The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-08-97REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1997 6:30 p.m. 2. 3. 4. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: A. Case #9%106 Consider a Schematic Planned Unit Development to be known as Glynwater to allow 123 townhouse units, located west of Fremont Avenue on the south side of County Road 82. B. Case #97-114 Consider approval of a preliminary plat to be known as Red Oaks Second Addition, for the construction of 3 single family dwellings located on a 2.42 acre site along the west side of Breezy Point Road. C. Cases #97-107 and 97-108 Consider a proposed amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and a Zone Change Request for the property located at 4520 Tower Street. D. Case #97-117 Consider a Conditional Use Permit to construct a State Licensed residential facility servicing 10 persons at the property located at 5240 160th Street. 5. Old Business: A. Continue discussion on the zoning ordinance regarding lots in common ownership and garages on riparian lots. 6. New Business: A. Planning Commission Bylaw changes for 1998. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: 16200 Eagle ~re[~ ,~eveY~.~.,5~rior La~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1997 1. Call to Order: The November 24, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:34 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Kuykendall Present Criego Present Cramer Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: THE NOVEMBER 10, 1997 MINUTES WERE ACCEPTED AS PRINTED. 4. Public Hearings: A. Continue public hearing to consider a proposed zoning ordinance and zoning map for the City of Prior Lake. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier highlighted some of the issues. · Numbering system - the entire city code and ordinances are being revised. · The contents are essentially the same as the ordinance. · Additional language to clarify the issues. · Review of the previous meetings issues including lake and bluff setbacks; impervious surface; flood plain requirements; and the city's authority regarding the Shoreland District. · This ordinance applies to all areas in the city, not just the shoreland area. Planner Jenni Tovar addressed the proposed bluff language as outlined in her Memorandum to the Planning Commission dated November 18, 1997. The definitions included were "Toe of Bluff', "Top of Bluff' and "Bluff Setback". The DNR is not opposed to the proposed zoning amendments per Area Hydrologist, Patrick Lynch's letter dated November 24, 1997. Fourteen communities were surveyed on their bluff definition finding 11 of the communities adopted the DNR bluff definition stating they had no problems. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINSMN 112497.DOC 1 Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented Bryce Huemoeller's letter dated November 19, 1997. Comments from the public: Bryce Huemoeller, 16670 Franklin Trail, the attorney representing Integrity Development stated the marina is a permitted use in the Conservation District. Mr. Halek, the President of Integrity Development feels this is a lake community and a marina should be a permitted use on the lake or the City should establish an additional marina classification. Watersedge Marina has a permit from the DNR. Marinas are important and a major issue which should be addressed. The Haleks are also requesting Lot 2 be changed from C1 to C2. They have had numerous opportunities to fill the office space for show rooms. This will never be a neighborhood business area, the main entrance and business will be off Highway 13. Their focus would be show rooms. They feel this area has been mis- classified. Mary Mirsch, 15432 Red Oaks, permanent home address is 2260 Sargent Avenue, St. Paul, spoke on the shoreland bluff areas. He feels there is an easy way to change flexibility in language stating the DNR allows flexibility. Don Rye addressed some of Mr. Mirsch's comments. A Certificate of Occupancy is not required for certain performance requirements. It is for land use. This is a procedure to allow a person to protect himself. Second point regarding regulatory taking. Regulatory takings are few and far between. Mr. Mirsch gave an example of a proposed Minnesota Private Property Act for 1998 and his interpretation of the Act. Mirsch's interpretation of Non-Conforming Uses and Appeals were different from staff. The issues were clarified by Rye and the Commissioners. Cramer asked that the "land use definition versus use of land be clarified. Kansier explained it was in at least two places in the ordinance. Larry Schulze was present on behalf of the Prior Lake Association Board. He said he would like to see the lake setback at 75 feet. He realizes the DNR accepts a 50 foot setback. There is going to be more and more runoffwith the construction around the lake. Mr. Schulze said the Board does not know why it was changed to begin with. He understands the Lake Advisory Committee was against the change. He asked if the Commission would revisit the issue and bring the setback to 75 feet. Rye said 172 variances were granted from '74 to '96. Dave Moran, 14408 Watersedge Trail supports Mr. Schulze's statement regarding the 75 foot setback. He feels it is a water quality issues. The Watershed has water quality projects going and feels the setback is moving backwards. Mr. Moran feels there is no L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN~IN 112497.DOC justification to change the ordinance and feels the change was for the administration not the public. Wes Mader, member of the City Council speaking as an individual, stated he agreed with the two previous speakers on the 75 foot lake setback. Had this process been in place in 1996 only one variance would have been affected. The DNR minimum requirement for impervious surface is 25% and he felt the ordinance was passed because the DNR did not follow the time limit and the ordinance was approved. Mr. Mader said the flood plain criteria was mentioned at the last Council meeting, and was disturbed with the exemption of houses built prior to the flood plain ordinance. It was not reasonable or fair. This is an opportunity to change. He questioned the 5 foot side yard setback for substandard lots. His other concern are the lakeshore issue in Sec. 504.202 regarding substandard uses and decks and the bluff shore issues. Mr. Mader asked if the City had any input fi.om a qualified engineer with retaining wall expertise. Kansier addressed the 5 foot setback and how it came about as well as the deck issue. Mader pointed out the flexibilities in past variance requests. Joe Passofaro, 16077 Northwood Road, supports the 75 foot setback because of water quality. We should improve the water quality for the community as a whole. Mr. Passofaro said he is a realtor and citizens do not like the 10 foot space between homes. He went on to question the bluff setback footage. Tovar explained it was for erosion control, aesthetics and structural combinations and it could also be a vegetative measure. Chris Deanovic, 14122 Louisiana Avenue, Savage, a builder in Prior Lake stated he felt the 50 foot setback should prevail over the 75 foot setback. He bought two lots on the lake that would only fit homes with 50 foot setbacks. If there was no data to show a difference in the water quality the ordinance should not be changed back to 75 feet. His second concern is the bluff. The new ordinance language is more restrictive than the previous language. Jim Albers, 14992 Storm's Cimle, questioned the non-conforming uses and Certificates of Occupancy, and stated he was misinformed on the issues. He encouraged someone fi.om staff or the commission to clearly define the uses. Mr. Albers pointed out clarifications on the following: 501 page 1, under the Bluffdefinition should be 50 feet not 30 feet. Page 16, Lot, Substandard, questioned the blanks. Kansier explained once the numbering system was nailed down the blanks will be filled in. 501, page 31, the section with common ownership had been dropped. He asked to address common ownership with City Attorney for loss of building and brought up inverse condemnation. New ordinance states there has to be a 15 foot space between buildings, 501, page 32. 501, page 32 regarding eaves and gutters - questioned adding gutters in the setback. 502, page 36 clarify a detached garage an accessory building. L:\97FI LES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN'~VIN 112497.DOC 3 Marv Mirsch, wanted to clarify the 50 foot vs. 75 foot setback issue. Loren Jones 5282 Candy Cove Trail, said his concern was for the bluff ordinance. His home would never conform to the ordinance. Bryce Huemoeller, 16670 Franklin Trail, pointed out the setback averaging that should consider evaluation in the setbacks. Jim Albers asked if anyone checked with an insurance company with the 60% damage rule. Stamson explained the procedure. Mary Mirsch, said the ordinance says "structure" market value. The wording in this ordinance is not going to allow flexibility. The public hearing was closed at 8:37 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: The Planning Department has done a great job of updating the Ordinance addressing issues pertaining to our community. · Keep in mind these ordinances reflect values and what we hold important in the community. · Prior Lake is unique with unique cimumstances. · Supports the 75 foot setback. There are 18.6 miles of shoreline around the lake, not including the islands. A number of developments have been enacted along the lake - newer homes are set back 75 feet. The initial reasoning was granting variances near the 50 foot setback. Realistically it is one of the stronger controls in the shoreland district. · The bluff language presented in Jenni Tovar's memo is agreeable. It is easily understood and necessary. The natural features should be protected. The lake itself should be protected. · C1 Zoning on Boudin's and Highway 13 - The appropriate Zone should be C2. Marinas should be a permitted use in the C2 Zone. It would be a good change. It is the only commercially zoned area on Prior Lake. · Page 501, page 9, under "Bufferyard" - change the land uses, the language is incompatible. Two different land uses. · 502, page 6, "Bed and Breakfast" - conditions should include offstreet parking provisions. · 502, page 6, "Animal Kennels" - noise condition should be addressed or reference compliance. · 502, page 9, "Dimensional Standards" - Discuss implications of 30% ground floor ratio. · Typographical errors need to be corrected. · Lot coverage - impervious surface - The commission has stood finn on 30%. Realistically the lots around the lake are 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots. It is L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCM~N 112497.DOC 4 important we have a standard that is reasonable. If we change to 25% people will not have buildable lots. The intent of the ordinance is dealing with variances. Are we generating more variances? It is not productiVe. Kuykendall: · Agreed with Commissioner Vonhofs comments except the impervious surface. · Comments fi.om public were useful. · Agreed with the C2 Zone change - also connect with the property to the north which is currently zoned R1. Support the concept of the marina and lake traffic and future uses. · C2 add liquor license. · We should know Savage's zoning and what is the impact. · Change the use of Highway 13. · Water quality of lake - voted for the 50 foot setback. There were no facts to support 75 foot setback. The State agrees with 50 feet. We should be consistent with the State's standard including 25% impervious surface. · There should be a city-wide impervious surface compliance. · The majority of homes in the lakefi'ont area are between 50 and 75 feet because of setback averaging. · The bluff issue- staff did a commendable job. · Diagrams should be used throughout the Ordinance. People will understand. Need good communication. · Inverse condemnation was raised with the City Attorney. She agreed with the language. · Criego: · Map - agree to change the Boudin area to C2. Does not agree with changing the entire area up to County Road 42. · Add marinas as a permitted use in C2. · Blufflanguage is good. · Feels the 75 foot lake setback is reasonable. If we do that he agrees to keep the 30% impervious surface. It is more than quality of water, it is view of the lake. If as a group we decided to go to 50 feet then should change impervious surface to 25%. · Flood plain regulations - agreed with a member of the public, if the buildings with the 100 year flood plain ('78 through '90) they should apply within the ordinance. · Okay with 5 and 10 foot side yard setback. Average between the two side yards. · Adding the decks is a surprise to me. Delete that and keep within the 50 or 75 foot setback. · Garages - no reason to put a garage between the house and street. · Common ownership should be in the ordinance. Explained the 75 foot lot width. · Cramer: · Thank staff and commissioners for their work. · Zoning map - support the Boudin's parcel to C2. Worth looking into the Commerce Avenue area with information from Savage's zoning. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN~MN 112497.DOC 5 Business park at 42 and 21. Since this area is adjacent to an R-District, there should be proper buffering. The C-1 area should be located at the comer of Carriage Hills Drive and County Road 21 .There should be proper buffing. Flood Plain Ordinance - concur with Mader's recommendation. Get the DNR to certify homes prior to the 1978 ordinance. · 5 vs. I 0 foot setback - acceptable to average between the homes. · Bluff setback - staff did a good job clarifying. The four reasons are necessary to have the Bluff language in place. · Agrees with 50 foot setback - there is no evidence to say 75 is better. · Something should be put in place for garages on riparian lots. · Agreed with Vonhof on the noise condition on kennel issues. Get it written down mad settled. Limit kennel to 3 animals. Commissioners should discuss. · What provisions are in place for substandard lots if homes are destroyed? Kansier explained the ordinance process and legal alternatives and variances. · 30% impervious surface should be city-wide. Lots in the shoreland district should be more strictly enforced. · Stamson: · Map - agreed Boudin's property should be zoned C2. Marinas should be included. · Does not agree with the church property or the Commerce Avenue property zoned C2. · Does not support the 50 foot setback - should be 75 feet. Other boards (Lake Advisory, Watershed and Prior Lake Association) agrees. · Support leaving the 30% impervious surface. · Support setback averaging for substandard lots. · Support garages as permissible in riparian lots and require all setbacks be met. · Agree with Criego structures built prior to 1978 should be exempt. · Common ownership - agreed with Criego. · Bluff setback - will support with the DNR for 25 foot setback. · Contour lines setback - take measurements from the contour lines. Open Discussion: Kuykendall: · Diagrams should be part of the ordinance. It helps the user. · Bluff issue - support staff- but a licensed civil engineer should be consulted. Adopt DNR ordinance as is. When there are no facts one way or another keep the ordinance. Criego: · Explained both sides of the impervious surface and setback rationale. The ordinance worked, why did it change? Vonhofi L:\97F1LES\97PLCOMM~PCM IN~vIN 112497.DOC It is a local issue - does it work within our community? The vast majority of homes on the lake now have been modified under the 75 foot ordinance. The 75 foot change may have been tied in with the impervious surface. Kuykendall: · The lake tour brought up issues of lakeshore setbacks - addressed the setback change with vegetation landscaping screening. The impervious surface should be city-wide. · Compromise - keep the 50 feet and impose strict screening. Deal with the water quality. Vonhof: · Make this a community standard - not a DNR. Make conditions. There has been no reason to change. The City is bound by State standards. Creigo: · The landscaping will be hard to enfome. Vonhof: · Impose conditions. Use landscape runoffplans. Kuykendall: · We are not going to solve all these issues tonight. Stamson: The DNR has other concerns besides erosion. It is an unique eco-system. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE THE BLUFF LANGUAGE AS OUTLINED IN THE NOVEMBER 18, 1997, MEMORANDUM BY JENNI TOVAR. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO ALLOW A COMBINED SETBACK ON SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF 15 FEET WITH NO SIDE YARD SETBACK LESS THAN 5 FEET. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, KENNELS NOT BE AN ACCEPTABLE USE IN ALL R DISTRICTS. DISTRICTS WHERE IT IS A PERMISSIBLE USE MUST MEET ALL EXISTING ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCES. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN~vlN 112497.DOC MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND THE BOUDIN'S STREET PROPERTY BE ZONED FROM C1 TO C2 AND INITIATE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. Vote taken signified ayes. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO INCLUDE MARINAS IN THE C2 AND R2 DISTRICTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CHANGE TIlE SETBACK FROM 50 FEET TO 75 FEET FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER ON GENERAL DEVELOPMENT LAKES AND INCLUDE THE SETBACK AVERAGING. Discussion: · Kuykendall - should include impervious surface city-wide at 30%. · Criego - should stay at 30% with the 75 foot change. · Stamson, Vonhofand Cramer agreed. Vote taken signified ayes. Kuykendall nay. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONItOF, IMPLEMENT A CITY- WIDE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 30% IN ALL ZONES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF C3 ZONE. Discussion: · Cramer - Make decisions on fact. How does the impervious surface impact the rest of the City? Move to ask staffto make a recommendation. We want to make sure this is done right. The Shoreland Ordinance is treated different. Will not support. · Stamson o Extending City-wide is a big problem for commercial and industrial districts. · Rye - It is a big involvement. We cannot do it in 2 weeks. · Criego - We have imposed impervious surface with 30% ground floor ratio. Not in favor of taking any action tonight. Kuykendall withdrew motion. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND STAFF INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE OF A CITY-WIDE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WITH PERIODIC REVIEW. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMkPCMII~MN 112497.DOC MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO ALLOW BUILDINGS ELEVATED TO THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION AND BUILT BEFORE 1978, IN ADDITION TO THOSE BUILT BETWEEN 1990 AND 1997, TO BE CONSIDERED CONFORMING USES. The rationale is if you have any structure built any time as long as it is built to the 100 year flood elevation that it can be a conforming structure. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, THAT SUBSTANDARD RIPARIAN LOTS GARAGES ARE AN ACCEPTABLE ACCESSORY BUILDING WHICH MEETS ALL SETBACKS OF. Cramer withdrew the motion for further discussion. Discussion: · Creigo - discuss the deck issue and common ownership. Would like to see past verbiage. · Kuykendall - move on and discuss later. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION TO THE DECEMBER 8, 1997, MEETING TO DISCUSS COMMON OWNERSHIP AND GARAGES ON RIPARIAN LOTS. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: Commissioner Vonhof left the meeting at 10:45 p.m. A. Case 097-109 Hillcrest Homes requesting a 42 foot variance from the location of the top of bluff setback to allow a structure to be constructed within the bluff and bluff impact zone for the property located at 16091 Northwood Road. · Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application fi.om Hillcrest Homes who is proposing to construct a new single family residence with attached garage. An existing house will be removed to accommodate the proposed structure. The lot is located in the Northwood subdivision on Prior Lake. The applicant is proposing to build a house in the bluff and bluffimpact zone as defined by the current zoning ordinance. Considering the proposed ordinance has yet to be L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINhMN 112497.DOC 9 adopted, this report and recommendation reflect the existing ordinance. The applicant is requesting a 42 foot variance from the location of the top of bluff setback to allow a structure to be constructed within the bluff and bluff impact zone rather than the required 30 foot setback from the top ofbluffand out of the bluffimpact area as per City Code Section 5-8-3. Generally, the ordinance prohibits the placement of fill and excavation materials in the bluff impact areas. A variance to the bluff impact zone and top ofbluffsetback would allow the applicant to excavate and fill within the bluff and impact area as indicated on the survey. Ifa variance to the bluff impact zone or setback to the top of the bluff are granted, then the resolution should specify that storm water be diverted from the roof away from the bluff towards the front of the house. This could be achieved with gutters and/or grading. Furthermore, the excavating of the bluff does not meet the intent of the Shoreland District in the preservation of the natural features of Prior Lake. Pat Lynch, of the DNR, has verbally recommended that no variance to top of bluff or bluff impact zone be granted. He is of the opinion that there exists a legal building envelope to accommodate the proposed house and the ordinance as it exists today is what we must adhere to. At the November 10, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, staff was directed to work with Mr. Deanovic of Hillcrest Homes and Mr. Albers of Edina Realty to draft revised bluff definitions and setbacks to be clarified and specific so as to be easily interpreted and understood. This has been done and a copy of the proposed language is attached. The revised language is to be considered as part of the Zoning Ordinance amendment and public hearing the same day as this heating. The applicant feels that the proposed ordinance meets the goal as directed by the Planning Commission. Rather than wait for the proposed amendment to be approved and adopted by the City Council, the applicant is applying for this variance to expedite his project schedule. Staff recommends denial of the variance to top of bluff and bluff impact zone. Comments from the public: Chris Deanovic, Hillcrest Homes, said he was waiting to see if the commission came up with a new bluff criteria and that time was an issue. Deanovic distributed a document showing where the project would sit between the neighboring homes. He is proposing to remove the existing house. Win Simonson, 16087 Northwood Road, attended the last meeting with Hillcrest Homes and stated their proposal is blocking his view of the lake. The existing home is a small home where they can see over it. The other neighboring homes are in line with each other. He asked the Commissioners to grant the variance with limits. He built his house in 1973 granted by the County Commissioners, who at the time restricted his home width to 25 feet. It is a narrow home. L:\97F1LES\97PLCOMM~PCMINNVlN 1 I2497.DOC Jim Albers, pointed out the neighbor's house and their proposal. He feels they are following the shoreline. Win Simonson, questioned Albers distance and contour of the lake and corrected the lakeshore. Simonson went on to explain the neighbor's home is flush with his. The cliff varies in elevation. His neighbors cliffs have fallen into the lake creating different elevations. He feels the proposal should be granted by keeping the structure flush with his. Comments from the Commissioners: Stflmson: · The hardship criteria have not been met. · There is some belief an ordinance may or may not be changed. · Cannot support request. Criego: · If the issue was strictly one of when the new ordinance would be passed, but having a hard time seeing this when the neighbors are being blocked off. · This was obvious to the developers when they bought the property. (Albers stated a permit issued on Red Oaks that does not meet the setback requirements.) · If mistakes are made in the past the City should not continue to make them. · Build and blend in with the neighborhood. Albers said his structure follows the contour of the lakeshore. His interpretation was different from Planning. He accepts there is a certain amount of blockage. Win Simonson, showed an illustrated map of the location indicating the straight shoreline, not slanted as Albers pointed out. Cramer: · This has not changed from the last time. Working with the current ordinance, the applicant does not show any of the hardship criteria. · Time is not a hardship criteria. · Does not support. Kuykendall: · Deny request for the same reasons. · Strongly supports changing the ordinance. · The property was there for neighbors to buy. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97- 20PC DENYING A 42 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE LOCATION OF THE TOP OF BLUFF SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE BLUFF AND BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED SETBACK OF 30 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF ANb OUT OF THE BLUFF L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN~v~N112497.DOC 11 IMPACT ZONE PER CITY CODE SECTION 5-8-3 FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. Discussion: · Kuykendall - I think there should be a friendly amendment to the effect the Commissioners recognize there are changes being proposed. The Commissioners fully support recommendations made tonight. · Criego - Does not disagree with what was called out in the ordinance. Highly recommend the developer who will not be living here but to work with the neighbors. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Chris Deanovic questioned the common ownership issue not being addressed in the new zoning. Would like to see the verbiage before the hearing. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:24 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMlNXMN 112497.DOC 12 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A SCHEMATIC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS GLYNWATER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES NO-N/A DECEMBER g, 1997 INTRODUCTION: Wensmann Realty has applied for a Schematic PUD Plan for the property located on the south side of CR 82, just west of Fremont Avenue and directly south off the entrance to The Wilds. This property is currently zoned A-1 (Agriculture). Much of the property is also located within the Shoreland District for Prior Lake and Arctic Lake. This property is designated for Urban Low to Medium Density Residential uses on the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The easterly portion of the property is located within the 2010 MUSA boundary. The westerly portion of the property is still outside of the MUSA. The purpose of a Schematic Plan is to review the concept of a PUD based on the following: 1. Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the planned unit development requirements. 2. Relationship of the proposed plan to the adjacent property, the Comprehensive Plan, and zoning provisions. 3. Internal organization and adequacy of uses and densities, circulation and parking facilities, public facilities, recreation areas and open spaces. PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Total Site Area: The total PUD area (l~ss the CR 82 right-of-way)) consists of 41.57 acres. Toooeranhv: This site has a varied topography, with elevations ranging from 970' MSL at its highest point to 910' MSL at the lowest point. The site generally drains towards the wetlands located along the easterly portion of thc site, the southerly portion and the center :\9 file \97pud \glyn a Xzc mcpc do 16200 ~a~le Greek ~ve.'~.~., ~rior I~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~g~47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER of the site. There are also steep slopes, or slopes in excess of 20%, located on this site. These slopes are generally located on the eastern half of the site. Veeetation: This vegetation on this site consists of vacant cropland. The eastern and southern boundaries of the property are wooded, as is the area adjacent to the wetlands. The project will be subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted an inventory of the significant trees on the site; however, this inventory does not indicate how many of the trees will be removed. Wetlands: There are three wetlands located within this site, with a total area of 9.45 acres. The wetlands are located in the southeast comer of the site, along the southern boundary of the site, and in the center of the site. The plans indicate only a small area of wetlands will be filled to allow a road connection. This site is subject to the wetland mitigation requirements. Access: Access to the site is fi:om CR 82, on the north. CR 82 is identified as a Minor Arterial street in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. PROPOSED PLAN Zoning: Although no application has been filed, the developer has indicated his intention to request this property be zoned R-2 (Urban Residential). The R-2 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. Buildine Styles: This Schematic PUD plan calls for a townhouse style development consisting of 2-, 3-, and 4-unit buildings. Sample floor plans of these buildings are attached to this report. Density: The plan proposes 122 units on a total of 41.57 acres. Density is based on the buildable acres of the site, or in this case on 32.12 net acres. The overall density proposed in this plan is 3.8 units per acre. The R-2 district permits a density of 7 units per acre through the PUD process. Lot Coveraee/Open Space: The R-2 district allows a maximum lot coverage of 20% for a townhouse PUD. The PUD provisions also require a minimum of 20% of the gross area of the site be devoted to open space uses. Because this property is located within the Shoreland District, a minimum of 50% of the site must be devoted to open space uses. The proposed plan indicates a lot coverage of 12.7%, and 51% of the gross area as open space. Streets: This plan proposes a street which starts on the east side of the site, directly opposite Wilds Parkway, loops through the site and exits back onto CR 82. There are also two cul-de-sacs located on the east side of the site. All of the streets are proposed as private streets rather than public right-of-ways. Parks/Trails: This plan identifies a park along the south boundary of the property. The total park site is 11.69 acres; 4.95 acres of the parkland, however, consists of wetlands 1:\97files\97puds\glynwate~chemepc.doc Page 2 and ponds. The plan also identifies a pedestrian trail starting at CR 82, winding through the proposed park, and connecting to the 16.5' wide access owned by the City on the west boundary of this site. Compliance with PUD Requirements: This plan appears to comply with the PUD requirements regarding setbacks, building heights, and so on. ANALYSIS: 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). While this proposal is consistent with the general requirements of a PUD, it must be noted that the same, or a similar type of development can occur through the conditional use permit process under the present zoning ordinance. The proposed zoning ordinance also allows this types of use with a conditional use permit in the R-1 and R-2 district. The table below compares the penuitted densities for a conditional use and a PUD in both the current and proposed zoning ordinance. Current Zoning Ordinance Proposed Zoning Ordinance Proposal R-1 R-2 R-1 R-2 CUP PUD CUP PUD CUP PUD CUP PUD Units/acre 3.8 3.5 4.5 5.5 7.0 3.6 10 7.3 10 # units 122 112 144 176 224 115 321 234 321 It appears that the primary advantage of a PUD in this case is that it allows private streets. The proposal does not eliminate the disturbance of the steep slopes, nor does it eliminate the need to remove some of the significant trees on the site. The plan does protect the existing wetlands. Section 6.12, A, 12, e, states "a primary function of the PUD 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 density allowed. In evaluating each individual proposal, the recognition of this objective will be a basic consideration in granting approval or denial." At this time, the Planning Commission should make a determination on whether or not this proposal is consistent with the purpose and intent of the PUD provisions. The Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Schematic PUD Plan. If the Schematic PUD Plan is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions: 1:\97files\97puds\glynwate~schcmepe.doc Page 3 1. Further action to approve this PUD is conditioned upon the rezoning of the property to the R-2 district to permit the requested density on the site. 2. The developer must submit additional calculations for densities in the Shoreland tiers. The calculations submitted did not appear to subtract the wetlands from the site area for each tier as required by Section 9.11 C of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. A phasing plan for the development of this site must be submitted. 4. A revised Tree Preservation Plan, which includes all of the disturbed areas, and an accurate count of significant trees, must be submitted. 5. The plan must show contours within 200' of the subject property boundary. 6. Provide a sewer stub on the private street that runs east to the adjacent property. 7. Provide all the submittals required by Section 6.12, B, 5 (Preliminary PUD Plan) of the Zoning Ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the Schematic PUD Plan subject to the above listed conditions, or any conditions deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend denial of the request. 3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends Alternative 2. With the exception of the private streets, this proposal can he accomplished through the conditional use permit process. For this reason, the proposal does not meet the intent of the PUD provisions. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second to recommend denial of the Schematic PUD Plan. EXHIBITS: 1. Section 6.12 of the Zoning Ordinance (PUD Requirements) 2. Location Map 3. Applicant's Narrative 4. Reduced Copy of Schematic PUD Plans 5. Engineering Comments, dated December 3, 1997 6. County Engineer Comments, dated October 31, 1997 7. Finance Department Comments, dated October 22, 1997 8. DNR Comments, dated December 3, 1997 1:\97files\97pud$\glynwate~schemepc.doc Page 4 6.12 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 strict 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 District in which it is located. Higher dens[ties may be allowed than those permitted in each Zoning District with the specific density determined by the Plannihg Commission and Council Rather than strictly enfoming the concept of uniformity o.f 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. Variety 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 land 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) b) Any combination of dwelling units in single family, two family, town or row houses and apartments. 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 private 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 inctude 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 ;mvided that traffic patterns will not be adversely affected and that public utilities and facilities are adequate. Section 6, Page 13 11. 12. a) b) c) The location, amount and proposed use of common space (10%). The location, design, setting of dwelling units (10%). Location adjacent to existing or proposed collectors or arterial street (5%). d) Physical characteristics of the site (5%). Building 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 interior 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 P.U.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. f) All P.U.D.'s shall have community sewer and water service available. Building and Site Design. a) b) c) d) e) 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. Amhitectural style of buildings shall not solely be a basis for denial or approval of a plan. However, the overall appearance and compatibility of individual buiIdings to other site elements or to surrounding development will be primary considerations in the review stages of the Planning Commission and Council 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. 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 modify, 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. A primary function of the RU.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 density 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 RU.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. 71'he 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 City. The 01ans and profiles of all streets, utilities and se,~/ices shall be reviewed, modified, if necessary, and approved by the City Engineer. Section 6, Page 14 B. PROCEDURE: Pre-Application Conference. Before submitting an application for a Planned Unit Development, an applicant may confer with the Planning Staff to obtain information and guidance, before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys, and other data. A check list will be provided to the prospective applicant as an indication of thewdtten and graphic materials required for P.U.D. consideration. A general procedure for application, review and action on a RU.D. shall be according to the following outline with more details found in the remainder of this Chapter. a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) h) ;) Application, filing fee and copies in a number and scale as determined by the Planning Director of the schematic plan are to be submitted to the Planning Director for his review and submitted to other City Staff. The Planning Director reviews the plans for compliance and will contact the developer if additional plans are required. Planning Commission holds a public hearing on schematic plan. Applicant submits schematic plan to Council Zoning Officer amends Zoning Map identifying the P.U.D. k) The applicant prepares a preliminary plat.* Planning Commission reviews preliminary recommendation to the City Council. Council acts on preliminary plat. plat and forwards If Council approves the preliminary plat, applicant submits final plat within one hundred twenty (120) days of Council approval. Applicant submits final plat to the Planning Director who reviews it for compliance and transmits plat to the City Council and staff.' Council reviews final plat and takes action. FINAL PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT MAY RE PREPARED TO CONFORM WITH DEVELOPMENT STAGING. Schematic Plan: An applicant shall apply to the Planning Commission for approval of a development concept of the P.U.D. with map and text as specified including enough information to demonstrate its relationship to adjoining uses. a) Maps which are part of the schematic plan shall contain the following: 1. Location map showing location of the site within the City. The existing topographic character of the land. A composite of all natural amenities of the site and three hundred (300) feet adjacent to the site including steep slopes, drainage ways, plus marshes, ponds, lakes and property lines. The size of site ~nd proposed uses of the land to be developed together with an identification of off-site [and use and zoning. Section 6, Page 15 Unit Development The density of land use to be allocated to the several parts of the development together with height, bulk, and approximate location of buildings and other structures. 6. The approximate location of thoroughfares. The location of common open space including public schools, parks and playgrounds or private natural preserves. Schematic utility plan. b) The written statement shall include the following: 1. A statement of the ownership of all land involved in the Planned together with a summary of previous work experience. 2. An explanation of the general character of the planned development. 3. A general indication of the expected time schedule of development. A statement describing the ultimate ownership and maintenance of all parts of the development including streets, structures and open space. A statement describing how all necessary governmental services will be provided to the development. The total anticipated population to occupy the Planned Unit Development, with break downs indicating the number of school age children, adults and families. Schematic Plan Approval: a) b) Within thirty (30) days after the filing of a schematic plan, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the application. The Planning Commission may continue the hearing or refer the matter back to the applicant for further information, provided however, that the public hearing or hearings shall be concluded within forty-five (45) days after the date of the original hearing, unless the applicant shall consent in writing to an extension of time. Within sixty (60) days after filing of the schematic plan, the Planning Commission shall forward the plan to the City Council with a written staff report, recommending that the plan be disapproved, approved or approved with modifications, and giving reasons these recommendations. c) The Planning Commission shall forward to the City Council its recommendation based on and including but not limited to the following: Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development. Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be located, to the City's Land Use Plan and to other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Internal organization and s!equac'/of various uses or densities; circulation and parking facilities; public facilities, recreation areas and open space. Section 6, Page 16 d) e) The City Council shall act on the schematic plan within forty-five (45) days after receipt of the plan from the Planning Commission. The City Council may continue the review process for additional study or information for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days after receipt of the schematic plan from the Planning Commission unless the applicant shall consent in writing to an extension of time. Upon conclusion of all reviews the City Council shall, within thirty (30) days, make and file findings and cause a copy thereof to be mailed to the applicant. If the schematic plan is approved, the City Council shall amend the Zoning Map to show the Planned Unit Development and its identification number, if the schematic plan is approved with modifications, the City Council shall not amend the Zoning Map until the applicant has flied with the City Council written consent to the plan as modified. Refusal of any modification shall constitute denial of the plans by the City Council. Failure of the applicant to notify the City Council of his acceptance or refusal of the modification to the plan constitute acceptance of these conditions. No building permit may be issued on the land within the Planned Unit Development until final plans for the development or phases of the development have been approved by the City Council. Preliminary P.U.D. Plan: a) Application for a Preliminary P.U.D. shall be filed with the City Planner within six (6) months or risk withdrawal of City Council approval of the P.U.D. and shall be in substantial compliance with the schematic plan. In the event the preliminary plan is not in substantial compliance the City Planner shall set forth the ways in which the preliminary plan is not in substantial compliance with the schematic plan (1) The applicant may treat such notification as denial of his application for pre[iminaw plat, or (2) The applicant may refile his plan so that it does substantially comply with the schematic plan. b) The applicant may receive preliminary approval for phases of the development, however, the first phase of the development shall cover at least twenty (20) percent of the area approved as part of the schematic plan. c) Maps which are part of the preliminary plan shall include: (1) All the maps required for schematic plan approval. (2) (3) Generalized elevations and perspectives of all structures. A grading plan showing existing and proposed contours at two (2) foot intervals showing the direction of flow of surface drainage and all easements necessary for both ponding and runoff. (4) Plans and profiles for the distribution of water, collection of sanitary waste and storm sewer for the proposed phase. For the remaining area of the P.U.D. the following information shall be shown: a. Water distribution system. b. Storm water distribution system. Section 6, Page 17 (Ord. 93-06) (5) (7) (8) (9) c. Sanitary sewer system with invert elevations. Plans, profiles and typical sections for proposed street improvements. All utility easements. Landscaping and planting plan. Erosion control plan. A storm water management plan, which shall contain the following information: Existing Site Map showing the site and immediately adjacent areas, including: The name and address of the applicant, the section, township and range, north point, date and scale of drawing. Location of the tract by an insert map at a scale sufficient to clearly identify the location of the property. Existing topography with a contour interval appropriate to the topography of the land but in no case having a contour interval greater than 2 feet. A delineation of all streams, rivers, public waters and wetlands located on and immediately adjacent to the site, including depth of water, a statement of general water quality and any classification given to the water body or wetland by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and/or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Location and dimensions of existing storm water drainage systems and natural drainage patterns on and immediately adjacent to the site delineating in which direction and at what rate storm water is conveyed from the site, identifying the receiving stream, river, public water, or wetland and setting forth those areas of the unaltered site where storm water collects. A description of the soils of the site, including a map indicating soil types of areas to be disturbed as well as a soil report containing information on the suitability of the soils for the type of development proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing any remedial steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils suitable. Vegetative cover and clear delineations of any vegetation proposed for removal. 100 year floodplains, flood fdnges and floodways. Section 6, Page 18 A site construction plan including: Locations and dimensions of all proposed land disturbing activities and any phasing of those activities. Locations and dimensions of all temporary soil and dirt stockpiles. Locations and dimensions of all construction site erosion control measures necessary to meet the standards as outlined in the 1989 edition of "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas", published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or an equivalent set of standards. Schedule of anticipated starting and completion date of each land disturbing activity, including the installation of construction site erosion control measures. Provisions for maintenance of the construction site erosion control measures during construction. A plan of final site conditions on the same scale as the existing site map showing the site changes including: Finished grading shown at contours at the same interval as provided above or as required to dearly indicate the relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and remaining features. A landscape plan, drawn to an appropriate sca~e, including dimensions and distances and the location, type, size and description of all proposed landscape materials which will be added to the site as part of the development. A drainage plan of the developed site delineating in which direction and at what rate storm water will be conveyed from the site and setting fodh the areas of the site where storm water will be allowed to collect. The proposed size, alignment, profiles and intended use of any structures to be erected on the site. A clear delineation and tabulation of all areas which shall be paved or surfaced, including a description of the surfacing material to be used; and Any other information pertinent to the particular project which in the opinion of the applicant is necessary for the review of the project. A summary sheet indicating: 1. Land area for each use. Section 6, Page 19 2. Number of units proposed including number of bedrooms in each area in d.1 above. 3. Number of areas of common open space. Modifications of any provisions of this Ordinance or any other ordinance, codes or regulations of the City of Prior Lake. Phasing plan indicating geographical staging and approximate timing of the plan or portions thereof. e. Design standards: All preliminary and final utility plans shall be drawn in accordance with Prior Lake Department of Engineering Design Criteda and Standard Specifications. Review of Preliminary Plan: a) The Planning Commission shall make its recommendation to the City Council for project approval; approval with conditions; or denial. Such recommendations shall be made within sixty (60) days of the initial hearing unless the applicant files a written request to the Planning Commission for delay. If the Planning Commission does not make its recommendation within the specified time period and a delay has not been requested by the applicant, the City Council may take action on the request by the applicant. Final Plan Approval: a) A final plan shall be submitted with an application for final plan approval within one hundred twenty (120) days after Council approval of the preliminary plan unless a written request for an extension is submitted by the applicant. If an application for final approval or a request for an extension is not received within one hundred twenty (120) days, the preliminary plan will be considered abandoned and a new application for a preliminary plan must be submitted following the preliminary plan procedure. There shall be a maximum of not more than one (1) year granted by the City Council for any requested extension. b) c) d) The City Council shall review the final plan within thirty (30) days after filing of the application for final plan approval. The final plan shall be in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plan. Substantial compliance shall mean: The number of residential living units has not been increased. (~) (2) (3) (4) The floor area of non-residential uses has not been increased. Open space has not been decreased or altered to its odginal intended design or use. All special conditions prescribed on the preliminary plan by the applicant or any of the reviewing bodies have been incorporated into the final plan. The application for final plan approval shall be accompanied with the following data and documents: Section 6, Page 20 (1) (2) (3) All the information contained in the preliminary plan plus any alterations or corrections required by the City Council. Proposed zoning changes with legal descriptions of all district boundary changes. Deed restrictions, covenants, agreements, by-laws or proposed homeowners associations and other documents controlling the use of property, type of construction or development of the activities of future residents. A Homeowner's Association shall be established prior to the sale of any lot or other land when land areas, amenities, or structures are approved by the City and provided within the Planned Unit Development for private recreational uses, services, or private ownership of streets or utilities. The Association documents shall be in compliance with applicable State Laws, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney, and shall provide for the following: 1. Membership shall be mandatory for each property owner and any successive buyer. The open space use restrictions and ownership must be permanent. The Association shall be responsible for liability insurance, local taxes, and for the maintenance of the common amenities, streets, utilities, and other facilities approved with the Planned Unit Development. Property owners shall be responsible for their pro-rata share of the cost and the assessment levied by the Association which can become a lien on the property in accordance with State Law. The City may enter upon the Common Areas and perform street maintenance and repair; snow removal from streets; control of surface water drainage; maintenance and repair of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water supply system or other utilities, when the City Council has found and has expressed in a resolution that the Association has failed to provide those services that are deemed necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the residents and occupants of the property. The City may assess the cost of the maintenance or repairs or improvements directly against benefitted lots to the extent permitted by law or may assess the Common Area in which case the Association shall levy a special assessment against the benefited lots to defray the total amount of the City assessment. The title of the Association and the owners of lots in and to the Common Area shall be made subject.to.a non-exclusive easement in favor of the City for the purpose of ingress and egress Section 6, Page 21 e) f) for public safety enforcement and services, animal control, health and protective inspections, to provide other public services deemed necessary by the City, and for the purposes set forth herein. (Ord. 95-09). A signed and executed developers agreement. A subdivision plat suitable for recording in the office of the Registrar of Deeds of the County. Annual Review: The Planning Commission shall review all Planned Unit Development Districts within the City at least once each year and shall make a report to the City Council on the status of the development in each of the Planned Unit Development Districts. If the City Council finds that 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 odginaJ Zoning District by removing the Planned Unit Development District from the official Zoning Map. Amendments and Control: Amendments may be made in the approved final plan when they are shown to be required by changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in the development policy of the City. (a) Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of the buildings and structures may be authorized by the planning staff if required by engineering or other unforeseen circumstances. (b) All other changes in use, rearrangement of lots, blocks, and open space must be authorized by the City Council under procedures outlined for amendment of the Zoning Ordinance. (Ord. 83-6) Section 6, Page 22 GL YNWA TER ADDITION November 24, 1997 The concept plan as submitted would require PUD approval. Outlined in this narrative are the reasons behind the PUD development request and how this approval will benefit the site. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The property is located within two shoreland districts which have significantly impacted the development. The site has unique characteristics consisting of wetlands, steep slopes and a grove of trees located on the southern edge of the property. A tree inventory has been completed and wetlands delineated. It is our intent to minimize wetland mitigation and our concept plan indicates this. The trees do not require preservation as far as species, however it is our intent to preserve all possible to enhance the area. Again this can be accomplished with this concept plan. SHORLAND ANALYSIS We have enclosed a breakdown by tier which shows the design measures we have taken to keep the development as far away as possible from the lakes. Both shoreland districts have the first tier level preserved with no development planned in these areas (with the exception ora future trail system) and the overall concept plan as proposed is less than the maximum allowable density in both shoreland districts. PUD By planning the development with private streets in the two townhouse areas, we are able to keep much of the development away from the shoreline areas, wetlands, trees and steep slopes. The private streets are constructed 34' back of curb to back of curb which are the same requirements as a public street. There would be no dedicated right of way in the private streets as this would be all common area and maintained by the association. Each townhouse area would be governed by Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which ensures that streets are maintained and that the overall site will be managed uniformly. Associations can also control the type of fertilizers applied within the developments to ensure only organic materials are used which will help in preserving the lakes. On the easterly townhouse association's private street, we have taken extraordinary measures to design homes with extended foundations and walk-out levels to decks, thus preserving the natural steep slopes. Adding an additional 16' ROW would only push the buildings back and require additional grading to create building pads on the slopes. Additional grading may affect the existing wetlands and possibly lose trees. The trees have been inventoried and even though there are no species which require preservation, it is our intent to preserve as many as possible. The proposed concept design has a trail system within the development which we feel eliminates the need for sidewalks. Adding sidewalks would add an additional 21' ROW to construct sidewalks, creating more maintenance for the townhouse association with no added benefit because of the direct access to the parkland. In addition to the sidewalks it would requier more site disturbance which has already been addressed. On the westerly loop street, adding an additional 16' ROW or 21' ROW would again cause the units to be developed closer to wetlands and begin to crowd the units with no added benefit. The design as planned has at least 20% of the gross area dedicated as common area green space, or public recreational use. All open space would be controlled by either the City of Prior Lake or the Associations through the Declarations to regulate uses and preserve the open space. The design shows a 55' ROW on the east end of the development, with sidewalks on one side of the street. The ROW then drops down to a 50" ROW at the trail connection. All homes along the 50' ROW are located with easy access from their homes to the trail system. Increasing the ROW to 55' to provide for sidewalks would again push buildings closer to the wetlands, require more grading for building pads and create a maintenance issue for the homeowners association. The 50' ROW as proposed is the standard city ROW. During the past six months we have reviewed every aspect of this development, including our own building plan designs to maximize the natural terrain and not force building pads on the site. We feel that this design concept accomplishes these goals and are requesting approval. SHORELAND DISTRICT ANALYSIS This project is impacted by two (2) Shoreland District Management areas. Both upper Prior Lake, a general development lake, and Arctic Lake, a natural environment lake, impact this land. The following is a breakdown of each district by tiers. (See the site plan sheet for a graphic display of the tier layout.) UPPER PRIOR LAKE (A general development lake) (200' Tiers) TIER gl Area = 9,920 S.F. Riparian Lots - None Non-Riparian Lot Size = 12,000 S.F. Density: Allowed = 0.83 Units Used = 0 Transfer to Outer Tier = 0.83 Units TIER #2 Area= 15,965 S.F. Non-Riparian Lot Area = 12,000 S.F. Density: Allowed = 1.33 Units Used = 0 Transfer to Outer Tier = 1.33 Units TIER #3 Area = 129,580 S.F. Non-Riparian Quad Buildings = 8,125 S.F.Fclnit Required Density: Allowed = 15.95 Units Used = 6 Transfer to Outer Tier = 9.95 Units TIER #4 Area = 202,585 S.F. Non-Riparian Duplex, Triplex & Quad Units Duplex Building = 8,750 S.F.FUnit Required Triplex Building = 8,333 S.F./Unit Required Quad Building = 8,125 S.F:FUnit Required Density Allowed: Duplex ~ 9% Usage = 2.08 Units Triplex ~ 13% Usage = 3.16 Units Quads ~ 78% Usage = 19.45 Units Total Units Allowed = 24.69 Units Density Used: Duplex - 2 Units Triplex - 3 Units Quads - 18 Units Total Units Proposed = 23 Transfer to Outer Tier = 1.69 Units TIER #5 Area = 192,665 S.F. Non-Riparian Duplex, Triplex & Quad Units: Duplex Buildings -- 8,750 S.F./Unit Required Triplex Building = 8.333 S.F.FOnit Quad Buildings -- 8, 125 S.F.FOnit Required Density Allowed: Duplex ~ 27% Usage = 5.95 Units Triplex ~ 14% Usage -= 3.24 Units Quads ~ 59%o Usage = 13.99 Units Total Units Allowed --- 23.18 Units Density Used: Duplex -- 6 Units Triplex = 3 Units Quads-- 13 Units Total Units Proposed = 22 Units Density Unused This Tier = 1.18 Units Density Unused Total = 14.83 Units ARCTIC LAKE D.N.R. #70-85 A Natural Environment Lake (320' Tiers) TIER #1 Area = 56,575 S.F. Riparian Lots = None Non-Riparian Lot Size = 20,000 S.F. Density: Allowed = 2.83 Units Used = 0 Transfer to Outer Tier = 2.83 Units TIER #2 Area -- 253,600 S.F, Non-Riparian Duplex & Quad Units: Duplex Building = 17,500 S.F./Unit Quad Building = 16,250 S.F./Unit Density Allowed: Duplex = 87% = 12.61 Units Quad = 13% = 2.03 Units Total Units Allowed = 14.64 Units Density Used: Duplex = 14 Quads = 2 Total Proposed Units = 16 Density Transfer from Tier #1 = 2.83 Density Deficit this Tier = 1.36 Density Transfer to Tier 3 = 1.47 TIER #3 Area = 260,711 S.F. Non-Riparian Duplex & Quad Units: Duplex Building - 17,500 S.F.FUnit Quad Building = 16,250 S.F./Unit Density Allowed: Duplex ~ 21% Usage = 3.13 Units Quads ~ 79% Usage = 12.67 Units Total Units Allowed = 15.80 Units Density Used: Duplex = 6 Units Quads = 23 Units Total Units Proposed = 29 Units · Density Overrun = 13.2 Units Total density overruns Arctic Lake = 11.73 Units Total unused density Upper Prior Lake = 14.83 Units Total unused density for project = 3.10 Units The density overrun in Tier 3 of the Arctic Lake Shoreland District is allowable based on Section 9.11 .D.3.a of the Prior Lake Shoreland District Ordinance which in turn references Section 9.11.F of said Ordinance. All Requirements are met to allow the minor density increases as set forth in the above mentioned sections. November 21, 1997 GLYNWATER Development Plan Narrative October 15, 1997 The proposed development legally described as "(see exhibit "A") is owned by the applicant, Wensmann Realty, Inc. 3312 151st Street West, Rosemount, MN 55068. The proposed PUD creates three distinctive townhome communities with three unique buyer profiles. Townhomes - The proposed Development Plan includes 17 Four-unit buildings 1-two unit building and 1-three unit building that are constructed as row type dwelling units. (See Exhibit "B") Buyer profiles of these units include single parents, first time home buyers and singles. In comparing a similar development completed in 1997 in Inver Grove Heights with 31 units, only 3 children were under the age of 5, and 6 over age 5. All 31 homes were sold in a 6 month period. Prices range from $1 I0,000 - $140,000. Coach Homes A design unique to Wensmann Homes includes 28 "Coach Homes" these 4-unit condominium buildings are built in an over/under design. (See Exhibit "C"). Buyer profiles again of these units I include empty nesters, working singles and working couples. Again using a similar development in Inver Grove Heights for demographic information, no children were occupying the 16 units completed out of a total of 28. Prices range from $119,900 - $185,000. Doubles Wensmann Homes has successfully completed and marketed over 85 of these "Signature Townhomes". Townhomes are chosen from an inventory of custom design plans that blend together. (See Exhibit "D") Buyer profiles include empty nesters, executives and working professionals. Of the 85 homes completed in the past three years only 10% have school age children. Many still have college students or weekend visits from grandchildren. Prices range from $249,900 - $400,000. The proposed development includes 46 townhomes, or 23 two-unit buildings. All three distinctive communities would be controlled by individual townhome associations. Association dues would cover maintenance of private roads, including snow removal and reserve fund for future upkeep. Dues would also cover all maintenance of common areas and buildings, hazard insurance, garbage pickup, reserves and management functions. In the case of the Coach Homes the dues would also include water and sewer fees. Also included is a breakdown of the Shoreland District Analysis as calculated by Pioneer Engineering. The property does fall within two shoreland districts, the Upper Prior Lake and Arctic Lake. Site design considerations have been used to minimize the impact on steep slopes, wetlands and wooded areas. A trail system is proposed to allow for pedestrian traffic to Arctic Lake and a proposed park. Design consideration of the natural slopes have also required an extraordinary building design to be planned with extended foundations to preserve the natural terrain. Wensmarm Realty would like to proceed with the approval process this fall and winter, with site grading early spring 1998, construction of model homes in June 1998 and occupancies in September 1998. LITY ABSTRACT, INC. 7582 Currell Boulevard, Suite 112 Woodbury, Minnesota 55125 Phone 739-8597 Fax 739-8492 June 4,1997 Attn: Nick Koester Chicago Title Insurance Company 2740 West 80th Street Bloomington, MN 55431 RE: Abstracter's Certificate Legal Description: That part of the East 16.00 acres of the Northwest lA of the Southwest lA of Section 34, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying East of the West 2.0 rods of said East 16.00 acres and Northeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the West line of said East 16.00 acres distant 889.30 feet South of the Northwest corner; thence Southerly along said West line a distance of 185.20 feet; thence Easterly at right angles a distance of 140.00 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as "Point A"; thence Northwesterly along a line drawn from said "Point A" to the point of commencement, to its intersection with the East line of said West 1.0 rod the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Southeasterly along said line and its Southeasterly extension to the South line of said Northwest lA of the Southwest lA and there terminating. Together with all that part of Government Lot 2, Section 34, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying Westerly of the East 1024.00 feet of said Government Lot 2 and Northerly and Westerly of the recorded plat of Island View 5th Addition, Scott County, Minnesota. EXCEPTING therefrom the following described tract: That part of the North ~,~ of the Southwest ~A of Section 34, Township 118, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said North ~,~ of the Southwest lA distant 1082.43 feet East of the Northwest corner; thence on an assumed bearing of East along said North line a distance of 375.00 feet; thence South 580.80 feet; thence West 375.00 feet; thence North 580.80 feet to the point of beginning. QUALITY ABSTRACT, INC. does hereby certify that it has made a search of the public record in Scott County, Minnesota and discloses the apparent owners and addresses of real estate within a 500 foot radius of the above referenced property and has shown them as Entries No. I to 14, inclusive, on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Dated this 30th day of May, 1997. Quality Abstract, Inc. Lice~fd ~,'bSiracter A FULL SERVICE ABSTRACT COMPANY Jefferson Commons TOWNHOMES End Unit FUTURE ,, BEDROOM ,' 9X106 -.' ,, FUTURE~) FUTURE FAMILY ROOM 13x136 GARAGE 20 × 20 Lower Level FOYER DECK 10×10 DINING 11 × 10 BEDROOM 11"x12 Upper Level OPT. GAS FIREPLACE & ENTERTNNMENT CENTER LIVING,' 14 x 136 :-=--': MASTER BEDROOM 13 × 156 423-4884 Model Center 423-1179 Corp_or_ate Office Jefferson Commons TOWNHOMES Inside Unit FUTURE FAMILY ROOM 13x136 GARAGE 20 x 20 I Lower Level (opt. Plan--See E, td Unit L~,er Le*,el Plan) DECK 10×10 DINING 11 × 10 LIVING oh-. 14 x 136 ~R~PL*CE DN- BEDROOM 116X12 MASTER BEDROOM 13 x 156 Upper Level 423-4884 Model Center 423-1179 Corporate Office Floor plans and dimensions are subject to WINSLOW GREEN Low~ COACH HOM~S MASTER BEDROOM 12Hx 14 BEDROOM 10'x 12 /' DECK : lOx8 ORal ROOM -'-- 17X18 FOYER MAIN LEVEL GARAGE 18x22 ENTERTAINMENT CENYER ii FUTURE FUTURE FAMILY ROOM : ~ BEDROOM ':~. 18x17H :-,~-' 10x14 ': STORAGE COACH HOME STORAGE LOWER LEVEL UNEXCAVATED 423-4884 Model Center 423-1179 Corporate Office Floor plans and dimensions ate subject to change without notice. WINSLOW GREEN UPPER COACH HOMES DECK 13×10 DINING 10x9 KITCHEN 12x9 FOYER BEDROOM 14 x 12" STANDARD FLOOR PLAN GREAT ROOM 246 x 16 WALK-IN CLOSET MASTER BEDROOM 176x 13 BEDROOM 106x12 PORCH 13x10 DINING 12x9 KITCHEN 12x9 FOYER DN BEDROOM 14 x 126 OPTIONAL FLOOR PLAN GREAT ROOM 246 x 16 .N.I(-IN CLOS~ MASTER BEDROOM 176 x 13 BEDROOM 106 x 12 423-4884 Model Center 423-1179 Corporate Office Floor plans and dimensions are subiect to change without notice. Maple FUTURE BEDROOM 12×16 ?~ F"¢--:?__. FUTURE BEDROOM FAMILY ROOM 24 x 20 STORAGE PATIO MASTER BEDROOM ENTRY BEDROOM/DEN LIVING DINING SOLARIUM 12xZg MAIN LEVEL KITCHEN GARAGE LOWER LEVEL UNEXCAVATED Dimensions are approximate, guilder reserves the right Io alter plans, features and specifications without notice. Signature Townhomes By Wcns , Model 431-1939 Office 423-1179 © Wensmann Homes, Inc. 1995 Alt floor plans and devotions are the exclusive properly of Wensmann Homes, [nc. Copyright idringemeflt could result in legal prosecution under fedeml co~yrighl law. Cardinal l]untersW00d Townhomes-- Standard End Unit STORAGE STORAGE LOWER LEVEL MASTER BEDROOM 12x15 DECK 12x8 SOLARIUM ~ DINETTE ~ LIVING 12 X 14~ 14 X 12 KJTCHEN 13x11" t DINING 12~x 16e MAIN LEVEL GARAGE 21 x 21" Model 431-1939 Office 423-1179 Exterior persp~ives, fl~r p~ans ond d~me~oes s~ovm are Jot illumofi~e purposes m~ly, subjecl la change vdthoul Aolice. Hease see our s~les consultant for detoih. © Wen.mann Homes, inc. 1997. Ali Rom' plans ~nd perspe~ives ore bmlder's exdusive preperty. Cop~ighlinfringement could result in legal prosecution unde~ federal copyright Iow. .eOriole litmtm'sWood fl Standard Inside Unit FUTURE ~'~ BEDROOM FUTURE FUTURE BEDROOM FAMILY ROOM STORAGE LOWER LEVEL Dimensions are approximale. Builder reserves the right to after plans, features end specifkolians wilhoul notice. GREAT ROOM 17x15 DINING BEDROOM MASTER BEDROOM ~11 II I~l~x~'l 12x14= GARAGE 21x22 MAIN LEVEL Solarium Townhomes By Wensmann Model 431-1939 Office 423-1179 © Wensmonn Homes, lac. 1995 All floor plofls and elevations are the exclusive properly of Wensmann Homes, lac. Copyrighl infrifigemenl could resuh in legal Nosecution under federal copyrighl law. l]lmte sWood Townhomes ,__ DECK 14x10 I', LEVEL II LEVEL I IDECK 14>(10 SOLARIUM.' 21 X14 LIVING ROOM 21 x 14 KITCHEN ~ DINING :FOYER ROOM ~ 13×12 ~ GARAGE 22x22 FUTURE FUTURE BEDROOM ii REC ROOM 126x13 ~ 28x13 ........... _,", ,?' ,,,, ~.' ~ Model 431-1939 Office 423-1179 ~xferiaf perspectives, floor plans and dimensions s~own are faf ill~rative purposes only, subjed Io change without notice. Hease see our sales coesultonl for delaY. © Wemmonn Homes, Inc. 1997. AJI flora plans and perspeclives are builder's exd~ve Foperly. Copyright ~nfringement could result ia legal prose(ufion under federal co~yfighl law. Hunters'Wood --.Townhomcs-- LIVING MASTER BEDROOM SOLARIUM ~ 14x17 ~. DINING r 15x1~ I DEN FOYER FUTURE BEDROOM FAMILY ROOM FUTUR 1E4BxE12DROOM ,, STORAGE GARAGE MAIN LEVEL UNEXCAVATED LOWER LEVEL Model 431-1939 Office 423-1179 Exlerior perspedives, floor plans and dimensions shown are for illustrative purposes o~ly, suhjed Io change wilhmJf notice. Please see our soles (Omldtont for details. © Werrsmann Homes, Inc. ! 997. All floor plans and perspedives are builder's exclusive properly. Copyright infrh~gernenl could resufl in legal prosecution under federal copyrighl law. heAspen HtmtersWood MAIN LEVEL SOLARIUM 2o×13 , LIVING ' 18×14 GARAGE Model 431-1939 Office 423-1179 Signature Townhomes By Wensmann UPPER LEVEL MASTER BEDROOM OPEN TO BELOW LOFT MASTER BATH BONUS ROOM PATIO Ux4 FAMILY ROOM i=~: ~'~ FUTURE BEDROOM TIONAL R ........ , i~___; sam ,, STORAGE ........... ,, ,v-k-~ 1~'),~ UNEXCAVATED LOWER LEVEL © Wensmaan Homes, Inc. 1995 All floor plons and dewiions are the exdusive properly of Wemmonn Hemes, Inc. Dimensions are approximole. Builder reserves the riehl lo alter Copyright idringemenl could resuh in legal prosecution under federol copyrlehl law. plans, features and specifications without notice. z Z<~ ~Zz .... ~' w ...... 125 ..... [ I -I i II ] Il '11." ,i PIONEER engineering Ms. Jane Kansier City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Civil Engineers ors · Landscape Architects November 24, 1997 RE: Glynwater, P.E. # 97139 Dear Ms. Kansier: Enclosed are ten (10) copies and one (1) reduction of the Schematic P.U.D. Plans for the Glynwater Addition (Niosi Parcel). Kelly from Wensmarm Homes will submit the narrative under separate cover. The following comments from the DRC meeting are included on these plans: No sanitary sewer or watermain service to the Sioux Community property immediately to the west. Loop internal trail system with the proposed City trail on the west property line. Outlot A is now platted as park. Additional offsite information south of subject property. The private through street is now within the Standard City Right-of-Way (50 feet, 55 feet with sidewalk) Sue McDerment, Prior Lake Engineering Department, verified that a 8" watermain is adequate for the site and consistent with the Cities Comprehensive Water Plan. Further changes with the realignment of the west side of the through street ( formerly west cul-de-sac) are discussed in the narrative. If you have any questions or require any further information or plans for the December 8'~ Planning Commission meeting please feel free to call. Sincerely, PIONEER ENGINEERING P.A. Nicholas Polta cc: Kelly Murray, Wensmann Homes 2422 Enterprise Drive · Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 · (612) 681-1914 · Fax 681-9488 625 Highway 10 N.E. · Blaine, Minnesota 85434 · (612) 783-1880 · Fax 783-1883 DATE: TO: FROM: RE: December 3, 1997 Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Sue McDermott, Assistant City Enginee~ Schematic P.U.D. Plan Glynwater (Project 97-51) The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject plan and has the following comments: Show contours within 200 feet of the property boundary at next submittal. Add a sewer stub on the stub street that runs east to the "exception." g:\projects\1997\5 lglyn\schemrev. DOC SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDS DIVISION HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 (612) 496-8346 BRADLEY J. LARSON ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR Fax: (612) 496-8365 October31,1997 Ms. Jane Kansier Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 Subject: PUD of ARCTIC RIDGE CR 82 east of CR 83 Dear Ms. Kansier: I have reviewed the application as it relates to Highway Department issues and offer the following comments / conditions: The existing 75' right-of-way as shown is adequate. An access permit will be required for each location connecting to the County Highway. The westerly access appears to be outside of the property boundary. Street plans for the construction of the future local road must be reviewed and approved by the County as it relate to CR 82. Items to be reviewed include profile grade, drainage, radius size, and pavement section. Provide drainage calculations for any drainage entering the Count,/right-of-way with the final plan submittals. A right turn lane will be required along the south side of CR 82. Detail requirements are available upon request. · A rock pad is required on the internal street to prevent dirt from being tracked onto CR 82 during the grading operation. Sweeping of CR 82 shall be done as required by the County. · No ponding, signing, berming or landscaping will be allowed within the County right-of-way. · Any access, grading, or utility work required within the County right-of-way will require a permit prior to the work commencing. An Equal Opportunity/Safety ~lware Employer Arctic Ridge Page 2 * Noise levels will increase as traffic volumes increase on CR 82. The responsibility for noise attenuation lies with the City and the developer. * We request the opportunity to review the final PUD & construction plans. We will assume that your approval will adhere to the recommendations listed above unless we receive notification from you to the contrary. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you for the opportunity to comment {~erely, Scott Merkley ~ Transportation Manager c: Brad Larson- County Engineer Greg Ilkka - City Engineer sm:~ndrn~eview~oudcupzn.doc INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: PLANNING (~// Ralph Teschner GLYNWATER PUD (assessment/fee review) October 22, 1997 A 45 acre parcel in Section 34-115-22 (PIN #25 934 017 0) is proposed to be developed as Glynwater PUD. The property currently is NOT served with municipal sewer and water utilities. At the time municipal utilities become available the subdivision will be subject to the following City charges: Stormwater Management Fee Collector Street Fee Trunk Sewer & Water Fee Lateral Sewer & Water Charge 16.8 centffsq.~. $1500.00/acre $3500.00/acre 150'@$60.00/ff The application of these City charges would generate the following costs to the developer based upon a net lot area calculation of 27.64 acres of townhouse units (1,203,998 sq. ft.) as provided within the site data summary sheet of the PUD schematic description: Lateral Sewer & Water Charge: 150' ~ $60.00/ff= $9,000.00: Trunk Sewer & Water Charge: 27.64 acres ~ $3500.00/ac = $96,740.00 Storm Water Management Fee: 1,203,998 sf@ 16.8/sf= $202,272.00 Collector Street Fee: 27.64 acres ~ $1500.00/ac = $41,460.00 These charges represent an approximate cost of $2840.00 per lot for the I23 proposed to~vnhouse units within Glynwater PUD. Assuming the initial net lot area of the PUD does not change, the above referenced storm water, collector street, trunk and lateral sewer and water charges would be determined and collected within the context of a developer's agreement for the construction of utility improvements at the time of final plat approval. There are no other outstanding special assessments currently certified against the property. Also, the tax status of the property is current with no outstanding delinquencies. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 H:~PLIT$~SPL9716,DOC Project Review Worksheet DNR - Division of Waters / Metro Region Project Type (check all that apply): [] Preliminary Plat DNR Jurisdiction (answer all): Yes Floodplain [] 0VI. S.103F. 101) Yes Protected Waters [] (M.S.103G.245) [] Final Plat [] Subdivision [] Variance 12 Other No ~ No [] Shoreland [] (M.S.103F.201) No Yes No [] Water Appropriation [] [] (M.S. 103G. 255) Comments Recommendations and Proposed Conditions Reviewer V'-/~- ~-'-(NCl-& Title/lea~ U.,tt)v_.c~,,~Phone '~'~z,'vgtc, Date INNE$O AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: PLANNING REPORT 4B PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS RED OAKS SECOND ADDITION JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATO~ X YES NO-N/A DECEMBER 8, 1997 ' INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an application for a preliminary plat for the 2.42 acre site located directly west of Breezy Point Road, south of Prior Lake, and north of Rutledge Street. The preliminary plat is to be known as "Red Oaks Second Addition". ANALYSIS: Applicant: Michael S. Benedict 15380 Breezy Point Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 Project Engineer: William R. Englehardt Associates, Inc. MD52, 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard Chaska, MN 55318 Location of Property: This property is located along the west side of Breezy Point Road, about 1/4 mile north of Rutledge Street, and directly south of Prior Lake. Existing Site Conditions: There is a single family home located on this property. The site is fairly level, and contains a 0.23 acre wetland. The channel between the wetland and the lake bed was artificially created, and is considered part of the wetland rather than the lake. Zoning and Land Use Designation: The property is zoned R-1 SD (Suburban Residential Shoreland District). The 2010 Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as R- LMD (Urban Low to Medium Density Residential). 1:\97flles\97subdiv~preplat\redoaks2~redoakpc.doc Paae 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612)'447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: Proposed Development: Streets/Access/Circulation: Grading/Erosion Control: North: Prior Lake South: Single family dwellings zoned R-1 SD and designated as R-LMD. East: Single family dwellings across Breezy Point Road, zoned R-1 SD and designated as R-LMD. West: Prior Lake The proposed plat consists of 2.42 acres to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family dwellings, for a total density of 1.24 units per acre. This density is well below the maximum permitted density of 3.5 units per acre. All of the proposed lots are riparian lots. The minimum lot size for riparian lots (lots adjacent to the lake) in the R-1 SD district is 15,000 square feet, with 90' of frontage at the front building line, and 75' of width at the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW). The sizes of the lots in this development are shown on the following table: TOTAL BELOW WETLAND NET LOT AREA OHW AREA AREA Lot 1 26,866.48 9,040.89 261.73 17,583.86 Lot 2 36,843.33 3,076.88 8,199.68 25,566.77 Lot 3 31,244.30 1,145.64 1,445.45 28,653.21 All of the lots meet the minimum lot area requirements, and have at least 75' of width at the OHW elevation. Lots 2 and 3 are also 90' wide at the front building line. Lot 1, however, is less than 90' wide at the front building line. For a more detailed explanation of the proposed development, see the attached narrative submitted by the developer. There are no new streets located within this plat. This plat does dedicate 33' of right-of-way for Breezy Point Road adjacent to the plat. There are no road improvements proposed as part of this plat. The only grading on this site is for the house pads on Lots 1 and 3, as well as some grading indicated on the property to the south of Lot 3. The applicant has submitted a preliminary grading plan which, for the most part, meets City standards. Some minor modifications, however, will be necessary to this plan. 1:\97flles\97su bdiv\preplat\redoaks2\redoakpc.doc Page 2 Drainage/Storm Sewer/ Water Quality: Wetlands: Sanitary Sewer: Watermain: Easements: Tree Preservation: A portion of this site drains towards Prior Lake and the remainder drains towards the wetland located along Breezy Point Road. The proposed plat does not alter this drainage pattern. The grading and erosion control plan calls for the installation of silt fence and floatation silt curtain prior to any construction activity on the site. This silt fence and floatation silt curtain will remain in place until all construction is completed and the site is either revegetated or rip-rap is installed according to the plan. There is a 0.23 acre wetland located on this site, near Breezy Point Road. During previous discussion about this properly, this wetland was considered as part of Prior Lake. However, the DNR has since concluded the channel connecting the wetland to the lake was manmade. Therefore, they have reversed their previous determination. The wetland is subject to the wetland rules. The developer is proposing to fill about 792 square feet of this wetland to create a driveway for Lot 1. This plan has been reviewed by the City and a wetland exemption was issued on October 9, 1997. Sanitary sewer service is located along the northerly boundary of this plat. Service lines will be extended to serve the new lots. Watermain service is also located on the north side of this property. Service lines will be extended from the existing line to the new lots, The Developer will be required to dedicate drainage and utility easements over the wetlands and over all sewer and water lines constructed outside of the dedicated right-of-way. The developer will also be required to obtain temporary construction easements for the grading located outside of the boundaries of this plat. This development is subject to the provisions of Section 6.16 (Tree Preservation) of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has provided an inventory as required by this ordinance, and has noted 100 caliper inches or 33% of the total caliper inches on the site will be removed for the location of the houses. The Tree Preservation Ordinance allows removal of 25% of the caliper inches, so the I;\97flles\97subdiv~preplat~redoaks2~redoakpc.doc Page 3 developer will be required to replace the additional 24.5 caliper inches at a rate of 1/2" to 1". The developer has submitted a landscaping plan showing the replacement of these trees. Landscaping: This development is also subject to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which requires one (1) street tree per lot frontage and one (1) front yard tree per lot. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan showing the proposed location of the required trees, as well as the minimum size and types. Some changes are required to this plan so that it identifies at least two front yard trees on each lot. Parkland Dedication: The Developer shall comply with the park dedication and contribution requirements as defined in the City Code. This plat does not indicate any land dedication. The Park and Recreation Director has indicated that the dedication requirements will be satisfied by a cash dedication calculated by multiplying 10% of the gross acreage (2.42 acres) by the market value of the land ($13,000). This dedication equals $3,146.00. Finance/Assessment Fee Rev|ew: This subdivision will be subject to a stormwater management fee and a collector street fee. Sewer and water were extended to the site in 1973, and the assessments were paid. The stormwater management fee and the collector street fee are calculated on the net acreage of the new lots only. These charges will be paid at the time the developer's contract is executed. A summary of the charges is shown on the attached memo from Ralph Teschner. ANALYSIS: A preliminary plat identifies proposed lot locations, areas and dimensions, road locations, storm sewers, grading, location and grade of sewer and water, landscaping and tree replacement plans, and other improvements to an undeveloped site. Once preliminary plat approval is granted, the property owner has a vested interest in the plat. For one year following preliminary plat approval, no ordinance amendment shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout, dedication required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat. A preliminary plat for this site was originally proposed in 1992. That proposal included three lots accessed via a private cul-de-sac off of Breezy Point Road. The City Council denied this plat in on May 4, 1992, primarily due to the number of variances required. At the time, the applicant was requesting variances to the lakeshore setback, lot width, the width of a public road and the requirement that the road be dedicated as a public street. 1:\97files\97su bdiv~preplat\redoaks2~redoa kpc.doc Page 4 Several of the variances were due to the fact that the DNR had determined the pond area to be a part of the lake bed. In 1993, the applicant resubmitted his proposal. Once again, numerous variances were required. The City Council originally approved the preliminary plat, subject to the condition that the applicant obtain the necessary variances and that the DNR make a determination as to whether the pond area is a part of the lake bed. The Council subsequently adopted Resolution 94-09 on February 7, 1994, denying the preliminary plat. Once again, the issue was due to the determination that the pond area was a part of the lake bed, and thus created the need for several variances. This proposal is different from previous proposal in several respects. First of all, the proposal does not include a private road. The plat provides frontage for all three lots on Breezy Point Road, although Lots 2 and 3 do share a driveway. Secondly, all of the lots meet the minimum lot area requirements. Finally, there are no setback variances. The DNR has determined the pond is not a part of the lake bed for regulatory purposes. Therefore, the lakeshore setbacks do not apply. In addition, in 1997, the Council reduced the required lakeshore setback from 75' to 50' from the OHW elevation. This also eliminated the need for several variances. One issue which still remains is the lot width of Lot 1. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 90' at the front building line for riparian lots. Lot 1 does not meet this requirement. If we were to look at the boundaries of the original plat of Red Oaks, the lot does meet this requirement; however, that plat includes several feet of property below the Ordinary High Water elevation. Section 5-8-3 (C) 1 of the Zoning Code states, in part, "only land above the ordinary high water level of public water can be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards must be met at both the ordinary high water level and the building line". This section does not allow us to consider any area below the Ordinary High Water elevation as part of the lot area and lot width. In addition, Section 6-6-4 (F) 1 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires "for all residential zoning districts, the subdivision grading plan shall indicate a minimum setback of thirty feet (30') measured from the lO0-year flood elevation of the wetland or detention pond to the building pad or house location". The proposed plan shows a 30' setback from the delineated edge of the wetland, but not from the 100-year flood elevation of the wetland. There is literally no building envelope on Lot 1 that meets this requirement. With the exception of Lot 1, the proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. There are some minor engineering requirements which still must be addressed prior to approval of this preliminary plat. These requirements, listed on the attached memorandum from the Engineering staff, can be met by submitting revised grading and utility plans., If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions: Lot 1 should be eliminated, or the preliminary plat redesigned to meet all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. 2. A revised landscaping plan showing the changes outlined in this report must be submitted. If Lot I is eliminated, the landscaping plan will meet the requirements. 1:\97files\97subdiv\preplat~redoaks2~redoakpc.doc Page 5 3. The issues outlined in the memos from the Engineering staff, dated November 14, 1997, and November ~8, 1997, must be addressed in the final plat. ALTERNATIVES: Recommend the Council approve the preliminary plat of Red Oaks Second Addition as presented and subject to the conditions listed above, or with specific changes directed by the Planning Commission. Table or continue the public hearing to a date and time certain and provide the developer with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future Planning Commission review. 3. Recommend denial of the application based upon specific findings of fact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1 ACTION REQUIRED: A motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat of Red Oaks Second Addition, subject to the listed conditions, is required. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Applicants' Narrative 4. Letter from DNR 5. Memo from Engineering Staff 6. Memo from Ralph Teschner 7. Minutes of May 4, 1992, City Council Meeting 8. Minutes of December 20, 1993, City Council Meeting 9. Resolution #94-09 1:\97files\97subdiv\preplat\redoaks2\redoakpc.doc Page 6 m ~ rn 0 m O o m ci o .r' RED OAKS 2ND ADDITION PRELI~FL-NARY PLAT NARRATIVE AND I/g'FORIVlATION LOCATION PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 4, 1997 Item 1 Proposed name of subdivision: Red Oaks 2nd Addition Item 2 Name and address of the owners agent, subdivider, surveyor and designer of the plat: Owner/Developer: Mike Bennedict 15380 Breezy Point Road Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Phone: 612-447-2688 Attorney: Bryce D. Huemoeller 16670 Franklin Trail SE Prior Lake, ~M/nnesota 55372 Phone: 612-447-2131 Design Consultants: Engineer and Wetland Consultants: W'dliam R. Engelhardt Associates Inc. William Engelhardt P.E. Stephen Albrecht Greg Swanson MD52 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard, Suite 480 Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Phone: 612-448-8838 Surveyor: Valley Surveying Co., P.A. Ronald A. Swanson, R.L.S. 16670 Franklin Trail SE Suite 120-C Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Phone: 612-447-2570 Item 3 Ex/sting zoning classification: Suburban Residential Item 4 Physical features: Prior Lake and a small wetland are within or adjacent to the property as shown on the Ex/sting Conditions Plan (Plan Sheet 1 orS). Prior Lake is identified as protected water 26 P by the Department of Natural Resources. The ex/sting wetland is classified as follows: Cowardin System(NWI map): PE~MF Circular 39: Type 4 wetland Please note that the channel connecting the wetland was artificially created. This artificial connection is outlined in the signed contractqExlaibit C) between Mr. Bennedict and the Department of Natural Resources. The contract stipulates that the wetland is not part of the lake bed and the channel was artificially created. The wetland was delineated in September of 1997. Item 5 The Red Oaks 2nd Addition project proposes to subdivide a 2.42 acre residential property into three(3) residential lots. The average lot size without right-of-way is 0.73 acres. The project does not require any variances. A temporary construction easement along the south property line will be required for lot 3 grading. Grading will be required for lots 1 and 3. Areas to be graded and BlVlP's to be used during grading are shown on the Grading and Erosion Control Plan (Plan Sheet 3 of 5). The project w/Il involve the filling of a portion of the ex/sting channel to provide a driveway access for lot 1. The proposed filling is permitted due to the incidental creation of the ex/sting channel. The following exhibits are provide to document the channels incidental construction and permitted filling by the owner: Exhibit C This contract between the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Mr. Bennedict stipulates that the channel connecting the ex/sting wetland to Prior Lake was artificially created during the installation of sanitary sewer and watermain by the City of Prior Lake in 1974 and that the wetland is not part of the lake bed. Exhibit D and E These pictures taken in 1945 and 1971 show that the channel did not ex/st prior to 1974. Exhibit F This wetland exemption certificate issued by the City of Prior Lake allows for the filling of the channel/wetland as shown on the grading plan· The exemption allows the filling without mitigation and indicates that the filling is exempt from the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act(MWCA). Mr. Lard Leichty reviewed and issued the exemption for the City of Prior Lake. Exhibit G This letter from the Scott Soil and Water Conservation District verifies the incidental creation of the channel and that the proposed filling is exempt from the MWCA. The following agencies have also been contacted for review and permitting for this project: A~enc¥ Permit Status Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District Reviewer: Mr. Carl Almer Being Reviewed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reviewer: Mr. Gary Ekfimarm Being Reviewed Mr. Pat Lynch of the DI',rR has been contacted and will provide additional clarification on the contract between the DNR and Mr. Bermedict if necessary. Because the filling activities are not within the lake bed the DiVR does not require additional permits for tiffs project. Mr. Lynch has been requested to provide an additional letter stating this. Item 6 There are no proposed streets for this project. The ex/sting driveway will be reconstructed as shown on the Grading Plan and shared by lots 2 and 3. A driveway easement will be included in lot 3 for lot 2. Lot 1 will have a separate driveway as shown. Item 7 The proposed houses will be custom built flame houses with individual house designs using earthtone colors or wood exterior finishes. Buildable areas are shown on the Grading Plan for each io~. Lot 1 will have a maximum 1st floor size of 1,800 s.f. and a 2 car garage. Lot 3 will have a maximum 1st floor size of 2,500 s.£ and a 3 car garage. No living spaces will be allowed below a 910 for these lots. There are no proposed protective convenants or deed restrictions at this time. Item 8 Gas, electric and cable utilities will be limited to individual service connections for this project from existing main lines. Item 9 Anticipated Construction Schedule Activiw Installation of Erosion Control and BMP's will be done in June of 1998 prior to any grading. These BMP's shall be maintained as stipulated on the Grading and Erosion Control Plan(sheet 3 of 5) Grading, installation of the lot 1 driveway and culvert installation is anticipated to begin in June 1998 and be completed in July of 1998. Revegetation of disturbed areas and planting of trees will begin in July of 1998 and be completed in August of 1998. Item 10 There are no public improvements for this project. The construction plans are included in the preliminary plat application. All details and required specifications are shown on the plans. SURFACE WATER ~M2kNAGEM_ENT PLAN & HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS FOR RED OAKS 2ND ADDITION PREPARED BY: WILLIAM R. ENGELItARDT ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT B EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Red Oaks 2nd Addition property is a 2.42 acre parcel located west of Breezy Poin$ Road on Prior Lake. Figure 1 shows the existing site, drainage areas and drainage patterns. This property drains directly to Prior Lake and to a small wetland which is connected by an artificial channel to Prior Lake. Currently the site has one single family residence. This project proposed to subdivide the parcel to create three single family residences. Site soils are Hayden Sandy Loam(figure 2) and muck(wetland areas). Table 1 shows the existing site characteristics. TABLE I: EXISTING CONDITIONS TO WETLAND 1.02 72 0.15 (BENNEDICT PROPERTY ONLY) TO LAKE 1.40 64 0.17 ('BENNEDICT PROPERTY ONLY) TO WETLAND* 1.60 71 0.15 (OVERALL DRAINAGE AREA) *Includes 0.58 acres offsite drainage EXISTING RUNOFF RATES: Existing peak discharge rates for the Red Oaks 2nd Addition were calculated using the SCS Graphical Peak Discharge Method. Peak discharge rates were computed for the 2, 10 and 100 year 24-hr rainfall events. Composite curve numbers(CN) were calculated for each drainage area. Copies of the calculations are contained in the appendix to this plan. Table 2 shows the existing runoff rates for Red Oaks 2nd Addition. TABLE 2: EXISTING RUNOFF RATE~ TO WETLAND 1 2 3 (BENNEDICT PROPERTY ONLY) TO LAKE 1 2 4 (BENNEDICT PROPERTY ONLY) TO WETLAND 1 2 5 (OVERALL DRAINAGE AREA) Note: SCS Peak Discharge Method Computer Model rounds to the nearest cfs. The 2, I 0 and 100 year storms for the wetland drainage area(includes .58 acres offsite) were routed through the proposed 18" culvert using TR-55 and Pond 2. The culvert was routed using the existing wetland and Prior Lake waterlevel(902.10) and the OHW of 904.00 as starting elevations. Table 5 shows the routing results. TABLE 5: ROUTING RESULTS POND 0.72 2.27 4.81 902.17 902.31 902.44 (NWL 902.10) POND 0.98 2.43 5.10 904.10 904.22 904.35 (OHW 904.00) Discharge rates are slightly decreased for proposed conditions with Prior Lake at normal levels prior to rainfall events. Rates increase sldghtly ifPrior. Lak~ is at the OHW prior to rainfall events. RESULTS: Discharge rates are slightly decreased for the wetland if Prior Lake is at a level of 902.10 prior to the storm event. Rates increase slightly for the wetland if Prior Lake is at the OHW(904.00). Direct discharge rates to the lake increase less than 0.5 cfs for the 2 and 10 year storm events. Rates increase between .5 els and 1.0 cfs for the 100 year storm. The proposed culvert decreases discharge rates slightly fi`om the wetland to the lake compared to existing conditions. POND-2 Version: 5.20 S/N: EXECUTED: 11-06-1997 11:16:11 RED OAKS ADDITION MIKE BENNEDICT POND OUTLET BY SA3~ 11/6/97 Page 1 Return Freq: 2 years Pond File: Inflow Hydrograph: Outflow Hydrograph: SU/VSMA~Y OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ****************** BENN . PND B EN-N2 . HY]D B EAFNO 2 . F/YD Starting Pond W.S. Elevation 904.00 ft ***** Summary of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation ***** Peak Inflow = Peak Outflow Peak Elevation = 2.00 cfs 0.98 cfs 904.10 ft ***** Summary of Approximate Peak Storage ***** Initial Storage = 0.68 ac-ft Peak Storage From Storm = 0.02 ac-ft Total Storage in Pond = 0.70 ac-ft POND-2 Version: 5.20 S/N: EXEC~JTED: 11-06-1997 11:16:12 * RED OAKS ADDITION * ~ ~* MIKE BEN-NEDICT * * POND OUTLET * * BY SAA 11/6/97 * Page 1 Return Freq: 10 years ****************** SUS~4ARY OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ****************** Pond File: BEN-N .PND Inflow Hydrograph: BENN10 .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: BEN-NO10 .HYD Starting Pond W.S. Elevation = 904.00 ft ***** Summary of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation ***** Peak Inflow = Peak Outflow = Peak Elevation = 4.00 cfs 2.43 cfs 904.22 ft ***** Summary of Approximate Peak Storage Initial Storage = 0.68 ac-ft Peak Storage From Storm = 0.05 ac-ft Total Storage in Pond = 0.73 ac-ft POND-2 Version: 5.20 S/N: EXECUTED: 11-06-1997 11:16:12 * RED OAKS ADDITION * * MIKE BENNEDICT * POND OUTLET * * BY SAA 11/6/97 * Page 1 Return Freq: !00 years Pond File: Inflow Hydrograph: Outflow Hydrograph: SUPR4A2{Y OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ****************** BENI~ .PND BEITN100 .HYD BEATNO100.H~iID Starting Pond W.S. Elevation = 904.00 ft ***** Summary of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation ***** Peak Inflow = Peak Outflow = Peak Elevation = 7.00 cfs 5.10 cfs 904.35 ft ***** Summary of Approximate Peak Storage ***** Initial Storage = 0.68 ac-ft Peak Storage From Storm = 0.08 ac-ft Total Storage in Pond = 0.76 ac-ft POND-2 Version: 5.20 S/N: EXECLrfED: 10-02-1997 16:38:53 * RED OAKS ADDITION * MIKE BEAINEDICT ' '* PRIOR IJLKE * BY SA3~ 10/2/97 Page 1 Return Freq: 2 years ****************** S~Y OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ****************** Pond File: BENlq .PND Inflow Hydrograph: BEArN2 .HYqD Outflow Hydrograph: BEIqN02 .HYD Starting Pond W.S. Elevation = 902.10 ft Surm~ary of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation ***** Peak Inflow = 1.00 cfs Peak Outflow = 0.72 cfs Peak Elevation = 902.17 ft ***** Su~mlary of Approximate Initial Storage Peak Storage From Storm Total Storage in Pond Peak Storage ***** = 0.02 ac-ft 0.01 ac-ft = 0.03 ac-fi POND-2 Version: 5.20 S/N: EXECUTED: 10-02-1997 16:38:53 * RED OAKS A/}DITION * MIKE BEArNEDICT PRIOR LJ%KE * BY SA-A 10/2/97 Page 1 Return Freq: 10 years ****************** SUPSMA_RY OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS Pond File: BE~rN .PND Inflow Hydrograph: BEArN10 .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: BENNO10 .HYD Starting Pond W.S. Elevation = 902.10 ft Summazl; of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation ***** Peak Inflow = 3.00 cfs Peak Outflow = 2.27 cfs Peak Elevation = 902.31 ft ***** Sumraary of Approximate Initial Storage Peak Storage From Storm Total Storage in Pond Peak Storage ***** 0.02 ac-ft 0.04 ac-ft = 0.05 ac-ft POND-2 Version: 5.20 S/N: EXECUTED: 10-02-1997 16:38:53 * RED OAKS ADDITION * MIKE BEAINEDICT * PRIOR LAKE * BY SAA 10/2/97 Page 1 Return Freq: 100 years ****************** S~Y OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ****************** Pond File: BEN-N oPND Inflow Hydro~raph: BEAIN100 .HY]D Outflow Hydro~raph: BEAINO100.HY]D Startin~ Pond W.S. Elevation = 902.10 ft Summary of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation Peak Inflow 6.00 cfs Peak Outflow 4.81 cfs Peak Elevation = 902.44 ft ***** Summary of Approximate Peak Storage ***** Initial Storage = 0.02 ac-fi Peak Storage From Storm = 0.06 ac-ft Total Storage in Pond = 0.07 ac-ft EXHIBIT C DNR CONTR~.CT STIPULATION STATE OF MINNESOTA, acting by and through its Commissioner of Natural Resources, (the Slate) and MICHAEL S. BENEDICT (Benedict). RECITALS Benedict is the oWner of real property in Scott County, Minnesotlk described on the attached Exhibit A (the Property). There is a pond or wetland on the Property that is on the date of this Stipulation physically connected by a shallow channel to Prior Lake. The pond or wetland on the Property has been, since approximately 1973, and remains artificially connected to Prior Lake. The parties hereto desire to affn-m that the pond or wetland is not part of Prior Lake and that the Property described on the attached Exkibit A does nor have riparian fighm to Prior Lake. STIPULATION In consideration of the mutual covenants and a~eements herein, the parties hereto a~ee as follows: 1. STATUS OF POND OR WETL,~_N'D/R_IP,~RiAi'q RIGHTS. The pond or wetland on the Property is not part of Prior Lake, and the bed of the pond or wet. landis not parc of the lake bed of Prior Lake. The property described on the attached Exhibit A does not have riparian rights to Prior Lake. 2. STATUS OF CHANNEL. No righ. ts to excavate or maintain the channel so that it is navigable for watercraft attach to the property. 3. ACKNOW'LEDGMENT. Benedict a~ees to execute and file for record the Acknowledgment of Artificial Connect/on of Wetiaud to Prior Lake attached hereto as Ext:fibit B. NOTIFICATION TO PRIOR LAKE: The State th_rough the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources shall promptly upon full execution of this Stipulation and the attached Acknowledgement by Benedict provide a written notification to the City of Prior Lake that the bed of the pond or wetland on the Property. is not par: of Prior Lake. 5.' PERSONS BOUND. This Stipulation shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and to their respective agents, representatives, successors and assi~%Bs. STATE OF M12qNESOTA, DEPARTMENT MICHAEL S. BEN'EDICT OF NA~OURCES-) ~ 'GALL LEWELLB24 TitLe: ASST. COMMISSIONER. HUMAN RESOURCES & LEGAL AFFAIR5 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DF_~CRIPTION OF P~OPP-KTY Ail ~ ACKNO'+VLEDGNfE~X~T OF ARTIFICIAL CO~NiVECTION OF 5VETLA~ND TO PRIOR LAICE The undersigned owner of real property in Scott County, Mirmesota, described as follows (the Property): Ali that pan of Govemment Lot 1, Section 35, Township 115, Range 22, Sco~t County, Minnesota, described as follows: Starting at a point on the West line of"Breezy Point" driveway i0 feet Southeasterly from the dividing line bet'ween Lots 2 and 3 Extended Westerly; and runmng thence North 76° 30' West, i4.8 f~t to a point on said dividing line between Lots 2 and 3, 10 feet Southwesterly from the West linc'of said driveway; thence continuing South 610 28' West, 80 feet along said emension of the dividing line bet-ween Lots 2 and 3; thence Westerly at an angle of 22° 50' to the right, 121 feet to a comer fence post; thence continuing Westerly along this same line aborn 85 feet to intersect the South line ora 20 foot dr/veway along :'Red Oaks"; thence Northeasterly along the said driveway line to intersect the West line of the driveway along "Breezy Point"; and thence running Southeasterly along said driveway line to a point of beginning; hereby states and acknowledges for himself, and on behalf of his heirs, representatives, successors and assigns with respect to the Property, as follows: 1. There is a pond or wetland on the Property that as of the date of th/s acknowled=~ment is physically connected by a shallow channel to Prior Lake. 2. The channel that connects the pond or wetland to l~rior Lake was excavated prior to 1974. The connection was made without having obtained a perrrdt or other appioval from the ~fi.rmesota Depmu=ent of Natural Resources or any other governmental entity with ju.fisdiction over the 'Property and the pond or wetland. 3. The pond or wetland on the Property has been since approximately 1973 and remains artificially connected to Prior Lake. 4. The Property did not acquire, and does not have, riparian rights to Prior Lake by virtue of such artificial connection. 2 5. No rights to excavate or maintain the channel so that it is navigable for watercraft attach to the Property. Dated this 27thday of October , 1997. <: ~rlCHAEL S. B~N~ED][CT Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~7~ay of ~:-o~.r' ,1997. NOT,~r~.Y PUBLIC ~ This instrument was drafted by: HUEMOELLER & BATES Attorneys at Law 16670 Franklin Trail Pr/or Lake, M2N 55372 AG:97274 vi 3 EXHIBIT D & E AERIAL PHOTOS EXHIBIT F WETLA~N~D EXE~IPTION CERTIFICATE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT REOSf.VS CERT/F/CATE. OF EXEMPT/ON OR COMPLIANCE. OR NO LOSS~T 9 1997 City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave Prior Lake, MN 55372 Mike SennedicC, 153.__ 80 Breezy Point Road, '~z-ior Lake~, MN. Red Oaks Second Addition (De~6on cf pmje<:t/N~ cf de',~Jopme.~) . T.115N. R22Wr 36, NE~., r,o'~ 1. Block ] . Bad O~ A~d~,~ion, 55372, Prior Lak-~, 612/447-2688 Scott Co. The wetland ac'Jvity at the abcve site is exemptad,,~.~ or in compli,a._nca with the WeUand Conserv~on ONCA) for the following reason: [Please CircJe (A' (~C), ('D), OR This exemp~on cert~cadon expires (A) A Wetland Doe~ Not Exist; OR ExemPtion # 5 (per MN Rule Chapter 8420)' Description of Exemption, fill area and type of weUand: Action taken bv the Cftc of Pr{or Lake to instil oubli: ub'lJtie, s caused this wetland area to develoo duetoex~va~ondudnq~nst~J~On. AgDwo~m~]~, 79~ ~ w_ n~ ~yp= 4 wetland (c) Wetland Loss Has Been Avoided; OR Wef~and Had. Been Rep!a~ed ~s Per A.ppro~--m- P!~n (a.~m--ch. ed}; OR . No Loss Oetermination (attach plans). The information provided far thLs determination is tru~,ful and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ' / (Date~) EXHIBIT G SCOTT SOIL & WATER REVIEW LETTER Scott Soil and Water 107 Water Street Conservation District Jordan, ~4/q. 55352 Date: October 30, 1997 Atten: Stephen A. Albrecht William JR. Engelhardt Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers ~ 52 1107 ]tazeltine Boulevard Chaska, NiN. SS318-1005 Re: Red Oaks Second Addition Project Notification Review Dear Mr. Albrecht; A review of the documents provided on the above mentioned subdivision has been reviewed by the Scott Soil Water Conservation District (SWCD). Additional information was obtained by the SWCD to gain a historically perspective on the site and the area proposed for fill. Aerial photo~aphs from the years I951, 1957, and 1964 were also reviewed. The information on these photographs confirmed the non-existence of the channel prior to 1974. We concur with the proposed exemption. Sincerely, Peter J. Beckius, District Manager Scott Soil and Water Conservation District cc: Lanol Leichty, City of Prior Lake EXHIBIT H LOT AREA CALCULATION'S LOT CALCLrLATIONS AREA TABULATIONS: TOTAL PLAT AREA=' 105,336.29 sq. ff. or 2.42 ac. RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA= 10,362.18 sq. f~. or 0.23 ac. LOT 1 TOTAL AREA = 26,886.48 sq. f. or 0.62 ac. AREA ABOVE EL. 904 = 17,845.59 sq. f. or 0.4t ac. AREA BELOW EL. 904 = 9,040.89 sq. ff. or 0.21 ac. WETLAND AREA IN LOT = 261.73 sq. f. LOT 2 TOTAL AREA = 36,843.33 sq. f. or 0.85 ac. AREA ABOVE EL. 904 = 33,766.45 sq. ff. or 0.77 ac. AREA BELOW EL. 904 = 3,076.88 sq. ff. or 0.08 ac. WETLAND AREA IN LOT = 8,199.68 sq. ff. or 0.19 ac. LOT 3 TOTAL AREA = 31,244.30 sq. ff. or 0.72 ac. AREA ABOVE EL. 904 = 30,098.66 sq. f. or 0.69 ac. AREA BELOW EL. 904 = 1,I45.64 sq. ff. or 0.03 ac. WETLAND AREA IN LOT = 1,445.45 sq. f~. or 0.03 ac. SETBACKS 50' FROM ELEVATION 904 30' FROM WETLANDS 25' FRONT AND REAR YARD 10' S][DEYARD LOT FRONTAGE WIDTHS AT STREET RIGHT- OF-WAY LOT 1 = 140.09 f. LOT 2 = 90.00 ff. LOT 3 = 90.00 f. EXHIBIT J HARD SURFACE CALCULATIONS & DRIVE'WAY AGREEMENT 0CT-,30-1997 i£:22 UALLEY SURUEYING CO. 6,1.2- 447 257I CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submkmd with Building P~'rmit Application) . For All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distzict (SD). The Maximum ImFervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Pr0penyAddress ~ ~ .~O a~gZ_'¢ ?0,0-5' ~a~ flor Z E~,6ic~w.5 LotArea 3~,~t{~- B~ Sq. Feet x 30% --- .............. HOUSE ATTACHED GAR_AGE LENOTH WIDTH SQ. FEET 5o ..x Z~, = !.,qoo TOTAL PRINCIPLE Sl tKUCTURE .................... 2. q~{:> X X TOTAL DETAC~F-D BUILDINGS .................... b~//~ DETACI-[ED BLDGS (Garage~Sh~i) DRzWEWAY/PAVED AREAS (Driveway-paved or not) (SidewaLk/Parking Areas) TOTAL PAVED AREAS ......................................... PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS (Open Der2c~ ,/~. mtn. opening between bo~ds, win a per~iou.~ suff~:e below, ~ not consider~l to b~ linger'ions) TOTAL DECK8 .................................................. O~I-IEK TOT^', oTmm. ..................................................... TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Prepared By Company Da~ ., Phone~ TOTAL P, 01 DECLARATION OF DRIVEWAY EASEMENT This Declaration is made by Michael S. Benedict, a single person (the Declarant), to establish.a, common driveway easement for the benefit of the following parcels, (any of such parcels being referred to herein by use of the capitalized term "Lot"), to-wit: Lots 2 and 3, Block t, Red Oaks Second Addition, Scott County, Minnesota. NOW THEREFORE, the Declarant hereby declares and establishes a nonexclusive easement for ingress, egress and driveway purposes, which shall be appurtenant and mn with the tide to each of the Lots and subject to the covenants and charges herein, over, across and upon the following portions thereof, (the Driveway Easement), to-wit: A strip of land, 25 feet in width, the southerly and westerly lines of which are described as follows: Commencing at the most easterly comer of Lot 3, Block 1, Red Oaks Second Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, thence South 61 ° 47' 15" West a distance of 56.49 feet, thence South 82° 41' 26" West a distance of 80.00 feet; thence North 66° 18' 34" West a distance of 105.00 feet; thence North 45° 18' 34" West a distance of 70.00 feet and there terminating. 1. IMPROVEMENTS, MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION. (a) Improvements. The cost of improvements to the Driveway Easement shall be paid equally by the owners of each of the Lots. (b) Routine Maintenance. The reasonable cost of repair and maintenance of the Driveway Easement necessitated by ordinary wear and tear shall be paid equally by the owners of each of the Lots. (c) Restoration. If the Driveway Easement or any improvements thereto are damaged or destroyed by any cause, any owner who has use for the Driveway Easement may restore it, and the owners of the other Lots shall reimburse the owner who paid the cost of the restoration in proportion to their respective use, together with interest on the proportionate share at the maximum legal rate from the date of completion of the restoration. 100797 (d) Other Rights. Nothing in this Declaration shall prejudice the common law or statutory rights of any owner to recover from any other owner for negligent or willful acts or omissions. 2. LIEN RIGHTS. Any owner who claims a right to contribution or reimbursement for repair, maintenance, restoration or protection of the Driveway Easement shall have a lien on all Lots benefited by such repair, maintenance, restoration or protection for the amount due, together with interest at the maximum legal rate from the due date and the costs of the collection proceeding, including reasonable attorneys' fees, from the date of filing a Notice of Lis Pendens descr/bing the claim and the benefited Lots. However, no lien shall be effective against any bona fide purchaser or lienor for value of any such Lot who Fries his conveyance or the document evidencing his lien prior to the filing of the Notice of Lis Pendens. The lien created by this Section 2 may be foreclosed in a like manner as a foreclosure by action of a mortgage on real property. 3. LIMITATION. No owner of a Lot shall cause or permit obstruction of or interference with the rights in or use of the Driveway Easement by any other owner. 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS. (a) Duration. This Declaration shall bind and inure to the benefit of each owner of the Lots, and his respective heirs, successors and assigns, for a term of twenty (20) years from the date it is recorded. Thereafter, this Declaration shall automatically renew for successive periods of ten (10) years. (b) Amendment. This Declaration may be amended with the written approval of the record owners of the Lots. Any amendment shall be made in fileable form and effective on the date of firing with the Scott County Registrar of Titles. (c) Plural. The singular shall include the plural, and plural may be read as singular, where appropriate, and unless the context otherwise requires. (d) Gender. The masculine gender may be read as the feminine gender or the neuter gender, where appropriate, and unless the context otherwise requires. (e) Liability. The obligations of the owners of the respective Lots shall be joint and several, except where the context otherwise requires. (f) Enforcement. Any owner may enforce, by a proceeding at law or in equity, or both, any provision of this Declaration. The proceeding may seek to restrain the violation and to recover the damages resulting therefrom, together with the costs of the proceeding, including reasonable attorneys' fees. (g) Captions. The captions herein are inserted only for convenience and reference and do not limit the scope of this Declaration. (h) Seve[ability. Invalidation of any provision of this Declaration by any Court shall not effect the remainder hereof, which shall continue in full force and effect. EXECUTED IN WITNESS HEREOF on this 7th day of November, 1997. Michae~dict//~'~-'~<' ~ STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF SCOTT ) This Declaration of Driveway Easement was acknowledged before me on this 7th day of November, 1997, by Michael S. Benedict, a single person. Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: HUEMOELLER & BATES Attorneys at Law 16670 Franklin Trail Prior Lake, MN 55372 November 25, 1997 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 Ms. Jane Kansier City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue, S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 RE: RED OAK SHORES SECOND ADDITION PRELIMrNARY AND FINAL PLAT Dear Ms. Kansier: I have reviewed the materials you submitted to this office relative to the subject zoning matter, and offer the following comments on bchalf of the DNK The DIqR has been involved in the review of finis project for a number of years. Originally, DlqR contended that the small wetland and ch,~nel connecting it to Prior Lake on the east edge of the project was part of lh"ior Lake, and that structure setbacks from the wetland slmuld meet the requited 75' (since changed to 50 feet). This position was comm~lnicated to the city in letter form a couple of years ago. The applicator has since demonstrate& by historic air photos, that the wetland was at one time not conoected to Prior Lake at the ordinary high water elevation, and was artificially connected in appwximately 1974. Subsequently, the DNR signed a stipulation agreement with Mr. Benedict on October 22, 1997 acknowledging that the wetland area and channel are not part of Prior Lake, for regulatory purposes. As such, structure setbacks from the lake would not be applied to the wetland and channel. It appears the three pwposed lots therefore meet the required size and width requirements, impervious surface coverage requirements can be met, and lel~ setbacks (with the exception of the existing home on proposed Lot 2) can be met. No DNR permits are required for the project as depicted on the drawings which accompanied the review checklist you provided to me. I note that the narrative inoluded in your submittal indicates that no living space will be allowed below elevation 910 for these lots. In accordance with your floodplain ordinance, low floors of structures, including crawl space, must be at or above the regulatory flood protectien ulevafien (RFPE). For Prior Lake, the RFPE is elevation 909.8' ( the 100-year flood elevation of 908.9' plus one foot). I also note the grading on proposed Lot 3 appears to extend beyond the properly line. Please check to verify if this is the case, and whether th~s is allowable. With the deten!ainnfion that ~ wetland al~ channel are not pa~ of Prior Lake for ahoreland zoning and DNR permitting purposes, and with the lake setblmk reduced to 50' since our initial review of this project, it appears the pwject meets the shoreland requirements. The DNR Ires no further comment on the project. Thank you for providing the DNR the opportunity to comment on the project If you have any questions, please call me at 772- 7910. Area Hydroloiist DNR Information: 612-296-6157~ 1-800-766-6000 · TrY: 612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer ~'a, Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a c Who Values Diversity Minimum of 10 7~ Post-Consumer Waste I have reviewed the attached proposed request (Red Oaks 2nd Addition) for the following: · Water City Code X Grading X Sewer ~' Storm Water Signs Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access Parks Natural Features Legal Issues Assessment Electric Roads/Access Policy Septic System Gas Building Code X' Erosion Control Other Recommendation: --. Approval __ Denial Z Conditional ApprOval Comments: Signed: ~~:~ Date: //-.,/¥ Please return any comments by Friday, November 21, 1997, to Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator City of Prior Lake 16000 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Phone: (612) 447-4230 Fax: (612) 447-4245 1:\97files\97su bdiv\preplat',redoaks2~referral.doc Page 2 MEMO TO: FROM: RE: DATE: JANE KANSIER, DRC COORDINATOR VERLYN RAAEN, ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN RED OAKS 2ND DRC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST (CON'T) NOVEMBER 18, 1997 Attached are supplemental comments to Lani Leichty comments dated 11/14/97. 1. Existing sanitary sewer and water sen,ice stubs must be shovm on the utility plan. o Lot 3 service lines must be installed across Lot 2 and 5' into Lot 3 as part of the developer's agreement. o Provide the City with a copy of the construction easement adjacent to Lot 3 prior to commencing construction. How is surface stormwater runoff being conveyed in the drainage easement on the south line of Lot 3 in the fill area? 5. Add the following note to the grading plan. NOTE: Building permit applicants for construction of homes on Lots 1 & 3 shall submit to the City with the BP application a detailed grading plan illustrating 1' contour intervals on the subject lot which tie into the building pad of the abutting lots. These contours shall clearly illustrate all proposed drainage swales on the subject lot. INNE$O INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING ~ FROM: Ralph Teschner RE: Red Oaks 2nd Addition (assessment/fee review) DATE: November 13, 1997 The proposed plat of Red Oaks 2nd Addition comprises Lots 43-47 Red Oaks (PIN# 25 042 028 0) and .67 acres in 35-226-22 (PiN# 25 935 032 0). The property was initially served with sewer and water utilities in 1973 under Project 73-6. These lots were 100% assessed for frontage and hunk acreage charges. Under the original assessment roll these lots were assessed 150' currently and 273.72' deferred. Subsequently on April 1, 1977 the Council removed 123.72 feet on Lot 47 and certified a five year deferral period for the remaining 150 feet. The tax status of the property is in a current state with no other outstanding delinquencies. All of the above described special assessments have been paid. Since utilities are available to the property site, the cost for the extension of services internally will be the responsibility of the developer. In addition to these improvement costs, the subdivision will be subject to the following City charges: Stormwater Management Fee Collector Street Fee 16.8 cents/sq.ft. $1500.00/acre Lot 2 Block 1 Red Oaks 2nd Addition would be exempt from these fees since an existing home is located on this parcel. The remaining two lots would be subject to the application of these City charges which would generate the following costs to the developer based upon a net lot area calculation of 1.30 acres of single family lots (56,424 sq. fi.) as provided within the site data summary sheet of the preliminary plat description: Storm Water Management Fee: 56,424 sf~ 16.8/sf= $9,479.00 Collector Street Fee; 1.30 acres ~ $I500.00/ac -- $1,950.00 These charges represent an approximate cost of $5715 per unit for the two newly created lots within Red Oaks 2nd addition. Assuming the initial net lot area of the plat does not change, the above referenced storm water and collector street charges would be determined and collected within the context of a developer's agreement for the construction of utility improvements at the time of final plat approval. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER H:~SPLITS~SPL9717.DOC Minutes of the Prior Lake City Council May 4, 1992 Mr. Arnoldi stated that the City Council is the first step in the valuation, appeal p~ocess and he would meet personally with anyone who wished to d~scuss their property valuation. Council concurred that Mr. Arnoldi would prepare his recommendation for all appeals and su]~m~t them to the Council within twenty days, and the Council~ill conduct a special meeting to consider Arnoldi's recommendation on Tuesday, May 26 at 7:30 p.m. ~n the Council Chambers of Prior Lake City Hall. The Council will accept, reject or accept in part, each recommendation. All persons who attended the public hearing will be n?tifled of the meeting by mail as well as a notice being placed in the Prior Lake American A short recess was called. The meeting was reconvened at 10:05 p.m. The next order of business was: Public Hearing To Consider Preliminary Plat of Red Oaks Second Addition. Mayor Andren called the public hearing to order at 10:06 p.m. and read the public hearing notice as it appeared in the Prior Lake American on April 20 and 27, 1992. City Manager Unmacht introduced B_~r~ce Huemoeller, legal representative for the applicant, Mike Benedict. Mr. Huemoeller presented details of the proposal and handed out a copy o~ a letter to the Council responding to the Planning Report regarding the preliminary plat of Red Oaks Second Addition. Ron Swanson, Valley Surveying Company, discussed the proposed roadway and other aspects of the property. Dan Reiland, builder and developer, expressed support regarding the pro~ect. City Planner Graser discussed details of the five variances and reviewed the planning report. Pat Lynch of the DNR expressed concern over the proposed density and possible damage to shoreland areas. Mayor Andren submitted into the record a petition to deny application received from the neighboring property owners. Jim Pint,.15427 Steffan ~ircle, requested access be granted to his lot .~f the access ~s granted for the proposed subdivision. Tom Watklns, a former Counc~lmember, discussed the history of Red Oaks, "land locked" lots and the vacation of Breezy Point Road at the request of Mr. ~en~dict. The applicant addressed the Council with regard to h~s intent when he ~equested the City .to vacate the roadway. Extensive discusslon occurred regarding deferred assessments, vacation of the roadway, private road requirements, density, the proposed plat, the variances required and whether or not the pond is part of the lake itself. MOTION MADE BY WHITE, SECONDED BY , TO TABLE THE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORS TO MEET TO DISCUSS THE PLAT AND ATTEMPT TO REACH AN AGREEMENT. The motion died for lack of a second. Discussion occurred. MOTION MADE BY FITZGERALD, SECONDED BY WHITE, TO TABLE UNTIL JUNE R~O~ 15, AT 7:35 P.M. TO ENABLE THE APPLICANT TO HOLD A NEIGHBORHOOD Table MEETING AND FOR STAFF AND CONSULTING ENGINEER TO EVALUATE THE FEASIBILITY OF THE ROADWAY TO THE PROPERTY. 4 Minutes of the Prior Lake City Council May 4, 1992 Upon a vote taken, ayes by Fitzgerald, and White, nays by Andren, Kedrowski and Scott. The motion failed. MOTION MADE BY KEDROWSKI, SECONDED BY SCOTT, TO DENY THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FOR RED OAKS SECOND ADDITION. Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski and Scot~, nays by Fitzgerald and White. The motion carried. No action on the Final Plat is required. A short recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 11:35 p.m. The next order of business was: Second Consideration of Eurasian Milfoil Ordinance 92-01. City Manager Unmacht recognized those persons who had worked on the ordinance:. Jerry ~eysembourg, Tom Watkins and Peter Patchin. The riparian policy notice was discussed briefly. Mayor Andren asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on the policy and ordinance. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION MADE BY KEDROWSKI, SECONDED BY FITZGERALD, EURASIAN MILFOIL ORDINANCE 92-01. TO APPROVE Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, Fitzgerald, Kedrowski, Scott and White, the motion passed unanimously. city Manager Unmacht commented that a Search Coordinator had been hired and all participants in the milfoil activities will begin their work soon. Mr. Unmacht also noted that a local access cable television program will be aired on the eurasian milfoil management and control activity. Council thanked the Lake Advisory Committee and others who had worked on creating the ordinance. The next order of business was: Consider Restrictive Covenant Agreement with Dave and Dorothy Watzl. Parks Director, Bill Mangan, presented details of the Agreement. Discussion occurred on whether the Agreement specified handicapped and pedestrian access. Council concurred that this provision should be added to the Agreement. Further discussion occurred on whether or not a warranty deed existed which identifies the access restrictions, lake access by deeded property owners, and the intent of past Council when they acquired the property. MOTION MADE BY KEDROWSKI, SECONDED BY WHITE, TO TABLE UNTIL TIME CERTAIN TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: ATTORNEY TO RESEARCH ISSUES AS DISCUSSED. CHANGE AGREEMENT TO SPELL OUT HANDICAPPED AND PEDESTRIANS ACCESS. 3. RESEARCH DEEDED ACCESS AND SPECIFIC LOT OWNERS ELIGIBLE FOR THIS ACCESS. Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, Fitzgerald, Kedrowski, and White, the motion passed unanimously. Scott OR 92-00 5 Prior Lake City Council Minutes December 20, 1993 8:00 p.m. Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, Fitzgerald, Kedrowski, Scott and White, the motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATIONS: Presentation to Retidng Councilmembers John Fitzgerald and Gene White. Mayor Andren presented a plaque of appreciation to retidng Councilmembers Fitzgerald and White for their years of service to the community. Both Councilmember Rtzgerald and White addressed the Council and audience with comments regarding their years as Councilmembers for the City of Pdor Lake. On behalf of the Council, Mayor Andren wished Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. White the best of luck for the future. PUBLIC HEARING Public Hearing to consider Abbreviated Subdivision of Red Oaks Second Addition for Mike Benedict - Mayor Andren called the Public Headng to order at 8:00 p.m. and read the notice as it appeared in the Prior Lake Amedcan on December 4 and 11, 1993, and explained the process to be used during the hearing. City Manager Boyles gave the introduction and read into the record a petition signed by residents in opposition to Mr. Benedict's request. This petition will be on file in the City Manager's office. City Planner Graser presented an overhead depicting the proposed subdivision and discussed details of the request. Points for the Council to consider included making a determination as to whether the pocket bay is a part of the lake or a wetland (the DNR had previously ruled that it has elements of both). Extensive discussion occurred on the definition of what constitutes a lake bed, setback variances, previous assessments and use of a private access road. The applicant's attorney, Bryce Huemoeller, addressed the Council with regard to Mr. Benedict's request. Supporting matedal and aerial view photographs were also handed out to Council. One point of discussion was the assessments paid by Mr. Benedict. Mayor Andren referred to a report stating that sewer and water provided to Mr. Benedict in 1972 and 1973 were assessed, but Mr. Benedict appealed the assessment on the basis that the lot was only one lot and deferred assessments pending subdivision of the property. A discussion occurred regarding the practice of averaging the assessments, precedent created by variances, and setbacks from wetlands as stated in the Shoreland Management Ordinance. -2- Prior Lake City Council Minutes December 20, 1993 8:30 p.m. B. MOTION BY FITZGERALD, SECONDED BY KEDROWSKI, TO APPROVE THE RED OAKS SUBDIVISION AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: Staff and legal Counsel develop the Findings of Fact setting forth the unique features of this property to Justify a private road. The applicant must submit the proper variance requests from required front yard setbacks. A determination as to whether the pond area is or Is not construed as lake bed. Further discussion occurred regarding the definition of a pdvate road. Upon a vote taken, ayes by Fitzgerald, Kedrowski, and White. Nays by Andren and Scott. The motion carried. MOTION BY WHITE, SECONDED ElY SCOTT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, Fitzgerald, Kedrowski, Scott and White, the motion passed unanimously. A short recess was called The meeting reconvened 9:50 p.m. Public Hearing to consider approval of Subdivision and Variance for Ken Lillyblad - Mayor Andren called the public Hearing to order at 10:00 p.m. and read the public notice as it appeared in the Prior Lake American on December 4 and 11, 1993. Mayor Andren explained the process that would be used dudng the hearing. City Manager Boyles introduced Planning Intern, Gina Mitchell, who presented details of the Administrative Land Division and discussed the requirement for two variances to subdivide the area from five to three lots. Ms. Mitchell stated that there had been no negative comments from adiacent neighbors, DNR or utility companies. A short discussion occurred. MOTION BY FITZGERALD, SECONDED BY KEDROWSKI, TO APPROVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAND DIVISION AND VARIANCES AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO SIX CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The existing garage on lot 13 be removed. -3- RESOLUTION 94-09 RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION OF MICHAEL BENEDICT FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF RED OAKS SECOND ADDITION. MOTION BY: WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, GREENFIELD SECONDED BY: SCOTT The Prior Lake City Council conducted a Public Hearing on the 20th day of December, 1993, at 8:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers and provided an opportunity for anyone interested in this application to be heard; and that notice of the public hearing on said petition has been duly published and posted in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes: and the City Council, after hearing testimony, moved to approve the Preliminary Plat proposal of Red Oaks Second Addition subject to three (3) contingencies being met; and the implementation of the second contingency would violate section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance; and the third contingency required for approval was a determination that the northeasterly portion of the proposed plat not be part of the lake bed of Prior Lake; and Pat Lynch, Area Hydrologist for the Department of Natural Resources, had previously determined that the northeasterly portion of the proposed plat was part of the lake bed of Prior Lake by letter dated December 14, 1993; and Mr. Lynch again confim~ed that the northeasterly portion of the proposed plat was part of the lake bed of Prior Lake at a meeting held in City Hall on December 27, 1993, and attended by Horst W. Graser, Planning Director, Bryce Hoemueller, Attorney for the applicant; Ron Swanson, Surveyor for the applicant; Gina Mitchell, Associate Planner, and Pat Lynch, Area Hydrologist. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNYI'Y EMPLOYER Page 2 RESOLUTION 94-09 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, BY THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RED OAKS SECOND ADDITION IS HEREBY DENIED. Passed and adopted this 7th day of February, 1994. Yes Andren ;~ Scott X Greenfield X Schenck X Kedrowski Absent {Seal} No Andren Scott Greenfield · Schenck ,"~ Ke~dr~wsk~ / ~ /,,/ Frank Soyl~' // J City Manager..--' City of Prior Lake PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4C PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM THE C-CC (COMMUNITY RETAIL SHOPPING) DESIGNATION TO THE R-HD (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DESIGNATION AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT TO THE R-3 (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR~-.~/ X YES NO-N/A DECEMBER 8, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider a request by Stonewood Development Corporation to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to the High Density Residential designation and to rezone the property to the R-3 district to allow for the development of a multifamily residential structure on the property. Applicant: Stonewood Development Corporation 6426 Timber Ridge Edina, MN 55439-1057 Property Owner: Neil Boderman 6805 Gleason Court Edina, MN 55436 Location of Property: This site consists of approximately 3 acres of vacant land and is located on the south side of Tower Street, between Toronto Avenue and Duluth Avenue, south of Priordale Mall and west of Pond's Edge Early Learning School. Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is identified as C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) on the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. This designation is characterized by retail shopping centers designed to provide shopping and convenience facilities to a broader residential area. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation: The applicant is requesting the property be designated R-HD (High Density Residential). This designation is characterized by dwellings other than single family .... ,-1:\9~fl1~\97 r, ezgn e\9~- 1,08\9,~ 108pF.dpc o~uu ~ag~e '~.reel~ ,~ve. ~.~.., lr'rior L.aRe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61ZF447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Adjacent Land Use, Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning: Streets/Access: Natural Features: Public Utilities: detached houses at densities up to 30 units per acre. B-3 (General Business) R-3 (Multiple Residential) North: Vacant land and Priordale Mall, designated as C-CC and zoned B-3. South: Single family dwellings, designated as R-L/MD (Urban Low to Medium Density Residential) and zoned R-1 (Suburban Residential). East: Pond's Edge Early Learning Center designated as R-HD and zoned R-3. West: Vacant land and wetland designated as C-CC and zoned B-3. Access to this site is from Tower Street on the north. The Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan identifies Tower Street as a minor collector. This site has an elevation change of about 10 feet from the east to the west boundary. The site also includes several trees, but we have no tree inventory to indicate whether these trees are classified as significant under the tree preservation ordinance. Sanitary sewer and watermain service is readily available to this site through existing mains located in Tower Street. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and a zone change to allow for future development of this site. At this time, no specific plans for the property development have been submitted, although the applicant has indicated his plans to construct a multifamily dwelling, probably consisting of three stories with apartment units. Under the present Zoning Ordinance, multiple family dwellings are a permitted use in the R-3 district, with a maximum density of 14 units per acre, and a maximum coverage of 20 percent. An analysis of each component of this application follows. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: 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. 1:\97files\97rezone\97-108\97108pc.doc Page 2 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 prese~ation of the natural environment and the enjoyment of residents. The R-HD designation is intended to provide an opportunity to create population centers near community activity areas. This designation is consistent with the above stated goals and objectives in that it offers a variety of housing, and it is consistent with the City's Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. The R-HD designation is also consistent with the designation of the property to the east. Zone Chanqe: The criteria for granting a zoning change include the following: 1. There was a mistake in the original zoning 2. Conditions have changed significantly since the current zoning was adopted. 3. The Comprehensive Plan has been amended. Any of these criteria can be used to evaluate a request for rezoning. Action on this zone change depends on the outcome of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is approved, the proposed zone change is consistent with the revised Land Use Plan designation. If the Comprehensive Plan amendment is not approved, the zone change should also be denied. It should be noted the multifamily use proposed by the applicant is permitted in the R-3 district under the provisions of the current Zoning Ordinance. However, multifamily dwellings are not a permitted use in the R-3 district in the proposed Zoning Ordinance. In the new ordinance, these uses are require a conditional use permit in the R-4 district. The Planning Commission may wish to keep this in mind when reviewing the new zoning map. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change as requested. 2. Table or continue the public hearing to a date and time certain and provide the developer with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future Planning Commission review. 3. Recommend denial of the application based upon specific findings of fact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1 1:~97flles\97rezone\97~108\97108pc.doc Page 3 ACTION REQUIRED: A motion recommending the City Council adopt a resolution approving the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designating this property as R-HD and an ordinance rezoning this property to the R-3 district as proposed. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Copy of Application 5. Copy of Hearing Notice 1:\97files\97rezone\97-108\97108pc.doc Page 4 THE POND ATHLETIC COMPLEX ORDE 0 LOWER PRIOR LAKE ' 5-83 Col- I I-- I I ~PER PRIOR LAKE S-D " RICE LAKE Property Identification No. ~,,~- g(,~q - OD,3- O City of PriorLake ~ ~- ~k,~- Ooq -o LAND USE APPLICATION 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245 Type of Application: ' ' Brief description of proposed project (anach additional [] Rezoning, from (~resent zonin¢) sheets/narrative if desired) to (t~ro~osed zoning) I ~Amendment to City Code~ or Ci~ Ordinance [] Subdivision of Land [] Admhaistrative Subdivision [] Conditional Use Permit [] Variance Applicable Ordinance Section(s): Applicant(s): Home Phone. ~' q"t~ Property Owner(s) [If different fr6m Applicants]: Address: Home Phone: Type of Ownership: Fee .~ Contract for Deed__ P~ch~e Agreement Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): To the best of my knowledge the information procided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that Applic~;~'~ ~gn atu ~'~,3; ' Date Fee ~wne~'s Sign~mr~~ Date THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNFNG COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEAR_rNG CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date CITY OF PRIOR LAKE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER STREET You are hereby notified that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE on Monday, December 8, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a proposal to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of approximately 3 acres located on the south side of Tower Street, between Toronto Avenue and Duluth Avenue, south of Priordale Mall and west of Pond's Edge Early Learning School from the C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) designation to the R- HD (High Density Residential) designation, and to rezone this property from the B-3 (General Business) District to the R-3 (Multiple Residential) district. Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Enevid First Addition and That part of Outlot A, Enevid First Addition, contained within the following described tracts: That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the southwest comer of said Lot 1; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West record bearing, along the west line of said Lot 1,300.00 feet to the south line ora roadway and utility easement; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said south line 51.99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East along the southeasterly line of said easement 247.34 feet to the south line of South Anna Lane, now known as Tower Street; thence southeasterly along said south line 105.18 feet, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central angle of 2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds, a radius of 2,547.98 feet and the chord of said curve bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East; thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve 39.82 feet; thence South 1 degree 30 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 379.84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316.39 feet to the point of beginning. Together with that part of the south half of vacated South Anna Lane, known as Tower Street, which lies between the northerly extension of the easterly line of said property and the southwesterly extension of the westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, Brooksville Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof. 1:\97files\97rezone\97-108\97108pn.doc Page 1 16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / ?h. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) r~47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this public hearing. The Planning Commission will accept oral and or written comments. If you have questions regarding this matter, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230. Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake TO BE PUBLISI:rE~D IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1997 AND NOVEMBER 29, 1997. 1:\97files\97rezone\97-108\97108pn.doc P~e2 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: SITE: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4D Conduct public hearing to consider a conditional use permit (CUP) for Safe Haven for Youth (Case #97-019) Dan Saad 5240 160th Street, located on the north side of 160th Street and on the west side of Franklin Trail. Jenni Tovar X YES NO-N/A December 8, 1997 Staff would like to table this item indefinitely. The item will be discussed prior to the 60 day statutory deadline with a 60 day extension. There is inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the pending revised Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map will have an effect on this request. ACTION REQUIRED: Because this heating was published in the paper and legal notices were mailed, the Planning Commission must motion to table indefinitely the public heating. Notices will be sent out again prior to the scheduled public heating. L:\97FI ES\97C P~PC T .D C 16200 Eagle ~reek ~ve. ~.~.,~rior Lake, Minnesota 553~2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 5A CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED NEW ZONING ORDINANCE AND NEW ZONING MAP JANE KAN$1ER, PLANNING COORDINATOR~3.~ YES X NO DECEMBER 8, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 22, 1997, and on November 24, 1997, to discuss the proposed zoning ordinance and zoning map. On November 24, 1997, the Commission closed the public hearing and commenced discussion on the proposed ordinance and map. The Commission decided to continue the discussion until December 8, 1997, in order to allow staff to generate some language on two specific issues, These issues include the combination of nonconforming lots and the location of garages in front of the front building wall on substandard riparian lots. Each of these issues is discussed separately below. Combination of Nonconforming Lots: The first draft of the ordinance contained language stating that any nonconforming lot in common ownership with an abutting parcel may not be developed as a separate lot. This language was inadver[ently left out of the second draft of the ordinance. Attached is a revised page 501/p31 which includes this language. This page may be inserted into the draft of the ordinance. The Planning Commission discussed this issue in earlier work sessions on the ordinance. While there was never any real consensus as to how this language should be changed, if at all. However, the Planning Commission did discuss different ways of allowing owners of three or more 50' wide lots in the Shoreland district to create at least two buildable lots. The idea was to allow a lot width of 75' at both the front building line and the Ordinary High Water elevation, and a I \new~one\misc\l~-O~Sp~doc 16200 Eage L. reek Ave. ~.m, ~'rior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61z£4~7-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet, rather than the required 90' of lot width and 15,000 square feet of lot area. Language to this effect might read as follows: Nonconforming riparian lots in the Shore/and District, under common ownership with an abutting parcel of property on or after the effective date of this Ordinance, may be combined to create bui/dable parcels which meet the fo/lowing standards: The lot must have at/east 75' of frontage at the front building line and at the Ordinary High Water elevation. The lot must be at least 12,000 square feet in area above the Ordinary High Water elevation. This requirement will allow owners with three or more lots, where each lot is at least 50' wide by 160' deep, to create two buildable pamels. The Planning staff is of the opinion that the language in the ordinance should remain as it is currently written. However, this is the opportunity for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Council on this issue. Front Yard Garages: The current ordinance also includes language stating no detached accessory structure shall be located between the front building wall and the front lot line. The Commission asked staff to develop some language which would allow accessory structures to be located between the front lot line and the front building wall on nonconforming riparian lots in the Shoreland District. The staff has developed the following language: On nonconforming riparian lots in the Shore/and District, a detached accessory building, designed and used as a garage, may be located between the front building wall and the front lot line, subject to the fo/lowing conditions: ~ The accessory building must be located so that it meets all front and side yard requirements. ~ The accessory building shall be compatible in design and materials with the principal structure. ~ The accessory structure may be used only for storage of vehicles and other residential equipment. There shaft be no home occupations or other nonresidential use of the building. ~- The accessory structure must meet ali other requirements of Section 502.701 (8). I:\newzone\misc\12-O8pc.doc Page 2 The staff is of the opinion this requirement will not be used very often. However, the Planning Commission may want to consider the effect of this language. The Planning Commission should make a recommendation to the Council on whether this provision should be included. DISCUSSION: The City Council has indicated they wish to consider the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map at the December 15, 1997, Council meeting. It is our intention to submit the ordinance, along with the Planning Commission's recommendations, to the Council at that time. The changes recommended by the Planning Commission so far include: · Revisions to the definitions of"Toe of Bluff", "Top of Bluff" and "Bluff Setbacks" to clarify the intent of these provisions · Allow a minimum 5' sideyard setback, with a combined sideyard setback of 15' on nonconforming lots · Remove kennels as permitted uses in the Residential Use Districts · Include marinas as a conditional use in the C-2 and the R-2 Use Districts · Change the setback from the Ordinary High Water elevation to 75' on General Development Lakes Revise the Flood Plain Regulations to allow structures elevated to the 100- year flood elevation and built before 1990 to be considered conforming uses in the same manner as building built between 1990 and 1997. · Revise the Zoning Map to zone the Boudin Street property to the C-2 Use District Any other changes or recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the Council approve the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purposes. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends Alternative #1. I:\newzone\misc\12-08pc.doc Page 3 ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised Page 501/p31 h\newzone\misc\12-08pc.doc Page 4 Zoning Code 501.501 (1) (2) O) (4) 501.502 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lot Provisions. Unless Permitted by this Section: A lot which does not conform with the lots width and area requirements of the Use District in which the lot is located shall not be a buildable lot unless the lot already contains an occupioable structure. A structure on a lot which does not meet the area or width requirement of this Ordinance shall not be expanded or enlarged unless the lot is combined with one or more abutting lots or parcels of land to create a lot meeting the requirements of this Ordinance. Lots of Record - buildable: a. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this Ordinance in the R-l, R-2 or R-3 Use District, which does not meet either the area or the width requirements of this Ordinance may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the dimensions of its area and width are at least 66 2/3% of the requirements of this Ordinance. b. Any single family detached dwelling which exists on the effective date of this Ordinance on any nonconforming lot located within the R-l, R-2, or R-3 Use District which is later destroyed by fire or other natural disaster may be rebuilt if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within 365 days of its destruction and if it otherwise is in conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance. c. Any nonconforming lot which is in common owner with an abutting parcel of property on or after the effective date of this Ordinance may not be developed and no building permit shall be issued for such development unless the parcels are combined to increase the nonconforming dimension of the lot to meet the area and width requirements of this Ordinance. Under these circumstances only one single family dwelling may be built on the 2 parcels. Principal Buildings. There shall be no more than I principal building on one lot except by Conditional Use Permit or as provided under Section 6 of this Ordinance. Reouired yards/Open Space. The area of a yard, bufferyard, or other open space shall not be reduced below the minimum size required by this Ordinance. If the existing yard is less than the minimum size required by this Ordinance, it shall not be further reduced in size. If the existing bufferyard or other open space is less than the minimum size required by this Ordinance, it shall not be reduced in size. No yard or open space which is required by this Ordinance for any structures shall be included as a part of any yard or open space which is required by this Ordinance for another structure, except as provided in the bufferyard section. Useable open space which is required by this Ordinance shall contain improvements such as outdoor swimming pools, patio areas, game areas, landscaped and grassy areas which contain benches sculpture gardens, pedestrian paths and trails, or similar outdoor fixtures or features. Roofs, driveways and parking areas shall not constitute useable open space. The minimum dimension of useable open space shall be 30 feet. On a through lot, both street lines shall be front lot lines for the purpose of applying this Ordinance. City of Prior Lake 501/p31 Revised MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: December 4, 1997 Planning Commission Jenni Tovar, Planner Marinas in R-2 and C-2 Zoning Districts The purpose of this memo is to review current marinas and conditions placed on them for incorporation into the condition of the proposed Marina use in the R-2 and C-2 zoning districts. Wagon Bridge Marina is located in the existing R-2 zoning district, proposed R-2 zoning district. A conditional use permit was approved on August 9, 1994. Attached is the agreement. Conditions of approval include Repair, Public Boat Launching, Docks and Slips Usage, Tour Boats, Rental, Retail Sales, Parking, Storage, and Special Events. Additional items to address should include buffer yards and outdoor storage (boat lifts). Green Heights is located in the existing R-1 zoning district, proposed R-1 zoning district. A conditional use permit was granted in 1984 for a bar restaurant with public boat launching and 28 slips. This is not classified as a marina, rather a restaurant with a boat launch and boat slips. Marina supplies and services are not offered. However, conditions on the CUP include landscape and mechanical equipment screening, and parking conditions. Signs were brought up at a later date. Staff recommends this property be rezoned to R-2 to be conforming with a CUP. The property to the south is proposed to zoned R-2. This area could be extended to include Green Heights. Waters Edge Marina is located in the existing C-1 Conservation zoning district, and proposed C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. The Planning Commission voted to amend the proposed zoning to C-2 Community Business at the November 24, 1997 Zoning Hearing. A variance was granted June 6, 1985, allowing the marina to be permitted without offering supplies and services as defined by definition of marina. Attached is a copy of the staff report and variance. Conditions included signage, Public Boat Launching, Powerboat Usage, and appropriate permits from the County. Staff recommends including Marinas as conditional uses in the R-2 and C- 2 zoning districts with the following specific conditions: Buffer yards on adjacent lots in the R districts Business signs are not permitted in R zones. 20% of front facade, wall signs, unlit or internally lit, are appropriate. Lighting should not be directed at the lake, rather lights for parking, building, and dock identification must have zero foot candles at the property line or edge of dock structure furthest from shore on the lake could be a solution. · Public boat launching is limited to a specified number as parking permits not to exceed 25% of total slips approved as part of the CUP. · Boat tours are permitted between the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. · One on site parking stall for each boat slip is required. If boat tours are on site, then on site parking is one and a half stalls for each boat slip. · Parking and Storage of boats and lifts on and off season is strictly prohibited. If boat lifts are approved for use on the site, by the marina as indicated on the site plan of the CUP, it is appropriate to store them on site. Public storage of boat lifts, boats, or other recreational watercraft or equipment is prohibited. · Retail Sales is limited to boats, watercrafts, recreational equipment, motors, parts, bait, equipment and accessories. Food is limited to convenience store items such as prepackaged snacks, candy, pop, chips, hot-dogs, etc. There is to be no kitchen facility for public dining at the marina. However, food and beverages may be purchased on site. Definition of Marina should be as follows: A commercial establishment adjacent to a navigable lake providing moorings for boats. It may offer supplies and services accessory to the principle use. 1800 IDS Center 80 South EJghnh S=e~'t Minneat~olis, Minncsout 55402 (612) 339-8131 M~ne$omWAT$ (800) 752-4297 FAX(612) 339-8064 LOMMEN LAW IRM Lommen. :Velsom Cole & Stageberg. R,4. Glenn R. KesseI A~mcy a~ Law (612) 336-9338 Huron, WI ~4016 (715) 386-8217 Twin City L~e (612) 436-8085 FAX(715) 356-8219 August 9, 1994 Ms. Deb Garross Assistant City Planner City of Prior Lake 4629 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Re: Conditional Use Permit - Marina Dear Deb: Enclosed please find the original Conditional Use Permit for Eagle Creek Properties. Very truly yours, LOMMEN, NELSON, COLE & STAGEBERG, G.~/enn R. Kesse! P.A. GRK:~~ enclosure CONDITIONAL USE PEP. MIT THIS CONDITIONA3~ USE PEP~MIT (the "Permit") is granted by the City of Prior Lake~.'a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") to Eagle Creek Properties, Inc., a Minnesota corporation ("Marina"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Marina is the owner of a public, commercial marina on the premises hereinafter described ("Premises") pursuant to a zoning certificate effective on January 5, 1981 as amended by an Order for Judgment and Judgment dated February 17, 1981 (collectively "Zoning Certificate"); and W~EREAS, Marinas are allowed as conditional uses in a R-2 Urban Residential Zone as defined in the Prior Lake City Code Section 5-3-3; and WHEREAS, Marina has made an application to change its current legal non-conforming zoning status pursuant to the Zoning Certificate to a conditional Lake City Code Section 5-6-5; W~IEREAS, Marina has met use status as permitted by Prior and the criteria for approval as required by Prior Lake City Code Section 5-6-5 and has been granted all necessary variances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Ccnditiona! Use Permit as contained herein, after recommendation by the City of Prior Lake Planning Commission, subject to the conditions as contained in this Conditional Use Permit, following a public hearing on the Marina's application, on August 1, 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, Marina is hereby granued a Condiziona! Use ~er~.._2 ~c _~ .... 2e ~ ~a~._~ in nk~ E-2 Residential District, subject to all of the terms, conditions, and criteria contained in this permit: 1. Definitions. 1.1 "ci~', means the City of Prior Lake. 1.2 "City Council" means the City Council of the City of Prior Lake. 1.3 "Dock" means any wharf, pier, or other structure or combination of wharfs, piers, or other structures constructed or maintained in the lake, whether ftoatinq or not, including all "L's", "T's", or posts which may be a part thereof whether affixed or adjacent to the principal structure. 1.~ "Fall" means September 15 to Ice-In. 1.5 "Food and Beveraces" means convenience-type foods and beverages, which, by way of example, include, but are not limited to pop, candy, "Stewart" sandwiches, and the like. 1.6 "Fuel and Service Dock" means a dock used only for transient uses of the Marina. 1.7 "Lake" means Prior Lake. t.8 "Lakeshore Association" means any recognized Prior Lake Lakeshcre AssociaTion with legal access to dockage and lakefron~ on Prior Lake. !.9 "Mar±ne" means a commercial establishment adjacent to a navigable lake providing moorings for bca~s and offering other supplies and services accesscry to the principal use. !.10 "Recreational Vehicle" means any boat or vessel, personal water craf5 ("PWC") as defined in Minnesota Statutes ~ 86B.OO~, subd. 14a (a copy cf which is a~tached hereto as all-terrain vehicle ("ATV"), or similar type personal-sized recreational vehicle or watercraft for use on or upon the waters of Prior Lake. No restriction is given to season of the year. 1.11 "St~" means a structure designed solely to secure a watercraft for the purpose of protecting it from damage from wind, storm, or rain; the term does not include boathouses, decks, roofs or similar structures. 1.12 "Sprint" means Ice-Out to Memorial Day. 1.13 "Watercraft" means any boat or vessel for use on or stored on the public waters of the lake. 2. Statement of Purocse. This Conditional Use Permit is being issued pursuant to Section 5-6-5 of the Prior Lake City Code for the sole and exclusive pu.~pose of permitting the continued operation of a public, commercial marina on the Premises. The issuance of this Conditional Use Permit has been based upon findings heretofore made by the City Planning Commission and the City Council that the continued operation of the public, commercial marina on the Lake promotes the public health, safeny, and welfare of the citizens of the City. The City Council and Planning Commission further have found that to the extent consistent with the terms and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit, any such public, commercial marina should be a marina capable of providing services usual and customary, to the operation of such a business, which may include dispensing of se-~vices, repairs, fuels, minor food items, and related lake use items. The City Planning Commission and the City Council further find that the Marina serves as a base of operauicns for the Sconn County 5keriff s Z=~ ~z~ ~n! assists in rz~-.~es as rei'~ir~! b5' 3 the Sheriff's Department. The City Planning Commission and the City Council further find that it is the policy of the City that the sale of goods and services not necessary or incidental to the operation of a public, commercial marina shall not be permitted on the Premises. 3. which the ~emises. The legal description of the Premises upon Marina operation may be conducted is as follows: Ail that part of Block 7 in Grainwood, Scott County, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 11 in said Block; thence Easterly along the Northerly line of said Lot 1t and the extension thereof to the Westerly right-of-way line of County Road No. 2!; thence Southeasterly along said right-of- way line to the shore tine of Prior Lake; thence Southerly and Westerly along said shore line to its intersection with the Southerly extension of the Wesmerly line of Lot 18 in said Block; thence Northerly along said Westerly line of Lot 18 as extended and the Westerly line of Lots 15, 14, and 11 to the point of beginning~ repairs related products, incidental to marina, on the Premises. 5. Public Boat Launchinc. launching is not allowed. Boat Reoair Services. The Marina is authorized to conduct and maintenance of watercraft, recreational vehicles and the operation of a commercial General, transienn, boat launching is restricted to service customers, lake shore cwners, and members of any Lakeshore Association. 6. Docks and SliDs (Usace) . The Marina shall be authorized 94 slips for general, rental usage plus two additional lift slips and dock supplied by Scot5 County Sheriff in an area c~her ~han permitted slips. This area is strategically loca~ed to allow for fast access to the lake in an area mutually agreed upon by the Sheriff and the Marina. The fuel and se-~vice dock shall be authorized per DNR approved drawings'of dock layout. Fuel se--vice will be composed on on-water distribution (whether the water is in a liquid or frozen form) of fuels and oils directly into recreational vehicles and watercraft. All docks and slips will conform to the detailed drawing as submitted and approved by the DNR and the City. Service and tour boat moorings (tie~a!ongs), are to be located per detailed drawing as submitted and approved by the DNR and the City. Moorings and tie-a!ong's are synonymous. 7. Tour Boat. The Marina is authorized to operate a Coast Guard approved pontoon boat no larger than 45' x 14' from the Marina for the purpose of touring Upper and Lower Prior Lakes. Hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The mooring space for this boat is shown on the DNR approved dock layout drawings. All tours will be captained and crewed by Marina personnel and insured by the Marina or the owner of the tour boat, a copy of this insurance will be available at t~-= Marina to potential renters, the DNa, and the City. if meals are desired on board, it will be supplied by persons renting tour boat, or catered by firms other than the Marina. (NOTE: Deed restrictions ~ ' ~' '~ the Marina premises from being used for public dining, or on-sale beer or liquor facilities). Additional traffic at the Marina will be minimal as parking for the tour boat will be handled off- site as much as possible, with riders picked up au other - 5 storage of the tour boat is authorized alongside the retaining wall parallel to the boundary between the subject property and the Grainwood West Tow~house Association property. 8. Rental Craft. The Marina is authorized to provide a watercraft rental service in conjunction with the Marina operation to include, but not limited to recreational vehicles, boats, canoes, paddle boats, pontoon boats, sailboats and related windpowered watercraft, tour boat, al! intended for summer usage. Winter usage is unknown at this time, but may include snowmobiles, %-wheelers, snow-sail bcats, and similar winter usage personal sized craft. The Marina anticipates no increase in transient traffic at the Marina due to these rentals, which are currently in place and allowed under the current permit. 9. Retail Sales. The Marina may engage in the retail sales of watercraft, personal sized recreational vehicles and related items, new and used; motors, new and used; marine parts, equipment and accessories; fishing bait, tackle and accessories; and other water sports equipment and accessories with no limit to The Marina may engage beversges and related services, commercial marina including: in the retail sales of food and incidental to the cpera~ion of a coffee, pop, candy, dough, uts, chips, snacks and other similar convenience type items; hot dogs, bratwurst, pizza, Stewart sandwiches, and other similar pre-processed food items. !0. designated driveways Parkinc - Storace. Ail parking upon or blocking of ~ke and access easements located wiuhin cr abcuz - 6 - continuation of such on-premises storage after Memorial Day in the Spring, or the commencement of such on-premises storage prior to September 15th in the Fall, specific authority must be obtained by appli~a.kion to the City Manager. On land, storage shall be at grade level only. 12. Overnicht Moorinc or Storage on Fuel and Service Dock. The mooring and storage of watercraft on the side of the fuel and service dock facing the channel is prohibited any time after the usual and customary business hours of the Marina. The Marina is authorized to moor overnight on the side of the fuel and service dock opposite the channel, such watercraft being in the custody and control of the Marina for the purpose of maintenance, service, or rental. 13. Soecial Events. The Marina may have periodic special events, promotions, or City-wide celebrations. These periodic events will not exceed four (4) per year, and not exceed longer than one (1) day per event from sunrise to 10:00 p.m. These events, by way of example, can include: handicapped fishing tournament held in conjunction with the Prior Lake Sportsman's Club, customer appreciation days, or boat shows. 14. AmD!icab!e Law. Unless otherwise modified, waived, enumerated or excepted herein, the operation of a public, commercial Marina on the Premises shall comply with all laws, re~n~lations, ordinances, thereto. 15. Persons Bound. and deed restrictions applicable The terms and conditions of this Use Permit shall run with the Premises and shall be - 8 Premises, its successors and assigns; provided, however, that nothing in this Conditional Use Permit shall otherwise prevent the City from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of the'conditional uses. 16. Filinq. A certified copy of tkis Permit shall be filed Titles of Scott County by with the County Recorder or Register of the Marina. Frank Bo~les~ City Manager he~ Andren, City Mayor EAGLE CREEK PROPERTIES, INC. ~ 19~, c ~ : '. ~ , .- .* ~ . . .... .... . . · · ..... ~B.~. -,D~fio . :..:, .:~..-~:.... . ..:.. ~:......... .. .... '~.s~'Z c~ ...... ........ ' ........:~" --~--' Suh~ 9. ~o~rhoad ~o~rboa~ me~ a ~:prop~ed.:~ ~y'm~ posse~ion of z'~ s~ect ~ an' ~st'~ ~ot%~ p~on, r~s~ed or .~d by ~ement ~a~ se~s pa~ent or p~o~ce' of ~ oblivion, but.~er d~s'not ~dude or less ~at ~ p~p~ed selby by ~ padre whe~ ped~ed by ~ op~r or p~ng~. prop~-~en mo~E ~d ' (2) ~ de~ed ~ be opted ny ~ p~on or p~o~ m~, s~g, or ~e~$ on ~ 'r~ t~n ~ ~e ~onven~on~' ~ner of si~n~ or s~n~K ~side 'a Suh~ 15. ~nL "Eenf' wa~ me~ ~ ~s a ~: a~ah~e f6r abe ~e of Sub& t~. Sailho~ "S~bo~d" me~s a.~gie p~seng~, no~o~ed. ~ ~ ~e ~ when no~ be~E suppo~d by ~he opener. Sub& 16~ Slow-no w~e. ~Slow-no ~e" means ooer~on %~ a ~r~ at ~e slowest poss~le speed ne~s~ ~ m~n~ s~e~Ee, b~t in no ~e ~ea~r ~an dye EXHIBIT CITY OF PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMHISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 1985 The June 6, 1985 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Felix at 7:35 P.M. Present were Commissioners Larson, Loftus, Roseth and City Planner Graser. Absent was Commissioner Arnold. The minutes of the previous meeting were reviewed. Motion by Roseth to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Loftus. Upon a vote taker., the motion was duly passed. Item I, Jerry Young variance continuation. Mr. Young and Bryce Huemoeller, Attorney, were present to answer questions. Attorney Huemoeller commented that an amended application was submitted for 25 docl .lips and 15 buoys from the City. Jerry Young commented on the easements to Outlot A, submitting Exhibit "A", parking which there is room for 40 easy znd future landscaping and fencing such as redoing the walkway, clean up, security and working with area residents on the fence line. At this time input from the audience was asked for. Don Williams, President of $oudins Manor Association, feels the applicants exhibits are vague as to future p!a:]~ and that the sailboats in the bay are anchored as commercial exhibits. John Packer, President of Prior Lake Yacht Club, feels the facility is needed for tying up boats rather than anchoring them also there is no way to get to the north end of the lake under the bridge. Mr. Packer submitted a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Nave, Exhibit "B", in favor of the venture. City Planner Graser commented on the request for 25 boat slips and reviewed Memo dated May 2, 1985. 7he Planning Commissioners had several concerns regarding this request. (612) 447-;,230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E, P,O. BOX 359 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 Motion by Felix to approve the variance contingent upon: 1. Signage directing clients to east entrance. 2. Complete indicated improvements by 6/1/86. 3. Boat ramp use limited to slip and buoy clients. Power boat use shall be limited to a utility boats and one sheriff's boat. 5. Obtaining easement of East 20' of Lot 2, Block 1, of Watersedge 1st Addition. 6. Upon receipt of appropriate permits from the County authority. Detailed plan showing the improvements show~ on Exhibits submitted tonight and discussed in narrative and approved by staff. seconded by Larson. Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed. Item II, variance request by Steve Hofer for 3217 Vale Circle S.W. to construct a 22 X 24 foot detached garage. Mr. Hofer was present to answer questions. Mr. Hofer commented that a 2' tree is a problem in getting around and doesn't want to remove a mature tree. City Planner Graser commented per memo dated June 6, 1985. Pam Rauwerdink, 3207 Vale Circle, commented that all the lots are small in the area and variances are needed. The Planning Commissioners had concerns over the green space, turnaround area, a large mature tree and setting a new precedent. Motion by Larson to continue the variance request by Steve Hofer for 3217 Vale Circle S.W. until June 20 at 7:35 P.M. to give time to work with staff and provide a new plan, seconded by Roseth. Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed. At this time a 5 minute recess was called. The meeting resumed at 8:55 P.M. Item III, Priorwood Fifth Addition Preliminary Plat approval request was called to order. Mr. Tom Steffans, Subdivider, and Mr. Jim Parker, Engineer, were present to answer questions. Mr. Parker commented on use of the front lots, storm water, roadways, ponding, streets, buffer, and rezoning. Mr. Steffans commented on access lots, density, ponding and traffic flow. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Planning Commission Members Connie Carlson, Planning Secretary December 3, 1997 Bylaw Changes for 1998 Any proposed Bylaw changes for 1998 need to be incorporated at the first City Council meeting in January. Last year's changes were: · 6:30 p.m. starting time. · 18 month enture for chair. · Internship for new Commissioners. · Alternate Commissioners. If you feel there should be changes for 1998 please be prepared to discuss at the meeting. L'\97FI S\ 7PLC M PCCOR Y W Dp(~C 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. ~., ~rior LaC~e,~V~innesota~-l~ / . (~12) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER