Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 12, 2007 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 City Council Chambers - 4646 Dakota Street SE 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Consent Agenda: 5. Public Hearings: A. EP06-100 & 101 Wensmann Realty has submitted an application for a 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 4.57 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 the development of 32 townhouses, reducing the total units by 15. The final plan also includes a platted lot for the future fire station. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. 2006 Variance Report B. 2006 Code Enforcement Report 8. Announcements and Correspondence: A. Zoning Ordinance Update Discussion 9. Adjournment: Ll07 FILESI07 PLANNING COMMISSIONI07 AGENDASIAGENDA TEMP.~O(, f . I k WWW.clLyopnorae.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDA Y, FEBRUARY 12,2007 1. Call to Order: Chairman Lemke called the February 12,2007, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Fleming, Lemke, Perez and Ringstad, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore and Planner Jeff Matzke. 2. Roll Call: Billington Fleming Lemke Perez Ringstad Present Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the December 11, 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. EP06-100 & 101 Wensmann Realty has submitted an application for a 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 4.57 acres located west of CSAH 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 the development of 32 townhouses, reducing the total units by 15. The final plan also includes a platted lot for the future fire station. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 12,2007 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Wensmann Realty has applied for approval for the third phase of the 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, constructed in 2005, included lots for 96 single family homes, 67 townhomes, the school site and the park. The second phase of the development was approved in August, 2006, and consisted of 23 single family L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN02122007.doc 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2007 detached dwellings on 5.16 acres located east of Jeffers Pass, west of CSAH 21, south of CSAH 42, and north of Raspberry Ridge Road. The third phase of the Jeffers Pond development, to be known as "The Village at Jeffers Pond," includes 4.57 acres located west of CSAH 21, south of Fountain Hills Drive and east of Enclave Court. The original plan called for development of 47 townhouse units. In October, 2006, the City Council approved a revised final plan for this area that included the development of 32 row townhouses, reducing the total units by 15. The final plan also included a platted lot for the future fire station. This final plat was never recorded, and expired in January, 2007. Wensmann Realty has resubmitted an application for approval of the third phase. The new proposal includes 32 townhouse units and the fire station site. The units have been changed in this new proposal from a split level, row house design to 30, one-story units and 12, two-story units. The revised plan also increases the impervious surface within the area. The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved preliminary plan. The major difference between this plan and the 2006 plan is the style of units. The developer is making this change for the marketability of the project. The Planning Commission must review the Final PUD and make a recommendation to the City Council. 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. Lemke questioned the change in impervious surface. Kansier responded the impervious surface increased slightly from the 2006 plan however, it has gone down from the original approved plan. In the end it all balances out. The developer is aware of what is used in the residential area comes out of the ultimate commercial area so it is in their best interest to try and keep the impervious surface down in the residential area. There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commissioner Comments: Ringstad: . Agreed with staffs report and comments. I think this style is probably going to be more marketable for the developer and builder. I can understand why they want to make the change. . The only other red flag I would see is the impervious surface and that was addressed. . Support the change. Billington: L:\07 F1LES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN02122007.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2007 · This is obviously an adjustment given the current market place and one that is required for them to proceed with a quality development. · Based on what I'm seeing here, I will be supporting this. Perez: · Agreed - this is consistent with what we've seen other than the change on the style. As long as the impervious surface is still below the requirement, I will also be supporting this. Fleming: · For many of the reasons that were articulated by my fellow Commissioners, I too, will be supporting the PUD. Will just add for the viewing public - that this is just a natural extension of the Jeffers Pond Development and will fit in nicely with the plans to move forward. · I am also pleased to know the price point of $200,000 to $250,000 is sensitive to the market conditions. Lemke: · I too, will support it. Glad to see the public street with the fire station. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY FLEMING, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PUD PLAN SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go to the City Council on March 5, 2007. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. 2006 Variance Report Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated February 12,2007, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. This report provides the Planning Commission with information regarding the 2006 variance activity. It is intended to give the Commission information that will be useful in evaluating future variance requests, and in evaluating the need for ordinance revisions. The 2006 variance requests are comparable to requests made in the previous 5 years. The variances were requested to make improvements to existing single family dwellings and commercial lots in required front and side yards. The applications with the largest number of requests were for nonconforming lots. Six applications were received with 14 requests. All were approved by the Planning Commission and there were no appeals to the City Council. Out of the six applications, four were lakeshore properties. L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN02122007.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2007 Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . For those of us who were on the Commission back in 2002, I can remember that year when almost every meeting had several tough variances. You can see that 25 were denied that year and every year since then the number of requests have gone down. In 2006 we approved all of them. It tells me two things, One - We're doing our job in being consistent year after year with what we typically what we consider hardships and what we approve and maybe the community can understand that. . Secondly, the staff has done a tremendous job in counseling people with things that the Planning Commission typically approves or not approves. Lemke: . I think it is rather remarkable that this is the first of the year and in the last five that all of the variance requests were approved. That speaks to what Ringstad just said about staff's work and background in rewriting the ordinances and helping people to change their plans so when they do come before the Commission their requests are genuine. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, THAT THE VARIANCE SUMMARY IS FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW AND APPROV AL. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on March 5th. B. 2006 Code Enforcement Report Planning Director Jane Kansier, presented the Planning Report dated February 12,2007, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The City of Prior Lake received one hundred thirty-two (132) complaints in 2006 for a decrease of twenty-three percent (23%) compared to the one hundred seventy-one (171) complaints in 2005. Overgrown grass (12") and weed complaints topped the list of violations and totaled twenty-nine (29). Code violations relating to property appearance and health issues totaled twenty-eight (28) including, illegal storage of junk and junk vehicles, twenty (20) improper recreational vehicle parking, or vehicles parked in required yard areas, and accessory structures (sheds) not meeting required setbacks to property lines. Animal control complaints totaled three (3) and included excessive barking, running at large, no waste pickup and the keeping of more than 3 domestic animals (dogs & cats), followed by six (6) building permit violations, six (6) erosion control complaints, twelve (12) L:\07 F1LES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN02I22007.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2007 public nuisance, snow on sidewalks, downed trees, etc., nine (9) for improper disposal of garbage and refuse and eight (8) for parking commercial vehicles in an R-l residential neighborhood. The remaining fifteen (15) are as follows; ten (10) invalid complaints, two (2) for fence violations, two (2) for home occupation, and one (1) for illegal grading in the Shoreland District. The unique nature of Prior Lake, Spring Lake and the surrounding Shoreland District also creates challenging issues regarding land use and code compliance. The City received only three (3) complaints for code violations in the Shoreland District and included filling and grading work without permits. One was handled by staff two (2) were given directly to the MN DNR. The statistics sheet attached to the report begins with the total number of complaints received, including invalid complaints. Invalid complaints are those cases where, upon inspection, it was determined that no code violation existed, or where the issue was a matter between private property owners. The number of actual violations was determined upon inspection of the properties and includes secondary or multiple violations on a subject property. The total number of violations is then broken down and displayed as code category subtotals. Exhibit B is for year to year comparison. As of the date of this report, one hundred twenty-seven (127) complaint cases have been closed with the average time required to document, investigate, and enforce compliance of a violation being thirteen (13) days. The remaining five (5) cases are pending active investigations and/or under enforcement proceedings. One (1) of the pending cases will not be concluded until spring. Comments from the Commissioners: Fleming: · I'm noticing items C (parking junk vehicles) and F (storage of junk), combining both would be the next highest percentage of violations. Is that similar to years past or if we combine those two items from previous years would that fluctuate significantly? Kansier replied it was very similar to years past. The biggest complaint is how properties look - recreational vehicles, weeds, junk garbage, all fall into the same category. Perez: · Do these turn out to be where people are not aware of the codes? Kansier said if she had to guess, 95% or more of the time, it has to be people not aware of the code. For example, parking a recreational vehicle. We have a few chronic violators. Every community has them. . That would stand to reason with the quick turn around in closing them out. Lemke: L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN02122007.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2007 · From staff's perspective, dealing with this every day. If you felt there was something that needed to be changed you would include it in the report. Kansier responded they would. The biggest challenge is that the code enforcement efforts are basically part time with a building inspector. One of our building inspectors moved on to a new position in September so we are down a full inspector position which makes it more of a challenge. Staffing is our biggest concern at this point. However, because our building is down we can handle it. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND DIRECT THAT IT BE TRANSMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR INFORMATION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go to the City Council on March 5th. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: A. Zoning Ordinance Update Discussion Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, just have an update of the next workshop on February 26, in the Parkview Room, where the public is welcome. A packet will be sent out prior to the meeting. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:21 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\07 F1LES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN02122007.doc 6 PUBLIC HEARING Conducted.!?J the Planning Commission ~.J.r. / ~ dOo'] J The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible except under rare occasions. The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you. ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT NAME ADDRESS llV 11 j!\ tllt A L Yfl.l/ / l'tlfS W ()A~ (\A) It"!' / I \ J L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP .doc