HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Eagle Creek V. DEFERRED
.
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MARCH 20, 2000'
9A
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OO-XX DENYING
A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY EAGLE CREEK VILLAS,
LLC, FOR APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES LOCATED IN
SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 114, RANGE 22 (Case File 00-012)
History: Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, has filed an application for a Zone
Change for the property located at the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street, directly
north of Five Hawks School. The request is to rezone the
approximately 12 acre property from the PUD 82-12 District to the R-
4 (High Density Residential) District.
In 1982, the City Council approved a Schematic PUD plan, called the
Priorview PUD, which provided for 106 units, a street connection from
Five Hawks Avenue to Cates Street, and the preservation of site
amenities. The first phase of the development, consisting of 48
townhomes, was approved in 1983. The second phase, consisting of
20 units, was approved in 1991.
In 1997, the applicant filed an application to amend the existing
Priorview PUD (PUD 82-12) to develop this site with an assisted
living facility. At the same time, the City Council also approved an
amendment to the' Comprehensive Plan, designating this property for
R-HD (High Density Residential) uses. Although a preliminary plan
for this amendment was approved, the developer never proceeded to
the final plan stage. The Comprehensive Plan designation remains R-
HD; however, the PUD development plan in place is the same plan
approved in 1982.
At this time, the applicant is considering a new development plan for
this property as a senior housing campus, consisting of four buildings
with 169 units. Rather than amend the existing PUD district, the
applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property to the R-4 district.
HOOfilcll\OOreZOl1e\DO-O 12\0.00 Ucc.dQc , P!}g,e.1
162uu cagle creeK A.ve. ~.t." Pnor Lake, Mmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (612) 447-4230 / Fax (tHZ) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The proposed development, depending on the design, will require at
least a conditional use permit under the R-4 regulations.
The Planning Commission considered this proposal at a public hearing
on February 28, 2000. After considerable testimony and discussion,
the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the proposed
Zone Change request. The Planning Commission felt development of
this site should continue as a Planned Unit Development, which the
Planning Commission felt was more appropriate. A copy of the'
minutes of the F ebiuary 28, 2000 meeting are attached to this report.
Current Circumstances: This site is the undeveloped portion of the
PUD plan approved in 1982, and is presently vacant land. The school
district has been using a portion of the land as an outdoor learning
center. This property is designated for R-HD (High Density
Residential) uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
The proposed rezoning is consistent with the designation.
Additionally, Minnesota Statutes Section 473.865, Subd. 2, provides in
pertinent part U[a] local governmental unit shall not adopt any official
control or fis,cal device which is in conflict with its comprehensive
plan or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system
plans." Minnesota Statutes Section 473.865, Subd. 3, provides in
pertinent part "[iJf an official control conflicts with a comprehensive
plan as the result of an amendmentto the plan, the offiCial control
shall be amended by the unit within nine months following the
amendment to the plan so as not to conflict with the amended
comprehensive plan. "
The property to the west ofthis site is zoned R-l (Low Density
Residential) and is designated for R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density
Residential) uses. This property is developed with single family
homes. The property to the east is zoned R-2, and is designated as R-
L/MD. This property is developed with townhouses. To the south of
this site is Five Hawks School, zoned R-l and designated for R-L/MD
uses. Also to the south is the existing portion of the Priorview PUD,
zoned PUD 82-12, and designated as R-HD. To the north of this site
are single family homes and townhouses, zoned R-3 and designated for .
R-L/MD uses.
Issues: The staff received a letter from the applicant's representative,
Bryce Huemoeller, dated March 9, 2000. This letter takes issue with
the legal status of the zoning on this site. The attached memorandum
from the City Attorney addresses these legal issues.
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the following
policies for amendments to the Official Zoning Map:
l:\OOfiles\OOrezone\OO-O 12\000 12cc.doc
Page 2
.
~
.
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
. 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 thepublic 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 proper.ties and the neighborhood.
Conclusion: This proposal meets the first two criteria. There has
been no construction activity on this site since 1991. Continuing the
PUD designation seems to be impractical at this stage. Rezoning the
property to the R-4 district is consistent with the policies and goals of
the Comprehensive Plan and with the current Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map designation. .Development of the property will still
require public review at the time a specific development application is
submitted. For these reasons the staff recommends approval of this
request.
The Planning Commission, however, believes the property is more
appropriately developed through the Planned Unit Development
process, due to the natural amenities on the site, the existing wetlands
and trees, and its location in respect to the existing dwellings and the
school. For this reason> the Planning Commission recommended
denial of the applicant's request to rezone the property from a PUD
Use District to an R-4 Use District.
Bud.get Impact: There is no direct budget impact involved in this
request. Approval of this request may facilitate the development of
this property, and increase the City tax base.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution oo-xx denying the proposed Zone Change
request to the R-4 (High Density Residential) district as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
2. Direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact
approving the proposed Zone Change to the R-4 district as
recommended by staff.
3. Continue the review for specific information or reasons per City
Council discussion.
The Planning Commission recommends Alternative #1. If the Council
agrees with this recommendation, a motion and second to adopt
l:\OOfiles\OOrezone\OO-O 12\000 12cc,doc
?~-'" ,',' - ": -:-""':.~;tr,,:""::(~~-'~, -:;;-';-;-~~:~--
Page 3
"
Resolution 00- XX denying the Zone Change to the R-4 district is
required.
The staff recommends Alternative #2. If the Council agrees with this
recommendation, a motion and second directing staff to prepare a
resolution with findi gs of fact approving the proposed Zone Change
to designate . s pr erty as R-4 is required.
REVIEWED BY:
1:\oOfiles\OOrezone\OO-O 12\000 12cc,doc
Page 4
.
RESOLUTION oo-xx
RESOLUTION DENYING A PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF FIVE HAWKS AVENUE AND
PRIORWOOD STREET
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, submitted an application to amend the Zoning
Map from the PUD 82-12 (priorwood Planned Unit Development) district to
the R-4 (High Density Residential) district for the property legally described
as follows:
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter (W 1/2 of SW 1/4) of
Section 2, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying North
of a line commencing at the Southwest comer of the West Half of the
Southwest Quarter; thence North along the West line thereof 2080.5 feet to
the point of beginning of the line to be described: thence South 88051 '30"
East to the East line of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter and there
terminating. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the plats of SPRING BROOK
PARK, SPRING BROOK PARK 2ND ADDITION, PRIORVIEW FIRST
ADDITION and PRIORVIEW SECOND ADDITION.
and
legal notice of the public hearing was duly published and mailed III
accordance with Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake City Code; and
the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 28,2000,
for those interested in this request to present their views; and
on February 28, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the
proposed Zoning District Change; and
on March 20, 2000, the Prior Lake City Council considered the application
to rezoned the same property to the R-4 District; and
the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission
to deny 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, staff reports and
l:\o.ofi1es\OOrezone\OO..oITh:sOOxxcc.doc , Pt\~ L
16200 Eagle "CreeK five, ~,E,,-Pnor LaKe, Mmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61zr-q4/-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
T
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-4 (High
Density Residential) district is hereby denied based upon the following findings of fact.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Due to the significant environmental and natural features of this site, this property is more
appropriately developed through the Planned Unit Development procedure.
2. The Prior Lake Planning Commission recommended denial of the request based on
incompatibility with the existing development.
3. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
Passed and adopted this 20th day of March, 2000.
YES NO
Mader Mader
Ericson Ericson
Gundlach Gundlach
Petersen Petersen
Schenck Schenck
{Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager
City of Prior Lake
1:\OOfiIes\OOrezone\OO-O 12\rsOOxxcc,doc Page 2
I
...
Halleland
Lewis Nilan
Sipkins &
J Qhnson
'<">:'-';';',">.. '";>''"''':'''., ". "... .
Pillsb~Ce~te~SouthJSuite (l()() .
220 South Sixth Street
MinrieapolisJMN 55402-4501
Phone: 612.338.1838
Fax: 612.338.7858
"i
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor MaderJ Councilmembers and City Manager
FROM:
Suesan Lea PaceJ City Attorney
DATE:
March 14, 2000
RE:
Agenda Item 9A (Application to Rezone Property Presently Zoned PUD to R-4
for Eagle Creek Villas LLC
BACKGROUND
On February 28, 2000, the Planning Commission considered two related. applications and
recommended denial of both. The City staff had recommended approval of both applications.
The first application was to rezone property currently zoned PUD to R-4. The second
application related to an adjacent parcel in common ownership. The second application is to
amend the Comprehensive Plan designation from low-to-medium density residential to high
density residential.
Following the Planning Commission's February 28, 2000 meeting, the applicant's attorney,
Bryce Huemoeller, sent City Manager Frank Boyles a letter dated March 9,2000. Mr.
..' Huemoeller's March 9th correspondence described Mr. Huemoeller's understanding of the
history of the property in question, and why Mr. Huemoeller believes the City Council should
reject the Planning Commission's recommendation and approve the rezoning and
Comprehensive Plan amendments.
In light of Mr. Huemoeller's letter, City Manager Boyles and Planning Director Rye anticipated
that you would appreciate input from the City Attorney regarding this matter. I have reviewed
the correspondence from Mr. Huemoeller, the Planning Department files on the original (1982)
PUD, the 1975 zoning ordinance, the 1983 zoning ordinance, Ordinance No. 97-86 amending
the 1983 zoning ordinance, Minnesota st~tutes, case law, the Staff Report to the Planning
Commission dated February 28, 2000, the draft minutes from the February 28, 2000 Planning
Commission meeting, and the Staff Report (in draft form) prepared for this agenda item.
City Manager, Mayor and City Council
Agenda Item 9A
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE 1975, 1983 AND 1999
ZONING ORDINANCES TREAT PUDs
Under usual circumstances, the history of this property's PUD zoning should be evident from
the public record and the City's zoning ordinance history. However, after a lengthy review of
the aforementioned documents, together with meetings with Planning Coordinator Kansier and
Planning Director Rye, the only thing that is clear is that there are significant inconsistencies
and contradictory provisions in and between the 1975 and 1983 zoning ordinances. Please
refer to Attachment A which provides a diagram of what we believe is the zoning history of the
subject property since 1982. Included in this Attachment are examples of some of the
ordinance provisions we believe are relevant.
1982 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
In 1982, the subject property was zoned PUD with a density of medium-density residential (R-
HD) in the Comprehensive Plan. The medium density designation was equivalent to the R-3
(Multiple Residential) zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance in effect
in 1975 and 1983 did not include high density designation or R-4 zoning districts. The medium
density designation and R-3 district were equivalent to the current R-HD and R-4. See 1975
Zoning Ordinance Section 6.10 (B)(3)(c) and 6.10(c). From 1982 to 1991, two phases of the
PUD were constructed. There has been no further development within the PUD since 1991.
Mr. Huemoeller suggests that the property is also governed by a Conditional Use Permit.
However, we can find no evidence of a CUP; and furthermore, in 1982, the PUD process and
use designation does not appear to be consistent with also requiring a CUP. However, when
you refer to the various uses permitted in the residential districts, PUDs are listed as
conditional uses in both the 1975 and 1983 zoning ordinances. Because of these apparent
inconsistencies, it is our collective conclusion that for the purposes of analysis, Parcel A
should be considered a PUD zoning district. We believe that this interpretation is more
favorable to the applicant.
What makes this case confusing is that the City's 1983 Zoning Ordinance provided that PUDs
were a conditional use in all residential districts; suggesting that a PUD was not a use district.
See 1983 Zoning Ordinance Section 3.2. Unlike the Zoning Ordinance the City Council
adopted on May 1, 1999, we are not aware that the 1983 Ordinance made any provision for
the treatment of pre-existing PUDs. See Section 1106.611. However, in 1997, the City Council
adopted Ordinance 97-06 which appears to codify the Council's intention that PUDs are use
districts. Therefore, the subject property would have been zoned PUD (use district) under both
the 1975 and 1983 zoning ordinances.
The Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property in effect in 1982 was medium
density residential. In 1997, the property was designated high density residential. The present
I:\SLPEAGLE.DOC
2
..
..
City Manager, Mayor and City Council
Agenda Item 9A
Comprehensive Plan designate the subject property as high density residential. The applicant
has applied to rezone the property from PUD to R-4, which remains consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. In an R-4 zoning district, a conditional use permit would be required for
the type of project described in Mr. Huemoeller's March 9, 2000 letter. In order to construct the
contemplated project under the current PUD zoning, the property owner would have to amend
the approved PUD development plan.
We believe Mr. Huemoeller's arguments that the PUD may now be a nonconforming CUP, or
the PUD has been terminated by abandonment, are without merit under our analysis. ~
1975 Zoning Ordinance Section 6.10{c) which provide in pertinent part that:
"Annual Review: The Planning Commission shall review all Planned
Unit Development districts within the City at least once each year and
shall make a report to the City Council on the status of the
development in each of the Planned Unit Development districts. If the
City Council finds that development has not occurred within a
reasonable time after the original approval, the City Council may
instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original
zoning district by removing the Planned Unit Development district from
the official zoning map."
CONCLUSION REGARDING THE 1982 PUD AND THE CURRENT
APPLICATION TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO R-4
As a PUD, the property is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. In order to build
the project the applicant has described, a major amendment to the 1982 PUD is required.
Under the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property as R-HD, R-4 zoning is
appropriate. The distinction however, is that under R-4 zoning, the applicant will require a CUP
to construct the described project. The Council's decision on re-zoning the property to R-4 is a
legislative decision that must be supported by findings based upon legally sufficient facts in
the record.
If the Council approved the rezoning, the applicant would then have to apply for a CUP. The
Council's decision on a CUP is a quasi-judicial decision. As a quasi-judicial decision "[I]f an
applicant is willing to comply with all conditions imposed by a municipality, an application for a
condition use permit may be denied only for reasons relating to the public health, safety, or
general welfare or to incompatibility with a zoning plan. SuperAmerica Group Inc. v. City of
Little Canada. 539 NW2d 264, 267 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Jan. 5, 1996).
I:\SLPEAGLE.DOC
3
City Manager, Mayor and City Council
Agenda Item 9A
"
APPLICATION TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR HOllY COURT
PROPERTY FROM lOW-TO-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The decision whether to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation is a legislative decision.
As such, the Council must determine that there are legally sufficient facts in the record to
support its decision. When the Council acts on this application,Councilmembers should state
those facts in the record that they are relying on to support their decision regarding the
requested Comprehensive Plan amendment. The burden of proving whether a
Comprehensive Plan amendment is appropriate rests with the applicant. The City's present
Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1999 and approved by the Metropolitan Council in November
of 1999.
I:\SLPEAGLE.DOC
4
PRlORVIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PROPERTY HISTORY
1982-2000
There is no construction activity on
this property.
Property owner submits application
for an amendment to approved PUD
development plan to allow a 90 unit
assisted living facility. The
amendment receives preliminary
approval, but is never finalized. The
zoning designation remains PUD 82-
12. and the original development plan
is still in effect.
New Zoning Ordinance is adopted.
This ordinance. specifically recognizes
existing PUD' s as unique Zoning
Districts, and states the original plan is
still in place unless amended or
rezoned. The property is identified as
PUD 82-12 on the Zoning Map.
2000 Property owner files an application to
rezone this property to the R-4 (High
Density Residential) district.
1983
1982 - 1991
1996
1991 - 1997
1997
1999
Priorview PUD Development Plan is
approved by the City Council.
Property is designated as PUD 82-12
on Zoning Map.
1983 Zoning Ordinance is adopted.
There is no change in the status ofthe
PUD.
Phases 1 and 2 ofthe Priorview PUD,
consisting of 68 units, are built.
1 :\OOfiles\OOrezone\OO-O 12\history ,doc
;
.---- -.'--T..
:.~Q~l.u.nt.HE:N$.x..tflj~ .......
::::i:::P~SIQN~wl~N:::::':::
2000 Comprehensive Plan identifies
property as Medium Density.
No change.
2010 Comprehensive Plan is adopted.
This property is designated as Low to
Medium Density Residential.
The City Council approves an
amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan designating this site as High
Density Residential.
2020 Comprehensive Plan is adopted.
This property is identified as High
Density Residential on
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
6.10
~~"
.
J 975 Z~NIN(, Of2..i)/NHNCJ::i
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: To help encourage a more creative approach to the
use of land, departures from the City Council Zoning Ordinance may be granted
by the City Council in Planned Unit Development Districts designated on the
official Zoning Map. Permission to develop specific parcels of land under
the provision which follow, shall be binding on all construction. Any
sigr..ificant change in the development plan after approval by the City Council
shall be resubmitted for consideration. The land use, minimum lot area,
yard, height and accessory uses determined by the planned unit development
requirements shall prevail over conflicting requirements listed elsewhere
within this Zoning Ordinance or in the Prior Lake Subdivision Ordinance.
To encourage irmovations which produce efficient, high quality development
in harmony with surrounding are8:s, the following regulations are set forth.
A. REQUIREMENTS:
1. The developnent shall be planned so that it is consist:ent with the
Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan.
2. The tract of land shall be under unified control at the time of
application and scheduled to be developed as one unit. In addition
the development plan must irlclude provisions for the preservation
of natural amenities.
3. The planned unit development proposal appears to harmonize with both
existing and proposed development in the area surrounding the project
site.
4. The proposed planned unit development is comprised of at least two
and one half acres of contiguous land.
5. Permitted uses may include:
a. Any combination of dwelling units in single family, two
family, town or row houses and apartments.
b. Any non-residential use to the extent such non-residential
use is designed and intended to serve the residents of the
planned unit development.
c. Public and private education facilities.
d. other uses permitted in the Zoning District in which
the planned unit development is located.
6. A minimum of twenty percent of the gross land area for private or
public open air recreational use protected by covenants running with
the land or by conveyances or dedicated as the Planning Commission
may specify shall be an integral part of the plan. Such open space
areas shall not include land devoted to streets, parking and private
yards.
7. Density increases up to twelve percent from those outlined in column
8, table 4.2, may be allowed in proportion to the number of conditions
listed immediately below which have been fulfilled provided that traffic
patterns will not be adversely affected and that public utilities and
facilities are adequate.2
-15";'
--~--"-r--
J'1'75" ZtJN'N G
. . . --
Ot.DINANL/5
6. The location of common open space including
public schools, parks and playgrounds or private
natural preserves.
- ,/.
b.
The written statement shall include the following;
-,
1. A statement of the ownership of all land involved in the
planned unit development together with a summary of
previous work experience.
2. An explanation of the general character of the planned
development.
3. A general indication of the expected time schedule of
development.
4. A statement describing the ultimate ownership and Main-
tenance of all parts of the development including streets,
structures and open space.
5. A statement describing how all necessary governmental
services will be provided to the development.
6. The total anticipated population to occupy the planned
unit development, with breakdowns indicating the number
of school age children, adults and families.
(p./o B
~
3.
Outline Development Plan Approval
a.
Within sixty days after the filing of an outline development
plan, the Planning Commission shall forward the plan to the
City Council with a written staff report recommending that
the plan be disapproved, approved or approved with modifications,
and giving reasons for these recommen~tions.
..-.....-..,
b. Within fourty-five days after the receipt of the application
by the City Council a public hearing shall be held by the City
Council on the application. The City Council may continue
the hearing or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission
for further study, provided, however, that the public hearing
or hearings shall be concluded within 45 days after the date of
the public hearing, unless the applicant shall consent in
writing to an extension of the time. Upon conclusion of all
hearings the City Council shall within 30 days make and file
findings and cause a copy thereof to be mailed to the applicant.
c. If the outline development plan is approved or approved with
modifications, the City Council shall amend the zoning map
to show the Planned Unit Development and its identification
number. If the outline development plan is approved with
modifications, the City Council shall not amend the zoning
map until the applicant has filed with the City Council written
consent to the plan as modified. Refusal of any modification
shall constitute denial of the plans by the City Council.
Failure of the landowner to notify the City Council of his
acceptance or refusal of the modification to the plan constitute
acceptarJ.ce of these conditions. No building permits may be
issued on land within the Planned Unit' Development until final
plans for the development have been approved by the City Council
_ 1 '7__
.
f.tf 16
Zt;/J /1Jb 6~O"JI+AX..E'
6. Final Developnent Plan Approval
Within six weeks following approval of the preli.mi.nary
development plan, the applicant shall file with the City
Council a final development plan containing in final form
all of the information required in the preliminary develoPnent
plan. In its discretion and for good cause, the Council
may extend for six months the period for the filing of the
final development plan.
a.
('C~
b. The Council shall review and approve the final development
plan if it is in substantial compliance with prel:iJni.nary
development plan. Following this, the applicant shall record
the final development plan in the manner provided for
recording subdivision plats. If the final developnent plan
is not in substantial compliance, the applicant shall be
requested to repeat the procedures outlined for the pre-
liminary development plan.
(p.lb
~ C. Annual Review:
The Planning Conunission shall review all Planned Unit Development
districts within the City at least once each year and shall make a
report to the City Council on the status of the development in each
of the Planned Unit Development districts. If the City Council finds
that development has not occurred within a reasonable time after the
original approval, the City Council may instruct the Planning Cooun-
ission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district by removing
the Planned Unit Development district from the official zoning map.
D. Amendments and Control:
c...
1. Amendments may be made in the approved final plan when they
are shown to be required by changes in conditions that have
occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in the
development policy of the City.
a. Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of
buildings and structures may be authorized by the planning
staff if requested by engineering or other unforseen
circumstances.
b. All other changes in use, rearrangement of lots, blocks,
and open space, must be authorized by the City Council under
procedures outlined for amendment of the zoning ordinance.
2. Completion of the Planned Unit Development shall be certified
by the Planning Conunission on the final development plan. There-
after, the use of land and the construction, modification, or
alteration of any buildings shall be governed by the approved
final development plan. Changes may be authorized only under
the procedures provided below:
a. Minor extensions, alterations or modifications of existing
structures may be authorized by the Planning staff if they
(,
-20-
.........~--r-
f1gc;
2.4
2.5
2.6
tON IN~ Oe-DIN frNGE
district boundaries. When the Zoning Officer cannot defi-
nitely determine the location of a district boundary by
such centerlines, by the scale or dimensions stated on
the Zoning Map, or by the fact that it clearly coincides
with a property line, he shall refuse action, and the Board
of Adjustment, upon appeal, shall interpret the location
of the district boundary with reference to the scale of
the Zoning Map and the purposes set forth in all relevant
provisions of the Ordinance. Where a district boundary
line divides a lot of record into two or more districts,
any portion of the lot within fifty (50) feet of such divi-
sion may be used for any use of either district as approved
by the Board of Adjustment.
DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS: Except for Planned Unit Develop-
ments, all buildings and uses in each district shall be
subject to the requirements listed under Sections 3 through
8. Planned Unit Development standards may be applied to any
Residential Districts at the request of the land owner and
at the discretion of the City Council. Where Planned Unit
Development standards differ from the original district
standards, the Planned Unit Development standards shall
apply.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Ponding areas
and wetlands designated on the Zoning Map as C-1 Conserva-
tion shall be preserved as indicated in the Storm Water
Management Plan.
USES NOT DESIGNATED: A use not specifically designated
as a permitted or conditional use anywhere in the City
is considered prohibited. In such a case, the Council,
Commission or a property owner may request a study by the
City to determine if the use is acceptable and if so, what
Zoning District would be most appropriate for the use and
what conditions and standards, if any, should be attached
to the development of the use. If found acceptable an amend-
ment to the Zoning Ordinance may be initiated by the Council
or Commission permitting the use.
SECTION 3 - PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES
3.1 PERMITTED USES: The permitted uses for each district are
listed below. Accessory uses and essential services are
also permitted.
~ 3.2
CONDITIONAL USES: The City Council may authorize condi-
tional uses as specified below and others similar in nature,
which will not be detrimental to the integrity of the dis-
tricts, if all of the conditions and provisions of Section 7
are met.
-4-
T
r
!
.'~
:-
'.
~
r
>
i
;l.
w.
t
}
L
(
r
,t;
1',
~'(
.-.,
:-
~
.
i-
/'133
ZONltJb O/t/:)INANL.b
PERMITTED USES
CONDITIONAL USES
10.
11.
-
A-1 AGRICULTURAL
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Agricultural & Forest 1.
Single Family Dwellings 2.
Public Parks & Playgrounds 3.
Publ ic & Parochial School.s 4.
Golf Courses 5.
Specialized Animal Raising 6.
7.
8.
9.
Stables & Riding Academies 7.
Churches 8.
Nurseries & Greenhouses 9.
Travel Trailer & Boat 10.
Storage
Truck Gardening 11.
12.
13.
Animal Kennels
Open Land Recreation Uses
Public Buildings
Public Utility Buildings
Airports
Water & Sewage Treatment
Plants
Sanitary Land Fills
Cemeteries
Equipment & Maintenance
Storage
Mineral Extraction
Radio & T.V. Stations
Manufactured Housing
Animal Feed Lots for more
than 10 animals
R-1 URBAN RESIDENTIAL
1. Agriculture 1.
2. Single Family Dwellings 2.
3. Public & Parochial Schools 3.
4. Public Parks & Playgrounds 4.
5. Churches 5.
6. Golf Courses 6.
7. Truck Gardening 7.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
8.
Cemeteries
Hospitals & Clinics
Public Utility Buildings
Public Buildings
Two Family Dwellings
Townhouses
Planned Unit Development ~
Open Land Recreational Uses
Nurseries & Greenhouses
Private Clubs & Schools
Charitable Institutions
Animal Kennels
Boarding Houses
Nursery Schools & Day Care
Centers for more than 10
children
Existing Neighborhood Commer-
cial Recreation Serv~ces
R-2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Single Family Dwellings 1.
Two Family Dwellings 2.
Public & Parochial Schools 3.
Public Parks & Playgrounds 4.
Churches 5.
6.
7.
-5-
.-----.......-...--...--.--.,--......--....-......--.
Cemeteries
Nursing Homes
Hospitals & Clinics
Public Utility Buildings
Public Buildings
Private Clubs & Schools
Nursery Schools & Day Care
Centers for more than 10
children
JCJ83 ZtJ#JJNb OILDIN AN(.,IS
~. II B~
c. The Planning Commission shall forward to
the City Council its recommendation based
on and including but not limited to the
following:
1. Compatibility with the stated purposes
and intent of the Planned Unit Develop-
ment.
2. Relationship of the proposed plan to
the neighborhood in which it is proposed
to be located, to the City's Land Use
Plan and to other provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance.
3. Internal organization and adequacy of
various uses or densities; circulation
and parking facilities; public facilities,
recreation areas and open spaces.
d. The City Council shall act on the schematic
plan within forty-five (45) days after receipt
of the plan from the Planning Commission.
The City Council may continue the review
process for additional study or information
for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days
after receipt of the schematic plan from
the Planning Commission unless the applicant
shall consent in writing to an extension
of time. Upon conclusion of all reviews the
City Council shall, within thirty (30) days,
make and file findings and cause a copy there-
of to be mailed to the applicant.
e. If the schematic plan is approved, the City
Council shall amend the Zoning Map to show
the Planned Unit Development and its identi-
fication number. If the schematic plan is
approved with modifications, the City Council
shall not amend the Zoning Map until the
applicant has filed with the City Council
written consent to the plan as modified.
Refusal of any modification shall constitute
denial of the plans by the City Council.
Failure of the applicant to notify the City
Council of his acceptance or refusal of the
modification to the plan constitute acceptance
of these conditions. No building permit may
be issued on the land within the Planned
Unit Development until final plans for the
development or phases of the development
have been approved by the City Council.
-28-
,f
f
I
I
.
i
L
f
L
C~
r
L
,
L
r
L
,
,
;.
.
I' 't g 5
!.{)/JINb Ot,()INPrNLE
the use of property, type of construction
or development of the activities of future
residents.
4. A signed and executed developers agree-
ment.
5. A subdivision plat suitable for recording
in the office of the Register of Deeds of
the County.
I II 11 -t. e Annual Review:
(p. I 01 T ~ .
The Planning Commission shall review all
Planned Unit Development Districts within
the City at least once each year and shall
make a report to the City Council on the
status of the development in each of the
Planned Unit Development Districts. If the
City Council finds that development has not
occurred within a reasonable time after the
original approval, the City Council may
instruct the Planning Commission to initiate
rezoning to the original Zoning District
by removing the Planned Unit Development
District from the official Zoning Map.
f. Amendments and Control:
1. Amendments may be made in the approved
final plan when they are shown to be
required by changes in conditions that
have occurred since the final plan was
approved or by changes in the development
policy of the City.
a. Minor changes in the location, siting,
and height of buildings and structures
may be authorized by the planning
staff if required by engineering
of other unforeseen circumstances.
b. All other changes in use, rearrange-
ment of lots, blocks, and open space
must be authorized by the City Council
under procedures outlined for amend-
ment of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 7 - ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
7.1 ZONING OFFICER: The City Planner designated by the City
Council as the Zoning Officer shall:
-32-
, -"'-"-"-r-""~'---"- ....,...-----...---.'.-....----...-.........----
r
I
r
,
r
i
j; .
[
C.;.
[
~'
L
1t:t'1f1
Z ()/..) Jf.Jr:, Ot-C)//'J PrJJCI5
Zoning Ordinance
c. Administrative approval has been obtained for modifications specified in
the Development Contract as requiring only administrative approval.
Administrative approval shall require approval of the Zoning Administrator unless
otherwise stated in the approved Development Contract. Such administrative
approval shall only be granted after the following has occurred:
~ All owners of property within the PUD have been notified in writing
that such approval is being sought. The notification shall inform the
property owners that .approval of the proposed modification may be
granted after 10 business days have elapsed from the mailing date of the
notice unless the property owner files an appeal with the Zoning
Administrator within that time. If any such appeal is filed, the proposed
modification shall be considered in the same manner as a minor
amendment to the approved Final PUD Plan.
~ All City costs and fees have been paid.
d. There is a vacation of the approved PUD by the City Council after notice
of public hearing has been published and a public hearing has been conducted in
the same manner as required for approval of a Preliminary PUD Plan. The
Council may impose conditions on the vacation of a PUD to protect the public
health, safety and welfare.
(3) Changes in Official Controls. Upon approval by the City Council of a Final
PUD Plan, the subject area shall be govemed by the conditions, provisions and
restrictions of the approved Final PUD Plan. For 2 years following Final PUD
Plan approval, unless the developer and the City agree otherwise, no
amendment to the City of Prior Lake's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance
or Subdivision Ordinance shall apply to or affect the use, development density,
lot size, lot layout, or dedication required or permitted by the approved Final PUD
Plan.
1106.608 Automatic Termination. If no work has commenced in an approved PUD or if a
PUD is not completed within the required time period, the PUD classification
shall automatically terminate for that portion of the PUD which has not been
developed, including phased development. The requirements and provisions of
the underlying Use District shall apply to the remaining undeveloped area.
1106.609 Fees and Reimbursements for City Costs. The fee for a PUD shall be set by
the City Council. Reimbursements for City costs shall also be applied to PUD
applications and enforcement.
1106.610 Zonin,g Map. The location of all approved Final PUD Plans shall be drawn on
the City's Zoning Map as it is revised from time to time. The map shall include a
reference to an approved Final PUD Plan on file with the City.
~ 1106.611 Conversion of Former PUD Districts. The precedent zoning ordinances
treated Planned Unit Developments as unique Use Districts. The use of land
and buildings within the boundaries of a PUD approved prior to the effective date
of this Ordinance continues to be governed by a unique set of development plan
City of Prior lAke
22 June, 1999
l106/pll
.
Zoning Ordinance
documents approved by the City Council which may include but are not limited to
site plans, grading plans, landscaping plans, architectural plans and ownership
association documents. Changes to a PUD approved prior to the effective date
of this Ordinance will be processed under the procedures for major and minor
amendments to a PUD in subsection 1106.607.
(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
FOR FUTURE AMENDMENTS)
22 lrme, 1999
aty of Prior lAke
l106/p12
- ~
/
j
i
C-~.
- "\
'. .i
,". .,.
t
\,..
~e.
"388'42'5
'.:,,'''';.j:;'',' ~ .....; :,:\: .-,;,'-
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 97-06
OF:'!CE: OF Tlie: ColmTY RECORDER ~
~;;~8; ie~=:AReCOrded on;9 ~
r~D 11 I~::I' qIYM. /)
Pat Boecl<man
pak;oec!ctan. c::u:lt:t Recorder .
bv fv\.{~ Deputy
- "'.' . . ---.. , '. '--. ',"- - - ,- . ',',' .~- '..
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 5-2-2, 5-3-3, 5-4-1, 5-5-16, AND 5-8-2
OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTIONS 2.2, 3.2, 4.1,
6.16, AND 9.2 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE83-6.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
Sections 5-2-2, 5-3-3, 5-4-1, 5-5-16, and 5-8-2 of the Prior Lake City Code and Sections
2.2,3.2,4.1,6.16, and 9.2 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended
to read as follows:
Section 5-2-2 of the City Code and Section 2.2 of the Zoning. Ordinance are hereby
amended by adding PUD Planned Unit Development to the list of Zoning Districts, and
by adding Paragraph (N) as follows:
, .' , -.
, . . ,
(N) PUD Planned Unit DevelojJment is established as a district which is intended to
provide residential areas which can be developed with some modifications of the
strict application of the R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts. Section 5-5-.12 of the City
Code details the provisions and regulations governing the creatio'! of this
district. .
SectiQn 5-3-3 of the City Code and Section 3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance are hereby
amended by deleting Planned Unit Developments from the list of Conditional Uses in the
R-l, R-2 and R-3 districts. .
Section 5-4-1 (M) of the City Code and Section 4.1 (K) of the Zoning Ordinance are
- -.hereby amended by adding the language in bold italics and deleting the language shown
in strikethrough letters:
CoUnty Roads and Major Collector Streets: The minimum setback requirement for
County roads and major collector streets, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, s~all.,
be measured from the centerline of the existing traveled fc)adway., Setb,aelc requirements
differ according to the, functional designation' of the road as classified in the Prior Lake
Comprehensi'le Plan. Front yard setbacks for the following designated roads shall be
determined as follows:
r:\council\ordinanc\ord9706.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
." .
.
Major Collector Streets:
85 feet in platted areas with utilities; 150 feet in allother
areas
85 feet in platted areas with utilities; 150 feet in all other
areas
150 feet in all areas
250 feet in ~ll areas
County Roads:
County Road 42:
County Road 18:
Section 5-5-16 (F,2) of the City Code and Section 6.16 (F,2) of the Zoning Ordinance are
hereby amended by adding the language in bold italics and deletmg the language shown
in striketlxough letters:
2. Allowable Tree Removal:
(a) Initial Site Development: For the initial site development, up to twenty-five percent
(25%) of the total caliper inches of all significant trees will be allowed to be removed
without tree replacement or restitution for the following activities:
(1) Grading of the road right-of-way.
(2) Utilities installation, including sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, natural gas,
electric service, telephone service, cable television, and other similar public or semi-
public utilities.
(3) Construction of public or private streets.
(4) Construction and/or grading of drainage ways.
In addition to the twenty-five percent (25%) of the total caliper inches of all significant
trees which may be removed without replacement or restitution for the above-listed
activities, an additional twenty-five percent (25%) of the total caliper inches of all
significant trees on individual lots within the sites of new development may be removed
without replacement or restitution' for the installation of utilities, driveways and building
pads.
(b) Previously Platted, Vacant Lot Development: On individual lots, up to twenty-five
percent (25%) of the total caliper inches of all significant trees may be removed for the
installation of utilities, driveway and the building pad without tree replacement or
restitution.
Applieatiofls f-or ~lariance from the provisions of this Section shall ee re~liewed by the Board
of :\djustment follO\..r.ng the procedures set forth m. Section 5 6 5 of this Title. The Board of
}..djustment may permit signifieant trees to be remo~led in excess of the limitations of this
ehapter, pro'lided all trees remo'led in excess of said limitati0Bs shall be replaced in
accordance with the Tree Replaeemeflt Formula, and pro~lided that all eriteria for granting
~;arianees Me met.
..
Significant trees in excess of the limitations of this chapter may be removed, provided all
trees removed in excess of said limitations shall be replaced in accordance with the Tree
Replacement Formula.
Section 5-8-2 (A) of the City Code and Section 9.2 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance are ..
herebyamendedbyadding or changing the OHWM for the following lakes:
r:\counci1\ordinanc\ord9706,doc
PAGE 2
This ordinance shall become effective _from and after its p<issage and publication.
Passed by the City Council ofthe City of Prior Lake this 8th day of February, 1997.
(JrIl jj) t7m/VG
Mayor
/YI J/YoIZ.
"
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _8_ day of February, 1996.
Drafted By: Jane J<.ansier
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
r:\council\ordinanc\ord9706.doc
-- - - -1-
PAGE 3
'l' ~
~
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
PLANNING COMMISSION
- MINUTES -
October 7, 1982
The Oc~ober 7, 1982 meeting of the Prior Lake Planning Commission was'
called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairman Roseth. Present were John
Fitzgerald, Chuck Arnold, Tom Foster, Mike Felix and City Planner
Graser.
The minutes of the previous meeting were reviewed. Motion was made
by Arnold to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Fitzgerald.
Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed.
*
Item I, Tom Steffen's P.U.D. continuation was
Gair, Consulting Planner, Bob Fein, Engineer,
present to answer questions.
call~d to order. Mike
...
Mr. Knoblaugh were
City Planner Graser reviewed the previous discussions on the P.U.D.
and commended on the P.U.D. per memorandum dated October,S, 1982.
Mike Gair, Consulting Planner for the P.U.D. reviewed the P.U.D.
and stated that they are asking 25% credit on density.
At 8:00 PM the P.U.D. was tabled for one hour due to a Public
Hearing.
Item II, Cy Schweich, Public Hearing for Lakeside Estates was called
to order at 8: 05 P.M. by Chairman Roseth. Ted and Greg Schweich
were present to answer questions.
City Planner Graser commented per Memorandum dated October 7,1982,
also stating that the setbacks were checked out this day and there
is no violation.
The Planning Commissioners had comments on the Preliminary Plat Plan.
Motion was made by Fitzgerald to approve the Preliminary Plat Plan
seconded by Foster. Upon a vote taken the motion was duly passed.
Motion by Fitzgerald to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Arnold.
Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed.
Item III, Variance request by Gary Burkart was called to order.
Mr. Burkart was preset}t to answer questions.
Ci ty Planner Graser commented per Memorandum dated October 7, 1982.
(612) 447.4230
4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E.
P.O. BOX 359
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
-...-.......--"T""-....-.----.-...-..........-------.-----.'-----'-.'---
ec. 10-7;"3'-.::--
At this time a letter from "Penny Barncard adjacent property owner" was
submitted .for the record "Exhibit A".
Mr. Burkart commented on his request changing it from 20 ft. front yard,
to 18 ft. front yard variance request.
Motion was made by Foster to table Mr. Gary.Burkart's request for a variance
for two weeks until October 21, 1982, seconded by Fitzgerald. Upon a vote
taken, the motion was duly passed.
~
At this time the P.U.D. for Priorview was continued. Mr. Mike Gair
commented for the applicant.
Audience input was asked for at this time by Chairman Roseth.
Bill Doheny, 16686 Creekside Circle, has concerns over the height of the
buildings and density of the proposal.
The Planning Commissioners had.comments and concerns of the P.U.D. and
a vote was taken for denisty bonus calculation.
Motion by Fitzgerald to grant preliminary approval for the Priorview P.U.D.
at this level based on the following items; that the developers cooperate
and obtain the necessary approvals in order to install a roadway from High-
way 13 to the northerly edge of the property line, that a park dedication
fee be established, that a more specific exterior and landscaping plans
reflecting berming as to house screening to the east be developed and in-
corporated in the final plan, that a sidewalk be constructed on the east..
side of Five Hawks from Highway 13 to north edge of the 'property, that the
existing dirt path be imp~oved to woodchip and submitted along with the
final plans, and that the project have maximum density of 106 units based
on the following calculations 17.45 acres less wetland area'2.4 equalling
15.05 calculable acres times 5.5 units per acre arriving at 83 units times
the following density bonuses 10% for open space considering the sidewalks
the natural walkways and a proposed improvement of wildlife status of the
ponding area subject to the ability to do so from the DNR standpoint, that
10% density be given for siting' of the units on a rather comprex site, that
a 2~% density bonus be given the semi-collector status of the roadway serving
the church and school areas on the southernly edge 'of the property and a
5% density bonus be given for the difficult physical characteristics of the
property intrinsic to the site arriving at'27~% density bonus times 83
potential units equalling IO? units and that Preliminary Engineering Plans
be submitted to the City Engineer and the Preliminary Plat Plan as Exhibit
"A", seconded' by Foster. Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed.
.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
~I':~ !! 0 R !. N D U ~
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING STAFF
PRIORVIEW P. U. D.
OCTOBER 14, 1982
When Priorview P. U. D. was discussed with Staff and subsequently went to
Preliminary Hearing the revised Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance was also
in the hearing stages. The P.U.D. section of the Ordinance was also
revised at the direction of the City Council. Anticipating adoption
of the Ordinance shortly after initial Planning Commission review of
the P.U.D.. Staff, the applicant and Planning Commission agreed to
follow the proposed P.U.D. section of the revised Zoning Ordinance
anticipating it's adoption prior to completion of the P.U.D..
The P.D.D. section of the proposed Zoning Ordinance was revised
condensing the process. It required the applicant to submit
all information and plans at the preliminary stage including
preliminary engineering plans. The P. U. D. went to Public Hearing
with a land use p1a.n~ grading plan and concept engineering plan.
The applicant objected to the engineering requirement stating that
if the land use plan is changed it would require a new preliminary
engineering plan which is very costly. Planning Connnission and
Staff agreed that the land use and grading plan would be reviewed
and approved subject to a preliminary engineering plan. The
Planning Connnission and Staff proceeded on that basis. As part of
the enclosed material are pages 21 and 22 of the proposed Zoning
Code which outlines the Preliminary P. U. D. submittals. Page 18
also enclosed describes the density increases of up to 30% above
the base density.
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
On August 19th the Planning Connnission held the Public Hearing for
Preliminary P. U. D. . The Connnission decided that 2.4 acres of the
17.45 acres were wetlands and not subject for density consideration.
This resulted in 15.05 net acres times the allowed R-2 density of
5.5 units per acre for a density of 83 units. The Connnission also
accepted the proposed land use. The P.U.D. was tabled for further
detail to September 2nd. On September 2nd the
revised plans were submitted and accepted. The P.U.D. was tabled
again until October 7th for further architectual detail.
On October 7th the Planning Connnission gave Preliminary P.U.D.
(612) 447.4230
4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E.
P.O. BOX 359
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
-----...,----.
approval with the following stipulations:
1.) A park dedication fee be established by Bill Mangan.
2.) Five Hawks Ave. become a public road and it be improved
to Highway 13 in conjunction with the first phase.
3.) A sidewalk be constructed adjacent to Five Hawks Ave.
from Highway 13 to the. northern boundary of the P. U. D.
4.) The existing dirt trai1way system within the P.U.D. be
improved to a woodchip path.
5.) At the time of final plat a detailed development plan
be submitted including but not limited to a landscaping
plan and exterior building materials.
6.) The maximum density for the P.U.D. be 106 units.
Calculated as follows:
a.) 10% open space.
b.) 10% location, design and setting of units.
c.) 2.5% location to existing or proposed collectors.
d.) 5% physical characteristics of the site.
7.) Labeled the Preliminary Plat Exhibit "A".
8.) Preliminary Engineering plans be submitted.
Staffs comments are found in tqe attached memorandum dated
August 12, 1982. In general, Staff disapproves of the uses in the
P.U.D. it is an insensitive approach in terms of relating to
adjacent single family uses. Overall detail and committment on
the developers part is lacking. The density bonuses given by the
Commission seem to be very generous. No credit should be given
for location to an adjacent collector street. Also the design
and location percentage should be reduced to a maximum of 5%.
The school district has submitted a letter regarding the road
which is attached.
.
i<.t-) 6.. i~;';"
PiJ.....~-L,I.lC....j j)'--'~_Y
J1rPrwaJ. .tFtU(Q.o
HINUTES of the Proceedings of the City Council of the CIty of Prior Lake In the County of
Scott and State of Hlnnesota, Including all accounts audIted by saId CouncIl.
\OIICZ/lJ..l
~~~
f--'\~ ~
,
\
Thorkelson withdrew his motion, Busse withdrew his second.
There was further discussion by Council and Staff.
Motio~ by Thorkelson to direct Staff to immediately proceed with review
of the Ordinance involving the refuse haulers In Prior Lake and report
back to Council with findings and recommendations, seconded by Busse and
upon a vote taken it was duly passed.
The next Item on the agenda was the Tom Steffen's P.U.O.
~
City Planner Graser reviewed the Priorview P.U.O., the requested action is
Preliminary approval.
Mike Gair, consultant for the applicant reviewed the P.U.O. with the Council,
General discussion by Council and Staff followed.
Tom Foster from the Planning Commission reviewed his opinion with the Council
and urged favorable consideration.
The following concerns were shown by Council:
1. High density in south..,." Dortlon of P.II.O.
2. The marketability of 104 units of similar design.
3. The road from Hig""dY 1.5 south; developer must negotiate with the School
and Church.
4. A variety of uses should be introduced in the P.U.O. . .
5. How the most southern node of the P.U.O will be separate from the single
fami I y in greater deta I I?
6. Total lots should be introduced within the P.U.O.
7. The developer discusses how the large .amount of open space be maintained.
Motion by Thorkelson to table the Tom Steffen's P.U.O. until November I, 1982
at 7:35 PM, seconded by Busse and upon a vote taken It was duly passed.
The next item on the agenda was the review of the final plans and specifications
for the maintenance building.
City Engineer Anderson reviewed the final plans and specifications with the Council
stating that ne had all necessary documents for project 82-18. The floor would be
gravel. The contract does not include electrical work, that would be done .on a
separate contract. The proposed bid opening date is November I, 1982 at 10:00 ~.
in the Prior Lake City Hall and the completion date Is December 15, IS82.
Motion by Busse to approve the final plans and specifications for proiect 82-18
and to authorize City Manager to advertise for bids with the opening date November
I, 1982 at 10:00 AM in the Prior Lake City Hall, seconded by Thorkelson and upon
a vote taken it was duly passed.
At this time City Engineer Anderson brought up to the Council's attention that
a contract payment.to Brown and Cris for project 81-2, 82-1 and 82-11 for the
amount of. $42,215.34 was missed on the invoice list on the minutes of October 12,
1982 and it is a regular payment and should be included on the invoice list.
Motion by Busse to approve the payment to Brown and Cris for project 81-2, 82-1
and 62-il, seconded by Schweich and upon a vote taken it was duly passed.
The next item on the agenda was to approve the monthly reports.
Motion by Busse to approve the Police Report for the month of September as presentee
seconded by Thorkelson and upon a vote taken it was duly passed.
Motion by Thorkelson to approve the Fire & Rescue Report for the month of Septe'"
as presented, seconded by Schweich and upon a vote taken it was duly passed.
.' .. , .. . .....-..
~ 5 .__ ,.., '
. ~,..... '~-.. iIIIO-.-':<!("_'.'~-"- .
._~._ ~T.'. -"".. ~
-
"':
"'~ - '..~. . :' ~.tj.~.;j}(. .
". ,-i.~iy.'.. .
. "~.i/ ";"J:;~~_'::'-"
~ll~~."
T
tuDftPP~OuAC
l.} ( to [ <i? J-1
6' ~ bV\c; (
K.ul1 ~
JJ.r-(p - 32,
MIriuTES of the Proceedings of the City Council of the City of Prior lake in the
County of Scott and State of Minnesota. including all accounts audited by
said Council.
~
The next item on the agenda was Tom Steffens - review Prior View P.U.D. '"
Mayor Stock asked City Planner Graser to review this request. \
City Planner Graser stated that this item came before the Counci I on the '
13th of October 1982. At that time the Council had 7 major concerns
regarding the development. He then reviewed the 7 points.
Mike Gair, theconsultantingplanner for the Prior View development was
present ~nd commented on the 7 points that were brought up at the last
meeting; he had one additional point that he wanted to discuss with the
Council. This point was the buildings themselves.
Glen Buteler had questions concerning the development. He wanted the
aeveloper to put up privacy fences.
Mayor Stock asked City Planner Graser to mark the plans Counci I Exhibit
"A" & "B" with today's date.
There was general discussion by Council and Staff.
. f}
they .~
as
Motion by Busse to approve the Development plan of Prior View and that
include the conditions or the contingencies of the Planning Commission
part of their approval, seconded by Watkins.
City Planner Graser stated that the letter from the School Board should
be made part of the motion.
Accepted by Busse to include the letter from the School Board as part of the
motion, seconded by Watkins, after further discussion a vote was taken and
it was duly passed.
Mayor Stock stated that the Council would then go into "Other Busin~ss" on
the agenda.
Local business owners were present to comment on the sign ordinance.
After listening to their comments and concerns, Mayor Stock recommended that
the Council grant a 90 day moritiorum on the existing sign or~lnance. Then
.through ..ne ~ commitTee De appointed to work witt. the City Manager;
Staff and merchants to recommend possible improvements to the ordinance. Then
if necessary to apply for variances and then comply.
Councilman Watkins stated that the committee should set up regulary scheduled
meetings and as long as the committee is working on this, to start with .a
90 day extension. .
Motion by Watkins to put a 90 day meritorium on any legal action, to enforce
the present sign ordinance and that a committee be appointed by the Mayor,
seconded by Busse and upon a vote taken it was duly passed.
The next item under "Other Business" was to review the Treasurer's Report for
the month of October.
Motion by Watkins to approve the Treasurer's Report for the month of October
as presented, seconded by Busse and upon a vote taken it was duly passed.
Mayor Stock brought up for discussion the safety problem at the intersection
of Highway 13 and Frar.kl in Trail.
With no further comments, motion by Watkins to adjourn, seconded by Thorkelson
and upon a vote taken this meeting was adjourned at 11:10 PM.'
Michael A. McGuire
City Manager
._..............._._..............................._..._.................... ...............................__...... ...-.....-...........'1'.... .~..-.,....._.....- -,.-....
......-
~
. .,
i
J
\1~b,U-,~ 0rJyI
~.
.- ;..:..;:. ,"."
~
_.
. .....--~
- ..
p -'0
.' ...~
;:'~~';'
"
" ..
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKUN TRAIL
POST OFFICE IlOK 67
PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372
JAMES D. BATES
BRva D. HUEMOELLER
TeMphone (612) 447-2131
leleaJpier (612) 447.562.
March 9, 2000
Frank F. Boyles
Prior Lake City Manager
16200 Eagle Creek . Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
,.
Re: Applications of Eagle Creek Villas LLC for Zoning Change and
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
D~ar Mr. Boyles:
This letter is written on behalf of Eagle Creek Villas LLC with respect to two
land use applications that will be reviewed by the Prior Lake City Council at its March
20 meeting:
1. Rezoning of PUD 82-12 to R-4 (High Density Residential).
2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change designation of Lots 2, 3 and
4, Block 2, Holly Court, to Urban High Density (R-HD).
At its February 28 meeting the Planning Commission rejected City staffs
recommendation in favor of both applications, and voted to recommend to the City
Council that both applications be denied. Although the minutes of the meeting' are not
yet available, 1 am advised that the Planning Commission appeared to base its decision
on concerns over proposed density, access, and neighborhood opposition.
PROPOSED PROJECT
Eagle Creek Villas LLC and Freedom Development and Consulting LLC
propose to construct a senior housing campus, containing four buildings with 167 units,.
on a 12.7 acre parcel of land consisting of the above three lots in Holly Court and the
'.
Frank F. Boyles
Page 2
March 9, 2000
adjacent parcel that is currently part of PUD 82-12. The campus would include a 66
unit assisted living facility, 54 senior rental units, and 47 units of senior condominium
owner-occupied housing in buildings of 16 and 31 units.
Approximately three 'acres of the site is a wetland to be permanently reserved as
a nature area for use by the school district for educational purposes.
PUD 82-12
The fundamental basis for the rezoning application to terminate PUD 82-12 and
rezone the parcel to R -4 is the 2010 Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan, as amended in
1997 and 1999, which designates this land for Urban High Density (R-HD), .
anticipating a density of up to 30 units per acre. The parcel is currently shown on the
1999 Prior Lake Zoning Map as PUD 82-12 with an underlying zoning of R-4. The
following factual history of PUD 82-12 supports the rezoning application:
~ PUD 82-12 was originally approved in 1982 under Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinance 75-12 as a conditional use in the R-2 Urban Residential
District. The maximum density in the R-2 District was 6.0 units per acre.
PUD 82-12 encompassed 17.45 acres with an approved density of 106
units. The 1981 Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan had designated the
parcel for Medium Density Resi4ential.
~ In 1983, the fIrst phase of PUD 82-12, containing 48 units, was approved
as Priorview First Addition.
~ In 1991, the second phase ofPUD 82-12, containing 20 units, was
approved as Priorview Second Addition.
~ There has been no further development within PUD 82-12 since 1991.
~ In 1995, the 2010 Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan was adopted with an
R-HD designation for the land in PUD 82-12. It is significant to note that
the City Council did not designate the land as R - LIMD, medium density
up to 10 units per acre. Rather, the land was designated R-HD with a
density of up to 30 units per acre.
.
"
Frank F. Boyles
Page 3
March 9, 2000
.. In 1997, the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance was amended to add II PUD
Planned Unit Development" as a separate zoning district, and to delete
PUDs from the list of conditional uses in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 districts.
As a result of this zoning amendment, POD 82-12 became a non:"
conforming conditional use;
.. In 1999, the 2010 Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan was again amended.
However, City Council did not change the R-HD designation for the land
in PUD 82-12.
.. In 1999 the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance was further amended to
designate planned unit developments as Overlay Districts that encompass
one or more underlying use districts. See Section 1103.100 of the 1999
Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. Consistent with the overlay concept and
the R-HD designation, PUD 82-12 was assigned to the R-4 High Density
Residential Use District on the Prior Lake Zoning Map. Even though the
map clearly identifies PUD 82-12 as R-4, City staff has questioned the
classification.
.. In 1998, the Scott County lIRA completed a study estimating an
additional demand for approximately 190 general occupancy rental
housing units and 70 senior apartments in Prior Lake between 1998 and
2003.
.. A recent inventory of R-HD property completed by the Prior Lake EDA
identified only 26.7 acres of 391.7 total acres available for R-HD
development with present R-4 zoning and available municipal services.
The remaining 365 acres is located north of CSAH 42 and is presently
outside of the MUSA boundary.
.. The proposed R-4 classification is consistent with the goals and objectives
set forth in the Comprehensive Plan to create population centers and to
accommodate the demand for affordable housing near community activity
areas. The R -4 classification is consistent with the City's Livable
Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. .i
1
Frank F. Boyles
Page 4
March 9, 2000
CURRENT STATUS OF POO 82-12
The following summarizes the current status of POO 82-12:
.. There has been no development activity since the final approval of
Priorview Second Addition in 1991.
.. The Comprehensive Plan designation of PUD. 82-12 was changed in 1995
to R-HD Urban High Density. Although significant changes were made
to the Comprehensive Plan in 1997 and 1999, the R-HD designation for
PUD 82-12 was retained.
.. PUD 82-12 was assigned to the R-4 High Density Residential Use District
in the 1999 Prior Lake Zoning Map.
.. .Because PUD 82-12 was approved as a conditional use in an R-2 Urban
Residential District under Zoning Ordinance 75~12, PUD 82-12 would
appear to be a non-conforming conditional use that has been terminated
either by abandonment under Section 1108.216(1) or is null and void
pursuant to Section 1108.303(4) of the 1999 Zoning Ordinance.
.. POO 82-12 may have automatically terminated as to the undeveloped
portion by operation of Section 1106.608. (Section 1106.611does not
apply because PUD 82-12 was approved as a conditional use before the
1997 Zoning Ordinance Amendment established a special PUD zoning
district. )
.. The basis for the application to change the Comprehensive Plan
designation of the Holly Court lots to Urban High Density (R-HD) is the
physical alignment of the lots with the land in PUD 82-12. Block 2 of
Holly Court lies adjacent to POO 82-12 and must be developed in
conjunction with PUD 82-12 because the lots will be accessed and receive
utilities from PUD 82-12. The three southerly lots in Block 2 of Holly
Court are physically separated by a significant wetland from other nearby
R-2 property. The physical surroundings of the Holly Court lots mandate
that they be zoned and developed in concert with PUD 82-12.
.
Frank F. Boyles
Page 5
March 9, 2000
PROPOSED USE
The proposed project includes three separate and distinct types of senior
housing. The objective of the project is to meet the physical and economic needs and
preferences of the elderly citizens in this community. As stated in the 1998 publication
of the Urban Land Institute entitled "Senior's Housing and Care Facilities:
Development, Business and Operations 11 at page 15:
"Papillar misconceptions about the elderly include that they are poor, frail, sick
or bordering on mental incompetence. While older people certainly have a
greater need for care than other popillation segments, the aging in fact comprise
a cross section of the entire spectrum of American life and culture. Therefore, a
given retirement housing model cannot serve and satisfy all needs, and there is a
market for projects ranging from pure independent housing with extensive
recreational amenities to intensive custodial and health care. Nevertheless, many
of the elderly are moving through a phase in their lives that gives them some
common desires and needs. In general, these common needs point to the
provision of varying levels of services and activities beyond mere housing. "
Each style of housing in the project offers different financing options, life style
choices, and levels of services to the seniors. Correspondingly, each type of housing
requires a different structure for ownership, management and financing.
For example, an assisted living facility would typically be owned by a non-profit
entity with experience in the management of ALF facilities or by a for-profit entity with
a co-venturer having such experience. The financing for an ALF facility would
typically consist of long-term bonded or secured debt, often backed by a governmental
guaranty. Senior rental housing would typically be owned by a for-profit investor
group funded with equity and long-term secured debt, either privately funded or backed
with a governmental guaranty. Owner occupied condominium units will be separately
owned by the occupants, in many cases with no or minimal financing.
In order to have a viable project each housing segment must be economically
viable. The developers believe that the proposed density is necessary for this purpose.
The complexity of senior housing is unique. As stated in theSenior's Housing
and Care Facilities publication at page 57:
----r-
Prank F. Boyles
Page 6
March 9, 2000
"Unlike a typical multi-family housing development, retirement projects are
special-use facilities that require early coordination of several disciplines, such
as real estate planning and development; finance; financial forecasting; law, tax
and regulatory expertise; health care services; management of operations;
marketing; insurance; architecture; construction and other fields. "
The developers propose to construct the project as a conditional use in the R-4
High Density Residential District. The conditions that must be met for multi-family
dwellings and senior housing are extensive and detailed. The conditions represent the
best efforts of our community to establish reasonable and appropriate standards for
multiple family dwellings and elderly housing in the R-4 District and were approved in
their final form less than a year ago. For the Planning Commission to state in effect
that these conditions are now inadequate to protect the interests of the public is beyond
reasonable belief, particularly in light of the fact that the Planning Commission has not
even seen the complete project.
It has also been suggested that the City would somehow be better off if the
project were presented as a planned unit development. Suggesting that the PUD
process may be used as a device for limiting density is particularly interesting in light
of Section 1106.401 of the 1999 Zoning Ordinance, which authorizes the following
PUD deviations from the standard ordinance requirements:
Ordinance Requirement
Modification Allowed
Distance from property lines
Building height
Density
Ground floor area
Floor area ratio
Parking
No required yards
25 % increase
10% increase
5 % increase
10% increase
15 % decrease
CONCLUSION
The Prior Lake City Council should terminate (or affirm the prior termination
of) PUD 82-12 and rezone PUD 82-12 to (or affmn the zoning status 9f PUD 82-12 as)
R-4 High Density Residential, and change the 2010 Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan
.
Frank F. Boyles
Page 7
March 9, 2000
designation of the Holly Court lots to Urban High Density (R-HD) for the following
reasons:
1. In accordance with Minn. Stat. ~473.865, Subd. 2, a municipality may not
adopt zoning that conflicts with its Comprehensive Plan. The City of Prior Lake has
recently amended its Zoning Ordinance and Map. The failure to zone PUD 82-12 in
. accordance with the Comprehensive Plan designation of R-HD violates this statute.
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 nine months following the amendment to
the plan so as to not conflict with the amended Comprehensive Plan. The City's failure
to amend its Zoning Ordinance to assign PUD 82-12 to the R-4 District consistent with
th~ Comprehensive Plan designation of R-HD also violates this statute.
3. The refusal to rezone PUD 82-12 to R-4 in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan designation of R-HD would be evidence of arbitrary action by the
municipality. Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W. 2d 66 (Minn. 1984). The
facts in the application and the record of the Planning Commission hearing support
approval of the rezoning request. These facts include the following:
~ The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of
PUD 82-12 as Urban High Density (R-HD).
~ The 1999 Prior Lake Zoning Map has assigned PUD 82-12 to the R-4
High Density Residential Use District.
~ The request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2010 Prior
Lake Comprehensive Plan.
~ The proposed project must meet all requirements for a conditional use in
the R -4 District.
~ The proposed project satisfies a housing need for the City of Prior Lake
that has been acknowledged by the City Council and documented by the
Scott County HRA and Prior Lake EDA.
,
Frank F. Boyles
Page 8
March 9, 2000
~ The neighbors appearing in opposition to the rezoning request raised
concerns that are properly dealt with in the conditional use process and
are not therefore proper objections to a rezoning request that is otherwise
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance.
~ The fact that PUD 82-12 constituted a non-conforming conditional use at
the time of adoption of the 1999 Zoning Ordinance may have already
terminated PUD 82-12. Arguably, PUD 82-12 has already been rezoned
to R -4 by virtue of the designation in the 1999 Prior Lake Zoning Map.
~ City staff has presented reports recommending approval of the rezoning of
PUD 82-12 to R-4.
~ The requested change in the Comprehensive Plan designation of the Holly
Court lots to High Density Residential (R-HD) should be approved
because it is the only feasible option for development of the land.
~ The Holly Court lots are located adjacent to PUD 82-12, derive access
and utility service through PUD 82-12, are topographically connected to
PUD 82-12, and are physically separated by a significant wetland from
other adjacent property.
~ The requested designation of the Holly Court lots is consistent with the
goals and objectives of the 2010 Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan.
~ The requested change will help satisfy an acknowledged and documented
senior housing shortage in Prior Lake.
~ City staff has recommended approval of the request to change the
designation of the Holly Court lots to R-HD
4. The current status ofPUD 82-12 under the 1999 Zoning Ordinance is
ambiguous. PUD 82-12 was initially approved as a conditional use in an R-2 District.
PUDs are now overlay districts, not conditional uses. As a non-conforming conditional
use, PUD 82-12 may already have terminated by abandonment under Section
1108.216(1), by request of the owner under Section 1108.303(1), or by operation of
.
Frank F. Boyles
Page 9
March 9, 2000
law either under Section 1108.304(4) or Section 1106.608. Although the Prior Lake
Zoning Map in the City Planning office assigns PUD 82-12 to the R-4 District for its
underlying zoning classification consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, City staff has
refused to affirm that PUD 82-12 is R-4 property on the basis of the ambiguous status
of the PUD. Zoning ordinances should be construed strictly against the city and in
favor of the property owner; and courts must give weight to an interpretation that is
"least restrictive upon the rights of the property owner to use his land as he wishes" .
Frank's Nursery Sales. Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W. 2d 604, 609 (Minn. 1980).
Therefore, to be consistent with the underlying policy articulated in the Comprehensive
Plan, the 1999 Zoning Ordinance should be construed in support of a determination that
PUD 82-12 has been terminated under the ordinance, and that the underlying zoning of
PUD 82-12 is R-4 High Density Residential.
5. There were no material or admissible facts presented before the Planning
Commission to provide a basis for denial of the requests to rezone PUD 82-12 and
change the designatiqn of the Holly Court lots. Although various concerns to the
requests were expressed by neighbors, there was no factual basis provided or offered
for the concerns. The neighbors referred only to general concerns over density, traffic,
environmental issues, and a desire to see the development elsewhere in the City.
However, all of these matters are dealt with in depth in the conditional use process set
forth in the 1999 Zoning Ordinance. The applicable legal principle is that "[a]lthough
traffic [or other similar] concerns may be legally sufficient to justify denial in a zoning
matter, the record must demonstrate a factual basis for the concerns." See C.R.
Investments. Inc. v. Village of Shoreview, 304 N.W. 2d 320 (Minn. 1981). The
neighbors did not demonstrate a factual basis for the concerns expressed at the hearing,
and therefore such concerns cannot constitute a rational basis for the failure to approve
the rezoning request.
6. Neighborhood opposition to a zoning matter is not sufficient grounds for
denial of a request that is otherwise consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
established policies and goals of the community. Ostrand v. Village of North St. 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 upon the foregoing, Eagle Creek Villas LLC and Freedom Development
and Consulting LLC respectfully request that the City Council approve the requests to
T
. ~.
Frank F. Boyles
Page 10
March 9, 2000
terminate PUD 82-12 and rezone the parcel to R-4, and to change the Comprehensive
Plan designation of the three Holly Court lots to R-HD. .
Sincerely yours,
~r~\e1MJQ
Bryce D. Huemoeller
BDH:dw
cc: Prior Lake Planning Department
Eagle Creek Villas LLC
Freedom Development and Consulting LLC
. Sues an L. Pace, Esq.
Wes Mader
Jim Petersen
Jim Ericson
Mike Gundlach
Pete Schenck
.
Creekside Estates Re-zoning
~.. .~y~
I'_~ fIi .
1l"11~ 11
~.. R1~ "1a~11'"
,..-roN 1
~ ,
~ '
~,
, --...I ,
.....
I'll' '1'1' 2 '11
I ~~ ;
~
MAIN ST,
I
>>~ a ~ ~ a a a
I
10 , I.. ..
17 11
5'\11718113)212223
,~ "
I . 7 . S
, 2 ,
--.
141312110.17
E Pi 0'1
PlEASANT AV.
,
I
.-... I
'0. ~~
lIRCO< C
-
--..:
. ~, -
iY , $
::J ,
A
W:O, ... 8 ~'~~~~'f~~ '1:)1 LAl<Jlsll:~
,t...UJ;c rr~ 3~ . · 10
~ .t l~ 51 , , EST :res
~2NO A.I~~
...,<l--L.~ " c.J~~CXNl,~11m1'J'l7'l1
" /tJ1""fTo" . ~' J]jj ~ ~
,dS" , . ~J r,1mt.1 ~I ~ [!: T
_ =u I I...J~1 ,I.
- -
~ roo--- ,I CATES ST. S.E.
r----I ~ _ ri
, I" --l ~ , rJ. E5101 I ~ ' = A
~~ ,\,'" 2 2 , g
I ~ ~ I.-c :z: ""~.'"
. ~ t, :fp,"l!c;5 2 l.\.'l ....,JT "
,
ST. MONL'S C
161
B
11
--
r-
'~RI
A .. ..
.. ..
.. ac ..
I : I :.. .. ~,
Sl-
~ PRIORWOOO
r; EFf 1~ ~EIJrnrnrnrnr-:-::1
J i ~~ l!l EAGLE CREEK V VII
Q,f~GIil.~ ~,- · , ..
~"ql ~~ . 0- .' ~
I
, EAGLE
"'.10',
VILLAS
.. ..
.. ..
J
c;,-<" ClJIID1'I
.'1141312 tOt
ru '
'" 2
\ ) Z~,~
~\7' -? I~~,
, \\ :-;..... ~ 3>
~~~ I ~
l"
lltP fl!~ . rr ' '
11 10
~I "- ...
- """
.
!
I ~ 2
,..<f1 ~
Q,q;>- Q~ ,
~ ~
4-'
'" ,
I--
2
~ ~ -.J~~
~. ul
!:! .............. ~ "'
~ ri
ti
~ Wl>EAIH W
Q
IL i-- ~
I'IKXl W
- l:!
~~Q tl
L-
4 \
s~~
..
"
12
,..
r z
0
~l{j . Q.
~
::l
~
W
~
..
~ ARST !
~'L~
.0
, 7 ~ ..
.. /IY !P ..
0' s//t.~
:i: '" 11
II :!\ ...... .
7 i' jJ Oil ~'
II d ~ 17 '
."
2
11 ~
, 2
2 I
I
/
~
N
o
400
800 Feet
9
3
"'C
~Ci3
:J :J'"
0. CD
""0 :J
- C~.
ID en <
:J CD CD
1101 ~ 1 f 1111111111' ~
~i~Wl h if~n i ~H~~'
;E~i -~ lJl~&>~~ i ~[[~....
~~i if i~~~.~. t i~~i S.
~ ~ IlL i ;R ~ -- i -'b 5 ~
~i ~.* Ii.i ~~ ~
~5 t ~ 'i ~ ~
i:t 5 ~ CD
"
--
~
I
~
en
~
ID
.
o.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2000
..
. Height - 6 feet is reasonable. That decision was made prior to my coming on the
Commission. ere is no basis or public need to increase the ight, especially in a .
residential area c sidering it is an illuminated sign.
. Support staffs reco endation, except pertaining to art al roads not collectors.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, S
RECOMMENDATION OF
COLLECTOR STREETS.
OND BY STAMSON, T
PROPOSED AM
Vote taken indicated ayes by all.
C. Case #00-012
property located in
r 9.uesting Rezoning for the
ge 22, Scott County.
e staffreport dated February 28,2000, on
application for ~ Zone Change for the property
drant fthe intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and
rth of Five Hawks School. The request is to rezone the
2 District to the R-4 (High Density Residential) District.
of the property and zoning.
Staffrecommen ed approval of the request as the proposed R-4 District is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation.
Creigo questioned the most recent PUD number of units. Kansier thought it might be 60
to 90 units.
Comments from the public:
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc
4
... .........-.-........-.--.....-..------......--..--....
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28. 2000
David Bell, St. Cloud, from Freedom Development and Consulting said they recently
purchased the land from Eagle Creek Villas developers. Bell explained the situation with
part of Holly Court not being within the PUD. Their intention is not to have Five Hawks
Avenue go through to Cates Street, but rather build a walking trail that could be used for
utilities and maintenance. The majority of the buildings would be in the present graded
area. There would be one small pad built on the other side of the creek with
approximately 14 to 16 units. The intent is for a 54 unit assisted care facili
would be a 66 unit assisted care facility totally detached from this build'
would be a facility for residents going from independent to more of
provider. The third would be senior condominiums for sale. Bel
the area to be developed and totally landscaped, and it makes m
Holly Court property from Five Hawks Avenue and Priorw
Kansier continued with the next report.
D. Case #00-013 Eagle Creek Villas, LLC is req
Amendment for the property described as Lots 2, 3 & ,
Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, filed an applic
the property located on the south side of
Court. The proposal is to amend the 2020
current R-L/MD (Low to Med' esidentia
Residential) designation 0 tely 45, ,
Ian Amendment. The proposed R-
dectives in that it offers a variety of
rese the natural elements of the site.
sistent with the City's Livable Community Goal to
'4g.
Eric Jo od Street, representing the Eagle Creek Villas Association
Board of they are opposing the changes: 1) The de-valuation of property
values due to traffic and congestion. Residents in the Association bought their
homes with ex tions the zoning would protect their investment and quality of life;
and 2) They fe there is inadequate infrastructure to support the proposed project.
Johnson said the speeding on Priorwood Street is a consistent problem and very
congested with Five Hawks School functions. Regarding Attorney Huemoeller's
February 1,2000 Memorandum to the Planning Department, the Association reject the
proposal to vacate PUD 82-12. Johnson said the Board is sympathetic with the need for
affordable housing but feel the resident's rights should not be compromised. They are
not against the assisted living project, but the high density.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcornm\OOpcmin\mn022800,doc
5
I
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2000
Donald Fehr, 4344 Priorwood Street, stated he purchased his home in 1996 and was told
an assisted living complex would be built down the street. His concern was the high
density with 169 units. Appreciated the assisted living but the streets are not constructed
for the traffic. Most residents will have to back out of their driveways onto Priorwood
Street. There are a lot of homes in close proximity. It is a public safety issue. Fehr
supported the idea of assisted living but hoped the staff and developer can work out a
reasonable number of units.
Tracy Haaland, 4005 Roanoke Street, said he owns the last house on
to the proposed project. The reason he chose the area to live wa
His concerns are for the runoff into the lake and preserving the
used by Five Hawks School. Haaland felt a development r
affect his property value.
Pamela Nelson, 16517 Dutch Avenue, questioned
the PUD and the R-4 zoning district.) Nelson felt there
there is no need to disrupt the natural environment. Five
projects in this area. Kids need trails and ds to explore.
the drainage problems into the lake.
. previous comments. Erickson said he
o bors next to this property were against
ed to voice his opinion against higher density.
Id his neighbors have summarized his concerns. He
rt of velopment, but concerned for the density and traffic
ght on Highway 13 and Five Hawks Avenue, a lot of traffic is
treet.
Mary Becotte,
It is a very narr
existing road.
anoke, stated her concern is putting a unit at the. end of Roanoke.
reet with many children. There would be too much traffic for the
David Severson, 16494 Five Hawks Avenue, agreed with the residents on Roanoke.
Bill Heptig, 16439 Park, stated he does not want to see high density. He was concerned
with high-rise buildings and does not want to put up with the congestion.
Leon Wegener, 4328 Priorwood Street, reiterated the egress and regress into the proposed
area. Wegener felt the streets are very narrow and should have limited traffic. There is a
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc
6
-----------.---..-. ...
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2000
lot of school buses in the area. One hundred eighty-six parking spots would be added to
Five Hawks and Priorwood. Wegener felt the access should be provided before changing
to the R-4 designation. Recommend not going to R4 at this time.
Dave Bell addressed some ofthe neighbors concerns. Under the R4 designation the City
is capable of developing 30 units per acre and they are proposing 16 or 17 units. In the
event Bell did not follow through with the proposal or the zoning designaf . d not
change, his intention is still for senior care. Bell said they are not goin e ching
the wetlands and destroying the neighborhood. The path will be unto A bridge will
be built across the creek for residents to use. Regarding the nu s - less
than 5% of tenants drive. The vehicle traffic will be staff and vi ent
living will have underground parking. They are also looki the
land to the school district.
Amanda Kern, 4171 Cates Street, adjace
density senior living facility. She would
Steve Nicholas, 16370 Albany Avenue, would not
destroyed in the area.
t the effects on the 33
clubs upport in the project. It was
was going to contribute the land to the
off. The amount of runoff has
in the area.
. story with this parcel. In 1997 the Commissioners were very
plea have an a ted living proposal. At the time, the Commissioners felt Five
Hawks a not go through. Instead, a walking trail allowing maintenance
and repai e constructed. The Commissioners did not want a large number of
units in that tion and felt the assisted living project was right for the area.
. The townho e area was based on a number of different things. Adding 150 units to
that comer, will affect the infrastructure.
. Approving the PUD in 1997 was preserving much of the natural area.
. Bell explained the new designs and cluster housing instead ofthe urban sprawl. The
three buildings would be 3 stories. The concentration would be on the existing flat
area. The 3 main buildings are on 5 acres, the 16 unit is one and 1/2 acres. Total
building area would be 6 acres, less than half of the total acreage.
I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc
7
.
.,
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2000
. Criego questioned the underground parking. Bell explained the soil boring tests
indicate there would be no water problems.
. It would be an incorrect move to change the density from 90 to 169. If the zone is
changed to R4, it leaves the door open for other developers that may not need any
special approval.
. Hesitate to change the PUD set forth in 1997.
o
the Co
kind of a Ie
a developers a
requirements, i
V onhof:
. Also present in 1997 and agreed with Criego' s comments.
. Explained a PUD and why it is necessary to protect the natur
. It is very important to have an assisted living facility.
. The right-of-way to Five Hawks Avenue was to be a tr . not a roa
. The townhouse development was phase one and the ted living was phase
This was part of the entire plan and that is why th w ed for that sity.
. Reluctant to consider rezoning at all. The P on The developer might
want to reconsider. There is no substantial change
. No justification for changing the PUD.
Stamson:
.
.
.
e developer have to come back with a
Conditional Use process.
for this property.
the same controls. The Conditional Use
lofum density.
e Comprehensive Plan. Not strongly opposed to
t controls in the district.
.
.
.
's sta ements regarding the Conditional Use process.
roposal otherwise meets all the conditions of the ordinance,
d to adhere to that. Basically the only way to enforce some
ough the Conditional Use process would be voluntarily through
t. If the structure meets setbacks and every other ordinance
s difficult to say in a contract the building is too big.
Stamson questioned what if it was decided not to zone R4 even though the
Comprehensive Plan shows it as high density and there is no PUD approval. What
happens? Rye replied the 1997 zoning change was not approved by City Council, so it
goes back to the approved 1983 zoning.
Stamson amended his statements preferring Rye's comments.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn022800,doc
8
...--.-.....-.....---oor-
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28. 2000
There was a brief discussion on townhouse density.
Atwood:
. Questioned staff on the relationship with the School District. Kansier explained the
1997 school nature center. A portion of the nature center is on the city park land,
school land and the private property. The city is not aware of the arrangements made
with the property owner.
Rye spoke on the consideration in 1997 of amending the PUD throu
agreement, if the property was conveyed to the school district, t
the fact the property would be held as a nature center and consid
of the PUD to be met
Cramer:
. Agreed with V onhof and Criego that this property
not involved in the 1997 request.
. Ignore the natural elements and look
where street access is not a major art
the middle of a bunch of neighborhoo
. Support the idea of a senior care facility
. Not willing to risk at this . changi
. Redevelop as a PUD.
. Agreed with comm
i the middle of
se to stick this in
supporting the area.
ses perty in the way the community would like
sal is the same as 1997 but with a higher density.
?the project but not at the high density.
CO BY CRIEGO, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
M THE PUD 82-12 DISTRICT TO THE R-4 (HIGH
) DISTRICT.
yes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY EGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier said these items will go before the City Council on March 20, 2000.
A recess was called at 8:06 and reconvened at 8:15 p.m.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nm022800.doc
9
.
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
(612) 447-2131
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Prior Lake Planning Department
Bryce D. Huemoeller, Esq.
Eagle Creek Villas LLC - Land Use Application for Termination of
PUD, Rezoning and Other Matters
February 1, 2000
DATE:
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Parcel A
That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter (W t.h of SW ~) of Section 2,
Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying North of a line commencing at
the Southwest corner of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence North along the
West line thereof 2080.5 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
South 88051 '30" East to the East line of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter and there
terminating. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the plats of SPRING BROOK PARK,
SPRING BROOK PARK 2ND ADDITION, PRIORVIEW FIRST ADDITION and
PRIORVIEW SECOND ADDITION.
Parcel B
Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 2, HOLLY COURT, Scott County, Minnesota.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Applicant and Freedom Development and Consulting LLC propose to construct a
senior housing campus, containing 4 buildings with 169 units, on a 12.7 acre parcel
consisting of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 2, HOLLY COURT, and an adjacent parcel that is
currently part of PUD 82-12. The campus would include an assisted living facility, senior
rental units and senior condominium owner/occupied housing. A copy of the preliminary
site plan for the project is attached to this Memorandum.
1
-----~--._---_._..~--_.-
Prior Lake Planning Department
Page 2
February 1, 2000
Approximately 3 acres of the site is a wetland to be permanently reserved as a nature
area for use by the school district for educational purposes.
REQUESTED ACTIONS
1. Terminate or vacate PUD 82-12.
2. Affirm the underlying zoning of Parcel A as R-4 High Density Residential, or
rezone Parcel A to R-4.
3. Rezone Parcel B from R-2 to R-4 High Density Residential.
4. Amend Section 1108.808 to permit concurrent processing of comprehensive plan
amendments and requests for zoning changes and/or conditional use permits.
5. In the alternative to the amendment requested in Paragraph 4 above, grant a
variance from the strict application of Section 1108.808 to allow concurrent consideration of a
comprehensive plan amendment and request for rezoning as to Parcel B.
REASONS FOR CHANGE OF DESIGNATION
Parcels A and B, as presently zoned, are inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan 2010. Although the Comprehensive Plan designates the land
within PUD 82-12 as Urban High Density (R-HD), the current density allowable under PUD
82-12 is approximately 40 units.
Parcel B, consisting of the three southerly lots in Block 2 of Holly Court, is physically
separated by a wetland from nearby R-2 property in the various plats comprising Lakeside
Estates and its additions.
Block 2 of Holly Court is adjacent to PUD 82-12 and should be developed in
conjunction with the land in PUD 82-12.
Since the land in PUD 82-12 has a comprehensive plan designation of R-HD and a
zoning classification of R-4, per land use and zoning maps at the City Planning Office, Block
2 of Holly Court should also be designated as R-HD in the Comprehensive Plan 2010 and its
zoning ultimately reclassified to R-4.
The R-HD designation will be consistent with the density for this area and overall City
goals for affordable and senior housing. Recent studies by the Prior Lake EDA and the Scott
2
~.
Prior lake Planning Department
Page 3
February 1, 2000
County HRA affirm the need for rental and senior housing in Prior Lake, and the proposed
project will help satisfy the documented housing shortage.
The proposed amendment to Section 1108.808 to permit concurrent processing of
comprehensive plan amendments and request for zoning changes and/or conditional use
permits will streamline and reduce the cost of development in Prior Lake. The current
ordinance doubles the time needed to change the comprehensive plan designation and rezone
property. Such delay causes an unnecessary burden on landowners.
The application contains an alternative request for a variance of Section 1108.808
applicable in the event that the City Council elects not to amend the ordinance to allow
concurrent processing of comprehensive plan amendments and zoning matters. The applicant
believes that a hardship exists in that the applicant desires to make a reasonable use of the lots
within Block 2 of Holly Court (that is, construct a high density senior housing project on the
lots in conformance with City goals and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan), the proposed
use is currently prohibited in the R-2 zone, the requested ordinance change unrelated to the
actions of the applicant, the property is unique in that it is topographically aligned and must be
developed in conjunction with the land in pun 82-12 notwithstanding being part of the plat of
Holly Court, and the request is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake
Comprehensive Plan 2010 and the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, because Lots
2, 3 and 4, Block 2, Holly Court, are physically separated by a significant wetland from the
nearby R-2 area and therefore must be developed in conjunction with the land in PUD 82-12,
no reasonable use presently exists for Lots 2, 3 and 4. The request satisfies all requirements
contained in the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance for approval of a variance, as well as the
criteria for the issuance of a variance set forth in Minn.Stat. ~462.357, Subd. 6.
3
.......................-----.-.---.-
~U>
i-f
~r1
I
o
'-0
r
)>
z
li
!~!!~ll
Ill. Ig..
\ ;~ ,.~~
'\g; ~ol;
~- I
'I "II
II'
ISI
. ~
0 d~~ g:~~ ~
........ ... ~~~ ~i~ ~ CD
-4C1tVl '" ~ CJ'J ,., c
d~!S ~ ~~~ ~~~ a ~ ~ % 6
e Oo~ ~-a e Ei
...,.,,,,, ~c:c: r ng ;: =i r- Ei -a;::;,., Z;a ... z
~nn 0 z~~ 2=~ ~:g _ C)
!io<'-ZeDo ...
00 ~ C'l,., ~ ",ala '"Va 5 -l ... t~~ ~~~ z ~
~~~ z UI~~ %~t~"6", ~~~ ~f;;~ C> ;1
"'",,,, ~r
Z~t ~ cE; .. ~~.., ~ ~ z
~~,., 2i Zz ~~~ ~ C) ~t~ ~ ~ a
)leDeD % C>
-<-< C) lI"ao:'l ~ ~~i c ~
n 'V~ Colt ~c ~
"''''- S~a 0 ;:
... l;- ~ ""6
~~~ t; :"'Zi ;"J- : ~
-no 0
...~ :0 ..... .
g: C) C) .." -
lq) ~~ ~ 11I'1 CD
ill ~
lil~. lil /I ... Clt_~ :Ill
5"- ~ ~i:$ i
..' -co c t3~Of =I
e;.~ . IO:CJ Z
Ut~o ~ ..
~~: .. .. .......
.....,
.., .. ;llolil
~:~ ... ""
,.,,,, "''''N
:0.., .., ;2g i~~
~ig !~~ "l
~Nt ~lt
<n.
~~
To: Mayor Wes Mader
From: Eagle Creek Villas Association
Subject: Eagle Creek Villas LLC - Land Use Application for Termination
ofPUD, Rezoning and Other Matters
Date: March 15,2000
The board of directors of Eagle Creek Villas Association, a 45 unit
townhouse development located to the east of the project, has met
and report our opposition to the zoning change proposed by Eagle
Creek Villas LLC for Parcel A and Parcel B.
We oppose these changes due to the following:
1. Devaluation of our property values due to:
a. increased traffic
b. poor traffic flow
c. increased congestion
d. Residents purchased homes under specified zoning limits with
expectations that zoning will protect their investment and
quality of life.
2. Inadequate infrastructure to support proposed volume:
a. Five Hawks Avenue is narrow and in poor condition
b. Priorwood Street is not designed as a feeder road
c. Speeding on Priorwood Street is currently a problem
d. With school functions, Five Hawks is very congested and
difficult to negotiate.
Per the memorandum dated February 1, 2000 from Bryce D.
Huemoller, Esq. to the Prior Lake Planning Department, Reasons for
Change of Designation under reasons for change of designation, we
submit:
.
r'
We reject the termination or proposal to vacate PUD 82-12.
How can parcels A and B, as presently zoned, be inconsistent with
the policies and goals of the Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan 2010 if
the plan designates the land within PUD 82-12 as Urban high Density
(R-HD) and currently allows 40 units?
The Board is sympathetic with the need for affordable housing;
however, residents' rights should not be compromised to achieve this
goal. The need for affordable housing should be fulfilled within
designated, allowable zoning areas, not by rezoning.
The Board is not opposed to development of the site as an assisted
living, senior housing campus, but is opposed to rezoning the
property to the R-4 district, allowing 169 units to be built in an area
where residents purchased homes with expectations of a quality of
life protected by zoning. Zoning is a criteria homeowners use to
determine where they want to live. A change in zoning can seriously
diminish the credibility residents have in a community if it is easily
changed to accommodate the desires of developers. Zoning is
supposed to protect residents.
The Board of Directors of Eagle Creek Villa Association request
Council to protect the rights of Prior Lake residents as they try to
meet the housing and development demands of the community.
We, Eagle Creek Villas Association, urge you to disapprove this
request to rezone Parcel A & B
.t
l;J~ oJ2- r r ~=- 4~
~,
(Lzr-:-:
(
~'
"
"; t , ~
\, 'II\,. 'f \ t...\J.
~.{ 0"" \;\ "I"
...J I.,..t. ,"" J
V ", ,ff:~
~.'IO ".,.1cc\ /'
! /,
. \\9"',,;,1
.
....----.---r---.....-.-. .....--...... ... .-------.----.---.. .....--_..._-...~--........_-.._--..-..._._------_.