Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Concept Plan - Monnen's Property MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: Maintenance Center 17073 Adelmann Street S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 7A DANETTE MOORE, PLANNING COORDINATOR DISCUSSION OF CONCEPT PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE MONNENS PROPERTY Introduction Ryland Homes has submitted a concept plan for the site known as the Monnens property. This site is approximately 10.5 acres (net) in size, and is located on the north side of MN TH 13, east of Pheasant Meadow Lane, and south of CSAH 12. This property is presently vacant land zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and designated as C-NR, Neighborhood Retail Shopping on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The purpose of this item is to discuss the concept development of the site, and to allow the City Council an opportunity to voice any particular concerns, issues or ideas about the proposed development. This discussion is for informational purposes only; comments by the City Counci~ are not binding on subsequent City Council action on a project. The developers will present this concept plan to the City Council. Historv. On August 14, 2006, a concept for the site was brought before the Planning Commission (minutes attached). On August 24, 2006 the Development Review Committee (DRC) met with the developer to further discuss the concept. In response to the Planning Commission and DRC comments, the developer has revised the concept for Council consideration. The draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan contemplates the reguiding of this property to low density residential consistent with this request. Once the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is adopted, the Council would have to rezone the property to correspond with the new guiding. Current Circumstances The developer has submitted a concept plan for the development of this site with 34 single family units. The development would need to be a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to allow for the proposed private streets and smaller single family lots. In exchange for this flexibility, the developer is proposing the following public benefits: . Construct an off-site trail extension to the intersection of CSAH 12 and MN TH 13. . Create a prairie or woodland area along the trail corridor and in the open www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.440.9675 / Fax 952.440.9678 space located in the western portion of the development, which would be generally consistent with the green belts encouraged by the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan. . Construct a sitting area and pergola along the trail area within the interior of the site. . Provide $20,000 for neighborhood park improvements. . While they have not provided any mechanism to guarantee the number and location, the developer claims that half the homes will have a base price between $370,000 and $400,000. The remaining homes would be higher priced. ISSUES: For discussion purposes, the staff has identified the following issues: Parks: . There is no public park proposed within this development. A neighborhood park is located northwest of the site. The developer will be required to pay a cash parkland dedication in lieu of land dedication. Stormwater: . The project will be required to meet all stormwater management rules in affect at the time of the application submittal. This may include stormwater rate, volume, and quality. Design: . The design along CSAH 12 and MN TH13 may need to be modified with future realignment projects. Adequate areas for landscaping should be provided. Planned Unit Development Criteria: . The developer is suggesting the use of the PUD to allow for private streets and other modifications to the Zoning Ordinance. How does this proposal meet the PUD criteria? What are the advantages to the City at large? The purpose of a PUD is stated in Section 1106.100 of the Zoning Ordinance: 1106.100: PURPOSE. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is to offer an alternative to development as outlined in the residential, commercial, and industrial use districts of this Ordinance. The PUD District will and to provide for greater flexibility in the development and redevelopment process as compared to development under the definitive and precise requirements of the conventional use districts. The PUD District must demonstrate that the particular areas to be developed can offer greater value to the community and can better meet the community's health, welfare, and safety requirements than if those same areas were to be developed in a single purpose zone. The PUD process provides for a joint planning/design effort by developers and City officials. Development in a single purpose Use District establishes maximum limits within which developers must perform. The FINANCIAL IMPACT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Planned Unit Development may be multi-purpose in nature so that not only may it be residential, commercial, or industrial, but also it may contain a combination of these uses. It is not the intent of this Section to allow for reductions or waivers to the standard Use District requirements solely for the purpose of increasing overall density, allowing the use of private streets or allowing development that otherwise could not be approved. · Section 1106.501 states the required standards for a PUD as follows: 1106.501 Required Standards. The City shall consider a proposed PUD District from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to achieve a maximum coordination between the proposed development and the surrounding uses, the conservation of woodland and the protection of health, safety and welfare of the community and residents of the PUD. To these ends, the City Council shall consider the location of the buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with respect to the topography of the area and existing natural features such as streams and large trees; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of internal streets and driveways; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of parking areas; and such other matters as the City Council may find to have a material bearing upon the stated standards and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. In reviewing a PUD plan, the City Council must also consider the compatibility of the development with the Shoreland and Flood Plain district requirements. The City Council may wish to ask the following questions: 1. Is the development plan consistent with the Council's vision for this site? 2. Does this proposal meet the purpose and criteria for a PUD? 3. Are the proposed benefits (as identified on the preceding page) equal to the proposed modifications (smaller lots, private streets) that would be requested? 4. If this concept is consistent with the Council's vision for the area, what, if any, specific modifications would the Council favor? 5. Does the Council believe that the proposed housing values are consistent with lifecycle housing? There is no budget impact as a result of this concept discussion. If the concept is ultimately approved and developed in the future, the project will increase the City tax base. No formal action is required at this time. The City Council should provide the developer with any comments, direction or concerns about this concept plan. The City Council's comments are not binding and the developer should not rely on any statements made by individual Councilmembers. However, in the absence of direction, the Council can expect the developer will proceed in general accordance with what they have proposed. Any future plans must be ~ [sed with the appropriate hearings and public participation. ,C' )Ianager ___.-1 " L____---------~~ -""" ----..:.-::..:..;:--~~?-- -----~ ~ ~ ' ___..--~1'4--00At);--;;g:.--&l':wTJ=l--s:tRE~~~S'i'-l-B----;---,.":-~-~~~-i~-. ;:.. . ":.- ~~ - . 0 _ ':... _' ~----=- .:-~:\L.~~--~~-:-- , :.,---- &~~,~...,:. o=~m" n -c", . _/o~ . of;. -~_~-,~ ~_,\~~,,~~7f ~' : . -." _ _ _ _ \. J . \ ' I." 1~. -<:'_ .__-v--.---- . :--: I . ~7;; ,'77~- :;;;' . '. ~"".~ 1,~77;; ..'0. I i I v~. .... .,.... X-.S .'/,-:. I L0 .. .. . i--~( - (/(~ I ....... / 0 I ,.... .'!,..;:,',' I>-C~ . \ . ." .. ,-' / i (///.1) . ,;/ I 0 ~g;,::. .,. I 2: '/::.;' ______------.. --~. (-- '-.'-.';")..~ . I '. ~~\C; .~. 0 " _ _ _ _ _ L - - - u:,.,.., ~-~" ' ,"--.,--,.-..... \. .' \ ~c10 ~.\ r ---.---~~ ---.-------. .. '. -:~~~, ~/ 3 4 OPEN "SPt\CE . ! 5 '.-,6 .. I. " \1 ~. , ' , 1, II" _((~ .oJ' -~:~ PI.NE~ng --- II....,---.....-~" 1- _.........".. MmdocaHeiablsOf6ce ,......."'i:D .__...____._-1- .............._ (MI)___""'_ ::..~~..~.:::: ...-___ RYLAND HOMES -""""""'..... SDBHI'llAlIlE.~A594f ~ CONCEPI' PLAN 6a SITE DATA ~~rn=g ~?N~SE: R_~-L/MO URBAN LOW/IIEOIUII PROPOSEtl ZONING: PUO GROSS AREA: ,t12.19 ACRES S1II 13 ROW AREA: +/-1.63 ACRES NET AREA: ,tl0.56 ACRES GROSS DENSITY: 2. 71 UNITS/ACRE NET DENSITY: 3.12 UNITS/ACRE TOTAL UNITS: 34 SINGlE FAIIIL Y (6Q-70'XI20') MINIMUM AREA 7800 SF TOTAL OPENSPACE 23665 SF TRAIL CORRIDOR 77284 SF NA lURAUZED AREA IN SHORELANO 2.3175ACRE OPEN/l0.56 NET ACRES - 21.95 lI: SHORELAND DATA Ie...l ~= : j~41oo.5 - 5DlI: OPEN) 6,4 UNITS ALLOIlED +/-5.0 UNITS SHOWN MOllE 1.4 UNITS OUT TO TIER 4 IlUlG 5X25OO-125OO ROAD 12800 SF TRAIL 4960 SF ~~~pSFc6:(l~20~~ 23.46~ IIIP COVERAGE IIEIU. = ~ ~1~28 -- SOlI OPEN) 1.2628 UNITS + 1.4 UNITS FROII TIER 3 - 2.66 UNITS ALLOWED +/- 2.00 UNITS SHOWN BLDG 3315 SF AU.OIlED ROAD 2999 SF 6314SF /25256SF - 25l1: IMP COIlERAGE 25l1: AlLOWED SHORRANO - qDnI ~M;E. 128201 + 25256 - 153457 SF IN SHORELAHD 153457 X .50 = 76728 SF REQUIRED OPEN 77284 SF OPEN SPACE SHOWN IN SHDRELAND ~ i GRAPtDC SCALE IN J'BBT MONNENS PARCEL I'UJl U\K.!. MINMIIOTA 1 J, 1 . W I- - en I- z W ~Q. a.. ctS O~ .....I W c >.9 w ctS Cl g 00.....1 Z W Z Z o ~ Q) ~o o o ..... z~-. o o LO ~ C\I Monnens Parcel Project Narrative City Counsel Sketch Plan Review August 25, 2006 Ryland Homes is pleased to present our neighborhood plan for the Monnens Property. The proposal is for approximately 35 Traditions single-family homes. We are confident that the proposed project will fill a gap in the current housing market that is not being served in the Prior Lake region. We are excited about building in Prior Lake and hope to continue building on the successes of this project in other areas of the City. Background The Monnens Parcel is approximately 13 acres in size and is located southwest of the intersection of 170th Street SW and State Highway 13. The site is triangular in shape and is bounded by single-family residential uses to the north, vacant land to the east that will be used to realign the inter5section of 170th Street and State Highway 13, and Highway 13 to the south. The Pheasant Meadows development to the west consists of multi-family homes. The topography is flat and drains to the Crystal Lake south of Highway 13. Vegetation consists turf species and fencerow species along the perimeter of the property. There are no wetlands located on the property Site Design and Amenities: Ryland believes this site is a unique opportunity to provide moderately priced homes that are conveniently located to transportation networks Access to the site will be provided off of 170th Street. The street system would be a 28' wide: private street located within a 41' wide easement or outlot with a walkway on one side of the street. The walkways will be connected to trails that lead to the Pheasant Meadows subdivision west of the project and connect to the new intersection of County Road 12 and State Highway 13 north of the project. Parking would be permitted on one side of the street. The neighborhood has been designed in tandem with the redesign of our single-family line of homes. The homes have been designed to work on 60' wide lots that are 120' deep. Front and rear yard setbacks would be 25' and side yard setbacks would be 7.5' each. Several of the home styles have been designed with a tandem third stall garage, reducing the predominance of neighborhoods with three garage doors facing the street. The site plan has been designed so that the number of homes with rear yards facing Highway 13 have been minimized by creating a circular drive system. It is envisioned that the landscape plan for the neighborhood will include street trees and buffer plantings on a berm along State Highway 13. The streetscape and buffer plantings would consist of native plantings that are indigenous to the area. pun Proposal: As part of this submission package Ryland is proposing the following: . Pay park dedication fee of $127,500 · Construct offsite trail extension to intersection of County Road 12 and State Highway 13 · Restore naturalized habitat in the form of either a restored prairie or woodland in the shoreland open space and trail corridor on the property. The naturalized theme will be extended into the development with native buffer plantings and trees. · Construct sitting area and pergola along trail system · We will offer between 6 and 8 home styles in the neighborhood. One half of the homes will be offered with a base price between $370,000 and $400,000. The current average minimum base price for new home construction is $480,000. · Provide $20,000 for neighborhood park improvements. Architecture The Tradition Homes, built by Ryland, have been recently redesigned to provide updated features to the exterior and interior of the home. Some of the exterior improvements include a new design that reduces the number of garage doors by introducing a third stall home with a tandem garage. We are introducing a home that is specifically designed for a comer lot. The garage for this home is side loaded and placed at the rear of the home. Both of these improvements add visual clarity to the streetscape by reducing the dominance of garage doors as you move through the neighborhood. We have also updated our floor plans to provide the amenities and living spaces that today's discriminating home buyer is requesting. They provide a carefree lifestyle that will appeal to families, professional couples and active adults. The Tradition Homes have three to four bedrooms and 2 Yz baths. Many of the floor plans include a formal living room, formal dining room anti eat-in kitchen. The master bedrooms have a private bath and walk-in closet. Enjoyment of the outdoors is provided with decks and sun porches options and numerous walkout homes with views of the stream valley and natural features the site offers. Home sizes will range from 2,250 square feet to nearly 3,300 square feet. The Tradition homes will be offered with prices ranging from $380,000 to the low $450,000 range. Conformance with Subdivision Ordinance The proposal is not premature because there is adequate water supply and waste disposal systems in the area, access to roads and highways is provided and the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan August 14, 2006 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes C. 06-154 Ryland Homes is presenting a concept plan for the development of approximately 11 acres to create a pun containing 35 single family residential dwelling sites. This property is currently known as the Monnens property located on the north side of MN TH 13, east of Pheasant Meadow Lane and south of CSAH 12. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated August 14, 2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Ryland Homes has submitted a concept plan for the Monnens property to develop the site into 35 single family units. This site is approximately 10.5 acres (net) in size, and is located on the north side of MN TH 13, east of Pheasant Meadow Lane, and south of CSAH 12. This property is presently vacant land zoned C-l, Neighborhood Commercial and designated as C-NR, Neighborhood Retail Shopping on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. For discussion purposes, the staff has identified the following issues: Parks: . There is no public park proposed within this development. A neighborhood park is located northwest of the site. The developer will be required to pay a cash parkland dedication in lieu of land dedication. Stormwater: . The project will be required to meet all stormwater management rules in affect at the time of the application submittal. This may include stormwater rate, volume, and quality. Design: . The design along CSAH 12 and MN TH13 may be mddified with future realignment projects. Adequate areas for landscaping should be provided. The trail location will likely be impacted as well. . The narrative provided by the developer indicates that the project will use a clustered neighborhood design. Staff does not see a clustered neighborhood development pattern within the provided concept. . The developer is suggesting the use of the PUD to allow for private streets and other modifications to the Zoning Ordinance. How does this proposal meet the PUD criteria? What are the advantages to the City at large? Perez questioned the proposed density in the 2030 Comp Plan. Staff responded it was Rl. Stamson questioned the tiering. Kansier explained. Comments from the Applicant: Brian Sullivan from Ryland Homes, explained the concept plan noting the following: . The market is continually changing and how neighborhoods are put together. . The home design is becoming more moderate. . A garage concept that is actually 3 stalls with only 2 doors. This type of home has been successful in some of their other developments. . Pointed out development layout not having backyards face Highway 13. . Homes would be modestly priced. . Would like to have a PUD overlay. Stamson questioned why a PUD? Sullivan and Kansier responded it was necessary because of the private streets and the size of the lots. Sullivan also noted to purchase the property it is necessary to have a certain number of lots to make it worth developing. Mainly to reduce the right-of-way. Billington questioned the County's concern for Lots 1 and 2 and what has Ryland done to address the concern? Sullivan responded. Billington questioned if there would be a homeowner's association. Sullivan said there would be a concept for a homeowners association. Lemke asked if the applicant has seen the County plans for the road realignment and if there has been some kind of agreement with the County on the stormwater ponding. Stamson questioned why the Pheasant Meadow trail corridor has not been included. Kansier said there is a street right-of-way there and at some point there was an agreement the street would not be built. They are showing a trail corridor which would be appropriate. Lemke felt it looked like a huge one-way cul-de-sac and would be a safety concern. Kansier said it would be similar to the neighboring Pheasaht Meadows development with only one way in and out. There are other developments that are similar. Stamson noted there was almost an access off Highway 13. It's almost the old time farm style road. It's a grassy area that you could drive through if you had to. Comment from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . This falls way short of the intent of a PUD. It looks like the applicant is trying to get more density on site to create the economics the developer needs. That is not the intent. No trade offs of saving trees or setback from lakes which do not apply in this case but there is no give and take. Don't see it. . It does not meet the PUD criteria. Billington: . I like it in principal but the applicant has a way to go. There are issues that have to be addressed prior to going forward. . A development on that site is important but there has to be a way to figure out how to make it work. . Open to further discussion. Lemke: . Agree with Commissioners. Ringstad is right - this falls short of the PUD requirements - what is the benefit to the City? Maybe the moderate home prices which is a goal of the Comp Plan. . It is not a bad plan but not sure I can reconcile this with the PUD process. Perez: . Agree with Commissioners - there is no value to the City. . Agree there has to be more work done. Work with staff. Hopefully when we see this again it will be closer to what we are looking for. Stamson: . Asked staff to read the PUD criteria for the t.v. audience. Moore read the requirements. . Agreed with Commissioners that it does not fit for a PUD. . The Commissioners look for more concrete items like saving trees, trails, parks, etc. . It is tough to build a $250,000 in Prior Lake. Like the concept and the design is good. Like the idea of the third garage tucked in behind is a great idea. . It is getting harder and harder to build moderately price homes in this area under our development standards. Not saying PUD is the way to do it. . Like the concept of allowing a little bit smaller lot sizes with the trade off we get reasonably priced houses. . There should be some discussion on getting a developer to come in and build a $300,000 base price home. It makes some sense. Overall it is a good development concept, although it does not meet our standard development process nor the PUD. . Do not want to turn it away - it would be a benefit to the City to build reasonably priced homes. Open Discussion with comments: Billington: . Agree with Stamson but it is a concept plan and the applicant has a ways to go with it. Work with staff and you will come to a good solution. Encourage to continue. . Sullivan noted the concept sketch does not show the berming and landscaping. . What timeframe are they looking at? Sullivan said hopefully next spring. Lemke: . Agreed with everything Stamson said especially the moderate home. Just does not feel the PUD process is the way to go. . Kansier said it would be helpful to outline the benefits for a PUD. The City looks at what it would get over and above standard development. Kansier then explained the PUD benefits. Moore pointed out the applicant's lot proposals - 65 foot street widths, private streets, smaller lot areas - 7,000 square feet. Kansier said it is up to the developer to be creative with the development. The benefits do not have to be on site. The Commissioners would like to see more open space and/or additional trees and landscaping. Sullivan felt they could improve the Highway 13 corridor with some upgrades. Ringstad: . Looking for substantial benefits. The tot lot in the middle is not going to carry a lot of weight. . If the applicant hasn't met the 11 criteria you might want to take that back with you. . The key word I am looking for is "substantial". A little something here and there is not going to do it. . In his own words the applicant says he needs this many lots to make it work. The falls way short of a PUD. . For face value the applicant is speaking of financial benefits, which is not part of the PUD process. This item will go to the City Council on September 5, 2006.