The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8A - Zone Amend O'Loughlin MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT APRIL 2, 2001 8A JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE TO THE R-2 DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 115 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST (Case File #01-001) History: Centex Homes and John O'Loughlin have filed an application for a Zone Change for 38.9 acres of vacant land located on the west side ofCSAH 83, 1f4 mile south ofCSAH 42, in the East Yz of the Northwest 1f4 of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The request is to rezone the property from the A (Agricultural) District to the R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) District, and to remove the Shoreland District designation from the site. The Planning Commission reviewed this request at a public hearing on February 12, 2001. There was public testimony at the hearing by citizens concerned that the rezoning of this property to the R-2 district would allow additional townhouses. There was also testimony as the whether this area should be developed with commercial uses rather than residential uses because of the adjacent land use designation. The Commission noted rezoning this property to the R-1 district rather than the R-2 district would not preclude the development of townhouses. The Commission also concluded this site is suitable for a residential cluster development due to its topography. The Commission voted to recommend approval of this rezoning on the basis that the R-2 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation and that the property lies outside of the practical limits of the Mystic Lake Shoreland District. The City Council reviewed this request on February 27, 2001. At that time, the Council voted to adopt an ordinance removing the property from the Shore1and District. At the same time, the Council voted to defer the question of rezoning the property to the R-2 district in order to allow the developer to review some of the rezoning issues with the 1:\0 I files\O I rezone\O 1-001 \01-001 cc3.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER T- - T i . J i1i staff. A copy of the City Council meeting minutes is attached to this report. The City Council directed that the staff meet with Mr. Ach to discuss concerns, including roadway connections, overall density, open space, lot size and related matters. As a result of our discussions, Mr. Ach has submitted the attached letter, received March 27,2001. The letter addresses the areas of Council concern. Current Circumstances: This property is currently vacant land. There is a wetland located on the northwest corner of the site. There is also a stand of trees located at the south end of the site. The property to the west and south is Shakopee Mdewakanton Trust Land, and is developed with residences and businesses, while the land immediately to the west is a wetland mitigation area. To the north of this property is vacant agricultural land, zoned A (Agriculture) and planned for Hospitality General Business uses. To the east, across CSAH 83, is The Wilds golf course and residential development, zoned PUD and planned for Low to Medium Density Residential uses and Hospitality General Business uses. The property under consideration is designated for Low to Medium Density Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property also meets the criteria for the extension of the MUSA. Sewer and water services can be extended to serve this property from the existing utilities located in Wilds Parkway and CSAH 83. Access to this property is from CSAH 83. The access point is located across from the entrance to The Wilds. It may also be possible to access this property from the SMDC land to the south. The Issues: 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. The proposed R-2 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The R-2 district allows residential development 1:\01 files\01 rezone\O 1-001 \01-001 cc3 .doc Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: with densities up to 7.2 units per acre. This would allow townhouse development, as well as 6,000 square foot single family residential lots. The City Council recently adopted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that identified criteria to be considered when determining what Zoning District should be applied to areas designated for Low to Medium Residential uses. These criteria are as follows: . The topography of the site. · Capacity of utilities serving the site. . Type and nature of abutting or nearby development. . Type and quality of access to local, collector and arterial streets. · Effect on traffic levels of service. . Market conditions. · Any costs incurred by the City as a result of the development. . The degree to which significant natural features are preserved . Whether the proposed zoning supports the logical extension of existing neighborhoods. . Whether the zoning district is delineated by logical natural or artificial boundaries. . The impact on drainage patterns and conditions and the degree to which any adverse impacts can be mitigated. . Potential impacts on the physical condition of streets and roads serving the site. There was testimony at the February 12,2001 public hearing before the Planning Commission as to whether this site is more appropriately planned for commercial uses. This idea is based on the fact that the property to the north is planned for Hospitality General Business uses, and the SMDC trust property directly to the south includes a mixture of residential and commercial uses. The Planning Commission concluded the site is more appropriate for residential development because of the topography and therefore voted to recommend approval of this rezoning request from the A district to the R-2 district. Conclusion: The proposed R-2 district is consistent with the existing use of this site. It can also be argued the property meets the criteria for R-2 uses as listed in the Comprehensive Plan due to the topography of the site, access to a County Road, and location in relation to property planned for commercial uses and existing commercial uses. Therefore, the Planning Commission and the staff recommend approval of this request. Bud1!et Impact: There is no direct budget impact involved in this request. 1:\01 files\Olrezone\O 1-00 I \0 1-00 I cc3.doc Page 3 III III [ 11 AL TERN A TIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt Ordinance 01- XX approving the Zone Change to the R - 2 district. 2. Continue the review for specific information or reasons per City Council discussion. The 120-day deadline for City action on this application expires on May 9, 200l. 3. Find the zone change inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and deny the request. In this case staff should be directed to prepare a resolution with findings of fact. The staff recommends Alternative # 1. A motion and second to adopt Ordinance 0 l- XX rezoning this property to the R-2 Low to Medium Density Residential) district. un qui, approval by 4/5 vote oftbe City Council. 1:\01 files\O lrezone\Ol-OO 1 \01-001 cc3 .doc Page 4 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 01~ 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: 1. 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-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 2nd day of April, 2001. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the 7th day of April, 2001. Drafted By: Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 1:\Olfiles\Olrezone\OI-OOI\r-2ord.doc Page I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER IH II HI 03/27/01 11:44 FAX 9529367839 _. CENTEX H~ ~002 1.-- ~ ~ -., n"" -, r-, f>l ~i ....... :--.) 1,-..;., '_I l,\.'{ ~_.... 1~""\ ,"'" \ '-:: '. "'. 12, 1 'IV! ~ ~ i j'\ \ I. . _.., \.:..:-:7 L'.:: l... ~ -.-, I, . 'I I J' ~ I j; I 1 ii' ,ill 1 ,! .' lj I ..', I1I1 ill.i...'i.. MAR 2 7 2001 !~: II II: I I . I ,. '." , I' J ,,' " ,'v I IU \..I' I I I CENTEX HOMES Minnesota Division '2400 Whlt....,at.r Ortw.. SUIte 1 20 Mln"ctonlca. MN 56343 Phg"~:952-936-7B33 ~BZ:9$2~$ae-7B39 Jane Kasier City of Prior '620 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372~1787 Dear Jane Kasier, I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to some issues that have come 1.1p at our meeting last wee\(, I believe these are issues raised by City Council and need some attention prior to our rezoning and preliminary plat going before the Council. Following is the issues I would like to address: Size of homesites: As presented in our proposed plan, the single-family homesites will exceed the R-2 minimum lot size of 6000 sf. The lots will range in area from 8060 sf to 29,229 sf. The lot width will either be a minimum of 62' to accommodate a standard two car garage or 72' for a three car garage option. However, there are lots exceeding the 72' width based on the design of the plat. In many respects, the proposed single family plat will meet .the R-' zoning district: standards. For: example. the overall density will be less than the 3.6 units per acre ailowed in the f=;:-, District. With some of the modifications we are making to our plat per the Planning Commission and staff request, 28 of the single family lots should have lot areas that exceed the R-1 minimum lot area of 12,000 sf. The primary deviation from the R-1 standard is the lot width which Centex Homes has specific house plans to fit the narrower lot. Types of homes and possible additions: The single-family homes will all be story design with front porches '... garages designed into the style of the home to diminish the appearance of garages to the streets cape. A~": ,.'resented at earlier meetings, the floor plans that will be constructed are all designed in a "front to back" orientatior.l. In other words, there are no openings (other than windows) on the sides of the homes encouraging an~' type of expansion. In fact, a majority of the floor plans are designed with the garage, bath or la'..mcry are:1 and kitchen on one side of the house and a fire plal:e on the opposite which prevents a logical e;;~ omsion fr,:)m occurring. Centex has built this series of floor plans in several neighborhoods and have not hel::: 7.o"i'} requests for expansions into the side yard. All decks and four season porches have been constructed i" (;-:8 rear of the home as thS"1toor plans suggest. If the City felt it would be necessary, Centex Homes would agree ~: '.:'ude sorne language in our covenants and homeowner's association documents stating side yard additi::".,,,t do not meet city setback standards are not allowed. The specific language could be presented to the .,/;11 at ~le time of preliminary plat. 03/27/01 11:45 FAX 9529367839 _ CENJ:gJl~ [g] 003 ------- It should also be noted that the covenants and homeowner association documents have a set of restrictions that preserve the integrity of the neighbomood. For example, the covenant and restrictions setfolih standards for improvements such as fencing, play equipment. pools. placement and storage of recreatiQnal vehicles and accessory buildings. . Cui de sac lengths: The proposed plan includes two cuI de sacs that exceed the City's max.imum longth of 500 feet. The property is adjacent to Mdewe\(.anton Sioux Community on the south and west boundary. Stan Ellison. Land R-esources Manager for the Mdewakanton Community has informed <both Centex Homes and the city, that they are not interested in any connection to their street system. The only opportunity for a connection from our property to an adjacent parcel is to the north. As part of our revised plan, this connection will be provided. We have looked at several options to avoid the long cuI de sacs, but every possibility presents further issues. The grade change frorn the southerly cuI de sac to the north is a change of ~~O feet. To connect the cuI de sacs within the distance we have and drop 40 feet would create an unacceptable street grade. Another option we looked at was providing a loop street back to the street that continues north through the townhomes. This option would again present several grading challenges next to the weUand and would eliminate the parkland recommended by the planning commission and staff. This site certainly offers some unique characteristics that warrant a deviation from the strict application of thE:! ordinance. In dosing, the Planning Comrnission has made it clear they prefer the current plan that includes single famIly and townhomes \0 any other alternative. Centex has heard concerns relative to the type of building that would be utilized on an alternative plan and would therefor prefer to continLle with the application that has been submitted. If you have any further questions before the meeting. please do not hesitate to cal\ me so we can further discuss them. Sincerely, /~L/ Steve Ach land Development Manager Centex Homes IH II r II City Council Meeting Minutes February 27, 2001 VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, Nay by Ericson, the motion carried. . NEW BUSINESS: Consider Approva of a Resolution Modifying the City's Municipal State Aid Street System. OSMUNDSON: Reviewe the agenda item in conn ction with the staff report discussing the additions and deletions to the City' municipal state aid st et system and the effects on funding. MADER: Asked if there is a Ii it in terms of e miles of streets the City can have in the system, and if that's the reason for changing deleting gments. OSMUNDSON: Advised that the nu er f miles in the system is 20% of the total miles of streets within the City. ZIESKA: Asked for confirmation t t inclu 'ng the streets in the system does not necessarily mean the project will be completed, but t t if it is co leted, it has qualified for potential funding. OSMUNDSON: Confirmed an noted that it is im ortant to include many streets in the system that may be way out in the future far as completion b ause funding needs are based upon those streets being built up to today's andards and if we show ore need there is the potential for receiving more funding. GUNDLACH: Asked OSMUNDSON: A ised that it is already included in the system. MOTION PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-20 MODIFYI G THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET SYS M. VOTE: yes by Mader, Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. ~ Consider Approval of an Ordinance Approving a Zone Change to the R-2 District and Removing the Shoreland District Designation on the Property Located in Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. KANSIER: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, noting the proposed request before the Council. Reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and discussed the criteria for amendments to the official zoning map and for rezoning from R-1 to R-2. MADER: Believes there are some outstanding issues with the rezoning and that more work needs to be accomplished with staff. Believes that the developer is acceptable to deferring the matter at this time. BOYLES: Confirmed and noted that the Council did have the opportunity to act on the separate Shoreland District issue while deferring the rezoning issue by acting on the second ordinance in the staff report. KANSIER: Discussed the property in connection with the limits of the shoreland district. Further discussed the drainage on the property and the recommendation of staff. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes February 27,2001 ERICSON: Asked for clarification if the lots within the Shoreland District were required to be greater in size than those not in the Shoreland District. KANSIER: Confirmed and explained that lot area for R-1 within the Shoreland District is 20,000 square feet and outside the Shoreland District the requirement is 12,000 square feet. GUNDLACH: Asked how that affected the density for R-2. KANSIER: Advised that the property could still be zoned R-2 to allow clustering development, but the density is based upon the 20,000 square foot lot area. There is then a tiering process that the DNR allows in order to push back the development further from the Shoreland District. Density is based on the minimum lot area. In this case it would be less than 3 units per acre. ERICSON: Commented that his understanding was that the reason it should be removed from the Shoreland District was because drainage was away from Mystic Lake. Now it appears that there are additional issues with lot size. Believed that the reason the property was within the Shoreland District is primarily the proximity to Mystic Lake. GUNDLACH: Asked how the Wilds PUD which is in a Shoreland District was able to have lots smaller than 20,000 square feet. KANSIER: Advised that a PUD does not negate the requirements of a Shoreland District, but didn't not know the details of the Wilds PUD development. RYE: Advised that there is the factor of overall density, which is established by the 20,000 square foot lot size. The Wilds PUD was probably approved under the 20,000 square foot minimum, but much of the area is also golf course which would affect the overall density. ERICSON: Concerned about density of the project, particularly 50 foot lots in an R-1. However, noted that smaller lots are preferable to higher density. The current townhome projects within the City, while very well done with respect to quality, are really getting overcrowded within the spaces provided. Would like to see not having maximum density for all projects and that this Council take a look at reducing overall density. Would support removing the property from the Shoreland District strictly on the drainage issue, but advised he had concerns about the overall project. GUNDLACH: Would support removing the property from the Shoreland District given the drainage. Also concerned about building single-family homes on lots that are 50-60 foot wide. Suggested other alternatives to rezoning the property R-2 in order to manage density, including use of a PUD. MADER: Suggested that the Council focus on the issue of the Shoreland District and allow staff to further work with the developer on the rezoning issue. Supported removing the property from the Shoreland District. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 01-01 REMOVING THE PROPERTY FROM THE SHORELAND DISTRICT. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO DEFER ACTION ON THE APPLICATION TO REZONE. 5 111 If 11" r IT Location I\I1ap Property Location " i I~ II ~~ I ::; J-, N A 1000 o 1000 2000 Feet I IV- ~~i~~ 'i~ mill c: ~ .- 0:: .- ~!(l Y.l - oKllG Kl '-~Ql .~ 'Ill 0:: 0:: ~ 0:: 8 !9 ~ c: ~ 1ii :~ E ~:>. co .- Iii ::l 16 'C ~::l ll> 1i'l. ~ !il a.. 'C :>. Ie iHiHU~t~i n ~~~~~~~81~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~;t~00330:;:CJ)~~ IDD~llw~llllmDw~~ Ole.. ceo .E~ ~ ~ CO .....J l- e -- I- a.. o ~ ......., o ~ z+oo ~ .. '0 E5~ +=-2i. ~~ ....J I H r II T'"" cg ~~ -eco !~ O>~ .5~ C+J Ccu CUR 0.::::> r II ~ m ffi .00 :) a.. C-o Q) C ..c ~~ a. E 8 ~ ~ s.... o -- s.... 0... '0 >- +oJ (5 "' z+~ ~f>; Ul 8 m ~ "" -E.8'E ~ 6 0 """'\ ~ ~ ~'w "" l/l~ N -J g.> oc:-6> :J ~ 1511l - "'C 0 '!!i 'w CD ~!E :e a. ..q C E~ r.l z8 (jjJO III UW "'""" ro I; .:2 'w O} 0;0; lii c; ~ ~ ~ ~ I.- ....I B ~ ~ ~ .~.~ lii ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ >> ~ ~ !E Ul ~~ ~ ~ c ~o ~] l c: ~ ~ ~ S~-{~ ~ ~~~t~ ]~ ~~~ ! .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ & & ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ i nnm ~ lfilllll ~ I :s mnlR ~ LJLJOO 8 lB ] ~ @LJ @