Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Draft Minutes 4646 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 22,2007 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. Ryland Homes has applied for the following requests at the site located south of CSAH 12 (1 70th Street), northwest ofMN TH 13 and east of Pheasant Meadows. . EP07-l42 An Amendment to the Final Planned Unit Development known as Stonebriar. . EP07 -144 A Vacation of existing drainage and utility easements at 3609 l70th Street. . EP07 -143 A Combined Preliminary and Final Plat of the site at 3609 170th Street and the adjacent Outlot A to create Stonebriar 2nd Addition. 6. Old Business: A. EP07-l25 Continue review of an application to amend the Final Northwood Meadows PUD Plan to reduce the minimum side yard setbacks from 10' to 7.5' for the lots in The Coves of North wood Meadows. 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: . Zoning Workshop discussions to follow in the Parkview Conference Room. 9. Adjournment: L:\07 FILESI07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 AGENDASIAGI02207.DOC. f . 1 k WWW.Cltyopnorae.com Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24,2007 1. Call to Order: Chairman Lemke called the September 24, 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 September 10, 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. EP07-133 & 07-137 Xcel Energy has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variances to allow for the expansion/upgrade of the substation. The property is located at 5930 Credit River Road, north of CSAH 21, south of Markley Lake, and east of Welcome Avenue. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the planning report dated September 24, 2007, on file in the office of the city planning department. Xcel Energy has filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Variance to allow for the expansion of an existing utility substation known as the Credit River Substation on the property located at 5930 Credit River Road. This site is zoned I-I (General Industrial). The Credit River Substation was built in 1974. Since its inception, there has been acknowledgment of the fact the Substation would need to expand in the future as energy needs increase in the City of Prior Lake and the surrounding areas. As the demands for electricity has grown beyond the capacity of the current infrastructure, Xcel Energy has considered numerous scenarios of expansion to limit their impact on an adjacent wetland. L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN092407.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2007 The proposed expansion will involve adding two support structures, a transformer and a control house. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit and variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall address all comments detailed in the September 17, 2007 Engineering Department memo prepared by Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer. 2. A tree inventory shall be conducted on the property prior to any building permit Issuance. 3. A photometric plan shall be submitted prior to any building permit issuance. 4. The applicant shall submit elevations detailing materials that meet or exceed the architectural requirements detailed in Section 1107.2200 of the Code. 5. The applicant shall receive a building permit prior to construction on the site. Questions from the Commissioners: Perez asked why the bituminous driveway was required. Moore explained in a case like this where someone may be expanding the City would require the bituminous. If it exceeds certain a threshold the City could even require curb/gutter and ponding on site. As far as where staff is at this time, clarifying how large of a driveway, the applicant has talked about cutting back and decreasing the impervious surface area. It may require some stormwater ponding. At this point it hasn't met the threshold of that. Lemke questioned condition #5 regarding receiving the building permit prior to construction - Would that include taking down trees or anything until the building permit was issued? Moore said the City would require a tree survey as part of the Conditional Use Permit. Fleming asked if condition #4 is date specific. Moore responded the applicant has samples of materials the staffis looking at. That could be another condition to add on - It would have to be done before the building permit is issued. Comments from the Public: Chris Rogers, Xcel Energy, agreed with the report and understand the conditions, which will be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. He would be present to answer any questions. Lemke questioned the variance for the height ofthe lighting rod - why is 75 feet necessary for this site? Michael Jenson, the Substation Engineer for Xcel Energy, explained the lighting rod height is calculated based on the cone zone of protection. It's a protection for the height of the steel structure. L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN092407.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2007 Billington noted a memo from Larry Poppler to Danette Moore regarding a grading plan - there was a question relevant to the gravel area doubling in size. Is that in fact, necessary at this point? Jenson explained the area doubling in size is the expanded area of the substation. The control house and structure comes up to the same size as the existing structure. Billington asked if this structure will accommodate reasonable growth or will they (Xcel) be back sooner rather than later because of expansion. Jenson responded the new design could be expanded without site expansion. The expansion as they are doing it right now will cut down the loads that would be overloaded in 2008. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed at 6:15 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: · Agreed with staffs findings and the report. · Prior Lake is growing and the current structure is not sufficient. Glad to see Xcel is able to expand on the current site rather than find an additional site within the community. . Support the request. Billington: · Supporting both resolutions and agree with staff s recommendations and the conditions. Fleming: · Support the proposals. · Just want to confirm there are three conditions for the variance and five for the CUP. Perez: · This does meet the intent of the CUP. · Agree with staff and believe the variance findings do support the request. . Support. Lemke: · Agree with variance analysis and the Conditional Use Permit is warranted. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY FLEMING, APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (07-04PC) AND VARIANCE (07-05PC) RESOLUTIONS SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. L:\07 F1LES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN092407.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2007 B. EP07-125 An application has been submitted to amend the Final Northwood Meadows PUD Plan to reduce the minimum side yard setbacks from 10' to 7.5' for the lots in The Coves of Northwood Meadows. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the planning report dated September 24,2007, on file in the office of the city planning department. Manley Land Development, Cardinal Development Group and Donnay Homes have applied for approval of an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as Northwood Meadows on the property located on the west side of North wood Road, directly west of the Northwood Oaks development and east of Spring Lake Regional Park. The proposed amendment would allow the minimum side yard setbacks for the lots in The Coves of Northwood Meadows to be reduced from 10' to 7.5' or 5 feet. On March 20,2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance #106-05 amending the Zoning Ordinance to designate the 79 acres as a Planned Unit Development. On September 5, 2006, the City Council approved the final PUD plan. The approved final PUD plans included a table listing the minimum setbacks. For the most part, the conventional R-l setbacks are applied. Reduced setbacks are permitted as follows: 1. A reduced side yard setback of7.5' is permitted in the smaller lots in Blocks 2,3 and 4 of the Bluffs of Northwood Meadows. 2. An 8' setback is permitted on the lots in the Villas of Northwood Meadows 3. A 7.5' setback will be permitted on one side of Lots 5-7, Block 1, Lot 1, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3, of the Coves of North wood Meadows. The developer is now requesting an amendment to the final PUD plan that would reduce the setbacks in The Coves of North wood Meadows from 10' to 7.5 feet. The developers are also requesting the setbacks be reduced from 7.5' to 5' for two of the lots. In his application, the developer states "these lots were to have been addresses in the original application due to their reduced size, but were missed during the process." The developer is not proposing any additional benefit to the City. The major impact ofthe proposed amendment is the increase in impervious surface. According to Section 1104.805 (3b) of the Zoning Ordinance, impervious surface coverage is limited to 25% of each tier area in a Shoreland District PUD. According to the information provided by BDM, the developer's engineer, an additional 294 square feet of impervious surface will be added to Tier 3. Since the total approved impervious surface in this tier is approximately 8%, the additional impervious surface is insignificant. In Tier 4, however, the reduced setbacks will increase the impervious surface to 28.5 percent. This is not consistent with the Ordinance requirement. If the Planning Commission finds the amendment consistent with the purpose of the PUD, approval must be contingent upon revising the proposal so the impervious surface in Tier 4 does not exceed the 25% maximum. This revision must be done before the proposal proceeds to the City Council. L\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN092407.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2007 Staff recommended denial based on the impervious surface criteria. If that were to be revised the question would become whether or not the proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of the PUD. Kansier read a letter from James R. Casey, 3049 Hawk Ridge Road, opposing the request. Ringstad stated he has a conflict of interest with the applicant and would abstain from comments and voting. Lemke questioned if the number of lots would remain the same. Kansier responded they would. There are no additional units, just smaller setbacks on the lots they identified. Lemke - If approved it would not increase any lots or density. Kansier agreed. Perez questioned if staff has seen a PUD amendment come back with a similar issue that something was forgotten. Other times the Commissioners see an amendment because of changes in the market. Kansier responded he was correct - the only PUD amendments that come back are for reducing the density, reducing the number of units or reducing the impervious surface. Comments from the Public: Kurt Larson, Cardinal Development, said he is a little embarrassed to be before the Commissioners tonight, it is an engineering error and passed past them as well. The amendment is for 16 lots which is less than half of the development. The error came to their attention when one of the builders came forward with a plan and they were not able to fit it on the lot based on the current setbacks. One of the key issues in the PUD was lifecycle housing and moving people through with different styles of housing with price ranges and so on. Manley (development) has the smallest lots in the development which would be more of the starter or retired housing. Larson said the new proposed lots would be the same as Manley's. Again, there are only 16 lots out of 40. It would be unlikely the homes would exceed the impervious surface requirements. Larson said they would be willing to go back and work with staff on the 25% impervious surface. Fleming asked Larson if he had thought at all about sustaining the marketability of the area. Larson said they had 24 lots they can do thing with and 16 that they can't. So it affects the entire site. Obviously marketability is one of them. Fleming questioned Larson if working with staff he would be able to make the 25% impervious surface. Larson replied with the majority of the 16 lots they could make it work. Billington asked Larson to explain the ramifications and benefits enhancing the lifecycle housing. Larson said one of the issues of the PUD was lifecycle housing with different L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN092407.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2007 types of styles for demographics and price ranges. These 16 lots would not be in line with the other 24 and what they would market. Billington questioned how do we get at the question of so called competitive priced housing. Is that part of the equation for long term marketing? Larson said it is part of the equation, he did not know how to get there. Perez noted in the report there were no additional benefits to the City. Larson said this goes back to the PUD and keeping it constant with the life cycle housing. Billington questioned if the Commissioners approve with the 25% maximum on impervious surface, is it going to be helpful or what is the impact for the project. Larson said it would be very helpful and give them the ability to build a larger home. Fleming asked staff what the current impervious surface would be for tier 4. Kansier responded the approved plan for tier 4 was approximately 21 %. Lemke questioned if all the setbacks were approved except for the two (lots) at five (feet), what would that do to the project? Larson responded there is a pathway that runs between, it would certainly be helpful to have that setback, and it's not dramatic. Todd Murr, 3022 Hawk Ridge Road, commented there are 40 lots in the development and the setbacks work for 24 lots, why do they have to reduce setbacks forI 6 lots? Murr said he did not understand why change the 16 lots. Larson said he can work on them but it's just not the reduced setback. The lots are not narrower, where I could understand. Secondly, Larson said he wanted to build larger houses. Murr would be interested in a marketing research. The first set of four houses on Hawk Ridge Road have between 20 and 25 foot setback, then to go on to the next development on the same road with 14 foot setbacks will be inconsistent. There should be some continuity. Larson said he may have misspoke if they think they are building bigger homes, the setbacks give more flexibility to build custom homes. The lot sizes on the Villas and Bluffs really limit the product. His site was always determined to be a custom built upper scale home. It doesn't always mean a larger home. Fleming asked Larson to give an example of a customization. Larson explained a standard three-car garage will be between 30 and 34 feet, from there depending on the configuration of the home - a rambler or a two story, the width can change dramatically within a customized home. This just gives us the flexibility or the ability at some point in time if they need it to have it. Billington quoted part ofMr. Casey's letter opposing the request because he believes the reduction will reduce the home values of current and future properties and developments with smaller setbacks are aesthetically displeasing. Larson said in some cases that is true in other places within the Metro area. However, Larson felt that would not happen in this development. L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN092407.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2007 Andy Burke, 3058 Hawk Ridge Road, said he was concerned with all the little tweaking changes in this development, over time the overall value of other properties will go down. He is worried as homes are packed in tighter and tighter the whole development becomes less aesthetically pleasing. There are many developments in the Spring Lake area. This plan has changed since it was first presented. Burke's other concern with this tweaking and jamming homes close together has a lot to do with the marketing conditions. Would like to see the development stay as is. Burke has his own business and he has to make adjustments. He suggested taking some of the homes out of the plan and spreading out the lots which would allow for better custom homes. Burke and his neighbors do not want more packed in homes. At some time you have to say "enough is enough". The public hearing closed at 6:42 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: · In hearing all the comments I am inclined to support this. The developer will really have to hold to the impervious surface at 25%. Not inclined in the future to change this very much. · I think there are some valid points from the other side as far as lot size. · We are going to have to adapt to current market changes or we are going to sit on the status quo. There has to be some flexibility to survive. Fleming: · Agreed with Commissioner Billington. · Thank you to the residents for bringing their concerns. They resonate with me. · Appreciate Kurt (Larson) coming forward and explaining the customization and not trying to add more units on the site. · I would urge the developer to work with staff to arrive at the 25% or lower impervious surface. Perez: · Agree with staff in this case. · What are the benefits to the City? Have there been any thoughts to that? · Was there an opportunity to bring something back to the City? Kansier said staff met with Mr. Larson a few weeks ago and he advised staff he was not proposing any additional benefits. · This has not been common place to come back with an amendment. · Nor has it been a good reason in the past to change a PUD in the final stages. · The impervious surface did not sound like a concerned issue. · For those reasons I cannot support this. Lemke: · Would agree with Perez wholeheartedly ifthere were one or two more houses, however, while it's tempting not to approve this, I think we would get a less L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN092407.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2007 desirable product on those 16 lots that is less than what is intended and have exactly the affect the residents are worried about. · The developer said he would not intend to use all of the setbacks for the lots, just the flexibility to build a custom home. · Sixteen custom houses designed to the lot would be more aesthetically pleasing. It could actually do the opposite and raise the value of the homes. · I will support, but the 4th tier cannot exceed the 25% impervious surface. My concern and I am asking staff for help - that the first 10 lots sold become somewhat larger houses where the developer gets painted into a corner and the remaining lots are not going to be easy to develop. · Kansier responded she understands his concern. Mr. Larson said he might not use the entire building pad however, based on her experience - it is used. She believes they can bring down the impervious surface but the proposal needs to be adjusted so it shows the max at 25% (imperious surface). · Kansier went on to explain how staff works with the PUD process and the impervious surface calculations. Her concern is with just going forward and saying it (impervious surface) won't be exceeded, that it will exceed. · Kansier said she is more comfortable with revising the proposal to bring the number down to 25%. · I would propose to bring it back and approve it based on a 25% maximum impervious surface amendment. · Kansier said any amendment would have to go before the City Council. Further Commissioner Discussion: Fleming agreed. Billington agreed if the amendment came back (before the Planning Commission). We would all be informed and comfortable with what is going on. It is a departure from the initial thought process of this project. Lemke thanked the residents for coming out and stated any tweaking of increased density or townhomes or anything else he would not support. Kansier suggested the item could be continued to the next meeting on October 22, then the neighbors could come back to hear the presentation and comment. If the Commissioners decide to go that way, the Motion should be with a specific direction. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO THE OCTOBER 22, 2007, AND REVIEW THE PROPOSAL TO REFLECT THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA DOES NOT EXCEED THE 25% AS MANDATED AND ORDINANCE REQUIRED. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 6. Old Business: None L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN092407.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2007 7. New Business: A. EP07-138 Independent School Dist. 719 has submitted an application to vacate the platted right-of-way for St. Paul Avenue located north of Credit River Road, south of Grainwood Elementary School, adjacent to the properties located at 16280 St. Paul Avenue SE and 5061 Minnesota Street SE. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the planning report dated September 24,2007, on file in the office of the city planning department. ISD 719 owns the property located at 5061 Minnesota Street SE (Grainwood School); James and Michelle Sinkula own the property at 16280 St. Paul Avenue; Jeffrey Thune owns the property at 5086 Credit River Road. All of these properties are adjacent to the platted right-of-way for St. Paul Avenue (platted as Prior Avenue), located on the north side of Credit River Road and south of Minnesota Street. In 2006, ISD 719 constructed an addition to Grainwood Elementary School. The property boundaries were surveyed at that time, and as a result, several encroachments were identified. In order to clean up the property boundaries in the area, ISD 719 and James and Michelle Sinkula have filed a petition to vacate the platted right-of-way adjacent to their property. Because the Thune property is not a part of the original plat (Costello's Addition), all the vacated right-of-way will revert to the School District and the Sinkula's. As part of this process, the School District will convey some property to the Sinkula's and the Bounds. This portion of St. Paul Avenue is not improved. The Sinkula's have the only residence accessing the right-of-way. They have a driveway across the right-of-way to the existing house. There are also telephone and gas lines located within the right-of-way. This portion of St. Paul Avenue right-of-way has not functioned as a public right-of-way in many years. There is no need to retain this part of St. Paul Avenue as public right-of- way; there is a need to maintain drainage and utility easements on the property. The staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following conditions: 1. A drainage and utility easement must be provided over the existing right-of-way prior to recording the vacation resolution. 2. The address for the property at 16280 St. Paul Avenue must be changed to a Credit River Road address. Comments from the Commissioners: Perez questioned if staff considered the property with a J ordan Avenue address since it seems to connect to the north. Kansier said she did not, but she could. Fleming asked if there has been a negative impact on the School District because of the inconsistencies. Kansier said it did not seem to be an issue with the school or property L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN092407.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2007 owners, it was an attempt to get clear title to the property. It was a matter of cleaning up the titles for future sales. Fleming noted he noticed the counsel for the School District said they worked with the County Auditors. Did staffhave any formal communication to confirm? Kansier said this project started about 2 years ago. The County said it would not be an issue for conveying. If it would have been something different the County would have let staff know. Fleming asked if the staff was aware if the Bounds family were able to retain counsel. Kansier replied she did not know if they retained counsel but they were involved in the meetings she attended. Lemke asked if the neighbors would be comfortable with changing the easement and utilities. Kansier responded said they were and the only response staff received was from the gas and electric utilities. The utility companies need access to maintain the utilities and were comfortable with the easement. Lemke asked staff to speak on the denial recommendation from engineering. Poppler said his first comments noted were before he knew how the property was going to be reconfigured. Knowing that now, he would recommend approval. Comments from the Commissioners: MOTION BY BILLLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED VACATION SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on October 1,2007. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: . The October 8th Planning Commission meeting will be cancelled. Staff is hoping to have the dock task force meeting that same day. . The next meeting will be October 22, followed by a workshop on the zoning ordinance. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN092407.doc 10