HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/12/2002REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case File #02-07 - 212 Development is requesting consideration of a Preliminary
Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan to be known as Crystal Bay Townhomes
consisting of 10.62 acres to be subdivided into lots for 26 townhomes. This
property is located on the south side of CSAH 82, east of Fremont Avenue and ½
mile west of CSAH 21.
Old Business:
Case Files #02-024 and #02-025 - Consider a Planned Unit Development
Prelimina~ Plat to be known as Timber Crest Park. The proposal includes 28.19
acres to be subdivided into 162 townhouse units located in the southeast quadrant
of the intersection of County Road 21 and Highway 13, on the north side of
Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail.
Case #02-072 - Consider an amendment to Sections 1101.400 Definitions and
1104.308 (4) Water Oriented Accessory Structures of the Zoning Ordinance.
7. New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 22, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the July 22, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson,
Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Absent
Criego Absent
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes fi.om the July 8, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Criego arrived at 6:33 p.m.
4. Consent:
A. Case #02-068 Dennis and Karen Perrier Variance Resolution
The Perriers have appealed the Commissioner's findings and that matter will go before
the City Council on August 17, 2002.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 02-
008PC APPROVING A 9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 16 FOOT STRUCTURE
SETBACK TO THE REAR LOT LINE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02-
009PC DENYING A 21.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 3.23-FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR LOT LINE; A 12.5-FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A SETBACK OF 50-FEET TO THE OHWM; A 0.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF 14.2-FEET; A 2-FOOT VARIANCE FOR A 7-
FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK OF A BUILDING WALL 74-FEET LONG.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
LAO2FILES\O2planning comm\02pcminut~s~IN072202(a).doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 2002
B. Case #02-075 Carlson Hardware Variance Resolution
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMF, ZE, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 02-011PC
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 0' FEET
FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 10
FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke and Stamson. Nay by Ringstad. MOTION
CARRIED.
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the hearing.
5. Public Hearings:
A. Cases #02-057 & 058 McDonald Construction, Inc., has submitted an
application for a PUD amendment and a combined preliminary and final plat
known as Sterling South at The Wilds. The proposal replats Lots 31-40 to
accommodate townhouses and single family homes.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 22, 2002, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
McDonald Construction has submitted an application that includes the following
requests:
An amendment to the Sterling South at The Wilds Planned Unit Development Plan;
· A Combined Preliminary and Final Plat;
· The vacation of a portion of the existing drainage and utility easement over Lot 89,
Block 1, Sterling South at The Wilds Addition.
The proposal amends the existing PUD plan to allow a combination of detached single
family dwellings and townhouses within Sterling South at the Wilds. The proposal also
includes a replat of Lots 31-40, Block 1, Sterling South at The Wilds, to accommodate
both townhouses and detached single family dwellings.
The proposed PUD amendment, combined preliminary and final plat and vacation are
consistent with the existing development of Sterling South at The Wilds. The staff
therefore recommended approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. The resolution vacating the easement will not be recorded until the final plat of
Sterling Addition has been approved and signed by the City.
2. The applicant must provide existing and proposed individual water and sanitary sewer
service stub locations per lot or building.
L:\02F1LES\02planning comm\02pcminutcs~vlN072202(a).doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 2002
The final plat of"Sterling Addition" is subject to the following conditions, which
shall be met prior to release of and recording of the final plat:
a. A current title opinion or commitment of title insurance is submitted acceptable to
the City Attorney.
b. Payment of all fees prior to release of the final plat mylars.
c. Reductions of the entire final plat be submitted, to the following scales: 1" = 200';
and one reduction at no scale which fits onto an 81/2" x 11" sheet of paper.
d. Four mylar sets of the final plat with all required signatures be submitted.
e. The developer provide financial security, acceptable to the City Engineer prior to
release of the fmal plat mylars.
f. The final plat and all pert'ment documents must be filed with Scott County within
90 days from the date of final plat approval. Failure to record the documents by
this date will render the final plat null and void.
Comments from the public:
Dave May, McDonald Construction, said the information was presented correctly. The
original plat was set up for twin homes. Shamrock Development replatted it for single
family lots. Five of the twin lots and easements cannot be split and built as single family
lots. More people are looking for single family homes and this will fit into the
surrounding neighborhood. They are wilrmg to give up the two twin lots so the 3 single
family lots will work.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad, Criego, Lemke and Stamson: · Agreed with staff's recommendation. Toured the site.
· Improvement to the PUD.
· Supported request.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMICE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
THE AMENDMENT TO STERLING SOUTH AT THE WILDS PUD PLAN SUBJECT
TO THE CONDITIONS STATED IN THE PLANNING REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
THE COMBINED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT KNOWN AS STERLING
SOUTH AT THE WILDS ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN
THE PLANNING REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:~02FILES~02planning eomm~02pemin ums~lN072202 (a).doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 2002
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING THE PORTION
OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT OVER LOT 89, BLOCK 1,
STERLING SOUTH AT THE WILDS SUBJECT THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE
PLANNING REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on August 19, 2002.
6. Old Business:
A. Case #02-072 Consider an amendment to Sections 1101.400 Definitions and
1104.308 (4) Water Oriented Accessory Structures of the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 22, 2002, on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to water-oriented accessory structures. The Planning Commission initiated
this amendment on June 10, 2002.
The definition and the regulations for these structures are more restrictive than the
existing language in the Minnesota State Shoreland Rules. The additional restrictions are
intended to limit the number and size of accessory structures on the lot, while at the same
time allowing property owners with access and storage of recreational equipment on
riparian lots with steep slopes.
Whether or not a water-oriented accessory structure should be allowed on all riparian lots
is a policy issue. The current ordinance provisions were generally intended for aesthetic
purposes. Earlier platted riparian lots tend to have smaller dimensions and less total area
than is required for lots today. There has also been concern about the encroachment of
structures on the lake.
Staffhad no objections to the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment will allow
additional storage on riparian lots, and will still limit the encroachment of structures on
the shoreline.
Comments from the public:
Marv Mirsh, 15432 Red Oaks Road, appeared as a resident and president of the Prior
Lake Association. Mirsh surveyed the Lake Association board with only 80% supporting
the proposal. One of the concerns were the exceptions in Section 1104.308 2E and 2C.
He stated he had a personal request that children's' play structures be allowed. Kansier
said playhouses would fall under this if they are less than 120 square feet. Anything
roofed would be under this ordinance. Anything permanent would not be allowed.
L:\02FILES\02planning conm~\02pcminutesWiN072202(a).doc 4
Planning Commission Me~ting
July 22, 2002
Swing sets are not structures. The Lake Association felt the materials should be quality
products, the same materials as the house. Kansier explained the roof lines and measuring
from the grade with the maximum of 10 feet to the midlevel of the roof. Rye said the top
of the gable roof would be 12 feet with an 8 foot wall. Mirsh stated the Lake Association
board supported the amendment.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Questioned Lake Mirmetonka's ordinance. Kansier briefly explained and
commented on the survey from neighboring lake communities. Most of the lake
lots are larger.
· There is a reason for the ordinance as it stands. Other communities have gone
through huge growth over the years.
· The 50 foot setback seems reasonable. Concern for variances. Is this going to
promote more variances?
· Questioned the type of structures. Kansier went over some of the definitions.
· Recommend to delete "boathouses". The pemeption is to have a big boathouse.
The wording should be changed.
· Questioned detached decks and platforms. Kansier explained the ordinance.
· Why would the City want to allow detached decks when they allow platforms?
Stamson said the concern was for steep slopes. The downside of detached decks
is that it would give a way around a variance.
· The tendency will be to put up detached decks. Platforms are fine and do not
require permits.
· Questioned flood plain regulations. Kansier explained the process.
· Does not like putting structures near the lake within 75 feet. Concern for
variances. It would be acceptable at 50 feet with no exceptions. Otherwise there
is a potential for future problems. Everyone wants more storage. The lake needs
to be protected. There are already storage sheds in the water. Do not want to see
that continuing.
Lemke:
· Questioned playhouses being considered structures. What is being considered is
not how the City would handle playhouses in the future versus how they are
handled now. Kansier said under this proposal it would be similar to a shed. The
rules would be the same. It actually places it closer than under the current
ordinance.
· Kansier said the City is not actively going out and restricting Rainbow swing sets
and playhouses. The City does not consider them structures. If they create an
impervious surface issue that would be something to look at more closely.
· Agreed with Criego's comments. Ifa home is 50 feet from the lake, they do not
need a storage shed between the home and the lake.
· Fifty feet is reasonable.
Ringstad:
L:~02FILES~02planning comm~02pcminutcs~MN072202(a).doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 2002
Surprised there is not more public comment for or against. It affects the lake and
the residents.
Agreed with the Commissioners comments. Criego's comments - are we setting
ourselves up for future variances? Lemke's comments - if someone is that close
to the lake they probably have enough storage close enough.
Stamson:
· Staff's revision is what the Commissioners asked for.
· Agreed with Criego's comments regarding the detached deck issue. Did not think
it was necessary. Platforms are sufficient.
· For clarity, just the way the ordinance is put together, take out the store boating
accessories and equipment and add it to boathouses. Make sure it does not have
boats, just equipment storage.
· Include playhouses, not much difference between playhouses and sheds.
· Just to make it clear - add "i" to the end. It would make it a lot clearer if "a"
read like "i" and then made "i", "b". "a" would say "On lots containing slopes
greater than 20% you can have one structure 20 feet. Then "b" would be for lots
with slopes less than 20%. It is easier to compare.
· Everything else is clear.
· Agreed with the increase of variance requests. Would not grant a variance for a
shed. It would be hard to prove a hardship, especially if your house is 50 feet
away from the lake.
· Rye said that language could be written in the ordinance. A regulation could be
for permitted uses in the definition - for example a certain distance. One cannot
get a variance for a use. When the dimension defines the use you can not get
variances.
· Good approach.
Open discussion:
Criego:
· Agreed with discussions - take out detached decks. Come up with a different
word than "boathouse". Make sure the structure stores water equipment.
Stamson:
· Questioned the word "compatible" indicating the materials have to match the
home. Kansier explained the materials uses.
· Questioned compatible flood plain material. Rye and Kansier explained the
options.
Kansier asked clarification. Criego would like to see the deck language removed. The
trouble with playhouses is that now uses are being combined. This ordinance is for water
oriented structures.
Stamson said it has been expanded for recreational water uses. Playhouses run with that.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXiVlN072202(a).doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
Ju~y 22, 2002
Staff did not have a problem with that, but playhouses do not fall under the recreational
equipment definition.
The Commissioners concluded to eliminate playhouses and detached deck language.
Change boathouses to indicate a structure to use water equipment.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LElVlKE, DIRECTING STAFF TO
INCORPORATE THE CHANGES IN THE ORDINANCE BASED ON THE
COMMENTS AND PRESENT IT AT THE NEXT PLANNING MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Developer Jim Deanovic of Peter Andrea Company, presented a brief overview of the
proposed Jeffers Pond project. His contract is the north half of the property under the
Bob Jeffers Estate. Herb Wensmarm of Wensmarm Homes has the southern area.
Deanovic and Wensmann were involved in the City's Long Term Vision 2020 Plan.
From those meetings the developers drew ideas from the citizens to incorporate into the
site. The developers met with the City and DNR numerous times and incorporated their
concerns, including a 50 foot buffer zone around the pond to comply with the DNR's
wishes. The developers would include lifecycle housing. They are trying to give
amenities to enhance Prior Lake yet still make the project economical feasible. The
density will not be enhanced. Five percent of the entire site would be affordable rental
units. There would be no commercial space. They are working with the City to address
all the issues. The area is 350 plus acres. If this moves forward, phasing would probably
start in the spring of 2003 and go 5 or 6 years.
Kansier spoke briefly on the regional trail concept with Three Rivers Regional Park and
Scott County. The City is working with the DNR on reclassifying Jeffers Pond.
The Commissioners felt it was a great plan.
Reminder of the boat tour on July 29, 2002.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.
Don Rye
Director of Community Development
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:~02 FILES~02planning corran~021~mnutes~vlN072202 (a).doe 7
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
SA
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY
PLAN AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN
AS CRYSTAL BAY
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
AUGUST 12, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
212 Development, LLC, has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Crystal Bay on the property located south of CSAH 82, directly east of Fremont Avenue
and' approximately ½ mile west of CSAH 21. The application includes the following
requests:
· Approve a planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for~ a townhouse development consisting of 26 dwelling units on 10.62
acres. The development also proposes private open space and 26 boat slips for the use of
the residents.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site consists of 10.62 acres. The net area of this site, less
County road fight-of-way, is 8.99 acres.
Tooo~,raohy: This site has a varied topography, with elevations ranging from 940' MSL
at its highest point to 904' MSL at the lowest point (the ordinary high water elevation of
Prior Lake). The property generally drains toward the existing drainageway at the center
of the site, and then to Prior Lake.
Vegetation: Originally, there were five single family homes located on this site; three of
those homes have been removed at this time. There are also several stands of significant
trees on this site. The project is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the
1:~02filesV)2puds~l~'slal bay~rystal pc,doe Page 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted an inventory of the significant trees on
the site, which identifies 5,032 caliper inches of ~ignificant trees. However, this
inventory includes species of trees, such as cottonwoods, willows and elms. Inclusion of
these species affects the total caliper inches of significant trees on the site. The Tree
Preservation Ordinance allows removal of 25% of the total caliper inches of significant
trees for grading and utilities, and removal of an additional 25% of the total caliper inches
of significant trees for building pads without tree replacement. Removal of additional
caliper inches requires replacement at a rate of 1/2 caliper inch for each caliper inch
removed. The tree inventory must be revised to make a determination as to whether or
not tree replacement is required.
Wetlands: There are no inventoried wetlands located within this site.
Access: Access to the site is from CSAH 82 on the north side of the site and Fremont
Avenue on the west side of the property. CSAH 82 is classified as an medal street in the
Comprehensive Plan transportation plan, and is expected to carry between 12,500 and
14,500 trips per day by 2020. The current traffic count on CSAH 82 is 9,800 trips per
day. Fremont Avenue is classified as a minor collector street and is expected to carry up
to 4,000 trips per day by 2020. The current traffic on Fremont Avenue is 2,350 average
daily trips. ~
2020 Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for Urban Low to
Medium Density Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The
entire site is located within the current MUSA boundary.
Zoning: The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). The applicant is not
requesting a rezoning as part of this application. The R-1 district permits a maximum
density of 3.6 units per acre.
Shoreland: This property is also located within the Shoreland District for Prior Lake.
As such, the property is subject to the Shoreland PUD requirements listed in Section 1104
of the Zoning Ord'mance.
PROPOSED PLAN
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 26 lots for the townhouse units. There are also
two lots for the common open space.
Streets: This plan proposes two private streets. The first street is Crystal Bay Drive,
which extends approximately 900' from CSAH 82 to Fremont Avenue· This street
provides direct access to 12 of the townhouse units. The access from CSAH 82 is across
from Fox Tail Trail, at the approximate location of the existing Drake Avenue
intersection. The access onto Fremont Avenue is located 250' south of the intersection of
the intersection of Fremont Avenue and CSAH 82.
l:~02files~O2puds~s~l Imy~stal po.doc Page 2
The second street is a 250' long cul-de-sac located .on the south side of Crystal Bay
Drive. This cul-de-sac provides direct access to 14 of the townhouse units located on the
east side of the property.
Section 1004.415 lists the design criteria for private streets as follows:
Private streets shall only be permitted in Planned Unit Developments, which have
hOmeowner associations approved by the City. Private streets shah be platted as outlots,
and shah be designed and constructed in the same manner as public streets; provided, the
street pavement may be contained within the outlot and the balance of the street right-of-
way may be contained within adjacent easements, provided that the combined width of
outlots and easements shah not be less than the right-of-way, pavement width and easement
requirements for public streets.
The proposed private streets are designed with a 28' wide surface. The setbacks from the
curb to the street will accommodate the required easements. The street is presently
prOposed as an easement on the plat. The private street width must be platted as an
outlot,
There are some issues pertaining to the design of the proposed streets. The first is the
alignment of the intersection at CSAH 82. The new street must be aligned with Fox Tail
Trail and designed with a 90 degree angle through the County Road right-of-way. The
proposed design shows a curve through the right-of-way.
The second issue is whether or not Crystal Bay Drive should b! a through street. The
County Highway Department prefers the present de.sign, which extends Crystal Bay
Drive from CSAH 82 to Fremont Avenue. The County staffbeli?es the connection will
reduce trips on CSAH 82 and provide future residents with a travel choice between
Fremont and CSAH 82.
The City staff, on the other hand, feels the connection is not necessary. It would be
possible to create two cul-de-sacs, one off of CSAH 82 and one off of Fremont, rather
than the proposed through street. Each of the cul-de-sacs would serve 12 to 14 units.
Due to the size of the cul-de-sacs, it may also be possible to utilize a hammerhead, or
similar design, rather than a bulb. In addition, two shorter streets would eliminate some
of the impervious surface on the site.
The plat also dedicates 75' of right-of-way for CSAH 82 along me north side of the plat.
This additional right-of-way will be utilized for future upgrades to CSAH 82. In the
meantime, the County is evaluating the need for a right-turn lane onto Crystal Bay Drive.
Fremont Avenue at this location also requires upgrading. The mad section is currently
without curb and gutter. The staff would suggest that the developer upgrade this section
as part of this project. The City would most likely financially participate in this project.
Sidewalks/Trails: No sidewalks or trails are proposed as part of this project.
l:\02files~02puds'~o~slal bayXc~stal pc,doc Page 3
Parks: This plan does not dedicate any parkland. Section 1004.1000 of the Subdivision
Ordinance requires 10% of the gross area of the site for parkland dedication. A cash
dedication in lieu of land is also possible, at the discretion of the City. The amount of
park dedication at this location is very mall; in addition, there is a park on the north side
of CSAH 82 and on the west side of Fremont Avenue. Staff would recommend a cash
dedication of $1,685.00 per unit in lieu of land.
Sanitary. Sewer/Water Mains: Sanitary sewer and water mains will be extended from
the existing utilities located in CSAH 82 and in the Glynwater development to the west.
The sewer line is extended along the fight-of-way.
Storm Sewer: The plan proposes a NURP pond at the center of the site to handle the
storm water runoff. The existing culvert located on the south side of CSAH 82 into this
site will be extended to this pond. Grading on the site will also direct most nm offto this
pond. The Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District is in the Process of reviewing this
plan. :
Permitted Density Proposed Density
R-1 32 units 26 units
Shoreland District Tier 1
Base Density 13 units 18 units
With Multiplier 20 units
Shoreinnd District Tier 2
Base Density ~ 18 units .6 units
With Multiplier 36 units ·
The density multipliers in the Shoreland District are permitted 0nly if the structure
setback from the OHW is increased by 50% over the required setback. To apply this
multiplier, the structure setback must be at least 112.5' from the OHW.
Building St~les: The proposed town.houses are a 2-story walkout, attached single family
style dwelling with an attached garage. Each of the units in these buildings includes a 3-
car garage, rear yard decks and patios, and approximately 3,990 square feet of living
space. The buildings are 15' high at the front, with exteriors consisting ora combination
of brick, rock, stucco and cedar siding.
~Building elevations and sample floor plans for each of these buildings are attached to this
report.
Setbacks: The required and proposed setbacks for this development are shown on the
following table:
1:\02filcs~O2puds~'ystal bay~'ystal pc.doc Pagc 4
Setback Required Proposed
Front (from private stree0 25' 20'
Side Street
CSAIt 82 25' 5'
Fremont Avenue 25' 12'
Side (between buildings) 15' 15'
(½ the sum of the building heights) i
Lakeshore (OHW) 75' 75'
The developer is requesting a modification to the front and side street setbacks.
Modifications may be approved by the City Council through the PUD process.
Lot Coverage: The R-1 district allows a maximum ground floor area of 0.30. The
ground floor area proposed in this plan is 0.26.
Impervious Surface: The maximum impervious surface allowed in the Shoreland
District is 30% of the lot area above the OHW. In this case, 30% of the lot area is 2.,7
acres; the develoPment proposes 2.35 acres of impervious surface.
Impervious surface coverage is further limited to 25% of each tier area in a Shorela~d
District PUD. In this case, 1.26 acres of impervious surface is allowed in tier 1, and 1.23
acres is allowed in tier 2. The application does not provide a breakdown of impervious
surface within each tier. This calculation is necessary to determine if this development
meets .this requirement. It must also be noted the private streets must be included within
the irt/pervious surface calculation.
Useable Open Space: The R-1 district also requires 600 square feet of useable open
space per unit for cluster developments. Although this proposal is a PUD, it must also
comply with that requirement. The required open space for this development is 15,600
square feet; the plan indicates a total of 15,875 square feet.
Shoreland Open Space Requirements: The Shoreland ordinance requires at least 50%
of the total project area within a PUD be preserved as open space. Lots 15 and 28, the
common lots for this development, equal 5.6 acres and meet the 50% requirement.
The Shoreland PUD ordinance also requires that 70% of the shore impact zone (50% of
the setback bom the OHW) be preserved in its natural state. With the exception of the
area leading to the proposed watercraft mooting area, the shore impact zone is
undisturbed.
Shore Recreation Facilities: Section 1104.805 (4,c) states the following:
Shore recreation facilities, including but not limited to swimming areas, docks, and
watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps, shall be centralized and located in areas
suitable for them. Evaluation of suitability shall include consideration of land slope,
l:~02files~02puds~-rystal bay~ystal pc.doc Page 5
water depth, vegetation, soils, depth to ground water and bedrock, or other relevant
factors. The number of spaces provided for continuou~ be_aching, mooring, or docking of
watercraft shall not exceed one for each allowable dwelling unit or site in the first tier
(notwithstanding existing mooring sites in an existing commercially used harbor).
Launching ramp facilities, including a small dock for loading and unloading equipment,
may be provided for use by occupants of dwelling units or sites located in other tiers.
The developer is proposing to install 26 boat slips to serve this development. When City
staff and the DNR staff reviewed a concept plan for this development, we determined a
maximum of 21 units was permitted in the first tier, which would then permit 21 slips.
Review of the most recent plans, with more specific information, indicates a maximum of
19 units is permitted within tier 1, thus allowing 20 slips, The developer has requested a
modification to this requirement as part oftha PUD; hoWever, this type of modification is
not within the scope of the PUD ord'mance.
The Shoreland District requirements of the Zoning Ordinance regulate the number of boat
slips permitted. The actual configuration of the mooting, area is detennined by the DNR
as part of the permitting process. ~
Parking: The proposal provides at least 3 spaces per dx~elling unit, in that each unit will
have a 3-car garage; the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 2 spaces per unit. The
developer's narrative also notes that an additional 30 "sl~ill-over" parking spaces will be
provided on the private streets. Although these spaces may be available, the Zoning
O~'mance does not allow them to be included within the parking requkements. Even
without the on-street parking, the plan meets the parking requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Landscaping: Section 1107.1900 lists the landscaping requirements for this
development. Perimeter landscaping is required for the townhouse portion of the
development with buildings consisting of 3 or more units at a rate of 1 tree per unit or 1
tree per 40' feet of perimeter, whichever is greater. Our calculations indicate a total of 73
trees are requ'ured for this site. The landscaping plan submitted includes 71 trees. This is
not consistent with the ordinance requirements. The Zoning Ordinance also requires that
at least 25% of the landscaping trees be deciduous, and 25% be coniferous. The plan
submitted must be revised to include more coniferous trees. In addition, the Zoning
Ordinance requ'u'es at least 20% of the plants must exceed the minimum sizes of 2 1/2
caliper inches for deciduous and 6' for coniferous. This requires that at least 20% of the
deciduous trees be 3 Va caliper inches, and at least 20% of the evergreens must be at least
8' high. The plan also does not indicate whether an irrigation system will be provided.
Tree Replacement: The applicant has submitted an inventory identifying 5,032 caliper
inches of significant trees on the site. However, as noted earlier, the inventory seems to
include trees that are not included on the list of significant trees in the Zoning Ordinance.
The Zoning Ord'mance allows up to 25% of the significant caliper inches to be removed
for road and utility purposes, and up to 25% for building pads and driveways. A revised
I :~02files~02puds'o'ystal bay~--~sial pc.doc Page 6
inventory must be submitted to determine if replacement will be required. If so, thc
landscaping plan must also be revised to include the required replacement.trees.
Signs: There are no signs identified on this plan.
Lil~htim~: Street lights will be provided on the private streets.
Traffic Impact Report: The developer has submitted an elementary traffic study for this
development. This study indicates the proposed development will generate a total of 172
daily trips. The report assumes that approximately half of these trips will use Fremont
Avenue, and half will use CSAH 82, which is a fair assumption. The additional trips onto
Fremont and CSAH 82 are a small fraction of the existing traffic on these streets. The
report concludes the additional trips will not have a significant impact on the existing
streets.
Phasing: The developer proposes to construct this project in 2 phases. The first phase
will consist of the 14 units located on the east side of the site. The second phase will
extend Crystal Bay Drive to Fremont Avenue and include the remaining units. No
timeline has been submitted for this phasing.
ANALYSIS:
There are several outstanding key issues that remain with this proposal~ These include
the following: :
1. The density of the development. Although the overall density is consistent with the;.
Zoning ordinance requirements, the deusity.within tier 1 exceeds the base density
allowed.
2. The developer must provide calculations to de~ennine whether the proposal is
consistent with the 25% impervious surface require~nent in each tier.
3. The intersection of Crystal Bay Drive and CSAH 82 must be revised so it is aligned
with Fox Tail Trail and is perpendicular to the County right-of-way.
4. The need for Crystal Bay Drive as a through street should be determined. The County
staff has recommended this street extend from CSAH to Fremont Avenue, while the
City staff has recommended the eounecfion be elim'mated. The Planning Commission
should provide the developer with some direction on this issue.
5. The tree inventory must be revised to include onl? those trees considered significant
in the Zoning Ordinance.
6. The Planning Commission should provide the developer with some direction on the
requested setback modifications.
7. The landscaping plan should be revised to meet all ordinance requirements.
I A02files~02puds'~ystal bay'~rystal pc.doc Page 7
Several of the above issues have a major effect on the d. esign of this development. Due to
the number of outstanding issues, it seems reasonable to continue this item. This would
allow the developer the time to address these issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat.
The Commission should discuss the issues outlined above, and any other issues which
occur as a result of the public testimony, and provide the developer with some direction
on these matters. Following the discussion, the Commission should table this item to a
date specific to allow the developer to modify the plans. The staffwould recommend that
item be tabled until at least September 9, 2002, or later if needed.
If the Commission feels the proposal should proceed to the Council, the staff would
recommend the following conditions be attached:
1. The density in tier 1 of the development must be reduced so it is consistent with the
Zoning Ordinance requirements. :
2. The developer must provide calculations to determine whether the proposal is
consistent with the 25% impervious surface requirement in each tier.
3. The intersection of Crystal Bay Drive and Cs. dH 82 must be revised so it is aligned
with Fox Tail~Trail and is perpendicular to the County right-of, way.
4. The extension of Crystal Bay Drive from CS`dH 82 to Fremont should be
eliminated. Access should be provided from Fremont ,dvenue and CS`dH 21 with 2
cul-de-sacs.
5. The tree inventory must be revised to include only those trees considered significant
in the Zoning Ordinance.
6. The landscaping plan should be revised to meet all ordinance requirements.
7. The private streets must be platted as outlots. ,dn 11' wide drainage and utility
easements must be provided on either side of the outio~
8. The developer must provide easements for the storm water pond.
9. ,dddress the comments identifwd in the memorandum from Larry Poppler,
,dssistant City Engineer, dated July 17, 2002, and from ,dndi Moffet and John
Macldewicz of WSB, dated July 19, 2002.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat subject
to the above ennditions.
1:~02 fil esh02pudg,~'rystal bayXctystal pc.doc Page 8
2. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the
issues that have been discussed.
3. Recommend denial of the request.
4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staffrecommends Alternative #2.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second continuing this item to a specific date is required.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photo
3. Reduced Copy of PUD and Preliminary Plat Plans
4. Developer's Narrative
5. Engineering Department Comments
6. Scott County Highway Deptah.ent Comments
7. Building Department Comments
8. Finance Director Comments
9. Sh0reland PUD Requirements
10. Letter from Neighborhood Residents
l:~02ffics~O2pudsXcryslal bayXcrystal pc.doc Pase 9
Looetion M~p
,5OO 0
500 1000 Feet
DATE: July 17, 2002
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
FROM: Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer
RE: Crystal Bay (Project #02-34)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject preliminary planned unit
development and has the following comments:
WATE~
1. Move gate valve from Crystal Bay Drive and Drake Circle intersection to 154th Street
intersection.
2. Add hydrant at station 5+$0.
3. Show the type of sanitary pipe.
,4. Add note regarding minimum 8 foot depth of cover and note stating the minimum
separation between watermain and sanitary sewer.
SANITARY SEWER
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Provide sanitary seWer calculations per the "Public Works Design Manual"
Provide slopes on all sanitary pipes.
Provide chimney seals on hll sanitary manholes
Show the type of sanitary pipe.
Provide rim and invert elevations for sanitary manholes.
Move MH-$ so that pipes are at a 90 degree angle.
Add eleanouts on services longer than 100 feet.
EROSION CONTROL
Show silt fence locations. Two silt fences should be provided for drainage toward the
lake.
Note stating that the pond may need to be dredged as necessary to function as designed
(censtmction silt may accumulate in the pond reducing it's capacity).
Use seed mixture in areas for units that are not scheduled for construction. (Phase II)
STORM SEWER
Provide drainage calculations
Show the type of piping.
Provide trash guards at all inlets and outlets.
C:\WINDOWS\Temporax7 Internet Ffles\OLK61F I'~REVIEWI.DOC
Show proposed and existing drainage culverts:
Outlet 2 is at too high of an elevation. Extend Under pathway towards lake.
Additional comments will be forth-coming from WSB.
GRADING
8.
9.
10.
Show 2 yl', 10 yr, and 100 yr existing and proposed drainage boundaries
Provide Hydrologic calculations.
Boat ramp too steep in some areas. (the curves on the boat ramp may present a
problem)
Grad'rog is outside property lines in County ROW.
Definitions for LF, GF, IF, FB, and WO are needed.
The retaining walls on the site need to be engineered. Provide plans, details, and railing
along top of wall.
Provide maximum of 1:4 slopes.
Add a CB in the grass adjacent to CB-1. Re-grade around new CB.
Plan does not match plan submitted to PLSL Watershed District.
Construct berms where possible along north prpperty line.
ROADS/ACCESS
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Check with County on Crystal Bay Drive acce.ss to 82. The County may want to line up
Foxtail Trail NW with Crystal Bay Drive.
Provide 90 degree access from Crystal Bay Drive to 82 and Fremont. Align Crystal
Bay Drive with Foxtail Trail.
Provide maximum grade of 2% fi'om Crystal Bay Drive approaches to Fremont and
Scott Co. 82. Carry 2% grades for 100 feet. i
The roadway easement needs to meet the minimum requirements fi.om the Public
Works Design Manual.
Need typical section for roadways.
Provide roadway crown.
The horizontal radii are designed for 20 mph, City standard is 30 mph.
Check with DNR for boat ramp access to Prior Lake.
Need to show Fremont ROW and existing Scott Co. 82 R. OW.
Need Prior Lake project # on all sheets.
Show proposed right turn lane at Fremont and CSAH 82.
GEl,rEP, AL
Symbols and plans must be in accordance with requirements outlined in the Public
Works Design Manual.
2
Memorandum
From:
Date:
Re:
Larry Poppler, P.E., Assistant City Engineer
City of Prior Lake
Andi Moffatt, Biologist
John MacMewic~ Water Resource Specialist
YKSB & Associates, Inc.
Review of Crystal Bay Townhomes Development
WSB ProjectNo. 1430-19
As requested, we have completed our water resource review of the Crystal Bay
Townhomes plans dated May/June 2002. Based on our review, we offer the following
con~t'~ertts: :
Wetland Review Comments
1. A 30' average buffer fi.om the OHW of elevation 904 must be shown on the plans in
accordance with City Standards. No mowing or other disturbance is allowed within
the buffer.
2. Based on a site review, it appears that there are wetlands within the site. One
potential wetland is located in the central portion of the site associated with the
culvert draining to the lake. The northeastern comer of the site may also meet
wetland criteria. A wetland delineation will need to be completed by the project
proposer and reviewed by the City. Based on the site plan, these potential wetland
areas will be impacted by the development. A wetland impact and replacement plan
will be needed from the developer in conformance with the Wetland Conservation
Act. Wetland Conservation Act approval through the City will be required. The
project may also require approval fi.om the US Corp of Engineers, Prior Lake-Spring
Lake Watershed District, and DNR. The project proposer is required to obtain all
necessary permits.
3. The developer will need to obtain approval fi.om the DNR for the boat slips.
Cit~ of Prior Lak~
,ruby ~, ~00~
Page 2
HydroloRicfltydrauHc, Water Quali .ty~ and Grading Comments
1. The storm sewer needs to be expanded both east and west along the private drive.
2. There is no conveyance system to transport treated runoff from impervious areas to
the infiltration area. Also, it is recommended that the site's fully developed condition
be anticipated when designing the infiltration area.
3. Slopes greater than 4:1 shall have an erosion control blanket installed immediately
?tier the completion of grading.
4. The inverts and pipe sizes associated with the proposed storm sewer are not
consistent between the HydroCAD model and the Preliminary Grading Plan. This
item needs to be corrected.
5. The peak elevation for the 100-year nmoffevent in the HydroCAD model is 914.29
which is higher than the emergency overflow of the pond which is shown at 913,8·
This overflow should be included in the HydroCAD model.
6. h. skimmer structure should be installed at the outlet of the treatment pond. Please
submit a detail of the ~tmctttre with the plan. ~ :
7. With the proposed pipe configuration, MH S-2 would need to have a diameter of 108
,inches as the pipes are:modoled in HydroCAD. Alternate storm sewer configurations
should be considered to reduce the size if this structure or the plan should be changed
to reflect its size.
8. Storm sewer design calculations and profiles need to be submitted for review.
9. Based on Item 4.26 in the Public Works Design Manual, 3-foot sumps must be
constructed as the last structure that is road accessible prior to discharge to any water
body.
10. There is an excessive amount of driveway and roof drainage that is directly
discharged into Prior Lake without receiving any treatment. A rear yard storm water
conveyance system should be installed to capture this runoff and convey it to the
treatment pond. The dead pool of the treatment pond may need to be increased to
treat the runoffto NURP standards.
11. Detail plates for retaining walls over four feet in height should be submitted with the
plans for City review.
C:lWINDOWS1Ternporary lnternet Files~OLK61Fl lOT l 8021pCB. doc
August 1, 2002
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, Mlq 55372
Preliminary Plat, Crystal Bay Townhomes
Freemont Avenue and CSAH 82
Dear Jane:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat as it relates to Highway Department issues and offer the following
comments or concerns:
· The County has CSAH 82 in our CIP to be reconstructed to a 4 lane divided roadway within 5 years.
There have been no design plans done on how CSAH 82 will be reconstructed or how road access to
CS.MI 82 could be impacted.
· We support the current plan that extends Crystal Bay Drive from Freemont to CSAH 82. The internal
~ traffic cormeetivity will reduce unnecessary trips onto CSAH 82 not only for residents, but also for
service vehicles. Residents of Phase 2 will be able to access CSAH 82 to travel eastbound without
need'rog to create conflicts at Freemont. Residents of Phase 1 would have the choice to use Freemont
to travel westbound on CSAH 82 ifa signal is one-day warranted at that location. If the City chooses
to approve a redesign of the development to include two cul-de-sacs the travel choice given to
residents of this development is lost.
· An access permit shall be required for the access onto CSAH 82. The access to CSAH 82 is not
perpendicular to CSAH 82 through the County right-of-way, and the access does not line up with Fox
.~ Trail on the north side of CSAH 82. These two issues need to be corrected before access will be
· approved onto CS.MI 82.
There is a bypass lane on the south side of CSAH 82 for Fox Trail where Crystal Bay Drive would
access CSAH 82. We are reviewing the existing bypass lane to determine whether or not it should be
converted to a right turn lane by the developer as part of this development.
· A minimum of 75 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for CSAH 82.
· As more development occurs in the area, traffic levels and highway noise will increase on CSAH 82.
Noise attenuation shall be the responsibility of the City and/or developer.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
~LINE 25, 2002
SANE KANSIER
ROBERT D. HUTCHINS
CRYSTAL BAY DRC PROIECT SITE REVIEW
Comments:
1. Retaining Walls over 4' in height to have a buil~ling permit and to be structurally
engineered.
2. If provided, locate lawn irrigation system service stub, location of water meter and
pressure vacuum breaker. The equipment should be located at the highest elevation of the
project as the pressure vacuum breaker must be 1.0' above the highest elevated sprinkle/-
head.
3. A lawn irrigation permit including a plan layout is required.
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
Ralph Teschner, Finance Director
Crystal Bay - preliminary plat
(assessment/fee review)
July 10, 2002
A 10.6 acre parcel in 34-115-22 (PIN #25 934 018 0 thru #25 934 027) is proposed to be platted
into Crystal Bay. This area has received no prior assessments for City municipal utilities
Since utilities are available to the property site, the cost for the extension of services internally
will be the responsibility of the developer. In addition to these improvement costs, the
subdivision will be subject ~ the following City charges:
Park Dedication :
Collector Street Fee
Stormwater Manag~rnent Fee
Trunk Sewer & Water Fee
$1685.00/unit
$1500.00/acre
$2943.00/acre
$3500.00/acre
The application of these City charges would generate the following costs to the developer based
upon a net lot area calculation of 8.59 acres of townhouse units ~s provided within the site data
summary sheet of the preliminary plat.
Park Dedication Fee:
26 units @ $1685/unit = $43,810.00
Collector Street Fee:
8.59 acres ~ $1500.00/ac = $12,885.00
Storm Water Management Fee:
8.59 acres ~ $2943.00/ac = $25,280.00
Trunk Sewer & Water Charge:
8.59 acres ~ $3500.00/ac = $30,065.00
These charges represent an approximate cost of $4,309.00 per lot for the 26 proposed townhous~
units within Crystal Bay. Addition Assuming the initial net lot area of the preliminary plat doe's
not change, the above referenced park dedication, collector street, stormwater and trunk sewer
and water charges, would be determined and collected within the context of a developer's
agreement for the constxuction of utility improvements at the time of final plat approval.
There are no other outstanding special assessments currently certified against the property. Also,
the tax status of the property is current with no outstanding delinquencies.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
H:~SPLITS~Cr~bay.d~ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1104.800:
1104.801
1104.802
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1104.803
(1)
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PODS):
Types Of PODs Permissible: Planned unit developments (PUDs) are
allowed for new projects on undeveloped land, redeveloPment of
previously built sites, or conversions of existing buildings and land. PUDs
are an allowable use in ali Use Districts.
Application For A PUD: The applicant for a PUD must submit the
following documents prior to final action being taken on the application
request.
A site plan and/or plat for the project showing locations of property
boundaries, surface water features, existing and proposed structures and
other facilities, land alterations, sewage treatment and water supply
systems (where public systems will not be provided), and topographic
contours at 2 foot intervals or less. When a PUD is a combined
commercial and residential development, the site plan and/or plat must
indicate and distinguish which buildings and ~portions of the project ara
residential, commercial or a combination of the two.
A property owners' association agreement (for residential PUDs) with
mandatory membership, and all in accordance with the requirements of
subsection 1104.805.
Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements or other instruments
that: a) properly address future vegetative and topographic alterations,
construction of additional buildings, beachirlg of watercraft, and
construction of commercial buildings in residential PUDs and b) ensure
the long-term preservation and maintenance or open space in
accordance with the criteria and analysis specified in subsection
1104.805,
When ne~cessary, a master plan/drawing describing the project and the
floor plan for all commercial structures to be occupied.
Those additional documents as requested, by the Zoning Administrator
that are necessary to explain how the PUD will be designed and will
function.
Site "Suitable Area" Evaluations: Proposed new or expansions to
existing planned unit developments must be evaluated using the following
procadur.as and standards to determine the suitable area for the dwelling
unitJdweUing site density evaluation in subsection 1104.804.
The project parcel must be divided into tiers by locating one or more lines
approximately parallel to a line that identifies the ordinary high-water level
at the following intervals, proceeding landward.
SHORELAND TIER DIMENSIONS
Unsewered (feet) Sewered (feet)
General Development Lakes
(first tier) 200 200
General Development Lakes
(second tier) 267 267
Recreational Development 267 267
Lakes
Natural Environment Lakes 400 320
All River Classes 300 300
1104.804
(2)
The suitable area within each tier is next calculated by excluding from the
tier area all wetlands, bluffs, or land below the ordinary high water level of
public waters. This suitable area and the proposed project are then
subject to either the residential or commemial planned unit development
density evaluation steps to arrive at an allowable number of dwelling units
or sites.
Residential And Commercial PUD Density Evaluation: The
procedures for determining the "base" density of a PUD and density
increase multipliers are outlined as follows. Allowable densities may be
transferred from any tier to any other tier further from the waterbody, but
must not be transferred to any other tier closer to the waterbody.
Residential PUD "Base'i Density Evaluation: The suitable area within
each tier is divided by the single residential lot size standard for lakes or,
for rivers, the single residential lot width standard multiplied by the tier
depth, unless the local unit of government has specified an altemative
minimum lot size for rivers which shall then be used to yield a base
density of dwelling units or sites for each tier. Proposed locations and the
number of dwelling units or sites for the residential planned unit
developments are then compared with the tier, density, and suitability
analysis herein and the design criteria in subsection 1104.805.
(2) Commercial PUD "Base" Density Evaluatior~
Determine the average inside living area size of dwelling units or
sites within each tier, including both existing and proposed units
and sites. Computation of inside living area sizes need not include
decks, patios, stoops, steps, garages, porches or basements,
unless they are habitable space.
b. Select the appropriate floor area ratio from the following table.
COMMERCIAL PUD FLOOR AREA RATIOS
PUBLIC WATER CLASSES
Average Sewered General Second and Additional tiers Natural
Unit Floor Development Lakes; First on unsewered General Environment
Area tier on unsewered Development Lakes; Lakes and remote
(Sq. Feet) General Development Recreatlona~ Lakes; river segments
Lakes; Urban, Transition and Forested
Agricultural, Tributary river segments
river segments
200 .040 .020 .010
300 .048 .024 .012
400 .056 .028 .014
500 .065 .032 .016
600 .072 .038 .019
700 .082 .042 ;021
800 .091 .046 .023
900 .099 .050 .025
1,000 .108 ; .054 .027
1,100 .116 .058 .029
1,200 .125 ~ .064 .032
1,300 .133 .068 .034
1,400 .142 .072 .036
1,500 .150 .075 .038
*For average unit floor areas less than shown, use the floor area ratios
listed for 200 square feet. For areas greater than shown, use the ratios
listed for 1,500 square feet. For; racraational camping areas, use the
ratios listed at 400 square feet.: For manufactured home sites in
recreational camping areas use a ratio equal to the size of, the
manufactured home, or if unknown, the ratio listed for 1,000 square feet,
Multiply the suitable area within each tier by the floor area ratio to
yield total floor area for each tier allowed to be used for dwelling
units or sites.
do
Divide the total floor area by tier computed in subsection (c) above
by the average inside living area size determined in subsection (a)
above. This yields a base number of dwelling units and sites for
each tier.
Proposed locations and number of dwelling units or sites for the
commercial planned unit development are then compared with the
tier, density and suitability analysis herein and the design criteria
in subsection 1104.805.
1104.805
(1)
(3) Density Increase Multipliers:
Increases to the dwelling unit or dwelling site base densities
previously determined are allowable if the dimensional standards
in subsection 1104.300 are met or exceeded and the design
criteria in subsection 1104.805 are satisfied. The allowable
density increases in subsection b. below will only be allowed if
structure setbacks from the ordinary high-water levels are
increased to at least 50% greater than the minimum setback, or
the impact on the waterbody is reduced an equivalent amount
through vegetative management, topography, or additional means
acceptable to the local unit of government and the setback is at
least 25% greater than the minimum setback.
Allowable dwelling unit or d.we ng site density increases for
residential or commercial planned unit developments:
Density Maximum Density
Evaluation Tiers Increase Within Each Tier
First 50%
Second 100%
Third 200%
Fourth 200%
Fifth 200%
Maintenance And Desi.qn Criteria:
Maintenance And Administration Requirements:
Approval Of Development: Before final approval of a plan~ed unit
development, adequate provision must be developed for
preservation and maintenance in perpetuity of open spaces and
for the continued existence and functioning of the development.
bo
Open Space Preservation: Deed restrictions, covenants,
permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other
equally effective and permanent means must be provided to
ensure long-term preservation and maintenance of open space.
The instruments must include all of the following protections:
Commercial uses prohibited (for residential PUDs);
Vegetation and topographic alterations other than ~'. routine
maintenance prohibited;
Construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles and
other materials prohibited; and
Uncontrolled beaching of watercraft prohibited.
Development Or,qanization And Functioninq: Unless an equally
effective alternative community framework is established, when
(2)
applicable, all residential plann6d unit developments must use an
owners association with the following features:
Membership shall be mandatory for each dwelling unit or site
purchaser and any successive purchasers;
Each member shall pay a pro rata share of the association's
expenses, and unpaid assessments can become liens on units or
sites;
Assessments shall be adjustable to accommodate changing
conditions; and
The association shall be responsible for :insurance, taxes, and
maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities.
Open Space Requirements: Planned unit developments must contain
open space meeting all of the following criteria:
At least 50% of the total project area within the Shoreland Overlay
Distdct shall be preserved as open space;
Dwelling units or sites, road rights-of-ways, or land covered by
road surfaces, parking areas, or structures, except water-oriented
accessory structures, or facilities, are developed areas and shall
not be included in the computation of minimum open space;
Open space shall include areas with physical characteristics
unsuitable for development in their natural state, and areas
containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries.
Open space may include outdoor recreational facilities for use by
owners or dwelling units or sites, by guests staying in commercial
dwelling units or sites, and by the general public.
Open space may include subsurface sewage treatment systems if
the use of the space is restricted to avoid adverse impacts on the
systems;
Open space shall not include commercial facilities or uses, but
may contain water-oriented accessory structures or facilities;
The appearance of open space areas, including topography,
vegetation, and allowable uses, shall be preserved by use of
restrictive deed covenants, permanent easements, public
dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and
permanent means; and
The shore impact zone, based on normal structure setbacks, shall
be included as open space. For residential PUDs, at least 50% of
the shore impact zone area of existing developments or at least
70% of the shore impact zone area of new developments shall be
preserved in its natural existing state. For commercial PUDs, at
(3)
(4)
least 50% of the shore impadt zone shall be preserved in its
natural state.
Erosion Control And Storm Water Management: Erosion control, storm
water management plans, and Best Management Practices shall be
developed and the PUD shall:
Be designed, and the construction managed, to minimize the
likelihood of serious erosion occurring either during or after
construction. This shall be accomplished by limiting the amount
and length of time of bare ground exposure. Temporary ground
covers, sediment entrapment facilities, vegetation buffer strips, or
other appropriate techniques shall be used to minimize erosion
impacts on surface water features. Erosion control plans
approved by a soil and water conservation district may be required
if project size and site physical characteristic warrant; and
Be designed and constructed to effectively manage reasonably
expected quantities and qualities of storm water runoff.
Impervious surface coverage within any tier shall not exceed 25%
of tier area, except that for commemial PUD's 35% impervious
surface cOverage may be allowed in the first tier of general
.development lakes with an approved storm water management
plan and consistent with subsection 1104.400.
Centralization and Design of Facilities: Centralization and design of
facilities and structures shall be done according to the following
standards:
· Planned unit developments shall be connected to publicly owned
water supply and sewer systems;
Dwelling units or sites shall be clustered into one or more groups
and located on suitable areas of the development. They shall be
designed and located to meet or exceed the following dimensional
standards for the relevant shoreland classification: setback from
the ordinary high water level, elevation above the surface water
features, and maximum height. Setbacks from the ordinary high
water level shall be increased in accordance with subsection
1104.804(3) for developments with density increases;
Co
Shore recreation facilities, including but not limited to swimming
areas, docks, and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps,
shall be centralized and located in areas suitable for them.
Evaluation of suitability shall include consideration of land slope,
water depth, vegetation, soils, depth to ground water and bedrock,
or other relevant factors. The number of spaces provided for
continuous beaching, mooring, or docking of watercraft shall not
exceed one for each allowable dwelling unit or site in the first tier
(notwithstanding existing mooring sites in an existing commercially
used harbor). Launching ramp facilities, including a small dock for
1104.806
(1)
(2)
(3)
loading and unloading equipment, may be provided for use by
occupants of dwelling units or sites located in other tiers;
Structures, parking areas, and other facilities shall be treated to
reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent
shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color,
or other means acceptable to the local unit of government,
assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Vegetative and
topographic screening shall be preserved, if existing, or may be
required to be provided;
Accessory structures and facilities, except water-oriented
accessory structures, shall meet the required principal structure
setback and shall be centralized; and
f. Water-oriented accessory structures and facilities hnay be allowed
if they meet and exceed design standards contained in subsection
1104.308(4).
Conversions: Local governments may allow existing resorts or other land
uses and facilities to be converted to residential planned unit
developments if all the following standards are met:
Proposed conversion.'~ shall be initially evaluated using the same
procedures for residential planned unit developments involving all new
construction. Inconsistencies between existing features of the
development and these standards must be identified. :
Deficiencies involving !water supply and sewage treatment, structure
color, impervious coverage, open space, and shore recreation facilities
shall be corrected as part of the conversion or as Specified in the
conditional use permits.
Shore and bluff zone deficiencies shall be evaluated and reasonable
improvements made as part of the conversion. These improvements
shall include, where applicable, the following:
Removal of extraneous buildings, docks, or other facilities that no
longer need to be located in shore or bluff impact zones;
Remedial measures to correct erosion sites and improve
vegetative cover and screening of buildings and ~)ther facilities as
viewed from the water; and
If existing dwelling units are located in shore or bluff impact zones,
conditions are attached to approvals of conversions that preclude
exterior expansions in any dimension or substantial alterations.
The conditions shall also provide for future relocation of dwelling
units, where feasible, to other locations, meeting all setback and
elevation requirements when they are rebuilt or replaced.
(4)
Existing dwelling unit or dwelling site densities that exceed standards in
subsection 1104.804 may be allowed to continue but shall not be allowed
to be increased, either at the time of conversion or in the future. Efforts
shall be made during the conversion to limit impacts of high densities by
requiring seasonal use, improving vegetative screening, centralizing
shore recreation facilities, installing new sewage treatment systems, or
other means.
TO:
City of Prior Lake
City Council
Planning Commission
FROM: Island View Homeowners Associations
DATE: 5 August 2002
RE: Crystal Bay, Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Homeowners in the neighborhoods affected by the PUD have drafted a petition
to be presented at the August 12th public hearing regarding the application for
this 26-unit townhouse development. In order to provide adequate time for
review, we have attached a copy of the petition for your consideration and
reference in advance of the meeting.
Please feel free to contact Debbie Stewart or Jim Schilling (952-447-3302), Kyle
Sch'roeder (952-447-4719) or StePhanie Renslow (952-440-6510) with any
questions regarding this petition. ~ .
Crystal Lake Planned Unit Development Petition
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City and Planning Commission of Prior
Lake, the County of Scott and the 212 Development Group, LLC, all in the state
of Minnesota, regarding the Crystal Bay Town home Planned Unit Development
(PUD) located along the shore land of upper Prior Lake at the intersection of
154t" Street NW and Fremont Avenue in Prior Lake, as follows:
1. We request that the PUD application for multi-family housing be
rejected in favor of single-family residences.
The housing density proposed is inconsistent with adjoining housing units.
In addition, property values of these adjoining properties and those in the
immediate vicinity would be adversely affected. Further, the developers
have not provided any benefit to the community, as required by PUD
specifications.
We request a moratorium on this development, pending evaluation
and initiation of planned improvements to CR82.
Increased motor vehicle traffic on CR82 resulting from the addition of 26
residential units in the planned Crystal Lake PUD, together with other new
developments in the area (including the proposed Jeffer's Pond
development and others surrounding the PUD on the north, west and
south) will create unacceptable noise and safety issues for current and
new residents. The County's Capital Improvement Program (ClP)
postponing these improvements until 2006 represents an unacceptable
delay between the PUD and planned improvements.
We request reevaluation and rerouting of the private road for the
development so that it does not intersect with Fremont Avenue on
the west.
This design is a safety concern for current residents because of increased
traffic on Fremont and for future residents of the development because of
the likely use of their private road as an access to County Road 82.
We request that adequate noise abatement be included as part of the
development.
The increased traffic on CR82 due to this development and other
developments in the last year has caused traffic noise levels to reach
unacceptable levels. A noise barrier would benefit homeowners in the
new development as well as existing residents. The Developer has
expressed a desire to provide a noise barrier. However, the County will
not allow a barrier to be built on the County's right-of-way. This
represents a clear opportunity for the Developer, the City, and the County
to partner together to solve the traffic noise issue.
Crystal Lake Planned Unit Development Petition (continued)
5. We request a change in the number of boat slips requested by the
developer from 26 to a number no greater than 12.
The addition of 26 new boat slips in the small area near the development
would be a safety issue. It would add to the existing significant congestion
in the bay, given the proximity to preexisting slips allocated to Island View
Homeowners AsSociation, 5t~ Addition and those of the two single-family
homes between Island View 5~ Addition and the new development (see
attached map). This reduction would significantly ease congestion and
safety concerns.
6. We request that the provision for a PUD private boat launch be
rejected. :
Experience of Island View, 5th Addition Association has demonstrated that
it is not possible to enforce exclusive private use. The result of an
additional launch iin this small bay would be increased boat traffic
congestion and dbcreased safety.
We request a change in the hours of construction operation due to
the "infill" nature of this development.
We propose 7AM,6PM on weekdays, 9AM-SPM on Saturday and 9AM-
· 4PM on Sunday to reduce the inconvenience to current homeowners.
8. We request that covenants for the development specify that the
development be ifenced and that the active recreational areas be unlit
and fenced.
These spaces are clearly designated for the private use of the :
development, and they will likely become a magnet for kids from other
developments, who will cut through private property to access them if they-
are not properly protected.
9. We request careful consideration of preservation of large mature
trees to prevent soil and shoreline erosion and preserve the natural
beauty and integrity of the property.
As it stands, the development plan calls for removal of several large-
circumference trees, beth on the bluff and at shoreline.
In short, we do not want "Crystal Bay Planned Unit Development" as
presented in our neighborhood. Perhaps considerations might be
made for a smaller project, but not for the project that is currently under
consideration by the Prior Lake Planning Commission.
Tree Removal and Replacement
The project has been designed to protect and preserve the trees in the shoreland
and bluff impact zones and along the east property line adjoining Island View
Addition. On the east side a retaining wall and modified building design were
employed to assure that many of the mature trees are preserved.
The tree replacement was completed and calls for 71 - 2-1/2" cal. trees to be
planted on the site. This amount exceeds the required 50 caliper inches based on
removal, o~ existing trees. The species of the replacement trees are similar to what
iS exigti~:~h the site (oak, maple, linden) so the landscape character will remain
consistent.
Ybur~ Very truly,
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
Pc. John Klingelhutz
Denny Safe
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN AND A
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS TIMBER
CREST PARK
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
AUGUST 12, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
Ray Brandt has applied for approval of a development to be known as Timber Crest Park
on the property located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and TH
13, on thc north side of Franidin Trail and BluffHeights Trail. The property owner, Prior
Lake Apartments, has also signed the application.
The application includes the following requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
This property is zoned Ro4 (High Density Residential). The proposal calls for a
townhouse development consisting of a total of 148 dwelling units on 28.19 acres. The
development also includes parkland and private open space.
The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on July 8, 2002. At
that meeting, the Planning Commission discussed several concerns raised by the staff.
The Planning Commission also heard testimony from several residents of the area
opposed to this project. The Planning Commission continued this item in order to allow
the developer to address the issues raised at this meeting. A copy of the minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting is attached to this report.
On July 16, 2002, the developer met with City staff to discuss the various issues. The
developer subsequently submitted revised plans on Friday, July 26, 2002. These plans,
1:\02files~02subdivisions~02prelim plats\timber mst\timber pc3.doe Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S~E., P~or Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
and the developer's narrative, are attached. The following paragraphs generally describe
the revisions to the plan.
PROPOSED PLAN
Densi .ty: The plan proposes 148 townhouse units on a total of 28.19 acres. Density is
based on the buildable acres of the site, or in this case on 21.87 net acres. The overall
density proposed in this plan is 6.77 units per acre.
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 148 lots for the townhouse units. There are also
three lots for the common open space. The proposal also includes three outlots. Outlot A
is the private street system. Outlot B, located at the southwest comer of the site is
intended as parkland. Outlot C is the wetland area.
Building SW. les: There are two different townhouse building styles proposed. The first
style, called Village Homes, is a 2-story, attached single family style dwelling with tuck-
under garage. These buildings are located on the south side of the site. The plan includes
48 of these units in 6- and 8-unit buildings. Each of the units in these buildings includes
a 1-car garage and approximately 977 square feet of living space on the upper two floors.
The buildings are 35' high at the front, with brick and vinyl siding exteriors, and brick
face and vinyl shakes for accents.
The second building style, called Manor Homes, is a 2-story attached single family
dwelling. There are 100 units in 25, 4-unit buildings. These buildings consist of a lower
level, 2-car garage, rear yard decks and 1,595 square feet of living space. These buildings
are 29' high, with vinyl siding exteriors and brick face and vinyl shakes for accents.
Building elevations and sample floor plans for each of these buildings are attached to this
report.
The Zoning Ordinance requires 60% of the exterior building materials for townhouse
buildings with more than 4-units consist of Class I materials, such as brick or cement
stucco. The developer originally requested a modification to this requirement as part of
the PUD plan for the 6- and 8-unit buildings; however, that request has been withdrawn.
The revised plans indicate the exteriors will consist of a combination of Class I materials
and vinyl siding. The elevations submitted do not include a scale, so the staff was unable
to verify if the proposed plans meet the 60% requirement.
Setbacks: The plan proposes a 25' setback from the front property line, a minimum 30'
rear yard setback, and a minimum 25' building separation (foundation to foundation)
between the townhouses. The plan also notes a 30' setback from any wetland.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum setback between buildings equal to V2 the
sum of the height of the buildings. In this case, the minimum distance between buildings
would be 35' for the Village Homes and 29' for the Manor Homes. The developer is
requesting a modification to this requirement as part of the PUD.
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\timber pc3.doc
Page 2
Lot Coverage: The R-4 district allows a maximum ground floor area of 0.35. The
ground floor area proposed in this plan is 0.125.
Traffic Impact Report: The developer has submitted a traffic study for this
development. This study indicates the proposed development will generate a total of 868
trips. The TIR also indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of TH 13
and CSAH 21, and at CSAH 21 and Franklin Trail, would not fall below the existing
LOS as a result of the trips generated by this development. The report also compares the
number of trips generated by this development to the number of potential trips generated
by the number of units permitted by the R-4 zoning. A copy of the submitted TIR is
attached to this report.
Streets: This plan proposes a private streets system for this development. There are two
private streets designed to serve the townhouse development. The first is an extension of
Bluff Heights Trail, 1,450' to the east where it intersects with Franklin Trail. This
intersection is located 260' from the intersection of CSAH 21 and Franklin Trail. While
not ideal, it is the only possible location for the intersection. The second private street is
called Timber Crest Drive, and it extends 1,000' from the west leg of BluffHeights Trail
to the east leg of Bluff Heights Trail. Both of the private streets are designed with a 32'
wide surface, and adjacent easements. The private streets meet the requirements of
Section 1004.415 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
The developer is also requesting a modification as part of the PUD plan to allow private
streets.
Sidewalks/Trails: The plan proposes a sidewalk on the north side of BluffHeights Trail
and on the north side of Timber Crest Drive. The revised plans also identify a pedestrian
path through Outlot B and Outlot C, which eventually connects to the sidewalk along
CSAH 21.
Sanitary. Sewer: Sanitary sewer will be extended from the existing sewer main which is
located on this site. A portion of the existing sewer line must be relocated and the
easement across the property vacated.
Water Main: Water mains will be extended from the existing lines in Bluff Heights
Trail and in Franklin Trail.
Storm Sewer: The plan proposes a series of catch basins and storm sewer pipe to handle
the storm water runoffon this site. The system will direct runoffto the north to a NURP
pond on the north side of this site. The developer has revised the plans to address the
original concerns of the Engineering Department. This redesign is acceptable to the
Engineering staff.
Parks: This plan includes a 2.72 acre park site, located at the southwest comer of the
site. This is the best location for a park on the site, in that it is accessible to both this
I :\02 fil esKI2subdivisions~O2prelim plats~mber crest\timber pc3.doc Page 3
development and other developments in the area. The site must be graded to meet
minimum standards.
Useable Open Space: The R-4 district also requires 600 square feet of useable open
space per unit for cluster developments. Although this proposal is a PUD, it must also
comply with that requirement. The required open space for this development is 88,800
square feet; the plan indicates a total of 115,909 square feet. The developer has addressed
the adequacy of this open space in the attached narrative.
Parking: The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 2 spaces per dwelling trait, or
296 spaces for this development. Each the 100 Manor Home units have two car garages;
each of the Village Home units have a one-car garage. The plan also provides 72 off-
street parking spaces in the townhouse area for guest parking. A total of 320 off-street
parking spaces are provided, which is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements. The developer's narrative also notes an additional 27 spaces are available
on the private streets. These spaces cannot be used to meet the required parking;
however, the proposal exceeds the minimum requirements without the on-street parking.
Landscaping: Section 1107.1900 lists the landscaping requirements for this
development. Perimeter landscaping is required at a rate of 1 tree per unit or 1 tree per
40' feet of perimeter, whichever is greater. Our calculations indicate a total of 148 trees
are required for this site.
The developer has submitted a landscaping plan that identifies 315 trees, which exceeds
the proper number of trees for the development. This plan is also consistent with
ordinance requirements for size and species of the plantings. The plan does not indicate
whether an irrigation system will be provided. The plan also has some discrepancies
between the key and the actual trees shown on the site. These discrepancies should be
corrected.
Tree Replacement: The applicant has submitted an inventory identifying 791 caliper
inches of significant trees on the site. The Zoning Ordinance allows up to 25% of the
significant caliper inches to be removed for road and utility purposes, and up to 25% for
building pads and driveways. In this case, the proposal removes 29.4% for road and
utility purposes and 14.5% for building pads and driveways. Tree replacement is
required at a rate of ½ caliper inch per 1 caliper inch removed. In this case, replacement
of 17.125 caliper inches, or 7, 2 ½ inch trees, is required. The landscaping plan includes
more than adequate numbers of trees to meet this requirement.
Signs: There are no signs identified for this project.
Lighting: The developer has not indicated whether or not street lights will be provided
on the private streets.
Phasing: No phasing plan has been submitted for this project.
1:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelirn plats\timber crest\timber pc3.doc
Page 4
ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
On July 8, 2002, the Planning Commission raised the following issues:
1. Storm water runoff.
The original staff report outlined a number of issues with the proposed storm water
runoff system. The plans have been revised to address these issues. The Engineering
staff has reviewed the plans and is satisfied the system will function properly.
2. Trails and sidewalks in development and connections to existing streets.
The original plan proposed sidewalk on one side of Bluff Heights Trail The
developer has revised the plans to include sidewalk on both Bluff Heights Trail and
on Timber Crest Drive.
3. Access to proposed park from surrounding development.
The Planning Commission was concerned about pedestrian access to the proposed
park, not just from the proposed development, but l~om surrounding developments as
well As noted above, the developer has revised the plans to include sidewalks on
both sides of both streets. In addition, a pedestrian path is shown through Outlot B
and Outlot C, which eventually connects to the sidewalk along CS.MI 21.
4. Usability of proposed open space.
The original staff report noted concerns about the useable open space on this site.
The Zoning Ordinance defines Useable Open Space as "a required ground area or
terrace on a lot which is graded, developed, landscaped and equipped and intended and
maintained for either active or passive recreation or both, available and accessible to
and usable by all person occupying a dwelling unit or a rooming unit on the lot and
their guests. Usable open space has a minimum dimension of 3O feet. Roofs, driveways
and parking areas do not constitute usable open space." The largest area of open
space, located in the center of Block 3, will have slopes of 16-29% after the site is
graded. The question is whether or not this area can really be considered usable.
In his narrative, the developer notes that the proposal provides 151,745 square feet of
open space, which is well above the required 88,800 square feet. He also notes that
25,000 square feet of the open space has slopes of 3:l, leaving over 125,000 square feet
of usable open space. The open space with steeper slopes does have value as passive
recreation area, and as green space in the development.
5. Use of Class I materials on proposed buildings
The developer has revised the plans to utilize Class I materials on all buildings with
more than 4 dwelling units. The plans Submitted do not include a scale, so the staff
was unable to verify whether or not the proposal meets the 60% requirement;
however, it is clearly the developer's intent to meet this requirement.
6. Parking/single-car garages
1 :~02 files~02 subdivision s~021~elim plats\timbex mst\timber pc3.doc Page 5
The Planning Commission was concerned that parking would be a problem,
especially in the areas with a single car garage. The plan does exceed the minimum
parking requirements.
7. Benefits to City with PUl)
The developer's narrative outlines what they believe are the benefits to the PUD. The
PUD does allow for the clustering of dwelling units on the upland portion of the
property. The development of private streets also has some benefit to the City; costs
for maintaining these streets is borne by the homeowner's association rather than
general taxpayers. Private streets also reduce the amount of area to be disturbed
because of reduced setbacks.
ANALYSIS:
PUD Prelimina~. Plan: The PUD must be reviewed based on the criteria found in
Section 1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 1106.100 discusses the
purpose of a PUD. These criteria are discussed below.
(1) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, materials, construction
and land development.
The developer is utilizing standard construction and design practices for the
townhomes. The lookout style of the buildings in some areas utilizes the natural
grades of the site where possible. A similar development, without the private streets
and setback modifications, is possible as is a conventional development in the R-4
district; however, a PUD of this type results in less density than may be otherwise
permitted in the R-4 district.
(2) Higher standards of site and building design.
Same as above.
(3) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support
high quality land use development at a lesser cost.
Maintenance of private streets, including plowing and future repairs, is done by the
homeowners association. This reduces City costs in providing services to these
homes.
(4) Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space components in the
development which may be made more useable and be more suitably located than
would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures.
The common open space on the site will be available to ail residents of the
development as passive open space. The same amount of common open space is
required as part of a conventional development.
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\timber pc3.doc Page 6
(5) Provides a flexible approach to development which allows modifications to the strict
application of regulations within the various Use Districts that are in harmony with
the purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The density and variety of housing units is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
goals to provide a variety of housing styles.
(6) Encourages a more creative and efficient use of land.
The use of the private streets allows for fewer driveway openings on the public
streets.
(7) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics including flora and fauna,
scenic views, screening and buffering, and access.
The townhouse units are sited to take advantage of the natural views of the wetlands.
The plan provides screening from the adjacent County road.
(8) Allows the development to operate in concert with a Redevelopment Plan in certain
areas of the City and to insure the redevelopment goals and objectives within the
Redevelopment District will be achieved.
This criterion is not applicable.
(9) Provides for flexibility in'design and construction of the development in cases where
large, tracts of land are under single ownership or control and where the use(s) has
the potential to significantly affect adjacent or nearby properties.
The use of the PUD allows the clustering of the homes and the use of private streets.
(lO)Encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over and above required
dedications, by allowing a portion of the density to be transferred to other parts of
the site.
There is no park dedication or open space dedication over and above that required
under conventional procedures. The developer is maximizing the use of the wetland
area by providing walking trails around the wetland that eventually connect to the
public sidewalk along CSAH 21.
Section 1106.300 states the quality of building and site design proposed by the PUD will
enhance the aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied:
(1) The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified
environment within the boundaries of the project by insuring architectural
compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation,
1:~02 files\02subdivisions\02pr~lim plats\timber mst\timber pc3.doc Page 7
aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and efficient use and design of
utilities.
The design creates a unified environment in that all of the buildings will be
constructed of similar materials. The extension of the existing private street allows
for efficient movement of traffic. The landscaping plan will also enhance this area.
(2) The design of a PUD shall optimize compatibility between the project and
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential
adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse
effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD.
The use of the PUD will allow the clustering of the townhouse units.
(3) Ifa project for which PUD treatment has been requested involves construction over a
period of time in two or more phases, the applicant shah demonstrate that each phase
is capable of addressing and meeting each of the criteria independent of the other
phases.
This project will be constructed in a single phase.
(4) Approval ora PUD may permit the placement of more than one building on a lot.
This is not applicable.
(5) A PUD in a Residential Use District shall conform to the requirements of that Use
District unless modified by the following or other provisions of this Ordinance.
a. The tract of land for which a project is proposed shall have not less than 200feet
of frontage on a public right-of-way.
b. No building shall be nearer than its building height to any property line when the
property abutting the subject property is in an "R-] " or "R-2" Use District.
c. No building within the project shall be nearer to another building than ~ the sum
of the building heights of the two buildings, except for parking ramps which may
be directly connected to another building.
d. Private roadways within the project site may not be used in calculating required
off-street parIa'ng spaces.
The modifications requested by the developer include the following:
The use of private streets. Normally, a development of this type would
require a minimum right-of-way width of 50' and a 28' to 32' wide surface.
The developer is requesting a 32' wide private street. The additional 18' of
right-of-way would be accommodated by the use of easements adjacent to the
private road.
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\timber pc3.doc Page 8
Reduced setbacks between buildings. The required separation between
buildings under the PUD provisions is V2 the sum of the heights of the
buildings, or 29' and 35' in this case. The developer is requesting a 25'
separation between the buildings.
These modifications are permitted under the PUD provisions at the discretion of the
Council.
PreliminarF Plat: The primary issue relating the preliminary plat was the design of the
storm water system. The Engineering Department has reviewed the revised plans and is
satisfied with the revisions. Other engineering design issues can be handled at the final
plat stage.
Staff Recommendation: One of the major issues pertaining to this development is
whether or not the plan meets the PUD criteria. The primary justification for a PUD
appears to be the use of the private streets. A cluster development of this type is
permitted in the R-4 district, so a similar development with public streets, and meeting
the required setbacks could be done without a PUD. The plan is consistent with the
requirements for a conventional cluster development.
At the July 8, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, comments by the Commissioners
indicated that this type of development was preferable to a higher density type of
development. The Commissioners also seemed to feel the PUD process and the use of
private streets was appropriate for the development.
If the Planning Commission finds that the PUD process is appropriate for this
development, the staffwould recommend the following conditions be attached:
1. Outlot B must be designated as "Park" on the final plat. This park must be rough
graded to City specifications.
2. The developer must address the ownership and maintenance of Outlot C.
3. The developer must provide scaled plans for the building exteriors. The t~terior
materials of all buildings with more than 4-units must consist of at least 60% Class
I materials.
4. The developer must address all of the issues in the memorandum from Larry
Poppler, Assistant City Engineer, dated August 6, 2002.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Plann'mg Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
PUD PreY~minary Plan and Preliminary Plat.
l:\02fllcs\O2$ubdivisions~O2prelim plats\timber crest\timber pc3.doc Page 9
ALTERNATIVES:
Recommend approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat subject
to the above conditions.
Recommend denial of the request.
Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Plarming staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the following requests:
· Approval of a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan to be known as Timber
Crest Park subject to the above conditions;
· Approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as Timber Crest Park, subject to the
above conditions.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Reduced Copy of Revised PUD and Preliminary Plat Plans
3. Developer's Narrative
4. Engineering Department Comments
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\timber pc3.doc Page 10
Location Map
0
40 Feet
/
m
m
,--!
Response to July 8 Planning Commission m~t!ng
Seven items fi.om the Planning Commission meeting of July 8 were highlighted
as needing modification or further clarification.
The Engineering Department expressed a concern regarding the project having
only one low point. I met with Bud Osmundson, Jane Kansier and Larry Poppler on July
16. My proposal to modify the profile grade for Bluff Heights Trail into two low points
was accepted as a good solution. Catch basins were added on both Bluff Heights Trail
and Timber Crest Drive. Calculations show that a little more than 2 cfs overflow one low
point and a little tess than 2 cfs overflow the other low point during a 100 year storm
event. The pipes are designed to handle the runoff for a 100 year event.
Another item of concern or question was the trail system. A sidewalk has been
added along the northerly side of Timber Crest Drive A walkway has been added through
OUTLOTS B and C from the southerly part of OUTLOT B along the westerly side of
OUTLOT C and to the sidewalk along the southerly side of County Road No. 21.
Access to the proposed park was discussed and the proposal is, in addition to the
walkway mentioned above, a public easement over OUTLOT A for the purpose of the
use of the sidewalks along Timber Crest Drive and Bluff Heights Trail.
There was considerable discussion regarding the Class I materials on the proposed
buildings. The PUD application asked for a variance from the 60% Class I materials for
the outside of the 8-unit buildings. Pulte has modified their buildings to conform to th/s
requirement.
Parking was another point of considerable discussion and also a concern fi.om one
of the neighbors at the public hearing. More spaces have been added and there are now
39 more spaces than required by the ordinance. There are also 27 possible parking sites
(temporary spaces) shown on the layout. The streets are 32 feet wide (the same as a city
street) and this provides for the additional 27 spaces for temporary visitor parking just
like one finds on the city street but not for overnight parking. Thus there are really 66
spaces more then required by the ordinance. This does not count the 15 parking spaces
shown along the easterly side of OUTLOT B. These are for the public use at the park.
All items listed on a Memorandum dated 3 July by Sue McDermott (part of the
staff report) have been incorporated with this submittal.
The staff report also had questions regarding the open space shown with the plans
that were covered with the staff report. Especially regarding usability of the open space.
The Zoning Code requires 600 square feet of usable open space for each dwelling unit in
a cluster housing development. This proposal is regarded as a Cluster Housing
Development under the Planned Unit Development section of the ordinance. The usable
open space is defined in the ordinance as "a required ground area or tcnace on a lot
which is graded, developed, landscaped and equipped and intended and maintained for
either active or passive recreation or both, available and accessible to and usable by all
persons occupying a dwelling unit or rooming unit on the lot and their guests." This
project is required to provide 88,800 square feet of open space and is providing 151,745
square feet. The main question from the 3 July report was "usability". There is no slopes
within the area indicated as open space that is steeper than 3:1. A 3:1 slope is not usable
for most recreational activities bm should qualify for "passive" uses such as walking. The
area that constituted a 3:1 slope amounts to approximately 25,000 square feet which
leaves more than 125,000 square feet available for more active recreational uses. The lot
depth for the Manor homes was shortened by two feet in the rear of the lot l~om the last
proposal. This made it possible for substantial space on Lot 53, Block 1, to qualify as
open space.
Pulte has responded with a letter, attached hereto, that addresses the last item of
concern by the Planning Commission and that was to the "benefits the City receives by
approving the PUD. One of the benefits not included in the Pulte letter, and maybe not a
large benefit, regards the access to County Road No. 21. An agreement was made in 1989
between the County Highway Engineer and the owners of the property regarding taking
of land alongside the old railroad property for the conswaetion of County Road No. 21.
Part of that agreement was to provide an access from County Road No. 21 to the property
at a specified location. At an earlier stage of developing the plans for this proposal it was
requested by the City and by the County Highway Engineer that we abandon the access
that was shown on the proposal. This was granted by the developer and really is
somewhat of a benefit to the City, or at least the County, in that they didn't have to pay
for "taking" the access.
25 July 2002
July 25, 2002
Ms. Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: Timber Crest Park
Dear Ms. Kansier:
Timber Crest Park, as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), benef'As the City of Prior Lake, the
neighborhood, and Pulte Homes. The 25.3-acre site is unique, in that it is dominated by a 5.3-
acre wetland at the primary focal point at the intersections of Highway 13 and C.R. 21 and
relatively steep slopes on the balance ofthe uplands. The following are specific beneffis of the
PUD concept on this site:
DENSITY TRANSFER - The homes are clustered to take advantage of the upland areas
appropriate for development. A even distribution of homes with standard public right-of-
ways and setbacks would be an inefficient method of developing this site. The steep
slopes toward the wetland require a combination of tuck-under garages and walkout
basements to prevent excessive wetland filling and retaining walls.
OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING - The site is zoned R-4 which allows for apartments up
to 30 units/acre (600 total units). This proposal is for two styles of owner-occupied town
homes, the Village Homes are two-story structures with tuck-under garages for the first-
time home buyer in the $115,000-$125,000 range and the Manor Homes are split-level
structures with walk-out basements for the move-up town home buyer in the $160,000-
$180,000 range. The combination allows for not only efficient us of the slope, but also
provides homes for two different pdce points and buyer profiles. This yields'total home
Values of approximately $24,000,000 for the Timber Crest Park community.
PARK DEDICATION - Required park dedication for this site is 2.72 acres. The City has
required that the park dedication be located at the southeasterly end of the site to
maximize the availability to the total vicinity. The PUD proposes 11.95 acres of park
dedication including not only the specified 2.72 acres in the southeast corner, but also
9.23 acres along Highway 13 and C.R. 21. This allows for greater public ownership in a
highly visible area across Highway 13 from downtown Pdor Lake. The additional 9.23
acres of parkland will be conveyed to the City at no cost to the City.
PATHWAY CONTRIBUTION - Within the 11.95 acres of park dedication, the PUD
proposes a bituminous pathway connection from the sidewalk along Timber Crest Trail,
through the active portion of the park and the natural, scenic portion of the park, to the
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
651'452"5200 651 '452'5727 Fax
existing sidewalk along C.R. 21. This 1500-lineal feet of pathway will be provided to the
City at no cost to the city.
PRIVATE STREETS - The proposed private streets ara 32-feet wide straets built to City
standards wtth public access easements for full public use. The straets provide access to
the homes within Tirober Crast Park as well as to the public park. Maintenance of the
straets is by the home-ow~era association. The City has no cost in maintaining the
straets within Timber Crest Park.
OPEN SPACE - Even though park dedication graatiy exceeds City raqulraments, open
space proposed is 151,745 SF, compared to the required 88,800 SF.
PARKING - Paddng required for the site is 296 spaces. Proposed parking for the site is
362 off. street spaces (66 more than required) plus 27 on-straet parking within the 32-fest
wide street. 15 parking spaces are proposed along the parkto provide convenient
parking for the park users.
TREE REPLACEMENT - Trae raplacement is not required, however, the proposed
landscape plan indicates the addition of 478 traes to be installed at the applicant's
expense. Long term maintenance of the trees and the irrigated common araas will be by
the home-owners association.
ACCESS - Vehicular access to the site is limited to existing Timber Crast Trail and to
Franklin Trail. No vehicular access is proposed directly onto C.R. 21 or Highway 13.
However, without PUD density concentration, limiting access would be mora difficult.
Puite Homes is looking fonNard to providing the Timber Ridge Park community in Prior Lake.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or comroents. We look will be happy
to discuss this further at the Planning Commission meeting on August 12 and the Council
meeting August 19, 2002.
Sincerely,
"D'eN:~ R. GdSword, R.L.A.
Director of Land
Planning Commission Meeting
.lu!y S, 2002
Atwood
based
Horsman explained the situation creme about
need be done. The
Kansier ex
the City has to be consistent with all app
;ON, SECOND
010PC OF
MATERIAl ZONE
Vote taken
MOTION CARRIED.
Criego and Atwood. Lemke nay.
Stamson explained the a
A recess was called at 9:30
reconveneda9:35 p.m.
D. Case #02-072
1104.308 (4)Water
at to Sections 1101.400 Definitions and
g Ordinance.
MOTION BY S' SECONI
2002
TO TABLE TO THE IULY 22,
Vote tak~indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. Old Business:
A. Case Files #02-024 and #02-025 - Consider a Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plat to be known as Timber Crest Park. The proposal includes 28.19
acres to be subdivided into 148 townhouse units located in the southeast quadrant of
the intersection of County Road 21 and Highway 13, on the north side of Franklin
Trail and Bluff Heights Trail.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002, on
file in the office of the City PlannLng Department.
Ray Brandt has applied for approval of a development to be known as Timber Crest Park
on the property located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and TH
13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and BluffHeights Trail. The property owner, Prior
Lake Apartments, has also signed the application.
The application includes the following requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
L:\02 FiLES\02planning eomm\02pcminuteshMN0708022.doc 14
This property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The proposal calls for a
town_house development consisting ora total of 148 dwelling units on 28.19 acres. The
development also includes parkland and private open space.
On May 21, 2002, the applicant submitted a complete application that called for a
development consisting of 170 units. Since the application was complete, the staff
scheduled a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Notice oft. his hearing was
published in the Prior Lake American and sent to owners of property within 500' of the
site.
This original proposal involved filling a large portion of the wetland on the site. The
Wetland Technical Evaluation Panel OEP) subsequently advised the developer that the
proposal was inconsistent with the Wetland Conservation Act, and could not be
approved.
As a result of the TEP decision, the developer submitted new plans on June 11, 2002.
Because of the thning oft_his submittal, the staff has not had the opportunity to review
these new plans. In addition, the developer must submit a revised wetland mitigation
plan and revised storm water drainage calculations. However, since the public hearing
had already been published and notices sent, the staffhad no choice but to place this item
on the agenda.
The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on June 24, 2002, and accepted
limited testimony. The Planning Commission then continued the public hearing to July
8, 2002, to allow stafftime to further review the revised plans.
One of the major issues pertaining to this development is whether or not the plan meets
the PUD criteria. The primary justification for a PUD appears to be the use of the private
sweets. A cluster development of this type is permitted in the R-4 district, so a similar
development with public streets, and meeting the required setbacks could be done
without a PUD. The plan is consistent with the requirements for a conventional cluster
development.
The other major issue pertaining to this development is the design of the storm water
runoff system. There are several issues pertaining to the proposed design that must be
addressed. It is more than likely that the system will need to be redesigned entirely.
This site is zoned R4, and is appropriate for a higher density residential development.
Some consideration should be given to the use of this site for multi-family buildings. It
may be possible to develop a similar or greater number of units on the site in fewer
buildings. Fewer buildings would also potentially disturb less of the site.
If the Planning Commission finds that the PUD process is appropriate for this
development, the staff would recommend the following conditions be attached:
L:\O2FILESX02planning ¢omm~O2pcminutcs~MN0708022.doc 15
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 2002
1. The developer must address all of the issues in the memorandum from the City
Engineer dated July 3. 2002.
The Planning Staffrecommended denial of the request. There are several major issues
that must be resolved.
Atwood questioned the modifications for building materials. Kansier explained they
would have to reduce the units to 4 or less.
Atwood questioned 60% of Class I material. Kansier responded.
Criego questioned if staff recommended a PUD. Kansier said they had several
discussions with the applicant. Kansier explained the difference.
Comments from the public:
Gary Grant, Vice President of Pulte Homes, said they are happy to be in the City of Prior
Lake and gave a brief background on their business. Grant pointed out this property is
zoned for 30 units per acre, however they have decided to go with less to blend into the
neighborhood. Grant presented diagrams and photos of homes they have built in the
Twin Cities area similar to the proposal. The homes are affordable. This project will be
built in one phase and a professional association will maintain the project.
Ray Brandt from Brandt Engineering responded to some of staff's issues. The street
lighting has a plan prepared by Xcel Energy. There would be a greater impact to the site
with a higher density. Brandt said there were no major issues and he will do whatever the
Engineering Department requests and meet the conditions. The useable open space is
more than adequate. Brandt said he didn't think there would be a problem with Pulte
Homes for access to the park.
Steve Blonigan, 5210 Credit River Road, did not agree with the traffic report submitted
by the company hired by the applicant. He interpreted the letter from the Craig Jensen,
Scott County Transportation Planner dated March 2I, 2002, to Jane Kansier, as not
wanting any more traffic on County Road 21. Kansier explained that letter was
addressing the proposed access on County Road 21. The access was changed. Blonigan
felt that indicated the project should go elsewhere. Blonigan did not feel bigger is better
- the City does not need more apartments and did not want the additional vehicles.
Robin Grund, 4824 BluffHeights Trail, said her first concern was the existing traffic in
the area, especially Franklin Trail and Highway 13. Adding apartments will add to the
problem - it is a safety issue. A second new apartment development is going in next to
this project. Grund questioned if there was any plans to address Franklin Trail. Kansier
responded she would check the Capital Improvement Plan. Grund's other concern was
the adequate size of the street to hold the traffic.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutcs~vlN0708022.doc
16
July 8, 20O2
Tom Klingen, 16516 Franklin Trail, owns the apa~hnent building next to the project,
stated his concern was also for the traffic, especially the access. His building is located
20 feet from the property line and is concern for the noise and pollution problems. He
felt this site is a very difficult high density site to work. Klingen said he would not
consider the higher density with 500 homes a threat on this property.
Linda Micko-Rasche, 16461 Franklin Trail, stated she lives on the worst possible comer
of Franidin Trail and County Road 21. Other neighbors have left the meeting but their
concern is for the traffic. She called the Prior Lake Police Department for the accidents
that occurred at Franklin Trail and County Road 21. Micko presented the report and
pictures of an accident. Micko questioned if the City talks to the County about projects.
Kansier responded they have frequent discussions with the County. She would like the
traffic reduced. Micko questioned the single garage units and wondered where the
additional parking would be. Kansier responded. Her final comments to the developers
that backfilled around the pond in her back yard that several trees were destroyed.
Leo Fecht, 16475 Franklin Trail, lives across from the potential project. He was very
happy to move into the area with all the lush green trees. Feeht hates to see all the trees
and the nature 'destroyed especially with the global warming. We are losing all our
oxygen and water supply. We are not taking care of Prior Lake itself. Step back and take
a look to what people are dong to this world. Feeht suggested a moratorium for Prior
Lake and not be concerned with all the tax money. Why bring in more problems?
Requested denial of the project. It would be wonderful if the planners would consult with
the professionals at the University of Minnesota.
Gary Grant said he is not surprised by the commems. This property is a very hard piece
of property to work. He too, is very concerned for the trees and the outdoors. They will
work with staff and intend to partner with the community.
Allan Klugman from Westwood Company, explained the traffic study and average
number of units in the report. Over all, these are very Iow numbers in terms of
contribution to the surrounding area.
Criego asked Klugman to restate the early morning traffic numbers. Klugrnan explained
the 65 trips are the highest in a 60 minute period. This also includes all traffic, delivery
trucks, etc.
Atwood questioned the busiest hours - Klugrnan said they counted for a two hour period
which was 7:30 am to 8:30 am and then 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm.
Atwood questioned the location of the property taken into account. Klugman responded
that the location of the land is taken into account, He also explained the different uses.
He explained the current traffic counts and added the percentage of the proposed
development. Atwood questioned the level ofserfice grading. Klugman gave a brief
description &the grading. He has been in this business for 20 years and these numbers
are actually very low.
L:~02FILES\02planning comm~02pcminutesWIN0708022.doc 17
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8. 2002
Lemke questioned Klugman with the numbers going offFranklin Trail to Highway 13.
Klugman said they would be adding 174 cars in a 24 hour period.
Assistant Scott County Engineer Greg Ilkka, briefly addressed some of the issues
including the letter t~om Craig Jensen. Speed limits are set by the Minnesota Department
of Transportation, the County cannot directly change that. The speeds are set
appropriately and the local enforcement is good. The County has no issues with the staff
report. Ilkka also reported existing traffic counts. The accidents at Franklin and
Highway 13 are a concern for the County. They are worldng with the City on turn lanes
and upgrades. However the projects are not in the current CI2P. County Road 21 is
approaching capacity. The immediate need is for left turn lanes.
Criego questioned the speed limits and why couldn't the speed be reduced around
Franklin. Ilkka explained the process. The area through the wagon bridge reflected the
comfort of drivers at 35mph. Where them is bett~r access the speed is higher.
Criego said everyone has to quit playing the bureaucratic game and reduce the speed
limit. Ilkka said the County cannot change the speed limit.
Ringstad asked if the County and City supported a reduction would the State reduce it.
Ilkka responded it could help the argument.
Linda Micko-Rasche said it did not make sense with potentially 300 more cars that rush
hour would generate only 65 trips.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Questioned staffon the significant issues with the proposal and recommending
denial. Kansier said based on her conversations with the City Engineer the
problems are not that easily solved. The second issue is whether this development
should be a Planned Unit Development.
· The property is zoned for high density and cannot deny someone the use of the
land. But whether a PUD is appropriate is not the issue.
Atwood: · Private streets - cannot support the entrance with Bluff Heights extending so
close to County Road 21.
· Not opposed to the development.
· A PUD is appropriate but not in favor of modifying the building materials.
· Felt very strongly for a petition to the State to reduce the speed limit.
· Agreed with the residents that something needs to be done on the traffic issue.
· Not crazy about the park access on Bluff Heights Trail.
L:\02 FILES\02planning comm\02pcmin mcsLMN0708022.doc } 8
Planning Commission Meeting
.lu(y 8. 2002
Ringstad: · The main concern is the fact the storm water runoff is an issue with the City. Until
it is not an issue or I see something in writing that the system has been designed
appropriately to handle the ground floor area, I will not support.
· It needs to be designed to the City's satisfaction.
· Not sure it needs a PUD process.
· Will not support at this time.
Criego: · There is not enough information to make a decision tonight. Maybe table.
· The land use is appropriate - would rather see town_homes than apartments.
· The purpose of the PUD is to give and take. The City and the citizens and
applicants all receive something. The only benefit for the City is the private
streets. It is not a big enough carrot for the City.
· The applicant is asking for lenience between units and less than standard material.
Kansier said the exterior material is for the 6 and 8 unit buildings.
· Go with the normal process, not a PUD.
· Personally stay a PUD but there are additional things the citizens would like to
see on this project. There are not enough trails and walking paths. There needs to
be some clear access to the park from the other neighbors.
· There should be sidewalks on at least one side of the street.
· Class I should be used on all units and would prefer to see 4 units.
· Asking for trouble with single garage. Parking will be a problem.
· A PUD will improve the project.
· The traffic is a continual problem, this project will not affect that. We cannot stop
development.
· Table.
Stamson: · Concern for open space, there is a lot of slopes but the site is sloped. It is
acceptable giving the site.
· Drainage has to be to staffs satisfacfion before going forward. That is a major
concern.
· Questioned building height separation. Kansier expla'med.
· Building material has to be Class I.
· Traffic problems are not from the residents on site. Its from people using
Franklin Trail as a shortcut. Once the ring road is complete, less traffic will occur
on Franklin Trail. This development will not be a major impact.
· The interchange with the access point is too close to Franklin Trail, but no other
alternative.
· The PUD was a gray area. Not a lot of benefit to the City - no environmental
gains.
· Allowing the building separation is better for the townhouse than the rental units.
· The drainage must be addressed.
· Put in trails and sidewalks. Be creative and. benefit the City.
L:\O2FILES\O2planning comm\02pcminutcshMN0705022.doc 19
Planning Commission Meeting
~,,~ly 8, 2oo~
· In the long nm, the drainage must be addressed before moving forward.
Ray Brandt addressed some of the Commissioners comments - no problem with
walkways around the pond. The private streets are smaller. The storm water issue is just
a matter of working it out with the engineering staff. Brandt explained the "Village"
townhomes and the slopes. Would like to see it approved with the condition that those
issues be worked out with staff.
Kansier suggested continuing to the second week in August. There are time limitations.
MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY STAMSON TO TABLE THE MEETING TO
AUGUST 12, 2002.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all.
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Notices will be sent out for the joint city council/advisory meeting July 29, 2002.
9. Adjournment:
Thc meeting was adjourned at ! 1:18 pm.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\02FI LES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~vlN0708022.doc 20
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
August 6, 2002
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer
Timber Crest (Project #01-45)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the preliminary plat submittal for the subject
project and has the following comments:
Grading and Erosion Control Plan
1. Emergency overflows must be shown on the grading plan.
2. Extraordinary erosion control measures shall be required at numerous swales on this
design.
3. Show rough grading for the park (Outlnt B). City staffwill provide information.
Water Main
1. Class of watennain pipe mislabeled it should be Class 52 DIP (typical).
2. Provide details on location, size and type of water services.
3. Provide hydrant details for all hydrants
Storm Sewer
1. The streets and storm sewer system are proposed as private facilities. The storm sewer
and all NURP, infiltration and quantity control drainange ponds shall be the
responsibility of the homeowners association for perpetuity. A drainage and utility
easement will be required on the wetland areas only.
2. Comments from WSB will be given to you as soon as they are available.
Streets/Sidewalk/Trail
1. See Plate #702 for sidewalk design requirements.
2. The streets and storm sewer are proposed as private. Drainage and utility easements
should be adjusted to utility easements accordingly in areas where storm drain is
collecting onsite drainage.
The comments listed above can be addressed with final plat.
C:~Documents and SettmgsUane~Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK4~R.EV1EW4city.doc
August 4, 2002
Planning Commission
City of Prior Lake
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Dear friends,
We are writing to express our adamant opposition to the large scale residential
development planned for our neighborhood. This land is bordered by Eagie Creek
Road (County 21), Franklin Trail and State Highway 13. We believe such planned
development would harm rather than enhance life in our part of Prior Lake. We ask that
as you discuss this plan and make decisions, you would severely limit or decline such
plans for that undeveloped land.
Our concerns focus on the following:
Population Density
South-east Prior Lake has a high density of housing. The housing in our neighborhood is
quite diverse, as well. It includes single family dwellings, apartment complexes,
condominiums, duplexes, and lower-income housing. We are glad to have this diversity
and still maintain a high quality of life. But how much is enough? Hundreds of new units
are being completed at the southernmost end ofFish Point Road. The new apartments
across fi.om Pond's Edge Kindergarten will open soon. An apartment complex for
Seniors is planned near Park Nicollet Clinic. We are already feeling quite "built out." To
add hundreds of more units to an already crowded comer of our community means that
any tenuous balance will be lost. What of the viability of downtown and the Prior Dale
Mall? Our development energies in our portion of town need to mm immediately fi.om
housing to our current businesses.
Traffic
We can hardly cross County 21 at Franklin Trail at dinner time now. The addition of
hundreds of more cars at this intersection would place greater strain on an already very
busy intersection. As County 21 has become an access road out to 185th Street and to
1-35, the volume of cars and their speed is increasing. Franklin Trail is increasing loud
and more dangerous for the children who live along it. Without a light right now at the
south end of Franklin Trail, access to south Highway 13 is difficult at anytime of the day.
Schools
Our children attend Westwood and Grainwood Elementary Schools. We love our schools
and are concerned that a potential several hundred additional students would swain our
already full schools. This development is in the new boundaries of Westwood and
Grainwood. Has our district planned for such a huge influx of students in our area?
Environment
This land functions now as basin to catch water in our neighborhood and is home to lots
of small animals and birds. It is a noise buffer to our homes and a point of beauty and
greenery for our tom. We don't want to lose it, and are anxious that we are losing parts
of Prior Lake that made it attractive for us to settle here six years ago.
Please, please, severely limit or curtain development of this important green piece of
land in our city. So very few are lef~ in our rush to mm up the land for future profit.
We await your decision anxiously. We invite you to contacl us if you would like further
comment.
Sincerely,
lva-Breen
Pastor'Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church
Director of Financial Aid and Housing
Luther Seminary, St. Paul
16624 Lyons Ave. SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota
952.447.5844
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6B
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
PERTAINING TO WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
AUGUST 12, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to water-oriented accessory structures. The Planning
Commission initiated this amendment on June 10, 2002.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission originally conducted a public headng on July 22,
2002. Following discussion, the Commission directed staff to prepare an
ordinance which would allow a decreased setback for specific water-oriented
accessory structures. These uses include structures used to store boating
accessories and equipment, gazebos and screen houses. A setback of 50' from
the ordinary high water elevation will be allowed on lots with slopes less than 20
percent. The current provision allowing a 10' setback on lots with slopes greater
than 20% will still be in place.
The attached draft ordinance includes the specific language for this amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states specific findings that must be
met to change the ordinance. These are:
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
1:\02flles\O2ord ame nd~zoning\02-072~oc report4.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this
Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the
C ty.
3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal
requirements.
Whether or not a water-oriented accessory structure should be allowed on all
riparian lots is a policy issue. The current ordinance provisions were generally
intended for aesthetic purposes. Eadier platted riparian lots tend to have smaller
dimensions and less total area than is required for lots today. There has also
been concern about the encroachment of structures on the lake.
The staff has no objections to the proposed amendment. The proposed
amendment will allow additional storage on riparian lots, and will still limit the
encroachment of structures on the shoreline.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendments as proposed, or with
changes specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment as
recommended by staff and indicated in the attached draft ordinance.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Amendment
1:\02files~02ordamend~zoning\02-072~pc report4.doc Page 2
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 02- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1101.400 AND 1104.308 OF THE
PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. Section 1101.400 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
Water-Oriented Accessory Structure. A building of 120 square feet or less ',:'sad tv stare
*'"~*;"" :':-:-~ss~a: ~-~.~ eq'-'i~ment located on lakeshore lots, **'~* "'-~*~;~ ~*o-- ~ ......... ~
~*~g~*,aI~g-~a*~C~which because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature
reasonably needs to be located closer to the lakeshore ordinary high water mark (OHW) than
the normal slructural setback requirement. Examples of such structures include structures
used to store boating accessories and equipment, gazebos and screen houses.
2. Section 1104.308 (4) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby mended as follows:
(4) Water-Oriented Accessory Structures: One water-oriented accessory structure may be
allowed per lot on General Development (GD) lakes that have Municipal sewer and
water, provided a building permit is obtained from the City and the following criteria are
met:
bo
~n~.'..a !e*. aenm:'n: On riparian lots containing a slope equal to or greater than 20%
measured from the front of the principal structure to the ordinary high water mark
and verified by a certificate of survey prepared by a registered surveyor, one
water-oriented structure meeting the criteria listed in paragraphs c-i is
permitted with a setback of not less than 10 feet from the ordinary, high water
mar_k; and
On riparian lots containing slopes less than 20 percenh one water-oriented
accessory structure meeting the criteria listed in paragraphs b-h above is
permitted with a setback of not less than 50 feet from the Ordinary ltigh Water
Elevation.
The structure shall not occupy an area greater than 120 square feet, and the
maximum height of the structure must not exceed 10 feet, including the roof; and
The structure shall be located in the most visually inconspicuous portion of thelot as
viewed from the surface of the lake, assuming summer, leaf-on condition:.
1:~02 files~02ordara~nd~zoning~02-072kiraftord.doc PAGE 1
e. The structure shall not be designed or used for human habitation and shall not
contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities. However, the structure may
contain electrical and mechanical systems; and
f. The structure shall be constructed of treated wood and/or block that is compatible
with the principal smacture and designed to reduce visibility as viewed from public
waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or
color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions; and
g. If the proposed structure will be located below the regulatory flood plain elevation,
the structure shall be built compliant with applicable flood-proofing requirements of
the Building Code and Section 1105 of this Ordinance; and
h. Trees that are 4 inches in caliper or larger should not be removed for the erection of a
water-oriented accessory structure. If removal is necessary, replacement with like
trees shall be made with the approval of the Zoning Administrator. Erosion control
measures shall be implemented and all disturbed vegetation replaced with sod or
suitable landscaping materials; and
i. The structure shall be attached to a permanent foundation so as to be immovable
from its approved location.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pr/or Lake this day of 2002.
ATTEST:
City Manager Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
day of .,2002.
l:\02fi[es\02ordamend~zoning\02 -072klraftord.doe
PAGE2