Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042495REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, April 24, 1995 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:20 p.m. Call meeting to order. a) Review minutes of previous meeting. 1. Consider Variance for James McCarty. 2. RU.D. Amendment for the Wilds 3. Update - Land Use Guide Plan All times stated on the Planning Commission Agenda, with the exception of Public Hearings, are approximate and may start a few minutes earlier or later than the scheduled time. AG0~24 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1995 The April 24, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Vonhof at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Arnold, Kuykendall, Loftus, Roseth and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Secretary Connie Carlson. REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: Correction to Minutes: Commissioner Roseth arrived at 7:05 p.m. and Commissioner Kuykendall from the last Motion adjourning meeting. delete MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Kuykendall, Rosette and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM I - VARIANCE REQUEST FOR JAMES MCCARTY: Applicant, Mr. James McCarty, 14806 Estate Avenue, stated his request for a variance was to remove the existing deck surrounding their home which was originally built in 1968. The deck is rotting and their plan is remove the entire deck that was constructed in 1968 and replace it exactly as it looks today (in size). A variance is required because of the setback. Mr. McCarty presented the plan for reconstruction. Michael Leek, Associate Planner, presented the Planning Report dated April 24, 1995. The Planning Department received a variance application from James L. McCarty for 14806 Estate Avenue. The subject property is legally described on the applicant's certificate of survey, and consists of part of Gov't. Lot 8, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota. The applicant proposes to remove an existing, cantilevered deck, and replace it with a deck of the same size that would be anchored to the ground. The specific variance requested is a variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 24 feet instead of the required 75 feet. The subject property was included in the Savage Annexation to the City of Prior Lake. The house was constructed in 1968. The deck area proposed to be removed and replaced has been inspected by Paul Baumgarten of the City's inspections department. It appears to be a part of the original construction. The Southerly and Easterly portions of the deck would be from 24 feet to about 48 feet from the shoreline. A 15 foot deck extension was allowed on the Western part of the structure by variance in 1987. Because the deck is cantilevered and is a part of the original structure, it is not possible to replace it with PLANNING COMMISSION April 24, 1995 Page 1 another cantilevered structure. Instead it would be necessary to construct a deck that is anchored to the ground. As a long-standing practice, the City has tended to limit variances from lakeshore setback to no more than 25 feet. This practice results in conformity with the minimum DNR setback from the lakeshore. In connection with the deck constructed on the subject property in 1987, for example, the applicant was allowed to construct a 15 foot deck extension rather than the 20 foot extension requested. The present request differs from the previous request in connection with the subject property in that it does not involve an extension or intensification of the non-conformity. Staff recommendation is to approve the variance requested because the ordinance hardship criteria have been met. Specifically, the property's configuration as a point of land, surrounded on the North and East by Prior Lake is unique. This configuration keeps the proposed deck replacement from having an adverse impact on the use and enjoyment of the lake by other property owners. In addition, the circumstances surrounding this request are unique in that the house and deck were built when the property was still within the City of Savage. There were no comments from the audience. Comments from Commissioners were: the situation was grandfathered in and the house was built with the concept that it needs a deck; the applicant is not expanding beyond the existing deck; the deck will enhance the appearance from the lakeshore; all Commissioners were in support of the request. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE A 24 FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK TO THE PROPERTY. Rationale: The four variance hardships standards have been met and special attention to the fact that this was developed under a previous jurisdiction of the City of Savage and there has been no increase in the footprint. It is a safety improvement to the property. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Kuykendall, Roseth, Lofius and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. A short recess was taken and the meeting reconvened at 7:20 p.m. ITEM II - P.U.D. AMENDMENT FOR THE WILDS: The public was in attendance and a sign-up sheet was circulated. Timn Jacobs, Project Manger for the Wilds addressed issues 1 through 4, and Dick Burtness addressed issues 5 through 7 of the attached Narrative Outline - The Wilds dated PLANNING COMMISSION April 24, 1995 Page 2 2/17/95. The Wilds are proposing to eliminate the nursery in item 7 whether they do apartments or commerical. The nursery proposal was intended to provide the course with an adequate supply of turf. The turf has developed faster than expected. Don Rye, Director of Planning presented the information in the Planning Report dated April 24, 1995. As proposed in July of 1992, the 580-acre Wilds included a championship caliber public golf course, a hotel/conference center, 460 single-family homes, 130 villas and several commercial buildings. Key elements of the plan were the golf course, hotel/conference center and low-density residential development. These elements, combined with the attraction of the neighboring casino, were viewed as the primary reason for the proposal's appeal from an economic development perspective. As approved by Resolution No. 93-54 (later replaced by Resolution 93-83), The City Council found that the Schematic and Preliminary PUD were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that the organization of land uses was in harmony with existing and proposed development in the area. The individual requests are dealt with below. Amend the City's zoning ordinance to allow a 6 foot high fence around the entire perimeter of the maintenance facility. The applicants' request is phrased as a request for amendment of the Zoning Ordinance. The request to permit a 6 foot fence can, however, be dealt with without taking such broad action. The request can be viewed as a request for amendment to the landscaping/screening plan for the PUD. Generally speaking, fences may only reach 6 feet in height in the rear and side yard areas. However, Section 6.10(F)(4) of the City Code requires screening around the perimeter of new parking lots. The screening is to consist of a combination of shrubs, coniferous trees, fencing, berming ,etc. Where parking is adjacent to residential uses, under Section 6.10(N) the screening is to be at least 15 feet in height, but not more than 6 feet in height. Because the property to the Northeast and Southeast across Wilds Parkway is residential, it would be appropriate to not only permit, but require screening of the parking area. Likewise, the 6 foot height is appropriate. Parking lot screening is to be located 15 feet from any street or driveway opening to a street. This provision is clearly intended to insure that vehicles entering, leaving and traveling by the parking lot have adequate lines of sight. On the North, the proposed fence meets this requirement; to the South it does not. It does appear that there is adequate area to pull the fence back on the South in order to increase the separation from the roadway. That would also provide additional area for complementary landscaping. Because the purpose of the proposed fence is in large part to provide security, it would PLANNING COMMISSION April 24, 1995 Page 3 seem appropriate to modify the requirement that screening be 15 feet from driveway openings as a part of the revised PUD plan. e Amend the front yard setback for 1/2 acre lots in Block 4 of Phase 1 from 30 feet to 25 feet. The minimum front yard setback originally adopted for Block 4 of Phases I is in excess of the setback requirement in any residential zoning district in the City. The proposed setback is the same as the setback for other residential districts in the City. The proposed setback has served well to preserve the visual character of the City's other residential districts. Thus, it would be appropriate to approve this requested amendment. e Revise the street and lot configurations of Phase 2 located in the southeastern portion of the site. The proposed street and lot reconfiguration need to be addressed as an amendment to the approved plat. The need for the revision arises because a 30 foot vertical topographical error was uncovered during the construction of the trunk sanitary sewer for Phase 1 of the Wilds. As a result, the applicants estimate that construction of Oak Tree Drive as shown on the approved schematic plan would result in street grades exceeding 12 %. In addition, the area would need to be mass graded which would result in the removal of trees over 90 percent of the site. The proposed reconfiguration would involve the construction of 2 separate cul-de-sacs rather than the loop originally shown. The practical importance of the change is negligible in that the use of the area is unchanged, and access to the area in either event is essentially unchanged. While looped road systems are generally a preferred alternative, this preference should be weighed against the significant potential impact of mass grading on the aesthetic and environmental characteristics of the site. Since preservation of important land forms and characteristics are an important reason for using the PUD process, staff believes the proposed amendment is a preferred alternative for development of this portion of the site. The PUD plan as approved showed residential use in the triangular area on the southwest side of Wilds Parkway. The proposed PUD plan does not designate that area for a particular use. It would be appropriate to leave that portion of the PUD plan "as is" until such time applicants have a specific and viable proposal for revision. 4. Revise the street and lot configurations of Phase 3. The proposed street and lot reconfiguration need to be addressed as an amendment to the approved plat. The proposed street and lot revisions in Phase 3 would increase the number of lots which would have direct access to Wilds Parkway, which is designed as a collector street. Generally speaking, direct access to a collector should be limited. Introductory Comments to Items 5 - 7. PLANNING COMMISSION April 24, 1995 Page 4 Generally speaking the PUD planning process requires that a high level of detailed information be provided by the developer. This can include such items as specific building siting information, sample building elevations and floor plans, specific tree preservation plans. The Wilds PUD was originally approved on the basis of a broadly drawn set of plans that did not provide a lot of detailed information. Since that original approval a number of changes have been made to the PUD plan, also on the basis of more schematic than detailed information. Where the proposed amendments to the PUD plan involve a significant departure from the original plan, staff believes that the applicants have the burden of 1) demonstrating that the original concept is no longer valid and 2) that the proposed change will be superior to the original concept. In order to evaluate the desirability of the proposed changes staff believes that it is advisable to have more detailed information. The Planning Commission should specifically address whether it is comfortable addressing the following requests with the amount and type of information provided, or whether it would like more or other information to evaluate changes to the PUD plan. The City's Finance Director, Ralph Teschner, has done an analysis of the possible tax consequences of the proposed changes. That analysis does assume full development, and is based in part on the applicants' values assumptions. Also attached are staff comments from the City Manager and Bill Mangan, former Parks and Recreation Director Change usage of a portion of the site from 11.8 acre hotel + 1.0 acre restaurant + 1.0 acre convenience store to 11.8 acre rental cabin + 2.0 acre restaurant. The applicants have proposed this change because they believe the hotel and convenience store are no longer economically viable. As with item 6 below, specific information is not provided by which the Planning Commission can evaluate the rationale. This is particularly significant since the applicants contend that proposed rental cabins are an essentially similar use. Moreover, the request lacks detail about cabin design, location and arrangement on the site. Absent such information, it is difficult to fully evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed change. Change the 16.7 acre hotel/clubhouse site to a proposed 10.7 acre clubhouse/6.0 acre, 57 unit condominium site. Along with the golf course itself, the clubhouse adjacent to the hotel/conference center site was a key element of this Planned Unit Development. This combination of a high caliber golf course with a high quality hotel is a particularly unique aspect of the Wilds PUD as originally approved. The proposed change significantly alters not only the use (i.e. high density residential vs. service commercial), but the relationship of uses within the PUD. Thus, the proposed change should be carefully considered. The rationale for the proposed change is twofold; 1) the Dakota community has proposed building a hotel on their property and 2) residents of the PUD have expressed concern PLANNING COMMISSION April 24, 1995 Page 5 about potential traffic from a hotel. With respect to the first rationale for the change, the applicants' material does not provide any information or data to suggest that, even if the Dakota community builds a hotel, it would fully satisfy market demand for such accommodations. Before making a decision on the proposed change, it would be very helpful if the Commission were provided with such information. Moreover the proposal does not provide information that demonstrates the market demand for the proposed condominiums. Such information should be provided so that the likelihood that the project would be fully developed. With respect to the second rationale for the change, it should be remembered that residents of the PUD were or should have been made aware of the possibility of a hotel and its implications before settling in the PUD. The proposal does not include information that demonstrates the relative traffic impact of the condominiums would be less than the traffic impact of the hotel. Change the 4.0 acre village shopping + 6.3 acre nursery site to 2.0 acres of open space + 8.3 acre multiple family residential. As with items 5 and 6, the applicants' submission with respect to this item does not provide information that demonstrates that the originally-approved uses are no longer valid, or that the proposed use would be superior. While overall residential densities for the PUD are still low, because the original plan focused on low-density types of residential uses, it is of some concern that higher density residential uses are now being proposed without specific information on the possible impact of the changes. Staff recommends approval of proposed amendments 1 through 3; it is recommended that consideration of items 4-7 be tabled in order to allow time for additional information. Comments from the audience: Tom Chaklos, 3161 140th St., stated he owned 40 acres next to The Wilds. Mr. Chaklos is not happy with some of the delays the Planning Commission has imposed on The Wilds. He feels the Planning Commission should encourage and develop The Wilds for the future benefits of Prior Lake. Mr. Chaklos also felt the Planning Commission should have invited a member of the Dakota Community to the meeting for any inpute that might help with decisions made tonight. Timn Jacobs stated the City Manager approached him in December and suggested putting all the information on the PUD Amendment and they would be addressed one by one. If the Council had a problem with one or two items they would be dealt with and they could then proceed with the rest of the items. Comments from the Commissioners on the first three items were: no problem with the fence or setbacks; (Jacobs stated the type of fence has not been determined and they will PLANNING COMMISSION April 24, 1995 Page 6 work with the City for information and restrictions. It would not be an alarm fence but necessary for security.) sight lines coming out of driveway; cul-de-sac loops; support for items 1 through 3. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE ITEMS ONE, TWO AND THREE OF THE WILDS PUD AS AMENDED BY EXHIBIT A. Discussion: 15 foot setback from street so there is visibility of the road. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Loftus, Roseth, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:29 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m. Comments by Commissioners on item 4 were: no way of solving situation of driveways into the street, (from 4 to 11); giving future developments to the South a free street; had to work around the design of the golf course; designation is low density single family; speed limit of 30 mph; 36 foot lanes; supportive of item. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND TO ROSETH, TO APPROVE ITEM 4 WITH THE REVISION OF THE STREET AND LOT CONFIGURATIONS AS SHOWN WITH THE ADDITION THAT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER BE NOTED AS HAVING THE SAME DENSITY AND LAND USAGE AS BEFORE. Discussion: None. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Roseth, Kuykendall, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. Comments from Commissioners on Item 5 were: No facts on a hotel being constructed on the Dakota property; no problem with upscale log cabins or hotel but should have better information; (Burtness stated the cabins are not changing the dollar investment.) marketing log cabins; (Jacobs indicated there would be seasonal weekend packages, possibly sold as time share units.) restaurant layout; traffic on Oaks Lane in to The Wilds; positive benefits of mixed zones; conception only; superior plans; property tax analysis is the same; only a modification of the original land use; supportive. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO APPROVE THE CHANGE OF USAGE FROM 11.8 ACRE HOTEL PLUS 1.0 ACRE RESTAURANT PLUS 1.0 ACRE CONVENIENCE STORE TO 11.8 ACRE RENTAL CABIN PLUS 2.0 ACRE RESTAURANT. Discussion: acres will be descriptive; 2 acres may not be enough; roughly 1 acre for parking not an issue for Commission. PLANN1NG COMMISSION April 24, 1995 Page 7 Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Loftus, Amold, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. Discussion by Commissioners on Item 6 included: would like to see what is going to be happening with the Dakota Community regarding the hotel; Commissioner Arnold not supportive at this time and suggested tabling until the Commission sees more information. Commissioner Roseth stated this information was not in the packet and would prefer to look over the information; this concept was presented with a hotel in the middle of the complex and residents of The Wilds should have been aware of this. Commissioner Loftus felt some land should be reserved for a hotel somewhere in the PUD for later use; Commissioner Kuykendall does not see the need for a hotel as opposed to the cabins; supportive; Commissioner Vonhof agrees with Kuykendall's concern; Commissioners felt this item should be tabled and brought back at a later time with more information. There have been many changes from the original concept. Mr. Burtness stated at this time he would leave the designated area in Item #7 as a hotel site instead of apartments there and if the market place dictates a hotel, the desirability from a hospitality industry is much stronger along County Road 83 than the center of The Wilds property. Mr. Jacobs stated the Planning Commission approved the clubhouse last month with the stipulation it must be removed by December 31, 1996, and he cannot open a golf course without a clubhouse. It is important the Commission make a decision. Items 6 and 7 will be considered under this proposal. All Commissioners agree on this issue. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY ROSETH, THE CHANGES IN THE 16.7 ACRE HOTEL/CLUBHOUSE SITE TO A PROPOSED 10.7 ACRE CLUBHOUSE/6.0 ACRE, 57 UNIT CONDOMINIUM SITE. THE 4.0 ACRE VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER AND 6.3 ACRE NURSERY SITE TO 2.0 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE PLUS 8.3 ACRES FOR A HOTEL. Discussion: The concerns have been raised about keeping the component intact within the plan and all that has been done is to move it. Rationale: The proposed change is recommended contingent upon Item #7 that the hotel concept is still included in the overall PUD as outlined the Motion in Item #7 designated to be the hotel. It is also a more desirable location. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Roseth, Loflus, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. PLANNING COMMISSION April 24, 1995 Page 8 A recess was called at 10:31 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:30 p.m. ITEM III - UPDATE OF LAND USE PLAN: Don Rye, Director of Planning, discussed the City Council's reaction to the idea of expanding the Office Park. They liked and accepted the general idea but would like to see an additional park with access to the lake. Parks are aware of the situation. City Council also approved the consultant contract. Mr. Rye is going to check into scheduling Thursday night workshops regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Reminder of Saturday, April 29, workshop and Monday, May 1, meeting with City Council at 5:30. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO ADJOURN MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Kuykendall, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Donald R. Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary M42895 PLANNING COMMISSION April 24, 1995 Page 9 1 ]