HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Wild Oaks PUD
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
alA
DEB GARROSS, ORC COORDINATOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE SCHEMATIC AND
PRELIMINARY PUD FOR WILD OAKS, (RS96-02);
ORDINANCE 96-02 REZONING THE SITE TO PUD AND THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WILD OAKS, (RS96-03).
JANUARY 16, 1996
The purpose of this item is to consider approval of the Schematic
and Preliminary PUD; rezoning and preliminary plat for the project
known as Wild Oaks. Developer, RCS Associates Inc., will be
represented by Attorney, Jim Saunder and Jim Sturm of James
Hill and Associates.
The Planning Commission conducted extensive public hearings
on this project which were attended by numerous residents from
the Conroy's Bay neighborhood. Three public hearings were held
on August 28 and October 23, 1995 and January 8, 1996. The
recommendation of the Planning Commission is to approve the
PUD; Rezoning and Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions
outlined in attached Resolutions 96-02, 96-03 and Ordinance 96-
02.
There are a number of extensive files of information related to the
Wild Oaks project and the subsequent public hearings. The
complete files are available for review in the Planning Department
and questions related to the issue should be directed to Assistant
City Planner, Deb Garross. The application, Planning Reports,
Planning Commission Minutes; and letters submitted by residents
are attached to the agenda packet.
The specific applications are to consider approval of a PUD for the
13 acre site located north of Conroy Street and south of County
Road 42. The applicant proposes a PUD containing 20
town home units and a private street. In order to implement the
PUD, the subject site must be rezoned from C-1, Conservation
and R-1, Suburban Residential to PUD 1-96. Attached Ordinance
96-02 provides for the rezoning to create the PUD overlay zone
which permits the construction of a cluster town home
development, a private street and the development standards
specified in Resolution 96-02. The applicant requests approval of
the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks in order to implement the project,
SU02CC.DOC
16200 ~le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
begin grading and construction on site.
ISSUES:
The PUD was reviewed according to the provisions of Zoning
Ordinance 83-6, Floodplain Ordinance, new Shoreland
Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and found to be consistent with
the Ordinance requirements. DNR Hydrologist, Pat Lynch,
submitted a memo stating the DNR has no objections to the PUD
and Preliminary Plat as proposed. The PUD is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, specifically policies related to natural
features, parks, utilities, and land use.
Representatives of the neighborhood were present at all three
public hearings and voiced strong objection to the project.
Objections were raised regarding tree removal, development of
townhomes versus development of six, single family homes.
(Apparently a previous owner of the property indicated to several
residents a concept plan to plat the property into six single family
lots. The individual, Wesley Green, did not plat the property, but
sold the site to the current developer, RCS Associates Inc.) Other
objections related to lack of a public park; some residents did not
want Conroy Street improved through to Shady Beach Trail,
some residents did not want any upgrade of Conroy Street from
its current gravel section; some residents felt the project was too
dense and there was objection to increased traffic in the
neighborhood.
To accommodate some of the concerns raised by residents and
the Planning Commission at the public hearings, the developer
redesigned the project by eliminating three units, (reducing the
number of units proposed from 23 to 20. Twenty-two units can be
constructed on site according to the most restrictive interpretation
of the Zoning Ordinance, (PUD density standards of the new
Shoreland District Ordinance). The design and layout of units
were changed as well as relocated to diminish the amount of
grading required on site. The proposed private street, Wild Oaks
Terrace, was redesigned from a 586' cul-de-sac to a 560' turn-
around design and relocated further to the west in order to
minimize grading and tree loss in the steep slope area of the site
and to reduce the length of the cul-de-sac. In addition, the
developer amended the plan deleting the improvement of Conroy
Street through to Shady Beach Trail and instead, proposed a cul-
de-sac street which ended at the intersection of the private street,
Wild Oaks Terrace.
· In short, the project was redesigned to:
· Reduce the density and number of units.
· Reduce the amount of grading in the steep slope area.
Increase the number of significant trees, (12" or larger in
caliper) to be preserved on site from 400/0 to 470/0. (Please
note, the proposed tree preservation ordinance would allow up
SU02CC.OOC
OG
to 50% tree removal before replacement would be required.
I ncrease the number of trees to be planted to 85 which
exceeds the tree planting requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance and is consistent with the Landscape Ordinance.
· Reduce the cul-de-sac length.
· Eliminate the upgrade of Conroy Street which was
objectionable to the neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution 96-02 approving the Schematic and
Preliminary PUD; Ordinance 96-02 rezoning the site to PUD
1-96 and Resolution 96-03 approving the Preliminary Plat of
Wild Oaks.
2. Request the developer to agree to another time extension
and continue the review for specific information or reasons
per City Council discussion.
3. Find the PUD inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and/or Comprehensive
Plan and deny the project.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Alternative #1. The applications for Schematic PUD,
Rezoning and Preliminary Plat are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision
Ordinance and should therefore be approved. (Please note, the
developer presented an alternative at the October 28, 1995 public
hearing indicating 19 single family lots could be developed on site
consistent with Ordinance standards. However, the development
of the single family lots would remove more significant trees,
(810/0) than the proposal, (530/0). The developer has redesigned
the plat layout to address concerns raised at the public hearings.
The proposal preserves more trees, reduces the amount of
grading required in the steep slope area, removes the Conroy
Street extension, is not objected to by the DNR and results in a
layout which meets the requirements of the City Code and
Comprehensive Plan.
ACTION REQUIRED: A separate motion to adopt Resolution 96-02 and Ordinance 96-
02 and 96-03 approving the UD, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat
of Wild aks subj to the onditions contained therein.
SU02CC.DOC
DG
RESOLUTION 96-02
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE
SCHEMATIC AND PRELIMINARY PUD FOR WILD OAKS.
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS: the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 28, and
October 23, 1995 and January 8, 1996 to consider an application from Bill Hayden of
RCS Associates Inc., for Schematic and Preliminary PUD for Wild Oaks; and
WHEREAS: notice of the public hearing on said Schematic PUD was duly published in accordance
with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and
WHEREAS: the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issue and
persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections
related to the Schematic and Preliminary PUD of Wild Oaks; and
WHEREAS: the Planning Commission found the Schematic and Preliminary PUD to be consistent
with the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS: the Planning Commission found the Schematic and Preliminary PUD of Wild Oaks will
harmonize with both existing and proposed. development in the area surrounding the
project; and
WHEREAS: the Planning Commission found the proposed Schematic and Preliminary PUD of Wild
Oaks to be compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the PUD section of the
Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS: the Planning Commission found the proposed Schematic and Preliminary PUD of Wild
Oaks adequately provides for internal organization, uses, appropriate densities,
circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreation areas and open space.
WHEREAS: the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve
the Schematic and Preliminary PUD subject to the conditions outlined in Resolution 96-
0IPC; and
WHEREAS: the City Council reviewed the Schematic and Preliminary PUD at a meeting held on
January 16, 1996 along with the records associated with the public hearings on said item.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRIOR
LAKE, MINNESOTA, that it hereby approves the Schematic and Preliminary PUD for Wild Oaks, a
cluster, townhome development to be located on the easterly 8 acres of the subject site, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant provide population and demographic information required by the Zoning Ordinance
for PUD's to the Planning Department.
RS9602WO.DOC
16200 mag Ie Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2. Developer submit a revised Schematic PUD map consistent with the preliminary plat maps dated
12-11-95.
3. Rezone the 13.82 acre subject site from R-l, Suburban Residential and C-l, Conservation to PUD
9-95.
4. No minimum setback standard from the units to the platted lot line of all proposed lots.
5. All application forms be signed by the current fee owner of the property.
6. A statement of the ownership of all land involved in the PUD together with a summary of the
developer's previous work experience be submitted to the City.
7. A statement describing how all necessary governmental services will be provided to the
development be submitted to the City.
8. The total anticipated population to occupy the PUD, with break downs indicating the number of
school age children, adults and families be submitted to the City.
9. The following zoning standards shall apply to the PUD of Wild Oaks:
Lot Area: 3,557 square feet
Front Setback: 25'
Distance between Buildings: 25'
l\lBI~llititlljt:llii~l~~I~~gig.j(Atiiiil~IIf:~~lfitil_l~~glt:;l~ll~~~~l~lIl~Il~lI~~l~ll~l~~~~~~~~~~j~~j~jl~llj\j~~~~~~~lIIj~l~j\j\~~~~~\~j}}jl~l~~~}~~~~l~}~j~~l~~~j\~~~j~~\\\~jlj\~~~~~j\~j\j\~j~~\
Wetland Setback: 30' from 100yr Flood
~l1f~.R~c!~
~~wJ!aik_$!t~t_
\l\.ill~j~liiff~iiiillfttr~\~lIM_iiiiilll*S~ltr~~~~_ll\~l\ll~j~~l~IIll~~~l~lll~lj~~\l~lj~j~\jIj~jlll~jIjl~~lljW_jl~'=~4Jj!fj~filjjl~ll~j~lIl\~
Private Street (Wild Oaks Terrace) approved with PUD
ll{gllimn~i~@liij€i!ifiii~It~~jtljl~~l~~l~jllI~~jj~~I~~llI}~~ll~~l~II~jjlIl~~~jl~j~jl~lljjljl~ll~j~~ll~l~j~I~~jljl~ll~j~j~~l~I~jl~llj~~f~~jl~jlI~Il~ttt~~~~l~lt\it@~l~~~ljtj~jj~j~jl~l~llI~ll~~ll~ljllI~l~~lll\jlj
"MaXimumtJnity Densi'ty (2iUiiitsbased' onShoreiand 'Mgmt.' ()rd.) ..... 2.9lJnits per Acre ... .d.. d..
:nUi*h#*m:~:::lmp~h1~,~::$irJ.i~#:l$~9b~li:ij~4!t.iijigii~jl:Ar~~):n~::::::::H:H::::::::::::::nHH:f.A~~:n::::::n::n}:~.::):::-:::::?::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::?:?::~
* The individual town home units shall not be subject to setback
requirements on the individually platted lots underlying the unit.
Passed and adopted this 16th day of January, 1996.
YES
NO
ANDREN
GREENFIELD
KEDROWSKI
MADER
SCHENCK
ANDREN
GREENFIELD
KEDROWSKI
MADER
SCHENCK
Frank Boyles, City Manager
City of Prior Lake
{Seal}
RS9602WODOC
DG
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 96-02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-2-1 OF PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND
AMENDING SECTION 2.1 OF PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
The Prior Lake Zoning map, referred to in Prior Lake City Code Section 5-2-1 and Prior Lake
Zoning Ordinance No. 83-6 Section 2.1, is hereby amended to change the zoning classifications
of the following legally described property from R-l, Suburban Residential and C-l,
Conservation to PUD 1-96.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota
described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast comer 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
SA Y", 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 degrees 49 minutes 56 seconds West, along said northerly line, a
distance of 276.54 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 SAY"; 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:
"ORD9513"
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 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.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of
, 1996.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of
, 1996.
Drafted By:
Lommen, Nelson, Cole & Sageberg, P.A.
1800 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
"ORD9513"
2
RESOLUTION 96-03
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "WILD OAKS" SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF THE
CONDITIONS OUTLINED HEREIN PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL.
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS: the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 28, and
October 23, 1995 and January 8, 1996 to consider an application from Bill Hayden of
RCS Associates Inc., for the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks; and
WHEREAS: notice of the public hearing on said preliminary plat has been duly published and posted
in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake Ordinances; and
WHEREAS: the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issues and
persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections
related to the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks; and
WHEREAS: the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat according to the applicable
provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning, Subdivision and Flood Plain Ordinance and found
said preliminary plat to be consistent with the provisions of said ordinances; and
WHEREAS: the Planning Commission fmds the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks to be consistent with
the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS: the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve
the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks subject to the conditions outlined in Resolution 96-
02PC; and
WHEREAS: the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat at a meeting held on January 16, 1996
along with the records associated with the public hearings on said item.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRIOR
LAKE, MINNESOTA, that it hereby approves the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval of the Schematic and Preliminary PUD for Wild Oaks to allow a cluster, townhome
development with a private street.
2. Approval of ordinance 95-13 establishing a PUD zone for Wild Oaks.
3. All application forms be signed by the current fee owner.
4. Specific tree preservation plan be submitted, acceptable to the Director of Planning, indicating
grading limits and methodes) to implement preservation plan. Indicate location, species and caliper
of all existing trees (12" or larger in caliper), to be removed and saved.
16200 ~g~'ereek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 553'72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
5. The developer provide a plan, acceptable to the City Engineer, related to vegetation maintenance
and pedestrian safety adjacent to retaining walls.
6. The preliminary plat maps be amended to change the design of the Conroy Street cul-de-sac to a
"T" type intersection.
7. Topography shall be field verified by the developer and corrected on the grading plan.
8. The preliminary plat is valid for 12 months from the date of approval by the City Council. Failure
to submit the fmal plat within the required time frame shall cause the preliminary plat to become
null and void.
9. The grading plan shall include a 30' buffer strip of undisturbed vegetation between the small
wetland located on the southeast part of the site and the proposed townhomes located near the top
of the slope.
10. The final plat shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement over the proposed NURP pond and
over the existing wetlands. The easement shall be dedicated to cover the area of the ponds and
wetlands up to the 100 year HWL.
11. Restrictive covenants be filed with the final plat to address future vegetation and topographic
alterations as well as construction of any additional buildings on site. The purpose of the
covenants and or permanent easements is to assure preservation and maintenance of open space in
accordance with the Shore land Management Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance Section 9.11F).
12. The applicant shall submit documentation by a qualified professional that storm water management
facilities are designed and installed consistent with the Field Office Technical Guide of the local
Soil and Water Conservation District. (Shoreland Management Ordinance).
13. The applicant shall file restrictive covenants or other appropriate document at the time offmal plat,
indicating there will be no claim(s) made to the recreation easements or other interests in the land
located along or contiguous to the lakeshore within the plat of Conroy's Bay. Said documents
shall be written acceptable to the City Attorney.
14. The applicant submit a complete set of preliminary plat plans prior to final plat submittal, showing
all changes required for preliminary plat approval. One complete set of plans shall be reduced to
11" x 1 7" .
Passed and adopted this 16th day of January, 1996.
YES
NO
ANDREN
GREENFIELD
KEDROWSKI
MADER
SCHENCK
ANDREN
GREENFIELD
KEDROWSKI
MADER
SCHENCK
{Seal}
Frank Boyles, City Manager
City of Prior Lake
RS9603WO.OOC
00
.. I . .
!
I .
~rC2\TION FOR n:~ SJEDIVISION GF k\i'ID
wTrnIN 'mE CITY OF PRIOR L:-..KE
SJ q'T ...; ~{)
PID p.5-9. '-H~)-C>
ik{ . 08 FIe .
..
. "
.. . -. . .,'
Properr] Cwner: R
~~dresS: 9155 36t~ Avp-nue Nnrth New- Hnpp ~T ~~d?7
SJbCivider: R. C. s.1 Associates, Inc. ptcne:
AddresS: 9155 j6t~ Ave. N. Plvmouth, MN ~~d?7
Aga~t: James !R. Hill, Inc. Phone:
~dresS: 2500 W. Count" Rd. 42 Suite 1?() "Rnr,., c:;~ri 11 <3 w..T 5'2] ),
I
i .
James R. Hill, Inc.
J~es R. Hill, Inc.
P1:o ne:
893-0763
893-0763
C390-6044
. N:m1e of Slrleyo r :
Name oi Engineer:
Phone:
P1:one:
890-6044
Fax: 890-6244
i
tsqal Descri~_' ion of ?tOcer=l:
- I - -
See attached
Prese!'lt Zcning:
I
I
R~l, 5-D, C-I
Prcp:rt"l Ac::eage:
Deed Pc$t=ictic~~: ~
I
I
~ ~. ... l' . i ., . .
~..as _.::e .~.pp .lca.-:'t ":lr~l :.cus_v SCL:OC~ to
cor..c:it.:.cr..a1 use ~nri~ en t~~ st;bj.sc-t s:.te or
No xx Yes ~-('..at! o:,.,~s r;ct:este:.:
I -
Yes
If so, please attach.
( TED )
plat, rezone, cbt.a~ a ..;a=:.ar:ce or
any p:rt of it:
:;.rr.en :
I
I
. . _ i. .
I r~le :=.c t::e -=-:::.cr !.al<.e S''''di.,is:.cn Orc:i!:a::ca ar:c agree to prcv:.de t."-le
~ct~;;;s~:~~~~ accor6r.ce wit~ t:.e prc;.:sicrs ;~~e :~~ce.
li~' Signat:lre-1 I rate
Co S ~t:X:I /.1-(, s ~ C t
* ~~ ^-- '';<p~ LeE I) #- .). 0 - " s;
5 Cwr:e _,:) Sisz:a t:1r e I / r.a t e
I
I
',!:=.J.S sn:rIGN m BE FI1.UD IN BY TE:: E.,;.~~ D!:?.!C'!OR
!
F'~.Nm2''G c:~~ri SS!CN I
CITY CCUN:!L
A:P~i!!J
DEN:~
D~1!!D
eJ..T! CF HEf.'p.nX;
r.A.-rr-:E CP EEA?~
A-~
COND.!,:~'.10NS:
Sigr..at:1:'e of t:-.e Pla!"~.;' Direc":cr
IR>'
1'1 I.;
" I
II i i .
I., I
( ::
I.
1S;::~
....
; L.,/
RZ
pm.
CITY OF ?RIOR LAKE
APPLICATION FOR REZONIro
Applicant: R.C.S. - Associates
Address: en C;C; 16t-.h ~v~:mnp- n~r~h ?1ymnltt"h Mi.nn~~nt'A C;c;4'7
Bane Phone: ~rk Poone: 89 1-n i ~ 1
Property Owner: R.C.S. Associates Phone~ ~01-0i63
Address: 9155 36th Avonue North Plvmonth. ~ 55427
Consultant: James R. Hill. Inc.
AddresS: 2500 West County Road 42 Burnsville
Minne.sota 55337
~tion of protx'sed rezoning:'
Present Zoning: R-I I S-D. C-I
Property Acreage
to be rezoned:
Intended use(s) of pro~rty:
Phone:
890-6044
890-6244
ProI=Osed Zoning:
Existing use
of Property:
Peasons for Request:
Deed Restrictions:
l'b
Yes If so, please attach.
Bas the Applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, ob~in a 9"ariance or conditioI".al
use p!tmit on t.'1e subject site or any }?art ,of it: xx ~ Yes What was
requested:
When:
~ISSION REDUI~S: (A) Complete application form. (1:3) Complete legal description
& Property Identification amcer (PID). (C) Fil.ir..g fee. (D)Deed restrictions, if
necessarj. (E)Fifteen copies of a site plan a..-,.d Certified SJrley, drawn to scale
showing existing and prot:Osed structures, lot boundaries, foliage and tcpograph1 on
site and within three hundred (300) feet of the prop!rty. (F) Soil tests, if
pertinent. (G) Certified fran abstract fiIm the names and addresses of property
cwners within 300 f~ of the exterior of the property lines of the subject
property.
ONLY CCMPL'<:'.J.'~ APPLICATIONS WILL BE REV'liNED BY THE PLANNI$ CI:MMISSICN.
.
To the best of my kncwledge the information presented on this fonn is correct. In
addition, I have read Section 7.9 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which 3p!Cifies
requirements for rezo['~g procedures. I agree to prCN ide ir~or:mation an: folla~ the
ptocedures as outlined in the Ordir.ance.
Rc,,$1 ~S ~.
i AP~ 'hb../ "t'~ Ic.~t!) S/3,)QS
icants 51 r0 I Date ' ,
~~~J~' ~~/CEt) S;-/,-31/~
ue Cwne~~~;; - I Date' I
THIS SECl'ICN TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PI.ANNIN; DIRECTOR
CATEOFBEARIro
DATE OF BFARIN:;
P"...ANNIro a=MMISSION
~ comt::IL
~
APPWlED
DENIED
DENIm
a)NDITIONS:
Signature of ~e PlarnL~g Dir~o=
r:ate
iim;;;;:;;;;; N
.-J
..._~ --~.~lw-\! .
- i ~ ~ I
l';i~i~~~ :~i;; i ~
o
~
z
: r-
. ? t
iF
I ~: ,
," .
L 1.. ~..
..,:
en
.......... ~
l\J i~
~
lr) il 0
- ~
..........
.......... "z
z..
~ !-
C)
rl)
~ QW
Vi :)~
0..-
en
~ (/)~
~(.)
c(w
.......... z 0...,
" Qa3
0
~ :)
~
"'
do
..l
~
o
~
~
~
o
~
Narrative
Wild Oaks .of Prior Lake
Planned Unit Development
The site
This 11.21' acre property includes a 4.29 acre jurisdictional wetland
with the typical wetland vegetation, older trees and open water. A
wetland delineation report, prepared by Peterson Environmental is
attached to this submittal. The wetland elevation is approximately
904 feet above sea level. The wetlands 100 year flood elevation is
established at 909.3 feet above sea level. East of the wetland is a
treed area which rises above the wetland and above Prior Lake. The
lake is located about 160 feet southeast of the site at elevation
902.5 feet. The finished elevation of the area will range from 942
feet to 902 feet. All first floors will be at least 911 feet above MSL.
Because of the higher elevation, this area provides the unique
opportunity to place luxury housing with grand views of Prior Lake.
The site also exhibits steeper slopes on the east side with a limited
area exceeding 200/0 slope. Both the trees and steep slopes are shown
on the Existing Conditions Exhibit.
Developer
The site is owned by RCS. ReS Associates, Inc. will be the developer
and builder. This development team will develop the luxury town
homes for sale. The developer has experience in residential
development having completed developments in Apple Valley,
Farmington, and Lakeville.
Proposal
The Wild Oaks PUD consists of 23 town homes on this 11.21 Acre
site. The density is 2.05 units per acre. This is a lower density then
most single family detached subdivisions. The town homes are
located on the eastern part of the site. These "for sale" homes are
planned so that every home has a view of Prior Lake. The sites steep
terrain provides an opportunity to develop walkout homes, terraced
yards and a variety of building locations. Likewise, the site plan
avoids the jurisdictional wetland. To avoid clear cutting trees
adjacent to County Road 42 and adjacent to Conroy Street, selected
areas within the site are being perserved by a number of techiques
including retaining walls.
Access to the site is gained from Conroy Street, which will be
improved as part of this development. A Private Street, Wild Oaks
Terrace, provides access to the individual town homes. Because of
the steep terrain only a south access point is feasible. Wild Oaks
Terrace is a 32 foot wide private cul-du-sac to be built to city
standards. The 586 fo.ot. street will be in a 72 foot wide drainage and
utility easement. This easement will be of sufficient width so that
public utilities are easily constructed and maintained in the
easement. The less then 80/0 grade and curvilinear character provide
both easy winter access and a variety of streetscapes.
Because the cui du sac is 586 feet long, a variance will be
necessary. Prior Lake allows 500 foot long cul-du-sacs. Other
alternatives to the longer cul-du-sac were explored. These
alternatives are included as exhibits to this submittal. The proposal
is the most desirable alternative because of the steep slopes
adjacent to Conroy Street which limit access from that direction,
and because of the public safety consideration of the longer
driveway versus a longer cul-du-s'ac. The longer cul-du-sac offers
easier access for emergency vehicles then the typical drive way.
Another reason for the longer cul-du-sac is that all access to County
Road 42 has been curtailed.
Each home has at least 4 tandem parking spaces with 2 enclosed
spaces. Additional guest parking would be allowed on one side of the
32 foot private street. The total available parking for this 23 unit
development is 114 spaces. This is just under 5 parking spaces per
dwelling unit.
The town homes are in two, three and four dwelling unit buildings.
Each home has a double garage, two bedrooms with expansion space
in the walkout basement, and a deck over looking either the wetland
or the lake. In addition each home has a dining room, kitchen, living
room and unique entry way which affords maximum privacy.
Although designed with walkout basements, the home is one level
living with the master bedroom suite and all of the necessary
features on the first level.
The home's exterior are finished in stucco and brick. The rear and
sides are finished in a low amitance material such as vinyl. The
roof is a 6/12 pitch which reduces the building profile and helps it
blend in to the setting.
Landscaping consists of sod with an irrigation system, trees and
foundation planting. Other design features include street lighting,
carriage lighting on the garages, and a tastefully designed entry
sign.
Land Uses
Wild Oaks fs a town home PUD. The 11.21 acre site contains the
following land uses:
· Individual lots for each town home with the average lot size of
3,700 S.F,
· Common area which will be owned by the Town Home Association
· A private street designed and built to city standards,
· A 4.29 acre wetland which will be protected during and after
construction,
· NURP ponds which are used to filter urban run off before it enters
the wetland.
~,~~~-..
. ~1':}~_;:7j; :7!~~7"-:,'7 ~-~~-~~~.~f-:'7-~-:-~-'
"'--'~'..'--.
. .
. '-'~"-::~:;\~-r~~~~~:;:~<;:~..
-- ~-::.~. .
"
R.r'''-:'OffW' -'::'..1:-- "Wl~- :Jif,...... .......,;~ -'$o.o.!.'_~'()O_ - .".'~;-' '...1i'"
_~~\~ ?~ '~~i:;Jf~@ :: ~~~
:~:...> ,>1: . ~~~ -~
'~--... ;~'{~~~';:<:r.?.':-.\';<~~~:~::~~.~~;;':}~ .- --.' '-.;?;: ::....:u~ ~.,:...; .
. ., ~'~:
...,.', ..
_\... ..
'. '.,.
""lo:--..-.
. .~ \.. .,
;. r 0 ...
l3eautiful
one-level townhomes .conveniently located
with' access
t.o
Prio'r'Lake"
I
. :.~t
I
, ,. -.' ~
.' ..
:-~... "-~~-:.,..-
;:
.: -:..: -
- . -
.-- - -
.' --:.: \"
.-....
..~. :.~: ..~: ;:'I~
,":': "~., :
..r...4'. ..
. :"-' .'_:;. "-',
~' .. :0-..... . . . . -:-
.. ..... .. ..
i'..'.....
.'>,.,
. ~ . ...
'.
COLDUleu..
BANl{.eR m
~~-'
Exp'e~t the.,best.~ :~~:::.(>
--:. 'r<; . ";':;'~'~~i:~':'_>.:;.-<~:.:.:./,
, .
!.
t
.) -.
.." -.,
: ./'!{r.:=-...:.
.3
'". '....
- _.
.,:' )'~.; .....
D a r 1 e'n e Fell 0 n
Jackie Butler
,...0"
., .
435~SOSO
'.
I~ vv;.~~ v~ v'-:vP-v(}v~ V.~\
~~~~~f~~~~~~J, !lJ~4rW~
WiMOah
a,)
Wild~g ~
Oaks ~ <
Cty Rd 42
//
,~ Prior L.lke
,/
1/
II
/'.~ I
(J/ ~!
Situated at the north end of Prior
Lake, Wild Oaks is easily accessible
.from Cty Rd 42 and H\vy 13. Follow
42 west to Greenway Ave. and turn
-left to Wild Oaks.
Expect the best:
Darlene FeIlon
Jackie Butler
435-5050
! ~. V' ~v p ';/; I} v ~ v oV p v () v ~ v ~ \
A~~r~~f~~~~~? ~!l~~4~~
WiMoam
~rap.tisite rr ovvnfiomes
in Prior Lake
::lIe..
! I 'I . IJ-'
I'
I'tJfU_' 8'0-00"
-
- -
'::'2'::: " = I'IJn_~
! ' AI.'" ""0'"
..u,""" ...- .,
llQOIOOf\
f. IlJIICJ!a IIQIOfIIt .
,:(t
. . "
.. .. .. - - -., ,
.. ~- - --
I 'uru.., "
..: 56'" ,",,"
I ~::...._~== ~
I
I - -- -0 - -, - - - - : = - - ~ -:
I '-'
"to<l , fOl'ac1
'0
r::l
i
!;
i'.;',:.:'I'
. :...IP" -C.-.,t!O
I'
~ ~
....., "'-
\, /
-/ ...--..
....Sf'. 81Q11OO.. ;.JyMG aoo..
___ .. a__ _ _ _ _ _ -....
- .. - - .....- - - - - - .-...
.1tf-'CI
IIll'lOO"
'1 . 11-.
L
lVlain Level
Lower Level
(" ~ \! ~v po ~ /} v ~ v oV p v I) v ~ v ~~
~s!2r::, .o~~o Q. ~ ~ ~ {? 4p. .. a,J!f~ <l-~~a <;l L)C)';- !1 4 a. '" C;p1 ~ 6~~t1 .
~~~~l~~~~~~
WiMO~
Standard Features
Two-Car Garage
,.. with 112 h.p. opener
Laundry Room
,.. Cabinets and vinyl floors
Kitchen Dinette
,.. Cabinets with raised panel doors
($5.000 allo~Nance) and vinyl flooring
Office Bedroom
,.. 314 Bath with tiled and floors
carpeted ($20 sq. yd. allo\vance)
Living Room
,.. Gas fireplace with hand control.
$20 sq. yd. carpeting allo\vance
Master Bedroom
,.. $20 sq. yd. carpel allo\vance
Master Bath and Powder Room
,.. Both all tiled. jacuzzi bath tiled.
shower all tiled
Master Walk-In Closet
,.. Shelves and carpet
$20 sq. yd. allo\vance
Stairway
,.. All oak to basemen t
Foyer
,.. Carpeted. $20 sq. yd. allowance
Deck
,.. 10' X 12' off living room
Sod and Sprinkler System plus
landscaping
Basement with all poured concrete
walls and driveway
FUInace
,.. Bryant. nlodel 395CAU upflow.
80q/o i\FUE
Central Ale
,.. Bryant. t'vlodel 561A 10 seer
Thermostat
* Digital \'/a11 Illounl
Appliance Allowance
* $2.000
Fixture Allowance
* $1.500
Carpet Allowance
... $2.500 (Iuain level only)
Tile Allowance
* $2.720 (Illain level only)
Vinyl Allowance
... _$250 (main level only)
Wood Floor Allowance
,.. $2.152 (main level only)
, i
i i
I'
Customers may select high-price
options which will increase the base
price of home ($229,900).
! :
i
I;
I'
I,
! ,
I
! i
Darlene Fellon
Jackie Butler
435-5050
/ ~ v ~v p ~ I} v ~ V a'V p V I) v ~ \[ ~ \
~~~~~f~~~~~~4~~
WiMOcW
Optional Features
Base Sales Price
* Wild Oaks $229.900
4-Season Porch
* As sho\vn. + 12.500
Basement
* As shown. +32.000
Addition Decks
* 12 sq. ft. (12 x 10'). +1.440
Cabinet Upgrades Available
* Refrigerator and dish\vasher panels.
+553
Wood Flooring Extras
* Upgrade to lVlaple. from Oak. +905
Plumbing Extras
* Water softener system. kitchen
veggie prep sink. Kohler sorbet
sink-K-590 1 (white). +533
Handicap Accessibility
* +2.500
Woodwork
* Cove moulding - living room. + 1 .570
* Cove moulding - powder room. +310
* Cove moulding - master bedroom.
+572
* Lo\ver level mantle upgrade. +395
Stain/Paint Extras
* 6-panel hemlock doors with enamel
paint. upgrade to white screens and
i hardware. main level woodwork.
i
I doors & cabinets. +3.285
I
i
i Electrical Extras
!
! I * Under counter kitchen lights. +421
II Dining room chandelier. + 774
II
Structural Extras
* Coffered ceiling throughout
rnain level. +2.456
HVAC
,.. Honeyn.vell setback thennoslals (2) -
t\VO zones. +223
,.. Gas line for future BSQ on deck. +225
,.. Gas line for cook lap. + 110
,.. Hearth R00I11 Fireplace - \Vood
burning \vith gas log systelll
(Slandard: Gas only syslen1 \,vilh
reII10le conlrol). +420
Vacuum System
,.. iVlain level only. baSelllenl extra.
+ 1.200
Security System
,.. As sho\VT1. + 1.500
Fireplaces
,.. Depending on locations. could be
Inore if center of roon1. + 1.850
To tal Sales Pric e
* (Including all options) $297,562
Decorating
* Windo\v \vood blinds. +-+.805
* vVall coverings. +4.575
I'
: I
i!
i!
! :
: ;
(Note: Decorative brass bath accessories: i.e.
tOLUeL bars. erc.. furniture. art worle. fabric win-
dotU treatrnents and decorative rods. etc.. and
fabric bed linens are nor included.)
Prices subject to change without notice.
I
, I
I
Darlene Fellon
Jackie Butler
435-5050
I
\;;'I~/q~
1~~
.at1~~~r-.f~ ------
_~~~ \wAlth ~LJ~___
\ l~ '~'46 ~~ ,
I
I,~~~~~~
!. 1~01 ~\~~ I~~ _(:r:~~)___
I
I ~-!'~.1~"-
I ,., d \ ~ ~ ~~; ~ 41 ~ _ _
. I.Z ~\~~ --..l-~ ~__~p-V~~__~_/:" ~~ -
~Cb-J~~ ~v'f2?~OX
!. 2_'At~l~~~~.t? ~_yol CI:-~~~f tM~ ,*V~V'._.f--A-2.~
i. -1-- -.------r----(,.~~~j~~~R(?;~~~ 1B~-'~~~~
~_~Pt?rrJ2.fJr~- _ !;-f-! . ~N~ __ __ _'___ _ ___ _______
, '2-.?' ,;..\Jr~p~ec'-~-Jle Cl"llt~f2- ~,.~
! ZI 1.& --J~~~~4-f~~.-., - __--=__~_2Lz~_~fff:---~--
I _'_'__ _______________________________11L~-~~~I~ +1.Ci
_ _____ ____ ________d._.. ___ ____.._________.__ _____ _ .__ ~\~t.
I
i ~ J1'?
I _I__~ _______.___.___ -.- _ ---.--- _ ...-..--- -. --------------.. ---- ---- --. - ---------------
~ 1+1.~
I bJ ;.;; k~ tFG~1~:~~A~-~~~47~------u---u---------------------
lL~~\~ 1~~1.-==------- ____________
L~~.. ..----- ------------- --.----------
I t41."
I ~I . ~_______ __n______
! ~2~j~~ (f ~f:J~-f:--.1::l.i- ~~ _?fJ_~ ------ --------------
\
----- --..-----..---. ---- -----~
I
\
I
I
I
--r-------- ----- - ----...--.----.------------ - -- ----- ----------
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
. -.--..-----. -.-.----..--- -- - -- ---.- ---.-----.. - -_. -- .-.----.-.-- ---. -
--------- .._-- ---------------
-.--....---- ---- - .----.---.--- -_.- .-------.- - - -..--.-----.-- - ---------
-----.- -.---- .---... -----..-------- - .---- --..-- ---- - --- --. -----..----.---
Q
---- .----.--- ------. ._---- -------.------- ---.-
. f
PLA1~ING COMl\1ISSION l\1INUTES
AUGUST, 28, 1995
The August 28, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by
Commissioner V onhof at 7 :02 p.m. Present were Commissioners A.mold, Kuykendall,
Loftus, Roseth and V onhof, Intern Commissioner Criego, City Planner Don Rye,
Associate Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
ROLL CALL:
Arnold
Roseth
Loftus
Kuykendall
Vonhof
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
REy~IEW :\'IINUTES OF THE AUGUST 1~, 1995 l\JIEETING:
wIOTION BY ROSETH~ SECOND BY ARJ.'-IOLD, TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 14,
1995 NIThlL.:TES.
V ote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold, Kuykendall, Loftus and V o nho f. NIOTION
CA.RRIED.
CONSENT .~GENDA:
Thielen Variance - Resolution 95-20PC.
wIOTION BY A...Ri'\iOLD, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO.APPRO'lE
RESOLUTION 95-20 PC.
V ote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Kuykendall, Loftus. Roseth and V onhof. rvfOTION
CARRIED.
ITEl\'ll: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPLICATION FROi\'1 RCS
ASSOCIATES FOR SCHElVlATIC PUD. REZONING. PRELIl\'IINARY PLAT.
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERlVfiT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
KNOWN AS "\VlLD OAKS". 13 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF
CONROY STREET. PRIOR LAKE.
A sign-up sheet was circulated to the public.
Associate Planner Nfichael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report
prepared by A.ssistant Planner Deb Garross dated August 28, 1995.
"vfN8:S9~ DOC
I'.~GE I
N\~tpr
. Grading safe guards for erosion coming off site leading into the wetland or street.
. John Wingard said the City will require erosion control, buffers, fencing, surfacing
and turf established, all normal procedures.
. Should we put a performance bond on this. John Wingard said the City will have a
Letter of Credit as a safe guard which will be proof of the Developer's Agreement.
Kuykendall:
. Approximate price range of the units will be $200 to 250,000 units.
. Alternative with existing ordinances with 19 single family homes - approximately
what would the cost of the homes be. (No numbers available) This way is a better
way of development as proposed rather than single family homes.
. He did not want 19 single family homes - save the trees with the cluster concept.
. The developers have been very responsive the residents' concerns.
. A "T" intersection would be recommended.
. Loss to the city with a dedicated right-of-way.
. Sidewalks w.ere not included as part of the design. Concerns for children are valid.
. Applicant accomplished a lot in terms of saving the trees.
. All the issues have been addressed by staff.
. Support applicants request, with the consideration of walkways and "T" intersection.
. The cul-de-sac design has met the needs to save more trees.
. A private street belongs in this development.
. A standard subdivision would be legal but would gut the area.
. Sidewalks should be on Conroy Street for pedestrians and this is the time to do it.
Creigo:
. Concern for sidewalks. Incorporate in a final design. John Wingard said it would be
pretty tight along the street and wetland in one area. Would have to go with a narrow
sidewalk, on the north side of the street.
MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY VONHOF TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-
OlPC WITH THE MODIFICATION OF THE CUL-DE-SAC OF 560 FEET.
Loftus does not feel a PUD is the right vehicle. The applicant has made a good faith
effort but there could still be further tweaking. The timing of the issue tonight does not
give us enough time. Has reservations although there is a big improvement.
V ote taken signified ayes by Criego, V onhof and Kuykendall; nay by Loftus. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-
02PC WITH THE AMENDMENT THE CUL-DE-SAC TO A "T" THE
INTERSECTION; OMIT ITEM 6 AND ADD ITEM 13 "TO SPECIFY IN THE
COVENANTS AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT THAT WILD OAKS WILL NOT USE
MNO I 0896 DOC
PAGE6
compensate. The developer would do whatever is decided by the Planning Commission
regarding the construction of Conroy Street.
Comments from the audience:
Bill Townsend, 6300 Conroy Street, said he was here with neighbors who have concerns
for the development that are both technical and for quality of life reasons that are
reflected in the;Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. NIT. Townsend stated he was not
a local government expert, but thinks the role of the Commission is to provide for the
intangible input. Things for which rules cannot be written. His issues were the slope,
clear-cutting trees, the Conroy Street improvement and the cul-de-sac variance.
Mike Sweeney, 14099 Shady Beach Trail, lives on Lots 10, 11 and 12. Nlr. Sweeney felt
Lot 13 is a continuation of the wetland and the existing runoff is stressing the area. The
extension of Conroy Street through Lot 13 will increase what they are losing now. Nlr.
Sweeney feels the cost to put in the road is astronomical and no one is served by this. He
feels the City is strong-arming the developer to make improvements nobody in the
neighborhood wants. Nlr. Sweeney was aware of the easement owned by the City when
he bought his home but felt it was for utilities not a street.
Martin Polasik. 14087 Shady Beach Trail, feels a smaller development would be better
than the townhomes for the neighborhood. He did not see how the construction of
Conroy Street \vould not benefit anyone. ~fr. Polasik also said he had a problem with the
clear-cutting.
Ted Schweich, 6436 Conroy Street, discussed issues on the cul-de-sac, zoning and
ordinances, impervious surface, street construction and assessments and park dedication.
He thought economics was an underlying factor. NIT. Sch\veich felt the City's attitude is
"we are getting a road for nothing". He said he does not believe the traffic flow numbers
are correct. Nlr. Schweich felt the City could keep the easement and put a trail through
Lot 13 and cul-de-sac Conroy Street. (Deb Garross explained the issue of public vs.
private cul-de-sac. The developer is putting in a private cul-de-sac, Conroy Street is
public.) Nfr. Schweich felt his interpretation of the Ordinance is different from the City
(Staff).
John Wingard, Assistant City Engineer addressed the park dedication. The area would be
approximately one acre and cash would be better used on the site rather than creating a
flat area which would take out more trees. Instead, the City would take the land
dedication and leave the area wooded. The cash dedication of approximately $8,000
would go to upgrading other City parks. The 1100 feet on Conroy Street would roughly
cost $60 to $70 Thousand Dollars and the developer agreed to build a 23 unit
development to pick up the cost. If the City went through a public improvement project
to assess the upgrade to Conroy Street, the City would be able to assess about half the
cost on the north side to the developer. The homeowners along Conroy Street would be
\fNI02J95 DOC
o
PAGE:
. Installing a drainage NURP pond to protect the wetland. Water coming into the
wetland at the present time is not cleaned at all.
. Constructing a larger roadway/cul-de-sac than the Ordinance requires to
accommodate emergency and public safety equipment is a substantial cost to the
developer.
. This is a R-I zoning district with a shore land overlay district, and given the standards
for a single family subdivision, the developer can get almost the same number of
homes, without preserving the trees or constructing the street.
NIr. Roy i\nderson of Midwest Landscapes, NIaple Grove, presented overheads of
proposed retaining walls and methods to preserve trees. The site requires 79 trees yet the
developer will provide 89.
Jim Sanders. attorney for the project, explained the developer agreed to construct Conroy
Street, which is an improvement for exchange for the additional 3 to\vnhouse units. In
respect to the Harbor Association. Nlr. Sanders felt it is a matter of a private contract,
private covenants and conditions between the developments and not a matter involving
the Planning Commission. It is not a legal requirement in the City Ordinances.
NIr. Krier addressed the steep slope issue. Staff recommended moving the cul-de-sac
which \vould be a better alternative than removing the slope and trees. The wetland will
be drainage to Savage as vvell as Prior Lake. There are two alternatives in constructing
Conroy Street - 1) Build up as a horseshoe as it is now or 2) Build up and connect with
Shady Beach Trail. Both alternatives are acceptable to the City Engineer. The City Ovvns
the easement on Lot 13 to Shady Beach Trail. Issues vvould be traffic and :2 existing
homes. Culverts \vould be installed to avoid flooding.
Comments from the audience:
Tom Kearney. 6424 Conroy Street, stated his concern for Prior Lake's Tree Preservation
Policy. (Leek - The City does not have a current policy at this time. The Subdivision,
Shoreland Districts and PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance address clear-cutting and
preservation of natural features.) Nlr. Kearney inquired on the inventory of the trees and
preserving trees less than 12 inches. He also feels grading will be hard on the existing
trees. hills and vvetlands. It is important to him not to destroy an area like this. NIr.
Kearney suggested the City look into neighboring Tree Preservation plans.
Scott Roth~ 6394 Conroy Street, felt there is no hardship for the variance request on the
cul-de-sac. He presented pictures of the existing trees to the Commissioners. Nlr. Roth' s
concern was the developer taking too many trees and excavation will harm the existing
trees. He \vould like to see 4 to 6 inch trees left as 'ovell. The proposed development will
not work in that area with the wetland and steep grade. He feels the overhead proposal is
not an accurate reflection of the area. This area is workable with a fe\ver homes.
'vIN8:39~ DOC
?AGE ~
Calena Townsend. 6565 Harbor Place, presented a petition in opposition of the 23
townhomes in the area, the removal of trees and the impact it will have on Prior Lake and
surrounding residents.
Dave Frees~ will be a resident at 6346 Conroy Street, agrees with the Staff on the
construction of the slope. The oak trees will be affected with the excavation and will take
a long time to replace. Erosion into the wetlands is his primary concern.
Dean Olson. 6412 Conroy Street. said there are not many places for his children to play
and the parks are too far away. His other concern is for the construction of Conroy Street.
There are blind spots on the road and he hopes it will be constructed in a safe manner.
Bill Townsend. 6565 Harbor Place, will soon be moving to Conroy Street. and his main
concern is for the runoff of the ne\v development and ho\v this is going to be managed
with Savage using the \vetland as well. The pond will not maintain its natural vegetation.
He hopes the Commission \vill follow StatT s recommendation in connection \vith the
watershed issues. NIr. To Vvl1send' s other concern is to make Conroy Street a cul-de-sac
as it would maintain the existing character of the area and without planning the road
carefully part of the wetland will be lost. He urges the Commission to take their time and
.get more input on this matter.
Ted Schweich. 6436 Conroy Street~ stated one of his issues is the cash donation for the
park. He has smaller children who cannot walk to neighboring parks. J\Ir. Sch\veich
feels the developer should provide a tot lot for the neighborhood. He also feels the
impervious surface coverage should be addressed. The construction of Conroy Street will
increase traffic. He realizes the land has to be developed but was told by the O\vl1er, Wes
Green~ there would only be six homes constructed in the area.
NIT. Leek addressed some of the above issues: Two-thirds of the site is zoned R-l and the
density of 28 units is correct. The ma'Ximum building coverage is 9~/o and \vell \vithin the
performance coverage.
NIike Sweeney~ lives on Lot 10, 11 and 12, addressed the surfacing of Conroy Street. He
feels constructing a cul-de-sac would be the better alternative as there are not enough
people using the road at the present time. His other concerns are to save the trees and the
coverage issue with the wetland. Constructing the street is under 15 feet from his deck as
well as his neighbor~ s. It \vould eliminate huge portions of their lots reducing their
property values. J\fr. Sweeney suggests tabling the matter.
Rick Devine, 10401 Shady Beach Trail, agrees \'lith ;VIr. Sweeney and does not want to
see a through street. There is no benefit to anvone with Conrov Street as a through street.
.... ~.....
Would like to see a cul-de-sac constructed.
Peter Covle anornev for the Harbor Association addressed the Conditional Use Permit.
.' '"
He feels it is not a private matter bet\'veen the developments and would like the Staff and
"IN8:3q~ DOC
i'-\GE ~
I
City Attorney to review the issues to verify there is not a cantlie! '.vith the private
contractual rights the Association has to the property. As he reads the legal description
attached to the Conditional Use Application. it is his impression \Vilds Oaks is seeking to
establish public domain on 3.11 of the common area within the Harbor. Access to the
recreational acres should be worked out.
NIr. L~ek stated the City Attorney can look into the legal description and common are:lS
of the Harbor. The J....~ticioated access to Prior Lake is through tte 6 boat slips in
. -.
connection wiL~ the Harbor. This is a private matter bet\veen the pa..~ies. It is possible
for the Harbor Association to join in the application for the Conditional Use Permit.
Carc 1 Scott. 6370 Conroy. is disturbed by the clear cutting md the definition of it. The
Shoreland :\[anagement ',vas drafted bv State Statute and there \vere some things the City
~ - ~
could ~hange ::u:d some Lhing':5 that could not be changed. :v[rs. Scot: suggested the City
contact the DNR for their definition of clear cutting. She objec:s to 3. ?CD that It does
not have to abide by the Shoreland :\ranagerr:ent Ordinunc~. (:Vfr. L~ek stated PCDs in a
shoreland distric: uphold those stmld::u-ds.) ;\-lrs. Scan pointed out an area that ,-vas
recently placed in the torrens system md came under the o\vl1ership of the residents on
one side of the road. In the process some of the properties who opposed the process '.vere
given a recre2.tional e2.seme~t along the take. )..-(;s. Scott heard the .-\ssociation has plans
to buy one of :he lots mat have the recreational e~ement so tJ.'1ey c:.n 'J.se it. She \vould
like to see somethirlg in the Developer.s Agreement or a provision of the peD to prohibit
the Assoc:ation from using the recreational easement. She agrees \vlth. the residents of
Conroy Bay that 6 single family residents would be feasible racher thm this development.
Linda .-\nderson. 14053 Gree:1way. has the same concerns for density. trees. the runoff to
the \verland md the street :going through. She said if the street goes tr.J'ough it would be a
traffic nightmare.
~rartin ?olasik. 14087 Shady Beach Trail. concern \vas for the road extension into Shady
Beach Tr:lil. T:"1e tr:lf:lc tlo'N is a big concern and he would prefer to see a cuI-de-sac
'which would diminate the problem.
Calina TO\\tl1se::d. moving to 6300 Conroy Street. would like to take issue with the
developer. The de'leloper assumes most of the people buying the to\.vTl...i1omes \,vill be
empty nesters. She feeis they will be young professionals r:lising children. She said the
Cornmission should check out the ability of the developer to fund this project Vv'hat has
he done in the past~ is it possible he is going to go broke and ',vhat will happen with a
partially done project. :vCr. Green ahvays seems to ~nd up with the property and makes a
orotit. Reside:1ts did not :::.sk for t..he Conrov Street imDfovements.
... ~ .
Ed Reese. 65:0 Harbor Vie'.v Circle. invited the Con1..l1.:issioners to come out and s.ee the
area. The are:J. has iimited parking space md na...T"fOW streets. He '..vculd like the
Commissioners to take :J. closer :ook J.t the capabilities.
\t:-<3:3<)' :::0<:
f>\GE ~
Kathy Bachelor. l0469 Greenway, stated property owner, 'Nes Green told her there
would be 6 executive homes in this area. She would like the area to stay quiet with low
traffic and preservation of the wetland. Traffic is an issue for the residents with small
children. She realizes there is going to be development but asks the Commission take
into consideration what the residents are asking.
Bob Prchal, 6406 Conroy Street, requested to table the matter and drive out and to see the
area. It is an extremely challenging area to develop.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Arnold: Ideally 6 executive lots would be the way to go but that is not proposed; the
advantage of a PUD is the City has some control; property is awfully congested; has a lot
of concern for the number of trees removed; would like to see an inventory of trees by
location: and inventory of trees 6 inches or greater; he would like to see as much of the
steep slope preserved as possible; good concerns brought up by audience on drainage in
the south\vest corner of property - we need more information in that regard: suggestion of
cul-de-sac makes sense; concern for the additional three to\\lnhomes to make up the
difference in construction of Conroy Street. (Leek responded it would make additional
access into the area. more room for public safety \vith the approved developments north
of Prior Lake and Savage. With Savage in the watershed, there is serious need to address
the way the drainage works in this area. The improvement of the road\vay and storm
sewer improvements go hand in hand.) (Assistant Engineer John Wingard explained the
developer \\Iill be responsible for mitigation by creating 2 acres of \\I'etland for every 1
acre tilled that are taken out. It should provide more \vater storage and with the
upgrading of Conroy Street more water will be held in the pond.) Commissioners need to
see the contours of the wetland.
Roseth: ..L\grees with Commissioner Arnold; would like to kno.w more about Savage
dumping into the lake in written form with comments and diagrams; want to verify and
see the 23 units: would rather see 6 single family homes; \~iould like to see elevation after
minimal excavation; see a before and a proposed after plan; can see Conroy Street as a
through street for tying in neighborhoods and for safety access - either cul-de-sac with a
walking path or break a\vay portion for police and fire; research the 6 slips with the CUP;
need definition of clear cutting and who is responsible for the Harbor CUP.
Loftus: concern for trees and steep slope; feels we should table for more information; a
PlJD may not be the answer; should have public paybacks through a PUD; park fund
should have green space for the public. particularly if there is more traffic; there are legal
issues on the CUP that have to be worked out; lake access has to be determined by
attorneys.
Kuykendall: comments well received by audience; taken in a positive vein by
developers and Commissioners; suggest to table motion.
~N8:3Q~ .:laC
?\OE ')
"
Highlights of the report included: The proposed PUD of Wild Oaks is not consistent with
preservation policies of the Comprehensive Plan related to steep slope natural features.
The proposal shows the development of townhouse units in areas of the property
containing 200/0 or greater, steep slopes. A second issue, although not a natural feature
defined by the Comprehensive plan, concerns tree removal on site. In order to address
potential clear cutting issues of the Shoreland District, the Schematic Pu'D should
include a tree inventory identifying the specific location and specie of each significant,
hardwood tree equal to or larger than 12" in caliper.
The developer requests approval of a variance to allow the cul-de-sac to be 586 feet in
length instead of the Subdivision Ordinance ma"(imum of 500 feet.
Staff recommends the CUP be approved to allow for the formation of a back lot
association concurrent with the subdivision of Wild Oaks. The Planning Commission
should note the boat slips and any access to recreational amenities in The Harbor PUD
constitute a private agreement betvveen the Wild Oaks Homeovmers .-\ssociation and The
Harbor Homeowners Association.
A letter from ..\ttorney James Bates, representing ;vIr. John Gorra of 1..+ 13 3 Shady Beach
TraiL \vas entered into the record. NIr. GOtTa' s basic concern was the extension of
Conroy Street to Shady Beach Trail. His belief being it will reduce the value of his lots.
Also entered into the record was a letter from Scott County Highw'ay Engineer. Brad
Larson4 commenting on no direct access to County Road 42, concerns about
compatibility. benveen land use and highways. complaints about noise and a request to the
developer to assess the noise impact of the road\vay and take additional measures to
mitigate the problem. NIr. Larson would like the City to review the setback requirements
along County Road "+2.
The Statf recommendation was to table or continue the public qearings to a date and time
certain and provide the developer with a detailed list of items or information to be
provided for future Planning Commission review.
l'Ylr. Dick Krier of James 1. Hill, Inc., Planning and Engineering, introduced the applicant,
l'Y1r. \Villiam Hayden, NIT. James Sanders. the attorney for applicant, and J\tlr. Roy
Anderson of ~[id"vest Landscapes, the landscape and tree preservation specialist. Mr.
Krier proceeded to explain the development and describe the site. His main points were:
. Developing 23 to\vnhomes as opposed to the 28 units allo\ved by City Ordinance.
. Agreeing to pay for the construction of Conroy Street at the request of the City
Engineer at the developer's expense rather than making it a burden on the property
o\vners in the area. This will not benetit the development.
. Developer is exceeding the standards of the Ordinance related to landscaping - no
clear cutting, preserving many existing trees and planting several more. Spending
$100,000 on retaining walls to preserve trees.
~N8:g9~ :Joe
?\Gc :
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 96-04
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, 83-06.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
Title 5 of the Prior Lake City Code and the Zoning Ordinance, 83-06 are hereby amended
by adding Section 6.16 as follows:
(A) Intent and Purpose:
It is the intent of the City of Prior Lake to protect, preserve and enhance the
natural environment of the community, and to encourage a resourceful and
prudent approach to the development and alteration of wooded areas in the City.
This section of the Zoning Ordinance has the following specific purposes;
1. to promote diversity in tree species,
2. to minimize erosion and its detrimental effects caused by construction
activities,
3. to allow the development of wooded areas in a manner that minimizes and
mitigates the removal and destruction of trees, preserves aesthetics, property
values and the nature and character of the surrounding area, and
4. to provide for the fair and effective enforcement of the regulations contained
herein.
(B) Application:
This ordinance applies to the following sites in the City of Prior Lake:
1. All new public or private development on either platted or unplatted property;
2. New construction on previously platted, but vacant building sites.
The requirements of this ordinance are in addition to the requirements of the
City's landscape and screening requirements contained in Section 6.10 of the
City's Zoning Ordinance or other City Code.
(C) Tree Preservation Plan Approval Required:
It is unlawful for any person to engage directly or indirectly in land alteration, as
defined in this ordinance, unless such person has first applied for and obtained
approval from the City's Zoning Officer or other authorized city official of a tree
preservation plan. No preliminary plat, building permit, grading permit, or other
City required permit shall be granted unless approval of a tree preservation plan
has first been obtained.
(D) Entry on Private Property and Interference with Inspection:
The City's Zoning Officer and/or his/her agent may enter upon private premises at
any reasonable time for the purposes of enforcing the regulations set forth in this
section. No person shall unreasonably hinder, prevent, delay or interfere with the
City's Zoning Officer or his/her agents while they are engaged in the enforcement
of this section.
(E) Definitions:
Caliper Inches - means the diameter, in inches, of the trunk of a tree measured at a
height of 4.5 feet above the ground.
Civil En~ineer - means a person licensed to practice civil engIneenng under
Minnesota Statutes sections 326.02 to 326.15.
Coniferous Tree - a woody plant having foliage on the outermost portion of the
branches year-round. Coniferous trees are considered to be "significant" for
purposes of this Ordinance at a height of twelve feet (12') or more,. Species of
coniferous trees required to be surveyed for tree preservation plan approval are as
follows:
Common Name:
1. Arborvitae (White Cedar)
2. Fir, Douglas
3. Fir, White
4. Hemlock, Canada (Eastern)
5. Junipers
6. Larch, Eastern (Tamarack)
7. Larch, European
8. Pine, Austrian
9. Pine, Eastern White
10. Pine, Mugo
11. Pine, Ponderosa
12. Pine, Red (Norway)
13. Pine, scotch
14. Redcedar, Eastern
15. Redwood, Dawn
16. Spruce, Black Hills
17. Spruce, Colorad Blue
18. Spruce, Norway
19. Spruce, White
20. Spruce, Japanese
Scientific Name:
Thuja spp.
Pseudotsuga menziesii glauca
Abies concolor
Tsuga canadensis
Juniperus spp.
Larix laricina
Larix decidua
Pinus nigra
Pinus strobus
Pinus montana
Pinus ponerosa
Pinus resinosa
Pinus sylvestris
Juniperus virginiana
Metasequoia glyptostroboides
Picea glauca densata
Picea pungens
Picea abies
Picea glauca
Taxus cuspidata
2
Canopy - means the horizontal extension of a tree's branches in all directions
from its trunk.
Deciduous Tree - a woody plant having a defined crown, and which loses leaves
annually. Deciduous trees are considered to be significant at six caliper inches
(6") or more. Species required to be surveyed are as follows:
Common Name:
1. Ash, Blue
2. Ash, Marshall Seedless
3. Ash, Summit
4. Ash, White
5. Beech, Blue
6. Birch, River
7. Chokecherry, Amur
8. Chokecherry, Shubert's
9. Coffee-tree, Kentucky
10. Corktree, Amur
11. Crabapples (ornamental)
12. Dogwood, alternate-leaved
13. Ginko (male trees)
14. Hackberry
15. Hawthorns
16. Hickory, Bitternut
17. Honeylocust, Imperial
18. Honeylocust, Skyline
19. Ironwood
20. Lilac, Japanese tree
21. Linden, Greenspire
22. Linden, Littleleaf
23. Linden, Redmond
24. Maple, Amur
25. Maple, Black
26. Maple, Mountain
27. Maple, Norway & Cultivars
28. Maple, Red & Cultivars
29. Maple, Sugar
30. Maple, Tatarian
3 1. Mountain Ash, European
32. Mountain Ash, Showy
33. Mulberry, Red
34. Nannyberry
35. Oak, Bur
36. Oak, Chestnut
37. Oak, Northern Pin
38. Oak, Northern Red
39. Oak, Pin
40. Oak, Red
41. Oak, Scarlet
42. Oak, Swamp White
43. Oak, White
44. Plum, American
45. Plum, Canada
Scientific Name:
Fraxinus quadrangulata
Fraxinus pennsylvanica subintegrerrima "Marshall Seedless"
Fraxinus pennsylvanica subintegerrima "Summit"
Fraxinus americana
Carpinus caroliniana
Betula nigra
Prunus maacki
Prunus virginiana "Shubert"
Gymnocladus dioicus
Phellodendron amurense
Malus spp.
Cornus alternifolia
Ginko biloba
Celtis occidentalis
Crataegus spp.
Carya cordiformis
Gleditsia triacanthos "Imperial"
Gleditsia triacanthus "Skyline"
Ostrya virginiana
Syringa amurensis japonica
Tilia cordata "Greenspire"
Tilia cordata
Tilia x euchlora "Redmond"
Acer ginnala
Acer nigra
Acer spicatum
Acer platanoides
Acer rubrum
Acer saccarum
Acer tatarica
Sorbus aucuparia
Sorbus decora
Morus rubra
Viburnum lentago
Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus muhlenbergii
Quercus ellipsoidalis
Quercus rubra var. borealis
Quercus palustris
Quercus rubra
Quercus coccinea
Quercus bicolor
Quercus alba
Prunus americana
Prunus nigra
3
46. Redbud, Eastern
47. Serviceberry
48. Tulip-tree
Cercis canadensis
Amelanchier spp.
Liriodendron tulipifera
Developer - any person or legal entity who undertakes to improve a parcel of land
by platting, grading, installing utilities, or constructing any building thereon.
Drip Line - The farthest distance away from the trunk of a tree that rain or dew
will fall directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of the tree.
Forester - a person holding at least a Bachelor's degree in forestry from an
accredited four-year college of forestry.
Horticulturist - a person holding at least a Bachelor's degree in horticulture or
field related to the cultivation of plants and/or licensed as a horticulturist by the
State of Minnesota.
Land Alteration - means any private or public infrastructure and utility
installation, building construction, excavation, grading, clearing, filling or other
earth change which may result in:
1. The movement of more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of earth,
2. Any alteration of land of more than one foot from the natural contour of
the ground on any contiguous four hundred fifty (450) square feet of
ground where significant trees are present, or
3. Any cutting, removal or killing of more than twenty (20) percent of the
significant trees on any land within a period of five (5) years.
Landscape Architect - a person licensed by the State of Minnesota as a Landscape
Architect.
Land Surveyor - means a person licensed to practice land surveying under
Minnesota Statutes sections 326.02 to 326.15.
Root Zone - the area under a tree which is at or within the drip line of a tree's
canopy.
Si~nificant Tree - A deciduous tree measuring 6 caliper inches or more in width or
a coniferous tree measuring 12 feet or more in height.
(F) Tree Preservation Permit Process:
1. Tree Preservation Plan Approval Required: It is unlawful for any person to
engage in land alteration, plat and develop land, or build on previously platted,
4
vacant lots within the City of Prior Lake without first applying for and obtaining
tree preservation plan approval.
2. Allowable Tree Removal:
A. Initial Site Development: For initial site development, up to twenty-
five (25%) of significant trees will be allowed to be removed without tree
replacement or restitution for the following activities:
1. Grading of the road right-of-way.
2. Utilities installation, including sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water,
natural gas, electric service, telephone service, cable television, and
other similar public or semi-public utilities.
3. Construction of public or private streets.
4. Construction and/or grading of drainage ways.
In addition to the 25% of significant trees which may be removed without
replacement or restitution for the above-listed activities, an additional
twenty-five percent (25%) of significant trees on individual lots within
sites of new development may be removed without replacement or
restitution for the installation of utilities, driveways and building pads.
B. Previously Platted. Vacant Lot Development: On individual lots, up
to twenty-five percent (25%) of the significant trees may be removed for
the installation of utilities, driveway and the building pad without tree
replacement or restitution.
Applications for variance from the provISIons of this section shall be
reviewed by the Board of Adjustment following the procedures set forth in
Section 7.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Adjustment may
permit significant trees to be removed in excess of the limitations of this
chapter, provided all trees removed in excess of said limitations shall be
replaced in accordance with the Tree Replacement Formula, and provided
that all criteria for granting variances are met.
3. Tree Replacement Formula: Replacement of removed or disturbed trees
in excess of the percentage allowed by this Ordinance shall be according to the
following guidelines;
A. F or development which exceeds the percentage of allowable removal of
significant trees, all trees exceeding the percentage of allowable removal
shall be replaced at the ratio of one-half caliper inch (1/2") per one caliper
inch (1") removed.
B. Whenever possible, required replacement trees shall be planted on the site
being developed. If a development site cannot accommodate all the
5
required replacement planting, or planting on the site being developed is
not possible or undesirable, replacement trees may also be planted on
publicly owned or leased sites, such as parks, public lake accesses,
boulevards. Planting on such sites shall be done at the discretion of the
City. In the event that planting of replacement trees on the site being
developed or publicly-owned or controlled sites is either not possible or
desirable, Developers shall be required to pay cash in lieu of replacement
trees at a ratio ($100.00) per caliper inch of excess tree removal.For
example, if a site has 100 caliper inches and 60 caliper inches are
removed, the Developer will be required to pay for 10 caliper inches or
$1,000. Cash received in lieu of replacement trees shall be placed in the
Capital Improvement Fund of the City's Parks Department, and used for
maintenance of the City's nursery stock and planting of trees on public
property.
C. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: Deciduous - 2 1/2" caliper
Coniferous - 6' in height
D. Replacement trees shall be from balled and burlapped, certified nursery
stock as defined and controlled by Minnesota Statutes Section 18.44
through 18.61, the Plant Pest Act.
E. Replacement trees shall be covered by a minimum I-year guarantee.
F. Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to other trees found on the
site where removal has taken place, or shall be selected from the list of
significant coniferous and deciduous trees found in the definitions of
coniferous and deciduous trees at Section 6.16(E) of this Ordinance.
Selection of replacement tree types for use on public sites shall be at the
sole discretion of the City.
4. Application: Application for tree preservation plan approval shall be made in
writing to the Zoning Officer. Information to be included in the application
includes at least the following:
1. The name and address of the person or persons applying for the
permit;
2. The name(s) and addressees) of the owner or owners of the land
which is the subject of development;
3. The estimated time period during which any land alteration will
occur;
4. A certificate of survey of the land on which the proposed land
alteration is to occur showing the following; .
a) The location, size and elevation of building pads;
b) The location of the existing significant trees to be saved
and the location of protective tree fencing at the root zone
of such trees;
c) The location of replacement trees;
(1) Drainage patterns.
6
5. A statement relating to the proposed use of the land including the
type of building( s) or structure ( s) situated thereon or contemplated
to be built thereon.
6. A tree inventory, certified bya Minnesota registered land surveyor,
civil engineer, landscape architect, horticulturist or forester
depicting:
a) The size, species, condition and location on the land of all
significant trees and designated specimen trees. Forest
measurement methods may be used to calculate total
diameter inches of trees when it has been determined
(through the review of the plat map and other documents)
that areas within the subject parcel of land, but outside of
land to be altered/graded, will not be encroached upon.
Such areas will be required to comply with all other
requirements of this document including protective fencing
procedures.
7. A tree preservation plan which shall include:
a) A list of all significant trees which will be lost or adversely
affected within the drip line, as opposed to the root zone,
due to the proposed land alteration.
b) The number, type, size and location of trees required to be
replaced pursuant to this chapter.
c) A plan drawing showing the number, type, size and
location of replacement trees.
d) Identification of the construction area.
5. Certification of Compliance with Approved Landscape Plan
A. No earlier than one (1) year after acceptance of the tree preservation plan
norJater than one (1) year after completion of the work contemplated by
the plan,' the Developer shall certify to the City that the plan has been
complied with. This certification shall be made by a Minnesota registered
land surveyor, civil engineer, landscape architect, horticulturist or forester.
B. The City of Prior Lake may, at its option, hire a consultant to inspect,
verify and advise the City on matters involving this Ordinance. Any and
all costs incurred by the City in hiring a consultant shall be reimbursed by
the Developer.
5. Warranty Requirement
A. Sites of New Development. The Developer shall provide a financial
guarantee, in a form satisfactory to the City, prior to the approval or
issuance of any permit for land alteration.
1. The amount of the guarantee shall be 125% of the estimated cost to
furnish and plant replacement trees. The estimated cost shall be
7
provided by the Developer subject to approval by the City. The
estimated cost shall be at least as much as the reasonable amount
charged by nurseries for the furnishing and planting of replacement
trees. The City reserves the right in its sole discretion to determine
the estimated cost in the event the Developer's estimated cost is
not approved.
2. The security shall be maintained for at least one (1) year after the
date that the last replacement tree has been planted. Upon a
showing by the Developer and such inspection as may be made by
the City, that portion of the security may be released by the City
equal to 125% of the estimated cost of the replacement trees which
are alive and healthy at the end of such year. Any portion of the
security not entitled to be released at the end of the year shall be
maintained and shall secure the Developer's obligation to remove
and replant replacement trees which are not alive or are unhealthy
at the end of such year and to replant missing trees. Upon
completion of the replanting of such trees the entire security may
be released.
B. Previously Platted. Vacant Lots. For construction on previously platted,
vacant lots, the developer shall provide a cash escrow in the amount five
hundred dollars ($500.00) to guarantee compliance with the requirements
of this Ordinance. Said security shall be released upon certification of
compliance by the developer to the satisfaction of the City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no portion of the security shall be released
while there are unsatisfied Developer's obligations to indemnify the City
for any expenses in enforcing the terms of this agreement.
C. The City may retain from the security required in (A) and (B) above as
reimbursement an amount expended by the City to enforce the provisions
of this section.
G. This Ordinance does not apply to dead and diseased trees. The City's diseased
tree program is found in Title 8 of the City Code.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 16th day of January, 1996.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Manager
8
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of
Drafted By:
The City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
, 1996.
9
.- 1. t'
V ote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and V oOOof. MOTION
CARRIED. RESOLUTION 95-23 DENIED..
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
V ote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and V oOOof. MOTION
CARRIED.
A recess was called at 9:53 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:03 p.m.
2. ADELLE PHILLIPS - VARIANCE - 5470 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE, requesting
a 26 foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 49 feet instead of the required 75
feet.
Associate Planner Nlichael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated
October 23, 1995. Staff concluded the hardship criteria has been met and recommends
approval of the requested variance. A faxed was received from the DNR with no
objections to issuance of the variance provided the replacement deck does not encroach
any farther waterward than the existing deck.
Applicant~ Adelle Phillips asked permission to replace the existing deck for it is unsafe
for her grandchildren.
Comments from Commissioners:
Wuellner:
. Applicant explained she built the house and the deck. At the time it was built she had
an additional 50 feet of sand.
. Supports request.
Creigo:
. Should approve request.
Loftus:
. Should approve request.
V oOOof:
. Hardship criteria has been met and supports request.
wfOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 95-
34PC.
Discussion: The hardship criteria has been met.
\1NI02J9S DOC
Cf)
PAGE 3
. Regarding Conroy Street - Staff rightly saw an opportunity to complete the street at
no cost to the City at large. This is good public policy.
. At some point down the line this street will be upgraded regardless of what happens
tonight and when that happens it will cost every one who lives adjacent to the
property and everyone in Prior Lake a lot more.
. The value vve are also balancing out is the slope.
. The variance hardships have not been met on the cul-de-sac.
. Staff took a: lot of heat tonight and is not justified. The City Staff works for all of us
and for our best interest. They make reports based on their best judgment on what is
best for the City at large.
Loftus:
. Would like to have access to Savage's Tree Preservation Ordinance.
. Restriction to grading reference.
. The corridors are for street and utilities.
]\;Iichael Leek addressed the Prior Lake's proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. The
draft will be presented to the Commission on November 13. City Council gave specific
directions - 25~/0 tree removal on site was appropriate, and 250/0 for individual building
pad development on individual lots was appropriate. They also gave direction as to what
they want to see as considered significant trees, specifically 6 inch caliper and 12 foot
height trees. City Council is of the opinion the Ordinance should be self enforcing and if
any costs were incurred it should be directed back to the developer.
Deb Garross stated the application came in and a decision has to be made on the zoning
issues related to the PUD application and the variance prior to December 3. The Planning
Commission has to act and the application forwarded to City Council. If City Council
does not make a decision by then it will be deemed approved. The application cannot be
held up for a new ordinance. A new ordinance cannot apply to an action that is already
underway.
Loftus:
. Has not heard hardship criteria for cul-de-sac. Negative on that issue.
. Not want to propose more than the 20 townhomes applicant requested.
. Negative recommendation to building on the slope - should preserve.
General discussion by Commissioners:
Deb Garross explained the reasons for the extension of the cul-de-sac. The developer
requested the variances. Staff felt the hardship criteria was met because of the slopes on
site and there was no other access allovved to the site from County Road 42 so they have
to come in somewhere. Also, because of the slopes they cannot put the road in locations
other than what is indicated on the application. In order to serve the entire parcel a road
must be put in. The conditions for variance approval have been met. Another issue the
\1N I 0:395 DOC
G
i>AGE6
lVlike Von Arx, 14346 Rutgers Street, thought the Ordinance should be changed. He felt
the developer is raping the land to save the wetland. Because of this action, NIr. Von Arx
believes the quality of life will go down.
Mr. Rye reminded the Commissioners the total site is 13 acres and developing 8 acres is
well within the requirements.
Carol Scott, 6370 Conroy Street, requested the Developer's Agreement state the
developer has no intention of buying property allowing them to use the recreational
easement which would be a great hardship on the residents whose recreational easement
is in front of their homes.
lVlary Ann Frees, 6346 Conroy Street, stated the Planning Commission overturned the
Staff recommendation a year ago to allow a variance to save her oak tree. She is now
asking the Planning Commission to save the rest of the trees. NIrS. Frees believes the
Planning Commission has a moral obligation to keep the area environmentally beautiful,
private and special.
Jay Ferrier, 14075 Shady Beach Trail, felt the wetland influences the lake. He went on to
say if the townhomes were built, lawn fertilizer will drain into the lake. The lake will
turn into a swamp. NIr. Ferrier stated no one from City Hall has come out to talk to him
to ask how he feels.
Associate Planner :\Iichael Leek mentioned Staff did not make any indication to go out
and poll the neighborhood and the public hearing is for that purpose.
Dan Heiling, said he just purchased the property on 6298 Conroy Street. Edina Realty
informed him six homes would be developed on this property. He is not in favor of
removing all the trees. He does support the cul-de-sac. NIr. Heiling also feels the
townhomes will diminish the value of his property. He would also like to hear from the
DNR. (Deb Garross and J\tlichael Leek responded the DNR is aware of the project and
provided information for other issues for tonight's meeting.)
Mr. Heiling further went on to say he hoped the Watershed District would take care of the
wetland issue.
Calina Townsend, 6300 Conroy Street, asked the Planning Commission to consider their
concerns for the environment and neighborhood. She feels the neighborhood is being
neglected. She said she wished Staff would work through the Ordinance for the
neighborhood like they did for the developer. No one wants a through street. NIrs.
Townsend believes the neighborhood has as much input as the developer.
Jim Sander, attorney for the developer stated it was unfortunate discussions had gone off
base and to stay focused on the issues. The developer never had a free ride. The sketch
proposed by neighbors of six homes was never proposed by the developer. The City Staff
...-.
~
?~GE.j
~NI02J95 DOC
. ..A',~
Criego: consider cul-de-sac for safety which is important for 23 additional homes;
drainage is important and should be investigated; recommend to table.
V onhof: concur with Commissioners; additional information should come to us; suggest
to table.
lVIr. Krier stated one of the issues Staff asked them to do is to extend Conroy Street. If
the Conroy Street matter can be resolved it would help them know how to develop the
area. They are willing to do this either way.
l\'IOTION B~' .~RNOLD, SECOND BY ROSETH TO TABLE THE SCHEJ\iIATIC
PUD, REZONING, PRELIl\'IINARY PLAT, V.o\R.IAl'fCE Al'fD CONDITIONAL
USE PERIVIIT.
Discussion: .~ll Commissioners will go out on the site; \vill not table to exceed more
than 60 days.
V ote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Roseth, Kuykendall, Loftus and V onhof. ~IOTION
CARRIED.
J\tfOTION BY A.&'\l'OLD. SECOND BY LOFTUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HE AR.Thi G.
V ote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Kuykendall, Roseth and V onhof. NIOTION
CARRIED.
A recess was called at 9:44 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:51 p.m.
ITE:VI #2 PCBLIC HE,ARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED AlVIEND~IENT TO
THE PRIOR LA.KE YEAR 2000 COl\'IPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PRO.JECT
KNOW"f AS ~.THE WILDS NORTH".
A sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the information in the Planning Report dated
August 28, 1995.
A summary of his report is as follows:
The applicant. RKB Inc. applied to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation
on the subject property from Agricultural to Commercial, extend the Nlunicipal Urban
Service .~ea (NIUSA) to include the subject property and to change the zoning
designation from A-1~ Agricultural to B-1, Limited Business. The subject property is a
parcel of land located at the southeast corner of the intersection of County Roads 42 and
83 and having an area of 19.5 acres. ~Iaterial submitted in support of the application
\1N8:!lJ5 Dee
[>\Gc .
January 16, 1996
City Council
City of Prior Lake
Prior Lake, MN.
RE: CITY ZONING .ORDINANCE THAT PERTAINS TO MAXIMUM LOT
COVERAGE.
Dear Council Members:
I'd like to bring. to the Council's attention a section of
Prior Lake's Zoning Ordinance that appears to be in error.
This error is located in Section 4, Page 5, and pertains to
the maximum building coverage allowed on a lot that is zoned
R-2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL.
My question is as follows:
If I were to build a two family dwelling on a 12,000 Sq. Ft.
lot and meet all of the required lot setbacks, (10 feet on
each side lot, and 25 feet on the front and rear lot lines),
I could bui'ld a twin home of 5600 Sq. Ft. including garages.
Considering an average garage size of 576 Sq. Ft. (24' X
24'), I could build two twin homes of 2224 Sq. Ft. each with
a nicely sized garage for each unit. BUT, I am required to
use the MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE requirement of 22%. 22% of a
12,000 Sq. Ft. lot is 2640 Sq. Ft. of building including
garages. Considering that the two garages total 1152 Sq.
Ft., that allows 1488 Sq. Ft. in which to build two living
units for a total floor space of 744 Sq. Ft. per unit.
A twin home of this size is not marketable in this area.
The Planning Dept. has advised me that this Ordinance was
changed in R-l SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL some time ago but the
issue as it applied to R-2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL was not
addressed at that time.
I respectfully 'ask that the City Council ammend this
ordinance to eliminate the Maximum Coverage section as was
done in R-l SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL.
su2'j ~
Dale Salo
(!J
z
~g It')lt')lt') 0 00 C\!C\!C\!C\! 00000 C\I
wOo ~~~ ~ ~~ co coco co ,....:,....:,....:,....:,....: ex)
<r- <r- <r- <r- <r-
eI:
O()~ ~.. ;
~~ r'
;.
:,
~~2 It') 0000 q
I~ LOLOLO I It') &tHO ~~~~ It')lt')lt')lt')lt')
C!':::> ~ C'icrjcrj ui uiui uiuiuill'ill'i ~
<r- <r- <r- <r- <r-
w
~~
~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~
I~~ ~ ~~ I~~~ @~~~~ ~i
C\I C\IC')
~.;
10..
t},
. J
W
0 ~ 0 OO~LO 0 1.01.01.0 0001.01.0 OOOI.OLOLO LO
Ci5 C\I <r- <r- <r- <r- <r- <r- <r- <r- <r- <r- <r- <r- <r- <r- <r- ..- ..- <r- <r- OO
LO
?~ Q)
C>
~ g LOlt')lt')lt') LO LOlt')lt') ~~~~~ LOLOLOLOLOLO ~ LO LO ~
-a: C\IC\1C\1C\1 \~ C\IC\1C\1 C\IC\1C\1C\1C\1C\1 <r- ...- a.
~ !
~
~ c:
.Q
t5
en!z Q)
00 en
~fE 0 0 LOLOLOLO LO I.OLOLO LOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLO g
LO LO C\IC\1C\1C\1 C\I C\IC\1C\1 C\IC\1C\1C\1C\1 C\IC\1C\1C\1C\1C\1 00
~ F!:
:e 0 ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~g gg~~~~ ~
W ~ g gg
a: <r-
5 w
0 ~
w en
0: b
c
~ ...J
~::-
C ~.
g I en en
z gQ ~~ ~~a ~~~ ~~~~a~ . ~~~~a~~a ~
<C Lfi ~ ~~
b
~ 0 ~~ C\II.O LO &6go C\I C\I C') C') a a aC\lLO~O 0
...J ...- ...-...-C\I...- cD C\I ...- ...-...-...-..-LO COCO<r-C\1 ...- C\I &6&6
C'I
~
b
m
o
~
5
:) LO Q)
~~~mi
CJQ)O)::::>e
<C32-QCDOo
:t~Q,~;f
~
c~
fB.5 ~
i~~
m ~~
;~fJ~
CI)_U.SCD
~~~~5
(I)
C)
e:
1
Ir;,Jl
I::::>
u.~
~~
F~O
!J
~
II~ j
0:0= 1
~ ~~ 0
a. "! en ~
6 CB~m"'l
:)LL~.8~::::>
:e -&LL s ~ CD
~~~~~5
_ E..~~'TaI"_, _
.~:""".~~~m~,,~ ,;,..r~--';~7.;.~;;.;;-::;;..:~..;:::;:..~ :.-:~,.:.- . ".
~
W
c
m~~ (I)
ill; i
o~~ol
~~~f f~
~ '5 JR u. '+ ~Q)
~f6~ ~
a:~Uj~F~~
ffi
z
US
:)
m
c
~
:Em
::1::::>
op-
m~
.....,.. ~." _~. .....,..._. " .;~ _ '._ "'...._. .4,...
'>..'......~.... '11'", .,. r""". .......... " .,..y.....".~...I"'....~..,"'..,_ .~-'.'-r'"'..~...... __
ffi
z
~(g,
me:
~1
:)0
:E~I
~~:::>
Ou.~
..l. Q)
~~~
m:20
-,. -., -, . r-.,.....- l...< . ,~~ ~
~\ -.
.~
~
.~
\~ .
RESOLUTION 96-03
RESOLUTION OF THE P~OR LAKE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "WILD OAKS" SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF THE
CONDITIONS OUTLINED HEREIN PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL.
MOTION BY: SECOND'BY:
WHEREAS: the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 28, and
October 23, 1995 and January 8, 1996 to consider an application from Bill Hayden of
RCS Associates Inc., for the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks; and
WHEREAS: notice of the public hearing on said preliminary plat has been duly published and posted
in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake Ordinances; and
WHEREAS: the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issues and
persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections
related to the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks; and
WHEREAS: the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat according to the applicable
provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning, Subdivision and Flood Plain Ordinance and found
said preliminary plat to be consistent with the provisions of said ordinances; and
WHEREAS: the Planning Commission fmds the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks to be consistent with
the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS: the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve
the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks subject to the conditions outlined in Resolution 96-
02PC; and
WHEREAS: The applicant agreed to file restrictive covenants or other appropriate document at the
time of final plat, indicating there will be no claim(s) made to the recreation easements
or other interests in the land located along or contiguous to the lake shore within the plat
of Conroy's Bay.
WHEREAS: the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat at a meeting held on January 16, 1996
!along with the records associated with the public hearings on said item.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRIOR
LAKE, MINNESOTA, that it hereby approves the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks subject to the general
provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance and the following specific conditions:
1. Approval of the Schematic and Preliminary PUD for Wild Oaks to allow a cluster, townhome
development with a private street.
2. Approval of ordinance 96-02establishing a PUD zone for Wild Oaks.
3. All application forms shall be signed by the current fee owner.
16200 ~gi~~reek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4. The developer shall submit a tree preservation plan which complies with Section 6.16 of the
zoning ordinance.
5. The developer shall provide a plan, acceptable to. the City Engineer, related to vegetation
maintenance and pedestrian safety adjacent to retaining walls.
6. The preliminary plat maps be amended to change the design of the Conroy Street cul-de-sac to a
"T" type intersection.
7. Topography shall be field verified by the developer and corrected on the grading plan.
8. The preliminary plat is valid for 12 months from the date of approval by the City Council. Failure
to submit the fmal plat within the required time frame shall cause the preliminary plat to become
null and void.
9. The grading plan shall include provisions for a 30 foot wide buffer strip of undisturbed vegetation
between the 100 year flood elevation of the wetland located on the western part of the site and
the townhouses.
10. The final plat shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement over the proposed NURP pond and
over the existing wetlands. The easement shall be dedicated to cover the area of the ponds and
wetlands up to the 100 year High Water Elevation.
11. Restrictive covenants be filed with the fmal plat to address future vegetation and topographic
alterations as well as construction of any additional buildings on site. The purpose of the
covenants and or permanent easements are to assure preservation and maintenance of open space
in accordance with the Shore land Management Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance Section 9.11F).
12. The applicant shall submit documentation by a qualified professional that storm water management
facilities are designed and installed consistent with the Field Office Technical Guide of the local
Soil and Water Conservation District. (Shoreland Management Ordinance) and the Prior Lake-
Spring Lake Watershed District.
13. The applicant submit a complete set of preliminary plat plans prior to fmal plat submittal, showing
all changes required for preliminary plat approval. One complete set of plans shall be reduced to
11" x I 7" .
This resolution shall become effective upon publication of Ordinance 96-02.
Passed this _ day of , 1996.
YES
NO
ANDREN
GREENFIELD
I KEDROWSKI
MADER
SCHENCK
ANDREN
GREENFIELD
KEDROWSKI
MADER
SCHENCK
{Seal}
Frank Boyles, City Manager
City of Prior Lake
RS9(~13WO.OOC
DR
DNR METRO REGION
TEL:612-772-7977
Dee 28,95
11:16 No.OOS P.01
T~.. ~h
~., ? td
~~,s
~
DNR - Division of Waters / Metro Region
Project Review Worksheet
Project Name S~~ c- \=?\.A.1).
I
I A2€.L,\MhJA(L'1 YL.4\ cr ~".t:) OJIrk:
Project Type (check all that apply):
~lift'lin..,. Plat
CJ Final Plat
o Subdivision
~
o Vuian~e
o Other
DNR Jurisdiction (answer all):
Yes No
Flocdplain a 0
(M.S.I03F.I01)
YC3 No
Protected Waten 0 CJ
(MS.IOJG.24S)
~ No
Shoreland CJ
(M,S.l 03F.20 1)
Yes No
WatI::r Appropriation 0 0
(M.S.I030.2SS)
co~:;;"..._~'..4~ " ~:..-- Pw~~(
f
J!!J II'''.~ ~, ~,~ ~......Ii__
;- ~#t'--/;:;'~ =:"1'.
R.ecommendations and Proposed Conditions
+ M~ra.fI f/,~~ cI;.(J
R~,.~
~.rs~"tl, &. .
r
a.c,
~?
~~
E~.~~~~
~ '" tIJt
~ iI!'i.J~ ,I;.,.. a "
~o.r J.... e.-. ~ I
~'r
..
C"/r ~ ·
lk.,~'p
; ~~.
..
Reviewerg..~~;L Title~one 7"~-""O Date .l2.-2.'-f.r
. t---...,~. .....~
\:J)
. Regarding Conroy Street - Staff rightly saw an opportunity to complete the street at
no cost to the City at large. This is good public policy.
. At some point down the line this street will be upgraded regardless of what happens
tonight and when that happens it will cost every one who lives adjacent to the
property and everyone in Prior Lake a lot more.
. The value \ve are also balancing out is the slope.
. The variance hardships have not been met on the cul-de-sac.
. Staff took a lot of heat tonight and is not justified. The City Staff works for all of us
and for our best interest. They make reports based on their best judgment on what is
best for the City at large.
Loftus:
. Would like to have access to Savage's Tree Preservation Ordinance.
. Restriction to grading reference.
. The corridors are for street and utilities.
Nfichael Leek addressed the Prior Lake's proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. The
draft will be presented to the Commission on November 13. City Council gave specific
directions - 25~/o tree removal on site was appropriate, and 250/0 for individual building
pad development on individual lots was appropriate. They also gave direction as to what
they want to see as considered significant trees, specifically 6 inch caliper and 12 foot
height trees. City Counci.l is of the opinion the Ordinance should be self enforcing and if
any costs were incurred it should be directed back to the developer.
Deb Garross stated the application came in and a decision has to be made on the zoning
issues related to the PUD application and the variance prior to December 3. The Planning
Commission has to act and the application fon-varded to City Council. If City Council
does not make a decision by then it will be deemed approved. The application cannot be
held up for a new ordinance. A new ordinance cannot apply to an action that is already
undenvay.
Loftus:
. Has not heard hardship criteria for cul-de-sac. Negative on that issue.
. Not want to propose more than the 20 townhomes applicant requested.
. Negative recommendation to building on the slope - should preserve.
General discussion by Commissioners:
Deb Garross explained the reasons for the extension of the cul-de-sac. The developer
requested the variances. Staff felt the hardship criteria was met because of the slopes on
site and there was no other access allo\ved to the site from County Road 42 so they have
to come in somewhere. Also, because of the slopes they cannot put the road in locations
other than what is indicated on the application. In order to serve the entire parcel a road
must be put in. The conditions for variance approval have been met. ;\nother issue the
'vlNIOZJ95 DOC
9
?-\GE5
.. ,
-
Planning Commission may not be aware of is City Council did request Staff to review the
cul-de-sac standard in the Subdivision Ordinance possibly to amend or delete it
depending on the research that will be conducted next year. Staff recommendation for
approval is based on the proposal of a private cul-de-sac. A cul-de-sac at the end of
Conroy would be a public improvement and the City would be violating its own
Ordinance.
John Wingard addressed the issue of increased traffic. The gravel street with additional
traffic would have to be upgraded at the cost to the residents.
l\tfOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, RECOMNIEND TO CITY
COUNCIL DENIAL OF RESOLUTION 95-21.
Discussion: Neighborhood does not want it and sees no value in it; there are other options
for trade offs; other PUDs are much more in keeping with the health and welfare of the
community; steep slopes are not adequately protected by the Ordinance; 1000/0 of the
neighborhood input has been negative; the PUD as proposed does not adequately address
the steep slope and tree issue; negative environmental impact; the density of 23
townhomes are too much for the site.
V ote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and V onhof. MOTION
CARRIED TO DENY RESOLUTION 95-21.
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, RECOMNfENDATION TO CITY
COlJNCIL TO DENY ORDINANCE 95-13.
Discussion: This motion is supportive for reasons stated above.
V ote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and V onhof. l\tl0TION
CARRIED TO DENY ORDINANCE 95-13.
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOtvINIEND TO CITY
COUNCIL DENIAL OF RESOLUTION 95-22.
Discussion: Because the PtJD failed in the Planning Commission's view this should also
fail.
Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and Vonhof. MOTION
CARRIED. RESOLUTION 95-22 DENIED.
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
RESOLUTION 95-23.
Discussion: Failed because it is part of the PUD; variance looked more like an economic
hardship: hardship criteria has not been met.
'.iN 102J95 DOC
~
PAGE -:
\~\~-\f\
they would like the whole thing to disappear. Mrs. Frees indicated there was an upside to
this situation that the neighbors have come to know each other. She loves the area and
consider the trees and wildlife her neighbors as well.
Bob Prchal, 6406 Conroy, concern for the amount of people in the townhomes vs. six
single family homes. He also feels there is a safety issue with the ponds and high walls
and all the children in the area. Don Rye also addressed Mr. Prchal's question on the
time line of one year. Mr. Prchal realizes everything the developer can do is legal but
feels it is not right.
A break was called at 8:51 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:01 p.m.
Jim Sander addressed the issue of the cul-de-sac pavement and vacated the extension of
Conroy Street is outside of the development and the project is not served by that street.
Legally the City cannot compel the developer to construct it but it was agreed to earlier in
the project in order to expedite the platting process. The neighbors and Planning
Commission objected to installing a through street so the project was amended to a cul-
de-sac design. Mr. Sander reminded the Planning Commission this is not a brand new
project, its been going on for over a year. Applicant is well within the scope of the
ordinances. Commends staff. All questions raised by residents have been addressed by
staff. By using a PUD this allowed applicant to preserve more trees. If you use a normal
public street you would be loosing more trees and land. The lake access easements are
not an issue. No one has ever suggested they were going to buy an easement for lake
access. Mr. Sander also stated he has never received the letter referred to by the
T ownsends.
Jim Sturm, explained the project was redesigned after the meeting in October and this is
the best proposal to meet concerns raised by Planning Commissioners and residents. Mr.
Sturm explained the cul-de-sac concerns. The tree survey was done by a registered tree
surveyor. The applicant has made every attempt to save trees. Mr. Sturm is a landscape
architect and oversaw the plan changes. He feels they responded to the concerns of the
neighbors. Mr. Sturm has been through this process before in Eagan, where he was the
City Planner for 10 years. There are more trees preserved by the townhome proposal as
opposed to a single family development.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Larry Anderson commented on cul-de-sac and the resolution would be to "T" the
intersection with a stop sign and maintenance would be easier.
. new trees planted: 2 1/2" on deciduous 1 1/2" and 6' coniferous.
. John Wingard explained the gravel road on Conroy Street and storm water
management issues.
\1:-':0 I 0896 DOC
PAGE4
took a good deal of time vvith the issues and sees no merit with arguments raised by
neighbors.
Bill Tovvnsend presented a letter to the Planning Commission by Scott Roth.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Loftus:
. Agrees with Mr. Schweich the PUD is a vehicle to get some creativity within the
project.
. The tree removal numbers mentioned are somewhat staggering.
. Agrees with the attomey~s comment of increasing density for purposes of a road.
. Extending and connecting streets is a legitimate purpose the City is trying to achieve.
. Additional 3 units are landing on the slopes which are environmental amenities.
. We do not have a tree ordinance at hand.
. Not sure a PUD is the right vehicle.
Wuellner:
. The Shoreland Nlanagement District does not only apply to lakeshore lots but to
developments within 1000 feet from the lake - this is an environmental impact on the
lake.
. Does not see how the development in this area is an asset.
. The development is not consistent with the Shoreland Management.
. No one else (neighbors) want this development.
. Does not support the PUD.
Criego:
. The developer has rights and the neighborhood has rights and the difference between
the t'\vo. We may not all agree with what our neighbors do but it is within their right
within their property lines. If it meets the ordinance they can do it.
. There will be some development on this land in the future.
. A PUD ought to allow for the enhancement of the property.
. If the property is developed in any way, trees are going to have to come out. The
question is how many.
. Runoff into Prior Lake
. The logic for extending the road is a safety issue.
. The slope should be maintained as much as possible.
V onhof:
. Read all the documents and listened to all concerns.
. The concept of a PUD is to give the City greater control over development in
exchange for certain variances or allowances made for the developer.
. This area is unique with steep slopes. trees, a wetland and is adjacent to the lake.
MNI02395 DOC
e
PAGE5
DJ(L~Fl
Jim Sander, attorney representing the applicant, and Jim Sturm of James R. Hill,
Associates, the planners and landscape architects were available for questions. Mr.
Sander presented the project changes, in particular the cul-de-sac on Conroy Street vs. the
improved and extension of Conroy Street to Shady Beach Trail; the townhome units have
been reduced to 20; preserving 50% of the trees and planting 85 additional trees; storm
runoff is being cleaned in the NURP ponds. The DNR feels the proposed plat exceeds all
the minimum PUD performance standards in the shoreland area. The Tree Ordinance
does not apply to this project we have addressed the issue. Not only has the applicant
complied with the requirements of the Ordinance but beyond to meet with the spirit of
what the Ordinance requires. Also, the proposal as outlined was worded as Wild Oaks
not making any claim to the shore land easements as a matter of common area. The exact
wording can be worked out. The developer has never intended to make that part of its
development.
Comments from the audience:
Lori Heiling, will soon live at 6298 Conroy Street, read a letter from Bill and Calina
Townsend. It is the Tovvnsends' belief the same problems exist in the revised plan and
would like to see a neighborhood of 6 single family homes.
Dave Frees, 6343 Conroy Street, lives south of the development and presented overheads
of the development for grading and tree loss. One of his concerns is for the lake access
through Conroy's Bay. l\tlr. Frees feels there has been very little change from the original
proposal and opposes the development. He also read a letter to Mr. Sander from Bill and
Calina Townsend. (l\tlr. Sander stated he never received this letter.) Mr. Frees would like
to see a contingency written on the plat that would pass with ownership to cover future
developers if RCS decides not to proceed for some reason. Planning Director Don Rye
replied you are asking the City to record something on private property where the City
would not have any standing. And further stated he was not aware of anything that would
permit the City to impose that kind of condition on property that was no longer before us.
Ted Schweich, 6436 Conroy Street, commented on the PUD; permitted uses in the R-l
District; park dedication; clarification on tree caliper and size; variances and economic
hardships. Assistant Deb Garross responded to Mr. Schweich's questions and opinions.
City Engineer Larry Anderson stated Deb Garross did properly indicate the staff
recommendation of Conroy Street extending to Shady Beach Trail. The cul-de-sac in the
middle of Conroy Street is of great concern for the department as far maintenance. Mr.
Anderson said he has never seen a cul-de-sac stop in the middle of a roadway. Cars will
have to slow down to a very low speed when they hit the gravel and the maintenance of a
gravel road. The audience insisted at the two previous hearings the road not continue to
Shady Beach Trail. The cul-de-sac should at least be constructed to the end of the plat so
it provides access to all of the residents but this is not what the developer presented to
construct.
\INO I 0896 DOC
PAGE:!
asked to pay for the cost of the Street. The east and west sides would have to be assessed
leaving the City (all residents) to pick the balance.
David Kirkland declared he was an lawyer representing 13 property owners along Conroy
Street and Greenway Avenue. His three issues were: tree cutting; slopes and variances.
He believes a stand of trees is not defined in the Ordinance and there should be a tree
inventory for trees over 4 inches. Mr. Kirkman felt the developer should not have a
variance just because he wants one. He felt the only hardship is the developer cannot get
his 23 units on the property and therefore no basis to grant a variance simply because the
developer will make more money.
Deb Garross reminded the Commission at the initial Public Hearing, Staff recommended
and also specified the tree removal and landscaping provisions were not sufficient. The
recommendation was for the Planning Commission to give specific guidance to the
applicant to provide such materials. Because there was a lack of direction by the
Planning Commission, Staff used the most recent Shoreland Regulations approved by the
City in 1993. The City has the responsibility of administrating Shoreland Regulations and
is doing so in a comparable manner which the City has done since 1987. There was no
objection by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to this development. The
role of the Planning Commission is to take the public input and combine that with what
is required in the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and
make a recommendation to the City Council.
~1r. Rye, Planning Director also responded to some of the comments made by l\tIr.
Kirkman regarding the Shoreland Ordinance: 1) The definition of a stand of trees; 2)
There is no specific requirement in the Shoreland Ordinance for a tree inventory. The
Staff took that upon themselves as part of the PUD. 3) Provisions of the section shall not
apply to permitted uses.
Tom Kearney, 6426 Conroy Street, commented on Commissioner Arnold's concern for
the tree inventory. Mr. Kearney contacted the City of Savage and inquired about their
Tree Preservation Ordinance. He is also aware the City of Prior Lake is working on an
Ordinance and is scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting.
Don Kotula, 1403 1 Greenway Avenue, would not like to see the street go through. He
feels the City is taking the developer's side.
Deb Garross responded to NIr. Kotula's remark stating Staff reviews and base
recommendations based on the Ordinances. The developer is responsible for their
project. The City is not an advocate of any particular development. Staff s job is to
review the Ordinance and application and make recommendation to the Planning
Commission and City Council.
~1N 102395 DOC
o
PAGE;
Draft 3
10/17/95
proximity to CSAH ..J2. The noise level was found to be an acceptable level according
to "The Noise Guidebook." from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. See attached Exhibit E, letter from James R. Hill, Inc.. dated September
29, 1995 for a copy of the report.
GRADING ISSUES:
CONCERN: The proposed PUD of Wild Oaks is not consistent with preservation policies of the
Comprehensive Plan related to steep slope natural features. The proposal shows the
development of townhouse units in areas of the property containing 20'% or greater.
steep slopes.
RESPONSE: The developer was requested by City Staff to improve Conroy Street and provide for its
extension to Shady Beach Trail. The street improvement is off-site and therefore cannot
be required by the City. However, the deveLoper is wiLling to make the street
improvement provided approval of 23 units is granted by the City. A reduction of units
is possible. which would eliminate the need to grade in the steep slope / wooded area of
the site. However. the developer has said he cannot improve Conroy Street. outside of
the plat. if less than 23 units are approved.
The developer provided three alternative development proposals indicating a 19 unit
townhome;20 unit townhome; and 19 lot single family development pian. All of the
alternatives' are consistent with Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements and
couid be done with minimal grading of the steep slope area, as compared to the
proposed design. The developer provided an inventory of the significant. 12" or larger.
hard wood species trees located on site. An overlay of the significant tree inventory
indicated that ail of the alternatives would require grading and large area of tree
removal due to the fact that an internal road is required to serve the property and
provide building pads. Tree loss will occur on site no matter which development
option is chosen. The developer does not propose to "clear cut" as defined by the
Zoning Ordinance, on any of the proposals. The majority of the steep slope area can be
retained utilizing one of the three alternatives however, existing tree removal will occur
as a result of grading for all of the development options.
sumMTllX.DOC
1:
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1995
The October 23, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Planning
Director Don Rye at 7:01p.m. Nlr. Rye asked the Commission to have Commissioner
Tom V onhof chair the remainder of the meeting. Present were Commissioners Criego,
Loftus, V onhof and Wuellner, ~lanning Director Don Rye, Assistant Planner Deb
Garross, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
ROLL CALL:
Loftus
Kuykendall
Vonhof
Wuellner
Criego
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
REVIE\V OF THE OCTOBER 9, 1995 JVIEETING MINUTES:
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER
9,1995 MINUTES.
Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner and Criego. Commissioner V onhof
abstained from voting. lVIOTION C"ARRIED.
1. WILD OAKS - PUBLIC HEARING for Schematic PUD, Preliminary Plat,
Rezoning, Variance and Conditional Use Permit.
The Public Hearing was called to order and a sign-up sheet was circulated.
Assistant City Planner Deb Garross gave an overview of the August 28, 1995 meeting
and presented the information in the October 23, 1995 Staff Report. An Issue Summary
was presented o~tlining concerns raised at the Public Hearing on August 28. The Issue
Summary identified options for development and extension of Conroy Street along with
positive and negative aspects associated with alternatives. It was also determined by the
City Attorney, Glenn Kessel and the Harbor Association Attorney, Peter Coyle, that a
Conditional Use Permit is not required because the developer will not construct a beach
and the subject site is not contiguous to a public lake. Therefore, the Zoning Ordinance
requirement for Conditional Use Permit does not apply.
Jim Sander, attorney for developer, Bill Hayden, stated Staff did an excellent job in
outlining the issues. Comments made at the August meeting were addressed. Mr. Sander
further explained the developer's constraints with the ordinances, neighbors' concerns
and working with the City to come up with a plan that will work. The developer would
prefer to develop 20 townhomes which would avoid building on the steep slope and save
more trees but to improve Conroy Street, additional townhomes would have to be built to
:'v1NI02J95 DOC
o
PAGEl
Draft 3
1011 7/95
from this neighborhood, and has been designed to serve the recreational needs of the
area. One option would be for the developer to provide a playground for the owners
within the Wild Oaks plat however, this option would not benefit other residents of the
neighborhood.
STORM WATER ISSUES:
CONCERN: A main concern is for the runoff of the new development and how this is going to be
managed with Savage using the wetland as well. The pond will not maintain its natural
vegetation. The other concern is to make Conroy Street a cul-de-sac as it would
maintain the existing character of the area and without planning the road carefully part
of the wetland will be lost.
RESPONSE: The stormwater system has been designed in a manner where there will be no change to
the elevation of the large wetland located on site. However, the design does allow for a
2 foot. temporary flood occurrence. There is no anticipated change to the existing
vegetation surrounding or within the large wetland. due to the proposed stormwater
plans.
See also Exhibit B, /'vtemorandum from Lani Leichty, Prior Lake Water Resource
Coordinator for additional response to this issue.
CONCER.."'J': A number of residents expressed that they want to see the wetland preserved.
RESPONSE: The wetland will be preserved and where necessary. mitigated according to the
applicable requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. In addition, storm water
ponds will be constructed to NURP standards adopted by the City of Prior Lake.
CUP - PRIVATE BE .\CH .\SSOCTA TTON ISSUE:
CONCERN: Peter Coyle, attorney for the Harbor Association addressed the Conditional Use Permit.
He feels it is not a private matter between the developments and would like the Staff
and City Attorney to review the issues to verify there is not a conflict with the private
contractual rights the Association has to the property. As he reads the legal description
attached to the Conditional Use Application, it is his impression Wilds Oaks is seeking
to establish public domain on all of the common area within the Harbor. Access to the
recreational acres should be worked out.
RESPONSE: The City of Prior Lake has no jurisdiction to regulate private easements or association
agreements. The City Attorney will review the proposal and any conditions
recommended will be attached to the Conditional Use Permit. This is not an issue
requiring actionfrom the Planning Commission other than to allow for the formation of
a back lot association concurrent with the subdivision of the property.
PRIV ATE EASEME~T ISSUE:
CONCERN:
Residents pointed out an area that was recently placed in the Torrens system and came
under the ownership of the residents on one side of the road. In the process some of the
properties who opposed the process were given a recreational easement along the lake.
Some residents heard the Association has plans to buy one of the lots that have the
recreational easement so they can use it. The Developer's Agreement or a provision of
the PCD to prohibit the Association from using the recreational easement should be
required.
Sl102.\fT1U.OOC
to
Djl~P\
· Concern from off site drainage from Savage. John Wingard: Run off from this
development will be controlled through their on NURP ponds. The City policy is to
charge a developer a storm water fee, then the City installs the system. Larry
Anderson explained the water issue from Savage. Even if the City had to raise the
road it would stay gravel. Deb Garross told the Commission the Watershed District
would be reviewing the entire drainage area and plan.
Loftus:
· Lake access - Attorney Jim Sander replied this is not be part of the townhome
association. This development stands on its own and there is not a plan to connect to
the lake. These are not common areas of development.
. intersection on road - Deb Garross suggested making it a recommendation that is
acceptable to the engineers. This is the preliminary plat.
. Supports a change to the road.
· Larry Anderson said a possible solution is to convert the cul-de-sac to a "'T"
intersection.
. Deb Garross said the 500' maximum cul-de-sac length is the common requirement in
Subdivision Ordinances and the distance is based on length of fire hose. Fire hydrant
location can be planned so the extra 60 foot cul-de-sac length is not an issue in this
case.
. Don Rye said the proposed cul-de-sac was designed consistent with the tire code.
. Harbor streets are private - should address the fire department. Deb Garross said
several residents have requested the City to take over the streets.
. When does a private street work equally as well as a public street?
. Don Rye: Basic provision in ordinance starting with it makes the same standards as a
public. In this particular case is what effectively will be the right-of-way. In any
private street it has to be determined whether that street provides adequate access to
the property.
. Applicant made a good faith effort to listen to concerns with the tree issue and save as
much as possible.
. A park available for toddlers should be provided but it is a small area.
. Not convinced a pun is the best idea but 19 single homes would result in a lot of tree
removal which is not better.
V onhof:
. Moving the NURP pond from the northwest corner to the southwest corner - how is
that going to impact the storm water runoff? Deb Garross: The NURP pond through
the recommendation of the City Engineer we did not want to maintain two small
ponds. A larger NURP pond will serve the area better than two smaller ones. It
meets all standards for storm water control.
. Final plat \vill determine the runoff. Standards state runoff will not be at a greater
rate than current exist on the property.
. Larry Anderson said this development will not create a negative impact on the storm
water system.
MNO I 0896 DOC
PAGES
Drntt 3
10117/95
TREE ISSUE:
CONCERN: Carol Scott, 6370 Conroy, is disturbed by the clear cutting and the defmition of it. The
Shore land ~lanagement Rules were promulgated by the DNR and there were some
things the City could change and some thing's that could not be changed. Mrs. Scott
suggested the City contact the DNR for their defmition of clear cutting. She objects to
a PUD that it does not have to abide by the Shore land Management Ordinance.
RESPONSE: The definition of "clear-cutting" as per Rules and Regulations Qf The Deoartment Qf
Natural Resources :\4inn. Rev NR 82 1976 Edition is the exact same deJ7nitionfound
in the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance: "Clear-cutting means the removal of an entire
stand of trees." The current DNR Rules do not contain a definition for clear cutting.
The Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance definitions have been revised to incorporate the new
shoreland regulations. The dejinition of clear-cutting as defined above, was kept as
written.
In order to address vegetation removal issues in the Shoreland District, staff
recommended the Schematic PUD include a tree inventory identifying the specific
location and specie of each significant. hardwood tree equal ro or larger than 12" in
caliper. In addition, staff recommended a specific tree preservation plan and criteria
be adopted as a condition of preliminary plat approval. The new Shore land Ordinance.
not yet approved by the DNRfor the City of Prior Lake. defines significant trees as 11.:..
or lar'lpr in calioer. The staff recommendation is consistent with the Shoreland District
standards approved by the City Council in !v(arch 1993.
CONCERN: ~. Roth's concern was the developer taking too many trees and excavation will harm
the existing trees. He would like to see 4 to 6 inch trees left as well.
RESPONSE: The City of Prior Lake does not have any tree preservation regulations in Ordinance
nor policy form and as such. and. except as negotiated under the PUD provisions, has
little legal authority to impose such restrictions on private property. An argument can
be made to identify 12" or larger caliper trees and submit development alternatives that
preserve as many as possible, based upon Council adoption of the new Shoreland
Regulations. even though DNR approval of the Ordinance has not been granted to date.
The developer is required to provide subdivision trees per Subdivision Ordinance
Section 6-7-1. The required trees per site are 79, the developer proposes to provide 89
trees which e...'Cceeds Ordinance requirements. The developer has stated he will spend at
least 5100,000 dollars on retaining walls to preserve existing trees on site.
The development plan indicates some existing trees will remain and additional trees
will be planted. As such, the developer is not clear-cutting the site according to the
definition of clear cutting adopted by the City of Prior Lake. The Significant Tree
Inventory (E.'Chibit A), indicates approximately 70.....- hardwood trees on site, in e.xcess
of /2" in caliper. The proposal indicates 23 town!!gme units, construction of Conroy
Street, as requested by Staff and removal oj 87% of the significant trees. (Keep in mind
the significant tree inventory does not include all trees on site). Alternative I indicates
20 rownhome units. no constnlction of Conroy Street and removes approximately 60%
of the significant trees on site. Alternative #1 is desired by the applicant. Alternative 2
indicates 19 rownhome units. no construction of Conroy Street and removes
approximately 8 I % of the significant trees on site. Alternative #3 indicates /9 single
family lots. no construction of Conroy Street and removes approximately 78% of the
significant trees on site.
SU01MTRX.OOC
d j - (G~
B7~
)0 f\1 - G,C. ~;~
c.~
i '1 r If II l(
i q ~P-1'~7~
D\)J~FI
Carol Scott, 6370 Conroy Street, questioned what would happen if another developer
bought the property when the permanent pad has been platted. In the past the City has
just changed the Developer's Agreement. If the City put in Item 13 would anyone have
to abide by that because it is subject to the plat? Don Rye responded that his comment
had to do with the fact ifRCS Associates Inc., never carried through with the ultimate
development, (if the PUD and plat were not approved,) the City could not require the
filing of a restrictive covenant. If the plat is approved and sold, subsequently the
condition can remain. Mrs. Scott's other concern was for the cul-de-sac in the middle of
the road. Deb Garross restated staff recommended constructing the road through to
Shady Beach Trail but the residents clearly stated they did not want the improvements.
Don Rye said another option would be to remove the cul-de-sac. Assistant Engineer John
Wingard addressed Mrs. Scott's questions on the culverts and wetlands on site as well as
the runoff from Savage. Mrs. Scott concurs with Mr. Townsend on Item 13 of the
Resolution, the developer should file documents stating they will not claim any rights to
the recreational easement or any other dedicated rights to lake access through Conroy's
Bay Subdivision.
Dean Olson, 6412 Conroy Street, stated his concern for traffic safety for his children.
Mr. Olson will talk to the Park Department with his ideas for a recreational area in the
subdivision.
Jim Sander, attorney for the developer, addressed issues of misunderstanding on the cul-
de-sac. There is no plan for six inches of concrete curbing. The engineers will solve this
and this is not an issue.
Dan Heiling, 6298 Conroy, main concern is a traffic safety issue on Conroy Street and
Shady Beach Trail.
Tom Kearney, 6424 Conroy, commented on the tree inventory and does not feel it is
accurate. He does not see any advantage of zoning the property PUD and would rather
see single family homes.
Jon Allen, 17220 Panama Avenue, stated he was speaking on behalf of a group of
residents who live adjacent to the site proposal. The biggest concern was the amount of
tree removal. He commended the developer for responding to the residents' concern and
coming back with a new plan. Mr. Allen feels the proposed grading plan will not save as
many trees. He also would like see a comparison plan for single family homes and the
impervious surface amounts. Deb Garross pointed out the trees proposed to be saved are
located outside the grading limits on the plan. She further pointed out the applicant's
landscape architect was present and he is very familiar with tree preservation planning.
The applicant in fact has met all the ordinance requirements and will exceed the
Subdivision Ordinance tree planting requirements by planting 85 trees.
Mary Ann Frees, 6346 Conroy, paraphrased a letter from Scott and Linda Roth of 6394
Conroy. They do not want the cul-de-sac, they do not want 10 feet ripped off the top and
MNO I 0896 DOC
PAGE)
Draft 3
10/17/95
OPTION 2:
IMPROVE CONROY STREET, USING CURRENT ALIGNMENT
POSITIVE
1.
Wild Oaks units can be reduced in number 1.
to retain the steep slope area and additional
trees because of the reduction in off-site
street improvement costs and resulting less
land required for wetland mitigation.
2.
Developer will be required to dedicate 1/2 2.
of the right-of-way for Conroy Street for the
preliminary plat of Wild Oaks.
3.
The City of Prior Lake would receive 3.
$17,477.25, as part of an assessment
agreement approved by the City council on
9/6/94, upon sale closing of this property
which is conditional upon an approved
preliminary plat. If the proposed
development were denied the City should
not receive such payment.
4.
A currently substandard street wiII be 4.
improved to City specifications consistent
with new development standards In the
community.
Parking space will be increased within the 5.
neighborhood.
5.
6.
There will be no setback impact to the two 6.
homes located north and south of Lot 13.
7. Provide permanen~ bituminous surface
eliminating dust and poor driving
conditions during wet and frost out periods.
8. No wetland mitigation will be required in
the vicinity of the City easement over Lot
13. Conroy's Bay.
S uo2.>,fT1lX D< x:
NEGA TIVE
City will have to obtain the south 1/2 of Conroy
Street right-of-way from the owners of lots
located south of Conroy Street or condemn
additional right-of-way.
City will have to assess all adjacent property
owners for Conroy Street improvement costs
which calls for 100(% assessment. The project
cannot sustain itself on this basis without
substantial ta,< subsidy.
Lots 1 - 13 Conroy's Bay are double frontage
lots which have already been previously assessed
for Shady Beach Trail and c::mnot be assessed
twice for the improvement of the north/south
section of Conroy Street. Due to the existence of
these double frontage lots and the large wetland
area located in the northwest quadrant, the total
project cost would exceed benefit if it were to be
100(% assessed. Therefore 43% (1230'/2830') of
the improvement costs for this stretch of Conroy
Street would have to be subsidized by tax payers
by an ad valorem tax levy.
Double frontage lots will remam following
construction for Lots I - 13. Conroy's Bay.
The poor intersection design and location of
Conroy Street and Shady Beach Trail will
remain.
It is likely the cost for improving the street in this
option will exceed the benetlt to adjacent land
owners. The result is the City. all taxpayers
within the community, will have to pay a greater
percentage of the cost associated with the road
upgrade.
6
\ - .' ,-....--
01<J-H- \
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 8, 1996
The January 8, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman
Kuykendall at 7:03 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Loftus
and V onhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Assistant Planner Deb Garross, Associate
Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
ROLL CALL:
Criego
Wuellner
V onhof
Loftus
Kuykendall
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY VONHOF TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 11,
1995 MINUTES.
Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, V oOOof, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION
CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. A SU95-02 Wild Oaks - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE
SCHEMATIC PUD, REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "WILD OAKS".
Associate Planner Deb Garross presented the Planning Report dated January 8, 1996. An
overview of her report is as follows:
The applications for Schematic PUD, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat are consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance and should
therefore be approved. (Please note, the developer presented an alternative at the October
28, 1995 public hearing indicating 19 single family lots could be developed on site
consistent with Ordinance standards. However, the development of the single family lots
would remove more significant trees, (810/0) than the proposal, (53%). The developer has
redesigned the plat layout to address concerns raised at the public hearings. The proposal
preserves more trees, reduces the amount of grading required in the steep slope area,
removes the Conroy Street extension, is not objected to by the DNR and results in a
layout which meets the requirements of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation by Staff is to adopt Resolutions 96-01 PC and 96-02PC and Ordinance
95-13 ad drafted recommending City Council approve the Schematic PUD and
Preliminary Plat of Wild Oaks.
MNO I 0896 DOC
PAGEl
Drait 3
10/17/95
OPTION 1 CONTINUED:
IMPROVE CONROY STREET, WITH WEST EXTENSION.
I
POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
7. North/south section of Conroy Street will
be vacated resulting in increasing the rear
yard of Lots 1 - 13, Conroy's Bay, getting
rid of undesirable double frontage lots.
8. Poor alignmenulocation of Conroy Street
intersection in relation to CSAH 42,
improved.
9. A currently substandard street will be
improved to City specifications consistent
with new development standards in the
community .
10 Provide a secondary access for residents
to Sand Point Beach community park and
beach.
11 The developer will work with the City
Engineer to resolve storm water drainage
issues associated with development in the
City of Savage. A developer cannot be
made legally responsible to provide for
off-5ite improvements. The developer
will provide grading, drainage swales and
easements concurrent with construction
of the Wild Oaks project.
12 This alternative is consistent with the
following City Ordinances and Policy:
. Subdivision Ordinance Section 6-6-
l(A): "The arrangement of all
streets, collectors and arterials shall
conform to the transportation section
of the City of Prior Lake
Comprehensive Plan. Except for cul-
de-sacs. streets shall connect with
existing or dedicated streets and
adjoining subdivisions or provide for
future connections to adjoining
unsubdivided tracts or shall be a
reasonable projection of streets in the
nearest subdivision. Streets shall be
designed and located in relationship
to existing and planned streets. Such
design shall minimize the negative
effect on the environment and on
public convenience and safety.
Subdivision Ordinance Section 6-6-l(K):
."The angle formed by intersections shall
be as close to 90 degrees as possible
unless unique circumstances dictate a
lesser angle."
suo:'-.rnl..'( ocx
~
Draft :;
10/17/95
RESPONSE: (Developer's Attorney to provide a written response regarding !low tire project relates
to tire private easement.)
CONCERN:
LAND USE ISSUE:
RESPONSE:
CONCERN:
RESPONSE:
CONCERN:
RESPONSE:
CONCERJ.~:
RESPONSE:
CONCERi'l:
RESPONSE:
SlJIl2.-.mu.ooc
Some residents were told by the former property owner, Wes Green. the site would be
developed with 6 single family lots.
The site is zoned R-I, Suburban Residential and S-D, Shoreland District. Single family
and duple."" units are permitted uses in the zone. There are no development plans onfile
with the City of Prior Lake indicating a 6 lot subdivision. While it may have been the
intent of the former property owner to develop 6 lots on site, he never implemented the
plan. The proposal for 23 owner occupied, duplex units is consistent with the zone and
Comprehensive Plan which indicates the subject site is located within the "Shady
Point" neighborhood "The area will be developed primari~v in low denSity residential
uses but should include some high density development particular(v along County road
42. ., (Year 2000. Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan pg 23-24).
The proposed development is too dense and some residents were concerned about
building coverage.
The R-! zone permits 3.5 units per acre + up to a 30% density bonus above and beyond
the 3.5 units per acre for PUD 's. The proposal consists of 23 townhome units. The
Zoning Ordinance permits up to 28 units on the subject site. The maximum coverage
permitted is 22%. The proposed coverage is 9% which is well under the Zoning
Ordinance coverage standard.
Single family lots would result in preservation of trees on site and be a better
development.
The development of single family homes would require a road be constructed internal~v
in order to utilize the northern part of the property. Scott County has indicated no
access will be provided to the site from CSAH 42. A single family standard subdivision
will result in more tree loss and grading than the proposal due to the fact that more
right-ol-way, increased setbacks and larger building pads would be required
Calina Townsend. moving to 6300 Conroy Street, would like to take issue with the
developer. The developer assumes most of the people buying the townhomes will be
empty nesters. She feels they will be young professionals raising children. She said the
Commission should check out the ability of the developer to fund this project. what has
he done in the past. is it possible he is going to go broke and what will happen with a
partially done project. Mr. Green always seems to end up with the property and makes
a profit. Residents did not ask for the Conroy Street improvements.
(Developer to respond to tl,is concern in writing.)
Also entered into the record was a letter from Scott County Highway Engineer, Brad
Larson, commenting on no direct access to County Road 42. concerns about
compatibility between land use and highways, complaints about noise and a request to
the developer to assess the noise impact of the roadway and take additional measures to
mitigate the problem.
The developer analy=ed the affect of noise related to the proposed development and
11
Draft 3
10/17/95
RESPONSE: The extension of Conroy Street wouLd not resuLt in a vaLuation decrease for the adjacent
two lors. According to the Scott County Assessors' Office road construction resuLting in
a corner lot, or reduction of setbacks, neither enhance nor detract from a residentiaL
home's vaLuation base. Rather, adjustments in the market vaLue of a home are based
upon property sales over a period of time.
As indicated by residents. there.JL!1!21 a lot of traffic utili=ing Conroy Street currently.
The addition of 23 townhome units will add approximateLy (184) vehicle trips per day to
Conroy Street which is considered minimaL.. There will not be a significant change in
the traffic pattern. or number of vehicles driving on Conroy Street as a result of the
proposed development.
The proposed street extension will be located totally within the City easement.. The City
has had an easement for road purposes filed over Lot 13, Conroy's Bay for 20 years.
The easement gives the City the right to constrUct a road over the land area legal(v
described in the recorded easement document. The easement was spec~fically recorded
to put land owners and future buyers on notice that a road can be built over Lot 13.
Conroy's Bay. No parr of the adjacent private lots will be encroached upon by the
street e."Ctension. There will be no reduction of yard size on either lot adjacent to Lot /3.
Conroy's Bay.
CONCE&.'\l: Rick Devine, 10401 Shady Beach Trail, agrees with Mr. Sweeney and does not want to
see a through street. There is no benetit to anyone with Conroy Street as a through
street. Would like to see a cul-de-sac constrUcted.
RESPONSE: The street extension is opposed by some neighborhood residents. However, from a
transportation planning, service delivery and ta:cpayer standpoint. the connection
benefits the community in several ways. Connecting the street upholds objectives of the
Subdivision Ordinance to interconnect neighborhoods: provides for an alternative
transportation system for local trips without having to access CS.-lH 42 a major
arterial: there is a cost savings to ta:cpayers with the through street design due to the
fact that school buses. street sweeping equipment. snow plows etc... do not have to make
unnecessary trips nor duplicate routes which are associated with cul-de-sacs. and
residents have a second access route to the Sand Point Community beach/park
comple."C.
CONCERN: Scott Roth, 6394 Conroy Street, felt there is no hardship for the variance request on the
cul-de-sac.
RESPONSE: The City Council has granted a number of cul-de-sac length variances for streets
proposed in peD's and in standard subdivisions. For e."Cample. cul-de-sac length
variances to permit public cuL-de-sacs in excess of 500' feet were granted within Knob
Hill (910' and 650' cul-de-sacs approved): Wilderness Ponds (I 040' cul-de-sac
approved): Woodridge Estates (590' cuL-de-sac approved): and The Trees (855' cul-de-
sac approved. Terrain, curvilinear street system based upon the irregular shape of lakes
within Prior Lake as well as deveLopmentflexibility to retain naturaL features within the.
community are all reasons that cuL-de-sacs have been permitted in excess of 500 '. The
Subdivision Ordinance specifies the ma:cimum length of a cuL-de-sac is 500 feet. The
developer proposes a cuL-de-sac of 586 feet. The 86' cuL-de-sac length variance
requested in this case is negligible and is required due to topographic reasons. Based
upon similar actions of the Planning Commission and City Council. the 86' length
variance is a reasonable request. The cul-de-sac will be privately maintained with no
cost to the City for providing maintenance and snow plow services.
~t:Ol.-.cTR..,,(.OOC ::
Omtl 3
10/17/95
The developer has indicated that 23 units are required in order for the project to be
financial(v feasible. The majority of the upgrade is located off of the subject site and
therefore cannot be required of the developer. Three units can be removed from the
development plan, preseMling the steep slope and wooded area of the site if the
developer does not improve Conroy Street.
PARKS ISSUE:
CONCERN: Ted Schweich. 6436 Conroy Street, stated one of his issues is the cash donation for the
park. He has smaller children who cannot walk to neighboring parks. lYlr. Schweich
feels the developer should provide a tot lot for the neighborhood. He also feels the
impervious surface coverage should be addressed. The construction of Conroy Street
will increase traffic. He realizes the land has to be developed but was told by the
owner, Wes Green, there would only be six homes constructed in the area.
RESPONSE: The Comprehensive Plan does not indicate additional park land dedication above and
beyond Sand Point Community Park and neighborhood Park which are currently
developed Other than The Harbor PUD, all development within the planning district is
single family residential with yards for private recreation purposes. Fu.rthermore. all of
the homes located south of Conroy Street are located on lake lots. It has been a policy
decision of the Park and Recreation Department not to take small pieces of land for
park dedication because they tend not to serve a community purpose. especial~v where
there is no opportunity to acquire additional land adjacent to the site. Instead. cash
dedication is preferable because it can be used for improving the existing community
park system.
The developer indicated the property would cost over. 5 million dollars to sell. The
only means for the City to acquire the parcel would be via referendum. There are
several higher priority park land acquisition and improvements which would be
considered over purchase of the subject site for park..
The owners statement not withstanding, the applicant can locate 23 units on the site
and be consistent with the density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Impervious
surface coverage is under the 30% maximum standard for the subject site and is
therefore not an issue.
CONCERN: There are not many places for children to play and the parks are too far away.
RESPONSE: One of the future needs of the Prior Lake park system are open upland areas which can
be utilized for active and athletic activities. It is the understanding of staff the City
Council no longer desire to accept wetlands or steep slopes for park dedication. Due to
the wetlands, topography, and size limitations of the Wild Oaks site. it would be very
difficult to develop a beneficial play field or park on site. For these reasons. Parks and
Recreation Director, Paul Hokeness does not feel the subject site is a good candidate-
for park development and the City should accept a cash dedication over a land
dedication for public parks.
Although ,Hr. Hokeness can appreciate the concerns of parents with small children and
the proximity of a neighborhood park, it is not practical for the City to provide a tot-lot
in every neighborhood Unforrunate(v. the City of Prior Lake does not have the
financial. staff nor equipment resources to develop or maintain small tot-lots within
walking distance of all neighborhoods. Sand Point Park is located less than one mile
SUII1MTllX.;)oc
9
TO:
Deb Garross
FRO N1:
Paul Hokeness
DATE:
10/9/95
SUBJECT:
\Vild Oaks Park Dedication
ONE OF THE FUTURE "NEEDS OF THE PRlOR LAKE PARK SYSTEyl ARE OPE)I UPLAND AREAS
WHICH CAN BE UTILIZED FOR ACTIVE AND ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES. IT WAS \llY
UNDERSTANDING THA. T THE CITY NO LONGER WISHES TO ACCEPT \VETLANDS OR STEEP
SLOPES FOR PARK DEDICA TION. DUE TO THE WETLANDS. TOPOGRA.PHY. AND SIZE
LIMITATIONS OF THE \\I1LD OAK'S SITE IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP A
BENEFICIAL PLA YFIELD OR PARK. FOR THESE REASONS I WOULD SA Y THAT THIS
PARCEL IS NOT A GOOD SITE FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT AND THAT THE CITY ACCEPT THE
CASH IN LIEU OF A LAND DEDICATION.
I CAN APPRECIATE THE CONCER...'\lS OF PARENTS WITH S~tALL CHILDREN .-\ND THE
PROXINlITY OF A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK, BUT IT IS NOT PR..-\CTICAL TO THINK THAT THE
CITY COULD PROVIDE A TOT.LOT IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD. \VE DO NOT HA VE THE
RESOURCES TO DEVELOP OR y!AINTAIN SNlALL TOT.LOTS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE
OF ALL OF OUR COMJ\tllJNITIES CHILDREN. IN THIS INSTANCE SAND POfNT PARK IS LESS
THAN ONE yIILE FROM THIS DEVELOP~[ENT SITE AND IS DESIGNED TO SERVE THE
RECREA TIONAL NEEDS OF THE ADULTS AND CHILDREN IN THIS AREA.
AS AN OPTION THE DEVELOPER COULD PROVIDE A PL-\ YGROlJND FOR THE OWNERS
WITHIN THE DEVELOP~IENT.
16200 Eagle CreeK .:;\,'e. S.~.. P:-:or L.~ke. \rlinnesora S5372-171~ ' ?~. 612~ ~~ -; -4230 / Fax (612) -1-4'7-4245
-\;--. ~':::L..l.L~por::R~'_~;C' :::>1?'_.:>:::?
Draft J
10/17/95
OPTION 3:
IMPROVE CONROY STREET, WITH CUL-DE-SAC
POSITIVE
1.
On-street parking will be increased within 1.
the neighborhood.
Provide permanent, bituminous surface for 2.
the east part of Conroy Street, eliminating
dust and poor driving conditions during wet
and frost out periods.
2.
3.
There will be no setback impact to the two 3.
homes located north and south of Lot 13.
4.
No wetland mitigation will be required In 4.
the vicinity of Lot 13, Conroy's Bay.
Developer will dedicate l/2 of right-of-way 5.
for Conroy Street improvement.
5.
6.
The steep slope area and additional existing 6.
trees can be retained on the Wild Oaks site
due to elimination of road improvement
costs outside of the boundaries of the plat.
7.
The poor intersection design and location of 7.
Conroy Street and Shady Beach Trail will
remain.
This alternative IS supported by some 8.
neighborhood residents.
8.
9.
Elimination of the north/south section of 9.
Conroy Street will get rid of the double
frontage lots currently existing along the
gravel street section.
10.
The Cicy of Prior Lake would receive 10.
517,477.25. as part of an assessment
agreement approved by the Cicy Council on
9/6/94, upon sale closing of this property
which is conditional upon an approved
preliminary plat. If the proposed
development were denied the City would
not receive such payment.
11.
SUtl1.\O"lU.::XX:
NEGATIVE
There may be setback impacts to the homes
adjacent to the future r-o-w for the cul-de-sac.
Double frontage lots (Lots 1-13. Conroy's Bay)
will remain with east frontage on a gravel road.
Regrading of the north/south section of Conroy
Street will not be done by the developer because
it is off-site or will have to be paid for by the
City of Prior Lake.
Storm water problems associated with
Watershed District to be resolved by Cicy at
ta:<payer expense.
Storm water drainage will not be addressed for
the lots in Conroy's' Bay.
The ability of residents to access Sand Point
Beach is compromised by the elimination of
through access between the neighborhoods.
The City will violate its own Subdivision
Ordinance by creating a (1,300 foot). cul-de-sac
in excess of the 500 foot ma'<:imum standard and
thereby potentially threaten the health safety and
general welfare of the community.
The Cicy costs for maintaining a long cul-de-sac
versus a through street are higher due to
duplication of routes.
The delivery of public services related to school
bus. emergency vehicles. postal as well as
private services such as garbage pick-up. are
compromised by the elimination of through
access.
The City will still have to maintain the
northisouth section of Conroy Street because it
is a public street. The result of this option is to
create two, long, cul-de-sacs which do not
conform to Subdivision Ordinance
requirements.
The Cicy will violate its own Subdivision
Ordinance and policy regarding connecting
neighborhoods. In the event a cul-de-sac is
approved, the City will, for the first time, close
off an existing street access between
neighborhoods.
11.
Cicy will have to obtain the south 1,2 of Conroy
Street right-of-way from the individual lot
owners south of Conroy Street, and additional
r-o-w for the cul-de-sac which cause
encroachment onto private property.
7
Resolution 95-22PC:
and C-l, Conservation to PUD 9-95.
Resolution recommending the City Council approve the preliminary
plat of Wild Oaks subject to conditions.
Resolution recommending the City Council approve the 86' cul-de-
sac length variance for Wild Oaks Terrace.
Resolution recommending the City Council approve the CUP to
allow a private back lot association to be formed as part of Wild
Oaks PUD.
Resolution 95-23PC:
Resolution 95-24 PC:
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission should review the proposal according to the policies and requirements
specifically identified in the Year :WOO Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Ordinance. These documents provide the basis for which specific facts and findings as well as
approval/denial or conditional approval should be made. The Planning Commission should also
be careful to review the proposal from a community wide perspective, related to transportation
systems, land use, and development standards as well as consider unique characteristics of the
neighborhood.
There are many perspectives and ideas related to how land should develop depending upon
whether you are a citizen, developer, tax payer, neighbor, child, etc... All of the various
perspectives present themselves during the public hearing process. The Planning Commission
must understand the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances and their respective definitions,
policies and regulations dictate what a land owner and/or developer must adhere to as well as the
criteria the Planning Commission must base its decisions upon. The approved ordinances
provide the framework for decision making, not individual preferences.
The major issue associated with the project appears to be whether or not Conroy Street should be
extended through to Shady Beach Trail. The Issue Summary provides three options regarding
Conroy Street and the positive and negative aspects associated with each alternative. The
developer would rather not extend Conroy Street because he will incur 100% of the off-site
improvement cost. The developer desires to construct a minimum of 20 townhome units which
can be done while preserving the largest amount of significant trees and with minimal grading in
the steep slope areas.
The proposal includes the extension of Conroy Street because Staff requested the developer to do
so. The rationale for extending Conroy Street is found under Option 1 of the attached Issue
Summary. The developer stated that 23 units are required in order to support the additional costs
of improving Conroy Street, off-site. This option requires more grading and tree loss than the 20
unit townhome option however, the City and neighborhood get a free street. curb and gutter
along with additional parking and storm water control. The Planning Commission needs to
evaluate the positive and negative aspects of both alternatives and make a recommendation to the
City Council based upon facts and findings related to specific Comprehensive Plan policies c1nd
regulations found in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
"S C02?! ..
:2
Drat! 3
10/17/95
OPTION 1 CONTINUED:
IMPROVE CONROY STREET, WITH WEST EXTENSION.
POSITIVE
12. . Subdivision Ordinance Section 6-6-
4(D): "Double frontage lots shall be
avoided except where lots back on an
arterial or co Hector street."
NEGATIVE
. The City acquired the easement for
street and utility purposes in 1975.
The acquisition of the easement
clearly indicates the intention of the
City to construct the street connection
over the land area legally described in
the easement document. The
easement has been on file with the
Scott County Recorder's Office for
approximately 20 years.
13. Developer proposes to construct a larger
roadway/cul-de-sac within the plat than
the Ordinance requires, to accommodate
emergency and public safety equipment.
14. The City of Prior Lake would receive
S 17,477.25, as part of an assessment
agreement approved by the City Council
on 9/6/94. upon sale closing of this
property which is conditional upon an
approved preliminary plat. If the proposed
development were denied the City would
not receive such payment.
,1:n;MT1l..'(:;XX:
requirement is applied to the raw land value, the cash dedication for the subdivision is determined to be
$13,452. [11.21 (acres) x S 12,000 (raw land value per acre) = 134,520 x 100/0 = S 13,452]
FINANCE ASSESS/vIENT/FEE REVIEW.'
See Exhibit F, memorandum from Finance Director Ralph Teschner dated July 13, 1995 for reference to
this issue.
ENGINEERING REVIEW'
See Exhibit G, memorandum from Engineering Technician IV, Jeffrey T. Evens dated August 18, 1995
for reference to this issue.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the Resolutions and recommend approval of the Ordinance as drafted or with specific
changes directed by the Planning Commission.
2. Table or continue the public hearings to a date and time certain and provide the developer with a
detailed list of items or information to be provided for future Planning Commission review.
3. Deny the app lications for specific fmdings of fact.
RECOMMENDA TION:
Alternative #2.
ACTION REOUffiED:
A motion to table the applications until such a time as all of the information requested by staff and the
Planning Commission is received. A motion to table the applications will require staff to re notify property
owners and republish the public hearing notices.
The applications for PUD and CUP are Zoning issues and under MN Statutes, the City of Prior Lake must
render a decision on the two applications prior to October 3, 1995, unless the City extends the completion
date prior to that date.
"SU02PC'
8
Drollt :
10/17/95
The following pages indicate the positive and negative impacts associated with three development
scenarios for Conroy Street.
1. Improve Conroy Street, with west extension as proposed and recommended by staff.
2. Improve Conroy Street with current alignment.
3. Improve Conroy Street with Cul-de-sac.
OPTION 1:
IMPROVE CONROY STREET, WITH WEST EXTENSION.
POSITIVE
1.
Developer will install 1000/0 of the street,
curb and gutter at no cost to adjacent
property owners nor City.
The upgrade of a gravel street to
bituminous street with curb and gutter will
increase property values for adjacent lots.
The installation of storm sewer will
mmlmlze drainage problems in the
neighborhood.
..,
Provide permanent, bituminous surface
eliminating dust and poor driving
conditions during wet and frost out
periods.
Provide 30' street width - parking on I
side increasing parking spaces w/in
neighborhood.
Decrease City maintenance costs,
associated with continual upgrade of
gravel street.
Continues street connection between
Conroy's Bay and Shady Beach
neighborhoods.
Improved service delivery to residents.
save tax dollars by elimination of
duplicative trips for postal. school bus.
street sweeping, snow plowing etc...
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sl:02MT1l.."l:D<X:
NEGATIVE
1.
The deck on combined Lots 10, 11, and 12,
Conroy's Bay will have a non-conforming front
yard setback of approximately 12 feet. The home
on Lot 14, Conroy's Bay will have a non-
conforming setback of 15 feet. (The platform
located on Lot 14 IS not subject to setback
requirements according to the Zoning Ordinance.
Please note, similar setbacks have been approved
by the Planning Commission within the
community. The setbacks will approximate the
existing front yard setback of the structures on
6430 and 6436 Conroy Street. There will appear
to be a larger setback due to the fact that about
10' on each side of the curb will be sodded
boulevard.
Some neighborhood residents oppose this option.
..,
provide additional detail related to the location of all significant hardwood species trees over 12" in
diameter. The trees should be located on the proposed grading plan to determine whether the limits of
grading will impact the root structure of the existing trees. Because a large number of significant trees are
Oak, specific preservation measures should be required as a condition of preliminary plat approval. The
developer should also be requested to provide alternative site designs that do not propose grading within
the 20% steep slope areas of the plat. Staff believes more trees could be saved if the developer considered
alternate building design and/or numbers of attached units; shortening the cul-de-sac and providing for
some units to directly access Greenway A venue and/or Conroy Street; reconfiguring units; or considering
20' instead of 25'. front yard setbacks and 15' instead of 25' building separation, which are comparable to
the setbacks for townhome units in Sterling NOl1h and South plats of The Wilds PUD. Staff encourages the
developer to retain existing trees rather than replanting the site. The Planning Commission should note
there is no requirement to retain trees with the exception of the no clear cutting provision of the Zoning
Ordinance. Because the application is for PUD, the City can require a higher standard of tree preservation.
Approval of the preliminary plat should be subject to submittal of a revised planting plan, consistent with
the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance and indicating an emphasis to retain rather than replant trees.
In addition, proposed preservation techniques and map indicating the location of significant hard wood
trees on site should be required. See Exhibit A. for a copy of proposed preservation standards.
A major issue associated with the preliminary plat concerns storm water run-off and control. The subject
site as well as part of the City of Savage. located directly north of the site, are located in the Prior Lake-
Spring Lake Watershed District. The City of Savage has approved two large subdivisions which will be
developed north of CR. 42, adjacent to Wild Oaks. A large land area to the north of the subject site has
been approved by Savage and the Watershed District, to discharge into the wetland located on the west 1/3
of the subject site. The storm water from the area nOl1h of CR. 42 currently flows through the wetland on
the subject site. The same amount of water will continue to flow through the wetland from the City of
Savage after development. Although the amount of water is large, the City of Savage and Watershed
District will install retention ponds and storm water pipes and culverts to slow the rate of runoff.
In addition to improvements that will be made north of CR. 42, the developer of Wild Oaks will construct
storm water improvements on site and in Conroy Street that will result in decreasing the rate at which the
water flows from the north, through the subject site, and ultimately into Prior Lake. Due to the storm water
impacts, the City Engineer requested the developer to provide a large easement over the wetland as well as
to construct a series of storm water ponds on site to accommodate additional ponding. Additional culverts
and raising the elevation of Conroy Street will be required in order to implement storm water management
plans for the subject site and adjacent properties. The timing of the proposed preliminary plat is good
because storm water improvements can be constructed concurrent with development to the north. In
addition, the developer has agreed to construct Conroy Street and improve the current gravel section to a
permanent road with curb, gutter and storm drains. The improvement of Conroy Street is an integral
component in controlling storm water and erosion on and off site as well as into the lake of Prior Lake.
Access to the subject site will be via Conroy Street to a proposed private cul-de-sac within the PUD. The
private cul-de-sac will be improved to City standards however, there will not be a requirement to dedicate
additional right-of-way. Instead, the developer will provide separate easements for utility and drainage
purposes over part of the common property within the development. Similar private streets have been
approved in the PUD of The Wilds. In addition to the internal street system, the developer was requested
to upgrade the east and south sections of Conroy Street from a gravel to bituminous surface with curb,
gutter and storm sewer improvements. The preliminary plat of Wild Oaks includes plans and specifications
for the construction of Conroy Street which will be paid for by the developer, saving approximately 22 lot
owners assessment costs for the upgrade.
The City of Prior Lake has a perpetual easement for public roadway, sanitary sewer, watermain, storm
drains and utility purposes over a 20' drive and Lot 13, Conroy's Bay which was acquired in 1975. See
Exhibit E for a copy of the perpetual easements. The developer was requested by the City Engineer to
construct the road connection between Conroy Street and Shady Beach Trail concurrent with the
'.SU02PC"
6
Draft 3
10/17/95
WILD OAKS PUD - PRELIMINARY PLAT
ISSUE SUMMARY
The purpose of this document is to provide a written response to issues raised at the August 28, 1995
public hearings for the project "Wild Oaks." The issues are presented as per discussion and minutes from
the public hearings. The concerns were taken from the Planning Commission minutes of the public
hearings. The responses were prepared based upon information submitted by the developer and staff,
(Development Review Committee), research and analysis.
ISSUE 1 - RECONSTRUCTION OF CONROY STREET:
Conroy Street is currently an unimproved gravel road connecting Shady Beach Trail to Greenway A venue.
Current problems associated with gravel on Conroy Street include dust, no method to control surface water
runoff, narrow road section, high cost for City manpower/equipment time associated with maintaining
driving surface, and poor driving conditions result during wet and frost-out periods.
CONROY STREET EXTENSION - CUL-DE-SAC ISSUE:
The following issues and concerns were discussed at the public hearing regarding road issues:
CONCERN: Mr. Krier stated that City Staff requested the developer to prepare plans for the
extension of Conroy Street. The developer is willing to construct the Conroy Street
extension at no cost to the City nor adjacent residents provided 23 units are approved
for the project. The developer requests that a decision be made so they can proceed with
plan preparation.
RESPONSE: The e..-ctension of Conroy Street has been planned since 19ij when the easement for
road. utility and drainage purposes was acquired over Lot 13. Conroy's Bay. and filed
with the Scott County Recorder's Office. The Subdivision Ordinance calls for the
interconnection of streets through neighborhoods. Conroy Street is already connected
to Shady Beach Trail at a poorly designed intersection located too close to CSAH oJ2.
The plan is to close the northerly connection of Conroy Street to Shady Beach Trail and
vacate the north/south section then provide for the connection across Lot /3. Conroy's
Bay. The interconnection is required in order to create the best local street design and
function available in a neighborhood which was platted and developed prior to
annexation into Prior Lake.
CONCERN: Ed Reese, 6520 Harbor View Circle, invited the Commissioners to come out and see the
area. The area has limited parking space and narrow streets. He would like the
Commissioners to take a closer look at the capabilities.
RESPONSE: As indicated by residents. existing Conroy Street is a narrow, gravel street which has
limited traffic and on-street parking. Conroy Street as well as Shady Beach Trail were
annexed to the City of Prior Lake in /973 via the consolidation of Eagle Creek
Township. As such, the roads are not improved to the width. construction nor design
standards of the Prior Lake Subdivision Ordinance. In 197j the City acquired an
easement over Lot 13, Conroy's Bay in order to provide for a future extension of
Conroy Street to Shady Beach Trail. The proposed upgrade of Conroy Street would.
result in a 30' wide street with parking on 1 side, relieving the narrow street and limited
parking issues.
CONCERN: rvfike Sweeney. lives on Lot 10, 11 and 12, Conroy's Bay, addressed the surfacing of
Conroy Street. He feels constructing a cul-de-sac would be the better alternative as
there are not enough people using the road at the present time. Constructing the street is
under 15 feet from his deck as well as his neighbor's. It would eliminate huge portions
of their lots reducing their property values. Mr. Sweeney suggests tabling the matter.
~U01.vrR.X.OOC
The proposed PUD of Wild Oaks is not consistent with preservation policies of the Comprehensive Plan
related to steep slope natural features. The proposal shows the development of townhome units in areas of
the property containing 20% or greater, steep slopes. A major objective of the Prior Lake PUD regulations
are to preserve existing natural features. Design flexibility and density bonuses are allowed via the PUD
process in order to accomplish maximum preservation. A second issue, although not a natural feature
defined by the Comprehensive plan, concerns tree removal on site. In order to address potential clear
cutting issues of the Shore land District, the Schematic PUD should include a tree inventory identifying the
specific location and specie of each significant, hardwood tree equal to or larger than 12" in caliper. A
preservation plan indicating the proposed method to protect significant trees on site and during
construction should be included with the PUD proposal and/or preliminary plat. The developer should be
requested to provide alternatives indicating the preservation of the steep slope area in its natural state and
showing how the road and townhome configuration can be designed to preserve the maximum number of
significant hardwood trees on site.
PRELIMINARY PLAT. VARIANCE. CUP REVIEW:
The preliminary plat of Wild Oaks indicates a proposal to develop the site with 23 units of attached
housing. Eight separate townhome units are proposed consisting of 2 to 4 units each. The preliminary
plat also indicates a proposed 32' wide, private street (Wild Oaks Terrace). Parking will be limited to one
side of the private street only. The developer requests approval of a variance to allow the cul.de-sac to be
586' in length instead of the Subdivision Ordinance maximum of 500'. The Ordinance includes a
provision to allow the Council to grant deviations from the standards under unique circumstances and
unusual topography. Staff is not opposed to granting an 86' cul-de-sac length variance for preliminary plat
approval. Resolution 95.23PC provides for the approval of the cul-de-sac length variance as requested. In
addition, the developer proposes to create a back lot association and requests approval of a CUP to do so.
There are 6 boat slips available in the private marina located adjacent to The Harbor PUD 7-76 that are
available for use by property owners of the subject site. In addition, The Harbor Homeowners Association
may grant certain, specified use rights to its recreational amenities to owners of property in Wild Oaks
PUD. Staff recommends the CUP be approved to allow for the formation of a back lot association
concurrent with the subdivision of Wild Oaks. Resolution 95-24PC outlines the recommended CUP
approval for the back lot association. The Planning Commission should note that the boat slips and any
access to recreational amenities in The Harbor POO constitute a private agreement between the Wild Oaks
Homeowners Association and The Harbor Homeowners Association. The DNR has advised staff there will
be no additional boat slips granted to The Harbor private marina above and beyond those existing to date.
The proposal is consistent with provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance related to PUD
developments and Shoreland regulations. The wetland located on the west 1/3 of the site is located in the
flood plain of Prior Lake and as such any grading or construction done below elevation 909.3 will be
subject to the Flood plain Ordinance. The proposed preliminary plat indicates a 30' setback from the 100
year flood elevation of the wetland which is consistent with Subdivision Ordinance requirements.
The following table indicates the requirements for a standard subdivision in the R-l, Suburban Residential
Zoning District and the proposed PUD standards for Wild Oaks:
"SC02PC"
4
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the Resolutions and recommend approval of the Ordinance as drafted or with
specific changes directed by the Planning Commission.
2. Deny the applications for specific findings of fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative # 1 .
ACTION REQUIRED:
A separate motion to recommend the City Council approve the attached resolutions and
Ordinance as presented or with specific changes directed by the Planning Commission.
The applications for PUD and CUP are Zoning issues and under lVfN Statutes. the City of Prior
Lake must render a decision on the two applications prior to December 2, 1995, unless the City
extends the completion date prior to that date.
NEW MATERIALS:
Alternative # 1..............20 Unit Townhome Development
Alternative #2..............19 Unit Townhome Development
Alternative #3..............19 Single Family Lots
Wild Oaks Brochure
County Road 42 Traffic Noise Analysis
Substantial Tree Inventory
'.SU02P \..
3
REVIEW PROCESS:
The proposed PUD and Rezoning are interrelated and should be considered together. The
Schematic/Preliminary PUD sets forth the concept land use and development pattern for the project. In
this case, the developer proposes a cluster development consisting of a variety of townhome styles for the
subject site. The rezoning is integral to the PUD because it will create a PUD overlay zone which will
specify the special standards and conditions under which the property may develop. Draft Resolution 95-
21 PC outlines the standards and conditions for approval of the SchematiclPreliminary PUD of Wild Oaks.
Draft Ordinance 95-13 provides for the creation of the overlay zone for PUD 9-95, Wild Oaks.
The preliminary plat of Wild Oaks, proposed cul-de-sac length variance and CUP, are interrelated to the
platting of the property and should all be considered together. Subdivision Ordinance 87-10 identifies all of
the components required for a preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is the legal document identifying the
proposed lot locations, areas and dimensions, road location, storm sewer, grading, location and grade of
sewer and water as well as proposed tree planting. Once preliminary plat approval is granted by the City
Council, the property owner has a vested interest in the plat. For one year following preliminary plat
approval, no ordinance amendment shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot
layout, dedication required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat.
The 86' cul-de-sac length variance is required at the time of subdivision because it is a request for a
deviation from the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance. The CUP to permit a private back lot
association is required via the Zoning Ordinance, at the time of subdivision in order to review any
proposed improvements to the land and proposed restrictive covenants and/or homeowner association
documents. Draft Resolution 95-22PC outlines the conditions for approval of the preliminary plat of Wild
Oaks. Draft Resolution 95-23 PC provides for a variance as per Section 6-9-1 of the Subdivision
Ordinance to allow a cul-de-sac longer than 500 feet. Draft Resolution 95-24PC provides for a CUP,
according to Section 4.1 H & I, of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a private back lot association to be
formed in association with the PUD of Wild Oaks.
SITE ANALYSIS:
The subject site consists of approximately 13.82 acres and is located north of Conroy Street. The site is
surrounded by single family housing to the east. south and west and CR. 42 to the north. The Year 2000
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, designates the east part of the site as Low Density Residential and Natural
Open Space over the west 1/3 of the site. The majority of the site is zoned R-l, Suburban Residential. The
west approximately 1/3 of the site is zoned C-l, Conservation which is retlective of the wetland located on
site. The entire parcel is located within the S-D, Shoreland District. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designation and Zoning of the site are consistent. The Zoning Ordinance permits PUD's within the
aforementioned zones.
The site contains three natural features, (identified by Policies 1 and 5 of the Natural Features chapter in
the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan), consisting of a large wetland on the west 1/3 of the parcel, a smaller
wetland on the southeast part of the site and a steep slope area located adjacent to the southeast wetland.
The two wetlands consist of approximately 4+- acres of the 13.82 acre parcel. In addition to the natural
features identified by the Comprehensive Plan, the east 2/3 of the site is wooded with substantial hardwood
species trees consisting of Oak, Ash, Cedar, and Elm, in the vicinity of 12-30" in diameter. Due to the
location of the site within the S-D, Shoreland District, clear cutting of trees and vegetation is prohibited.
However, selected removal and replanting of trees and vegetation is permitted. The Planning Commission
should note. tbe Zoning Ordinance detinition of clear cutting is "The removal of an entire stand of trees."
SCHEMATIC/PRELIlVIINARY PUD AND REZONING PROPOSAL:
The Schematic:Preliminary PUD consists of map(s) and documents which identify the location and
parameters of a proposed development. The SchematiclPreliminary PUD is by design. a concept proposal
indicating the general land uses and access for a development. In order to implement a PUD, an ordinance
must be adopted to identify the location of a PUD zone. Proposed Ordinance 95-13 is attached for this
"SC02PC"
2
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
PLANNING REPORT
1
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE
SCHEl\tIATIC PUD A1~ PRELIlVIINARY PLAT OF
WILD OAKS, REZONING, CONDITIONAL USE
PER1"IIT Al'fD V ARIA1~CE.
13 4~CRES LOC~-\TED NORTH OF CONROY STREET
DEB GARROSS, ASSIST.~~T CITY PL.A-~~ER
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
OCTOBER 23, 1995
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this meeting is to consider discussion of the Schematic PUD~ preliminary plat.
CUP, variance and rezoning applications for RCS Associates Inc. represented by William
Hayden. Specifically, the discussion is related to continuation of public hearings for the project
known as Wild Oaks. Please refer to your agenda packets from the August 28. 1995 Planning
Commission meeting for detail related to the various public hearings and proposed development.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission heard testimony and held discussions related to the various
applications on August 28, 1995. The Planning Commission made no specific recommendations
related to the request and tabled the public hearings. Staff reviewed the approved minutes from
the August 28, 1995 meeting and prepared the attached Issue Summary report. The Issue
Summary attempts to identify the specific concerns raised at the initial public hearings and
provides responses developed by the applicant and staff.
The Planning Commission should review the Issue Summary in detail along with the Planning
Report and exhibits in order to act on the following five distinct applications:
Schematic/Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD), Rezoning, Preliminary Plat. Variance
and Conditional Use Permit (CUP), for the project known as "Wild Oaks." The five applications
are being considered contemporaneously because of the interrelationship of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances related to the development proposal. However, it is necessary to
distinguish between the applications in the review process since each application is a separate
issue. A separate motion in the form of a recommendation to the City Council, will be required
for each application. To assist the Planning Commission and facilitate the public hearing process,
the copies of the following Resolutions and Ordinance are attached to this agenda packet:
Resolution 95-21 PC:
Ordinance 95-13:
Resolution recommending the City Council approve the
Schematic/Preliminary PUD for Wild Oaks to allow a cluster,
townhome development with a private street on the easterly 8 acres
of the subject site.
Ordinance rezoning the subject site from R-l, Suburban Residential
16200 E"SL'l"p'~' . 'I.. - E p' L k "I' --,..l-') 1-1J. / Ph '61'/\ 1..1- 1"'"'0 / F '6' '), "..1- 4'),1-
.asr~ c.:.::-eek ."",\\,e.:', " ;lor ~ e. . mnesota ::>:J~/_- I. , . I, _, -r. I -"'T_~ / 3X: 1._; ~/. 1- _"+0
~.:\ =:.JLAL:P9CR71_>.i7':' =::-'lF~'J~~~
~
!
~ ~.
:t. r~
...... -
: rJ ;. -10. ~
~ "4.- ~
~ ~ ~ ~l\
~ c... '< )
\NO ~ J',
~ ~ ~ ~-
~ I I ~
\n
\P
l
~
e
/
/
.--'
--
--
.:!
l-
,.....
..._~
oJ
1.-
:.:'
, -,
01
--- -~-
- - -:::..;::...-- -
-- - - ::.:::-.-----
-- --::.-====:.::;::: ~ --:.... - -.. I ~- r-I 1\ .....-i. ~
- - -- - -r- I I
----::..:----=--- - - - ----,- I "J I I 'Jr' ,
---- - ~ - - -r- I -- _ -< a , I
------- - r- I I l--- 14,
--:::::: --= - - --r- - I I I
'--- ':::'---1 I
r ___ ___I .
~ J.-- I
/ ~,
-
/'
--/
development of the PUD. The road connection is desired by the City in order to correct poor plat and road
design, (the double frontage lots, Lots 3-9 and Lot 12, Conroy's Bay), created by another government
jurisdiction, prior to annexation of Section 30 to the City of Prior Lake in the early 1970's. Once Conroy
Street is connected to Shady Beach Trail, the northerly gravel section of Conroy Street will be abandoned,
graded and turf will be established. Staff proposes the City vacate the northerly road right-of-way but
retain appropriate easements for utility and drainage and storm water purposes only. Once vacated, half of
the right-of-way will revert to the subject site and the other half will revert to the adjacent lot owners. The
result will increase the lot size and area for the aforementioned lots providing a larger building envelope
and better living environment for the homeowners.
In order to make the physical connection, the developer will be responsible to prepare the required wetland
mitigation measures for the extension of Conroy Street. 20', dedicated road and 50', Lot 13, Conroy's The
lots on either side of the future road connection have been developed with single family homes and issued
building permits by the City of Prior Lake. See Exhibits C and 0 for a copy of the surveys for the
structures approved adjacent to the right-of-way easement area. The property located north of the right-of-
way contains a home and deck located 13' from the south property line. The home located south of the
right-of-way was granted a building permit for the single family home to be located 10' from the north
property line. Staff believes a deck was added to the strUcmre which encroaches into the right-of way.
There is no record of a building permit for the existing deck on file at City Hall. The City issued building
permits allowing the structures to the north and south to be located less than 25' from the respective
property lines.
There is approximately 70' of right-of-way, controlled by the City, via easements. The street connection
will be built to City standards and be approximately 36' wide. A concept rendering, (Exhibit B) was
prepared indicating an alternative to locate Conroy Street centered in the right-of-way. The Planning
Commission should be advised the street location has not been determined at this time. Exhibit B is
provided for illustrative purposes only. Although the stnlctures to the north and south do not meet the 25'
front yard setback requirement, there could be up to 30' of grass area between the curb and deck located on
the north property and up to 27' of grass area between the curb and approved single family home located
on the property to the south. This assumption is based upon the concept of the road being centered within
the right-of-way. In the event the road is relocated, the resulting setbacks will change. Staff would
recommend the City grant a Zoning Certificate to each of the affected properties indicating that the
respective setbacks are legally non-conforming. The Zoning Certificates would assure future buyers,
mortgage companies etc... of the legal non-conforming status of each structure. An alternative to the
Zoning Certificate would be to consider variance applications for each property in order to indicate on the
record, that the setbacks are known to and approved by the City of Prior Lake.
The grading plan indicates removal of approximately 10' of dirt in the vicinity of the cul-de-sac and up to
14' will be removed from the knob located northeast of unit 4. Retaining walls are proposed adjacent to
the southeast wetland and north of units 10 - 13. The 20% steep slope natural feature is proposed to be
graded to provide building pads for units 18 - 23. The proposal is to install a retaining wall adjacent to the
wetland and grade the rear yard with a downhill slope to the retaining wall. The applicant did not field
verify the topography on site. Staff believes the topography may be off several feet which severely
impacts the grading plan, tree preservation, building pad elevations and drainage patterns on site. The
developer should be required to field verify existing topography and provide a revised grading plan for the
preliminary plat. No grading should be proposed in the vicinity of slopes equal to or in excess of 20%.
Staff is also concerned about utilizing a retaining wall at the bottom of a slope. The applicant should
address safety issues related to such a proposal such as: how will future residents be protected from falling
off of the retaining wall; how wi II turf be maintained in the vicinity of the retaining walls, etc.
P4.RK .4.NA LYSIS:
The park dedication requirement for Wild Oaks PUD will be a cash dedication due to the small size of the
subdivision. The cash dedication is based on a raw land value of S 12,000 per acre. Applying that figure to
the total acres, there is a raw land value established at S 134,520. When the 10% park dedication
"SU02PC"
i
Plan they have modeled a 36" RCP under County Road 42, which restricts the flow from Savage
to Prior Lake to 65 cfs. It is the City of Savage's responsibility to install an orifice plate in the
existing 42" RCP so as to simulate a 36" RCP as they have modeled. The City of Prior Lake and
the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District should request that Savage install the 36" orifice
plate within the existing 42" RCP as a condition for approval of the new development in Section
19 in Savage.
The existing 3.5 acre wetland on the west end of the property drains to Prior Lake under the
existing gravel road. The City of Prior Lake will review the design of the storm sewer that will
be required to be installed under Conroy Street. The developer of Wild Oaks will construct
storm water improvements on site and in Conroy Street that will result in decreasing the rate at
which the water flows from the north, through the subject site, and ultimately into Prior Lake.
Due to the storm water impacts, the City Engineer requested the developer to provide a large
easement over the wetland as well as to construct a series of storm water ponds on site to
accommodate additional ponding. Additional culverts and raising the elevation of Conroy Street
will be required in order to implement storm water management plans for the subject site and
adjacent properties. The timing of the proposed preliminary plat is good because storm water
improvements can be constructed concurrent with development to the north.
The upgrading of part of Conroy Street will help to improve the water quality of Prior Lake and
the Conroy wetland by partially eliminating the erosion of a gravel street. The minimum lowest
entry level of all proposed buildings shall be 3' above the 100 year HWL for the large wetland.
Per Ordinance 94-0 I, a minimum of 30' setback from the HWL to all building pad or house
locations is required. Storm sewer easements will be required for all proposed storm sewer to be
installed. Per City Ordinance, a minimum of 20' easement is required centered over the
proposed pipe. Access must be provided to all N.U.R.P. ponds for maintenance purposes.
Easements and an appropriate roadway to all ponds are required. The storm sewer catch basin
manhole directly upstream of the N.U.R.P. pond shall be an environmental sump manhole.
There is an existing wetland located in the southeast corner of this site. Two existing catch
basins drain into this landlocked low area. An outlet needs to be provided for this wetland to
protect the existing trees surrounding the wetland. The preliminary grading plan shows that 2.5
acres will drain to this wetland. A N.U.R.P. pond is shown to be constructed in the southwest
edge of the proposed townhouse site. The new pond will be designed to treat the storm water
runoff from 4 acres before discharging into the 3.5 acre Conroy wetland.
Gradinfi
A grading permit will be required from the City of Prior Lake prior to any land disturbing
activities. An accurate certified field survey of the existing conditions, final approved grading
plan and all other items associated with this permit shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior
to issuance of such permit. The grading for the townhouse buildings along the east edge of the
Conroy wetland shall include a 30 foot buffer strip of undisturbed vegetation. The buffer strip
will help to prevent erosion from occurring into the wetland. The developer will be required to
follow the city's erosion control standards. Erosion control silt fence will be required along the
edges of the wetlands and the developer will need to establish turf as soon as possible after the
completion of grading.
WOAKPC.DOC
4
Table 1
STAJ.VDARD SUBDIVISION
PROPOSED WILD OAKS PUD
.fjl_.I.f.ll_'al.i\_lfri~III'_
Maximum Unit 3.5 Units per Acre Maximum. ......Unity 2.9 Unli:s"p'~i<.\cre""'" .......
Density Density
_~1I11'\'~fi.1t1l111Ijl;IIB_'l'\111Iilliil{.
* The individual
townhome units shall
not be subject to
setback requirements
on the individually
platted lots underlying
the unit.
The proposed preliminary plat indicates individual lots and rownhome units upon ~ach lot. It should be
noted the townhome units are indicated for illustrative purposes only. No setbacks shall be required from
the individual townhome units to the platted lots. Rather, setbacks will be required from: The exterior
boundary of the site; other strUctures; the private street; the 100 year flood elevation of all wetlands and as
indicated in Table 1.
The preliminary plat indicates the location of an existing well and ~asements in favor of the Prior Lake-
Spring Lake Watershed District. Proposed units 1 and 2 encroach within the easement area. It is the
understanding of Staff the Watershed District desires to abandon the well which has not been operational
for a number of years. A condition of preliminary plat approval should be abandonment of the well and
vacation of ~asements by the Watershed District or units 1 and:2 be relocated outside of the easement area.
The proposed development is subject to provisions of the Landscape Ordinance because it consists of
multiple family housing. The developer proposes to install irrigation systems and indicates 89 trees will be
planted on site per the attached Landscape Plan. Small areas of existing trees are proposed to be retained
along the perimeter and inside of the site. In addition, the developer proposes to install keystone retaining
walls around certain wooded areas to retain ~xisting trees. Staff is of the opinion that the developer should
"SU02PC'
5
On November 20, 1995, the City Council issued directive #95-72 to staff directing contact with
developer RCS Associates, Inc., to request a letter for timeline extension for approval of the
PUD and preliminary plat. The application extension was approved to January 31, 1996 for the
Schematic PUD and Preliminary Plat. The City Council remanded review of an amended
application for the Schematic PUD and Preliminary Plat, back to the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION:
The attached Schematic PUD and Preliminary Plat applications were designed to address the
issues identified by the Planning Commission and public at the previous public hearings. The
major issues related to:
. Too much tree removal.
. Objection to the extension of Conroy Street through to Shady Beach Trail.
. Objection to development within the steep slope area of the site.
. Tree preservation requirements.
. Application of 1993 Shore land Management Ordinance.
. Objection to Wild Oaks utilizing the existing recreational easement in Conroy's Bay.
The amended application proposes construction of 20 townhome units. The number of units was
reduced from 23 to 20. In addition, the arrangement of units was changed in order to reduce the
amount of proposed grading in the steep slope area and to preserve more trees. The private
street, Wild Oaks Terrace has been redesigned from a cul-de-sac to a turn around configuration
to reduce grading and save additional trees in the vicinity of the street. It should be noted, staff
published a cul-de-sac length variance for this public hearing however, the PUD provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance allow for "'modifications of the strict application of regulations of the R-l,
R-2, R-3, and R-4 Residential Districts in accordance with the provisions and regulations
contained herein" (Zoning Ordinance Section 6.12, Section 6, Page 13). Staff is of the opinion
the proposed private street can be approved as part of the PUD and does not require a specific
length variance.
The amended application indicates the improvement of Conroy Street only to the intersection
with Wild Oaks Terrace, the private street which will serve the development. The amended
application indicates conservatively, 470/0 of the trees over 12" will be preserved and 85
additional trees will be planted. The amended plan preserves 470/0 of the significant (12") trees
on site as opposed to the 400/0, 220/0 and 19% tree preservation indicated by earlier proposals.
(The proposed tree preservation policy allows up to 50% tree removal for right-of-way, utilities
and building pads before additional trees must be replaced on site).
Staff reviewed the amended application according to provisions of the recently adopted 1993
Shore land Management Ordinance. The PUD Tier calculations would permit up to 3 1 units on
site. Topographic alterations as proposed are permitted subject to approval of the city Engineer
and provided they are consistent with the Prior Lake Storm Water Management Plan, Best
Management Practices and NURP, National Urban Runoff Program standards. The City has
implemented the aforementioned standards since 1993 on all subdivision and PUD proposals.
The amended application is consistent with the new Shoreland Management regulations. The
developer will be required at final plat, to file provisions within the restrictive covenants which
restrict land alterations and vegetation removal over the wooded portions of the plat. ( Please
note), Pat Lynch, Area Hydrologist from the MN DNR does not object to the PUD nor
preliminary plat. See attached DNR Project Review Worksheet for reference.
WOAKPC.DOC
2
purpose. The development standards for the specific PUD zoning district are indicated on the approved
Schematic PUD map and text documents.
A PUD, as opposed to a standard subdivision, is a type of development which allows the clustering of
structures. use of private roads. and may include density bonuses, (as per Zoning Ordinance 83-6), to
permit more units than the 3.5 units per acre, allowed for a standard subdivision in the R-l zone. The PUD
overlay zone is typically used on sites to preserve usable open space and other natural features, (identified
by the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan), on site. The advantages of PUDs over a lot-by-lot, (standard
subdivision), include additional flexibility in project design and the preparation of a unified site plan that
can make the best use of the land.
Zoning Ordinance Section 6.12 outlines the parameters under which PUD's may be approved in the City
of Prior Lake. In summary, a PUD proposal is required to be consistent with the Prior Lake
Comprehensive Plan; include provisions for preservation of natural amenities; harmonize with both
existing and proposed development in the area; provide a minimum of 20% of the gross land area for
private or public open air recreational use and be protected by covenants or land dedication; may be
permitted density increases of up to 30% provided conditions of the Zoning Ordinance are fulfilled;
provide a minimum 25' setback or height of the building, whichever is greater from the perimeter of the
PUD; the total building coverage shall not exceed 20% of the total area of the PlTD; and demonstrate the
proposed architectural style of the buildings are compatible with the surrounding development.
The proposed PVD of Wild Oaks contemplates a cluster development on the site with a variety of
townhome units ranging from 2 to -4. units attached. A private street is proposed in the PUD in order to
limit the amount of grading required on site. The private street will be constructed to the same standards
and width as a public street however, there is no requirement for additional right-of-way therefore, units
may be located closer to the paved street than a standard subdivision would allow. The purpose for
utilizing the private street is to limit the extent of grading required to construct the road and units. A
standard single family subdivision would require a larger portion of the site to be graded in order to
provide for 50' of right-of-way and standard 25' front yard setback requirement. as opposed to the
proposed 32' private street section and lesser setbacks which can be approved via the PUD overlay zone.
pun STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Wild Oaks proposal is generally consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
cluster concept provides an opportunity to preserve natural features and yet allow the property to develop
according to the density permitted for the site. Approximately 60% of the subject site, or 8.31 acres of
13.82 total gross acres, is proposed as private and/or public open space. The Zoning Ordinance requires a
minimum 20% of the gross area of a project site be set aside for private and/or public open space. The
total proposed building coverage consists of 9~"O of the total gross area of the PlTD. The underlying R-I
zone permits up to 3.5 units per acre or 28 units for the site, (based upon a net land area of 8.04 acres
located above the 904 contour). The Wild Oaks PUD proposed density is 2.9 units per acre or 23 units for
the site, which is less than the density permitted in the R-l zone for a standard subdivision. No density
bonuses are requested for the PUD proposal. The townhome development concept will provide a transition
between County Road 42 and the adjacent existing single family development. A similar land use pattern,
using townhomes as a transition to single family homes, exists to the east of the subject site. The Harbor
PUD 7-76, successfully integrated higher density, multiple family development with existing single family
homes located in the Boudin' s ~lanor and Watersedge neighborhoods.
The existing homes in the Conroy's Bay neighborhood are varied consisting of remodeled cabins to new
construction, single family homes. Housing architecture. design. value. age, and exterior materials are
varied. The Wild Oaks PUD is proposed to be developed with one level living areas and walkout
basements. All units are proposed to be owner occupied. The proposed exterior materials consist of stucco
and brick fronts with vinyl on side and rear exteriors along with 6/12 pitch roof styles. Each unit is
proposed to have an attached double car garage located on the front of the unit. Staff is of the opinion the
proposed units will be compatible to existing structures in the immediate neighborhood.
"SC02PC'
3
___ L____
"
...~....., .......,,,. ~
tlltl ... "n__, .ua.... or. '.. 'u, .. ..., " <
~S I Sla3N'!>N3 I SH3HNYlct .
"')U!. 'mH .~ SawE[ ,
~
l~ V l0S3NNI" "3dOH M3N "llllKlN 31lH3/\V ...e 9918
':;N S3LVY.lOSSV "S-::J1I
'ool1'd 3~'{l HOII:ld :10 S>CVO 011M
A3^UnS nUl.
.. ~ i i ~
i~ sl i ii ~ l-
i
c(
+ ?-
m
N i:
><
w
tf) >-
a:
~ c(
; i ~
~
~ ~ :)
f/)
~ ; w
i ! :)
Ie ~ f/)
:1' !!!
q: :x
V 0
c~ ! I
2 to-
~d:
VJ
,)
..---.......
=.:t..~~
..---"--
c
~
:: ::
Z ,....
~
oj
~
::
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE;
PRESENTER:
MEMO PREPARED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DA TE:
PLANNING REPORT
1
PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER APPLICATION FROM RCS
ASSOCIATES FOR SCHEMATIC/PRELIMINARY PUD,
REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, V ARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERlWIT FOR THE DEVELOPlVIENT
K'lOWN AS "WILD OAKS."
13 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF CONROY STREET,
PRIOR LAKE
MIKE LEEK. ASSOCIATE PLANNER, JOHN WINGARD,
ASSISTAl'lT CITY ENGINEER
DEB GARROSS, DRC COORDINATOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
AUGUST 28, 1995
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider five distinct applications: SchematiciPreliminary Planned
Unit Development (PtJD), Rezoning, Preliminary Plat. Variance and Conditional Use Permit (CUP), for
the project known as "Wild Oaks." The five applications are being considered contemporaneously because
of the interrelationship of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances related to the development proposal.
However. it is necessary to distinguish between the applications in the review process since each
application is a separate issue. A separate motion in the form of a recommendation to the City Council,
will be required for each application. To assist the Planning Commission and facilitate the public hearing
process. the copies of the following Resolutions and Ordinance are attached to this agenda packet:
Resolution 95-21 PC:
Ordinance 95-13:
Resolution 95-2:2PC:
Resolution 95-23PC:
Resolution 95-24 PC:
Resolution recommending the City Council approve the
Schematic/Preliminary PUD for Wild Oaks to allow a cluster, townhome
development with a private street on the easterly 8 acres of the subject site.
Ordinance rezoning the subject site from R-1, Suburban Residential and C-l,
Conservation to PUD 9-95.
Resolution recommending the City Council approve the preliminary plat of
Wild Oaks subject to conditions.
Resolution recommending the City Council approve the 86' cul-de-sac
length variance for Wild Oaks Terrace.
Resolution recommending the City Council approve the CUP to allow a
private back lot association to be formed as part of Wild Oaks PUD.
The Resolutions and Ordinance are in draft form and should be amended to incorporate facts, findings
and conditions as determined by the Planning Commission during the course of the public hearings. The
attached agenda packet contains the appropriate application forms along with a written proposal prepared
by the developer, supporting maps and data. The applications are followed by memorandums from City
staff and other affected agencies. received as of the date this report was written. The public hearing
notices, published in the Prior Lake American and mailed to residents, utility companies and affected
agencies, are attached as well.
"SC02PC' 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.. Prior Lake. Minr.esora 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
..;;\ ::'~L'.~.L OPO'JRTL?'aT:' ::>IP!..OYSq
..u.... IIf ....HIIUI ~ [iJ--
IHSS Hit .11"'_, 'ou U.S 'lr'W ....J M DIU r.iiiii
~QJ..3N:UlS / S~33N19N3 / SCl3NNnd I _"~-=': "=
"JUI 'IIIH ."J saw-ef' .~~
. . a __ .... ..... .
II f.
II I
II ·
II I
~ IJ
tn\
mil
~1/
II ~
~~
U
U
U
II
H
II
"
II
II
11
It
J \
I I
I I
I I
, I
I I
I I
'I I
'I I
'I I
\ I I
\ I I
1I I
II I
II I
" I
" I
II I
II r
II (
II I
1I ,
II I
II I
U ~
.......-. .-
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
l.___,
-
--,
--
a:m IflOS3NNlrl '3dOH M3N 'H.J.l::IOH 3nN3J\\' 1119C SSl8
'::lNI s:J.'tIOOSS't 'S-:l~
'a"n"d 3)1'11 ~OJ~d :fa ~)I'10 a11M
NV1d A.1.I1U.n A~'1NIWI13~d
~~~~
... . 0..
...:~~.; ':'. ~
o ~ ~....... If
a:' . . ~
z
~I""\
..
~ iiiJ
:I a 3. ::!
3 ~:J~
:; Joos
! !==-
~ 11 ; i~i i
. f ~ f -
T r T 1
\
\
\
\--~----
\ .. .
.....:..
>--
,-
I..-
:.:.
.:~
,.-,
"--)
~, #. /
,... /
1-1-.;,..---
,-:_-
I
"
--r--i 1-:-:-1
_-r-i! 1:'1 'I ! 1 I
I J ! ~ \-----nJ ".
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Adopt Resolutions 96-01 PC and 96-02PC and Ordiance 95-13 as drafted recomending the
City Council approve the Schematic pun and Preliminary Plat of Wild Oaks.
2. Adopt Ordinance 95-13 as presented and adopt Resolutions 96-01PC and 96-02PC with
revisions directed by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative #1. The applications for Schematic pun, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance and
should therefore be approved. (Please note, the developer presented an alternative at the October
28, 1995 public hearing indicating 19 single family lots could be developed on site consistent
with Ordinance standards. However, the development of the single family lots would remove
more significant trees, (81 %) than the proposal, (530/0). The developer has redesigned the plat
layout to adress concerns raised at the public hearings. The proposal preserves more trees,
reduces the amount of grading required in the steep slope area, removes the Conroy Street
extension, is not objected to by the DNR and results in a layout which meets the requirements of
the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A separate motion to adopt Resolution 96-01 PC and Ordinance 95-13 and 96-02PC and separate
motions to close the three public hearings.
WOAKPC.DOC
5
~ f',
J .'
. .-
.f
~ I
._ i
. . I
!.
....... n, .......,.11 JI5 [I]-~
inn ." 'n_. '111 II_I ':t 'W Ul" ~au /. =-... ~-d-
~~S I ~N'9N3 / ~3NNr>d ( ~ ..:::-:::::. '':::':
:JUI'IIIH '~ sawt:f \, .:~~:
. . () -.-.......,
l.ZK<; 'f.lOS3NNI... '3dOH M3N 'H.UION 3nN3I\V 1lI9C <;<;~8
::lNI S3.l'il:x)SSV 'S':)1:/ r..,
'a'n'd 3)1'11 !:JOIHd .:10 S:>i'1O 'lnIM
N'11d 3dVOSONYl Al:fVNIWn3l:fd .
~~
"rIW
Ill! ii:l 111!'IJf Ili~f ,:!I I'
i II II" I' 'I ;:., .J
, ,_!~_'~-_~;-~~~ .- ,.':~:<? ill!' r,lll ldf1l:!! !jll. I: . j
_._, " '-.'" --___. '!" In: lil,! Iii! 1:1 ,: . _
/'<-"::':':";'::'.. \......_--... ..'~\--""::::-_~-.. -: ..:'::' ':~-:::::--
,(_---. '",'. ,.'. ,,\\ ~---- ~.
,'i /.. >\ .....~?-:::~~~~. ....:=.:. ,:0',?~">~ '.
, .': >- t '- -.... '. :.n' -'\~~ '~~ \\ 1~" \'" "'~'_"'_~~_::'_'.'_. _'"
ii ~,'.i.,-..L>.21~':,' . -<:~~~:,. \ ,<\ - -
! . .... -\ .
r
; ; .
11
H
,; 7
~ '!
::!
u
... ....;.;~~~
~'-'" -""'- -- \.
r 'r~'
~ --.::::::-~: ,
---..'\. i
. '.
'r.'~!: \. "'."
~,~ ' ,.
~ : -.J .
(.
,,;
f ~ .
!....
:.'t[
f ~
f i
? \,
~,L' it \ ': .:: :
; i\ ! r ~:'
! r';~.. '-':;,~ \,
.i ~
l:
" .(
/
~ I .
I I !I
I, 'f
IIi ill
I': o!)
" !,
III ;:1
!iJ III
II ill
uI jjJ
........- -
j
, I
III
I t(i Iii
I \ t '\,J; i
~,.~...~ .,:~..~~....
. . L..r '''<.
. ~.~~.. ,I
:~~ ~.. :.,::-!_~_.
. ~~:
. \
I \ \ ..
~ . \ ;
.. cI
\ ., - . . \ ' .....
\. "'..;
~ ..~ \ \ ~.. ~
;3 i~ ~ il"
., ~ \ ~~ ~
.. ~.
~ , ~
a ;l ~:'
-- "~~ ~_.~~;;...~~-~-:?-..,;..--
..r ::.. ~- --
-::-~,;:~ '-':--
I.: .;-
..
..
%tQ ~
~ "" ..
a:>eO
o
~:.I~~J g
~~~ 0 ~ '"
i~r 7 ~ ~
z
.
.. ;
z ~ ~
~
~ 3
.. .. ;
z z ~
3 3
0, 11
i I r
it1 ;11 ~d HII
!fi H~ i~!J :if=
~~a m sUI jiu Ii
:: :: z
~ ~........i
fftJ1 =!r
f II~~ -,
. IaH
-- :.::----
H J.')};\.' ~ '
~I .~ ' !~
:1. ,.!\ I, J
m~ j:r 1I i
z " :: I
~~ iL
..'r~ il ;
==r..,:~ y, H~ I
.. ~'~J ijl ~
'~:\\" ::JJ
~\\\\ , .J
San italY Sewer
The plan is acceptable. A connection will be made to the existing 9" clay line on Conroy Street.
The developer proposes to extend an 8" line northerly from Conroy Street in the private street
system to serve the proposed units. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the
8" sanitary sewer lines.
Watermain
The layout is acceptable. A connection will be made to the existing 6" DIP line on Conroy
Street that was constructed in 1976. The existing 6" watermain is looped around this site in
Conroy Street and Shady Beach Trail and connects up to the existing 12" trunk water line on
County Road 42. The 12" trunk line on County Road 42 was constructed in 1979. The hydrants
as shown on the preliminary utility layout plan should provide adequate fire protection to this
site. Water pressures in the range of 85 to 90 psi can be expected on this site. The preliminary
utility layout shows the extension of a 6" or 8" water line from Conroy Street to the north to
serve the proposed units. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the proposed
6" and 8" water lines.
Existing Well
The existing well and pump that are located on this site will be abandoned by the Prior
Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District. The well was constructed in the 1950's to help augment
the water level of Prior Lake. The well has not been used for many years now and the Watershed
District has hired a contractor to abandon the well. After the well is abandoned. then the existing
easements can be vacated.
Streets/ Access/Circulation
Access to the subject site will be via Conroy Street to a proposed private street within the PUD.
The private street will be improved to city standards however, there will not be a requirement to
dedicate additional right-of-way. Instead, the developer will provide separate easements for
utility and drainage purposes over part of the common property within the development.
The amended application includes a preliminary street layout plan December 11, 1995 indicating
the developer will upgrade 450 feet of Conroy Street. The developer does not intend to upgrade
the remaining 650 feet of Conroy Street over to Shady Beach Trail. The proposal is the
developer's response to the objections raised about the extension of Conroy Street. The
proposed typical street section shall be modified to meet the current city standard. Any
additional soil correction work or subgrade preparation will be the developer's responsibility.
The Planning Commission should note, staff maintains the recommendation that Conroy Street
should be improved through to Shady Beach Trail.
Storm Water
The subject site as well as part of the City of Savage, located directly north of the site, are
located in the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District. The City of Savage has approved two
large subdivisions which will be developed north of County Road 42, that will discharge into the
wetland located on the west 1/3 of the subject site. The storm water from the area north of
County Road 42 currently flows through the wetland on the subject site. The City of Savage will
require the developer to install retention ponds and storm water pipes and culverts to slow the
rate of runoff. There is currently a 42" RCP culvert under County Road 42 that drains the 200
acres of Savage into the Conroy wetland. In the City of Savage's Water Resource Management
WOAKPC.DOC
3
~
~ :;:
Z -.1'"' i "I
-
-::
~
r"~
'" ~~~~
g ~og~
g!ii~i
~ I~~~~~
:i!~~~
""""""""
~~eem~
iliad; 01 01 01
'" ~
~ vl
~ ~
~ ~ ~
1rl ~ >
;a 9 d
I
I
~ I'.r;
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
1
PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE SCHEMATIC
PUD, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING OF WILD
OAKS.
13 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF CONROY STREET.
DEB GARROSS, DRC COORDINATOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
JANUARY 8, 1996
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of the public hearings are to consider the amended application for Schematic PUD,
and Preliminary Plat approval for Wild Oaks as well as the proposed Rezoning of the site to
PUD. Attached find a copy of the amended application responding to issues raised by the
Planning Commission and public at the 8-23-95 and 10-28-95 public hearings. Also attached
find draft Resolutions 96-01 PC and 96-02PC and proposed Ordinance 95-13 recommending
approval of the Schematic PUD and and Rezoning and conditional approval of the Preliminary
Plat of Wild Oaks. Please refer to the agenda reports dated 8-23-95 and 10-28-95 for reference
to this item.
BACKGROUND:
This project was first introduced to City staff in late 1994. The developer worked with staff for
approximately 10 months to prepare the applications consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The applications were considered by the Planning
Commission at the first public hearing held on August 28, 1995. At that public hearing, the
following applications were considered: Schematic PUD; Rezoning; Preliminary Plat; 86' Cul-
de-sac length variance for Wild Oaks Terrace and CUP. The staff recommendation was to table
or continue the public hearings to allow the applicant time to prepare information requested by
the Planning Commission to complete the review of the project. The public hearings were tabled
to October 23, 1995.
On October 23, 1995 the Planning Commission held public hearings to consider the Schematic
PUD; Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Variance applications for Wild Oaks. After consultation
with the applicant, City Attorney and representatives of The Harbor, it was determined a CUP
related to the formation of a back lot homeowners association was not required, therefore, the
CUP application was no longer an item for Planning Commission consideration. The Planning
Commission passed Resolutions 95-21 PC, 95-22PC, 95-23 PC recommending the City Council
deny the Schematic PUD, Preliminary Plat, and cul-de-sac length Variance along with a
recommendation to deny the proposed Rezoning associated with the PUD.
16200 ~~Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
.-\:\ EQI.."AL OPPORTL:\ITY E:-'lPLOYER
Kathy Bachelor. 10469 Greenway, stated property owner, Wes Green told her there
would be 6 executive homes in this area. She would like the area to stay quiet with low
traffic and preservation of the wetland. Traffic is an issue for the residents with small
children. She realizes there is going to be development but asks the Commission take
into consideration what the residents are asking.
Bob Prchal, 6406 Conroy Street, requested to table the matter and drive out and to see the
area. It is an extremely challenging area to develop.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Arnold: Ideally 6 executive lots would be the way to go but that is not proposed; the
advantage of a PuD is the City has some control; property is a'NfUlly congested; has a lot
of concern for the number of trees removed; would like to see an inventory of trees by
location: and inventory of trees 6 inches or greater; he would like to see as much of the
steep slope preserved as possible; good concerns brought up by audience on drainage in
the south\vest comer of property. we need more information in that regard: suggestion of
cul-de-sac makes sense; concern for the additional three tOVvMomes to make up the
difference in construction of Conroy Street. (Leek responded it would make additional
access into the area. more room for public safety with the approved developments north
of Prior Lake and Savage. With Savage in the watershed, there is serious need to address
the way the drainage works in this area. The improvement of the roadway and storm
sewer improvements go hand in hand.) (Assistant Engineer John Vlingard explained the
developer will be responsible for mitigation by creating :2 acres of Vv'etIand for every 1
acre tilled that are taken out. It should provide more water storage and with the
upgrading of Conroy Street more water will be held in the pond.) Commissioners need to
see the contours of the wetland.
Roseth: Agrees Vv'ith Commissioner Arnold; would like to kno.\V more about Savage
dumping into the lake in written form with comments and diagrams: want to verify and
see the 23 units: \vould rather see 6 single family homes: would like to see elevation after
minimal excavation; see a before and a proposed after plan: can see Conroy Street as a
through street for tying in neighborhoods and for safety access - either cul-de.sac with a
walking path or break a\vay portion for police and fire: research the 6 slips with the CUP;
need definition of clear cutting and who is responsible for the Harbor CUP.
Loftus: concern for trees and steep slope: feels we should table for more information; a
PUD may not be the answer; should have public paybacks through a PUD; park fund
should have green space for the public, particularly if there is more traffic; there are legal
issues on the CUP that have to be worked out; lake access has to be determined by
attorneys.
Kuykendall: comments well received by audience; taken in a positive vein by
developers and Commissioners; suggest to table motion.
~N8:3Q5 voc
"-'lGE .,
LZKS V.lOS3NNln '3dOH M3N 'H.U:lON 3nN""'" 11l9t !nl&
::lNl S3J.VlOOSS't' -s-::rl1 ?\
'C"n'd 3)f'11 HOIHd :IO S)f~ CllM
10tU.NOO NOISOH3 ':l ~NlaVH~ AHVNIWIl3Hd
..
lJ
Z
.
~
;
z
o
~
l'l'h) ~
J.IIl 3
,.
lJ
~
>-
~
s~ fi~i J
Z' .
.
;
.. . ~
~ 1 ~ !
i ~ 8 =
; i i i
i S = i I
IAa :! a . .
o
IAa
..J
0'11
i If)
i;111~ l~1 jifl
:1 .~J li I'r
~,' ui :1,. 'd
~ . ;H WJ ~il' i
J. t...d if I I
7 2 Z 7
Calena Townsend. 6565 Harbor Place, presented a petition in opposition of the 23
townhomes in the area, the removal of trees and the impact it will have on Prior Lake and
surrounding residents.
Dave Frees, will be a resident at 6346 Conroy Street, agrees with the Staff on the
construction of the slope. The oak trees will be affected \vith the excavation and will take
a long time to replace. Erosion into the wetlands is his primary concern.
Dean Olson. 6412 Conroy Street, said there are not many places for his children to play
and the parks are too far a\vay. His other concern is for the construction of Conroy Street.
There are blind spots on the road and he hopes it will be constructed in a safe manner.
Bill Townsend. 6565 Harbor Place, will soon be moving to Conroy Street. and his main
concern is for the runoff of the ne\v development and ho\v this is going to be managed
with Savage using the \vetland as well. The pond will not maintain its natural vegetation.
He hopes the Commission will follow Staffs recommendation in connection \vith the
watershed issues. NIr. TO~TIsend's other concern is to make Conroy Street a cul-de-sac
as it would maintain the existing character of the area and without planning the road
carefully part of the wetland will be lost. He urges the Commission to take their time and
get more input on this matter.
Ted Schweich. 6436 Conroy Street, stated one of his issues is the cash donation for the
park. He has smaller children who cannot walk to neighboring parks. NIr. Sch\veich
feels the developer should provide a tot lot for the neighborhood. He also feels the
impervious surface coverage should be addressed. The construction of Conroy Street will
increase traffic. He realizes the land has to be developed but was told by the O\~TIer, Wes
Green, there \vould only be six homes constructed in the area.
NIT. Leek addressed some of the above issues: Two-thirds of the site is zoned R-l and the
density of 28 units is correct. The ma"Ximum building coverage is 9~/o and \vell within the
performance coverage.
NIike Sweenev. lives on Lot 10, 11 and 12, addressed the surfacing of Conroy Street. He
feels constructing a cul-de-sac would be the better alternative as there are not enough
people using the road at the present time. His other concerns are to save the trees and the
coverage issue with the wetland. Constructing the street is under 15 feet from his deck as
well as his neighbor's. It \vould eliminate huge portions of their lots reducing their
property values. NIr. Sweeney suggests tabling the matter.
Rick Devine, 10401 Shady Beach Trail, agrees \v1th NIr. Sweeney and does not want to
see a through street. There is no benefit to anyone with Conroy Street as a through street.
Would like to see a cul-de-sac constructed.
Peter Covle attomev for the Harbor Association addressed the Conditional Use Permit.
He feels .it i~ not a private matter between the developments and would like the Staff and
\tN8:S9~ DOC
i'\GE ~
.n.... '" ........1111 ~ ~
;~7~~~~~~~ ~ _~~
i.il:K; .., l.OS3NN,n '3dOH M3H 'H.U:lON 3nN3l\V I./19C SSL8
~ S3..LYr.lOSSV ~1:l
'a.n'd 3)1'11 ~OI2:fd ::10 S)t'to a11M
A3^2:fnS 33H.e,
,.
:~ ~,
~" .S
Ol: 0
o
~
~
~
z ---" ,...
~
~
\
\ ~ \ I
\, '
s i
~ ,.
IS
~ i
~ ~
I I
.. ~
i 8
~ ..
=
Highlights of the report included: The proposed PUD of Wild Oaks is not consistent with
preservation policies of the Comprehensive Plan related to steep slope natural features.
The proposal shows the development of townhouse units in areas of the property
containing 20~/o or greater. steep slopes. A second issue, although not a natural feature
defined by the Comprehensive plan, concerns tree removal on site. In order to address
potential clear cutting issues of the Shoreland District, the Schematic POD should
include a tree inventory identifying the specific location and specie of each significant,
hardwood tree equal to or larger than 12" in caliper.
The developer requests approval of a variance to allow the cul-de-sac to be 586 feet in
length instead of the Subdivision Ordinance ma~imum of 500 feet.
Staff recommends the CUP be approved to allow for the formation of a back lot
association concurrent with the subdivision of \\rild Oaks. The Planning Commission
should note the boat slips and any access to recreational amenities in The Harbor PUD
constitute a private agreement betvveen the 'Nrild Oaks Homeovvners .-\ssociation and The
Harbor Homeovvners Association.
A letter from .-\ttomey James Bates. representing ylr. John Gorra of 14133 Shady Beach
TraiL \\iaS entered into the record. Nlr. Gorra' s basic concern \vas the extension of
Conroy Street to Shady Beach Trail. His belief being it will reduce the value of his lots.
Also entered into the record was a letter from Scott County High\vay Engineer. Brad
Larson. commenting on no direct access to County Road 42, concerns about
compatibility benveen land use and highways, complaints about noise and a request to the
developer to assess the noise impact of the road\vay and take additional measures to
mitigate the problem. Nlr. Larson would like the City to revie\v the setback requirements
along County Road 42.
The Staff recommendation was to table or continue the public hearings to a date and time
certain and provide the developer wi~h a detailed list of items or information to be
provided for future Planning Commission review.
rvlr. Dick Krier of James 1. Hill, Inc., Planning and Engineering, introduced the applicant,
rvfr. \\lilliam Hayden, NIT. James Sanders. the attorney for applicant, and Nlr. Roy
Anderson of yfid\vest Landscapes, the landscape and tree preservation specialist. Mr.
Krier proceeded to explain the development and describe the site. His main points were:
. Developing 23 townhomes as opposed to the 28 units allowed by City Ordinance.
. Agreeing to pay for the construction of Conroy Street at the request of the City
Engineer at the developer's expense rather than making it a burden on the property
o\vners in the area. This will not benefit the development.
. Developer is exceeding the standards of the Ordinance related to landscaping - no
clear cutting, preserving many existing trees and planting several more. Spending
$100,000 on retaining \valls to preserve trees.
"lM:gq~ :Joe
f>.\GE :
1:'1_:1 . i. . ..~ -=-= :~'= 5.
l:il.;hiJ.sJ l i:l:i:P~f_; SSj
::. _U'1!;251U.;dl uni1:1-:::i:5
.'1o"S~O'i'j'1 I.:l! ~-:I ~~l!.I:j-.
1.5. sJ~i 01.1; !-s_!~__ ll~.
I UrIJ....1Jf~IJ=.~J' i::hi g ~ l~l
: l~H:E!ii=~~~~ ill. hf]8n~':1 r
I .... it r i .1'1- ....j. ..1 "J l 1 1~ tJ r .
,,11;if.o-s.:I >fp= 1~1= l':!I" - -s.,!
.,; J". -.r ,_ ~'I.1._. iO 0: _S~.~
: 11 .~::ihl i" ,...I.t.;'.-.1I:..~;;s-a
. 11:":;h! '1..-:~tJ.~!Jl~Jf:h 0
t !.tJ":5~,;:t!~Ali a.:.j~..:~!:.!ri BIfr
o ~ J:;J S.-SoiJ:lt"j ..., S.-!- sJ .
;J= liJ!!IJ~;jlss~.! ~J~J;l3i.'1.1~iI
~; '1'11'1!.S'1f ~.."'1i;i'1i'1i'1Jiii~7i'1
.::I ;; J,J'1-.i!i :; Il.a.iol.soA-IA;::f:il51
~ :l !'rJj.IJliilltiJ~J~I~I~I_~:~f."1
i ;j ii' .Hj:!.t!flA~~':~':~~~':~~1Ii.J3J
i i! l'rjf;.rI~=:1jija~aiiialii!jl!~1
a- ~i sGi.ihJ!j):njfjfi~Jtifl~ i! rH:
J 0 ';:lI!fi:;ii:. 8i. :~:!;l!; 3"3UJ.!J~
~.:' ~. i 0~.1)2.. ",Iufutu "'I --0
51 ~'1i:j~UI;-'~.:ll-iHHHH r:~h:
.~ ifH=HJHi~J~ .! h.i:r.! jl:IIA.5~
1.; j J4:!::;,hi::.!lJ.x!",fJlstsLaHJH;.
..,......t ......11&11 ~
;~~~~~~~
?1-j~
...-:-= ::. =
t~~~
L.ZK9 "J.OS3NNln '3dOH M3N 'H.UfON 3nN3J\Y ~19C ~
'::x-a S31"WlOOSSY '5"01:1 -
'a'n-d 3)t'1' !::JOIHd ~o S)t'10 01JM
..LY'd AHVNIWn3t1d
!
.- Ii
w s
~ ~g
01""'\ 3 s-
~ .. I ~~
is II
.!
i
I&l
)-
in
3
@
N
.
Q
~
0
a:
Y.J;:;
>- ~
a:
z
~ In
0
U
s
;oOOO;oN
N P'l U1 P'l ('I P'l
N_N
<X)NO
:::!=~
y,;u.;y,;
en In en
~tO_
_P'l,...
O~P'l
In ~~~
~ fQ ~_
a::
0{
- ~
i2 ;
:$ ~
hi
I~
,d..
....
lo.I
V1 lo.I
~ :=
9 '.11
~o::~~
Z~$~~
'''~'n~J..
.::
~ I~
~ u....
:i ~_Q
.........- I _! ~ ~
~ ~ ~J IIJ
z ~ ~ ~n~~5
~ ~ ~ ill~1
~
<C
e:
~
V ote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and V onhof. MOTION
CARRIED. RESOLUTION 95-23 DENIED..
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
V ote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and V onhof. MOTION
CARRIED.
A recess was called at 9:53 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:03 p.m.
2. ADELLE PffiLLIPS - V..;\RlANCE - 5470 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE, requesting
a 26 foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 49 feet instead of the required 75
feet.
Associate Planner J\tfichael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated
October 23, 1995. Staff concluded the hardship criteria has been met and recommends
approval of the requested variance. A faxed was received from the DNR with no
objections to issuance of the variance provided the replacement deck does not encroach
any farther waterward than the existing deck.
Applicant, Adelle Phillips asked permission to replace the existing deck for it is unsafe
for her grandchildren.
Comments from Commissioners:
Wuellner:
. Applicant explained she built the house and the deck. At the time it was built she had
an additional 50 feet of sand.
. Supports request.
Creigo:
. Should approve request.
Loftus:
. Should approve request.
V onhof:
. Hardship criteria has been met and supports request.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 95-
34PC.
Discussion: The hardship criteria has been met.
:\.1NI02J9S DOC
co
PAGE 3
I
-~...
..
\
\
\
\
"'
,
\
\
\
\
_.o~\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
............\
/'// \\
\.
\
......,. t)flPrH .......
- - '\' ---,
,.- ~ '
~'). ,
\"~ '
..
~
~J
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
,
\\
\\\, \~
~.,.Q\,\
1~'-
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
\
,
\
.
,
,
\
\\\
'.
,
,
'. \.. ~
\ \/~ \
'/..............'
\ \ \
\ \\
, '
, \,
/ "r~ \.
/' ~1-
\
,
,
,
......
,).
...;
;;
.'
~ /'
;; ..\....
.'
",#'#
..' ,.
..... ~
1>''-'
,.,/ '
.........
"""
.'
..'
""
.'
."
..'
"",
"
,."
"
...
;
;;
...;
,
,
...;
"
"
"I'
~
~
~~
\
,
\
,,"
\
~ .
~i-
" ..
/
//
,,-
/0/
//
,//
/,.
/
\
"
~)
\
\ \,
/0'