Council will consider Oneka Prairie preliminary plat

The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a sketch plan for Oneka Prairie, also known as the Drake Property, over the summer. 

City Planner Rachel Juba explained that the developer is requesting some flexibility when it comes to lot sizes, lot widths, front setbacks, sideyard setbacks and right-of-way widths. She added that several developments, including Oneka Place, Clearwater Cove and Adelaide Landing, requested such flexibility and received approval. 

“PUD does allow some flexibility,” Juba said. “In exchange for enhanced flexibility, the city has an expectation that the development plan will result in a higher-quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts.” 

In exchange for the flexibility, the developer proposes a public park that exceeds requirements; a landscaping plan that exceeds requirements; and a stormwater reuse system for irrigation within the development. 

“Staff believes that the layout of the proposed Oneka Prairie PUD general plan exceeds the city’s standards for residential development,” Juba said. “It is staff’s opinion that the Oneka Prairie PUD general plan has offered a creative and efficient method to planning the site, all which meets the intent of the PUD ordinance.” 

Trevor Oliver, an attorney representing property owners Lee Ann and Glenn Steffens, had three requests for the Planning Commission: the developer be required to extend Oneka Parkway all the way to 165th Street (instead of the proposed north property line of the proposed development); the developer be required to stub roads and utilities to the properties on the west; and that designs for the Oneka Parkway extension be aligned as far east as possible. 

“I think it is a mistake to stop building this road at the northern lines of the houses,” he said. 

Lee Ann Steffens explained that the extension of Oneka Parkway would create access issues to their property. “Right now, with the proposed design of the parkway, we do not have access to utilize our property … This provides us with an income that will be taken away,” she said. “We 

must align today’s use and today’s need with utilizing that resource, but doing it in a fair way that does not then impose a hardship upon the neighbors who are on the west.” 

Juba explained that requiring Oneka Parkway to be extended all the way to 165th Street would funnel a lot of traffic from a collector road onto a gravel road that is not equipped to handle all of that traffic. She added that it would make more sense to connect Oneka Parkway as the properties develop and a portion of 165th Street, or the street in its entirety, is paved. 

As the properties develop to the west, Juba said the city would evaluate the right-of-way needs. There is a possibility they wouldn’t need the full 100-foot easement, but she noted that the city does like to maintain buffers along trails so trails are not right on property lines. She said that the developer will provide utility stubs to properties to the west, but not necessarily stubbed streets. 

“As far as I know, developers have always had to pay for their own development projects. I don’t see any reason why our developer would have to pay for stubbed roads going off to the west on the other side of Oneka Parkway. If that becomes developed at some point, to me, that developer would have to pay for those stubs,” Planning Commission Member Cindy Petty said. 

Ultimately, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary plant and PUD general plan to the City Council. The council is scheduled to consider both items at its meeting Dec.19. 

Managing Editor Shannon Granholm can be reached at 651-407-1227 or citizennews@presspubs.com.