plain. By building a third stall garage he will eliminate the need for additional storage. Ferguson presented pictures of the neighborhood and explained his options for the design for his home. He believes his requests are reasonable and all the hardships have been met. Billington questioned Ferguson if there were any conversations of the side yard setbacks. Ferguson responded there were conversations however, he did not know of the side yard variance request until he received the planning report. Kansier said she had only met with Mr. and Mrs. Ferguson a few days before they submitted the application and did not see the extra setback at that time. They talked about the road elevation, road and lake setbacks. Kansier said she found the setback on the survey review on the application. Billington questioned Ferguson ifhe was aware of the requirements. Ferguson stated he was aware of the easements from early on and understood all the flood plain regulations and ordinances. His understanding was to stay out of the easements. Their original plans showed the house next to the easements. It might have been a misunderstanding on their part or what the Fergusons were asking. They moved the house intentionally to the street to avoid a variance on the lake side. L:\Os FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSIONlOs MINUTESIMNl I 2805.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2005 There were no other comments and the hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Perez: . Questioned City Engineer Larry Poppler on the easements and reconstruction of the road. Poppler noted he has done a number of reconstruction projects in the City and many of them on the lake. Poppler stated they have in fact tried to center the roads in the easements. "Some places you can't do that. We won't know until we see a topographical survey of the entire area and find all the property pins and do a design." They have in fact had to fill into the lake to make a road work. "A lot of the roads are widened as well. It's hard to say at this time without the measurements of the street." Stamson: . Questioned if there is any reason the City wouldn't be able to center it. Poppler explained driveways also dictate where they put the road. "We can't make driveways any worse than they are if they are steep. The City will try to move the road and center it as much as they can in the easement. There is nothing to lead me to believe we can't at this time." Perez: . Questioned staff if there were any comments from the DNR. Kansier said she spoke to Pat Lynch (DNR hydrologist) regarding the elevation of the road. Lynch understood the situation and had no comments. . Agree with the first variance request and approve the road elevation variance. It is pretty straight forward. There have been other lots with this same situation. . I looked at the property today. Mr. Ferguson brings up some good points. However what Poppler is saying makes sense. . Glad Mr. Ferguson is trying to be a good neighbor but that is not part of the criteria for approving variances. There are several other two-story homes in the area. Do not see any other problems with the visibility. There are no other lots facing the Fergusons. . As far as the hardship findings with the last two variances, I do have to agree with staff that there is enough buildable area. . It does not meet the hardships. . Oppose the last two variances. Lemke: . Questioned staff regarding the easement, if the City knows the road is going to stay where it is, is there a process for changing the easement? Kansier said it is a different situation, because it's not a dedicated right-of-way or dedicated through a plat. It is an easement document on file. At some point down the road, when we know the exact location of the road and utilities, the applicant may ask the City Council to consider vacating a portion ofthe easement. L:\Os FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSIONIOs MlNUTESIMNI1280s.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2005 . Questioned if the 25 foot setback is common from the road. Kansier said it is 25 feet from the property boundary. The only other consideration may be from a private street. . Agreed to support the elevation road variance. . The variance criteria is designed for reasonable use of their property. We've used the definition of reasonable use for a single family two-car garage. Staff is right that something reasonable can be built without the setback variances. . Kansier explained the 10% side yard break setback. . The applicant did bring up some good points however; the hardships have not been met for the last two variances. Billington: . It is an interesting situation due to the lot configuration. I asked the applicant of his knowledge of the regulations before coming before us. It was obvious. The Commissioners are in a position of equitably applying the rules and regulations. The staff has done a responsible job of analyzing this. . The first variance regulation is acceptable. . The second and third requests are not met. We have to apply those strictly and there's a reason for a high standard here. . The applicant has to come forward and offer hardcore problems with the construction of the house. Staff acted responsibly enforcing the rules. . Will not support the 2 and 3rd request. Ringstad: . I was going down the same road as Commissioner Lemke with respect to a vacation. However if some point in time it may be determined there may not be a need for it. . We cannot handcuffthe City in what is going to happen with the road in the future. To ignore the easement is not something I am prepared to do. . Agree the first variance request is warranted through hardship. . The applicant does have reasonable use of his property. There is a building pad established. It may not fit this home but will fit a different design. . Voting against the other two variances. Stamson: . Agree with staff and fellow Commissioners on the requests. The road elevation is what road variances were designed for. It is out of the applicant's control. It is unique to the property and is necessary to have any use ofthe property. . Also agree with staff and Commissioners on the other two variances. There is reasonable use. . Ringstad said it well. There's no reason to handicap the City. The applicant feels the road has to be where it is. That's not the feeling we're getting from staff. There hasn't been any study to verify the applicant. . It is important to go back and look at the 20 foot variance from the front yard setback is to go back and look at the fact that the road is too low. Ifthe road is L:\05 FlLES\Os PLAN COMMISSIONlOs MlNUTESIMNlI280s.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2005 going to be rebuilt in the next few years we have to raise it and if we allow a house to be built 5 feet from the easement, you pretty much handicap yourself in the ability to do that because the house is sitting on the easement. It makes no sense to do that at this point until the road is built. . It still goes back to the lot size. There is sufficient space to build an adequately size house for the property. It doesn't meet the hardship criteria. . There is no reason the home needs to be over SO feet - that is strictly design. It is also important to note the lot is flat. . Support variance number one and deny the other two. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 05- 21PC APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING GRANTING A 2.25 FOOT ELEVATION VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED MINIMUM OF A VEHICULAR ACCESS OF NOT MORE THAN 2 FEET BELOW THE REGLATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 05-22PC DENYING A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND DENYING A 6.17 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A WALL EXCEEDING 50 FEET IN LENGTH. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Kansier explained the appeal process. C. #EP05-213 & 213 Giles Properties, Inc., have submitted a preliminary plat and planned unit development application for a development to be known as Hickory Shores. The development proposes 80 single family homes and 38 townhomes. This is formally the Clarence O'Brien property located south ofMN TH 13, west of CSAH 23, east of Sunray Boulevard, and north of Rice Lake. The applicant has requested this item be continued until the meeting on December 12, 2005. This time will allow the applicant to provide staff with additional information that was missing from the original submittal. The staff has sent a mailed notice of this delay to the owners of property within 500' of this site. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DECEMBER 12, 2005. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. L:\05 FILES\Os PLAN COMMISSIONl05 MlNUTESIMNI1280s.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2005 D. #05-209 Gregory Schweich is requesting variances from the sum of the side yard setback requirement and impervious surface coverage requirement to allow a garage addition to a single family home located at 6436 Conroy Street. Planner Jeff Matzke presented the planning report dated November 2S, 2005 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Gregory Schweich is requesting a variance to construct a garage addition to a single family dwelling on property located at 6436 Conroy Street. In order to construct the garage the following variances are required: 1. A 7.5 foot variance from the 20 ft. front yard setback required in the R-l district (Section 1102.405 (4)). 2. A 20.0% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface coverage allowed in the R-l district (Section 1104.306). 3. A 1.0 foot variance from the required 5.0 foot side yard setback for nonconforming lots of record (Section 1101.502(S)). The applicant is proposing to remove the existing shed on the east side of the property to allow for a garage addition to the existing I-car attached garage. The proposed garage addition will be 150.9 square feet in area. The lot area to an elevation of 904.0 feet (OHW) is 4,76S.9 square feet. The strict application ofthe front yard setback, side yard setback, and impervious surface coverage create hardships for the property owner to construct the reasonable use of a two- car garage on the property. The proposed changes to the existing conditions of the lot improve the current side yard setback and impervious coverage of the lot. Based upon their findings, staffrecommended approval of the three requested variances subject to the following conditions: 1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations. 3. The driveway shall be a maximum of 24 feet in width at the property line and meet the 5 foot side yard setback. 4. Impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 50.0 percent. 5. As requested by the DNR*, the keystone wall at the rear of the property shall be removed prior to the construction of the garage addition. L:\OS FILES\Os PLAN COMMISSION\05 MlNUTESIMNI1280s.doc S Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 2005 6. Show the removal of 100 square feet of concrete from the east side of the driveway on the certificate of survey submitted with the building permit application. *The DNR specified that ifthe variance were approved, a condition of approval should include the removal of the keystone retaining wall that exists below the 904 elevation line (prior to the garage addition construction). Stamson noted an impervious surface variance was not requested because it predates the ordinance. If a variance is granted for 50%, is it specific to the structure he is building or ifthe home is removed and the property owner wants to build a new house, would the impervious surface stay at 50% or would the current regulations apply? Kansier explained a complete tear down would have to meet current ordinances. The Resolution can be worded in a manner to meet the requirements. Stamson agreed. Ringstad questioned the significance of removing the retaining wall as requested by the DNR. Matzke responded the DNR stated the retaining wall was put in without permits and is nonconforming. Any work below the 904 elevation is under the DNR's regulations. There was a brief discussion on riprap. Comments from the Public: Applicant Gregory Schweich, said he appreciated staffs recommendation however he had a concern with condition #6 removing the retaining wall. Schweich noted the DNR's comments say "removal of the wall is unrelated" and felt it should not be part of the variance conditions. The wall is actually washing out. He does want the wall replaced and will work with the DNR. Schweich stated he would like more direction from the DNR. Billington questioned staff if the DNR was on the site. Kansier responded she spoke to Pat Lynch and felt he was on site. Ringstad said he somewhat sympathizes with Schweich on the condition. Does the DNR have the authority to make the condition? Kansier said they did. The reason it was a condition ofthe variance is because it would be impossible to get down to the lake with equipment once the addition was made. The DNR would like the wall in compliance. Kansier suggested staff reword the condition in the Resolution to bring the wall into compliance and staff will work with the DNR. Schweich also asked for clarification and would like to start remodeling the garage as soon as possible. He does not know when he can replace the wall. Kansier said staff can work with the applicant but he has to work with the DNR. Schweich agreed. L:\Os FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSIONlOs MlNUTESIMNI1280s.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 2005 There were no other comments and the hearing was closed at 7:56 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . Agreed with staff on the hardship criteria. Support the change in condition 5 however it is worded by staff. Billington: . Agreed with Lemke's comments. Support with the change in the condition as outlined. Ringstad: . This is no different - trust staff will put together wording that will be acceptable to the DNR and applicant. . Support the three variances. Perez: . With regard to the front yard setback. It stays the same. . Improvement with the impervious surface and side yard setback. . The driveway will conform to the code. . Agree with staffs Findings with the condition change. Support. Stamson: . The requests are reasonable given the shape of the lot. . Regarding the difficulty of the access. There should be some resolution to the wall before a building permit is issued for a couple of reasons. One: the difficulty in accessing the area. Two: the wall needs work anyway. Ifhe truly can't get back to do the work it would be a problem. It is the key that ties it to this application. . Generally when we say you have to fix it, as soon as the garage goes up, one forgets the rest of the work. . It has to be reworded there is some resolution before the building permit. Some holds must be in place. Perez requested a revised Resolution should come back to the Planning Commission. Kansier said they will put the applicant in touch with the DNR and keep the process movmg. The Commissioners agreed to condition the removal of the retaining wall as part of the variance. The DNR regulations must be satisfied. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, REQUESTING STAFF TO COME BACK WITH THE CHANGES TO RESOLUTION 05-23PC APPROVING THE L:\Os FILES\Os PLAN COMMISSIONlOs MINUTESIMNl I 280s.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2005 REQUESTED VARIANCES WITH CHANGES DISCUSSED AND DIRECT STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A REVISED RESOLUTION. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO ADD AN AMENDMENT STATING ANY FUTURE TEARDOWN MUST MEET CURRENT REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 6, Old Business: A. EP 05-116 & 117 Shepherd's Path Senior Housing, Inc. have submitted a preliminary plat and planned unit development application for a mix of senior housing, a YMCA facility, youth center, medical office/clinic, bank, park area, trails, and companion uses to the existing worship facility (meeting areas, daycare, retreat center, etc) on the 71.2 acre site. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the planning report dated November 28, 2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item on November 14, 2005. Following the close of the public hearing, the Commission discussed the project and continued the item to the November 28, 2005 meeting to allow the following: . Submittal of updated hydrology calculations. . Complete review and comments by the Engineering Department. . Staff recommendations. On Thursday, November 17,2005, the staff received additional information addressing the items listed above and offers the following comments/conditions: 1. The developer shall submit a Final Plat application within twelve (12) months of the Preliminary Plat approval. 2. At the time of Final Planned Unit Development submittal, the developer shall submit all necessary details as indicated in the November 14, 2005 staff report and as detailed in the City Code. 3. The Final Planned Unit Development submittal shall conform to the uses and structural elements approved as part of the Preliminary Planned Unit Development. 4. Address the following Engineering issues: General a) Show the City project # 05-116 on all plan sheets. b) The final plans should follow the requirements of the Public Works Design Manual. c) Plans are difficult to read, provide differing line types and weights. It may be easier to read if the grading plan and utility plans were separate sheets. Provide legend showing all line types and hatch used. L:IOs FILESIOs PLAN COMMISSIONIOs MINUTESIMNI I 280s.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2005 d) Before beginning work, the developer shall obtain all required regulatory agency permits and approvals, including those from the PLSL Watershed District, NPDES, and Scott County. e) Show all existing and proposed property lines and easements on the grading and utility plans. Grading Plan a) Provide top and bottom elevations for all retaining walls. Walls exceeding 4 feet shall be designed by an engineer, include a fence, and must have a building permit. b) The slopes of maintained areas must not be greater than 4:1. c) Show wetland buffer and buffer signage locations on the grading plans. Buffer strips shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide with an average width of 30 feet measured from the ordinary high water level. d) Provide existing and proposed NWL, HWL, and OHWL for all water bodies. e) Provide contact information for the person responsible for the erosion control on the proj ect. f) The erosion control measures shall be installed and inspected prior to any site grading. All trees to be saved must be protected by silt fence or construction fencing around the drip line of the tree to protect the root system. This fencing must be installed prior to any grading on the site. g) Add note to state that all silt fence must be installed by the contractor and inspected by the City prior to any site work. h) Easements are required for all grading beyond property limits. i) Show emergency overflow for all low points and water bodies. Show elevation of high points along emergency overflow routes. j) Provide existing contours 200 feet beyond property boundaries, in particular the eastern property boundary. k) Grades are shown converging on the west pond outlet structure. Please provide additional detail in this area. Hydrology and Storm Sewer a) Hydrological Model does not reflect current site hydrology, an updated model is required. A comprehensive review ofthe hydrology will be performed when the revised hydrological model is provided. b) Provide Rational Method calculations for all storm sewers. c) Dikes used to create rate control ponds or infiltration basins must at maximum use 4: 1 slopes and measure 10' wide at top. At minimum, a clay core should be designed in consideration of groundwater flow. If head difference between NWL of pond and downstream land exceeds 3 feet, soils data will be required in the area and dike design must address maintenance of pond water level and dike stability. d) Ponds and infiltration areas down stream of rate control ponds must be designed to safely pass the 100-year storm event. Provide Dr. Walker method calculations for all ponds. Utility Plan a) Final utility plan will be reviewed upon submittal of plans and profile sheets. b) CB-2 and CB-27 shall be environmental manholes with a 3' sump. LIOs FILESIOs PLAN COMMISSION\Os MINUTESIMNI1280s.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2005 c) Verify that all sanitary and storm sewer manholes are located outside the wheel paths. Change storm manholes to catch basins if needed. d) Provide additional detail where proposed sanitary manhole will be constructed on existing pipe. Additional notes should be added to the plans regarding City standards. e) Gate valves shall be located 5' from watermain connections. f) Hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet maximum for commercial developments. g) On new McKenna Road, show proposed watermain east of the sanitary sewer and storm sewer on the west side. The watermain connection should be east of the SMSC interconnecting at the north intersection. h) Show watermain from the existing McKenna to the east for the proposed roadway along the northern boundary Streets a) McKenna Road shall have a 9 ton design and meet MNDOT 30 MPH design. b) Per the minimum street width requirements, the proposed existing McKenna should be shown as a 32 foot wide curbed street. The intersection from the north- south portion and the east-west portion should be a tee intersection with stop SignS. c) Per the minimum street width requirements, the proposed east-west roadway off of existing McKenna should be a 32 foot wide street. d) The SMSC must provide right of way for the new McKenna roadway. The City is working with the SMSC on this right of way issue. Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat and PUD subject to the above conditions. Perez requested staff to point out the benefits of the Planned Unit Development. Moore responded the open space and preservation as well as a park and trail system. The plan provides all lifestyle housing. The overall density is 6.5% units per acre density which is consistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The maximum density is 30 units per acre. Moore also pointed out the extension of McKenna Road. The costs will be incurred by the applicant. The City will reimburse the applicant for the over-sizing for it which is very significant for the City. Billington mentioned traffic and pedestrian access and crosswalks. Moore responded staff has ongoing discussions with Scott County. Lemke noted there were discussions at the last meeting regarding pedestrian bridges. Billington responded he was thinking of connecting the projects - Jeffers, Shepherd's Path and perhaps the concept on County Roads 18 and 42. Comments from the Commissioners: L:IOs FILESIOs PLAN COMMISSIONlOs MINUTESIMNl I 280S.doc 13 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2005 Ringstad: . Looks like a tremendous project for the City with minimal impact on the wetlands. The trail system and variety of uses and buildings within the site are exactly what we are looking at in a PUD. . With the staff watching the building and grading for each particular site, I see no reason why this cannot move forward. Support. Bi1lington: . Is this going to be managed by a 50lC3 corporation owned and managed by the same organization? Kermit Mahlum with Shepherd ofthe Lake responded the senior housing will be a separate venture and joint venture with Presbyterian Homes and Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church. Stamson: . Questioned the soccer dome. Mahlum responded it would be privately owned. The case of the YMCA and Safe Haven will have long term land leases which would go back to the ownership of the Church at the end ofthe lease. The bank and medical clinic service-type businesses land would be sold to the respective businesses. . Mahlum also noted the under-road walkway would be in excess of $1 00,000. He would like to meet with project across the road to see if they would be interested in a joint venture. . Questioned the public utilities. Poppler said they would have to look at the design. The watermain and sewer could be a concern. Bi1lington: . Excellent project for the City. Lemke: . Agreed with the comments. One of the first visions on County Road 42 is going to be the open space and wetland. . Look forward as it progresses. . This project has 1/5th of the density allowed. It is a benefit to the City. . Win-win for everyone. Perez: . Excellent use of the land. . Staff spoke on the benefits to the City including the density. It is a quality project. Support. Stamson: . This is a showpiece development. The other part is that it is a big plus for the City with its resources and services. It is a big piece of community to add to the quality of Prior Lake. It well warrants the PUD process. Support. L:\Os FILES\Os PLAN COMMISSIONlOs MINUTESIMNI 1280s.doc 14 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 2005 MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS SHEPHERD'S PATH SUBJECT TO STAFF'S CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 7. New Business: None 8. Announcements and Correspondence: . Tentatively scheduled a joint workshop with City Council for February 6th. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8 :20 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:lOs FILESI05 PLAN COMMISSION\Os MINUTESIMNI I 280s.doc 15