HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 23, 2006
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2006
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda: None
5. Public Hearings:
A. #05-219 (continued) 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. 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.
6.
Old Business:
None
7. New Business:
A. EP 05-208 Cardinal Development Group has submitted concept plan for the
development of approximately 45 acres to create a PUD containing retail, attached
townhomes, office, clinic/medical office, and high density residential housing.
This property is located at the northeast comer of CSAH 42 and CSAH 18.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:\06 FILESI06 PLANNING COMMISSIONlAGENDASIAGOI230~ .cityofpriorlake. com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2006
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the January 23,2006 Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and
Stamson, 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 January 9,2006, 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. #05-219 (continued) Alexander Design Group representing Gerard Hughes is
requesting a variance from the minimum bluff setback for the property located at
5724 Fairlawn Shores Trail.
Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated January 23,2006, on file in the
office of the City Planning Department.
On behalf of Gerard and Susan Hughes, Alexander Design Group Inc. is requesting a
variance to construct a single family dwelling located at 5724 Fairlawn Shores Trail. In
order to do so, the following variances are required:
1. A 16 foot variance from the 25 foot required bluff setback (Section
1104.303)
2. A variance to allow a structure to be built in the bluff impact zone (Section
1104.304).
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI2306.doc
1
Planning Commission Meetings
January 23, 2006
As advised by the Planning Commission at the January 9,2006 meeting, the applicant
was directed to prepare an engineer's report which contained soil analysis. This analysis
shall provide evidence for the load bearing stability of the slope, particularly in the
proposed building area on the east side of the lot. Due to time constraints the applicant
may have in preparing the engineering report, the Planning Commission stated they
would not require the applicant to submit the engineering report in time to be included in
the meeting agenda packet. However, the Planning Commission advised the applicant to
prepare the engineer's report by January 19,2006 so staff would have time to review it
for possible recommendation prior to the January 23,2006 meeting.
On January 19,2006 staff received a detailed engineering report with soil analysis from
the applicant. A licensed geotechnical engineer obtained soil samples on the property
and prepared a report of his analysis along with recommendations for the proposed
structure. Despite the steep sloping conditions on the site the geotechnical engineer does
not anticipate instability ofthe slope as a result of the proposed construction. The report
establishes allowable bearing pressure limits and maximum column and perimeter wall
loads for the proposed structure. The engineer recommends that the excavations of the
site be performed to minimize ground surface disturbance, and maintain positive surface
drainage during and after construction. It is also the engineer's recommendation that an
excavation evaluation be completed by a geotechnical engineer before new fill and
footing placement on the site.
Since the January 9,2006 meeting the planning department received comments from the
Department of Natural Resources regarding the layout of the second house design on the
property. The opinion of the DNR remains that the applicant propose a house which is
either two-story or requires a front yard variance verses impacting the bluff area on the
east side of the lot. The DNR believes, however, if the city is satisfied the proposed
construction will not compromise the integrity of the bluff, the DNR is not opposed to the
vanance.
Staff believes the strict application of the 25 foot setback variance could appear to create
an undue hardship. A small buildable area exists without the need of any variances,
therefore a bluff setback and/or front yard variance could appear necessary. Staff believes
without strong structural and slope analysis for the preservation of the bluff area a
variance to allow a structure in the bluff impact area cannot be allowed. The strict
application requiring structures to be restricted from the bluff impact zone does not create
an undue hardship for reasonable use of the property. A footprint utilizing only the
existing building pad and front yard on the lot would not impact the bluff area on the east
side of the lot.
The Staff felt the submitted engineering report and soil analysis determines the allowable
stress bearing limits and maximum loads for the proposed structure. As required under
the engineering report ordinance (Section 1104.305 (2)), staff advises the applicant and
owner "to provide certification from a professional engineer registered by the State of
Minnesota that the final grading of the site was completed in compliance with an
approved grading plan and that the recommendations contained in the engineer's report
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI2306.doc
2
Planning Commission Meetings
January 23, 2006
have been adhered to." prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Based on the
findings, staff recommended approval of the variances.
Perez asked staff to show where the borings were located. Matzke pointed out the
locations.
Billington asked if there were any questions on the engineering report. Poppler
responded this report had the required information staff was looking for.
The public hearing was closed at the January 9,2006 meeting.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO APPROVE THE
VARIANCES AS REQUESTED WITH STAFF'S CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. #05-220 & 221 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 Coordinator Danette Moore, stated the applicant has requested this item be
continued until the meeting on February 13, 2006. This time will allow the applicant to
conduct a neighborhood meeting and provide staffwith additional information. The staff
has sent a mailed notice of this delay to the owners of property within 500' of this site. A
new notice with the February 13th hearing date will also be sent.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY PEREZ, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON THIS ITEM TO FEBRUARY 13, 2006.
Votes taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6.
Old Business:
None
7. New Business:
A. #EP 05-208 Cardinal Development Group has submitted concept plan for the
development of approximately 45 acres to create a PUD containing retail, attached
townhomes, office, clinic/medical office, and high density residential housing. This
property is located at the northeast corner of CSAH 42 and CSAH 18.
Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated January 23,
2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISS ION\M INUTES\MNO I 2306.doc
3
Planning Commission Meetings
January 23, 2006
Cardinal Development submitted a revised concept plan for approximately 45 acres of
property located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection ofCSAH 42 and CSAH 18.
This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural) and is designated as C-BO (Business
Office Park) and R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
On October 24,2005, the concept was brought before the Planning Commission. At that
time, the Planning Commission expressed interest in the concept, however, did ask for
additional details on the feasibility of the pedestrian bridge and for clarification on the
benefits that would merit Planned Unit Development (PUD) flexibility.
On November 7, 2005 the developer shared the concept with the City Council where
some of the discussion included the following:
. The need for increased tree preservation.
. The appeal of how the development would provide a walkable neighborhood
within an urban village concept.
. The need to provide balance between preservation and managing responsible
growth.
. The need for additional park land on the site, versus assuming surrounding future
developments would meet the needs created by this development.
Since the OctoberlNovember concept was reviewed, the developer has revised the
concept. The current concept plan proposes a mixture of commercial and residential
uses, including 82 townhome units, 140 condominium units (4-story), 60 residential
living units located above retail space, 80,000 square feet of retail space, 96,000 square
feet of office space (2-story), 50,000 square feet of medical clinic space (3-story), and a
4.9 acre park.
Poppler explained the City would like to see a ball field area as well as a playground
structure area for this project. There really is not enough flat area for a ball field with
what the applicants proposed, therefore staff would like to see the parkland adjacent to
some flat area at least to the property to the north. The City needs something that fits
with a ball field for the future. Staff can construct a playground with the parkland they
are proposmg.
Stamson asked staff why a ball field is needed in this heavily wooded area. Poppler
responded it probably wouldn't work in this area but when the adjacent property to the
north develops, the proposed area would be ready to develop a ball field at that time.
Staffhas concerns with the feasibility of the pedestrian bridge. Scott County is not sure
this is an area where a bridge should be constructed. They are not sure an abutment in
the center of County Road 42 would be appropriate. They would have to expand the
entire corridor with a bridge, which would be quite expensive. Another concern would
be the existing stop light very close to the bridge. City Staff has concerns with the
feasibility of the bridge at all. The cost of the bridge would be substantial and a lot of site
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI2306.doc
4
Planning Commission Meetings
January 23, 2006
amenities could be done in this area for the cost of the bridge. It would be more
appropriate than the bridge itself.
Stamson asked what kind of amenities staff has in mind if they didn't have a bridge.
Poppler said the cost of the bridge could be a Million Dollars and questions if it would be
used so close to the intersection. People would probably cross at the intersection anyway.
Staff has concerns if it is appropriate.
Moore said the County had concerns with placement. Obviously there has to be a center
structure that would come down in the public right-of-way, not that it couldn't happen
but there are a number of large obstacles. Would it make more sense to take that money
and roll it over and decrease density preserving more trees?
Moore reviewed a list of questions for the Commissioners to consider with this proposal.
No formal action has to be taken at this time.
Commissioner Ringstad excused himself [rom the discussions as he has a business
relationship with some of the parties involved in this matter.
Kurt Larson, one of the partners, gave an overview of the revised proposal which
included the following comments:
. This is a difficult piece to develop as two major county roads intersect the comer.
There are three accesses established by Scott County. Two other accesses are
required by the City.
. The topography is very diverse - a sixty foot elevation difference.
. There are stormwater ponding issues because of the topography. Not a lot of
options.
. Two small wetlands will not be impacted.
. Some of the medical clinic/office facility area has been reduced. The density is
still lower than the City's requirements.
. In relation to the tree preservation, there is a possibility of a greenway passage.
They believe they can save between 15 and 20 percent of the trees on site.
. They have looked at the pedestrian bridge as a concept in the beginning of this
project with the idea it would be good for the City. The County is not opposed to
it. They have concerns about the streetlights and the height. Larson stated they
consulted with a pedestrian engineer, indicating it would be very feasible to build.
They do not have a cost back on it yet. They have checked into this possibility of
Federal monies for a bridge. It requires the City and County be on board with the
same concept. He agreed it will be a very costly bridge and as a developer, that's
not a cost they will want to bear by themselves. However, Larson did not feel the
bridge should be ruled out.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI2306.doc
5
Planning Commission Meetings
January 23, 2006
Questions from Commissioners:
>- Billington asked the developer ifhe knew the distance to the easterly residential
developments. Larson pointed out the neighboring developments. The lots are
standard, probably 150 feet.
>- Billington questioned how this PUD project would benefit the City. Larson
distributed a draft conventional subdivision that could be on this site. It would
have a higher density for townhomes and office/commercial product. The benefit
of a PUD in their opinion is that they are creating a product with more synergy,
balance, and better transition from product to product versus what could be done
with a conventional subdivision. The grading is also minimized, they would save
more trees and the City could have a 4 acre park to the north.
>- Perez asked if a marketing survey was done. Larson responded one was done last
summer which indicated the multifamily condominium living is very much in
demand. Currently, the have strong interest on the medical side though the office
park, residential, restaurant services and personal services - banking, salons, etc.
Larson said they are very confident on the retail side as well.
>- Billington asked the developers ifthey feel this project is complementary to the
Jeffers Pond project. Larson said it would be similar, but not near the size.
>- Billington asked if there were generous allowances for walking trails. Larson said
they have several sidewalks and a trail.
>- Perez asked if there were more opportunities for clustering. Larson said they
could cluster more single family homes but it would take away from the project.
>- Perez questioned where they could cluster housing and preserve more trees.
Larson pointed out an area.
>- Perez asked staff if they felt there is a specific area for clustering. Moore said
nothing specifically, just overall. Certain areas are tricky because of the wetlands.
>- Perez asked the Engineering Department if they had enough information to see if
there are any other issues. Poppler said there is not enough information at this
time, especially the streets. Staff is a little concerned with some ofthe tight
streets to the east. Hard to tell what the right-of-ways and actual street width
would be. Staff needs more information.
>- Lemke questioned the land to the north. Viren Gori, architect for the project, said
the land is currently zoned C5 with a very large wetland on the site.
>- Billington asked if staff had other concerns other than what was expressed.
Moore said not at this time.
>- Billington asked what kind of time frame they were looking at. Larson said they
would like to start this Fall with a 2 12 to 3 year completion.
>- Larson said he would like some feedback on the parkland, tree preservation and
the project concept itself.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Billington:
· Okay with the plan. The developer made good strides.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI2306.doc
6
Planning Commission Meetings
January 23, 2006
· Barring any unforeseen engineering problems or regulatory bodies that would
have an impact, I would support in a general way.
Stamson:
· Like the overall concept and the mixed use. The development is much better
mixing the retail with some residential and commercial office. This is a better
overall concept for a PUD than just going with a traditional development.
· As far as parkland. Weare always screaming for parkland with ball and soccer
fields. There is a value, especially with this heavily wooded space to have some
kind of walking trails and preserving the trees and wetlands. Similar to Jeffers
Pond. The neighbors wanted to keep the area natural. It is a good idea to preserve
the natural area for a park. There really isn't a good site for a ball field.
· Could expand the ridge of trees. Comfortable with the trade off of preserving
more trees and creating some good walking areas.
· Overpass -like the idea but not married to it. If the developer obtains Federal
funds it might make sense, but I wouldn't go overboard in trying to cram one in
there. With the residential development on one side and retail on the other, it's
nice to have an overpass but not sure it is worth the high price. There will be
pedestrian traffic and County Road 42 is only going to get harder to cross.
· Big supporter of mixed uses. Did a good job.
· The eastern side transitions well to the neighboring homes.
· Overall supportive.
Lemke:
· Agree with Stamson's comments.
· One benefit to the City is the alternative of a standard subdivision. It preservers
4. + acres. I think sharing the green walkway to the north would be something I
would be looking at in the future.
· The overpass would be nice for access, not particularly good for asthestics.
Would like to see some transition.
· I would like to see a trail once they cross the road instead of a parking lot. Larson
said they would have a bike trail whether there is a bridge or not.
. Like the mixed use of retail and housing.
· Like the concept and would like to see the next stage.
Perez:
· Over all it is a good plan. Agree with some of the concerns from staff - the idea
of clustering and additional tree space.
. I would like to preserve more trees.
. Would like to see a little more information.
Billington:
· Is there a sidewalk on the south side of County Road 42? Staff said there is.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI2306.doc
7
Planning Commission Meetings
January 23, 2006
Lemke:
. Questioned the height for buildings. Moore said with the PUD process the
applicant can go up to a 4-story building.
Billington:
. Questioned if the project is a frame-type construction. Gori responded it would
be and briefly explained the style.
Moore asked for clarification - the Commissioners felt it met the PUD criteria.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The Tree Preservation Task force has been formed and a Planning Commissioner should
be on the committee. Get back to staff with the representative. The first meeting is
February 15th.
Invitation to Scott County's Comprehensive Plan - two Commissioners are asked to be
on the committee.
The joint workshop with City Council is scheduled for February 6th.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI2306.doc
8
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
~J1U.lt'-^1 33,)a)0
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
L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP .doc