Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda / Draft 7/10/06 Minutes Maintenance Center 17073 Adelmann Street S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JULY 24, 2006 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Consent Agenda: s. Public Hearings: A. EP 06-114 EPIC Development, LLC has submitted a preliminary plat (Maple Place) consisting of 5.05 acres ofland located on the south side ofTH 13 and west of Maple Glen 1 sl Addition to be subdivided into 11 lots and 3 outlots for single family homes. B. EP 06-146 thru 06-149 Village Commerce Building, LLC has submitted applications for approval of the Village Commerce Building, a 22,332 square foot office/bank building. The submittal includes a Combined PreliminarylFinal Plat; Utility and drainage easement vacation; Variances to building and parking setbacks and to drive- thru stacking requirements; and Site plan approval C. EP 06-117 Bakken Development, Inc. has submitted a preliminary plat (Golden Pond) consisting of approximately 27 acres of land to be subdivided into 35 lots and 3 outlots for single family homes located northeast of Wedgewood Lane (Spring Lake Township), east of Sunray Boulevard, south of the O'Brien Property/MN TH 13, and west of Rice Lake. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. Report on Tree Preservation Task Force 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: Ll06 FILESI06 PLANNING COMMISSJONlAGENDASIAG07240~ .cityofpriorlake. com Phone 952.440.9675 / Fax 952.440.9678 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 10, 2006 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the July 10, 2006, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 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 June 12,2006, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None s. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. EP 06-128 (continued) Master Development is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage on Lot 2, Block 1, Deerfield 7th Addition (pending plat approval). Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated July 10, 2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On June 12,2006 a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to discuss an application request by Master Engineering and Construction for a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage on a site located south of Adelmann Street and west of Revere Way, within the Deerfield Industrial Park. The currently vacant site proposes a structure and an outdoor storage area for the parking of construction related equipment. The 32,100 square foot structure is proposed to contain eight warehouse suites (ranging in size from 3,732 square feet to 3,916 square feet). L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071006.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 The topics of concern that were most commonly referred to at the public hearing included: . Concerns related to inadequate screening provided by fencing and trees. . Concerns related to the storage of fuel tanks in close proximity to residential properties. . Concerns of any potential wetland impacts as a result of the proposed outdoor storage area. After hearing individual comments, the Planning Commission discussed the concerns raised during the public hearing and directed the applicant to review the site plan and consider possible revisions, including the following: . Reconfigure the building design that locates the outdoor storage further from the wetland and rear of the property. . Consider berming. . Increase vegetation screening. . Increase the fence height. . Limit hours of operation. The request and public hearing were continued to the July 10, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has submitted revised plans which indicate changes to increase screening with an 8 foot high fence rather than the initial 6 foot fence and the modification of five deciduous trees to five coniferous trees, maintaining a total of 21 trees at the rear of the site. Despite the applicant citing financial considerations for not providing any other site modifications, staff believes the alterations to the site do not address all of the stated concerns of the Planning Commission. Therefore, for approval of the conditional use permit staff recommends the following conditions also be met: 1. Modify or relocate the outdoor storage area to allow for an adequate area between the wetland buffer and the outdoor storage fencing for the addition of a berm. 2. Revise the landscaping plan to establish the 10' coniferous trees along the top of the berm. 3. Limit hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for the storage of fuel tanks in the outdoor storage area prior to site plan approval. 5. The applicant shall submit a certificate of survey verifying the proposed site improvements and proposed structure in relation the to wetland and easement boundaries. 6. The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County no later than 60 days after City Council approval. 7. A plan must be provided that details the design and materials used for the construction of the enclosed fenced area. 8. A zoning permit shall be issued prior to the installation of the fence. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071 006.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 9. All vehicles within the outdoor storage area must be operable, licensed, and registered. 10. Conditions in the May 26, 2006 Engineering Department Memo shall be met prior to building permit issuance. 11. Prior to site plan approval, the applicant shall submit revised plans reflecting plan changes and conditions as indicated. 12. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1503(8) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met. Ringstad asked if staff had any suggestions or alternatives for the applicant regarding condition #1 (Modify or relocate the outdoor storage area to allow for an adequate area between the wetland buffer and the outdoor storage fencing for the addition of a berm.) Matzke responded staff suggested reducing the square footage of the building or create an "L" shaped building. Any of the alternatives would probably reduce the outdoor storage area or reduce the building area. The applicant felt there would be financial concerns with the changes. Matzke said Johnson would speak to that. Matzke pointed out the tight turning radius in the back and the wetland buffer would require setbacks reducing the size of the building. Lemke asked how much room would be required for a berm. Matzke responded if you built a 3 foot berm, one would need about 24 feet. Poppler agreed. Lemke questioned the condition on the stored vehicles - are bulldozers and vehicles not driven on roads have to be licensed and registered? Matzke said all vehicles have to be permitted and licensed. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Wayde Johnson of Master Engineering and Construction said he had nothing to add to the report and was available for questions. Perez questioned what kind of demand is there for the units. Johnson said 3 of the 8 are under contract and are in negotiations with a fourth party. They have had several inquiries of businesses that didn't fit for one reason or another. Joe Riordan, 17482 Deerfield Drive, said he and his wife have found this community and neighbors to be very pleasant. It is a comfortable and modem environment. He appreciates the challenge the Conditional Use Permit brings to everyone and hopes the Board and staff view his observations and suggestions as constructive and not adversarial. Riordan was not present at the last meeting however he did submit a written list of five questions that were promptly and professionally answered by Jeff Matzke. In addition to his neighbors concerns, Riordan asked the following questions and concerns: how runoff will be controlled to the wetlands; other outside storage surrounded by 6 foot fencing; higher fencing requirements; there are at least 30 townhomes affected L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071006.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 by the use of this CUP; the townhomes reduced property values; and suggested the Board visit the offsite excavating company next to the Deerfield Industrial Park. Riordan felt not all businesses are suitable for the development. Common sense should enable trumping a one-size fits all zoning code. Jean Riordan, 17482 Deerfield Drive, said she wanted to thank the neighbors for expressing her feelings. She asked the Commissioners "If you were living in Deerfield would you want this eyesore in your back yard?" Bill Dillingham, 17459 Deerfield Drive, drove back on Welcome Avenue and observed buses on two lots along with other construction equipment. Dillingham felt there are three lots not being used other than for storage; and that would be where this type of business should be. Judith Hanson, 17436 Deerfield Drive, said the applicant has planned a nice building for business however at the last meeting the Commissioners emphasized money was not a parameter to consider when approving an issue. The applicant has spent a lot of time and money to get this plan together but perhaps the plan is just too big for the building. Hanson felt the applicant could do a better job with a smaller facility including berms to make it acceptable for the neighborhood. Keith Dahnert, 17440 Deerfield Drive, said this is the first time he has heard of the applicant's changes including a three foot berm that would be 24 feet wide. Moore replied staff was not talking about a specific berm... one of the Commissioners questioned how much area was need for a three foot berm. Dahnert said "Regardless, a three foot berm is not much bang for the buck. The applicant isn't putting up a 12 foot concrete barrier like the sound walls along the freeways." He felt the applicant's proposal are all visuals and not adequate. Why bother? Dahnert did not feel the hours were restrictive enough and their operation will interfere with the neighbors' lifestyle. Dahnert said he expects to hear from some people on the Commission that they are no doubt looking to approve this proposal because it is consistent with the zoning. Dahnert said no one disputes the 11 zoning - outside storage is allowed - end of story. To do outside storage they have to have Conditional Use Permits. Why? If outside storage is allowed regardless of what they are doing a CUP wouldn't be necessary. He believes not all businesses are consistent with 11 zoning and doesn't need or should be allowed. The only reason Dahnert sees a CUP is to condition for the adjoining properties and residents. Should it be allowed next to a residential area? Jerry Hanson, 17436 Deerfield Drive, said everyone heard all the personal reasons why they wouldn't want this in their back yard and that's probably the key to this whole planning process. Most people want businesses to share the property taxes and provide economic development opportunities. There's a lot of "Not In My Back Yard" as a part of that. That's what the Planning Commission is for. Hanson said it seems to him "As an appointed Commission; it's to do the planning that when it's put in someone's back yard, L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071 006.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 it is conducive to what it is for the businesses going in. In this case, the City was forced to deal with a small area for Industrial properties and trying to build up businesses. Unfortunately, the property was zoned commercial which is probably not that incompatible with the housing respects but somehow the developer felt he couldn't sell the C5 properties. He came back to the City and eventually the Council to change the zoning. " Hanson felt there are other areas of the City where industrial parks would be a better fit. This park was put into place without the people (future residents) really knowing what was going to happen. So now, the City has to look at the long run and manage development in the future. Hanson said he appreciates the man working hard and making an honest living. "But it is the Commissioners job to look at the businesses and see if that business fits where it is being suggested. Ifit doesn't fit you have to say it. Short term you can make it work. There is an opportunity to make a statement tonight and straighten out this situation for the long term." The public hearing was closed at 6:33 p.m. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS: Ringstad: . Regarding the meeting a month ago, there were concerns from a few neighbors with respect to security with the fuel tanks. Ringstad talked to Police Chief O'Rourke to see ifhe had any security concerns with the above ground fuel tanks allowed in this development. He did not feel there were any more security concerns than a filling station that would have combustible fuels. I felt comfortable with the Chief s assessment. . It was also pointed out the Commissioners changed the designations from C5 to II - we did in September '04. What was also pointed out is that notices were sent out to property owners within 350 feet. It was also published in the newspaper. . Tonight we have a room full of people but two years ago no one commented. Thus, we discussed it and approved it. . Would like to hear comments from fellow Commissioners. . With the improvements from the applicant I am inclined to support the CUP. Billington: . This is a quality applicant who made an exemplary attempt to deal with the concerns of the neighbors within reason. . The area is zoned Industrial and is appropriate. We have to expect this site to be developed within those parameters. It is an industrial sector of the city. . As a result, I will support the applicant. Lemke: . About 4 weeks ago, I had concerns with the fuel storage. I went to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and discovered there are over 20,000 above-ground L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISS10N\MINUTES\MN071 006.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 storage tanks in the State of Minnesota. Apparently it is not a big problem. I feel comfortable with the fuel storage from a safety aspect. . I was on the Planning Commission two years ago when that change took place. This is the type of use we wanted in the Industrial Park. . It was suggested by the neighbors at the last meeting that this was bad zoning. . I have been out to the site several times. The sign out on the entrance says "Deerfield Industrial Park". Again, this is the type of business I envisioned for an industrial park. . If it were located adjacent or abutting the property line of a residential area it might be inappropriate or bad zoning. But it's not. This area is separated by a large wetland that will not be developed. It is 190 to 200 feet away. . I understand some people will not like it but I will support. Perez: . It is obvious there is a need for industrial areas. It is confirmed by the McComb Study and that is why we made the change to industrial. . Outdoor storage is needed. I do agree with some of the neighbors that not all businesses are appropriate. . I do not feel the applicant has gone far enough with this piece of land to put that type of business in that area. . It sounds like there is a need for businesses and some of the suites have been sold. . Talked to Paul Snook, the Economic Director for Prior Lake and he did not see any issues with selling the suites. Ifit's a case where we're pushing businesses away I would think differently. However, I do not feel that is the case. . The applicant has come further, but I do not feel the screening or the limited hours of operation is enough. . There are other businesses that may be a better fit for the neighborhood. Stamson: . We are losing site of the issues. This is still an 11 industrial site. When we decided n would work here, it was appropriate and it still is. This issue is not n. . The building was designed not for this use in mind, but as a rental site for industrial use. There are still many uses for that building. . The issue is the CUP. Within the 11 rules we said you can have outdoor storage but it had to be through a CUP. The reason we asked for a CUP is because of the impacts that go beyond industrial uses. Ifwe just thought any time there is outside storage there would be a fence and few trees we would have written that into the ordinance and done away with this whole process. We said we want to reVIew. . We want to hold to a higher standard. Not just throw up a six foot fence and a few coniferous trees anywhere on the lot. . The real issue is the storage. It is nice building and will be an asset to the City. The trouble is a business wants to come in with outside storage. I'm not against outside storage next to a residential area. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMM1SS10N\MINUTES\MN071006.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 . The fencing will not cover the site. It is just a poor use for this design and property. . The site is too small to support the outside storage under its current configuration. . I feel the site will sell out irregardless if it has outside storage or not. I think it was very clearly designed not to have outside storage. If you want to use this site for outside storage then throw out this plan and start over. . This band-aid approach of slapping up a fence and throwing a few tractors along the property line because someone asked for it is inappropriate. . The idea behind the CUP is to hold to a higher standard than what is written in the manual. What is here is not appropriate and does not fit with the neighborhood. . It should be denied or redesigned to support an appropriate outside storage area. . Our intent for writing in a CUP for industrial was not to slap up a six foot fence around whatever you want and then come here and ask us for it. Why waste our time with these meetings if we're just going to slap an approval on every time someone asks. . Will not support. OPEN DISCUSSION: Perez: . I agree with the CUP. It is zoned industrial and the CUP is there for a reason. To make sure it is appropriate and limits are there. . I do not feel the limits have been met. The neighbors' concerns have not been fully addressed. . The applicant said this is the only design that is financially suitable for them. Stamson: . That is fine, that is a (financial) decision you make as a business owner. . My way oflooking at it is that it was not initially designed for outside storage. . The applicant said he had quite a bit of interest. . I don't think this outside storage is a "live-or-die" for the project. . It is up to the applicant to come up with another design to support the storage. Perez: . Agreed it is up to the applicant to redesign or find another business. . Financial should not weigh on the decision. Ringstad: . It is not weighing in on my decision at all. . What it is - he is going to pay the same amount of money for the land whether there is 10,000 or 50,000 square feet and that is not going to affect any of us if we're going to support this or not. . The one thing I think is dangerous for any of us is to go down the thinking that we think something will sell that way. Weare not developers, we are not building nor are we selling these things. Weare looking at these things at face value. L:\06 F1LES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071006.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 . It is dangerous to go outside that box. . To talk about some of our concerns is legitimate. . Again we are going beyond if we think something will sell there as office rental or outdoor storage - we don't know. . We have to deal with what is before us. Stamson: . I just brought it up because of the financial considerations, it was mentioned that the development wasn't feasible by making large scale changes to it. Ringstad: . For those of us who voted "yes" for the buses a few months ago. What is the difference between this and the buses? Perez: . The proximity. Matzke stated the distance is about 150 to 200 feet from the properties. It depends where you measure. Lemke: . This is a permitted use with conditions. Stamson disagreed. Kansier explained the conditions of a Conditional Use Permit. Certain uses may have a greater impact on the site or the adjacent site than an outright permitted use. The objective ofa Conditional Use Permit is to look at what, if any, types of mitigated measures to alleviate any potential impact. Kansier went on to say if the Commissioners find there are no mitigating measures then it should be denied and make very specific Findings on why those measures cannot be made. Ifthere are mitigative measures than can be made and place on as conditions then apply them as conditions and approve the Conditional Use Permit. It is not to deny it outright. You make the assumption the underlying use is appropriate with conditions. Stamson: . The building can still be redesign and not have the impact to the neighbors. The design is the problem. The staff report says the developer came back and said some of the conditions do not work for him. So that's why I am saying "Deny it" based on the developers decision not to use the mitigating factors that we recommended at the last meeting. . I would still be more than willing to look at it ifhe could flip the building sideways and move the storage. I would be totally comfortable with it. Or a "U" shaped building and hide the storage in the center of the building. There are a lot of ways to design this without impacting the neighbors. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071006.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 . My argument for denying it was because of the design. The design didn't change. . I also think coniferous trees are worse than deciduous. An eight foot fence will not shield anything but the fence. You are better off with a deciduous tree where most of the shielding would be above the fence line. . I don't disagree that outside storage is appropriate in the industrial zone. I don't even disagree that you can store this equipment on this site; it is just the proposed design for the CUP. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH STAFF'S CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by Billington, Ringstad and Lemke. Nay by Perez and Stamson. MOTION CARRIED. Matzke explained the appeal process and read the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant must own property within 350 feet of the site to appeal. Joanne Swenson, 17490 Deerfield Drive, questioned how the public would know if the applicant met the conditions. Matzke read the conditions. Kansier explained the Conditional Use Permit process. The applicant has a year to begin construction. B. EP 06-131 through 136; Donnay Homes, Manley Development and Cardinal Development are requesting Final PUD Plan approval for Northwood Meadows. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report 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 North wood Road, directly west of the Northwood Oaks development and east of Spring Lake Regional Park. The proposal calls for a residential development consisting of 136 single family homes along with parks and trail on a total of 79 acres. On March 20, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance #106-05 amending the Zoning Ordinance to designate the 79 acres as a Planned Unit Development. The ordinance listed the elements of the PUD as follows: a. The PUD is a single family development consisting oflots from 7,150 square feet to over 30,000 square feet in area. The PUD plan provides a minimum of34.74 acres of park, including a 5.75 acre active neighborhood park. b. The total number of units on the site will not exceed 136. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071006.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 c. Density and impervious surface within the Shoreland Tiers must not exceed the totals identified on the plans dated December 13,2005. d. 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. e. The elements of the plan will be as shown on the plans dated December 13, 2005, except for modifications approved as part of the final PUD plan. The ordinance also required the following conditions be incorporated into the final plans: a. A wetland mitigation plan must be approved prior to any grading on the site. b. The plan must be revised to include a driveway access to the park. c. 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. d. On the final PUD plan, clearly indicate which lots will be allowed a 7.5' side yard setback. e. 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. f. 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. g. The developer must submit a cash escrow of $45,000 for a playground structure for the park as part of the development contract. h. Provide street names unique to the City street naming system for all streets. 1. The developer must submit a Letter of Credit in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of the required replacement trees. J. The developer must work with City staff to determine the feasibility of locating a trail on the south side of the development adjacent to Spring Lake Regional Park. If the staff finds this trail location is feasible, the developer must construct the trail. k. The developer must escrow funds, in an amount to be determined by the City staff, for the construction of a sidewalk on one side of Hawk Ridge Trail from Northwood Road to this development. The final PUD plan includes all aspects of the development. This PUD is somewhat unique in that it involves three separate developers. Each developer has submitted a separate final plat for their portion of the development. Each of the subdivisions is described below: The Coves of Northwood Meadows: This portion of the project, to be developed by Cardinal Development, is located on the south end of the entire development. It consists of approximately 40 acres to be subdivided into 40 lots for single family homes, 2 park parcels and 1 outlot for stormwater ponds. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071006.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 The Villas of Northwood Meadows: Donnay Homes is responsible for this portion of the development, which is located on the west side, adjacent to Spring Lake Regional Park. It consists of approximately 10 acres to be subdivided into 20 lots for single family homes and 3 outlots for park purposes. The Bluffs of Northwood Meadows: Manley Development is developing the Bluffs of Northwood Meadows. The subdivision encompasses the northern portion of the site, and consists of approximately 49.50 acres to be subdivided into 74 lots for single family homes, 3 parks and 1 outlot. The staff felt the Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved preliminary plan, and has addressed the conditions of approval of the preliminary plan. Any of the conditions that are not addressed by the PUD plan, such as engineering issues, will be addressed before the final pUD plan and the final plats go before the City Council. Commissioners Ringstad is abstaining from comments and voting because of a business relationship with one of the properties. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Frank Blundetto from Manley Land Development said they have no issues with the staff report and will fulfill their commitments. Todd Murr, 3022 Hawk Ridge Road, questioned the proposed parking lot on the south side of Knoll Road. Kansier explained staff reviewed the parks layout and made the decision there would be 3 accesses to the park and would have a couple of bump-outs that would not congest certain areas. Murr asked if there was a new plat indicating the locations. Kansier pointed out the parking areas. Murr believed the City Council approved the plan without the parking lots. Kansier said the City Council placed a condition that the developer needed to work with staff to provide an access and parking for the park. Murr went on to question the tree removal. His expectation was that 40% of the trees would be removed. Kansier explained tree removal is based on significant trees, which are specific species and size. There may be trees on site that are not considered "significant" and can be removed without replacement. She also went on to explain the replacement value and reforestation. Kansier also spoke on the PUD process. Murr questioned the time line for the extension of Hawk Ridge Road. Poppler said it depends on the approval. Probably sometime this summer. Murr asked ifhe could weigh in as far as the landscaping. The cul-de-sac is so large it actually egresses onto the property. He did not want a slope and then a flat area. Kansier said the engineering department or Frank Blundetto from Manley could work with him. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MlNUTES\MN071006.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 Stamson questioned the bump-out parking lots. Kansier said there two spots at three locations for a total of six parking spots. Stamson questioned why the bump-out parking and not on-street parking. Kansier said on street parking is somewhat limited. They were trying to provide some off street parking so residents wouldn't have difficulties trying to get in and out of their driveways. There is a lot of concern expressed at the Planning Commission about creating a larger parking lot and this was a compromise. Stamson questioned maintenance for the access. Kansier said the City usually does not plow internal trails like this. Poppler said the Parks Advisory decides what is maintained. Tammy Murr, 3022 Hawk Ridge Road, questioned if anyone was ever out to the site. Murr said she was amazed at how many trees were removed. She thanked Frank Blundetto for helping save trees along the path. Murr questioned how far the path from her property is. She also stated she did not want a sidewalk on her property as it would detract from her home. Murr felt a sidewalk was not necessary. Kansier pointed out the sidewalk/trail areas in the development. Poppler said the City will locate the trail to avoid trees in the area. Murr asked if there had to be a sidewalk on Hawk Ridge or could it be discussed. Popper said staff works that into the Capital Improvement Program and the City Council weighs in on that. The staff felt it is necessary to connect to Northwood Road. Murr questioned who she should go to next to protest the sidewalk and tree removal. Poppler replied the area had not been surveyed and went on to explain staff looks at the topography to see what side makes most sense for a trail. Staff would probably prefer to have it on the south side if it can work. Heidi Sheffield, 3061 Hawk Ridge Road, is opposing the sidewalk on the south side of Hawk Ridge. Their yard is very steep and they have already landscaped the area. Stamson said this is not the place for deciding which side of the road the sidewalks are going in. Kansier said the decision was already made by the City Council that there should be a sidewalk. The developer is responsible for escrowing the funding but not building it. Not sure of the exact process because it is different from a public improvement project. Poppler said they could have a neighborhood meeting and mentioned staffhad a recent neighborhood meeting regarding a sidewalk which became quite adversarial. The public meeting was closed at 7:30 p.m. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS: Billington: . Like the project. It's a great plan and addition to the community. Support. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071 006.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 Lemke: . It is consistent with the previous meetings. Recommend in favor. Perez: . Agree with Commissioners - it is consistent and as long as conditions are met. . Good to see park connections. Support. Stamson: . Agree with Commissioners - staff did a good job laying out the conditions. Everything has been covered. Support. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PUD PLAN SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Ringstad abstained. MOTION CARRIED. The target date to go to City Council is August 7. c. EP OS-230 Wensmann Realty is requesting approval of a PUD Final Plan for Jeffers Pond Second Addition. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 10, 2006 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Wensmann Realty has applied for approval for the second phase of the Jeffers Pond development on property located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 42 and CSAH 21. The entire Jeffers Pond development is a 336 acre mixed use development. The first phase of the development, constructed in 2005, included lots for 96 single family homes, 67 townhomes, the school site and the park. Jeffers Pond 2nd Addition includes 5.16 acres located east ofJeffers Pass, west ofCSAH 21, south of CSAH 42, and north of Raspberry Ridge Road. The original plan called for development of 40 townhouse units; the revised final plan is proposing development of 23 single family detached dwellings, reducing the total units by 17. The staff recommends approval of the Final PUD Plan be subject to the following condition: The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Terry Wensmann, ofWensmann Homes was present to answer any questions. The reason for the change is the demand for this type of detached townhouse. It is not a product that they have in the Jeffers development. L:\06 F1LES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071006.doc 13 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed at 7:39 p.m. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS: Lemke: . This is an improvement to an otherwise outstanding improvement. Can't think of a single decision I have had to make on this Commission that was easier for me. Support. Perez: . Agree - with this change and all other elements. It is an improvement on the densities and impervious surface. Support. Ringstad: . Mr. Wensmann answered my only question with his opening statement of why the change. Typically we are looking at requests for higher densities and impervious surface and this is going the other way. It is a great product for the development. Support. Billington: . It is an excellent project and I will be supporting it as well. Stamson: . Changes are an improvement. It is an outstanding project. Support. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PUD PLAN SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This will go before the City Council on August 7, 2006. D. EP 06-126 Homestyle Builders & Developers Inc. are requesting a combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of 1.94 acres of land located on the east side of Ridgemont Avenue and north ofTH 13. The property is to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes. Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated July 10,2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Mitch Husnik has applied for approval ofa development to be known as Tristan's Woods on a property located on the east side ofRidgemont Ave and north ofTH 13. The request calls for the subdivision of the existing lot into three single-family residential lots. The total site consists of 1.94 acres. The preliminary plat consists of 3 lots for single family dwellings. The lots range in size from 26,961 square feet to 30,408 square feet. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMM1SS10N\MINUTES\MN071 006.doc 14 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 This site has a varied topography, with elevations ranging from 978' MSL at its highest point to 966' MSL at the lowest point. The site is currently vacant and wooded. There are many significant trees on this site. The project is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A large 8,499 square foot wetland exists on the northern portion of the site. The applicant has been given approval by the Technical Evaluation Panel Board (TEP) allowing 373 square feet of fill on the west side of this wetland. Staff included conditions of approval that the engineering comments be addressed as well as the applicant propose a tree replacement plan which indicates more replacement at the rear of the building pads on the three lots. The preliminary plat application will comply with relevant ordinance provisions and City standards, provided all the conditions of approval are met. 1. The applicant shall address all engineering comments as outlined in the memorandum from the Assistant City Engineer dated June 27,2006. 2. The applicant shall submit a revised tree replacement plan indicating additional tree replacement to the rear of the building pads on the proposed lots. 3. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that indicates the required two front yard trees are not also included as tree replacement. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City. 5. The applicant shall obtain required permits from all applicable governmental agencies prior to final plat approval. 6. The final plat shall be recorded at Scott County within 90 days of approval by the City Council. Stamson questioned the tree replacement for cash. Kansier explained the fees go into the park fund for landscaping and improvements to the park system. Perez questioned minimizing the grading. Matzke explained staffwas concerned with the grading in the rear yards of the new lots and the tree removal. The staff wanted to make sure the applicant was doing as much as he could to minimize the grading. Poppler said staff has worked with the applicant over the last few months on the design without putting in a number of retaining walls. Ringstad questioned the wetland credits for the replacement of fill. Matzke said the Board (TEP) found the amount offill was insignificant. The City's Water Resource Engineer has been working with the applicant. Lemke questioned the minimum lot width in the Shoreland District. Matzke responded it was 86 feet. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071 006.doc 15 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Mitch Husnik, Homestyle Builders and Developers said the initial tree plan submitted has been changed and felt they were improving the site. Perez asked ifhe talked to the neighbors. Husnik said he spoke to a few. There were some runoff issues with the neighbors behind in the cul-de-sac. Husnik stated he was reassured by his engineering firm that the water does not leave the larger wetland. The public hearing was closed. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS: Perez: . This looks like a good plan. . The site has some challenges that staff is aware of. . Agree with staffs assessment. Support with conditions in the report. Ringstad: . Support with the conditions. Billington: . Does not detect any serious issues at this time. Support. Lemke: . Agree with staff and will support with conditions. Stamson: . It is a difficult site and the applicant has done a reasonable job addressing tree replacement, drainage and grading. Will support with conditions. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A COMBINED PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 1.94 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS SUBJECT TO STAFF'S CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This will go to the City Council on August 7, 2006. 6. Old Business: None L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071006.doc 16 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 7. New Business: A. EP 06-142 Deerfield Development is requesting an amendment to the approved phasing plan in the approved Conditional Use Permit to allow delayed construction of Building A. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated July 10, 2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. In July of 2005 Eagle Creek Development received approval for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow two multiple family dwellings on the 4.15 acre property located south ofCSAH 21/Cottonwood Lane, east ofFish Point Road, west of Adelmann Street/Revere Way, and north of Deerfield Drive. Eagle Creek Development is proposing a minor amendment to the approved CUP. The request is specifically related to the timing of construction for the second (Building A) of two multiple family buildings. At the time the CUP was approved, the developer indicated that the proj ect would be constructed in two phases. The CUP specified the first building would proceed with construction immediately and the second building would be constructed in the summer of 2006. As anticipated, the first building is under construction. However, the developer is requesting approval to delay the construction of the second building until the summer (May/June) of2009, with a completion date of February 2010. The subject building site has been excavated. Once the first building (Building B) is complete, staff believes it would be beneficial to meet the developer on-site and determine any additional grading, soil stabilizing, and fencing provisions that may be necessary. In addition, the Planning Commission may want to consider requiring a Letter of Credit to cover the cost of filling, grading, and seeding the site if Building A is not constructed within the modified timeframe. Staff recommends approval of the CUP amendment with the following conditions: 1. All common area landscaping must be installed per the approved plans. 2. The developer shall follow all erosion control guidelines as specified in the Public Works Design Manual. 3. As the Planning and Engineering staff deem appropriate, the applicant shall install fencing along the perimeter of the excavated area. 4. As the Planning and Engineering staff deem appropriate, the applicant shall pave necessary areas to provide for access of emergency vehicles. 5. All outstanding fees, including parkland dedication, shall be based on the fee amounts enforce at the time of construction. 6. Building A shall be under construction no later than the summer of2009. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN07 I 006.doc 17 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 The applicant was not available for the meeting. Billington questioned what will happen if the building is not constructed at the time specified. Moore explained the Letter of Credit (LOC) and it is in the Planning Commission's right to add the condition. Stamson questioned if there was sufficient parking in the first phase by itself. Moore said there were a few more parking spaces. It is one of the reasons staff added that condition. Stamson questioned if the second building is not built, is there enough lot area to split and create two lots. Moore said there was not enough room. That was one of the reasons the applicant requested a Conditional Use Permit. There is not enough room for setbacks for another structure unless they wanted to build something drastically smaller. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS: Ringstad: . Support with a seventh condition with a LOC as mentioned in the report. Stamson asked what a LOC would require. Moore explained the requirements are 125% of a bid that would go towards filling and landscaping/seeding the site. Stamson confirmed the reason for the LOC was if the building was never constructed, someone could turn this into an empty lot that is not an eyesore. Billington: . Support with the additional condition of LOC. Stamson: . Agree - It is reasonable to space the buildings apart. . As a backup, there should be a LOC. Support. Lemke/Perez: . Agreed with the additional condition of LOC. Moore confirmed the LOC was specifically for filling, landscaping and seeding at 125% of the estimated cost. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR A MODIFIED PHASING PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING A WITHIN THE COURTWOOD VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT WITH AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION FOR A LETTER OF CREDIT FROM THE APPLICANT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN07IO06.doc 18 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2006 8. Announcements and Correspondence: None. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN07I006.doc 19