HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 14, 2000
r
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, AUGUST 14,2000
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #00-002 & #00-003 (continued) David Bell & Freedom Development &
Consulting are requesting an amendment to the approved plan for the Priorwood
Planned Unit Development (PUD 82-12) and for a preliminary plat to be known
as Creekside Estates for the property located at the intersection of Five Hawks
Avenue and Priorwood Street.
B. Case #00-00-053 Prior Lake Baptist Church is requesting a Zone Change from
the current General Industrial (I-I) District to the Low Density Residential (R-l)
District for the property located at 5680 and 5690 Credit River Road.
C. Case #00-038 (continued) Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
creating an overlay district for the development of senior care facilities.
5. Old Business:
A. Continue discussion on Comprehensive Plan (Low to Medium Density).
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMMlOOPCAGENlag081400.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 24, 2000
1. Call to Order:
The July 24,2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
V onhof at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue McDermott and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
V onhof
Criego
Atwood
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the July 10, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
The Commissioners opened and closed Item 5.A. (Case 00-002 and 00-003) Creekside
Estates and moved forward with the presentation.
4. Presentation:
A. Downtown Redevelopment Guide Draft Discussion.
Prior Lake Economic Development Authority President Bob Barsness gave a brief
background on the downtown project and introduced Mark Koegler of Hoisington,
Koegler Group Inc., who presented the Prior Lake Downtown Redevelopment guide.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. A member of the Economic Development Authority, supported the project. A lot of
work needs to be done, this is a starting point.
. The intent is that this document has enough substance to work and develop over a 20-
year plan.
. Is this a good framework to start with? Ifit is, let's go at it in conjunction with the
City and private sector.
Stamson:
. The groundwork reflects the public meetings and the City as a whole.
. They did a good job putting the project together. It is organized and workable.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN072400.DOC 1
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
. Overall, it is a very positive ground work.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Commissioners.
. Appreciate the effort and hours ofthe involvement.
. The involvement of the citizens has been great and this document reflects that.
.................
..................
....................
....................
.....................
V onhof: ..;:;:;:;:;:.:.... .......:;::.
. The past redevelopment committees never got off the ground. Q,p,::grJpe problems
that existed was no wide-based support from the community '::::rt::::::r: ..:::(::::::::::::::t:::::..
. This process that has been started to develop this docume~L~eqi:cts supp&l:t:::::..
. Likes the strategy laid out. It makes sense. ..:::::::I:::::;:::::::::;::::):J:::::: ..:::::'m:I\::::::. ...
. Traffic loads have changed dramatically on County i9ia.21. How is this im~il:::::::{}::::.
going to affect the town in 5 years? Koegler expl~ea the Q;9Jmty's traffic stu,gy.::::..
reflects the traffic can be managed. It appears tp,e::lIlpc ligljl::wJ~1 control the ."traffic
for several years and can then adjust 20 years down..:ffii:::Mn~;?}:::.........:::::(?:.
. Commented on the public and private sectors working lollR.er.
. Build on successes. It is realistic? K9xgJ~r responded it isf:::I!p:~e.9J building owners
have approached him to see how they::g~::ih!ij~:~..::\:::::::::::::::::)::::..
. Agreed visual aspects are important earl.M. on;::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. . .:{:):::..
. Lakefront Park is a UniqU~.:::.~~.:.rtunity t~:.:~:~::::j:?jhethin~~:!:::.:::I:::)::.
The City Council will tak<::,:::i~i;:::nfSl;::ittliminar)?:~9ok at it on August 7. There will be a
public hearing for input.:~:::::::::::(::.. ... .:;.: ..
............
";:;:;:;:;::::::::" .::::::::::~ ,::::::::::=--
MOTION BY ST AMS:ON.. SECOliiUl:B.Y:.AT\:vO'OD TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
":':':':':':'~':" ,,:.;.;.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.;.;.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.;.;.;.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.' ,
COUNCIL THE PL~9:::pOMM1SSr(jhrlIAS REVIEWED THE DOCUMENT
AND FEEL II:.l~:.:.b.N APPR.t~:tU~lATE VISION FOR THE CITY AND SUPPORT THE
GROUNQ1Y0ttg,t:~ TO M0;M*)~::gRWARD WITH THE PROJECT. IT IS AN
IMPOB;jlANT STEP::~m:&W ARtl"I'R THE OVERALL VISION OF THE CITY AS
~~:::;:lT::::~=Y.
5.
A. Case #OQAl02 & #00-003 (continued) David Bell & Freedom Development &
Consulting are requesting an amendment to the approved plan for the Priorwood
Planned Unit Development (PUD 82-12) and for a preliminary plat to be known as
Creekside Estates for the property located at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue
and Priorwood Street.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 24,2000 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn072400.doc
2
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider this item on July 10, 2000.
The Commission continued the hearing to July 24, 2000, to allow the developer to
address several issues raised in the staff report.
After discussing these issues with the staff, the developer is not able to submit the
necessary information for this meeting. He has therefore requested this item be continued
to the August 14,2000, Planning Commission meeting. .......
.................
...................
........;.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
MOTION BY CRlEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUEJ:r.a:E HEARING
TO AUGUST 14,2000. .... ..:t>:::.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..
":':':':':':':';':',
"::::=:::::=;=;=;=;::"
":';':':':';':':':'.
....................
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
. ..
..::=:~~t~rj~f:::::/:\:t/. .
..... ...... .........
..... .............. .
....... ................
B. Case #00-052 Joseph and Molly Cade are re.9.:~sting)1 variance from t1~:?}:..
minimum setback to the top of bluff and bluff i'D.:R!~i zone tijbt!Ie property l~ated
at 6444 150th Street. .:(}:. . :::.: ..,:/::::::::;:.:..:.::::::\).
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning R:~9U dated July 24,2000 on
file in the office of the Planning DepartID;m~~:;::::::::::::::::::::::::::\:::::::...... .....:.:.::.:..:;:.:.......
The Planning Department received a variarl~r. appU9ii9P:{9.F th.~ .construction of a porch
and deck addition to an existing single familY::f1w.:@lHhg.:'6h:::mi:ptoperty located at 6444
150th Street. The lot is a legal:pqgF.pnforming:::~9f'ofrecor4:J%cause there is an existing
structure on the lot which.W$kHfil~I!:11y built lij::~ bluff setback zone before setbacks
were established. The ~ppticants ai.#':::tequesting::,:g?::[.oot variance to the bluff setback to
permit a porch and 4~g~:::f:l:ddition t.q:::P-e setback a(::We=top of bluff rather than at the
minimum 25 foot s.bthac~i.iil..:::::::::::::::::. ..:::::;::::r::t:::::::::::t:::::::::::::::\:::::::::::::::::):::::..
On April 4, ~9q9~Jp.~ Engineegng Department issued an excavating/filling permit for
landscapc::;j#.$f6Vglm~ to the:B~if{J:w~a that included removing old steps and landscape
timb:~~:::mid replacing::t,1Il with s~99~tsteps and boulder retaining walls.
... .
The:::~l1n!:~pants have proV1~~d an engineer's report on the proposed addition's location in
relatiorl\~~:~Re bluff imp,mhone.
... ...... ...
The Departirt~i.lQfN#ffiral Resources submitted comments on this request. In essence,
........... ......
the DepartmeniQli:,atural Resources is not opposed to the replacement of existing
conditions utilizjjKg the existing footings, but opposes the proposed addition.
Staff felt the hardship criteria with respect to the replacement of the existing porch and
deck into the bluff setback have been met. The requested bluff setback variance can be
reduced to minimize the affect of the addition by replacement of the existing footprint.
The staff therefore recommends denial of the requested variance as proposed on Exhibit
A but recommends approval of a bluff setback variance permitting replacement of the
existing deck and porch additions.
1 :\OOfiles\OOp1comm\OOpcmin\mn072400.doc
3
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
Comments from the public:
Applicant Joe Cade, said they were not going to extend the patio to add a hot tub. They
will be removing about 900 square feet of concrete. The proposal is to tear up all of the
concrete and build a 3-season porch, not a 4-season porch. They were having a problem
with ants eating the deck and porch which precipitated some of the decision to replace the
deck. Architects, a surveyor and engineer have been working on this since:J:Mt..fall. They
are trying to improve the bluff and drainage. Cade presented pictures of.!>>.$:HBffiij:'and
explained he cannot change any ofthe structure without a variance. Thit~ were problems
with erosion and runoff. The City approved a grading permit anq..1!W::'app.:IMnt
redesigned and improved the landscape on the hillside. The pordl::!~ two r~::)y~der
because of the steps. Cade felt rebuilding the existing deck ~j,:U:::Rf~~~e the Sam~:11r~blem.
The new design will be an improvement. They have done...,~yerytffing staff requeSiiI:h!.\n:,.
engineer submitted a report in support. The neighbors ~MPp'ort t!lyir plan. ""::::::::::::::)':'"
..::;:/tt;:, ":::::::::::. .:ft:..
Criego: .":::,, .,.,",:\:::::::::::::}:::".. ...:::::::.............',::::::':..
. Questioned if the applicant knew the difference betweijj::).p~rexistlng deck square
footage and the proposed deck. Cade..~:~~d he did not cat~llr:::,~t o~t but probably the
. ~:;:~he ~pplicant get DNR approval?:::::I~~~::_18R~~d the ~'~~I..l~~~oved. The DNR
AtwwoaOsd~. ot Involved. ....... ... ....... . ~..:,:..,:,,:..,:,',..,:,,:..,:,,:,:.::::::):.;:i::::::::r::::::::::::::::,:::l:::l!:l:ll::::::::::::::t':,. "",.'
. ;.::::~:~rmttrtt~::::..
. Questioned if the hot..Witf'concil#::,area is th,~ right now? Cade said there is nothing
there but mud and ..W~ds. He eillained the1::~9:::not know they needed a variance
. ~~~ ~~I;~::r:~t~M':'~,,::'alii~~~;:~;~i'~n the bluff? Cade responded the
entire project improveW:tI;::~luffby"iem6Ving the concrete and adding areas for
Sta~"~~l Vy movement to the blnff.
...,,:::,::::m~t!he current footi~i~: 12 feet from the house? Cade said there were.
d~":aflltMves adjace:JII~~ Cade's house, said the bluffhas not changed in 20 years and
there has rie~ir::~:en.,~:::pr6blem. Supported the plan.
.. ...... ......
........... ......
...............,.................
Larry Benjamiri:':::iiso lives adjacent to the applicant, said the blufflaw has good intent but
the work being 'done is to reinforce the bluff. The bluff law was not in place when the
home was built. With proper footings and reinforcement of the bluff, this project will
give a very beautiful appearance. He felt the variance will only enhance what work has
been done so far.
Larry Christenson, lives two doors down, said the neighbors supported the plan.
John (inaudible) 6386 150th Street, appreciated the improvements and supported the
request.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn072400.doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24. 2000
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Explained the bluff ordinance is a model statute to all cities in the State and the DNR
enforces it fairly strictly.
· The house was built before the ordinance. ..::::::::::::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;::::.;.
· The State lays out criteria for the variance. . .. .'
Concurred with staff and DNR that the hardship is met with t~.~:::17PJ,';ik.ent but not
the encroachment.::::::::::::::}. "::::::::::::::::::::"
· The DNR proposes replacing the deck on the current footipgsfj:::::::; ..:.:.:::::.............
Would be willing to allow applicant to replace the footiP.$.~:::ip:::9j=e current pt~lwnd .'.
allow to cantilever the deck 2 feet. This would give .!b~rappliciint a somewhciflig&r'
deck and fairly close to what he is proposing. It &~)f:~'the aPRFcant 2 extra feet:::::::?::'
without any impact to the bluff. .... '.:
.
.
.................
............ ............. ...........
.......... ..... .
.......... .....
o . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.......... .....
Atwood:
· Agreed with cantilevering the deck, i~.:~H?WS almost whart'If::::~re.proposing.
· Cades are obviously sensitive to the eqyiiREl?:pt and bluff. "::::::::::::j::::::::::::::?::::
· Because ofthe footing issue, it could b~:::r.e\flsea.:::!nqX~t still y~ible for the applicant
and stay within the boundaries of the blu~I set9,Clbr::::::::::jj:.j'jj::::::::::::::::/:
...
C. ,':':':':':':':';';':';':';':':':':',
nego: ...:......::.....:...::::::::::::: .....
· Requested the appliStWfexplai~::I~hibit C. :q~d~responded.
· Questioned whatJri~" going to p~\mder the d~p'~:area. Cade said it would be rock and
pavers and expl~1H~:'~h~ eX~:~9i~;nill2ff.Rf9fileins.
· Questioned staff on ih~::~9U)foVehieiitM::MtDermott responded the applicant applied
for a gradil1KP~rmit witH:ml:::pty because all the work is done above the 904
eleva!:ig#.ftTh~:::m~ is nor1~IQ!YW unless it is below the 904 elevation.
· K~~t:er explaine:d?i!:::grading:iirihits do not require public review. It is done
.J~mtiinistratively. TH~:]9jty is required to forward on to the DNR for their comments
:(:::::::&qj::~:xariance requesd~R::the Shoreland District.
· Thg~~H{fhas been cqipged and is probably more stable.
· What'l$::~~!pg aske.g::for is more in the 90's than the 70's. Ifthe square footage of the
deck is aPPfgnir.R~tgly the same it should not impact the bluff.
· Supported di~:::~esign as long as it stays within the footage.
V onhof:
· House built 24 years ago into the bluff.
· The actual bluff has been modified by construction ofthe house.
· Modifications have been made to the bluff wall for stability.
· The proposed deck will extend 26 feet at the spear. The rest of the deck is
approximately 14 feet wide.
· Explained the bluff ordinance and what can be done with structures.
1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn072400.doc
5
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24. 2000
. Overall, the improvements to the bluff and increased encroachment of a deck is an
improvement.
. By engineering standards one can show the applicant is not causing any damage.
. The Commission has to consider the hardship criteria.
. Would support the reduction of the impervious surface and maintaining the square
footage.
,.::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::."
Stamson: ..:::::{:::m)::::............::.:::::.
. Looking at the landscape helped out. More inclined to agree thakmi:::mcrease is not
as significant . ..::::,}}:., ":::::}}}::::..
. Keep the imp~rvious surface by the placement of the bo2~ ',>
McDermott said the proposed deck is 175 feet less th,iSling deck, ~
Cade explained the unfinished work. .?:::.:::.::::::}}}::::::. .;::{:!::::::::::::t::}:::::.
..:.:.:.:.......:.. ,.::::::;:.' '.:::,'
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO AaI&pVE THE REQUEST,
....
....
....
C. Case #00-043, #Q:f.tjU44 aii~::ipO-045 "l!~smann Realty is requesting a
Rezoning from the ~:!:anstrict to:::'e R-2 distqB~;:::a Preliminary PUD Plan and a
~~~~~n:o~:~:~~ll!.'nbdivided into 54 single family lots
Planning G.98Mtmt2f:::!.ane Km:a!r.pre~ented the Planning Report dated July 24,2000 on
file i::::,p=::arfice''Ofllli..~~rng'':~'~ment.
'Ydmul1ln Realty, Inc.;:lI~ applied for approval of a development to be known as
Weri'~ 1st Addition iu::the property located north ofCSAH 82, approximately 1/4
mile wdst:::9i::ySAH 21 ~~feast of Wilds Parkway. The application includes the
following te~~~~:~:~::::{:::::::::::::::::r::::"
. An amendm~Fio The Wilds PUD Plan to relocate a park from the northeast comer of
the intersecHbn ofCSAH 82 and Wilds Parkway to the south side of Wilds Parkway,
west of the booster station;
. Rezone approximately 7 acres from The Wilds PUD to the R-l (Low Density
Residential) and R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) districts;
. Rezone approximately 28 acres from the R-l district to the R-2 district;
. Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
. Approve a Preliminary Plat.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn072400.doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
The proposal calls for a mixed use development consisting of a total of 178 dwelling
units on 52.43 net acres, for a total density of3.4 units per acre. The proposed
development includes 56 single family dwellings, 116 dwelling units in 29 four-unit
buildings, and 6 dwelling units in 3 three-unit buildings. The development also includes
private open space.
Wensmann Realty, Inc. is the developer of this project. The application h~~:::,=\WP' been
signed by the current property owners, including Martha Hoover, ThomM:::Mid::Pitricia
McLean, Shamrock Development, Michael and Sue Brattland, Thom~~::i1:~ Karen Hoff
and Timothy and Mary Bothof. ..:::\::::....:::::tm::f::::::..
":':':':':':':':':',
There are several outstanding issues which must be addresse.gt::::::Ih~:::~taffha~:::d~y:~sed
these issues with the developer, and the developer is prep%Wg::plahs which addi~~::lb~t):::.
major items. None of the issues are so major that the Pf9j&t ca.ppot go forward. T'!,i:t:::::..
stafftherefore recommends approval, subject to the (q:l~::~ing c~!~;~:~~ns: .:'::.:::.
1. The developer must provide specific legal descripti6~~::::(6F th~'::::~reas to be rezoned
from PUD to R-l, from PUD to R-2 a~~Hfrom R-l to R-2{::::.:I':::::::::::::::.. .
2. Dedicate Outlot A as right-of-way ang:::i~~@p~ sewer and w~t~rtservice to the north
property boundary in this right-of-way(:::::::pfoflli::f8@::t.~s for th~::'~Heet and utilities must
be provided. ........... ..::j:::::HH:::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::::i:::"
3. Dedicate Lots 12, 70, 71~."fZ.:)i!P'd 73, BlogJs./S'; as parls,PffiCi. Provide a calculation to
determine the acreag::::~9:tH1W::~I::~hat quaU'rs for parkland dedication.
4. Revise the lots to m~ef minimuj;::'lot area ana::}y~pth requirements. In addition, net lot
:::t :e~:fJ;,,~~l?onds mnst be provided. Net lot area
5. The tree iny~~tory ancf::pr~~@.rvation plan must be revised to include the significant
~~~~~~~~~n~~~::~:;;;e~~ :~~revised to identify
6. ..:{:Iiyise the landscap'!.i: plan::f6 meet the requirements of Section 1107.1900. The
.::)::::.:ta*='~~~ing plan mu~~'.:'lso identify the necessary replacement trees.
7. Provid;~:I!i:::~rrigati~:~:.fnan.
8. Provide 'si'q,~>>;:~!~::pfi one side of Street "C" and Street "G".
9. Provide stre.:~)iames for both the public and private streets.
10. Update the Traffic Impact Report to include all of the proposed units.
11. Provide sign elevations and greater detail on the location of the proposed monument
SIgnS.
12. Identify the private streets as outlots on the preliminary and final plat.
13. Provide calculations about the useable open space for the townhouse development.
14. Verify the 100 year flood elevations for the wetlands and NURP ponds and provide a
30' setback from this elevation for all structures.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn072400.doc
7
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
Stamson and Criego questioned the park area dedications, bluff area and removal of the
wetlands. Kansier explained.
Atwood questioned the location of the trail and existing homes. Kansier responded.
Comment from the public:
.................
..................
....................
....................
.....................
......... .......
....... ....
....... -..
...... ..
Terry Wensmann, Wensmann Homes, said they had no problem mee!mg::~ll the
conditions in the staff report and have already addressed some o(!9$H:ssulb:::.:rhe sewer
and water service will be met at Outlot A. The park dedication h~y~ two a:n.~tives, I)
remove 3 lots on the steep slopes and 2) eliminate 6 single f~milyJ's and mB-~i::~2me of
the townhouses. Their engineer has been working on the ..!g~Miitfequirements. ..::Tit:~:::::::::{/::.
landscape and tree preservation issues are being addres.~@f::.. Th~re will be an irrigafiIF::..
system. They are adding sidewalks. The streets hay~::!:i:~n nanie,li:::::.The townhometon
the steep slopes will be stabilized. The style of toWIDi81~:.wilkleii.imilar to Glynwater.
They also plan on showing decorative brick to enhance thi:~~ll~::.omek that face County
Road 82. .. ......... ....... ..:::::~:::~ii::::l:i::::~::t:::::::::::t}
Micki Dalsin, 3620 154th Street NW, saf~:::fMil:::i!!it~n~ traffic on.tiitihty Road 82 is a
problem and felt the traffic count report wa~::potc8q#.9.t~::\$h~ d!:~.::n6t object to single
family homes but objected to townhomes stijWgJp.€feTsq~~q!.gR traffic and multi-family
homes in the area. Her other..:R9Pf*P is the w'~r::..flow an4:idiiinage. The wetlands flow
through her property. At !4.,UfeVe19p@r's neigh9Prhood meeting the developer said there
were no accidents on Cg@Hy Road:~g. Dalsin SP9~~\pf 4 accidents. The traffic problems
have to be addresseqf:A:i~h~ was a]s9~i~cbncemed fo#:Jh~ marsh and wildlife. She would not
like to see it rezond1:1(r~~il~:i:i::::::~~~:~::~;:::::::)::::~::::::::i::::::::~i::~~:::::::::::::t::. .. .:::
John LundY,..1?:?:2J?:prake Avgt, lives directly east of Mrs. Dalsin, said his main
concern i.MP~ftHirn.p*::::::ti~t only::iij:jtlwI!::a traffic problem, but the noise generated from the
traffic.::~::tt=fTs extremety::~iR$erous ..f,q::iM5cess their street on County Road 82. His other
cOI},SeW was the wetlana,l:t~,undy$:~lt there would be a number of large trees removed.
R-drl6.U.l!Will significantly::!ifect neighboring property. He questioned if anyone has ever
addressili:t.4e noise level::!lbm the traffic. Lundy would like to see the access somewhere
other thaiF~~I~,,~~:t~:::~'
Micki Dalsin, 3~*~Jr:54th Street, said there doesn't seem to be any control in slowing
down traffic. TIjere will be more accidents.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Concerned for the traffic. Something has to be done.
. A more detailed traffic report could be done.
. Kansier explained 82 is a county road and they control the access points. Some ofthe
issues like speed are out ofthe City's control.
I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn072400.doc
8
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24. 2000
. McDermott said the City has had several meetings with the County to discuss access.
The County is concerned. They will allow this development access at Foxtail Trail
and will require the developer to put in bypass lanes (as required on the Glynwater
development). There will be one more access with the Wilds South development.
County Road 82 is not in the County's 5 year Capital Improvement Program.
Stamson:
.
..:{:~:r::~::;:::::::::::... .
82 is a county road not a residential road. The idea behind a countY:p}ad' is'lO' move
traffic along. If it is restricted to such a level that it is inconveni~H\::~R::,$et onto a
county road, that traffic will be shoved on to a residential strt'1:tM:}tts"'li'qt'iNst this road,
its other areas as wel1.\::::'::::::: '::'{:::::::::::::::t:,:..
. On the larger issue, comfortable with the split of the res!g~M~~t:~ensities."::"$~im~rt the
request to amend the zoning and PUD development. .::,,(::::r:'):::.:......:.::::::,. ":::::::::::::::::j:'j:::)):'}:
. No specific concerns with the overall concept. ..... ....... ......::/},:::.
Support staffs recommendations with conditions>': ".:.
.
..:.:.:.:.:.:....
...::.:....
Criego:......:...
. Questioned the developer on the issue~}?f damage or rerri&~i:lpf th~ wetlands, causing
::~~~;:~ ~~~~~:l:~~a~:~:;~~~'I~~f=:~~:::::::~~a, Piori~:=~!:~gineering,
. Polta also addressed heavy rain runoff stiting i.~.::}VOtq~::!.9hijffect the drainage. He
also explained the N.U.R.P:..ppnds and th~:::~r~~+emova!:J~y::the wetlands.
. Questioned staff on the.J?:tPc~4Bt@, for enstiiig the water flow to the wetlands are not
disturbed. McDerm9:rt:'Explairi!~:~he engine',provides detailed calculations. The
wetland mitigatioW:phin is revi~wed by a techiy'al evaluation panel consisting of City
staff as well asgth~::i~$~nci5~::I~~:::!f~.~~p'~ij~tn the field.
. ..........
.. . ....,..
V onhof: .... ..,','....
. The in.H*~ID~::m~f&c on CiW~x. ~pad 82 is a concern.
. Thy:jmprovemetlt::gt::rountY'~9i~121 has made a big impact on traffic. The traffic
.9~:R.~ounty Road 82';"~ incr~K
.::J:f~i:~:td with amendITilt to move the park.
. Tfi&::.gning of The ,Iilds PUD is acceptable.
. The ov.i~Uplan as"mnended with the improvements and conditions is a good plan for
the area:::::: .. ........
Kansier clarifieq?the park area eliminated 6 single family lots and added two 4-unit
buildings, a net gain of2 units.
Criego:
. Liked the developer's sensitivity of the wetlands.
. Liked the combination of single family and townhomes.
. Enjoys working with a developer who will work the community and City.
I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn072400.doc
9
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24. 2000
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND AMENDING
THE WILDS PUD PLAN TO RELOCATE A PARK FROM THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF CSAH 82 AND WILDS P ARKW A Y TO THE
SOUTH SIDE OF WILDS PARKWAY, WEST OF THE BOOSTER STATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMENl?JJeZONING
APPROXIMATELY 7 ACRES FROM THE WILDS PUD TO THE.:il:1::::~ R-2
DISTRICTS. .............::::;::;:m:m:::;;;::..
::::::nB:::;:~Ss:~~::I::=~~ REZ~~
ACRES FROM THE R-1 DISTRICT TO THE R-~i~~~i~CT:::::IIIIII;I~;:::::~::t;;;::.. .:;)}:.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.":;;~~:::::::::::::::::~::~:~::::::::::;;::''''':::{::.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY 4;EMlQ9D, TO RECdQgIjP APPROVAL
OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENI::P.~gWg~ARY PLlIjVfO BE KNOWN
AS WENS MANN 1ST ADDITION SUBJ~kT Td]f.~~&p'Oyg:;CONDITIONS
INCLUDING REMOVING THE SIX SINd;K.::::3:f\MItYttJ,IJrs FOR PARKLAND.
Vote taken indicated ayesJ~I'TION C~ED.
MOTION BY CRIE.:Qg;':::~ECONJ?:::j1JY ATWOC>.Bf'TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF A PRELIMINARYtP:l1A T r(1].'BiKNGWNKAS WENSMANN'S 1 ST ADDITION
SUBJECT TO STAFF'S::li0~iTfoNS::rm:::::::r::::::?:;::' ,
V ote t~:]V~Jfidl:6~~al:::IY.:..'::!f.:::.:t..:;.;;.:..bY ~Hj::::II_~frloN CARRIED.
..:..........
r.~:~~:i;lli:::Wi1l go befor6::~11 CityCbuncil August 7, 2000.
D. ..::;;q!l~:#OO-038 Cg'sider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance creating an
overlay dti,tes! for th.:fi::~:evelopment of senior care facilities.
":':':':':':':':':':. .:.:......
......
........... ......
........... ......
........... ......
Planning CoordiqlttiF Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 24,2000 on
file in the officeJitthe Planning Department.
On two previous occasions, the City Council has discussed the idea of senior care
facilities and their treatment in the zoning ordinance. Because of the special needs of
persons living in such facilities, the Council asked staff to research the issue and report on
the results. Following extensive review of the planning literature, staff concluded that an
overlay district approach in several zoning districts made the most sense as a way of
dealing with the issue. Council concurred and referred the matter to the Planning
Commission for it's review and input.
1:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn072400.doc
10
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24. 2000
Comments from the public:
City Councilmember Mike Gundlach, said this was proposal he put forward. It primarily
came from three proposals on the table. They were trying to resolve the density of the
neighborhood i.e. Creekside Estates. The second one was the north end of downtown for
senior housing. The third area is behind the Park-Nicollet Clinic. The COl:l,lsit.;ovas
::::e:: ::~: ::ed ;::::::::~ Conunissionern. d4t0
.. ":':':':':':':':':',
Criego: ..... ..:<:::::::::::::::\:::.
. Did not have any disagreement with what the City is !Iylg't~:f:~6complish. ..::::::::::::::::1:::::::::::::::::::)/:.
. Would like more time to look it over. ..:::::::::.:.. .-:::\::. ..::::::::::::::::..
. Questioned ifit would be the discretion of the G:il:::~!i3.:ff or p!bing Commissl6n?
Kansier explained the process. .::}:. ..:::.:::::::::::::......:::){>:t:t:::::::.
....................
":::::::::::;::::::"
. No problem taking a longer look at it((.::::::;::...:.::..:....:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::t>
. Understands the concern. This allows::'df&:::t1im:9!Ji!y with tq~:::Umd use than the
current ordinance allows. It is a good aPPFoacq;:::::::::t:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\::::::::)). ..:::..
. One concern under incentives - building h.!i,gJ)ts - all6Wing::a building higher than fire
equipment. The other c9B9.~I:::~~}he wordii~ under 166a "Modifications" The
language is too stron~M:::::Shgge:st::lopping tlit:::}Vord "only".
. No other real co..::..:n::::.:.:i:lfS. Intere~:!~i.1 to see h01:1~r::'orks out.
..::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.;.................::;:::;:;:;..
..:.:.;~;i~[~~f~~~~\:;:::::::~~fjj~~:::::::::~:~:r~~rrrmmmrrrrj~j1~\~~~\~~~r~::::..
'.;.;.;.;.;.:.:.:.:.:
Stamson:
Atwood:
. Passed.
V onho.f;::::::::::::t:::::::m:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::.:....:1:1:::::::::::::::.
. ..f1'eed to continue:::::::.:.::::::::::::
,,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.; ........
...................................
..... ...........
..... ........... . ....
MbttQlm~Y CRIEGO, :~~COND BY ST AMSON, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEA.RINS?rO AUGUSLtF14 2000.
"::;:;::::::::::::::';" ..:.:.:-:.:."
":';';':':':':':':'.
.':'.
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.'
"::::::::::::::::::.:.:.'
..
..........- .....
........... ......
........... ......
........... ......
Vote taken indiG~t~::~yes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. Old BUSiness:
A. Case File #00-046 Consider an Amendment to Section 1101.501 of the
Zoning Ordinance relating to the combination of nonconforming lots divided by a
private street but under single ownership.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 24, 2000 on
file in the office ofthe Planning Department.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn072400.doc
11
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
This issue was discussed at the July 7, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. There was
testimony in support of the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission had some
reservations about allowing garages and detached accessory structures located across the
private street from the principal use without some oversight. Consequently, the
Commission directed staff to develop additional language which would provide for
Commission review and approval of such requests.
Comments from the Commissioners:
.................
..................
....................
.........................................
......... .......
....... .....
....... -"
...... ..
.................
..::::~rr::.. ..::::tttt:::..
t::::~:~:~:~:~:: ..::::f~:~:~:~:~::::..
\~jtmr ":::;jrttt:::.,
..::::;::::::.... \tr. ..:::{t~It::::..
..::::::;=;=;=;=;:;=;=:=;\::....::=;=;::: ":::;:;:;:;:;:;=;:;::"
C . .,::.:.:::::::::::::~:.:.::::::::::::~;~::. ":::;~:~:f~{::::.. ,':::',
rlego: ..:.....:.;.. ..::::::::::::::::::;:.....;.:::::::;..
. . ...... '.:::::::::::::::::;:::.'
: ~~~:~~~~o~:=~iOns. Kansler eXPlaIn~}~
Atwood:
. Agreed.
Stamson:
. No concerns with the wording.
::tt::,,:,~'::t:rr:,t~,,:,::.:... ..::\\::::~.:::'::~.~::':::~.~::.'.:::.':::.:::::i::.::.'i:.I:i:i.~.::::::::::::}:
V onhof: ':,:::::, ....::::,:,:::t::r:::::::::::t"",,::::.....
· The language is fine. ::':':'::" ..::::,{;;.;.:::::::::r:::::::::::~:~:::i:::i:::iiil:.:':~.:~'::::::::~}:'
MOTION BY CRIEGO SE.QoNtli8.Y STAMSON TO APPROVE THE DRAFT
, ..:.:.;-;.:.:.:.:.......:.:.;.;.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.; ..........'
ORDINANCE LAN~~~'It ...::"t:iiii:ii!!:':~ ":;';:~:i:ii:::::i';::'}::'
Vote taken indicate.:g:::i~'t::i~:~:..~:~:~:;:::~:::li~m:~:~;:::~7ED.
This will go before the Ciij{e9~ncil on Augti~t 7, 2000.
.................
....................
.....................
..............................
B. "~~and~.
Adjour&fuent:
7.
8.
9.
The meeting adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn072400.doc
12
..'
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONTINUED PUBLIC HARING TO CONSIDER A
ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY EAGLE CREEK
VILLAS, LLC, AND FREEDOM DEVELOPMENT AND
CONSULTING FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS
LOTS 2, 3, & 4, BLOCK 2, HOLLY COURT, AN
AMENDMENT TO PUD 82-12 AND A PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION
2, TOWNSHIP 114, RANGE 22
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
--
AUGUST 14, 2000
Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, and Freedom Development and Consulting have filed
applications for the development of the property located at the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street, directly north of Five Hawks
School. The applications include a request is to rezone approximately 45,000 square feet
of property described as Lots 2, 3 and 4, Holly Court from the R-3 District to the R-4
District, amend the approved plan for PUD 82-12 to include the Holly Court property and
to develop the site with 102 units of senior housing, and a request for approval of a
preliminary plat for this site, consisting of 12.7 acres to be subdivided into 3 lots and one
outlot.
The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on July.l 0, 2000.
The developer submitted some revised plans at that meeting; however, due to the number
of issues involved, the Planning Commission contin~ed this item until July 24, 2000.
Because the developer had not completed the revisions- in time for staff review, on July
24,2000 the Planning Commission continued this item until August 14,2000.
PROPOSED PLAN
The general proposal for this development has not changed. The following analysis
concentrates on the revised plans and how these plans meet the ordinance criteria
1:\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\creek2\creekpc3.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
J;..
Density: The plan proposes 102 units on a total of 12.7 acres. Density is based on the
buildable acres of the site, or in this case on 9.2 net acres. The overall density proposed
in this plan is 11 units per acre.
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 3 lots for the multifamily buildings and one outlot.
This outlot is 8.19 acres in area and will apparently be deeded or conveyed to the School
District for use as a nature trail.
Building Styles: The proposed plan calls for one 54-unit congregate senior housing
building and two 24-unit senior condominium buildings. The 54-unit building consists of
1 and 2 bedroom apartments, a common library and a common party room. This building
also includes 54 underground parking stalls. The building is 3 stories in height, and uses
jumbo brick and steel siding as the exterior finish. The two 24-unit buildings consist of 2
and 3 bedroom units with exterior decks or patios, as well as 24 underground parking
spaces in each building. These buildings are also 3 stories in height and use steel siding
as an exterior finish. Section 1107.2200 lists the criteria for architectural design. This
section requires that at least 60% of each building face visible from off-site be
constructed with Class I materials. Steel siding is a Class I material for buildings with 4
units or less. However, buildings with more than 4 units require Class I materials
consisting of brick, marble, granite or other natural stone or textured cement stucco. The
54-unit building meets the 60% requirement. The exterior of the 24-unit buildings
consists of steel siding and face brick. The face brick, combined with the glass windows
and doors, comprise approximately 40% of the building exterior. This is less than the
required 60% Class I materials.
Congregate Housing Requirements: In order to qualify as elderly housing, at least
60% of the units in the 54-unit building must be occupied by single persons at least 60
years of age, or by couples with one or both being at least 60 years of age. The property
owner must record a covenant to run with the land in a form approved by the City which
restricts the use of the property to occupancy by the elderly. The development must also
provide a lounge or other indoor community rooms in a size equal to 15 square feet per
unit. The proposed 54-unit building includes a library and party room equaling 866
square feet in area, which exceeds the minimum requirement. The developer has not
provided any covenants for review. In his comments, dated August 1,2000, he notes he
will submit a copy of the Tax Exempt Housing Revenue Bonds and the tenant handbook
to meet this criteria; however, these items will be sufficient to meet the requirement for
recorded covenants on the lots.
Setbacks: The setbacks for a multifamily building are based on the height of the
building, as well as the length of the building. The 24-unit building is 31' tall and 193'
long. The required and proposed setbacks for this building are as follows:
I: \OOfiles\OOsubdi v\prep lat\creek2\creekpc3 .doc
Page 2
YARD SETBACK PROPOSED
Lot 1 Lot 2
Front 31 ' 20' 70'
Side Street 31 ' 31' NA
Side 15.5' NA 15' & 20'
Side Adjacent 38.8' 20' NA
to R-3 District
Rear 25' NA 36'
(31' where
adjacent to
R-3)
Wetland 30' from 100 30' 30'
year flood
elevation
Parking Lot 15' from 15' 15'
back of curb
Neither of the buildings on Lot 1 or 2 meet all the required setbacks. As noted in the
attached narrative, the developer is requesting a modification to some of the setback
requirements.
The 54-unit building on Lot 3 appears to be 36' high and is 175' long on the east side and
215' long on the south side. The required and proposed setbacks for this building are as
follows:
YARD SETBACK PROPOSED
Front 36' 25'
Side Street 36' 25'
Side 16.6' 55'
Rear Adj acent 36' 25'
to R-2 District
Wetland 30' from 100 19' -20'
year flood
elevation
Parking 15' from 15'
back of curb
This building also does not meet all of the required setbacks. The developer has also
requested a modification to these setbacks.
In this case, the building height exceeds the 35' maximum permitted. The Zoning
Ordinance allows us to subtract the portion of the height of the underground parking area
which contributes to the height of the building; however, the plans do not provide enough
I: \OOfi les\OOsubdiv\prep lat\creek2\creekpc3 .doc
Page 3
information to make this calculation. The developer has not addressed the height of the
building in the revised plans.
Parking lots are also subject to the required setbacks. None of the proposed parking lots
meet the minimum setbacks. The developer has also requested modifications to this
requirement.
Ground Floor Area Ratio: The maximum ground floor area is 0.35. The ground floor
area proposed on Lot 1 is 0.25, on Lot 2 it is 0.22 and on Lot 3 it is 0.33.
Usable Open Space: Multifamily dwellings must have a minimum useable open space
of 400 square feet per unit, and no more than 50% of the required space can be located in
the front yard. Usable open space is defined as "a required ground area or terrace on a
lot which is graded, developed, landscaped and equipped and intended and maintained
for either active or passive recreation or both, available and accessible to and usable by
all person occupying a dwelling unit or a rooming unit on the lot and their guests.
Usable open space has a minimum dimension of 30 feet. Roofs, driveways and parking
areas do not constitute usable open space." In addition, congregate or elderly housing
requires a minimum of 25% of the usable open space be developed as outdoor recreation
or garden area. The plan sheets indicate open space meeting or exceeding the minimum
requirements; however, these areas must be identified on the plans to determine location
and minimum dimensions. This has not been addressed in the revised plans.
Parking: Multifamily dwellings require 2 parking spaces per unit. Elderly (congregate)
housing requires 0.5 parking spaces per unit. The proposal provides at least 48 spaces for
each of the 24-unit buildings (2 per dwelling unit), which is consistent with the minimum
Zoning Ordinance requirements. There are 96 spaces (1.7 per unit) provided for the 54-
unit building. This is also consistent with the minimum ordinance requirements. The
Building Official has also noted the Building Code requires 2 parking spaces for
commuter vans at each building.
Landscaping: Section 1107.1900 lists the landscaping requirements for this
development. There are two different types of landscaping required for this development.
First of all, perimeter landscaping is required at a rate of 1 tree per unit. In addition, a
Bufferyard Type "C" is required along the east property line. A Bufferyard Type "B" and
a 30" berm are required where the parking lots are adjacent to the road. The developer
has submitted a revised landscaping plan that identifies landscaping on this site.
However, the plan does not meet the minimum requirements, nor does not indicate
whether an irrigation system will be provided. If an irrigation system is proposed, an
irrigation plan must be provided. The ordinance also requires the landscape plan be
prepared and signed by a registered landscape architect. The narrative indicates a new
landscape plan was to be submitted; however, staff has not received this plan.
Tree Replacement: As noted above, the applicant has submitted an inventory
identifying 9,108 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. Based on the developer's
I: \OOfiles\OOsubd iv\preplat\creek2\creekpc3 .doc
Page 4
calculations, a total of 29% of these caliper inches will be removed. According to the
revised calculations submitted, 22.6% of the significant caliper inches will be removed
for building pads and 6.7% of the significant caliper inches will be removed for roads and
utilities. This meets the removal percentage allowed in the Zoning Ordinance.
Signs: The revised proposal includes three monument signs of 48 square feet. The
Zoning Ordinance allows two monument signs of 50 square feet at each major entrance to
the development, and individual name plate signs of 6 square feet for each building. The
sing plan must be revised to meet this requirement.
Lighting: Street lights will be provided on the public streets. The developer has also
provided lighting for the parking lots. This lighting will most likely meet the ordinance
requirements; however, the developer must provide a lighting plan identifying the foot-
candles to allow staff to make this determination.
Streets: This plan proposes one new public street. Tranquillity Court is a 335' long cul-
de-sac located at the intersection ofPriorwood Street and Five Hawks Avenue. The street
has a 60' wide right-of-way and a 32' wide surface. This street provides access to all of
the proposed lots.
Included in this site is 66' wide road and utility easement extending from Five Hawks
Avenue on the south to Five Hawks Avenue on the north. This proposal does not include
the extension ofthis street, but it does maintain the right-of-way.
Sidewalks/Trails: The preliminary plan originally approved for this site included a trail
connection from Five Hawks Avenue on the south to Five Hawks Avenue on the north.
This trail was to be located within the existing easement, and was to include a pedestrian
bridge where the trail crossed the creek. This trail is also separate from the nature trails
around the pond. A portion of this trail has been graded, although it is not completely
within the existing road easement. The developer has provided a plan for the extension of
the trail and the pedestrian bridge to the north. The trail system, however, is not located
within the existing road easement.
Parks: This proposal does not include any parkland. At the public hearing, the Planning
Commission suggested Outlot A be counted as parkland dedication. In order to
accomplish this, staff suggests the outlot be dedicated as park. This will ensure public
ownership of this area, and that the area remain open space. The City and the School
District can also enter into an agreement to allow the School District to utilize this park
for trails and a nature center. The agreement can outline maintenance and development
responsibilities.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main: Sanitary sewer will be extended from the existing
line located along the east property line. Water main will be extended from the existing
utilities located in Five Hawks Avenue to the south.
1: \OOfi les\OOsubdi v\prep lat\creek2\creekpc3 .doc
Page 5
Storm Sewer: A stormwater pond was created adjacent to the wetland in the west half of
this site. The plan identifies catch basins and storm sewer within the parking lots to
direct runoffto this pond.
Traffic Study: The developer submitted a traffic study, prepared by Benshoof and
Associates, for this development. This study indicates the proposed development will
add a total of 334 daily trips to the adjacent streets, with 60% of the trips utilizing
Priorwood Street and 40% utilizing Five Hawks Avenue. The study does not anticipate a
decrease in the level of service on either of these streets, or at the intersections. The study
does recommend the placement of stop signs on the north leg of Five Hawks Avenue and
on the south leg of the proposed Creekside Court, and the placement of warning signs on
Priorwood Street and Five Hawks Avenue to address safety issues. The City hired WSB
& Associates to review this study. WSB noted the proposed stop sign configuration
would be very confusing. They recommended the configuration either be an "all-way
stop" configuration or, due to the relatively small traffic levels, remain an uncontrolled
intersection.
Phasing: This project is proposed to be completed in one phase, beginning construction
in 2000 and ending in 2001.
ANALYSIS:
Rezoning Request: Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the following
policies for amendments to the Official Zoning Map:
. The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical
or administrative error, or
. The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of
the area, or
. The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Use District will be appropriate on
the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
This proposal meets the first criteria. The City Council and the Metropolitan Council
have approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designating the property as R-
HD. The proposed R-4 district is also consistent with the underlying zoning of the
existing PUD.
PUD Preliminary Plan: The PUD must be reviewed based on the criteria found in
Section 1106.100 and 1106.300 ofthe Zoning Ordinance. Section 1106.100 discusses the
purpose of a PUD. These criteria are discussed below.
I :\OOfi les\OOsubd iv\preplat\creek2\creekpc3 .doc
Page 6
(J) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, materials, construction
and land development.
The proposed development utilizes underground parking areas to allow more efficient
use of the land. The clustering of the structures also allows preservation of the
wetlands and wooded areas on the site. However, the developer does not meet the
minimum requirement of 60% Class I materials on the 24-unit buildings.
(2) Higher standards of site and building design.
The clustering of the buildings allows for the preservation of the natural amenities on
this site.
(3) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support
high quality land use development at a lesser cost.
This development includes one cul-de-sac providing access to all of the units. The
parking areas and internal road systems will be maintained by the property owner.
(4) Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space components in the
development which may be made more useable and be more suitably located than
would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures.
The preservation and dedication of the western portion of the site as parkland and the
use as of this site a nature area provide an amenity which can be utilized by the
public. The trail connection from Five Hawks Avenue on the south to Five Hawks
Avenue on the north will provide a link to the public park system.
(5) Provides a flexible approach to development which allows modifications to the strict
application of regulations within the various Use Districts that are in harmony with
the purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The use of the PUD allows the higher density to be clustered on the portion of the site
previously graded. The density and type of housing units is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan goals to provide a variety of housing styles.
(6) Encourages a more creative and efficient use of land.
As noted above, the PUD allows the higher density areas to be clustered, and
preserves open space.
(7) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics including flora and fauna,
scenic views, screening and buffering, and access.
I: \OOfiles\OOsubdiv\prep lat\creek2\creekpc3 .doc
Page 7
Clustering the units does allow the preservation of some of the wooded areas on the
site. The plan must address the landscaping and bufferyard requirements of the
ordinance.
(8) Allows the development to operate in concert with a Redevelopment Plan in certain
areas of the City and to insure the redevelopment goals and objectives within the
Redevelopment District will be achieved.
This criteria is not applicable.
(9) Provides for flexibility in design and construction of the development in cases where
large tracts of land are under single ownership or control and where the users) has
the potential to significantly affect adjacent or nearby properties.
The use of the PUD allows the clustering of the buildings and the preservation of the
natural amenities on the site.
(JO)Encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over and above required
dedications, by allowing a portion of the density to be transferred to other parts of
the site.
While the plan proposes the conveyance of Outlot A to the School District for use as a
nature area, the staff recommends this area be dedicated as park. No additional
density has been requested.
Section 1106.300 states the quality of building and site design proposed by the PUD will
enhance the aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied:
1. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified
environment within the boundaries of the project by insuring architectural
compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation,
aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and efficient use and design of
utilities.
The design of the buildings are similar in nature. The use of Class I materials will
increase the value of this design. Revision of the landscaping plan to meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance will also enhance this area.
2. The design of a PUD shall optimize compatibility between the project and
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential
adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse
effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD.
I :\OOfi les\OOsubd i v\prep lat\cree k2\creekpc3 .doc
Page 8
The use of the PUD will preserve the area directly adjacent to the single family
homes, and will allow the creation of a trail between the existing streets.
3. If a project for which PUD treatment has been requested involves construction over a
period of time in two or more phases, the applicant shall demonstrate that each phase
is capable of addressing and meeting each of the criteria independent of the other
phases.
This project is proposed to be completed in one phase.
4. Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one building on a lot.
This is not applicable. Each building is proposed on an individual lot.
5. A PUD in a Residential Use District shall conform to the requirements of that Use
District unless modified by the following or other provisions of this Ordinance.
a) The tract of land for which a project is proposed shall have not less than 200 feet
offrontage on a public right-of-way.
b) No building shall be nearer than its building height to any property line when the
property abutting the subject property is in an "R-l" or "R-2" Use District.
c) No building within the project shall be nearer to another building than YJ the sum
of the building heights of the two buildings, except for parking ramps which may
be directly connected to another building.
d) Private roadways within the project site may not be used in calculating required
off-street parking spaces.
The developer has requested modifications to the setback requirements. The staff
analysis has indicated the proposal does not meet other ordinance requirements,
including at least one building which exceeds the maximum height, landscaping
requirements and possibly open space requirements.
Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat is generally consistent with the Subdivision
Ordinance requirements. The City Engineering staff identified several issues in the
original plans which needed to be addressed. The Engineering staff is in the process of
reviewing the revised plans. The Engineering comments will be available at the meeting;
however, the staffhas indicated there are still issues to be resolved.
Staff Recommendation: While the revised plans have addressed some of the issues
raised by the staff, there are still several outstanding issues that remain with this proposal.
If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the general proposal and feels the
outstanding issues can be addressed prior to final approval, the following conditions
should be attached to approval of the preliminary plans:
I: \OOfi les\OOsubdiv\preplat\creek2\creekpc3 .doc
Page 9
1. The building plans must be revised so at least 60% of the exterior materials of the 24-
unit buildings are Class I materials.
2. The building plans must be revised so the 54-unit building is no more than 35' in
height.
3. The lighting plans for the parking lots must include a design of the light fixture and a
luminaire calculation to ensure the ordinance requirements are met.
4. The landscaping plan must be prepared and signed by a registered landscape architect
and must be revised to meet all ordinance requirements, including numbers, size and
species of the plantings. This plan must also identify whether or not an irrigation
system will be provided, and an irrigation plan must be provided.
5. Identify the open space on the site plan.
6. Outlot A must be dedicated as parkland on the plat.
7. The developer must provide covenants for the congregate housing building. These
covenants must be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and must be recorded
with the final plat.
8. The signage plan must be revised to meet ordinance requirements.
9. All issues identified by the Engineering staff must be addressed prior to final plan
approval.
10. The issues identified in the memorandum from Robert Hutchins, Building Official
must be addressed prior to final approval.
11. Application for approval of a PUD Final Plan must be submitted within 90 days of
the date of approval ofthe preliminary PUD plan by the City Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
rezoning, the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat.
If the Commission feels the proposal should proceed to the Council as proposed, the staff
would suggest the above conditions of approval be attached to the recommendation.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the rezoning, the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary
Plat subject to the above conditions and any other conditions the Planning
Commission feels are appropriate.
2. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the
issues which have been discussed.
3. Recommend denial of the request.
I: \OOfiles\OOsubdi v\prep lat\creek2\creekpc3 .doc
Page 10
4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval ofthe following requests:
· Rezoning approximately 1 acre (Lots 2, 3, and 4, Holly Court) from the R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) district to the R-4 (High Density Residential) district;
· Approval of a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan to be known as Creekside
Estates subject to the above conditions;
· Approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as Creekside Estates, subject to the above
conditions.
EXHIBITS:
1. Developer's Narrative
2. Reduced Copy ofPUD and Preliminary Plat Plans
3. Building Official Comments
4. Traffic Study
5. Letters from Neighboring Property Owners
I: \OOfiles\OOsubdi v\prep lat\creek2\creekpc3 .doc
Page II
~" ',,> ~/ -:- ---:'\1
!
j;
AUG
, "
jl..J u;
I
L
12m) !:
;:>)/1
,L.:/ .
Response to Prior Lake Staff Report
Of Revised Plans Dated July 17,2000
In response to the staff comments in the July 10, 2000, report to the Planning
Commission and again in response to our changes from the first report to the revisions of July 17,
2000, our Architect and Engineer has addressed, hopefully, all of the Staffs concerns.
The Architects corrected pages are A-I, L-l, and A-7 of both the elevations pages of the
24 plex and 54 plex buildings, dated July 31,2000.
The Engineers corrected pages are pages C l-C7 of the Civil Engineering drawings dated
July 31, 2000. Also included is the amended Civil Engineering Site specifications, and the
updated tree count inventory separated as staff requested. The Bridge details, as per city, are also
included.
The Surveyors amended Preliminary Plat also dated July 31, 2000, is included with all
easements over creek as requested.
The engineers responses or changes are also related to the City Engineers Memorandum
dated June 22, 2000, and June 29, 2000.
In response to the Staff Report of July 10,2000, paragraph five (5), we will need to
request some modifications after receiving the staff recommended set backs etc. Our
modifications for Creekside Estates that we are requesting is as follows:
Lot 1 West 24 plex building
A. Building Setbacks to property lines
1. Front yard to Cul-De-Sac
Requested 31 feet - actual 20 feet
2. Side yard adjacent to R-3
Requested 38.8 feet - actual 20 feet
3. Rear and side street
(Narrow side of building)
11 Foot modification
(Rear of building)
18.8 Foot modification
(West & South of building)
Both exceed requested footage
B. Building setbacks to Wetlands
1. This building meets or exceeds 30 feet setbacks
C. Building setbacks 30 feet to 100 year high water creek 912.5 foot mark
1. The Northwest corner of this building is only 25 -26 feet from high water
912.5 foot mark. 5-6 Foot modification
D. Building setbacks 15 feet from curb line of woods
1. This building now meets this setback
E. Parking setback from property line same as A.
1. The Parking areas are within the isolated cul-de-sac for Creekside Estates
only but they can't meet setbacks to City ROW for pathway or front yardto
cul-de-sac.
Lot 2 North of24 plex building
A. Building setback to property lines
1. This building meets or exceeds all requested setbacks on all four sides of the
building
B. Building setbacks to wetlands
1. This building meets or exceeds the 30 feet requested setbacks on the North
and East.
C. Building setbacks 30 feet to 100 feet year high water of East Pond of 920-foot
mark.
1. This building meets the 30 feet setbacks on the North and East.
D. Building Setbacks 15 feet from curb line of roads
1. This building now meets this setback
E. Parkway setbacks from property lines same as A
1. F our parking stalls are within the 31 feet front yard setback to the cul-de-
sac.
2. The setback for the parking lot abutting the 54-plex parking lot can't be met
because they both share cross-over easement and drive lane rights with each
others lot and drive lanes.
Lot 3 East 54 plex building
A. Building setbacks to property lines
I. Front yard to cul-de-sac
Requested 36 feet - actual 25 feet
2. Side Street to Priorwood Street
(Narrow side of Building)
11 Foot modification
Front of Building
Requested 36 feet - actual 30 feet 6 Foot modification
3. Rear yard to R - 2 (Rear of Building)
Requested 36 feet - actual 25 feet 11 Foot modification
B. Building setbacks to wetlands
I. This building meets or exceeds the 30 feet setbacks requested on the East
side of this building
2
C. Building setbacks 30 feet to 100-year high water of East Pond of 920-foot mark.
1. The east side varies distances from the 30 feet setback but the closest point
is approximately 19 to 20 feet away. 10 -11 Foot modifications
D. Building setbacks 15 feet from curb side of roads
1. This building now meets this setbacks
E. Parking setbacks from property lines same as A.
1. Eight stalls and part of a ninth parking stall are within the 36 feet front yard
setback to the cul-de-sac.
2. The setback for the parking lot abutting the 24 plex North building can't be
met because they both share cross-over easement and drive lane rights with
each others lot and drive lanes.
We are hoping our requests for modifications by city staff, planning commission and city
council are approved because of the following reasons.
1. This is a PUD.
2. We are condensing our development to less than 1/3 of the entire site allowing for a
greater mass of green space and open land.
3. The parking modifications are clustered inside of the three (3) structures and only
accessible by a short public cul-de-sac that only serves these three (3) buildings.
Our landscaping plan prepared by RHA architects is being reviewed by Gary Cross
(Requested Landscape Architect of Freidges Landscaping) and will be submitted to the City Staff
in approximately one (1) week as per Gary Cross.
The NURP Pond has been eliminated as per city engineer and now all surface parking
areas run to the NURP pond or south side of the site.
The Tax Exempt Housing Revenue Bonds when offered will as previous projects be
specific for persons 55 years and older. A copy at that time will be provided plus copy of tenants
handbooks to city at time of bond sale.
I hope these revisions and narrative will help staff in their needed findings for our project.
Thank you for your support
David D. Bell on behalf of the Development Team.
3
Creekside Estates
O /] ~ r2. n r,. 0" .
~LE u '.'
/oIAy 2 6 ~...liU
, '.
A Planed Unit Development of 102 units 0 r u -
Housing in Prior Lake, Minnesota
Project Narrative
Freedom Development & Consulting LLC would like to present to the city staff: planning
commission, city council, and its honorable mayor our proposal for Creekside Estates
revised plan for 102 maximum units of housing.
The land parcel consists of approximately 12.7 acres +/- of which approximately 12.14 is
dividable within the open space Outlot A area and Lot 1-3 of Block 1 where the three
buildings we are proposing will be developed. A public use RJO/W for a proposed city
pathway and road right-of-way'serving the three lots in Block 1 accounts for the balance
of the land.
The land parcel primarily is within the PUD Zoning District labeled as PUD 82-12 except
for a small parcel that lies just North of the PUD, which is known as a portion of the old
Holly Court proposal. It is our intent to amend the comprehensive plan to allow this
portion of Holly Court to be guided for High Density Residential, then rezone to the high
density R-4 Zoning District, and then attach this small parcel to the remaining land within
the PUD 82-12 Zoning District and then amend the PUD to include all parcels of land
into a PUD application of 102 units of Multi-Housing comprised of three buildings.
They will include a 54 plex and two 24 plexes.
The clustering of the three structures within the easterly side of the development allows
more efficient use of the upland areas, minimizes public improvements, street
construction, and ongoing maintenance to a minimum as suggested and referenced in the
cities findings and purpose, Section 1106.100 within the section 6 of the PUD guidelines.
This also allows the open spaces to be conveyed for public use to be within a larger
parcel rather than to be divided by structures within the PUD.
The exterior design of the three (3) proposed structures will be three stories in design
with underground parking to allow for greater green spaces within the three lots
encompassin~ the buildings which all have ingress and egress to the public cul-de-sac
extension off the comer of Five Hawks and Priorwood Avenues. The 54 plex senior
congregate apartment building is approximately the same length on each side of the L
shaped building as the two 24 plex buildings thus creating a feeling of four equally and
proportionally sized structures, which aids in the continuity of good design.
The lot sizes of lots 1-3 of Block 1 range in size from 1.14 acres net to 1.46 acres net
usable. The open areas of Outlot A comprise over 8 acres of area. At present the Nerp
Pond, which is to be used as part of our surface run-off fIltering and detention pond area,
is within Outlot A.
~..
The design of the three (3) buildings will as previously mentioned will include
underground parking for all residents with elevators reaching all floors of living to allow
for greater flexibility and usage for our senior population. The rental units within the 54
congregate facility will include 1 & 2 bedroom apartments ranging from 750 to 1000 sq.
ft. of living space. There are many large common gathering areas also within this
complex. The two 24 plex condominium for sale buildings will be comprised of 2 and 3
bedrooms, 2 or more bath units ranging from 1000+ to 1300+ sq. ft. per unit. All for sale
units will include an outside patio or elevated deck area.
The Congregate Rental building has over 1.5 units or parking per unit and the sale
condominium buildings have two units or parking per condominium.
All of the open spaces of all three buildings will be landscaped (see page L1) and have
underground irrigation to sprinkle the grassed areas.
The development team comprised of Freedom Development & Consulting LLC,
Podawiltz Development Corp, and Lumber One Avon Inc., our general contractor is
looking forward to working with the City of Prior Lake in creating a campus like setting
multi-family subdivision in your community. The Congregate Care Apartment facility
will be funded through tax-exempt housing revenue bonds targeted to both market rate
and affordable senior tenants. The Developers are requesting the endorsement by the city
of an inducement resolution so the developers can use the rating of the city on the sale of
the bonds. The sale of the bonds will be credit enhanced by the developers and at no time
will this put the city at any exposure as to the guaranty of the bonds.
We hope this will help staff, commissions, and council to better understand our proposal
and help speed up the decision making process.
Thank you on behalf of the
Development T earn.
q~~~~~,
Freedom Development & Consulting
2
June 15, 2000
,~ ~...~
v"iSED
Jane Kansier AICP
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake - Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Ave SE
Prior Lake MN 55372-1714
,.---- .--"
Re: Additional information needed to complete Creekside Estates
PUD Plan Amendment and Preliminary Plat re-application for
102 units of Multi-Family Housing.
Dear Jane, City Staff, DRC, Commissioners, Council, and Honorable Mayor:
In response to your review letter of June 7,2000 of our re-application of May 26,
2000 for Creekside Estates, we have addressed the 10 topics requested by your
office.
They are as follows:
PUD Plan Amendment
1. At this time we feel, unless staff deems necessary, no modifications are
necessary. The three (3) buildings within the development seem to meet all
setbacks, parking, green space, etc. within the existing regulations of the
underlying zoning classification being used.
2. Phase I of Creekside Estates will include two (2) of the three (3) buildings
within the subdivision. The 54 plex senior congregate care facility will be
within the first phase of development as well as the first of two 24-plex-
condominium buildings. The combination of both structures within the first
phase will be 78 units. The location of the structures to be developed within
the 1st phase are Lot 3 Blk 1 for the 54 plex congregate care and Lot 2 Blk 1
for the 1st of two matching condominium buildings. The size of each lot is
approximately 1.46 +/- acres net for the 54 plex and 1.35 +/- acres for the 24
plex condominium building. Phase" will be the completion of the second 24
plex condominium building on Lot 1 of Blk 1 consisting of 1.14 +/- acres.
Page 2
July 15, 2000
Creekside Estates
3. We have contacted Jim A. Benshoof of Benshoof & Associates Inc.,
Transportation Engineers & Planners of Hopkins, Minnesota, to conduct the
needed traffic study requirement set forth in your letter. See attached
Research and Findings study by Benshoof and Associates Inc.
4. As to the PUD meeting, the stated purposes and objectives of the PUD
requirements we will try to address the outlined items with Section 1106.100
Findings and Purpose and Section 1106.300 Building and Site Design.
Starting with section 1106.100: FindinQs and Purpose
1. Paragraph 1 of Zoning Ordinance and Paragraph 2 are somewhat the same
in that as I described in our Project Narrative our intention is to cluster the
three structures within the North and Easterly portion of the property for a
number of reasons. It allows more efficient use of the upland areas, reduces
length of public streets, and therefore, reduces possible ongoing Public
Works maintenance concerns or snow removal. The buildings are also
incorporating underground parking, which reduces the percentage of
buildings to green space areas even within the clustered area. The length of
all three buildings faces are very close in size and all three structures are
three stories in height to help address good curb appeal and continuity in
design.
2. Paragraph three of the zoning ordinance concerns for efficiency of public
facilities is addressed somewhat in the previous paragraph. The clustering of
102 units of housing within three (3) structures on approximately 1/3 of the
entire land within the PUD and serving all residents with less than 350 feet of
public roadway on a cul-de-sac. This maximizes use with minimum cost of
public infrastructure. This quality of land use is obvious on plan sheet CIA
noted as grading limits and open space.
3. Paragraph 4 of zoning ordinance in talking about open space components is
also very prevalent on plan sheet CIA by representing the large volume of self
contained open space both within the wetland areas and also the adjacent
uplands. By the clustering of buildings in the NE corner of the parcel, the
open areas are not disconnected or divided into a number of smaller parcels
but are represented by one larger preserved open area.
4. Paragraph 5 of zoning ordinance reflects on modifications to the use districts
within the city's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. We feel there
will be no modifications to the city's regulations with our PUD proposal and
development.
5. Paragraph 6 of Zoning Ordinance as in paragraph 4 discusses more creative
and efficient us of land. By clustering of buildings and larger self contained
Page 3
July 15, 2000
Creekside Estates
open spaces, less original land area is distributed and provides a more
efficient us of the public infrastructure.
6. Paragraph 7 of Zoning Ordinance goes without question in the preserving the
larger open area on the west side of the property not only preserves the
existing site characteristics and vegetation but improves the screening
between neighborhoods to the west and north by greater distances between
buildings than needed by the underlying zoning.
7. Paragraph 8 of the Zoning Ordinance refers to redevelopment districts, which
this parcel of land is not within any described redevelopment districts.
8. Paragraph 9 refers to larger parcels of land under one ownership impacting
adjacent neighborhoods. To begin, the parcel during development will
already be split by the 54-unit congregate care facility being owned and
operated by the non-profit operator as well as the developer. The two 24
plexes of condominiums, will when fully completed, become all Homesteaded
by individual owners who will be part of the Homeowners Association. This
will control and manage the two buildings; therefore, the impact should be
minor to the surrounding neighbors.
9. Paragraph 10 of the Zoning Ordinance talks about conveyance of property to
the public goes also without saying in that the parcel of land that we are
giving to the public for use, more than exceeds the required percentage of
land dedication.
In addressing Section 1106.300: Building and Site Desion
1. The architectural compatibility as previously discussed in our Project
Narrative shows all three (3) buildings showing continuity in design by all
having underground parking to minimize gross size of structures as well as all
being of the same height which is three (3) stories. The vehicular circulation
is designed for looping within the parking of the two easterly buildings and fire
protection access by use of the cul-de-sac minimizes hard to reach areas.
The pedestrian walk areas intersect with both the public street as well to the
public easements ROW area to the west for the future trail connection
through the woods.
2. The PUD proposed is all residential in design as is all surrounding
neighborhoods. The 54 unit Senior Congregate care is adjacent to a senior
only for sale town home association to the East. The two 24 plex individually
owned condominium buildings are buffered by the large open space to the
West from the existing single family homes and the city owned lots of the
Holly Court old plat separate and buffer the single and multi-family homes to
Page 4
July 15, 2000
Creekside Estates
the North. The wetlands buffer the school to the South. We feel the adverse
impacts to the neighbors are minimal.
3. The project is designed as one project and one phase except for the time
needed for the sale of the total 48 condominium units within two buildings.
4. The final and preliminary plats will show only one structure or building per lot.
Lots one through three of Blk 1 of Creekside Estates.
5. A. The extension of the public cul-de-sac within Creekside Estates is over
350 lineal feet besides the 300 to 400 feet of the Congregate Care
building fronting onto Priowood Avenue.
B. All three (3) buildings are laid out on the site plan to meet city standards
within the underlying zoning.
C. All three (3) structures greatly exceed % of the combined heights of the
two adjoining buildings. All structures have over 90 to 100 feet separation.
D. Paragraph 6 is not applicable to this development.
6. Under your PUD Plan Amendment, paragraph five concerns about identifying
open areas graphically. Please see attached Plan Sheet CIA prepared by
Brown Herkinhoff Engineering, titled Grading Limits and Open Spaces.
Preliminary Plat
1. Addressing your concerns for the Westerly portion of the property for grading,
utilities, etc., see attached Plan Sheet CIA for grading, utility, and landscape
limits. The bulk of our activity is within the North and Easterly portion of the
property as shown on Plan Sheet CI of 4 prepared by Brown Herkinhoff
Engineers and Surveyors.
2. An updated Tree Count for Creekside Estates is also enclosed showing
caliper of inches within all sections of land parcel for trees of six inches or
greater. The percentage of tree loss within each section is also shown.
Note: The percentage of 29 percent of tree loss doesn't reflect tree count of
four inch trees and or already dead trees as shown on first overview tree
count. There is approximately 100 additional trees counting dead and four-
inch Caliper trees.
3. The only future protective covenants will be that all open spaces shown on
final plat remain open spaces.
Page 5
July 15, 2000
Creekside Estates
,~-
4. Erosion control measures are now described on revised Plan Sheet C1 of 4
titled Grading and Erosion Control Plan.
5. The anticipated schedule for construction within the development is to start
construction within the development September 2000 for the 54-unit
congregate care facility. The first of the two 24 condominium buildings
hopefully will start near the same time as the congregate, but due to financial
loan obligations, some pre-sales will be needed prior to start of construction.
The second condominium building will commence construction when over 75
percent of the first buildings are sold; hopefully this will occur within the year
2001 construction season.
We hope this will meet with your satisfaction as to the completion of our
application with this additional information. Timing is of essence due to avoiding
very expensive winter construction costs so we request your help in executing
our application in a timely manner.
On behalf of the development team, Thank You!
~J(
David D. Bell
Freedom Development & Consulting
~
o
E-<
<(
.....:l
Po..
><
Il::
<(
z
i
.....
.....:l
~
Il::
Po..
CI)
r>::1
E-<
<:
t) B
r>::1 !l
~ I
.....
CI) ~
~ ~
r>::1
r>::1
~
U
------.,
. I
: :
: !
II~:
:1-
----{~Ij
IZ II
ION
:>1
: II
I
.-.-.,
i ·
_____J
~
;:
-'
0:
W
o
z
::>
z
<(
:I:
...
3'
o
....::>
10..
ct:1r;
I",ir:
~~~
ZOO
ON"
~8~
~~2
<no..
wO....
0:0:1
0..0..0:
! -I ;
j:;,;. !!tlj!t.~
. B-' _'B._
-, tJ ,:iBI'I'j'
ilt! J= Ih'! I'i
:h"i " ....j!'!jli
_i'I'I:'.. !~ !';;H!".;.;.
H ~l lor-i:h
-,.:......I~ "'ri. 11 ~......
:f--l ;ii:t;;,
J-'" il <jUl'"
~:.~ti 11 ;i~!hm
!;il!t ,. 1;I!:j-I'oi
~ri.!t ~!. ;.;:&:i..I:
ili!i~ 1 ioil:il~;
'i:l~ i~ :!tjil!l:
j;:~g . ii~!;B:ii
11 !;ii.r'~ !! :!i"p!!
! li'BJ ... 3!!'!l1'::!
~ .. If it ....81 ..:-
I !ujl ..j i~:~i~ii!
-;jl;~ i::: Ill.....\
!l:-!~ p j.;j!;:!,
I"Jn .-1 il:.I':IB
z .;':;>> i :e. .1 I
. !j&'-U .1 !ii. ...j
i oJ;fila" 0.1. ;'11"3":';
a ':-';I~ -. ..-i.....;
II.Phl Iii ;il,j:;;lt
! !:i!HiI = m m;:!i:t..
1'1 1\
~il!!!l '.Ii
ill
,.1 .
III~ I
I ~! !~l JI I j
!" ... I:!
II!:
_IU
,.
.,
N :~
_I
in
'U
in
j~
~:~
-. ---._----- --------~.
.----.----...r"
________L.___..
:i~
m
~;:
"0"
.'t.:
:jj
'1'
...,
. .
. " .
. :~:I t-----.-
: r-.................
. .
. .
. .
...... ..~..... I
. .
..~......._... .
. .
. .
I- !
ii
I~
" wt
i15 Ii J
~I !i.1 ~
.I!! l,~in
I~d hd
d~
.~
!~
!~
I~
~~
i~
J
!l!
I
3
~
I
e
!
~
.!
',.
i\ c
. : h .. ~
Ii" :.
F.... ~
~~~
I
c
i i
, s
I !
g I
\ \
U)
L~~"
l~~:~\
r":;"--
~
_.~
'"
Ul
tr:
C::J
~, \
@ ~ \
~
~~
D l[~fl~~JJ
I 'v'lOc;;JNNIV'l ';NVl }JOI}Jd
I IN;J~'\jdOl;J^;]a liNn mNNVld 'v'
c;;Jl'v'lc;;J ;Jal~;J;J}J:)
~ ~
~
Ii Ii
; ~~ ~
~ .~ /;
! ~ ~~ !: ~ It
l> ~ ~~ . g
&_~-<;iiiOl
~
~g
I:!~
~~~~
gi~~
Ji!~~j!
i~g~
~
9
~
I;~g ;il~\
I~;~ ~
.)~ ~~
~a la-
~.~;; I~
~l
.... "
~~ ~
3~ ~
~ ..
~." ~
! ~~ :;
~ ~~ :
~ .. Q;
o IlVl 0
...w
....z
gO
....
5 ::.::: .
u 00
z
j
0..
C:Ll ~
E-<
en .
'-
-:;:
!!~ ~~ ~
", ~;;. ~ ~ i
~~~ :~~ ~ ~~
5i~ ,;~ ; ..;!I
.., 1lI.~ """ ..,111
: '..:: . " : i ~ ~g~
9 ii9!ii9;i.l~~~
i~= h: i iis
~h d~ Iii hb
I
0::
c-..,-=-~
n l~~l.i
lit ~ ~
C) ~~I
l___'
'-"" (U) ~
~ l~~>>
.:::1
~:L__j
~ ]] ~ - -- ..,..;~ I V10~JNNII^l 'J')IVl ~Ol~d
I ..,In'......:.. jlNJl^ldOlJ^JO liNn OJNNVld v
-i:lfl:\oui'~1&Il ~J1V1SJ JOI~J~:)
;.:;..::1 J1IIf::J'f.!J:l'& ~ l2l
:iVUtJIRa 'iVJJfNru "SJ.:JilJJH.JtlJ V
-JNI S..LJ3.lIHJIIY YHIl CJ ...J
.
I I' .!t.
I i ~ I II ill I ! l ! . !
~Il ::JI1
~~ j! 711 !i~l.
,II
I "I~!f/l
::1 " ! ~ll ll.l/Ii
I p~~ 1111111
alali !'I'III~
.1 .~:.Il:~
II ~jlllllllll
ra"IU
J I I J J
~
h
~
~~
;~
~i;J
~i~~
:z
o
~
..;
>
~
c.l
:z
o
1i'i
~
:z:
o
~
I'zl
I'zl
"
~ !
z
j
0...
r.:l
0...
-<
U
CI:l
Cl
Z i
j .
-:;
o
\lJ
(J)
.........;.
-'"
.. I
~ ;1. j
(1:
'! I. is
'i ra 11
I, z
0
~
:>
~
r.:l
r.:l
U
Z
<(
0::
&-<
Z
r.:l
~
z z z
0 0 z 0
~ e: 0 e:
;: e: ;:
:> ;:
~ ~ ~
r.:l r.:l ~ r.:l
~ ~
&-< &-<
Z Z ~ u
0 0 u <(
0:: ~ ~ <( , co
r.. co s
.~
-~ ~ ~
::1
J
J.I
@:f.::::-c-0., 1
Ul~!
~J ~
L-::J
l!!:!!l .
@ S :
~--~
~~ (:::----~,~
";;J
J
d
i' i' 0 [~fl~]
'9'lOS;JNNIV'l ';J)I\f1 ~O~d
~NI01"lg OONO:J liNn VZ IfuIN
S;Jl'9' lS;I ;lOIS')l;J~:J
ii
\
\ ~
\ ~
q~
I )
I;
\
\
I
I
\
\
,
\ \
\ \
~ \
! I
~- \ ~
~s \ '"
--; ~
I ~ I
li ;
I
I
J
,
~
~
o I
li ;
or; ~
LU l!!!!l 8
(;) ~ fa
=
~l~ I
(::V
.........
./'"
UJ
0: l~~I!J
U:>
~
3
~
- -...
-
N'Vld ~NlaVCl~
(15'13)
S31VJS3 ~
~~i~ :
IlIlt3
III"U II 1::1- .L
+1 ;I'A II!: ! iii
l!9 ~I~ i'.II- ~
I ~!'l Hi.!3 Ill.
00 (:v 'ON 1J3rOCld
V.1.OS3N..... '3>IV1 HOQtd
I
'1 111I I 1I II 1I111 1I
I I Hn!H!~H
I iUlIiUliUiii
<(
I~
I
I I
: ;li
I ~ .
I ..~ ·
I ~tX
~ - ~1f -. L
I . ..:L~~
-=,-,.;.rl:. ""
"
i I ~ '
I I a: ti I
! I ~ ~ I
: I Q t;; I
I I I
I I
I
l)
o
z -
w
f-
a
-'
f-
J
a
>-
VI.
~'$!
",iX
",0
~g
,~ z;o
~ ",0:
a:: 0::0,....
" <(~iX~
~ J:CL~
, :J:..."'"
I----~-"o--
z ~~~
W OX...J
CD .....ww
I
uL_____
. I
't'
.~~I
., V
I
/\/-
,
"
I iU8UUuHi
uu uu
Ilo~~H::::~~~~
~
I !!!!!!!!U!
...........
I !:l!:l!:l!:l!:l!:l!:l!:l!:l!:l!:l!:l
oIlE!I;~ae~d!11;
~
e
Q I
~ I
S
I i o~h..i..H..h..
f;i IIHUIHHUU
I, ;a.uuu;;;
. a!ai!i! 1i!1!
~5P51>51>l>51>~
ap5l5lHl5l
'~B~n@iB~B~B
.l1UlUld.lI
. nnlu UUI
"1-- nrli ~.I.
" :1.1 . Ii
+1 !iD ~:IJjl '
I :.1, ~lb,u I.
00-(;17 'ON lJ3rmld
NVld Millin
(15\>'3)
mv.1S3 ](JIS)IBfO
~~1~ :
JIJI~
VlOSJHt.. 'lW1 ~
- -...
-
. I
I ~I
~~I
SI!CHG!
.a .. .. of ..., to: 4
=1 I.
III ~' I
I. fill
diU
..,. 'i'"SIX]
"
"
.~
i3;~
m~
---
,- - ----;,-
",'
"
r") r ,,'
!'r' ~/~
~~
,
\
I 1\
J \
/ ,
I I
L________,
....
o
e
z
W
....
Ul.
~~
~~
We
~~ ~~
~ ...",
~ 0::0,...
< ~"'C!
::i xo..~
G ....o~~
;;.
~ ~~~
OJ .....W4J
")illS 'N't$ :M4 .. n.]
--,
""-- ,,---- "-
-....'---'... ..
( ..:c~~~
~ i~:'l
(I ~
'\
\
~,
"
\
\
1
> :~!~j I
lU i.ZJ) ~
O::I~, __
"Co..,iJ"".'.~AJ
. .f (
/) I f l " H 0;( ,,9
(-'-'y./
-" ",/ , \~ \ \
--- __ '.-_ __ _ fI~j:---- L \
... I~ ~,,~-=~-"- ~~t=--~,j_
~".---_.-.-/~
8t?,P6.
\
\
\
,
\
,
\
\
,
\
\
\
,
\
\
\ //
___X'.>"":-
-..---.-' \
.,------..---..
\
\
\
I\VPlZ-Oi<lrnA,1( \
e,F,\Or'-'( (40 t,0'. / /
,oce~'O'J,~, ",)lj 'I I
',:"- -,/ ~.../) Il'
,-,/ >;:>-,:,-:~..,,-'--._._--~~--1. \ ,)"
, /-- / \
\ ,,~,j;;) / '
, / !lJ/ /!l:) rf!!
\ .' /,," /
\\? I' //~11//
~<~~;, -'" f -~;-;; '/,/
~- 'l'l. Y"----- /-' ,/.--' /(
\~t~~~~=-~O~':;;\/~ -, ' '
'- (( 1-----/) -' -- J
\" ,. 'j'-::' - ___~~C\~::;~__.,~.-..{J~~~~-~':~:'!--~------/
'.-i_.. . '
....L--- ----.--. -------------:--
'- ,"
( ,
I') !
'\/ / '.-
/ ( r -. .
\ ,-'
1 /
,/
./-i.
I
.' _""', "".:: ~ "'10
- "'-.' '~-" '{ '-.
///L\;"',~>>!,':~ 1()?-=:::~:.::
.' !..\ "'\ ',,:':---"1"'"
\ '---91l,---~
".
--'913-'--- .
'..............- ....-..} ,'- \..
,
.,
.)
!
----- --.--"
.. ,."
i.-~-.:7--.T:"~
,:. ~
.......F.
I
',' ..~
...., .
.___.__ .._0"
i" --'
1-/ I. \/ ,I ~.'-\, i" .
.. ." '>,.-1)
"..~. .
IllJG I 2000
iUj
" l . \t._-. ___
L
----- .-....
.. w
; w ~
:::
, , _.
Ii ~ ..
r ~~ .. ,0,.1. . j. ~
. . I l~~ <<-=;--.. - ~
'I
i :1 Ii
T' ~
jl
,. t..... I.
I "
. . w
~ ~
l!!
I ' , -.
- l!!
I w
.~ ~
~
FP11
l~1
~
~
r w : -
.. ~
f (5 ~ ~
z
~
l!!
~
~
~
CD
t'..o.
~ " ~ ,. j' Ii !' !! I
R I ill ""~II
i i III Ilia 1 u. :_ a~ j ~III '
I II i, ~
.~ 133 ~ Ii ~ I
~ I IS ~I' - ~ I~ I ~~ PI
I 'I i i
II i ii i ] ~ ~~ i II
l! !I ,~ I - - -I-
W 0 ]1 ~
a
I ~ j! I I
!I~ g I
~o
~~
l!!
l . __m__~~~
- llm --'--~-
"
,.
m~~ I~
a81 _ .
Dlel~ g~
[...--:;""-.', :i" .'. ! ll!!~
:1,', Ls (S l::, II ',I i , @
I\~r NI3 -:1-~ I~i EV I S E U
~~
'I.
.'
.... .
CITY OF PROIR LAKE
fIVE HAWKS PEDESTRAIN BRIDGE
BRIDGE ~ll\Jr"'ENTS
~ ,..'1I1'C[IIJft..'..,......"'UCloflOM,..llff'Ollt IuIIl\lCY
IMI ,..,p_IO .. K 0lII ",*11 .... "ICl '~lI\IIIIOI\I
Boneolroo =j{;1:.jJ~7l:~r ;...... -
Ro..n8 nc or. _ua IW
~JI Anderllk & ..... .,,,"
'\J. Alloclale. . .,...,.... to...
l!..-lW. . Ar~NI"1 .~wc,~/'::'.....u I) "we."'" .c.'::: :0::... .~:::
'1;'""~MU?\,..60'M" It*C
~
..
~
;;
~
..
~
~
.~
Creekside Estates Tree Count
~
-
>
c=
o
.-
~
u
v
:n
Total Caliper Black Black Blue Cedar Cherry Dead Eastern Elm Fir Or..n Mountain Oak RIver SWlImp White Total
In Inches Maple Oak Spruce wood Cedar Birch Ash Birch Oak Pine
6" 270 10 1 34 45
8" 416 13 5 25 7 2 52
10" 540 11 1 30 12 54
12" 324 13 14 27
14" 56 4 4
16" 64 4 4
18" 90 5 5
20" 120 6 6
24" 48 2 2
28" 0
32" 0
36" "'" 0
40" 0
44" 0
48" 0
Total 1928 0 47 0 7 0 0 0 124 0 0 19 2 0 199
~
6" 408 39 29 68
8" 184 7 2 5 9 23
10" 280 13 6 9 28
12" 144 5 " 3 4 12
14" 56 4 4
16" 0
18" 36 2 2
2(1' 140 1 3 3 7
24" 360 5 9 1 15
28" 0
32" 96 3 3
36" , 72 2 2
40" 40 1 1
44" 0
48" 48 1 1
Total 1864 64 0 0 2 0 0 0 19 0 0 50 18 0 13 0 166
-
~
~
-
-
o
-
~
U
Q
Zl
~
>
~
>
6" 834 98 41 139
8" 768 27 3 55 7 4 96
10" 1030 42 9 39 1 12 103
12" 588 23 ' 17 9 49
14" 140 3 6 1 10
16" 176 5 2 4 11
18" 360 2 ~ 10 8 20
2(1' 440 15 7 22
24" 168 7 7
28" 56 2 2
32" 160 5 5
36" 252 7 7
40" 80 2 2
44" 88 2 2
48" 56 0
12' Tall 120 7 7
Total 5316 200 0 0 7 0 0 0 62 0 0 135 53 0 25 0 482
#\
>
~
#\
-
-
-
t::
o
,-
~
U
(l.)
ZJ
otal All
,actions
; [1 (~: 1:2 0 WJ iT i>.i
! ;
~ -
"
J
AtJG
Iml
---- .-----.--.
- .. .~
Section 7
Section 1 & 2
Section 3,4,5,6
Section Total Inches
1928
1864
5316
Tree Count
Save 10%
Save 50%
Save 100%
Inches Saved
192.80
932.00
5316.00
6440.80
Feet Saved
16.07""
77.67
443.00
536.73
Total % of Trees Being Removed is 29.3%
Caliper Inches to be Removed for Building
Pads & Driveways
Section: Total Inches:
Section 7 1268.0
Section 1 & 2 789.0
Section 3,4,5,6 0.0
TOTAL 2057.2 :=22.6%
Caliper Inches to be Removed for Roadway
Section: Total Inches:
Section 7 . 467.2
Section 1 & 2 143.0
Section 3,4,5,6 0.0
,
TOTAL 610.2 =6.7%
. ~
..-. -. ~ 0:-. - .
.-:J.. .
_-" -J;;.., .'
AUG
I 200l
I
;\ :.
Ii I:
L:J
.. \ l
! \ \, \ ~
L \J~
Memorandum
DATE: August 7, 2000
TO:
Jane Kansier, Planner
~'t
FROM:
Robert D. Hutchins, Building Official
RE: Site plan review for Creekside Apartments Priorwood Ave.
Following are the results of the preliminary Site plan review for the Creekside Apartment
buildings. Our review was based on the Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) which adopted
with amendments the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) with handicap regulations of the
Minnesota Accessibility Code Chapter 1341. Also requirements of the 1998 Minnesota State Fire
Code (MSFC) which adopted with amendments the 1997 Uniform Fire Code (UFC).
1. If provided, indicate means of lawn irrigation. May use separate service and metering
for billing purposes.
2. Complete a Building Code analysis.
3. Are these facilities licensed with the State of Minnesota for care?
4. Provide a description of rental agreement and type of facility and services offered in
the apartments.
5. Relocate the three of the five fire hydrants. Place 3 westerly hydrants in green areas
across from building entrances. L1; W130', S30'; L2; NE 20', L3 E50'. Front of
hydrant shall be placed 5'-0" from curb and side of hydrants shall be placed 10'-0"
from curb adjacent to parking stall.
6. Provide fire lanes for fire apparatus response. Signage to read :" No Parking Fire Lane
by order of Fire Department". Indicate on a Site plan. Locate by Fire Hydrants and. in
front of building entrances in parking lot.UFC 1001.7.1.
7. Provide 96" clearance height in underground parking for Fire Departments fast
response apparatus. Provide explanation as to reason all three buildings have different
lower level floor to first floor elevations.
8. Provide a Post Indicator Valve (PIV) on sprinkler supply line into buildings. Locate a
minimum distance away the height of the building.
9. Provide two parking spaces at each building for commuter van. MSBC 1300.4100.
10. All Units not HDCP accessible must be HDCP adaptable and on a HDCP accessible
route. MSBC 1341 Table 16.2
11. Provide accessible route from exterior HDCP parking to the building on west 24 unit.
Locate by front entrance to building. MSBC 1340.1103 Provide detail sheet ofHDCP
ramp.
12. 54 Unit: confirm if all units are HDCP Accessible. Two 24 Units: Two percent of
Units must be HDCP Accessible. MSBC 1341 Table 16.2
This is a preliminary review only on conceptual plans. Other code items will be addressed
when the preliminary plans are submitted. The building plans must be reviewed by the
Cities Developmental Review Committee (DRC) which consists of representatives of
Planning, Engineering, Parks, Finance, and Building Departments. The DRC must
approve the plans before a building permit can be issued.
2
JUL-18-2000 16:22
..
WSB
L
& Associares, Inc.
WSB & RSSOCIRTES INC.
7635411700 P.02/02
tel: 763-541-4800
fax: 763.541.1700
B.A. Mittelsteadt, P.E.
Bret A. Weiss., P.E.
Peter R. Willenbring. r.E.
Donald W. Sterna, P.E.
Ronald B. Bray. P.E.
8441 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 350
Minneapolis, MN 55426
Memorandum
To:
Ms. Sue McDermott, P.E.
City Engineer, City of Prior Lake
Cha.rles T. Rickart, P.E. C~
Transportation Project Manager
': i',\ li: -::.
ii 1\ jlr. ____._n_ -'
I ' . .
\ Wi J.l 2 1 2Gll
IlJ~L
I
; ---.
From:
Date:
. July 18,2000
Re: Creekside Estates Development Tra.ffic Study Review
City of Prior Lake
WSB Project No. 1256-001
As you requested, I have reviewed the traffic study prepared for the proposed Creekside Estates
development located north of the Priorwood Street and Five Hawks A venue intersection in the City
of Prior Lake. Based on my review of the traffic study, I offer the following comments:
1. Reference was made to the addition of the Five Hawks elementary school traffic to the adjacent
roadway system. However, there was no indication on the amount of traffic added and the
distribution of the traffic on the adjacent roadways.
2. The increase of traffic on Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street would range from 10%
to 20% during the AM and PM peak periods.
3.
The site plan as proposed, indicates a significant number of parking stalls including
underground parking. Although the trip generation rates that were used do represent the type
of facilities as indicated, it appears ~at there is an excessive number of parking stalls for the
size of the proposed facilities.
.-
4. The proposed recommended stop sign configuration stopping the Five Hawks Avenue
approaches would be confusing with potential enforcement concerns.
Based on my review of the traffic impact study, the proposed development will not have a significant
impact on the adjacent roadway systems. However, it would be recommended that the stop sign
configuration at the intersection ofPriorwood Street and Five Hawks Avenue be modified to either a
"All Way" stop condition, stopping all approaches or, preferably, with. the amount of traffic in that
intersection being quite small, have the intersection as a non-controlled intersection.
If you have any additional questions or require additional review of this development plan, please do
not hesitate to give me a call at (612) 277-5783.
nm
Minneapolis · Sr. Cloud
Infrastructure Engineers Pla1l1U!TS
Hon /4. T . OPPORTI mrrv ~MPT nvt<'D
F:IWPWlMJ1JUD\1I1J.".....wpi
TOTAL P.02
~T~
.
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
10417 EXCElSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO 1 HOPKINS, MN 553431 (952) 238-16671 FAX (952) 238-1671
i-"~2.V 'SEE>
June 19, 2000
Refer to File: 00-43
TO:
David Bell, Freed~ Devp;7~& Consulting
James A. Bens~fand Paul D. Klappa
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
RE:
Results of Traffic Study for Creekside Estates Development
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
This memorandum is to address the traffic implications of the proposed Creekside Estates
Development in the City of Prior Lake in a manner that fulfills the City Ordinance
requirements. The proposed site ofthe development is just north of the intersection of
Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street. In order to evaluate the traffic implications of
this development, we have determined trip generation for the new development, analyzed
traffic operations at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street, and
reviewed traffic effects at other nearby locations.
Development Characteristics
The proposed development consists of three buildings. Two of these proposed buildings
are to be 24 unit, two and three bedroom condominiums for independent senior living.
The other building is to be a congregate facility of 54 one and two bedroom apartments.
These congregate units would have some limited care services available to residents. An
extension of Five Hawks Avenue to the north and creation of a cul-de-sac is the sole
means of access for the development.
Existing Conditions
In order to understand the existing traffic operations in the vicinity of the proposed
development, directional volumes were recorded during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak
periods at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street. This data was
collected on Tuesday, June 13,2000 from 4 to 6 p.m. and on Wednesday, June 14, 2000
from 7 to 9 a.m. Further, detailed observations were made as to the general condition and
operation of the two roads.
Mr. David Bell
-2-
June 19, 2000
Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street currently meet at a 90-degree angle. Both
Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street are two-lane, two-way streets with a number
of residential complexes located on them. There is a moderate hill that rises on Five
Hawks Avenue a few hundred feet south of the intersection with Priorwood Street. There
is also a slight hill on Priorwood Street that rises a few hundred feet east of the
intersection with Five Hawks Avenue. The roads at the intersection are relatively level.
We noted that a number of vehicles westbound on Priorwood Street approached Five
Hawks Avenue at a higher rate of speed than desired.
" r
The Five Hawks Elementary School was not in session on the date of our counts. As the
school would normally be generating traffic that travels through the intersection of Five
Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street, it is appropriate to add to the traffic volume that we
observed. Through conversations with the principal of the Five Hawks Elementary
School and reference to publications of the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
additional volumes of traffic were added to the observed volumes to establish existing
a.m. and p,m. peak hour volumes including trips to and from the school.
.
TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND ANALYSIS
Trip Generation
In order to determine the trip generation of the new development, materials published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers and April 1999 count data from a similar facility
in Bumsville, :MN were consulted. From this information, trip generation rates were
developed for the a.m. and p,m. peak hours and the average weekday. Below, Table 1
presents the trip generation for the development. Our study anticipates the proposed
development will generate 334 new daily trips with 17 a.m. peak hour and 23 p.m. peak
hour trips.
Table 1
Trip Generation for Creekside Estates Development
Land Use Size Weekday Daily Trip Ai'\1 Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Ends
Rate In Out Rate In Out Rate In Out
Senior Congregate 50% 50% 61% 39% 56% 44%
Apartments 54 2.97 80 80 0.150 5 3 0.203 6 5
Senior Condominiums 50% 50% 63% 37% 59% 41%
48 3.63 87 87 0.184 6 3 0.248 7 5
Combined 167 167 11 6 13 10
Mr. David Bell
-3-
June 19, 2000
Through the use of the existing traffic patterns as observed by our intersection counts and
the traffic facilities of the surrounding area, trip distribution percentages by route and
direction were detennined for the new trips generated by the development. Sixty-percent
of the trips are expected to go to/from the east on Priorwood Street. The other 40% are
expected to be oriented to/from the south and Five Hawks Avenue. Theses distribution
percentages were used to assign the new trips generated by the development to the
roadway network.
Traffic Volumes
. --
The additional traffic that would be present when the school is in session was combined
with the observed traffic to give existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes. The new
trips created by the development were then added to the existing traffic to give the post-
development traffic volumes. Figure 1 illustrates both the existing peak hour traffic
volumes and the post development peak hour traffic volumes for each leg of the
Priorwood Street and Five Hawks Avenue intersection.
Recommended Traffic Signing
As the development will be creating aT-intersection by the extension of Five Hawks
Avenue north ofPriorwood Street, some form of traffic control or signing will be
required. There are three possible options for the modified intersection. First, a three-
way stop could be used, stopping traffic from all three directions. However, the use of a
three-way stop is not warranted because of the low volumes and unnecessary delay that it
would cause. A second option would be to stop traffic on Priorwood Street from the east
and allow traffic on Five Hawks Avenue to move freely. The final option available is to
stop traffic from both the north and south on Five Hawks Avenue. In order to detennine
the most desirable traffic control for the intersection, the existing traffic patterns and
expected level of service for each of the two remaining options was examined.
In order to better understand how the intersection operates from an overall traffic
capacity standpoint, capacity analyses were performed using the methodology presented
in the Highway Capacity Manual in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for both possible stop
conditions. A capacity analysis is a way to detennine how well or poorly an intersection
is operating. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service, which
ranges from A to F. Level of service A represents the best intersection operation, with
very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. Level of service F represents the
worst intersection operation, with excessive delay. In this instance, all intersection
movements for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours were at level of service A for both stop
conditions with one exception. The left turn from the north on Five Hawks Avenue was
at level of service B when traffic on Five Hawks Avenue was required to stop.
A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
oQ..
-po
~
~ \\
~
~
~
z
~
~
0(1
~ ASI~ ~
y. S~~€
~OOO
~~\O~
\~
0<t:P
po~
0')
P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
00
-0')
po
~ \\
~
~
~
z
~
~
Ol~
~ oArleA ~
y. S~~€
~OOO
~~\O~
\~
o~
O'~
OJ
N
t
r=EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME
I r-POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK HOUR VOLUME
XXIXX
FREEDOM DEVELOPMENT
& CONSULTING
\Xi BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
V TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PUNNERS
NOT TO SCALE
TRAFFIC STUDY
FOR CREEKSIDE
ESTATES
DEVELOPMENT
FIGURE 1
EXISTING AND POST-
DEVELOPMENT PEAK
HOUR VOLUMES
Mr. David Bell
- 5 -
June 19, 2000
Considering the level of service results and other implications, we recommend that stop
signs be placed on the north and south legs of Five Hawks Avenue. Westbound traffic on
Priorwood Street would have the right-of-way and would not have to stop. This
recommendation is further reinforced by the low volume of traffic on Five Hawks
Avenue from the north and guidance from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices. In addition to the two stop signs, we recommend the placement of two
warning signs on the east and south approaches to the intersection and an additional
warning sign at the intersection itself Figure 2 shows the recommended traffic control
placement for the proposed intersection.
Other Potentially Impacted Intersections
-"
There are two other intersections that may be impacted by the traffic generated by the
proposed development. Most new development trips will travel through either the
intersection ofPriorwood Street with Duluth Avenue or the intersection of Five Hawks
Avenue with Highway 13. While, it is not possible to determine the level of service at
these intersections without full traffic counts and analyses, we have been able to establish
a basic sense regarding the extent to which these two intersections would be affected by
the proposed development. According to the 1998 Traffic Volumes Map for the Seven
County Area as prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the annual
average daily traffic (AADT) on Highway 13 near Five Hawks Avenue is 9700 vehicles
per day and the AADT on Duluth Street near Priorwood Street is 4500 vehicles per day.
The daily trips associated with the proposed the development at the intersection of Five
Hawks and Highway 13 represent about 1.4% of the AADT on Highway 13. At the
intersection ofPriorwood Street and Duluth Avenue, the daily development trips at the
intersection represent about 4.5% of the AADT on Duluth Avenue. Based on this
information, it is unlikely that the proposed development will have any significant
negative impacts on either of the two intersections.
Speed
Our observations noted that some motorists were traveling a higher than desired speed on
westbound Priorwood Street. We recommend that the city verify existence of speed limit
signs on this street and implement periodic enforcement in the area to ensure that speed
limits are observed.
S-1\~€.~
~OOQ
f?~\O~
~)--
~
z.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
""\)
~
~
~
~
~
.1..
,>
~~
R1-1
24" x 24"
N
t
NOT 10 SCALE
at) BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
V TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERSANO PUNNERS
TRAFFIC STUDY
FOR CREEKSIDE
ESTATES
DEVELOPMENT
FIGURE 2
RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC
SIGNING
FREEDOM DEVELOPMENT
& CONSULTING
Mr. David Bell
-7-
June 19, 2000
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information presented in this report, we have made the following
conclusions:
· The proposed senior housing development is expected to generate 334 daily
trips, 17 a.m. peak hour trips, and 23 p.m. peak hour trips.
· We recommend that the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood
Street be controlled with stop signs on the north and south legs of Five Hawks
Avenue. With this control, a high level of service and safety will be provided.
. ..
· Three additional warning signs are recommended for the Five Hawks
A venueIPriorwood Street intersection.
· We recommend that the City staff take the following two steps to ensure
compliance with the speed limit on Priorwood Street: a) verify that speed
limit signs are presently in place on Priorwood Street and b) provide periodic
speed limit enforcement
· No significant negative impacts due to the proposed development are expected
at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Highway 13 or at the
intersection ofPriorwood Street with Duluth Avenue.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10,2000
D. Case #00-002 & #00-003 David Bell & Freedom Development & Consulting
are requesting an amendment to the approved plan for the Priorwood Planned Unit
Development (PUD 82-12) and for a preliminary plat to be known as Creekside
Estates for the property located at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and
Priorwood Street.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated July 10, 2000 on file in
the office of the Planning Director.
Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, and Freedom Development and Consulting have filed
applications for the development of the property located at the northwest quadrant ofthe
intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street, directly north of Five Hawks
School. The applications include a request to rezone approximately 45,000 square feet of
property described as Lots 2,3 and 4, Holly Court from the R-3 District to the R-4
District, amend the approved plan for PUD 82-12 to include the Holly Court property and
to develop the site with 102 units of senior housing, and a request for approval of a
preliminary plat for this site, consisting of 12.7 acres to be subdivided into 3 lots and one
outlot.
Staff felt there were several outstanding key issues that remain with this proposal
including the following:
1. The location of wetlands must be identified on all of the lots. This delineation affects
the lot area, the density calculation and the building setbacks.
2. Provide preliminary plans for the trail connection between north and south Five
Hawks Avenue, including the pedestrian bridge.
3. The PUD plan and the preliminary plat must be revised so the grading plan,
landscaping plan and site plan are consistent with one another.
4. The building location on Lot 2 must be revised so the building does not encroach into
the drainage and utility easements on Holly Court.
5. The plans should be revised to meet all ordinance requirements, including building
setbacks, parking lot setbacks, building materials, building height, landscaping, and
lighting. If the developer proposes modifications to these requirements, a list of the
requested modifications must be submitted along with the reasoning behind these
requests.
6. Identify the open space on the site plan.
7. Provide covenants for both Outlot A and the congregate housing building.
Due to the number of outstanding issues with both the PUD plan and the preliminary plat,
staff felt it was reasonable to continue this item. This would allow the developer the time
to address these issues.
1:\OOfiles\OOp1comm\OOpcmin\mn071000.doc
7
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2000
By letter dated July 7,2000, Clint and Nadine Bristol stated their opposition to the
proposal.
Comments from the public:
David Bell, Freedom Development & Consulting, gave an overview of the project
including some of the following issues:
· The reduction of units from 168 to 102 units.
. There will be open space by the Roanoke Street area.
· The zoning change is to zone property that was outside the PUD approved in the
1980's.
· The developer will removing 29% of the trees, well under the 50% allowed under the
City's tree preservation ordinance.
. Underground parking will help retain the green space.
· There have been modifications made to the setbacks.
· Clustering the buildings will retain the green space but will require some building
setbacks.
· The Class I building requirements are met per staffs condition.
· The retention pond has been removed and the building moved to the south to be out
of the wetland area.
. The open space has been identified by language.
· Bell will be addressing and providing the covenants after discussions with staff.
. The biggest issue is going to the Council and make sure the construction approval is
met.
· Bell asked the Commission to consider approving the application with the conditions.
Tom Sylvester, 4031 Roanoke Street, said with the assurance of the land between the
creek being dedicated to the school, he would have no problem with the development.
Donald Fehr, 4344 Priorwood Street, felt it was important to support Mr. Bell in his latest
effort. It is a good effort to save the trees and wetland and reduce the number of units.
Don Monnens, 4378 Priorwood, was concerned with the creek flowing through his back
yard as the pond is rising. Monnens questioned how far the building would be from the
creek? Bell responded the building would be set back 50 feet and explained the proposed
building, the catch basins and runoff. Rye also explained the water flow and drainage.
Louise Kooiker, 4338 Priorwood, said she was concerned for the east side of the
development. She questioned if the tree line was going to stay and where the drainage
would be going on the 43-unit building. Bell responded to her questions. Kooiker
questioned if the senior housing designation could be changed at any time. Rye
responded the original proposal was for assisted living. The current proposal would be
I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn071 OOO.doc
8
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10. 2000
just senior living with some services. Bell said the home health care will be provided by
private and public entities.
Criego asked Mr. Bell to explain the water flow on the east building. Bell explained 25
to 30 feet of the east side would flow to the east. Otherwise catch basins are in place to
control the runoff. Bell stated they could put gutters on that side ofthe building.
Grant Heinz, 16493 Five Hawks, wanted to know how many trees were going to be cut
down on Five Hawks Avenue. Bell said the majority of the trees on the site have been
graded. A total of29%, probably around 125 trees would be removed but they are also
planting 150 trees. Heinz said he likes to hear the birds in the morning and enjoys the
wildlife. Criego asked Heinz to identify his home in relation to the project. Bell
estimated the distance to be between 150 and 200 feet away with a creek in between.
Heinz said his concerns were for the erosion of the area, tree removal, trails, home
ownership and was generally against the project.
Jerry Kooiker, 4338 Priorwood Street, was concerned the pond is filling up with silt.
Kooiker felt the project would have a negative impact on the pond and wanted to make
sure the drainage was in place.
Atwood commented on her nearby ponds. McDermott explained the N.U.R.P. pond
maintenance program the Cityis working on.
Bob Jones, 4266 Priorwood, said Mr. Bell addressed a lot of concerns and issues. Jones
had one more concern with the traffic count. Bell responded the traffic study was done
by a third party and explained the counts. Bell said a stop sign would be installed at the
end of Five Hawks. Jones felt Five Hawks Street was not in very good condition and had
a lot of parking problems. He would like to see traffic lights with the reconstruction of
the County Road.
Leon Wegener, 4328 Priorwood Street, indicated in the original presentation Mr. Bell
said the north building would be assisted living, now it has been changed to a "for sale"
building. Wegener felt the senior campus project has been inconsistent.
Pete Lebens, 4172 Cates Street, said all the surrounding residents are concerned for the
development.
Amanda Kern, 4171 Cates Street, questioned the drainage ponds and the impact of runoff.
McDermott said the developer is required to give calculations showing he can control the
runoff within his property and that would be by constructing a pond on the north side.
The City looks very closely at that and have asked for additional information.
Tim Henning, 16411 Albany, stated he was concerned for the material that will flow into
the creek. McDermott responded the developers put up silt fences, most of the water will
go into the sedimentation basins.
1:\OOfiles\OOp1comm\OOpcmin\mn071000.doc
9
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10. 2000
Gene Erickson, 4056 Roanoke Street, stated everyone has been patient with the project
and thanked staff and the developer for listening.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Considerable improvements made over the last plan.
· Thanked Mr. Bell for listening to the community. Bell addressed many ofthe
concerns.
. The number of units per building is fine.
· Concerned for runoff into the wetlands and will look closely at that issue.
· The traffic study and recommended stop signs will be helpful.
· Commend Mr. Bell for giving the acreage to the School District.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Criego, the developer addressed concerns of the Conimission and
neighborhood.
· This development is a big plus for the community.
· With every development plan there is a give and take. This is a better plan for saving
the trees.
· Agreed with the concerns staff noted.
Atwood:
· This is a good development, not perfect, but pretty close. It is neighborhood friendly.
· It makes sense to amend the PUD.
· As long as it does not affect the date going to City Council - would like to have the
time to look over the plans submitted tonight.
· Questioned if the irrigation plan been added. Bell said they had always planned on all
three buildings being irrigated. The plans will be submitted with the construction. It
could be a condition of approval.
V onhof:
· Agreed with Commissioners this proposal reflects the concerns of the neighbors. It
benefits everyone.
· Supported the proposed rezoning.
· Would like to see the specific changes entered into the record for the preliminary plat.
Criego:
· Questioned ifthe trails were going to be connected into the schools trails. Bell said
he was not familiar with the school trail system. He was told to connect the north
sidewalk to the south. Rye said the school put woodchip trails off Five Hawks
Avenue.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn071000.doc
10
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10. 2000
. With the developer donating 8 or 9 acres to the school, he questioned if the park
dedication fee could be waived. Rye said it would be up to the City Council.
V onhor:
. Under the ordinance the City cannot accept wetlands as park dedication.
Mike Gundlach suggested an amendment to the Council.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO TABLE THE ITEMS TO
JULY 24, 2000, AFTER HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE NEW
INFORMATION AND ADDRESS ISSUES RAISED DURING THIS MEETING AND
THE STAFF REPORT.
V onhof reopened the public hearing to be continued July 24, 2000.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 8:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:48 p.m.
5. Old Business:
The EDA workshop with the City Council has been rescheduled to Tuesday, July 11,
2000, at 5:30 p.m.
Mark Cramer resigned and a Notice has been placed in the Prior Lake American for his
position.
Research the chairperson position.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m.
Don Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn071000.doc
11
,/
./ .
..~...~...,
'. .
-.~...o _. ~ ...._ _ _._.____~___
---_..__.._-_._~-._- .__._....._--~.....~--.- - -- -'.
I
,
!'.D'f]@~ ow@~
'0 dooo
!~\ .u I 0 mJ .
~ .. -'... .----- ---
~~--.:--' . -',. . . .~
~~,I-ZL-~~_-..<.,.-,
t:fJ~'~~r~~.
"~_.~-~~-~~~~~--j
~~;t;::-~~--i
-"I-3-~~... - -r-~~
~~V2.-e~t. ' ~.__~___
'~--4----~~- .
JZ'J~~~~~~_._ .
'~~~~-~A_~~___
-'af--~~~~~wd/i"'t'-./~
~~~~:.v~
~~.~~~-L-5.-1
'~-~~.~~.a..I-_~ -I
~--~-~._~-.:::r~-/~-'~T__._. !
_~__11 ~ 1..' e..L.~~ -~-L'~--~_.~--c~__,.,;
M/.,/~.~~~__~...~ .
-9f'-~.~--~---~~...~..._~_-=....;
-L~~._ ...._._______.__.___....__._._____.._____.. .._.__...._____.__.__._.~
....J..},L_<-<:(& ~. U-,~~ ~tiLL;?-~__
---d--X-~,~-t~__~~~_(~_.____._
' ./
/
/
...-:"~ .
I
L ~ . I
.- . ,. , , ., - r~r>('!1 1 1 ' .~c_~1
~~~.-
.~~~ .. ---.w~_1
..J- '::;~:~~~" 4< n i-~4"'L. -,..
-I.;-;zL,..- - . ~~ ~
_~~_c,.- . / '. ~~
~/~L, ,< ~ : ~~2L ii'
~~~-*'~ ".
/L-'l, J - - - M;_;& . !'
-~~ '.. -1 / ~r-
J~-;u~~~~~ ~ ___
~~~~~-~-~
.-~-:j--~+_~/L/_
--U=!-~___
. ..
--- . , "- /. < - !
/l jl - I ~._'-(? ./ < ~_~ -~ A._._.,.._,..l
--.-.----~.~ -//~ ~~ I
_/ ~-'I.7--~-~ddt.AZ-/ .~~._-.-..--!
/
------ "--- -_. _..~_._-_._._- --------- _._..-.~.,---_.---_._.. -- ~
---~ _._----~-- - ---~---...--_._-------------~-----------------
./
/', . - " -
~11~- ~.I!k~~)fd:4-' f
~ i D rn @ rn 0 ~ [g 1m!
~ /'J. .J? Jl' ~1m1 Iii'
'k~~~ [ . ~!
I
!
i v
I
I
!
i
1
---- ~~-~~ V~-~~_h______h!
-_at.<._~,~~~~~~~~-;r:7'__
- - a~_.t'~h~~
. -~~-~~-z.~~~~~----
~ ~~~~~~~~- -:
~~~~_a4G ;
~~~----
~- ~~~C~~-U/~~~ .
. .~ ~z- ~ !
~. 47 · ,-/"-~~~ --. --nh-t
-~' ~,~~-LLc' ~~k~ _____~
'-~;AlL .~./ i
- ~ . -_.~~7--~~-~-1
--zZ/~~~~~~ i
----~~~.A--d~. · ~ _\
-_-n__._d-~-~. _ _~_~._~~_ _ ______:\
_d ~ -~ . ~~df;:.,:J:v:""zZ/A1J-~ m _ \
hm--hn.----h-~pift4'_t!Jt!flq&-<<;. - Q~~~~t_~~___hU__H_ hhh_
mmm.4-A~..2Z?~~L~S"~~__. .._
-..... .--m,,#.-z:L//~._~_. . :~/:7~z;;:,-
--~~..,h. ... · - ~~~ ~~.____ .
.....- ..U/~~~
..,,- _.hhUh . hn ._ ..__~_ '_nn , .-_________h_____.__________no.. _B_h_.n._____nno_.__
--~- .~~~r~~---
-- ~. .. -
./
../"
;. . #
~. .
,"---"'-----'-" ---,-------" -----,---.----_......._---....--
JUL-24-2000 14:53
FSH PHARMACY
612 924 1511 P.01
Dr. Janell Strashane
4289 Priorwood St. SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
July 20, 1999
Attn: Planning Commission
Prior Lake City HaD
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Planning Commissioners:
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the last Planning Commission Public Hearing
regarding the proposed lot development on Priorwood 51. However, I did watch the
taped version of the meeting and have a couple concerns I'd like to address to the
Commissioners.
First of all, I would like to say that I think Mr. Bell has appropriately revised the proposed
development plans. I think his new proposal does refled appropriate changes in
response to neighborhood concerns from prior meetings. I fully understand that some
type of development will be built on this vacant property someday and am pleased that
Mr. Bell has continued to search for ways where all parties are able to agree.
Currently my biggest concern is the traffic issue. After watching the last planning
commission meeting. I didn't feel this issue was addressed as a major concern. I
understand that a traffic study was performed; however, didn't feel the results were fully
explained at the meeting. Therefore, I may be missing some information, but I will still
express my concern on this matter.
One of the primary reasons, I chose to buy in this neighborhood was because it is a
quiet residential area. I don't feel that Priorwood St. is designed for high-level traffic.
We residents are required to back out onto Priorwood, which I know the Commission is
aware. I look at other busy streets where residents are required to back out onto a busy
road and I don't envy them at aU. As I drive by, I say 10 myself "Soy, I'm so glad I don't
live there-. I definitely don't want to be saying that about my property next year. I'm
sure when those residents purchased their property, they didn't think their road would
become a major traffic route which is now out of their control. They have two choices,
which indude moving or dealing with it. I don't want to move and I definitely don't want
to deal with it.
Right now, at least 3 out of 5 times I need to wait for cars before leaving or retuming to
my driveway. Personally, I don't want this amount to increase. Because Five Hawks is
also not designed for heavy traffic flow and appears to be currently overloaded
especially with the school and the apartment residents using the road for parking, I
projed Priorwood will become the major read to and from the new development. I have
lived on Priorwood for almost two years and know traffic has significantly increased.
'JUL-24-2000 14:53
FSH PHRRMRCY
612 924 1511 P.02
...
Yes, I do understand this is expeded: however, it needs to be considered a top priority
issue. Since one of the proposed buildings has been changed from assisted living or 24-
hour care to "for saJe", it will attrad younger people that make more trips throughout the
day. I understand that a stop sign will be put at the intersection of Five Hawks and
Priorwood, but that just slows traffic at that junction and not controls it.
My other traffic concern is regarding the condition of Five Hawks nself. The city should
recognize this deficit and take it upon them to improve the nature of the road as welt as
change the stop sign to a stoplight at the Hwy 13 intersedion. The intersection of Five
Hawks and Hwy 13 is an extremeJy dangerous one with potentially high use. Having
only a stop sign is another reason traffic has increased on Priorwood and will only
continue to increase bec:ause people are too impatient to wait at the stop sign and have
an extreme amount of trouble crossing especially at the times when Hwy 13 is its
busiest. As a younger person, I have trouble crossing Hwy 13 to County Market, let
alone a senior citizen trying to go to the market for their daily trip for two bananas, loaf of
. .. bread and quart of milk. Having a grocery store so convenient to an assisted living area
is advantageous for potential senior residents and is a selling point for Mr. Bell; however
at the time, the seniors don't realize the current danger. I also projed s large increase in
accidenis at this intersection if a stoplight is not considered important enough to add at
this point. I believe I read somewhere that a stoplight was not projected for this
intersedion for at least two years and if this is true, I believe the city Should highly
rethink this decision.
My other concern is in line with the other residents of the association regarding drainage
problems. I do not live on the wetland side; however, I support them 100% in their
concerns. Eagle Creek Villas as a whole currently has a drainage problem and I can
easily see the new development potentiating problems. Therefore. I would like the
Commissioners as well as Mr. Bell to ensure the proposed plans are 150% accurate in
their drainage predictions and plans for controlling excess runoff. I don't want to speak
for the other Eagle Creek residents; however, I know I definitely don't want to be dealing
with water problems for the remainder of my time at this property because water issue
just gets old since no one will take ownership of the problem after the development is
complete. It always ends up to be the residents' problem therefore; I hope you
understand why the association feels this is a big concern. Drainage planning always
looks good on paper but in reality, one has to ask will it work as designed or will we as
residents end up paying the price? I'm sure the others in the association would agree.
In summary. my two issues are regarding the increase in traffic on Priorwood St. and
appropriate water drainage control onsite at the new development.
Thank you for your time in nsidering my concerns.
Dr. Janell Stroshane
CC: Eagle Creek Villas Board of Directors
TOTRL P.02
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4B
CONSIDER A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY PRIOR
LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 5680 AND 5690 CREDIT RIVER ROAD
(Case File #00-053)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
-- -
AUGUST 14,2000
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
Prior Lake Baptist Church and Judith Anderson have filed an application for a Zone
Change for the property located at 5680 and 5690 Credit River Road. The request is to
rezone the property from the I-I (General Industrial) District to the R-1 (Low Density
Residential) District.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Existing Use: This property is the site of a single family home and the Prior Lake
Baptist Church. Both the house and the church have existed on the site for more than 20
years. Prior to 1999, the property was zoned C-l (Conservation). Churches and single
family dwellings were a permitted use in that district. When the current Zoning
Ordinance was adopted, the C-1 District was eliminated. This property was rezoned to
the I-I District, in conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. At that time,
the existing use of the property became nonconforming.
Adjacent Land Use, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation: The property to
the east is vacant land, zoned R-l and planned for Low to Medium Density Residential
Uses. To the north and west are industrial buildings, zoned I-I and planned for Industrial
uses. To the south, across CSAH 21, is the City maintenance building and other
office/industrial uses, zoned C-5 (Business Office Park) and planned for Business Office
Park Uses.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for Planned Industrial
uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The existing use is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation.
1:\OOfiles\OOrezone\OO-053\00053pc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ANALYSIS:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning rdinance identifies the following policies for
amendments to the Official Zoning M
· The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, or the land as originally zoned erroneously due to a technical
or administrative error, or
· The area for which rezoning is quested has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public inter st to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of
the area, or
· The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Use District will be appropriate on
the subject property and compatibl with adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
It appears this property has been improperly zoned because its actual use is and has been
residential in nature. With the proposed rezoning, the existing uses would conform to the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal would also allow further investment in
this property.
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation is also in conflict with the existing use.
If the Planning Commission feels the rezoning should be approved, a motion and second
initiating an amendment to the Land Use Plan would also be appropriate.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval ofthe Zone Change as requested.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative # 1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The following motions are appropriate for this action:
1. A motion and second to recommend approval of the Zone Change from the I-I
(General Industrial) district to the R-l (Low Density Residential) district is required.
2. A motion and second to initiate an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Map from the I-PI (Planned Industrial) to the R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density
Residential) designation.
1: \00files\00rezone\00-05 3 \000 53pc.doc
Page 2
Location Map
Prior Lake Baptist Church Rezoning
~
N
800
I
o
800 Feet
I
~
"'C
[Um
a.ffi
-0 :J
- C~.
~ m C6
.:-:-." .<<,-.:<<-:-:-:-::: ..l.....>>.::'.. ':$$::::-;'$( ,', .":.<.,~.:;...."it'.."*:X::-;*i$I'*:X$:::~:"::>>'::-":~-::~
~
Q
~
::O@
~~
3""&
cc!4.
(")
::J'"
C
9-
IwDI ~ I i IIIDt] ~ IDD f.
f ~i~p ~i n~n i ~Hlj.
~ i~t li m!aii I iB[ ~
'" ~ H ~ ~ h ~ <il <il ~! ~ t r .."
S< ~:::II III m ~ ii ~~ c -. c: Q) '"
oft ~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~t ~
9 m ::1. ~ ~ ~ fG
l/l g~ ~
()
-.
~
g,
-U
::J.
o
...,
[U
~
.-
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4C
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE CREATING AN OVERLAY DISTRICT
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENIOR CARE
FACILITIES
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
X YES NO-N/A
--
AUGUST 14,2000
INTRODUCTION: On two previous occasions, the City Council has discussed the idea
of senior care facilities and their treatment in the zoning ordinance. Because of the special
needs of persons living in such facilities, the Council asked staff to research the issue and
report on the results. Following extensive review of the planning literature, staff
concluded that an overlay district approach in several zoning districts made the most
sense as a way of dealing with the issue. Council concurred and referred the matter to the
Planning Commission for it's review and input.
DISCUSSION: Housing the elderly has become a growth industry in the U.S. As more
people live longer lives, the need for living accommodations suited for the particular
needs of an aging population has become more apparent. The range of facilities being
provided covers a broad spectrum from independent living through facilities offering a
variety of services to residents up to and including nursing homes. The current zoning
ordinance addresses independent senior housing and nursing homes but does deal
adequately with senior care facilities offering an intermediate range of services.
The proposed Senior Care (SC) Overlay district is intended to encourage the development
of senior care facilities in a variety of settings. Rather than simply laying out a set of
regulations, the district sets up incentives which can be applied to a project to the extent
certain locational criteria are met. The more the project meets the criteria, the more
incentives may be applied. The district can be applied in the R-2, R-3, R-4, C-2, C-3 and
C-4 Districts. The density of a project cannot exceed the density ofthe district in which it
is located. In the Commercial districts, the density cannot exceed 30 units per acre.
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-038\00038pc2.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
,.
The locational criteria include proximity to health care facilities, retail shopping, religious
institutions, public transportation and other supporting services and facilities.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the draft ordinance
2. Recommend approval of the draft ordinance with specific modifications
3. Recommend denial of the draft ordinance
4. Continue consideration of the amendment for specific reasons
RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 1
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt Alternative 1
1:\00files\00ordamd\zoning\00-03 8\0003 8pc2.doc
Page 2
..
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 00- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1103 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE
The City Council ofthe City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. The Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended by adding the following new section:
1106A-Senior Care (SC) Overlay District
1106A.I00 PUIl'ose and intent- The intent in allowing Senior Care as an overlay district
is to encourage the development of senior care facilities and to facilitate the development
of such facilities. The Senior Care (SC) Overlay District is established for the purpose of
allowing senior care facilities in close proximity to support services and complementary
land uses. It is the intent of this District to provide for flexibility in the siting and
development of such facilities necessary to facilitate the development and construction of
senior care facilities such as assisted living and congregate care developments. It is also
intended to implement the housing goals and policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
1106A.200 Definitions
. Assisted living - A residential facility providing a combination of housing, meals,
support services, limited medical care and assistance with activities of daily living.
. Congregate care- A residential facility designed to accommodate independent living
which also provides a variety of support services such as meals, laundry,
housekeeping, transportation and social and recreational activities.
. Senior care facilities- A residential facility where at least 80% of the residents are 55
years of age or older. Services available to residents cover a broad range of activities
from social opportunities to medical care. The term includes assisted living and
congregate care. It does not include nursing homes licensed by the State of
Minnesota.
1106A.300 Permitted uses- Land uses in the SC Overlay District are allowed by
Conditional Use Permit only. These uses are senior care facilities, assisted living and
congregate care.
1106A.400 Application- The SC Overlay District may only be applied in the following
zoning districts: R-2, R-3, R-4, C-2, C-3 and C-4. In residential zoning districts, the
allowable dwelling unit density for a senior care facility may not exceed the allowable
density in the underlying zoning district. In the commercial zoning districts, the
I: \OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-03 8\draftord.doc
PAGE 1
...
"
maximum dwelling unit density shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre. The
development of a senior care facility is subject to all applicable requirements of the
underlying zoning district except as modified according to the provisions of Section
1106A.600.
1106A.500 Criteria for application of the Senior Care Overlay District
1l06A.501 Proximity to support facilities- The applicant for any senior care project
proposed for development shall demonstrate that the proposed site is readily accessible to
health care facilities, retail shopping, religious institutions, public transportation and other
supporting facilities and activities. The City in it's sole discretion shall determine the
adequacy and availability of such supporting facilities. The degree to which the senior
care facility is in close proximity to these services and facilities will determine the degree
to which incentives for development will be granted.
1106A.502 Incentives- As an inducement to encourage the development of senior care
facilities, the City may consider certain incentives. These incentives include increases in
building height, decreased setbacks, increases in floor area ratios and ground floor area
ratios, modification of landscaping requirements, fee waivers, relaxation of controls on
architectural materials, relaxation of fencing regulations, relaxation of parking lot
landscaping requirements and relaxation of proof of parking requirements. In the initial
application, the applicant should provide a schedule showing which incentives are being
sought and supporting evidence which shows the justification for the incentives,
including an analysis of the degree to which the criteria in Section 1l06A.501 have been
met. The City in it's sole discretion will determine which, if any incentives will be
granted to a specific project.
1106A.600 Modifications In addition to the incentives outlined in Section 1l06A.502,
modifications to the requirements of the underlying zoning district may be approved. Any
modifications requested pursuant to this section shall be identified in the initial
application . Any modifications shall be consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and shall be approved only upon a finding that the modification
does not adversely affect surrounding properties. Such modifications shall be approved as
part of the Conditional Use Permit and shall be included in the resolution approving the
Conditional Use Permit and in the development agreement required in section
1106A.700.
1106A.700 Restrictive Covenant Upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a
senior care facility, the applicant shall record a restrictive covenant on the property which
states the type and extent of care to be provided and limiting occupancy of the facility to
no more than 20% of the residents under the age of 55 years.
1106A.800 Administration An application for a senior care facility in the SC Overlay
District shall be processed and administered under the provisions of Section 1108.200 of
this ordinance.
I: \OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-038\draftord.doci
PAGE 2
..,
2. Section 1103.100 is amended to read as follows:
1103.100 OVERLAY DISTRICTS. The provisions of Sections 1103 through 1106A
govern the use of land within the Overlay Districts. The Overlay Districts are Use
Districts that encompass one or more underlying Use Districts and that impose additional
requirements above that required by the underlying Use District. The Overlay Districts
include:
1104
1105
1106
1l06A
Shoreland
Floodplain
Planned Unit Developments
Senior Care
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
,2000.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of
, 2000.
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
I: \OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-038\draftord.doc
PAGE 3
./
PLANNING REPORT
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
CONTINUE DISCUSSION ON COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN (LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
N/A
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES X NO-N/A
--
AUGUST 14, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION: On March 6, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to
consider the issue of the Low to Medium density land use classification in the
Comprehensive Plan with the idea that the City Council would have the sole authority to
determine whether a project could be built at the lower R-1 ,density or the higher R-2 or
R-3 density. The Commission considered this issue on June 12 and, after discussion,
deferred action on the request and asked staff to provide it with further input.
DISCUSSION: The current criterion in the Comprehensive Plan for locating zoning
districts reads as follows:
Determination of specific districts characteristic of this classification will be based upon
consideration of several factors including but not limited to topography, geography,
existing development and character of the surrounding area, transportation system
access and market conditions.
Obviously, this is very general and provides little direction in determining the proper
zoning district to be applied on a given piece of property.
In our June 12 staff report, we indicated that staff had suggested that the Low and
Medium Density category be separated into a Low Density category and a Medium
Density category. The Council indicated it preferred to keep the current designation and
develop a way to allow the Council to determine the proper zoning on a case-by-case
basis.
Staff believes that the above criterion can be used to provide a basis for zoning
determinations if the specific criteria are tied to particular zoning districts. For example,
PC81405A
16200 Ewgle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
./
Low Density residential could be tied to flatter topography, adjacent low-density
development and local streets. Medium Density residential could be tied to more difficult
topography, lack of adjacent low-density development and access to collector and arterial
streets. In this way, the Planning Commission would have more objective guidelines to
follow when zoning determinations are to be made.
The following language could be added to the Comprehensive Plan section quoted above.
In deciding whether an area should be zoned for Low or Medium density development,
the above criterion should be applied so that areas zoned for Low-density development
would generally be in areas of relatively flat topography, areas in proximity to existing
low-density development and served primarily by local streets. Areas to be zoned for
medium density development will typically be areas having more rolling topography, not
in close proximity to existing low density development and having good access to
collector and arterial streets. The City Council has the ultimate authority in making the
determination of how this criterion is applied in any given situation.
If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed language is adequate, a public
hearing will be scheduled and a recommendation made to the Council following the
hearing.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the suggested language for a public hearing to amend the Comprehensive
Plan
2. Approve modified language for a public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan
3. Refer back to staff for further study
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative 1
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to approve draft language and to direct staff to set a
public hearing date to consider the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
PC8140SA
PC