HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-11-97REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1997
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
A. Case #97-061, #97-062 and#97-063 Consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Preliminary PUD Plan and the Preliminary Plat for the Eagle Creek Assisted Living
facility located on the comer of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #97-066 (Continued) Conditional Use Request for C. H. Carpenter, 16450 Anna
Trail SE.
B. Case #97-053 (Continued) Brian Mattson request a side yard setback and impervious
surface variances for the property at 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle.
C. Zoning Ordinance Discussion.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. EDA meeting August 18, I997.
8. Adjournment:
AG081197 DOC PAGE l
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. {612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 28, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The July 28, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier,
Planner Jermi Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Presem
Stamson Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
Cramer Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE THE JUNE 23,
1997 MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Criego, Cramer and Stamson. MOTION
CARRIED.
Cormmissioner Vonhof abstained.
4. Public Hearings:
A. CASE #97-065 CONSIDER A SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR ALVIN
MONNENS, 16697 CREEKSIDE CIRCLE.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staffreport. The applicant is proposing to construct a
480 square foot attached garage in the side yard utilizing an existing bituminous driveway
located along the south side of the principle structure. There is no existing garage on the
property. The proposed garage will be located 5 feet from the property line. The City
Code requires a minimum structure setback of 10 feet from the side yard property line
(Section 5-4-1). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 5 foot variance to the side yard
setback to allow a 5 foot garage setback rather than the required setback of ! 0 feet.
The property is zoned R-1. The house was constructed in 1963 without a garage. This
lot is 22,095 sq. feet and 100 feet wide at the street. Therefore, this lot is not a
substandard lot. The existing house is setback approximately 42 feet from the front
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMM?CMIN~MN072897.DOC !
property line, 25 feet from the side property line to the south, and approximately 29 feet
from the side property line to the north. No previous variances have been granted.
Generally, the city maintains a 5 foot drainage and utility easement on side property lines.
However, the plat shows a 6 foot dedication. The city does not permit structures to be
located within drainage and utility easements. The issue of drainage onto the adjacent
property is not a major concern, as easements exist.
The variance to side yard setback could be eliminated if the garage was located behind
the existing structure or to the north. The legal building envelope is approximately 80'
by 170' or 13,640 square feet. Staff concluded there are other legal alternatives and no
undue hardship as a reasonable use of the property exists.
Comments from the public:
Alvin Monnens, 16697 Creekside Circle, felt the proposed location was the only
alternative to place his garage. If he put the garage on the other side, he would also have
to ask for variances. The bedrooms and air conditioner unit are also located on side of his
home as ~vell. Mr. Mounens read a newspaper article dated September 25, 1993, quoting
the City Council "A two car garage is a must in Minnesota."
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof.'
· Does not feel the 4 hardship criteria have been met.
· Agreed with applicant a garage is needed but there are other legal alternatives.
Kuykendail:
· Agreed with staff. There are other alternatives.
· A garage can be placed in other locations.
Criego:
· Questioned the grade to the shed. Mr. Monnens thought it was approximately 80
inches.
· The house is on a slope.
· The alternative would be a detached garage.
· Tovar explained a detached garage would fit the building envelope.
Cramer:
· It is reasonable to have a garage in the State of Minnesota.
· Agreed with staff's recommendations.
Commissioner Kuykendall explained the utility easement.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~072897.DOC 2
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
97-16PC DENYING A 5 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 5 FOOT SIDE
YARD SETBACK RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 10 FEET
FOR A PROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16697
CREEKSIDE CIRCLE FOR ALVIN MONNENS.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. CASE #97-066 CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR C. H.
CARPENTER, 16450 ANNA TRAIL SE.
Commissioner Stamson opened the public hearing.
The City received an application for a conditional use permit from C.H. Carpenter
Lumber on July 3, 1997. The applicant proposes to construct two pole type buildings in a
phasing plan. The applicant is proceeding with a tree inventory/landscape plan, but is in
need of more time. Considering notices of public hearing were sent and published, the
Planning Commission must continue the hearing to August 11, 1997.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO
AUGUST 11, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. CASE #97-050 (CONTINUED) BRYAN AND PHILIP HINES
REQUEST SETBACK VARIANCE FROM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL,
FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD.
Planner Jermi Tovar presented the staff report. On June 23, 1997 the Planning
Commission heard a variance request from Bryan and Philip Hines who are proposing to
remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a porch and a separate
greenhouse. The applicants had originally requested a variance to allow an expanded
deck with porch to be setback 30 feet from the Ordinary High Water and a proposed
greenhouse to be setback approximately 37.5 feet fxom the Ordinary High Water.
Based on the hardship criteria used for evaluating variances, the Planning Commission
was prepared to deny the variances as requested. Upon request of the applicant, the
Planning Commission continued the discussion to July 28, 1997. This was to allow the
applicant time to modify the proposed additions to reduce/eliminate the variance request.
The revised proposed deck does not extend any closer to the OHW than the existing deck.
However, it extends 8 feet farther to the west. This is to allow access around the
proposed porch. The proposed larger deck and porch have been located at the same
L:\97FILE S\97PLCOMIvI~PCMINLMN072897 .DOC 3
Ordinary High Water setback of the existing principle structure of 47 feet. The
greenhouse which was originally proposed has been eliminated.
Staffconcluded there are legal alternatives for construction of the proposed additions. A
relocation of the additions to within the legal building envelope and/or replacing the
existing deck of the same size and location are viable alternatives to the granting ora
variance.
Comments from the public:
Phil Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road, explained his change of request to extend the roof of
his house as well as reducing the deck setback. By placing the deck on the west side of
the house, it would line up with the existing boathouse.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· Does not support the additional 8 feet. Replace the existing deck.
· Sees other alternatives. There are no hardships.
Criego:
· Ordinance states applicant can repair existing deck.
· Applicant is not encroaching toward the lake.
· Accepted proposal.
· Questioned the building envelope.
· The Commissioners are concerned when someone goes out of the building envelope.
· Stated he was not present for the previous meeting.
· The applicants tried to make a significant changes but there are other alternatives
which would satisfy the setback requirements.
Vonhof:
· Question for staff on the roof line of the house as proposed by the applicant.
· The house was built in Spring Lake Township.
· The ordinance had just recently been changed to 50 feet.
· Applicant should replace the deck, but there are no extraordinary hardships..
· Recognizes there have been significant changes in the proposal but still go a little bit
further and modify. There are other alternatives.
· Does not oppose to replacing existing deck.
Stamson:
· Strongly agreed with Vonho£.
· Recognizes the substantial changes. It is too close to the lake.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CMIN\MN072897.DOC 4
· Hardship has not been made.
Mr. Hines said he asked for a continuance under the impression the Commissioners
would accept staying within the extension of the house line.
Commissioner Stamson explained the hardship criteria in the ordinance. The Commission
does not find any hardship.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
97-14PC DENYING AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 39 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE ORDiNARY HIGH WATER MARK OF SPRING LAKE
RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 50 FEET FOR A PROPOSED
PORCH AND EXPANDED DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING
LAKE ROAD FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES.
Discussion: Criego felt applicant would not be encroaching closer to the lake. Vonhof
explained the applicant has made a choice. There are substantial alternatives with the
large building envelope.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Stamson explained the appeal process.
B. CASE #97-066 (CONTINUED) VARIANCES REQUESTED FOR
SIDE YARD SETBACK AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR BRIAN MATTSON
FOR THE PROPERTY AT 16575 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE.
The hearing was open to the public.
On June 23, 1997 the Planning Commission heard a variance request fxom Brian Mattson
who is proposing to construct a detached garage with driveway. The applicant had
originally requested a variance to allow impervious surface coverage on the lot to be 54%
and the driveway to be setback 1 foot from the property line.
Based on the hardship criteria used for evaluating variances, the Planning Commission
was prepared to deny the variances as requested. Upon request of the applicant, the
Plarming Commission continued the discussion to July 28, 1997. This was to allow the
applicant time to modify the proposed additions to reduce(eliminate the variance request.
The Planning Department has received a written request from the applicant requesting an
extension until August 1 I, 1997. The applicant has significantly reduced the impervious
surface on the site and is awaiting completion of final survey.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO
THE AUGUST 11, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMM?CMIN~MN072897.DOC 5
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business: None
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Review of Recreational Vehicle Requirements.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier reviewed the special zoning meeting discussion on
parking recreational vehicles in residential areas.
The Commissioners discussed enforcement and complaints. Rye explained some of the
enforcement problems and budgeting for a zoning administrator. Fines and permits were
discussed. Parking dates should be determined for easier enforcement. Possible dates
could be May 1 to November 1 for summer storage, November I to April 1 for winter
storage. Change "vehicles" to "recreational equipment".
Commissioners briefly discussed the junk vehicle ordinance and current licensed and
operational vehicles. Discussed dropping the screening requirement. The biggest
concern is someone storing boats, tractors and fish houses in their front yard, boats
parked in the right-of-way, impervious surface, etc. Consider community standards and
values. Regulation should be consistent across the city. The title should be changed to
"Trailers and Recreational Vehicles".
Kansier said she would take the comments and bring back a revision.
B. Continue discussions on community image.
Why do people move to Prior Lake?
It is a friendly small town with small town values. The remodeling and image should
take on a "small town" look. A place to raise a family. Prior Lake is a safe, stable, proud
and caring community. The neighborhoods are all ages, unique and diverse. The
neighborhoods, down town and Lakefront Park should be tied in. A phrase is needed to
pull it all together, like "Home Town". Focus on small. Commissioners related similar
feelings and experiences of small towns.
Pick up on "Minnesota Nice". Use words to describe like "metro", "core", "the heart",
"Strong neighborhoods", "strong community feeling". Suggest community involvement,
a contest, to come up with an identity statement. The Commissioners are going to come
up with ten words or phrase (a sample) and go out and poll the community. A document
should be presented to the Park Director to guide the library architects in presenting a
theme for our city. Something along the lines of "We want to develop a community core
that reflects the intimacy and diversity of our community, preserving family values, etc."
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCM1N\MN072897.DOC
6
Or "We want a down town that creates a focal point which represents the traditional
family values of the community." Prior Lake with small town values.
Develop community standards that will support the City's image. Establish a focal point
for the community. "We want Prior Lake to do "The document should
state in the beginning paragraph the objective, describe the community and provide
direction for the development of standards to support the image stated. Establish a focal
point for the community where people can get together.
C. The commissioners briefly discussed the DNR's position on floor ratio in the
shoreland district. The commission should meet and further discuss the Shoreland
District Ordinance.
D. The lighting issue for private homes and lake association structures should be
addressed. There would have to be a balance between security and appropriate lighting.
The design is the key.
One representative from the Planning Commissioners and the EDA should be on the
election committee for the library design. The Commissioners would like to support and
help in the planning. The committee is working on the Request for Qualifications (RFQ).
Commissioner Vonhof suggested taking a trip to Chanhassen and viewing the renovated
down town area.
The zoning meeting is set for Thursday, August 7, at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room B.
Boat trip lined up for August 12, at 6:00 at the Wagon Bridge Marina.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CMIN~MN072897.DOC 7
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE PRELIMINARY
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS EAGLE
CREEK ESTATES FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING
PROJECT IN THE PRIORVIEW PUD
FIVE HAWKS AVENUE AND PRIORWOOD STREET
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
AUGUST 11, 1997
D T :
Eagle Creek Villas LLC has applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a
Preliminary PUD Plan and a Preliminary Plat for the property located just north of the
intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street. The City Council approved
the Schematic Plan for an amendment to the Priorview PUD to add approximately one
acre of land (Lots 2,3 and 4, Holly Court) to the original PUD site, to allow the
construction of a 61 trait assisted living building and a 28 unit market rate senior rental
building on the vacant portion of the site on June 2, 1997, through Resolution 97-48.
These applications are the next step in the approval process for this project.
The original PUD was approved in 1983 and the development to date has occurred prior
to 1991. The Priorview PUD was preceded by Council action in 1981 which rezoned the
subject property to R-3, High Density residential. This would have permitted 210 units
on the 15.05 acres of buildable land 'on the site. In December of 1982, the Council
approved a Schematic PUD plan which provided for 106 units, a street connection from
Five Hawks Avenue to Cares Street and preservation of site amenities. In September of
1983, the Council approved the first phase of the development consisting of 48
townhomes. Priorview Second Addition consisting of 20 units, was approved in 1991.
1:\97 files\97p uds\eaglepud\preplan\prelimpc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota SS372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
In 1987, the developer asked the City to consider expansion of the PUD to include the so-
called Holly Court property to the north and increase the number of units to 148. The
Planning Commission recommended denial of the request and the application was with -
drawn.
There has been no construction activity on this site for several years. In September, 1996,
the Council approved Resolution 96-90, approving an amendment to the Schematic Plan
for the Priorview PUD, to allow a 61 unit assisted living facility. This amendment was
subject to the eight conditions listed in the attached resolution. The developer never
submitted the necessary documents for preliminary plan approval of this PUD. In June,
1997, the Council approved Resolution 97-48, approving an amendment to the Schematic
Plan to allow a 61-unit assisted living facility and a 28-unit senior rental facility subject
to the following conditions:
1. Further action to approve this PUD is conditioned upon the revision of the
Comprehensive Plan to permit the requested density on the site.
2. The developer and school district are to install, at their expense, any trails not
addressed in the Parks and Trail component of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Commission is considering three applications at this time. The first
application is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for this site
from the R-LMD (Urban Low to Medium Density Residential) designation to the R-HD
(Urban High Density Residential) designation. The second request is to approve the
Preliminary PUD Plan for this project. The third application is for approval of a
preliminary plat for this site, to be known as Eagle Creek Estates. Each of these
applications is discussed in detail below.
t~HYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total PUD area (including the developed portion of Priorview)
consists of 17.7 acres. The area of the new development includes 12.7 acres.
T_o.p_o. gr. agh~. This site has a varied topography, with elevations ranging from 930' MSL
at its highest points to 906' MSL at the lowest point in the northwest comer of the site.
The site generally slopes from the outer boundaries inward towards the wetlands and
creek running through the site. There are no steep slopes, or slopes in excess of 20% on
this site. The eastern portion of the site has also been graded under a grading permit
approved as part of the original Priorview PUD.
Vegetation: This site, especially the western portion of the site, is very wooded, with a
large number of significant trees. The project will be subject to the Tree Preservation
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted a tree preservation
plan, and initial estimates indicate tree removal will fall well below the percentage of
1:\97files\97 puds\eaglepud\preplan\prelimpc.doc
Page 2
caliper inches which may be removed. However, the plan does not include the entire area
to ;be graded or filled. This plan must be expanded to provide the necessary information.
Wetlands: There are three wetlands located within this site. Wetland #1 is 3.07 acres in
size, and is located in the western portion of this site. The developer is proposing to fill a
small portion of this wetland to form a berm,, which will then create a stormwater
detention area. Wetland #2 is 0.19 acre in area, and is located just north of Priorwood
Street. This entire wetland will be filled to provide parking area for the project. Wetland
#3 is 0.1 acre, located in the northeast comer of the site. The plan does not indicate any
impact on this wetland; however, the parking lot on the site appears to encroach into this
area. The developer plans to create a new wetland area to mitigate some of this disturbed
area on the site. The remaining mitigation will be deducted from the developer's banked
wetland credits.
There is also a creek running across the northwest comer of this site. A portion of this
area will be disturbed to allow a culvert or other crossing for the pedestrian trail.
Access: Access to the site is from Priorwood Street and Five Hawks Avenue. The City
currently has a 66' wide roadway easement which connects Five Hawks Avenue from
Priorwood Street to the section of Five Hawks Avenue located south of Cates Street. The
plan includes a pedestrian trail connecting these two sections of road, rather than a street.
The proposed plan consists of a 61-unit assisted living facility and a 28 unit senior rental
building. The assisted living facility is a 3-story structure. The elevations provided tot he
staff do not include building materials, although it appears to be of wood frame
construction. There are 102 parking spaces, or 1.15 spaces per unit, shown on the plan.
The development is concentrated on the eastern half of the site, thus preserving the
natural features, including the wetlands and the wooded area, on the western half of the
site. The overall density of this development, including both new and existing
development, is 10.9 units per acre. The density of the new development only is 9.5 units
per acre.
The developer is also proposing to stage this development over the next five (5) years.
Phase 1 includes the south and east wings of the 61-unit assisted living facility. Phase 2,
which will be completed within 3 years of the project's approval, is the west wing of the
assisted living facility. Phase 3, which will be completed within 5 years of approval, is
the 28-unit senior rental building. The appropriate parking will be constructed with each
stage.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The applicant is proposing to amend the Land Use
Plan designation of this property from Low-Medium Density Residential (R-LMD) to
1:\97files\97 puds\¢aglepud\prcplan\prelimpc.doc Page 3
High Density Residential (R-HD). The purpose of this amendment is to allow the
proposed density in an apartment style development. The R-LMD designation allows
densities up to 10 units per acre in a PUD, but in townhouse style developments. The R-
HD designation allows densities up to 30 units per acre in a PUD, in townhouse or
apartment style development.
The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives which are applicable to this request are as
follows:
GOAL: SUITABLE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT: Encourage the development of
suitable housing in a desirable environment.
OBJECTIVE No. 1: Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable high quality
housing.
OBJECTIVE No. 2: Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality
residential environments.
OBJECTIVE No. 3: Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of the
natural environment and the enjoyment of residents.
The R-HD designation is consistent with the designation of the developed portion of the
Priorview PUD. It is also consistent with the above stated goals and objectives in that it
offers another variety of housing, and it provides open space and the preservation of the
natural elements of the site. Furthermore, this development is consistent with the City's
Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing.
Preliminary_ PUD Plan: The purpose of a Planned Unit Development is to allow
flexibility in residential land development, variety in the organization of the site, higher
standards of site and building design, preservation and enhancement of desirable site
characteristics, and more efficient and effective use of land. Section 6.12 of the Zoning
Ordinance lists the requirements for a PUD (see attached). This proposal is consistent
with the purposes of the PUD in that it preserves and enhances the desirable site
characteristics, and provides for a more efficient use of the land. Specifically, this PUD
concentrates the development on the eastern portion of the site to preserve the wetlands
and wooded area on the west portion of the site.
The Preliminary PUD also meets most of the requirements for a PUD. The plans will
require some revisions and/or additions in order to meet all of the necessary requirements.
These revisions and/or additions can be listed as conditions of approval of the
Preliminary PUD.
Preliminary_ Plat: The preliminary plat for this site, known as Eagle Creek Estates,
consists of 12.7 acres to be subdivided into 3 lots. Lot 1 is 8.1 acres in area, and is the
open space for this development. Lot 2 is 1.9 acres, and is the site of the 28-unit senior
1:\97filcs\97puds\caglcpud\preplan\prelimpc.doc
Page 4
remal building. Lot 3 is 2.7 acres in area, and is the site of the 61-unit assisted living
facility. There is no public right-of-way or parkland dedicated in this plat. The
pedestrian trail on the site is primarily located on the existing road easement. However,
the trail does meander off of this easement, so a trail easement must be dedicated over
that area. Park dedication for this plat will be satisfied by a cash dedication in lieu of
land. There are also some engineering issues, outlined in the memorandum from Sue
McDermott, Assistant City Engineer, dated July 29, 1997, which must be addressed prior
to approval of the final plat. These issues can be attached as conditions of approval of the
preliminary plat.
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment, the Preliminary PUD Plan and the Preliminary Plat.
If the Preliminary PUD Plan is to proceed, it should be subject to the following
conditions:
1. Further action to approve this PUD is conditioned upon the revision of the
Comprehensive Plan to permit the requested density on the site.
2. The developer and school district are to install, at their expense, any trails not
addressed in the Parks and Trail component of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. A revised Tree Preservation Plan, which includes all of the disturbed areas, and an
accurate count of significant trees, must be submitted.
4. The landscaping plan must be revised so it is consistent with the provisions of 6.10 of
the Zoning Ordinance. These revisions include the following:
· Crabapple trees, or any ornamental or half trees, must be at least 1 3/4 caliper
inches.
· Twenty-five percent (25%) of the landscaping trees must be evergreen trees.
· At least 20% of the landscaping trees must be oversized (8' evergreens or 3 1/2"
deciduous canopy trees).
· The perimeter of the parking lot must be screened using a combination of shrubs,
trees and berming. Berming must be at least 30" in height.
· Landscaping around the perimeter of the site must include at least 1 tree per 40' of
perimeter. The existing trees on the site may be utilized for this purpose, but an
accurate count of those trees is required.
· The Landscaping Plan must be signed by a Registered Landscape Architect.
5. Building elevations for the east side of the 61-unit building and the entire 28-unit
senior rental building must be provided. These elevations must include the types and
colors of building materials.
l:\97files\97puds\eaglepud\preplan\prelimpc.doc Page 5
Plan for the trash enclosure must be submitted. The trash enclosure must be
constructed of materials similar to the principle buildings, and it must be located at
least 25' from any lot line.
A lighting plan for the site must be submitted.
A signage plan must be submitted.
If the Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions:
1. The legal description for this property must be revised. The legal description
submitted seems to include property not depicted on this preliminary plat.
2. Easements for the portion of the pedestrian trail located outside of the existing road
easement must be shown on the plat.
3. The engineering items, outlined in the memorandum from Sue McDermott, Assistant
City Engineer, dated July 29, t997, must be addressed prior to the final plat.
L NA I :
1. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Preliminary PUD
Plan subject to the above listed conditions, and the Preliminary Plat subject to the
above listed condition.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1.
ACTION REOUIRED:
Since this request includes three separate applications, separate motions are required for
each application. These include;
1. A motion and second to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Amendment from the Urban Low to Medium Density Residential designation to the
Urban High Density Residential designation.
2. A motion and second to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan, subject tc
the conditions listed in this report.
3. A motion and second to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat to be known as
Eagle Creek Estates, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report.
l:\97files\97puds\eaglepud\preplan\prelimpc.doc
Page 6
1. Section 6.12 of the Zoning Ordinance (PUD Requirements)
2. Location Map
3. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
4. Existing Approved PUD Plan
5. Reduced Copy of Preliminary PUD Plans and Preliminary Plat (8 pages)
6. Letter form Developer (4 pages)\
7. Engineering Comments, dated July 29, 1997
1:\97files\97puds\eaglepud\preplan\prelimp¢.doc Page 7
6.12
EXHIBIT I
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: The provisions of this section of the Zoning
Ordinance are intended to provide residential areas which can be developed with some
modifications of the stdct application of regulations of the R-l, R-2, R-3, and R-4
Residential Districts in accordance with the provisions and regulations contained herein.
P.U.D.'s can be developed within any Residential District with the overall population
density of number of living units permitted to be constructed in general conformance with
the provisions of the basic Zoning Distdct in which it is located. Higher densities may be
allowed than those permitted in each Zoning District with the specific density determined
by the Planning-Commission and Council. Rather than strictly enforcing the concept of
uniformity of housing types in each district, this provision will encourage:
Flexibility in residential land development to benefit from new technology in
building design and construction and land development.
2. Vadety in the organization of site elements, building densities and housing types.
Higher standards of site and building design through the use of trained and
experienced Land Planners, Registered Architects and/or Landscape Architects
to prepare plans for all Planned Unit Developments.
4. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics and open space.
5. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities.
REQUIREMENTS:
The development shall be planned so that it is consistent with the Prior Lake
Comprehensive Plan.
The tract of [and shall be under unified control at the time of application and
scheduled to be developed as one unit. In addition the development plan must
include provisions for the preservation of natural amenities.
The Planned Unit Development proposal appears to harmonize with both existing
and proposed development in the area surrounding the project.
The proposed Planned Unit Development is comprised of at least ten (10) acres
of contiguous land. (Ord. 94-09)
5. Permitted uses may include:
a)
Any combination of dwelling units in single family, two family, town or row
houses and apartments.
b)
Educational religious, cultural and recreational facilities. Commercial and
industrial uses.
c) Public and private education facilities.
d)
Other uses permitted in the Zoning Distdct in which the Planned Unit
Development is located.
A minimum of twenty (20) percent of the gross land for pdvate or public open air
recreational use protected by covenants running with the land or by conveyances
or dedicated as the Planning Commission may specify shall be an integral part of
the plan. such open space areas shall not include land devoted to streets,
parking and private yards.
Density increases of up to thirty (30) percent from those outlined in column 7,
table 4.2, may be allowed in proportion to the number of conditions listed
immediately below which have been fulfilled provided that traffic patterns will not
be adversely affected and that public utilities and facilities are adequate.
Section 6, Page 13
11.
12.
a) The location, amount and proposed use of common space (10%).
b) The location, design, setting of dwelling units (10%).
c)
Location adjacent to existing or proposed collectors or arterial street
(5%).
d) Physical characteristics of the site (5%).
Buildii~g setbacks from all property lines which form the perimeter of the total
P.U.D. shall be twenty-five (25) feet or the height of the building, whichever is
greater. The setback for any building from all intedor and exterior dedicated
street right-of-way lines or from the streets shall be twenty-five (25) feet or the
height of the building, whichever is greater.
The height limitation for all buildings in the RU.D. shall be thirty-five (35) feet.
The total coverage by buildings shall not exceed twenty (20) pement of the total
area in the P.U.D,
All P.U.D.'s shall have community sewer and water service available.
Building and Site Design.
a)
More than one (1) building may be placed on one (1) platted lot in a
P.U.D. area for single family, detached dwellings must comply with the
City Subdivision Ordinance.
b)
Architectural style of buildings shall not solely be a basis for denial or
approval of a plan. However, the overall appearance and compatibility of
individual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development
will be primary considerations in the review stages of the Planning
Commission and Council.
o)
No building permit shall be granted for any building on land for which a
plan for a RU.D. has not been finally approved by the City Council.
d) Staging of Development:
Any RU.D. plan proposed to be constructed in stages shall
include full details relating thereto and the City Council may
approve or modi~, where necessary, any such proposals.
The staging shall include the time for beginning and completion
of each stage. Such timing may be modified by the City Council
on the showing of good cause by the developer.
e)
A primary function of the P.U.D. provision is to encourage development
which will preserve and enhance the worthwhile, natural terrain
characteristics and not force intense development to utilize all portions of
a given site in order to arrive at the maximum densit~ allowed. In
evaluating each individual proposal the recognition of this objective will
be a basic consideration in granting approval or denial.
The uniqueness of each proposal for a P.U.D. requires that specifications
and standards for streets, utilities and services shall be subject to minor
modifications from the specifications and standards established in this
and other City Ordinances governing their construction. The City Council
may therefore waive or modify the specifications or standards where it is
found that they are not required in the interest of the residents of the
entire Cit},. The plans and profiles of all streets, utilities and services shall
be reviewed, modified, if necessary, and approved by the City Engineer.
Section 6, Page 14
EXHIBIT 3
LAKE
R-HD
C-CC
LAKE
EXHIBIT 4
ii
Z
II
EXHIBIT 6
July 17, 1997
City of Prior LakA
Attn: Jane Kansier
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Pdor Lake, MN 55372
Re:
Eagle Creek Estates
Assisted Living Facilities
RCM File Ne. 30443
Dear Jane:
The following information is in response to your letter dated July 2, 1997 regarding
a complete application.
fieke
~rtoll
muller
associates, inc,
en ineers
architects
land surveyors
equal opportuni~/
employer
Item #1:
Item #2 &
#3b:
Item #3a &
#3c:
We have enclosed four full sized plan sheets and one reduced set
of plans that have been revised to reflect the comments from the
DRC meeting held on July 10, 1997 and to reflect comments from
Sue McDermott's memo dated July 15, 1997.
John Mesenbrink will be delivering a copy of the plans for the 61-
unit building to the City.
Plan Sheet #1 shows a summar7 table of the area calculations for
the land area for each use.
Lot 3 (2.7 acres) will include the 61-unit assisted living building. Lot
2 (1.9 acres) will include the future 28-unit senior rental building, Lot
I (8.1 acres) will not include any buildings and will be considered as
common open space.
Item #3d:
The developer is not asking for any modifications to the City's
ordinances.
1955.1996
Item #3e:
The ,developer intends to construct the majority of the 61-unit
building during the fail of 1997. The northwest wing will not be
included in the first phase. The developer intends to construct the
northwest wing within three years.
217 north third street
post office box 776
gaylord, minnesota 55334-0776
(507) 237-2924
metro 338-2800
1 (800) 838-8666
fax (507) 237-5516
The 28-unit senior rental building is scheduled to be constructed
within 5 years from this date.
The proposed parking lot will be phased to match the phasing of the
building construction. At least one parking space will be provided for
City of Prior Lake
Page 2
July 16, 1997
The City has already received a copy of the tree preservation inventory and the
wetland mitigation plan. If there is additional information that you require to process
this application, please call.
Sincerely,
RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOCIATES, INC.
John P. Wingard, P.E.
JPW/du
c: John Mesenbdnk
Encls.
July 11, 1997
rieke
carroll
muller
associates, inc.
engineers
architects
[and surveyors
equa/ opportunely
employer
City of Pdor Lake
Attn: Jane Kansier
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Pdor Lake, MN 55372
217 north third street
post office box 776
gaylord, minnesota 55334-0776
(507) 237-2924
metro 338-2800
1 (800) 838-8666
fax (507) 237-5516
Tree Preservation for
Assisted Living Facility
RCM File No. 30443
Dear Jane:
Enclosed is a copy of the survey for the Assisted Living Facility in Prior Lake. The
survey has been marked-up to show the trees that will be removed and the trees
that will be saved.
The grading will require the removal of the following significant trees which are
identified on the grading plan:
12" Maple
6" Maple
5" Maple
12" Maple
12" Maple
12" Maple
6" Maple
24" Maple
36" Maple
6" Maple
6" Cedar
8" Maple
8" Cedar
6" Cedar
159 Caliper inches of trees to be removed
The site contains many other significant trees that will be saved. The percentage
of bees that will be removed with the proposed grading will be well below 50% of the
total trees on the site,
A partial listing of the significant trees that will be saved include:
24" Oak
36" Oak
24" Oak
18" Oak
City of Pdor Lake
Page 2
July 11, 1997
36" Oak
12" Maple
36" Oak
12" Hackberry
12" Maple
6" Cedar
36" Oak
252 Caliper inches of trees to be saved
Many other significant trees will also be saved on this site. The developer, Eagle
Creek Villas, LLC, is also planning to add a lot of new trees on the site after the
building and parking lot has been built.
Sincerely,
RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOCIATES, INC.
,%,
John Wingard, P.E.
JW/jh
c: John Mesenbrink, Eagle Creek Villas
Encl.
EXHIBIT 7
Memorandum
DATE: July 29, 1997
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
FROM: Sue McDermott, Assistant City Engineer,~
RE: Eagle Creek Assisted Living Facility -
Project #97-41
The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans for the subject project and have the
following comments:
Plat
Provide an easement at the 30" RCP storm drain outlet.
Grading and Drainage Plan
1. Add silt fence at the west side of the berm.
2. Add the following note: "Protect existing catch basins from sedimentation as a result
of construction related dirt and debris."
3. Show all easements (typical ali sheets).
Wetland Plan
1. There is a wetland impact at the northeast comer of the property that is not shown on
the plan.
Utility_ Plan
1. Show existing 6" DIP and valve through the rock dam.
2. Label 6" x 8" reducer - it's shown as an 8" x 8" on the plan.
3. Move the benchmark arrow to point at the hydrant.
4. Provide city details on the plans or in specifications.
Utili _ty Profiles
1. On the profile of the culvert for trail crossing for creek, show the slope of the pipe.
2. Show profile of 6" sanitary sewer.
In addition, a cost estimate and specifications must be provided.
NIN RT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CONSIDER AMENDED CUP FOR C.H. CARPENTER
LUMBER, Case File #97-066
16450 ANNA TRAIL
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
__X__ YES NO
AUGUST 11, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
The City received an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from C.H.
Carpenter Lumber on July 3, 1997. The applicant proposes to construct two
pole type building in a phasing plan. The property is zoned B-2, Community
Business. The Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit for
this type of use in the B-2 district. The applicant obtained a conditional use
permit in 1976 for the original building to allow "Supply Yards" in the B-2 zoning
district (CUP 76-02). The applicants are substantially increasing the structure
beyond original approval, thus an amendment to the original CUP is necessary.
Due to the applicability of the landscape ordinance and the original proposal the
applicant had in mind, the applicant is currently revisiting options. Considering
that notices of public hearing were sent and published and that the hearing
was continued to August 11, 1997 at the last meeting, the Planning
Commission must continue the hearing. Staff is recommending that the
hearing be continued to September 22, 1997. The item will be heard by the City
Council on October 6, 1996. The applicant has been given until September 2,
1997 to submit the required information, such that the notices can be re-sent and
published in the newspaper again. The statutory requirement to complete
zoning requests within 60 days, with a 60 day extension, expires on October 30,
1997. If the city does not make a decision on the request by then or if the
applicant does not withdraw, the project becomes automatically approved.
CT N ·
A motion to continue the hearing on the request until September 22, 1997.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
August 5, 1997
C.H. Carpenter Lumber Co.
Attn: Fred Meyer
16450 Anna Trail SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Amended Conditional Use Permit Application
Mr. Meyer:
State statutes require cities to make decisions regarding zoning requests within 60 days.
Your application was submitted to the planning department on July 3, 1997. The 60 day
time frame will expire on August 31, 1997. Due to your request to continue the hearing,
the 60 day time frame has been extended by 60 days to expire on October 30,1997.
The city cannot extend the time frame any longer. Therefore, we must receive your
revised application and/or remaining items to be submitted by September 2, 1997. Due to
the nature of the request, public hearing notices must be re-published and sent out again.
The latest Planning Commission date to be heard is September 22, 1997 which would
then be referred to the City Council for a final decision on October 20, 1997.
If we do not receive the required information or a letter of withdrawal by September 2,
1997, we will have to proceed with a recommendation of denial based on incomplete
application/lack of required improvements. Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
J~rmi Tovar
Planner
16200 Eagle Creek Ave S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612/447-4245
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLO'rE,~
,-~¢,PENTER LBR. TEL:612-447-4042
Ru9 0a'97
7:36 No.O02 P.01
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CONSIDER SIDE YARD SETBACK AND IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE VARIANCES FOR BRIAN MATTSON, Case
File #97-053
16575 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
AUGUST 11, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
On June 23, 1997 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Brian
Mattson who is proposing to construct a detached garage with driveway. The
applicant had originally requested a variance to allow impervious surface
coverage on the lot to be 54% and the driveway to be setback 1 foot from the
property line.
Based on the hardship criteria used for evaluating variances, the Planning
Commission was prepared to deny the variances as requested. Upon request of
the applicant, the Planning Commission continued the discussion to July 28,
1997. This was to allow the applicant time to modify the proposed additions to
reduce/eliminate the variance request. The applicant had requested an
extension to the August 11, 1997. On July 28, 1997 the Planning Commission
made a motion continuing the hearing until August 11, 1997.
The Planning Department has received a written request from the applicant
requesting another extension until August 25, 1997. The applicant has
significantly reduced the impervious surface on the site and is awaiting
completion of final survey.
TION UI D:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Because the Planning Commission continued the hearing until August 11, 1997.
A motion continuing the hearing until August 25, 1997 is necessary.
L:\97FILES\97VAR~97-053\97-53PC3,DOC Page 2