HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 26, 2007
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2007
City Council Chambers
6:00 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda:
5. Public Hearings:*
A. EP07-108 Dan and Michelle Klamm are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to
allow grading and filling on property located north ofCSAH 42, west of Pike
Lake Trail, east of Shepherds Path at 4130 140th Street NW.
B. EP07 -106 & 107 Ryland Homes has submitted an application for approval of a
Planned Unit Development Final Plan for approximately 10 acres to be
subdivided into 32 single family lots and outlots to be known as "Stonebriar".
The property is located northwest ofMN TH 13, south of County Road 12, and
east of Pheasant Meadow Lane.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
A. 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Program Review
B. Zoning Update
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
*EP07-111 & 112 The Summit Preserve public hearing published for this date has been
continued to the April 23, 2007 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the
developer.
Ll07 FlLES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 AGENDASIAG 03-26-07.DO<;: f . I k
WWW.cltyopnorae.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2007
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Lemke called the March 26, 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,
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 February 12, 2007, 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. EP07-108 Dan and Michelle Klamm are requesting a Conditional Use Permit
to allow grading and filling on property located north of CSAH 42, west of Pike
Lake Trail, east of Shepherds Path at 4130 140th Street NW.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 26,2007, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Daniel and Michele Klamm are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to incorporate
approximately 4,200 cubic yards of excavated fill on their property located at 4130 140th
Street NE. The site is located north ofCSAH 42, west of Pike Lake Trail and east of
Shepherd's Path and CSAH 21. This request is the result of a mediated settlement
between the City of Prior Lake and Mr. and Mrs. Klamm for the placement of fill on the
site without the proper permits. Section 1101.509 ofthe Zoning Ordinance states
grading, filling, land reclamation, and excavation requires a Conditional Use Permit for
excavation of more than 400 cubic yards.
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN032607.doc
1
Planning Commission Minutes
March 26, 2007
Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit request, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The Best Management Practices Notes must be included on the final plan.
2. The excavation must be done according to the plans stamped "Approved by the City
Engineer" .
3. The applicant must contact the City Engineering Department for inspection of the
work on the site.
4. The applicant must record the approving resolution 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 any work on the site.
Lemke questioned how many trucks of fill would be needed? Poppler responded about
4200 yards of fill, roughly 490 truck loads.
Lemke asked if there were any time restrictions or clean up proposed for County Road 42
if stuff spills onto that road. Poppler said staff was working with the applicant. They
would access off County Road 42.
Lemke noted with his own experience at the airport there was considerable debris falling
off trucks on Cedar Avenue and created problems for several cars. Does staff anticipate
any problems with that on this project? Poppler responded staff deals with these types of
projects all over the City. There are hours of operation in place throughout the City and
the drivers would be limited to those times.
Fleming asked what gave rise for the need ofthe mitigated settlement. What was the act
that happened? Poppler explained the applicant did not feel they had to get a Conditional
Use Permit. They disagreed with the City on obtaining a Conditional Use Permit for the
work.
Fleming asked if prior to that agreement if the applicant brought the fill in. Poppler said
"Yes, it was about 120 loads."
Fleming questioned the proposed date ofthe commencement ofthe project. Poppler
responded the applicant would have that information.
Comments from the Public:
Lawrence Samstad, from Itasca Engineering, representing the applicants felt this has been
held up by the City requirements. They went to court and proved there was no wetland.
As far as getting the work done, as soon as the proper paperwork is in place they will
start work. Stamstad stated this is a change of the ground surface to minimize erosion.
There was no intent to fill a wetland. They have been at odds and felt a Conditional Use
Permit was not necessary. However, they are now working with the City Engineer and
will work out the details.
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN032607.doc
2
Planning Commission Minutes
March 26, 2007
Fleming explained the City is required by law to go through the Conditional Use Permit
process when any cubic yard has been surpassed.
There were no other public comments and the hearing was closed at 6: 12 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Perez:
· Agreed with Staff on their analysis and findings on the Conditional Use Permit.
This has been mediated and is the solution that works for everyone. Support.
Fleming:
· Support for the reasons stated earlier.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with fellow Commissioners. Support with the four recommendations
outlined by Staff.
Billington:
· Support Staffs recommendation.
Lemke:
· Happy to see the applicants and City come to an agreement. Will support.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD,TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 07-01PC APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT
TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Lemke explained the appeal process.
B. EP07-106 & 107 Ryland Homes has submitted an application for approval of
a Planned Unit Development Final Plan for approximately 10 acres to be subdivided
into 32 single family lots and outlots to be known as "Stonebriar". The 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 March 26,
2007, 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 (I 70th Street), northwest ofMN TH 13, and east
of Pheasant Meadow Lane. The proposal calls for a residential development consisting
of 32 single family homes and park.
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN032607.doc
3
Planning Commission Minutes
March 26, 2007
On January 2,2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance #107-02 amending the Zoning
Ordinance to designate the entire 10.02 acres as a Planned Unit Development. The
ordinance listed the elements ofthe PUD as follows:
a. The PUD is a single family development consisting of 32 lots for single family homes
and 3 outlots. The PUD plan provides a park to be dedicated to the City, trail, and the
funds to construct a pergola and play structure.
b. The total number of units on the site will not exceed 32.
c. Density and impervious surface within the Shoreland Tiers must not exceed the totals
identified on the plans dated October 5, 2006.
d. As part of the park development, the developer is responsible for grading, topsoil, turf
establishment and construction of the trails to the specifications provided by the City.
e. The elements of the plan will be as shown on the plans dated October 5,2006, except
for modifications approved as part of the final PUD plan.
The ordinance also required the following conditions:
a. The developer must obtain the required permits from any other state or local agency
prior to any work on the site.
b. The developer must revise the landscaping plan to provide two front yard trees per
interior lot and four front yard trees per comer lot.
c. Revise the plans to address all of the Engineering comments in the memorandum
from Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler dated October 27,2006.
d. The developer must submit a Letter of Credit in an amount equal to 125% ofthe cost
of the required replacement trees.
e. The developer shall restrict parking to one side of Stonebriar Court only and provide
slgnage.
Poppler explained staff has worked through a lot of the issues and details through the
development contract. Smaller details on the plans are also being worked out between
the County, staff and the developer.
Currently, the Stonebriar property is part of a Quiet Title Proceeding to clarify a disputed
property boundary. The Final PUD and Final Plat will not proceed to the City Council
until such time that the property boundary dispute is concluded. However, as proposed,
the Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved preliminary plan. The staff
recommended approval of the Final PUD Plan, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council.
2. The PUD Development Contract must be signed by the developers and approved by
the City Council.
3. The Quiet Title Proceeding must be concluded prior to being forwarded to the City
Council for consideration.
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN032607.doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
March 26, 2007
Billington:
· Is it a condition precedent to the project that the developer has obligations (cash
wise) of about $160,000 in the park and other expense, would there be a Letter of
Credit to secure it or would the cash be escrowed up front? Moore responded the
City requires the fees be paid prior to final plat release, whichever the case, a
Letter of Credit or fees.
Comments from the Public:
Brian Sullivan, of Ryland Homes was present to answer questions.
Fleming asked for clarification on the time line regarding the boundary dispute. Sullivan
responded it would be the beginning of May.
Billington questioned Sullivan ifhe found his negotiations and interactions with the City
satisfactory? Were you pleased? Were we welcoming? I don't want to put you on the
spot. Sullivan said "staff was very strict about the rules but they were very fair to work
with. They were straight forward and forthright about what needed to be done. That is
not always the case in other communities we work in. I thought it went very well."
Lemke questioned the phasing and time line. Sullivan explained they would start grading
in a week or two after they get approval and everything signed offwith the City
Engineer. It would take about 2 months of grading and site work. By the end ofthe
summer would be the time they would start building.
No comments from the public and the meeting closed at 6:25 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Fleming:
· Pleased to get such a robust state of affairs between developers and staff. I like to
hear staff was firm but fair. It keeps us in good stead.
· Support the proposed Final PUD. It meets with all the expectations.
· Thanked Poppler for his explanations.
Ringstad:
· This is very similar to the Preliminary Plat. There are no major changes.
· Support.
Perez:
· Agreed with Ringstad - this is consistent with what we saw at the preliminary
stages.
· As long as all the conditions are met, I'll support.
Billington:
· Support the recommendation of staff. This is a very attractive project.
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN032607.doc
5
Planning Commission Minutes
March 26, 2007
Lemke:
· Recommend approval of the PUD Final Plan subject to the conditions.
MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY FLEMING, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE FINAL PUD PLAN SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Moore noted this item will go before the City Council once the property line has been
reconciled.
6.
Old Business:
None
7. New Business:
A. 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Program Review
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 26,2007, on
file in the office of the City Planner.
Minnesota Statutes provides that all proposed capital improvements be reviewed by the
Planning Commission for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Attached is a draft
ofthe proposed 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The summary describes
the CIP process and the funding sources available to the City and expected to be used in
paying for the individual projects. The budget for the projects within the 5 year CIP
totals 51.1 million dollars.
There are several significant projects included in the CIP; the following is a brief
summary of the costs:
· Two of the most significant projects are the City's share of the CSAH 21 and
CSAH 12 projects (2010) and the CSAH 42 project (2011). These two projects
along account for 22.79 million dollars.
· The CIP details the allocation of $400,000 for 800 megahertz radios. Scott
County is the lead agency in implementing this new technology, which allows for
the integration of all public safety departments to coordinate emergency-related
activities. The City's cost is confined to the purchase of 136 radios.
· Activities scheduled in the City's park development over the next 5 years will
include the installation of play structures in new developments, including the
Enclave at Cleary Lake, Northwood Meadows and Stonebriar (2008). Also
included will be picnic shelters, a new hockey rink, a new well, several trail
systems and athletic field complex improvements.
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN032607.doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
March 26, 2007
The Planning Commission's function is to review the proposed projects, determine
whether they make sense from the perspective of the Comprehensive Plan and make
specific recommendations about specific projects in the CIP or about projects not in the
current CIP which the Commission feels would better achieve Comprehensive Plan goals.
The Commission does not need to feel constrained to restrict its consideration only to
those proj ects contained in the proposed CIP.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Fleming:
· How did staff determine the high, medium and low (priority assessment). Poppler
responded some of the projects are with the County's timing and our CIP
corresponds with their projects. Other projects are based on what the City
Council feels are necessary.
· 71 % ofthe projects are rated HI - Is that consistent with other years? And is it
feasible to have a number of high priorities ofprojects given the availability of
dollars in personnel? Kansier responded it is consistent. "This document would
be a lot larger if staff could add. What you are seeing is the highest priority
projects. The "M's" (mediums) are projects that can move up and down the scale
depending on what the Council prefers."
· Looking at Page 10 - Capsule projects - Item # 7 Athletic Complex
Improvements - Need clarification on page 16 "development of an athletic
complex, hockey rinks and athletic field lighting". Are those two distinct items?
Kansier said they are the same item with more detail. Poppler said the second is a
referendum and could float based on support.
· Felt it was confusing on page 10. Assuming the Planning Commission will have
the benefit of the prior report in the process.
· Page CIP 23 - Personally rate the booster station northeast higher than#2.
Kansier said this is a booster station that's need is based on development. It
would be built in construction with the County Roads 18 and 42 (Summit
Preserve) project. Poppler noted that projects associated with development
typically have an "M" rating because staff does not know exactly when the
projects are going to occur.
· CIP page 25 - Special Assessment line - will we know early in the process how
many homes will be affected or impacted by that special assessment? Poppler
responded not at this stage. Staff does a feasibility report for the City Council
with the details.
· Commend staff for all their work on this project.
Ringstad:
· This is not the first time we've seen a number of the major projects. This is part
of a very ongoing organized process. From my standpoint nothing jumps out that
will blindside us.
· One thing I think will have a huge impact on the City and maybe we won't be
able to predict at this time is the County Road 21 project going north. It will have
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN032607.doc
7
Planning Commission Minutes
March 26, 2007
the same impact as 185th Street down to Highway 35 making Prior Lake
accessible from the north that much easier.
· Very well organized report. Thanks.
Lemke:
· Is the hockey rink at Lakefront just a wintertime outdoors rink? Popper said
"Yes".
· Are the 800 megahertz radios for rolling stock or individual radios for each fire
fighter? Kansier said she's guessing it is radios for each on-duty police, public
works, key staff and at minimum fire fighters manning a fire truck at anyone
time. It is a fairly minimal investment into this entire system.
Perez:
· Weare a growing City and this plan addresses upgrading certain things within the
City.
· It is well thought out and I think it's all needed as we continue to grow. We have
to maintain what we already have.
· Thanks.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, RECOMMENDING
CHANGES TO THE DRAFT CIP AS PRESENTED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Zoning Update
Moore briefly spoke on the update discussion process and asked if it would be easier to
have staff work on the zoning language and then bring it for discussion or if there were
any other suggestions to make this the easiest process for Planning Commissioners.
Perez said he felt it was working real well but would be open to bringing the language
and then discuss.
Lemke agreed and said there would be advantages. Moore suggested going by a case-by-
case approach. If something has to be more specific, staff will come up with language
and give options.
Billington felt they made fairly good progress so far.
There are no items scheduled for the next meeting so a workshop will be held on April 9,
2007.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Moore pointed out the April 23; Summit Preserve public hearing was rescheduled for
modifications made by the developer and a neighborhood meeting.
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN032607.doc
8
Planning Commission Minutes
March 26, 2007
There is one item for the Memorial Weekend (May 29th) Tuesday meeting. All
Commissioners intended to be present.
Perez asked if Summit Preserve had a neighborhood meeting scheduled. Moore said she
did not know of a date at this time but they were putting it together and will likely hold it
at City Hall.
Ringstad asked if the Commissioners could be notified so they could hear some of the
concerns.
Perez asked if this project is progressing. Moore responded it is progressing however;
there are a lot of issues with Engineering. The tree preservation is in place and the
developer is looking into creative things they can do to increase the preservation and still
meet the PUD requirements.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 6:49 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN032607.doc
9
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
~ t.uv~~ld07J7
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
L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP .doc