Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Draft 121106 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2006 1. Call to Order: Chairman Lemke called the December 11, 2006, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Fleming, Lemke, Perez and Ringstad, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, Planner Jeff Matzke, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Fleming Lemke Perez Ringstad Present Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the November 27,2006, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Lemke read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. EP06-178 & 179 (CONTINUED) 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 December 11, 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 12 (l70th 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 COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI211 06.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 11,2006 On November 27,2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed development and continued the hearing to assure adequate time for public comment. At the November 27th hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the following items: . Demographics of future homeowners . Assuring price points of housing units . Architectural diversity . Landscaping requirements . Merits of the project as a Planned Unit Development. 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, minimum lot widths, landscaping tree placement, 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 ($3,000) and pergola ($5,400.) in Outlot B. . Four (4) homes at a base price below $400,000. . Architectural diversity to restrict housing duplication. Since the November 2ih Planning Commission public hearing, staff has worked with the developer and now feels the architectural diversity element of the PUD can be assured prior to building permit issuance. However, staff still has concerns related to the developer providing a specific base price as an element for meeting the PUD criteria. While staff supports what the developer is proposing, staff does not believe the developer is proposing to provide a mechanism that will assure and enforce the base price. Prior to City Council review, staff would like the developer to provide resolution on how this can be assured. The Engineering memorandum dated October 27, 2006, states 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 be attached: L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI21106.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2006 Fleming - How many lots would be affected by the proposed setback modification? Moore responded "In talking to the engineer this afternoon, it would be more of the smaller interior (3) lots that would be affected by the reduced setbacks." Moore pointed out a few of the reduced lots. There were more side yard reductions that were also interior lots. William Baker, Pheasant Meadows, said after conversations today, his mind is more at ease with the additional landscape and buffering. His only recommendation to staff and the developer is to have an earlier contact with the neighbors so they can come and express their concerns. It is easier to adapt to the changes. It bothers and upsets some of the residents as they were not informed of the earlier developments. Perez questioned if the developers encouraged to have a meeting with the neighborhood. Moore responded "very much so." Anytime a developer comes forward with a concept or preliminary plat, staff always encourages the developer to have neighborhood meetings numerous times in the process. The meeting was closed at 6:18 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: . I agree with Mr. Baker that early communication is beneficial to all parties. I think Staff does a good job in communicating to the public; however there is always room for improvement. . Explained the key purposes of a PUD; the process and the City's goal for housing. . Likes the developers paying for nature centers, trails and parks that benefit all citizens, which is what we are striving for in a PUD. . Supports the high quality and diversity in housing for the City. The objective is to provide a variety of affordable "high quality" housing. Does not like the term "affordable" because it is subjective, I prefer "moderately priced". There is an attempt in this project to allow for that. . Spoke on the housing goals and felt Prior Lake has done an admirable job in the past. . Supports the project. Everyone is a winner in the long term. Perez: . Did not attend the previous meeting but read the minutes. One of the merits of the project of a PUD is the flexibility with the housing. That is without the price points. It was good to see the developer thinking "outside the box". . Staff is not comfortable with how the price points will be regulated. . Agree with the conditions set up by Staff. Support. Fleming: . Support the PUD and concur with Staff s recommendation. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI21106.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting December 11,2006 . Echo Commissioner Billington's comments on the alignment of the PUD concept with the ordinances and 2030 Comprehensive Plan. . Would appreciate sometime in this process an update on how we were able or not able to develop or implement some sort of mechanism around price points. It would be nice to know for the future. Ringstad: . The plan has improved a lot from four months ago where it fell way short of the PUD criteria. . Agree with Commissioner Billington with the term "moderate price" housing rather than "affordable housing". As we surf through this process, I believe the word "affordable" was a little misleading to what people feel is affordable housing. . In respect with the 2 trees in the front yard and agree with staff completely and recommend we (Commissioners) all do that. . As a way to assure compliance with respect to the four units that will be sold under $400,000, I do have a suggestion. If staff agrees, to have the developer post a Letter of Credit to the City - maybe $75,000 per unit times four units and have the developer post a $300,000 Letter of Credit along with this approval and with every sale under $400,000 we see go through. The one-fourth or $75,000 could be reduced. . Does not share the same amount of enthusiasm as the rest of the Commissioners as it barely meets the PUD requirements as we have looked at projects in the past. . With all the conditions, and if the Commissioners agree to a Letter of Credit to assure compliance, I would support. Moore commented Ringstad had a great idea and staff looked into a Letter of Credit. The problem is the developer providing staff with verification of compliance of under $400,000. The problem is a number of upgrades that exceed the $400,000, the developer was not able to provide anything but a spread sheet they create internally for a signed contract between the homeowner and developer. The biggest issue is how staff verifies compliance with under $400,000. If the house sells for under $400,000 it is not a problem. We are assured the condition is met, it is when it's over that and we have no way of calling up the upgrades. Ringstad said staff could look up the CRV's at the County. Moore said staff understood that. It's the upper $440,000 range that is a problem. Brian Sullivan explained a contract that would break down the numbers showing the price of the house and upgrades and could get staff a copy of that document. Moore said as long as it was a legal document it would meet the City's needs. Sullivan felt there is a way to make it work. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI21106.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2006 Moore said staff's concern is this development has only 4 units, however a precedence is being set on how we are going to handle this in the future with larger subdivisions that would be harder to enforce. Fleming suggested the proposed contract is run past the City Attorney and the City Council is aware of the situation. Lemke: . A couple of weeks ago he agreed with Ringstad's comments on this PUD. The modifications the developer is asking for are pretty minor. Density is not affected - it still meets the Rl requirements. Impervious surface is not being increased. The main modifications are a few setbacks and reduced lot size. What the City is getting in return is moderate priced housing. Twenty-three percent of the site is going to be open space, which the trade off in my mind is the smaller lot sizes. The developer is trying to create a separation from the back yards and Highway 13. In doing that, the criteria are being met. . I don't believe the yard sizes can't be met for traditional yard sizes. . It doesn't make a great deal of difference for the tree placement. I personally think two trees in the front yard may look "stuffed in" with 60 foot lots. . I think the way the developer put this together works well. Ifhe says "one in the front and one in the back" to enhance the project, I am willing to go with that. Correct me ifl'm wrong but I believe said there is no real policy reason to have two in the front yard, it's just that we have always done it that way and maybe we should try it this way and see what it looks like. Open Discussion: Perez - Agree with staff to stay consistent with the tree placement. My preference is to keep 2 trees in the front yard. Ringstad - Every other PUD has found a way to make 2 trees work in the front. I don't like setting a precedent unless there has been more of a process than a comment. Support staff. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE PUD PLAN FOR STONEBRIAR, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. DEFER CONDITION 6 TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR REVIEW. Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This will go before the City Council on January 2, 2007. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI21106.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2006 B. 06-187 William and Sharon Reis are requesting a variance from the Zoning Ordinance requirements to allow for the realignment of property lines on properties in the Agricultural Zoning District. The properties are 3941, 3913, & 3877 Marschall Road. Planner Jeff Matzke presented the planning report dated December 11, 2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. William and Sharon Ries, Ruth and David Yarusso and Robert and Paula Britz are requesting variances from the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the realignment of property lines on sites within the Agricultural (A) Zoning District. In order to' realign the property lines, the following variances are required: 1. Parcel A (Ries Property-3941 Marschall Road): . A 0.7 foot variance from the 20 foot minimum side yard setback in the Agricultural Zoning District (Section 1102.205). 2. Parcel B (Yarusso Property- 3913 Marschall Road): . A 0.7 foot variance from the 20 foot minimum side yard setback in the Agricultural Zoning District (Section 1102.205) . An 8.58 acre variance from the minimum required 10 acre lot area in the Agricultural Zoning District (Section 1102.205). 3. Parcel C (Britz Property-3877 Marschall Road): . A 7.66 acre variance from the required minimum 10 acre lot area in the Agricultural Zoning District. (Section 1102.205). The property is zoned Agricultural, and is guided R-RD (Rural Density) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property owners of the three contiguous parcels are proposing to realign the property lines between the three parcels to the originally understood legal boundaries. In 1982 the property owners of Parcels A and B obtained building permits and constructed pole barns near their shared property line. Due to a previous survey error the shared property line was identified as being located approximately 20 feet to the north of its actual legal location. In recent years surveys of Parcel C and the property to the south of Parcel A were completed. These surveys indicated to the property owners of Parcels A and B that the locations of the two shared property lines were incorrectly represented on the previous surveys that were created when they purchased their properties and placed the pole barns on the sites. The existing pole barn on Parcel A currently lies over the northerly property line as a result of a previous survey error, the applicants are proposing to realign the existing property lines to the originally interpreted locations. In order for this to take place, a variance from the minimum side yard setback is needed for Parcels A and B, and well as a variance from the minimum lot area for Parcels B and C. The newly proposed properties will be required to be replatted and recorded at the county offices. The property owners have also requested a waiver of the platting requirements which will be reviewed and acted upon by the City Council. The proposed realignment of the shared L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI21106.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting December 11,2006 property line between Parcel A and B is placed equidistant between the two existing pole barns that were constructed; however, the structures still require a 0.7 foot variance from the 20 foot minimum side yard setback requirement for the Agricultural Zoning District. The lot areas of Parcels B and C are proposed to be reduced to 1.42 net acres and 2.33 net acres respectively. The further reductions in these areas will increase the nonconformity of the lot areas (which require a minimum 10 acres in the Agricultural District), and therefore a variance is required. The three property owners are all in support of the proposed change. The requested variances and subsequent realigned property lines would have little impact on the existing lot shapes and sizes. Also the requested variances would improve the position of existing structures on the lots and prevent any further confusion on the location of the correct property lines. Based on this analysis and the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the requested variances. Fleming questioned if anyone was able to locate the original survey. Matzke said he found the original building permits from 1982, however, full surveys were not required at the time. Surveys were not maintained by staff. Fleming said he would support the application. Everything seems to be in order and agreed with staffs analysis. He was pleased three neighbors were in agreement and working together so the Commissioners were not deliberating any adverse possession issues. Supported the application. Comments from the Public: Applicant, William Ries, felt staff covered the information very well. They bought the property in 1971 and were not aware of the changed lot lines until a neighbor started to expand a few years ago. The neighbors were unaware of the problem and thought they were meeting the setbacks. It was quite a surprise. The public hearing closed at 6:46 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . Agreed with Fleming's assessment - the hardship criteria have been met. It's nice that all three neighbors are in agreement. . It is really just a housekeeping item. Support. Billington: . Full support of staffs and fellow Commissioners. Support. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI21106.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2006 Perez: . Question on the Discussion portion of the report on page 2 - What is the correct net acre? Matzke responded the Resolution states 7.66 but will be revised to 7.67 as mentioned in the report. . Agree with fellow Commissioners - the hardship criteria have been met. Support. Fleming: . Support. Lemke: . Support the hardship criteria have been met. This was no fault of the property owners and will support. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 06- 18PC APPROVING A 0.7 FOOT V ARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY FLEMING, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 06-19PC APPROVING A 0.7 FOOT V ARlANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT AND AN 8.58 ACRE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 ACRE LOT AREA IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 06- 20PC APPROVING A 7.66 ACRE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 ACRE LOT AREA IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Lemke explained the appeal process. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: None 8. Announcements and Correspondence: The December 26, meeting will be cancelled. The new Council Chambers will not be ready until the second week in January or early February when the technology is tested and complete. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI21106.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting December 11,2006 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 pm. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI21106.doc 10