The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJanuary 8, 1996 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, January 8, 1996 7:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: 4. A SU95-02 Wild Oaks - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE SCHEMA TIC PUD, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "WILD OAKS". 4. B V A95-44 William Hackett Variance Request - 3508 Sycamore Trail, NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE OF 5.5 AND AN EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE OF 4.5 FEET AND IMPERVIOUS SURF ACE COVERAGE OF 38.58% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30% RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE Rl- SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICT. 4. C CU95-05 Fairview Hospital & Healtb Care - Ridge Valley Clinic, 4151 WiIlowwood Road, NOTICE OF HEARING FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL AND HEALTHCARE SERVICES. 5. Old Business: 5. A Tree Preservation Amendment Tabled from December 11, 1995 - CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 5 OF THE CITY CODE AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-06, AND CREATING A TREE PRESERVATION PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE. 6. New Business: 7. Announcements and Correspondence: . Schedule workshop 8. Adjournment: 16200 ~1l!9~k Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota ,!}SB172-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTCNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1995 The December 11, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Planning Chair Dick Kuykendall at 7:03 p.m. Present were Commissioners Wuellner, Vonhofand Kuykendall, Planning Director Don Rye, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. ROLL CALL: Criego Loftus V onhof Kuykendall Wuellner Absent Absent (Arrived at 7:05 p.m.) Present Present Present REVIEW OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AND MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 27,28 AND 29, 1995 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC HEARINGS. (Commissioner Criego requested by letter a change in the Public Hearing Minutes dated November 28, 1995, page 3, under Criego - Comments: reference to upper or lower Prior Lake - change "or" to "and/or".) MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. V ote taken signified ayes by V onhof,Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.A Consideration of an Amendment to Title 5 of the City Code and the Zoning Ordinance 83-06, and Creating a Tree Preservation Program for the City of Prior Lake. The hearing was open to the public and a sign up sheet was circulated. Associate Planner Michael Leek reviewed the information in the Planning Report dated December 11, 1995. A letter from Karen Christofferson of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities was submitted to the Commissioners. Comments from Commissioners: Wuellner: . Passed - not present at the first public hearing. MN121195.DOC PAGEl Loftus: . Commented on Karen Christofferson's letter regarding the burden of guarantee 125% as part of the ordinance. . Leek: In other ordinances the Builders Association encounters, guarantees range from $100% to 150%, therefore it is typical. They will argue for less security and guarantee because it serves their membership. The 125% is largely in part because the City's Ordinance regarding landscaping and screening requirements establishes 125% as the level at which the City has felt comfortable. The City would be able to come and complete a project if for some reason a developer did not. The logic is the same. The guarantee is in the form of a Letter of Credit. They are not escrowing 125% of the cost of doing the tree replacement. . Individual lots - Leek: There is a $500 deposit for individual previously platted vacant lots. The City already requires surveys for any sort of construction so depicting the significant trees is just an additional layer of information on the surveys. . PUD allowing latitude from the Ordinance - what kind of controls apply? . Leek: Any tree removal will apply to the Ordinance. V oOOof: . Language clarification on Page 2, (C), second sentence. . Page 4 under Land Alteration - clarification to "public" add "private". . Page 4 (F) first paragraph - permit process explained by Leek. . Page 6 under #4, Applications - Not an issue to change to Zoning Officer. . In favor of the 125 % guarantee to comply with the Ordinance. Wuellner: . Page 3 (C) third line - clarification of sentence. . Rye and Leek explained the grandfathering process and changing the rules in mid- application and the legal problems that would occur. Kuykendall: . Supports cutoff dates and the grandfather clause. . The burden is on the new property owner with responsibility to show a tree inventory on the survey which is already required for a building permit. . Definitions should include: civil engineers, landscapers and horticulturist. . Page 5, item 3.B. - do we want to eliminate "City owned" and change to "publicly owned property". . Wetlands - Rye: Landscape around settlement ponds, some are around easements. Not all are public. . Page 6, item C - Rye: Same size used in landscaping ordinance. Typical allover the country. It is uniform. Leek: City Council felt the size and height was appropriate. . Page 7, 7 C. add a D. and call it location of Trees - we want to see a drawing. Leek: page 6, item 6 covers this. MN121195.DOC PAGE 2 . Dollar issue - amount determined at the time of application. Rye: The Developers Agreement specifies a time line. . Supports 25% removal. Loftus: . This is not a user friendly document which happens with a new ordinance. Would like to see flow charts with scenarios. . Self-enforcing vs. a forester. Leek: We had information from at least 8 communities. Not all cities can afford a forester. The message from City Council was the City is not in a position to hire a forester. . What kind of information will the public receive? Leek: We can inform the surveying community that serves the area of the requirements needed. . Will this require a variance similar to the coverage ratio? Rye: Only if we apply it to additions on existing homes. V o nho f: . The intent and purpose of the new Ordinance is difficult and we want to make sure we are doing this properly. There should be a little bit of clarification. I will support this. Wuellner: . Paragraph needs to be rewritten - Page 3 C. as well as Page 1, under Application - the last sentence. This applies to the City as well as the private sector. The City has that obligation under law. . Agree with the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Kuykendall: . How do we enforce? Rye: Whatever means we have available. Verify. Should it be percent of trees or caliper? Larger trees have a greater value. This should reflect the value of the trees. Relate to total caliper inches - convert to a total of caliper per inches vs. percent. Wuellner: . Rye clarified caliper inches (total diameter) vs. percent. He also stated there is no right of view over someone else's property. Kuykendall: . Ordinance should go back and be edited and reviewed by the City Attorney. . Run it past a lay person to see if it is user friendly. . Rye: You have to use technical terms. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY VONHOF TO TABLE TO THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY. MN121195.DOC PAGEJ Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, V oOOof, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. l.B Public Hearing to Consider Amendment to Sections 3 and 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 83-06. The hearing was opened to the public and a sign-up sheet was circulated. Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated December 11, 1995. Comments from the public: Tom Buckingham of Buckingham Disposal said there are a couple of issues that need to be addressed. Page 2, item #4. Outdoor Storage - Mr. Buckingham's concern is the language is vague and he wants to comply with the Ordinance. He complies with the State and County regulations and he feels if he complies with those regulations and does not see where it complies here. The other issue is the operation has been going on for seven months at no fault to the City, but would like to get some help to expedite the Ordinance. He understands they have to go through some other processes, they will have to have deeds, drainage plans, building elevations, landscape plans, planting schemes. Mr. Buckingham stated this was an existing building and would like to get on with the business. Comments from Commissioners: V oOOof: . This is fine as a conditional use in the 12 Zone. . Conditional use in the business office park? Rye: We can address this in the new Ordinance. . Understand City's view to have it zoned in the 12. Wuellner: . Leek updated Buckingham's appeal to City Council. . Understands Buckingham's concern for screening. It should be clearly defined. . Mr. Buckingham stated he does not disagree to the screening. All his outdoor material is in containers. . Neighboring business owners do not object to the screening. Loftus: . Conditional Uses can set criteria and conditions, i.e. hours of operation, storage of materials, etc. MN12119S.DOC PAGE4 · Leek: Some standards should be set - County Road 21 will be a thoroughfare into the City. Standards are set across the street. We should be consistent. · Rye: Another thing to do in looking at the site plan is to delineate only that area where storage is occurring. · One of the difficulties with the issues of recycling was it did come through in a round about fashion. Normally if we had this Ordinance in place we would not have this problem. Now we are coming back and designing the Ordinance. . Supportive even if it is vague. Kuykendall: . Primary concern is for outside storage. . Support screening from the public street. . One standard to apply city-wide. . Buckingham stated none of the materials are stock piled. Everything is stored in containers. . This is a gateway to our City and the City is trying to improve its' appearance. . Landscape ordinances should apply. . Issue of facilities located 500 feet from residents. Concern is noise level. Rye stated it is the activity as much as the noise. Traffic (trucks) in and out. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF THE ATTACHED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 3 AND 8 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6 WITH RECOMMENDED CHANGES. Rationale: Restated #4 to say "Outdoor storage of recyclable materials outside containers would not be permitted but in any event outdoor storage in containers would be subject to the landscape requirements found in 6.10." Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Loftus, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Vonhofand Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. l.C V A95-42 Consider Variance for Guy and Mary Selinske at 5418 Cottonwood Lane SEe Applicant proposes to modify the drive area which serves their business, American Glass. The planting area would be narrowed resulting in a side setback of the planting area which narrows to 3 feet and 5 feet, respectively. The Selinskes MNI2119S.DOC PAGES are requesting a 7 foot variance to permit a side yard setback of 3 feet instead of the required 10 feet. Michael Leek reviewed the Planning Report dated December 11, 1995. Staff recommendation is for approval of the variance requested based on their findings of hardship. Guy Selinske, (19040 Southfork Drive) urged the Commission to adopt the recommended Resolution 9540PC. Comments from Commissioners: Wuellner: . Selinske explained the problem with loading glass with the present overhead doors. Loftus: . No questions. Supports Resolution. V oOOof: . Hardship standards have been met. Support Resolution. Kuykendall: . Supports Resolution. . Selinske explained the slope and grading. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO ACT FA VORABL YON RESOLUTION 9540PC AND ADOPT ALL FINDINGS. Rationale: All hardship criteria have been met. V ote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, V onhof and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. Other Business: Comprehensive Plan: Planning Director Don Rye addressed concerns the Commissioners had from the public hearings. There was a brief discussion of the changes and clarification; the Met Council's response, and a request for the Scott County Planner to give a presentation to the Commissioners on annexations, especially Spring Lake Township. City Engineer, Larry Anderson was present to answer questions. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE CHANGES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. MN121195.DOC PAGE6 Commissioner Kuykendall recognized city staff for all their hard work in putting the Comprehensive Plan together. V ote taken signified ayes by V oOOof, Loftus, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Kuykendall requested a newspaper article sent to City Council members in reference to a new suburban development. Recommended Bylaw changes: Planning Director Don Rye presented the information in the Planning Report dated December 11, 1995. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED BYLAWS. V ote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Loftus, V oOOof and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Objectives for 1996: Planning Director Don Rye explained the goals in the Planning Report dated December 11, 1995. Kuykendall would like to see a productive push of certain aspects of the plan that are important but not necessarily costly, i.e., gateway signage, CIP. He would like to project the image of the community. Place a high priority on community image including signature roadways, gateway signage. Also, the Commissioners should have two field trips, at least one for the lake. A workshop and/or retreat to update issues. Also a workshop with City Council. V oOOof would like see more input by the County transportation people, the DNR, Watershed and Sheriff s Department. We should have workshops with agencies of surrounding communities. MN121195.DOC PAGE 7 No meeting scheduled for December 26, 1995. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO ADJOURN MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Loftus, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MN12119S.DOC PAGES PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE SCHEMATIC PUD, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING OF wan OAKS. 13 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF CONROY STREET. DEB GARROSS, DRC COORDINATOR _X_ YES _NO-N/A JANUARY 8, 1996 SITE: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the public hearings are to consider the amended application for Schematic PUD, and Preliminary Plat approval for Wild Oaks as well as the proposed Rezoning of the site to PUD. Attached find a copy of the amended application responding to issues raised by the Planning Commission and public at the 8-23-95 and 10-28-95 public hearings. Also attached find draft Resolutions 96-01 PC and 96-02PC and proposed Ordinance 95-13 recommending approval of the Schematic PUD and and Rezoning and conditional approval of the Preliminary Plat of Wild Oaks. Please refer to the agenda reports dated 8-23-95 and 10-28-95 for reference to this item. BACKGROUND: This project was first introduced to City staff in late 1994. The developer worked with staff for approximately 10 months to prepare the applications consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The applications were considered by the Planning Commission at the first public hearing held on August 28, 1995. At that public hearing, the following applications were considered: Schematic PUD; Rezoning; Preliminary Plat; 86' Cul- de-sac length variance for Wild Oaks Terrace and CUP. The staff recommendation was to table or continue the public hearings to allow the applicant time to prepare information requested by the Planning Commission to complete the review of the project. The public hearings were tabled to October 23, 1995. On October 23, 1995 the Planning Commission held public hearings to consider the Schematic PUD; Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Variance applications for Wild Oaks. After consultation with the applicant, City Attorney and representatives of The Harbor, it was determined a CUP related to the formation of a back lot homeowners association was not required, therefore, the CUP application was no longer an item for Planning Commission consideration. The Planning Commission passed Resolutions 95-21PC, 95-22PC, 95-23PC recommending the City Council deny the Schematic PUD, Preliminary Plat, and cul-de-sac length Variance along with a recommendation to deny the proposed Rezoning associated with the PUD. 16200 ~ur~Ave. S.~Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER On November 20, 1995, the City Council issued directive #95-72 to staff directing contact with developer RCS Associates, Inc., to request a letter for time line extension for approval of the PUD and preliminary plat. The application extension was approved to January 31, 1996 for the Schematic PUD and Preliminary Plat. The City Council remanded review of an amended application for the Schematic PUD and Preliminary Plat, back to the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION: The attached Schematic PUD and Preliminary Plat applications were designed to address the issues identified by the Planning Commission and public at the previous public hearings. The major issues related to: . Too much tree removal. . Objection to the extension of Conroy Street through to Shady Beach Trail. . Objection to development within the steep slope area of the site. . Tree preservation requirements. . Application of 1993 Shore land Management Ordinance. . Objection to Wild Oaks utilizing the existing recreational easement in Conroy's Bay. The amended application proposes construction of 20 townhome units. The number of units was reduced from 23 to 20. In addition, the arrangement of units was changed in order to reduce the amount of proposed grading in the steep slope area and to preserve more trees. The private street, Wild Oaks Terrace has been redesigned from a cul-de-sac to a turn around configuration to reduce grading and save additional trees in the vicinity of the street. It should be noted, staff published a cul-de-sac length variance for this public hearing however, the PUD provisions of the Zoning Ordinance allow for "modifications of the strict application of regulations of the R-l, R-2, R-3, and R-4 Residential Districts in accordance with the provisions and regulations contained herein" (Zoning Ordinance Section 6.12, Section 6, Page 13). Staff is of the opinion the proposed private street can be approved as part of the PUD and does not require a specific length variance. The amended application indicates the improvement of Conroy Street only to the intersection with Wild Oaks Terrace, the private street which will serve the development. The amended application indicates conservatively, 47% of the trees over 12" will be preserved and 65 additional trees will be planted. The amended plan preserves 47% of the significant (12") trees on site as opposed to the 40%, 22% and 19% tree preservation indicated by earlier proposals. (The proposed tree preservation policy allows up to 50% tree removal for right-of-way, utilities and building pads before additional trees must be replaced on site). Staff reviewed the amended application according to provisions of the recently adopted 1993 Shore land Management Ordinance. The PUD Tier calculations would permit up to 31 units on site. Topographic alterations as proposed are permitted subject to approval of the city Engineer and provided they are consistent with the Prior Lake Storm Water Management Plan, Best Management Practices and NURP, National Urban Runoff Program standards. The City has implemented the aforementioned standards since 1993 on all subdivision and PUD proposals. The amended application is consistent with the new Shore land Management regulations. The developer will be required at final plat, to file provisions within the restrictive covenants which restrict land alterations and vegetation removal over the wooded portions of the plat. ( Please note), Pat Lynch, Area Hydrologist from the MN DNR does not object to the PUD nor preliminary plat. See attached DNR Project Review Worksheet for reference. WOAKPC.DOC 9 2 Sanitary Sewer The plan is acceptable. A connection will be made to the existing 9" clay line on Conroy Street. The developer proposes to extend an 8" line northerly from Conroy Street in the private street system to serve the proposed units. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the 8" sanitary sewer lines. Watermain The layout is acceptable. A connection will be made to the existing 6" DIP line on Conroy Street that was constructed in 1976. The existing 6" watermain is looped around this site in Conroy Street and Shady Beach Trail and connects up to the existing 12" trunk water line on County Road 42. The 12" trunk line on County Road 42 was constructed in 1979. The hydrants as shown on the preliminary utility layout plan should provide adequate fire protection to this site. Water pressures in the range of 85 to 90 psi can be expected on this site. The preliminary utility layout shows the extension of a 6" or 8" water line from Conroy Street to the north to serve the proposed units. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the proposed 6" and 8" water lines. Existing Well The existing well and pump that are located on this site will be abandoned by the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District. The well was constructed in the 1950's to help augment the water level of Prior Lake. The well has not been used for many years now and the Watershed District has hired a contractor to abandon the well. After the well is abandoned, then the existing easements can be vacated. Streets/Access/Circulation Access to the subject site will be via Conroy Street to a proposed private street within the PUD. The private street will be improved to city standards however, there will not be a requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way. Instead, the developer will provide separate easements for utility and drainage purposes over part of the common property within the development. The amended application includes a preliminary street layout plan December 11, 1995 indicating the developer will upgrade 450 feet of Conroy Street. The developer does not intend to upgrade the remaining 650 feet of Conroy Street over to Shady Beach Trail. The proposal is the developer's response to the objections raised about the extension of Conroy Street. The proposed typical street section shall be modified to meet the current city standard. Any additional soil correction work or subgrade preparation will be the developer's responsibility. The Planning Commission should note, staff maintains the recommendation that Conroy Street should be improved through to Shady Beach Trail. Storm Water The subject site as well as part of the City of Savage, located directly north of the site, are located in the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District. The City of Savage has approved two large subdivisions which will be developed north of County Road 42, that will discharge into the wetland located on the west 1/3 of the subject site. The storm water from the area north of County Road 42 currently flows through the wetland on the subject site. The City of Savage will require the developer to install retention ponds and storm water pipes and culverts to slow the rate of runoff. There is currently a 42" RCP culvert under County Road 42 that drains the 200 acres of Savage into the Conroy wetland. In the City of Savage's Water Resource Management WOAKPC.OOC 9 3 Plan they have modeled a 36" RCP under County Road 42, which restricts the flow from Savage to Prior Lake to 65 cfs. It is the City of Savage's responsibility to install an orifice plate in the existing 42" RCP so as to simulate a 36" RCP as they have modeled. The City of Prior Lake and the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District should request that Savage install the 36" orifice plate within the existing 42" RCP as a condition for approval of the new development in Section 19 in Savage. The existing 3.5 acre wetland on the west end of the property drains to Prior Lake under the existing gravel road. The City of Prior Lake will review the design of the storm sewer that will be required to be installed under Conroy Street. The developer of Wild Oaks will construct storm water improvements on site and in Conroy Street that will result in decreasing the rate at which the water flows from the north, through the subject site, and ultimately into Prior Lake. Due to the storm water impacts, the City Engineer requested the developer to provide a large easement over the wetland as well as to construct a series of storm water ponds on site to accommodate additional ponding. Additional culverts and raising the elevation of Conroy Street will be required in order to implement storm water management plans for the subject site and adjacent properties. The timing of the proposed preliminary plat is good because storm water improvements can be constructed concurrent with development to the north. The upgrading of part of Conroy Street will help to improve the water quality of Prior Lake and the Conroy wetland by partially eliminating the erosion of a gravel street. The minimum lowest entry level of all proposed buildings shall be 3' above the 100 year HWL for the large wetland. Per Ordinance 94-01, a minimum of 30' setback from the HWL to all building pad or house locations is required. Storm sewer easements will be required for all proposed storm sewer to be installed. Per City Ordinance, a minimum of 20' easement is required centered over the proposed pipe. Access must be provided to all N.U.R.P. ponds for maintenance purposes. Easements and an appropriate roadway to all ponds are required. The storm sewer catch basin manhole directly upstream ofthe N.U.R.P. pond shall be an environmental sump manhole. There is an existing wetland located in the southeast comer of this site. Two existing catch basins drain into this landlocked low area. An outlet needs to be provided for this wetland to protect the existing trees surrounding the wetland. The preliminary grading plan shows that 2.5 acres will drain to this wetland. A N.U.R.P. pond is shown to be constructed in the southwest edge of the proposed townhouse site. The new pond will be designed to treat the storm water runoff from 4 acres before discharging into the 3.5 acre Conroy wetland. Gradin~ A grading permit will be required from the City of Prior Lake prior to any land disturbing activities. An accurate certified field survey of the existing conditions, final approved grading plan and all other items associated with this permit shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of such permit. The grading for the townhouse buildings along the east edge of the Conroy wetland shall include a 30 foot buffer strip of undisturbed vegetation. The buffer strip will help to prevent erosion from occurring into the wetland. The developer will be required to follow the city's erosion control standards. Erosion control silt fence will be required along the edges of the wetlands and the developer will need to establish turf as soon as possible after the completion of grading. WOAKPC.DOC o 4 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolutions 96-01PC and 96-02PC and Ordiance 95-13 as drafted recomending the City Council approve the Schematic PUD and Preliminary Plat of Wild Oaks. 2. Adopt Ordinance 95-13 as presented and adopt Resolutions 96-0lPC and 96-02PC with revisions directed by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative # I. The applications for Schematic PUD, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance and should therefore be approved. {Please note, the developer presented an alternative at the October 28, 1995 public hearing indicating 19 single family lots could be developed on site consistent with Ordinance standards. However, the development of the single family lots would remove more significant trees, (81%) than the proposal, (53%). The developer has redesigned the plat layout to adress concerns raised at the public hearings. The proposal preserves more trees, reduces the amount of grading required in the steep slope area, removes the Conroy Street extension, is not objected to by the DNR and results in a layout which meets the requirements of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. ACTION REQUIRED: A separate motion to adopt Resolution 96-01PC and Ordinance 95-13 and 96-02PC and separate motions to close the three public hearings. WOAKPC.DOC o 5 RESOLUTION 96-01PC RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE SCHEMATIC AND PRELIMINARY PUD FOR WILD OAKS. MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS: the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 28, and October 23, 1995 and January 8, 1996 to consider an application from Bill Hayden of RCS Associates Inc., for Schematic and Preliminary PUD for Wild Oaks; and WHEREAS: notice of the public hearing on said Schematic PUD has been duly published in accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issue and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the Schematic and Preliminary PUD of Wild Oaks; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission finds the Schematic and Preliminary PUD are consistent with the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission finds the Schematic and Preliminary PUD of Wild Oaks appears to harmonize with both existing and proposed development in the area surrounding the project; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission fmds the proposed Schematic and Preliminary PUD of Wild Oaks is compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission finds the proposed Schematic and Preliminary PUD of Wild Oaks adequately provides for internal organization, uses, appropriate densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreation areas and open space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that it recommends the City Council approve the Schematic and Preliminary PUD for Wild Oaks subject to the following: 1. The applicant provide population and demographic information required by the Zoning Ordinance for PUD's. 2. Developer submit a revised Schematic PUD map consistent with the preliminary plat maps dated 12-11-95. o 16200 e.~~eek Ave. S.E?Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ,J 3. Approve a private street, (proposed Wild Oaks Terrace), with a cul-de-sac length of 560 feet, for the PUD. 4. Approve the cluster, townhome development to be located on the easterly 8 acres of the subject site. 5. Rezone the 13.82 acre subject site from R-I, Suburban Residential and C-I, Conservation to PUD 9-95. 6. No minimum setback standard from the units to the platted lot line of all proposed lots. 7. All application forms be signed by the current fee owner of the property. 8. A statement of the ownership of all land involved in the PUD together with a summary of the developer's previous work experience be submitted. 9. A statement describing how all necessary governmental services will be provided to the development be submitted. 10. The total anticipated population to occupy the PUD, with break downs indicating the number of school age children, adults and families be submitted. 11. The following zoning standards shall apply to the PUD of Wild Oaks: :;i.g;i~I:::I:::tI:::::::::::r:I::::I!I:::::r:::::l:l::::::tS:~::t~j:igmmF@ffi1!:~:::!::::::~::::::::~:::::::ImlmH~f:*:::~::::::::~:::l~liira.llmi$i~:;:::li;~::::mi:'',;:1tr."; Front Setback: 25' Distance between Buildings: 25' ili.irl~Mf~l_lij::lfl:ilij::iiiiii::iil::I.ii::I.iS:::::r:::::::l~~~:!~m~::::::llf~:::::::::::~1:~::::I:r::::~::r::::;;r::r:::I:r~:fffl1~::llili~~m: Wetland Setback: 30' from 100yr Flood ;~..m!i::J.iiiJ.l@ii::~mfi;::::::::::::I:r:::::::::::::I::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:::::;'::;:;';;:;::;;;:::1:;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!:::::::::::::::::::~::::~:::::::::::~::m::::D:~::::r::::::::::::::::::::::::::r:::::::::::::;r:::::::::::::::::::Im::::::::::!::!::::t:: HCR. 42 Setback: ISO' from Centerline :llalf}llIIU::::::!!::::::::::::::!:::::::;:;::::;:::::!!!::::!::::::::::::!:::::!:!::::::::::::::::::::!::!:I::!:!:!:!::r!!:!!II::::III:r:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!::::::::II:::::::::::::::::::!:::!~!!!::::::::!:::::!~l~ll:Ii!.:!liiil!III:::::!!::!::::::::I:!m: . Cul~de-sac Length: 586' lljJl~flflP.iI::liigl'ltll::I:;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I:::::!:::!:::::~:::::::::::::::::::::Ill:~lliii::~i.li.i:M.lil::::::::!:~::: . Maximum Unity Density 2.9 Units per Acre :::lfiliiijrnHlijgmg:limiii:D1:al:::::::::::::::::;:::::::';:::;;:;::;:;:::::::::::::::::::::I:I::::;:;::;:::I::::;;':::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::;:::II:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:i~~::I.;:~"ll::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I:::: Maximum Impervious Surface (SMO Tiers 25%) l"jJl~rltlP.i!fliig:l~MI:m.::I'-I)'!::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::l:r:::::r:::::::;:::;::;;::::::::::::::::;:::::;:;:::;:::;:::::;:rr::I:::::::::::::III:r::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;::r::::::::::::::::::::::::r:::::::::::::::::::::::I:: * The individual townhome units shall not be subject to setback requirements on the individually platted lots underlying the unit. Passed and adopted this 8th day of January, 1996. YES NO KUYKENDALL CRIEGO LOFTUS VONHOFF WUELLNER KUYKENDALL CRIEGO LOFTUS VONHOFF WUELLNER Dick Kuykendall, Chair Planning Commission Donald Rye, Director of Planning RS960I.DOC @ \, RESOLUTION 96-02PC RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "WILD OAKS" SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED HEREIN. MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS: the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 28, and October 23, 1995 and January 8, 1996 to consider an application from Bill Hayden of RCS Associates Inc., for the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks; and WHEREAS: notice of the public hearing on said preliminary plat has been duly published and posted in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issues and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat according to the applicable provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning, Subdivision and Flood plain Ordinance and found said preliminary plat to be consistent with the provisions of said ordinances; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission finds the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks to be consistent with the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that it hereby recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the Schematic and Preliminary PUD for Wild Oaks to allow a cluster, townhome development with a private street. 2. Approval of ordinance 95-13 establishing a PUD zone for Wild Oaks. 3. All application forms be signed by the current fee owner. 4. Specific tree preservation measures be submitted indicating grading limits and method to implement preservation plan. Indicate location, species and caliper of all existing trees (12" or larger in caliper), to be saved. 5. The developer address safety issues related to the use of a retaining wall at the bottom of a slope, including vegetation maintenance and pedestrian safety. 6. The minimum lowest entry level of all proposed building shall be at least three feet above the 100 year HWL for the large wetland on the west side of the property. o 16200 ~~eek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ,I 7. Topography shall be field verified and corrected on the grading plan as necessary. 8. The preliminary plat is valid for 12 months from the date of approval by the City Council. Failure to submit the fmal plat within the required time frame shall cause the preliminary plat to become null and void. 9. The grading plan for the townhouse buildings along the east edge of the Conroy wetland shall include a 30' buffer strip of undisturbed vegetation. 10. The fmal plat shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement over the proposed NURP pond and over the existing wetlands. The easement shall be dedicated to cover the area of the ponds and wetlands up to the 100 year HWL. II. Restrictive covenants be filed with the final plat to address future vegetation and topographic alterations as well as construction of any additional buildings on site. The purpose of the covenants and or permanent easements is to assure preservation and maintenance of open space in accordance with the Shore land Management Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance Section 9.11 F). 12. The applicant shall submit documentation by a qualified professional that storm water management facilities are designed and installed consistent with the Field Office Technical Guide of the local Soil and Water Conservation District. (Shore land Management Ordinance). Passed and adopted this 8th day of January, 1996. YES NO KUYKENDALL CRIEGO LOFTUS VONHOFF WUELLNER KUYKENDALL CRIEGO LOFTUS VONHOFF WUELLNER Dick Kuydendall, Chair Prior Lake Planning Commission Donald Rye, Director of Planning City of Prior Lake RS9602.DOC o CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 95-13 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-2-1 OF PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 2.1 OF PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: The Prior Lake Zoning map, referred to in Prior Lake City Code Section 5-2-1 and Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance No. 83-6 Section 2.1, is hereby amended to change the zoning classifications of the following legally described property from R-l, Suburban Residential and C-l, Conservation to PUD 1-96. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Government Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of West, along the north line of said government Lot 2, a distance of 148.01 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 0 degrees 42 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 158.31 feet; thence southwesterly a distance of 83.99 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the West, having a central angle of 31 degrees 03 minutes 41 seconds and a radius of 154.92 feet; thence South 30 degrees 21 minutes 27 seconds West, tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 202.90 feet; thence southwesterly a distance of 103.41 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a central angle of 31 degrees 11 minutes 15 seconds and a radius of 189.99 feet; thence south 28 degrees 27 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 30.00 feet to the northerly line of a 20.00 foot driveway as shown on the plat of "CONROY'S BAY", according to the recorded plat thereof, on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota; thence South 61 degrees 32 minutes 42 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of 139.72 feet; thence South 41 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of 134.80 feet; thence South 87 degrees 49 minutes 56 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of 276.54 feet; thence North 87 degrees 11 minutes 48 seconds west, along said northerly line, a distance of 60.24 feet; thence North 69 degrees 48 minutes 55 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of283.56 feet to the easterly line of the 30.00 foot road as shown on said plat of "CONROY'S BAY"; thence North 0 degrees 38 minutes 40 seconds West, along said easterly line, a distance of 130.37 feet; thence North 7 degrees 46 minutes 21 seconds West, along said easterly line, a distance of 462.19 feet to said north line of Government Lot 2; thence on a bearing of East, along said North line, a distance of 1059.36 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: "0RD9513" 0 ,I Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 30; thence on an assumed bearing of East along the north line of said Section 30 a distance of 1777.47 feet; thence on a bearing of South a distance of 440.30 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 15 degrees 32 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 33.00 feet; thence South 74 degrees 27 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 41.00 feet; thence North 15 degrees 32 minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 33.00 feet; thence North 74 degrees 27 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 41.00 feet to the point of beginning. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of , 1996. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of , 1996. Drafted By: Lommen, Nelson, Cole & Sageberg, P.A. 1800 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 "0RD9513" o 2 I ..' I I I ,;.; ~----I I , ~) I 0: I I I _L- .::. '" I~Jj ..... .b o ~ " nun I>>"""'WN_ "HH~ ~ ~~~~Ill~ ~ unil ~3e>~ ~3~'" 1;jrne> m .~ J z: ~ Vl :0 '1'1 ill ~J C,CfC,C,CIIl'CFC,:iCi'::;:'CJf Il'l I~ I ~E-J~JrJrJrJ!i '~!i~.":l'l I ~~lfcJiiiiiiiii!ijl~;:JI!;r~l:J I! !rCrnt.nflrIH!l ~1!::f::Ui ~. . I ~ l:!fhl~,.hh~,njfu (iIrll:.1h' f I hIU~~'J"J"J,r!hrh=; j.:t!' ,1 I Cii!'J';~:~:~..~;i!',"jl-t"I'JI&:;f,! ii ~ '~'Jf:~-i~f~f~l~f!~1 II If J~ii r~ ~ !f!!j!f!~f~f~f~f~!~I~:fJ~:!i~'~t. jt ~ I!~IJ~llif~f~{~(~i;~ll ~e;j;~!ii ~~ hfi.g~i:i:i:i:i!11i.Iltr:~!i'rI[ I !" ~hf~~f~f~f:I~=;t.'1 :JJ~(J ; ihi~;:i;;I;I;I;ih(!r~~.:iIf..~~ i l~~~II:flflftf'I:~~:il~l!f:ffif ~ 1~11& ::;; Ie :: U'''.:J!fu.iriJrIJ I~~! il!ili!iiil:!~'t.'I}.'J;o~! :if::;!:I!!II!I!J~ri!~'li~!;fi=l: :.: f fIr I-I! J ir .Iit=;:: ~ :a ~ r> r ,. _ .._ .s ~ ~~~~~ *~ ; ~ frfr~ t:~ !: (") o C 2: ... -< ::0 o > o ~ N @ ft .. e ~ : Ii s 2' 2 il . .. J-::- s L s ;:: If ... ... i s PRELIMINARY PLAT WILD OAKS OF PRIOR LAKE P.U.D. . . R.c.s. ASSOclAlES 1<lC. , 36lllAIlENUENORTH.NEWHOPE....'NNESOTA 554Z7 -' =---=-=-. =-::... -:;-.:~ i:::.::. .:cs:: ~~ ~ JameS R. Hill, inc. . PLANNERS , ENGINEERS' SURVEYORS nlO w. elf. ......,:.s.. 111., a....u. ~ ussr 11211U...... ,... .....," 5r-: (igi rf!! ,n I :1 .. \)~,~ lS.:~. ~ ".-\' hi ) il 'I I i ~~"\'. ~ !Iii i - iH .,~~,:,,;,;~: ~ ' ':" T:,,:, , P I i ! ru~ tl!1 'i~ m diJ f.!1 ~.A 'I' r~tI ill ~f! If: hn Pi fit fIr :t ~ ~O T I I ~ >> o <3 5 o >> . .. .. ~ ~ e = = :z z " " n ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ , .. ~ ~ r~~f'" .. 0 :;... ~ . 0 ~Zl . ',' ~c;; ~... "'t ~ "',\0 ~~ I>>.:t ~ ~ ~ -~\~ ; " r' ~, " , ~; ... '" ~ ~ . .. ~... i f~ " , \~'. .' ~~, \ - " e ~ ..~.\ ~ r i ~:- '. ~l ., I \ R i . .. I ~ -~l~' . ,-' /, / \ :j , "- , /,,')'.' ....; j, " , ., .,,:. '.~::~~~:~~" ,>,~ .....1..,: \ 'If !!. H i' II .1 ... m ~ g ~ ~ " o n " n o ~ " c !l o % m ~ >> Z g . . . I I f! ! .'1 'I! , i . f ,i~i IIQilIID.1ilil I I z , : "~>. ,:~ ',':U II \... " -. -...:;,.>. ....-:"1:... ", .~."':'.:~::~;~.....~~r::"r.:.:........'~.:_~...............:..:.:.:. \. ~'~<" .::..~~~.:~.~.~. h. '"". . ;~ ~", i .-......-., , " ..... - " ., j<)~:~) I;: 'j - - -.--" "'1 Iii III I!! III I!' Iii !U "i 1'1 II. ,I Ii I" Ii I " . -:::::-__.. . ': I :~-\-~l"~ \/ --';':: j.' / , ! i \t. \~ .'f ;, i ; t \ >:,--t I r r \i :/'; ~ \ :: . i r :, \:1-, I: ~ f.! H:....: \ U ' \",'\',', : . :~:'li ,II' 'If ':, Ii:.. 1,\" ; ,':; :: .,1 'I 'j ,;,i 1,,;1 r , PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN WILQ. OAKS OF PRIOR LAKE P.U.D. U R.C.S.ASSOCIATESINC, 9155 361h AVENue NORTH. NEW HOPE. MINNESOTA 55427 ~' James R. Hill, inc. ! ) PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS -. / nDO w. en. .1. u. S.'l n.. '-u. ... "SIr. ~ .1211...0'4 ru 11041", u ~ F R m j i ~ ! , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I!l ~ ::: ~ ;;; ~ J z o ::: ~ ~ i o o .. i~ ~! .. gREE SURVEY WILD OAKS OF PRIOR LAKEP;U.D. A.c:.s...ssoc...TES N:- .'sS 38I/l AVENUE NOlml, NEW HOPE. MINNESOTA 5SC27 ,--.....- ------ ---... ------ =::=.:~~ ---..- .-...-..(... ~ James R. Hill, inc. PlANNERS'l ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS . UM .. en. II. u. S... ",, .-....u. ... 11117 '1J/UI~.4 '" .....,IU .- J ----- " " , , \ , ,- ' '-' ~~ ,', '- '- - - --' I \ I 1 I I I I I I -- ...-........... '- t': -r :-Il:: I I 'I HA~!~i:'''I_:\ \r. ,~..,... 1'- -"......~ ... c;. :, -r I WT - t t t' . ;,U,! ~ " - ~ J z . ; =. i i i : q:nj - id p. . ;: I = i m a . ! . ~r" ~~~~- ~; ; . 0 .,.., .or: ~ ~ '......... - --...--.. ----.I... .--..- ~'":= ___eII_ ......,,-- PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN WILD OAKS OF PRIOR LAKE P.U.D. R.c.a ASSOCIATCS INC, 9155 36/h AVENUE NORTH. NEW HOPE. MINNESOTA 55421 ----- I n I II IT I II I II J J I 1 II I II I II I " I II I 11 I II I I \ I I' I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I II I 'I I \ I I \ I I \ I I \ I \I I II , " I II I H I 1/ I II I n ! H I H : Ii ~ ,I lIft ! , "g J 'lJI fi ~ I 1/ , II I II .1 II ~ James R. Hill, inc. I PlANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS , 7501 w. tIT. ",. It, :.. n., ........11. M. SIU' 11211....44 h. .....IU JHi i ~ :~ j .... I iii! 111' III if! fill !!l Eii Eli &4 i. " d ~!O T I I ~ ~ S s Ii:! :! ~ ~ Ii Ii III .. g ... = g ~ c ; ~ ! i a: a -. ; ,Z ~ I AA~~'f~ ~ 0 ,. i: ~ 'I I .~ ~... ""i~ ,. '" _ . -1 tJliz ~. "'~ ~-'" ~ .f i ~ ; > % ~ I ~fI ~ I/lW I,Uli I i f !! f "j 'f! J I I I I!/' Iii 'III .' q I'i 1:1 III Iii !II 1'11" 'I" 1,/" If I PRELIMINARY GRADING & EROSION CONTROL WILD Oill.KS OF PRIOR LAKE P.U.D. y R.c.s. ASSOCIAlES INC. 9155 361h AVENUE NORTli. NEW HOPE. MINNESOTA 55-427 . !!-.-.- ---.. --....-.... --___M. ~:::::. -i::: -...-*"- .......-.... ----- (II) James R. Hill, inc. PLANNERS / ENGINEERS /SURVEYORS UDO w. Cl,_ RI. 41, S.,r nl, .-....u. u" unl 111111''''44 Fu IID,UH \~I~/q~ .....--. -~'? ~~rlr~~:Lf~ - _~~~ \AA!th ~~~__ l~'~l 6 J~, , 7e:t 1~t/~ ~~ ~ II ~ ~~ ~ Jto~~. l~~ (:(PQ:lt) - - , - VlI1U7 ~ ...~ ~., ~f~~ 4}~ . ~ ~I~~ -- H~ ~__ ~V~V' ~~ ~~ 1# '2 J11~ ~~ ~x ~'.2.JIt'~IJJt ~ .-.-~I epJ.,lj'!! l~ #-~p ~-A-2.'" . _ _I -~~~-~~~~~~ I~~ ~1~~~ 1.~~rrJo/J;-1 __~ ~t?' t/J~~~~ -==-:_JIQp~f'f!~~"~ I t! 1.7 J~~~ ~bv7-~_~_-~=i~~~ f-'2t; ... I -- n_ -------------------------- ~~~ l~~~____________ - - - ~-f-t I .~ . - --- ------------------------------- I b J ~ \ I? 1i1fV- tr~\~~-il~~~-A1~------------------- _ ~ fc I~~ 1~1--- ~, --------- J 41.~ I--11LL-1$ {I<~l~~--,~~-~--- I~=-==-- ---~---~-==-- I I I I ----.----------- --------..---- OJ DNR METRO REGION TEL:612-772-7977 Dee 28,95 11:16 No.005 P.Ol T~ .. De,h ~"?~ G,~ '"S ~ Project Review Worksheet DNR - Division of Waters / Metro Region ~~JJ.&J.i CJ \?\"\.t>. I ~f.L. '",,\hJ'AIL.., Project Name t ;>t..4\ ~~ 'HI'" [:) OIftkj Project Type (check all that apply): ~P1at D Final Plat C Subdivision ~ [JVlUiango o Other DNR.lurUcliction (answer all): Y.. No ~.~o Floodplain [] [J ShoreJand (M.S.I03F.I01) CM.S.IOJF.201) Yes No Yea No Prota::tod Waters 0 [J W.. Appropriation C C (M.S. I 030.245) (M.S.IOJO.2SS) Commen.. .:1: ~ ~ J::; ~ Dc.toC."..._:, _ --== 704.. PiA fj ~ f ~.-' ., l ,. - :.::;~.,= ' ~ ~ Aft'. ~ ,...r, Recommendations and Proposed Conditions +,,~ 1/.-'3~ clLo 1=] f&.. ... , "'v' ~~ ~ ''''.. ',.. ~.~;..- ~~" """ .~ ~ '" A.ft ~.t'- 4--'1 .s~~ .J....~ , ''';r ~ · AIf~ I Jk.. . RevillWer~~~~~Title~one 7'~-.,,1O Date ~2-2,-,r . /I- ... ~lit;....~.."".....,. .....:' . Q) . ..... .'i". ,,_ '.'. ") kC:,L' \ '~:J) I? -,;1/ -Cj ~~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE SCHEMATIC PUD, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "WILD OAKS" You are hereby notified that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road, S.E. (Southwest of the intersection ofCR. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday, January 8, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider the Schematic PUD and Preliminary Plat or subdivision of the following legally described property into a 20 unit, townhome development to be known as "Wild Oaks." Also to be discussed at the public hearing are 1) the applicant's proposal to improve Conroy Street to the entrance to the proposed subdivision using a modified cul-de-sac design and 2) a variance to permit a private road with cuI de sac having a length of about 560 feet instead of 500 feet or less. Legal Description: See attached Exhibit A for a complete legal description. Or more commonly described as approximately 13 acres of land located north of Conroy Street, in Prior Lake. If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this public hearing. The Planning Commission will accept oral and or written comments. If you have questions regarding this matter, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230. Deb Garross Assistant City Planner To be published in the Prior Lake American on Saturday, December 23, 1995. Date Mailed: I)p .1.~. ,)fl, 1995 Okc ;(tY1he~ d \, ,q q'S 16200 E~~~~P~k Ave. S.E?Prior Lake. Minnesota 553lJ2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER , . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REZONING OF LAND FROM R-l, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND C-l, CONSERVATION TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF "WILD OAKS" You are hereby notified that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road, SE (Southwest of the intersection of CR. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday, January 8, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider rezoning the following legally described property from R-l, Suburban Residential and C-l, Conservation to Planned Unit Development, (PUD) for the proposed subdivision of "Wild Oaks." Legal Description: See attached Exhibit A for a complete legal description. Or more commonly described as approximately 13 acres of land located north of Conroy Street, in Prior Lake. If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this public hearing. The Planning Commission will accept oral and or written comments. If you have questions regarding this matter, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230. ;{J))/):j tLI{iiYJ<U Deb Garross Assistant City Planner To be published in the Prior Lake American on Saturday, December 23, 1995. Date Mailed: December 20, 1995 16200 ~~ek Ave. S.E~Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ........ '" ..,..."'" ~ 'lcu. ,.It 'JIIiA1h111 'on Il.S 'UDlII"'U] -M OOU: W-.' gjOJ.3~S I gj33NI!lN3 I gj3NNItld i 'JU! 'IHH '}j saw-ef ' , !' \ :'\'-~:_' -:::;. ': (. ....._----......... l I -~---. - ....., { , '. \ , . , f / : ;; . ( ~\ L I' - , , C'-._:c;~-:-. .." '- i t';; f; r' k ! " /. r: aoss VWS3NNlW '3dOH M3N 'HUJON 3nN3J\V 41St SS~6 ':IN' S31V):lOSSV 'S':l<l 'a"n"d 3)1'ltll:i01l:id ::10 S)I'ltO allM N'ltld 3d'ltOSON'lt1 Al:i'ltNIWI13l:id -,./ I, 1.1.1 Iii ill Iii !II III jll !illl" II il I! iil I:~. j 1. J ,.. I 'II '~-[-,' " . II, ',:1,1 '11" .:1 III 1'1 Il'l III I -iii II" '11:1, ,', illl ,I !ll!!' ,~.lll II ,d III I I j!'IJlll' : . II . UII '!ll,1 Iilll till Jla ,I ,~>\'..~=-~ ~~::'~-:::-~-:.:::. < .::, ':''--''~~~~ \ " ',' \ ~__"..._____ -----=:0 _, ".':~~:>~:;~~~~,~\ ; .. "~'~\" ;;,~,?:~-,=,~-~, . '<:_~::(.,';~'\\~~_;:i(".\\,\l\ \ i,\~\::.___.,. . ""', ,"'" \' \ ,\ " \ . .":":-:". :), -. ". . ., 1_....... . '~\ \ \ \ '-l' ': .....- "',.. . '..... r\'~~, \~ ," >~'. '. ~', ~~"" " l~ gHi~i I z i : . . I I Ii ..G[lr', "'.11 i I r 1 \ I Ii I ! II! ,', lei I , I~~kgllll"ll !~l~ : ~ ; =: ~: ~ ~ ::/ ~ ~ .. .. .. . z j: j: 3 3 ;. 2; fi 0111 i i r jli j!i ~~g lift ;~I !if ~i! 1'=1 i~; UI IIi! Uu J w f ~ ~i I ~~~ ~ ; .aU z o u '" u o a: ,. a: '" a: ~ :i .... , . . I; ;! :1 ~ii il. :,.~ ',::" ':,\'~:' ! " I~' I, J II . ~., .~ . :i'" ;" ~~ ! ~;~ ~!I i ;~,\\! ii. . "~\\ ;.. .,. 'i":<?<::,:~'~>' > , - L" i i. i i ! I. ";' I ! : ~~~~. .~-".~_.~~r.:. /~: ~ '1: . I j ,I . I' I 1 j , j EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR WILD OAKS SCHEM4TIC PUD, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING. APPLICATION. ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: " That part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of said Government Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of West, along the north line of said government Lot 2, a distance of 148.01 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 0 degrees 42 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 158.31 feet; thence southwesterly a distance of83.99 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the West, having a central angle of 31 degrees 03 minutes 41 seconds and a radius of 154.92 feet; thence South 30 degrees 21 minutes 27 seconds West, tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 202.90 feet; thence southwesterly a distance of 103.41 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a central angle of 3 I degrees 11 minutes 15 seconds and a radius of 189.99 feet; thence south 28 degrees 27 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 30.00 feet to the northerly line of a 20.00 foot driveway as shown on the plat of "CONROY'S BAY", according to the recorded plat thereof, on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County. Minnesota: thence South 61 degrees 32 minutes 42 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of 139.72 feet; thence South 41 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of 134.80 feet; thence South 87 degrees 49 minutes 56 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of 276.54 feet; thence North 87 degrees 11 minutes 48 seconds west, along said northerly line, a distance of 60.24 feet; thence North 69 degrees 48 minut~s 55 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of283.56 feet to the easterly line of the 30.00 f~ot road as shown on said plat of "CONROY'S BAY"; thence North 0 degrees 38 minutes 40 seconds West, along said easterly line, a distance of 130.37 feet; thence North 7 degrees 46 minutes 21 seconds West, along said easterly line, a distance of 462.19 feet to said north line of Government Lot 2; thence on a bearing of East, along said North line, a distance of 1059.36 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northwest comer of said Section 30; thence on an assumed bearing of East along the north line of said Section 30 a distance of 1777.47 feet; thence on a bearing of South a distance of 440.30 feet to the point of beginning of the l~d to be described; thence South 15 degrees 32 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 33.00 feet; thence South 74 degrees 27 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 41.00 feet; thence North 15 degrees 32 minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 33.00 feet; thence North 74 degrees 27 minutes II seconds East a distance of 41.00 feet to the point of beginning. SU02LEGL.OOC o PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1995 The October 23, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Planning Director Don Rye at 7:01 p.m. Mr. Rye asked the Commission to have Commissioner Tom V onhof chair the remainder of the meeting. Present were Commissioners Criego, Loftus, V onhof and Wuellner, Planning Director Don Rye, Assistant Planner Deb Garross, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. ROLL CALL: Loftus Kuykendall V onhof Wuellner Criego Present Absent Present Present Present REVIEW OF THE OCTOBER 9, 1995 MEETING MINUTES: MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 9, 1995 MINUTES. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner and Criego. Commissioner V onhof abstained from voting. MOTION CARRIED. 1. WILD OAKS - PUBLIC HEARING for Schematic PUD, Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, Variance and Conditional Use Permit. The Public Hearing was called to order and a sign-up sheet was circulated. Assistant City Planner Deb Garross gave an overview of the August 28, 1995 meeting and presented the information in the October 23, 1995 Staff Report. An Issue Summary was presented outlining concerns raised at the Public Hearing on August 28. The Issue Summary identified options for development and extension of Conroy Street along with positive and negative aspects associated with alternatives. It was also determined by the City Attorney, Glenn Kessel and the Harbor Association Attorney, Peter Coyle, that a Conditional Use Permit is not required because the developer will not construct a beach and the subject site is not contiguous to a public lake. Therefore, the Zoning Ordinance requirement for Conditional Use Permit does not apply. Jim Sander, attorney for developer, Bill Hayden, stated Staff did an excellent job in outlining the issues. Comments made at the August meeting were addressed. Mr. Sander further explained the developer's constraints with the ordinances, neighbors' concerns and working with the City to come up with a plan that will work. The developer would prefer to develop 20 townhomes which would avoid building on the steep slope and save more trees but to improve Conroy Street, additional townhomes would have to be built to MNI02395.DOC o PAGEl . . compensate. The developer would do whatever is decided by the Planning Commission regarding the construction of Conroy Street. Comments from the audience: Bill Townsend, 6300 Conroy Street, said he was here with neighbors who have concerns for the development that are both technical and for quality of life reasons that are reflected in the Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Townsend stated he was not a local government expert, but thinks the role of the Commission is to provide for the intangible input. Things for which rules cannot be written. His issues were the slope, clear-cutting trees, the Conroy Street improvement and the cul-de-sac variance. Mike Sweeney, 14099 Shady Beach Trail, lives on Lots 10, 11 and 12. Mr. Sweeney felt Lot 13 is a continuation of the wetland and the existing runoff is stressing the area. The extension of Conroy Street through Lot 13 will increase what they are losing now. Mr. Sweeney feels the cost to put in the road is astronomical and no one is served by this. He feels the City is strong-arming the developer to make improvements nobody in the neighborhood wants. Mr. Sweeney was aware of the easement owned by the City when he bought his home but felt it was for utilities not a street. Martin Polasik, 14087 Shady Beach Trail, feels a smaller development would be better than the townhomes for the neighborhood. He did not see how the construction of Conroy Street would not benefit anyone. Mr. Polasik also said he had a problem with the clear-cutting. Ted Schweich, 6436 Conroy Street, discussed issues on the cul-de-sac, zoning and ordinances, impervious surface, street construction and assessments and park dedication. He thought economics was an underlying factor. Mr. Schweich felt the City's attitude is "we are getting a road for nothing". He said he does not believe the traffic flow numbers are correct. Mr. Schweich felt the City could keep the easement and put a trail through Lot 13 and cul-de-sac Conroy Street. (Deb Garross explained the issue of public vs. private cul-de-sac. The developer is putting in a private cul-de-sac, Conroy Street is public.) Mr. Schweich felt his interpretation of the Ordinance is different from the City (Staff). John Wingard, Assistant City Engineer addressed the park dedication. The area would be approximately one acre and cash would be better used on the site rather than creating a flat area which would take out more trees. Instead, the City would take the land dedication and leave the area wooded. The cash dedication of approximately $8,000 would go to upgrading other City parks. The 1100 feet on Conroy Street would roughly cost $60 to $70 Thousand Dollars and the developer agreed to build a 23 unit development to pick up the cost. If the City went through a public improvement project to assess the upgrade to Conroy Street, the City would be able to assess about half the cost on the north side to the developer. The homeowners along Conroy Street would be MNI0239SDOC o PAGE 2 asked to pay for the cost of the Street. The east and west sides would have to be assessed leaving the City (all residents) to pick the balance. David Kirkland declared he was an lawyer representing 13 property owners along Conroy Street and Greenway Avenue. His three issues were: tree cutting; slopes and variances. He believes a stand of trees is not defined in the Ordinance and there should be a tree inventory for trees over 4 inches. Mr. Kirkman felt the developer should not have a variance just because he wants one. He felt the only hardship is the developer cannot get his 23 units on the property and therefore no basis to grant a variance simply because the developer will make more money. Deb Garross reminded the Commission at the initial Public Hearing, Staff recommended and also specified the tree removal and landscaping provisions were not sufficient. The recommendation was for the Planning Commission to give specific guidance to the applicant to provide such materials. Because there was a lack of direction by the Planning Commission, Staff used the most recent Shoreland Regulations approved by the City in 1993. The City has the responsibility of administrating Shoreland Regulations and is doing so in a comparable manner which the City has done since 1987. There was no objection by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to this development. The role of the Planning Commission is to take the public input and combine that with what is required in the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Rye, Planning Director also responded to some of the comments made by Mr. Kirkman regarding the Shoreland Ordinance: I) The definition of a stand of trees; 2) There is no specific requirement in the Shoreland Ordinance for a tree inventory. The Staff took that upon themselves as part of the PUD. 3) Provisions of the section shall not apply to permitted uses. Tom Kearney, 6426 Conroy Street, commented on Commissioner Arnold's concern for the tree inventory. Mr. Kearney contacted the City of Savage and inquired about their Tree Preservation Ordinance. He is also aware the City of Prior Lake is working on an Ordinance and is scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting. Don Kotula, 14031 Greenway Avenue, would not like to see the street go through. He feels the City is taking the developer's side. Deb Garross responded to Mr. Kotula's remark stating Staff reviews and base recommendations based on the Ordinances. The developer is responsible for their project. The City is not an advocate of any particular development. Staff s job is to review the Ordinance and application and make recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. MNJ02395.DOC -0 PAGE 3 . ' Mike Von Arx, 14346 Rutgers Street, thought the Ordinance should be changed. He felt the developer is raping the land to save the wetland. Because of this action, Mr. Von Arx believes the quality of life will go down. Mr. Rye reminded the Commissioners the total site is 13 acres and developing 8 acres is well within the requirements. Carol Scott, 6370 Conroy Street, requested the Developer's Agreement state the developer has no intention of buying property allowing them to use the recreational easement which would be a great hardship on the residents whose recreational easement is in front of their homes. Mary Ann Frees, 6346 Conroy Street, stated the Planning Commission overturned the Staff recommendation a year ago to allow a variance to save her oak tree. She is now asking the Planning Commission to save the rest of the trees. Mrs. Frees believes the Planning Commission has a moral obligation to keep the area environmentally beautiful, private and special. Jay Ferrier, 14075 Shady Beach Trail, felt the wetland influences the lake. He went on to say if the townhomes were built, lawn fertilizer will drain into the lake. The lake will turn into a swamp. Mr. Ferrier stated no one from City Hall has come out to talk to him to ask how he feels. Associate Planner Michael Leek mentioned Staff did not make any indication to go out and poll the neighborhood and the public hearing is for that purpose. Dan Heiling, said he just purchased the property on 6298 Conroy Street. Edina Realty informed him six homes would be developed on this property. He is not in favor of removing all the trees. He does support the cul-de-sac. Mr. Heiling also feels the townhomes will diminish the value of his property. He would also like to hear from the DNR. (Deb Garross and Michael Leek responded the DNR is aware of the project and provided information for other issues for tonight's meeting.) Mr. Heiling further went on to say he hoped the Watershed District would take care of the wetland issue. Calina Townsend, 6300 Conroy Street, asked the Planning Commission to consider their concerns for the environment and neighborhood. She feels the neighborhood is being neglected. She said she wished Staff would work through the Ordinance for the neighborhood like they did for the developer. No one wants a through street. Mrs. Townsend believes the neighborhood has as much input as the developer. Jim Sander, attorney for the developer stated it was unfortunate discussions had gone off base and to stay focused on the issues. The developer never had a free ride. The sketch proposed by neighbors of six homes was never proposed by the developer. The City Staff 0) PAGE 4 MNI02395.DOC . . took a good deal of time with the issues and sees no merit with arguments raised by neighbors. Bill Townsend presented a letter to the Planning Commission by Scott Roth. Comments from the Commissioners: Loftus: · Agrees with Mr. Schweich the PUD is a vehicle to get some creativity within the project. · The tree removal numbers mentioned are somewhat staggering. · Agrees with the attorney's comment of increasing density for purposes of a road. · Extending and connecting streets is a legitimate purpose the City is trying to achieve. · Additional 3 units are landing on the slopes which are environmental amenities. . We do not have a tree ordinance at hand. · Not sure a PUD is the right vehicle. Wuellner: · The Shoreland Management District does not only apply to lake shore lots but to developments within 1000 feet from the lake - this is an environmental impact on the lake. · Does not see how the development in this area is an asset. · The development is not consistent with the Shoreland Management. · No one else (neighbors) want this development. . Does not support the PUD. Criego: · The developer has rights and the neighborhood has rights and the difference between the two. We may not all agree with what our neighbors do but it is within their right within their property lines. If it meets the ordinance they can do it. · There will be some development on this land in the future. · A PUD ought to allow for the enhancement of the property. · If the property is developed in any way, trees are going to have to come out. The question is how many. . Runoff into Prior Lake · The logic for extending the road is a safety issue. · The slope should be maintained as much as possible. V onhof: · Read all the documents and listened to all concerns. · The concept of a PUD is to give the City greater control over development in exchange for certain variances or allowances made for the developer. · This area is unique with steep slopes, trees, a wetland and is adjacent to the lake. MNI02395.DOC 8 PAGE 5 . . . Regarding Conroy Street - Staff rightly saw an opportunity to complete the street at no cost to the City at large. This is good public policy. . At some point down the line this street will be upgraded regardless of what happens tonight and when that happens it will cost every one who lives adjacent to the property and everyone in Prior Lake a lot more. . The value we are also balancing out is the slope. . The variance hardships have not been met on the cul-de-sac. . Staff took a lot of heat tonight and is not justified. The City Staffworks for all of us and for our best interest. They make reports based on their best judgment on what is best for the City at large. Loftus: . Would like to have access to Savage's Tree Preservation Ordinance. . Restriction to grading reference. . The corridors are for street and utilities. Michael Leek addressed the Prior Lake's proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. The draft will be presented to the Commission on November 13. City Council gave specific directions - 25% tree removal on site was appropriate, and 25% for individual building pad development on individual lots was appropriate. They also gave direction as to what they want to see as considered significant trees, specifically 6 inch caliper and 12 foot height trees. City Council is of the opinion the Ordinance should be self enforcing and if any costs were incurred it should be directed back to the developer. Deb Garross stated the application came in and a decision has to be made on the zoning issues related to the PUD application and the variance prior to December 3. The Planning Commission has to act and the application forwarded to City Council. If City Council does not make a decision by then it will be deemed approved. The application cannot be held up for a new ordinance. A new ordinance cannot apply to an action that is already underway. Loftus: . Has not heard hardship criteria for cul-de-sac. Negative on that issue. . Not want to propose more than the 20 townhomes applicant requested. . Negative recommendation to building on the slope - should preserve. General discussion by Commissioners: Deb Garross explained the reasons for the extension of the cul-de-sac. The developer requested the variances. Staff felt the hardship criteria was met because of the slopes on site and there was no other access allowed to the site from County Road 42 so they have to come in somewhere. Also, because of the slopes they cannot put the road in locations other than what is indicated on the application. In order to serve the entire parcel a road must be put in. The conditions for variance approval have been met. Another issue the MNI0239S.DOC ~ PAGE6 Planning Commission may not be aware of is City Council did request Staff to review the cul-de-sac standard in the Subdivision Ordinance possibly to amend or delete it depending on the research that will be conducted next year. Staff recommendation for approval is based on the proposal of a private cul-de-sac. A cul-de-sac at the end of Conroy would be a public improvement and the City would be violating its own Ordinance. John Wingard addressed the issue of increased traffic. The gravel street with additional traffic would have to be upgraded at the cost to the residents. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF RESOLUTION 95-21. Discussion: Neighborhood does not want it and sees no value in it; there are other options for trade offs; other PUDs are much more in keeping with the health and welfare of the community; steep slopes are not adequately protected by the Ordinance; 100% of the neighborhood input has been negative; the PUD as proposed does not adequately address the steep slope and tree issue; negative environmental impact; the density of 23 townhomes are too much for the site. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED TO DENY RESOLUTION 95-21. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO DENY ORDINANCE 95-13. Discussion: This motion is supportive for reasons stated above. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED TO DENY ORDINANCE 95-13. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF RESOLUTION 95-22. Discussion: Because the PUD failed in the Planning Commission's view this should also fail. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION 95-22 DENIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF RESOLUTION 95-23. Discussion: Failed because it is part of the PUD; variance looked more like an economic hardship; hardship criteria has not been met. MNI02395.DOC (Q) PAGE 7 Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and VoOOof. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION 95-23 DENIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and VoOOof. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 9:53 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:03 p.m. 2. ADELLE PHILLIPS - VARIANCE - 5470 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE, requesting a 26 foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 49 feet instead of the required 75 feet. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated October 23, 1995. Staff concluded the hardship criteria has been met and recommends approval of the requested variance. A faxed was received from the DNR with no objections to issuance of the variance provided the replacement deck does not encroach any farther waterward than the existing deck. Applicant, Adelle Phillips asked permission to replace the existing deck for it is unsafe for her grandchildren. Comments from Commissioners: Wuellner: . Applicant explained she built the house and the deck. At the time it was built she had an additional 50 feet of sand. . Supports request. Creigo: . Should approve request. Loftus: . Should approve request. V oOOof: . Hardship criteria has been met and supports request. MOTION BY CRlEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 95- 34PC. Discussion: The hardship criteria has been met. MNI02395DOC OJ PAGES SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4B CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR WILLIAM AND ELLEN HACKETT 3508 SYCAMORE TRAIL R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES -X-NO JANUARY 8, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from William and Ellen Hackett, who propose a living addition to their home at 3508 Sycamore Trail. Construction of the addition would follow the wall1ines ofthe existing house. It would result in the addition having a side yard setback on the West of 4.5 feet and a side yard setback on the East of 5.5 feet instead of the required 10 feet. The property is currently nonconforming with respect to impervious surface coverage, and the proposed addition would result in coverage of38.58% instead of the permitted 30%. DISCUSSION: The proposed addition would extend to the South from the existing house. The addition to the first floor would consist of an entrance foyer, stairway and dining room. The second story addition would contain 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. As a part of the project, the deck on the East side of the house would be removed, effectively increasing the separation from the property on the East. In addition, in order to mitigate the effect of the proposed project on impervious surface coverage, the applicants have proposed the removal of narrow strips of concrete on in front of and to the side of the concrete parking slab. Variance Hardship .Standards: 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would res~lt in undue hardship with respect to the property. This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance is literally enforced. The property is currently developed with a residence that has about 1,800 square feet of area on 2 levels, and a 2 stall garage. Strict interpretation of the Ordinance leads to the conclusion leads staff to the conclusion that reasonable use ofthe 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER property exists. Thus literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not result in undue hardship with respect to the property. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. Because staff has concluded that no undue hardship would result, this criteria would, de facto, not be met. Staff would note that the property is unique in that it is exceptionally narrow at 35 feet, and slopes severely toward the shoreline. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. Because staffhas concluded that there would not be an undue hardship if the Ordinance were literally enforced, this criteria is not met. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The proposed variances would not intensify the side yard setback nonconformity, and would only marginally increase the impervious surface coverage nonconformity. The proposed additions would result in a structure not inconsistent with other houses in the area. Thus, it does not appear that the requested variances would be contrary to the public interest. AL TERNA TIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission fmds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Because staff has concluded that reasonable use of the property currently exists, and thus that the first Ordinance criteria is not met, staff recommends Alternative No.3. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion directing staff to prepare a resolution with findings consistent with the Planning Commission's action. 2 / VA~-.!ft. pm# CITY OF PRIOR LAKE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ~licant: ,~; \ Lt., J\ 0\ [2). ~ L\\ Ul0 m. H: ACKc IT Address: Property ONner: S~)'r\L Address: ~~o)R S~c.A.ll\oiH.... -n<- Type of ONnership: Fee .s.\W\.~\....L Contract Consul tant/Contractor: Home Phone: 44c2>-1-3-:tS Vk>rk Phone: Home Phone: Vk>rk Phone: Purchase Agreement Phone: Existing Use of Property: /\ 'U:.\ ~f \\'l'nA..\.. Legal Description of Variance Site: t..OT 1.. ~i.\ 1\\;\1 ~'bb\ill'l1\AL \..MJ ~ ~IU1o.) Variance Requested: \t.)<:.R.1-'6L in\.l:\hRviCU'> C-.ROOlU~ ccV'l.K. Present Zoning:~ LoT \ At.'lt\ .... KXQ l\tJ( ?I~ i>. i.. . .J Il~~ TflIojI.lS' t., Ole 51 V1 !tAil. ~ ..st,.. I~CK. J Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, use permit on the subject site or any part of it? What was requested: When: Disposition: Describe the type of improvements proposed: R.r I\~D f U Ul", ( X \S1: \ AJ b ~f obtain a v~iance or conditional Yes -L..~ SUBMISSION REQUI~S: (A)Completed application form. (B) Filing fee. (C)Property SUrvey indicating the prQp)sed developnent in relation to property lines and/or ordinary-higl'rwater mark; proposed building elevations and drainage plan. (D).Certified from abstract firm, names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior botmdaries of the subject property. (E)Canplete legal description & Property Identification Number (pm). (F)Deed restrictions or private. covenants, if applicable. (G)A parcel nap at P-20 '-50' showing: The site developnent plan, buildings: parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service. ONLY COMPLETE APPLIO\TIONS SHALL BE ACCEPl'ElJ AND REVIEWED BY THE PLANNINi <D1MISSION. To the best of my knowledge the information presented on this addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning 0 .. requirements for variance procedures. I agree to rov . . inf procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. SUbmitted this ~ i:-~y of .-P<- c.. 19~ foen is correct. In ce which specifies ti follow the THIS SPACE IS 'IO BE FILLED OUT BY THE PLANNIro DIREX:TOR PLANNING aJMMISSION CITY COUN:IL APPEAL CDNDITIONS: APProJID APPROVED DENIED DENIED DATE OF HFARIN:; DATE OF HFARIN:; Signature of the Planning Director Date NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE OF 5.5 AND AN EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE OF 4.5 FEET AND IMPERVIOUS SURF ACE COVERAGE OF 38.58% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 300/0 RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICT You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, January 8, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: William B. And Ellen M. Hackett 3508 Sycamore Trail Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 SUBJECT SITE: Lot 1, MAPLEWOOD, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as 3508 Sycamore Trail. REQUEST: The applicant proposes the construction of a living addition to the South side of an existing single family house. The proposed addition would also result in the removal of an existing deck on the East side of the existing house. The applicants' plans propose a 'side yard setback to the West of 4.5 feet and a side yard setback 5.5 feet on the East instead of the required 10 feet. Thus, the applicant requests that the Planning Commission approve a 5.5 foot side yard setback variance on the West, a 4.5 foot side yard setback variance on the East, and an 8.58% variance to permit impervious surface coverage of 38.58% instead of the permitted 30%. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria. Prior Lake Planning Commission Date Mailed: December 28, 1995. .. 2 VA95-44 D~I( ~ "<.<4S " ,"" '\~ '/ --20.2-- EXISTING HOUSE r- o o "~ . w: III ...J<D_ 0 0.0 0 41 <:--E :E<D a. p~ ~~O + ~~\ - -33.0--0. ---------- _:":.. ( - ) '- w z :i I- C1l w 3: r j" I RfT. WALL. EXISTING ClARAGE )-- _ _ ,12.12_ _ ...... "r ---70.00-- -25.5:..... -"- .., ... It) ''.: " ~ ~, ) /925.3 \ ,~ . ~" \~ W/O EL 926" 55 EX ISTI NG HOUSE x u" ..,! '" Q .I! ~'2.."i: \, \ #. EXISTING GARAGE SLAB El, 942.95 , .. .,.,.. " I ) - ,."-" ..... . " , I. -<:orc, ,(l -. ,V t:> .Sl~ > t \."):" .; .... . , " - -' '" ~:-:':-35.00-- N87004I.298E ...., .,.. "." . SYCAMORe:."-.~:~TRA1L 9~.S _.-1. " "' ::"':~"" '. ~Dt~: '_~ST.) l~.~" . :\(i'~._ _" _. ~lr -" :"~ojCOD, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the diticns as surveyed this 12th day of October, 1995 ~""'~:=t...tr O~~~T~t""';~n _.Q?f=; C;C;; o,..;ct.....:r"'lf""'" hf""nQc ~7.:\'~-'1"~ .:.1o,.,~"'';:'"'''''' ;, I t " ~\i". 0.2 :l ~ ~o E-- 0 _.!2~ ~ '" QJI ~ *~8~ -_Z~ l- S '" o L&J Z :i I- 00 <t w ...J ...J J x g ...J III I..".., zZ' 'e ::;j !fAlr r>.., ~~ tt,~ ',,- ~'''...... " " "- '. " rl ;t.. !:! ~ /~~ /:'!I";!I' ,......,' ;'~ ~ /. ~ : ' , l' :,;"'" . , 1 . . '........... '-, / '. e,: , I' : "'- -" ' ',;;.' ""- "~. :"j' "~ I":,"l~~ ~ Lri-L, : ~~ '''1'.'';--......." ~ . "-::' IT " ~ '" '. '. ::::::-...- ~ .; i; : ; 'i'... ,,,- I , , , ' . '=--, ./.:,(, :,,\,~ '", i'--. . 7/ A:: l " ! :").. "-'" . .1. ,.iO /.ll -- r~ 1 .,'-" ,f 1 ! ~ ' : II I ,'ff /,:,: ~: '; 3 l.~' il ' l' """ iH;,!,: ;lr:";'f".~' ,:, I"!:=':.: I"'! Ii I II, '!;,;:;-.,"'\., !' ,: # ~'. ' I,. ,,' ,,' . , , ;!'\.. " ,i~ // /1' i'll, .:[',:,,' iil;1 I I' '-.. " !~ 'r , ~l t Ii: II lir- : ',"",-, ii !' ff /i! I I ill 1'1, I' ';1' Ii, , I ,"' '" ;! 1~ 71' /.\ Il' "'""t "ii .... ,... IIV' :,:,:i:" ;:, r=-Jib_.1: '.' ~;~~ , " ; ", i : h~ ~ /- !j : ; I' ' .1 ~ , . ;. j - I .,.-- (; . i~~ll~ I :~1 -If[l- ~ (- -f I" .- - t II! ,~' _i III I! F ~.-_cc--"'=-'i-J : 11- II 1!1 dltr l' Illil! ;, I, i.".".,_" ;,':.,1:, l~, .-c rli,[ 1 WI'I'. I II I ".' { ': I i ! I' , , --.1; +.' ,: ---f~ In;' 1 d II I: ! ~ \ 1 I i r I i ill I ~F lit ' I \ \ 'I T Ii ;l'Wj 'I . ' : i iI' l! I IT; I I ! 'T, 1 ( ; T : Ii: I i ~ !..: I J,' ~ ( j' ~.;~~.I_ ~l-;--L:-~ ,: ~ : ~ I i I: I: :: ~" T '- ~_' .1 " · ! I I 'f' r' : IT . \.: '111' i i I I'. " ' i, ' , i i ,. ..' ~ 1, 'I I f I , i' " I! I' T' 11 .; tl j ; :' :'T : ,!. I ,', t i 't, ',' I. , .:..1 t p "'" :,' I ! 'I ~ -.r" . ',~ ; I ' I i I ii ~ 'Ii I ! !II '--- ~ II ,I~ I!~ 11--1. ! II 11;1 I~W !ll !r~ 1---4 , I" ij , 1 I I" I' r - 1+---\, I!l '1--- ----- II--'!I. I: I ! ! ill 1; 11-- j :!i II \ ',1 ~ I\r-- ~ ~~.tv t4 I ., I ~~ I L.o PLANNING REPORT SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY : PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4C CONSIDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FORFAlRVIEW CLll<<C 15777 HIGBW A Y 13 R. MICHAEL LEEK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR _ YES _X_NO-N/A JANUARY 8, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: An application for an amendment to a conditional use permit (CUP) has been submitted by Fairview Hospital and Healthcare Services for consideration by the Planning Commission. The applicant resolution approving the original conditional use permit specified that the trash enclosure for the clinic be constructed of brick. A review of the property for the final occupancy certificate revealed that the enclosure had in fact been constructed of wood. DISCUSSION: The applicant's letter of November 20, 1995, indicates that they would prefer to wait until the second phase of the project to construct a brick enclosure because of the cost and complications involved in removing such an enclosure. The criteria for approval of a conditional use permit or amendment thereto include, among others, the following; Section 7.5(C)(1). The proposed use conforms to the district permitted and conditional use provisions and all l:eneral rejpllations of this Ordinance. (Emphasis added) Section 7.5(C)(4). The proposed use shall produce a total visual impression and environment which is consistent with the environment of the neighborhood. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Section 6.1 O(F) requires as follows; In all Zoning Districts, waste material, debris, refuse or garbage shall be kept in a container enclosed by a wall which is visually compatible with the principal building it serves. It appears that in issuing the initial CUP the City Council had the screening requirement squarely in mind. The present enclosure does not meet the requirement of 6.1 O(F), and thus does not meet the criteria for approval of an amendment to the CUP. In addition, the project was designed with expansion in mind. Thus, the plans approved as a part of the CUP, including the trash enclosure, reflect or should have reflected the requirement of a visually compatible screening wall. While the present enclosure may have been constructed by mistake, the actual requirement should not be a surprise or unexpected hardship for the applicant. AL TERNA TIVES: 1. Approve the amendment to the CUP to permit a wood trash enclosure until such time as the second phase of the clinic is completed. 2. Table or continue consideration of the CUP for specific reasons. 3. Deny the CUP amendment, finding that a wood trash enclosure does not meet the CUP approval criteria as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 3. ACTION REOUIRED: A motion direct staff to prepare a resolution and findings consistent with the Planning Commission's disposition of the request for CUP amendment. 2 APPLIC1\TION FOR CDNDITIONAL USE PEmIT OJ Cj~-O~ PIDt~-3~ -CD';' OCk) CIY1~ J i..l Applicant:P~iT'"ip.w Ho"nit~l ~nil Hp.::!ltn('::!T'P SPT''';(,P<:: Address: ?.1t;O PivP'T'"iilp. Avp.nllP, UPTS H1\I t;t;4t;L1 Property Owner:Pairview Hospital and Healthcare Services Address: 2450 ~iverside Avenue. HPLS. ~1N 55454 ~~~Annlicant contact: R~r Piirainen Address: 2450 Riverside Avenue (PROF5l0) . HPLS. ~1N 55454 Home Phone: 672 Q~63 WOrk Phone: 672 6963 Harne Phone: 672-696~ WOrk Phone: 672-6963 Phone: 672-6963 _p~ Conditional Use Address: 4151 Willowwood Street.SE. Prior Lake. ~m 55372 Legal Description: Lots I, 2, and 3, Block 2. Second Addition to Westbury Ponds Existing Use of Property: Hedical clinic buildinll and narkinll Property Acreage: 1.51 acres Present Zoning: R-l with Condition Use Permit amendment Conditional Use Being Requested:Res. 95-20 anprovinll CUP required brick trash enclosure. Annlicant reauestinq allowance of existing wooden enclosure or. in the alternative. to delay renuiring brick until building ex~ansion and corresponding parking & driveways are Deed Pestrictions: NJ X Yes If so, please attach. CUP completed. Has the Applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional use peonit on the subject site or any part of it: NJ X Yes Request: CUP for medical clinic within R-l zone. When: Spring 1995 &J8MISSION REOUIREMENl'S: (A)Completed application foon. (B) Complete legal description and parcel identification mmber (pm). (C)Filing fee. (D)Deed restrictions, if necessary. (E) Fifteen copies of site plan drawn to scale showing existing/proposed structures. (F)Additional information as requested by the Planning Director including but not limited to: existing grades and buildings within 100 feet, drainage plan with finished grade and relationship to existing water bodies, if any, proposed floor plan with use indicated plus building elevations, landscape plan with schedule of plantings and screening, curb cuts, driveways, parking areas, walks and curbing. (G)Certified from abstract fion the names and address of property owners within 500 feet of the existing property lines of the subject property. (H).~pplication and supportive data are due 20 days prior to any scheduled hearing. ONLY COMPLE'l'E APPLIC1\TIONS SHALL BE RE.VIEHED BY THE PLANNIN; cn1MISSION. To the best of ~ knowledge the information presented on this foon is correct. In addition, I have read Section 7.5 of the Zoning Ordinance which specifies the requiranents for conditional uses. I agree to provide information and follow the pr ures as outl. in the Ordinance. ~~w ltt~~ Ass't Prop.Date l Director ~~cOll~~S- Ravmond E. Piirainen, Ass't Prop.Date THIS SEX:TION ro BE FILLED OUT BY THE PLANNIN; DI~R DENIED DENIED mTE OF HEARIN:; D/\TE OF HEARIN; APPROJED APPROlED PLANNIN; OOMMISSION CITY am:oL CDNDITIONS: Signature of the Planning Director Date Fairview 231.! South Sixth Street .Winneapo/is. .WN 55454-1395 61.!-6-2-6.WO liLV 612-672-6303 00 00 Donald Rye, City Planner City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Drive Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 447-4230 Hospital and Hea/thcare Yen'ices November 20, 1995 Re: Ridge Valley Medical Clinic building Amendment to CUP for Lots 1,2, and 3, Block 26, Second Addition to Westbury Ponds for wooden trash enclosure Dear Mr. Rye: Thank you for you memorandum dated January 19, 1995, regarding our Conditional Use Permit Application for the above-referenced Project. The following is our response to your requests: A. Conditional Use Permit Application form is attached and signed.. B. Complete legal description is "Lots 1,2, and 3, Block 2, Second Addition to Westbury Ponds". The parcel identification numbers ("PIN") were Lot 1 - 25309 0050, Lot 2 - 25 309 0060, and Lot 3 - 25 309 0070. My understanding is that the PINs were combined to form a single PIN 25 309 0050. C. $200 filing fee is attached. D. Deed restriction is existing CUP per City Council Resolution 95-20 E. Per 11/20/95 telephone conversation with City Planning office, attached please find fifteen (15) reduced copies of our 2/15/95 site plan showing the trash enclosure. F. The Applicant would prefer to wait until the second phase of the building is completed along with the corresponding parking and driveways prior to constructing, if necessary, footings, foundation, and a brick exterior to the trash enclosure. Per our experience at other buildings, it may be that we would need to relocate the permanent trash enclosure because of the final configuration of the entire parcel or interior space. Please contact Ray Piirainen for further information. G. A 500 ft. radius search has been ordered from Universal Title in Prior Lake (Shir~ey, 447-7949). Please contact me with your further questions and comments. ymond E. Piirainen Assistant Property Director 672-6963 (fax 672-7124) NOTICE OF HEARING FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL AND HEAL THCARE SERVICES You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road, SE (Southwest of the intersection of CR. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, January 8, 1995 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: Fairview Hospital and Healthcare Services Raymond E. Piirainen, Assistant Property Director 2312 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454-1395 SUBJECT SITE: RidgeValley Medical Building Lots 1,2, and 3, Block 26, SECOND ADDITION TO WESTBURY PONDS REQUEST: The applicant wishes to retain a wood trash enclosure rather than construct a brick enclosure as originally specified in Resolution 95- 20 approving the original conditional use permit. If you are interested in this issue, you should attend this hearing. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Prior Lake Planning Commission Prepared by: R. Michael Leek Associate Planner City of Prior Lake Date Mailed: December 27,1995 To be Published December 30,1995, and January 6,1995 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER // '\ \ \ / '~ ~, ',\\ /'/ \.............. \ \ \ \ \ / // // " \ \ \ \ \ \~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~~ ' ~,\ " " " ' " ...-)'> ...- ~:t, ''' \i,~" '. ' ,.... ~ '. ~;~ ... \~ \. \\ , , , , , ,,' -- -- -- " -- ,__,).. _ w _ _ _ ~ ! i I ' 't- , --~__J_ \\ ~ ~ PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: SB CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 5 OF THE CITY CODE AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-06, AND CREATING A TREE PRESERVATION PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE R. MICHAEL LEEK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER ....x... YES _ NO JANUARY 8, 1995 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Commission first reviewed the draft ordinance at its meeting of November 13, 1995, and the discussion was continued to the December 11, 1995. Additional changes were recommended at the December 11. The attached draft hopefully incorporates all the changes which were recommended. AL TERNA TIVES: 1. The Planning Commission may recommend adoption of the attached ordinance as presented or with changes. 2. The Planning Commission may recommend that the attached ordinance not be adopted, either as presented or with changes. 3. The Planning Commission may table the matter for further information or other, specific reasons. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SIXTH DRAFT CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 95-XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, 83-06. The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: Title 5 of the Prior Lake City Code and the Zoning Ordinance, 83-06 are hereby amended by adding Section 6.16 as follows: (A) Intent and Purpose: It is the intent of the City of Prior Lake to protect, preserve and enhance the natural environment of the community, and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to the development and alteration of wooded areas in the City. This section of the Zoning Ordinance has the following specific purposes; 1. to promote diversity in tree species, 2. to minimize erosion and its detrimental effects caused by construction activities, 3. allow the development of wooded areas in a manner that minimizes and mitigates the removal and destruction of trees, and 4. to provide for the fair and effective enforcement of the regulations contained herein. (B) Application: This ordinance applies to the following sites in the City of Prior Lake: 1. All sites of new development, 2. New construction on previously platted, but vacant building sites. The requirements of this ordinance are in addition to the requirements of the City's landscape and screening requirements contained in Section 6.10 of the City's Zoning Ordinance or other City Code. (C) Tree Preservation Plan Approval Required: It is unlawful for any person to engage directly or indirectly in land alteration, as defined in this ordinance, unless such person has first applied for and obtained SIXTH DRAFT approval from the City's Zoning Officer or other authorized city official of a tree preservation plan. No preliminary plat, building permit, grading permit, or other City required permit shall be granted unless approval of a tree preservation plan has first been obtained. (D) Entry on Private Property and Interference with Inspection: The City's Zoning Officer and/or his/her agent may enter upon private premises at any reasonable time for the purposes of enforcing the regulations set forth in this section. No person shall unreasonably hinder, prevent, delay or interfere with the City's Zoning Officer or his/her agents while they are engaged in the enforcement of this section. (E) Definitions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Caliper Inches - means the diameter, in inches, of the trunk of a tree measured at a height of 4.5 feet above the ground. Civil Enllineer - means a person licensed to practice civil engineering under Minnesota Statutes sections 326.02 to 326.15. Coniferous Tree - a woody plant having foliage on the outermost portion of the branches year-round. Coniferous trees are considered to be "significant" for purposes of this Ordinance at a height of twelve feet (12') or more,. Species of coniferous trees required to be surveyed for tree preservation plan approval are as follows: Common'l'l'l.me' Arborvitae (White Cedar) Fir, Douglas Fir, Waite Hemlock. Canada (Easta~) J unipeI'3 I...a.r:h. Eastar:l (Tamara~) Lar-..b.. European Pine, Aus~.an Pine, Eastar:l White Pine, Mugo Pine, Ponderosa Pine, Red (Norway) Pine, scot6 Redcadar. Eas>'..ar:l Redwood. Dawn Spruc:e, Elac:k.hills Spruce, Colorado Blue Spruc:a, Norway Sprual. White Yew, Japanese Scientific Name' Thuja .spp. P3eudot.suga :nen=iesii glauc:l Abies conc:olol" T3uga canadensis Juniperus .sP1'. Larix laricina Lar.:r:dec:idua Pinus aig:-a Pinus strobus ?.nus montana ?.nu.s pone1"08& Pinus resinosa ?.nus syivestri.s Juniperus virgT..niana MetaSequoia glypt.ost:rOboides Pic:aa glauca densata Pic:aa pungens Pic:aa abies Pic:aa giauca Ta:ms cuspidaca Canopy - means the horizontal extension of a tree's branches in all directions from its trunk. Q CO 2 SIXTH DRAFT Deciduous Tree - a woody plant having a defined crown, and which loses leaves annually. Deciduous trees are considered to be significant at six caliper inches (6") or more,. Species required to be surveyed are as follows: l. :.. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. a. 9. lO. u. ~. 13. l4. l5. l6. 17. la. 19. 20. C;J1"""-~n 'la-~ ..ui1. 31u. ..u4. ~3r5i:3Jl Seedless ..un. Srt--'C ..ui1. ~ta 3eeQ. 31ue 3 ir-':l.. ;>.ive.. CloUc:e:":'7. .\.::1ur CloUc:er."Y. S"o.u=e"':~ C>cee-aee. ~o.l:"""'i<7 C>~. >Cu: C:30&ccie. (or.:acel1t:Ul Do~ Jite.............ieaved GUUo (cale =eo) ~:":'7 :!:l ~Qr:.s Eic.il:ot7'. 3ic-...r.:u: HOl1eyioc,...... :::'per".3i HQa.e,.iOC"~c.. S~,tme tr.l11"'ooci t..Uac. .; aca.nese ~ ~d.ec.. Gt'Hc.3~ t..i.c.den.. ~:-..!eiea.f t.i.:ciec.. ;>..eci::ol1ci :.lacia. .~ur ~a;le. 3lae!!: :.lap;e. :.l0\1l1= :.lacle. )(o.....ay .lc Cuicvan ~apie. :wci J.: Cui:van ~Ille. 5wt:1r MapLe. -:-.~..a.A ~0\1l1tai:l".u4. :::u.~&A ~0=t:U.:1 ..ui1. S"o.owy ~Whet:7. ~ N &J1ll."~:":'7 Oa.i<. 3u: Oa.i<. Clueu: Oa.i<. )(ol""..::.er.: :>'.:1 Oa.i<. )(ol""..::.er.: ~ O . "'- .... . - o a.i<. ?..ed Oa.i<. Sc.:u'!.' Oa.i<. S...ac;l '({":uta Oa.it. v....1c.a ?~u::. .1..Ql!I':c:r..A ?!=. C.o.c.aci.a ~bwi. :::.>star.1 Se:-l'icaaer:""/ 1\:li~~ ~..,~-Et= '1a.me- ==\>3 Q,uaGr'3ncu!ata ., . . :':-3=\>3 ;>e~= ~u.Q;:te~.ma ~ani1all Seedless :=\>3 ;>e=1iv3J:!j= ~uOUlc.a~,.,...m.'1 'S=" :~t1-' amer:::::u:1a C....-;:u1~ c::IrOi.i.::i=a 3&l:".:ia :U.r.:1 ?:--.mu:s :rLaaCS:: ~us "'UT.ni=a 'S;,uce"': GY"U1oCa<iu.s dioic-.... ~eilodeQci.-oc J.Cu..~ ~aiu.s ~p. C"r.:u.s Jite.......ifoU:l GizU:.o oiloc,," C~iCo1 oc:cieo.t:LlU C~:ae('J3 ~pp" CU7'3 ""r'difc= GleC.itsia =:ac::lJ1QQS "::::.~rio1l' G.ecUt.3ia ::"..3c:::Lt7.c.:.u.s "S"'qiine' Os=:ra "~a . Syt"~ ;u::ur-..=u JapoClc:1 :"llia. =rC.::t.t.:1 '~ne~ptn' ~Jia =raaa 7"~:l : eur::.i.cn :t.ed.c.oc.d.' Ace.. ~ Ac.e":UV" .~.. 'Plc:l.l:"o1:1 Ac.e.. ,la:acolces .">=r :-:>0...01:1 Ace..,~ .-\cer ':.:1tanC1 Soril... aucupar'.a Sorilu.s ciecc.... ~or.... ruon. Vibur::= !eo.:a~ Quer:-.... :a~& Qu.=.... =lI..ue~lT.i Quer:-..lS .llipsc'cia.lie Que~~ :".lbn var. ~ore3.lis Quer:-.... ,alusc-.s Quer'C".... ...1l1n. Quer'C"".J.S ooe=.:1ea Que......... olCllcr Que=.... alba ?:--..:.ut.:3 Jmer1Q.C.a ~\>3 aJ.cr1 C.res =-de.csu .~ei&l1Qe.. 'ilp. Wr.cciel1Cr,)11 :-..u;lUer:1 2~ z::. :3. 24. ::So 26. Z1. 2S. 29. 30. 3l. 32.. 3:1. 34. 35. 36. 3":". 32. 39. 40. 4l. 42.. 43. +4. ~. 46. 47. 48. Developer - any person or legal entity who undertakes to improve a parcel of land by platting, grading, installing utilities, or constructing any building thereon. Drip Line - The farthest distance away from the trunk of a tree that rain or dew will fall directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of the tree. Forester - a person holding at least a Bachelor's degree in forestry from an accredited four-year college of forestry. Land Alteration - means any private or public infrastructure and utility installation, building construction, excavation, grading, clearing, filling or other earth change which may result in: I. The movement of more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of earth, o Q) 3 SIXTH DRAFT Land Alteration - means any private or public infrastructure and utility installation, building construction, excavation, grading, clearing, filling or other earth change which may result in: 1. The movement of more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of earth, 2. Any alteration of land of more than one foot from the natural contour of the ground on any contiguous four hundred fifty (450) square feet of ground where significant trees are present, or 3. Any cutting, removal or killing of more than twenty (20) percent of the significant trees on any land within a period of five (5) years. Landscape Architect - a person licensed by the State of Minnesota as a Landscape Architect. Land Surveyor - means a person licensed to practice land surveymg under Minnesota Statutes sections 326.02 to 326.15. Root Zone - the area under a tree which is at or within the drip line of a tree's canopy. Si~nificant Tree - A deciduous tree measuring 6 caliper inches or more in width or a coniferous tree measuring 12 feet or more in height. (F) Tree Preservation Permit Process: 1. Tree Preservation Plan Approval Required: It is unlawful for any person to engage in land alteration, plat and develop land, or build on previously platted, vacant lots within the City of Prior Lake without first applying for and obtaining tree preservation plan approval. 2. Allowable Tree Removal: A. Initial Site Development: For initial site development, up to twenty- five (25%) of significant trees will be allowed to be removed without tree replacement or restitution for the following activities: 1. Grading of the road right-of-way. 2. Utilities installation, including sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, natural gas, electric service, telephone service, cable television, and other similar public or semi-public utilities. 3. Construction of public or private streets. 4. Construction and/or grading of drainage ways. In addition to the trees which may be removed without replacement or restitution for the above-listed activities, up to twenty-five percent (25%) 4 SIXTH DRAFT of significant trees on individual lots within sites of new development may be removed without replacement or restitution for the installation of utilities, driveways and building pads. B. Previously Platted. Vacant Lot Development: On individual lots, up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the significant trees may be removed for the installation of utilities, driveway and the building pad without tree replacement or restitution. Applications for variance from the provisions of this section shall be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment following the procedures set forth in Section 7.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Adjustment may permit significant trees to be removed in excess of the limitations of this chapter, provided all trees removed in excess of said limitations shall be replaced in accordance with the Tree Replacement Formula, and provided that all criteria for granting variances are met. 3. Tree Replacement Formula: Replacement of removed or disturbed trees in excess of the percentage allowed by this Ordinance shall be according to the following guidelines; A. For development which exceeds the percentage of allowable removal of significant trees, all trees shall be replaced at the ratio of one-half caliper inch (112") per one caliper inch (1") removed. B. Whenever possible, required replacement trees shall be planted on the site being developed. If planting on the site being developed is not possible or undesirable, replacement trees may be planted on publicly-owned or controlled sites at the discretion of the City. In the event that planting of replacement trees on the site being developed or publicly-owned or controlled sites is either not possible or desirable, Developers shall be required to pay cash in lieu of replacement trees at a ratio ($100.00) per caliper inch of excess tree removal. Cash received in lieu of replacement trees shall be placed in the Capital Improvement Fund of the City's Parks Department, and shall be dedicated to maintenance of the City's nursery stock and planting of trees on public property. C. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: Deciduous - 2 1/2" caliper Coniferous - 6' in height D. Replacement trees shall be from balled and burlapped, certified nursery stock as defined and controlled by Minnesota Statutes Section 18.44 through 18.61, the Plant Pest Act. E. Replacement trees shall be covered by a minimum I-year guarantee. F. Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to other trees found on the site where removal has taken place, or shall be selected from the list of significant coniferous and deciduous trees found in the definitions of coniferous and deciduous trees at Section 6. I 6(E) of this Ordinance. 5 SIXTH DRAFT Selection of replacement tree types for use on public sites shall be at the sole discretion of the City. 4. Application: Application for tree preservation plan approval shall be made in writing to the Zoning Officer. Information to be included in the application includes at least the following: 1. The name and address of the person or persons applying for the permit; 2. The name(s) and addressees) of the owner or owners of the land which is the subject of development; 3. The estimated time period during which any land alteration will occur; 4. A certificate of survey of the land on which the proposed land alteration is to occur showing the following; a) The location, size and elevation of building pads; b) The location of the existing significant trees to be saved and the location of protective tree fencing at the root zone of such trees; c) The location of replacement trees; (1) Drainage patterns. 5. A statement relating to the proposed use of the land including the type of building(s) or structure(s) situated thereon or contemplated to be built thereon. 6. A tree inventory, certified by a Minnesota registered land surveyor, civil engineer, landscape architect, horticulturist or forester depicting: a) The size, species, condition and location on the land of all significant trees and designated specimen trees. Forest measurement methods may be used to calculate total diameter inches of trees when it has been determined (through the review of the plat map and other documents) that areas within the subject parcel of land, but outside of land to be altered/graded, will not be encroached upon. Such areas will be required to comply with all other requirements of this document including protective fencing procedures. 7. A tree preservation plan which shall include: a) A list of all significant trees which will be lost or adversely affected within the drip line, as opposed to the root zone, due to the proposed land alteration. b) The number, type, size and location of trees required to be replaced pursuant to this chapter. c) A plan drawing showing the number, type, size and location of replacement trees. 6 SIXTH DRAFT d) Identification of the construction area. 5. Certification of Compliance with Approved Landsca,pe Plan A. No earlier than one (1) year after acceptance of the tree preservation plan nor later than one (1) year after completion of the work contemplated by the plan, the Developer shall certify to the City that the plan has been complied with. This certification shall be made by a Minnesota registered land surveyor, civil engineer, landscape architect, horticulturist or forester. B. The City of Prior Lake may, at its option, hire a consultant to inspect, verify and advise the City on matters involving this Ordinance. Any and all costs incurred by the City in hiring a consultant shall be reimbursed by the Developer. 5. Warrant,}' Requirement A. Sites of New Development. The Developer shall provide a financial guarantee prior to the approval or issuance of any permit for land alteration. 1. The amount of the guarantee shall be 125% of the estimated cost to furnish and plant replacement trees. The estimated cost shall be provided by the Developer subject to approval by the City. The estimated cost shall be at least as much as the reasonable amount charged by nurseries for the furnishing and planting of replacement trees. The City reserves the right in its sole discretion to determine the estimated cost in the event the Developer's estimated cost is not approved. 2. The security shall be maintained for at least one (1) year after the date that the last replacement tree has been planted. Upon a showing by the Developer and such inspection as may be made by the City, that portion of the security may be released by the City equal to 125% of the estimated cost of the replacement trees which are alive and healthy at the end of such year. Any portion of the security not entitled to be released at the end of the year shall be maintained and shall secure the Developer's obligation to remove and replant replacement trees which are not alive or are unhealthy at the end of such year and to replant missing trees. Upon completion of the replanting of such trees the entire security may be released. B. Previously Platted. Vacant Lots. For construction on previously platted, vacant lots, the developer shall provide a cash escrow in the amount five hundred dollars ($500.00) to guarantee compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance. Said security shall be released upon certification of compliance by the developer to the satisfaction of the City. 7 SIXTH DRAFT Notwithstanding the foregoing, no portion of the security shall be released while there are unsatisfied Developer's obligations to indemnify the City for any expenses in enforcing the terms of this agreement. G. This Ordinance does not apply to dead and diseased trees. The City's diseased tree program is found in Title 8 of the City Code. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of ,1995. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of ,1995. Drafted By: The City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 8