HomeMy WebLinkAbout081202REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
o
Ao
Bo
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case File #02-07 - 212 Development is requesting consideration of a Preliminary
Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan to be known as Crystal Bay Townhomes
consisting of 10.62 acres to be subdivided into lots for 26 townhomes. This
property is located on the south side of CSAH 82, east of Fremont Avenue and ½
mile west of CSAH 21.
Old Business:
Case Files #02-024 and #02-025 - Consider a Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plat to be known as Timber Crest Park. The proposal includes 28.19
acres to be subdivided into 162 townhouse units located in the southeast quadrant
of the intersection of County Road 21 and Highway 13, on the north side of
Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail.
Case #02-072 - Consider an amendment to Sections 1101.400 Definitions and
1104.308 (4) Water Oriented Accessory Structures of the Zoning Ordinance.
7. New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:\02FILESX02planning comm\02pcag~nda~AG081202DOC
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORtUNItY EMPLOYER
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
The Planning Commission~elcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who
choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once, you allow everyone else to speak
before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to clairification or
new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input
on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further tesitmony or comment will
not be possible except under rare conditions. The City Council will not hear
additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
NAME
I ADDRESS
PHLIST.DOC PAGE I
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the August 12, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the July 22, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
corrected. (Page 5, line 30, change "in" to "near").
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case File #02-07 - 212 Development is requesting consideration of a
Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan to be known as Crystal Bay
Townhomes consisting of 10.62 acres to be subdivided into lots for 26 townhomes.
This property is located on the south side of CSAH 82, east of Fremont Avenue and
~ mile west of CSAH 21.
Kansier introduced a letter from the developer requesting to continue the heating to the
next Planning Commission meeting on August 26, 2002. The developer would like time
to address some of the issues based on the Planning Report. Kansier noted there were a
number of neighbors present who would like to make comments and suggested they have
a representative speak briefly on their concerns.
Criego said based on the developer's letter they may substantially change the proposal.
The testimony would not have any bearing on what the developer ultimately comes back
with. Would rather see the new information and proceed. All the Commissioners agreed.
Commissioners Atwood and Lemke will not be available for the August 26, 2002.
L:\02FILES\O2planning comm\02pcminutesXMN081202.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 2002
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO TABLE THE HEARING TO
THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2002, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stephanie Renslow, 15616 Fremont Avenue NW, asked to speak on behalf of the
neighborhood. One of their concems is that the Commissioners have all the
neighborhood information and issues, as she stated it is the Commission's first concern to
satisfy the neighbors.
Atwood suggested the neighborhood wait until the developer presents his proposal at the
next meeting. What the neighborhood may say now may not be relevant to the proposed
changes.
Stamson pointed out the Commissioners have to follow procedures and it is not
appropriate without the actual development presented. He would rather see any changes
and new submittals prior to the meeting. The neighbors were encouraged to attend the
next meeting and welcomed to speak to the Commissioners privately and/or submit their
concerns in writing.
Jeff Broberg, of McGhie & Betts Environmental Services representing the applicant
suggested having another neighborhood meeting prior to the September 9, 2002, meeting.
Kansier pointed out the time line and explained the process.
A recess was called at 6:48 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 6:50 p.m.
6. Old Business:
A. Case Files #02-024 and #02-025 - Consider a Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plat to be known as Timber Crest Park. The proposal includes 28.19
acres to be subdivided into 162 townhouse units located in the southeast quadrant of
the intersection of County Road 21 and Highway 13, on the north side of Franklin
Trail and Bluff Heights Trail.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 12, 2002,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Ray Brandt has applied for approval of a development to be known as Timber Crest Park
on the property located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and TH
13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail. The property owner, Prior
Lake Apartments, has also signed the application. The application includes requests for a
Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and a Preliminary Plat.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~VlN081202.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 2002
This property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The proposal calls for a
townhouse development consisting of a total of 148 dwelling units on 28.19 acres.
development also includes parkland and private open space.
The
The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on July 8, 2002. At
that meeting, the Planning Commission discussed several concerns raised by the staff.
The Planning Commission also heard testimony from several residents of the area
opposed to this project. The Planning Commission continued this item in order to allow
the developer to address the issues raised at this meeting.
On July 16, 2002, the developer met with City staffto discuss the various issues. On July
26, 2002, the developer submitted revised plans.
One of the major issues pertaining to this development is whether or not the plan meets
the PUD criteria. The primary justification for a PUD appears to be the use of the private
streets. A cluster development of this type is permitted in the R-4 district, so a similar
development with public streets, and meeting the required setbacks could be done
without a PUD. The plan is consistent with the requirements for a conventional cluster
development.
At the July 8, 2002 Plalming Commission meeting, comments by the Commissioners
indicated that this type of development was preferable to a higher density type of
development. The Commissioners also seemed to feel the PUD process and the use of
private streets was appropriate for the development.
The staff recommended approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat
subject to the following conditions:
1. Outlot B must be designated as "Park" on the final plat. This park must be rough
graded to City specifications.
2. The developer must address the ownership and maintenance of Outlot C.
3. The developer must provide scaled plans for the building exteriors. The exterior
materials of all buildings with more than 4-units must consist of at least 60% Class I
materials.
4. The developer must address all of the issues in the memorandum from Larry Poppler,
Assistant City Engineer, dated August 6, 2002.
Comments from the public:
Gary Grant, PuRe Homes, stated they were in agreement with the report and would
answer any questions.
Criego questioned the trail location around the wetlands and why there were only single
car garages.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN081202.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 2002
Dennis Griswald from Pulte Homes addressed the trail issue. The trails were designed to
loop through the area, extending it through the park. They did not want to create a
variety of distances between the patios and the wetlands. There are also various grade
levels in those areas. Griswald proposed that the area could be dedicated as part of the
park at no expense to the City. Otherwise, it would become part of the association and
maintained by the homeowners.
Criego questioned the distance between the townhomes and wetlands. Griswald
responded it was at least 30 feet. There are different grade changes in that area.
Kansier pointed out there is a requirement from the City and Watershed to maintain a 30
foot buffer strip from the delineated wetland. The buffer strip has to remain undisturbed.
Walking paths would not be permitted within that area.
Ray Brandt, Brandt Engineering, addressed the wetland setbacks.
Grant responded to the single garage issue. The garages are oversized at 26 feet deep.
They are tuck-unders to fit into the topo. The driveways are 25 to 29 feet. Affordability
was also one of the keys to this project. Seventy percent of the buyers are typically
single. The price range is about $115,000 to $125,000 for these single garage units.
Leo Fecht, Franklin Trail, read a letter he wrote to the Prior Lake American regarding the
natural beauty of Prior Lake. Some of his other concerns were for water preservation, the
loss of oxygen produced by the woodland and the City's lack of planning for the
environment. Quantity is not quality. The Planning Commission should use a little vision
and reconsider the beauty and population of this town. Fecht felt there should be a
moratorium on the development and told the Commissioners to use their hearts to make
this important decision. He felt the residents of Prior Lake should come to the planning
commission meetings to help the Commissioners make important decisions. There is no
freedom in this development. Keep it simple.
Suzanne Sharp, Franklin Trail, agreed with Mr. Fecht, pointing out the poor water quality
of Prior Lake. The wetlands will be destroyed just like the lake. The setbacks from the
wetland are only 30 feet compared to the lake's setbacks of 75 feet. Sharp also explained
the deteriorating environment around the existing pond. This development will have a
tremendous affect on the wetlands. Not many single people will be able to afford the
proposed townhouses. She did not see this area as mainly a singles development.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
Appreciated the compassion from the speakers. However, the issues they raised
are political decisions. Moratoriums are set by the City Council and State
legislators. The Planning Commissioners considers the development as the City
zoning ordinances are written.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN081202.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
.4ugust 12, 2002
· The developer addressed all issues. The density fits.
parking have been addressed.
· Supported the development.
The drainage, trails and
Criego:
· Is there substantial evidence for this project to be a PUD? What benefits are there
to the City? Having private roads is not a benefit to the City.
· Like the idea of the wetlands and parks.
· This project has substantial benefits to the residents of this community.
· The developer has done a half-job on the trails. The benefit of the wetlands is to
surround yourself with it. Not necessarily walk on County Road 21. The
developer has missed that as a benefit. Propose the developer put a trail around
the entire wetland, not just on two sides.
· Another concern is the small sized units. Did not believe the majority of the
residents will have a single car. There is not enough adequate garage space.
Should be a two-car garage, which is standard.
· Would be more positive if those issues would be met.
Ringstad:
· Questioned Kansier on constructing trails around the entire wetland. Kansier said
it would not be possible. City and Watershed rules require the 30 foot
undisturbed buffer.
· Pointed out concerns fi.om the neighbors at the last meeting, mainly the traffic and
safety issues. The Commission supports the City Council and County officials in
encouraging the State to carefully consider and address the traffic patterns in that
area.
· The density for the property is good.
· The layout is good. It is the best use of the property as proposed.
· Would like to see a trail around the wetland, but will not hold up the project
because of it. Move the development forward.
Atwood: · Agreed with all the Commissioners, including the two-car garage issue.
· Asked the Commissioners to address Mr. Fecht's letter.
· Pointed out the Comprehensive Plan as a template for our City development.
Criego:
· There is a very fine line between leaving things the way they are and developing.
It is the Commissioners job to weigh both sides of the goals. Prior Lake has been
very sensitive in maintaining the environment. Should we stop development? Its
not possible. It is the City Council's job to also weigh those issues.
· There could have been higher densities with greater impact on this property.
· It's a tough issue the City and Commission deals with all the time.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN081202.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 2002
Stamson: · Recognize Prior Lake is in a quickly growing metro area. As things develop
around us, the City has to keep up.
· The City does a good job of addressing the Zoning and Comprehensive issues.
· Mr. Fecht has a different opinion. Others feel the City is not growing fast enough.
· A moratorium can be passed, but it will not affect this development.
Atwood:
· Support development.
· See no other alternative to the entrance. The City needs to keep up the petition to
the County and State to address the traffic issues.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Criego, the argument for a PUD to the City is marginal. The trail
would be ideal around the wetland but would not oppose the entire development.
· Ideally, the townhouses should have two-car garages, but affordable housing does
not always provide for that. The apartment building near this project has one
indoor and one outdoor parking space for each unit.
· The City needs affordable housing. It is a reasonable compromise and that will
work.
· Overall, happy with the project and will support recommendation to the City
Council.
· Pointed out the area of land on County Road 21 and Highway 13 should be
developed into an attractive comer. Suggested the City could work with the
developer on that issue.
Lemke: · Pointed out the wetland and lake setback ordinances are guided by the DNR and
Watershed District. In this case, this development meets the requirements.
· The smaller units are priced $115,000 to $120,000.
Criego:
· Concerned with the ease the Commissioners are accepting PUD's. PUD's are to
provide a benefit to the citizens and the City as well as the developers. The
Commission has quickly gone past that. There is no PUD benefit to the City with
this project.
· The developer has asked for two setbacks to cram more homes in.
· They say there is no room to develop a trail. There is room to put in a trail if the
units are moved back. It shouldn't be a major issue.
· There are going to be multiple adults in the single units. The 48 single units are
crammed in to create density. There are other alternatives and should be
addressed. The other units are fine.
· This should not be a PUD development. There are no benefits to the citizens.
· The developer can still make application and get something similar done. Why
would the Commission allow this?
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN081202.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 2002
· No benefit to the citizens and would not recommend the proposal.
Stamson:
· The developer is providing a better development than what is allowed. The
property is unique with a lot of wetlands and zoned R4. The idea was with the
changes, it would be a higher use and a more beneficial development.
· The developer could come back with two 70-unit apartments. Then the
Commission would come back and say we should have gone with the first
proposal.
Criego:
There are other ways to develop this property without causing some of these
issues.
Double garages versus single garages. It is a minor issue. It will solve the
majority of problems. It may also lay out the property different.
· Maybe they need fewer units to accomplish that. There is no benefit to allow a
PUD.
· The wetland is there and cannot be used.
Stamson: · Agreed with Criego, private streets are not a benefit. The developer does not need
a PUD to have single garages. Shouldn't be an issue.
· Bottom line, comfortable with the development as a PUD.
Lemke: · Agreed with Stamson, the density is less than is allowed. The City will have more
open space.
· It is a good layout.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN TO BE KNOWN
AS TIMBER CREST PARK SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE
STAFF REPORT.
Criego restated his concerns that there is no benefit to the City of Prior Lake or the
residents for this as a PUD development.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Lemke, Ringstad, Atwood and Stamson. Nay by Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS TIMBER CREST PARK, SUBJECT
TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Criego stated this project has no benefit to the City of Prior Lake or the residents as a
PUD.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN081202.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
dugust 12, 2002
Vote taken indicated ayes by Ringstad, Atwood, Lemke and Stamson. Nay by Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
This item is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on September 3, 2002. It
will not be a public heating.
B. Case #02-072 - Consider an amendment to Sections 1101.400 Definitions and
1104.308 (4) Water Oriented Accessory Structures of the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 12, 2002,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to water-oriented accessory structures. The Planning Commission initiated
this amendment on June 10, 2002.
The Planning Commission originally conducted a public hearing on July 22, 2002.
Following discussion, the Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance which
would allow a decreased setback for specific water-oriented accessory structures. These
uses include structures for storing boating accessories and equipment, gazebos and screen
houses. A setback of 50' from the ordinary high water elevation will be allowed on lots
with slopes less than 20%. The current provision allowing a 10' setback on lots with
slopes greater than 20% will still be in place.
Whether or not a water-oriented accessory structure should be allowed on all riparian lots
is a policy issue. The current ordinance provisions were generally intended for aesthetic
purposes. Earlier platted riparian lots tend to have smaller dimensions and less total area
than is required for lots today. There has also been concern about the encroachment of
structures on the lake.
The staffhad no objections to the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment will
allow additional storage on riparian lots, and will still limit the encroachment of
structures on the shoreline.
Criego questioned language from the last meeting restricting variance requests. Kansier
explained the definition of "uses". Use variances are not permitted under State Statutes.
Lemke questioned items "f' and "g" regarding the flood plain requirements. Kansier
agreed the language seem redundant. This language is right out of the State Regulations
and staff will double check it before proceeding to Council.
Criego felt the Commissioners should look at the flood plain language before a decision
is made.
After a brief discussion, the Commissioners came up with appropriate language.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutcsXaMN081202.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 2002
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WITH THE CHANGES.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all MOTION CARRIED.
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~VlN081202.doc 9