HomeMy WebLinkAbout0512972.
3.
4.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, May 12, 1997
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
A. Case #97-033 Consider Schematic Planned Unit Development Plan to allow
an Assisted Living Project in the Priorview PUD.
Old Business:
A. Case #97-028 Resolution of Denial for variance requests for Pinnacle Partners
for property on Red Oaks Road.
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 F__aa~a~a-'~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota f~$72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 12, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The May 12, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Criego at 6:35 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Stamson, Vonhof and
Wuellner, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Assistant
City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson
2. Roll Call:
Stamson Present
Kuykendall Absent
Criego Present
Vonhof Present
Wuellner Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE APRIL
28, 1997, MINUTES.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Vonhof and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED.
Commissioner Criego abstained from voting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #97-033 Consider Schematic Planned Unit Development Plan to
allow an Assisted Living Project in the Priorview PUD.
The public hearing was opened and a sign-up sheet circulated to the public in attendance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff Report dated May 12, 1997.
Eagle Creek Villas LLC applied for an amendment to the Priorview PUD to add
approximately one acre of land to the original PUD site, to allow the construction of a 61
unit assisted living building and a 28 unit market rate senior rental building on the vacant
portion of the site. The original PUD was approved in 1983 and the development to date
has occurred prior to 1991. The present applicant has no connection with the developer
of the original PUD.
The Priorview PUD was preceded by Council action in 1981 which rezoned the subject
property to R-3, High Density residential. This would have permitted 210 units on the
l:\97files\97plcomm\pcminXrnn051297.doc 1
15.05 acres of buildable land on the site. In December of 1982, the Council approved a
Schematic PUD plan which provided for 106 units, a street connection from Five Hawks
Avenue to Cates Street and preservation of site amenities. In September of 1983, the
Council approved the first phase of the development consisting of 48 townhomes.
Priorview Second Addition consisting of 20 units, was approved in 1991.
In 1987, the developer asked the City to consider expansion of the PUD to include the so-
called Holly Court property to the north and increase the number of units to 148. The
Planning Commission recommended denial of the request and the application was with -
drawn.
There has been no construction activity on this site for several years. In September, 1996,
the Council approved Resolution 96-90, approving an amendment to the Schematic Plan
for the Priorview PUD, to allow a 61 unit assisted living facility. This amendment was
subject to the eight conditions. The developer never submitted the necessary documents
for preliminary plan approval of this PUD.
Staff recommended approval of the request based on the following considerations:
· A Comprehensive Plan amendment will likely be required to deal with the density
issue.
· The proposal will enable the City to make substantial progress toward the attainment
of Livable Communities goals related to lifestyle housing.
· The proposed use is compatible with the development in the vicinity.
Comments from the public:
Bryce Huemoeller, the attorney representing the developer and applicant commented the
campus concept for assisted living facilities is an important element. An independent
living building on the grounds would be necessary. One spouse could be living in the
assisted living facility while the other would live in the neighboring independent
building. The density would be consistent with the neighborhood and satisfy the
objectives of the PUD. The key element is the question of the contribution of an interest
in the land to the school district. That would be made, subject to a restriction which
would preclude development of the property so the area would be preserved for density in
this project. This issue would be resolved and the City would be given a copy of the
instrument for their records.
Pamela Nelson, 16517 Dutch Avenue SE, lives behind the wooded area and asked if the
trees and wetland would be removed with the development. Commissioner Criego
explained the proposed development and the surrounding natural area.
The public hearing was closed at 6:55 p.m.
l:\97files\97plcomm\pcminkmn051297.doc 2
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stflmson:
· Questioned the parking lot and a bufferyard. Kansier explained it was a concept plan
and the landscaping will be discussed in a future phase.
· The City is in need of a facility like this.
· In favor.
Wuellner:
· Questioned what regulations would be in place to assure this facility would remain an
assisted living facility. Rye responded the use is specified as an assisted living
project. The PUD would have to be amended.
· Concern for the school district's involvement. Huemoeller said the owners have
considered selling the property to the school district. The discussion and intention is
a conveyance to the school district in the nature of a contribution with restrictions that
would deal the density issue. The school is in the process of designing a nature
center. Also, with the density restrictions and limitations there will not be any more
room for additional living facilities. The only use will be as a natural amenity.
Rye addressed the building sites and locations. The City's concern was for
preservation of the area.
· Would like to see the area remain natural. The restriction will be in the PUD.
· In favor of the facility. It is necessary for the community and a valuable resource.
The street extension was eliminated in favor of a nature trail.
Vonhof.'
· In favor of assisted living concept.
This is a completely different proposal.
Questioned the three story size. Kansier responded the City can require the building
plan and expects them to be similar in appearance, size and bulk.
· This is a city-wide need.
· Agreed with Commissioner Wuellner in keeping the facility an assisted living
facility.
Criego:
· The owner/builder, John Mesenbrink explained the outside design and exterior
materials as well as the site and the preservation areas.
· Debra Rose, 7725 Jennifer Lane, Prior Lake, explained the services of the home
health facility. The bulk of the services would be on a fee for service basis from a
home health perspective. Residents would receive 2 meals per day, weekly light
housekeeping and scheduled transportation. There will be 24 hour emergency
supervision in the building, emergency cords in each room, an attendant program
would be available in the event they ran into trouble in the building, an RN would be
in the building 40 hours a week, a home health agency would be in the building,
space would be leased for hairdressing, also, several assistant services would be
l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~xtn051297.doc 3
available to residents. The facility would cater to seniors and handi-capped
individuals. Meals would depend on the clientele.
· The time frame for the facility was addressed by Mr. Huemoeller. It could be as early
as this year, depending on the planning process. The other buildings have not been
established and would probably go into next year.
· Excellent program.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE SCHEMATIC PLAN, SUBJECT TO A COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT RELATED TO DENSITY.
No discussion.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION APPROVED.
This matter will probably be scheduled before City Council on June 2, 1997.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #97-028 Resolution of Denial for variance requests for Pinnacle
Partners for property on Red Oaks Road.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff Report dated May 12, 1997.
On April 28, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed variance requests from Pinnacle
Partners proposing to construct a new single family residence with attached garage and
deck. The Planning Commission, concurring with staff, concluded the variance requests
for lot area and width are substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot the applicant
has no control over. The Planning Commission approved a variance to lot area and lot
width by adopting Resolution 97-012PC.
The Planning Commission denied variances to Ordinary High Water (OHW) setback, top
of bluff setback, and bluff impact zone. The Planning Commission cited the size and
design of the structure as hardships created by the applicant which could be changed, as
well as the maximum use of the legal building envelope and building over the garage as
alternatives to reducing/eliminating the variance requests. The Planning Commission
directed staff to prepare a separate resolution of denial with findings as discussed.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
97-13PC DENYING (1) A 23 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 52 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE (904
EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET, AND (2) A 26
FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP
OF BLUFF RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET, AND
l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~nn051297.doc 4
(3) A 16 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK WITHIN
THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FEET FOR A
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
Discussion:
The Planning Commission cited the size and design of the structure as hardships created
by the applicant which could be changed, as well as the maximum use of the legal
building envelope and building over the garage as alternatives to reducing and
eliminating the variances.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
Commissioner Criego expressed concern for the ordinance change to a 50 foot setback
from the 75 foot setback. In that case, the impervious surface coverage should be 25% in
line with the DNR's regulations. There should be more concern for the lake than the
DNR's regulations.
Recommendation to City Council to decrease the impervious surface coverage to 25% in
accordance with the DNR's regulations.
Rye commented on the Shoreland District regulations and the impervious surface issue.
Discussion followed on the impervious surface coverage. Impervious surface is the one
standard the Commissioners have maintained. Commissioners felt if the impervious
surface standard was decreased, additional screening/landscaping standards would be
incorporated. They would like to see a response from the DNR. There was also concerns
for fertilizer, appearance and runoff to the lake. Setback averaging solved many of the
problems. The City should take a look at the total picture of the lakeshore ordinances.
Recommendation to City Council to consider best management practices and language
incorporated into the ordinance.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Monday, May 19, staff will meet with City Council to present the proposed zoning
ordinance.
Tuesday, May 20, a public meeting will be held to discuss the redevelopment of the
Priordale Mall.
The Commissioners discussed the joint EDA/Planning Commission meeting, road
construction and accesses.
l:\97files\97plcomm\pcminh-nn051297.doc 5
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Don Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~nn051297.doc 6