Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.30.05 Work Session Minutes COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES November 30, 2005 1. Call to Order Mayor Soderberg called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson Absent: Richter Also Present: Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director, Lee Mann, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Lee Smick, City Planner; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Audience: Randy Becker, Bart Winkler, Doug Bonar, Kara Hildreth, Michelle Leonard 2. Approve Agenda MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Discussion of Proposed Concept Review Policy (Southeast Region) The first issue has to do with how and when concept plans are reviewed for certain sections of the City. Staff has divided the southeast region into two zones. Zone A is small parcels and are close to town. Zone B is larger parcels, mostly agricultural. The area to the south has been the subject of discussions with Castle Rock Township regarding an orderly annexation agreement. The area to the east has been discussed with Empire Township. Concept plans for the areas in Zone A could be moved forward without any comprehensive overview and without waiting for the system plans to be completed. The properties in Zone B need more attention as far as Comp Plan amendments and all system plan updates should be completed before any planning is done. The Planning Commission was in support of how to handle concept plans for this area. Some properties in Zone A are part of an Orderly Annexation Agreement. Staffs policy has been to start with a concept plan which was consistent with past history. Recently there was some controversy regarding reviewing a concept plan prior to annexation. The process for Zone A is the way things are handled currently. The Planning Commission wanted to make sure they and the Council were on the same page. Chair Rotty felt the concept plan for the Perkins property was different than the MUSA plan. He felt the proposed process is reasonable. Councilmember McKnight would prefer to have system plans completed and a joint resolution before anything is done for Zone B. A joint resolution with Castle Rock should be done early next year. Staff noted the process for Zone B is also consistent with the current process. If someone comes in with a concept plan staff could do a preliminary review of the concept plan, but the system plans should be updated before any final review. With the system plans it is nice to know how many units are anticipated to determine if the system can handle it. Staff would still like to see concept plans at a stafflevel. Staff has to base the system plans on an assumption. It needs to be determined what else can be served with the CouncilJPlanning Commission Workshop November 30, 2005 Page 2 current system. It is best to determine the land area and the density and can the system handle it. Right now staff is verifying the system can serve a certain area. There is an area in the original water comprehensive plan that will not come in. The sewer and water plans will be done February 1, 2006. Staff needs to determine if development will occur beyond that area, what is needed. Chair Rotty felt we need to discuss what we want and need. He felt they should decide as a group rather than have the developer come in with what they want. Mayor Soderberg noted there are some parcels within Zone B that are in the City and the land owners have indicated a desire to develop their land and they have been granted MUSA. This needs to be addressed. Staff asked for a consensus as to whether staff can review concept plans for Zone B. City Engineer Mann noted if we look at a small area in Zone B, there would be complete flexibility. Ifwe decide to build in all of Zone B, the options would be more limited. The City's growth will play more of a limiting factor than it did in the past. Chair Rotty agreed limiting is the key factor. Just because we have the capacity we should still build what the City wants and needs rather than letting developers decide. Councilmember McKnight felt we should take the next two months to draw the circles of what we want in that area while the system plans are being finished. He does not want to see concept plans from the developer. Council agreed with this. All agreed to wait for the completion ofthe system plans for Zone B before reviewing concept plans. Concept plans can be reviewed at a staff level. Council, Planning Commission and staffwill determine together what should be in Zone B. Staff confirmed the Zone A process is approved as is. The Zone B process will be modified by noting concept plans will be reviewed by staff in step one. Step two will be made a pre-requisite rather than a step as steps 1-8 cannot be done until the system plans are updated. Staff can work with the developer on the steps, but not bring anything to the Councilor Planning Commission until the system plans are done. Staff can discuss the concept plan, annexation, or MUSA, but no formal action will be taken until the system plans are done. Step six which is the Comp Plan designation and zoning classification will be decided as a group. Staffwill finish the system plans and then everyone will meet again as a group. Staffwill modify the process and bring it to the December 19,2005 Council meeting. 4. Discussion of Proposed Criteria Regarding Multi-Family and Medium-to-High Density Housing Staff developed criteria for multi-family and medium-to-high density housing to make the Planning Commission's analysis and the Council's analysis more fair with respect to concept plans. This will enable staffto act in a consistent way with Council's goals. These criteria will be used for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. A discussion followed on the Met Council's requirements for affordable housing. All members agreed with the criteria for multi-family and medium-to-high density housing. Staffwill bring this to the December 19, 2005 Council meeting. 5. Discussion of "Savanna Pointe at Dean Lakes" Development in Shakopee The developer of the Perkins property gave the above development as an example of a development that has detached townhomes on 36 ft. lots. The revised Perkins concept plan has 36 ft. and 46 ft. lots. Commissioner Johnson toured the development and noted there is only 12 ft. between the houses. They had a pool and a park just off the property which was not on the Perkins concept plan. He felt this was a nice amenity. The CouncilJPlanning Commission Workshop November 30, 2005 Page 3 developer of the Perkins property is proposing this type of housing for two sides ofthe market - college graduates and retirees. Commissioner Johnson felt it has its place in a limited use area. This development would be done as a PUD rather than a new zoning classification. Commissioner Larson liked the concept, but was concerned with the lower income level housing. He would like to lower the density and increase the price to make it a better neighborhood. It is a lot of houses in a little area. Staff noted what has been proposed for the Perkins property is a significantly lower density than Bristol Square and Glenview. All cities need to be concerned about very high concentrations of housing in areas without a lot of amenities. This can be addressed through parks, trails, recreational amenities, ponds, etc. Councilmember Fogarty liked the housing type. She would like to see parks in the plan and sidewalks. Councilmember Wilson also liked the plan and felt any concerns could be minimized with the design style. Staff noted any design standards could be added to the PUD. Councilmember Pritzlaffliked the different look. Chair Rotty stated if it can be done as a PUD and the developer is willing to go along with the comments, this plan provides for a transportation route. The housing is landlocked and will not continue to grow. The appearance of the houses can be addressed in the PUD. Councilmember McKnight said no to the plan for now. Mayor Soderberg stated the appeal of the project for him is the extension of 210th Street. Staff wanted to clarify if they want sidewalks on every street or enough to get access around the development. Councilmember Wilson would like to see how they would affect the Park and Trail Master Plan. Mayor Soderberg felt a sidewalk was not needed on every street. Chair Rotty stated the setback can be the same as other developments. The lots are just narrower. 6. Discussion of Bridgeland Development's Concept Plan for Perkins Property The developer appreciated the comments. This type of housing is what the market is asking for. This is moving up to a different style from the attached townhomes. The developer will advise staff ifthey can make the changes for the December 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. 7. Adjourn The group will wait to meet again until the system plans are updated which would be in mid-late January 2006. MOTION by McKnight, second by Pritzlaffto adjourn at 6:31 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted ~' 77t:7.- /~'7J~ C ~/z.--C.fl-' Ut.- e/ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant