HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Deny Zone Change DR Horton
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JUNE 7, 1999
SA
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 99-XX DENYING
A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY D. R. HORTON AND
DEERFIELD DEVELOPMENT FOR 164 ACRES LOCATED
SOUTH OF FiSH POINT ROAD AND WILDERNESS TRAIL
AND EAST OF THE PONDS ATHLETIC FACILITY
Historv: On May 17, 1999, the City Council considered a request by
D. R. Horton and Deerfield Development to rezone approximately 164
acres ofland from the existing A (Agricultural) District to the R-l
(Low Density Residential) and R-2 (Low to Medium Density
Residential) Districts. The applicant submitted the attached map
identifYing the revised zoning proposal on the property. The west
97.88 acres is proposed for R-I (Low Density Residential) and the east
66.35 acres is proposed for R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential).
The zoning district boundary follows the approximate aligmnent of
Fish Point Road, as extended into this site.
There was a motion and second to approve this request. This motion
failed with a vote of 2-2. In order to approve a zone change request, a
4/5 vote of the Council is required. The Council then directed staff to
prepare a resolution with findings denying the proposed rezoning.
Conclusion: Attached is a resolution with findings based on the City
Council discussion. Also attached is a copy of the agenda report
prepared for this item for the May 17,1999, meeting.
Issues: The staffhas fulfilled the City Council's direction by
providing the attached resolution denying the rezoning request and
establishing findings of fact. Before considering such action, the
Council should review Mr. Huemoeller's letter of May 20,1999,
identifying the legal environment within which the City Council
operates. Since the petition is consistent with both the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the Council may wish to
reconsider its action of May 17, 1999.
1:\99fi1es\99rezone\99-014\99014cc2.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
ALTERNATIVES:
REVIEWED BY:
The City Council has two alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution 99-XX denying the proposed Zone Change to the
R-I and R-2 Districts as requested.
2. Reconsider the 17, 1999, action. An ordinance approving the
ttac as part of the May 17, 1999, agenda report.
1:\99fi1es\99rezone\99-0 14\990 14cc2.doc
Page 2
JVo IJ CTlO ON pM
.,.'. ,_ REWLUTlON'~~ f'65DLU~;I~ (,/z/11
RESOLUTION JJI:I~'DlG A PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR THE M{~i);J
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF FISH POINT ROAD AND WILDERNESS TRAIL
AND EAST OF THE PONDS ATHLETIC FACILITY
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, D. R. Horton and Deerfield Development submitted an application to amend
the Zoning Map from the A (Agricultural) district to the R-I (Low Density
Residential) district for the property legally described as follows:
That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, the Southeast 1/4 of the
Northwest 1/4 and the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, of Section 12,
Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Northwest 1/4; thence
N89'49'16"W, along the north line of Said Northwest 1/4, a distance of
668.00 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence
S03042' 16"W a distance of 510.00 feet; thence S10'52'52"W a distance of
445.00 feet; thence S26'56'56"E a distance of314.97 feet; thence
S69007'37"W a distance of635.00 feet; thence S22010'30"E a distance of
780.00 feet; thence S83055'35"E a distance of 420.00 feet; thence
S46033'19"W a distance of589.60 feet to the south line of said Southeast
1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence N89020'55"W, along said south line of the
Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the south line of said West 1/2 of the
Northwest 1/4, a distance of 1398.05 feet to the west line of said West 1/2 of
the Northwest 1/4; thence NOOo05'37"E, along said west line of the West
1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of2615.37 feet to the north line of said
West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4; thence S89049'16"E, along said north line of
the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, and said north line of the Northeast 1/4
of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of 1962.74 feet to the point of beginning.
Said parcel contains 97.88 acres of land, more or less.
and
WHEREAS,
D. R. Horton and Deerfield Development submitted an application to amend
the Zoning Map from the A (Agricultural) district to the R-2 (Low to
Medium Density Residential) district for the property legally described as
follows:
That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, the Southeast 1/4 of the
Northwest 1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township 114, Range
22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows:
1:\99fi1es\99rezone\99-01 4\rs99xxcc.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
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
Beginning at the northwest corner of said Northwest 1/4; thence
S89'27'21 "E, along the north line of said Northwest 1/4, a distance of
243,25 feet; thence SI6'23'55"E a distance of 249.70 feet; thence
S340 17'20"E a distance of 200.27 feet; thence S 17029'04"E a distance of
446,77 feet; thence S33'24'22"E a distance of 642.42 feet; thence
SI7016'23"W a distance of 176.54 feet; thence S74029'33"W a distance of
838.70 feet; thence S39018'53"W a distance of234.31 feet; thence
S75035'18"W a distance of602.70 feet; thence S46033'19"W a distance of
180.00 feet; thence N83055'35"W a distance of 420.00 feet; thence
N22'IO'30"W a distance of780.00 feet; thence N69007'37"E a distance of
635,00 feet; thence N26056'55"E a distance of314.97 feet; thence
NIO'52'52"E a distance of 445.00 feet; thence N03'42'16"E a distance of
510,00 feet to the north line of said"Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4;
thence S89049'16"E, along said north line of the Northeast 1/4 of the
Northwest 1/4, a distance of 668.00 feet to the point of beginning.
Said parcel contains 66.35 acres of land, more or less.
and,
legal notice of the public hearing was duly published and mailed in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake City Code; and
the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on April 26, 1999 and
May 10, 1999, for those interested in this request to present their views; and
on April 26, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
proposed Zoning District Change; and
on May 17, 1999, the Prior Lake City Council considered the application to
rezone the above described property to the R-I and R-2 District; and
the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission
to approve the proposed zone change along with the staff reports and the
minutes of the Planning Commission meetings; and
the City Council has carefully considered the testimony as reflected in the
minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated April 26, 1999 and
May 10, 1999, and in the minutes of the City Council meeting dated May
17, 1999, letters from the applicant to the City Council dated May II, 1999,
a petition submitted to the Council on May 17, 1999, staffreports and other
pertinent information contained In the record of decision of this case.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA, that the proposed rezoning of the above described property to the R-I (Low
Density Residential) District and R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) District is hereby
denied based upon the following findings offact.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. The density allowed by the R-2 district may be excessive for this area.
1:\99fi1es\99rezone\99-0 14\rs99xxcc.doc
Page 2
2. The potential density which would be allowed under the proposed R-I and R-2 districts may
affect the quality of life in the existing neighborhood adjacent to this site.
3. The impact of the potential traffic generated by the development on Fish Point Road has not
been adequately addressed.
4. The impact of the potential development on Markley Lake has not been adequately
addressed.
5. The amount of acreage zoned R-2 and acting as a buffer between the R-I district and the
existing Business Park district is too large.
6. There is a potential lack of police and fire protection fro the developed area.
7. The development may impose an undue burden on the resources of the school district,
particularly with reference to special needs children. This issue has not been adequately
addressed. .
8. Proximity to the industrial area could result in undue levels of vandalism to the industrial
property.
Passed and adopted this 7th day of June, 1999.
Mader Mader
Kedrowski Kedrowski
Petersen Petersen
Schenck Schenck
Wuel1ner Wuellner
YES NO
{Seal} Prank Boyles, City Manager
City of Prior Lake
1:\99files\99rezone\99-014\rs99xxcc.doc Page 3
JUN 01 '99 11:32AM HUEMOELLER & BATES
P.2/6
HUEMOELLER & fiATES
ATTORNEYS AT u;.v
1667. FlIAN~LJN Ta.olL
POsT OFFICE BOIC. 61
PRIOR LAJ(E, "INNiSDT" ~5:J7;Z I
JAMES D. BATEs
BR'fCE D. HUEMO~LI.ER
Tellt"'... (6121 M7a.2131
Tel_lor (6'2) 4470$628
May 20, 1999
(Revised) ,
Mr. Frank F. Boyles
Prior Lake City Manager
16200 Eagle <:;reek A venue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: Amended Application of D.~. HaftOD, Inc. - Minnesota for
Comprehensive Plan AmeD~ent land Zoning Change
Dear Mr. Boyles:
, I
This letter is written on behalf of Deerfield Development LLC and John E. and
,
Mary C. Mesenbrink, the owners of the land being rezoned by D.R. Horton. Inc. _
Minnesota, to R-l Low Density Residential, and R;2 L~ to Medium Residential,
according to the site plan presented to the City Co~cil <;In May 17, 1999.
,
The Horton application requests R-l zoning west ~f proposed Fish Point Road
and R-2 zoning east of Fish Point Road. The proposal contemplates an overall density
for the land of approximately 4 units per acre. The proposal uses the R-l zoning on the
west side of the property to protect existing wetlands, T!Je proposal uses R-2 zoning on
the east side of the property as a transition to the ar;ljacertt business park uses, to
preserve a significant stand of trees, and to maintaiJ;l the overall 4 unit per acre density
for the project. The proposal offers a variety of hollsing: from single family dwellings
to townhomes with anticipated base prices ranging from $110,000_00 to $250,000.00,
consistent with community goals for affordable and .life-cycle housing.
, ,
The foundation for the Horton application is the Prior Lake Comprehensive
Plan, as amended in 1997, which designates this land for: Urban Low to Medium
Density Residential, anticipating that the land would ultimately be developed at a
density of approximately 5 units per acre with a variety of housing styles through the
use of the PUD process. The 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved by
both the Prior Lake Planning Commission and City C011I\cil with extensive factual
flndings that include, without limitation, the followmg:
JUN 01 '99 11:33AM HUEMOELLER & BATES
P.3/6
Mr. Frank F. Boyles
Page 2
May 20, 1999
" ... the Planning Commission found this arnendmeRt to be consistent with the
Suitable Housing and Environmental goals and objec;tives of the Comprehensive Plan in
that it offers a variety of housing, and it provides open space and preservation of the
natural elements of the site;
" . . . the Planning Commission found this amc;.dment to be consistent with the
Economic Vitality goals and objectives of the comprehensive Plan in that it encourages
a diversified economic base, promotes sound land ~e, and maintains high standards in
the promotion and development of commerce and industry;
"...the Planning Commission found this ame*dme~t to be consistent with the
City's Livable Community goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing.... "
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment was a!proved by the Metropolitan Council
in 1998 after requesting and being provided with a traffic study affirming that the
anticipated density of 5 units per acre was in conformity 'With its Regional Blueprint and
Transportation Policy Plan. The comments of the Goundl's staff to the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment specifically indicated that the sanitary sewer component of the plan
amendment conforms to the Council's Water Resources Policy Plan.
The evidence presented to the Prior Lake Planning Commission and the City
Council indicate that the findings made in 1997 and 1998 in connection with the
approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment far this land are still relevant today.
Deerfleld Development and the Mesenbrinks believe that the refusal of tbe Prior
Lake City Council to approve the Horton rezoning application is arbitrary and
unreasonable, and that a court would compel the City to,rezone the land as requested by
Horton, for reasons that include, without limitation, me following:
1. In accordance with Minn. Stat. ~473.86S:, Subd. 2, a municipality should not
adopt zoning that conflicts with its comprehensive plan.' The City of Prior Lake has
recently amended its zoning ordinance and map. '!pe failure of the City to zone the
DeerfieldlMesenbrink land in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
approved in 1997 violates this statute.
_._-_._~-- -~-- --------
-------
JUN 01 '99 11:33AM HUEMOELLER & BATES
P.4/5
Mr. Frank F. Boyles
Page 3
May 20, 1999
2. In accordance with Minn. Stat. ~473.865; Subd. 3, if a conflict between a
zoning ordinance and a comprehensive plan arises because of an amendment to the
plan, the ordinance should be amended within 9 months following the amendment to the
plan so as to not conflict with the amended comprehensive plan. The failure of the City
to amend its zoning ordinance to conform to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
approved in 1997 also violates this statute.
3. The refusal to rezone property in accordance "Vith the approved
comprehensive plan is evidence that the municipalitY's action was arbitrary. Amcon
Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. 1984). The facts in the record of the
Planning Commission hearing and of the City Coundl meeting on Horton's rezoning
request all support approval of the rezoning request'. These facts include the following:
, '
The request is consistent with the Co~prehensive Plan Amendment
designation of the land as Urban Low .to Medium Density Residential.
Although the Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan was further amended in
1998 and 1999 in connection with the adoption of a new zoning
ordinance, the portion of the Comprehensive Plan relating to the
Deerfield/Mesenbrink land was not changed.
The request contemplates developmen~ of tlJ.e land at a total density of 4
units per acre with a variety of housing styles through the use of the PUD
process, while the Comprehensive Plan Amendment contemplated a
density of up to 5 units per acre. '
The aligwnent of Fish Point Road, the dividing line between the R-I and
R-2 areas, has been established by the City"s Comprehensive Plan.
Sanitary sewer facilities are adequate to serve the land at the contemplated
dens ity .
Traffic studies conducted by the land awneFS and City affinn that the
proposed Fish Point Road collector street will be adequate to handle
antidpated traffic.
JUN 01 '99 11:33RM HUEMOELLER & BRTES
P.5/6
Mr. Frank F. Boyles
Page 4
May 20, 1999
Drainage from the land can be route(fto th~ south and away from
Markley Lake.
The R-2 area east of Fish point Road',will provide the needed transition to
the adjacent business park uses. .'.
The R-I area west of proposed Fish Point ~oad will facilitate preservation
of existing wetlands and environmental features.
The R-2 area east of proposed Fish P9int Road will facilitate the
preservation of existing trees and allOWS aI). aggregate 4 unit per acre
density for the entire project.
The project will provide a variety of housing and assist in attaining city-
wide affordable and life-cycle housing goals.
The Prior Lake City Zoning Staff recommended initially R-Z zoning for
the entire site and recommended apptoval pf the modified R-I/R-2 zoning
request before both the Planning Commission and the City CounciL
The Prior Lake Planning Commission unairimously recommended
,
approval of the R-lIR-2 zoning requested for the land.
The neighbors appearing in opposition to me rezoning request
aclmowledged that combined R-I/R-2 zoning is appropriate for the land,
stating only a preference for R-l zomng. ,
, '
4. There were no material and admissible fucts presented before eiTher the
Planning Commission or the City Council to provide a basis for denial of the Horton
rezoning request. Although various concerns and reservations to the requested
rezoning were expressed by neighbors, there was no factual basis provided or offered
for the concerns. The neighbors referred to general concerns over traffic (dealt with by
the land owners' traffic study and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment), sewer
capacity (dealt with by City Staff and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment), potential
school issues (dealt with by the buyer profile for the townhouse portion of the project
which consists of young professionals, singles and seniors), enviromnental concerns
JUN 01 '99 11:34AM HUEMOELLER & BATES
P.6/6
Mr. Frank F. Boyles
Page 5
May 20, 1999
(dealt with by the R-l/R-2 zoning which permits preserv'!-tion of wetlands, trees and
open spaces), and a desire to see development along County Road 42 or elsewhere in
the City and not adjacent to Wilderness Ponds. The inflammatory and slanderous
statements by Gary Horkey were totally uncalled for and irrelevant to the Horton
request, as noted by Councilman Kedrowski in his'comments. The applicable legal
principle is that "[a]lthough traffic [or other similar] concerns may be legally sufficient
ro justify denial in a zoning matter, the record must demonstrate a factual basis for the
concerns." C.R. Invesunents, Inc. v. Village of 8horeview, 304 N.W.2d 320 (Minn.
1981). The neighbors did not demonstrate a factual basis for the concerns expressed at
the hearings on this rezoning request, and therefore such concerns cannot constitute a
rational basis for the failure to approve the rezoning request.
s. Neighborhood opposition to a zoning matter is not a sufficient grounds for
denial of a request that otherwise is consistent with 'the Comprehensive Plan and the
established policies and goals of me community. qstrand v, Village of North 81. Paul,
147 N.W.2d 571 (Minn. 1966); Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of
Chanhassen. 342 N,W.2d 335 (Minn. 1984).
Based on the foregoing, it is the position of Deerfield Development LLC and the
Mesenbrinks that the City Council must reconsider: and approve the Horton rezoning
request at its June 7. 1999 meeting.
8inj::erely yours,
~\,~tU
. ,
Bryce D. Huemoeller
BDH:jd
cc: Deertield Development, LLC
John E. and Mary C. Mesenbrink
Suesan L. Pace, Esq.
D. R. Horton, Inc. - Minnesota
John C. Kuehn, Esq.
~ H
~
~
"
~ ~ - - ~
UI
....I
-<(
~
I
/ ~ ..
/ I L I
I ! .'
/ ..
I .
/ .'
/
J....
..............
..........'
. )2
1;'-
II
/1
I
,-
I
_.1.-
/" ---
./"'"
...
,
.
!
.'
.'
"
"
.'
, "
, .,
f '':-,'\
\ ""~.'"
\ :~~1~.\
\ '~'" \
i ~,.. ,
,. :,'~:~,>-f~'..,
\ 1,- .~--";. #;""" I
. ,,~:.,::;~,
I.... .,t~:~;};\'C'/,'
.. . \K"~ ~$" I
\"-.:.~~>"
, ,
l.,.........-...
!
!
,
/...... '1'
'ct\\ \-."
L ..L j./ ..,.A..
ire"''',
-rr-j-,.. ,
-I......J 17'/
fl~-(~/
II',/, Y
I I I '/ /1\\-
'\11/1/11 ~
111~/I/,.(
IIII/~':/
Illv'; /~ -I- '>.'>__
~~~ 'y \;;.,;<_-::::~:::h____;/
" v"" I
\ y(' \.1
~^\~~
\..----1
c:
~
.
.
U w ~
~
Z Ill!: :;;
C ."
- Z j:S ""
:8
g 0 1
lfi
z z ...,
:E z ~
~ ~
~ .$
~
.
~
.
0
I
of
~
V')
Z
o
-
I-
-
o
ZlJ
OZ
Uz
lJO
ZN
-
tn~
-
><
u.J
z
<(
-..J
c..
~
o
:il
z
z
~
~
w
~
QI:
o
Q2
c.
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MAY 17, 1999
9A
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 99-XX DENYING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND
ORDINANCE 99-XX APPROVING THE ZONE CHANGE
REQUEST BY D. R. HORTON AND DEERFIELD
DEVELOPMENT FOR 164 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF
FISH POINT ROAD AND WILDERNESS TRAIL AND EAST
OF THE PONDS ATHLETIC FACILITY
History: This property is a part of the 260 acres of land which was
annexed by order of the Minnesota Municipal Board on July 9, 1997.
During initial discussions with the City staff and the City Council, the
developer indicated he was interested in a mixed use type development
which would include an expansion ofthe Waterfront Passage Business
Park on the east side of the site, and a combination of residential uses
on the remainder ofthe property. These discussions indicated the
residential portion ofthe site would be developed at a total density of
about 5 units per acre, which would equal roughly 700 units.
In September, 1997, the owner submitted an application to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to include this land within the MUSA, and to
designate the easterly 58 acres for Planned Industrial Uses, 140 acres
to the R-HD designation and 62 acres to the R-LIMD designation. At
the same time, the developer requested the easterly 58 acres be zoned
1-2 (Light Industrial). On October 6, 1997, the Council approved the
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which included the entire area
within the MUSA. The City Council also approved an amendment to
the Land Use Plan designating the 58 acres for Business Park uses, and
the remaining acreage for Low to Medium Density Residential uses.
At the same time, the east 58 acres of the site was rezoned to the
Business Park District. The remaining area remained in the
Agricultural district until a specific rezoning application was
submitted.
~\99lile&\99J<omRatl}\99-0J3199QJ3cc.doc P 1
162UU Eagle CreeK Ave. ~.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax fg'iz) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map which would designate 62.92
acres on the east half of the site to the R-HD (High Density
Residential) designation, would rezone 62.92 acres to the R-4 (High
Density Residential) district, and would rezone the 101.31 acres to the
R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) district.
The Planning Commission considered this proposal at a public hearing
on April 26, 1999. After considerable testimony and discussion, the
Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the proposed
Land Use Plan Amendment. There seemed to be some consensus that
some R-2 zoning should be permitted on the property. The
Commission decided to table action on this item to allow the applicant
to submit a revised description of the R-2 location. A copy of the
rninutes of the April 26, 1999 meeting are attached to this report.
The applicant submitted the attached map identifYing the revised
zoning proposal on the property. The west 97.88 acres is proposed for
R-I (Low Density Residential) and the east 66.35 acres is proposed for
R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential). The zoning district
boundary follows the approximate alignment ofFish Point Road, as
extended into this site.
The Planning Commission considered this revised request at a public
hearing on May 10, 1999. The Planning Commission heard testimony
from the applicants, as well as from a number of citizens. A copy of
the draft rninutes of the May 10, 1999 meeting is attached for your
information.
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission concluded the
revised proposal to rezone the property to the R-I and R-2 districts is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Low to
Medium Density Residential in this property. The Commission
therefore recommended approval of this zone change request.
Current Circumstances: The total site area involved in this request is
approximately 164 acres. It has a varied topography with elevations
ranging from 950' MSL to 970' MSL. Much of this site has been
cropland of the past several years. A part of the site is wooded,
especially the western portion. Any development on the site is subject
to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A
specific tree inventory will be required once a specific development
plan, such as a preliminary plat, is submitted. There are also several
wetlands located within this site. A specific wetland delineation plan
is required with a development plan. The site is subject to the
provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act. There are two
existing access points to this site. Wilderness Trail is located at the
northeast corner of the site, and Fish Point Road is located at the
northwest corner of the site. Both streets were originally platted to the
property boundaries in order to allow for the future extension of the
1:\99files\99compam\99-0 13\990 13cc.doc
Page 2
right-of-way. Sewer and water service can be extended from the
existing services located in Wilderness Trail and in Fish Point Road to
serve this site.
The Issues:
Comnrehensive Plan Amendment: The original proposal for the R-
HD designation is consistent with the stated goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan in that it offers a variety of housing and it
provides open space an the preservation of the natural elements of the
site, and with the City's Livable Community Goal to provide
affordable and life-cycle housing. However, when this property was
added to the MUSA, the sewer study was based on the presumption
that there would be approximately 700 units on the site. This is the
maximum capacity at this location. If the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and zone change are approved, there is the potential for
development of up to 1,800 units on this site. This is well in excess of
the approved capacity.
Both the Planning Commission and the staff feel the goals and
objectives can be accomplished by designating the entire site as Low
to Medium Density Residential. The concept plan submitted for the
development of this site identifies a total density of approximately 4
units per acre. Utilizing the Planned Unit Development (pun) process
would allow the development oftownhomes with more than 4 units
per building. The major difference is that this district would not allow
the development of apartment buildings.
Zone Chanl!:e Reauest: The original zone change request included a
rezoning to the R-4 district on the east 62.92 acres of the site. Since
the Planning Commission recommended denial of Comprehensive
Plan Amendment, this request should also be denied.
The applicant submitted a revised rezoning request identifYing the
west 97.88 acres as R-I and the east 66.35 acres as R-2. As noted
above, both the R-I and the R-2 district are consistent with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation ofR-LIMD (Urban Low to
Medium Density Residential). The major difference between the R-I
and R-2 districts is allowable density. Permitted density in the R-I
district is 3.63 units per acre. The R-2 district permits a maximum
density of7.26 units per acre. Both districts permit the construction of
single family homes. Both districts also allow the construction of
townhouses, with up to 4 units per building, under the conditional use
permit process. Under the provisions of a Planned Unit Development,
density could increased up to 10%, and the number of units per
building for townhouses could also be increased.
The 1998 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that designated this
area for Urban Low to Medium Density Residential uses also added
1:\99files\99compam\99-0 13\990 13cc.doc
Page 3
the area to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). A study
completed at the time of the amendment indicated the existing sewer
systern had enough capacity for approximately 715 dwelling units.
The proposed zoning districts are also consistent with that capacity.
The current zoning on this property is A (Agricultural), which is
inconsistent with the R-LIMD Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
designation. The Agricultural zoning was applied to this property in
1998 as a temporary zoning, until the developer had a better concept of
the type of development to occur on the site.
The dividing line between the R-l and R-2 district is the approximate
aligmnent ofFish Point Road as it would be extended into this
property. One of the concerns voiced at the Planning Commission
meeting was the need to provide a buffer between single family
dwellings and townhouses. Major roads, such as Fish Point Road,
often serve this purpose.
There were some other issues mentioned at the public hearing which
also require clarification. These are listed below.
. Traffic on Fish Point Road: Fish Point Road is designated as a
major collector street, and will be designed to handle up to 5,000
trips per day. The potential development on this site is consistent
with that number of trips.
. Sewer and Water: Public sewer and water will be extended to
serve this site. As in all new developments, the developer is
responsible for the cost of extending these services.
. Drainage and Stormwater Runoff: The City has several ordinances
in place which regulate drainage and runoff. The developer has
already been advised that no runoff or drainage will be allowed in
Markley Lake. Furthermore, once a prelirninary plat is submitted,
the drainage plan will be reviewed to ensure that runoff does not
exceed predevelopment rates. On-site detention ponds are also
required.
. Wetlands: This site is subject to the State Wetland Conservation
Act. The City reviews all development plans to ensure that the
development is consistent with the provisions of this act.
. Tree Preservation: The City has a tree preservation ordinance in
place. The development plans will be reviewed to ensure
compliance with this ordinance.
. Environmental Assessment Worksheet CEA w): A project of this
scope requires a mandatory EA W. According to Minnesota Rules,
Chapter 4410.0200-4410.7800, an EAW is triggered when the
project results in the "physical manipulation of the environment".
A zone change does not result in the actual physical manipulation
1:\99files\99compam\99-0 13\990 13cc.doc
Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
of the site. The EA W is triggered by a specific development
application, such as a preliminary plat, conditional use permit or a
PUD.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan amendment to the R-HD
designation and the zone change to the R-4 district are inappropriate
for this site and should be denied.
The revised zoning proposal for the R-I and R-2 districts are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The change will
still allow this area to be developed, and increase the economic tax
base.
Budflet Imoact: There is nO direct budget impact involved in this
request. Approval ofthis request may facilitate the development of
this property, and increase the City tax base.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution 99-XX denying the proposed Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to the R-HD and the proposed Zone Change to
the R-4 district and adopt Ordinance 99-XX approving the Zone
Change to the R-I and R-2 districts as requested.
2. Continue the review for specific information or reasons per City
Council discussion.
3. Find the Comprehensive Plan amendments and the zone change
inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
and the Zoning Ordinance and deny the request.
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
Since this request includes two separate applications, separate motions
are required for each application. These include:
I. A motion and second to adopt Resolution 99-XX denying the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate a portion of the area
as R-HD and to rezone a portion ofthe area as R-4.
2. A motion and second to adopt Ordinance 99-XX rezoning this
property to the R-I (Low Density Residential) and the R-2 (Low to
Medium Density Residential) districts. This action requires
approval by 2/3 the City CounciL
Frank Bo
Manager
1:\99files\99compam\99-0 13\990 13cc.doc
Page 5
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 99-XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1101.700 OF PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
The City Council ofthe City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
The Prior Lake Zoning map, referred to in Prior Lake City Code Section 1101.700 is hereby amended
to change the zoning classification of the following legally described property from A (Agricultural to
R-l (Low Density Residential).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and
the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, of Section 12, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County,
Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast comer of said Northwest 1/4; thence N89049, 16"W, along the
north line of Said Northwest 1/4, a distance of668.00 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel
to be described; thence S03042'16"W a distance of 510.00 feet; thence SI0052'52"W a distance
of445.00 feet; thence S26056'56"E a distance of314.97 feet; thence S69'07'37"W a distance of
635.00 feet; thence S22010'30"E a distance of780.00 feet; thence S83055'35"E a distance of
420.00 feet; thence S46033'19"W a distance of589.60 feet to the south line of said Southeast 1/4
of the Northwest 1/4; thence N89020'55"W, along said south line of the Southeast 1/4 of the
Northwest 1/4 and the south line of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of 1398.05
feet to the west line of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4; thence NOO'05'37"E, along said west
line of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of2615.37 feet to the north line of said
West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4; thence S89049'16"E, along said north line ofthe West 1/2 of the
Northwest 1/4, and said north line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of
1962.74 feet to the point of beginning.
Said parcel contains 97.88 acres ofland, more or less.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby further ordain:
The Prior Lake Zoning map, referred to in Prior Lake City Code Section 1101.700 is hereby amended
to change the zoning classification of the following legally described property from A (Agricultural)
and C-5 (Business Park) to R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential).
That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as
follows:
1:\99fi1es\99compam\99-013\ord99xx.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Beginning at the northwest corner of said Northwest 1/4; thence SS9027'2I "E, along the north
line of said Northwest 1/4, a distance of243.25 feet; thence SI6023'55"E a distance of249.70
feet; thence S34017'20"E a distance of 200.27 feet; thence S 17029'04"E a distance of 446.77
feet; thence S33024'22"E a distance of 642.42 feet; thence SI7016'23"W a distance of 176.54
feet; thence S74029'33"W a distance ofS3S.70 feet; thence S390IS'53"W a distance of234.31
feet; thence S75035'IS"W a distance of 602.70 feet; thence S46033'19"W a distance of ISO.OO
feet; thence NS3055'35"W a distance of 420.00 feet; thence N22010'30"W a distance of780.00
feet; thence N69007'37"E a distance of 635.00 feet; thence N26'56'55"E a distance of 314.97
feet; thence NI0052'52"E a distance of 445.00 feet; thence N03042'16"E a distance of51O.00
feet to the north line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence SS9049'16"E, along said
north line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of66S.00 feet to the point of
beginning.
Said parcel contains 66.35 acres ofland, more or less.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 17th day of May, 1999.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the 22nd day of May, 1999.
Drafted By:
Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
1:\99fi1es\99compam\99-0 13\ord99xx.doc
Page 2
~~I
z
:s
0..
I-
0..
u.J<
ug
Zz
Oz
u~
>-~
c.:::~
<(Q
zit
~
::::i
L.U
c.:::
0..
.n
i;P
~ ~ ~
~ :(
- /
, -./
ill
~
~ I!l .
8
~
z
"
5l~!H~
::i
V) ::i~
U 8;1'
!;; 1'16
S Ii
Vl I: ~ "u
~ 9 ;g
o "
~ !
~ ~
12 Vi
~
h~ ~i
~~~S~
. .)\
. \f:'~
..(~
:~J
. .
--
,
-.----.: .....-
r(~
dL ~
~~
c'-'
rf.
---_..::".-_._,.-.~-... .
!z 61!
:JUs
~~~ !F
-<IIIn III,
-< Ii ~
cd",
-<O~s
0.. ~ I!
(r '"
{1!1!]
~ ~
= -
{1!1!]
@ ~
{1!1!]
~
..J
.<(
tJ)
o
0.
o
a::
0.
..J
<(
Z
-
"
-
a::
o
I . _U_H__~
!, I 'II I , Q,;
i II Ii ! II II ! 1111 I'! Ii i)l'~' ~
III i III III! II I ~! [, u
I ! I I I ! ~ ; !! ' ! II I i :=. ()
~ IlilO. 1ll0CHIlm I~ 1m !illlaJ _ a -Z
1'1-..' - v- <Q
Ii ~,'iiI J
I " ~~.L.:':~_'~,.
~
f
1\
,
f'
_..___1
1
---~L,--.!.I
--------li.
! Ii
n_!-=-t _ ___ill
,;1
..~. J'J '
,-:'
~ H
~
,g
u
('I ~ - - ~
W
...J
-<[
~
/
/
/
/
/
I
/
l...
,"""'-
----.... ......
...I }2___
<t II
CJ) II
0/
0.
o
a:
a..
c
w
CJ)
:; \(~yt"-
W L..L .Y /"---
a: rn~",,-
-rd-,.. "-
./....i /7'/
r- -'--1-< /
I 1','" \/
IIII/, V-
I I 11/ /).\Y-
'-l 111/ I I ~
IItVII / ,.(
\IIJ/~':/
~~~ ty:'~:>~~,;:--':::_-_:~:::--
\ "\y /~'\ ';,)
> ^ >-...-1
" \\: -1
~ ..
I
... .
I
..
!
.'
..
.
;,
\\ I
, "
, .,
f '_'.\
\ :~~~~~\
1. "~:':', \
, ..' " -...
, "r~. '-:':, ....
~ , ';:_::~':.--:;;-,l:~ 'I
" ,,~,., ~..;~J::
,.......:,\......,. ,
", ~ '~r" J.~f:' "
\'..-.:~~>~
t' ,-....
-"
,
}
!
..
!
I-
I
_.1-
.-/"' - - -
~
:.,..
c
~
.
U~
el Z ~
... - z
9 "' 0
~ OZ ~
ffi :c
i ~ ~
~ a>
O~
:r:
~
~
on
~ !
z.....
- Ii;
~\D
. --
~
.
Cl::::
.
o
.
of
i
V")
Z
o
-
I-
-
o
ZU
OZ
Uz
uO
ZN
-
t;;~
-
X
L.U
z
<(
---J
0..
~
o
VI
w
Z
Z
~
.
w
~
~
~
o
;:
!l.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 4/26/99
Vote taken signified ayes by V onhof, Stamson and Criego, nays by Kuykendall and
Cramer. MOTION CARRIED.
~ 7'
MOTION BY C EGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND APPROYAL
OF THE CONDI ''lQNAL USE PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIO.~N /LISTED
IN THE STAFF REl'QRT AS FOLLOWS: //
\';., /..
1. Revise the landscdp~g plan to include an irrigation systeo/qnd the necessary
replacement trees (a Ihinjmum of 151 caliper inches). Staff ~u;:gests the additional
landscaping be placed,'k(here possible, along Greenway AlIlinue and Conroy Street
to provide additional scree~i~g from the sing~ family residefices.
2. Revise the plan sheets to i;"clu...,de the correct calculations for impervious surface,
landscaping perimeter, and tr~~'r{placement requt;;;nients.
3. A letter of credit for the landsc(lfJlilg and tree rf}placement must be submitted prior
to approval of the final plat documents.
\
4. The homeowner's association docum(!,nt~ must be recorded with the final plat
documents. Y'
, \
5. A new set of plans, showing all of th{riv!sions, must be submitted prior to final
approval of the conditional use perY'it. \
/ \
/ \
Vote taken signified ayes by V o~f, Stamson and Crjego, nays by Kuykendall and
Cramer. MOTION CARRIED. / \
'/ \
"/' , \
A recess was called at 8:55/p;m. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
. \
Commissioner V onhof-\~~ excused from the meeting. \\
MOTION BY CRIiC:~, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, m'~~OMMEND THE
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW CONROY STREET AND INCLJ;~'T IN THE CAPITAL
IMPROV~..~NT PROGRAM. \
/
Vote takltn signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
f::
C.
CASE FILES #99-013 AND #99-014 D.R. HORTON IS REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND A ZONE CHANGE
REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS DEERFIELD LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF
COUNTY ROAD 21, SOUTH OF FISH POINT ROAD AND WILDERNESS TRAIL AND EAST
OF THE PONDS ATHLETIC FACILITY.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 26, 1999
on file in the office of the City Planner.
D. R. Horton and Deerfield Development have filed an application for a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and a Zone Change for the property located south and west of CSAH
21, south ofFish Point Road and Wilderness Pond Trail and east of the Ponds Athletic
1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc
9
Facility. The proposal is to amend the Land Use Plan Map frorn the current R-LIMD
(Low to Medium Residential) and C-BO (Business Office Park) designations to the R-
HD (High Density Residential) designation on 62.92 acres on the west side ofthis
property. This proposal also includes a rezoning from the current A (Agricultural) and C-
5 (Business Park) district to the R-4 (High Density Residential) district for the 62.92
acres on the west side of the site, and from the A (Agricultural) district to the R-2 (Low to
Medium Density Residential) district for the residual 1 01.31 acres.
This property is a part of the 260 acres ofland which was annexed by order of the
Minnesota Municipal Board on July 9,1997. During initial discussions with the City
staff and the City Council, the developer indicated he was interested in a mixed use type
development which would include an expansion of the Waterfront Passage Business Park
on the east side of the site, and a combination ofresidential uses on the remainder of the
property. These discussions indicated the residential portion of the site would be
developed at a total density of about 5 units per acre, which would equal roughly 700
units.
Staff recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the R-HD
designations and recommended approval ofthe rezoning of the entire 164 acres to the R-2
district.
Questions by Commissioners:
Stamson questioned the maximum density in R-2. Kansier responded it was 7 units per
acre.
Criego questioned the Comprehensive Plan zone RI and the options. Kansier explained
single family with townhomes. The major difference is density, 3.6 per acre. The
original discussion was 5 per acre.
Cramer asked if the road aligmnent was in place. Kansier said it would be addressed at
the Preliminary Plat stage. Roadways could be designated as collectors.
Stamson questioned the Fish Point Road to the south. Kansier exft!ained the long range
plan is for Fish Point Road to meet up with Mushtown Road. ~
Kuykendall recapped the density and how the units were arrived at. Kansier explained
the MUSA system.
Comments from the public:
Don Patton, ofH.R. Horton, the developer, gave a brief background on the developments
they have been involved with in the surrounding cities constructing over 400 homes last
year. Patton explained they did have a neighborhood meeting showing the layout and the
four different proposals on the site. An association would be formed for maintenance.
There would be no rentals. The proposal for R2 adjoins the industrial property. The
1:\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcrnin\mn042699.doc
10
densities of what they are looking at will make the R2 work as long as they can use a
PUD development.
Kuykendall questioned the density. Patton explained the concept plan. 140 units on 167
acres with a balance of 380 units on 58 acres. The 520 units are under the 700 unit limit.
Kansier recapped. A total of 654 units is what the developer is looking at.
Kansier explained the amendment is for a zone change. The Commissioners are looking
at how the property should be zoned for development.
Margi Atwood, 16992 Crimson Court, said she would like to keep the current zoning.
There is number of wildlife is in the area and ifthe'zoning is changed, all will go away.
She is not opposed to development just this development density. Fish Point Road will
be the only access to the development and will become a freeway. She feels 750 new
residences tum into 1200 additional vehicles. A number of neighbor's quality oflife will
be significantly affected. Atwood felt the additional homes will burden the school
district, fire, police, etc. Anther area of concern is the sewer and water needs of the
development. She does not want high density in her back yard and agreed with Mr.
Patton's comments industry is a good neighbor.
Tom Stanley, 6221 Sue Ann Lane, is concerned with the runoff into Markley Lake. Two
houses are potentially in danger of flooding. Markley Lake is a closed basin. He
compared the lake to the City leaving the water faucet running and heading off to work.
The high density is more than the environment can handle.
Tim Courant, 16910 Crimson Court, submitted a petition with signatures from Prior Lake
residents, several of whom are not neighbors. Courant questioned the benefit to Prior
Lake to rezone the annexation area. He also went on to question if the police, school
district and fire department could handle the increased load. His other concern was for
traffic. A traffic light will be needed on Fish Point Road and County Road 21 with the
tax imposed on the citizens of Prior Lake. Courant was concerned for the property values
on adjacent homes and stated the proposal will not be serving the citizens of Prior Lake
only the developer and the land owner.
Franke Forstner, 5170 Lexington Court, said the one issue not addressed is the business
district. She talked to the adjacent businesses who were not aware of the proposed
change and felt the current zoning will benefit the area businesses. Forstner said she also
talked to a number of people looking at retirement who do not want to see Prior Lake
change or grow any faster.
Wendy Roepke, 16923 Crimson Court, stated she heard the Prior Lake School District is
bad. Her other concern is rental properties. Whatever is it zoned, nobody wants
apartments next to their home. She was told the City is demanding rental property.
Curt Horkey, 17021 Fish Point Road, of Key land Homes and Minnesota Valley
Millworks, stated he was told the area was going to be zoned for industry. Horkey said
1 :\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc
\1
they moved from Burnsville with lower income and driveby shootings, now he will be
right next to apartments. Horkey asked to take into consideration the semi-trucks coming
into the industrial area with neighboring kids out running around.
Dennis Wells, 5629 Parkview Circle, moved to the area approximately 5 years ago stating
had he known this development would go in, he never would have built in Prior Lake. No
one will be happy with a low income development next to their home. The property
values will go down. Most ofthe duplexes on Franklin Trail have 2 or 3 cars and boats in
the yard which shouldn't be allowed. He was worried what is going to happen when the
road goes through. Prior Lake has to start worrying about the people who live in Prior
Lake, not the people who they think are going to liye here.
Kevin Bergstrorn, 16030 Eagle Creek Avenue, questioned if an EA W was available and
stated it was required. Bergstrom's other concerns are as follows: the density, increase
for tax dollars, the wetland and open water. He questioned why should the residents pay
for this development, why was this property originally zoned as RI and how will this
serve the citizens of Prior Lake.
Mike Atwood, 16292 Crimson Court, moved out to this area and would like to see it
remain the way it is. Atwood contacted the PCA on the wetland and talked to several
members of the Metropolitan Council stating ifit comes down to it, they will get an
EA W study. He also talked to the Watershed and Scott County Soil and Conservation
who told him the neighbors should protect and do what they can to protect the
environment. There is no pond for runoff. All the experts say the runoff will kill the
wetland.
Criego pointed out this is not a proposal. There are a number of other steps before any
approval is given to the developer. This is a zoning change only. The design layout is
not the gospel. The City has many controls not to create runoff and pollution. What the
Commissioners are looking at is high density or low density.
Wendy Roepke, 16923 Crimson Court, said she was at the information meeting and was
told the developer wanted to start the project in July. She was glad to hear there are some
other controls.
Stamson explained the amendment was for land use only.
Thomas Robeck, 16974 Wilderness Trail, concurred with the opinion of neighbors, they
were under the impression the street would be a cul-de-sac. Industry is a good neighbor
for single family homes and had no objections. He has upwards of $300,000 invested in
his home and is against the high density. There is already traffic on his dead-end street
with many children in the neighborhood. The matter ofthe wildlife protection is very
important.
Terry Hagelberger, 16940 Crimson Court, stated the zoning lays the foundation of what
will follow.
1:\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc
12
Jeff Elasky, 16951 Wilderness Trail, said he spoke at a meeting several years ago. The
biggest concern is the density. He was told 2 years ago by Scott County, Spring Lake
Township and City the density was 2.5 acres.
The hearing was closed at 10: I 0 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Agreed with neighbors the zoning should stay low density.
· Kansier explained the industrial park density and zoning.
· Proposed to keep low density except for a small piece by the industrial park which
would be R2.
· Kansier explained the Rl and R2 District densities. In both cases townhomes are
allowed as a conditional use. Also a PUD is allowed which would be more units per
acre.
· Recommended most of the acres in question be zoned RI with a conditional use
permit.
· Recommended the small strip next the industrial park be labeled R2 with a slightly
higher density.
Kuykendall:
· Agreed with Criego comments.
· Questioned the rental property. Kansier explained the definitions.
. The zoning is the foundation.
· When there is a transitional change as this, there should be a buffer area. The vast
majority should be RI but there could be more R2.
· This is also guided by Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Act which the
City has to comply with. If it becomes rental property so be it.
. The plan concept is good.
Stamson:
· The City Council looked at this issue a year and a half ago. They felt it would be
zoned low to medium density. Nothing changed in the year and a half. High density
was originally looked at and turned down.
· Familiar with the developer and does a nice job. Would like to see a development
like this in Prior Lake, but this is not the area.
· Fish Point Road beyond the High School is not the primary road. This development
should have a better road access.
· Some tOwnhomes would be okay.
· Propose to do the entire development RI.
Cramer:
· Stamson summed up his concerns.
1:\99fiJes\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc
13
· To change to high density, the development would have to be near a rnajor arterial
road. This will not work.
· Has a difficult time rezoning without seeing the schematics of a plan.
· Shared Criego and Kuykendall's recommendation that this should be Rl with a
percentage ofR2 for transition. It is the only fit with the neighborhood.
· Most of the eastern portion should be RI except the northeast quadrant.
Criego said one of the affordable housing sites was set out on County Road 42. Not this
area.
Cramer pointed out Scott County HR.A basically commended Prior Lake on their
response to affordable housing.
Kuykendall and Criego felt the developer did a great job with housing developments in
other communities.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Patton pointed out an original proposed high density.
Mark Roepke, 16923 Crimson Court, does not agree with the preliminary drawing and
questioned the R2 density.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO TABLE THE HEARING
TO MAY 10, 1999, FOR THE DEVELOPER AND STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A
NEW PROPOSAL.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 10:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:44 p.m.
D. CASE FILE #99-018 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 1102.1300 AND
1102.1600 OF THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 26, 1999
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the new Zoning
Ordinance (effective May 1, 1999) relating to the setback requirements for nonresidential
structures and parking lots adjacent to Residential Use Districts.
1:\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc
14
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 5/10/99
Vote taken signified ayes by Stamson, Criego, Cramer, nay by Kuykendall. MOTION
CARRIED. \
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-02PC
GRANTING A 9.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 15.3 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT SETBACK TO PERMIT A
WATER ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON AN OUTLOT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
....-...............
.................
.......,.....,.........
....,...................................
.....,... ..,.....
..:,,::::,:;..' ..
............-...............,....
":'::":':';':;"';.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRAMEI~ TO DENY
.........,........,.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
..:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:....
-':':"':':-":':':'.
.......... .
.................... .....
"':':';':""':"';'.. .,":.:.:."
..................
.....,.....,...,...,.............
"*
. .....'.',...
B. Case Files #99-013Imd #99-014 (Continue!!l~:R. H6'li!!1 requesting ali"
amendment to the City "of Prior Lake Year 2010"C6i1i!ll:!;~hel!;,~H!~flan and a zone
change request for)Jle property known as Deerfield I;;li.,~i~outiiand west of
County Road~s~~th of Fish Point R~=,~ and Wildern~!i~!I~~,il a~d east of the
Ponds Athlet aCIllty"III";"';,;;"'""".,. '."i';I,tI;',',??
.:.:.:.:....:.:.,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:..., '.:.:.;.;.;.:.:.:,:.'
-.:,:.,.,. "';':':':';':':""':"""""'.'. ,.,.,.:.,.:.:.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier preseni~qth~Ilj~g;.~ep2rtd~ted May 10, 1999 on
file in the office ofthe City Planner. .......... ..... ...... .... .'. .....
.......,.. ....,....' ...,......'..
........,... .,.....
... .... . ....
.....,.... ...
...'.',., .............'.',. ..,.,....
....,...,. .....,.... ......
":':':':':""""""""'" .,.,::...:".. .,.,.,.,
...................'.'..........,. ,........ .....
..............,.... ....~ .
D.R. Horton and Deerfiel4plWelllpm~nt filed~application for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and a Zon\;~liange fo~~.!ie propertyl2(:~led south and west of CSAH 21,
south ofFish Point I}ll~~and Wil4lhess Pond TfiIlland east of the Ponds Athletic
Facility. The propdsari~~~Hde4!it!!!m~4m~PI~e Land Use Plan Map from the current
R-LIMD (Low to Mediuiiil~~deritial)lffidCJBO (Business Office Park) designations to
the R-HD (Hj&l!R~J:1sity Resl!l:lmtial) designation on 62.92 acres on the west side of this
property:'j[hlS'jW6p~also iri:81~p~9dl;rezoning from the current A (Agricultural) and
C-5 (.I}plHiiess Park)dl~WiFt to the~~4(High Density Residential) district for the 62.92
ac~~~n the west side ofjt~~ site, liiid from the A (Agricultural) district to the R-2 (Low to
Me!ilijmPensity Reside4Wl,1) district for the residual I 01.31 acres.
.,.................;.. ...'........
...,..~.., .....
The Planili~ghommis~j9ri considered this proposal at a public hearing on April 26, 1999.
After considei1!'9!f1t\l$ffuony and discussion, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend deili~lbfthe proposed Land Use Plan Amendment. There seemed to be
some consensuslhiit some R-2 zoning should be permitted on the property. The
Commission decided to table action on this item to allow the applicant to submit a
revised description of the R-2 location.
.,.,.",.,.,
....,..,.,..
Staff recommended approval of the R-I and R-2 district as presented by the applicant.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
1:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mnOS 1 099.doc
4
Comments from the public:
Bob Wiegert, Paramount, representing the applicant, stated he was in full support of
staffs report as it addressed the concerned issues from the last public meeting.
Margi Atwood, 16992 Crimson Court, was disappointed with large R-2 distli.Gtand felt
the neighbor's quality of life will be affected. The wildlife and wetland~.@'~'V~ry
important to the area. Her impression from the last meeting was therY'W9.Jlld be less R-2
district than the new proposa1.....".,.;:.:: .....
-~:.:;:-:.:.:.;.:.. ":;::::~::::~:::}.
.......
Criego questioned what she thought would be a gdod numbef:iPiA~Qod respdl!.~lMshe
would like only single family homes and felt there is mon::illt~lHljlflast meeting:;:;'::!;'..>(
Kansier stated the City's recommendation was to zone.iM1R-2.R-I is not an exclul~g>
single family district. Also, the original proposal wl!llI~I~o R-(llJipis plan is signifleantly
lower.:?h'?::...
..::::liIn}~:...:~dr:::..... ',,:."
Duane Hoffman, 16936 Wilderness Trail, said according t~'Hi$b:llll11bers, there is more R-
2 district coming over the R -1 district. I<1IDllier explained thedllll!Y,tJIoffman felt it
~~:n:~~~~~;:~~: ~~r~c~~~~~ew~~~~~~;J;=jJ~'~l,\~~~~~;J!:I~iI~::~~~ was the
explained the process. Hoffman would like"tbredJitk ffiHllfSlffd to whatever the MUSA
"::::::::; ,.;:::;::,.,
allows. ...,..........,.... ..q,:,.""....
..::::::~::};::~:;:{::~::::~::,.
. -..:,::.:.;.,
.:;::,::;.'
'.. ....... .....
..:.;.:.;.;.... "':':';';':::';':';" .:.:.:.;.;
Rye responded approvinglhe zonidil~hange ba~~!!9,q a specific plan is contract zoning
which is not permitt~lW.der stat~J~w. j'}'
.;.;.:.;."
'.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:';.
.. .......,.
David Edwards, 16966 Crimson Court, questioned staff: He sensed a great deal oflack of
support for the developer's plan at the last meeting, what changed staffs mind? Kansier
said staffs recommendation was to rezone the entire proposal to R-2. The last proposal
also contained 60 acres ofR-4 and the staff recommended denial of the R-4 district. The
1:\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn051099.doc
5
staff recommended approval of this proposal since both the R-I and R-2 districts are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Franke Forstner, 5170 Lexington Court, said the Commissioners should be aware there
are a great number of special needs children in the area. If the Commissioners allow the
numbers ofthe proposal, the school district will be over burdened. She is concerned for
the special needs children's education. She felt if you increase the number~%!U!increase
the numbers of something going wrong. Forstner said she feels townhOJn~!fd6Hbt belong
in the development because they deteriorate rapidly and attract a cert~m1.fi:pe of people
who create vandalism. She feels the adjoining businesses are cOI}9~pt~a(~j;xandals.
Forstner stated "Ifthere were more single family homes there wdW9 be mlliillllllople like
us. Normal. Less police would be called in." She "feels the ~~p(i9~palls froirtlP!mce will
be kept down. She would like to recommend to the devel.\?p. ~Pt6fdhn an assodlli\~..};""",().
. .
<':u:rrr:"
Kuykendall questioned Franke if she participated inMM'pf the ri~~$!1borhood meetings?
She responded she did not. ..................... ........
.............,.... ,....'.-,. .........
-.:.:.:.:.;.:.;.;.:,- .":.:.:-,." ".:.'
'.........;.....,..._.'.-,.....
",::,::,:::::,::::::,:'
Dan Broderick, 16993 Wilderness Trail, questioned when tfie~j!!!!~ways would be
designed. Kansier responded when the d~y!t!9per submits a prefi;!lUn~!1Y plat, maybe
sometime in June. There would be another;fi1!lI!J:g~pd notificati4l1i'
..... ....,.......,...,.... ',""
'.:.:.,., ...,.:.:.;.:.:.:.,.:..:.,.:,.:.:.:..... .,.:.,,:.:,
..... ............... ....
'.'.'.'. ...'..........,.....,.............. ',",',"
..... .................. ..
......'.. .,..............................'.'. .
.... ..........,...........
Bryce Huemoeller, attorney for the develop~ti.DIl~i4i~jall~l6pment. Huemoeller has
worked with the property sins~i.l,:W,!!S annexeqpE This prqiferty was originally submitted
with low to medium densityiIHdllpiliPved by t~*,Met Council, City Council and the
Comprehensive Plan. Iti~K transiti~AKl district.i
The hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· The issue of district fairness has been addressed.
1 :\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn051 099.doc
6
· The capacity, sewer and traffic have been handled.
· Accept what is presented here.
· The Commissioners agreed the principals have been addressed.
· Commend the developer.
Stamson:
· Concurred with Kuykendall, the developer addressed most of their coq~.lh.,.
· Last meeting expressed the area should be all R-I; however, he feeJ~;~rsis;t'good
compromise. He probably will not suppor total buildout in R-2.A!11'ilt..
· There are a lot of natural features in the area desiganted as R40'hil~:qmportion
desiganted as R-2 is primarily open land. ." 'j ".j,?;
..;.;.,,- 'W:;:. ...:.;;::::::::.~.
· The proposed zoning arrangement is appropriate. w 2m;.;,;;;.::,""",:!:.
....;.;.;.;.. '~:~:::::::
,.;.;.;.;.;." ".;.;,.;
~n~;~ion has not changed, the majority should Q~;~~~;;~ith ~(,il[t~r zone OfR}'l'
· Feels both R-l and R-2 are consistent with the ComrhUllllld':;:'i' "'t,..
,<.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;."
· There should be a smaller buffer area. ....... ..
.. "
· Suggest the area be totally R-I with l\9!?.g4itional use peuiiitI1':;
\mt.::~:8::::::;::';':" .'.:::....::::::,:,:::;.;.
... :~::::;:. ~:~;:.:.,.:....
Cramer:...,.,.,.. .......,.,.".,.,.,.,......,.......... ....,:r....
',:.;.;.; "-:';':':':':':':':':';':';':':':'i.. .
· Not the perfect zoning request but it do~~;(allwtglH!l~mptehensive Plan. The
Commissioners said everxtbmg.:-vest ofFi~Jjoint Roa,4ibe zoned R-I and that is the
new proposal. This ne}YpliIHIqg~ addressiAat. There will be no R-4 district.
· This development 'Yillhappen i~!prior Lake::;',
· Horton's develo.R~i~~:~in Sav~~JIs very go04ijmd has no concerns with R-2.
":~':':':':'>:':" ;;:::;;;));~:n~::~::n:::::::n::::~:,.,;.;:r:;::.'
":;:r:::::;::~:::.. ...., ....:::::<....<......,:.::.~::..<....'.,..
Kuykendall:;,;;' .............';;;AAhji..
· The COII1m~~ippers are gil!gll~ by State Law - questioned the rationale for the new
concl<PrJt.........;r::....i!it"'d
· Bgl'iWiegert, with.ll!!t{lIIlount;,l/Plained the concept came from the surrounding
.4~$igns, etc. Transi~&aal houStng from the north/south east/west. The City wanted a
,...........~ ..v...
':::.B~south major coll~tor, so that was the dividing line. The north was zoned
busitiijli"Jeaving our~~St area with a transitional buffer ofR-2. It is a standard
desigri.I:~tl!!J. Point.ill~d is the dividing line.
· Tovar saml~~RIl~tnt Road has been laid out in the Comp Plan.
· Would like iQr~iie less R-2.
Stamson:
· Would also like to see less R-2
· The developer has to hit the density. The R-l has a lot of lake and wetlands, R-2 is
largely open. In order for the developer to make this development work the R-l will
be crammed. Allowing R-2 will give a better density for both districts. The
advantage to having more R-2 gives the flexibility.
Criego:
1:\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn051099.doc
7
. If the Commissioners allocate some of it as R-2, the maxirnurn would be 580 units.
. The developer can't use all this land, if we can everything R-1 and maximize is only
to the land being able to use, you might not be able to put 580 homes.
. The road is a reasonable partition point between R-1 and R-2.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST AS PRESENTat?;lliTHE
STAFF REPORT,. .",:",;'.:.......,"""""""''''
Kansier explained the division ofFish Point Road.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
"w
.,. 'w"
This will go to the City Council on May 17, 1999.
...... .......-....
..:/If\::.. ":~J};:::..
,':':':';';':';':';';';';';'. ':';":';':';':".
A recess was called at 8: I 0 p.m. The meeting recori~~A'!\t 8;1~:P:~,
C. Case file #99-024 Mary Gorshe, ~230 Grainwood'G~~!ll~ requesting variances
for bluff setback, a front yard setbackl~!i~!r!la and imperVlaij~~gHace.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Plannirlgtnill~!\f;f!!l,l~d May 10,)~!J99 on file in the
ffi f h C. PI .................
o lee 0 t e lty anner. '\\,. ..:;,:":'""""\"\""""",,.....,,,,..
The Planning Department received a varianc~!\I)I?~catioHi:'4Rfh~ construction of a single
family dwelling with attach~4g~~\X. The eil~tlhg structuMwas more than 50%
destroyed by a fire in JanJ,!~onhl%year. ThiS~Jlplication was received prior to the
effective date of the n(llMZoning O~lhance (MaYl.J999) and is therefore being
~;~~::::1: under th~~'l~~,: ~:j-jl~~1-~:~:;0:~e following variances are being
A 9.75 foot variance to the~!~rtsetbackI8per;llit a structure to be setback 15.25 feet
from the topqflllllffrather tfil1l1lhe minimum requirement of 25 feet [City Code 5-8-3
(A)]. ."ttl, '\
A 5.qQjiroot varianceW.l~~ front y!ifsetback to permit the structure to be setback 20 feet
frClrn~e front lot line nlllWr thanlfie minimum required setback of 25 feet (City Code 5-
441):\:,:. ':.'::l,".::'
A 5% \1q~ppe to allowlIDpervious surface of 35% rather than the maximum impervious
surface coV~!i~~~ of39~rCity Code 5-8-3 (B)].
A 1,070 sqm;r~t1;Wk#lffiance to permit lot area to be 6,430 square feet rather than the
minimum lot aie~!fequired to be buildable of7,500 square feet [City Code 5-8-12 (B)].
The DNR had no objection to the front yard setback or the lot area variances and
suggested the need for the remaining variances could be eliminated by redesigning the
house.
Staff felt hardships were met with respect to the required minirnurn lot area. A condition
of the variance allows the applicant to maintain a 5-foot side yard setback on one side
with a minimum building separation of 10 feet and a setback of25 feet frorn the top of
bluff as written under the previous zoning ordinance. The variance to impervious surface
1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\nm051 099 .doc
8