The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8A - Assisted Living PUD AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: DA TE: INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: ISSUES: STAFF AGENDA REPORT SA JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE SCHEMATIC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY PROJECT IN THE PRIORVIEW PUD SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 The purpose of this item is to consider approval of the Schematic Planned Unit Development to allow the construction of a 61-unit assisted living facility on the vacant portion of the Priorview PUD. This property is located directly north of the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorview Street in the vicinity of Eagle Creek Villas. The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing related to these applications on July 22 and August 12, 1996. The application, Planning Reports, Planning Commission Minutes, and relevant correspondence are attached to the agenda packet. The complete files are available for review in the Planning Department. Eagle Creek Villas LLC has submitted an application for an amendment to the Priorview PUD. The schematic plan for the Priorview PUD, which allowed 106 units, was originally approved in 1982. The original plan also provided a street connection from Five Hawks Avenue to Cates Street, and preservation of site amenities, such as the woodland and wetlands on the western portion of the site. In 1983, the first phase of 48 units was approved, and in 1991, the second phase of 20 units was approved. There has been no other construction on this site since 1991. In the meantime, the project and land ownership have changed hands. The current application would replace the 38 townhouse/apartment units which were originally contemplated with a 61-unit assisted living facility with 33 parking spaces. As proposed, the connection between Five Hawks Avenue and Cates Street would not be made, but several of the site amenities would be retained. The PUD was reviewed according to the applicable provisions of 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Zoning Ordinance 83-6, and found to be consistent with the Ordinance requirements. The PUD is also consistent with the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically in that it will enable the City to make substantial progress toward the attainment of Livable Community goals related to lifestyle housing. The proposed land use is also compatible with the development in the area. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment will likely be required to deal with the density issue, and the parking requirements for elderly housing will also have to be addressed. Representatives of the neighborhood were present at the original and continued public hearings and given the opportunity to provide input into this subject. In general, the representatives of the neighborhood voiced strong objection to the Five Hawks Avenue connection, but voiced general support for the project. As a result of the neighborhood concerns expressed at the first public hearing, the Planning Commission directed the City Engineer to report on the traffic impact of connecting Five Hawks Avenue versus eliminating this connection. The City Engineer's report is included in the August 12, 1996, staff report. In its report to the Planning Commission, the staff recommendation is to approve the schematic plan subject to a Comprehensive Plan amendment related to density, satisfactory resolution of the parking issue, and a modification of the plan to show the extension of Five Hawks Avenue. Following discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. There should be no road extension of Five Hawks A venue. Amend the plan to make it clear the connection is public, non- motorized pedestrian/bike path oriented specifically to this neighborhood. 2. There should be a public trail, a trail across the creek and a trail planned out with the school, City and developer. 3. Adequate parking at the rate of 1 space per unit must be provided and constructed with the building (61 spaces rather than the 33 proposed). 4. The extension and looping of the waterline issue needs to be resolved. The exact locations will be discussed at the platting stage or the more specific development stage. The criteria. is to reduce the environmental impact and still provide adequate water pressure. 5. Modify the Comprehensive Plan for density for this particular piece of property and delete the Five Hawks A venue connection statement. Modify the Zoning Ordinance to allow 96055cc.doc Page 2 ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 96055cc.doc for it. 6. Developer must identify the users of the proposed facility. With respect to the above conditions, the staff would offer the following recommendations and clarifications: · Condition #1 should specifically state that the trail connection between Five Hawks Avenue and Cates Street is an 8' wide bituminous trail, and it must be installed at the developer's expense without City reimbursement. · Condition #2 should be clarified to read "in addition to the public trail along the Five Hawks school site required by the Comprehensive Plan and the public trail in lieu of the Five Hawks Avenue connection, the school district and the developer should install, at their expense, a trail across the creek, around the pond and generally through the nature area. 1. Adopt Resolution 96-90 approving the Schematic PUD subject to the conditions listed therein, or with conditions specified by the Council. 2. 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. Approve Alternative #1. The Schematic PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in most respects, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Subdivision Ordinance and should therefore be approved. A motion to adopt Resolution 96-90 approving the Schematic PUD plan, subject to the conditions contained therein. The resolution requires approval by a 2/3 vote of the Council. 1. Planning Report dated July 22, 1996 2. Planning Report dated August 12, 1996 3. Minutes of July 22, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting 4. Minutes of August 12, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting 5. U 96-90 Reviewed By: Page 3 RESOLUTION 96-90 RESOLUTION ADOPTING OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE SCHEMATIC PUD FOR EAGLE CREEK ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS: the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 22, 1996, and August 12, 1996 to consider the, application from Eagle Creek Villas LLC, for Schematic PUD approval for Eagle Creek Villas Assisted Living Facility; and the Planning Commission afforded persons interested in this issue an opportunity to present their views and objections related to the Schematic PUD of Eagle Creek Villas Assisted Living Facility; and WHEREAS: notice of the public hearing on said Schematic PUD was duly published in accordance with applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS: the City Council finds the Schematic PUD is consistent with certain elements of the Comprehensive Plan and inconsistent with others; and WHEREAS: the City Council finds the Schematic PUD of Eagle Creek Villas Assisted Living Facility is in harmony with both existing and proposed development in the area surrounding the project; and WHEREAS: the City Council finds the proposed Schematic PUD of Eagle Creek Villas Assisted Living Facility is compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS: the City Council finds the proposed Schematic PUD of Eagle Creek Villas Assisted Living Facility adequately provides for internal organization, uses, circulation, public facilities, recreation areas and open space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that it hereby approves the Schematic PUD for Eagle Creek Villas Assisted Living Facility subject to the following conditions: 1. Amend the Schematic PUD plan to include a 8' wide bituminous public, non-motorized pedestrian/bike path trail connection between Five Hawks A venue and Cates Street at the developer's expense. 2. Parking at the rate of 1 space per unit (61 total spaces) must be provided and constructed with the building. RS969OCC.DOC PAGE 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 3. The extension and looping of the waterline issue needs to be resolved. The exact extension and looping of the watermain must be determined as a part of the Final PUD Plan approval. The criteria used to determine this location is reducing the environmental impact and still provide adequate water pressure. 4. The developer must identify the residents of the assisted living facility at the Final PUD Plan approval stage. S. The developer must provide a revised Schematic PUD plan incorporating the above items. This plan must include the entire Priorview PUD area. 6. Further action to approve this PUD is conditioned upon the following: a) The revision of the Comprehensive Plan to permit the requested density of the site. b) The revision of the Zoning Code to provide a definition of an assisted living facility. c) The dedication of the trails described in Condition # 1. 7. The developer and school district are to install, at their expense, any trails currently proposed which are not addressed in Condition # 1 above, or in the Parks and Trail component of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION BY: SECOND BY: Passed and adopted this 3rd day of September, 1996. YES NO Andren Andren Greenfield Greenfield Kedrowski Kedrowski Mader Mader Schenck Schenck {Seal} City Manager City of Prior Lake RS969OCC.OOC PAGE 2 PLANNING REPORT SITE: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4A CONSIDER SCHEMATIC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW AN ASSISTED LIVING PROJECT IN THE PRIORVIEW PUD FIVE HA WKS AVENUE AND PRIORWOOD STREET DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR _X_ YES _NO-N/A JULY 22, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: Eagle Creek Villas LLC has applied for an amendment to the Priorview PUD to allow the construction of a 61 unit assisted living building on the vacant portion of the site. The original PUD was approved in 1983 and the development to date has occurred prior to 1991. The present applicant has no connection with the developer of the original PUD. BACKGROUND: The Priorview PUD was preceded by Council action in 1981 which rezoned the subject property to R-3, High Density residential. This would have permitted 210 units on the 15.05 acres of buildable land on the site. In December of 1982, the Council approved a Schematic PUD plan which provided for 106 units, a street connection from Five Hawks Avenue to Cates Street and preservation of site amenities. In September of 1983, the Council approved the first phase of the development consisting of 48 townhomes. Priorview Second Addition consisting of 20 units , was approved in 1991. In 1987, the developer asked the City to consider expansion of the PUD to include the so- called Holly Court property to the north and increase the number of units to 148. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request and the application was with - drawn. In April of this year, staff submitted a status report on all PUDs in the City for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The report noted that there had been no construction activity in this PUD for 8 years and also that the current applicants had expressed interest in developing the remainder of the PUD for some type of housing for the elderly. The City Council tabled the issue of the status of Priorview PUD to allow for the submission of a development proposal for the site. 16200 t&~~\\I~(!&Ks.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER DISCUSSION: The proposed Schematic PUD Plan requires that a variety of issues be addressed before a recommendation can be made. These issues are as follows: Density- The original PUD was approved at a gross density of 6.07 units per acre and a net density of 7.04 units per acre. The first 2 phases consisting of 68 units were built on approximately 5 acres of land with a net density of 13.6 units per acre which was consistent with the previous R-3 zoning. The remaining 8.5 acres were to contain 38 units at 4.47 units per acre. It seems clear that the intent was to concentrate the units on the relatively low amenity part of the site in order to preserve as much of the wooded and wetland area as possible. The new proposal would have 61 units on 8.5 acres for a density of 7.17 units per acre which is comparable to the overall density of the original PUD. This proposal contains more units on the northerly portion of the site but they are contained in one building instead of two as previously approved. Comprehensive Plan/Zonin~- The Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan designated the subject property for Medium Density Residential use, which suggested densities of 4 to 8 units per acre. The Year 2010 Plan recently adopted shows the property as Low Density Residential which has a maximum density if 3.5 units per acre. The comparable zoning would be R-l, Single Family Residential. However, the site is still subject to the PUD zoning. Conceivably, the 38 units allowed on the northerly portion of the site could be built under R-l zoning but not as apartment buildings as approved. Changing to townhouses on this property would also entail an amendment to the PUD. Because the proposed development would result in densities greater than those contemplated by the current plan, it seems that a Comprehensive Plan amendment may be necessary if the applicant is to proceed. If such an amendment were to be pursued, it would seem likely that the amendment could be limited in such a way as to limit development of the property to something similar to the proposed project to insure that the development intensity of the site is limited. Another zoning issue is whether the 10 acre minimum size for PUDs is violated by this request. If the proposal is considered as an amendment to the original Priorview PUD, there is no issue. If the proposal is considered a new PUD, it would not meet the 10 acre requirement. Staff is seeking an opinion from the City Attorney concerning this issue. Street Construction- The original pun called for the extension of Five Hawks Avenue northward to Cates Street to provide a convenient north-south for residents of the Five Hawks neighborhood. This idea had been restated in the Comprehensive Plan in the Planning District section. Objective 3 for the Five Hawks district reads as follows: The completion of Five Hawks Avenue should be established as a priority project in order to improve north-south vehicular movements and establish the main entrance to this neiihborhood from Hiihway 13. The applicant has proposed that the street connection not be made. Staff believes that this connection is important to a significant portion of the community beyond the subject property and the street connection should be retained as planned for the past 15 years. PCREPORT.DOC/JAK 2 This will improve access to the elementary school and provide a convenient access to Highway 13 for residents of the area to the north of the site. Parks/Open Space- The proposal as presented does preserve a significant portion of the site in its natural state. Staff believes that it accomplishes this to a greater degree than the original pun and will do so even if Five Hawks Avenue is extended to the north. The Parks and Recreation Director has indicated that no land dedication is necessary from this development. Consequently, a cash dedication would be required. A trail connection along Five Hawks Avenue would be desirable as it would tie in with the sidewalk now in place along the west side of Five Hawks Avenue. The school district has indicated an interest in the wetland and wooded portion of the site adjacent to Five Hawks School for use as a nature education area. They envision trails and instructional areas within this portion of the site. As a result, the school would prefer that Five Hawks Avenue not be extended through the site as it would reduce the area available to the school for their use. One problem which potentially exists with regard to school use of the land is related to density. If the property is conveyed to the school, the land available for density credit decreases and the net density of the project increases. Staff has no objection to the use of the property by the school under some arrangement with the developer as long as the land is still tied to the development, but conveyance of the land to the school would be problematic. Utilities- The attached report from the engineering department indicates that utilities are reasonably available and adequate to serve the subject property. The report does point out the need to provide for a water connection through the site to provide for a loop to the north. Fire Access- The Building Official has indicated that the layout as proposed would likely not be in compliance with Fire Code requirements. Improved access and increased hydrant placement on the site would likely be required. This can be addressed in the detailed plans required for Preliminary PUD submittal. Parkin~/Traffic- The site plan attached to the application shows 33 parking stalls on the site. While this is probably sufficient parking for the use, it does not comply with the parking requirements in the zoning ordinance. The parking requirement for housing for the elderly is one stall per unit. The applicant is proposing .54 stalls per unit. Many communities have a reduced parking standard for elderly housing. Some cities require that .3 stalls per unit be provided with a co~dition that the use must have room on site available for an additional .2 stalls per unit. Either the applicant must modify the plan to show one stall per unit or the parking requirement for this type of use should be modified. The proposed use is not listed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, however, nursing homes do and these are probably the most similar in characteristics to assisted living facilities. Nursing homes, on average, generate 2.6 vehicle trips per day compared to an apartment building which generates approximately 6.5 vehicle trips per unit. Based on PCREPORT.DOC/JAK 3 ,'_~~,-o,.<'~--""__'_""'__~~_~_'"'_'~"'"""'_"" ""._"",""^_<'_~__"'"_,^,~',",,,,,,_,,,,,_,,,,_,,,,,~~,,",,,,,,__,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,_--""_~_,_~_""""""""_,_~,_~~,,~_,,,,,",_""'m'" _.,"_.'......._'-__....~, .. ".,_,-" __~_~,'~.._._,_.,,~."_.,_._.,,__._. ___",_"^,w,."~,,,_,,,",'~"'''~>O'''''---'''_''M__''''___~~''''''''''''''__''---~''''''.~_._--~ .. "" this, the proposed development would generate about 160 trips per day while an apartment building with 61 units would generate about 400 trips per day. If the Planning Commission believes this is an appropriate request for the proposed location, the following should be kept in mind: · A Comprehensive Plan amendment will likely be required to deal with the density Issue. . The parking requirements for elderly housing will likely need to be amended. . The proposal will enable the City to make substantial progress toward the attainment of Livable Communities goals related to lifestyle housing. · The City required the previous developer to make the right-of-way for Five Hawks Avenue available to the City. . The proposed use is compatible with the development in the vicinity. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the Schematic Plan, subject to a Comprehensive Plan amendment related to density, satisfactory resolution of the parking issue and modification of the plan to show the extension of Five Hawks Avenue. 2. Recommend approval of the Schematic Plan as presented, subject to a Comprehensive Plan amendment related to density and satisfactory resolution of the parking issue. 3. Recommend denial of the request. 4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 1 ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second to recommend approvals of the Schematic Plan, subject to a Comprehensive Plan amendment related to density, satisfactory resolution of the parking issue and modification of the plan to show the extension of Five Hawks Avenue. PCREPORT.DOC/JAK 4 EAGLE CREEK VILLAS ASSISTED LIVING CENTER Gradin~/W etlands: Approximately 2 acres of this site will be disturbed to allow for the construction of the building and parking lot/driveway. The remainder will be left in a natural state. A 2 acre wetland is located on the southwest corner of the site as shown on attached Exhibit A. The Developer, City and School District are working together to raise the normal water level (NWL) of this wetland up three to four feet to create a better functioning water quality treatment facility in this wetland. The wetland receives runoff from the Westbury Ponds and Triangle Car Wash areas. The outlet for this wetland has eroded and been lowered in the past, and with this development, a new outlet would be constructed that raises the NWL to elevation 918.5. A 0.3 acre wetland also exists in the southeast corner of the site. This wetland will not be disturbed by filling or draining. The creek system that drains the wetlands in this area is also classified as wetland areas that are shown not to be disturbed. The creek system conveys the storm water runoff of this area northwesterly to Green Heights Trail and discharge directly into Prior Lake. The development will be required to comply with the City's erosion control standards. Whenever possible, a 30 foot grass buffer strip should be provided along the edge of wetlands to limit erosion. Watermain: An existing 6" watermain has been stubbed to the site from the Five Hawks A venueIPriorwood Street intersection. An existing 8" watermain has been stubbed to the site from the north at the Five Hawks Avenue stub street. An 8" watermain is proposed to be constructed through the development along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue. The construction of this line will provide another loop to the City's system. The proposed watermain system will need to include a fire hydrant on the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners of the proposed building to provide adequate fire protection to the site. Sanitax:y Sewer: 16200 ~ef~l~~"J!1~S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER An existing 15" sanitary sewer line with adequate depth and capacity is available to serve this site. The sewer line flows northerly along the east property line at the site. Streets/Access: The proposed development intends to obtain its access from the Five Hawks A venue/Priorwood Street intersection. The preliminary layout shows a private driveway and parking lot connecting at the north end of Five Hawks Avenue. The proposed parking lot and drive aisles shall be constructed to City standards with concrete curb and gutter and bituminous surfacing. The City has a 66 foot wide easement for public use to construct a roadway and utility lines along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue. The easement was conveyed to the City in 1983 from the Priorview Developers for a fee of one dollar. The extension of Five Hawks Avenue through this site will help to interconnect neighborhoods and provide a northerly connection to the Cates Street area. Trails/Sidewalks An 8' bituminous trail shall be constructed along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue. The trail will provide a pedestrian link from the Five Hawks Elementary School to the Cates Street neighborhood. G:\projects\EAGCKYIL.DOC Planning Case File No. ~ Property Identification No. 'J City of Prior Lake ,;zS--qo.;;>-/ DCJ--o LAl~ USE APPLICATION 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714/ Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245 Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional o Rezoning, from (present zonin~) to - (proposed zonin~) I2S1 Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance o Subdivision of Land o Administrative Subdivision o Conditional Use Permit o Variance Applicant(s):~ ~6 r~ G ~ ~L Address: /' 0/\ e. /"7 ~ -C +- Home Phone: t{ LI J - ') g sD Work Phone: Applicable Ordinance Section(s): I L/ ~ I (~ '--L~ Ll 4/ - S-C:;~- ~ Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]: Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: Type of Ownership: Fee ~ Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement Legal Description of Property (Attaclra copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): <\t?-L, 14 {./~ To the best of my knowledge the information prodded in this application and other material submitted is correct. In addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that appl atio rs will not be processed until dee ed com lete by the Planning Director or assignee. ~ Date G~ a~)-q0 fo - ;) <{ - 96 Date THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNING COrv1MISSION CITY COUNCIL APPROVED APPROVED CONDITIONS: Signacure of Planning Director or Designee DENIED DENIED DATE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING Date NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMENDMENT TO PRIORVIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road, SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday, July 22, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Priorview Planned Unit Development. APPLICANT: Eagle Creek Villas LLC 7765 l75th Street East Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 SUBJECT SITE: This property is located north of the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street, just north of Five Hawks Elementary School. REQUEST: The approved pun allows an additional 38 townhouse units in this location. The applicant proposes to replace these units with an assisted living facility for the elderly. This facility would consist of one 3-story building containing 61 units. The building also includes dining facilities, community spaces, offices and support spaces for the residents. The plan also shows 33 surface parking spaces. If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Prepared this 3rd day of July, 1996 by: Jane Kansier Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON JULY 6, 1996 16200 ~~t!'~~~~S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGER, INC ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 19 June 1996 Housing Proposal: Prior Lake, MN Statement of Use Designed as a 61-unit assisted living facility, this three-story wood framed building would contain dining facilities, community spaces, offices, and spaces for support services. The exterior materials would include siding with brick accents. A covered portico at the main entry becomes the focal point of the building and acts as a sheltered drop-off during inclement weather. As we look to the future, providing care to seniors will require greater and greater investment in developing a continuum of care beyond the traditional care center model. An assisted living environment allows residents the freedom and privacy of their own apartment on a month to month rental basis and the opportunity to purchase additional services as needed. The environment offers choices for those individuals who need varying levels of support and services. Residents have the freedom to pursue an active social life, entertain family and friends and continue to make choices in a safe, comfortable, and secure environment. <II 1201 HAWTHORNE AVENUE MINNEAPOUS MINNESOTA 55403 612-332-5420 FAX 612-332-5425 ,:t: 0 ." . . . c: :D . 0 z en )> OJ en z c C "'D C - -t :c :D "'D r= Z m OJ ~ :D C r- m 0 Z G) m ::a 0 ?<. ~ m C) -a 0 ~ OJ :J: .... -n 0 c' m :D c ::a r= c; 0 Z Z ,:: C :J: =t Z Z -t -a en C) C) 11 0 Z en en (,.) en OJ ~ C Q) C 0 -n )> r= m -t -t r- c en 1\ 0 . . 'z 11 ,&:l. -4 C) (,.) ,&:l. 0 -a "'D II (,.) Q :IJ 0 0 Q) Q -n - .. 0 ::a 6 :IJ C) m r- )> " m .. 3: z . -I 1- .. . 1\ N o > :D o :z: =i PJm:e ~ ~m 110 G') ~ ~ ~!D;;~ z~ mzr z _ men r gJzoom (J) 0" Z :D < Q z =t -< :c )> "'C I I " . ;~ \ '" : I - '--';' " ' -: " ' , , : : " : :1' \ ~~....., \ ., '--' " , -,' I I \ \" ")" , \ \ ~\\' ", I I \ , '- . \ , .. " . I I \ \ .. I J I I 1 ... - -:-... \" ',- 1 I \ \~ \ : /11 I J ' , , , '. "I I I ~, I ';/ I 1 " '. " , J',,./,: .111'/ I \ \ " '/,.... I 1 \ ' ~., " 'I I I Iff I \ , " (. \, I ,'1 I I : i/ " , '..~......., } \, \', 0\ /~,: :~~ \ \~ '~ " ", ~ \ / f5\ \ \ )' ) I . , " . .\ )' .~, , \ ' _/ , '" \, \ . " I t: \, ( ""~'", \ .. .. 1. \ , l: , \." '\ I. l\oul I , . I " ,'- ,~, ."-"",-~_~ . _ , '. _ . \I -. h ""', _>-::;:, - . '\'\... " I '~" '-~_-:,;__~._ _ ~ ,'_ _ _ _ _ __ _\~~. ~""..... V'r-~(Y~~, __ "'\" '\ ~'" i, ,/ , ~\'__~=-:":\~"" ~.~ "" ('7 " / / --~ '-- --'::"':".P,~:\ . ", ~~ " /> ': / / '()' '-, ".-,-<2f~ ' . '_~" \ 1,1/ ,'/ I '--__" ___'0 o,\.~ '\\ ',,_, ',.,~~\ r, : I' / .;:. , , '\ ,', , ',. ~\ " ~';' '/' " / - - -, \) '-, -. " .~ ,--' " ' " " \~ ' : I I / ~ of' , , , , "W ' , , ''\\ ,.. I \,' '/<"'"'-' ~~'.., ' , , . t\' \ " \ \ ~\ A : I Il-..)J ____ 7.....', \ \~ \ \ " I .~) .... /1 / :rJ~) // \ - ..... O.:-,,~, \t~ \ \ '\: , / j1 ,J l>; \ r-....." l~\ \ \: ' ' rI:. -//j'J///. '~, II ',,\ U~\., \ " '- r' ,." - /,../ '///./" II I () r;; '-1.\ ~" .P~ .9~, " )~/ .'~,J ,~;:; \~_q.--\ /1 \ \ \',,' ': / r'/,/.I... 1\ .\ \ , :s: r__~~,? / S'";' //1.1 I J/(~' \; \ \, '. '\' \ Z ~~ .41'..' ..J / // \ ~" J> <'" \ .,.. / / '" " A · ,.:.:" ? J / /A I I. A~cr-\, ~ ......- r '" // II ~/JP \ \ - ~-- ... - "'" - '/"/, I' /'0 ~ \," - ....... ~'- - - - '::.=-. - :::. - - I J', \' , " , - -- .....-- - - - - - ~ - - I ~.::\ \ - - -- ~ , , , .-::-:: ~;...:::.-- II J ' i \r~, ........... "~ "-:: ' ' , . _ ::...-- ~ I I . " .... -........._, .... .. ,. "', "'-"" "'I II (',) "", \ \ \ \ I I: \ 1\ ,') \ I , " I' I: ; fl '/': 1,1 I I 1.1 \)J ;' , I I I \ II r... ~ I I I I I I)': ~ J / / (/.\ I I,,' '/1 II I I v ~ ~... ;' ; I " ;'" <." .I I \ \ 1111'v/j:J/': ,/ " " I . I \ \ r.) I 'I \ \ I /. , I \'-' \ I \ I } I .......... ,./1. I I . - - - -... I I '/ I / \ \ , , " ,f.Y.\ ",/,' / / " -.... ...._.~-_.... '" ./ '" ~ , / ~" "- '--------~,-:..- '----- - - < , -- -;;- , . ~ ---- // ....... I I \ \ \ \ , I I \ .:[ o c' 'CIJ ~" - z G) '"tJ :c o -c o en :r> r- ~ , , \ " \ . .. , \ -c :c - o :0 r- )> " m .. \ \ \ o '''0. -a o ~ o <?,. . .~. ~. tn '=i' m ou. r-. >. z > ::a o :t :::s "' as =E ~ mm en :J] en . 1lOG>-t:I:" -. I'" m9J>== i.:amz~ I z-m(J)m _!aZO~JJ III 0" """ ......_~~_.'^~ /' ..~.- -n-~. ~~- .. _It -Li'- ._two ,., ... . (" lVPIc.A1. eft.~. lill~!I<l'o100l"2 ~. J'~~"".,{1 --r ~'t"~'~::'l";":' /./.' 7;=" "~';;-" '.'Y:.'-1. I . 1 ~-,~. -- _ '5 6 _ U JC"YN ;~ ,/ .... ~ .~ '. : ! ; I :~ .. I ,I 'p I ~t I: H , i A ) ,S ,~ ,E i 1 I I' ! ,4 '~~ "I~' ~ : ~ 1'/ !:.l '-L :11 ~:;'l.....~"( \..~ ' '.-. =1 '.' . (i) 'f:. r-. ,.." i .1. ~'LI ~ ,;-~ . ,;.. ".;,"\.\~ l~ I:',. "'.;.~,!.:l :' T-~. ( l,;,':'n\i,:::'i~j\::.::.; , (.j \i, i p:,~,:.ij "-I'" ' " .', ",., \) : \ ' ~ ~ I-~ .t' ~ ~ <( . ~l: ...- I~~- ---- . . - /- ',-- /l 1'""'C" , 1-___ -_.__~.:.::::::::=:--_r:==-:::::_--\-l .\1. PlANTING SYMBOL : o D€CIDUOUS . CONlFEROlII ~ SHRUBS c.::> EXIST. WOODLAND SITE AREA 17.45! AC 104 0/.1. (:f' .--~ ..... (,..,.,......___...) 2 PAR:~,~!G SPACES / UNIT 6.0 UN/ ~C DEVELOPMENT. 4,15 .. PRIVATe I PUBLIc 13.3... OPEN SPACE 76~ OF TOTAL AREA OF LAND IN EACH USE: =-:,hli:tl'uc IlAC~J()tI..... ACIS 1_.AC MR.Atu 2.4M: WOODLAND .0. AC '-- on&,. GAUH UACI4.3 AC '. ... _ EAIITHEN BEIIMS 03U.,AI,..J(".AHI' 1111_ 1Nt: ....'E.lI1ES. IIC. )~ lito., f,Mh SI ro'", t;uW,......U..:iN ~~:'J) \'AU.[\" t:'~J:a:DUliIC (1).. 1M:. '~~~:"~"I~~'. ;~f&~;I~~'I"I' ~,.&l '01. LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS & SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN dale ; :t I~Y)1AT\C PUI'J 32.- I ~ Gai, 6 AssaciaflPS Inc. .,:o)')"'noI;.-e"'J ""OS ...._....1'.4. .11)4),~J' , ;~'H 'to I' ~... "",. .....1 III 10'.... 1J1O LNWI-'fCo ruM,.,p, ,.,.,.,., It....... 10 ~ UN'" " ~ ,..... "'INL' Priorview m nJ:l Prior Lake, MN. f~J 'i; I "{/r<t'>f."Y ,~ (. 7..;1. {"..,~/t PI.., 4dylJ. EAGLE CREEK VILLAS ASSISTED LIVING CENTER Gradin~/Wet1ands: Approximately 2 acres of this site will be disturbed to allow for the construction of the building and parking lot/driveway. The remainder will be left in a natural state. A 2 acre wetland is located on the southwest comer of the site as shown on attached Exhibit A. The Developer, City and School District are workipg together to raise the normal water level (NWL) of this wetland up three to four feet to create a better functioning water quality treatment facility in this wetland. The wetland receives runoff from the Westbury Ponds and Triangle Car Wash areas. The outlet for this wetland has eroded and been lowered in the past, and with this development, a new outlet would be constructed that raises the NWL to elevation 918.5. A 0.3 acre wetland also exists in the southeast comer of the site. This wetland will not be disturbed by filling or draining. The creek system that drains the wetlands in this area is also classified as wetland areas that are shown not to be disturbed. The creek system conveys the storm water runoff of this area northwesterly to Green Heights Trail and discharge directly into Prior Lake. The development will be required to comply with the City's erosion control standards. Whenever possible, a 30 foot grass buffer strip should be provided along the edge of wetlands to limit erosion. W atermain' An existing 6" watermain has been stubbed to the site from the Five Hawks AvenuelPriorwood Street intersection. An existing 8" watermain has been stubbed to the site from the north at the Five Hawks Avenue stub street. An 8" watermain is proposed to be constructed through the development along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue. The construction of this line will provide another loop to the City's system. The proposed watermain system will need to include a fire hydrant on the northwest, northeast, and southeast comers of the proposed building to provide adequate fire protection to the site. Sanitaty Sewer: 16200 ~~~vA~S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQL".A.L OPPORn;~In. EMPLOYER An existing 15" sanitary sewer line with adequate depth and capacity is available to serve this site. The sewer line flows northerly along the east property line at the site. Streets/ Access: The proposed development intends to obtain its access from the Five Hawks A venue/Priorwood Street intersection. The preliminary layout shows a private driveway and parking lot connecting at the north end of Five Hawks Avenue. The proposed parking lot and drive aisles shall be constructed to City standards with concrete curb and gutter and bituminous surfacing. The City has a 66 foot wide easement for public use to construct a roadway and utility lines along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue. The easement was conveyed to the City in 1983 from the Priorview Developers for a fee of one dollar. The extension of Five Hawks Avenue through this site will help to interconnect neighborhoods and provide a northerly connection to the Cates Street area. Trails/Sidewalks An 8' bituminous trail shall be constructed along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue. The trail will provide a pedestrian link from the Five Hawks Elementary School to the Cates Street neighborhood. G;\projec:ts\EAGCKvn..DOC AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 5 CONSIDER SCHEMATIC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW AN ASSISTED LIVING PROJECT IN THE PRIORVIEW PUD FIVE HAWKS AVENUE AND PRIORWOOD STREET JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES X NO-N/A -- AUGUST 12, 1996 Eagle Creek Villas LLC has applied for an amendment to the Priorview pun to allow the construction of a 61 unit assisted living building on the vacant portion of the site. The original pun was approved in 1983 and the development to date has occurred prior to 1991. The present applicant has no connection with the developer of the original pun. BACKGROUND: On July 22, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal, heard testimony from several citizens, and then closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission then tabled action on this time until August 12, 1996, in order to obtain additional information DISCUSSION: The information the Planning Commission requested is listed below (in bold italics), followed by the staff's response. 1. The City Attorney's opinion on whether or not this application can be considered as an amendment to the original PUD since the developer has no connection with the original developer. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The City Attorney has determined that this application may be considered as an amendment to the existing PUD in spite of the fact that the developer has no connection with the original developer. A memo from the City Attorney is attached. 2. The City Engineer's report on relocating the water line. See attached memo from John Wingard, dated August 7, 1996. 3. The City Engineer's report on the traffic impact of connecting Five Hawks Avenue versus eliminating this connection. See attached memo from John Wingard, dated August 7, 1996. 4. The trail plan for the area, including any plans between the City and the School District The City's trail plan for this area includes the extension of the existing trail in Westbury Ponds to Five Hawks A venue. Sidewalk will also be extended along Priorwood Street to Duluth Avenue. A sidewalk or trail along the right-of-way of Five Hawks Avenue to the north is also desirable. The City has no plans to establish nature trails on the subject property. The development of nature trails on this site is a private matter between the developer and the School District. As mentioned in the original staff report, the developer needs all of his land for the density of this project. Conveying land to the School District could affect the allowable density. 5. The City Engineer's recommendation for overflow parking. See attached memo from John Wingard, dated August 7, 1996. 6. A definition of an "Assisted Living Facility". A generally recognized definition of an "Assisted Living Facility" is Ha residence that provide rooms, meals, personal care and health monitoring services under the supervision of a professional nurse or other medical professional, and that may provide other services such as recreational, social and transportation". These facilities are generally marketed toward the elderly, but are also used by other individuals with special needs, such as handicapped or Alzheimer's patients. The Planning Commission can approach the need for a definition in several ways. First of all, the Zoning Ordinance could be amended to include a specific defInition. The disadvantage in this approach is that the Planning Commission must initiate the amendment process, which includes a public hearing and approval by the Council. This process may add time to the review of this application. pcrept2.doc Page 2 Another approach is to ask the developer to identify the users of the proposed facility. This list would be reviewed by the Commission during later phases, and could then be incorporated into the final approved PUD plans. 7. Necessary modifications to the Comprehensive Plan. If this plan is to proceed, it seems that a Comprehensive Plan amendment from the Low Density Residential designation to the Medium Density Residential designation may be necessary since the proposed development would result in densities greater than those contemplated by the current plan. If such an amendment were to be pursued, it would seem likely that the amendment could be limited in such a way as to limit development of the property to something similar to the proposed project to insure that the development intensity of the site is limited. In addition, if the Planning Commission recommends that the plan proceed without the connection of Five Hawks Road, the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to remove Objective #3 from the Five Hawks Planning District, which states that "the comlJletion Q,l Five Hawks Avenue should be established as a lJriority lJrQfect in order to imlJrove north- south vehicular movements and establish the main entrance to this neighborhood from Highway 13". At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on whether or not the proposed use of this property for a 61-unit assisted living facility is appropriate. If the Planning Commission believes this is an appropriate request for the proposed location, the following should be kept in mind: · A Comprehensive Plan amendment will likely be required to deal with the density Issue. · The parking requirements for elderly housing will likely need to be amended. . The proposal will enable the City to make substantial progress toward the attainment of Livable Communities goals related to lifestyle housing. . The City required the previous developer to make the right-of-way for Five Hawks Avenue available to the City. . The proposed use is compatible with the development in the vicinity. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the Schematic Plan, subject to a Comprehensive Plan amendment related to density, satisfactory resolution of the parking issue and modification of the plan to show the extension of Five Hawks Avenue. 2. Recommend approval of the Schematic Plan as presented, subject to a Comprehensive Plan amendment related to density and satisfactory resolution of the parking issue. 3. Recommend denial of the request. 4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission pcrept2.doc Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second to recommend approvals of the Schematic Plan, subject to a Comprehensive Plan amendment related to density, satisfactory resolution of the parking issue and modification of the plan to show the extension of Five Hawks Avenue. pcrept2.doc Page 4 r- )c-" ~ --r __ CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FlJCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law Thomas J. Camrhell Rnger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Gary G. Fuchs James R. Walston Elliott B. Knersch Suesan Lea Pace (612) 452,5000 Fax (612) 452,5550 Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew K. Bwk I Juhn F. Kellv ),1ar~uerire M. McCarwn Geur~e T. Srerhens,)[1 July 23, 1996 TO: Don Rye, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator FROM: Suesan Lea Pace, City Attorney RE: Amendment to the Priorview Planned Unit Development ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The purpose of this memorandum is to address those issues raised in your July 22, 1996 memorandum concerning a proposed amendment to the Priorview PUD to allow construction of a sixty-one (61) unit assisted living facility on the vacant portion of the site. Both of the issues you have raised focus on the fact that the applicant who has requested an amendment to the PUD is not the original developer. Like Conditional Use Permits and variances, a PUD runs with the land, not with the owner of the land. Your memorandum indicates the original PUD was approved in 1983. I'm assuming that in 1983, the PUD received fmal plan approval, and that the property that is the subject of the requested amendment is included in the minimum 10-acres which received fmal PUD approval. Assuming the foregoing, City Code Section 5-5-12, 7(t) provides that: Amendments may be made in the approved tinal plan when they are shown to be required by changes and conditions that have occurred since the rmal plan was approved, or by changes in the development policy of the City. A change in density and use must be authorized by the City Council under the procedures set forth in Title 5-6- 10. (Emphasis added) Based on the foregoing, the PUD may be amended not withstanding the fact there is a new developer. Remember to have the new developer enter into a development agreement, and please let me know if you have any other questions. SLP:kgm cc: Frank Boyles, City Manager Suite 31 7 · Eagandale Office Center · 1380 Corporate Center Curve · Eagan, l\, IN '55121 UPPER PRIOR LAKE CJ .~ .. EXISTING PARKS & TRAILS 81 EXISTING PARK t:!! PRIVATE PARK,' RECREATION FACILITY em REGIONAL PARK El TRAIL ,......_...__...._11_' .., PROPOSED PARKS AND TRAILS ~ PROPOSED PARK E3 PROPOSED TRAIL 1__"'--.--...... (]] PARK I TRAIL SEARCH AREAS I ~GRAIN~ CROSSIffGS . - " I ~ -"- - ~ ~~,'" ~"",;"" ~- ,."l' ~ '..::i '. RICE LAKE ~ \ ------; j ~ .-- !-: : ..... .....' -.. MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR JOHN WINGARD, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER AUGUST 7,1996 RE: EAGLE CREEK VILLAS ASSISTED LIVING CENTER Grading/W etlands: Approximately 2 acres of this site will be disturbed to allow for the construction of the building and parking lot/driveway. The remainder will be left in a natural state. A 2 acre wetland is located on the southwest comer of the site as shown on attached Exhibit A. The Developer, City and School District are working together to raise the normal water level (NWL) of this wetland up three to four feet to create a better functioning water quality treatment facility in this wetland. The wetland receives runoff from the Westbury Ponds and Triangle Car Wash areas. The Outlet for this wetland has eroded and been lowered in the past, and with this development, a new Outlet would be constructed that raises the NWL to elevation 918.5. A total of 181 acres drains to the 2 acre wetland. The drainage basin includes a mixture of single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, school, open space and park uses. The 2 acre wetland receives 31 acres of direct drainage. Exhibit B shows the sub-drainage districts A through L which drain into the 2 acre wetland. There are six ponds located in this 181 acre drainage basin. The storm water runoff from this 181 acre basin can be controlled to a maximum discharge rate 13 cfs by construction of a dam and control structure at the present Outlet of the 2 acre wetland. The high water level (HWL) of the 2 acre wetland should be designed to be 3 feet below any door or window openings of houses adjacent to this pond. The lower level walkout floor elevation of the house at 16595 Dutch Avenue was measured at elevation 923.66, so the HWL of the pond should be set at 920.66. . A 0.3 acre wetland also exists in the southeast comer of the site. This wetland will not be disturbed by filling or draining. G:\PROJECTS\EAGLECK.DOC L 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 553-/2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The creek system that drains the wetlands in this area is also classified as wetland areas that are shown not to be disturbed. The creek system conveys the storm water runoff of this area northwesterly to Green Heights Trail and discharge directly into Prior Lake. The development will be required to comply with the City's erosion control standards. Whenever possible, a 30 foot grass buffer strip should be provided along the edge of wetlands to limit erosion. Watermain: As shown on the attached Exhibit C, the City's watermain supply system does not contain many north/south connections in the area near this site. Water is fed into the system from the water tower located on Tower Street. A 20" trunk main distributes the water in an east/west direction. . A 16" trunk main is located along Elm Street that loops to the north and then along the southerly edge of the lake. An 8" line is located on Duluth Avenue that provides another north/south loop. Since the gap between the Elm Street loop and the Duluth Avenue loop is nearly one mile apart, the City is recommending that another north/south loop be provided in the Five Hawks Avenue area. The City modeled the water supply system in the Five Hawks Avenue area to see how water supply and fire protection could be provided to this site. The City's Comprehensive Water Plan establishes a 3500 gpm fire flow for supply and to provide this level for a duration of three hours. The construction of the watermain loop along Five Hawks Avenue will improve the City's operating pressure during a fire by increasing the pressure from 39 psi to 55 psi. An existing 6" watermain has been stubbed to the site from the Five Hawks AvenueIPriorwood Street intersection. An existing 8" watermain has been stubbed to the site from the north at the Five Hawks Avenue stub street. An 8" watermain is proposed to be constructed through the development along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue. The construction of this line will provide another loop to the City's system. The proposed watermain system will need to include a fire hydrant on the northwest, northeast, and southeast comers of the proposed building to provide adequate fire protection to the site. The construction of the 8" water line along the Five Hawks Avenue alignment could follow the proposed street or trail. The Five Hawks Avenue alignment would eliminate the dead end line that exists on the Five Hawks Avenue stub street. If the Five Hawks Avenue street extension is not constructed, then the alignment of the 8" watermain should be picked which saves as many trees as possible. An alternative alignment for a north/south watermain connection would be along the east property line of this site. The 8" watermain would follow the existing 15" sanitary sewer line that is located along this property line. This alternative alignment would cross through trees and a wetland. G:\PROJECTS\EAGLECK.DOC 2 Sanitary Sewer: An existing 15" sanitary sewer line with adequate depth and capacity is available to serve this site. The sewer line flows northerly along the east property line at the site. Streets/Access: The proposed development intends to obtain its access from the Five Hawks AvenueIPriorwood Street intersection. The preliminary layout shows a private driveway and parking lot connecting at the north end of Five Hawks Avenue. The proposed parking lot and drive aisles shall be constructed to City standards with concrete curb and gutter and bituminous surfacing. The City has a 66 foot wide easement for public use to construct a roadway and utility lines along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue. The easement was conveyed to the City in 1983 from the Priorview Developers for a fee of one dollar. The extension of Five Hawks A venue through this site will help to interconnect neighborhoods and provide a northerly connection to the Cates Street area. The Five Hawks Avenue extension would provide another north/south connection in-between Duluth Avenue and Willow Lane. The extension of Five Hawks Avenue through this site would require a considerable disturbance to the trees, creeks and natural features of this area. If Five Hawks Avenue is not extended through this site, there will be minimal impacts to the City's overall transportation system. The streets will still be able to function without becoming congested. The City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan recommended that the construction of a new two lane undivided roadway be extended along Priorwood Street from Five Hawks Avenue to Duluth Avenue. This street extension is designated as a minor collector street and is being constructed this summer with the Eagle Creek Villas Development. The extension of Priorwood Street will eliminate the dead end street system by Five Hawks Elementary School. The Transportation Plan designates the extension of Five Hawks Avenue through this site as a local street. Trails/Sidewalks: An 8' bituminous trail shall be constructed along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue. The trail will provide a pedestrian link from the Five Hawks Elementary School to the Cates Street neighborhood. Overflow Parkini or Public Parkini: The trail system, parks and natural features of this area could attract enough interest to justify the construction of a public parking lot. The 61 unit assisted living building will require a bigger parking lot than what has originally been shown (a 33 stall lot). With the expansion of the lot by the developer to serve the 61 unit building, there is not enough room on this site for an overflow parking lot to be used by the public. Residents will need to use off-street parking or the Five Hawks Elementary School parking lot for parking. G:\PROJECTS\EAGLECK.DOC 3 ," --r--------- I I I I I I I I I I -l.J .J.J I ex: I ~:~ I '.I I I ~. ~I ~I ,~ /Yj. I . II ) y' It &4"1 /! / ~~~~ . -./ / I ,\\'~ '.;. I / ' ~~ . . V -4 ~.--.--.--.J " " II; / r.-- ~ " ' (I 'I --E -__ t. ,,/ .Y~ I' // J ~ l 1, l I / t ~ , .~ , \ ~' (. --- \~""-:---. ---. ~'\~ ~., ~.\ . , ~~~. <hi I "'" , ,;s- 'VI>- "\ ,'\~Q' ~ \ ,,~ ()lJi,t~ i '~/ ~. r-\. I '- I I I t,- - - I' " I', ' I '\ " I ',' 1 ,', 1 " , , 1-----, L 1 ,-,-- , ,-. 1 " 1 '- , 1 .~\ \~~,- 1- . ~ "- --r-/--:\ "- 1 \ \. \l" I \\ I \ \'.:I: 1 \ \~ --, I \ .v;:.---'" l., I?......... .. :In.r'l'3/\"V - - , %;,.,:: )f:i\ vt-r ~/- or" ~~ r - - T';L--:;"~ \ ~Vl I I \!a8 1 I \~:I: I I \ I I \ · L--- ., i---r---r : ~r" \ \ \ \ w \ \ \ I I ~ 1 \ \ I I U L_---L---L----l~ J -~ ~' <<S"' " '. I I T <( I I l- t/) T ~ C I - Z m z - ~ ,. - I- ..J I :I: t/) I- - I >< >< W w 3= W \ t-~ c.r~\ .... C) \ " () , o :--=-+-------+-+--:. ;'5 cr.. " g~t . ct.. ~\\ " CoO \\\ . ~'- '~~. ......--- - -- 3/'\ \,..,' ,... , ............ v ::;. >1/I'i LV" , '- ,.-'l\ If...., -,__.L-______ "::;/'1/', I : .::J I . . , -I' ......; I " :' I L;J lLdl IllJ I \ cr: \ ~/: I - J , I I \ \ U\ ~ , ~ ~ \ - \ 0 V Ci) \ ? ~ ..J ~ u.. V"I ~' 0:: uJ r- /;::'-'=;~'1 ~~ ': '''., ~ V) . fl\ a. ""' '\ "', '/ .~) \. '\ "..... --' ~. ./-,/' .:'~' ~~ \ 0,.\ . Ul '. L . fa:: - '\~ )~ w ~ \ . ~'. . ~ f \ ~~~ ~ '1\ '\'~ ~ }\.) ""':\-, , i ';( I '\\ : ' \,:~~: ' '. , . I "~~. ~' " -~~ - . \ ;?~~ ./ '. ,~~~. ~ ~ . ""- ----- \ \ -'\ \ \ \. ) \ \ --' ~.. ........-:-. " o o n I I II- a ~ ~ LL ~, -. ~ a a ~ :z. o Q.. a .;. . . ,./~ ~ o } mil x- _G) C/)e ~::o zm G)~ o. 00 z< em -:;;0 :!)> Or- zr- C/))> :e::o _m ~)> :I:-o '"'0 1- r-)> )>z ~- o < m :;;0 r- )> -< ...~:; .:. ,.'. ... ,.. :.1\'; G)c::J o ""') ;. ? '1 ...~ r~ ..l~ ..i~ ... ..t ""', m >< ::r: - a:J - ----I aJ '-.t.t- ~ c: ~ ~ m ~ --0 it' ...... o ~ r- ~ ~ m ~ /~ u I. '1 :> -c .~ ", .. . " .. ----- --- iii - I iii I iii I ,i :2 -= h ~ := ~ ~ 0 -= n 0 0 en n :2 ~ en 0 ~ ~ := ~ > n ~ ~ ~ - := 0 :: :2 :=: ~ , ~ 0 :z 0 "'" "0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUL Y 22, 1996 The July 24, 1996, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Vonhof, Kuykendall, Wuellner, Stamson and Criego, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Acting City EngineerJohn Wingard and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. Roll Call: Wuellner Kuykendall Stamson V onhof Criego Present Present Present Absent (arrived at 7:06 p.m.) Present Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECONDED BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE JUNE 24, 1996, MINUTES. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Criego and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED. Commissioner Wuellner abstained from voting. Public Hearing: ~ Case File # 96-055: Eagle Creek Villas LLC applied for an amendment to the Priorview PUD to allow the construction of a 61 unit assisted living building on the vacant portion of the site. Commissioner Criego opened the public hearing. A sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report dated July 22, 1996. The original PUD was approved in 1983 and the development to date has occurred prior to 1991. The present applicant has no connection with the developer of the original PUD. The Priorview PUD was preceded by Council action in 1981 which rezoned the subject property to R-3, High Density residential. This would have permitted 210 units on the 15.05 acres of buildable land on the site. In December of 1982, the Council approved a Schematic PUD plan which provided for 106 units, a street connection from Five Hawks Avenue to Cates Street and preservation of site amenities. In September of 1983, the Council approved the first phase of the development consisting of 48 townhomes. Priorview Second Addition consisting of 20 units, was approved in 1991. MN072296.DOC PAGEl Staff recommends approval of the Schematic Plan, subject to the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendment related to the density, satisfactory resolution of the parking issue and modification of the plan to show extension of Five Hawks. Wilt Berger of Miller, Hanson, Westerbeck Berger, Inc., Archeticts & Planners, explained the proposed facility and the site surroundings. Mr. Berger pointed out they tried maintain as much vegetation on the site as possible and build the facility on an area with little vegetation. He went on to say they were not in favor of connecting the road to the south and preferred to retain the trees. Deborah Rose, of Care First Incorporated, Minneapolis, is a resident of Credit River Township, and has been in long term care since 1981. Ms. Rose went on to explain assisted living. The proposed facility will enable individuals to live in a secure environment having a 24 hour security service and assisted care available. It will provide various nursing services. A market study done by Scott County Housing Authority indicated Scott County as well as Prior Lake is under served in this area. The apartment size will be approximately 500 sq. feet. Acting City Engineer John Wingard, explained the engineering issues of wetlands and grading; the sanitary sewer line will be easy to tie into. A waterline will need to be extended through the site and help provide a looping system. Storm water drainage for this site is adequate. The wetland on site can be improved by raising the water level by 3 feet. The water quality would improve a sedimentation pond. The school district is also supportive. Street and sidewalks will tie in with the Eagle Creek Villas and Five Hawks Elementary School. Comments from the public: Marcus Mikla, 16477 Five Hawks Avenue SE, stated his concern for the water main coming from the north end of Five Hawks crossing the creek and disrupting the area. He said the residents on Five Hawks like the area the way it is. Other concerns are tree removal and the road extension. Mr. Mikla is in favor of the assisted living project. Leanne Weyrauch, 16457 Five Hawks Avenue SE, is in favor of the assisted living but not in favor of destroying nature by having the road go through. She does not feel it is necessary for another new road. As a taxpayer she is concerned for the expense and the problems it can cause. The wetland water quality will be improved. Parking addition would remove more trees. Mrs. Weyrauch presented a petition opposing the connection of Five Hawks Avenue and disturbing the wild life area. Wayne Annis, 4607 Colorado Street, claimed he was involved in assisted living since 1986 when a developer came to Prior Lake to construct a 100 bed nursing home. At the time it was voted down. Mr. Annis gave an overview of nursing homes. He is in favor of the assisted living facility depending on the way it is handled. Mr. Annis would like to MN072296.DOC PAGE 2 see this publicly funded. Shakopee has a new hospitaVmedical and assisted living care quarters in one complex. Jordan will be constructing a similar facility in 1997. Mr. Annis said he has been through this process many times and would like the project delayed until the Commissioners see Shakopee's development. Russell Lawrence, 16493 Five Hawks, lived in Prior Lake since 1971. He is in favor of the assisted living and the location. Mr. Lawrence explained how previous planning commissioners allowed a narrow Five Hawks Road where emergency vehicles cannot drive through with the parked cars. There is a safety issue involved. Also, many of the area residents enjoy the woods and walking paths. Miles Bristol, 16495 Five Hawks Avenue, said he enjoys the quiet living on Five Hawks Avenue. Dar Fosse, 16228 Franklin Circle, Principal of Five Hawks School is against the construction of a new road. Mr. Fosse said the school district and City have been working together to preserve the natural environment. The main concern for the road coming through as it is right in the heart of two drainage areas. He explained the drainage and wetlands. The school district would like to develop the area into a nature center. Not only is this area a benefit to the school but to the public as well. He does not want to waste the special natural area. One of the University of Minnesota's landscaping classes would like to come out this Fall and develop a trail system. Charles Cappuccino, 4206 Cates Street feels the development would be a benefit to the area but is opposed to any street coming through Five Hawks to the north. Rhonda Wolf, 4171 Cates Street, stated she lives next to the creek and is concerned for the water level as well as the wetland. She supports the assisted living facility. Developer, John Mesenbrink, explained the water level and the proposed wetland. Russ Lawrence pointed out two owls and the unique wildlife in the area. Michael Conlin, 4091 Cates Street, is against the road but not the assisted living. Commissioner Criego eXplained the discussion process and procedure of the meeting. Wayne Annis, read a short piece from the Metro Area on Aging. Wilt Berger addressed a water and sewer line issue. The public hearing was closed at 8: 13 p.m. MN072296.DOC PAGE 3 .'.... '--"-"--".._"--~--'~""'-""''''''''"''''.~''''''''''''~;~____~'-40-"_,_~.,"_,~,,..._.~....~...-,-......,,-.. '''._., ~'.~-""""'<"-'h_'",,,,,-~",',,",,,,,,_,,,,,,,~,_,,,,,,~",,,,_">o..,..~..."~,,,.~ ,_ ,... ___.......,__.___, ""'~--"-"'"-"""'-""">'-'-"~-"""___'~'~"'~W"_~ Comments from the Commissioners: V onhof: . First issue is to consider this a new PUD or an amendment to the existing PUD. . The natural amenities provide for a new PUD. . The assisted living facility meets with our Livable Communities Act and Comprehensive Plan objectives. Supportive of the development. . Waiting for the City Attorney's opinion to come back with a decision on the PUD. . Wetland issue of raising the water 3 feet. Will the City have to treat it as aN. U .R.P. pond? . Wingard explained the drainage and grading. . Parking issue - only 33 spaces proposed. Busy weekends will need more parking. . Deb Rose said they can see what other facilities do. Possible off-site parking. Both hospitals and nursing home facilities in Minneapolis regulates 1 parking place to 10 beds. . These are apartments providing assisted care. . Deb Rose felt there would be approximately 20 employees. . Recommend a better parking facility. . Comprehensive Plan states roads should connect neighborhoods. This also means we can connect with trails. Expects to see a trail system on the plan as part of the development. The neighbors, school and public will use these trails. The City made the road connection to Duluth Street. All that remains now is a trail system as part of the plan. Kuykendall: . There should be a definition in the Comprehensive Plan for assisted living. . Would this facility be limited to the elderly only? . Deb Rose said the building would be handicapped equipped. If the market had to change it could assist others. . Agrees with Commissioner V onhof on the street extension. . Wingard said the current streets would handle the traffic. . Pricing - Deb Rose said the cost would be $95 to $150 per day. It would depend on the services being rendered from the facility. This is will be an average priced facility. . John Wingard said the City can look further into the water line. . Supports raising the pond and dam the pond. . Concern for the parking. . Would like to see the City Attorney's position on the PUD. . Supports the pedestrian walkway. This is a unique area. Strongly supports trails. . Would like to see more information on pricing such as Shakopee's new facility. . Supports the general philosophy. . Consider pedestrian scale street lighting. Stamson: MN072296.DOC PAGE 4 · In favor of the concept and will benefit Prior Lake as a whole. · Developer took into a lot of consideration with the wetlands. · The north end of Five Hawks was not built as a connector street. It is not a critical connection. . Trails are important. · Agrees with Commissioner Kuykendall with the lighting. · Need City Attorney's opinion on the PUD. Wuellner: · This is a wonderful opportunity for Prior Lake and fully supports the facility. · The City is combining the neighborhood. · There will be coordination of the traffic flow. · We need to connect the roads for public safety but not necessary to connect Five Hawks Avenue. · Another opportunity to enhance and improve the wildlife area. · You cannot have street lights on a wildlife trail. · In favor of the entire proj ect but cannot put a street through. · The City should follow the easiest route to include this project into a PUD. Criego: · Agrees with all the comments. · We need the facility and it is a wonderful project. . Against the road going through. · The trail system is exactly what we need going through. . The lighting has to examined. · The wetlands are an important asset. Any clean water we can get into the lake is needed. . Need legal opinion with PUD or amendment. · Agrees with Wuellner to take the easiest way to implement the plan staying within the guide lines. . Review the limited parking area. . It fits in Comprehensive Plan. · The waterline should be examined to make it as easy as possible. . Question the wood vs. the brick on the exterior of the building. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING UNTIL AUGUST 12, 1996, AT WHICH TIME THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN REVIEW THE CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT; CITY ENGINEERING REPORT OF RELOCATING THE WATER LINES; TRAFFIC IMP ACT OR NO IMP ACT; TRAIL PLAN WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE PLAN BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITY ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR OVERFLOW PARKING. STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A CLEAN DEFINITION OF ASSISTED LIVING AND MODIFICATION OF MN072296.DOC PAGES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN APPROPRIATE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Wuellner, Stamson, V onhof and Criego. MOTION PASSED. A rec was called at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Vonhofleft meeting at that time. The meetl reconvened at 8:50 p.m. MOTION BY WUEL MEETING. edule the boat tour of Prior Lake to the week Old Business: There was a discussi August 19, 1996. he would not be at the August 26, 1996 meeting. DED BY KUYKENDALL TO ADJOURN THE gnified ayes by Wuellner, Ku endall, Stamson and Criego. MOTION e meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Recording Secretary Connie Carlson MN072296.DOC PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1996 V ote taken signified es by Kuykendall, V onhof, Stamson, Wuellner and Criego. MOTION CARRIED. ISSUE. INCORPORATE OTHER WAYS OF ADDITION INVESTIGATE IF APPLICANT PUT IN E ENBANKMENT ON COUNTY 5. Old Business: ~ Case 96- 055 - Eagle Creek Assisted Living Facility Hearing Continued. Kansier reviewed issues from the last meeting and addressed the following issues: 1) The City Attorney determined the applicant should amend the POD; 2 & 3) Waterline and traffic issues- Engineering Memo dated August 7, 1996; 4) Trail plan for the area; 5) Overflow parking; 6) Definition of assisted living; and 7) Modifications to Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended approval of the Schematic Plan, subject to a Comprehensive Plan amendment related to density, satisfactory resolution of the parking issue and modification of the plan to show the extension of Five Hawks Avenue. Wingard summarized the water system. Five Hawks Avenue would feed of an 8" line. It would improve the fire protection. The pressure would increase and meet requirements. Wingard also said the extension of Five Hawks Avenue through the site would require a considerable amount of disturbance through the area. If not extended through this site, there will be minimal impacts to the City's overall transportation system. The streets will still be able to function without being congested. Overflow parking would be beneficial for the people who want to use the trail system. Suggest using off street parking. Kansier said Planning staff feels the 33 spaces is not enough. Ordinance requires 1 parking place for each unit - 61 spaces. Nursing homes generally generate traffic at .2 trips per day. This facility will be more active. Comments from the public: Wilt Berger, architect for Eagle Creek Villas, presented the revised parking area showing additional flat areas that can be expanded to parking. The average age of residents would be 80 to 85 years old whose parking needs are reduced by 50%. Parking is directly correlated with the age of the residents. This parking proposal maintains as much natural vegetation as possible on site. The second issue was to deal with the trail system. Mr. Berger said the developer does not have a problem with constructing a trail through the property. Wingard commented on the waterline along the eastern side of the property. Cates Street would have to be tom up. The City would also have to go through a wetland. MN081296.DOC PAGE 9 Mr. Huemoeller, representing the developer, urged the Commission to approve Alternative #2 of the Staff Report. He feels when the development was originally proposed, Cates Street had only one entrance and it was necessary for Five Hawks Avenue to go through. Now there are other outlets. There are environmental problems connecting the road. Priorwood Street would help with the traffic congestion. The Comprehensive Plan does not affect this project. Connecting the road is unrelated to this project. The cost should not come from the developer. The engineering department does not see a need for it as well as the neighbors. Comments from the Commissioners: Wuellner: . The verbiage in the Comprehensive Plan quoted earlier was written prior to the knowledge of the Planning Commission that Eagle Creek Villas was coming. . The street should not go through but would push strongly for a trail. Take advantage of the significant environmental aspects of the property. . Would not required the developer to make right-of-way for Five Hawks available to the City in any form. . It is not reasonable for the Planning Commission to find a place for the watermain to go through. The developer can solve the problems with engineering. . Strong recommendation of Alternative #2 in the Staff Report. Stamson: . Extension of Five Hawks is a bad idea. . Strongly feel a trail should go through. . The watermain is a wash cost wise. Move to the east with the least environmental impact. . Parking is better to err on too much rather than not enough. . Pollution and runoff control is an issue. Deal with easily before hand. If applicant is tacking on parking later - reconstruction would have to be done. Parking should be more than .5 space. . Would like to see more detail on the parking. . Recommending Alternative #2 of the Staff Report. V onhof: . Recommendation to City Council on the assisted living facility is appropriate on this site. . Amend Comprehensive Plan to deal with the density. . Amend Comprehensive Plan on completion of Five Hawks Avenue. It should not be connected. Would rather see a trail. . The issue of definition of assisted living is addressed better through the PUD process and developer rather than an amendment definition to the Comprehensive Plan. . Parking should be 1 per unit. Should be done at this time, more difficult to do later. Ordinance says 1 per unit. . Support of Recommendation #2 of the Staff Report with addition of amendments. Kuykendall: . Support the 1.0 parking. Important to do it now and do it right - have a quality facility. . Meet the standards of our Comprehensive Plan. . Street extension should be pedestrian right-of-way but should be a public right-of-way. . The City Engineer has to decide the best watermain condition. MN081296.DOC PAGEl 0 · The Planning Commission does not have to modify the ~omprehensive Plan and still connect the neighborhoods. · Pedestrian traffic is allowed. It is also necessary to allow the area for emergency vehicles. · These things are important to the public on both sides of this development. From a cost standpoint compared to other developments, this is a very inexpensive development. So cost-wise it is in the public interest to maintain as a public facility. · Change density as recommended. · Let the issues be determined by engineers. · The only variance he suggested to consider is the trade-off where trees have to be removed. Criego: · Berger addressed the parking ratio. · Concurs with the rest of the Commissioners. Doris Wilker, 16493 Five Hawks Avenue, stated the development is a wonderful concept but she works in this area and questioned the need for 61 parking spaces. She has more of a concern for getting buses and private cars in and out of the area. It is possible down the road other people will be using this facility. People with mental health issues, chemical dependency issues and also developmental disabilities. If the developer wants the residents of the facility to be 55 years or older it should be addressed. Ms. Wilker's other concern is for the pathway. The paths are great but go nowhere - there are no connecting sidewalks. The residents should be included with these trails. She lives on Five Hawks and resents having to pay for a sidewalk. Wingard showed the extension between Five Hawks. Trails are stubbed into streets in other developments. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SCHEMATIC PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THERE SHOULD BE NO ROAD EXTENSION OF FIVE HA WKS AVENUE. AMEND THE PLAN TO MAKE IT CLEAR THE CONNECTION IS PUBLIC NON-MOTORIZED PEDESTRIAN/BIKE PATH ORIENTED SPECIFIC TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE SHOULD BE A PUBLIC TRAIL; TRAIL ACROSS THE CREEK; AND A TRAIL PLANNED OUT WITH THE SCHOOL, CITY AND DEVELOPER. ADEQUATE PARKING BE PROVIDED - 1 PER UNIT. CONSTRUCTED NOW, NOT LATER. THE WATERLINE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED. THE EXACT LOCATION WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THE PLATTING STAGE OR THE MORE SPECIFIC DEVELOPING STAGE. CRITERIA IS TO REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND STILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE PRESSURE. MODIFY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DENSITY FOR TillS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY AND DELETE FIVE HAWKS A VENUE CONNECTION STATEMENT. MODIFY THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR IT. DEVELOPER IDENTIFY THE USERS OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY. MN08l296.DOC PAGEl 1 .,'>> " """'._'~'.~'-'"'''''-''' -""""'-~''''--.'''"''--'----'"----'''''''-'~''-'''-'''~"'-~-~_.~..,."'""'~.-...,~ -...-. ._...~__<.....__"~_.,_.~.."_..."...~.H~.-.+<-.,.~,...,,_>..~~,_.~-,~-"'"'___~~-......,_,,_~.,., ""_~ _"'~_"''-'''-"~__."~._.,,,.._.~... .. T V ote taken signified ayes by V onhof, Wuellner, Stamson, Kuykendall and Criego. MOTION CARRIED. 6. New Business: A. Ge mer Appeal Regarding Lot 7, Maple Park Shore Acres Jane Kansier esented the information from the Staff Report. Staff re mmended the Planning Commission rec mend to City Council that it uphold the staff inte retation of the ordinance. Staff received a letter ed June 17, 1996 sent in response a complaint dockage was being rented to persons who did t live in the subdivision in ich the dockage was located. Staff investigated on May 29, and ted two docks were I ated on the subject property and three boats were moored at the two doc . This was verifi by staff on June 19, following mailing of the notice of violation. Upon receip f the apB I, staff again visited the site and noted two docks with four boats moored at the doc Section 5-5-3 of the ordinance deals wit e . ed and conditional uses. This section was cited in the belief that rental of dock space i one of the rimary activities associated with marinas and the respondent states they are leasi g dock space. arinas are not a permitted use in the R-1 District. Bryce Huemoeller, the atto representing respondent wa resent. His position was the plat of Maple Park Shores Acr was platted years ago and predate he ordinance by 40 years. This is not a common beach ea. It is a lot being rented to 4 people t ave short term seasonal docks in the water th comply with DNR regulations. The provisio of the ordinances uses the word "may" be de oped..." which leaves it optional. The owner's p ition is he has a lease that complies. I s not a violation of the ordinance. The lot is used for ach activities. Kuyke dall: . grees with Staff's interpretation for reasons stated in their staff report. Mentioned DNR water regulations. V onhof: . Agree it is not a commerical marina but it runs against the intent of the ordinance. . There is no specific language. MN081296.DOC PAGEl 2