Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the September 11, 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 August 14,2006, 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 06-1S9 & 160 Wensmann Realty has submitted an application for a Vacation and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for the third phase of the Jeffers Pond development, to be known as "The Village at Jeffers Pond." This phase includes 4.S7 acres located west of CSAH 21, south of Fountain Hills Drive and east of Enclave Court. Also requested is a vacation of an existing drainage and utility easement for Outlot G, Jeffers Pond. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 11, 2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. VACATION: On June 6, 2005, the City Council approved the final plat known as Jeffers Pond 1st Addition. This plat included Outlot G, which was designated for future development. Wensmann Realty has filed an application to replat this outlot as Jeffers Pond 3rd Addition. The new plat would allow the development of this site for townhouses and the L:\06 F1LES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 future fire station. The configuration of the development on the site has changed since the approval of the preliminary plan. For that reason, the drainage and utility easement is no longer necessary. Staff recommended approval with the condition the resolution not be recorded until after final plat approval. PUD FINAL PLAN: Wensmann Realty has applied for approval for the third phase ofthe Jeffers Pond development on the 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 was constructed in 2005 and the second phase of the development was approved in August, 2006. The third phase of the Jeffers Pond development, to be known as "The Village at Jeffers Pond," includes 4.57 acres located west ofCSAH 21, south of Fountain Hills Drive and east of Enclave Court. The original plan called for development of 47 townhouse units; the revised final plan is proposing development of 32 row townhouses, reducing the total units by 15. The final plan also includes a platted lot for the future fire station. Wensmann Realty, Inc., is proposing a modification to the approved final plan for the third phase of this development. The original plan called for 47 back-to-back townhouse units in 3- to 8-unit buildings in this area, called the Station. Market prices were expected to range from $175,000 to $210,000. The revised plan calls for 32 row townhouse units, and a lot for the future fire station. The proposed townhomes are in 3, 4, and 6-unit buildings. The average price range is expected to be $200,000 to $240,000. A homeowner's association will be established and will be responsible for maintenance of the private street, lawn care, snow removal, exterior building repairs and maintenance. The revised plan reduces the number of units within the Station by 15, and reduces the total amount of impervious surface. The plan also includes a 1.29 acre parcel which will be deeded to the City for the new fire station site. One new public street, Station Place, will be dedicated to provide access to the fire station site. This street was originally intended as a private street, but has been changed to a public street since the City will need to maintain it for access to the fire station. The remaining streets will be private. The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved preliminary plan. The staff recommended approval of the Final PUD Plan subject to the following condition the Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council. Comments from the public: Kelly Murray ofWensmann Realty, explained their meeting with the neighboring homeowners who asked that the Commissioners consider landscaping and screening the new fire station with the same landscape consistent with the surrounding area. The public hearing was closed at 6:15 p.m. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMlSS10N\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting September 11,2006 Comments from Commissioners: Ringstad: . For all of staffs reasons I agree with the proposal and the vacation. . Impervious surface will be reduced. There will be only 15 townhome units that will modestly increase in price. . Support both requests. Billington: . Support staffs position on both requests. Lemke: . Consistent with what we have seen before from this development. . There is no public need to maintain the easements. Support both items. Perez: . Agree with staffs and Commissioners' recommendations. Support. Stamson: . Agree-the proposal is an improvement over the old one. It decreases the impervious surface which is always good. . It brings in townhomes with less density without increasing the price. . There is a public need for the variance request. Support. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PUD FINAL PLAN SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION AS REQUESTED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THE RESOLUTION NOT BE RECORDED UNTIL AFTER FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on September 18, 2006. B. EP 06-1S2 Ames Construction, Inc. has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow grading and filling on property located north of CSAH 42, east of McKenna Road NW, and south of the City's Lake northern boundary. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated September 11, 2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. L:\06 F1LES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting September 11,2006 Ames Construction is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to incorporate approximately 6,000 cubic yards of excavated fill on the 20 acre site. The site is located at the northwest intersection of Shepherds Path and North Berens Road (previously known as McKenna Road). The purpose of this request is to allow for decreased grades adjacent to North Berens Road and reduce storm water erosion. The fill will come from excavated areas on the adjacent Shepherds Path development site. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The excavation must be done according to the approved plans. 2. The clean up of fill material as a result of spills or general transportation of fill on any public road shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 3. Hours of operation are 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (weekdays) and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays. 4. Watering for dust control shall be done on an as needed basis or within 24 hours written notice from the City. Such notice shall be transmitted by facsimile to the applicant. Dust control includes the entire project area and is not limited to roadways. Water for dust control shall be provided from an off-site source. 5. The CUP is valid for one year, but is revocable at any time for noncompliance with any condition contained herein. At the expiration of its one (1) year term, the property owner may make application to the City to renew the CUP. The initial approval of this CUP does not create any right, in law or equity, to the renewal thereof. Any renewal of the CUP is subject to City Council approval and is to include any information as requested by City staff or the City Council that would aid the City Council in determining whether the excavation activities conducted pursuant to this CUP created any adverse impacts to the health, safety or welfare of the City or its residents. Questions by Commissioners: Stamson: Why is this area being graded? Moore explained the landowner has an area that dips down and he wants to level it out. The homeowner felt it would help with storm water and curb the erosion. It's really a hole the landowner wants to fill in and the neighbor happens to have extra dirt. Comments from the Public: There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed at 6:12. Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: . Do not see anything over controversial. Support staffs recommendation. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMM1SSION\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 Lemke: Agree with staffs findings. Support. Perez: Agree - the CUP criteria is met. As long as the conditions are met, I'll support. Ringstad: Agree - Support. Stamson: Agree - any time someone can control an erosion problem, I'm all for it. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, APPROVING RESOLUTION 06- 12PC APPROVING THE CUP SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. C. EP 06-169 & 170 Fendler Patterson Construction, Inc. has submitted applications requesting a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow setback reductions and a Conditional Use Permit to allow motor vehicle sales. This property is located at 16907 Highway 13 S. (formerly known as the County Market site. ) Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated September 11,2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Tractor Supply Company is requesting a 50 foot front yard setback variance to construct an outdoor display area for a proposed business located at 16907 Highway 13 S. The applicant proposes to utilizes the existing 37,500 building for a Tractor Supply Company retail store as well as increase the existing 13,000 square foot parking area on the east side of the site to 16,070 square feet for the addition of a fenced outdoor display area. The total lot area is 207,800 square feet. The applicant has proposed to install parking separation islands within the existing parking lot on the north side of the lot. The addition of these green space areas along with the additional impervious surface proposed for the outdoor display area will reduce the overall impervious surface area on the property to 158,056 square feet. The applicant is also proposing a ten foot aluminum fence around the exterior of the outdoor display area with locking gates at the north and southwest entrances to the area. The fencing is proposed to have a mesh screen attached to it. While this fencing will provide security and some visual screening, staff is concerned with the screening of noise and vision related to the surrounding properties and public right-of-way and believes a solid fence is a better option in this case. The applicant also proposes to increase the L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMM1SS10N\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 level of landscaping on the site particularly on the southwestern corner of the property so as to increase screening for the nearby residential properties. The applicant is utilizing the existing building and parking areas as well as decreasing the impervious surface on the lot. Due to the relocation of the Village Lake Drive (formerly 170th Street) on the south side of the property an increased area of right-of-way exists adjacent to the proposed fenced outdoor display area. In this case the increased amount of right-of-way width results in a 65 foot setback from the local street curb to the fenced outdoor display area. Therefore the distance from the Village Lake Drive curb to the outdoor display area is greater than the typical setback distance of curb to structures in the C-4 zoning district. As a condition of approval, staff advises to minimize traffic and noise impacts for nearby residential properties staff advises deliveries be limited to store hours to minimize traffic and noise impacts for nearby residential properties. Staff recommends this variance for approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall place a board-on-board or other type of solid fence along the eastern and southern boundaries of the outdoor display area. 2. The applicant shall re-position or replace the three Austrian Pine trees marked for removal at the southeastern corner of the outdoor display area. 3. All deliveries to the site shall be limited to store hours. 4. This resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Site Plan approval is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 6. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations. The applicant has also applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow motor vehicle sales on site. Overall, the display/storage of rental trailers is consistent with the intent of the C-4 use district provided conditions of approval are met. Based upon the findings set forth in their report, staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. In order to meet the above-listed criteria, the Planning staff recommended the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County no later than 60 days after Planning Commission approval. 2. A sign permit application must be submitted to the City prior to the installation of any signage on the site. 3. The applicant shall submit a photometric lighting plan that meets the lighting requirements for the site. 4. Plans shall be revised to address comments detailed in the City Engineers August 25, 2006 memo. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISS10N\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 5. Prior to site plan approval, the applicant shall submit revised plans reflecting plan changes and conditions as indicated. 6. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1403(9) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met. Questions by Commissioners: Stamson: . Questioned if staff was referring to rental or sales of trailers. Matzke responded this is for motor vehicles sales and would cover it all. Perez: . Is there any reason some of the conditions were part ofthe setback variance. Matzke explained a lot of it had to do with landscaping. Billington: . Is there going to be an adverse impact on the neighbors with lighting? Matzke said the applicant is going to maintain and repair what is previously on site. They are not going to increase lighting. Comments from the Public: John Patterson, applicant for the developer, said he had a concern with the landscaping conditions - board on board fencing, safety, site lines, patrolling concerns and noise. A lot of the existing landscape is very mature. The tenant feels very strong about the outdoor display area with fencing. Billington: . Asked the applicant to be more specific on the type of fence he would like to construct. Patterson explained it was more of an aesthetic-looking maintenance- free fence. The proposed fence is 10 feet. . Patterson felt the board on board cedar fence will be unattractive after a few years of weathering. It will also be a weak fence over 10 feet high. . Patterson also clarified he thought the trailers in front of the building would be "for sale" not the rentals. Ringstad: . Asked staff what they felt the board on board fence as an ordinance requirement. Kansier explained the requirement and pointed out several options for the applicant that others had used in Prior Lake. Lemke: . Asked what sort of materials would be present with the proposed fence. Patterson responded it would be similar to a trampoline mat. He also noted they are revising the plan to keep the mature landscape. The only visible site would be from Highway 13. It would be similar to a Home Depot-type fence. L:\06 F1LES\06 PLANNING COMMISS10N\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 Billington: . Questioned staff what the definition of a solid fence would be. Kansier responded a fence that didn't have openings or couldn't see through it. The purpose is not just visual, it's sound, light and a physical barrier. Stamson: . Questioned the applicant why they would go with a 10 foot verses a 12 foot fence. Patterson said it is the proto-type fence and part of the package deal. Matzke pointed out the proposed landscape. There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed at 7:46 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . Agree with staffs analysis of the findings will support the variance as well as the Conditional Use Permit. . As it relates to the fence - have always been a proponent of a little more visual screening for safety and patrolling. Screening is good but if there is mischief, an officer on patrol driving by cannot see it. . Disagree with the staff on the fence. I like the applicant's proposal. Time and materials have changed. It might be time to look at the fence ordinance. I think the fence they propose would be fine. Perez: . Agree with Lemke and staff on the variance hardship findings - they have been met. . Fine with the conditions but would like to remove the first condition with the fencing. . Regarding the CUP - agree with staff and support. Ringstad: . Agree the various criteria have been met. . Agree with fellow Commissioners on the fence. I'm glad the applicant didn't propose a chain link fence. I don't think it would have been approved. The taller black wrought iron fence with the screening is acceptable. . The pine trees also provide an excellent screening from the road. . Support fellow Commissioners on their findings. Billington: . Support staff and fellow Commissioners. . Feel the applicant's proposed screening is more than adequate for design and security. . Support with exception of the fence condition. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 Stamson: . Support staff and Commissioners on the variance. It's important to point out if this was a normal right-of-way width for the road the applicant wouldn't have nearly enough yard space to meet the criteria. There is too much road right-of- way hindering it. . Agree with staff on everything on the CUP except the fencing. Support the applicant's proposal on the fence. Home Depot and Lowe's use the similar fencing and I am not opposed to that. The fully mature trees will screen the residents. . Support it with the fence as proposed. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 06- 14PC APPROVING A 50 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 50 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIRED IN THE C-4 DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE REPORT MINUS CONDITION #1. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY LEMKE, APPROVING RESOLUTION 06-13PC APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MOTOR VEHICLE SALES IN THE C4 ZONING DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. D. EP 06-162, 163 & 164 Manley Land Development has submitted application for approval of a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to allow for eleven (11) town home residential units and eight (8) town office units on approximately 21 acres located on the north side of CSAH 42, directly west of Pike Lake Trail and south of Pike Lake. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated September 11, 2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Manley Land Development has applied for approval of a development to be known as Pike Lake Meadows on the property located at the northwest intersection of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail, south of Pike Lake. The application includes the following requests: . Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan; . Approve a Preliminary Plat consisting of 21 acres to be subdivided into 19 lots and 4 outlots to allow for 11 townhome residential units and 8 town office units. Section 1106.400 of the Zoning ordinance lists the types of uses and standards allowed under a PUD including flexibility in various ways, setbacks, building heights and so on. The developer is requesting modifications to the setbacks, minimum lot areas, and a private street. In return, the developer is offering the following: L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 . Construction of Pike Lake Trail as a 44 'wide roadway with curb and gutter . Clustering of land uses to provide for increased tree preservation. . 2.79 acres of parkland (1.58 acres above the required 10% parkland dedication). . The cost associated with over sizing the trunk watermain from the required 8" pipe to a 12" pipe. Poppler felt there were two key issues that needed to be addressed. 1) The previous proposal Pike Lake Trail showed a 44 foot street width. This new proposal shows a 30 street width with no curb and gutter. Poppler met with the developer just today who said they would change it back to the 44 foot width. 2) The watermain moving to the west side of the road to stay in the proposed right-of-way. The applicant said they would move it in their next submittal. Staff and the applicant have come to an agreement to what should happen on the project. Revisions to the preliminary plat plans are required in order to meet minimum ordinance requirements. In addition, in an Engineering memorandum dated September 5, 2006, the developer must refine the plans to meet Public Work Design Manual requirements. However, none of these revisions will impact the general design of the proposed plat. Staff recommended the following conditions: 1. The developer must obtain the required permits from any other state or local agency prior to any work on the site. 2. The developer shall provide documentation of an access easement to allow the adjacent residential property a maintained driveway through the project site to Pike Lake Trail. 3. The developer shall stub utility services to the property boundary of the adjacent residential parcel. 4. The developer shall provide an easement within Outlot D to assure future access from Sherrie Street to the adjacent parcel to the north east. 5. The developer shall provide cost estimate for over-sizing the trunk watermain from an 8" to 12" pipe. 6. Revise the plans to address all of the Engineering comments in the memorandum from Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler dated September 5, 2006. 7. The developer must revise the tree mitigation plan to detail how landscaping and tree replacement requirements are to be met. 8. The developer must submit a Letter of Credit in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of the required replacement trees. Comments from the Public: Frank Blundetto, representing Manley Land Development said there are two points he would like to mention. One is the tree issue - they are affecting a significant amount of trees on this site. With that came a problem with replacing about 30 trees; however as of this week only 16 trees are left to find a home. The other issue is the street width. The intent was to keep as much pressure off the property to the east (Vierlings). There is a prescriptive easement on Pike Lake Trail that is well documented. Manley is currently L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMM1SS10N\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 working with Vierlings on the field access and the 44 foot width road. Blundetto is concerned with the fence and have not agreed on anything regarding moving the fence out of the easement. They currently sit one foot from the fence line. He has no concerns with working with staff on the 44 foot width with curb and gutter but did not want to put pressure on the Vierling family with their fence. Stamson: . Questioned what type of fence. Blundetto said it was a wood fence. Manley is currently allowing the Vierlings to use their pasture (Boland) land for their cows. The fence is important. Ringstad: . Questioned price points on the office condos and homes. Blundetto said realistically the townhomes will be in the $450,000 to $550,000 range. Not sure what the office condos will be. It is a huge moving target not knowing who the tenants will be. Could be $160 per foot to $300 to $400 per foot. Billington: . Asked staff if they have any concerns with the 44 foot width and or the fence issues. Kansier responded constructing the street to the collector street standard is a critical component of the development. Without that, it basically becomes a premature development. The staff was not aware of the fence and is willing to work with the applicant and the Vierlings on the accesses. However, it is critical the street has curb and gutters on both sides. . Was wondering what accommodations would be for the fence. Kansier said she does not have an answer for this. Blundetto said the fence is in the prescriptive easement but would not be impeding the 44 foot road. Blundetto said he has no issue with the fence but during the process the fence may have to be removed for the construction of the road. It will be one foot from the current location which is one foot from the right-of-way. It would be somewhat of nuisance to this family if they have to move the fence and then put it back. The fence is about 7 feet into the prescriptive easement. That is the reason they came in originally with a 30 foot road. Comments from the public: Ed Vierling, 14310 Pike Lake Trail said they were not aware of the 44 foot road but his main concern is for traffic. Vierling also said he is concerned for so much easement on each side of the road. Is this a City project where they are going to condemn land to get the easement? The fence line is going to be on the easement. Kansier said Pike Lake Trail is a prescriptive easement which is an easement by use and is 66 feet in width. The City would not condemn any property. The 44 foot road sits within the 66 feet. A normal collector street is 80 feet. When the property is developed part of the easement would be dedicated by the developer. In the current plan, the road is being built within L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 the prescriptive easement. The new right-of-way is dedicated by the developer. No one is taking any land. Vierling asked if there would be any temporary easements or assessments against the property. Kansier said there would not be any assessments with this development. Vierling stated they have to watch out for themselves because they don't want to come back and sue the City because the City didn't give an easement. Kansier explained again there would not be any assessments and the future development process. The City has no plans to do any public improvements; it is all being done by the developer. Stamson questioned the fence being moved. Vierling responded if the fence is that close and the City comes by with a snowplow and wipes it out - "I feel sorry for the City because it is critical to us." They have to have so much land to remain farming. Any land they lose is part of a business loss. Most of the business now is milking. Blundetto felt if the fence was moved to the prescriptive easement it would be about 7 feet. Stamson asked Vierling how losing 7 feet of pasture land would be an issue. Vierling said he didn't think it would affect them a lot, maybe a little bit by getting more hay. Otherwise it wouldn't affect them. He sees more of a problem with people complaining about the farm operation with the cow smells and all that goes along with it. Vierling was hopeful it won't be a problem. Blundetto said the temporary easement is with the other development. No one is taking land. The seven foot occurs at a point - it is not the entire fence line. Not trivializing the lost to the Vierlings, only making clear it is not the entire line of the fence. He does not know the exact percentage of acreage but felt it was less than an acre. Dave Baden, 13866 Pike Lake Trail, questioned how this development will affect his driveway. The lakeshore shown is not accurate on the survey. Moore said the road will be built to the end of the development property boundary, it should not impact his property at all. Rita Baden, 13866 Pike Lake Trail, questioned what kind of screening or landscape would be required along the property line. Moore said there may be some minor revisions. Matzke pointed out the landscaping plan on an overhead. Stamson asked if the road would be constructed down to the other development (Pike Lake Ponds). Kansier said the idea is the 44 foot street width would end at the property boundary. The road to the north would be paved without curb and gutter. If, and when L:\06 F1LES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 the Vierling property is developed the rest of the road would be redesigned and realigned with curb and gutter. Lemke asked what would happen ifthe developer came to the City and say they would give the difference between the 30 foot road and a 44 foot road and reserve it to widen the road at a later development. Kansier explained the development would be considered premature. This makes sure the City has the proper turn lanes and proper width of the road, not to mention the stacking at the end of the road. Mona Hanson, 4250 140th Street NE, questioned what kind of exterior lighting was planned and the impact on Pike Lake. Blundetto responded the property will be treated as residential and there will be no need for extreme lighting. As far as the impact to the lake, there will be a small amount of increase in volume but the rate from the drainage into will be less. It would be in the 5% to 15% - minimal. Hopefully through the retention it will be made better. City Engineer Larry Poppler said the City and Watershed District have approved the plans. Dave Hanson, 4250 140th Street, asked the staff what the long term plan would be for Pike Lake. There is a lot of property along the lake. Kansier said the north end of the lake is designated for low density residential purposes. No matter what the City zones it, density is restricted by the Shoreland District regulations. Hanson said the lake fluctuates regularly and questioned the runoff. Blundetto explained the runoff and the impervious surface process. Poppler explained the pond and infiltration is being expanded and improved - the project meets the City's requirement. Greg Ray, 4260 140th Street said he is concerned where the lights are pointed and setbacks from the lake. Kansier explained the Ordinary High Water elevation (OHW). The developer is not requesting any variance or other setback request from the lake. Ray questioned when the last time the lake was surveyed. Kansier explained the DNR regulations. Ray questioned the proposed park trail. Kansier spoke on the long term plan of trails. The construction of the trail is not anywhere in the City's plans at this time. Ray said there is very low density around the lake. He said he understands the density requirements but does not agree the townhouses are part of the low density. Dwayne Garwood, 13900 Pike Lake Trail, said his concern is with the runoff and feels it will be a problem. Perez asked what the process would be to have the DNR look at the lake. Kansier responded staff would call the DNR hydrologist and request to have it looked at. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 13 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 The hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . This is an appropriate development for a PUD. Clearly the City is getting a benefit from this with impervious surface at 16% when 30% is allowed. The developer has done a lot to save 16 trees. . Understands why we need a 44 foot road. It sounds like the developer and the Vierlings can work out the fence issue. In favor. Perez: . Have seen this before in a concept. I like the densities and how they've handled the tiers. . Looks pretty straight forward. . The developer has worked with the staff did not feel there were any real issues. . Support. Ringstad: . Agree it meets all the criteria for a PUD. The City is getting definite benefits. The density is lower and the 14 acres dedicated to the City. . Nice to see the developer and neighbors working together at what could be a touchy subject. . Agree with fellow Commissioners - support with conditions. Billington: . Echo Ringstad's comments. I like the project. There are certain engineering issues that I perceive when I look at Larry's (Poppler) letter dated September 5. . Asked Popper ifhe had any comments. Poppler responded they went through all the issues today and he has a comfort level with the developers. He did not see any concerns. Support. Stamson: . Agree - it is an appropriate development for the area. It's not over developed. . Overall it works. Support. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE PUD PLAN FOR PIKE LAKE MEADOWS SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. V ote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on October 2, 2006. 6. Old Business: None L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMM1SSION\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 14 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 7. New Business: A. LCC Services Group LLC has submitted an application to amend the approved Conditional Use Permit to allow aluminum siding and shutters in place of steel siding and shutters on both building A and B of Courtwood Village, 17088 Adelmann Street. This property is located south and west of CSAH 21, east of CSAH 87 and south of Cottonwood Lane. Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated September 11,2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. In July of2005, 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 StreetlRevere Way, and north of Deerfield Drive. LCC Services Group is proposing a minor amendment to the approved CUP. The request is specifically related to the exterior materials used for both Buildings A and B. The applicant has provided staff with a narrative detailing the advantages of using vinyl siding as opposed to steel siding. Included in the report is a signed Letter of Consent from the property owners agreeing to support the change in the exterior materials from steel siding to vinyl shakes and siding. The modification of the exterior materials from steel siding to vinyl siding would provide a more durable, maintenance-free finish to the buildings that will closely match the existing siding of other structures in the area. Unlike the steel siding the vinyl product will not dent or rust and it carries a limited lifetime warranty. Staff recommended approval of the minor amendment change subject to the following condition: 1. The resolution shall be recorded at the Scott County Recorders Office no later than 60 days after the Planning Commission approval. Questions by Commissioners: Ringstad questioned why staff didn't approve vinyl siding to begin with. Matzke said it was not on the original proposal. Moore stated the applicant indicated it was an error on the part of the architect and that is the reason they came before the Commissioners. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY PEREZ, APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE EXTERIOR MATERIALS FROM STEEL SIDING TO VINYL SIDING AND SHAKES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING A AND B WITHIN THE COURTWOOD VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE CONDITION OUTLINED IN STAFF'S REPORT. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 15 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Cardinal Development LLC has submitted a revised concept for the development of approximately SS acres (gross) to create a PUD containing retail, townhomes, office, clinic/medical office, and high density residential housing. This property is located at the northeast corner of CSAH 42 and CSAH 18. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated September 11, 2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Cardinal Development has submitted a revised concept plan for approximately 55 acres of property located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 42 and CSAH 18. This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural) and is designated as C-BO (Business Office Park), R-LIMD (Low to Medium Density Residential), and R-HD (Urban High Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. In late 2005 and early 2006 concepts for the CSAH 42 and CSAH 18 site were brought before the Planning Commission and City Council. At that time, the Planning Commission and City Council expressed interest in the concept, however, they did ask for clarification on the benefits that would merit Planned Unit Development (PUD) flexibility and how additional trees could be saved. Since the earlier reviews, the developer has revised the concept. The current concept plan proposes a mixture of commercial and residential uses, including 39 townhome units, 20 twinhome units, 140 condominium units (3 and 4-story), 71,600 square feet of retail space, 11,000 square feet of bank space, 8,913 square feet of restaurant space, 82,562 square feet of office space (1 and 2-story), 60,000 square feet of medical clinic space (3-story), and a 6.4 acre park. The proposed land uses are consistent with those previously seen, however the locations and configurations have been modified. For discussion purposes, the staffhas identified the following issues: Design: . The layout of the site plan includes many traditional suburban strip mall components, including the large open parking lot area. The use of underground parking in the office area of the site would strengthen the "Village Concept" proposed by developer. Natural Environment: . This site is heavily wooded with significant trees. For this reason, it is understood any development of the site will impact trees. Nevertheless, the site also lends itself as an opportunity to utilize innovative site planning (clustering, etc.) that would preserve the sites natural features. Staff has concerns related to the viability of tree preservation once grading has taken place. A tree inventory and preliminary grading plan will need to be done to fully evaluate the realistic impacts. L:\06 F1LES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN0911 06.doc 16 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 . The concept proposes 1,530 parking stalls. It would be beneficial to utilize increased underground parking for the office uses and allow for additional land area to create a greenway buffer adjacent to CSAH 18 and CSAH 42 for the preservation of significant trees in these areas. Parks: . A 6.4 acre public park is identified in a northern and central portion of the site. The standard parkland dedication requirement for a development is 10% of the net area. Once the net acreage is established and the proposed square footage for the ponding area in the northern most part of the parkland is removed, it appears the proposed park will likely meet the 10% dedication requirement. . The City is anticipating a park in this portion of the City that would provide for a combination of active and passive park uses. Providing for an active component to the proposed park may be problematic due to the topographic grades currently existing. Any re-grading of the area would impact existing trees. The grading would occur to accommodate the roads, building pads, parking, and ponding would significantly impact existing natural features, especially the trees. These impacts will need to be weighed against the value of the parkland. . Staffhas concerns about the intensity of this proposed development without providing any active recreational opportunities. The assumption is made the adjacent properties will be responsible for providing active recreational parkland. We agree the responsibility for active parks should be shared by all developing land in this area. However, some ofthat active land should be included in this site. Especially due to the higher consideration of residential uses. Stamson questioned what kind of park is the City looking at? Kansier said "Everything". Stamson felt this issue was discussed before and this area was probably not the right area. Comments from the Developer: Kurt Larson from Cardinal Development said they were back with a similar concept. The following are his comments: . A major change is removing the townhome units in the corner of the main entrance of the project. The office area and residential components have basically remained the same. . They decided a direct loop into the project would allow better traffic. It simplifies the traffic and segments off to the different areas of the project. . Took away the retail and condos above the retail buildings leaving the two condo buildings. . Everything they are doing has a "village" concept and feeling. . The circle drive will have a median with heavy landscape. . They have parking issues that they will work out with the staff. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 17 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 . Moved a large office building located on the corner to the back for a better visual. . Created a plaza area to save a few more trees; which is a concern for several people. . They have put underground parking under one building. Comments/Questions from the Commissioners: Billington asked for the market studies. Larson responded they did several preliminary studies and is confident with the research they received. Ringstad questioned if Scott County would approve the two accesses off County Road 42. Larson said they indicated they will grant the accesses. Perez questioned the further opportunities for underground parking. Larson responded it was tough because the office buildings are small. To do underground parking with the two-stories are not feasible. The amount of trees being saved would not gain a lot of underground space. Larson said it would not be economical in saving a couple of trees versus the cost. Lemke asked the number of underground parking spots. Larson responded "48". Stamson questioned their parking space requirement. Larson said they were right on the requirements. Billington asked Larson what the major strides would be from the last plan. Larson said the traffic flow has been improved. It is a better design. The medical complex is in a better location and visibly appealing. They may have saved a few more trees. Billington asked if there was any enhancement on safety. Larson felt the traffic redesign would be a safety factor. You can bike and walk throughout the entire project. The neighbors would prefer trails to the parks. Billington asked staff where the shortcomings would be. Moore responded staffwas looking for more of an articulation what the PUD benefits would be to the City at large. Stamson asked what the modifications would be. Moore responded it has to do with private streets, it allows setbacks to be reduced - it's in a concept stage. Stamson asked if it needed to be a PUD for a mixed use. Moore responded it did have to be aPUD. Perez questioned if this project can have fewer parking spaces than required. Moore said the applicant has to show parking for a future development. As long as they can provide it in the future and show they have the space. She also explained if future parking is considered somewhere else, removal of the trees will be considered. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISS10N\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 18 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1006 Stamson questioned the large amount of asphalt for the buildings. Larson said the parking requirements are met. They do not know the specific uses at this time. Perez asked if Larson would be willing to do more proof of parking. Larson said "Absolutely" . Kansier said that it would not accomplish what you're trying to do. Kansier explained the process and pointed out the idea is to have a permanent green space. It is up to the developer to prove he does not need the parking spaces. This can be accomplished with a conventional plan versus a PUD. Lemke questioned parking for the residents. Larson responded the condominiums will have underground parking. Single family units have garages. Lemke asked Larson what setbacks he would be asking for. Larson said they would ask for setback reductions for some of the retail and condominium buildings to create a "village" feeling. Stamson questioned what other modifications Larson would be asking for and what other things besides the mixed-use development that requires a PUD does this project offer. Larson responded he thought it was the mixed uses. Architect, Quinn Hutson felt a benefit for a PUD would be an image-style quality material and upgrade well beyond what you would necessarily have in a development. The developer will create a "village feel" throughout the entire development. They would also have a two-sided retail area. There would be private roads by the condominiums. The developer will follow all the engineering regulations and incorporate some rain gardens so it's visually more acceptable. Lemke asked if the plaza would have a fountain. Larson thought that would be in the plan. No formal action is required by the Commissioners. The following are comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . It would make sense to add the type of things in a park people would walk to - a tot lot playground, maybe a picnic area and/or shelter to blend in with the trails. . Like the greenway concept. It's important to save the trees. . Does not think a ball field is appropriate in this area. A playground and picnic area should be in this area. It's nice to have the trails but there is no place to play for children. You need to work in some area for some kind of active park. . Kansier noted staff did not expect the developer to have all ofthe neighborhood park development on site. We would anticipate it would be part of it. . Larson felt it would be difficult with the trees to put any kind of a playground in the greenway area. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 19 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 . That is what is lacking in this project - when you look at the amount of housing in the area there is nothing - no playgrounds. It could be a while before you see the neighboring areas develop with parks. . The applicant needs to work in something where there is something for the people in the neighborhood - picnic area, play area, swing set, some set of active development. Billington: . One walkway runs along County Road 42, how far? Larson said he didn't know the distances but it would be whatever the City requires. . Larson stated there would be an association who would maintain the trails and sidewalks. Lemke: . Would rather see a mixed use in this area. The proposal would be visually appealing. . Would like to save more trees. . They are on the right track. Given the topography of the greenbelt area, not sure where you could squeeze in very much of an active park. . What are the demographics ofthe housing? Larson responded mostly single professional, the married professional with no kids, the empty nesters and a lower percentage of families. Perez: . Agree with the mixed use comments from Commissioners Stamson and Lemke. Like the modifications - adding more trees. It looks better than it did before. . It's hard to get past the parking with saving trees. . It is a gateway - like the plaza on the corner and larger pond. . Agree with having a park with some kind of shelter. . This looks better than the other concepts. Lemke: . Asked if the number of housing density was lower. Larson said it was not; they were shifted around and moved towards the back of the project. Billington: . Likes the way it has been redesigned. It is positive. . There's not a lot you can do with the tree situation. . It would have to be tweaked in a couple of places. . The traffic safety aspect has been improved. The developer has made strides. . Supportive of the concept. Ringstad: . Likes the traffic flow as an improvement. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 20 Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2006 . Agree with Commissioners - It's probably not necessary for a full park. However it still needs a park. . Getting close to a real quality development. Larson said they would like to move through the process this winter and start moving dirt this spring. Lemke noted the large amount of oak trees near the plaza and asked if they will be saved. Larson responded that was one of the reasons to have the plaza. There would be a significant amount of landscaping and save the oaks. This will go before the City Council on October 2, 2006. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: . There will be no meeting on September 25. . Remind everyone to vote tomorrow. . Stamson spoke on a concept he saw at the State Fair for a grass driveway. Kansier said staffwas familiar with the idea. . The 2030 Concept is at the Met Council. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN091106.doc 21