Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09/09/2002
2. 3. 4. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 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 Prermainary 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 ~A mile west of CSAH 21. Case File #02-88 Richard Gau is requesting a 13.3 variance from the required minimum 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of entry addition to an existing single family dwelling and a three foot variance from the maximum 24 feet of driveway width on property located at 16994 Monroe Avenue SW. Old Business: New Business: Case File #02-94 Wensmarm Homes is requesting a Preliminary PUD Plan and PreYzminary Plat (Jeffers South) for a mixed development consisting of 22 single family homes, 31 attached townhouse units and 28 attached condominium uses on 34.05 acres of land zoned R-1. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 4474245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2002 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the August 26, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Ringstad and Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirehoff and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Absent Criego Present Lemke Absent Ringstad Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the August 12, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved with the following corrections: Page 6 - Stamson comment on line 14, change "not warranted" to "is marginal". Page 8 - Line 2, add Lemke to "aye" vote. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. Case #02-085 Larry Gleason is requesting consideration for a conditional use permit for a 5,000 square foot gymnastic school with an adjacent warehouse located at 5500 Cottonwood Trail SE. City Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresemed the Planning Report dated August 26, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Larry Gleason is requesfmg a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a 5,000 square foot gymnastics school (Gleason's Gymnastics School) for children ages 3 to 16 in the C-5 (Business Office Park) zoning district on property located at 5500 Cottonwood Lane. Gymnastic schools are a conditional use in the C-5 zoning district. The property is designated as Business Office Park, which provides for developments that have a low Ixaffic generation rate. Primary uses are corporate headquarters; and L:~02FILES~02planning commk02peminutes~lN082602.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2002 professional and administrative offices; and limited research, development and manufacturing facilities. The existing building was built with Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance from the City. Under state law, the property owner may not utilize more than 15 percent of the floor area of the building for uses that do not qualify for TIF assistance. In order to meet tkis requirement, the applicant is limiting the size of the school to 5,000 square feet. Some concern has been expressed that the use could grow outside the current limits and jeopardize the TIF status. To prevent this, staff would suggest a condition limiting the area to 5,000 square feet as shown on the plan. The TIF district is scheduled to expire in 2006. After that date, the applicant could potentially amend the CUP to increase the size of the school. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant has 60 days from the adoption of the resolution by the City Council to complete the required improvements and record the conditional use permit at the Scott County Recorder's office. A building permit will not be issued until proof of recording of the permit has been submitted to the City. 2. The gymnastic school shall be limited to 5,000 square feet in floor area. 3. Twenty parking spaces shall be designated for the gymnastics school. 4. Signage shall be installed that identifies the loading/unloading area and designated parking stalls. Criego questioned how the 20 parking spaces was based on students. Kirchoff explained it was based on the number of classes and students attending. Criego also questioned if the ordinance was based on the number of students on a given day. Kansier responded the ordinance was based on square footage of the area to be used or the number of students, whichever is greater. It is based on the number of students with the largest class. It would allow for 15 parking stalls. Comments from the public: Larry Gleason, of Gleason Gymnastic School, said the building has more than adequate parking with 39 front parking spaces. Stamson questioned what would be stored in the warehouse space. Gleason said he had several schools and would be storing their seasonal equipment. He also stated when the TIF requirement is not in effect he hopes to expand the business and use that area. John Muench, representing Norex, questioned the parking and hours of operation. Gleason responded that classes would be 9:00 am to 8:30 pm/9:00 pm in the evenings Monday through Friday and 9:00 am to 4:00 pm on Saturdays. Most classes would be in L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN082602.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2002 the evening. Muench was concerned for traffic with their employees. They were not aware of the mount of students involved. The hearing was closed at 6:42 pm. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · Agreed with staff's recommendation. · Recommend approval to City Council with the conditions listed in the Planning Report. Ringstad: · Agreed with staffs recommendation with the conditions. · The future location of the school is better, based on the traffic congestion of the former location. The new building will address some of the concerns. Stamson: · Questioned what exactly are the Commissioners approving, the gynmastic school area at 5,000 square feet or the total area of 10,000 square feet. Kansier said the school will be 5,000 square feet which needs a Conditional Use Permit approval. The storage warehouse does not need a p~,hit. · Agreed with fellow commissioners. · All the requirements have been met. · Supported the request. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT GYIviNASTIC SCHOOL IN THE C-5 DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE PLANNING REPORT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. The matter will go before the City Council on September 3, 2002. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: A joint planning Commission/City Council meeting is tentatively scheduled for Sept. 3, at 5:30 p.m. Criego questioned the outcome of the variance appeals at City Council meeting. Rye responded. L:\02FILES\02planning con-anX02pcrrdnutes~4'N082602.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2002 Rye also gave a brief update on the Lakefront Plaza project. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:49 p.m. Don Rye Director of Community Development Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcmin utcsWiN082602.doc 4 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 5A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO 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 SEPTEMBER 9, 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 ~ 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. This item was originally scheduled for a public hearing on August 12; 2002. However, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to September 9, 2002, to allow the developer to address the issues raised by staff in the original staff report. The developer also conducted another neighborhood meeting on August 28, 2002. 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. Topography: 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 h~02filcs\02puds~cryslal baykrystal pc2.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax {952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTIJNITY EMPLOYER 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 Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted an inventory of the significant trees on the site, which identifies 5,032 caliper inches of significant 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 arterial 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 Ordinance. 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 1:\02file$\02puds~crystal bay~crystal pc2.doc Page 2 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. 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 shall be platted as outlots, and shall 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 shall 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 t~om 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 be a through street. The County Highway Department prefers the present design, which extends Crystal Bay Drive f~om CSAH 82 to Fremont Avenue. The County staffbelieves 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 the 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-mm lane onto Crystal Bay Drive. l:\02files\O2pudsX~rystal bayXcrystal p¢2.doc Page 3 Fremont Avenue at this location also requires upgrading. The road 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. 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 small; 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 nmoff. 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 run off to this pond. The Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District is in the process of reviewing this plan. Density: The development proposes 26 townhouse units. Density for this development is not only based on the R-1 district maximum allowed density of 3.6 units per acre, but also on the Shoreland District requirements. The following table compares the proposed density with the permitted density. Permitted Density Proposed Density R-1 32 units 26 units Shoreland District Tier 1 Base Density 13 units 18 units With Multiplier 20 units Shoreland District Tier 2 Base Density 18 units 6 units With Multiplier 36 units The density multipliers in the Shoreland District are permitted only 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 Styles: The proposed townhouses 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 [:\02files\02puds~crystal bay\crystal pc2.doc Page space. The buildings are 15' high at the front, with exteriors consisting of a 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: Setback Required Proposed Front (from private street) 25' 20' Side Street CSAIt 82 25' 5' Fremont Avenue 25' 12' Side (between buildings) 15' 15' (~ the sum of the building heights) Lakeshore (OItW) 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 Shoreland District PUD. In this ease, 1.26 acres ofimpervions 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 impervious 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 pmposal is a PUD, it must also comply with that requi~ment. 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. l:\02files~O2puds~crystal bay~ctystal pc2.doc Page 5 The Shoreland PUD ordinance also requires that 70% of the shore impact zone (50% of the setback from the OHW) be preserved in its natural state. With the exception of the area leading to the proposed watercraft mooring 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, 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 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 ftrst tier, which would then permit 21 slips. Review of the most recent plans, with more specific information, indicates a maximum of 20 units is permitted within tier 1, thus allowing 20 slips. The developer has requested a modification to this requirement as part of the PUD; however, this type of modification is not within the scope of the PUD ordinance. The Shoreland District requirements of the Zoning Ordinance regulate the number of boat slips permitted. The actual configuration of the mooring area is determined by the DNR as part of the permitting process. Parking: The proposal provides at least 3 spaces per dwelling 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 "spill-over" parking spaces will be provided on the private streets. Although these spaces may be available, the Zoning Ordinance does not allow them to be included within the parking requirements. 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 town_house 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 required 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 requires at least 20% of the plants must exceed the minimum sizes of 2 1/2 l:\02files\02puds\crystal bay~crystal pc2.doc Page 6 caliper inches for deciduous and 6' for coniferous. This requires that at least 20% of the deciduous trees be 3 ½ 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 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. A revised inventory must be submitted to determine if replacement will be required. If so, the landscaping plan must also be revised to include the required replacement trees. Signs: There are no signs identified on this plan. Lighting: 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 density within tier 1 exceeds the base density allowed. 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 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 cormeetion be eliminated. The Planning Commission should provide the developer with some direction on this issue. 1:~02filcs~02puds~rystal bay~'ystal pc2.doc Pa~e 7 5. The tree inventory must be revised to include only 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. Several of the above issues have a major effect on the design 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. REVISED PLANS: Following the August 12, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, the developer was asked to submit any revised plans to the staff by Monday, August 26, 2002. The purpose of the deadline was to allow staffthe time to review any new information. On Friday, August 30, 2002, after business hours, the staff received the attached fax from the developer outlining changes in the proposed plan. The listed changes include the following: A reduction in the number of units from 26 to 24. · The elimination of the through street and creation of two cul-de-sacs. · A change in the alignment of the easterly cul-de-sac. · The removal of the boat launch/road to the lake. · The reduction in the number of boat slips from 26 to 21. · An increase in the setback from the Ordinary High Water Elevation. · The addition of a privacy fence along the east property line. These changes appear to address several of the issues raised by the staff. However, as of the date of this report (September 4, 2002) we have only received a fax reduction of the proposed plan, so we are unable to verify the changes and the affect on the plan as it relates to the ordinance requirements. 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. If the Commission feels the proposal should proceed to the Council, the staff would recommend the following conditions be attached: l:\02files\02puds~c~stal bay\crystal pc2.doc Page 8 1. The density in tier I of the development must be reduced so it is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. 2. The number of slips must be reduced to 20, the maximum density allowed in tier 1. 3. The developer must provide calculations to determine whether the proposal is consistent with the 25% impervious surface requirement in each tier. 4. 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. 5. The extension of Crystal Bay Drive from CSAH 82 to Fremont should be eliminated. Access should be provided from Fremont Avenue and CSAH 21 with 2 cul-de-sacs. 6. The tree inventory must be revised to include only those trees considered significant in the Zoning Ordinanc~ 7. The landscaping plan should be revised to meet all ordinance requirements. 8. The private streets must be platted as outlots. An ll' wide drainage and utility easements must be provided on either side of the outlo& 9. The developer mustprovide easements for the storm waterpond. 10. Address the comments identified in the memorandum from Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer, dated July 17, 2002, and from Andi Moffet and John Mackiewicz of WSB, dated July 19, 2002. ALTERNATIVES: Recommend approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat subject to the above conditions, or other conditions identified by the Planning Commission. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the issues that have been discussed. If the Planning Commission continues this item, it should be scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting on September 23, 2002. This will ensure that the item is scheduled for the City Council in October, pr/or to the.expiration of the 120 day deadline for action. 3. Recommend denial of the request. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staffrecommends 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 Crystal Bay subject to the above conditions; l:~02files~02puds~rystal bay~-~,stal p¢2.doc Page 9 · Approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as Crystal Bay, subject to the above conditions. 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 Department Comments 7. Building Department Comments 8. Finance Director Comments 9. Shoreland PUD Requirements 10. Petition from Neighborhood Residents 11. Revised Plans l:\02files\02pudskcrystal baykcrystal pc2.doc Page 10 Location Map 0 500 1000 Feet 50O It¸ iN3~aoq3A30 A¥8 qVISA~::i: i I 1 © © Il'ltl ~ Rochester Minnesota May 21, 2002 Ms. Jane Kansier, AICP City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 land Surveying Urban - Land Planning )nsulting - CMl Engineering C, eotechnical Engineering :onstmcfion Material Testing Landscape Architecture Dear Ms. Kansier: The purpose of a General Development Plan and Planned Unit Development is to redevelop the existing 10.62 acre site by developing 26 townhomes along a 28' private street with scenic views of the Upper Prior Lake Bay. The .PUD includes a 12' private driveway connection to Upper Prior Lake, a boat dock and a boat slip for each unit. We are seeking a PUD on this property in order to provide for a unique townhome development, which includes many walkout style units and side-loaded garages. The flexibility of the PUD process will allow the units to be placed in the most efficient layout that maximize views of the lake while still maintaining the character of the site. 1648 Third Avenue S.E. Rochester, MN 55904 Tel. 507.289.3919 Fax. 507.289.7333 e-mail, mcghiebetts.com Established 1946 The following public benefits include: A higher standard of site design was needed to layout the townhome units that maximizes views of the lake while still preserving as much of the natural character of the site as possible. The building design of the townhome also meets a higher standard of design by the use of an efficient floor plan and an eye for quality details. The townhomes were clustered with alternating side-loaded and front loaded garages to minimize the separation between the units and thus creating a more efficient use of street, utilities and public facilities. The use of private streets and the use of a street connecting the two phases does allow for a more efficient layout of public improvements. The plan emphasizes the use of common open space, which nearly envelops the development. The green space is particularly important where the stands of trees are preserved along the east property lie and along the entire shoreline. This allows everyone easy access to the lake. A trail/boat access EXHIBIT B for the development is also available to all residents from the common open ~pace area. 4, The use of walkout style townhomes in areas that work with the topography and full-basement units in area of level terrain minimizes the need for grading and also minimize the views of the lake. This layout deals with the site creativity and efficiency. 5, The preservation of existing trees along the eastern part of the site allows the natural character to remain which has many public benefits. The preserved trees help provide protection from the harsh elements (which saves energy), provides for wildlife habitat and creates a buffer from the neighborhood to the east and the lake. Modifications from the existing district regulations include the following: The proposed front yard setbacks would be 20', with the exceptions of Unit 5/6 and Unit 7 of Phase Il, which would be 19' plus 18' respectively. Typical front yard setbacks are 25'. This plan proposes a combination of side loaded and front loaded garages. In an effort to create a consistent streetscene, a more efficient use of the property, and to minimize the amount of impervious surface a 20' setback is proposed. This distance would still allow for adequate room for cars to be parked in the driveways of front loaded units without impeding traffic flow or snow storage from the private street. The proposed side street yard setback of unit one in Phase Il is 12'-0". Typical side street yard setbacks in an R-1 district are 25'. In an effort to create an efficient use of property and stay out of the 75' shoreland setback, it was necessary to narrow the side street yard setback to iT-0". This distance would allow for landscaping between the unit and future sidewalks that would buffer the unit from the street. In an effort to make the project financially feasible, it was necessary to place twelve units in the second phase. In order to maintain the 75' shoreland setback and keep the orientation of the unit's living spaces to the lake, it was necessary to deviate from the typical 25' rear yard setback along the future right of way for County Road No. 82. The proposed rear yard setback is 6.38 feet. This setback is to the garage and not the primary living space. The last modification from district standards would be our request for 26 boat slips, which would allow each unit to have one. The DNR's standard is 21 boat slips based on the density along the lakefront. l__ Phasing Phase I proposes to build 14 units on approximately 7.22 acres, the construction of the detention pond and the 12' bituminous path from Crystal Bay Drive to Upper Prior Lake. Phase II will construct 12 units on approximately 3.40 Acres. This phase will complete the project and the connection of Crystal Bay Drive to Fremont Avenue N.W. An existing home will remain in Phase II, but will be removed/relocated within two years after the project has started. Density Calculations Tier 1 Density= 5.02 Ac./18 units = 3.59 Units Per Acre Tier 2 Density= 4.90 Acres / 8 Units = 1.63 Units Per Acre Ground Floor Area= 51,870 SQ. FT. Floor Area Ratio = 0.22 Parking Each unit includes a three-car garage and three spaces per driveway. "Spill Over" parking will be accommodated by on street parallel parking. Crystal Bay Drive will have 26 parking spaces and Drake Cimle will have four. Comprehensive .Plan Designation Residential low/medium density. Zoning R-lSD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Introduction The Crystal Bay Development is located along Scott County Road No. 82 (154th Street NW) and Freemont Avenue NW. The project consists of 26 townhome units in 13 twinhome style structures. The traffic analysis focuses on peak hours, trip generation based on full build-out of the project. Background Crystal Bay Development will have a direct connection to both County Road No. 82 and Freemont Avenue NW via a private street. The project will be developed in two phases with phase one consisting of 14 units on the northerly one half of the site and 12 units for phase two which is the southerly one half of the project site. Historically, the site has been used for residential purposes so the projected new trips are not entirely an increase of traffic generation. Access of the private road to both Freemont and County Road No. 82 are currently a stop and go situation. County Road No. 82 is a minor medal and Freemont is classified as a local street. The employment center and school systems are primarily located to the north of the project site. Assumptions For the purpose of the Traffic Analysis, we have taken a more conservative approach to the operations because of the size of the proposed development. The assumptions made are as follows: One trip per unit outbound for AM peak hour · Two-thirds trips in-bound and one-third outbound for PM peak hour · 6.6 trips per day for each townhome unit · 85% of out bound trips will be a right-turn movement and 15% left turn I Analysis Total Daily Trips AM Peak Hours PM Peak Hours AM Peak Trips PM Peak Trips Distribution of Trip for Peaks Hours Total Trips added Private Road/ County Road No. 82 14 Units x 6.6 trips/unit=92 trips 7:00 AM to 8:30 AM 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM 14 14 AM 85% x 14=12 right turn 15% x 14 = 2 left turn (all outbound) 14 PM 1/3rd x 14=5 fight turn outbound 2/3rds x 14 = 9 left turn inbound Trip Generation/ Distribution Total trips added Private Road/ Freemont Avenue 12 units x 6.6 trips/unit=80 trips 12 12 AM 85% x 12=10 right turn 15% x 12 = 2 left turn (all outbound) 12 PM l/3rd x 12=4 right turn outbound 2/3rds x 12 = 8 left turn inbound Total Trips added 14 Total Trips 12 added Traffic Analysis Summary The Traffic Analysis indicates a total daily trip generation of 172. The AM peak hour generates 14 trips outbound to the County Road No. 82 access and 12 trips on Freemont. The PM traffic generation consists of a total of 19 inbound and 9 outbound trips. The majority of the AM peak hour trips generation is right turn movements while the PM is left turn inbound movements. The PM inbound movement (left turn) is the operation that will create some delays. However, it is our opinion that the total inbound movement on County Road No. 82 is insignificant compared to the total volume on County Road No. 82 and will not create significant delays. The same is true for Freemont Avenue ~ at the intersection with County Road No. 82. The total trip generation does not warrant improvements to County Road No. 82 or Freemont Avenue at this time. It is our understanding that the County has plans to upgrade County Road No. 82 in the near future. The applicant is dedicating through the platting process additional right of way for the expansion Of County Road No. 82. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Environmental issues concerning the Site include the removal of existing homes and outbuildings, the abandonment of private water wells and individual septic treatment systems, tempora~ and permanent erosion and sediment control and tree removal and replacement. There are no known or suspected dumps, hazardous materials or threatened or endangered species. Removal of Existin~ Homes Five single-family residential homes and various outbuildings occupied the Site. One home is served by municipal sewer and water service whil6 the others have private wells and individual septic systems. The applicant has moved the three homes in the area proposed to be developed as Phase I and has contracted with licensed well drillers and septic operators to abandon the wells and septic systems in accordance with state statutes. Wells and septic systems will be properly abandoned on the other properties as well. The project will result in all homes being connected'to municipal services and will remove the potential of septic leakage or runoff into Prior Lake. Erosion and Sediment Control The construction and development will utilize best management practices to control erosion and runoff with Prior Lake in accordance with the necessary NPDES erosion control permits. A permanent sedimentation pond will be constructed and will be protected by a public d~inage easement. The existing drainage from the city storm sewer will be extended through an easement. adjoining the storm water pond. 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 remova! of existing trees. The species of the replacement trees are similar to what is existing~h the site (oak, maple, linden) so the landscape character will remain consistent. Yours very truly, McGhie & Betts, Inc. Pc. John Klingelhutz Denny Safe DATE: July 17, 2002 TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator FROM: Lan'y 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: Move gate valve from Crystal Bay Drive and Drake Circle intersection to 154th Street intersection. Add hydrant at station 5+50. Show the type of sanitary pipe. 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 all sanitary manholes Show the type of sanitary pipe. Provide rim and invert elevations for sanitary manholes. Move IV[H-5 so that pipes are at ag0 degree angle. Add cleanouts 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 (construction silt may accumulate in the pond reducing it's capacity). Use seed mixture in areas for units that are not scheduled for construct/on. (Phase II) STORM SEWER Provide drainage calculations Show the type of piping. Provide trash guards at all inlets and outlets. C:\WINDOWS\Teraporary Internet Files\OLK61F I~REVIEW1.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 fi.om WSB. GRADING 8. 9. Show 2 yr, 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) Grading is outside property lines in County ROW. Definitions for LF, GF, FF, 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 property line. ROADS/ACCESS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. I1. Check with County on Crystal Bay Drive access 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. The roadway easement needs to meet the minimum requirements fi.om the Public Works Design Manual. Need typical section for roadways. Prov/de 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 ROW. Need Prior Lake project # on all sheets. Show proposed right turn lane at Fremont and CSAH 82. GENERAL 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 WSB & Associates, Inc. Review of Crystal Bay Townhomes Development WSB Project No. 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 comlTignts: Wetland Review Comments 1. A 30' average buffer from 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 corner 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 from 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 from the DNR for the boat slips. City of Prior Lake July 19, 2002 Page 2 Hydrologic/Hydraulic~ Water QualiW., and Grading Comments 1. The storm sewer needs to be expanded both east and west along the private drive. 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 after 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 runoff event 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. A skimmer structure should be installed at the outlet of the treatment pond. Please submit a detail of the structure with the plan. With the proposed pipe configuration, MH S~2 would need to have a diameter of 108 inches as the pipes are modeled 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. Based on Item ~4.26 in the Public Works Design Manual, 3-£oot sumps must be constructed as the last structure that is road accessible pr/or 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 runoff to NURP standards. 11. Detail plates for retaining walls over four feet in height should be submitted with the plans for City review. C:lWINDOWSITemporary lntet~et FileslOLK6IFllO71802lpCB.doc August 1, 2002 Jane Kansier City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Preliminary Plat, Crystal Bay Townhomes Freemont Avenue and CSAH 8:2 Dear Jane: We have reviewed the preliminary plat as it relates to Highway Department issues and offer the following 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 CSAH 82 could be impacted. We support the current plan that extends Crystal Bay Drive f~om Fremont to CSAH 82. The internal traffic connectivity 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 Freemnnt. 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 CSA.H 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 CSAH 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: JUNE 25, 2002 JANE KANSLER ROBERT D. HUTCHINS CRYSTAL BAY DRC PROJECT SITE REVIEW Comments: 1. Retaining Walls over 4' in height to have a building 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 sprinkler 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 to the following City charges: Park Dedication Collector Street Fee Stormwater Management 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 as 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 townhouse units within Crystal Bay. Addition Assuming the initial net lot area of the preliminary plat does 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 construction 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 1104.800: 1104.801 1104.802 (2) (3) (4) (5) 1104.803 (1) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUDS): Types Of PUDs 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 all 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 por/ions of the project are 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, beaching 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 necessary, 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 procedures and standards to determine the suitable area for the dwelling unit/dwelling 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 (2) 1104.804 (1) 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 commercial 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" 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 standa'd multiplied by the tier depth, unless the local unit of government has specified an alternative 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 Recreational 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 recreational 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. 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 dwelling 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 Design Criteria: Maintenance And Administration Requirements: Approval Of Development: Before final approval of a planned 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. 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. c. Development Orf:lanizafion And Functionin.q: Unless an equally effective alternative community framework is established, when (2) applicable, all residential planned 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 District 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 impact 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 distdct 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 commercial PUD's 35% impervious surface coverage may be allowed in the first tier of general developmen, t 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; 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 Water-oriented accessory structures and facilities may 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 conversions 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 other 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 Stewar[ or Jim Schilling (952-447-3502), Kyle Schroeder (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 Pdor Lake at the intersection of 154 Street NW and Fremont Avenue in Prior Lake, as follows: 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 (CIP) 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. 4. 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 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, 5th Addition and those of the two single-family homes between Island View 5th 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 in this small bay would be increased boat traffic congestion and decreased 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-5PM 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 fenced 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 proper~y to access them if they are not properly protected. 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, both on the bluff and at shoreline. In shor~, 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. Crystal Lake Planned Unit Development Petition Wel 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 Lakeat the intersection of 154th Street NW and Fremont Avenue in Prior Lake, as follows: 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 (CIP) 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 to partner together to solve the traffic noise issue. Crystal Lake Planned Unit Development Petition (continued) 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, 5th Addition and those of the two single-family homes between Island View 5th. Addition and the new development (see attached map). This reduction would significantly ease congestion and safety concerns. 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 in this small bay would be increased boat traffic congestion and decreased 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-5PM on Saturday and 9AM- 4PM on Sunday to reduce the inconvenience to current homeowners. We request that covenants for the development specify that the development be fenced 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, both 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. ~,~..~ Crystal Lake Planned Unit Development Petition NAME 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. ~---.'~¢C/4. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36., 37. 38. 39. 40. ADDRESS /,.5 7¢/ ' ~ '~ SIGNATURE NAME Crystal Lake Planned Unit Development Petition ADDRESS SIGNATURE 44, 45. Crystal Lake Planned Unit Development Petition NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE ~" ,."--~ ) Crystal Lake Planned Unit Development Petition NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE 16. 17. 19. 20. NAME Crystal Lake Planned Unit Development Petition ADDRESS SIGNATURE 10. 11.( NAME Crystal Lake Planned Unit Development Petition ADDRESS SIGNATURE 'd NAME Crystal Lake Planned Unit Development Petition ADDRESS SIGNATURE 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. NAME Crystal Lake Planned Unit DeveloPment Petition ADDRESS SIGNATURE 10. 11. 12, 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Crystal Lake Planned Unit Development Petition NAME ADDRESS ~ ~iiNAT~. ~ 7, 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Crystal Lake Planned Unit Development Petition NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE /P / 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. NAME Crystal Lake Planned Unit Development Petition ADDRESS SIGNATURE 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Ru~ 2S 02 03:43p McGHIE&BETTS S07-289-7333 p.1 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET R o ¢ h ~,' s t e r Minnesota L~ad Surveying Urban - Land Planning Consulting - Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Construction Material Testing Landscal~: Architecture 1648 Third Avenue S.E. Rochester, MN 55904 Tel. 507.289.3919 Fax. 507.289.7333 e-mail.lnbl ~mlcghie~ett~.co m Es~:ablished 1946 TIME SENT: DATE SENT: FROM: a r-? If you do not receive the number of pages indicamd or if you have problems with the txansmission, please call 507-289-3919. MESSAGE: This telefaxed information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and contains information that is private, privileged and confidential, If the reader of this message is not thc intended recipient, the employer, employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by any means or in any manner is strictly prohibited. If you have received this fax in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us by mail at the ~ 29 O~ 03:43p McGHIE&BETTS 50'7-~8~-~333 p. ~ luemdoleAeO 1,!ur1 I:mUUDId 8u~ 29 02 03:43p McGHIE&BETTS p.3 Ru~ ~6 Cl~ OS:41a McGhie & Be~ts - MF 507-~8S-7333 15071645-2842 p,3 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: CASE: 5B CONSIDER VARIANCES TO ALLOW AN 8 FOOT STOOP TO BE LOCATED 11.7 FEET FROM THE FRONT LOT LINE, A 6 FOOT EAVEIOVERHANG TO BE LOCATED 14.1 FEET FROM THE FRONT LOT LINE, AND A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY 16994 MONROE AVENUE SW CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES NO SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 02-088 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from Richard Gau to permit a 6 foot eave/overhang and 8 foot stoop to encroach into a required front yard setback on the property located at 16994 Monroe Avenue SW. The existing single family dwelling maintains a 19.9 foot front yard setback. The steps of the stoop are proposed to be 11.7 feet from the front property line and the eave/overhand over the garage is proposed to be 14.1 feet from the property line abUtting Monroe Avenue. In conjunction with the stoop and eave addition, the applicant is also increasing the width of the driveway to 27 feet. (See Attachment 1 .) The project was started without a building permit. The applicant requests the following variances: 1) An 8.3 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback for the construction of an 8 foot stoop and 6 foot overhang (Zoning Ordinance Section 1102.402: Dimensional Standards). 2) A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential driveways (Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.205. Driveways). BACKGROUND: The subject property was platted as Lot 12, Block 32, Spring Lake Village, in the 1850s,.which was one of the first plats in Prior Lake. The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland District). The platted dimensions of the 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447,4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Planning Report - Gau Variances September 9, 2002 Page 2 lot are approximately 50 feet wide by 142 feet in depth for a total lot area of approximately 7,100 square feet. In 1983, a 5 foot variance was granted from the 25 foot required front yard setback and a 4 foot variance was granted from the 10 foot required side yard setback to allow for the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage. DISCUSSION: According to the attached survey, the existing dwelling maintains a 19.9 foot setback from the property line abutting Monroe Avenue SW. An 8 foot stoop and 6 foot overhang/eave are proposed along the front of the home. The proposed front yard setback, as measured from the step of the stoop is 11.7 feet. The minimum front yard setback from Monroe Avenue for this property is 20 feet (because of the variance granted in 1983), thus the request for an 8.3 foot variance. In conjunction with other home improvements, the applicant is proposing to increase the width of the driveway to 27 feet. The zoning ordinance permits residential driveways to be a maximum of 24 feet in width at the public right-of-way. According to the survey, other applicable bulk standards, such as maximum impervious surface coverage, minimum setback from 170~ Street SW, and minimum rear yard setback, are met. The zoning ordinance permits eaves to encroach 2 feet into a required yard, and awnings and platform decks to encroach 5 feet into a required front yard. However, the proposed features are larger than the encroachments permitted by the zoning ordinance. The Spring Lake Townsite lots were platted 50 feet in width, thus many of the lots have been combined to provide a larger buildable area for modem year Planning Report - Gau Variances September 9, 2002 Page 3 round dwellings, however, some of the single lots have received relief from zoning ordinance provisions to allow a reasonable use to be constructed. Records on file at City Hall indicate that three properties within 350 feet received setback variances for the construction of residential structures. The applicant has indicated that the reason for the setback variance request is to "eliminate the potential of physical harm to anyone that uses the existing stairs...when leaving [the] residence in the winter when said stairs are iced over....and ... add a touch of character to this 20 year old house." (See Attachment 2.) VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance would result In peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located. The subject lot is only 50 feet in width and approximately 7,100 square feet in area. This lot does exhibit exceptional conditions that result in practical difficulties upon the owner in constructing a single family dwelling, as permitted in the R-1 zoning district, however, variances have already been granted to allow for the construction of a reasonable use. The lot is relatively flat and rectangular in shape, so the topography and shape of the lot does not impact driveway width or location, so the property owner does not have a practical difficulty to warrant relief from the maximum driveway width permitted by the zoning ordinance. 2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located. The 50 foot wide lot is a unique condition of the property, but is not exclusive to this subject lot or neighborhood. There are several subdivisions within the City of Prior Lake that were platted with narrow lots. Furthermore, the property owner received relief to construct the existing single family dwelling. Planning Report - Gau Variances September 9, 2002 Page 4 As mentioned previously, the conditions of the property do not impact the driveway width or location. 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. A single family dwelling with an attached two stall garage is present on the site, so the owner enjoys a reasonable use of the property. The inability to construct an 8 foot stoop is not impacting the overall enjoyment of the property. A smaller eave and stoop could provide the same protection from the elements and add interest to the architectural style of the home, without such a large variance. A 24 foot wide driveway offers ample area to park to vehicles side by side. 4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. The granting of the setback variance will neither impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property nor increase congestion of public streets, but it will establish a precedent for an 11.7 foot front yard setback within the Spring Lake neighborhood, when a 25 foot front yard setback is required. Also, the driveway width variance will establish a precedent for other residential properties and may impact snow storage in the boulevard. 5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area. The granting of the setback variance does not appear to impair health and safety of the immediate area, but it will impact the character and development of the neighborhood by establishing a new front yard setback for the Spring Lake neighborhood. 6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "prevent the ovemrowding of land and undue concentration of structures and population by regulating the use of Planning Report - Gau Variances September 9, 2002 Page 5 land and buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding them." The proposed 11.7 foot front yard setback is significantly less than the minimum 25 feet required, but the property is only required to maintain a 20 foot setback due to a previous variance, and appears to be inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance provision. The purpose of the maximum driveway width is to limit vehicular access to a public street, allow for adequate on-street parking availability, and provide an area for snow storage. A 24 foot wide driveway also allows parking for two vehicles. An additional 3 feet of driveway width appears inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance. 7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. The existing single family dwelling is approximately 20 feet from the property line, so any amhitectural feature that intends to provide protection from the elements and add interest on the front of the home would require a variance. However, the proposed features could be reduced in depth as to limit the amount of encroachment. Since the encroachment could be reduced, the setback variance would appear to serve as a convenience. Also, the increased driveway width serves as a convenience to the property owner. A driveway that complies with maximum zoning ordinance standards would still allow for ample ingress and egress to the property, as well as vehicle storage. 8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the property. The subject site is 50 feet in width. The zoning ordinance requires lots within the R-1 zoning district to be 86 feet in width, so this lot is nonconforming. However, the fact that the property owner has proposed the addition that extends into the setback approved in 1983 and driveway width greater than permitted by ordinance makes the hardship self-created. 9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. Although the addition will likely increase the value of the home, staff does not believe that it is the sole purpose of the request. Planning Report - Gau Variances September 9, 2002 Page 6 CONCLUSION: The applicant was granted relief from the zoning ordinance in 1983 to construct a reasonable use on the property. The dwelling was placed at the approved front and side yard setbacks, therefore any additions to the front or rear of the home would require an additional variance. The purpose of the current variance is to provide a safe entrance and interest to the home. Staff appreciates that the property owner wants to improve the entrance to the home. However, by granting the proposed setback variance the property owner would receive a greater benefit than other properties within the Spring Lake Townsite plat and the R-1 zoning district. Also, since a 24 foot wide driveway provides reasonable ingress/egress, the driveway width variance would establish a precedent for all residential properties. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that all nine-hardship criteria have not been met with respect to the requested variances to permit the 8 foot stoop, 6 foot eave/overhang, and 27 foot wide driveway. The applicant created the hardship by the design of the addition and the driveway. Staff could support a smaller front yard setback variance to improve the safety of the dwelling entrance, but not the proposal. The staff therefore recommends denial of the requested variances as proposed by the applicant. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings approving the variance requests. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. Planning Report - Gau Variances September 9, 2002 Page 7 ACTION REQUIRED: Staff recommends Alternative #3. A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-011 PC denying the variances to allow a 11.7 foot front yard setback from the public right-of-way abutting Monroe Avenue and a 27 foot wide driveway. Planning Report - Gau Variances September 9, 2002 Page 8 L:\02FI LES\02va riances\02-088\PC Report,doc Location Map Spring Lake VALE ClR KENT ST VALE CIR KENT ST VALE CtR 20 0 40 F~et lq RICK 8~ JUN E GAU Valley surveying Co., P.A. SUITE IEO-C , 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM ATTACHMENT I PROPOSED ADDiTiON ALL.EY $o SPRING LAKE ROAD 0 0 DESCRIPTION: Lot 12, B~ock S.~. SPRING LAKE VILLAGE. Scott County, Minnesota. Al~o showing thc location of all visible imptovemenLs and encroachments on to or off from said pro.fly as of this 9th day of August, 2002. NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 933.31 Top o£ tge existing garage slab O ZO AO Thc existing garag* slab is at elevation 933.31 ATTACHMENT 2 17 July 2002 Proposal to the City of Prior Lake Mn. This proposal, to the City of Prior Lake, is for a variance to the property located on the N.W. corner of Monroe Ave. S.W. and 170th St. W. Proper address for the variance will be 16994 Monroe Ave. S.W. Property owners are Richard F. Gau, and June L. Gau. Reason for requesting a variance is to eliminate the potential of physical harm to anyone that uses the existing stairs. We have had two people who injured themselves using our stairs when leaving our residence in the winter when said stairs are iced over. By turning our stairs to face the east, or Monroe Ave. S.W., instead of now facing south,or 170th St. W., and placing an "A" frame structure over the stairs and "eye brow" over the garage door car entrance, protruding off of the Monroe Ave. side, east, or front of the house, would add much safer entrance and exit during the winter and spring seasons. An "A" frame and "eye brow" would also add a touch of character to this 20 year old house. We are presently in the middle of residing this house, widening the driveway, and adding a utility door entrance on the 170th St. W. or south side, of garage. All of the above said projects are now "on hold", until a decision on this variance is made. I must add that the way things are with these projects, posses an extremely high risk for injury. There is a hole that has been dug to put in the frost footings and it is covered by plywood. The retaining walls need to be back filled and the asphalt needs to be laid. The house is all sided except for the front of the house. As you can see.this leaves our front yard a "Danger Zone"! Thank You Rick And June Gau RESOLUTION 02-011 PC A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO PERMIT A 11.7 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR AN 8 FOOT STOOP, A 14.1 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A 6 FOOT EAVE, AND A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Richard Gau has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an 8 foot stoop and a 6 foot eave addition to an existing single family dwelling and a 27 foot wide driveway on the property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Districts) at the following location, to wit; 16994 Monroe Avenue SW, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 12, Block 32, Spring Lake Village, Scott County, Minnesota. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #02-088PC and held a hearing thereon on September 9, 2002. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. Because of conditions on the subject property, the proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 5. The proposed variance request is a result of the property owner's actions by designing the proposed addition within the required front yard setback and 1:\02files\02variances\02-088\deny resolution.doc ] 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER the proposed driveway wider than permitted by ordinance. The applicant has control over the property, and as such, the applicant has created the hardship. 6. There is an existing structure on the lot, so there is not a justifiable hardship caused, and that reasonable use of the property does exist without the granting of the variances. 7. The granting of the variances, as determined by the Planning Commission, is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and are not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship. 8. The contents of Planning Case #02-088PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the. record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following variances to allow the addition to the existing single family dwelling and driveway expansion as shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey: 1) An 8.3 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback for the construction of an 8 foot stoop and 6 foot overhang (Zoning Ordinance Section 1102.402: Dimensional Standards) 2) A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential driveways (Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.205. Driveways). Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 9, 2002. ATTEST: Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 1:\02files\02vadances\02-088\deny resolution.doc 2 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 7A CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS JEFFERS SOUTH JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO-N/A SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 INTRODUCTION: Wensmann Realty, Inc., has applied for approval of a development to be known as 3effers South on the property located west of CSAH 21, approximately ½ mile north of CSAH 82 and directly north of Wensmann 1= Addition and Regal Crest. The proposal calls for a mixed use development consisting of a total of 81 dwelling units on 23.69 net acres, for a total density of 3.42 units per acre. The proposed development includes 22 single family dwellings and 59 town_house units in 45, three and four-unit buildings. The development also includes parkland and private open space. BACKGROUND: On June 17, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution #02-96 approving a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan for this site, as well as a preliminary plat. The resolution listed the following conditions of approval: 1. The developer must provide specific information on the parkland, detailing the area that qualifies for dedication credit. 2. The developer must provide an access to the park on the west side of the site from Jeffers Pass. 3. Extend the trail bom Wensmann 1st to the north edge of this development. 4. The name of the cul-de-sac must be changed to a name more consistent with the street naming policy. 5. The lan~caping plan must be revised to include 20% of the evergreen trees as oversized trees. An irrigation plan must also be provided. 1:\02filcs~02puds\j¢ffcrs south final\pc report.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 6. The developer must provide easements for the storm water pond and the temporary cul-de-sac located on the adjacent property. 7. The developer must provide sign elevations for the monument signs. 8. The Traffic Impact Report must be revised to include the proper number of units. 9. Revise the plan sheets to specifically note that there is a 25' setback from the public right-of-way line required for the townhouses, and that the 30' setback is measured from both decks and porches. Also, the plan sheets must note that conventional R-1 setbacks will apply to the single family dwellings. 10. Address the comments identified in the memorandum from the City Engineer dated May 23, 2002. PROPOSED FINAL PLAN Density: The plan proposes 81 units on a total of 34.05 acres. Density is based on the buildable acres of the site, or in this case on 23.69 net acres. The overall density proposed in this plan is 3.42 units per acre. Building Styles: There are two different townhouse building styles proposed. The first style is a 2-story, attached single family style dwelling with an attached garage. These buildings are located on the south side of Raspberry Ridge Road. The plan includes 31 of these un/ts in one 3-unit building and seven 4-unit buildings. Each of the units in these buildings includes a 2-car garage, rear yard decks and porches, and approximately 2,400 square feet of living space. The buildings are 25' high at the front, with vinyl siding exteriors and brick face and vinyl shakes for accents. The second building style is a 2-story, condominium building with upper and lower units. There are 28 units in 7, 4-unit buildings. These buildings consist of a lower level, 2-car garage and 1,300 to over 2,000 square feet of living space. These buildings are also 25' 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. 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 proposes the conventional R-1 setbacks for the single family dwellings. The plan also notes a 30' setback from any wetland. The proposed setbacks are generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The plan sheets should specifically note that there is a 25' setback from the public right- of-way line required for the townhouses, and that the 30' setback is measured from both decks and porches. Also, the plan sheets should note that conventional R-1 setbacks would apply to the single family dwellings. l:\02files\02puds\jeffers south final\pc reporl.doc Page 2 Lot Coverage: The R-1 district allows a maximum ground floor area of 0.30. The · ground floor area proposed in this plan is 0.14. 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 35,400 square feet; the plan indicates a total of 92,883 square feet. Parking: The proposal provides at least 2 spaces per dwelling unit, which is consistent with the rainimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. Each the units have two car garages, which provide the minimum parking requirement. The plan also provides 14 off-su'eet parking spaces in the townhouse area for guest parking. The proposed private streets will not provide any on-street parking. Landscaping: The landscaping plan identifies landscaping for both the single family and the townhouse portion of the development. The landscaping plan provides the proper number of trees for the development, and is consistent with ordinance requirements for size and species of the plantings. The developer has also provided an irrigation plan for the townhouse portion of the development. Signs: There are three project monument signs identified on this plan. Two are located at the east entrance to the site. One sign is located at the intersection of Jeffers Pass and Raspberry Ridge Road. No elevations for these signs have been provided. Lighting: Street lights will be provided on the public streets. The developer has also indicated that street lights will be provided on the private streets. Streets: The PUD plan includes the use of private streets to serve the townhouse development, which will be maintained by a homeowner's association. The streets also meet the Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Sidewalks/Trails: The plan proposes a sidewalk on the west side of Jeffers Pass and on the south side of Raspberry Ridge Road. The plan also indicates that the em'rent trail system located in Wensmarm 1't Addition will be continued along the wetland through this property. Parks: This plan includes two areas identified as parks, for a total of 13.77 acres. Park 1, located on the west side of the property is 11.72 acres, but is primarily wetland. There are also areas of steep slopes within this park. Park 2, located on the north side of the plat, is 2.04 acres in area. There is a storm water pond on this site, as well as steep slopes. The total upland park area in both parks is 2.24 acres. Parkland dedication reqfftrements will be satisfied by land dedication in addition to a cash dedication. The plan has not been revised to identify an access to Park 1 from Jeffers Pass as required. 1 :\02filc$\02pu d~\j offers south final\pc report,doc Page 3 Phasing: This project is proposed to be completed in a single phase. ANALYSIS: The Final PUD Plan is generally consistent with the approved preliminary plan. There are, however, some changes are required to the plan before final approval. These changes are required in order to be consistent with the approved preliminary plan, and to meet the conditions included as part of the preliminary plan approval. These include the following: 1. The developer must provide an access to the park on the west side of the site from Jeffers Pass. 2. The name of the cul-de-sac must be changed to a name more consistent with the street naming policy. 3. The developer must provide sign elevations for the monument signs. 4. Address the comments identified in the memorandum from the City Engineer dated May 23, 2002. Most of the changes require minor revisions to the plans. However, these changes must be made before the plan proceeds to the City Council for final approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission must review the Final PUD and make a recommendation to the City Council. The staff suggests the following findings: 1. With the above listed revisions, the Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved preliminary plan. 2. The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the criteria for a PUD listed in Section 1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. This plan is also consistent with the City Council findings listed in City Council Resolution #02-44. The staff also recommends approval of the Final PUD Plan be subject to the following conditions: 1. The following revisions must be made before the plan proceeds to the City Council: a. The developer must provide an access to the park on the west side of the site from Jeffers Pass. b. The name of the cul-de-sac must be changed to a name more consistent with the street naming policy. c. The developer must provide sign elevations for the monument signs. 1:\02files\02puds\jeffers south final\pc report.doc Page 4 d. Address the comments identified in the memorandum from the City Engineer dated May 23, 2002. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council. A signed PUD agreement must be approved by the City Council. Upon final approval, the developer must submit two complete sets of full-scale final plans and reductions of each sheet. These plans will be stamped with the f'mal approval information. Once set will be filed at the Planning Department and maintained as the official PUD record. The second set will be returned to the developer for their files. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the PUD Final Plan subject to the above conditions and to any other conditions deemed necessary. 2. Recommend denial of the request, based on specific find'rags of fact. 3. Cont'mue this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the issues that have been discussed. 4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Plarmin§ staffrec0mmends Alternative 1. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan subject to the listed conditions. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution #02-96 2. Reduced Copy of PUD Plans l:~02files\02puds\j effers so~th final~pc report.doc Page PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN RESOLUTION 02-96 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JEFFERS SOUTH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MOTION BY: PETERSEN SECOND ElY: LEMAIR WHEREAS: Wensmann Realty, Inc. has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan to be known as Jeffers South; and WHEREAS: The Prior Lake Planning Commission considered the proposed Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan at a public hearing on May 28, 2002; and WHEREAS: Notice of the public hearing on said PUD Preliminary Plan has been duly published in accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issue and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the PUD Preliminary Plan; and WHEREAS: The Prior Lake City Council considered the proposed PUD Preliminary Plan for Jeffers South on June 17, 2002; and WHEREAS: The City Council finds the PUD Preliminary Plan consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS: The City Council finds the PUD Preliminary Plan is compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the Section 1106 Planned Unit Developments of the Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA: 1. The above recitals are herein fully incorporated herein as set forth above. 2. It hereby adopts the following findings: a) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, materials, construction and land development. The developer has attempted to design the buildings so they fit the land, rather than force the land to fit the building design. The design, with the exception of the private street, could also be done as a conventional R-1 cluster development. b) Higher standards of site and building design. The developer is utilizing standard construction and design practices for the townhomes. The lookout style of the buildings utilizes the natural grades of the site where possible. c) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high quality land use development at a lesser cost. rAresoluti\planres~2002\O2-96.doc PAGE l 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Maintenance of pdvate streets, including plowing and future repairs, is done by the homeowners association. This reduces City costs in providing services to these homes. 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 proposed parks preserve the wetland and trees on the site. The park can also continue the trail connection begun in the development to the south. This same dedication, however, is required under conventional procedures. 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 C/ty'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. Encourages a more creative and elT~cient use of land. The use of the private streets allows for fewer ddveway openings on the public streets. Preserves and enhances desirable site charectedstics including f/ore 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 single family homes and the adjacent County road. 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. 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 signif/cantly affect adjacent or nearby properties. The use of the PUD allows the clustering of the homes and the use of private streets. Encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over and above required dedications, by a/lowing 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 design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unif/ed environment within the boundaries of the project by insuring architecture/compatibility of all structures, eff/cient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and eff/cient 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, meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, will also enhance this area. 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 extension of the single family homes adjacent to the existing residences, and the clustering of the townhouse units. r:~resoluti\planres~2002\02-96.doc PAGE 2 n) o) ff a project for which PUD treatment has been requested involves construction over a period of time in two or more phases, the applicant shall 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. Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one building on a lot. This is not applicable. 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. 1) The tract of land for which a project is proposed shall have not less than 200 feet of frontage on a public right-of-way; 2) No building shall be nearer than its building height to any property line when the property abutting the subject property is in an "R-l" or "R-2" Use District; 3) 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; and 4) Private roadways within the project site may not be used in calculating required off-street parking spaces. The modifications requested by the developer include the following: · The use of private streets. This modification is permitted under the PUD provisions at the discretion of the Council. The City Council found this modification to be consistent with the goals and intent of the PUD criteria in that it allowed the clustering of the townhouses to preserve the natural terrain. The Jeffers South Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan is hereby approved subject to the following conditions a) The developer must provide specific information on the parkland, detailing the area that qualifies for dedication credit. b) The developer must provide an access to the park on the west side of the site from Jeffers Pass. c) Extend the trail from Wensmann 1st to the north edge of this development. d) The name of the cul-de-sac must be changed to a name more consistent with the street naming policy. e) The landscaping plan must be revised to include 20% of the evergreen trees as oversized trees. An irrigation plan must also be provided. f) The developer must provide easements for the storm water pond and the temporary cul- de-sac located on the adjacent property. g) The developer must provide sign elevations for the monument signs. h) The Traffic Impact Report must be revised to include the proper number of units. i) Revise the plan sheets to specifically note that there is a 25' setback from the public right- of-way line required for the townhouses, and that the 30' setback is measured from both decks and porches. Also, the plan sheets must note that conventional R-1 setbacks will apply to the single family dwellings. Address the comments identified in the memorandum from the City Engineer dated May 23, 2002. J) r:h-esoluti\planres~2002\O2-96.doc PAGE 3 Passed and adopted this 17~ day of June, 2002. YES NO Haugen X Haugen Gundlach X Gundlach LeMair X LeMair Petersen X Petersen Zieska X Zieska {Seal} /s/ Frank Boyles, City Manager r:~soluti¥1anres~002~02-96.doc PAGE 4 i , ............ :;'_ ............ I ..... '_-'"_ .............. I L II