HomeMy WebLinkAbout032700 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2000
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-017 Bemard Carlson is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for
the project known as Carlson's First Addition, located at the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of Main Avenue and Eagle Creek Avenue.
B. Case #00-010 Affordable Housing Solutions is requesting a Conditional Use Permit
for Stonegate, a 43 unit multiple family dwelling, for the property located in the
southeast comer of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue.
C. Case #00-021 Northwood Oaks LLC is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for
the project known as Northwood Oaks Estates 2nd Addition, for the property located
on the west side of Northwood Road north of Hawk Ridge Road.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #00-024 Hillcrest Homes variance resolution approval.
B. 2001 - 2005 Capital Improvement Program review.
6. New Business:
A. Annual Variance Report.
B. Annual Complaint Report.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 E~°~[a~)~[~c~[~vve.°°~.~.~,~n~-~a~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2000
1. Call to Order:
The March 27, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Cramer at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Cramer, Criego, and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni
Tovar, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott
and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Criego Present
Cramer Present
Atwood Present
Stamson Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the March 13, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Cramer read the Public Heating Statement and opened the first item.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-017 Bernard Carlson is requesting approval of a preliminary
plat for the project known as Carlson's First Addition, located at the southeast
quadrant of the intersection of Main Avenue and Eagle Creek Avenue.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated March 27, 2000, on file in the
office of the City Planner.
Bernie Carlson submitted an application for a preliminary plat for the 0.35 acre site
located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Eagle Creek Avenue (CR 21) and
Main Avenue. The plat will combine four existing lots into one lot, which will allow for
a future building addition. A building permit cannot be issued over lot lines or on
properties described as an outlot. The preliminary plat, to be known as Carlson's First
Addition, is the site of a commercial building at 16281 Main Avenue.
Staff felt the proposed preliminary plat met the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance
and Zoning Ordinance. If the preliminary plat is to proceed, staff felt it should be subject
to the following condition:
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMIN~N032700.DOC 1
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
1..4 utility easement must be granted as per request of NSP over the south 5feet of
the east 15feet of Lot 1.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Bemie Carlson, said his primary concern is to get a building permit to invest in
downtown Prior Lake. NSP asked for an easement which he does not believe they need
and is waiting to get the results.
The hearing was closed to the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· No problem with request.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
Cramer:
· Agreed with staff's assessment.
· Indicate if the easement is not required, make sure it is in the recommendation to City
Council.
Vonhof:
· Makes sense to combine the small lots.
· Agreed with Commissioners' comments and support the request.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Commissioners' comments.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT KNOWN AS CARLSON'S FIRST ADDITION,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE DEVELOPER GRANT NSP AN
EASEMENT IF NECESSARY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case #00-010 Affordable Housing Solutions is requesting a Conditional Use
Permit for Stonegate, a 43 unit multiple family dwelling, for the property located in
the southeast corner of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated March 27, 2000, on file in the
office of the City Planner.
1 :\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn032700.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
On February 14, 2000, the City received a complete application for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a multi-family dwelling on property located in the SE comer of Tower
Avenue and Toronto Street. The property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential) and is
guided as R-HD (Urban High Density) on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. The
public hearing was originally scheduled for February 28, 2000. The item was continued
at the request oF the developer to allow for recommended plan changes and to allow the
developer time to hold a neighborhood meeting. Notices were mailed to property owners
within 350 feet for the February 28, March 13, and March 27 public hearings.
The property has been zoned for multi-family residential since 1975. The subject site
consists of 1.7 acres. The proposed building will include 43 units and will be three stories
with underground parking.
Staff recommended approval of the CUP with the following conditions:
1. Four additional shrubs are required to be planted in the bufferyard required along
170th Street.
2. Irrigation Plan to be submitted.
3. Issues in engineering memo dated March 1, 2000 must be addressed.
4. Hydrant locations indicated and 300' foot hydrant radius to be provided.
5. A letter of credit must be submitted. The LOC will be for 125% of landscaping costs,
tree preservation requirements, Estimates or bids must be submitted for the required
landscaping
Cramer questioned the access criteria. Tovar responded the road is adequate and will not
impact the neighborhood.
Comments from the public:
Jeffrey Gustafson, Affordable Housing, said originally they attempted to construct an
apartment building across the street on the Boderman property. The request was turned
down because the City felt the property would be best used as commercial property. The
City contacted them and explained this property had been for sale and had not received
any acceptable offers. The developers put a proposal together. Gustafson said the City
Council knew of the intended use when they solicited the property. They did meet with
the neighborhood a few weeks ago and addressed a lot of their questions and concerns.
The complex is a market-rate project. The rental payments were comparable to the
neighboring mortgage payments. Gustafson explained the rental rates, the on-site office
and caretaking.
Criego questioned the location of the building site. Gustafson responded that after much
consideration this location made the most sense. One of the City's requirements was the
storm sewer and ponding. The architect designed the project to reduce runoff.
l:\00flles\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn032700.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
Atwood questioned the unit rent. Gustafson responded the breakdown is in the staff
report and is about $1 per square foot.
The architect, Charles Radloff, Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, explained the temporary
ponding location. With the implementation of this project they believe the runoff will be
reduced. The project was moved to the south side of the property to blend in with the
single family residents. Parking and traffic flow will stay to the north of the
neighborhood. The building will be used as a screen. The units are upscale and larger
than the existing market. Radloff explained the grades, storm sewers and traffic flow. He
believes they met all of the requirements and ordinances. Radloff said he was impressed
with staff's thoroughness.
Radloff said they could add more trees in the area and went on to explain the grading,
parking and the terrace walls.
Andy Whiting, 17057 Toronto Avenue, felt parking will be an issue on Toronto Avenue.
Water runoff is a big issue at the intersection. He felt the study was done in September
after the softball season and did not reflect true traffic counts. Whiting believes there was
over 200 police calls last year on Tower Street and another building would only increase
calls.
Tom Haugh, 17041 Toronto Avenue, agreed with Mr. Whiting. He lives 2 doors down
from the project and said the traffic is very heavy. Anytime in the summer between 4:00
p.m. to 8:30 p.m., it is hard to cross the street with all the softball traffic to the Ponds.
His other concerns were for the traffic going to Busse Park, crime and the parking.
Haugh questioned where the residents will park if not charged for underground parking.
He suggested not parking on Toronto Avenue.
Terry Pettinger, 17277 Horizon Trail, said his concerns are for the additional traffic at the
Pond's Edge Early Learning Center becoming a kindergarten, the general traffic to the
Ponds Park and the redirection of traffic to Busse Park. There will be a very huge
increase in traffic. Pettinger also pointed out the existing water runoff. He has lived in
the area for 6 years and enjoys the woods. Even though the building is appealing, it is 50
feet off the ground. His other concern was the rent and the adjoining low income values.
Criego:
Pointed out that adding this particular building will not add traffic south of the
neighborhood. All the traffic from this project will stay north. All other issues raised are
existing.
Dean Neumann, 4623 Overlook Cir. SE, opposed to the proposal stating there is a lot of
multifamily buildings in southeast Prior Lake. He felt this type of apartment complex is
the wrong type of gateway for the neighborhood. Agreed with Mr. Pettinger's concern
for traffic with the new kindergarten. The new post office is going into the area as well.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn032700.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
He understands the ordinances but questioned if that is what the Commissioner's would
want to have to drive by every day.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Cramer:
Agreed with residents that there is a lot of multi-residential housing in the area. This
is not a commercial piece of property. It is a transition piece between R1 (single
family and R4 ( high density).
This has been zoned R-4 since 1975. Hard to deny.
· Originally traffic came up first as a concern. But none of the traffic concerns are from
this development. The traffic is generated from something outside this development.
It is not an issue.
· There is an issue for runoff. But the proposals in the CIP should take care of it.
· McDermott said with the construction of the post office site and/or the ring road will
address the runoff issue.
· The tree issue is the parking. Not sure what the parking will be.
· Gustafson addressed the parking. Assumes there is no parking on Toronto Avenue.
The standard around the metro area is one to one and a half parking stalls per unit.
They are proposing two parking places per unit. Tenants would not be able to park
three or four cars per unit. This is not like a single family unit. They will control the
parking.
· There is a need for this type of housing in the City.
· Support the project.
Vonhof:
· Concurred with Cramer's comments.
· Thanked neighbors for their concern and staff for addressing them.
· McDermott clarified the storm sewer projects. Road improvements will come within
the next year.
· Question to staff- will this building have stand pipes? Architect Radloff said they
would.
· According to the police calls the information they have are general crime. Questioned
what the neighborhood police calls were. Tovar responded with the information
provided by the police.
· The property has been zoned R4 since 1975. The application meets all the conditions.
Atwood:
· Toronto could be posted with "no parking" signs. McDermott said if the ring road
was constructed there would be no parking.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcminXmn032700.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
· Questioned the storm sewer with the construction of the new post office and ring
road.
· McDermott explained that portion of Toronto would be vacated if the ring road is
constructed and would no longer be a public right-of-way.
· Agreed with Criego the traffic from this project will not affect the neighborhood.
· Agreed with Mr. Pettinger that it is an imposing structure to the neighborhood.
· Questioned the neighboring subsidized rental. Tovar said only one complex was
subsidized and the proposed rates of this project are substantially higher.
· Seventy-four police calls in a year is a lot.
· Reluctant in favoring this project.
Criego:
· Concerned for the runoffbut staff assures there will be a solution. There are several
variables.
· The temporary solution ofponding in the parking lot is adequate. The drainage
problem needs to be addressed by City.
· Parking will not be a problem.
· Concern for the buffer yard. It is not adequate. Strongly believes keeping the
screening on site as a buffer to the south.
· Questioned when Woodridge development started. Rye said the property was
annexed in 1991 and platting was subsequent to that.
· Empathy for the neighbors, but this property has been zoned R4 for many years. The
reality has hit home with this particular development.
· It is a different development than up the hill. It is classier and will bring more white
collar into the community.
· The community needs this type of housing.
· In favor of this project with the exception of making sure the buffer zone is adequate
for the R4 side as well as making sure the City is taking care of the runoff in the next
couple of years.
Rye said the additional runoff from the project is about 50 gallons per minute.
Open discussion:
Vonhof:
· Increase the screening requirements on site as a condition. Tovar explained how it
would be done.
Charles Radloff addressed the landscaping and bufferyard. Suggested hiring a landscape
architect to address the problem that would be agreeable with staff.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE THE CUP WITH THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS INCLUDING A
CONDITION THAT THE DEVELOPER MEET WITH STAFF AND INCREASE THE
I:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn032700.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
BUFFERING ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LOT TO THE SATISFACTION
OF THE STAFF.
ADDITION TO THE MOTION BY CRIEGO, TO KEEP THE CALIPER INCHES ON
THE LOT. VONHOF AGREED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go to the City Council on April 17, 2000.
A recess was called at 7:50 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:55 p.m.
C. Case//00-021 Northwood Oaks LLC is requesting approval of a preliminary
plat for the project known as Northwood Oaks Estates 2nd Addition, for the
property located on the west side of Northwood Road north of Hawk Ridge Road.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 27, 2000
on file in the office of the City Planner.
Northwood Oaks, LLC., has applied for a Preliminary Plat for the property located on the
west side of Northwood Road, north of Hawk Ridge Road and south of Arctic Lake. The
preliminary plat consists of 23.96 acres to be subdivided into 33 lots for single family
residential development.
In 1997, the City Council approved a preliminary plat for the development known as
Northwood Oaks Estates. The approved preliminary plat consisted of 34.15 acres
subdivided into 46 lots for single family dwellings.
In April, 1998, the City Council approved a final plat for the first phase of this
development (the area south of Hawk Ridge Road). This preliminary plat consists of
Outlot A of Northwood Oaks Estates 1st Addition. By reconfiguring the lots, the
developer has removed four of the lots from the Arctic Lake Shoreland District, thereby
reducing the required lot area. This also enabled the developer to increase the number of
lots in Phase 2 to 33. Since the number of lots is greater than that approved by the
original preliminary plat, a new preliminary plat is required.
Staff felt critical information to make a decision on the proposed preliminary plat is
missing at this time. This information includes the proper tree inventory and replacement
plan and the necessary drainage calculations. This preliminary plat should not proceed
until this information is submitted and reviewed by staff.
If the Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit a new Tree Inventory and Preservation/Removal Plan. The inventory must
include a list of the significant trees and caliper inches on the site and it must
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn032700.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
identify the trees to be removed for initial development and for building site
development. This plan must also identify the need for any replacement trees.
Show the 100 year flood elevations for each of the wetlands and stormwater ponds
and identify the required 30' structure setback.
Provide lot areas for each of the lots. Lots containing wetlands and/or stormwater
ponds must also include a net lot area (less wetlands and stormwater ponds).
Identify driveways and garage locations on the grading plan.
A complete set of drainage calculations meeting the specifications of the City
Engineering Department must be submitted. The NWL and l OO year elevations in
these calculations must match the plan.
Revise the plans to include the following Engineering changes and requirements:
a) The Proposed NIFI, on the plans for the south wetland, on Lot 9, is shown as
915. 9. The outlet pipe invert for this wetland is shown as 916. 8 7. These two
elevation must match each other,t
b) The outlet pipe elevation for the above wetland is called out on sheet 5 of 5 as
the overflow elevation, this should be called the inlet elevation.
c) The plans call out to "Cut Swale To Adjacent Ye'etland" from the small wetlantL
The plans need to show this swale being stabilized with riprap underlain with
erosion control fabric.
d) The outflow hydrograph and associated water elevations for the south wetland
are incorrect. The numbers should form a smooth curve instead erratically
going up and down as shown. Check the outlet pipe used in the calculation, it
shows as 0.1 inch diameter pipe. The spillway is shown as 916.91, but the
grading plan shows 920.0 contours around the wetland. This needs to be
resubmitted correctly.
e) The Pond Outlet Elevation on the hydrograph file for the south wetland must
match the NYrZ for the pond, these two numbers currently don't match.
J) The above comments, 4 and 5, also apply to the NURP pond hydrograph file
calculation.
g) The outlet invert of the pipe coming into the NURP pond on Lot 19 needs to
match the NWL of 915.5. Move ST MH 2 accordingly to make this work.
h) Show a plan & profile for the outlet pipe from the NURP pond.
Vonhof asked if staffhad time to check into the letter from Jerry and Terry Schrank.
Kansier said the Schranks have to work with the developer on locating the property lines.
The matter is a private property issue that needs to be resolved prior to the final platting.
There needs to be field verification.
I :\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn032700.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
Criego questioned if there was not a change with the number of lots, would the original
development go through. Kansier said the developer would still have to submit the
calculations, tree preservation and meet the engineering requirements, but not come back
before the Planning Commission.
Comments from the public:
Developer Kurt Larson, 2033 Royal Drive, Eagan, said he started with the original plat in
1997. The sole purpose for changing the plat was to change engineers and add lots
without changing the basic plat. Larson thanked staff for their patience. The first
approved plat is still basically the same. The tree preservation has not changed and are
well below the City's requirement. There has been some confusion on the stormwater
calculations. The Watershed District has approved the calculations. Larson asked for the
recommendation of approving the plat with the conditions stating the conditions are
technical and can be addressed in a short time.
Atwood:
· Questioned how much trouble is it to address staff's concerns. Larson responded it
could be done shortly. He just received the information today and had no idea it was
not complete.
· Kansier responded that staff had been requesting the information for months and
have not received it to date. McDermott said the plans had been submitted two or
three times and still did not have the information needed. The calculations do not
match the plans and she did not feel comfortable recommending approval.
Larson said it would take a couple of weeks to get all the information into staff. He
stated they were important items but not items that would take a long time and did not
want to hold up the process.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· This plan is very similar to the first. There has been a change in the Commissioner's
philosophy approving plats since 1993. Staff feels from experience it is best to
address problems right in the preliminary plat stage. Learn from experience.
* Recommend deferring action until the information is in hand.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Vonhof to defer.
Criego:
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\nm032700.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
· Very important information should be obtained.
gather the information.
· Agreed with staff to defer.
There has been plenty of time to
Cramer:
· Agreed. Provide the information.
· The developer said he feels he could have the information in 2 weeks.
· Kansier said staff could schedule the meeting to April 24, if the applicant provides the
information by April 10.
· Defer until April 24, 2000, for final action.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO DEFER THIS ACTION UNTIL
APRIL 24, 2000, TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TIME TO SUBMIT THE
REQUIRED INFORMATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #00-024 Hillcrest Homes variance resolution approval.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated March 27,
2000 on file in the office of the City Planner.
On March 13, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the
requested variances on this property. After reviewing the proposal with respect to the
hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a Resolution approving
the variance to the side yard setbacks.
The following variances are included in Resolution 00-06PC:
1. A 3.08 foot variance to permit a side yard setback of 6.08 feet instead of the
required 9.16 foot side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in length.
2. A 5.16 foot variance to permit a 9 foot side yard setback instead of the required
14.16 foot side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in length.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 00-
06PC APPROVING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Vonhof, Atwood and Cramer. Criego abstained. MOTION
CARRIED.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcrnin\mn032700.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
B. 2001 - 2005 Capital Improvement Program review.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Executive Summary Capital Improvement
Program 2001 - 2005.
Criego questioned if the ring road construction would help the Stonegate development
drainage issue. Rye said it would.
Criego stated he was happy with the CIP report as is stands.
6. New Business:
A. Annual Variance Report.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated March 27, 2000 on file in the
office of the City Planner.
There were 19 applications for 59 variance requests in 1999. Forty-four requests were
approved, 11 denied with 4 incompletes. Nineteen lots were in the Shoreland District
with 14 being Riparian.
Vonhof:
· Felt it was a well done report and very helpful to the Commissioners to determine
regulations.
· Requests for impervious surface variances have gone down since 1995.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND
FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
Vote taken indicated by ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Annual Complaint Report.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated March 27,
2000 on file in the office of the City Planner.
In 1999 the City received a total of 238 complaints. The highest percentage of violations
were improper recreational vehicle parking, shed locations and setbacks. The second
highest number of complaints were for property appearance and health code issues.
Criego:
· Substantial increase from 1994 and 1995. What happens to the 10% unclosed files?
· Horsman responded half of those are probably closed the other half are taken to court.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn032700.doc I 1
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
· Concern for lighting beyond the property lines. Does the City plan on taking any
action on those lighting issues? Horsman said it is staff's intention to do so.
Vonhof:
· What remedies does the City get going to District Court? Horsman explained the
fines and the Court's dealing on the issues.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND
FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn032700.doc 12