Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9B - Eagle Creek V. DEFERRED ,.. r MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MARCH 20, 2000 9B JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR \ti 17 _y s F'll.Y t)ov ( ll.,( " .C1 ( Y ~. ') . CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OO-XX DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUESTED BY EAGLE CREEK VILLAS, LLC, FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 2,3, & 4, BLOCK 2, HOLLY COURT (Case File #00-013) History: Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, has filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located on the south .side of Cates Street, south of the platted end of Holly Court. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current R-L/MD (Low to Medium Residential) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation on approximately 45,000 square feet (just over 1 acre) ofland. This property was originally platted as part of Holly Court in 1977. The five lots in Block 2 have never been developed, primarily due to the wetland on Lots 1 and 5. In 1998, Lots 1 and 5 were acquired by the State of Minnesota as part of a tax forfeiture proceeding. In 1997, the applicant included this property in an application to amend the existing Priorview PUD (pUD 82-12). Although a preliminary plan for this amendment was approved, the developer never proceeded to the final plan stage. As part of the amendment, the developer also filed a petition to vacate the Holly Court right-of-way and utility easements. This vacation was approved subject to approval of a final plat. Again, since the developer did not proceed to the final plan stage, this vacation has never been recorded. This property is presently zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and is designated as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. At this time, the applicant is considering developing this property in conjunction with the property to the south, which is designated as R- 621~).{)Ofile6\00comparn\OO-o.I3,\0(),Q 13cc.do~ ' Pl}gj::.1 1 U1n::agle C:reeKtWe. ~,t..,f'nor[.aKe, Mmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (tHZ) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER - HD (High Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. (The applicant has also filed an application to rezone the adj acent property from PUD 82-12 to R-4.) In order to ensure the designation and zoning of this property is consistent with the adjacent property, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment is approved, the applicant will file an application for a rezoning on this site. The Planning Co~ission 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 Land Use Plan Amendment. A copy of the minutes of the February 28, 2000 meeting are attached to this report. Current Circumstances: The total site area involved in this request is approximately 45,000 square feet. The site generally drains to the wetland to the north. A portion ofthe site was actually graded under the approved preliminary plat in 1997. There are some existing trees located on this site, although a portion of the site has been graded. Any development on the site is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A specific tree inventory will be required once a specific development plan, such as a preliminary plat, is submitted. The site is also subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act. A specific delineation will be required as part ofthe development application. The most logical access to this site is from the property to the south. Although the platted right-of- way provides access to these three existing lots, the existing wetland across Lots 1 and 5 make this access unlikely. Sewer and water services must be extended from the existing services located in Five Hawks Avenue and Priorview Street to the south of this site. These services must be extended through the property to the south. The Issues: The R-HD designation is consistent with the stated goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in that it offers a variety of housing and it provides for open space and the preservation of the natural elements of the site, and with the City's Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. This property is best developed in conjunction with the property to the south, since both the access and utilities must be extended from the south. The property to the south is designated as R-HD (High Density Residential). This request is consistent with that designation. The applicant's representative, Bryce Huemoeller, raised some legal issues with respect to this request in the attached letter dated March 9, 2000. The attached memorandum from the City Attorney addresses these issues. 1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-O 13\000 13cc,doc Page 2 ~ ;-;';.,; ..~,;. FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan amendment to the R~HD designation is consistent with the stated goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in that it offers a variety of housing types and provides for open space and the preservation of the natural elements of the site. The R-HD designation is also consistent with the City's Livable Community goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. Furthermore, the R-HD designation is consistent with the designation of the property to the south. This property is best developed in conjunction with the property to the south. For these reasons, the staff recommends approval ofthis 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. The Planning Commissio~~~refore recommende~ denial of this request. Budget 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 Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the R-HD designation as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact approving the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the R- HD designation as recommended by staff. 3. Continue the review for specific information or reasons per City Council discussion. The Planning Commission recoinmends Alternative #1. If the Council agrees with this recommendation, a motion and second to adopt. Resolution oo-xx denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate this property as R-HD 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 findings of fact approving the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendm nt to designate this property as R-HD is required. 1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-O 13\000 13cc.doc Page 3 . -~I . RESOLUTION OO-XX RESOLUTION DENYING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 2, 3 & 4, BLOCK 2, HOLLY COURT MOTION BY: WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, SECOND BY: Eagle Creek Villas, llC., submitted an application to amend the City of Prior lake 2020 Comprehensive Plan land Use Map from the R-lIMD (low to Medium Density Residential) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation for the property legally described as follows: lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 2, Holly Court; and legal notice of the' public hearing was duly published and mailed in 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 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and on March 20, 2000, the Prior lake City Council considered the application to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan land Use Map to designate the above described property to the R-HD designation and; the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment 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 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 amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan land Use Map to designate the above described property as R-HD (High Density Residential) is hereby denied based upon the following findings of fact. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the Comprehensive Plan designation is in error and that a change is justified. . Ir~tlu~<glW~WR-RVe~sg~~;fIlIp& Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (612) 447-4230 1~1(612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 2. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that the current Comprehensive Plan designation of R- UMD (Low to Medium Density Residential) is inappropriate and that it should be changed. 3. The Prior Lake Planning Commission recommended denial of the request based on incompatibility with the existing development. 4. There has not been a material change in the area or conditions affecting the site since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1999. 5. The recitals set forth above are incorporated ~erein. 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\OOcompam\OO-O 13\rsOOxxcc.doc Page 2 Holly Court Camp Plan Amendment 4 .....~ ~\i~2) ...... "\ . 3 ~ - ~r--" ~ .' j i I.~ r--~~ .~~:~~, :.. , ~ r-----:~ ..,&) to-- ,... '11 I. 22 . E1IC 2J 0 T. 21 · 1'4321 . 3 2 11 10 . . 7 5 . AnI 3 2 . N 1 W ~~ I? MAIN ST. . J 17 MAIN ST. 2 tI " 1 ., 21 .. .. 25 31 11 31 1. 1 12 13 ,. 17 fI 5 tI 17 II f- i-- IH) 15 11 ., 21 22 .. 25 ., I 31 11 31 22 21 .1 . ~ 2 11 10 . 7 . 3 , AIX7N . . 7 . 5 3 2 , .. 1:1 12 1 10 . . 7 . . ~ 3 2 1 iI= M. Dr PLEASANT AV. ""':;., ~ · r'~~~........ "'ic . ~3.." 10 I~ ~ s . 1 est :res .. 22 21 ... "" "~ C,J Cl - .. Ef.if.J. ". ." ~ ..... Ill' " TO" · . "". , 3 '.2. vv.~ 'mJ~~J.I, ST. ~'S OLACH . -=: r--- CATES ST. S.E. lli , I -~ 0: ~ ~ ~ IiKESI01 1 (j . 0J1UlT . . > _\~ 2 2 . ~SiteLocation ~ ::J . ~~ . ~"{~ 5 ~ I I EAGLE n-v- . 7 . A " " ~ r~ac "" j .. " 10 5 I I"-r- L... .... 7" ,," "1"lITEITEElJ '" -...;;;::...... 10 . ffII1i":.= ~l PRIORWOOO 111~'1 . OJrn ST. I J. . . f. ." " EAGLE ~E~rn~ W1JIrn 7 J ~ ~, . . ~, ~~~~ 10 O'~~ . Cj ~ · ~ · · · · W/1 T ~0'y 0- . ... -- - ~-, . I ANNA TR. SE, . 12 1 ~ 2 - siET' 11 11 10 . ,,~ . 13 ~ 1:1 !'J T q,Q;?>- $ . 13 . JJ8 7 t .. ~Q I-- .. 7 4-3 ~s/f~ '" 3 .:t' Il:O 11 . " ~ '" . <;~ o 400 800 Feet ~ N . t ". HUE MOELLER & 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 Holly Court Comprehensive Plan Amendment February 1, 2000 DATE: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 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 12.7acre 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. REQUESTED AMENDMENT Change the Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan 2010 designation of the lots in Holly Court from cUrban Low to Medium Density (R-L/MD) to Urban High Density (R-HD). REASONS FOR CHANGE OF DESIGNATION The lots in Holly Court are currently designated in the Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan 2010 as Urban Low to Medium Density with a zoning classification of R-2. However, the lots are physically separated by a wetland from nearby R-2 property in tlle various plats comprising Lakeside Estates and its additions. 1 Prior Lake Planning Department Page 2 . February 1, 2000 Block 2 of Holly Court is adjacent to PUD 82-12 and should be developed in conjunction with the land in PUD 82-12. Sinr&:e 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 County HRA affirm the need for rental and senior housing in Prior Lake, and the proposed project will help satisfy the documented housing shortage. :.. 2 ..----,-'--.--. l ij~ II j i i~ 8 II !; . il i "l/! :: ~:51 3 ~ ~ en ~ ~~ . ;"~ _ ~ N t: Wi!! If') '" tJs i~ ... 3 .....g ;:.... po. ..... ... 0 G 0 It~ 9 I .. ~ . a ~. ~ ~~~ . 9 ; ~: ~ : !U i i sf Mllll Ii Ii ~l> ~d .... ~a~ In:iiti ~ =;;~ = ~~ III _-III ... g.. : ninO !I" ~::; :;I.. ~~ t; 0 i"::; ~ ~ 9~~ ... i t; i...; !< u L;}O >>"" o z Q~!i: mmw !i - 9 gl;;; ~~~ 9 9 i ~fio.. ~:~ il ~ l!:i~ ~~t 9 i:l j !~~ UU~ = ;;; ~::: ~~2 /:1:1:: ....% !!~ titi~ t: ~~ t; ~ :~~d ~ -II~ II~'" ~ 0 ... ! ,,~: :z"- ~ ~I~ en mo.-II ~ ~ ~ l;~~ .... 9 t1 ~ ~~~ .... 9 i i: a~~ Ei t: i ~ ~~!5 - ! :. ~ uu ~ :g =::: ~~~ ~lC .,,,! coll!l ,., I:: 3a~ Inti ~ .,'" !~;;; ~~a .... ."'3 ~.. ~1Il ~ ~!i! ... 9iij..: t; s:c" c ma." C Z >->-4: ::C.Q~ 2 mCDw ~~:;I ~ ~~~ i~~ ~ :a~ i~~ ~ !~t5 ::)=i 0 ~u~ :~: ~ 5i~~ :z ... ... o . )., atl Ie Ii ~ I~~! i~\ I~i ~ \ ,,~. I!oi \ ;~~ i; w z o z <( -1 D- o W-' I-~ -1/ U):- II.~ ~~..~~ m 0') cv f:d I CI '.- ..~~ . ---, ~ Q) c: ._ ~ ro (J)....J- c: a.. Q.)"'O ..c c: ~j c. E 8 co ~ ~ CO I ~ -- LL ~ ~ rff.~ i G ~ G ~~ ha ~;f l. 11 i IUU Ilhl~ l~ Ii! ~IH~ I nd~ U ]bd J III ~ IIIII i I ~ 1011 ........ .......> .>T'. ---......------.>..> ..-. .....--.--...-----....---..--..-..---..-.-..--.------.-. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 . Height - 6 feet is reasonable. That decision was made prior to my coming on the Commissio There is no basis or public need to increase the height, especially in a residential are considering it is an illuminated sign. . Support staff's r ommendation, except pertainin~ to arterial roads not collectors. *' , MOTION BY CRIEGO, ECOND BY STAMS9N, TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION 0 ~HE PROPOSEo/MENDMENT EXCEPT COLLECTOR STREETS. \\ ~ Vote taken indicated ayes by all. \oTu5N CARRIED. Rye suggested for clarification p~ the current ordin / \ Institutional Signs: Freestanding or wall i~Jitutiona s ar Distric~ovided that the to~al . do feet./nternally illuminated ~Wzs ar soft faces an arterial road as Identifie l:e Plan. Freestandi . gns ni'ay be no L adjacent grade or ce d~,ofthe ad] higher. \ Tovar stat this item will go c. Case #00-012 property located in r ijuesting Rezoning for the ge 22, Scott County. e staffreport dated February 28,2000, on application for ~ Zone Change for the property drant fthe intersectionofPive 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 ofthe 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\nm022800,doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 od Street, representing the Eagle Creek Villas Association 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. 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-LIMD (Low to Med' esidenti Residential) designation 0 tely 45, Ian Amendment. The proposed R- dectives in that it offers a variety of rese the natural elements ofthe site. sistent with the City's Livable Community Goal to g. 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nm022800.doc 5 - -----.....----..-.-,. ....-.---.----...-.... ..-.........-----....---.-. .. ....----...--.------.--.--..-----..... 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. (Kansier explained ing going on and hool is tied into many , ther concern was CI. conservation, density g and wners end up selling, does t of senior living. Kansier explained . previous comments. Erickson said he o bors next to this property were against ted 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. oanoke, stated her concern is putting a unit at the end of Roanoke. treet 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 of the 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 designa . . d not change, his intention is still for senior care. Bell said they are not goin 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 n f s - less than 5% of tenants drive. The vehicle traffic will be staff and vi . Ind - ent living will have underground parking. They are also lookin ating so the land to the school district. Steve Nicholas, 16370 Albany Avenue, would not :: destroyed in the area. Amanda Kern, 4171 Cates Street, adjace density senior living facility. She would r<1b.t the effects on the 33 clubs upport in the project. It was was going to contribute the land to the off Theronountofrunoffhas in the area. . story with this parcel. In 1997 the Commissioners were very ted living proposal. At the time, the Commissioners felt Five h not go through. Instead, a walking trail allowing maintenance e constructed. The Commissioners did not want a large number of units in that ation and felt the assisted living project was right for the area. . The townhome 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 of the 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. 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc 7 '---,--------------- Planning Commission Minutes Febroary 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. the Co kind ofa Ie a developers a requirements, it Vonhof: . 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 tra' 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 w anned for that d sity. . Reluctant to consider rezoning at all. The P The developer might want to reconsider. There is no substantial change . No justification for changing the PUD. . . e developer have to come back with a. Conditional Use process. for this property. the same controls. The Conditional Use 1 ofum s density. he 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\OOplcomrn\OOpcmin\nm022800,doc 8 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 . chan . . Redevelop as aPUD. . Agreed withcomm 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 GO, 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\mn022800,doc 9 . ---_._----.------------ " HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANICUN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAJ(E, MINNESOTA 55372 JAMES O. BATES BRYCE O. HUEMOEUER It/ephone (612) <447-2131 1elecopier (612) <447.5628 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 staff's 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, I 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-IID), 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 Resi~ential. ~ 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-L/MD, medium density up to 10 units per acre. Rather, the land was designated R -lID 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 "PUD Planned Unit Development" as a separate zoning district, and to delete PUDs from the list of conditional uses in the R -1, R - 2 and R - 3 districts. As a result of this zoning amendment, PUD 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 BRA 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. ~ Frank F. Boyles Page 4 March 9, 2000 CURRENT STATUS OF PUD 82-12 The following summarizes the current status of PUD 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. ~ PUD 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 PUD 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" at page 15: "Popular 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 population 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 fmancing 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 the Senior's Housing and Care Facilities publication at page 57: Frank 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 ot) PUD 82-12 and rezone PUD 82-12 to (or affirm the zoning status ()fPUD 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 contlict 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 the Comprehensive Plan designation of R - lID also violates this statute. 3. The refusal to rezone PUD 82-12 to R-4 in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan designation of R-lID 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 designati()n 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 me 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 S1. 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 . .. 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, ~ ~ ,] (\ \ tr ~)~ Tf~,J~L_ Bryce D. Huemoeller BDH:dw cc: Prior Lake Planning Department Eagle Creek Villas LLC Freedom Development and Consulting LLC . Suesan L. Pace, Esq. Wes Mader Jim Petersen Jim Ericson Mike Gundlach Pete Schenck . .--- - ------.-_.......