HomeMy WebLinkAbout8D - Eagle Creek Villas
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MAY 15,2000
8D
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
3~
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OO-~
APPROVING 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-
1620CP~1~f~0~?e~~a~~~0-%1.~~0~~f~Fl1'kce. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fal~2) 447-4245
f\0i EQUi\L OPPOETl:r...;ITY E'.IPLOYER
HD (High Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map. (The applicant has also filed an application to rezone the
adjacent 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 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
Land Use Plan Amendment. A copy of the minutes ofthe February
28, 2000 meeting are attached to this report.
The City Council considered this request on March 20, 2000. The
Council deferred action on this request until this time in order to
schedule a workshop for discussion on the implications of this
decision. The Council held a workshop on April 4, 2000. At the
workshop, the developer discussed the proposed development of this
site. The Council also heard from representatives of the adjacent,
neighborhood.
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 of the 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 ofthe State
Wetland Conservation Act. A specific delineation will be required as
part of the 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 I 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.
l:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-O 13\000 l3cc3.doc
Page 2
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 developer has stated his intention to develop this property in
conjunction with the property to the south. In discussions with staff,
the developer has also noted he intends to file an amendment to the
existing PUD to revise the approved development on the property to
the south and to include this site within the PUD. Amending the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of this site to R-HD is
consistent with the designation of the property to the south.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan amendment to the R-HD
designation is consistent with the proposed development and the
designation of the adjacent property. This property is best developed
in conjunction with the property to the south. For these reasons, the
staff recommends approval of this request. If the developer fails to file
an amendment to the PUD, the City Council may initiate an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to return this site to the
original designation.
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 Commission therefore recommended denial of
this request. However, amending the Comprehensive Plan to the R-
HD designation in order to facilitate the development ofthis site
through the PUD process is not inconsistent with the Planning
Commission recommendation.
Minnesota Statutes require the City to act on an application within 60
days of submittal of a complete application. The City may extend this
deadline for an additional 60 days. The applicant's attorney has agreed
in writing to a waiver of this deadline until July 1,2000, which is 45
days from the May 15th meeting. This means that if the Council does
takes no action by June 30, 2000, the petition (either Rezoning or
Comprehensive Plan Amendment) would be automatically approved.
This is the petitioners way of encouraging expeditious action by the
City. He has stated that a further extension would be considered if
progress is being made. We have provided the petitioner with a
deadline for the receipt of his PUD Amendment petition.
FISCAL IMPACT:
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.
1: \OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-O 13 \000 l3cc3 .doc
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution oo-xx approving 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 denying
the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the R-HD
designation as recommended by staff.
The staff recommends Alternative #1. If the Council agrees with this
recommendation, a motion and second to adopt Resolution oo-xx
approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate this
property as R-HD is required. The rationale for this amendment is
stated in the resolution recitals, which note the amendment is
appropriate because of the incorporation of this property into the PUD
proposed for the property to the south. If the PUD is not amended, the
Council may initiate an amendment redesignating this site for Low to
Medium Density Residential uses.
The Planning Commission recommends Alternative #2. If the Council
agrees with this recommendation, a motion and second directing staff
to prepare a resolution with findings of fact denying the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate this property as R-HD
is required.
l:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-O 13\000 13cc3 .doc
Page 4
31
RESOLUTION 00.yi.
RESOLUTION APPROVING 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:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
Eagle Creek Villas, LLC., submitted an application to amend the City of Prior Lake
2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the R-UMD (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 on the basis the development of
this site is more appropriate through the PUD process; 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 deferred action on this item until May 15, 2000; and
the City Council continued its discussion of this item on May 15, 2000; 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; and
the developer has stated his intention to develop this site in conjunction with the
property to the south, designated as R-HD and zone PUD; and
WHEREAS, the developer has indicated his intentions to file an application to amend the existing
1~g~~ijl~~9W~~'g~-RU~a~rE~..df?>~ior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph (612) 447-4230 1~g)(612) 447-4245
A''''; EQl 'AL OPPOfnLNITY E;\IPI_OYER
PUD and to include this site in that amendment; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that if this site is to be incorporated into the proposed
PUD it is appropriate the Comprehensive Plan designation be consistent with that of
the existing property in the PUD; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined there are unique circumstances surrounding the
development of this site; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that but for the fact that this site will be incorporated
into the PUD with the property to the south, this site would not otherwise be
designated as R-HD
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that:
1. The above recitations are herein fully incorporated as set forth above.
2. 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 approved.
3. Approval of this amendment is subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Council.
Passed and adopted this 15th day of May, 2000.
YES
NO
Mader Mader
Ericson Ericson
Gundlach Gundlach
Petersen Petersen
Schenck Schenck
{Seal}
Frank Boyles, City Manager
City of Prior Lake
l:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-O l3\appres.doc
Page 2
Holly Court Camp Plan Amendment
'~ ~ T 3
25'~ $ 14 7
24 r // 1,0 11 2 t 14
,. Z3 'It;. E lie
2! 1// II 854321
~ ~ \l,,~~ o~. 11 .
? ....\\'\.~ ~~ 'T' I i
. ~cft r--: r-:::' ., -......-.......
~ ?;. r------:: _ .
21D
3 2
ADIVN
lL.p..2111...7
w:s
5 .. 3 2 1
o
MAIN ST.
MAIN ST.
/lKl
17
",. II 1 Z 21
,.
Z3 ,. (:Is 31 27 31
10 1 12 13
15 1 11 18
15 Ie 11 18 ,. 3] 21 22 Z3
25 31 XI 28
';2? '" I
11
AIlO'N
.. 3 12 11 10 8 1
. 3 /,
g II 7 II 5
3 2 1
14 13 12 1
1. . . 7 .
E M. 0'1
5 .. 3 2 1
PLEASANT AV.
".~~ ~ f~tl I . .~ I~"
t~ ~o 1 A B \ll!4ft ~.. I LIV\IJWlCE.
':_iil~ "~v ~03.'. I.
~~~ :D~ ~ ~~,. ~ esr:res
.0. .~ ., C.J. c~~ CCW.10~
f'F ~' ij1J/4hro ~ ., . .~
,DI" , ""' > · , F'lmfil ~~.~~ r
....... mu 11~11::l .. 5
- roo--
· r---, T
- ~ )~
. ~ ~ \fi.<.~S\O
. --:1\~ 2 ~ '
~\~~ir-;
....
po ,. 21
~
ST. J.ICH'a'S o-LRCH
J '~'~" '~. &te Loccrtion
W
en
W
~
:J:
....
:3
::J
o
, ~ 2
~~
q,Q:' !S~
.p
4'3
"
, EAGLE ~
X" V1llASLAS 'L:.a~". ~EEK -- I /
SflJ:7\ c . ~ ~ I
SL ~ ..~;.. I ~ ~. ~ .1 ITITEIDJ
~<PJ __ ............. PRJORWOOO
~S 1~ ~fPrnrnrnrn~ITrrrr.-ro 1}
~ ttj~ ~ CREEK VIL~
~~~ ~1 · · ~-
q,Q2 ~ .~ ,. b . ~ ;2 .
Cj 8 II ~ 10 11 12 13 ~::;
'r ::"r r-- '. ~'QI"I.... J
~ ANNA TR_ SE,
· 12 ~\J' I I 11 ,. ~ I
~ s'€' 11 . '2 '/~'<i
. 13.f:/) T
I I
. 7 .
I. .
~
)' 7 s- 13 .
" !JJ W 14 7
~s/}j~ .
.'); ~ "
" :!I '" " .:
_c.~
o
400
800 Feet
L
N
~ 0) C
._ ~ ro
(/)--J-
c 0...
0)"'0
..c c
~~
a.
E
8
co
~
en
1
I
~
--
u..
I~ ~! h~ i ~ ~
1-0 ~ i~8 cISt;!E ~~
j ~ 5 ~ 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ Cll !E ~
,'"@ ~ ~~ ~~.- ~ I ~~~~ ~ ~ ~lJ I ~ s ~ ~
1- S Cl 1 1ii~~ - Ie>
I CO .- c! 0 .- ,g ~
I' .~ ~ ~...... i 'Ii ..,., ~ i- H ..~ L [,l
. ~ ilf:5:5 i ~~~:E~ 1Hr ~~~~~
c3 ~ J~I ~ I~III ~ I ~ lOll
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 pertaining to arterial roads not collectors.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, ECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION 0 :,rHE PROPOSED/AMENDMENT EXCEPT
COLLECTOR STREETS." /
"
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. \M?~6N CARRIED.
/'-
Rye suggested for clarification purposes, the current ordinan
-*
.I
I .,~:Y
Institutional Signs: Freestanding or wall iristitution~!i~igns are'~~rmitted in any
Distric!~~ovided that the total sJgn~r~ doe~~~J,~xceed 75 square
feet. /nternally illuminated signs arep:lq;~ltt~d if the sign is located
soft faces an arterial road as ldentifiedl~i;~~{ Comprehensive Land
Use Plan. Freestandi~~:,~t?ns may be no lU~;'~~4~ 6 feet above the
/Iadjacent grade or ceritediiIe; ade of the adjac~t"street, whichever is
1'0~>'__-"0,'_-:_:_:-_.:'):" _ ,;_,,::;::_'~~crv
II higher.;~, ." . .,
Tovar statecl this item will goge,fore the City~8:uncil on 11.
"..'37/-- :A
,i~:'/ '^-.-~
C. Case #00-012 E~gle Creek.,illas, LLCis requesting Rezoning for the
~w')""J/::4 '{::<'?~":;:>'"
property located in}~eCtion 2, Township 114, R,.~nge 22, Scott County.
.1r . ..,t.....;:r.f;~rl>
Planning Coordinator Jane'1;nsier pres tedthe staff report dated February 28, 2000, on
file in the offi ()~;the Planning'I)epartment.
':.'.i-i,dV'"
~"'.
~::>_:---_._._,;,<,:-/
Eagl~.;!g;reek Villas, L/~,~gas file~;~l{application for ~ Zone Change for the property
loq~t~e;,~t the northwest q,~~drant Of the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and
Priorw~g<iStreet, direct1y;~orth of Five Hawks School. The request is to rezone the
propertYf!c,W the PUD ~~-12 District to the R-4 (High Density Residential) District.
Kansier gave alii~tqp;~f the property and zoning.
Staff recommended approval of the request as the proposed R-4 District is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation.
:i'/i",/
;./
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~~f;I;:~.~re
would be a 66 unit assisted care facility totally detached from this buildWg:i'The two
would be a facility for residents going from independent to more of~;J1};fA care
provider. The third would be senior condominiums for sale. Bell!4l)~a th tent is for
'".;'1.
the area to be developed and totally landscaped, and it makes mory1sense to the
"""\,?)A
Holly Court property from Five Hawks A venue and Priorwo9~;~treet.
Kansier continued with the next report.
D. Case #00-013 Eagle Creek Villas, LLC is reque~jng, omprehensive Plan
'i'''",''. 7
Amendment for the property described as Lots 2, 3 & 4;;Bl ck 2, Holly Court.
Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, filed an apPlicJt~~1frro~~ Comprehenslv~" ;f~ Amendment for
the property located on the south side ofC~!~~"0S<" .~~J;~ of:he}~ratted end of Holly
Court. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Cq.PIpr~liensive;~~Cll)jLand Use Map from the
current R-L/MD (Low to MediunhResidentiai}ciJ~ignation;t(?the R-HD (High Density
'.! . ..., "ii',"" . ,"
Residential) designation onappro" ately 45,OQO square feet of land.
< .\
.... ,ti',..,;>
Staff recommended apJ{f9val ofth~::eomprehensi~tgjPlan Amendment. The proposed R-
,"';;", . pf .. ". ,:'I'
HD designation is Co'ilsisf~nt wit4,llitrgo;lls:aIlci:objectives in that it offers a variety of
>)\?,,:,,<:'~ ,,',"'- "''''''~':QM;:.:;_;(>t::i;;:;':-;,::~-::~?:\{>::_'
housing, provides open spaq~,~d preseNes'ofthe natural elements of the site.
Furthermor~'c..tl}~i.~!~~.tpation1is"c9~sistent with the City's Livable Community Goal to
provide affordable'ap.dUfe-cyclehC5using.
;5<;> <c_,,,,, ;"', "--/'<.J:/'-
~"";'j'
The~~plic hearing was ()p~ped to the public.
~'- .,../:....,'..." .',' '\.. .' .,',. . .,~
^ ""'('>.
Eric J~ffii~~m, 4341 Prio~60d Street, representing the Eagle Creek Villas Association
Board ofDir~~tR!s sta~pg they are opposing the changes: 1) The de-valuation of property
values due to iliP.........re.., as,... ed traffic and congestion. Residents in the Association bought their
. .,;I'
homes with expystations the zoning would protect their investment and quality of life;
and 2) They feer 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.
I: \OOfiles\OOp lcornrn\OOpcmin \mn022 800, 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.
~,;:0
;;:_f,/
Tracy Haaland, 4005 Roanoke Street, said he owns the last house 0~<i~~5~ke backing up
to the proposed project. The reason he chose the area to live we"wimlj..~~and privacy.
His concerns are for the runoff into the lake and preserving the try The atl~Y~~lso
used by Five Hawks School. Haaland felt a development lik:,~l:would neg~ti~~l
affect his property value. '
J;
Pamela Nelson, 16517 Dutch Avenue, questioned tP..... 9c;ation (Kansier explained
--y '%;:'~:~":'>"",::."'-"~.
the PUD and the R-4 zoning district.) Nelson felt thereist~~~ll ing going on and
there is no need to disrupt the natural environment. Five Ha~~tSchool is tied into many
projects in this area. Kids need trails and ds to explore. N~"~n's ther concern was
the drainage problems into the lake.
,.-.."".,
Jeff Nelson, 4024 Roanoke, said he was grat:f liw~~~Sea. conservation, density
and safety. He question if Ci~ii~~~~concePt~Qgiftg and tQ,~~[wners end up selling, does
that forfeit any future zoniqg1j;;:SuPP.prts the conc~t of senior living. Kansier explained
the zoning in the R -4 district.
Gene Erickson, 40 0 ke S ", aet:l:hwttn previous comments. Erickson said he
5"I-.Jf;>~s:n_:{ ,:':7t;':;:.:.'-,>cY
attended the meetings ands "'.~,? all (, e,(Hghbors next to this property were against
the rezoningin,l 3. He also;;~~ted to voice his opinion against higher density.
BobJ.gpes, 4266 PriOny;gS!i Stree~,;;said his neighbors have summarized his concerns. He
w~fft()t opposed to som6ts6rt of de~elopment, but concerned for the density and traffic
~:5:::': '" ~'~>f.::-::{\ ,>i:,) ,,?,
problews" With no traffi9ljght on Highway 13 and Five Hawks Avenue, a lot of traffic is
<i';;'~ i)"~
funneled dg)Y11 Priorwood:;Street.
--':::";\P'-':';'{':t-<. ,-"f
',>>-. ,>+";'- <'
;;%:;'",,_>,~:>-_::,)Wi
Mary Becotte,4~~~.c1R.6anoke, stated her concern is putting a unit at the end of Roanoke.
It is a very narro",,:street with many children. There would be too much traffic for the
'v
existing road. it
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\OOp1comm\OOpcmin\rrm022800 ,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 designati()P:J9:i~ not
change, his intention is still for senior care. Bell said they are not going,t&~~Tfching
the wetlands and destroying the neighborhood. The path will be unt~~~~!9,'. A bridge will
be built across the creek for residents to use. Regarding the numQ~~'5fv~~j!~S -less
than 5% of tenants drive. The vehicle traffic will be staff and~isit~ts. Ind~n~ ent
living will have underground parking. They are also 100ki~B.~:~~cating som the
land to the school district. ", /
;57'
"i~",
Steve Nicholas, 16370 Albany Avenue, would not like osee th'!;i~.ldlife and woods
~O/ '-";-;",:";"
destroyed in the area. ' j'!<
Amanda Kern, 4171 Cates Street, adjacen 0 Holly Court, wou~i~keJo see a lower
density senior living facility. She would ke,to keep the wi1cilifer
,..............,..,
..;~~(.~
;"r,
Scott Schmokel, 4151 Cates Street, would lil{e to h~ar m6fe7about the effects on the 33
t{%<." __..::?/"" .'t+,'![;jj/
acre nature area. Dar Fosse a~g{,2~~ed manY11'~7al clubs f<;>fsupport in the project. It was
his understanding John M~.~~nbri~;Uile d~velop~t was going to contribute the land to the
nature center. Schmok~Hs~ther cO~f,jern IS for tl\~~off. The amount of runoff has
increased consideraqJy.' the last 6 years he has l!~ea in the area.
'\~t$l~~ --3" -it>??
~'..,..;..-:~-~'-'::~;~R?~,-
Comments from the CommissIOners:>
,./_rJv;"-'''f~':,}i:::_:'>'__'';\;i'-;:)-~>'
c",~ \
>/
Cri~.~~,:!r<'
. : TIi~~~~as been a 10ngl:1fstory with this parcel. In 1997 the Commissioners were very
pleaseij.~9. have an a~~isted living proposal. At the time, the Commissioners felt Five
Hawks A.~~!~~e Sh9yuld not go through. Instead, a walking trail allowing maintenance
and repair sl:1.~~.~g/be constructed. The Commissioners did not want a large number of
units in that J9C'ation and felt the assisted living project was right for the area.
. The townhoIhe 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\nm022800,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. lfthe 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.
.
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
,,4 -,'
The townhouse development was phase one and the assisted living was phase,';>:';!'
This was part of the entire plan and that is why the;>BUD was;planned for that d;~ri~ity.
~'f~~:~1/:~ <\~:''''>' "r
~:c~ar;~~~~~~~~~e~:~~~~n~o a~:~~t~~;l ~~~:j~~tron t~~lz~he developer might
. No justification for changing the PUD.
Vonhof:
.
.
.
.
.
Stamson:
. Present in 1997. Was not on the Plannmg
proposed.
. Happy with the PUD appr 'n 1997.
. Questioned staff - If agg,rov "W\>)' \ 4, would; "r, e developer have to come back with a
CUP prop.osal? KaIl.Si~r explai~wj the plattin~>~d Cond.itional Use process.
. Agreed WIth Co SIoners.. efer to see a.~IJD for thIS property.
. Zoning to an R a slow . 'ssiQn{he same controls. The Conditional Use
':'}<<f"'-..~::_:t.&,
process will control w evel ofumg;"afi<l density.
. The R4 D' 'c complies. ..{l,the Comprehensive Plan. Not strongly opposed to
; , , ere are i'iw;;;i}., ~ant controls in the district.
RX~~~)R~ented on St~?r's sta ements regarding the Conditional Use process.
Thfou~~~.~ process, if ~~proposal otherwise meets all the conditions of the ordinance,
the Comny"ssi.on is obligated to adhere to that. Basically the only way to enforce some
?\i:<.:):.\+-., ,,:.,.,.y
kind of a less~g.~:nsi}.X)hrough the Conditional Use process would be voluntarily through
a developers agt;~'~1JJent. If the structure meets setbacks and every other ordinance
requirements, itgets 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.
I: \OOfi les\OOp lcomm\OOpcmin \mn022800 ,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~~~~~eveloper's
agreement, if the property was conveyed to the school district, th~,QitY couHlrecognize
?*'i"'::\\? "\:f ,:<'.>-.
the fact the property would be held as a nature center and consid""" e overan~<:>bjectives
of the PUD to be met.
Cramer:
. Agreed with V onhof and Criego that this property e
not involved in the 1997 request.
· Ignore the natural elements and look a,t:Jh,e map, the high
#j'(>-(;gN:'2:r;~
where street access is not a major artc'<' ~",Jt doesn't m
the middle of a bunch of neighborhood, 'k~'Q!~"
· Support the idea of a senior care facility}~:yt ata:ISW~!fijensjty.
'Sf::':'fX'-" >>>ft.,':""'>?
. Not willing to risk at this f e.by changiri"\the zoning .~p'R4.
. Redevelop as a PUD.
. Agreed with commeAt' with th
in the middle of
nse to stick this in
Criego:
· The PUD in 1997 clear );::l'1 resses e perty in the way the community would like
to see i~.,~;~~~l~lsaid tne~~oRosal is the same as 1997 but with a higher density.
The ~qmmhriltY;.<'~'~ aying theyWaI!f:othe project but not at the high density.
::;1j}:? -,>;'~,t.\~f_:-:;;;/
<I ' . ".0 ,,);;-'
M9'R~qN BY VONHOF,SECOND BY CRIEGO, RECOMMENDING DENTAL OF
THEZQ~ CHANCE FROM THE PUD 82-12 DISTRICT TO THE R-4 (HIGH
DENSIT~'~SIDENTIA.L) DISTRICT.
frastructur~~1}"?> supporting the area.
.' ..J"
./
^", "..;V")'
Vote taken indi .~c!i~yes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
;;~:->-:'f
MOTION BY CRIEGO, 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.
I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc
9