Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 December 9 2019 PC Meeting Minutes DRAFT 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, December 9, 2019 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Vice Chair Tieman called the Monday, December 9, 2019 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Dave Tieman, William Kallberg, Dan Ringstad and Jason Tschetter. Also present were Liaison Zach Braid, Community Development Director Casey McCabe, Planner Jeff Matzke, and Community Development Services Assistant Sandra Peppin. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad and Tschetter. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, October 28, 2019 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad and Tschetter. The Motion carried 4. Public Hearings: No Public Hearings. 5. Old Business: No Old Business. 6. New Business: A. DEV19-000001 – Towering Woods Townhomes – Concept Plan and Authorization for Preliminary Plat PUD Submittal – Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity, Inc. is requesting a consideration of a concept plan and authorization for City Staff to accept and process an application for a preliminary PUD (Planned Unit Development) Plan for a project less than 10 acres located on 170th Street between Toronto Avenue and the Ponds Athletic Fields. Planner Matzke: Introduced the consideration of request for the Planning Commission to authorize City Staff to accept and process an application for a Preliminary PUD Plan for a project less than 10 acres. Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity Inc. is proposing a concept plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of 12 lots to be known as Towering Woods Townhomes located north of 170th Street, east of Toronto Avenue. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and suggested a motion. He presented a location map, applicant narrative, revised concept PUD Plan, and the original site plan submittal. PID: 252310150. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming: Asked staff’s opinion regarding this project quantifying value and why the value/benefits being proposed are an additive for the City. Planner Matzke: Explained one of the benefits for the City would be the elimination of conflict points for driveway access along a narrower street and additional driveways. He commented on the preferred 2 method by the City, street upgrade, reconstructed curb and gutter, park access road, park entrance corridor, a difficult site, PUD benefit for this plan, and exceptions in the setback standards. Tschetter: Asked how close we are to meeting the R-3 density. Planner Matzke: Explained how the numbers are based off the units per net acreage. The units proposed are just a little over 7 units an acre which meets the high-density comprehensive plan designation. Tschetter: Stated this property seems to be a compacted footprint of this site. He referred to a comment made in May from residents regarding setbacks and said even though we are at the concept stage, he encourages thoughtfulness on spacing and setbacks from adjacent structures. He stated concerns regarding the setback from the road and asked if there has been any further consideration to the reconstruction of 170th. Planner Matzke: Replied the City engineers have reviewed the conceptional grading of this project and found this update to be an acceptable method to review. He explained the right-of-way area, roadway expansion, and minimum public street width standards. Tschetter: Commented on the buildings being close to the street with little screening and stated with the higher traffic corridor, he is not 100% comfortable with this plan yet and encourages the City to work with the applicant to revise this property setbacks where possible. Ringstad: Commented on the original plan being tabled for a new design. He asked about variances for setbacks. Planner Matzke: Replied the applicant met all the setbacks with the original plan but it had more driveway access points on the park roadway. He commented on the project improvements with the storm water and grading. Ringstad: Stated he recalls different types of setbacks based on the original reviewed plan in September and the Commission asking for a redesign for driveways entering onto 170th. He questioned the need for setback variances for this design in comparison to feeling comfortable with requiring variances. Planner Matzke: Explained this current design shown today is the same that was reviewed in September for the preliminary plat, which did meet all the required setbacks. He pointed out the differences regarding the setbacks, driveways being in different location, applicant trying to limit the setback s more so than in the reviewed plans, complications the changes made for the north and south side of the property, and the improvements regarding grading and stormwater as well as retaining wall situations. Ringstad: Recalled various PUD’s from the past with approved setbacks and the outcomes of these PUD’s. He commented on the agreement for PUD’s setbacks and wondered if we have had similar PUD’s in the past with the need for variances on the exterior perimeter. Planner Matzke: Stated he doesn’t recall a similar project with exterior setbacks. He explained the outcome of the PUD’s setbacks that have been reviewed recently versus the difference in this case, stating this parcel is an odd shape which provides a more limited way to place structures. He commented on working with the applicant to resolve the spacing issues. He said we have not experienced many PUD’s with townhomes or high density, it is typically more on a low-density development. Ringstad: Said this plan is an improvement from September even though some potential PUD modifications may be needed. He commented on eliminating the decks to shorten some setback requests and asked about the impervious surface calculations. Planner Matzke: Replied he doesn’t have impervious surface calculation numbers in front of us tonight; however, it will be similar what was reviewed in September. He said the engineering department does not having any initial concern from an impervious surface perspective. Ringstad: Questioned the normal park dedication fees per unit and asked if the charges will be on the 12 potential townhomes presented tonight. Planner Matzke: Responded they would still be looking at the standard fees for parks. Tieman: Stated this project looks good. Kallberg: Commented on other projects approved for under 10 acres and asked if the Majestic project has around 8 acres. He commented the math regarding density and Habitat for Humanity’s past building history. Also, he thought that a high-rise apartment would not be built. He asked how many units could encompass this property, if they were building a 3-4 story high single building. Planner Matzke: Replied the outcome of what a 3-4 story high single building would encompass and allow for. He commented on the additional traffic to the park entrance road. He mentioned some comments he recalls form the September public hearing regarding minimizing the impact to the area. 3 Kallberg: Stated his comments of this project being a preferred alternative in building townhomes opposed to a 3-4 story high-rise building or two. He commented on the street improvement and stated there is significant right-of -way to accommodate a standard city street. He pointed out the traffic to the park being intermittent based on time of year and sports activities compared to this being a constant use of the street. He said it is a good use to the property and commented on the strange shape and the proposed builder. He mentioned setbacks, improvements, and said he appreciates the responses to earlier comments. Planner Matzke: Said there will be a public hearing on this item in the future if the project is pursued as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). He said the public will have an opportunity to comment on the new revised plan at that public hearing. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG AT 6:32 P.M. TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY STAFF ACCEPT AND PROCESS AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN FOR A PROJECT LESS THAN 10 ACRES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad and Tschetter. The Motion carried. B. 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule – Director McCabe: Introduced the consideration to approve the 2020 Official Planning Commission Meeting Schedule setting the dates for the 2020 Planning Commission Meetings. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion to approve the 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. He presented the 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. Commission Comments/Questions: None. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER, TO APPROVE THE 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE AT 6:36P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Announcements: None. 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO ADJOURN THE MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 6:36 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Peppin, Community Development Services Assistant.