HomeMy WebLinkAbout6B Spring Lake Ridge Concept Plan CC report
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: JULY 15, 2019
AGENDA #: 6B
PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
PRESENTED BY: JEFF MATZKE
AGENDA ITEM:
PRESENTATION OF THE SPRING LAKE RIDGE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONCEPT PLAN
DISCUSSION: Introduction
The purpose of this agenda item is to review a concept plan for a low
density residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) on a 65-acre site
submitted by the proposed developer, Winkler Land Company LLC. A
concept plan review allows the City Council an opportunity to provide
informal, non-binding feedback to the applicant.
History
The city’s zoning ordinance allows applicants to review their concept
plans with the Planning Commission and/or City Council in order to help
direct them in the preparation of their land use applications (i.e., Comp
Plan Amendment/Rezoning, PUD, and Plat).
The Planning Commission heard the Spring Lake Ridge Concept Plan
presentation at their July 8, 2019 meeting. While there was no public
comment period over 65 members of the public attended the meeting.
The Planning Commission thanked the developer for their open,
collaborative approach in presenting the project at a preliminary level
and they offered the following comments at the meeting:
• Consider increasing the PUD benefits identified for the project,
particularly other park and infrastructure improvements for the
community as a whole.
• If the life cycle housing component is to be considered a PUD
benefit, it should be designed to ensure it is based on age groups
rather than market conditions.
• Consider additional parking for the designated dock area as it is
a long walk from many of the lots within the subdivision.
• Asked that the developer continue an open dialogue with the
Spring Lake Association and the area residents regarding the
project especially as it relates to the impact of the dock area.
• Identify a complete timeline in the subdivision application
submittal so the City and residents have an expectation of the
proposed construction schedule and impacts.
• Provide details with the subdivision application related to school
district impacts from potential home buyers within the
subdivision.
2
Current Circumstances
Winkler Land Company LLC has submitted a concept plan for a 100-lot
low-density single family residential Planned Unit Development (PUD)
on the “Geister Property” and “Peterson Property” located southeast of
the intersection of County Highway 17 and County Highway 12. The site
is approximately 65 acres.
The undeveloped property is designated as R-LD (Urban Low Density)
on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoned R-1 (Low
Density Residential). This proposed residential development will have
an overall net density in the range of the R-LD land use designation,
which is 0-4 units per acre. The R-LD section in the Comprehensive
Plan states that “Typical Uses” include single family detached dwellings
and/or other dwelling designs by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and
Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Conclusion
City staff and the developer have discussed their concept plan and
housing product type which will be presented at the meeting. A recent
wetland delineation report was completed on the property. In the
attached narrative the developer has listed potential PUD benefits of
value to the community above the standard subdivision requirements.
The City review process to approve this development project would
include:
1. Separate Preliminary and Final PUD applications (if the project
proceeds, the developer will request the site be rezoned to PUD after
Preliminary PUD approval); and
2. Separate Preliminary and Final Plat applications for the 65 acres to
subdivide the property into lots; an approved final plat application
would include payment development fees.
ISSUES: City Staff has reviewed the proposed concept plan and has the following
comments:
1. PUD – Subsection 1106.600 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes
minimum PUD eligibility requirements. In this section, the City
Council may impose additional restrictions or requirements on land
developed under the PUD process. Staff refers to this as potential
“PUD benefits” received by the City. The developer has identified
the following as PUD Benefits in the attached narrative:
• Right-of-way dedication – The current design of Marschall Road
is designed for a 150-foot-wide corridor. In the future the corridor
is planned to become an expressway with 200-foot-wide corridor
demands (100 feet on each side of the roadway centerline). As
a PUD benefit an additional 25 feet width of right-of-way is
proposed to be dedicated for the eventual needed expressway
corridor. At the time of the County/City construction project in the
future this area would otherwise need to be purchase from the
adjacent property. City Staff views this right-of-way dedication
as a PUD benefit.
3
• Stormwater Treatment – The development proposes to
accommodate pre-treatment of stormwater within the basins at
both ends of Sunset Avenue for not only the Spring Lake Ridge
development but also the existing Sunset Avenue residential
area which does not have a pretreatment area currently. The
amount of space required for the Sunset Avenue pretreatment
areas is yet to be determined with the submittal of stormwater
specifications along with the plat application. City Staff’s view of
this item as a PUD benefit will be determined by the amount of
pretreatment for areas off site of the development (i.e.- Sunset
Avenue area).
• Public Trail System – The developer listed the extensive public
trail system as a PUD benefit. While City Staff does agree that
the regional trail along the Hwy 17 (Marschall Road) corridor
could be seen as a PUD benefit, the interior trail system,
including that along the wetlands is primarily for the benefit of the
development properties and could require challenging long-term
public maintenance therefore reducing its desire as a PUD
benefit.
• Preserved Open Space and Trees – The development does offer
a larger amount of preserved open space under the PUD plan.
The PUD ordinance does require a minimum of 50% open space
of which the development indicates. Additional tree preservation
will be achieved in the open space areas; however, the exact
amount of tree preservation is undetermined until the tree
inventory is completed with the plat application. City Staff’s view
of this item as a PUD benefit will be determined by the amount
of tree preservation as determined by the future tree inventory
and grading plans.
• Life Cycle Housing – A desired PUD benefit listed in the City
Code is to “provide opportunities for life cycle housing to all
ages”. The developer lists the varying housing style homes and
lots as meeting this requirement. City Staff’s view of this item as
a PUD benefit will be determined by the way at which the
developer could guarantee varying life cycle housing options
rather than just satisfying current market demands for housing.
• Additional PUD benefits – While the developer is not proposing
any further additional PUD benefits with the concept plan review,
the City and developer have discussed additional PUD benefit
areas such as paved trail within the City-owner stormwater
property north of the development, additional funds for the future
Hwy 17/Hwy 12 intersection project, construction of regional
sewer connections within the Hwy 17 corridor, and regional
improvements at the Hwy 12 lift station.
2. Docks – The development proposes a 100 dock slip Home Owners
Association (HOA) dock system on Spring Lake south of Sunset
Avenue. The City has received several inquiries from Spring Lake
residents and other governmental bodies regarding the impacts of
this dock system. Under a PUD the Planning Commission/City
4
Council has the authority to regulate the placement and number of
docks within the development.
3. Ghost Plat – A detailed ghost plat will be required along with a plat
application which indicates the road connection to the south and
east.
4. Natural Features – The site is heavily wooded with a variety of
wetlands and varying topography. Wetland delineation has been
completed and the only proposed wetland impact includes an area
for the public trail to the lake from the residential lots. The developer
has identified increased open space and tree preservation under the
PUD Concept Plan vs. the traditional (non-PUD) development plan.
5. School District – The area is within the Prior Lake Savage School
District (ISD 719).
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
No formal action is required now. The City Council should provide the
applicant with comments, impressions, and concerns about this concept
plan particularly the PUD benefits and dock system. Councilor
comments are not binding, and the developer should not rely on any
statements made by an individual Councilor as the sentiment of the
entire body. However, in the absence of City Council concerns,
comments, or suggestions to the contrary, the developer will likely
proceed with the development as presented in this concept stage. For
the benefit of the developer and residents, it would be most beneficial if
the City Council could share their thoughts about the proposed HOA
dock system as well as PUD benefits proposed by the developer.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map
2. PUD Concept Plan
3. Developer Narrative
Spring Lake
Ü
Spring Lake Ridge Concept Plan Location Map
UPPER PRIOR LAKE
GD(904)
SPRING LAKE
GD(912.8)
LOWER PRIOR LAKE
GD(904)
PIKE
LAKENE
(820.5)
MYSTIC
LAKENE
HAAS
LAKENE
(907.3)
BLIND
LAKERD
(948.7)
ARTIC
LAKENE
(906.7)
MARKLEY
LAKERD
( )
HOWARD LAKE
NE(957.3)
CRYSTAL LAKE
NE(943.3)
RICE LAKE
NE(945)
CLEARY LAKE
NE
CAMPBELL
LAKENE
(Not Estab.)
SUBJECTPROPERTY
SUBJECTPROPERTY
SpringLakeSunset
AvenueMarschall Road
WetlandBasin
Basin
Basin
Wetland Public
Trail Private HOA
Parking Private HOA
Trail Private HOA
Dock Conceptual
Plan)
Wetland 86’
LOTS 65’
LOTS 70’
LOTS
W D epve elom tn C
o .I N K L E
R 952)-432-
7101 CONCEPT
ONE Prior Lake,
Minnesota SPRING LAKE
PLA Members,
Please note update below from Dan Kelly, SLA President, regarding proposed 100 slip
marina and housing development on Spring Lake:
Good afternoon Spring Lake Association Members,
Over the last week the Spring Lake Association has fielded a high volume of calls,
emails, texts, and in person conversations from members and lake owners regarding
their concerns on the proposed Spring Lake Ridge development (west side of Spring
Lake). Most concerns have been directly tied to the proposed 100 slip marina but there
have also been concerns from residents on Sunset Avenue regarding traffic and parking
for the proposed private parking lot/marina access.
Here are the themes we have heard (in no particular order)
1.Water quality – With Spring Lake/Upper Prior already being an impaired lake
and all the efforts (alum, carp seine, wetlands, etc.) members are concerned on
the impact of placing a 100-slip marina in the wetlands where the majority of the
water for Spring/Prior Lake flows thru. There have been no studies/efforts
mentioned to measure the true impact on Spring and Prior Lake.
2.Size/placement – The proposed marina is located in a natural area of the lake
where no boat traffic currently travels because of both shallow water and rock
formations. With water levels drastically fluctuating on the lake there is concern
the appropriate research has not been conducted on true placement of the
Marina. The sheer size of a 100-boat marina has members very concerned as
there are no current marinas that size on any south metro lakes, let alone one as
small as Spring Lake.
3.Environmental impact – The current wetlands area where the development is
going in and the Marina will be placed is currently frequented by an assortment of
water fowl (loons, pelicans, sandhill cranes, geese, ducks, bald eagles, etc.) and
From the Prior Lake Association
is a common spawning area for native fish on the lake. What will the impact be
on the lake and surrounding area with a marina located there? Also what
additional impacts will this development cause (runoff, more floating bogs, gas
spilling, fertilizers, garbage, etc.)
4.Boat traffic – Currently there are 220 residents on Spring Lake and 54 slips for
Spring Lake Estates. By placing a 100-slip marina that would impact boat
ownership/use by 35-40%. Unlike Prior Lake, Spring Lake is a single open body
of water. A single boat on Spring Lake has an impact on the entire lake as there
are no coves or channels to escape to seek quiet/calm water. Also we already
have limited water patrol so are they prepared to provide more patrolling time
with the increased traffic?
5.Safety – As traffic on both Spring and Prior Lake increases the number of
accidents/close calls has only increased. The fear with another 100 boaters on
Spring Lake is it is inevitable those chances will only increase.
6.Sunset Avenue impact – With the proposed development including 100 homes
and only a single access point that would mean 200-300 cars accessing the
development thru Sunset Ave which is currently a VERY quiet road. Also with
the proposed parking lot only including 12 spots there are concerns that
residents will want to park close to their slip so will Sunset Ave essentially
become a parking lot? Will there be parking restrictions put in place? What
about friends/family that want to come visit and access the slips as well? There
was also mention of restrooms being installed and what is the impact of that?
7.Impact on surrounding lakes – Spring Lake is currently known as an overflow
lake for Prior Lake. The feeling is with 100 additional boats that will now draw
more traffic back to Prior Lake which is already over-populated or surrounding
lakes putting additional pressure on those accesses.
8.Lake Character – many people purposely decided to move/build on Spring Lake
as it is a smaller, less congested lake. There are no marinas, no gas, and no
restaurants. Many fear this development and the large increase in boat traffic on
Spring Lake will change the characteristics of the lake all together and once that
changes there is no going back.
9.Future developments – What precedence does this current proposal mean for
future development on Spring Lake? There are other wetland areas that are still
undeveloped that are similar to this proposal. Will allowing a marina for this
project allow for additional marinas in the future?
Last night there was a City Planning Commission Meeting at City Hall. The majority of
the Spring Lake Association Board and many of our members and lake owners
attended. It was noted several times throughout the meeting that the large presence
(noted 68 people were in attendance) reinforced for them the strong feelings there is
with the proposed Spring Lake Ridge plan. Winkler Development presented their
concept plan and the planning commission was able to ask additional clarification
questions. Most of the questions were regarding the development itself and the
questions regarding traffic impact on Sunset Ave and the marina were fairly limited
although it was noted the marina was in fact going to be controversial. Here were the
next steps that were proposed:
1. City Council Meeting on Monday July, 15th at 7:00pm at City Hall – The public
does have the ability to comment during the opening Public Forum. Each
individual is capped at 5 minutes and the public forum is capped at 30
minutes. Show up early and sign in.
2. Public Hearing will likely be August/September – will communicate once finalized
So the big question that everyone is asking is, “how can I have a voice?” After several
conversations and research here is what the Spring Lake Association suggests:
1. Attend every meeting. (talk with your neighbors and have them attend as well) –
encourage you to voice your questions/concerns during the public forum
on Monday 7/15 at 7:00pm.
2. Present at the public hearing (SLA will communicate date/time once finalized)
3. Email/call your questions/concerns to the individuals of the following
organizations:
City Council
o Kirt Briggs - kbriggs@cityofpriorlake.com (612) 889-2250
o Zach Braid - zbraid@cityofpriorlake.com (612) 200-2668
o Kevin Burkart - kburkart@cityofpriorlake.com (952) 457-8066
o Warren Erickson - werickson@cityofpriorlake.com (612) 702-0410
o Annette Thompson - athompson@cityofpriorlake.com (952) 496-1104
Planning Commission
o Jeff Matzke - jmatzke@cityofpriorlake.com
o Sandra Peppin - speppin@cityofpriorlake.com (952) 447-9810
Minnesota DNR
o Scott County Water Resource Hydrologist - jennie.skancke@state.mn.us
o Fisheries - metrowest.fisheries@state.mn.us
Prior Lake - Spring Lake Watershed District Board
o Mike Myser - m.myser@mchsi.com
o Fred Corrigan - corriganfred@gmail.com
o Bruce Loney - bruceloney@integra.net
o Charlie Howley - howleyctccnn@gmail.com
o Curt Hennes - clphennes@gmail.com
Prior Lake – Spring Lake Watershed District Staff
o Diane Lynch - dlynch@plslwd.org (952) 440-0067
o Maggie Karschnia - mkarschnia@plslwd.org (952) 447-9808
o Jaime Rockney - jrockney@plslwd.org (952) 440-0068
o Kathryn Keller-Miller - kkeller-miller@plslwd.org (952) 440-0069
o Jeff Anderson - janderson@plslwd.org (952) 440-0070
Over the coming days the Spring Lake Association will continue to have conversations,
research, identify resources, meet, and communicate as needed. They really
appreciate the support and feedback they have received from their members and will
continue to work hard to keep information flowing.
Sincerely,
Spring Lake Association Board