Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & 2/27/06 Minutes Draft16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2006 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 2. 3. 4. 5. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Consent Agenda: Public Hearings: A. #EP 05-228 Tollefson Development has submitted a preliminary plat consisting of approximately 30 acres of land for the development of 51 single family dwellings and three outlots. This property is located south of TH 13 (just south of the Maple Glen 2nd development), west of Wedgewood Lane, and north of 180th Street. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. #EP 06-104 City Council is requesting a vacation of drainage and utility easement for property owned by Roger Ferguson at 4500 Lords Street. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING C O MMIS S I ONL~.GEN DAS'~AGO3130~,0k/' cityofpriorlake, corn Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2006 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the February 27, 2006, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Absent Lemke Present Perez Present Ringstad Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the February 13, 2006, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Heating Statement and opened the meeting. A. EP05-220 & 220 Manley Land Development, Donnay Homes, and Cardinal Development Group submitted an application for Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development to be known as Northwood Meadows for 136 single family residential homes on 34 acres. The site is located south of CSAH 82, north of Spring Lake Road/CSAH 12, west of Northwood Road, east of Howard Lake Road/Co. Rd 81, and in the vicinity of Hawk Ridge Rd. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 27, 2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Manley Land Development, Cardinal Development Group, and Donnay Homes have applied for approval of a development to be known as Northwood Meadows on the property located on the west side of Northwood Road, directly west of the Northwood Oaks development and east of Spring Lake Regional Park. The application includes a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and a Preliminary Plat. The proposal calls for a residential development consisting of 136 single family homes along with parks and trail on a total of 79 acres. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSIONhMINUTEShMN022706.doc 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 The developers are proposing to develop this site as a Planned Unit Development; this process allows the developers to submit a combined proposal developing lots smaller than the minimum lot area. In return, the development provides the following benefits to the City: · An additional 8.76 acres of parkland over the required 6.72 acre dedication. A cash contribution of $30,000 towards the park improvements. · Some additional tree preservation. The developer has submitted a conceptual plan for a conventional development of 106 lots. This plan does not include any parkland dedication. The proposed PUD creates an additional 30 lots with parkland dedication. The cost to the City to develop a neighborhood park of this type is $80,000 to $100,000. The City has funds programmed for 2008 for this park development. While the developer is proposing a cash contribution of $30,000, this amount will cover only a fraction of the City's costs. If the Planning Commission finds the PUD acceptable, the staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. A wetland mitigation plan must be approved prior to any grading on the site. 2. The plan must be revised to include an access to the park from Knoll Ridge Drive. 3. Revise the plans to address all of the Engineering comments in the memorandum from Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler dated January 5, 2006. All grading, hydrology and stormwater issues must be addressed prior to any grading on the site. 4. On the final PUD plan, clearly indicate which lots will be allowed a 7.5' side yard setback. 5. As part of the final PUD plan, provide a table which will enable staff to track the impervious surface on the site. Overall impervious surface may not exceed the percentages shown on the plans. 6. As part of the park development, the developer is responsible for grading, topsoil, turf establishment and construction of the trails to the specifications provided by the City. 7. The developer must submit a cash contribution for park development as part of the development contract. 8. Provide street names unique to the City street naming system for all streets. 9. The developer must submit a Letter of Credit in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of the required replacement trees. 10. The developer must provide a phasing plan for this development. Questions from the Commissioners: Perez: Usually there is a recommendation from the City. Kansier said the decision to make this a PUD. Commissioner Ringstad requested abstaining from the discussions and voting as he is connected with business to one of the partners. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSIONXMINUTES'uMN022706.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 Comments from the Public: Applicant Frank Blundetto representing Manley Brothers, with co-developers Donnay Homes and Cardinal Development were available to answer questions. John Uban, of DSU, Planning Consultant for the developers explained the design with some of the following comments: · The site has over 30 acres of open space, parks and trails. · The County is going to update their (adjoining) park plan. In that process they would like to swap some land which would benefit the City. · Everyone from the adjacent neighborhoods will be able to use the parks and trails. Instead of a cash contribution, they will install some of the first park equipment. It is a feature that everyone who moves into the neighborhood should have from day one. They think they can stretch that dollar a little further by putting the equipment in themselves. · There is a variety of different properties and sizes with three different developers all coordinating the project. Bill Keegan, 3137 Shady Cove Point, said there have been a lot of studies done for this project but one of his concerns is for the additional traffic on Fremont Avenue and Northwood Road as the capacity will double with this development. How is the access on County Road 82 going to be able to handle the additional traffic? Kansier said the County has control of the intersection. The design of the intersection is designed on the projected ultimate traffic. Kansier said the County Road 82 project is scheduled later this year. If residents have questions, they can contact the City and we will give the appropriate numbers to call. Poppler believed it was planned for a three-quarters intersection. It has to meet certain criteria to get a signal. Stamson pointed out the County, not the City, is in control of the access. Kansier explained the County and City have been working on the project for a few years and a lot of thought have gone into the design. Jim Weninger, 2591 Spring Lake Road, Shakopee, questioned the wetland mitigation and questioned if the Watershed reviews this project. Poppler responded the Watershed reviews the project similar to City staff. The wetlands themselves have to follow the Wetland Conservation Act. It goes to a technical evaluation panel where they decide whether it meets the Conservation Act or not. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSIONNMINUTEShMN022706.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 Weninger pointed out a lot of the runoff goes into Prior Lake and Spring Lake. His other concern would be for water management and quality. He also noted the lots are smaller than other residential areas. Kansier noted this is a PUD (Planned Unit Development) and explained the project densities. Stamson questioned the 20,000 square foot lots in the Arctic Lake Shoreland District. Kansier pointed out the 5 lots in the Shoreland District. Jim Manfred, 3032 Knollridge Drive, said he did not feel the proposed parking lot or trail access was necessary going in near his property. He would prefer a walking path. The streets are pretty wide and can accommodate the parking. Terrie Schrank, 2956 Hawk Ridge Road, sold their property to Manley Development. Schrank explained their idea when selling to the developer was to view Prior Lake, Spring Lake and the park and was wondering why there were no trails to the south of the development. Darren Dickenson, 3149 Shady Cove Point, questioned the City's ordinances for the cul- de-sac and if there were any variances required. Kansier explained the City ordinances and the area he is concemed about is not considered a cul-de-sac. Northwood Road is designed to handle the traffic. Under the PUD process there is no need for a variance. Jim Casey, 3049 Hawk Ridge Road, asked if it was possible to restore the wetland that was filled in from a previous owner instead of purchasing credits and moving it somewhere else. Poppler responded the developer had talked about putting in a rain garden in that area and did not know if that was still in the plans. Casey said it still fills in with water with heavy rain. Jerry Schrank, 2956 Hawk Ridge Road, requested the Planning Commission to require the developers to put in the additional trails to the south end of the development. Kelly Olson, 3060 Knollridge, said the park has a lot of accesses to it and sees no reason to add a parking lot for the trails and park. Todd Murr, 3022 Hawk Ridge Road, said he challenges the City's estimates as far as assuming the traffic is going to be 50/50 off Hawk Ridge Road. He would like the City to review the sidewalk extensions on Fremont and Northwood. Murr stated one of the cul- de-sacs is 5 feet over the easement. Murr also said when he did the assessment there would be quite a bit of grading to make it work and questioned who would be handling the expenses. Kansier said any costs incurred with the development of the road will be the developer's expense. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION~IVlINUTES~vlN022706.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 Poppler said one of the conditions is to remove the cul-de-sac. Bart Sheffield, 3061 Hawk Ridge, questioned the County not allowing access off the gravel road into the park. Kansier explained it is a private driveway. Sheffield said his other concern is the smaller lot sizes. All the traffic is going to go down Northwood Road onto Hawk Ridge and questioned if there was any other access. Kansier said there are no other options with the County Park and it is pretty limited. There were no more comments from the public and the hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: · Questioned the applicants about the lack of trails in the southwest portion of the development. Frank Blundetto responded they specifically put a sidewalk in to keep the flow of the southern part of the development. There is not as much area in the south to put in a trail - grading concerns. Initially they were told the County wanted to connect a trail but that is not going to work for them at this time. There have been a lot of discussions but the County would like to keep a controlled access. The developer would like to see it work. · Pretty familiar with the area and know the property quite well. In this case, there is an overall benefit to the City. · Ten acres of trees will be preserved. · Thirty plus acres of open space is not common even in a conventional development. · The active parkland requirements are exceeded. The developer is providing more than double the parkland. · Nowhere else except a PUD can a development preserve so much of the character of the land. · The PUD process is the right way to proceed. · In all aspects the density and tiers are well below the minimums. · Would like to see the trails to the south but there are a number of other trails provided. · Tend to agree with the neighbors on the trail parking lots. However I feel the streets will provide enough parking. Not convinced a parking lot is needed. · Support. Perez: · · · · Looked over the proposal and benefits and found the PUD process favorable. There are no issues with the tiers. The lot sizes are smaller but there are more tradeoffs. Regarding the traffic impact - the traffic coming in is still within the design capacities. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSIONhMINUTEShMN022706.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 · Agree with the parking spots - don't see a real need for a parking lot. Fine with removing that condition. · Share Lemke's concern with continuing the trail system to the south. Would like to see something happen but the developer does not have full control of the situation. · Recommend approval. Stamson: · Agree with fellow Commissioners. Overall, the development is attractive and appropriate for the property. · As far as the smaller lots- as Commissioner Lemke pointed out there is one acre of open space for each of the lots more than makes up for it. · The additional open space, parks, tree preservation and the amount of usable open space really does offset the smaller lot size and side yard setbacks. · Overall, I am in favor of it. · Same thoughts as everyone else on the parking lot - not a lot of traffic going through, but in this particular case there is enough on-street parking. I do agree there should be some access from the other side. · Agree with the Schranks with the trails on the south side however the grading is very steep. Ideally, the County would be able to work with us and run some trails in that area. With this particular piece of land there is almost no way to do it. Great idea but don't think it is possible. · Overall, approve as staff recommends omitting the parking lot condition. · The $30,000 cash contribution should be left up to the City Council. Kansier questioned Mr. Uban's comments on the developer building some of the park equipment and asked specifically which park. Blundetto responded that after the neighborhood meeting, they felt some sort of tot lot and gazebo would work. Blundetto said they would like to learn a little more about that because they intend to spend that amount of money for those types of amenities. Would like further discussions. Stamson suggested having a little more detail before going to the City Council. Blundetto said they will work with staff and be prepared before going to Council. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PUD PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT REVISING CONDITION #2 TO REMOVE THE PARKING LOT AND INCLUDE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. Vote taken indicated ayes by Perez, Lemke and Stamson. Ringstad abstained. MOTION C~,RIED. This item will go before the City Council on March 20, 2006. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSIONXMINUTEShMN022706.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 A recess was called at 7:46 p.m. and reconvened at 7:53 p.m. B. EP06-103 Manley Land Development has submitted an application for a preliminary plat consisting of 28.04 acres to be subdivided into 44 lots for single family residential homes to be known as Pike Lake Ponds. This property is located ½ mile north of CSAH 42, directly north of the Vierling property and east of Pike Lake Trail. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 27, 2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Manley Land Development has applied for approval of a development to be known as Pike Lake Ponds on the property located V2 mile north of CSAH 42, directly north of the Vierling property, and east of Pike Lake Trail. The application includes a rezoning of approximately 28.04 acres from the R-S (Rural Residential) District to the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 28.04 acres to be subdivided into 44 lots for single family development. The major issue pertaining to this development is whether or not it is a premature development. Development of this property involves the extension of utilities and road improvements, none of which are programmed in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Further, the development of this property is impacted by the plans for Pike Lake Trail and the Vierling property to the south. The City of Shakopee recently initiated a transportation study to look at transportation system in east Shakopee and, specifically the CSAH 16 area. Shakopee intends to work with the City of Prior Lake in this study to coordinate the transportation system. This may include development of a collector roadway system, both north/south and east/west to accommodate the existing and future growth in the area. The City of Shakopee has also contacted staff to discuss the extension of sewer service, and Shakopee Public Utilities has contacted the City about coordinating water service in the area. The location and sizing of roads and services in this development may be impacted by the results of these discussions. In 2004, Toll Brothers approached the City about developing this parcel. The City staff advised Toll Brothers, in staff's opinion, the proposed development was premature. The City Council discussed this matter at a workshop on September 7, 2004. Ultimately, the Council determined the development of this property could move forward subject to several conditions. These conditions were outlined in the attached letter to Toll Brothers, dated October 14, 2004. These same conditions still apply today, and the staff has allowed the developer to move forward with this preliminary plat based on the previous direction from the City Council. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSIONXMINUTES~MN022706.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 Rezoning from R-S to R-1: The property is designated as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The R-1 district is consistent with this designation. Preliminary Plat: The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into 44 lots for single family dwellings. The general layout of the plat appears appropriate, given the constraints of the site. There are a several issues pertaining to this preliminary plat that are somewhat unique. These are discussed below: 1. The developer must agree to all of the previous conditions for development of this site, including upgrade of Pike Lake Trail from 42 to the north boundary of the former Arima property to an urban collector street, pavement of Pike Lake Trail, and the extension ofwatermain, all at the developers' cost. This segment of Pike Lake Trail must be done before this development can proceed. 2. The current plan identifies 58.8% tree removal for drainage and utilities. The staff and the developer discussed whether the development, especially the easterly cul-de- sac, could be redesigned in a manner that would not require the removal of so many trees. The developer provided a letter, dated February 23, 2006, stating this cul-de- sac has been revised, resulting in saving an additional 35 trees. 3. The proposed plan disturbs a wetland on the east side of the property to extend a cul- de-sac and create additional lots. This impact must be studied, and approved prior to any work on the site. 4. The developer must provide concept plans for properties to the north, east, and south of the development. There are retaining walls proposed at the property lines in the future road right-of-way. The developer must verify that future grades will connect to the proposed development properly. 5. There are some lots within the development that do not appear to meet the minimum net lot area or lot width requirements. These lots must be adjusted to meet minimum requirements. 6. In the memorandum dated February 15, 2006, the Assistant City Engineer has identified several design issues. The staff has met with the applicant to discuss and resolve many of these items. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the preliminary plat is consistent with the City Council's previous direction. The staff therefore recommended approval, subject to the following conditions summarized by Kansier: 1. Complete items 1-6 (preconditions of development). 2. Adjust all lots to meet minimum lot area and width requirements. 3. A wetland mitigation plan must be approved prior to any work on the site. 4. The developer must provide concept plans for properties to the north, east, and south of the development. There are retaining walls proposed at the property lines in the future road fight-of-way. The developer must verify that future grades will connect to the proposed development properly. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSIONhMINUTES~IVlN022706.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 5. Three Pike Lake Trail typical sections should be shown. The Pike Lake Trail typical section in front of the development should be 42 feet wide and show B618 concrete curb and gutter both sides of the street. A separate rural typical section should be shown for the Pike Lake Trail segment from Pike Lake Meadows to Pike Lake Ponds. A third typical section should be shown at the intersection of Pike Lake Trail and County Road 42. The urban typical sections should include an 8' bituminous trail (2- 1/2" bituminous, 6" class 5) on the west side and a 5' sidewalk (4" thick) on the east side. 6. The Developer should dedicate additional right of way along Pike Lake Trail to accommodate 80' of total right of way. 7. A preliminary 40 mph state aid design must be completed to verify Pike Lake Trail alignment. The proposed park along Pike Lake should be depicted in the alignment drawings. 8. Any issues identified in the February 15, 2006, memorandum from the Engineering Department must be addressed. Questions from the Commissioners: Lemke questioned the additional water storage facility. Poppler replied it could be a water tower or a ground storage facility. Comments from the Public: Frank Blundetto representing Manley Land Development, explained their initial application was a PUD similar to their other PUD (Northwood Meadows). However this is a difficult piece and had to redesign the site. This is good way for Prior Lake and Shakopee to connect with County Road 18. Blundetto went on to explain the roads, wetlands and runoff. It was hard during the winter months to observe the drain tile. In the neighborhood meeting they tried to address their concerns for traffic and runoff. Blundetto pointed out it was not their idea or intention to develop any part of the Vierling property. Staff suggested the realignment of Pike Lake Trail. Blundetto went on to explain the potential road alignment to County Road 18. It will be tricky as there are wetlands and elevations to consider. They are going to end the improvements at their property line. Lernke asked Blundetto if there were any heartburns with staff's conditions. Blundetto responded they understand the City's concerns and will try to meet them. They have talked to the Vierlings however they will speak for themselves. Ringstad questioned the estimated cost for the road improvements and lot. Frank responded said the homes will be in the range of $600,000 to $800,000. The cost for the in road improvements are in excess of $1,000,000. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSIONWIINUTES'uMN022706.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 Ringstad questioned how does saving the 35 trees work into the equation. Blundetto responded it would be down to 30+ %. There are not a lot of trees on the site so 35 trees is significant. John Uban briefly reiterated the process of creating the development. Jeffery Carlson, 13496 Pike Lake Trail, said they are on septic and wells and asked if any of the assessments would be incurred by the homeowners along the lake. Kansier said they would not. All costs would be incurred by the developer. If those homeowners would like to hook up they would pay the costs. Carlson also pointed out the heavy traffic at the intersection and to consider that with this development. Carlson felt it is a great development. Mike Vierling, 13985 Pike Lake Trail, said his first concern is the intersection at Pike Lake and County Road 42 and questioned if the developer would need an easement on his property. Kansier said they have not looked at the specifics of the adjoining development and work within the constraints. The City is not expecting the Vierlings to dedicate any land to the project. If the developer needs the property it would be their responsibility to negotiate with you. It is not a City project. Vierling explained Toll Brothers told him he had to sign a document indicating he would give them land for an easement and holding pond but couldn't give him an idea on how many acres. Vierling felt the entire Pike Lake Road should be redesigned before the project is approved. Kansier agreed with Vierling and said that would be one of the City's concerns. Manley would have to work with the Vierlings to figure it out. Vierling said the lower area of property is in Ag (Agriculture) Preserve. An easement could be done but is a longer process. Kansier said at this point the City is looking at paving the existing road did not know how that impacted the Ag Preserve. Vierling felt it was not their responsibility to have a park on their property to benefit Manley's project. Kansier explained the park dedication and future plans. Vierling said his main concern is having the road planned out prior to the development. Steve Czech, 13360 Hickory Avenue, said the developer has decided to extend the paving of Pike Lake Road up to Martindale. It would be nice of Prior Lake to take the paving to the Shakopee line. To leave a gap of dirt road between Martindale and Shakopee doesn't make sense. Also, a stoplight should be provided at the intersection of County Road 42 and Pike Lake. Steve's other concern is for police and fire access during construction. Poppler explained staff deals with that issue on all reconstruction projects. Czech said he would like to see a plan on the reconstruction of the cul-de-sacs and get feedback from the neighbors. This will increase the traffic in front of his house. Czech also questioned if there would be a lot construction traffic through Hickory Hills. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSIONWI1NUTESWIN022706.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 Blundetto explained the traffic pattems in the development. Kansier briefly explained the costs associated with the additional paving and the fact the road is not in the City's Capital Improvement Program. Bill Huser, 13289 Hickory Avenue, said his concerns were for the stormwater management and extending the road all the way to Martindale Drive. Huser explained the existing problems with Martindale's grade and felt this is a perfect opportunity to realign the road. He also explained Shakopee will be building a new school and paving their portion of Pike Lake Trail and asked if Prior Lake would be proactive and work together and pave the road. Complemented Frank Blundetto on his neighborhood presentation and residents are happy with this proposed development. Huser felt the existing roads were not built up for any kind of heavy road construction vehicles. He also stated there is no point of upgrading the roads until sewer and water extensions are complete. Kansier said at this point the City does not have any desire to go up and connect that area to sewer and water. It is a costly project for both the City and residents. The neighbors' points are valid. She also pointed out the City's funds are not set up to pave and connect that segment of Martindale. The collector street funds are in the "red" because of the number of county road projects. Scott Vig, 13171 Pike Lake Trail, questioned how many houses will the sewer and water supply. Kansier said they would be able to handle the 44 lots. Vig asked if it would make sense to connect the existing 4 or 5 homes on Pike Lake Road. Kansier said they could but it would be at their cost. Poppler said he could bring a request to connect forward in a petition to the City. The public hearing closed at 9:03 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: · There are a lot of good public comments tonight. · This has potential for a good development. · One thing not brought up yet is conditions 6 through 9 - Half the lots need to be corrected to meet the minimum square footage and the street width. Not sure the development is ready to be approved. · 35 trees will significantly reduce the percentage - would like to see what those numbers will be. · I think this can go for-ward with the changes. Glad to see the improvements to Pike Lake Trail and the developer is offering to cover the costs for that. · Until I hear something different from the Commissioners, with half of the lots needing to be reconfigured. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSIONWIINUTESWIN022706.doc 1 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 Lemke: Questioned staff's recommendation. · Kansier said the lot sizes can easily be corrected. Staff got a letter from the engineers saying it is easy to correct but we do not have the corrections. · One of the conditions was that the former Arima property has to be completed. Does that mean it has to be built or occupied before anything can proceed? · Kansier responded the City needs a preliminary and final plat approval before they can move on with the Pike Lake Ponds final plat. The developer owns both properties so it makes sense to work the timing out and develop at the same time. Stamson: · Questioned why it is important the developer correct the road access on Pike Lake Road. Kansier said it is the first extension for Pike Lake Trail and the watermain. · Could they just do the road? Why force them to do the whole development? Not that I disagree, just wondering. Kansier responded it originally was two separate developers and that was the segment that needed to get done first. In this case it is the same developer and they need preliminary approval. · The real concern is that the infrastructure gets in. Lemke: · Does staffknow the zoning for Shakopee to the east? Kansier said she felt it was residential but the area is outside of Shakopee's MUSA. · This seems a little premature from the standpoint of developing the 42 and Pike Lake Trail intersection. Apparently there has to be quite a bit of work done. · However, agree if this piece of land is going to develop this is the way to do it and I would support that. Whether or not they're ready to move forward on the preliminary plat, maybe, its not going anywhere for quite a while. · Would like the developer to come back with a final configuration with elevations and road right-of-way so we could see what the final plan would be. It is also premature because some land is not available for redevelopment. · Kansier said staff would be looking at potential road information. · Sounds like City Council said the development could go forward with all the conditions. · I can see it moving forward but don't see the rush. Perez: · Questioned the additional water storage facility. Poppler said staff is trying to work it in the CIP. Staff has not identified a site. · The development itself fits. · Regarding the traffic - it is not a big deal. The change in traffic will not overburden anyone. · Comfortable with the lot corrections and should be easy to adjust. · The only wild card is that the conditions are from 2004 but it is a different City Council. Hopefully they will see this as the previous Council. · If Manley is going to abide by the conditions, I would move forward. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSIONVxMINUTEShMN022706.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 Stamson: · Agree with fellow Commissioners - It is a great development. The developers have done well with a tricky piece of property. · The road connections make sense. Don't think the traffic between the developments will be a major issue. · As far as timing, in this case, the Vierling property to the south is in Ag Preserve and will not develop for a long time. My understanding is that the Vierlings will farm for quite some time and will not develop soon. · If the developer is willing to abide by the conditions, I am comfortable moving forward with it. This is quite a list of expensive conditions. · Had the same thought as Ringstad with the lot re-drawings, but if staff felt it would be easy to correct, and does not require major redrawing, I am comfortable moving it forward. The Commissioners briefly discussed the lots and touched on not having a neighborhood park. The developer will have to explain there will not be a neighborhood park at the time of development and maybe not for quite awhile. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING REZONING FROM THE R-S DISTRICT TO R-1 DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS PIKE LAKE PONDS SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Stamson asked staff to point out the neighbors concerns on the road connection in the Minutes for City Council. This item will go before City Council on March 20, 2006. A recess was called at 9:18 and reconvened at 9:21 p.m. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. 06-112 Premiere Dance Academy requesting Tax Increment Financing for the property located at 4616 Colorado Street. Economic Development Director Paul Snook presented the Planning Report dated February 27, 2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISS ION'uM1NUTEShMN022706.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 On January 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution #06-07 calling for a public hearing on March 6, 2006 for the establishment of the Development Program for Development District No. 5, the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5-1, and the awarding of a business subsidy. The TIF Development Program for Development District No. 5 is to be established for redevelopment of Lot 13, Block 13 & Lot 14 & west 12' of Lot 12 (4616 Colorado St.). The specific project within TIF District 5-1 is for a newly constructed building in the downtown area for the future location of Premiere Dance Academy (PDA). Construction of the project is planned for summer and fall of this year. The applicant is proposing a two-story approximately 10,000 square foot building to be constructed on currently zoned R-2, with the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan calling for that parcel to be designated as C-TC (Town Center). The proposed use is consistent with this designation and zoning. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · How long docs a redevelopment district run for? Snook responded they could typically run up to 25 years. · The dance studio is a specific usc. Does the design of the building prohibit other uses? Snook responded thc applicant is planning to build an open, expansive building which could be pretty versatile. Perez: · · · Agree with staff's report on meeting the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Do not see any issues. Support. Ringstad: · Agree that it meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. · Will support. Lemke: · Concur with Commissioners. · If this is approved is there a rezoning process? Kansier said it is already appropriately zoned in 2004. · Snook said the neighbors were notified. · If this is approved will the building come back before the Planning Commission? Kansier said it is a site plan processed through staff. The only way the Planning Commission would see it if they needed variances. · Support. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSIONWI1NUTESWIN022706.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 Stamson: · What about parking? This use will generate a lot of traffic in a residential area. · Kansier explained that was a concern for staff as well. They have designed a drop-off lane. · Snook said there will be a curb-cut lane in and out. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY LEMKE, APPROVING RESOLUTION 06-04PC FINDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 AND A TIF PLAN FOR THE TIF DISTRICT 5-1 CONFORMS TO THE COMPREHENSWE PLAN. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go to the City Council on March 6, 2006. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Good luck to the Prior Lake Wresting team competing at the State level. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjoumed at 9:30 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSIONXaMINUTEShMN022706.doc 1 5