Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Draft 112706 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27,2006 1. Call to Order: Chairman Lemke called the November 27,2006, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Fleming, Lemke and Ringstad, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Fleming Lemke Perez Ringstad Present Present Present Absent Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the November 13, 2006, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None s. Public Hearings: Commissioner Lemke read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. EP06-178 & 179 Ryland Homes has submitted an application for preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development for the development of 32 single family homes to be known as Stonebriar. This property is located northwest of MN TH 13, south of County Road 12, and east of Pheasant Meadow Lane. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the planning report dated November 27, 2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Ryland Homes has applied for approval of a development to be known as Stonebriar on the property located south ofCSAH 21 (170th Street), northwest ofMN TH 13, and east of Pheasant Meadow Lane. The application includes the following requests: . Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan; . Approve a Preliminary Plat consisting of 10 acres to be subdivided into 32 lots and three (3) outlots to allow for single family units, parkland, ponding, and a trail. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISS10N\MINUTES\MNII2706.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 27,2006 Section 1106.400 of the Zoning ordinance lists the types of uses and standards allowed under a PUD. The PUD provisions offer maximum flexibility in various ways, including 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: . Park dedication fee in the amount of$127,500. . 2.14 acres ofland to accommodate a trail, play structure, and natural open space (1.29 acres of dedicated parkland). . Construction of an off-site trail extension from the edge of the development to the intersection ofCSAH 12 and MN TH 13. . 10ft wide trail extension to Pheasant Meadow Lane constructed to allow emergency vehicle access. . Cash contribution for the construction of a play structure and pergola in Outlot B. . Three (3) homes at a base price between $370,000-$400,000 and four (4) homes at a base price below $400,000. . Diversity of architectural that would restrict any housing duplication. Staff supports and encourages architectural diversity and the assurance of moderately priced housing within developments. However, in the case of the Stonebriar project, the developer is offering architectural diversity and a specific base price as elements for meeting the PUD criteria. While staff supports what the developer is proposing, staff has concerns related to how these criteria would be assured and enforced. Prior to City Council review, staff would like the developer to provide a resolution on how this can be assured. As noted in the Engineering memorandum dated October 27, 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. For that reason, if the Planning Commission finds it appropriate, the plat can proceed to the City Council, subject to conditions. If the Planning Commission finds the PUD and preliminary plat acceptable, staff would recommend 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 must revise the landscaping plan to provide two front yard trees per interior lot and four front yard trees per comer lot. 3. Revise the plans to show the removal of the proposed off-site monument signage. 4. Revise the plans to address all of the Engineering comments in the memorandum from Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler dated October 27, 2006. 5. The developer must submit a Letter of Credit in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of the required replacement trees. 6. Prior to City Council, the developer must specify the cash dedication they intend to provide for the play structure and pergola. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI12706.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2006 7. Prior to City Council, the developer must specify how they will ensure an architectural mix, beyond disclosing the requirement as a part of the Homeowners Association Covenants. 8. Prior to the City Council, the developer must specify how they will ensure the proposed base prices offered as part of the PUD criteria. Questions from the Commissioners: Lemke asked if staff had any discussions on the architectural mix. Moore responded staff did have discussions with the developer. Staff has concerns for a way to enforce the mix, as staff is giving them flexibility from the Code with respect to the PUD criteria. Not sure how it would be done. The developer talked about the homeowners association having it stated in their covenants however the City does not enforce covenants, so that is an issue for staff. Moore also went on to say staff also has concerns when someone wants to come in and build their dream home on a particular site. It will be difficult to tell them they can't based on what was approved. Staff did talk to the developer on having specific architectural homes on particular lots. That is one way their sales people can clearly make sure the right house is put at the right location. Moore did not get the feeling from the initial discussions the developer wanted to do that. Billington questioned Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler on the regional stormwater ponding - Is this going to be a complicated lengthy process to engineer? Poppler said it was not and would have to work out the details on who builds it, who is responsible and splitting the cost for the construction. Billington - So there's nothing etched in stone for a method? Poppler said we would have to work out the details for the pond with the County and developer. Fleming asked staff if they agreed on the absorption rate analysis provided in the market study. Moore responded staff does not have a bench mark or a specific amount required. As part of the PUD, staff requires a market study to get a sense ifit can be absorbed in the market and staff is comfortable with the analysis. Fleming questioned the price points for the project. Moore said the developer would respond. Comments from the public: Brian Sullivan representing Ryland Homes explained the price point range. The developer is going to guaranty that four homes would be base-priced between $375,000 and $400,000. Fleming asked Sullivan what would be his price point vision for the other 28 homes. Sullivan said the rest will start with a base point of $410,000 actually being closer to L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI12706.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 2006 $500,000 after people add their amenities. Sullivan said they would offer proof of the base-priced homes and explained in their narrative submitted with the application. The other point is the architectural repetition and how we would control it. It would be stated in the homeowner's association documents that one could not have the same elevation on either side or across the street to help insure there would be a nice variety of homes. If the City wants more control they can prepare an exhibit for each property and building permit. That way, the City can see the requirements are being met. Billington asked Sullivan what is his definition of "base-price". Sullivan responded it would have oak cabinetry, carpeting and linoleum in the kitchen. People could then add on and upgrade to wood floors, cherry cabinets and granite countertops. Billington said many amenities could be added up to a price of $75,000 so then the house price is much higher than the proposed price. Sullivan said they are trying to have an affordable development with no restrictions. Billington commented there may be difficult factors that control the so-called base price. Lemke asked Sullivan to describe how he feels this plan would fit into the PUD requirements. Sullivan said when they looked at Prior Lake for a development they noticed housing was at the higher end. After meeting with staff they felt they would come in a little below the average selling price for homes with the same amenities. The parcel had a decent sales price and Ryland thought it would work and be more affordable. To make the site work they needed a certain number of homes to pay for the land. With that, they felt they had to have smaller lots instead of increased density. It seemed like a win-win for everyone. Sullivan explained Ryland Homes wanted to continue the trail to tie into the intersection of County Road 12 and Highway 13. They also offered to dedicate parkland to meet the requirements of the City and in addition they are providing funds for the pergola and tot lot which is over and above what you would see in a regular subdivision. Sullivan also felt they could offer a better streetscape along Highway 13. They are working with the Watershed District on new rain garden techniques. Sullivan said they were trying to think outside the box for the PUD. Billington questioned how much would be calculated on the lot cost on a $400,000 home. Sullivan responded it was about one-quarter to one-third of the price. Billington - In helping people afford to be in the development has the developer come up with any incentive or assistance plans? Sullivan pointed out an article/ad in the Saturday Minneapolis paper for Ryland Homes. It lists all the incentives and credit possibilities. They also have their own mortgage company with a lot of flexibility as far as rates. Fleming questioned if the developer ran any demographic analysis on this project? What type of families would be looking to purchase a home? Sullivan responded the demographics would be the first and second-time home buyers. They foresee a fair L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI I 2706.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 27,2006 amount of families. It is also a target for empty-nesters in their 50's looking to down size and have less lawn maintenance but do not want to go into a townhome. Lemke questioned the insignificant trees along the boarder of the Pheasant Meadows neighborhood. Sullivan said they would work on the grading plan - most of the trees are on the other side of the property line however they provide a buffer between the developments. Ryland is willing to add a few more trees on the north half of the westerly property line. Moore said they can look at the landscaping plan - in some cases (like in corners) they will have more than 2 trees. She also mentioned the price point homes in this development are not considered affordable housing. Lemke asked who would restore the natural habitat - prairie savannah? Sullivan said staff would take over the park and asked Ryland to provide the funds for the pergola and tot lot. We need to would work out what is needed by staff. It doesn't matter to Ryland one way or the other. They will do the first seeding ofthe native grass. Billington said one of the features is having seven more affordable homes, certainly that wouldn't be a maximum number, it would be a minimum. If you are successful in that niche then you would probably be amenable to setting aside further lots to do more of the same. Sullivan responded if the first 30 people come in and buy the first three home styles, so be it. They're not putting a maximum on it at all. Moore clarified Ryland Homes would be responsible for establishing the restored area and then the City would take over the maintenance of it. This would be defined prior to the Final Plat stage. Ringstad questioned the price points - some homes are at $370,000 to $400,000 to some that with all the additions could be at $500,000. It was pointed out this is not affordable housing. For satisfying PUD criteria are these price points even something we should be discussing? Is it relative to the process before us tonight? Moore said staff talked to Mr. Sullivan on being creative on meeting the PUD criteria. This was something they came up with. The biggest concern from staff is how to assure the price points. Commissioner Billington brings up a good point - the price is very minimal. It does bring up the question of moderately priced homes, what are you getting for that and is it something that falls into the PUD criteria. Staffhas concerns and how it would be enforced. Kansier said when they initially talked about this development the same question came up. Is this affordable? What we were trying to accomplish is not so much creating an affordable product, it is having a product available to people looking for starter homes or moving into their first single family home. Even at $380,000 to $400,000, the price is still lower than Prior Lake's average single family home. Staff felt it worth discussing. Fleming - Following up with Commissioner Ringstad's question, I feel what we're hearing is some sensitivity. It is relevant whether it is germane to the PUD process or L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNll2706.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting November 27,2006 not, it's worth talking about. He appreciated Sullivan responding to the sensitivity of the matter. William Baker, a resident and Board Member of Pheasant Meadows Association, said they are concerned with the variances to the lot size and setbacks requested to this development. He felt his development was not granted any variances. It is his experience when there are exceptions to the Codes it becomes a very slippery slope. He would caution the Code is properly established. Granting a variance for economic conditions undermines the whole purpose of the Code. What would the price be if the variances were not granted? Baker said the Pheasant Meadow residents knew something would be developed but it would be within the guidelines that everyone else was in. Financial reasons should not be a consideration for a variance. Commissioner Lemke said the hearing will not be closed to public comment at this time as the meeting will continue to December 11 th. Lemke asked Moore what the density would be with a regular subdivision request without modifications. Moore responded it would still be 3.6 units per acre. This application request is 3.19, below the density allowed without any modifications to setbacks. Moore described the modifications to the Zoning Code which included lot dimensions, lot area and requested setbacks. Fleming asked for information on how many variances were granted last year. Kansier explained the PUD requirements and the neighboring developments' benefits as part of the PUD requirements. The Commissioners decided they would comment at the next hearing. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY FLEMING, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DECEMBER 11, 2006. V ote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. EP06-186 Bealmake Partners, LLC has submitted an application requesting approval of a Combined Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for land to be subdivided into three commercial lots located south of State Highway 13 and east of Duluth Avenue (intersected by Village Lake Drive). (Parcels involve land where South Lake Village Mall and Hollywood's are located). Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the planning report dated November 27,2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNII2706.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting November 27,2006 Bealmake Partners, LLC, has submitted an application for a combined preliminary and final plat of the property located on south of State Highway 13, east of Duluth Avenue and north of Village Lake Drive. This property is the current site of the South Lake Village Mall and the Hollywood restaurant. The property addresses are 16691 and 16731 Highway 13 South. The proposed plat subdivides the existing single parcel into 3 separate lots. Lot 1, Block 1 is the site of South Lake Village Mall, Lot 2, Block 1 is the site of the Hollywood restaurant, and Lot 1, Block 2 is a vacant developable lot. There is no specific development planned for this new parcel. The final plat also dedicates right-of-way for Village Lake Drive. The City currently holds a permanent easement over this right-of- way. The new lot line between the existing mall and restaurant creates a Building Code issue. The mall is classified as a Type III structure under the Building Code. This classification allows an unlimited amount of floor area for the mall as long as there is a 60' distance from building to building or from building to lot line. Although the building separation remains the same, the new lot line will be closer than 60' to the existing mall building. This issue can be resolved in several ways, the simplest of which is the creation of a perpetual easement or parcel encumbrance on Lot 2, Block 1, to prevent the construction of any new buildings or additions within 60' of the existing mall. The applicant is currently working on this process. This easement must be in place prior to approval of the final plat. The plat also does not identify the existing drainage and utility easement along the former Toronto Avenue right-of-way, or the required perimeter easements around the new lots. These revisions must be made prior to approval of the final plat. The staff recommends approval of the combined preliminary and final plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must provide the proper easement or other solution to ensure the existing mall building will meet the Building Code provisions. 2. The plat must be revised to show the existing drainage and utility easement and the required perimeter easements. (The City has received a revised plat and this condition has been met.) 3. The applicant must enter into a development contract, approved by the City Council, prior to release of the final plat. 4. The payment of all fees is required prior to release of the final plat mylars. 5. Reductions of the entire final plat must be submitted, to the following scales: I" = 200'; and one reduction at no scale which fits onto an 8 1/2" x 11" sheet of paper. 6. Four mylar sets ofthe final plat with all required signatures must be submitted. 7. The final plat and all pertinent documents must be filed with Scott County within 90 days from the date of final plat approval. Failure to record the documents within 90 days of final plat approval will render the final plat null and void. L:\06 FlLES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI12706.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting November 27,2006 Comments from the public: David Knodell, the attorney for Bealmake, the property owners, stated Kansier explained everything very well and this is just a housekeeping matter cleaning up the legal descriptions, Knodell said they will have all the easement paperwork done for staff; it cannot be created until after the plat is final with a new legal description. Kansier agreed. There were no comments from the public and the meeting was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . Agreed with the staffs assessment. Support. Fleming: . Support staffs recommendations - Condition #2 is gone. Billington: . Support staff on this. Lemke: . Approve. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY FLEMING, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE COMBINED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS SOUTH LAKE VILLAGE, SUBJEC TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on December 18, 2006. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: None 8. Announcements and Correspondence: After a brief discussion the Commissioners decided to cancel the second meeting in December as there is nothing scheduled at this time. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY FLEMING, TO CANCEL THE SECOND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN DECEMBER. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI I 2706.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting November 27,2006 The joint Council/Planning Commission meeting will be cancelled until a date to be determined. It will probably after the first of the year when a new City Council member is appointed. The Commissioners will be contacted with the details. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI12706.doc 9