The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4J - Wild Oaks Co./Dept. Post-it'" Fax Note 7671 To Phone # Phone # Fax # Fax # STAFF AGENDA REPORT 4J DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 96-16 WITH FINDINGS OF FACT DENYING SCHEMATIC AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND ZONING CHANGE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILD OAKS DATE: FEBRUARY 5,1996 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this item is to consider approval of a resolution with findings of fact denying the Schematic and preliminary PUD, zoning change and preliminary plat for the development known as Wild Oaks located on Conroy Street south of County Road 42. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission considered this item at meetings on August 28 and October 23,1995. At the October 23 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the request to the City Council. The applicant asked to delay consideration of the request by the City Council to allow further modifications to be made to the development plan. These modifications were considered by the Planning Commission on January 8 at another public hearing and the Commission recommended approval of the request. The City Council reviewed this request at its' January 16 meeting and voted to deny the proposals. Consistent with past practice, staff has prepared a resolution of denial with findings for Council consideration ALTERNATIVES: The Council has three alternatives: 1 . Deny the resolution of denial and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval. 2. Approve the resolution of denial as attached to this report. 3. Approve the resolution of denial with such other modifications or amendments as the Council may direct. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 2. Such action is housekeeping consistent with the Council's action on January 16,1996. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second as part of Consent Agend 1to approve Resolution 96-16. n" '~Ml 16200 ~~~~~. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER I r 1 RESOLUTION 96-16 RESOLUTION DENYING SCHEMATIC AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND ZONING CHANGE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILD OAKS MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted public hearings on August 28th and October 23,1995 and January 8,1996 to consider the application of RCS Associates, Inc. for approval of a Schematic and Preliminary Planned Unit Development and approval of a preliminary plat for the development known as Wild Oaks (hereinafter, "The Project") which is legally described as follows: That part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Government Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of West, along the north line of said government Lot 2, a distance of 148.01 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 0 degrees 42 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 158.31 feet; thence southwesterly a distance of 83.99 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the West, having a central angle of 31 degrees 03 minutes 41 seconds and a radius of 154.92 feet; thence South 30 degrees 21 minutes 27 seconds West. tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 202.90 feet; thence southwesterly a distance of 103.41 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a central angle of 31 degrees 11 minutes 15 seconds and a radius of 189.99 feet; thence south 28 degrees 27 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 30.00 feet to the northerly line of a 20.00 foot driveway as shown on the plat of "CONROY'S BAY", according to the recorded plat thereof, on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota; thence South 61 degrees 32 minutes 42 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of 139.72 feet; thence South 41 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of 134.80 feet; thence South 87 16200 ~@~N!ek'9We. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQL;AL OPPORTL'NIW E:VIPLOYER , ---r- WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WILDDENY.DOC degrees 49 minutes 56 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of276.54 feet; thence North 87 degrees 11 minutes 48 seconds west, along said northerly line, a distance of 60.24 feet; thence North 69 degrees 48 minutes 55 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of 283.56 feet to the easterly line of the 30.00 foot road as shown on said plat of "CONROY'S BAY"; thence North 0 degrees 38 minutes 40 seconds West, along said easterly line, a distance of 130.37 feet; thence North 7 degrees 46 minutes 21 seconds West, along said easterly line, a distance of 462.19 feet to said north line of Government Lot 2; thence on a bearing of East, along said North line, a distance of 1059.36 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northwest comer of said Section 30; thence on an assumed bearing of East along the north line of said Section 30 a distance of 1777.47 feet; thence on a bearing of South a distance of 440.30 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 15 degrees 32 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 33.00 feet; thence South 74 degrees 27 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 41.00 feet; thence North 15 degrees 32 minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 33.00 feet; thence North 74 degrees 27 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 41.00 feet to the point of beginning. and; legal notice of the public hearings was duly published in the official newspaper of the City and individual mailed notices were sent in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.357, Subd. 3 and 462.358, Subd. 3b and Prior Lake City Code Sections 5-5-12(D)4.(a) and 6-3- 3(A)3.; and the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issue and interested persons were afforded the opportunity to present their views, objections and facts related to the Schematic and preliminary Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat of Wild Oaks, and: at the October 23, 1995 meeting, following consideration of City Codes, zoning and subdivision ordinances and applicable provisions of the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposal to allow 23 dwelling units on the site, and; the applicant modified the proposal to allow 20 dwelling units and submitted the modified request for consideration by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on January 8, 1996, and; II . WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, After considering the City Codes, zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements, the purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the ordinance and applicable provisions of the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Schematic and Preliminary Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat and zoning change, and; the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the Schematic and Preliminary Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat of Wild Oaks and considered these recommendations along with the staff reports , meeting minutes of previous meetings and received additional testimony at its' regular meeting on January 16, 1996 (collectively referred to as the record of decision), 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 Schematic and Preliminary Planned Unit Development, preliminary plat and zoning change to PUD, Planned Unit Development be, and hereby are, denied based upon the following findings of fact. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The tree inventory is incomplete which would result in a higher percentage of tree removal than stated by the applicant. 2. The proposed grading plan for the site shows removal of several feet of soil from the top of the highest point on the site, causing a potential adverse impact on many of the remaining trees on the site. This is inconsistent with Section 5-5-12(B)4 of the City Code which encourages preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics and open space in Planned Unit Developrnents. Section 5-5-12(C)12e further states that a Planned Unit Development encourages development which preserves and enhances worthwhile natural terrain features and does not force intense development to utilize all portions of a given site. 3. Testimony from Mr. John Allen, a graduate forester, whom the City Council found to be an informed and creditable witness, indicated the development as proposed will cause an excessive loss of significant trees on the site. This is inconsistent with Section 5-8- 4(A)2 of the City Code which states that selected removal of natural vegetation may be allowed if incorporated in harmony with proposed development. Removal of an excessive number of trees is not harmonious with either existing or proposed development. WILDDENY.DOC . 4. The grading plan as proposed may result in a greater loss of trees than is shown on the plans by the applicant. 5. The development as proposed is aesthetically displeasing because the generic character of the dwelling unit design proposed by the applicant is monotonous, and is inconsistent with Section 5-5-12(B)2 of the City Code which states that one of the purposes of a planned unit development is to encourage variety in the organization of site elements, building densities and housing types. Section 5-5-12(B) further states the Planned Unit Development is not intended to enforce the concept of uniformity of housing types. 6. The single design utilized for the proposed units is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and could result in a negative impact on property values. This is inconsistent with Section 5-5-12(C)3 of the City Code which requires that Planned Unit Developments must harmonize with existing and proposed development in the area surrounding the project site. 7. The proposed development is inconsistent with Policy 5-S10pes in the Comprehensive Plan which states that slopes greater than 20% should not be disturbed. 8. The steep slopes on the site are not adequately protected and the placement of buildings, roads and utilities in areas which require grading of steep slopes are inconsistent with Section 6-6-5(E) of the City Code which requires that, whenever possible, slopes of 20% or greater should not be disturbed and should be retained as public or private open space. 9. The increased traffic caused by the density of the project and the fact that there are no sidewalks in the area creates a potential safety hazard, particularly fore children. 10. One of the purposes of a Planned Unit Development is more efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities. The proposed development as a Planned Unit Development will not achieve any greater efficiencies or effectiveness or result in any greater benefit to the general public or residents of the development than would result from conventional development of the site. 11. The proposed development is inconsistent with Sections 5-5-12(B)1,3, and 5 of the City Code because the proposal does not demonstrate the use of any new technologies which will create greater development flexibility; does not present a higher standard of site and building design than a conventional development; and does not demonstrate that a more efficient use of land, open space or public facilities has been realized through the application of the Planned Unit Development provisions of this ordinance. WILDDENY.DOC II . Passed and adopted this 5th day of February, 1996. YES NO Andren Andren Greenfield Greenfield Kedrowski Kedrowski Schenck Schenck Mader Mader {Seal} City Manager City of Prior Lake WILDDENY.DOC . .. - RESOLUTION 96-16 RESOLUTION DENYING SCHEMATIC AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND ZONING CHANGE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILD OAKS MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted public hearings on August 28th and October 23,1995 and January 8,1996 to consider the application of RCS Associates, Inc. for approval of a Schematic and Preliminary Planned Unit Development and approval of a preliminary plat for the development known as Wild Oaks (hereinafter, "The Project") which is legally described as follows: That part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Government Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of West, along the north line of said government Lot 2, a distance of 148.01 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 0 degrees 42 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 158.31 feet; thence southwesterly a distance of 83.99 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the West, having a central angle of 31 degrees 03 minutes 41 seconds and a radius of 154.92 feet; thence South 30 degrees 21 minutes 27 seconds West, tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 202.90 feet; thence southwesterly a distance of 103.41 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a central angle of 31 degrees 11 minutes 15 seconds and a radius of 189.99 feet; thence south 28 degrees 27 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 30.00 feet to the northerly line of a 20.00 foot driveway as shown on the plat of "CONROY'S BAY", according to the recorded plat thereof, on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota; thence South 61 degrees 32 minutes 42 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of 139.72 feet; thence South 41 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of 134.80 feet; thence South 87 16200 &ilW~qgN!eJtl9(Ve. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 11 . WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WILDDENY.DOC degrees 49 minutes 56 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of276.54 feet; thence North 87 degrees 11 minutes 48 seconds west, along said northerly line, a distance of 60.24 feet; thence North 69 degrees 48 minutes 55 seconds West, along said northerly line, a distance of 283.56 feet to the easterly line of the 30.00 foot road as shown on said plat of "CONROY'S BAY"; thence North 0 degrees 38 minutes 40 seconds West, along said easterly line, a distance of 130.37 feet; thence North 7 degrees 46 minutes 21 seconds West, along said easterly line, a distance of 462.19 feet to said north line of Government Lot 2; thence on a bearing of East, along said North line, a distance of 1059.36 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 30; thence on an assumed bearing of East along the north line of said Section 30 a distance of 1777.47 feet; thence on a bearing of South a distance of 440.30 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 1 5 degrees 32 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 33.00 feet; thence South 74 degrees 27 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 41.00 feet; thence North 15 degrees 32 minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 33.00 feet; thence North 74 degrees 27 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 41.00 feet to the point of beginning. and; legal notice of the public hearings was duly published in the official newspaper of the City and individual mailed notices were sent in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.357, Subd. 3 and 462.358, Subd. 3b and Prior Lake City Code Sections 5-5-12(D)4.(a) and 6-3- 3(A)3.; and the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issue and interested persons were afforded the opportunity to present their views, objections and facts related to the Schematic and preliminary Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat of Wild Oaks, and: at the October 23, 1995 meeting, following consideration of City Codes, zoning and subdivision ordinances and applicable provisions of the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposal to allow 23 dwelling units on the site, and; the applicant modified the proposal to allow 20 dwelling units and submitted the modified request for consideration by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on January 8, 1996, and; WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, After considering the City Codes, zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements, the purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the ordinance and applicable provisions of the Year 2000 Cornprehensive Plan the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Schematic and Preliminary Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat and zoning change, and; the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the Schematic and Preliminary Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat of Wild Oaks and considered these recommendations along with the staff reports , meeting minutes of previous meetings and received additional testimony at its' regular meeting on January 16, 1996 (collectively referred to as the record of decision), 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 Schematic and Preliminary Planned Unit Development, preliminary plat and zoning change to PUD, Planned Unit Development be, and hereby are, denied based upon the following findings of fact. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The tree inventory is incomplete which would result in a higher percentage of tree removal than stated by the applicant. 2. The proposed grading plan for the site shows removal of several feet of soil from the top of the highest point on the site, causing a potential adverse impact on many of the remaining trees on the site. This is inconsistent with Section 5-5-12(B)4 of the City Code which encourages preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics and open space in Planned Unit Developments. Section 5-5-12(C)12e further states that a Planned Unit Development encourages development which preserves and enhances worthwhile natural terrain features and does not force intense development to utilize all portions of a given site. 3. Testimony from Mr. John Allen, a graduate forester, whom the City Council found to be an informed and creditable witness, indicated the development as proposed will cause an excessive loss of significant trees on the site. This is inconsistent with Section 5-8- 4(A)2 of the City Code which states that selected removal of natural vegetation may be allowed if incorporated in harmony with proposed development. Removal of an excessive number of trees is not harmonious with either existing or proposed development. WILDDENY.DOC 11 . 4. The grading plan as proposed may result in a greater loss of trees than is shown on the plans by the applicant. 5. The development as proposed is aesthetically displeasing because the generic character of the dwelling unit design proposed by the applicant is monotonous, and is inconsistent with Section 5-5-12(B)2 of the City Code which states that one of the purposes of a planned unit development is to encourage variety in the organization of site elements, building densities and housing types. Section 5-5-12(B) further states the Planned Unit Development is not intended to enforce the concept of uniformity of housing types. 6. The single design utilized for the proposed units is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and could result in a negative impact on property values. This is inconsistent with Section 5-5-12(C)3 of the City Code which requires that Planned Unit Developments must harmonize with existing and proposed development in the area surrounding the project site. 7. The proposed development is inconsistent with Policy 5-Slopes in the Comprehensive Plan which states that slopes greater than 20% should not be disturbed. 8. The steep slopes on the site are not adequately protected and the placement of buildings, roads and utilities in areas which require grading of steep slopes are inconsistent with Section 6-6-5(E) of the City Code which requires that, whenever possible, slopes of 20% or greater should not be disturbed and should be retained as public or private open space. 9. The increased traffic caused by the density of the project and the fact that there are no sidewalks in the area creates a potential safety hazard, particularly fore children. 10. One of the purposes of a Planned Unit Development is more efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities. The proposed development as a Planned Unit Development will not achieve any greater efficiencies or effectiveness or result in any greater benefit to the general public or residents of the development than would result from conventional development of the site. 11. The proposed development is inconsistent with Sections 5-5-12(B)I,3, and 5 of the City Code because the proposal does not demonstrate the use of any new technologies which will create greater development flexibility; does not present a higher standard of site and building design than a conventional development; and does not demonstrate that a more efficient use of land, open space or public facilities has been realized through the application of the Planned Unit Development provisions of this ordinance. WILDDENY.DOC Passed and adopted this 5th day of February, 1996. YES NO Andren Andren Greenfield Greenfield Kedrowski Kedrowski Schenck Schenck Mader Mader {Seal} City Manager City of Prior Lake WILDDENY.DOC II I