The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-23-98REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1998 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: A. Presentation by Councilmember Pete Schenck 4. Public Hearings: Case File #98-035 Paul and Royceann DesLauriers are requesting a .65 foot variance to permit a 49.35 foot lot width at the front yard setback instead of the required 50 feet to construct a future single family dwelling on the property located at 5172 Hope Street. Case File #98-039 David Berens is requesting a 12 foot variance to permit a 13 foot front yard setback instead of the required 25 feet for a proposed garage for the property located at 16345 Duluth Avenue. C. Case File #98-032 Consider repealing Ordinance #92-09 which deleted mineral extraction as a conditional use in the A-1 and C-1 Zoning Districts. 5. Old Business: A. Continue Capital Improvement Program discussions. 6. New Business: A. PUD Annual Report 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: 16200 Ea~le ~e[~ve.C~.~.,~ior ~ar~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1998 1. Call to Order: The March 9, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykeg~!, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jan~:::~? Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. · 2. Roll Call: .: .... ?:i!::ii::!~ii:~::.:.. ':i::i::::?::. "::::::::::~ ........ Vonhof Present .... ~!i?::::::? .... i::~' Kuykendall Present Criego Present:~i ~I~}~i::;i. The Minutes from the February 23, 1998~~missioff:i*~eeting were approved with the following changes: "~::a...::~::7 .... '":'::~:~?:::i~i~}}~}~)?,~ .... Page 8, spelling of"Crieg~::?~?:}i::i~i~¢ sentenc~[ "b,each Page 15, bottom of pag~::ii~der St~n, chang~i~gi£::,.,to "that '. Page 7, Vonhof, thi~;~::i~nt, chang~?:0utlet" to "~i~t". A. . (~:~:~i}~ii$?:'~31 D~¢~!}!gg~:..Ki.'nga Brown requesting a 50 .foot variance to perru[gi~ii~ucture se~:from t~?~rdm, ary-High-Water ruark of Prior Lake for the co~iilction of a prol~ seas6~'al cabin on Lots 24 and 25, Twin Island. Plann~i}~ Tovar pre~:aed the staffreport dated March 9, 1998 on file in the office of the City B~r. The Planning ~i~i~ent received a variance application from David and Kinga Brown who are propo~ to construct a seasonal cabin on Twin Isles. The lots are currently being combined through the administrative subdivision procedure. As of yet, the planning department has not received any inquiry or objection relating to the lot combination from notified property owners. The applicant is proposing to construct the cabin 50 feet from the OHW. The Shoreland Ordinance requires a minimum structure setback of 100 feet from the OHW for island developruent. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a 50 foot variance to the 100 foot setback requireruents. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcrnin\mn030998.doc 1 Lots 24 and 25, Twin Isles were platted in 1925. The property is riparian located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. There is a bluff on the western portion of Lot 24. The proposed structure meets bluff setbacks and is above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels. Section 9.3E regulates development on islands without municipal The proposed development meets all of these requirements exg~ii?{~::.the structure setback, for which a variance is being requested. The applicant':~?:i~ase a~nt for the off street parking spaces is for one year beginning Apri!::?:i:&5.~'~ii~98. T~i~i}~olution contains a condition of continual proof of a lease for park~[~::~::~::~fter the fi~ :~[:. The legal building envelope for the structure is a~imate[~iii~g5 square feet '03' by 12.5'). The legal bui!ding e~v, elope for the gra¥?:::i~i:~i!~pti~::::i~[n is approximately 3 375 square feet (75 by 45 ). The septic system m~i!l~?:!~etb~k 20 feet from the structure and there must be an altemative septic location I~:~i}ii~}~y Ordinance. The DNR has not commented on this request ?:::!iiiiiii::::i~i~: ....... Staff concluded the variance request for ~ s'~::~:}~!~::Ihe cal~i~ is substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the appli~t Comments by the public~:~iii!:?i?:~:??:?:::i::ii!~?~i}?~?~iiii}~.- '::':{i}i!ii~ ' .... ~::::i::? 'iiiii!i!iii? Applicant Dave Bm~i~i:~1i227 eio~ Lane, Sh~e, stated out of the 20 requirements they have it down t~?~iiig¢ with staff's recommendation. Dave Olson 6.7~gf,.161st St~i~i~est, Rosemount, owns adjoining lots 22, 23 and 34. Mr. Olson s~i~i~i~i~i~ lot 3~:~::~i~.~ain field. His front yard setback to deck is 59 feet exactlx::::i~:~':iine witl~"~i~iii~ighbori::~?:!i~:~vould like to keep everything in line. Questioned the~::~h field size. T~iiiipointe~:::~;ut the applicant does not have a basement. Olson's o~:~i~cern was with f$~ge on the island. .... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Dave B'~ii~:respond~?to Olson's comments. He is following the tree removal ordinance td~iii~;:lett*~!i~::' There are 20 large trees on the lot. Brown had permission to remove four b~i?~ved only three. Pointed out Mr. Olson applied for four variances in 1991 and was ~ted all four. Brown is applying for one. Olson's cabin is 1,720 square feet where Brown's is 950 square feet. Brown spoke to Gary Staber who did the septic system evaluation assured him this is a State approved septic system. Also, Mr. Olson was granted a 41 foot setback rather than a 31 foot setback because he is 59 feet away from the lake rather than 69 feet. The public hearing was closed at 6:50 p.m. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminh'rm030998.doc 2 Comments by the Commissioners: Vonhof: · Questioned staff on the administrative subdivision. Tovar explained the neighbors were notified and no one commented on the request. The request was then administratively granted. · Questioned the septic system. Tovar explained the incinerator toilet fa...~ :.. · Off street parking does not have to be in the proximity of the island,::~i? .................. ~:'~:: · The four variance hardship criteria had been met. yk :~ .... ' Ku endali: ':~i~ .~:~:~ :~.. · Concurs with Vonhof. .... ~*:~'"' '*~:~*' "~":'~:~:~:" · Clarification on parking. Brown responded he hac~ ~g spots on Allen property and he will also be renting a slip a~iii~een ldeights. In reality ~::~:~11 be parking at Green Heights. .~?:::i?~'~:.~:,::i::iii~::i}i~ .... ::?:::::::?:::?:::::: · Planning Commission and staff should rewew parkings:It ~oo"~ague. · Supports variance. ':iiiiii}i!i!iiiiiiiiiiii~i .... · Question to Brown regarding buildi~i!i~:i~g?:~h3ck 9 f~?:"Brown said he was encouraged by residents on the Island t~il~nild~.:~ii~ii~:?a~d that is what he chose to do. ............ 'ii::ii::~i.::?:!? · Question to staffreg~i!~ii~rd setbaCkS. Tovar hid setbacks are 10 feet. After combining the lot it ~i*:~ot b~!~bstandard~iiii:: ............ Stamson: :.~:i~!i!::i::::i?:ii??.!?~ii~.:?.. .:.?::~!~i::!~:.:i. ...... ~:::?:~ · Given there is supports the variance. · Applicant has taken as ~:.care as he can to take care of the issues. · ~ii~onh~f's concem. · :s :~. ========================================= TO ADOPT RESOLUTION FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ORDINARY HIGH SETBACK OF 50 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 100 all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case File #98-026 Charles Olson and Joan Holsten requesting a 28.13 foot front yard variance; 2.4% impervious surface variance and a 1.S foot driveway setback for the construction of a single family home for the property known as 3204 Butternut Circle. Planner Jermi Tovar presented the staff report dated March 9, 1998 on file in the office of the City Planner. l:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcminknm030998.doc 3 The Planning Department received a variance application from Charles Olson and Joan Holsten who are proposing to construct a new single family residence on the vacant lot. Section 5-8-12 of the City Code requires substandard lots have a minimum lot width of 50 feet to be buildable. Thus, the existing lot width at the front yard setback is less than 50 feet requiting a variance. All structure setbacks will be met. The applicant is also applying for a variance to allow the proposed driv~gT, to be 3.5 feet from the property line rather than the required 5 foot setback and a...~¢i::to......, allow impervious surface coverage of 32.4% instead of the maximum?~[~ed impervious surl~ace coverage of 30% The impervious surface worksheet subm~i~!i~d, nottake into account a 1 foot proposed roof overhang. Overhangs are con~red td:~i::~i::~pervious surface. Therefore, the revised impervious surface request is..3~8~i Lot 28, Northwood was platted in 1911. The propert~:?:~i!~padan located within'~?[i~kl (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overt~;i'distric~!ii}ii~here is no bluft~i~¢ this lot and the proposed house location is above the:r::i~ry ~?~ii~rotection elevation. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcel~?:iiii~{iiiii?~?ili?f The legal building envelope is pie sha~6 87 feet wide ~i!i~:2~: front setback and approximately 159 feet deep, resulting i~::i~iiii~ii::~ootprint of ap~i:~nately 3328 square feet. The applicant has sketched the hou~i::de~i}i~[:::?:~s yet ~::~;omplete full building plans. The footprint consists of a three (660 sq. feet) and 1,108. sq. feet of living area. The pl:~d house '~ii~omply ~ all building setbacks. The proposed impervious surf~::::::::i~i::~8~A, due ~narily to the long driveway required to reach a point on the lo[:~ere a r~nable bu~i~i~g will fit. The proposed driveway is setback 3.5 feet on t!l~ii~uth lot li~f The lot is ~i~i~'5 feet wide at the front property line. With a 5 foot setb'~::::?:~::::~lfiv~::!i::~:?:~g~aY could only be 7.45 feet wide. The applicant is seeking a v~iii~'"~l]~:::::~:ii~::foot wide driveway. The DNR::~iglii~'[ii~ to th~:~es but stresses a future deck must meet setbacks or a v ' ~hed. Th~:iii~licant has stated there will be no deck or concrete etback an~{~pervi6~ surface requirements are not conducive for one with [ house Plannin :~utes from 1978 discussed variances that were approved for this lot. ~ to allow a 5 foot side yard setback for the proposed garage, a 1 foot yard setback for the house, and a 9 foot variance to the OHW. The required setback in 1978 was 10 feet for all side yards on all lots and the OHW setback on Prior Lake was 75 feet. There was no requirement for impervious surface or driveway setback in 1978. The variances were approved based on compatibility with the neighborhood and no detriment to the general health and welfare of the community. No structnres were built on this lot, and the variances expired on November 20, 1996 as per Section 5-6-8 (A). Staff has concluded the variance request for lot width and driveway setback are substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no control over. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nm030998.doc However, the variance to impervious surface can be eliminated upon redesign of the structure or driveway. Vonhof questioned the 5 foot driveway setback between another driveway. Kansier said there were no restrictions. Comments from the public: ~:~ Applicant Charles Olson, 8400 Normandale Blvd. Bloomington, sai~ii~var covered all the points. Mr. Olson talked to Valley Survey who said if they ~g~:::!~i~:l~ome smaller the driveway becomes longer and will not change the impervio~!iii~urfac~!ii}iiiii~$, asked the Commissioner if there was any other kind of driveway su[~.~i.meet th~ii}~l~?rvious surface issue. He stated he was open to suggestions. The hearing was closed at 7:13 p.m. ..::?:?:~i?:?:~?:~ Comments from the Commissioners: .... l~uvlrendall: .... 5iii~i5 · :; ?::? ::..i...?. · Feels very strong about impervious '~iiii~iyements. ~iii!]g~'' very important but presented with this situation could b~!i[ati6~iiig~[ ~ff would be absorbed before going into the lake. ':?[?~ii~. ..... ..::~?:i!? ......... ~:~?:iiiiii}iii!iiiiii? .... · Sphtt~ng the driveway ~elp wath ~:'~mperv~ous"surface. · Criego pointed out it ~g::::::~ii~i~ garage ~ch could be reduced. · Olson said the thre~iii~ garag~i~ tandem liii~&0 feet); reducing it would give him · Did not realize:'~i~ ¢~!i~:.thr~i~}?~giiiii~pplicant should reduce. There are other alternatives. It is wo~!~(i:.~ ' ................ · .Holds t~:~ig!::[~omm~n.. · ~.:4:~eed with Kuykefi~ and · '~5~::" ~:~ to 200 sq. fe~ii~r more. It is very important to keep impervious surface under 30°fi~!ii~}ig~ requires:~:% Vonhof. ..~,~,~:~:~,~:~:~,.. · Agreed w~t~i~mm~ss~oners. · Impervious ~urface request - there are redesign options. Does not support. · Supports the other two requests - lot width and driveway - hardships are met. Stamson: · Concurs with Cormnissioners. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, APPROVING RESOLUTION 98- 04PC GRANTING A 28.13 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 21.87 LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO BUILD 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXnm030998.doc 5 ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT; AND A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 3.5 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET. Vote taken sign/fled ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98- 07PC DENYING A 4.8 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE V~CE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 34.8% RAT~:?~ THE M xem_r FEmmTTED I vn ERVIOUS SUREACE __ Kuykendall commented "Half of the requirement is beca~i~:~?~easureme~ii~:~ge roof line rat, her than the face of the structure, the one [~:'over!3ang and where t~ii~er really goes. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.'::~?:ii~iiiiiiii?i}i!iii:::.!?? Kuykendall requested staff to raise as a l~i~.~ discussion ov~g~:~ersus sun roofs. C.. Case Fde" #.98-024 . Consider ~: ~a~g~. t~ t~:' Zoning Ordinance relating to the reqmred not~ce for a Planning Coordinator Jan~ii~i:~[esented'~:staffrep;~'"~" :':":' - ' dated March 9,1998 on file in the office of the Cit,z:~i~er. ::'i!i~iiiii!iiii The hearing is to:+:'ii!~;~r* Zoning Ordinance relating to the publication dates for a cS~'.~:~F~8~{~. The proposed amendment will bring the required pub!}5:~.dates i~{~ii~pformance with the newspaper publication schedule and the meetin~i~i~i~ Sest~" 7.9 F of the ~g O~{hance outlines the procedures for a Comprehensive R~g. Subsection 3 '~ihis section states the following: 3. N~t}~ii~iii:~i~e Z~ni~}i~cer shall publish n~tice in at ~east three (3) weekly issues ~f the of~:~:~ii~e~)er on the proposed rezoning amendment. The public hearing shall be 3 i}ii gt ~ess than ten (10) or more than fifteen (15) days after the last publication!?' The problem with this requirement is that it does not coincide with the publishing schedules of the newspaper and the meeting date. Since staff cannot meet the timelines prescribed by the ordinance, it is necessary to change the ordinance. The proposed change is relatively simple, and does not change the intent of the ordinance. Notice will still be published in three weekly issues of the paper. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn030998.doc 6 The public hearing date will be held not less than nine (9) or more than sixteen (16) days after the last publication. Staff recommended the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. There were no comments from the public. The heating was closed at 7:25 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · Agreed with staff. Vonhof, Kuykendall and Stamson. · Concurred with Criego. ~iOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ~f)F, TO REC~;[~D APPROVAL OF HE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. '~::i!!:?~i::::?:i!iiiii!i}ii:~i!::?:?:~:~::? "~::i!!!i~iii!i!i!? .... Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION'~?:iiiii!iii!i!!i!i!ili!? A. Case. File to (¢ont,g a) consider an Amendment to the Planned Umt Dev~lol~}:..tg::::i~?~:i~ii::~ihdsong on the Lake 3rd Addition. Pl~ng Coo[~D~r J~e ~r reviewed ~e staffr~o~ dated M~ch 9 1998 on file T~::~g Co~is~:./..f...f.~held ~:'~ublic he~g on Febm~ 23, 1998, to consider ~s reque~}?~yhe Pl~ng ~ission continued action on ~s it~ ~til M~ch 9, 1998 Two d~ Co~iss~rs suggested ~e applic~t work with the homeo~er's The developer fi~ed the Plying staff he c~ot schedule a homeomer's ~sociation meeting ~til M~ch 17, 1998. He is ~erefore requesting ~s item be continued ~til April 13, 1998, Plying Co~ission meeting. Staffa~eed. Comments by the Commissioners: MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VON-HOF, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO APRIL 13, 1998. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~mO30998.doc 7 B~ Case File #98-132 (Continued) Approved Resolution denying setback variance for Burdick property. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated March 9, 1998 on file with the City Planner. On February 23, 1998 the Planning Commission heard the request for..:~gs on the respective lots on Commerce Avenue. The requested variances rel~t~i to two existing commercial properties located on Commerce Avenue. Resolut/~:~i~l).lPC and 98- 02PC were adopted approving the setback variances for the principal si~s and the variance to fence height. The Planning Commission directe~i::~}~o prepar~::~$olution with findings denying the 43.7 foot variance request to all~i~:ii~}sting trasl~:~tos~e to be setback 16.3 feet for adjacent residential property :[~[~ Resolution 98-05PC denies the requested vadance'~i~ili~i~, spqg~{~dings as discussed at previous hearings by the Planning Commission. "::~::::i?~}iii~[iii}i?~:!i::::::i!?i~ ....... ~ .... Comments by the Commissioners: ::?:i!i}¢!:::::::~i~:~ ..... Criego, Vonhof, Stamson and Kuykend~ia~:~i~i~i~ut fur~;r comments. Attorney Mark Kelly appli~::~i:~sked to:~::i~;ak and stated he felt there appears to be an interest ..~ screening is better than.~t requires a fence on.:t assuming his neighborhood a better called upon ~ his not to and fofliii~he benefit of the neighborhood that the require. The ordinance only berm. Presently the board is of dollars extra to provide to the proposed while at the same time being Burdick is not required to do that. Kelly stated the trash enclosure, might just as easily choose plan. If it is the desire of this Board to be better ass~...,.........., that thei plan '~ill be installed for the benefit of the neighbors, the G~!i~i.g~ioners should g[~ further consideration to applicant's request. Criego S~?~i~e last ~?variances were granted with the condition the shrubbery and a fence would':~}i~gt ~!i::~S indicated at the previous meetings. If in fact, applicant does not put up the fe~ii~'' shrubbery as proposed, then those variances that were authorized will become nu~iii~d void. The applicant will have to decide if those approved variances are sufficient to require putting up the fence and shrubs. The alternative is to move the building. Kelly said moving the building is not an altemative. The building at 14180 Commerce Avenue has been there since 1994, and has technically been a non-conforming structure. The applicant could modify the building and modify the landscaping staying within the ordinance requirements and saving thousands of dollars over what the ordinance otherwise requires. They have talked about keeping everyone happy and there is a lot of 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn030998.doc 8 emotion tied up. Kelly asked Commissions to reconsider, and as a practical matter, what they would want to insure is that the neighborhood is properly screened from the adjacent commercial property. The City is asking the applicant to spend an awful lot of money and on top of that saying take the trash enclosure off indicating you don't care where we put it. It's your problem. Kelly is saying there is still a big problem. There is no guarantee that anybody gets what they want in this kind of situation. Vonhof:..::~ · No further comments. · Commissioners reviewed hardships and went well and abov~:.~0~ii~gat is usually done at public hearings getting information fi'om applicant ~!~eighb~f~d. · Based on all the information received at the public heafi~!~eves the'=:~!ution is sound. ..::r~ ' Kn kendall: =========================== .... · Felt the Commissioners were following the process ~?~?good"faith effort to try to reach a solution to an awkward situatign to all parties.'~i~::~:~o believe the complete package of variances and changes w~::~d together. · Stand by what is proposed by staff. "5}i?~!i}i}}}}}}i~iiiii?:::~ ....... · If applicant decides not to comply wi~:::-~htent"~gi~ii~a~:~d~ided, those actions can be faced by appropriate b~}}[i~:~ ":::i::?:ii:::.:::!!!}i~i?.~::?:i? .... .......... ~:::!ili!iii?~i?~~.? .... .... Criego: ..~i[::¢~~ ..... ~i[?:~[~[ · Difficult situation.::~{?:~'est. Beli~;s applic~i}h~ done an inordinate amount of time to work on the ~i::::g~nd wol[~g.Y/ith the ~ii~hbors with the fence and berm. · The applicant made ev~i~ort. " · Sa Stam~ii: two weeks ago. · best plan. ~[*~' · to · Supports r~i . MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-05 PC DENYING A 43.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERIVlIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 16.3 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR THE EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE. All parties worked very hard. There was great deal of Vote taken indicated ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall and Stamson, nay by Criego. MOTION CARRIED. l:\98files\98plcorom\pcmin\mn030998.doc 9 Stamson explained the appeal process. 6. New Business: A. Case File #98-031 1999-2003 Capital Improvement Program review. Planning Director Don Rye reviewed the staff report. .::?:ili??:::i::~?:~::~i~::::i:'i!ili::!i:.: At the joint meeting with the City Council 2 years ago, Commis~::~;~rs expressed a desire to become involved with the Capital Improvemet/~iiiiP~ogr~si?iiii~yelopment process. The Council agreed was an appropriate role for the ~!~sion. "::~::([~?~iii~i~?sii::i~ Projects which are not constructed in the current ye~ii!i~ c~ed over to a sul~:~nt year. In some cases, projects are dropped from the ~lif it bec~s apparent that':;i~'ere is no need for the project or that another project may :~:::[ge ~}}ggals. The summary described the CIP process and the financing ~ available to the City in completing the projects. As always, the I~ constraint on'~t0g~g capital facilities is the availability of money. At presen~i~ii~i!ii~st issue fac~i!i~e City in terms of capital projects is the financial cormnitme~ii~e~iult'~ii~i~e~ an~ programmed County road improvements. During 1996 and 199~ii?~[h}::[~iij~'~;::~i~[[?~i~f County road projects is expected to be is app~i~ately l,~[::' of the total City capital expenditures during this should indicate what advanced by Comments by An3/~!ii~commendations for changes to the CIP or poli~ii::in:, the Comprehensive Plan is being in the Subdivision Ordinance referring to · gures. · of ~ty Road 42 with Reuters Street and Timothy Avenue [~:~somewhere in the plan. The lights are going in. Poor access. · Scott Marschall made a presentation to the City Council indicating like to see an agreement by all parties (County, Savage and Prior Lake)'~nceming the Timothy Avenue access. · Discussed the complicated road structure on County Road 42 · What is easier getting a light fi'om the County or the State? And what is going to happen on the other quadrant? All parties have staked out their position. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE SHOULD TAKE THE LEADERSHIP ROLE THAT THE FOUR AGENCIES (STATE, COUNTY AND CITIES OF SAVAGE AND PRIOR LAKE) GET TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVES SHOWING THE BENEFITS OF EACH 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn030998.doc 10 APPROACH TO TAKE FORTH BY OUR TWO CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES. Discussion: · Kuykendall would like to volunteer as part of the Council representatives. · Criego said Prior Lake should work with Savage with the Safety is also an issue. · Address the traffic issue now instead of 5 years down the road. uadrants. Votes signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Further discussions: · The library and park referendum material · Questioned if a new well would be in the CIP. to inform the public. Consider Encourage residents who · County Road 42 will be 4 lanes. . Access off Highway 13 to Franklin ~iii~d[~a Trail. · Signal on Highway 13 and Five Hawk~i}ii~:.~l~!~he'""-'":~;":~?'"":" well · Access issues. '::'~i!ii~ ~::::ii!ii::i~:~:~::::~i!i~i!~i~iiii~ii;~ii::iiii~i~i::~: · Truck routes. · Changing Highway 13 MOTION BY COUNCIL WITH POSSIBILITY OF THE g development. TO RECOMMEND TO CITY ROADS 42 AND 17 THE THE TRUCK ROUTE 13 TO COUNTY ROADS 42 AND 17 THROUGH HIGHWAY 13 FOR A PARKWAY FOR CONTINUITY, TRAFFIC SAFETY AND 2 CALMING. THIS 13. A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INSERT THE WORDS ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL TO HIGHWAY AGREED. Discussion: ,~ii~::~ .... · Improvements to County Roads 27 and 21. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Discussion: · Gateway signage in the CIP. · Commissioners would like to continue the CIP issue for the next meeting. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhnnO30998.doc 11 7. Announcements and Correspondence: · RE: The Zoning Ordinance - a cover memo will be drawn up and presented to the City Council. Discussions will follow at two City Council workshops. · Stamson and Vonhofwould be willing to participate at the workshops. · Kuykendall will not be attending the April meetings. · The Scott County Planning workshop will be March 31 at the Prior L~i~i~~ Hall. · Enforcement Officer position. Hoping to hire by mid-April .... ~i:?::?~ ................. :~:' · Last article on the crime prevention on environmental design. ,:~!i!!~:i~i!}}i}}i}i~iiii~ .... Jim Albers questioned the bluff interpretation on the Dave Bro~i:.variar~ii!~uest held earlier ..... ?:::ii~i?~iiiii!iJii?:::i::~:::?~i~: '::~::iii?~iii~?~i?~iii;:~:: 8. Adjournment: .... ?:::i?~ .... ..,:~:~i!i!ii?? .... The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm030998.doc 12 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4A CONSIDER A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE FOR PAUL AND ROYCEANN DESLAURIERS, Case File #98-035 5172 HOPE STREET JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO MARCH 23, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from Paul and Royceann DesLauriers who are proposing to remove an existing structure and construct a new single family residence. The lot is 49.35 feet wide at the 25 foot minimum required front yard setback. Section 5-8-12 of the City Code requires that substandard lots have a minimum lot width of 50 feet to be buildable. Because the City Code does not specify what measurement distances are in, the setbacks and other numerical ordinance requirements cannot be rounded. Thus, the existing lot width at the front yard setback is less than 50 feet requiring a variance. The lot is located in the Condons Wood Dale 1st Addition subdivision on Prior Lake. DISCUSSION: Lot 12, Condons Wood Dale 1st Addition was platted in '1921. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD ($horeland Overlay) district. There is not a bluff on the property due to the fact that the slope from the 929.0 elevation to the OHW is not 30% or greater. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels. Lot attributes are as follows: Area (above 904 el) Lot Width (measured at setback) OHW Width Size Requirement to Variance be Buildable Requested (as a substandard lot) 8,462 sq. feet 7,500 sq. feet N/A 49.35 feet 50.00 feet .65 feet 50 feet N/A N/A (approx.) 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The legal building envelope is approximately 34 feet wide and 100 feet deep, resulting in an area footprint of approximately 3,400 sq. feet. All setbacks will be met. The existing impervious surface is 45.7%. The proposed impervious surface is 35.7%. Section 5-8-3 of the City Code allows for permits to be issued on sites with impervious surface over 30% which are being altered, which decrease the imperious surface (reducing the non-conformity). The applicant has preliminary plans for the house which are attached. The DNR has no comments on this request. VARIANCE HARDSHIPSTANDARDS 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the preperty if the Ordinance is literally enforced. The vadance request to lot width is an existing condition. There is a hardship with respect to the preperty because those dimensions cannot be changed to meet the criteria of the ordinance. Failure to appreve a variance for lot width would render the lot unbuildable, thereby denying the owners reasonable use of the preperty. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstance is the lot width. Considering that it is an existing condition created in 1921 and cannot be altered to meet the ordinance requirements, hardship does exist for lot width. The preperty was originally platted as 50 feet. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. The lot is considered to be substandard. The lot area is 8,462 square feet and the lot width is only 49.35 feet at the required front setback. These are conditions which have been existing since the property was platted in 1921. The lot width is a hardship that is not the result of the applicant's actions. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The intent of a minimum lot width of 50 feet to be buildable is to allow for a strecture that can meet the required setbacks and still be of a reasonable size. Considering that adjacent lots are of similar size and have existing L:\98FILES\98VAR~98-035\98-035PC.DOC Page 2 structures upon them, the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded the variance request for lot width is substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no control over. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. ACTION REQUIRED: Adoption of the attached Resolution #98-08PC. L:\98FILES~98VAR\98-035\98-O35PC.DOC Page 3 RESOLUTION 98-08PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING A .65 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.35 LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS I. Panl and Royceann DesLauriers have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 5172 Hope Sta'eet, legally described as Lot 12, CONDONS WOOD DALE IST ADDITION and all that part of the vacated driveway abutting and lying southerly between the southerly extension of the easterly and westerly lot lines of Lot 12, FIRST ADDITION TO CONDONS WOOD DALE and Tract E, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 71, file of the Registrar of Titles, Scott County, MN, excepting therefrom that part of said Tract E, lying westerly of the east line of Lot 13, FIRST ADDITION TO CONDONS WOOD DALE, as extended to the south line of said Tract E, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds, Scott Cotmty, MN. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #98-035 and held hearings thereon on March 23, 1998. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 5. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property, and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located. L:\98FILES\95VAR\98-035~R. E9$08PC.DOC 2 714 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 5537 -1 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The unique circumstances applicable to this property include the substandard lot size, the fact that the property was platted as a 50 foot lot prior to the incorporation of the city. 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property fight of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors listed above do not allow for an alternative location of the proposed structure without variances. 7. The contents of Plarming Case 98-035 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year fi.om the date of approval if the holder of the variances has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvements including the future structure, yet to be designed. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and approves the following variance, as shown in attached Exhibit A; 1. A .65 foot variance permitting a 49.35 foot lot width at the required front yard setback instead of the required 50 foot lot width. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 23, 1998. ATTEST: Anthony Stamson, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 2 ~C~VE¥ PREPAREO FOR: PAUL DESLAURIERS EXHIBIT A Valley Surveying Co., P.A. o 40 PRIOR LAKE CITY OF PRIOR'LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD), ATTACHED GARAGE The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent; Property Address ~ 13 7_.. ~t-, oe_ ~re~J~ ~ ~ . ' Lot Area ~, ~{e'7~'~ Sq. Feet x 30% -- .............. . ."L~"~' o, aoo,4o_-. '-c.[... r-~o,.t .0 ' ," I~,~'~ ~q LENGTH WIDTH S Q. FEET . x ,,, =., TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE..' ....... ............. DETACHED BLDGS (Garage/Shed) AyED AREAS (Driveway.paved or not) (Sidewalk/Parking Areas) X TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ....................... TOTAL PAVED AREAS ................ ; ........................ PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS (Opgn Decks W' min. opening between boards, with a pervious surface below, ere not ~:onsidered to be Impervious) OTHER TOTALOTHER..,,; ............ ~ ..................................... TOTAL' IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDEI~EI~ ,~ . ·: Date .~)fq CITY OF PRIOR LAKE o r.o*:~ Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD). The Maximum hnperviou$ Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Lot Area ~{fL.. 7 Sq. Feet x 30% -- .............. .~¢-~c~ , LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET ...... ATTACHED GARAGE ~o x "~O ' ~ TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE..' ........ , ........... DETACHED BLDGS (O~rage/Shed) TOTALDETACHED BUILDINGS....~ .................. DRIVEWAY/PAVED AREAS (Driveway.paved or not) (Sidewalk/Parking Areas) K ~ qoL PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS (Open Decks 'A" min. opening between board~, with a pervious surface below, ~'o not considered to be Impervious) OTHER TOTAL OTHER ................ , ...................................... TOTAL' IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE PRIOR LAKE El. 902. 0 '- ....................... 92'~ ..... 928 oNR METRO; 3-13-98 15:40; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #1/1 Minnesota Deparlment of N~:tl-ural Resources F~'-o~,~ V/~ ':.;,~-'7'F-,~ cA-, -5-'77Z_ /4oPe- ' /Vo ELEVATIONS INNE$O NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: A .65 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMITA 49.35 FOOTLOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO BE BUILDABLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (sHoRELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 5172 HOPE STREET. You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, March 23, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANTS: Paul and Royceann DesLauriers 5172 Hope Street Prior Lake, MN 55372 PROPERTY Same OWNERS: SUBJECT SITE: REQUEST: 5172 Hope Street, legally described as Lot 12, Condons Woodale 1st Addition including a vacated driveway and part of Tract E Registered Land Survey #71, Scott County, MN. The applicant is intending to remove the existing cabin and construct a single family detached house with garage. The proposed house will meet all setbacks. The existing lot of record is 49.35 feet wide at the front yard setback rather than the required 50 feet. The property was platted as 50 feet wide. The lot consists of 8,462 square feet above the ordinary high water mark (904 el.). The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-035\98-035PN.DOC 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing, Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria. Prior Lake Planning Commission Date Mailed: March 12, 1997 L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-035\98-035PN.DOC pRIOR ! LAKE '' R..L.s. 13 TRACT, C ST ADr'J'N ~ WOOD DALE PROPERTY LOCATION 9 "' 2 e,'.u. T.ACT. POND R.L.3. .13 TRAGT 'E PL E- 2?ED 'LAWRENCE HAFERMAN 165683 5 CENTE PL-X 42A INOEPENOENT SCHOOL DIET ~ 7 .G,o,AT.E,,W,~.Y..,. Cf N T E R IST BD'N SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PAUL DESLAURIERS SI7;~ HOPE STREET S.E. PRIOR LAKE, MN. ~i~72 Valley Surveyin~l Co., S~*rE ~-c, ~A~UN 'r~c ~'~cg C~'W~UU PRIOR LAKE PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4B CONSIDER A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR DAVID BERENS, Case File #98-039 16345 DULUTH AVENUE JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO MARCH 23, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from David Berens who is proposing to construct a three car detached garage. The lot is a corner lot 40.0 feet by 130 feet. Section 5-4-1 of the City Code requires that corner lots maintain the required front yard along each street of frontage. Therefore, the required garage setback is 25 feet from the property line facing Duluth Avenue. The requested variance is to allow a front yard setback of 13 feet rather than the minimum required of 25 feet. The applicant will also need a variance to lot coverage for the proposed garage. Section 5-4-1 of the City Code allows for a maximum coverage of 22% (structures only). The applicant is proposing building coverage of 33.7%. DISCUSSION: Lot 23, Cates Addition was platted in 1934. The property is located within the R- 2 (Urban Residential District) and is not within the shoreland district. Section 5- 4-1 allows for a maximum building coverage, including accessory structures, not to exceed 22%. The house foot print is 40 feet by 24 feet (960 square feet) with an 8 foot by 5 foot entry (40 square feet) resulting in combined building coverage of 1,000 square feet or 19.2% coverage. The proposed garage is 36 feet by 22 feet (792 square feet), resulting in total lot coverage of 34.5%. The maximum size allowed for a detached accessory structure is 832 square feet or the foot print of the principal structure, whichever is greater. The attached Exhibit A (survey) indicates the proposed layout of the lot. The three stall garage is to be setback 13 feet from the property line facing Duluth Avenue. This does not leave much room if any for the stacking of a vehicle without blocking the right of way. The reconstruction project of Duluth Avenue 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER does not include a new sidewalk or trail along this portion of the right of way. However, the applicant will have to work with the Engineering Department to establish elevations and placement of the new curb and gutter, Under the proposed zoning ordinance, as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, the maximum lot coverage of structures is 30%. This would allow for 1,560 square feet of building footprint on the lot. Given the existing house is approximately 1,000 square feet or 19.2% lot coverage, this would allow for 560 square feet for garage space. A typical garage is 22 feet by 22 feet or 484 square feet. One could reduce the garage width to 20 feet and still be functional. The proposed setback for this lot under the proposed ordinance would be 25 feet front yard setback on Pleasant Street and 15 feet from the sideyard facing Duluth Avenue. The applicant can modify the plan to construct a garage that will meet the requirements of the proposed ordinance. Such modification could include reducing the size of the garage to 20 feet wide and 22 feet deep and make the opening of the garage face south. This would increase the setback from Duluth Avenue to be 15 feet (meeting the proposed ordinance) and allow space for a turn-around so residents would not have to back onto Duluth Avenue. The proposed coverage on the lot would then be reduced to 1,484 square feet or 28.5%. Even if this proposal is modified as recommended above, a variance will be required since the proposed ordinance has not been adopted. However, modifying the proposal may reduce the negative impacts of this proposal and justify the variance. VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance is literally enfomed. The variance requests for setbacks and lot coverage are direct result of the lot size and reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission has stated a garage is a reasonable accessory use for a residential properties. There is a hardship with respect to the property because the substandard lot area or dimensions cannot be changed to meet the criteria of the ordinance. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstance is the lot area and dimensions rendering the lot substandard. The lot is also a corner lot which requires a front yard setback L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-039\98-039PC. DOC Page 2 on both street frontages. Considering the lot dimension is an existing condition created in 1934 and cannot be altered to meet the ordinance requirements, hardship does exist for lot width. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. The lot is considered to be substandard. The lot area is 5,200 square feet and the lot width is only 40 feet. These are conditions which have been existing since the property was platted. However, the hardship is a result of the applicants proposed garage size. The lot coverage and setback variance requests are the result of the applicant's actions as to size and location of the proposed garage. The proposed garage can be reduced to significantly reduce the lot coverage and can be moved to provide a turn-around without obstruction the right-of-way. Options exist for reducing the variance request to be more reasonable to meet the intent of the ordinance. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The intent of lot coverage is to provide open space and separation between structures on lots. One intent of the front yard setback is to allow for adequate stacking of cars in a driveway. Considering Duluth Avenue is designated as a minor collector and the proposed driveway length is 13 feet (on the lot only), a turn around on private property is important. The applicant can meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance by reducing the variance requests or providing a turn-around as suggested. Considering lots in the area are of similar size and have existing structures upon them, the granting of a variance would not be contrary to the public interest. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded that as submitted, the proposal meets two of the four hardship criteria. A variance request must meet all four of the criteria to be granted. However, staff feels the site plan can be modified to meet all four of the hardship criteria. A continuation of the hearing until April 13, 1998 would give the applicant 10 days to submit a revised plan for Planning Commission review. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings. L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-039\98-039PC.DOC Page 3 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. = Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. In this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Planning Commission feels the proposal can meet all of the hardship criteria if revised, then a motion and second to table the variance request until April 13, 1998 to allow the applicant time to revise the plan is appropriate. In this case, the Planning Commission should also direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the original request. L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-039\98-039PC.DOC Page 4 SURVEY PREPAREO FOR: DAVID BERENS 17645 JUNIPER PATH SUITE NO ZOO LAKEVILLEt MN. 55044 Volley Surveying Co., PA. SUITE 120-C ~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447- 2570 EXHIBIT A PLEASANT STREET DESCRIPTION: --40.00.- Lot 23, CATES ADD'N, Scott County, Minnesota. Excepting therefrom the South 20.00 feet thereof. Also showing the location of the proposed g~rage. NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 942.84 top nut hydrant (~ the NE quadrant of Duluth Avenue and Pleasant Street. 935.0 Denotes existing grade elevation (935.8)Denotes proposed finished grade elevation · , Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage Set the proposed garage slab at elevation 936.04 Property area ,- 5,200 square feet SUGGESTIONS TO REDUCE THE VARIANCE REQUEST SURVEY PREPARED FOR; Volley Surveying Co., P.A. DAVID BERENS SUITe ~20-c , t6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL 17645 ,JUNIPER PATH FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM SUITE NO 200 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55.'172 LAKEVILLE~ MN. 55044 TELEPHONE ~612) 447-2570 PLEASANT STREET DESCRIPTION: --40.00-- I Lot 23. CATES ADD'Iq, Scott County, Minnesota. Excepting therefrom the South 20.00 feet thereof. Also showing the loCation of the proposed garage. NOTES: Benclunark Elevation 942,84 top nut hydrant @ the NE quadrant of Duluth Avenue and Pleasant Street. 935.0 Denotes existing grade elevation (935.8)Denotes proposed finished 8fade elevation · ,- Denotes proposed direction of finished $ur face drainage Set the proposed garag~ slab at elevation 936.04 Property area"' 5,200 square feet 0 ZO 40 INNESO NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: A 12 FOOT V/IRI/tNCE TO PERMIT.A 13 FOOTFRONT YARD SETBACK INSTE.4D OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FOR PROPOSED G.4RAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-2 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 16345 DULUTH AVENUE. You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Pr/or Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, March 23, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANTS: Hogger Realty David Berens 16345 Duluth Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 PROPERTY Same OWNERS: SUBJECT SITE: 16345 Duluth Avenue, legally described as Lot 23, Block 3, Cates Addition except the south 20 feet thereof, Scott County, MN. REQUEST: The applicant is intending to construct a 36' by 22' detached garage on a comer lot. The garage will be setback 5 feet from the interior east lot line and 10 feet from the interior southern lot line. The lot is 40 feet wide and 130 feet long (5,200 square feet). Thc Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-039\98-039PN.DOC 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447~230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria. Prior Lake Planning Commission Date Mailed: March 12, 1997 L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-039\98-039PN.DOC 2 156881 182330 ST., ,~ICHAEL~$ C H'JP, CH 283 407.5 ..... '-- ,' 283) 82~&1 ~6s':'- 2OO LO.-'~ '-- N GROSS :5063)3 PROPERTY LOCATION . SURVEY PREPARED FOR: DAVID BERENS 17645 JUNIPER PATH SUITE NO 200 LAKEVlLLE~ MN. 55044 Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE IRO-C ~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE~ MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 PLEASANT .~:o STREET z DI~SCRIPTION; Lot 23, CATE~ ADD'lq, Scott County, Mirmeso~ Excepting therefrom the South 20.00 feet thereof. Also showing the location of the proposed g~rage. NOTE~: Benchmark Elevation 942,84 top nut hydrant ~ the NE quadrant of Duluth Avenue and Pleasant Street. 935.0 Denotes existing ~adc elevation (935.8)Denotes proposed fi~ish~d grade elevation · , Denotes proposed direction of finished sur face drainage Set the proposed garage slab at ¢lcvatlon 936.04 Property area- 5,200 square fe~t 0 ZO 40 SCALE tN FEET PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4C PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REPEALING ORDINANCE #92-09 WHICH DELETED MINERAL EXTRACTION AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE A-1 AND C-1 DISTRICT (Case File ;~P38-032) JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES NO MARCH 23, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider repealing Ordinance #92-09, which deleted mineral extraction as a conditional use in the A-1 (Agricultural) and C-1 (Conservation) Zoning Districts. Repealing this ordinance will reestablish mineral extraction as a conditional use in these districts. DISCUSSION: In 1992, the City Council adopted Ordinance #92-09, which deleted mineral extraction from the list of conditional uses in the A-1 and C-1 districts. This action was the culmination of a process dating back to early 1991 when the City was party to a Metropolitan Significance review of a proposed mining operation on the McKenna property in Shakopee. The Council first enacted a moratorium on mineral extraction while the issue was studied. The end result was the adoption of Ordinance #92-09. The reasons for the enactment of this ordinance included: · The activity is not currently taking place in Prior Lake · Effective, fair, efficient regulations are not in place · Qualified evaluators are not on City staff · Mining and residential development are not compatible uses When the Council adopted this ordinance, they did not amend Title 9, Chapter 6 of the City Code which allows Excavating and Filling with a permit issued by the City Engineer. The end result is these two provisions conflict with one another. 1:\98files~98ordamd~zoning\98-032~98032pc.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E, Prior Lake, Hinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and Section 9-6 of the City Code needs to be resolved. The proposed zoning ordinance allows mining and extraction as a conditional use, with several specific standards and conditions. However, that provision will most likely not become effective until sometime this summer. The staff has discussed this issue with the City Attorney, and she concurs with the staff's opinion that the record of decision for Ordinance #92-09 does not support the decision to remove mineral extraction from the list of conditional uses. The conditional use permit process is the appropriate mechanism for this use in that it allows for public input in the decision making process. The current ordinance also includes a set of standards for the approval of conditional uses. To resolve this issue, the City Attorney and the staff have suggested Ordinance #92-09 be repealed, thereby reestablishing mineral extraction as a conditional use in the A-1 and C~1 districts. Any applicant who wishes to establish this use could apply for a conditional use permit under the current ordinance. As a provision of any conditional use permit, the City can include a requirement that any more stringent requirements imposed by adoption of the new zoning ordinance can automatically be attached to the new conditional use permit. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the Council repeal Ordinance #92-09, thereby reestablishing Mineral Extraction as a conditional use in the ^-1 and C-1 Districts. 2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendments. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance #92-09 2. Memorandum from Don Rye, Planning Director, dated February 26, 1998 3. 1992 Planning Report and Staff Agenda Report 4. Hearing Notice 1:\98files\98ordamd~zoning~98-032\98032pc.doc Page 2 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 92-09 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PRIOR ~ CITY CODE AND PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 83-6. The Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: ZONING Prior Lake City Code Section 5-3-3: is hereby amended to delete "Mineral Extractions" as a Conditional Use within the C-l, Conservation District and the A-l, Agricultural Zoning District within Prior Lake. Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance No. 83-6, Section 3.2, is hereby a~ended to delete "Mineral Extraction" as a Conditional use within ~he .C-i, Conservation District and the A-l, Agricultural Zoning District within Prior Lake. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. 17 th. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this day of August, 1992. ATTEST: City M~a~ger Published in the Prior Lake American on the 24th. day of August, 1992. Drafted By: Deborah Ann Garross Assistant City Planner city of Prior Lake 4629 Dakota Street Prior Lake, MN 55372 MEMORANDUM February 26, 1998 To: City Council From: Don Rye, Planning Director Subject: Gravel Excavation In 1992, the Council adopted Ordinance 92-09. This ordinance amended the zoning ordinance by deleting Mineral Extraction from the list of conditional uses in the Agricultural and Conservation zoning districts. This action was the culmination of a process dating back to early 1991 when the City was party to a Metropolitan Significance review of a proposed gravel mining operation on the McKenna property in Shakopee. As a result, the City adopted a moratorium on mineral extraction while it studied the issue. Ordinance 92-09 was the result. In the last few months, several things have happened which bear on this issue. 1. Last fall, a grading and excavation permit was issued to Ryan Contracting to remove material from the McKerma property, based on the provisions of Section 9-6 of the City Code. 2. When it was determined that this use constituted mineral extraction, the permit was revoked. 3. A similar permit was issued to RKI Construction under the provisions of Section 9-6 about the same time to remove material from the Viefling property north of County Road 42. 4. Ryan Construction has maintained that they are not being treated equally and the RKI permit should also be revoked. 5. Staff has informed Ryan that the proposed zoning ordinance will allow mining and gravel extraction by Conditional Use Permit when it is adopted. 6. The conflict between the zoning ordinance and 9-6 needs to be resolved. Adoption of the new zoning ordinance will reestablish mining as a conditional use but that will not happen until later this summer. 7. Currently, Ordinance 92-09 has precedence. I have discussed this with the City Attorney and she agrees with my opinion that the record of decision for Ordinance 92-09 does not support the decision to remove mineral extraction from the ordinance. My suggestion would be to repeal Ordinance 92-09 , 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIT~ EMPLOYER which would reinstate mineral extraction as a conditional use in the Agricultural District. Both Ryan and RKI could then apply for conditional use permits and have them in place in time for the construction season. It would also be my suggestion that any conditional use permits so issued would contain a provision that any additional or more stringent requirements imposed by adoption of the new zoning ordinance would automatically be incorporated into the Conditional Use permits. I would appreciate Councils input on this matter. "ZO01PC" PLANNING REPORT PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEkRING: DATE: SUBJECT: MINERAL EXTRACTION (MINING) ZONING ORDINANCE AND CITY CODE AMENDMENT SAM LUCART, ASSOCIATE PLANNER X YES NO ~ULY 16', 1992 SITE ANALYSIS HISTORY/BACKGROUND= In 1991 McKenna Sand and Gravel applied for a Conditional Use Permit to begin · sand and gravel mining operation in the area of the Prior Lake and ShakoDee municipal boundary, and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) resar~ation. The operation was planned to eventually occupy land in both Shskopee and Prior Lake. The SMSC voiced disapproval based on the effects of having a mining operation adjacent to them and rsgueetsd assistance from the two cities to prevent the operation. The res.it cf their request wes Ordinance 91-08 which instituted a one year moratorium on sand and gravel mining operations in Prior Lake to enable Staff time to research the subject and provide information for a decision. The procedure is to hold a Public Hearing .at the Planning Commission level and to make a recommendation based on the information contained in this report and also from public input. The City Council acts on the recommendation from the Planning Commission. This hearing is a result of the process. PREVIOUS PROPOSALS: Staff submitted an informal report and presentation to the Council which precipitated their action in this matter. With that exception, there have been no previous proposals. PHYSIOGRAPHY: The surface end subsurface soils in Prior Lake are suitable for supporting sand and/or gravel mining operations in virtually any par= of the City. The soils were deposited by glaciers ~n a random fashion, but are able to be mined to one extent or another, over most of northern Scott County. Basically that means it is possible to locate a mine in Prior Lake. The lipiting factors are access roads and enough suitable open space, whlch translates into economic factors. 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior [.aka Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 ADJACENT Currently there are no activ~ mines within City limits so there ara no adjacent uses. However, in other cities adjacent uses are setback or separated from the operation by tall harms and plantings to hide the mining and muffle what can be very noisy operations. Most often the mines were in existence prior to surrounding development, eo they have large tracts of land and urbanization is not encroaching. Regardless, mines can be unpleasant neighbors no matter how conscientious the operator is. Adjacent uses can be subject to noise, dust, traffic, and other unpleasant effects associated with mining. Neither the residents nor the operators want conflict between uses, and operatore in other cities work very hard to address neighborhood concerns. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There are no mines with a permit currently operating in Prior Lake. However, there is evidence of previous mineral extraction in neighboring communities and also in areas of Prior Lake which indicate the necessity of a planned operation. The areas east and west of Highway 13 Just north of County Road 42, and the area adjacent to Markley Lake, are examples of sites which have not been reclaimed. The evidence is scarred landscape with hillsides which are partially cut, contelning unstable slopes with high possibilities of erosion, large holes in the ground which may retain water and refuse, creating unsightly conditions. These scenes must be avoided. Contrast those images with Lac LaVon in Burnsville, a reclaimed operation which is a residential development with a lake and park facilities as a focal point. Reclamation plans backed up with performance bonds, proper permits and restrictions help eliminate the possibility of unsightly abandoned ~perations. Conditional Use Permits can define operating hours, noise levels, but other pertinent details not defined in the Zoning Ordinance are difficult to regulate without specific benchmark criteria. NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES~IMPACT/CONCERNS: The Conditional Use Permit process does not adequately protect the city, the operator, or general ~ublic. No standards are in Dl&ce,to delineate who is responslble for what issues. A reclamation plan is essential to the long range planning of a mining operation. In other words, what will happen to the site when the product is removed? Who is responsible for doing what? What happens in the event of bankruptcy or a catastrophe? What if the City changes the surrounding land use classification? Mining i'~ very technical in some aspects of the operation. The level of expertise needed to effectively assess such an infrequently encountered, yet.potentially high impact item is not currently found on Staff at City Hall. The deposits, results of glacial activity, arm randomly distributed and their location may be estimated from ~ample soil borings. The amount and location of the deposits may be extrapolated from the results of borings to give an estimate of the acreage necessary for a site. However, it is only an estimate and there is no way to know the size or location of the deposit until mining begins. Therein lies the problem. DROBLEMS/OPP0RTUNITIES~ T~e pro,ism a~sociated with mining operations is they ara long term uses and undesirable in urban residential areas. They ~enerally require large tracts of land which are in demsnd for ess controversial uses. Also the vacant areas o~ Prior Lake contain wetlands and scenio bluffs which must be preserved per DNR regulations and the Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan. There have not been any applications for mining operations for at least the last year regardless of the moratorium. There does not seem to be a need for mining in Prior Lake. Surrounding operations can supply the needs of the area without new facilities in Prior Lake. The opportunity exists to delete s controversial use which is really not necessary in Prior Lake. The open space available is limited by access from adequate roads and land owners uninterested in selling land. Standards for evaluating and regulating the use do not exist or are inadequate. Trying to ragulate something unknown without proper guidelines does not make good planning sense. RECOMMENDATION: ~=aff recommends approval of attached Ordinance 92-09. The recommendation of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council for review and final decision. Staff recommends deletion of Mineral Extraction as a Conditional Use in the Prior Lake city Code and Zoning Ordinance. The activity is not currently taking pla~e in Prior Lake, effective, fair, efficient regulations are no~ in place, qualified evaluators are not on city staff, mining and residential development are not compatible neighboring uses and Prior Lake is predominantly residential in development. "ZO92ME" AGENDA NUMBER: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: SAM LUCAST, ASSOCIATE PLANNER PIRST CONSIDERATION OF MINERAL ORDINANCE 92-09 AUGUST 17, 1992 EXTRACTION The purpose of Ordinance 92-09 is to eliminate Mineral Extraction as a Conditioaal Use in the A-1 and C-1 zoning districts in Prior Lake. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of Ordinance 92-09. Please ese attached Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Staff conducted detailed research and visited existing sites to discuss the issues with laine operators. All previous research is attached to this report for your convenience. At the city Council's request, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the deletion of Mineral Extraction as a Conditional Use in the A-1 Agricultural and C-1 Conservation Zoning Classifications. The Public Hearing Notice was published in the Prior Lake American, however no member of the public attended the hearing. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of Ordinance 92-09 to delete Mineral Extraction as a Conditional Use in A-1 and C-1 zones. The process started with HcKenna Sand and Gravel requesting a Conditional Use permit for a sand and gravel operation in the City of Shakopee adjacent to the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC). The Sioux Community objected to ~he operation and petitioned the Cities of Shakopee and Prior ~ake'to deny--the applicat~,on. Ordinance 91-08 declared a one year moratorium to allow staff time to research the issue. Staff researched the issue, presented findings, and now submits Ordinance 92-09 to complete the cycle and remove Mineral Extraction as a Conditional Use in A-1 and Zoning Districts. 4629 Dakota St. $.E., Prior Lak~, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612} 447.4230 / Fax (612) 4474245 AN E~J^L OPPORTUN~'Y EMPLOYE~ COMPREMEN$ IVE PLAN IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: RECOM)[ENDATION: ACTION REQUIt~ED: Vast open space is necessary for a mine to function properly and buffer neighbors. Such open space is currently in high demand for residential, golf course development and other uses incompatible with a mining operation. Originally it was the Council's consensus to remove the use from the Zoning Ordinance. The ~rocess has now come full circle and is near tuition. The Comprehensive Plan does not currently include provisions for Mineral Extraction. The new proposed Planning Districts, titled the Wilds and Mystic Lake, will not contain provisions for Mineral Extraction either, Therefore, the impact should be negligible. The City Council has the following alternatives: 1) Accept the Planning commission's recom~endation to adopt ordinance 92-09. 2) Accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt ordinance 92-09 and place the item on the Consent Agenda for the September 8, 1992 City Council Meeting. 5) Request more information. 4) Table the item to request more information. 5) Reject the Planning commission's recommendation to adopt the Ordinance and make a new recommendation. Staff recommends accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt Ordinance 92-09, alternative number 1. Generally, the City Council does not adopt an Ordinance after the first reading. However, due to the numerous discussions this issue has had before the Council (with little public interest), alternative I is a reasonable alternative in this situation. Motion to accept or reject Ordinance 92-09. Minutes of the Prior Lake city Council August 17, 1992 Upon a vote taken, eyes by Andren, Fitzgerald, Kedrowski and Scot=, ~hs motion passed unanimously. The next order of business was: Conduct Findings on Variance Application of Sill and Fathleen Henning. Planning Director Horst Graser reviewed the directions given to staff by Council at the August 3, 1992 Council Ms,ting which was to prepare findings of fact on the variance application of Bill and Kathleen Henning. Graser then presented nine findings of ~act relative to the application. Discussion occurred on the nine findings cf fact and Council concurred that this variance was a unique situation and would not create a precedent. MOTION MADE BY PITZGEP. ALD, SECONSED BY SCOT, TO APPROVE BILL AND F~TH~EN HENNING'S V;tRIANCE APPLICATION BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS STATED IN THE STAFF R~PORT. Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, Fitzgerald, Kedrowski and Scott , the motion passed unanimously. The 'next 'order of business was: Second Consideration cf Outdoor Concert Ordinance Amendments 92-08. Assistant Cit~ Manager Kay Schmudlach distributed copies of the propose~ ordinance amendments and noted that the time had been changed to reflect the 12:30 A.M. closing on Sunday morning ~s opposed to the original closing time which had been 11.30 P.M. on Saturday night. A short discussion occurred on whether the issue of closing streets for a concert should bm addressed. Council concurred that since there had been no problems in the pa~t that this issue would be addressed on a case by case basis. Council directed staff to have the ordinance prepared in final form and placed on the Consent Agenda for action at the September S Council meeting. The next order of business was: First Consideration of Mineral Extraction Ordinance 92-09. Associate Planner Sam Lucast stated that the p~lrpose of this Ordinance was to eliminate Mineral Extraction as a Conditional Use in the A-1 and C-1 zoning districts in Prior Lake, end reviewed the results of research conducted by staff. MOTION MADE BY K~DROWSKI, SECONDED BY FITZGERALD, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S R~COM~ENDATION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 92-09, AMENDING PRIOR LA~ CITY CODE AND PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 83-06. Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, Fitzgerald, Kedrowski and Scott , the motion passed unanimously. Topics discussed under Other Business are as follows~ -- Name for Business Office Park. Assistant City Manager Kay Schmudlaoh distributed a memorandum listing the names submitted for the new Business/Office Park, and reguested that Council review the selection of names and conta.ot staff by August 21 with any suggestions. Ms. Schmudlach also discussed signs for the Business/office Park. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REPEALING ORDINANCE #92-09 WHICH DELETED MINERAL EXTRACTION AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE A-1 AND C-1 ZONING DISTRICTS You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE, on Monday, March 23, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider the repeal of Ordinance #92-09, which deleted mineral extraction tSom the list of conditional uses in the A-1 (Agricultural) and C-1 (Conservation) Zoning Districts. Repealing this ordinance would reestablish mineral extraction as a conditional use in the A-1 and C-I districts. If you wish to be heard in reference to this item, you should attend the public hearing. Oral and written comments will be considered by the Planning Commission. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Prepared this 4th day of March, 1998 by: Jane Kansier, Plarming Coordinator City of Prior Lake TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON MARCH 7, 1998 1:\9 ~ fiI~\98 orda~md~.ojli~g\98~q032\9~ 03~pn .~oj~ ........ 16200 Eagte ~.,reek Ave. ~.~., v'rior La~e, Minnesota ~o7~-J-~'~ / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER INNE$C- PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 6A REVIEW OF 1997 PUD ANNUAL REPORT JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES X NO MARCH 23, t998 INTRODUCTION: Chapter 5-5-11(D, 7,e) of the Prior Lake City Code requires the Planing Commission to review all Planned Unit Development, (PUD), districts within the City at least once each year. The Planning Commission is directed to submit a report to the City Council on the development status of each PUD District in order to monitor the development progress of each PUD District. In the event that the City Council would find development has not occurred within a reasonable time after the original approval, the City Council may instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district by removing the PUD district from the official Zoning Map. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded the PUD's in progress are developing at an acceptable rate and no recommended changes in zoning or PUD status is recommended. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the report and forward it to the City Council with no changes (or any stated changes) in zoning or PUD status. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. In this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to present specific information at the next meeting. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second to accept the 1997 PUD Status Report and to forward it to the City Council with no recommended changes to zoning or PUD status. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1997 PUD STATUS REPORT PRIOR LAKE PLANNING DEPARTMENT March23,1998 Chapter 5-5-1 i(D, 7,e) of the Prior Lake City Code requires the Planing Commission to review all Planned Unit Development, (PUD), districts within the City at least once each year. The Planning Commission is directed to submit a report to the City Council on the development status of each PUD District in order to monitor the development progress of each PUD District. In the event that the City Council would find development has not occurred within a reasonable time after the original approval, the City Council may instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district by removing the PUD district from the official Zoning Map. The City of Prior Lake currently has nine PUD districts which are indicated on the attached PUD Inventory Map. Over half of the PUD's are completely developed. This report provides a brief history, site data, current development status and a recommendation pertinent to the disposition of each PUD. The seven PUD districts are identified as follows: PUD IN PROGRESS PUD COMPLETED PUD 6-93 Cardinal Ridge PUD 82-12 Prior View PUD 9-93 The Wilds PUD 5-83 Windsong On The Lake PUD 7-76 The Harbor PUD 8-82 and PUD 4-83 Sand Pointe PUD 12-16 Tower Hill Apartment East PUD 8-93 Westedge Estates 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CARDINAL RIDGE PUD PUD 6-93 HISTORY: Cardinal Ridge PUD is located in the northeast quarter of Section 1, Township 114, Range 22. It is a single family PUD surrounded on the north by Prior Lake Senior High and Middle Schools, the east by Credit River Township, the South by Markley Lake and the west by Brooksville Hills Subdivisions. The parcel consists of about 150 acres of rolling topography that had, up until the PUD, been tilled. The southeast portion of the site contains Markley Lake and forest areas that will likely support higher value homes. Approximately 50% of the site has been dedicated for park, utility and road purposes. The PUD began implementation of a Park and Recreation Department objective to acquire public land around Markley Lake for recreation and trail purposes. OFFICIAL ACTION Schematic PUD Plan approved by Planning Commission Preliminary Plat approval by Planning Commission Cardinal Ridge Schematic PUD approved by City Council Preliminary Plat approved by City Council: 1 Side yard variances granted for 46 lots as per Exhibit dated 3-15-93. 2 Subdivision tree planting program may allow clustering of front yard trees. Boulevard trees will be planted as per City specifications. Final Plat: Cardinal Ridge First Addn. Final Plat: Cardinal Ridge Second Addn. Final Plat: Cardinal Ridge Third Addn. Final Plat Cardinal Ridge Fourth Add. Final Plat Cardinal Ridge Fifth Addn. APPROVAL DATE May6,1993- Continued May20,1993 May20,1993 June 7, 1993 via Resolution 93-40 June 7, 1993 via Resolution 93-40 October 18, 1993 December 6, 1993 September 5, 1995 May 20, 1996 August 12, 1997 SITE DATA: Total Acres 147 Single Family Lots 223 Public Open Space 53 R-O-W 24 First Addition Second Addition Third Addition Fourth Addition TOTAL LOTS: 64 47 39 35 VACANT LOTS 2 0 11 12 DEVELOPED LOTS 62 47 28 23 Fifth Addition 39 28 11 PUD IMPROVEMENTS: · Fish Point road will be built as a parkway with landscaped median, sidewalk and bike trail. · Sidewalk will be installed along the entire length of Crossandra Street. · Public open space was dedicated including waterfi:ont of Markley Lake. · Parks will be developed with trail systems connecting the neighborhoods. A natural park adjacent to Markley Lake and active play areas adjacent to Brooksville Hills neighborhood and in the central part of the PUD are planned. DEVELOPMENT STATUS: The PUD has all phases platted. The fifth addition was the last phase to be platted. Building activity is taking place within the project as anticipated. The final phase completed of Fish Point Road to the south perimeter of the property. The extension of Fish Point Road to C.R. 21 is developer driven and will be completed as property to the south develops. RECOMMENDATION: The PUD is continuing to develop as approved. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. -& SIDEWAL~. TRAIL PARK/OPEN SPACE/UTILITY A~A.q/WETLANDS 5' GARAGE SETBACK/15' BETWEEN HOM~S/ Hl~I~lUM 70' LOT WIDTH PUD I~EQUIREMENTS: 1. Sidewalk along the entire length of Crossandra Street. 2. Boulevard trees required as per City Tree Planting Handout. Front yard trees may be clustered throughout the project area. 3. Street lights be placed at short intervals on long blocks, at all intersections, entrances to parks and trails. 4. Berm and Screening required 4,5,6, Block 3. 5. Lots with * may be a minimum of 70 feet wide. 6. Lots with * may have one 5' garage side yard setback, provided there is a minimum 15' setback between houses. CARDINAL RI-DGE Project Overview Card'ha! Ridge is a Planned U~it Development approved by the City of Prior Lake. The site is located directly south of the Prior Lake High School on the east side of the comm~.Inity and directly north of Marldey Lake. Cardinal Ridge consists of 223 single family lots on 147 acres. The site plan was developed to accommodate the site's natural features by protecting natural wetlands, steep slopes, existing vegetation stands and Markley Lake. These natural areas are located in outlots which will be dedicated to the City of Prior Lake, who will own and maintain them. Besides preserving and protecting the natural features of this site, these ouflots will also function for stormwater retention and park purposes. The largest outlot, located on the west side of Cardina! Ridge, will be made up 9f wetlands and stormwater ponding on the north half and an active neighborhood park on the south half. A trail system is planned through a majority of the outlots, eventually leading to Marldey Lake. Th/s trail system will be installed by the project developer and funded by the City of Prior Lake. A sidewalk which will connect to the future trail system, will be installed the total length of Crossandra Street by the project developer. In addition, a sidewalk and bike trail will be installed on Fish Point Road. Although formal p!an~ have not been developed by the City of Prior Lake on the outiots, prospective homebuyers are encouraged to contact the City Parks Department for additionai information. CARDINAL RIDGE FIRST ADDITION ' ~7~xTu CARDINAL RIDGE 2ND ADDITION Z LIJ Z l-' m -11 0 -n m PRIOR VIEW PUD 82-12 CURRENT DEVELOPMENT: Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. Is currently responsible for the development of this site. On September 3, 1996 the City Council approved an amendment to PUD 82-12 to allow for a 61-unit "assisted living" facility to be constructed in place of the remaining 38 units to be built, as per the original PUD agreement. This approval (Resolution 96-90) was on a schematic level only, and final PUD plans must be approved prior to building permit application. On September 2, 1997, the City Council approved a PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plat for the facility. The developer has one year to obtain final plat approval. It appears that Eagle Creek Villas Inc. is proceeding with plans to complete the development of the PUD. RECOMMENDATION: No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. PRIOR VIEW PUD 82-12 DE~fELOPER: Prior-view Limited Partnership Tom Steffens/Joe Knoblach 3400 West 66th Street, Suite 200 Edina, Iraq' 55435 (612) 920-5554 HISTORY: Priorview pLrD is located in the SW Quarter of Section 2, Township 114, Range 22. It is a mixed use, residential PUD surrounded on the north by Lakeside Estates duplex and single family development, the east by Jo-Anna Stepka Hi-View 3rd Addition single family development, the south by Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church and Five Hawks Elementary, School, and the west by Spring Brook Park Additions, single family development. The parcel consists of about 17.45 acres of land with about 2.40 acres of DN'R deaignated wetlands and wooded areas on the north pan of the property. The majority of the property had been tilled as part of the "Simpkins' farm prior to development of the PUD. SITE DATA: Total Acres 17.45 Multi family 106 Priorview PUD 82-12 Density Calculations: 17.45 acres total land 2.a,O acres designated wetland 15.05 acres of wetland which was used to calculate density. 15.05 x 5.5 = 83 units The PUD received a 27.5% density bonus 83 x 127.5 = 106 total units for PUD 82-12 PUD E~,IPROVEMENTS: Trail and sidewalk system to be installed according to the PUD Schematic Plan. The site is to be developed with 105 high density residential units. There is to be a north/south street connection from Priorview to Cares Street via Five Hawks Avenue. The units are to incorporate cedar and brick materials on building exteriors and appropriate protective covenants filed with each addition to produce units that are harmonious with each other. The single family development to the east is to be screened from the multi-family PUD. The intent of the PUD is to preserve the environmental aspects of the site such as the wooded areas and wetlands. A 1.75 acre park is planned to provide a neighborhood tot lot on the northeast part of the site as well as natural open space park on the northern portion of the plat. OFFICIAL ACTION - PRIORVIEW REZONLNG: REZONEqG - 63 AC. OF C-1 TO 35 AC. R-3 Cv[AXEv[L.~v[ DENSITY 450 Ut'NITS): B-I AN'D B-3 A~)JACENT TO STH 13 (EXHIBIT C). Planning Commission schedules a Public Hearing to consider Rezoning Petition. May 21, 1981 Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning as per Exhibit C. June 18, 1981 Rezoning Public Hearing before City Council Continued to 7-13-81. June 22, i981 Continue Rezoning Public Hearing by City Council July 13, 1981 Rezoning to change 45.5 acres to R-3 and 18.4 acres to B-3 Contract Zone approved by City Council. July 20, 198I OFFICIAL ACTION - PRIORVIEW PUD 82-12 SCI-IEMATIC PLAN: Public Hearing to consider Schematic PUD consisting of townhome units for 17.45 acre parcel. Aug. 19,1982 The PUD proposal was submitted for a 17.45 acre parcel to be developed with 120 un/ts of high density residential including 12 and 24 unit buildings. The 1981 Comprehensive Plan indicated a Medium Density Land Use for the site. 4.5 acres were to be developed with 12.9 acres remaining az open space. "The resultant open space (12.9 acres) provides a vital fimction to the plan and neighborhood; (1) it provides wooded buffers between development areas; (2) maintains some of the existing natural character of the area; (3) pmvidaz an excellent environment to furore residents; (4) enables preservation of the natural resources; (5) accommodates storm water management planning and, (6) allows for residential development on a difficult site with a planned end product of high quality (Gait & Associates Inc., letter dated August 10, 1982)." The overall density proposed was 6.88 units per acre. "The proposal provides a flexible plan of development with efficient and effective land use while preserving and enhancing the desirable site characteristics, namely wetlands, woodlands and slopes (Gair & Associates Inc., letter dated August I0, 1982)." Street connection from Five Hawks Avenue to Holly Circle concept abandoned by the developer. The developer submitted a revised street layout plan sheet on August 12, 1982 showing a north/south street connection via Five Hawks Avenue. Five Hawks Avenue was originally a private street that was required to be improved to a public street via this PUD. The proposal indicated 120 dwelling units. The Zoning Ordinance permitted 75 units based upon the 6 unit per acre density standard for Medium Density Residential land use. Floor plans indicated that all units contained two bedrooms and one combined living/dining room and kitchen. Floor area for units would range from 776 - 800 square feet. Exterior elevation drawings indicated limited brick and cedar siding for building exteriors. Continue Public Hearing for Schematic PUD approval. Sept. 2,1982 Proposed density reduced by developer from 120 to I05 units, which assumed a density bonus of 25%. I2 unit building directly north of the school property wa~ removed leaving I05, two bedroom units. Planting and landscape plan submitted. Planning Commission approval of Schematic PUD plan subject to conditions: Oct. 7,1982 Developers cooperate and obtain the necessary approvals in order to install a roadway from STH 13 m the northerly edge of the property line. A park dedication fee be established. 5. 6. 7. 8. Specific exterior and landscaping plans reflecting ben'ning as to house screening to the east be developed and incorporated in the fina! plan. A sidewalk be constructed on the east side of Five Hawks from STH 13 to the north edge of the property. The existing dirt path be improved to wood ckip and submitted along with the final plans. The project have a maximum density, of 106 units. The Preliminary Engineering Plans be submined. Preliminary Plat Plan be labeled Exhibit "A". Park dedication requir.~fl: Land dedication of 1.75 acres, providing a neighborhood tot lot, planned in conjunction with the storm flood easement in the northeast section of the plat. (Memo from Bill Mangan dated October 18, 1982.) City Council hearing on Schematic PUD proposal continued. Oct. 18, 1994 City Council approval of Schematic PUD - Priorview PUD 82-12. Dec. 6, 1982 All 8 conditions of the Planning Commission be satisfied. The letter from the School District Board be incorporated into the motion to approve the PUD. OFFICIAL ACTION - PRIORVEEW 1ST ADDITION: Pfiorview First Addition is the initial development phase of PUD 82-12. The proposal is to subdivide approximately three acres into three lots for development of two, 12 unit townhomes on Lots I and 2 and one, 24 unit townhome building on Lot 3 (The PUD 82-12 Schematic Plan indicated two, 24 unit townhomes). Proposed grading would provide adequate fill material to complete Five Hawks Avenue from STH 13 to the north line of the school property. A developers agreement was entered into for the construction of utilities and Five Hawks Avenue from STH 13 to the northern terminus of Priorview First Addition. Shortly after the final plat, Tom Steffens dedicated the entire right-of-way within the PUD to construct Five Hawks Avenue to the northern terminus of the PUD. After the final plat approval, Building Permit 83-261 was issued on 9-19-83 for construction of one, 12 unit building on Lot 1. Building Permit 83-327 was issued on I 1-29-83 for Lot 2, Block I, Priorview First Addition. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Priorview First Addition approved. July 7, 1983 Public Hearing - Preliminary, Plat Priorview First Addition approved. July 18,1983 3. 4. 5. The following Engineering requirements are met: a. A temporary short term solution rip/rap drainage ditch constructed until storm sewer is done in Phase 12I, or as such conforms to the Engineer's requirements. b. The drainage ditch calculations be submitted to staff to determine the storm sewer design need. c. Terminate the road at staffs recommended point just beyond the school enn'ance. d. Have the watermain extended beyond the edge of the pavement to enable hook-up without tearing up the mad. e. Sidewalk will be concrete and not bituminous throughout. f. The drainage for Phase I to remain on site by berming or whatever is necessary. g. A 20 foot utility easement on the eastern edge of Phase I. A revised planting plan be drafted to the satisfaction of the City Consulting Planner. Re-evaluate/re-design parking stalls and garages to the satisfaction of staff. Detailed planting and building material design shall be suitable and acceptable when presented to staff. Protective covenants be filed with each phase of the development in order to assure that there will be a ways and means for the condo's and the units to be harmonious to one another. Planning Commission approval of final plat of Priorview First Addn. Aug. 4,1983 City Council approval of f'mal plat of Priorview First Addn. Aug. 8, I983 Engineering details be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. At the time of building permit application, the site plan must show refuse containers and appropriate screen material. Staff have the flexibility to move 4 stalls to the center of the garage complex. Two from each complex in front of the 24 unit building. A developers agreement be signed and meet the requirements of the City Engineer. Prior'view will provide a document or an a~eement for providing the public easement with the endorsement of the building committee of the School District #719, prior to the issuance of permits. City Council approval of Developer's Agreement for Priorview First Addn. Sept. 26, I983 Agreement between the City of Prior Lake and Five Hawks Glen Limited partnership signed and dated November 4, 1983 indicates the City will covenants and agrees as follows: It will waive any right City might have to require the developer to relocate its garages based upon the location of the sewer line. The City will maintain the sewer and water lines running across the developer's property. The City agrees to bear the cost of repair, maintenance, and reconstruction in the event of a failure of either the sewer or water lines. Specifically, any costs of relocation of the sewer line will be the City's sole responsibility. The City is in the process of doing some corrective work on a portion of the sewer line. tn the event this necessitates alteration in the asphalt installed by the developer or repairs due to settling of said asphalt, or any other related cost to the developer, the City agrees to make any and all necessary repairs. OFFICIAL ACTION - PRIORV][EW FIRST ADDN. LOT SPLIT: Planning Director approval of administrative land division for Lot 3, Block 1, Pri0rview First Addn. Nov. I3,1984 On November 13, 1984, Planning Director, Horst Graser approved an administrative land division application for Lot 3, Block I, Priorview First Addition. Lot 3, Block 1 was divided into two lots, each to be developed with one, 12 unit townhome. Building permit 84-566 was issued on 9-23-84 to Lot 3, Block I for construction of one, 12 unit building. After approval of the administrative land division, Building Permit 84-616 was issued on 11-14-84 for construction of a second, 12 unit building. OFFICIAL ACTION - PRIORVIEW SECOND ADDITION: The proposal was to develop the property with a mix of townhome styles including tuck under, full walkout, and split entry walkout. Variations as to the number of bedrooms were to be introduced as market demand dictated. The Priorview PUD 82-12 Schematic Plan indicated 20 townhome units were contemplated for the site. The watermaln and appurtenances, utility systems and roadways within adjacent public streets were to be owned ant maintained by the City. The sanitary sewer system, driveways, curbing and other improvements as well as the townhomes and grounds were to be owned and maintained as common property of the townhome association. Appropriate documents were to be filed with the final plat, establishing the homeowners association and its duties. Population was expected to be 2.5 persons per unit for an estimated total population of 50 persons. Priorview Second Addition is referred to as Phase 3a, however, it is the actual second phase of the pLrD and the final plat name was changed to Priorview Second Addition. The City Council approved the preliminary plat on 4-I-85 subject to nineteen conditions. A developers agreement was entered into by Tom Steffens and the City for the construction of roads and utilities. Priorview Second Addition consists of 20 townhome units constructed within ~ buildings. Building Permit 85-166 was issued on 7-8-85 for construction of one, 4 unit building. The permit was issued to the underlying property legal description. On 8-6-85 building permit 85-198 was issued for the foundation for one, 5 unit building. (Townhome developments were issued permits prior to final plat according to the Subdivision Ordinance in effect at the time). Shortly after the first 9 units were completed, Mr. Steffens approached the City Council on 11-12-85 and requested occupancy permits. The City Council denied the occupancy permits until the streets were constructed. The City Council granted occupancy permits prior to approval of the final plat. Building permits 85-294, (5 unit building) and 85-295, (6 unit building), were issued on 11-12-85 and expired. The two permits were later reissued on 11-30-87 and 12-4-86. Complicating factors for granting building permits prior to final plat approval were: 3. 4. 5. The City Council ~anted occupancy permits based upon street completion, not upon filing of the approved final plat. The Five Hawks Avenue right-of-way was dedicated via easement rather than the platting process. All internal roadways were private. The units were to be rented and deeds for individual units were not an issue. Mr. Steffens acknowledged the planing requirements and knew that a final plat was required before continuing to the next phase of the PUD. Perhaps the developer had trouble gening release from the Simplcins, who were the fee owners of the property at that time. Staff has followed the procedure of issuing permits and then platting townhomes numerous times without incident. Perhaps Mr. Steffens was given too much latitude? All the building permits were issued in a four month period but completion of the last units did not occur undl 1988, three years later. Planning Commission Preliminary Plat approval for Priorview Second Addn: March 21, I985 City Council Preliminary Plat approval for Priorview Second Addition subject to 19 conditions: April 1, 1985 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. I0. Il. 12. 13. 14. 15. Priorwood Drive be changed to Priorwood Street Two rows of hay bales east and south of Five Hawks Avenue and Prior Wood Drive. Ali disturbed areas must be sodded as soon as practical. Two additional access walks must be constructed adjacent to units 10 and 20. One diagonal walk from the stairs between units 15 and 16 to the entrance walk for unit 16. The courtyards be defined (concrete vs. plantings) Preserve natural oversmry in the southeast comer. Move deciduous trees to open area with 2 I/2 inch diameter caliper minimum. The Iocation of the yew pots should be waived. The foundation plantings must be doubled. The plant material in the courtyards must, at least, be doubled. The contingencies as suggested by the City Engineer: a. Specifications for sewer, water, street improvements. b. The fire hydrant located on Priorwood Street must be moved about I20' to the east. c. Drainage calculations must be submitted for the construction site. d. The storm sewer in Five Hawks Avenue must be located deeper to prevent freezing. Holly Court plat not be included in this plan. A sidewalk between units ,4 and 5 adjacent to the curb. A landscape plan be submitted acceptable to staff. Preliminary Plat amendment public hearing for Priorview Second Addition, Planning Commission approval. Aug. 2, 1990 Preliminary. Plat amendment public hearing for Priorview Second Addition, City Council approval subject to conditions:. - Aug. 20, I990 5. 6. 7. 8. The name of the plat be ¢ifanged to Priorview Second Addn. Conditions of the City Engineer be met a~ originally formed. The landscape plan or an alternative plan must be submitted and approved by staff, if not acceptable by staff, returned to the Planning Commission. Any blacktop must be patched and sealed. Painting of exteriors in a consistent manner. The exterior be up~aded to staffs satisfaction before final plat approval. A financing vehicle for securing completion of the contingencies. Install curbs, if specified in the original preliminary plat contingencies. City Council final plat hearing tabled. March I8, 1991 City Council final plat approval of Priorview Second Addition. Sept. 3, 1991 NOTES: Developer, Tom Steffens requested an amendment to PLqD 82-12 to add 1.7 acres of Holly Court property to the PUD and increase the density from 106 to 148 units. The proposal included a petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designatinn of the site from Medium to High Density Residential land use. The proposal included a petition to amend the Zoning Map to change the designation from R-2, Medium Density to R-3, High Density Residential. The proposal was to construct rental units with single car garages and one outside parking space. The proposed amendment was heard by the Planning Commission on 2-5-87, 3-5-87 and 3-19-87. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the amendment based upon the following items: The PUD does not meet the requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance. Units to north in the PbT) are too close to the property line, a 15' buffer is needed to retain natural features and to provide separation between the PUD and existing single family homes. The proposal should include plans for a sidewalk along Five Hawks Avenue and a privacy fence between the neighborhood and PUD. Location and size of tot lot should be addressed as per staff's recommendation. Single family homes are recommended along north edge of PUD for transition area and owner occupied units should be incorporated as well as rental units. Insufficient Parking spaces for PUD. The applicant did not proceed to the City Council for consideration of the amendment, therefore the proposal is null and void. DEVELOPMENT STATUS: Priorview PUD is developed with 68 multifamily units which consist of approximately 6,1- percent of the PUD. Priorview 2nd Addition is developed with 20 of the 68 units and just received final pIat approval. With the exception of the final plat approval no further building permit activity or platting activity bas taken place since 1985. CURRENT DEVELOPI~IENT: Eagte Creek Villas, Inc. Is currently responsible for the development of this site. On September 3, 1996 the City Council approved an amendment to PUD 82-12 to allow for a 61-unit "assisted living" facility to be constructed in place of the remaining 38 units to be built, as per the original PUD agreement. This approval (Resolution 96-90) was on a schematic level only, and final PUD plans must be approved .prior to building permit application. Staff has been involved in discussions w/th the new developer and the school district regarding issues on this site. It appears that Eagle Creek Villas Inc. is proceeding with plans to complete the development of the PUD. RE COtMM-ENDATION: No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. t' SC. AVl: HOLLY .t. .P H A THE WILDS PUD 9-93 HISTORY: The Wilds PUD is located in the northwest quadrant of the City, 1/4 mile south of County Road 42, east of County Road 83 and north of County Road 82. The site originally received PUD approval in September 1993 for a public "Signature" golf course, 466 dwelling units, two hotels, two restaurants, a clubhouse, and village shopping center. The subject site contains 580 acres of land with lake f~ontage on Mystic and Hass Lakes, multiple wetlands, virgin woodlands, and the historic, "Jeffer's Ridge" containing wooded slopes in excess of 70%. The Wilds PUD was approved with an overall Schematic Plan development indicating the location of the various land uses as well as a street system and series of single family detached and attached unit sites. There was no preliminary plat approval for the entire site. Rather, each platted Outlot requires a preliminary and final plat approval for units and street design which are consistent with the approved Schematic Plan. The Wilds PUD has been amended on several occasions and a complete history of official actions and approval dates are attached. The table below indicates the original site data and the changes approved in two major amendments to the Wilds PUD: PUD 9-93 PUD 9-93 Amendment 1 PUD 9-93 Amendment 2 City Council 7-19-93 City Council 1-19-95 City Council 5-15-95 Resolution 93-54 & 93-83 Resolution 95-06 Resolution 95-32 Total Project Area: 580.4 Acres. No Change No Change Max. # Dwelling Units: 466 426 656 Total Project Density: .80 .78 DU/Acre 1.13 DU/Acre DU/Acre S/F Detached: 289 298 271 · 1/3 Ac. Homesites: 161 161 135 · 1/2 Ac. Homesites: 100 100 99 · Estate Homesites: 28 28 28 · Single Family Attached Detached Villas: 9 9 Total: 177 Single Family Attached Total: 178 · Villas 4.2-7.5 DU/Acre 126 Villas: 126 Villas: 126 Condo: 57 Commercial: · Hotel/Clubhouse: 16.7 Ac. No change Clubhouse: 10.7 Acres · Hotel: 11.8 Ac. Restaurant: 2 Acres · Restaurant: 3.2 Ac. Rental Cabins: 11.8 Acres · Restaurant: 1 Ac. Hotel: 8.3 Acres · Village Shopping: 4 Ac. · Convenience Store: 1 Ac. Other: No Change No Change Public Park: 16.7 Ac. Golf Course/Open Space: 306 Ac. The Wilds 2nd Addition [ June 3, 1996 I Final plat approved. Addendum #1 to The Wilds October 6, 1996 Infrastructure can be installed on 2nd Addition contract Outlot E (allows for the construction of Wilds Parkway to CR 82) Wilds ClubhouseAddition October25, 1996 Final plat and clubhouse site plan approved The Wilds Third Addition June 12, 1997 Final plat approved. The Wilds Fourth September 2, Final plat approved. Addition 1997 Sterling South PUD October 6, 1997 Amendment to allow single family Amendment detached "Golf Villas" rather than previously approved attached two- family dwellings (twinhomes). The existing plat was approved to accommodate PUD amendment to allow "golf villas". DEVELOPMENT STATUS: The Wilds PUD has been slow to develop due to market conditions, the large size of the project, remote location, and inexperience of the original developer, Richard Burtness, Prior Lake Development LP. The project was designed for larger, exclusive housing which has not sold well thus far. The project design, including land uses, street system, utilities and housing mix were a secondary consideration. The prime objective was development of a signature golf course, designed by Tom Weiskopf. The golf course was graded and improved prior to platting the rest of the development. This caused major difficulties associated with development of the infrastructure needed to serve the site. For instance, the sewer line located north of County Road 83 was required to be located much deeper than initially thought, in order to provide adequate sewer service without the need for several lift stations. A booster station was required to be installed on site in order to provide adequate water supply and pressure to the entire 580 acre parcel. In addition, topography information was found to be off by over 20' in parts of the property which caused problems related to platting and grading of the site. Because the golf course was established, any grading or service issues which arose, had to be accommodated within the confines of the outlets located outside of the course. A substantial amount of fill was required to grade the outlets in a manner which matched the grades of the golf course. All of the combined factors complicated the review process and subdivision design features of the PUD. The factors caused tremendous time delay, frustration, relocation and sometimes replacement of infrastructure which all have contributed to the slow development of the PUD. As of March 1996, the original developer, Richard Burtness was no longer associated with the PUD. The project had been sold to Shamrock Development. Units have been constructed and sold during the past two years at a steady pace. It is likely that future amendments to the PUD will be requested in order to respond to market conditions as well as the development of the northwest quadrant of the City. TOTAL LOTS The Wilds 68 The Wilds 2nd Addition 24 The Wilds 3rd Addition 56 The Wilds 4th Addition 8 Sterling South 88 units VACANT LOTS DEVELOPED LOTS 44 24 17 7 55 1 8 0 79 units 9 units RECOMMENDATION: The PUD is continuing to develop. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. WILD01 Amended 11-3-95 CITY OF PRIOR L~KE, O~'~'ICIAL ACTIONS: TH ~; vfrLns PUD PUD 9-93 PAGE 3 PAGE 4 PAGE 5 A. PUD Plan B. Preliminary Plat C. Final Plat D. PUD Amendment Rear Yard Setbacks E. Sterling North and South and 0uflot L F. PUD Amendment - Maintenance Building; Phase 2 and 3 Lot/Street reconfiguration; 57 Unit Condominium; 60 Rental Cab/ns; 11.8 acres Hotel. A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments B. Rezon/ngs A. Preserve at the Wilds B. Sterling North C. Sterling South D. The Villas at the Wilds 1st Addition A. Variances B. Vacations PAGE7 A. Miscellaneous B. City Council Motions A. pLrD PLAN: SCHEMakTIC & PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN: RESOLUTION 93-06PC July 1, 1993 Planning Commission approved (rescinded on September 2, 1993, and replaced with Resolution 93-12PC). RESOLUTION 93154- July 19, 1993 City Council approved (rescinded on September 20, 1993, and replaced with Resolution 93-83). · RESOLUTION 93-12PC September 2, 1993 Planning Commission approved (replaced Resolution 93-06PC). · RESOLUTION 93-83 September 20, 1993 City Council approved (replaced Resolution 93-54). · RESOLUTION 93-95 City Council approved. October 22, 1993 B. PRELIMINARY PLAT: · RESOLUTION 93-07PC July 1, 1993 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval. · RESOLUTION 93-55 July 19, 1993 City Council approved. RESOLUTION 93-96 October 22, 1993 City Council approved the Final Plat and set forth conditions to be met prior to its release. D. PUD A~IEND1V[ENT FOR REAR YARD SETBACKS: · RESOLUTION 94-01PC January 6, 1994 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval. · RESOLUTION 94-06 January 18, 1994 City Council approved. ]~. PUD A1VIENDM~ENT FOR STERLING NORTH AND SOUTH AND OUTLOT L: · RESOLUTION 95-01PC January 5, 1995 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval. · RESOLUTION 95-06 January 17, 1995 City Council approved. -1- PUD AM~ND~ FOR C ONDOM~IN-IUMS; HOTEL; PHASE 2 & 3 RE C ONFIGLrREATION P.C. MOTION April 24, 1995 RESOLUTION 95-32 May 15, 1995 City Council approved the following amendments: · Permit 6' tall fence around perimeter of L1, B7, The Wilds, for security around maintenance facility. Exhibit A, Site Plan. · Street and lot configuration amended for Phase 2 (Outlots S,V, & X, Oak Tree Drive Narrative),and Phase 3, (Outlots U and P/O X). · Schematic PUD Plan Map/Amendment 2 Land Use: a. Outlot 0, The Wilds - 11 acre Hotel, i acre Restaurant and 1 acre Convenience Store changed to 11.8 acres of Rental Cabins and 2 ac~es Restaurant. b. Outlot H, The Wilds - 16.7 acre Hotel/ClubhouSe site changed to 10.7 acre Clubhouse and 6.0 acres, (57 unit) Condominiums. c. Outtot J, The Wilds, 4.0 acres of Village Shopping and Outlot I, The Wilds, 6.3 acres of Nursery changed to 2.0 acres Private Open Space and 8.3 acres Hotel. -2- A. COM~PREtl2ENSIVE PLAN AI~fENDM~NTS: RESOLUTION 93-01PC April 15, 1993 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to approve an adjustment to the Prior Lake 2000 Urban Service Area. RESOLUTION 93-26 May 3, 1993 City Council approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guide Plan to modify the year 2000 iVIetropolitian Urban Service Area, subject to review by the Metropo]itian Council. RESOLUTION 93-81 September 20, 1993 City Council confirmed their approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guide Plan to modify the year 2000 Metropolitian Urban Service Area to allow development of The Wilds Golf Club and Residential PUD. B-3 AGRICULTURAL AND C~l CONSERVATION TO R-1 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND GENE lq-~L BUSINESS Rezoning of 556.4 acres from A-1 Agricultural and C-1 Conservation to R-1 Suburban Residential; approximately 16 acres of C-1 Conservation District to B-3 General Business District; and approximately 17 acres orA-1 Agricultural to B-3 General Business. RESOLUTION 93-06PC July 1, 1993 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to adopt Ordinance 93-19. Resolution 93-06PC was rescinded and replaced with Resolution 93-12PC. RESOLUTION 93-54 July 19, 1993 City Council approved (rescinded on September 20, 1993, and replaced with Resolution 93-83). ORDINANCE 93-19 July 19, 1993 City Council approved, subject to reviewing the item on the consent agenda after the Metropolitian Council has approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (which will extend the Metropolitian Urban Service Area to the site) and that amendment has been published. Resolution 93-55 was rescinded and replaced with Resolution 93-83~ · RESOLUTION 93-12PC September 2, 1993 Planning Commission approved (replaced Resolution 93-06PC). · RESOLUTION 93-83 September 20, 1993 City Council approved (replaced Resolution 93-54). _R-1 SUBURBAaXl RESIDENTIAL AND B-3 GENERAL BUSINESS TO PUD RESOLUTION 93-12PC September 2, 1993 Planning Commission rescinded Resolution 93-06PC and replaced it with Resolution 93-12PC. This resolution consolidated the B-3 General Business District under one PUD. RESOLUTION 93-83 September 20, 1993 City Council rescinded Resolution 93-55 and replaced it with Resolution 93-83. This resolution approved the consolidation of The Wilds residential and commercial uses under one PUD. -3- PRESERVE AT THE WILDS: RESOLUTION 95-01PC January 5, 1995 Planning Commission recommended land use for Outlot L be changed from Attached Villa Units to 9, Detached Villa Units with the street to be improved to public standards and location subject to approval of the City Engineer. RESOLUTION 95-06 January 17, 1995 City Council approved change in land use for Outlot L from Attached Villa Units to 9, Detached Villa Unite with the street to be imf?roved to public standards and location subject to approval of the City Engineer. RESOLUTION 95-07PC May 22, 1995 Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat of Preserve at the Wilds. RESOLUTION 95-47 June 5, 1995 City Council approved the preliminary plat of Preserve at the Wilds subject to 5 conditions. · RESOLUTION 95-48 June 5, 1995 City Council approved the final plat of Preserve at the Wilds subject to 16 conditions. B. s'r~RLING NORTH AT THE WILDS: · CITY COUNCIL MOTION May 2, 1994 Approved consolidation of the Preliminary and Final Plat. RESOLUTION 94-13PC May 5, 1994 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat. RESOLUTION 94-25 May 16, 1994 City Council approved the Preliminary Plat and set forth conditions to be met prior to the release of the Final Plat CITY COUNCIL MOTION May 16, 1994 Approved the developers agreement between the City Prior Lake and Sterling North to include the amendment by the City Engineer. RESOLUTION 95-01PC January 5, 1995 Planning Commission recommended approval of revised setback standards for Villa units within the subdivision. · RESOLUTION 95-06 January 17, 1995 City Council approved revised setback standards for Villa units within the subdivision. C. STERLING SOUTH AT TH~ · CITY COUNCIL MOTION June 20, 1994 Approved consolidation of the Preliminary and Final Plat. RESOLUTION 94-05PC July 21, 1994 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat and Variances. Varianq~: A 100' cul-de-sac len~h variance from the 500' max/mum cul-de-sac length requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. A 1,520' cul-de-sac length variance from the 500' maximum cul-de-sac length requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. -4- · RESOLUTION 94-51 August 1, 1994 City Council approved the Preliminary Plat. · RESOLUTION 94-54 August 15, 1994 City Council approved the Final Plat and set forth conditions to be met prior to its release. RESOLUTION 95-01PC January 5, 1995 Planning Commission recommended approval of changing setback standards within the subdivision. RESOLUTION 95-06 January 17, 1995 City Council approved revised setback standards for villa units within the subdivision as per exhibits. Il), TIIE VILLAS AT TIIE WrY.DS IST ADDITION: · CITY COUNCIL MOTION July 5, 1994 Approved consolidation of the Preliminary and Final Plat. RESOLUTION 94-06PC July 21, 1994 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat. · RESOLUTION 94-49 August 1, 1994 City Council approved the Preliminary Plat. RESOLUTION 94-50 August 1, 1994 City Council approved the Final Plat and set forth conditions to be met prior to its release. -5- A. VARIANCES: VARIANCE July 1, 1993 Planning Commission approved a 30' height variance for the B-3 Zone located in the center of the development for the Radisson Hotel and Clubhouse Facility. VA93-27 December 16, 1993 Planning Commission approved the following for Lot 2, Block 5, The Wilds: Unit 1D - 7'2" rear yard setback variance from the 20' rear yard setback requirement. Unit 2D - 10'8" rear yard setback variance from the 20' rear yard setback requirement. RESOLUTION 94-05PC July 21, 1994 Planning Commission approved the following variances for Sterling South at The Wilds: A 100' cul-de-sac length variance from the 500' maximum cul-de-sac length requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. A 1,520' cul-de-sac length variance from the 500' maximum cul-de-sac length requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. VA94-29 August 18, 1994 Planning Commission approved a 2.5' side yard setback variances from the 7.5' side yard setback requirement for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, of Sterting North at The Wilds. VA95-04 February 27, 1995 Planning Commission approved a variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 4.10 to permit a temporary clubhouse building to be moved into the City limits of Prior lake on Parcel A, Outlot H, The Wilds. VA95-13 May 22, 1995 Planning Commission approved a 12' lot depth variance to allow proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Preserve at the Wilds to be 88' instead of 100' deep. RESOLUTION 95-47 June 5, 1995 City Council approved Resolution 95-47 which included approval of the 12' lot depth variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Preserve at the Wilds. RESOLUTION 94-48 August 1, 1994 City Council approved the vacation of the drainage and utility easements located within Lots 1 through 5, Block 5, The Wilds. RESOLUTION 95-29 June 5, 1995 City Council approved vacation of part of Wilds Lane within the Plat of The Wilds. (VC95-03) RESOLUTION 95-30 June 5, 1995 City Council approved vacation of drainage and utility easement along south line of Outlot L, The Wilds. (VC95-02) -6- A. MISCEL~,ANEOUS: ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN EN-v-IRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (E.I.S.) (for the golf course) CITY COUNCIL MOTION September 30, 1992 Adoption of the findings and fact and negative declaration regarding the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (E.I.S.) on the Wilds Environmental Assessment Worksheet (E.A.~W.). RESOLUTION 92-34 October 19, 1992 Approval of the memorandum of understanding between the Metropolitian Council and the City of Prior Lake. CITY COUNCIL MOTION September 7, 1993 Approval of amendment to the memorandum of understanding between the City of Prior Lake and the Metropolitian Council. ADQpTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (ELS.) FOR THE WILDS GOLF CLUB AND RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT · RESOLUTION 93-82 September 20, 1993 City Council approved based upon the Environment Assessment Worksheet. B. (~ITY COUNCIL MOTIONS: · CITY COUNCIL MOTION October 5, 1992 Approval of legal services and escrow agreement for Wilds Project. CITY COUNCIL MOTION January 4, 1993 Approval of Lee Andren and John Fitzgerald to serve on the Wilds subcommittee which will meet with staffweekly to discuss the Wilds project. CITY COUNCIL MOTION June 7, 1993 Authorized an expenditure, not to exceed $9,500.00 for additional fees associated with Wilds special counsel fees, recognizing that the developer will be responsible for an additional $9,500.00 for a maximum total cost not to exceed $60,000.00. · CITY COUNCIL MOTION July 6, 1993 Considered authorization of engineering review fees for The Wilds development. CITY COUNCIL MOTION August 16, 1993 Authorized Maier Stewart and Associates, Inc. to prepare plans and specifications for a water booster station for The Wilds Development with reimbursement of desig~ costs not to exceed $41,694.00 from Prior Lake Development with construction costs of the booster station being incorporated into the developeFs agreement. CITY COUNCIL MOTION August 15, 1994 Approved amendments to developers agreement between the City of Prior Lake and Prior Lake Development L.P. and authorized the Mayor and City Manager to sign the amendment to the developers agreement. · reflect assessment for the golf course, · compilated financial statements, · asset to liability ratio will be 3 to 1, · the City can request judgment in the event the developer's net worth falls below three million dollars, · the developer agree to waive kis assessment rights with respect to the $500,000.00 street improvement obligation). -7- CITY COUNCIL MOTION May 15, 1995 City Council approved request by Prior Lake Development L.P. to consolidate the preliminary and final plat of Preserve at the Wilds. -8- -II~A$S LAKE LAKE ii : ............... %77 (~ 'o~ 'oo) ~- ./ / / / / WESTEDGE ESTATES PUD 8-93 HISTORY: Westedge Estates PUD is located in the southwest quadrant of the City, north of 170th Street, (County Road 12), and east of the Willows Sixth Addition neighborhood. The PUD consists of twenty-four units, to be located in six, four unit townhomes. The subject site consists of 4.8 acres of land surrounded by single family residential units to the north, east, and west; and B-l, Limited Business property to the south, which is currently developed with a car wash and cabinet shop. No park land dedication was required in the PUD however, a sidewalk and trail to link the development to the future County Road 12 regional trail system and the trail through Westbury Ponds, was required. The remaining park dedication required was cash in lieu of a land dedication. The road and driveways are private. The PUD is subject to the Landscape requirements in the Zoning Ordinance however, the City Council waived the requirement for installation of an irrigation system. OFFICIAL ACTION Schematic PUD Plan approved by Planning Commission Preliminary Plat approval by Planning Commission West Edge Estates Schematic PUD approved by City Council West Edge Estates Preliminary Plat approved by City Council Preliminary Plat approved by City Council: 1 Private street approved with PUD. 2 No irrigation system required. Final Plat: First Addition to West Edge Estates. Final PUD First Addition to West Edge Estates. City Council approval of Rezoning site from R-3, Multiple Family Residential to PUD. Final Plat: Second Addition to West Edge Estates. APPROVAL DATE August 5, 1993 via Resolutions 93-10PC August 5, 1993 via Resolution 93-11PC August 16, 1993 via Resolution 93-68 August 16, 1993 via Resolution 93-69 November 1, 1993 via Resolution 93-85 November 15, 1993 via Resolution 93-102 October 18, 1993 via Ordinance 93-26 May 6, 1996 via Ordinance 96-44. SITE DATA: Total Acres 4.8 Townhome Lots 24 TOTAL LOTS VACANT DEVELOPED LOTS LOTS. First Addition 12 0 12 Second Addition 12 0 12 PUD IMPROVEMENTS: Sidewalk required to be installed along entire length of Simpkins Drive and a connection from Simpkins drive to the south edge of the plat. DEVELOPMENT STATUS: The PUD has both of the two phases platted and building activity is completed. Landscaping has not been completes as approved. Staff is working with the developer to ensure compliance. RECOMMENDATION: The PUD is continuing to develop as approved. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. ----'~'". '~' ~.. //~:~ /~, ----~ 2 WEST EDGE ESTATES PUD 8-93 PUD 8-93 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE PUD 5-83 HISTORY: The site, located in the center of the City, east of CR 21, originally received preliminary plat approval in 1979 for forty-eight single family lots to be known as Prior Highlands. The developer, Visions VIII did not pursue final plat approval. The site was purchased by Sunny enterprises in 1983 and platted as a PUD with large, single family lots and a private equestrian club. In 1986, H & H Land Development requested an amendment to the PUD to add two lots and boat slips and to change the equestrian concept to lakeshore recreation and golf greens. In 1988, the PUD was again amended to convert the area reserved for golf greens to twelve, residential lots. The existing PUD is planned for thirty-eight single family lots with a variety of recreational amenities including: tennis court, hiking trail, horse shoe court, volleyball court, picnic shelter, boat access, sand beach and seasonal docks for 20 boat slips. OFFICIAL ACTION Windsong on the Lake Windsong PUD Amendment Windsong on the Lake Second Addition Windsong PUD Amendment APPROVAL DATE. Preliminary Plat - June 13, 1983 Final Plat - March 12, 1984 Preliminary Plat - April 4, 1988 Final Plat Extension April 4, 1990 Preliminary Plat - 2-21-95 via RS95-14 Final Plat - 6-19-95 via RS95-50 Pending City Council action in Spring 1998 SITE DATA Total Acres 33.36 Single Family Lots 38 DEVELOPMENT STATUS: Windsong PUD has been slow to develop primarily due to market interest for larger, more exclusive housing in Prior Lake. Approximately 12 lots or 35% of the PUD are vacant. The PUD has developed in a slow but consistent manner and is an example of quality development which is consistent with existing ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. Outlot A, Windsong Second Addition will be final platted upon completion of the County Road 21 improvement located adjacent to the development. The property cannot be developed until that time due to the projected change in topography and the section of Lord's Street located north of the PUD. County Road 21 will have to be graded and improved prior to the final plat of the last 5 lots within the PUD in order to adequately match property grades and street sections with the future improvements to Lord's Street and County Road 21. The developer has submitted a PUD Amendment to reconfigure the lake frontage to add additional boat slips. This is pending City Council action which is expected on the Spring of 1998. RECOMMENDATION: No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. WlNDSONG ON THE LAKE PUD 5-83 THE HARBOR PUD 7-76 HISTORY The Harbor PUD is located in the northeast quadrant of the City in Section 30. The PUD has been developed in eight phases incorporating eleven single family and forty-four townhome units with recreational amenities such as a sand beach, tennis court, swimming pool, boat slips and lake access. OFFICIAL ACTION The Harbor The Harbor 2nd Addn. The Harbor 3rd Addn. The Harbor 4th Addn. The Harbor 5th Addn. The Harbor 6th Addn. The Harbor 7th Addn. The Harbor Beach Addn. APPROVAL DATE Preliminary Plat - July 7, 1977 Final Plat - July 25, 1977 Final Plat Final Plat Final Plat Final Plat Final Plat Final Plat Final Plat - June 2, 1980 - August 9, 1982 - February 4, 1985 - September 23, 1985 - June 1, 1987 - April 6, 1987 - May 2, 1988 SITE DATA: Total Acres 15.72 Single Family Lots 11 Townhome Lots 44 DEVELOPMENT STATUS: The Harbor PUD is fully developed with the exception of three townhome units in The Harbor 7th Addition. The property owner has met with planning staff in January 1998, to discuss a replat of the three remaining lots. The developers intentions are to re-plat the property in 1998. RECOMMENDATION: Development has occurred at an acceptable rate with over 95% of the PUD developed as planned. No change in PUD Zoning or status is recommended. THE HARBOR PUD 7-76 ,/ THE ? H~RBOF 'HE z, 4 SAND POINTE PUD PUD 8-82 AND PUD 4-83 HISTORY: Sand Pointe PUD is located in the northeast quadrant of the City, south of County Road 42. The PUD has been developed in five phases incorporating single family lots with recreational park land. The original PUD was proposed in 1975 and incorporated 1,044 housing units with commemial and institutional land uses. The PUD was modified in 1978 to include a mixture of single and multifamily units. In 1982, the PUD was modified to delete the multifamily housing concept in order to utilize the PUD for single family homes. In the early 1980's several amendments were approved for the PUD which ultimately changed its original mixed use plan to a single family residential subdivision. OFFICIAL ACTION Sand Pointe Concept Plan Sand Pointe 2nd Addn. Sand Pointe 3rd Addn. Sand Pointe 4th Addn. Sand Pointe 5th Addn. APPROVAL DATE Preliminary Plat - July 6, 1978 Final Plat - April 2, 1979 Final Plat - July 22, 1982 Final Plat - April 25, 1983 Final Plat - June 20, 1983 Final Plat - September 23, 1985 SITE DATA: Total Acres: 110.4 Single Family Lots: 294 DEVELOPMENT STATUS: Sand Pointe PUD is 100% developed with single family homes. A public neighborhood park and City park and beach are developed and fully operational. RECOMMENDATION: The PUD is fully developed. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. SAND POINTE PUD 4-83 & PUD 8-82 , I POINTE TOWER HILL APARTMENT EAST PUD 12-16 HISTORY: Tower Hill Apartment East PUD is located in the southeastern quadrant of the City. The PUD was developed in one phase and consists of a 68 unit, three story apamnent building with several amenities including: swimming pool, sauna, whirlpool, fountain, gazebo, underground, heated garage and washers and dryers in each unit. OFFICIAL ACTION Schematic PUD Plan Preliminary Plat Final Plat APPROVAL DATE December 16, 1985 January 27, 1986 September 15, 1986 SITE DATA Total Acres 3.55 # Multifamily Units 68 DEVELOPMENT STATUS: The Tower Hill Apartment East PUD is fully developed as approved. RECOMMENDATION: Development of the PUD has occurred as proposed. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. TOWER HILL APARTMENT EAST, PUD 12-1~---~: 3 ? S 2. -IJ4-22 ) O£NOaO&