Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-97REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 6:30 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. Case #97-005 Mark Michael - Appeal of Home Occupation B. 1996 Variance Summary C. 1996 PUD Summary 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A. Zoning Discussions (continued) 8. Adjournment: 16200 Ea~o~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota ,~72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1997 1. Call to Order: The January 27, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Stamson, Vonhofand Kuykendall, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Engineering Technician Jeff Evens and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Wuellner Absent Stamson Present Kuykendall Present Criego Present 3. Approval of Minutes: Change on Page 2, under Criego, should be changed to "His only concern with the sign that it was not directed towards the residents and faces Highway 13." MOTION BY VONHOF, SECONDED BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 13, 1997, MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Stamson and Vonhof. MINUTES APPROVED. Commissioner Kuykendall abstained from voting. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case #96-126 and #96-113 Consider the Zone Change Request and Preliminary Plat for the Project Known as "Windstar Addition". Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the StaffReport. The hearing was to consider two applications for the development of the 14.14 acre site to be divided into 21 lots, located along the east side of Mushtown Road, directly west of Woodridge Estates and east of O'Rourke Addition. The first application is a request to rezone the property from the A-I (Agricultural) district to the R-I (Suburban Residential) district. The second application is a request for a preliminary plat to be known as "Windstar Addition". Staff recommended approval of the requests by Resolution 97-03PC with nine conditions set forth in the Staff Report. A letter was submitted on Friday, January 24, by Westwood Professional Services addressing items 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Kansier further recommended maintaining conditions 1, 3, 4 and 9 as well as 7 regarding the Tree Preservation Ordinance. MN012797DOC PAGEI Comments from the Public: Tim Erkkila, Westwood Professional Services, represented Wensmann Realty stated they were looking forward to working with the City. The project is a logical outgrowth of the existing streets and utilities in the area. He agreed with the Staff Report and accepted the conditions. Mr. Erkkila's concern was an issue of adjusting or moving the storm water pond to another location. They will meet the condition but are still evaluating the situation. Terry Wensmarm from Wensmarm Homes was also present to answer any questions. Jim Ericson, 4544 Pondview Trail, lives in the Woodridge Estates, is not opposed to the development but had concerns and submitted them in writing. His neighbors would like to keep the cul-de-sac and minimize the traffic. It is a quiet neighborhood and would like to keep it quiet. Their preference would be to work with the City and the developer by maintaining property values. Roger Olson, 17041 Mushtown Road, questioned the sewer and water coming to the center line of Mushtown Road. Kansier explained the services. Jeff Evens from the Engineering Department explained the sewer and water plan from the preliminary plat. Jim Gustin, 4543 Pondview Trail, agreed with Mr. Ericson's proposed plan. He is opposed to running the lots down to the pond. Mr. Gustin feels it is an environmental issue and would like to see the pond left natural. Deb Rickard, 17266 Toronto Avenue, agreed with the comments regarding the traffic. She felt the wildlife should be preserved. If the lawns are extended too far into the pond there is a danger of pesticide runoff. Tim Kaderlik, 17075 Maple Lane, was concerned with added traffic and assessments to maintain Mushtown Road. He said he could not afford to live in Scott County. He moved to a semi-rural area and would like to maintain that lifestyle. There is a lot of wildlife. Mr. Kaderlik suggested eliminating the plan totally. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · Questioned the property going into the pond and the adjoining property, owners. MN012797 DOC PAGE2 · Kansier explained the area was designated as park. Someone has to take responsibility for the outlot. The City would be responsible for maintaining the land and there is no access. · Rye commented on the original plat for Woodridge Estates allowed 100% dedication for wetlands. The Ordinance was amended a few months ago and the subdivision currently does not give any credit for wetlands. · Concern for the responsibility of the new property owners to the pond. · Kansier commented the wetland would stay the same. · Any assessments to other neighbors? Evens said there are no assessments to Spring Lake Township property owners. · The Comprehensive Plan requires road connections from neighborhood to neighborhood. · Rye explained the importance of the connection - Emergency vehicles, isolating neighborhoods and maintenance. · Sidewalks not reconunended because they do not go anywhere. · Lots 1 and 2 will be difficult to build on. The pad has to be 30 feet from the 100 year flood elevation. Will meet ordinance requirements. Vonhof'. · Believes the sidewalks are for traffic safety and not necessarily for commuting people from one place to another. There should be sidewalks as part of the roadway. · Ratio for wetland mitigation is 2 to 1. · Evens explained the first exemption and credit for the N.U.R.P. pond. · Capital Improvements for Mushtown Road are scheduled to be upgraded in 1997. · Regarding N.U.R.P. pond - lots 5, 6 and 7. Will be covered with drainage and utility easements. · Extension of lot lines - should be consistent with the whole pond area. Would approve the previous submission without the lot line extensions. He feels it is presumptuous at this point for the City to know what is gong to happen to this wetland. Keep it whole under one body. Stamson: · Agreed with Vonhof regarding the sidewalks. Concern of traffic is a good safety issue. · Agreed with Commissioners on not extending the lot lines. It makes sense for the City to own all or none of the wetland. · No cul-de-sac. It is not practical. The length from Mushtown Road is too long and difficult to service. It would be distinctly separated from the City. · Supports the street connection. · Mushtown Road is not a county road just a street in the county. It would make more sense to have a 85 foot setback. Mushtown Road can potentially turn into a collector street. Knykendall: Kansier pointed out the road connections on the overheads. · He does not feel there is an excessive amount of traffic compared to other streets in subdivisions. · Strongly favors sidewalks. Use the safety standards. · Connect the neighborhoods. · Street lighting has to be provided by the developer. · The wildlife and rural atmosphere can be maintained by the design. · Kansier explained by extending the lot lines the City is not responsible for maintaining the area. It would be the property owners responsibility as opposed to the City. Easements would have to go over properties. · Support not extending the lot lines. · Support the R1 designation. · Wetland mitigation would have to be calculated before approval. · Price range of homes - $150,000 to $180,000. · Mr. Ericson explained the benefit of Outlot B to discourage traffic off Mushtown. Mr. Erkkila explained the developer will be using sound planning techniques with the Wetland Act and city policies. Some people do prefer small lots on a wetland area. There is a very small amount of fill. It is an attractive home site. It is in character with other homes offMushtown Road. This is a low density plan with 21 lots. Evens said the components have to be met. The engineering department feels the lots are appropriate. Open Discussion: Criego: · Commissioners generally believe the district should be RI. · Development here is desirable but protect the wetlands and consensus is not to extend the lot lines. · Cul-de-sac or a through street. Cul-de-sacs cannot exceed 500 feet. The plan is to connect neighborhoods. · General consensus that sidewalks are desired. Kuykendall: · Could this site be a PUD? If it is, could it he developed as a whole different concept. · Opposed to the development based on this issue. · In favor of sidewalks on both sides and future extensions. · Increase right of way and have sidewalks. Stamson: · The traffic issue is short term until Toronto is connected. · Evens explained the annexation with the Mushtown Road improvement. Kansier said Pondview is not wide enough to add one sidewalk. Vonhof: · Supportive of the development with one sidewalk. · The road should continue through. · Opposes lot extensions to pond. Stamson: · Rye said the ordinance was amended a year ago to put in sidewalk or trails on collector streets, not side streets like Pondview and Toronto. · Supports the sidewalks. · Rye said his concern is applying sidewalks as a condition. First of ail, there is no criteria. Second, is that going to be a recommendation on every plat and street that comes in? Council has given the City direction and staff is proceeding on that basis. Vonhof: · Sidewalks are a safety issue and starting out with a new plat, there should be a sidewalk. Erkkila said they discussed the sidewalk issue. Neighbors were against the trails around the ponds. There was no connection for sidewalks. If the developer has to increase the right-of-way it will impact the wetland on a fill issue. It is a complicated issue. The criteria based on city policy does not require a sidewalk. City Council has not agreed to it. He would be willing to accept the possibility of a sidewalk connection if it was agreed by the residents in Woodridge Estates, at least the first two lots to get to the comer. So at least it starts at a street and ends at a street. Mr. Ericson said he discussed the sidewalk issue among the neighbors and it is not desirable to have a sidewalk going through their yards. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND A ZONE CHANGE TO THE R-1 DISTRICT AS REQUESTED. Vote taken signified ayes. MOTION CARRIED. Comments on the Preliminary Plat. Criego - The issues are Items, 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9. Agrees with Resolution 97-03PC with Items 1, 3, 4, 6 and 9. Item 8, recommend not extend the lot lines into the pond. As far as the sidewalk is concern, he would rather live without a sidewalk and do any further damage to the ponds and if it doesn't go any place, it is not needed. Vonhof- Agreed with amendments deleting 8. As far the sidewalks go, it is a traffic safety issue. There should be sidewalks. Require to extend the right-of-way to 55 feet and add a sidewalk on one side. Stamson - Agreed with Criego, space problem with the south side of property for sidewalks and also the right-of-way is not wide enough. It will create problems with homes 20 feet away. Traffic is not an issue. Given the way the Ordinance is written and City Council's decision there is no need for a sidewalk. Kuykendall - Agreed with all points. Feels right-of-way should be redesigned and add sidewalks. He does not agree with City Council's decision on sidewalks. Supports a 55' design and entertains an alternative way of developing the land to meet the bigger and broader objectives. He realizes the requirements are met and feels the property should be developed but the approach taken does not meet the overall objective. Opposed the development as proposed. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE RES. 97-03PC WITH CONDITIONS 1, 3, 4, 7 AND 9. THE REVISED PLAN COVERS ITEMS 2, 5 AND 6. OUTLOT A SHOULD BE INCLUDED 1N THE PLAN AND THE PROPERTY LINES SHOULD NOT EXTEND TO THE MIDDLE OF THE POND FOR CONTINUITY WITH THE OTHER HALF OF THE POND. Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Stamson and Vonhof, nay by Kuykendall. MOTION PASSED. A recess was called at 8:06 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:14 p.m. B. Case #97-001, #92-002 and #97-003 Zone Change Request, A Variance Request and a Preliminary Plat for the Project Known as "Knob Hill North". The public hearing was open at 8:14 p.m. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff Report. The hearing was to consider three applications for the development of 27 lots on a 17.01 acre site located about 1/4 mile south of CR 42, and 1/8 mile east of Pike Lake Trail, and formerly known as the Twiss property. The first application is a request to rezone the property from the C-1 (Conservation) district to the R-1 (Suburban Residential) district. The second application is a request for a variance to the lot width provisions for two of the lots proposed in the subdivision. The third application is a request for a preliminary plat to be known as "Knob Hill North". Staff recommended approval of the requests with the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Comments from the Public: Horst Graser, representing Wayne Fleck, highlighted some of the issues: the boundary and topo maps of the site, the encroachments on the property, the wooded pine area, the elevations, sewer and water, zoning, the grading plan, the variance request and the tree consideration. Mr. Graser had concerns with conditions 5, 9 and 11. He had no problem with dedicating the park land as part of the plat, but if the City is not going to give them credit for the remainder of Outlot C, they will not dedicate to the City and only give what is required. He would also like to reword condition 15 in regard to developing in conjunction with Maple Hills Second Addition. Tom Jarzyna 14159 Rolling Oaks Circle, understands the need for growth but feels this land is worth saving. Turning it into one big park would better serve Prior Lake. He feels there are 150 different species of trees in the area. Prior Lake's best interest is to keep the area a conservation district. The percolation test indicated 3 springs on the wetland area. Once the City loses this ecosystem they will not get it back. Kevin Nolin, who recently purchased a lot in the Maple Hill development, agreed with Mr. Jaryzna to conserve the area. Tim Smith, 14100 Rolling Oaks Circle, was present when the surveyor was taking the tree survey. There are significant trees as well as wildlife in the area. The previous owner built paths through the area. It is a beautiful area. He does not mind development but urged the Commissioners to see the land. It would be nice to have the park south of the development have access to these woods. The zoning should not be changed. The meeting was closed at 9:19 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · Supported zoning from C1 to R1 which is consistent with the Comp Plan. · The preliminary plat does not see any significant impact with the wetland. · Not opposed to the flag lots. · Any violation for driveway entrances? Kansier responded both lots would share one driveway with an easement and then fork off to the respected lots. · The hardship has been met with the variance. Stamson: · Question related to the Tree Ordinance - Kansier explained the ordinance. · Agreed with the zoning change. · Blue Bird Trail will temporary connect through the Maple Hills Second Addition. · No credit for park dedication for Outlot. · Given the uniqueness of the property the flag lots have hardships for a variance. Agreed to a double driveway vs. a single. Kuykendall: · Support the changes in zoning and flag lots as well. · There should be two separate driveways. Kansier responded snow removal could be a big problem. · Generally supported the proposal. MN012797 DOC PAGE7 Criego: · The area was zoned C 1 for a reason. Sympathized with neighbors. It is a beautiful nature center. The fact is, the City does not own it. · The developer was asked how he would perceive this natural area. · Graser responded it was hard to answer. The ordinance has forced him to develop this way. The engineer says he cannot grade more than 8%, the water has to flow to the front, side or rear into a N.U.R.P. pond. · Another way to go would be a PUD and conserve more natural area. · Graser said he has to develop to the fullest. The City does not reduce the impact fees. · Concern about the location north of the site. A lot of natural beauty could be taken out of the site. · Sidewalk stops at Outlot C. Kansier responded City Council said sidewalks should be on collector streets. Hummingbird Trail is not a collector street. · Grasersaid they met with staff and concluded to add the sidewalk where staff directed it. There will be a connection to the park. Vonhof: · No comments Kuykendalh · Excellent job done by the developer. · A collector street is definitely needed. · Wonders if the land would be better developed under a PUD. By using that approach one would save and conserve more land. Feels uncomfortable not seeing the land this time of year. · Someone had the wisdom 25 years ago to conserve the area. · Understands the developer's concern. Criego: · On the surface it should be R1, agreed with the flag lots and the conditions by staff. · Are we dealing with a precious piece of property? · Rye commented on his perception of the C1 district. It is obsolete, the application is confusing. The original purposes was admirable but has been superseded by new laws. · The roles and regulations are being met. Is the City doing what the ordinance states? Brian Crystal, from Pioneer Engineering, felt the majority of caliper trees are 6 to 8 inches and the land was probably designated a CI district because of the wetlands. Kuykendall: · The City does not have the means to pay for this property. The owners have paid taxes and the developers have come forward and are following the rules. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE FROM C1 TO R1. Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97-04PC GRANTING A 66 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 20 FOOT LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT BUILDING LINE FOR LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 5, KNOB HILL NORTH. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. AMENDMENT MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RESOLUTION 97-04PC TO REMOVE THE CONDITION TO REQUIRE A SHARED DRIVEWAY. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Discussion: Kuykendall- Include sidewalks, at least on one side of the whole development. Any time you have an automobile and a pedestrian you cannot share the space. Criego-In this particular case, it makes common sense for a sidewalk to come in from the south of the project as well as the north. Recommendation by Commissioner Kuykendall to guide staff in working with the developer to the south, so when the development is platted sidewalks, will be continued. Staff pointed out the preliminary plat approval for Knob Hill (the plat to the south) did not require sidewalks where the Commission suggested. Stamson recommended Item 14 (regarding dedicated right-of-way) be substituted with a resolution of encroachment so the City does not end up owning part of the swimming pool. Criego agreed with Kuykendall on the extension of the sidewalk to Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 to the west of the current plat. Also staff should guide the developer and have sidewalks on the entire length of Hummingbird Trail. The applicant had asked for leeway on the tree preservation and the proper way is to come forward with a variance. Agreed with staff on that subject. #13 of the Resolution should be dedicated to the City as park on the final plat. Redefine item #15 so it does not provide confusion in the future. The N.U.R.P. pond on lots 7 & 8 are an extension of the wetlands. Not sure the tree preservation is right for the area. Graser stated the impact would be less in that particular area. MNO12797DOC PAGE9 MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97- 05PC AND RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KNOB HILL NORTH AND ALL THE 16 CONDITIONS LISTED WITH CORRECTING ITEM #14 TO DELETE, OR BE AS DEDICATED AS ROW; REDEFINE ITEM #15 TO PROVIDE ACCESS FROM CARRIAGE HILLS; DELETE ITEM #10 AND INDICATE THE SIDEWALK FOLLOW THE ENTIRE SOUTH SIDE OF HUMMINGBIRD TRAIL; AND #11 A REVISED TREE PRESERVATION SHOWING THE REVISIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. The plat will go to the March 3, 1997, City Council meeting. C. Case #96-127 Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Conditional Sign Permit for Buckingham Disposal. The hearing was open at 10:17 p.m. Planner Jeuni Tovar presented the Staff Report. In June of 1995, City staff became aware Buckingham Disposal. Inc. had begun operations at its present facility at 5980 Rainbow Parkway. The firm had not obtained a certificate of occupancy. In evaluating the business, the Planning Department concluded the use which Buckingham was making of the site was not permitted in the I-2 zoning district. Buckingham appealed the decisions, and their appeal was upheld. Staff was directed by the City Council to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would explicitly permit recycling uses like Buckingham's as a conditional use in the I-2 zoning district. At the same time, Scott County had been processing a license application for Buckingham. The County was informed of the City's proposed action, and the facility would be allowed to operate during the preparation of the Ordinance revision so that the license application could proceed. The ordinance amendment was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on December 11, 1995. The item was tabled at the December 18, 1995 City Council meeting, and documentation indicating the ordinance was passed is not available. However, based on recollections and actions of city staff to proceed with the Conditional Use application for Buckingham, it is presumed the ordinance was adopted. Staff is bringing the ordinance amendment to the City Council on February 3, 1997 for review again. The amendment will then be published, and the record will be very clear of the ordinance amendment. In order to not delay Buckingham in their CUP application, staff is proceeding with both items simultaneously. The applicant met with Tovar shortly before the meeting and proposed changes for the driveway acceptable to staff. They also proposed moving the outdoor storage area to the side property and screen the area. Applicants plan to close offthe loading docks and gate, closing off all vehicular access to the area. MN012797 DOC PAGEIO Staff recommended adopting Resolutions 97-02PC and 97-03PC, recommending the City Council approve the conditional use permit and the conditional sign permit as presented. Comments from the Public: John Cairns, represented Tom Buckingham of Buckingham Disposal, stated the conditions were acceptable and can work out the details. They will revise the site plan as discussed. Tovar stated the Building Official brought to staff's attention the applicant does not have a Certificate of Occupancy for the use requested. The applicant is aware of the situation and have 30 days to submit the plans for compliance. The public hearing was closed at 10:31 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · Overall in favor of the proposal. Staff's concerns have been addressed. · Parking space is one per employee = 9 stalls. · The drive-in areas must be paved. Becker Arena does not use their loading docks. The current use does not need it but a concern for potential users. Vonhof: · All criteria have been met. · Staff and applicant worked out the conditions. · Compatible with area. · Sign permit is fine. · Agreed with staff. Kuykendall: · Agreed · Conditional Use Permit can be reviewed annually. Opportunity to watch the dock issue. Criego: · Agreed with Commissioners. · Miscellaneous containers - how do you dispose in and out of the facility? Buckingham responded it is removed with a bobcat when it is full. · Asked applicant how he proposed to block off the view. Buckingham will comply with staff' s recommendation. Tovar will review the conditions. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97-02PC AND RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS STATED WITH THE ATTACHED 11 CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED IN STAFF'S REPORT. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97-03PC GRANTING A CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT FOR A FREE STANDING SIGN ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5980 RAINBOW PARKWAY FOR BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL, INC. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. Case #97-005 Mark Michael Home Occupation Appeal: The applicant has requested thc matter be continued to the February 10, 1997 meeting. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON TO TABLE THE MATTER TO FEBRUARY 10, 1997. Vote taken signified by all. MOTION CARR/ED. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Plan a spring/summer planning outing to observe the natural area. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:49 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 6A CONSIDER APPEAL OF MARK MICHAEL FROM A RULING OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS (Case File #97-005) 4190 EAU CLAIRE TRAIL JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER ~ JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO-N/A FEBRUARY 10, 1997 Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of the Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake. The action was initiated by a complaint regarding the home occupation operated by Mark Michael. The attached letter from the applicant, dated January 13, 1997, details the appellant's business and request for appeal. Recently, the city received a complaint regarding Mark Michael's home occupation. The city conducted an investigation and determined that Mark Michael was operating a home occupation involving warehousing and distribution of merchandise produced off the site, without a permit, and determined that he must apply for a Home Occupation Permit. The attached letter was sent on December 13, 1996 in response to the investigation. The letter indicates that the home occupation must comply with the ordinance, by granting ora home occupation permit, or be discontinued. When a person wishes to carry on an occupation in or from their home, the Zoning Ordinance requires that a home occupation permit be issued. A home occupation may be permitted in residential zoning districts if the requirements of Section 6.8 of the Ordinance are met. The requirements of this section are as follows: 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER A. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure. B. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the street right-of-way. C. The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. D. The home occupation may be carded on by persons residing in the dwelling unit and not more than one employee who does not reside in the dwelling unit. E. The home occupation shall be carried on wholly within the principal structure. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed 10% of the floor area or 300 square feet, whichever is greater. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached accessory building. F. Exterior displays, signs (other than those permitted under the Sign Ordinance), and outside storage of materials shall not be permitted. G. Objectionable noise, vibration, smoke, dust, electrical disturbances, odors, heat, glare or other nuisance factors shall not be discernible at the property line. The home occupation shall not create excessive automobile traffic within the neighborhood. Mark Michael met with Don Rye, Planning Director in early January, 1997 to discuss the requirement of the home occupation permit. The Planning Director indicated that warehousing or distribution of merchandise produced off the site is not permitted as a home occupation under the current ordinance. According to the applicant, the home occupation, M&M Vending, has been in existence in Prior Lake since 1989. The business includes warehousing food/vending products to be delivered and sold in vending machines. Attached is a copy of the Home Occupation Ordinance in place at that time. In 1989, the Zoning Ordinance permitted home occupations subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The ordinance listed several examples of typical home occupations but did not list warehousing or distribution. There is no record of Planning Commission approval of Mr. Michael's home occupation. Mark Michael contends that because he was operating his home occupation prior to the change of ordinance in 1995, and that the previous ordinance did not prohibit warehousing or distribution of merchandise produced off the site, that he should be grandfathered in and granted a home occupation permit. Staff's conclusion is that the appellant never applied for a home occupation permit. Therefore, the interpretation is that he was and continues to mn a home occupation that is illegal (no permit granted). Warehousing and distribution have never been a permitted home occupation. There is no way of knowing if the Planning Commission would have 97*O05pc.doc Page 2 granted a home occupation permit for Mr. Michael's in 1989 or anytime prior to the change in the ordinance. Staff's opinion is that it would not have meet the ordinance in place at that time, but it is difficult to speculate ifa variance would have been granted or conditions place on the permit to permit the proposed use or possibly the permit would have been granted without the warehousing activity. The appellant could have applied for a home occupation permit, but he did not. Therefore, he cannot be grandfathered in and must meet the current requirements to receive a home occupation permit. 1. Recommend to the City Council that it uphold the staff interpretation of the ordinance. Recommend to the City Council that it accept the appeal and find that Mr. Michael's home occupation is legal and in compliance with City Code or can be grandfathered in under the old ordinance. 3. Defer action on this request for specific reasons. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. .~CTION REOUIRED: Motion and second expressing the opinion of the Planning Commission. 97-O05pc.doc Page 3 five (5) feet as long as a minimum separation often (10) feet is maintained between structures on the lot and adjoining lot. · Title 5, Section 5-5-8 of the City Code and Section 6.8 of the Prior Lake Zoning '~'~Ordinance 83-6 is hereby amended as follows: An5, h mn ..... c.z ""* ~ ..... , .............. ~,, - ........ ~, ...... v ................... ...................... , may be permitted as an accessory use in residential zoning districts if it complies with thc requirements of this section. Th,~ Pr!ct A. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure, B. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the street right-of-way. C. The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution or retail sales of merchandise produced offthe site. D. The home occupation may sba!! be carried on persons 5y a ..'v. emSzr of thc fa:....: residing in the dwelling unit and not more than one employee who does not reside in the dwelline unit ;- ~* -~ ~c,~ c~;,,, E. The home occupation shall be carried on wholly within the principal azz:::c.'3~ structure. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed 10% of the floor area or 300 square feet. whichever is greater. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within gny attached or detached accessory_ building. F. Exterior displays, ov signs (other than those permitted under the Sign Ordinance, 94-6), and outside ' . ' storage of materials and ...... e ...... e ........... shall not be perufitted. G. Objectionable noise, vibration, smoke, dust, electrical disturbances, odors , heat, glare or other nuisance factors shall not be discernible at the property line H. The home occupation shall not create excessive automobile traffic within the neighborhood. Title 5, Section 5-7 of the City Code and Section 7 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 is hereby amended by adding the following: 7.12 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY COSTS A. PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to provide a procedure to reimburse the City for its cost of revie~v, analysis, and evaluation of development proposals, conditional use permits, comprehensive plan amendments, zoning amendments, and enforcement of this Ordinance in cases where, due to the level of complexity of the application under consideration, excessive costs beyond those normally incurred by the City as a result of the administration of this Ordinance are incurred. The excess costs result from problems presented in review, analysis and evaluation which Certified Mail December 13, 1996 Mark Michael 4190 Eau Claire Trail Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE Dear Mr. Michael: On October 18, 1996, the City of Prior Lake Code Enforcement Officer contacted you about the business located in your home. In that letter, and in a later meeting with you, we discussed the requirements for a home occupation permit. To date, we have not received an application for a home occupation from you. It has also come to our attention that you are still operating this business from your home. This letter serves as your official notice of this violation. Please correct the violation within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this letter. You may do this by either discontinuing the operation of the business, or by receiving a home occupation permit. I have attached an application and a copy of the regulations for your information. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230. Sincerely, (~Jane A. Kansier, AICP Planning Coordinator L:\96CORRESUAN E\MICHAEL.DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EXtPLOYER JAMES O. BATES BRYCE D. HU~OELLER HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL January 13, 1997 Telephone (61,2) 447-,2131 Tek.'~'.e~ier (612) 447-5628 Mr. Donald R. Rye Planning Director City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 HAND DELIVERED Re: Mark Michael, 4190 Eau Claire Trail, Prior Lake Home Occupation Dear Mr. Rye: This letter is intended as Mark Michael's notice of appeal to the Board of Adjustment from the Notice of Violation contained in a letter of December 13, 1996 from Jane A. Kansier, Planning Coordinator, to Mr. Michael. We request that the appeal be placed on the agenda of the Board of Adjustment and that we be promptly notified of the time and date of the hearing, and supplied with a copy of the staff report to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Michael has been operating a home-based vending business in Prior Lake, known as M&M Vending, since November of 1989. The business operation has not changed in any material way from that time to the present. He has one employee who comes to his house in the morning, loads Mr. Michael's truck from vending inventory stored in his garage, and leaves to stock vending machines in various locations, returning the truck at the end of the day. The companies that supply product to Mr. Michael each make deliveries to him once every several weeks. There is very limited traffic to and from his home in connection with the business. At some time in 1990 Mr. Michael determined the business needed more space. He planned to build a new home in the Windsong development with an oversized garage that would provide increased storage space for his inventory while completely enclosing the operation, to insure the least disturbance to the neighborhood's residential setting. Since this would add significantly to the cost of the home, he researched the issue of what local regulations might prohibit or otherwise regulate his operation. He obtained copies of both the county and city ordinances relating to home occupations and discussed his plans with city staff. He was told by city staff that under the existing Mr. Donald R. Rye Page 2 January 13, 1997 ordinances he would not need a permit, and so proceeded with construction of the new home, which was completed in April of 1993. He expected to continue his business for many years and would not have committed to the expense of building this particular house without being assured he was, or would be with the appropriate filings, in compliance with local regulations. When the new home received its final city inspection, Jay, the building inspector, asked the house contractor about the need for the oversized garage. The contractor, M&M Construction (unrelated to M&M Vending), mentioned that Mr. Michael operated a vending business out of his home and needed the additional storage space in connection with the business. No mention of a business permit was made at that time. The issue also came up in 1995 when the Windsong homeowners' association considered amending the declaration of covenants covering the development, including provisions relating to home occupations. The zoning committee, consisting of five owners in the development, researched the issue and obtained a copy of the current home occupation ordinance. This committee also read the ordinance as not requiring a permit for Mr. Michael's business. The planning department apparently takes the position that under the current city ordinance, Mr. Michael's business requires a home occupation permit and he must promptly apply for one. Mr. Michael has also been told, however, by you and by Jane Kansier, that it is unlikely he would be granted a permit now because his business arguably involves "warehousing" of his vending inventory; and warehousing (not a defined term) is not a permitted activity for a home business under the ordinance as amended in May of 1996. Finally, he has been told that had he applied for (and likely been granted) a home occupation permit under the ordinance as it existed prior to May 1996, his business would have been grandfathered in and therefore not affected by the warehousing prohibition; but the fact he does not have a permit is fatal to the possibility of being exempted from the new ordinance provisions. Mr. Michael believes that, based on his efforts to investigate the permit issue when he started the business, the city cannot now take the position that he should have applied for a permit back in 1990. Moreover, Mr. Michael reports that at a meeting with Ms. Kansier in October of 1996, Jay acknowledged that he had known about Mr. Michael's storage of inventory at the time of the final house inspection in 1993. Mr. Donald R. Rye Page 3 January 13, 1997 Picture if you will the conversation in which he described his business to city staff and was told a permit was not required; is it reasonable to expect him at that point to demand a permit application, in anticipation of an ordinance amendment that could be used several years later to severely disrupt his livelihood? Mr. Michael has made every reasonable effort to conduct his business in a responsible manner and to become aware of and comply with applicable local regulations. He believes that not only was he entitled to rely on city staffs interpretation of the previous ordinance, but that the interpretation was correct. To my understanding, the ordinance prior to May 1996 read: "Any home occupation such as an art studio, dress making, teaching or the professional office of a physician, dentist, lawyer, engineer, architect or accountant, may be permitted..." All these occupations involved services to members of the public who would visit the home, causing a significant traffic increase in residential neighborhoods, and it is reasonable to read the ordinance as being directed only at these types of occupations. Recognizing that the decision appealed from originated in a complaint by a neighbor who has disagreements with Mr. Michael unrelated to the business, and that there are other more visible home occupations in Windsong that to our knowledge operate without permits, we respectfully submit that Mr. Michael's business was a conforming use, without permit, prior to amendment of the home occupation ordinance in May 1996, and that he therefore need not apply for a permit under the present circumstances. Yours truly, James D. Bates JDB:bj cc: Mark Michael February 3, 1997 Mr. Don Rye, Planning Director City of Prior Lake 4629 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Dear Don: Don, my nam~a is Russ Schmidt and my residents is 4095 Eau Clare Circle, in the Windsong area of Prior Lake. The purpose of my letter is to express my viewpoint on the home business conducted by Mark and Sue Michaels, located at 4190 Eau Claire Trail Northeast. My wife Diane and I have no problems with the fact that this business is being run from the resident in our neighborhood. In fact, we hardly notice that a business is being run from this resident, because the occasional delivery truck is seldom seen or heard. Also, this business has been going on for a number of years and has not been a problem until a new resident moved into the neighborhood. This new home-owner from the start seems to have a problem not only with the Michaels, but a number of other people in the neighborhood and the Windsong AssocialJon. For this reason, any protests are more in the natural of a grudge than a real concern for the business activities. Home-based business activities are becoming more common in all areas and are an important part of the nelsons economy and should not be tightly regulated by govenmen~al bodies. If a large number of vehicles or traffic become common to a home-based business it could be a problem that needs attention, but in this situation it is not a problem. We fully support the Michaels and see no reason to place a burden of moving this business out of their home at this time. Most of us in the neighborhood are willing to cooperate with our neighbors and live together in peace. Unfortunately some are not happy unless they can find fault with others. Russ and Diane Schmidt PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 6B 1996 VARIANCE SUMMARY REPORT JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER ,..'. L~ YES X NO-N/A FEBRUARY 10, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this item is to provide the Planning Commission with information regarding 1996's variance activity. It is hoped that this information will give the Commission information which will be useful in evaluating new variance requests, and also in evaluating the possible need for changes in the City's zoning ordinance. During 1996 the Planning Commission reviewed 41 requests for variances (27 applications). This is down from 43 applications and 78 requests in 1995. The nature of the individual requests and their disposition are contained in the attached table. Of the 41 requests heard, 25 (61%) were approved, 8 (24%) were denied, and 6 (15%) were withdrawn. The most common request was for a variance from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). The most common request in 1995 was for sideyard setback variances. The next most common request was for a variance from the front yard setback requirement. VARIANCE REQUEST NUMBER PERCENTAGE OHWL Setback 10 24% Front yard setback 8 20% Side yard setback 6 15% County road setback 6 15% Impervious surface 5 12% Rear yard setback 2 5% Accessory buildings 2 5% Lot size 1 2% Height 1 2% 16200 EagLe Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The nature of the requests for variance is probably very familiar to the Commission, and similar to previous years. Changes in the zoning ordinance have allowed for less variance requests in 1996. Specifically, the provision to allow for one five foot side yard setback, has reduced the number of variance applications. The Planning Commission and staff are in the process of reviewing the zoning ordinance and preparing a draft of a modified zoning ordinance to be completed in the first half of 1997. Changes to the current ordinance are not recommended, as they are being considered in the re-write. Accept the report and direct that it be transmitted to the City Council for information. Accept the report, direct that the report be transmitted to the City Council for information, and direct further study of possible ordinance revisions in response to the report. ACTION REOUIRED: A motion accepting the report, and directing further action revising the if appropriate. II1 I I II II I ti III I II ,,,, ,,,,,,,, :~,~,~,,, :~,,:~,,,, I©l~ Iml- ,~,~o I I I I I~ I~1~ I ell · · · il · · 1996 PUD STATUS REPORT PRIOR LAKE PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 10,1997 Chapter 5-5-11 (D, 7,e) of the Prior Lake City Code requires the Planing Commission to review all Planned Unit Development, (PUD), districts within the City at least once each year. The Planning Commission is directed to submit a report to the City Council on the development status of each PUD District in order to monitor the development progress of each PUD District. In the event that the City Council would find development has not occurred within a reasonable time after the original approval, the City Council may instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district by removing the PUD district from the official Zoning Map. The City of Prior Lake currently has seven PUD districts which are indicated on the attached PUD Inventory Map. Several of the PUD's are completely developed. This report provides a brief history, site data, current development status and a recommendation pertinent to the disposition of each PUD. The seven PUD districts are identified as follows: PUD IN PROGRESS PUD COMPLETED PUD 6-93 Cardinal Ridge PUD 82-12 Prior View PUD 9-93 The Wilds PUD 8-93 Westedge Estates PUD 5-83 Windsong On The Lake PUD 7-76 The Harbor PUD 8-82 and PUD 4-83 Sand Pointe PUD 12-16 Tower Hill Apartment East 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CARDINAL RIDGE PUD PUD 6-93 HISTORY: Cardinal Ridge PUD is located in the northeast quarter of Section 1, Township 114, Range 22. It is a single family PUD surrounded on the north by Prior Lake Senior High and Middle Schools, the east by C. redit River Township, the South by Markley Lake and the west by Brooksville Hills Subdivisions. The parcel consists of about 150 acres of rolling topography that had, up until the PUD, been tilled. The southeast portion of the site contains Markley Lake and forest areas that will likely support higher value homes. Approximately 50% of the site has been dedicated for park, utility and road purposes. The PUD began implementation of a Park and Recreation Department objective to acquire public land around Markley Lake for recreation and trail purposes. Schematic PUD Plan approved by Planning Commission Preliminary Plat approval by Planning Commission Cardinal Ridge Schematic PUD approved by City Council Preliminary Plat approved by City Council: 1 Side yard variances granted for 46 lots as per Exhibit dated 3-15-93. 2 Subdivision tree planting program may allow clustering of front yard trees. Boulevard trees will be planted as per City specifications. Final Plat: Cardinal Ridge First Addn. Final Plat: Cardinal Ridge Second Addn. Final Plat: Cardinal Ridge Third Addn. Final Plat Cardinal Ridge Fourth Addn. May6,1993- Continued May20,1993 May20,1993 June 7, 1993 via Resolution 93-40 June 7, 1993 via Resolution 93-40 October 18, 1993 December 6, 1993 September 5, 1995 May 20, 1996 Total Acres 147 Single Family Lots 223 Public Open Space 53 R-O-W 24 First Addition Second Addition Third Addition Fourth Addition 64 47 39 35 VACANT 8 0 36 21 56 47 3 14 PUD IMPROVEMENTS: · Fish Point road will be built as a parkway with landscaped median, sidewalk and bike trail. · Sidewalk will be installed along the entire length of Crossandra Street. · Public open space was dedicated including waterfront of Markley Lake. Parks will be developed with trail systems connecting the neighborhoods. A natural park adjacent to Markley La~e and active play areas adjacent to Brooksville Hills neighborhood and in the central part of the PUD are planned. DEVELOPMENT STATUS: The PUD has four phases platted (one phase remaining) and building activity is taking place within the project as anticipated. The final phase anticipates the completion offish Point Road to the south perimeter of the property. The 1996 Capital Improvement Program indicates the extension offish Point Road is anticipated for 1998. It is possible the developer will request earlier installation of Fish Point Road in order to complete development of the project. An alternative exists to develop the PUD in more than four phases which would allow for one additional final plat of approximately 40 lots, prior to the completion of Fish Point Road and the final phase of the PUD. Staff will monitor progress with the developer in order to insure the construction ofFish Point Road is done concurrently with the final platting of the project. RECOMMENDATION: The PUD is continuing to develop as approved. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. SIDEWALK TRAIL PARK/OPEN SPACE/UTILITY AREAS/WETLANDS 5' GARAGE SETBACK/15' BETIFEEN HOHES/ HINIiqU~,f ?0' LOT ~IDTH P~D REQU~S: 1. Sidewalk along the entire length of Crossandra Street. 2. Boulevard trees required as per City Tree Planting Handout. Front yard trees may be clustered throughout the project area. 3. Street lights be placed at short intervals on long blocks, at all intersections, entrances to parks and trails. 4. Berm and Screening required 4,5,6, Block 3. 5. Lots with * may be a minimum of 70 feet wide. 6. Lots with * may have one 5' garage side yard setback, provided there is a minimum 15' setback between houses. CARDINAL RIDGE Project Overview Cardinal Ridge is a Planned Unit Development approved by the City of Prior Lake. The site is located directly south of the Prior Lake High School on the east side of the community and directly north of Markley Lake. Cardinal Ridge consists of 223 single family lots on 147 acres. The site plan was developed to accommodate the site's natural features by protecting natural wetlands, steep slopes, existing vegetation stands and Markley Lake. These natural areas are located in outlots which will be dedicated to the City of Prior Lake, who will own and maintain them. Besides preserving and protecting the natural features of this site, these ouflots will also function for stormwater retention and park purposes. The largest outlot, located on the west side of Cardinal Ridge, will be made up of wetlands and stormwater ponding on the north half and an active neighborhood park on the south half. A trail system is planned through a majority of the outlots, eventually leading to Markley Lake. This trail system will be installed by the project developer and funded by the City of Prior Lake. A sidewalk which will connect to the future trail system, will be installed the total length of Crossandra S~eet by the project developer. In addition, a sidewalk and bike trail will be installed on Fish Point Road. -- Although formal plans have not been developed by the City of Prior Lake on the outlots, prospective homebuyers are encouraged to contact the City Parks Department for additional information. Cardinal Ridge CARDINAL RIDQE FIRST ADDITION CARDINAL RIDGE 2ND ADDITION g ILl PRIOR VIEW PUD 82-12 DEVELOPER: Pfiorview Limited Partnership Tom Steffens/Joe Knoblach 3400 West 66th Street, Suite 200 Edina, MN 55435 (6t2) 920-5554 ItlSTORY: Priorview PUD is located in the SW Quarter of Section 2, Township 114, Range 22. It is a mixed use, residential PUD surrounded on the north by Lakeside Estates duplex and single family development, the east by Jo-Anna Stepka Hi-V~ew 3rd Addition single family development, the south by Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church and Five Hawks Elementary. School, and the west by Spring Brook Park Additions, single family development. The parcel consists of about 17.45 acres of land with about 2.40 acres of DN'R designated wetlands and wooded areas on the north part of the property. The majority of the property had been tilled as part of the "Simpkins" farm prior to development of the PUD. SITE DATA: Total Acres 17.45 Multifarmly 106 Priorview PUD 82-12 Density Calculations: 17.45 acres total land 2.6,0 acres designated wetland 15.05 acres of wetland which was used to calculate density. 15.05 x 5.5 = 83 units The PUD received a 27.5% density bonus 83 x 127.5 = 106 total units for PUD 82-12 PUD IMPROVEMENTS: Trail and sidewalk system to be installed according to the PUD Schematic Plan. The site is to be developed with 105 high density residential units. There is to be a north/south street connection from Priorview to Cates Street via Five Hawks Avenue. The units are to incorporate cedar and brick materials on building exteriors and appropriate protective covenants filed with each addition to produce units that are harmonious with each other. The single family development to the east is to be screened from the multi-family PUD. The intent of the PUD is to preserve the environmental aspects of the site such as the wooded areas and wetlands. A 1.75 acre park is planned to provide a neighborhood tot lot on the northeast part of the site as well as natural open space park on the northern portion of the plat. OFFICIAL ACTION - PRIORVIEW REZONING: REZONING - 63 AC. OF C-I TO 35 AC. R-3 (MAXIMUM DENSITY 450 UNITS~: B-1 AND B-3 ADJACENT TO STH 13 (EXHIBIT Planning Commission schedules a Public Hearing to consider Rezoning Petition. May 21, 1981 Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning as per Exhibit C. June 18, 1981 Rezoning Public Hearing before City Council Continued to 7-13-81. June 22, 1981 Continue Rezoning Public Hearing by City Council July 13, 1981 Rezoning to change 45.5 acres to R-3 and 18.4 acres to B-3 Contract Zone approved by City Council. July 20, 1981 OFFICIAL ACTION - PRIORVIEW PUD 82-12 SCHEMATIC PLAN: Public Hearing to consider Schematic PUD consisting of townhome units for 17.45 acre parcel. Aug. 19, 1982 The PUD proposal was submitted for a 17.45 acre parcel to be developed with 120 units of high density residential including 12 and 24 unit buildings. The 1981 Comprehensive Plan indicated a Medium Density Land Use for the site. 4.5 acres were to be developed with 12.9 acres remaining as open space. "The resultant open space (12.9 acres) provides a vital function to the plan and neighborhood; (1) it provides wooded buffers between development areas; (2) maintains some of the existing natural character of the area; (3) provides an excellent environment to future residents; (4) enables preservation of the natural resources; (5) accommodates storm water management planning and, (6) allows for residential development on a difficult site with a planned end product of high quality (Gait & Associates Inc., letter dated August I0, I982)." The overall density proposed was 6.88 units per acre. "The proposal provides a flexible plan of development with efficient and effective land use while preserving and enhancing the desirable site characteristics, namely wetlands, woodlands and slopes (Gait & Associates Inc., letter dated August 10, I982)." Street connection from Five Hawks Avenue to Holly Circle concept abandoned by the developer. The developer submitted a revised street layout plan sheet on August 12, 1982 showing a north/south street connection via Five Hawks Avenue. Five Hawks Avenue was originally a private street that was required to be improved to a public street via this PUD. The proposal indicated 120 dwelling units. The Zoning Ordinance permitted 75 units based upon the 6 unit per acre density standard for Medium Density Residential land use. Floor plans indicated that all units contained two bedrooms and one combined living/dining room and kitchen. Floor area for units would range from 776 - 800 square feet. Exterior elevation drawings indicated limited brick and cedar siding for building exter/ors. Continue Public Hearing for Schematic PUD approval. Sept. 2, I982 Proposed density reduced by developer from 120 to 105 units, which assumed a density bonus of 25%. 12 unit building directly north of the school property was removed leaving 105, two bedroom units. Planting and landscape plan submitted. Planning Commission approval of Schematic PUD plan subject to conditions: Oct. 7, 1982 Developers cooperate and obtain the necessary approvals in order to install a roadway from STH 13 to the northerly edge of the property line. A park dedication fee be established. 5. 6. 7. 8. Specific exterior and landscaping plans reflecting berming as to house screening to the east be developed and incorporated in the final plan. A sidewalk be constructed on the east side of Five Hawks from STH 13 to the north edge of the property. The existing dirt path be improved to wood chip and submitted along with the final plans. The project have a maximum density of 106 units. The Preliminary Engineering Plans be submitted. Preliminary Plat Plan be labeled Exhibit "A". Park dedication required: Land dedication of 1.75 acres, providing a neighborhood tot lot, planned in conjunction with the storm flood easement in the northeast section of the plat. (Memo from Bill Mangan dated October !8, 1982.) City Council hearing on Schematic PUD proposal continued. Oct. 18, 1994 City Council approval of Schematic PUD - Priorview PUD 82-12. Dec. 6,1982 All 8 conditions of the Planning Commission be satisfied. The letter from the School District Board be incorporated into the motion to approve the PUD. OFFICIAL ACTION - PRIORVIEW 1ST ADDITION: Priorview First Addition is the initial development phase of PUD 82-12. The proposal is to subdivide approximately three acres into three lots for development of two, 12 unit townhomes on Lots 1 and 2 and one, 24 unit townhome building on Lot 3 (The PUD 82-12 Schematic Plan indicated two, 24 unit townhomes). Proposed grading would provide adequate fill material to complete Five Hawks Avenue from STH 13 to the north line of the school property. A developers agreement was entered into for the construction of utilities and Five Hawks Avenue from STH 13 to the northern terminus of Priorview First Addition. Shortly after the final plat, Tom Steffens dedicated the entire right-of-way within the PUD to construct Five Hawks Avenue to the northern terminus of the PUD. After the final plat approval, Building Permit 83-261 was issued on 9-19-83 for construction of one, 12 unit building, on Lot 1. Building Permit 83-327 was issued on 11-2%83 for Lot 2, Block 1, Priorview First Addition. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Priorview First Addition approved. July 7, 1983 Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Priorview First Addition approved. July 18,1983 3. 4. 5. The following Engineering requirements are met: a. A temporary short term solution rip/rap drainage ditch constructed until storm sewer is done in Phase II, or as such conforms to the Engineer's requirements. b. The drainage ditch calculations be submitted to staff to determine the storm sewer design need. c. Terminate the road at staffs recommended point just beyond the school entrance. d. Have the watermain exmnded beyond the edge of the pavement to enable hook-up without tearing up the mad. e. Sidewalk will be concrete and not bituminous throughout. f. The drainage for Phase I to remain on site by berming or whatever is necessary. g. A 20 foot utility easement on the eastern edge of Phase I. A revised planting plan be drafted to the satisfaction of the City Consulting Planner. Re-evaluate/re-design parking stalls and garages to the satisfaction of staff. Detailed planting and building material design shall be suitable and acceptable when presentor m staff. Protective covenants be filed with each phase of the development in order to assure that there will be a ways and means for the condo's and the units to be harmonious to one another. Planning Commission approval of Aug. 4, 1983 final plat of Priorview First Addn. City Council approval of final plat of Priorview First Addn. Aug. 8, 1983 Engineering details be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. At the time of building permit application, the site plan must show refuse containers and appropriate screen material. Staff have the flexibility to move 4 stalls to the center of the garage complex. Two from each complex in front of the 24 unit building. A developers agreement be signed an~t meet the requirements of the City Engineer. Priorview will provide a docux~ent or an agreement for providing the public easement with the endorsement of the building committee of the School District #719, prior to the issuance of permits. City Council approval of Developer's Agreement for Priorview First Addn. Sept. 26, 1983 Agreement between the City of Prior Lake and Five Hawks Glen Limited partnership signed and dated November 4, 1983 indicates the City will covenants and agrees as follows: It will waive any right City might have to require the developer to relocate its garages based upon the location of the sewer line. The City will maintain the sewer and water lines running across the developer's property. The City agrees to bear the cost of repair, maintenance, and reconstruction in the event of a failure of either the sewer or water lines. Specifically, any costs of relocation of the sewer line will be the City's sole responsibility. The City is in the process of doing some corrective work on a portion of the sewer line. In the event this necessitates alteration in the asphalt installed by the developer or repairs due to settling of said asphalt, or any other related cost to the developer, the City agrees to make any and all necessary repairs. OFFICIAL ACTION - PRIORVIEW FIRST ADDN. LOT SPLIT: Planning Director approval of administrative land division for Lot 3, Block 1, Priorview First Addn. Nov. 13, 1984 On November 13, 1984, Planning Director, Horst Graser approved an administrative land division application for Lot 3, Block 1, Priorview First Addition. Lot 3, Block 1 was divided into two lots, each to be developed with one, I2 unit townhome. Building permit 84-566 was issued on 9-23-84 to Lot 3, Block I for construction of one, 12 unit building. After approval of the administrative land division, Building Permit 84-616 was issued on I 1-14-84 for construction of a second, 12 unit building. OFFICIAL ACTION - PRIORVIEW SECOND ADDITION: The proposal was to develop the property with a mix of townhome styles including tuck under, full walkout, and split entry walkout. Variations as to the number of bedrooms were to be introduced as market demand dictated. The Priorview PUD 82-12 Schematic Plan indicated 20 townhome units were contemplated for the site. The watermain and appurtenances, utility systems and roadways within adjacent public streets were to be owned ant maintained by the City. The sanitary sewer system, driveways, curbing and other improvements as well as the townhomes and grounds were to be owned and maintained as common property of the townhome association. Appropriate documents were to be filed with the final plat, establishing the homeowners association and its duties. Population was expected to be 2.5 persons per unit for an estimated total population of 50 persons. Priorview Second Addition is referred to as Phase 3a, however, it is the actual second phase of the PUD and the final plat name was changed to Pfiorview Second Addition. The City Council approved the preliminary plat on 4-1-85 subject to nineteen conditions. A developers agreement was entered into by Tom Steffens and the City for the construction of roads and utilities. Priorview Second Addition consists of 20 townhome units constructed within 4 buildings. Building Permit 85-166 was issued on 7-8-85 for construction of one, 4 unit building. The permit was issued to the underlying property legal description. On 8-6-85 building permit 85-198 was issued for the foundation for one, 5 unit building. (Townhome developments were issued permits prior to final plat according to the Subdivision Ordinance in effect at the time). Shortly after the first 9 units were completed, Mn Steffens approached the City Council on 11-12-85 and requested occupancy permits. The City Council denied the occupancy permits until the streets were constructed. The City Council granted occupancy permits prior to approval of the final plat. Building permits 85-294, (5 unit building) and 854295, (6 unit building), were issued on 11-12-85 and expired. The two permits were later reissued on 11-30-87 and 12-4-86. Complicating factors for granting building permits prior to final plat approval were: 3. 4. 5. The City Council ,m-anted occupancy permits based upon street completion, not upon filing of the approved final plat. The Five Hawks Avenue right-of-way was dedicated via easement rather than the platting process. Ali internal roadways were private. The units were to be rented and deeds for individual units were not an issue. Mr. Steffens acknowledged the platting requirements and knew that a final plat was required before continuing to the next phase of the PUD. Perhaps the developer had trouble getting release from the Simpldns, who were the fee owners of the property at that time. Staff has followed the procedure of issuing permits and then platting townhomes numerous times without incident. Perhaps Mr. Steffens was given too much latitude? All the building permits were issued in a four month period but completion of the Iast units did not occur until 1988, three years later. Planning Commission Preliminary Plat approval for Priorview Second Addn: March 21, 1985 City Council Preliminary Plat approval for Priorview Second Addition subject to 19 conditions: Aprill, 1985'' 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. I3. 14. 15. Priorwood Drive be changed to Priorwood Street Two rows of hay bales east and south of Five Hawks Avenue and Prior Wood Drive. All disturbed areas must be sodded as soon as practical. Two additional access walks must be constructed adjacent to units 10 and 20. One diagonal walk from the stairs between units 15 and 16 to the entrance walk for unit 16. The courtyards be defined (concrete vs. plantings) Preserve natural overstory in the southeast corner. Move deciduous trees to open area with 2 1/2 inch diameter caliper minimum. The location of the yew pots should be waived. The foundation plantings must be doubled. The plant material in the courtyards must, at least, be doubled. The contingencies as suggested by the City Engineer: a. Specifications for sewer, water, street improvements. b. The fire hydrant located on Priorwood Street must be moved about 120' to the east. c. Drainage calculations must be submitted for the construction site. d. The storm sewer in Five Hawks Avenue must be located deeper to prevent freezing. Holly Court plat not be included in this plan. A sidewalk between units 4 and 5 adjacent to the curb. A landscape plan be submitted acceptable to staff. Preliminary Plat amendment public hearing for Priorview Second Addition, Planning Commission approval. Aug. 2,1990 Preliminary Plat amendment public hearing for Priorview Second Addition, City Council approval subject to conditions: Aug. 20, 1990 5. 6. 7. 8. The name of the plat be cl~anged to Priorview Second Addn. Conditions of the City Engineer be met as originally formed. The landscape plan or an alternative plan must be submined and approved by staff, if not acceptable by staff, returned to the Planning Commission. Any blacktop must be patched and sealed. Painting of exteriors in a consistent manner. The exterior be up~aded to staff's satisfaction before final plat approval. A financing vehicle for securing completion of the contingencies. Install curbs, if specified in the original preliminary plat contingencies. City Council final plat heating tabled. March I8, I991 City Council final plat approval of Priorview Second Addition. Sept. 3, I991 NOTES: Developer, Tom Steffens requested an amendment to PUD 82-12 to add 1.7 acres of Holly Court property to the PUD and increase the density from 106 to 148 units. The proposal included a petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designation of the site from Medium to Higfi Density Residential land use. The proposal included a petition to amend the Zoning Map to change the designation from R-2, Medium Density. to R-3, High Density Residential. The proposal was to construct rental units with single car garages and one outside parking space. The proposed amendment was heard by the Planning Commission on 2-5-87, 3-5-87 and 3-19-87. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the amendment based upon the following items: " The PUD does not meet the requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance. Units to north in the PUD are too close to the property line, a 15' buffer is needed to retain natural features and to provide separation between the PUD and existing single family homes. The proposal should include plans for a sidewalk along Five Hawks Avenue and a privacy fence between the neighborhood and PUD. Location and size of tot lot should be addressed as per sta~"s recommendation. Single family homes are recommended along north edge of PUD for transition area and owner occupied units should be incorporated as well as rental units. Insufficient Parking spaces for PUD. The applicant did not proceed to the City Council for consideration of the amendment, therefore the proposal is null and void. DEVELOPMENT STATUS: Priorview PUD is developed with 68 multifamily units which consist of approximately 64 percent of the PUD, Priorview 2nd Addition is developed with 20 of the 68 units and just received final plat approval. With the exception of the final plat approval no further building permit activity or platting activity has taken place since 1985. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT: Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. Is currently responsible for the development of this site. On September 3, 1996 the City Counc!l approved an amendment to PUD 82-12 to allow for a 61-unit "assisted living" facility.to be constructed in place of the remaining 38 units to be built, as per the original PUD agreement. This approval (Resolution 96-90) was on a schematic level only, and final PUD plans must be approved prior to building permit application. Staff has been involved in discussions with the new developer and the school district regarding issues on this site. It appears that Eagle Creek Villas Inc. is proceeding with plans to complete the development of the PUD. RECOMMENDATION: No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. SC. ' HOLLY COURT S~' z FIRST ~H ............ '-~---,.... Priorview '~ ~ Prior Lake, MN. "'"' - f-'", i:~ ~i,' .',, THE WILDS PUD 9-93 HISTORY: The Wilds PUD is located in the northwest quadrant of the City, 1/4 mile south of County Road 42, east of County Road 83 and north of County Road 82. The site originally received PUD approval in Septe.mber 1993 for a public "Signature" golf course, 466 dwelling units, two hotels, two .restaurants, a clubhouse, and village shopping center. The subject site contains 580 acres of land with lake frontage on Mystic and Hass Lakes, multiple wetlands, virgin woodlands, and the historic, "Jeffer's Ridge" containing wooded slopes in excess of 70%. The Wilds PUD was approved with an overall Schematic Plan development indicating the location of the various land uses as well as a street system and series of single family detached and attached unit sites. There was no preliminary plat approval for the entire site. Rather, each platted Outlot requires a preliminary and final plat approval for units and street design which are consistent with the approved Schematic Plan. The Wilds PUD has been amended on several occasions and a complete history of official actions and approval dates are attached. The table below indicates the original site data and the changes approved in two major amendments to the Wilds PUD: PUD 9-93 PUD 9-93 Amendment 1 PUD 9-93 Amendment 2 City Council 7-19-93 City Council 1-19-95 City Council 5-15-95 Resolution 93-54 & 93-83 Resolution 95-06 Resolution 95-32 Total Project Area: 580.4 Acres. No Change No Change Max. # Dwelling Units: 466 426 656 Total Project Density: .80 .78 DU/Acre 1.13 DU/Acre DU/Acre S/F Detached: 289 298 271 · 1/3 Ac. Homesites: 16I 161 135 · 1/2 Ac. Homesites: 100 100 99 · Estate Homesites: 28 28 28 · Single Family Attached Detached Villas: 9 9 Total: 177 Single Family Attached Total: 178 · Villas 4.2-7.5 DU/Acre 126 Villas: 126 Villas: 126 Condo: 57 Commercial: · Hotel/Clubhouse: 16.7 Ac. No change Clubhouse: 10.7 Acres · Hotel: 11.8 Ac. Restaurant: 2 Acres · Restaurant: 3.2 Ac. Rental Cabins: 11.8 Acres · Restaurant: I Ac. Hotel: 8.3 Acres · Village Shopping: 4 Ac. · Convenience Store: I Ac. Other: No Change No Change Public Park: 16.7 Ac. Golf Course/Open Space: 306 Ac. The Wilds 2nd Addition June 3, 1996 ; Final plat approved. Addendum #1 to The October 6, 1996 Infrastructure can be installed on Wilds 2nd Addition Outlot E (allows for the contract construction of Wilds Parkway to CR 82) Wilds Clubhouse Addition Oc~tober 25, 1996 Final plat and clubhouse site plan approved The Wilds Third Addition Spring 1997 Final plat approval in progress. DEVELOPMENT STATUS: The Wilds PUD has been slow to develop due to market conditions, the large size of the project, remote location, and inexperience of the original developer, Richard Burtness, Prior Lake Development LP. The project was designed for larger, exclusive housing which has not sold well thus far. The project design, including land uses, street system, utilities and housing mix were a secondary consideration. The prime objective was development of a signature golf course, designed by Tom Weiskopf. The golf course was graded and improved prior to platting the rest of the development. This caused major difficulties associated with development of the infrastructure needed to serve the site. For instance, the sewer line located north of County Road 83 was required to be located much deeper than initially thought, in order to provide adequate sewer service without the need for several lift stations. A booster station was required to be installed on site in order to provide adequate water supply and pressure to the entire 580 acre parcel. In addition, topography information was found to be off by over 20' if~ parts of the property which caused problems related to platting and grading of the site. Because the golf course was established, any grading or service issues which arose, had to be accorrmaodated within the confines of the outlets located outside of the course. A substantial amount of fill was required to grade the outlets in a manner which matched the grades of the golf course. All of the combined factors complicated the review process and subdivision design features of the PUD. The factors caused tremendous time delay, frustration, relocation and sometimes replacement of infrastructure which all have contributed to the slow development of the PUD. As of March 1996, the original developer, Richard Burmess is no longer associated with the PUD. The project has been sold to Shamrock Development. It is likely more units will be constructed and sold during the next two years. It is also likely that future amendments to the PUD will be requested in order to respond to market conditions as well as the development of the northwest quadrant of the City. RECOMMENDATION: The PUD is continuing to develop. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. WILDO1 Amended 11-3-95 'Crr¥ OF PRIOR LAKE O~'~'ICIAL ACTIONS: THE W~.DS PUD PUD 9-93 PAGE 1 PAGE 2 PAGE 3 PAGE 4 PAGE 5 PAGE 6 A. PUD Plan B. Preliminary Plat C. Final Plat D. PUD Amendment Rear Yard Setbacks E. Sterling North and South and Outlot L PUD Amendment - Maintenance Building; Phase 2 and 3 Lot/Street reconfiguration; 57 Unit Condominium; 60 Rental Cabins; 11.8 acres Hotel. A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments B. Rezonings A. Preserve at the Wilds B. Sterling North C. Sterling South D. The Villas at the Wilds 1st Addition A. Variances B. Vacations PAGE 7 A. Miscellaneous B. City Council Motions A. PUD PLAN: SCHEMATIC & PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN: RESOLUTION 93-06PC July 1, 1993 Planning Commission approved (rescinded on September 2, 1993, and replaced with Resolution 93-12PC). RESOLUTION 93-54 July 19, 1993 City Council approved (rescinded on September 20, 1993, and replaced with Resolution 93-83). · RESOLUTION 93-12PC September 2, 1993 Planning Commission approved (replaced Resolution 93-06PC). · RESOLUTION 93-83 September 20, 1993 City Council approved (replaced Resolution 93-54). · RESOLUTION 93-95 City Counci! approved. October 22, 1993 B. p]~.I~.i,rMINARY PLAI~. · RESOLUTION 93-07PC July 1, 1993 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval. · RESOLUTION 93-55 July 19, 1993 City Council approved. RESOLUTION 93-96 October 22, 1993 .... City Council approved the Final Plat and set forth conditions to be met prior to its release. D. PUD AMENDMENT FOR REAR YARD SETBACKS: · RESOLUTION 94-01PC January 6, 1994 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval. · RESOLUTION 94-06 January 18, 1994 City Council approved. E. PUD AMENDMENT FOR STERLING NORTH AND SOUTH AND OUTLOT L: · RESOLUTION 95-01PC January 5, 1995 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval. · RESOLUTION 95-06 January 17, 1995 City Council approved. -1- F. PUD AMENDMENT FOR CONDOMINIIYMS; HOTEL; PHASE 2 & 3 RECONFIGUREATION P.C. MOTION April 24, 1995 RESOLUTION 95-32 May 15, 1995 City Council approved the following amendments: Permit 6' tall fence around perimeter of L1, B7, The Wilds, for security around maintenance facility. Exhibit A, Site Plan. Street and lot configuration amended for Phase 2 (Outlots S,V, & X, Oak Tree Drive Narrative),and Phase 3., (Outlots U and P/O X). Schematic PUD Plan Map/Amendment 2 Land Use: a. Outlot O, The Wilds - 11 acre Hotel, I acre Restaurant and i acre Convenience Store changed to 11.8 acres of Rental Cabins and 2 acres Restaurant. b. Outlot H, The Wilds - 16.7 acre Hotel/Clubhouse site changed to 10.7 acre Clubhouse and 6.0 acres, (57 unit) Condominiums. c. Outlot J, The Wilds, 4.0 acres of Village Shopping and Outlot I, The Wilds, 6.3 acres of Nursery changed to 2.0 acres Private Open Space and 8.3 acres Hotel. -2- A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AM~$: RESOLUTION 93-01PC April 15, 1993 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to approve an adjustment to the Prior Lake 2000 Urban Service Area. RESOLUTION 93-26 May 3, 1993 City Council approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guide Plan to modify the year 2000 Metropolitian Urban Service Area, subject to review by the Metropolitian Council. RESOLUTION 93-81 September 20, 1993 City Council confirmed their approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guide Plan to modify the year 2000 Metropolitian Urban Service Area to allow development of The Wilds Golf Club and Residential PUD. A-1 AGRICULTURAL AND C-1 CONSERVATION TO R-1 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND B-~ GENERAL BUSINESS Rezoning of 556.4 acres from A-1 Agricultural and C-1 Conservation to R-1 Suburban Residential; approximately 16 acres of C-1 Conservation District to B-3 General Business District; and approximately 17 acres of A-1 Agricultural to B-3 General Business. RESOLUTION 93-06PC July 1, 1993 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to adopt Ordinance 93-19. Resolution 93-06PC was rescinded and replaced with Resolution 93-12PC. RESOLUTION 93-54 July 19, 1993 City Council approved (rescinded on September 20, 1993, and replaced with Resolution 93-83). ORDINANCE 93-19 July 19, 1993 City Council approved, subject to reviewing the item on the consent agenda al~er the Metropolitian Council has approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (which will extend the Metropolitian Urban Service Area to the site) and that amendment has been published. Resolution 93-55 was rescinded and replaced with Resolution 93-83. · RESOLUTION 93-12PC September 2, 1993 Planning Commission approved (replaced Resolution 93-06PC). · RESOLUTION 93-83 September 20, 1993 City Council approved (replaced Resolution 93-54). R-1 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND B-3 GENERAL BUSINESS TO PUD RESOLUTION 93-12PC September 2, 1993 Planning Commission rescinded Resolution 93-06PC and replaced it with Resolution 93-12PC. This resolution consolidated the B-3 General Business District under one PUD. RESOLUTION 93-83 September 20, 1993 City Council rescinded Resolution 93-55 and replaced it with Resolution 93-83. This resolution approved the consolidation of The Wilds residential and commercial uses under one PUD. -3- A. THE PRESERVE AT THE W~.DS: RESOLUTION 95-01PC January 5, 1995 Planning Commission recommended land use for Outlot L be changed from Attached Villa Units to 9, Detached Villa Units with the street to be improved to public standards and location subject to approval of the City Engineer. RESOLUTION 95-06 January 17, 1995 City Council approved change in land use for Outlot L from Attached Villa Units to 9, Detached Villa Units with the street to be improved to public standards and location subject to approval of the City Engineer. RESOLUTION 95-07PC May 22, 1995 Planning Commission ~ecommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat of Preserve at the Wilds. RESOLUTION 95-47 June 5, 1995 City Council approved the preliminary plat of Preserve at the Wilds subject to 5 conditions. · RESOLUTION 95-48 June 5, 1995 City Council approved the final plat of Preserve at the Wilds subject to 16 conditions. B. STERLING NORTH AT THE WII,DS: · CITY COUNCIL MOTION May 2, 1994 Approved consolidation of the Preliminary and Final Plat. RESOLUTION 94-13PC May 5, 1994 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat. RESOLUTION 94-25 May 16, 1994 City Council approved the Preliminary Plat and set forth conditions to be met prior to the release of the Final Plat CITY COUNCIL MOTION May 16, 1994 -- Approved the developers agreement between the City Prior Lake and Sterling North to include the amendment by the City Engineer. RESOLUTION 95-01PC January 5, 1995 Planning Commission recommended approval of revised setback standards for Villa units within the subdivision. · RESOLUTION 95-06 January 17, 1995 City Council approved revised setback standards for Villa units within the subdivision. C. STERLING SOUTH AT THE WILDS: · CITY COUNCIL MOTION June 20, 1994 Approved consolidation of the Preliminary and Final Plat. RESOLUTION 94-05PC July 21, 1994 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat and Variances. A 100' cul-de-sac length variance from the 500' maximum cul-de-sac length requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. A 1,520' cul-de-sac length variance from the 500' maximum cul-de-sac length requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. RESOLUTION 94-51 August 1, 1994 City Council approved the Preliminary Plat. RESOLUTION 94-54 August 15, 1994 City Council approved the Final Plat and set forth conditions to be met prior to its RESOLUTION 95-01PC January 5, 1995 Planning Commission recommended approval of changing setback standards within the subdivision. RESOLUTION 95-06. January 17, 1995 City Council approved revised setback standards for villa units within the subdivision as per exhibits. D. THE VTr,~',,~S AT THE WILDS 1ST ADDITION: · CITY COUNCIL MOTION July 5, 1994 Approved consolidation of the Preliminary and Final Plat. RESOLUTION 94-06PC July 21, 1994 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat. · RESOLUTION 94-49 August 1, 1994 City Council approved the Preliminary Plat. RESOLUTION 94-50 August 1, 1994 City Council approved the Final Plat and set forth conditions to be met prior to its release. -5- A. VARIANCES: VARIANCE July 1, 1993 Planning Commission approved a 30' height variance for the B-3 Zone located in the center of the development for the Radisson Hotel and Clubhouse Facility. VA93-27 December 16, 1993 Planning Commission approved the following for Lot 2, Block 5, The Wilds: Unit 1D - 7'2" rear yard setback variance from the 20' rear yard setback requirement. Unit 2D - 10'8" rear yard setback variance from the 20' rear yard setback requirement. RESOLUTION 94-05PC July 21, 1994 Planning Commission approved the following variances for Sterling South at The Wilds: A 100' cul-de-sac length variance from the 500' maximum cul-de-sac length requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. A 1,520' cul-de-sac length variance from the 500' maximum cul-de-sac length requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. VA94-29 August 18, 1994 Planning Commission approved a 2.5' side yard setback variances from the 7.5' side yard setback requirement for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, of Sterling North at The Wilds. VA95-04 February 27, 1995 Planning Commission approved a variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 4.10 to permit a temporary clubhouse building to be moved into the City limits of Prior lake on Parcel A, Outlot H, The Wilds. VA95-13 May 22, 1995 Planning Commission approved a 12' lot depth variance to allow proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Preserve at the Wilds to be 88' instead of 100' deep. RESOLUTION 95-47 June 5, 1995 City Council approved Resolution 95-47 which included approval of th~ !2~ lot depth variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Preserve at the Wilds. RESOLUTION 94-48 August 1, 1994 City Council approved the vacation of the drainage and utility easements located within Lots 1 through 5, Block 5, The Wilds. RESOLUTION 95-29 June 5, 1995 City Council approved vacation of part of Wilds Lane within the Plat of The Wilds. (VC95-03) RESOLUTION 95-30 June 5, 1995 City Council approved vacation of drainage and utility easement along south line of Outlot L, The Wilds. (VC95-02) -6- A. C J.L OUS' ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PREPABATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (E.I.S.) (for the golf course) CITY COUNCIL MOTION September 30, 1992 Adoption of the findings and fact and negative declaration regarding the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (E.I.S.) on the Wilds Environmental Assessment Worksheet (E.A.W.). RESOLUTION 92-34 October 19, 1992 Approval of the memorandum of understanding between the Metropolitian Council and the City of Prior Lake.. CITY COUNCIL MOTION September 7, 1993 Approval of amendment to the memorandum of understanding between the City of Prior Lake and the Metropolitian Council. ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PREPARATION OF A~N ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (E.I.S.) FOR THE WILDS GOLF CLUB AND RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT · RESOLUTION 93-82 September 20, 1993 City Council approved based upon the Environment Assessment Worksheet. B. CITY COUNCIL MOTIONS: · CITY COUNCIL MOTION October 5, 1992 Approval of legal services and escrow agreement for Wilds Project. CITY COUNCIL MOTION January 4, 1993 Approval of Lee Andren and John Fitzgerald to serve on the Wilds subcommittee which will meet with staff weekly to discuss the Wilds project. CITY COUNCIL MOTION June 7, 1993 Authorized an expenditure, not to exceed $9,500.00 for additional fees associated with Wilds special counsel fees, recognizing that the developer will be responsible for an additional $9,500.00 for a maximum total cost not to exceed $60,000.00. · CITY COUNCIL MOTION July 6, 1993 Considered authorization of engineering review fees for The Wilds development. CITY COUNCIL MOTION August 16, 1993 Authorized Maier Stewart and Associates, Inc. to prepare plans and specifications for a water booster station for The Wilds Development with reimbursement of design costs not to exceed $41,694.00 from Prior Lake Development with construction costs of the booster station being incorporated into the developer's agreement. CITY COUNCIL MOTION August 15, 1994 Approved amendments to developers agreement between the City of Prior Lake and Prior Lake Development L.P. and authorized the Mayor and City Manager to sign the amendment to the developers agreement. · reflect assessment for the golf course, · compilated financial statements, · asset to liability ratio will be 3 to 1, · the City can request judgment in the event the developer's net worth falls below three million dollars, · the developer agree to waive his assessment rights with respect to the $500,000.00 street improvement obligation). -7- CITY COUNCIL MOTION May 15, 1995 City Council approved request by Prior Lake Development L.P. to consolidate the preliminary and final plat of Preserve at the Wilds. -8- MYSTIC LAKE HASS LAKE JEFFERS POND SMDC ' -- J WESTEDGE ESTATES PUD 8-93 HISTORY: Westedge Estates PUD is located in the southwest quadrant of the City, north of 170th Street, (County Road 12), and east of the Willows Sixth Addition neighborhood. The PUD consists of twenty-four mlits, to be located in six, four unit townhomes. The subject site consists o£ 4.8 acres of land surrounded by single family residential units to the north, east, and west; and B-I, Limited Business property to the south, which is currently developed with a car wash and cabinet shop. No park land dedication was required in the PUD however, a sidewalk and trail to link the development to the future County Road 12 regional trail system and the trail through Westbury Ponds, was required. The remaining park dedication required was cash in lieu of a land dedication. The road and driveways are private. The PUD is subject to the Landscape requirements in the Zoning Ordinance however, the City Council waived the requirement for installation of an irrigation system. OFFICIAL ACTION Schematic PUD Plan approved by Planning Commission Preliminary Plat approval by Planning Commission West Edge Estates Schematic PUD approved by City Council West Edge Estates Preliminary Plat approved by City Council Preliminary Plat approved by City Council: 1 Private street approved with PUD. 2 No irrigation system required. Final Plat: First Addition to West Edge Estates. Final PUD First Addition to West Edge Estates. City Council approval of Rezoning site from R-3, Multiple Family Residential to PUD. Final Plat: Second Addition to West Edge Estates. VA T August 5, 1993 via Resolutions 93-10PC August 5, 1993 via Resolution 93-11 PC August 16, 1993 via Resolution 93-68 August 16, 1993 via Resolution 93-69 November 1, 1993 via Resolution 93-85 November 15, 1993 via Resolution 93-102 October 18, 1993 via Ordinance 93-26 May 6, 1996 via Ordinance 96-44. Total Acres 4.8 Townhome Lots 24 ~ VACANT ~ First Addition 12. 0 12 Second Addition 12 0 12 PUD IMPROVEMENTS: · Sidewalk required to be installed along entire length of Simpkins Drive and a connection from Simpkins drive to the south edge of the plat. DEVELOPMENT STATUS: The PUD has both of the two phases platted and building activity is taking place within the project as anticipated. The final phase, (Second Addition to West Edge Estates) is nearing completion of construction, (consisting of three, four unit townhomes). RECOMMENDATION: The PUD is continuing to develop as approved. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. WEST EDGE ESTATES PUD 8-93 S $ -~14-22 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE PUD 5-83 The site, located in the center of the City, east of CR 21, originally received preliminary plat approval in 1979 for forty-eight single family lots to be known as Prior Highlands. The developer, Visions VIII did ngt pursue final plat approval. The site was purchased by Sunny enterprises in 1983 and platted as a PUD with large, single family lots and a private equestrian club. In 1986, H & H Land Development requested an amendment to the PUD to add two lots and boat slips and to change the equestrian concept to lakeshore recreation and golf greens. In 1988, the PUD was again amended to convert the area reserved for golf greens to twelve, residential lots. The existing PUD is planned for thirty-eight single family lots with a variety of recreational amenities including: tennis court, hiking trail, horse shoe court, volley ball court, picnic shelter, boat access, sand beach and seasonal docks for 20 boat slips. OFFICIAL ACTION Windsong on the Lake Windsong PUD Amendment Windsong on the Lake Second Addition APPROVAL DATE Preliminary Plat - June 13, 1983 Final Plat - March 12, 1984 Preliminary Plat - April 4, 1988 Final Plat Extension April 4, 1990 Preliminary Plat - 2-21-95 via RS95-14 Final Plat - 6-19-95 via RS95-50 SITE DATA Total Acres 33.36 Single Family Lots 38 DEVELOPMENT STATUS: Windsong PUD has been slow to develop primarily due to market interest for larger, more exclusive housing in Prior Lake. Approximately 12 lots or 35% of the PUD are vacant. The PUD has developed in a slow but consistent manner and is an example of quality development which is consistent with existing ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. Outlot A, Windsong Second Addition will be final platted upon completion of the County Road 21 improvement located adjacent to the development. The property cannot be developed until that time due to the projected change in topography and the section of Lord's Street located north of the PUD. County Road 21 will have to be graded and improved prior to the final plat of the last 5 lots within the PUD in order to adequately match property grades and street sections with the future improvements to Lord's Street and County Road 21. RECOMMENDATION: No change in PUD zoning or status is reconnnended. THE HARBOR PUD 7-76 HISTORY The Harbor PUD is located in the.northeast quadrant of the City in Section 30. The PUD has been developed in eight phases incorporating eleven single family and forty-four townhome units with recreational amenities such as a sand beach, tennis court, swimming pool, boat slips and lake access. IA The Harbor The Harbor 2nd Addn. The Harbor 3rd Addn. The Harbor 4th Addn. The Harbor 5th Addn. The Harbor 6th Addn. The Harbor 7th Addn. The Harbor Beach Addn. VA Preliminary Plat - July 7, 1977 Final Plat - July 25, 1977 Final Plat - June 2, 1980 Final Plat - August 9, 1982 Final Plat - February 4, 1985 Final Plat - September 23, 1985 Final Plat - June I, 1987 Final Plat - April 6, 1987 Final Plat - May 2, 1988 SITE DATA: Total Acres 15.72 Single Family Lots 11 Townhome Lots 44 DEVELOPMENT STATUS: The Harbor PUD is fully developed with the exception of three town_home units in The Harbor 7th Addition. RECOMMENDATION: Development has occurred at an acceptable rate with over 95% of the PUD developed as planned. No change in PUD Zoning or status is recommended. THE HARBOR PUD ?-76 ~0~0 I'HE ? HAR80~ WES' -I ol 4 SAND POINTE PUD PUD 8-82 AND PUD 4-83 HISTORY: Sand Pointe PUD is located in the northeast quadrant of the City, south of County Road 42. The PUD has been developqd in five phases incorporating single family lots with recreational park land~ The original PUD was proposed in 1975 and incorporated 1,044 housing units with commercial and institutional land uses. The PUD was modified in 1978 to include a mixture of single and multifamily units. In 1982, the PUD was modified to delete the multifamily housing concept in order to utilize the PUD for single family homes. In the early 1980's several amendments were approved for the PUD which ultimately changed its original mixed use plan to a single family residential subdivision. Sand Pointe Concept Plan Sand Pointe 2nd Addn. Sand Pointe 3rd Addn. Sand Pointe 4th Addn. Sand Pointe 5th Addn. Preliminary Plat - July 6, 1978 Final Plat - April 2, 1979 Final Plat - July 22, 1982 Final Plat - April 25, 1983 Final Plat - June 20, 1983 Final Plat - September 23, 1985 Total Acres: 110.4 Single Family Lots: 294 DEVELOPMENT STATUS: Sand Pointe PUD is 100% developed with single family homes. A public neighborhood park and City park and beach are developed and fully operational. RECOMMENDATION: The PUD is fully developed. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. SAND POINTE PUD 4-83 & PUD 8-82 SANIO [ ROINTE ! POINTE TOWER HILL APARTMENT EAST PUD 12-16 Tower Hill Apartment East PUD is located in the southeastem quadrant of the City. The PUD was developed in one phase and consists of a 68 unit, three story apartment building with several amenities including.'- swimming pool, sauna, whirlpool, fountain, gazebo, underground, heated garage and washers and dryers in each unit. Schematic PUD Plan Preliminary Plat Final Plat December 16, 1985 January 27, 1986 September 15, 1986 Total Acres 3.55 # Multifamily Units 68 DI~VELOPMENT STATUS: The Tower Hill Apartment East PUD is fully developed as approved. P,f.~COMMENDATION: Development of the PUD has occurred as proposed. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. TOWER HILL APARTMENT EAST, PUD 12-1~= ,e & ~ 12-16