HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-16RESOLUTION 96-16
RESOLUTION DENYING SCHEMATIC AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND ZONING CHANGE TO PUD, PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILD OAKS
MOTION BY: GREENFIELD
SECOND BY: SCHENCK
WHEREAS,
the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted public hearings on August
28th and October 23,1995 and January 8,1996 to consider the application of
RCS Associates, Inc. for approval of a Schematic and Preliminary Planned
Unit Development and approval of a preliminary plat for the development
known as Wild Oaks (hereinafter, "The Project") which is legally described
as follows:
That part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott
County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast comer of said Government Lot 2;
thence on an assumed bearing of West, along the north line of said
government Lot 2, a distance of 148.01 feet to the actual point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence South 0 degrees 42
minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 158.31 feet; thence
southwesterly a distance of 83.99 feet along a tangential curve,
concave to the West, having a central angle of 31 degrees 03
minutes 41 seconds and a radius of 154.92 feet; thence South 30
degrees 21 minutes 27 seconds West, tangent to the last described
curve, a distance of 202.90 feet; thence southwesterly a distance of
103.41 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest,
having a central angle of 31 degrees 11 minutes 15 seconds and a
radius of 189.99 feet; thence south 28 degrees 27 minutes 18
seconds East a distance of 30.00 feet to the northerly line of a 20.00
foot driveway as shown on the plat of "CONROY'S BAY",
according to the recorded plat thereof, on file or of record in the
office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota; thence
South 61 degrees 32 minutes 42 seconds West, along said northerly
line, a distance of 139.72 feet; thence South 41 degrees 17 minutes
27 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of 134.80
feet;' thence South 87 degrees 49 minutes 56 seconds West, along
16200 L~l~C~l~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
said northerly line, a distance of 276.54 feet; thence North 87
degrees 11 minutes 48 seconds west, along said northerly line, a
distance of 60.24 feet; thence North 69 degrees 48 minutes 55
seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of 283.56 feet to
the easterly line of the 30.00 foot road as shown on said plat of
"CONROY'S BAY"; thence North 0 degrees 38 minutes 40 seconds
West, along said easterly line, a distance of 130.37 feet; thence
North 7 degrees 46 minutes 21 seconds West, along said easterly
line, a distance of 462.19 feet to said north line of Government Lot
2; thence on a bearing of East, along said North line, a distance of
1059.36 feet to the point of beginning.
EXCEPT that part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range
21, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 30; thence on an
assumed bearing of East along the north line of said Section 30 a distance of
1777.47 feet; thence on a bearing of South a distance of 440.30 feet to the
point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 15 degrees 32
minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 33.00 feet; thence South 74 degrees
27 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 41.00 feet; thence North 15
degrees 32 minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 33.00 feet; thence North
74 degrees 27 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 41.00 feet to the point
of beginning, and;
legal notice of the public hearings was duly published in the official
newspaper of the City and individual mailed notices were sent in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes 462.357, Subd. 3 and 462.358, Subd. 3b and Prior
Lake City Code Sections 5-5-12(D)4.(a) and 6-3-3(A)3.; and
the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this
issue and interested persons were afforded the opportunity to present their
views, objections and facts related to the Schematic and preliminary
Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat of Wild Oaks, and:
at the October 23, 1995 meeting, following consideration of City Codes,
zoning and subdivision ordinances and applicable provisions of the Year
2000 Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission recommended denial
of the proposal to allow 23 dwelling units on the site, and;
the applicant modified the proposal to allow 20 dwelling units and
submitted the modified request for consideration by the Planning
Commission at a public hearing on January 8, 1996, and;
WHEREAS, After considering the City Codes, zoning and subdivision ordinance
RS9616.DOC
requirements, the purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development
section of the ordinance and applicable provisions of the Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the proposed Schematic and Preliminary Planned Unit Development and
preliminary plat and zoning change, and;
WHEREAS,
the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission
to approve the Schematic and Preliminary Planned Unit Development and
preliminary plat of Wild Oaks and considered these recommendations along
with the staff reports, meeting minutes of previous meetings and received
additional testimony at its' regular meeting on January 16, 1996
(collectively referred to as the record of decision), and;
WHEREAS,
the City Council has carefully considered the testimony, staff reports 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 Schematic and Preliminary Planned Unit Development, preliminary plat
and zoning change to PUD, Planned Unit Development be, and hereby are, denied based upon
the following findings of fact.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The proposed grading plan for the site shows removal of several feet of soil from the top of
the highest point on the site, causing a potential adverse impact on many of the remaining
trees on the sire. This is inconsistent with Section 5-5-12(B)4 of the City Code which
encourages preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics and open space in
Planned Unit Developments. Section 5-5-12(C)12e further states that a Planned Unit
Development encourages development which preserves and enhances worthwhile natural
terrain features and does not force intense development to utilize all portions of a given site.
The development as proposed is aesthetically displeasing because the generic character of
the dwelling unit design proposed by the applicant is monotonous, and is inconsistent with
Section 5-5-12(B)2 of the City Code which states that one of the purposes of a planned unit
development is to encourage variety in the organization of site elements, building densities
and housing types. Section 5-5-12(B) further states the Planned Unit Development is not
intended to enforce the concept of uniformity of housing types.
The single design utilized for the proposed units is not in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood and could result in a negative impact on property values. This is inconsistent
with Section 5-5-12(C)3 of the City Code which requires that Planned Unit Developments
must harmonize with existing and proposed development in the area surrounding the project
site.
4. One of the purposes of a Planned Unit Development is more efficient and effective use of
land, open space and public facilities. The proposed development as a Planned Unit
RS9616.DOC
Development will not achieve any greater efficiencies or effectiveness or result in any
greater benefit to the general public or residents of the development than would result from
conventional development of the site.
o
The proposed development is inconsistent with Sections 5-5-12(B)1,3, and 5 of the City
Code because the proposal does not demonstrate the use of any new technologies which will
create greater development flexibility; does not present a higher standard of site and building
design than a conventional development; and does not demonstrate that a more efficient use
of land, open space or public facilities has been realized through the application of the
Planned Unit Development provisions of this ordinance.
Passed and adopted this 5th day of February , 1996.
YES NO
{Seal}
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
Andren I
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader ;21
~chenc~ ~. I
City Maja~r
City o~e
RS9616.DOC