The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9A - D.R. Horton Zone Change Request MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: A!J^~ DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MAY 17, 1999 9A JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR 4~ CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 9~ DENYING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND ORDINANCE 99-XX PPROVING THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY D. . ORTON AND DEERFIELD DEVELOPMENT FOR 164 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF FISH POINT ROAD AND WILDERNESS TRAIL AND EAST OF THE PONDS ATHLETIC FACILITY History: This property is a part of the 260 acres of land which was annexed by order ofthe Minnesota Municipal Board on July 9, 1997. During initial discussions with the City staff and the City Council, the developer indicated he was interested in a mixed use type development which would include an expansion of the Waterfront Passage Business Park on the east side of the site, and a combination of residential uses on the remainder of the property. These discussions indicated the residential portion of the site would be developed at a total density of about 5 units per acre, which would equal roughly 700 units. In September, 1997, the owner submitted an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include this land within the MUSA, and to designate the easterly 58 acres for Planned Industrial Uses, 140 acres to the R-HD designation and 62 acres to the R-LIMD designation. At the same time, the developer requested the easterly 58 acres be zoned 1-2 (Light Industrial). On October 6, 1997, the Council approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which included the entire area within the MUSA. The City Council also approved an amendment to the Land Use Plan designating the 58 acres for Business Park uses, and the remaining acreage for Low to Medium Density Residential uses. At the same time, the east 58 acres of the site was rezoned to the Business Park District. The remaining area remained in the Agricultural district until a specific rezoning application was submitted. 162b~9{~g'~~?~~~'3g~~F~~lig~'rike, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fa!f612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map which would designate 62.92 acres on the east half of the site to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation, would rezone 62.92 acres to the R-4 (High Density Residential) district, and would rezone the 101.31 acres to the R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) district. The Planning Commission considered this proposal at a public hearing on April 26, 1999. After considerable testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment. There seemed to be some consensus that some R-2 zoning should be permitted on the property. The Commission decided to table action on this item to allow the applicant to submit a revised description of the R-2 location. A copy of the minutes of the April 26, 1999 meeting are attached to this report. The applicant submitted the attached map identifying the revised zoning proposal on the property. The west 97.88 acres is proposed for R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the east 66.35 acres is proposed for R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential). The zoning district boundary follows the approximate alignment ofFish Point Road, as extended into this site. The Planning Commission considered this revised request at a public hearing on May 10, 1999. The Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicants, as well as from a number of citizens. A copy of the draft minutes of the May 10, 1999 meeting is attached for your information. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission concluded the revised proposal to rezone the property to the R-l and R-2 districts is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Low to Medium Density Residential in this property. The Commission therefore recommended approval of this zone change request. Current Circumstances: The total site area involved in this request is approximately 164 acres. It has a varied topography with elevations ranging from 950' MSL to 970' MSL. Much of this site has been cropland of the past several years. A part ofthe site is wooded, especially the western portion. Any development on the site is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A specific tree inventory will be required once a specific development plan, such as a preliminary plat, is submitted. There are also several wetlands located within this site. A specific wetland delineation plan is required with a development plan. The site is subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act. There are two existing access points to this site. Wilderness Trail is located at the northeast comer of the site, and Fish Point Road is located at the northwest comer of the site. Both streets were originally platted to the property boundaries in order to allow for the future extension of the l:\99fi1es\99compam\99-0 13\990 13cc.doc Page 2 right-of-way. Sewer and water service can be extended from the existing services located in Wilderness Trail and in Fish Point Road to serve this site. The Issues: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The original proposal for the R- HD designation is consistent with the stated goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in that it offers a variety of housing and it provides open space an the preservation of the natural elements ofthe site, and with the City's Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. However, when this property was added to the MUSA, the sewer study was based on the presumption that there would be approximately 700 units on the site. This is the maximum capacity at this location. If the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change are approved, there is the potential for development of up to 1,800 units on this site. This is well in excess of the approved capacity. Both the Planning Commission and the staff feel the goals and objectives can be accomplished by designating the entire site as Low to Medium Density Residential. The concept plan submitted for the development of this site identifies a total density of approximately 4 units per acre. Utilizing the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process would allow the development oftownhomes with more than 4 units per building. The major difference is that this district would not allow the development of apartment buildings. Zone Chanee Request: The original zone change request included a rezoning to the R-4 district on the east 62.92 acres of the site. Since the Planning Commission recommended denial of Comprehensive Plan Amendment, this request should also be denied. The applicant submitted a revised rezoning request identifying the west 97.88 acres as R-l and the east 66.35 acres as R-2. As noted above, both the R-1 and the R-2 district are consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation ofR-LIMD (Urban Low to Medium Density Residential). The major difference between the R-l and R-2 districts is allowable density. Permitted density in the R-1 district is 3.63 units per acre. The R-2 district permits a maximum density of7.26 units per acre. Both districts permit the construction of single family homes. Both districts also allow the construction of townhouses, with up to 4 units per building, under the conditional use permit process. Under the provisions of a Planned Unit Development, density could increased up to 10%, and the number of units per building for townhouses could also be increased. The 1998 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that designated this area for Urban Low to Medium Density Residential uses also added 1:\99fi1es\99compam\99-0 13\990 13cc.doc Page 3 the area to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). A study completed at the time of the amendment indicated the existing sewer system had enough capacity for approximately 715 dwelling units. The proposed zoning districts are also consistent with that capacity. The current zoning on this property is A (Agricultural), which is inconsistent with the R-LIMD Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation. The Agricultural zoning was applied to this property in 1998 as a temporary zoning, until the developer had a better concept of the type of development to occur on the site. The dividing line between the R-l and R-2 district is the approximate alignment ofFish Point Road as it would be extended into this property. One of the concerns voiced at the Planning Commission meeting was the need to provide a buffer between single family dwellings and townhouses. Major roads, such as Fish Point Road, often serve this purpose. There were some other issues mentioned at the public hearing which also require clarification. These are listed below. . Traffic on Fish Point Road: Fish Point Road is designated as a major collector street, and will be designed to handle up to 5,000 trips per day. The potential development on this site is consistent with that number of trips. . Sewer and Water: Public sewer and water will be extended to serve this site. As in all new developments, the developer is responsible for the cost of extending these services. . Drainage and Stormwater Runoff: The City has several ordinances in place which regulate drainage and runoff. The developer has already been advised that no runoff or drainage will be allowed in Markley Lake. Furthermore, once a preliminary plat is submitted, the drainage plan will be reviewed to ensure that runoff does not exceed predevelopment rates. On-site detention ponds are also required. . Wetlands: This site is subject to the State Wetland Conservation Act. The City reviews all development plans to ensure that the development is consistent with the provisions of this act. . Tree Preservation: The City has a tree preservation ordinance in place. The development plans will be reviewed to ensure compliance with this ordinance. . Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W): A project of this scope requires a mandatory EA W. According to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.0200-4410.7800, an EA W is triggered when the proj ect results in the "physical manipulation of the environment". A zone change does not result in the actual physical manipulation 1:\99fi1es\99compam\99-0 13\990 13cc.doc Page 4 FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: of the site. The EA W is triggered by a specific development application, such as a preliminary plat, conditional use permit or a PUD. Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan amendment to the R-HD designation and the zone change to the R-4 district are inappropriate for this site and should be denied. The revised zoning proposal for the R-l and R-2 districts are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The change will still allow this area to be developed, and increase the economic tax base. Budget Impact: There is no direct budget impact involved in this request. Approval of this request may facilitate the development of this property, and increase the City tax base. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt Resolution 99-XX denying the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the R - HD and the proposed Zone Change to the R-4 district and adopt Ordinance 99-XX approving the Zone Change to the R-1 and R-2 districts as requested. 2. Continue the review for specific information or reasons per City Council discussion. 3. Find the Comprehensive Plan amendments and the zone change inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and deny the request. The staff recommends Alternative #1. Since this request includes two separate applications, separate motions are required for each application. These include: 1. A motion and second to adopt Resolution 99-XX denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate a portion ofthe area as R-HD and to rezone a portion of the area as R-4. 2. A motion and second to adopt Ordinance 99-XX rezoning this property to the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) districts. This action requires approval by 2/3 the City Council. 1:\99files\99compam\99-0 13\990 13cc.doc Page 5 HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKUN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA SSJ72 JAMES D. BATES BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER Telephone (612) 447.2131 Telecopler (612) 447-5628 May 11, 1999 Prior Lake City Council 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 Re: Application of D.R. Horton, Inc.- Minnesota for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Change Dear Council Members: This letter is written in support of the modified application of D.R. Horton, Inc. - Minnesota to rezone land being purchased from Deerfield Development LLC and John and Mary Mesenbrink to R-l, Low Density Residential and R-2, Low to Medium- Density Residential, according to the attached site plan. We would request that this letter be made part of the record for the hearing on the modified application. Deerfield Development and the Mesenbrinks urge the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Horton request for R-1/R-2 zoning for the property because the request is consistent with and implements the Comprehensive Plan Amendment reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1997. After annexation in the summer of 1997, the Planning Commission and City Council considered modifications of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the annexed property, anticipating that the property would be developed at a total density of approximate five units per acre with a variety of housing styles through the use of the PUD process. In September of 1997, the Planning Commission conducted its public hearing on the proposed amendment and recommended to the City Council that the property be designated as Urban Low to Medium Density Residential, which under the then-current zoning would have allowed densities up to 10 units per acre under a planned unit development. Prior Lake City Council Page 2 May 11, 1999 In October of 1997, the City Council approved the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and designated the property involved in this application as Urban Low to Medium Density Residential based on the following factual fmdings: " . . . the Planning Commission found this amendment to be consistent with the Suitable Housing and Environmental goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in that it offers a variety of housing, and it provides open space and preservation of the natural elements of the site; " . . . the Planning Commission found this amendment to be consistent with the Economic Vitality goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in that it encourages a diversified economic base, promotes sound land use, and maintains high standards in the promotion and development of commerce and industry; " . . . the Planning Commission found this amendment to be consistent with the City's Livable Community goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing; " . . . the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map...." The Comprehensive Plan Amendment was submitted to and approved by the Metropolitan Council in April of 1998. In connection with its review of the amendment, the Council's staff requested and received a traffic study affirming that the anticipated density of five units per acre was in conformity with Regional Blueprint and the Council's Transportation Policy Plan. The comments of the Council's staff to the proposed amendment specifically indicated that the sanitary sewer component of the plan amendment was in conformity with the Council's Water Resources Policy Plan. The modified request of D.R. Horton for R-l/R-2 zoning is in all respects consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council in 1997. The maximum allowable density will be consistent with the five units per acre contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The proposed zoning will provide the needed transition for the business park uses adjacent to the north and east boundaries of the property. The proposed zoning will assist the city in meeting its negotiated goals in the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities program. The proposed zoning is consistent with local and regional transportation, waste water treatment, housing, and community development .f Prior Lake City Council Page 3 May 11, 1999 policies. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Horton request for R-I/R-2 zoning for the property. In summary, Deerfield Development and the Mesenbrinks request the approval of a modified rezoning request of D.R. Horton, Inc. because the proposed zoning is appropriate for the property and is consistent with, and meets the policy objectives established for the property by, Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan, as amended in 1997. BDH:jd Enclosure cc: Wesley Mader David Wuellner Tom Kedrowski Jim Petersen Pete Schenck Frank Boyles Don Rye ~ ~t c: ~ ~ ~ II ~1 C- ~ - . ~ . - w 1\ . -1 U UoI ~ <:( ~ U r;; U> Z ~ all!: C It') u.I - ~ ~ g" Z ~ ~ m ... g 0 ''It Z ffi . ~ ''It Z It') I C 0 Z ''It / m :E z ~ .. "I I ~ ~ / ~ .. . 0 ~ I- $ I " .. / ! I I ~ Z 0 0 ~ / .. I 0 S; I ... " / " ~ ~ I ' / I " :c I . , ... I <.~ '\ J.... \ ',....' '\ , :-~~j~ \ ......"'-.., \ .... ,.. \, ~ '~~~\ \ . ...............- I "'~1. \ ~. ~ \. " ;........ ~ . ;/ ' ,f\~..............:..~. .a " . \ . .......__,.,.,.L;,.. , .1 \:';~..~:f~' 0 /j'- 01 , \"'J' \-I~' I "", \ l\,,'k~{'/../ " "-,:,,:'~~...."" I 1/ ' ~ I ,-' -'- ..r 1/ i / ~ ! r- I _J.- V) .,/'" - - - Z -..,.,- 0 Z - <( ....'" "'1' t- ~ \ M "- ....J - C- o (. -1 Y \.... 0 V') L-L <' L.U rr,- "- Z lJ z z rr-j I "- 0 Z ~ .f......J 7"/ -1.-.L ... U - L.U Z ~ lJ 0 ~ 0 Z N Q2 Q". - . 0 I- ~ ,', -----::~.... " . . I . . I, " 1\ o- f I V) - X u.J RESOLUTION99~YS RESOLUTION DENYING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF FISH POINT ROAD AND WILDERNESS TRAIL AND EAST OF THE PONDS ATHLETIC FACILITY MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, D. R. Horton and Deerfield Development submitted an application to amend the City of Prior Lake 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the R- L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation, and to amend the Zoning Map from the A (Agricultural) district to the R-4 (High Density Residential) district for the property legally described as follows: That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Northwest 1/4; thence S89027'21 "E, along the north line of said Northwest 1/4, a distance of 243.25 feet; thence S16023'55"E a distance of 249.70 feet; thence S34017'20"E a distance of 200.27 feet; thence S17029'04"E a distance of 446.77 feet; thence S33024'22"E a distance of 642.42 feet; thence S17016'23"W, a distance of 176.54 feet; thence S74029'33"W a distance of 838.70 feet; thence S39018'53"W a distance of 234.31 feet; thence S75035' 18"W a distance of 602.70 feet; thence S46033' 19"W a distance of 180.00 feet; thence N83055'35"W a distance of 420.00 feet; thence N22010'30"W a distance of 780.00 feet; thence N69007'37"E a distance of 635.00 feet; thence S280 17' 16"E a distance of 280.00 feet; thence N68028'38"E a distance of 410.00 feet; thence NIl 046'22"W a distance of 90.00 feet; thence S84045'12"W a distance of 123.89 feet; thence N16029'32"W a distance of 300.00 feet; thence N85003 '53"W a distance of 145.00 feet; thence NlO032'52"E a distance of 445.00 feet; thence N03042'16"E a distance of 510.00 feet to the north line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence S89049' 16"E, along said north line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of 668.00 feet to the point of beginning. and WHEREAS, legal notice of the public hearing was duly published and mailed III accordance with Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake City Code; and 1:\99files\99compam\99-0 13\rs99xxcc.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on April 26, 1999 and May 10, 1999, for those interested in this request to present their views; and on April 26, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Zoning District Change; and on May 17, 1999, the Prior Lake City Council considered the application to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the above described property to the R-HD designation and to rezoned the same property to the R-4 District; and the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change along with the staff reports and the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings; and the City Council has carefully considered the testimony, staff reports and other pertinent information contained in the record of decision of this case. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that the proposed amendment to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the above described property as R-HD (High Density Residential) and to rezone the above described property to the R-4 (High Density Residential) district is hereby denied based upon the following findings of fact. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The sewer capacity for this site is significantly less than the permitted density under the R- HD designation and the R-4 District. 2. The type of development proposed on this property can be accomplished in the R-L/MD designation through the use of the conditional use permit process and the Planned Unit Development process. 3. The applicant has not provided any information to indicate the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning of the property is incorrect. Passed and adopted this 17th day of May, 1999. YES NO Mader Mader Kedrowski Kedrowski Petersen Petersen Schenck Schenck Wuellner Wuellner {Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager City of Prior Lake 1:\99files\99compam\99-0 13\rs99xxcc.doc Page 2 - ~~- --- CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 99-XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1101.700 OF PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: The Prior Lake Zoning map, referred to in Prior Lake City Code Section 1101.700 is hereby amended to change the zoning classification of the following legally described property from A (Agricultural to R-l (Low Density Residential). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, of Section 12, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of said Northwest 1/4; thence N89049' 16"W, along the north line of Said Northwest 1/4, a distance of 668.00 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence S03042' 16"W a distance of 510.00 feet; thence S 10052'52"W a distance of 445.00 feet; thence S26056'56"E a distance of314.97 feet; thence S69007'37"W a distance of 635.00 feet; thence S22010'30"E a distance of780.00 feet; thence S83055'35"E a distance of 420.00 feet; thence S46033' 19"W a distance of 589.60 feet to the south line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence N89020'55"W, along said south line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the south line of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of 1398.05 feet to the west line of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4; thence NOOo05'37"E, along said west line of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of2615.37 feet to the north line of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4; thence S89049'16"E, along said north line of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, and said north line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of 1962.74 feet to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains 97.88 acres ofland, more or less. The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby further ordain: The Prior Lake Zoning map, referred to in Prior Lake City Code Section 1101.700 is hereby amended to change the zoning classification of the following legally described property from A (Agricultural) and C-5 (Business Park) to R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential). That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: 1:\99files\99compam\99-013\ord99xx.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Beginning at the northwest comer of said Northwest 1/4; thence S89027'21 "E, along the north line of said Northwest 1/4, a distance of243.25 feet; thence S16023'55"E a distance of 249.70 feet; thence S340 17'20"E a distance of 200.27 feet; thence S 17029'04"E a distance of 446.77 feet; thence S33024'22"E a distance of 642.42 feet; thence S17016'23"W a distance of 176.54 feet; thence S74029'33"W a distance of838.70 feet; thence S39018'53"W a distance of234.31 feet; thence S75035' 18"W a distance of 602.70 feet; thence S46033'19"W a distance of 180.00 feet; thence N83055'35"W a distance of 420.00 feet; thence N22010'30"W a distance of 780.00 feet; thence N69007'37"E a distance of 635.00 feet; thence N26056'55"E a distance of314.97 feet; thence N10052'52"E a distance of 445.00 feet; thence N03042' 16"E a distance of 510.00 feet to the north line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence S890 49' 16"E, along said north line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of668.00 feet to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains 66.35 acres ofland, more or less. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 17th day of May, 1999. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the 22nd day of May, 1999. Drafted By: Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 1:\99files\99compam\99-0 13\ord99xx.doc Page 2 --~---- - -- 11' ., " ~ '- ' - ">-;j,'!!!-, I ....-_..,.> '.._...~....""""\ '\ I , J/" '\ '. ~ /r -/ "- " D.R. HORTON INC. MN JoIS9 WASHINGTON DRM SUITE 200 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 (651) 45+4663 . PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN " '. . .~~ . . --;:::-r--r-? / . ~{;:r~) 7 '.\U -.......::::::: PRIOR lAKE, MINNESOTA STATISTICS TOTAL AREA OF SITE 164 ACRES SINGlE FAMILY LOTS 78 86' X 14O'(TYP.) 12,000 5.F. CORNER LOTS 14,400 5.F. PR-t>P~t::P R-~ (lD1. 31 de.) lWIN HOME UNITS QUAD UNITS V1UA UNITS TOTAL UNITS GROSS DENSITY 60 164 3S2 654 3.99 UNITSI ACRE rDY~@[gO\g~~ ~B~ PARA AAOUNT ENGINEERING & DESIGN lMCJ AIC)D( n . SU1t 200. ST. PAll,. A4NtE50TA SSU 1M (i5f m.DI'l fH1 7nOSoM =-...::-~~ ORIGINAL PROPOSAL ~ -~rc~-c----- uu_u_____~ 1111I1 1 VI ~It:- ~ lid III! IllllI! 1\ mr' ~ 1IIIIi'd11i'll I 5:::' U ! I~~~ I~~~~~ I~ l~ \~l ,. i . ~ ~U= IC;) \.}~;,l f \ ' r i \ -'-1"-T,- I \ \ I~_J \ 'j F:~ /~l~\~<- 1 \ u -+-- t 1\ r--------- _____1 - ---~---=-!~~\,\ ______u____\ i- ____ __un ~\ Ii . ___!..._ L_ -- A -----,----- . -~----~;1 -- _u~ t\ ' I : ~ , ........" /1' '~ II ", ~--J / " N '.... ( ".. oJ '.. '.. , .. .... .. .. r ... SCALE " = 6r2>lZl' '.. .~e!"( eM) Of8.4 W~1EttL Wf1,l~t:::'~ .~ lrt8~~ C:J ~~WC;f(p~/ f'.6-~TU~ ~ '. , . \;-~;i.j1t~~~~ii/" '. \ ',::r.~'l\::' " ._ \ .\\~ . lIt.,"'" I , ,\.,'\j"?!J "'\:"\\/1 '<~~:J!:> .. '.. EXISTING CONDITIONS & ZONING PLAN OWNER/DEVELOPER D.R. HORTON, INC. · Mn 3459 WASHINGTON DRIVE MAY 3, 1M EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 (651) 454-4663 PRIOIR !LAKE, MINNIESOlr A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 4/26/99 V ote taken signified ayes by V onhof, Stamson and Criego, nays by Kuykendall and Cramer. MOTION CARRIED. ~'~ \ / MOTION BY ~EGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND APPROYAL OF THE CONDrt~NAL USE PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION,>' /LISTED IN THE STAFF REPQRT AS FOLLOWS: // ~ / 1, Revise the landsc~~1(g plan to include an irrigation system And the necessary replacement trees (a in(~mum of 151 caliper inches), Staff~upgests the additional landscaping be placed, where possible, along Greenway Avenue and Conroy Street to provide additional scr;e~i1:.'g from the singe family residetices, \ \ ' , 2, Revise the plan sheets to iiicJ"de the correct calculati(j~s for impervious surface, landscaping perimeter, and tre~'",eplacement requi~ements, 3, A letter of credit for the landscdp~"n:g and tree rlfpl~cement must be submitted prior to approval of the final plat documents, ' \ 4, The homeowner's association documents must be recorded with the final plat \ documents, V , .\ 5, A new set of plans, showing all of th~ r~'visions, must be submitted prior to final , \ approval of the conditional use perptit, " / \ / Vote taken signified ayes by V onh9f; Stamson and ~ego, nays by Kuykendall and Cramer. MOTION CARRIED. /' \ h ' / \ // ' A recess was called at 8:5~/p.~. The meeting reconvened'a~ 9:10 p.m. Commissioner Vonhof.$as excused from the meeting. \ //// /, \ MOTION BY Cl;UEGO, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO REcOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW CONROY STREET AND INCUIDE ll' IN THE CAPITAL IMPROV~~NTPROGRAM. '\ / Vote takfi'n signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. c. CASE FILES #99-013 AND #99-014 D,R. HORTON IS REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS DEERFIELD LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 21, SOUTH OF FISH POINT ROAD AND WILDERNESS TRAIL AND EAST OF THE PONDS ATHLETIC FACILITY, f: Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated Apri126, 1999 on file in the office ofthe City Planner. D. R. Horton and Deerfield Development have filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zone Change for the property located south and west of CSAH 21, south ofFish Point Road and Wilderness Pond Trail and east of the Ponds Athletic 1:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699.doc 9 Facility. The proposal is to amend the Land Use Plan Map from the current R-LIMD (Low to Medium Residential) and C-BO (Business Office Park) designations to the R- HD (High Density Residential) designation on 62.92 acres on the west side of this property. This proposal also includes a rezoning from the current A (Agricultural) and C- 5 (Business Park) district to the R-4 (High Density Residential) district for the 62.92 acres on the west side ofthe site, and from the A (Agricultural) district to the R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) district for the residual 1 01.31 acres. This property is a part of the 260 acres of land which was annexed by order of the Minnesota Municipal Board on July 9, 1997. During initial discussions with the City staff and the City Council, the developer indicated he was interested in a mixed use type development which would include an expansion of the Waterfront Passage Business Park on the east side of the site, and a combination of residential uses on the remainder of the property. These discussions indicated the residential portion of the site would be developed at a total density of about 5 units per acre, which would equal roughly 700 units. Staff recommended denial ofthe Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the R-HD designations and recommended approval ofthe rezoning of the entire 164 acres to the R-2 district. Questions by Commissioners: Stamson questioned the maximum density in R-2. Kansier responded it was 7 units per acre. Criego questioned the Comprehensive Plan zone R1 and the options. Kansier explained single family with townhomes. The major difference is density, 3.6 per acre. The original discussion was 5 per acre. Cramer asked if the road alignment was in place. Kansier said it would be addressed at the Preliminary Plat stage. Roadways could be designated as collectors. Stamson questioned the Fish Point Road to the south. Kansier ex~ained the long range plan is for Fish Point Road to meet up with Mushtown Road. Kuykendall recapped the density and how the units were arrived at. Kansier explained the MUSA system. Comments from the public: Don Patton, ofH.R. Horton, the developer, gave a brief background on the developments they have been involved with in the surrounding cities constructing over 400 homes last year. Patton explained they did have a neighborhood meeting showing the layout and the four different proposals on the site. An association would be formed for maintenance. There would be no rentals. The proposal for R2 adjoins the industrial property. The 1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699 .doc 10 densities of what they are looking at will make the R2 work as long as they can use a PUD development. Kuykendall questioned the density. Patton explained the concept plan. 140 units on 167 acres with a balance of380 units on 58 acres. The 520 units are under the 700 unit limit. Kansier recapped. A total of 654 units is what the developer is looking at. Kansier explained the amendment is for a zone change. The Commissioners are looking at how the property should be zoned for development. Margi Atwood, 16992 Crimson Court, said she would like to keep the current zoning. There is number of wildlife is in the area and ifthe zoning is changed, all will go away. She is not opposed to development just this development density. Fish Point Road will be the only access to the development and will become a freeway. She feels 750 new residences turn into 1200 additional vehicles. A number of neighbor' s quality of life will be significantly affected. Atwood felt the additional homes will burden the school district, fire, police, etc. Anther area of concern is the sewer and water needs of the development. She does not want high density in her back yard and agreed with Mr. Patton's comments industry is a good neighbor. Tom Stanley, 6221 Sue Ann Lane, is concerned with the runoff into Markley Lake. Two houses are potentially in danger of flooding. Markley Lake is a closed basin. He compared the lake to the City leaving the water faucet running and heading off to work. The high density is more than the environment can handle. Tim Courant, 16910 Crimson Court, submitted a petition with signatures from Prior Lake residents, several of whom are not neighbors. Courant questioned the benefit to Prior Lake to rezone the annexation area. He also went on to question if the police, school district and fire department could handle the increased load. His other concern was for traffic. A traffic light will be needed on Fish Point Road and County Road 21 with the tax imposed on the citizens of Prior Lake. Courant was concerned for the property values on adjacent homes and stated the proposal will not be serving the citizens of Prior Lake only the developer and the land owner. Franke Forstner, 5170 Lexington Court, said the one issue not addressed is the business district. She talked to the adjacent businesses who were not aware of the proposed change and felt the current zoning will benefit the area businesses. Forstner said she also talked to a number of people looking at retirement who do not want to see Prior Lake change or grow any faster. Wendy Roepke, 16923 Crimson Court, stated she heard the Prior Lake School District is bad. Her other concern is rental properties. Whatever is it zoned, nobody wants apartments next to their home. She was told the City is demanding rental property. Curt Horkey, 17021 Fish Point Road, of Keyland Homes and Minnesota Valley Millworks, stated he was told the area was going to be zoned for industry. Horkey said I :\99files\99p1comm\pcmin\mn042699 .doc 11 ~.._~--_..- " they moved from Bumsville with lower income and driveby shootings, now he will be right next to apartments. Horkey asked to take into consideration the semi-trucks coming into the industrial area with neighboring kids out running around. Dennis Wells, 5629 Parkview Circle, moved to the area approximately 5 years ago stating had he known this development would go in, he never would have built in Prior Lake. No one will be happy with a low income development next to their home. The property values will go down. Most of the duplexes on Franklin Trail have 2 or 3 cars and boats in the yard which shouldn't be allowed. He was worried what is going to happen when the road goes through. Prior Lake has to start worrying about the people who live in Prior Lake, not the people who they think are going to live here. Kevin Bergstrom, 16030 Eagle Creek Avenue, questioned if an EA W was available and stated it was required. Bergstrom's other concerns are as follows: the density, increase for tax dollars, the wetland and open water. He questioned why should the residents pay for this development, why was this property originally zoned as R1 and how will this serve the citizens of Prior Lake. Mike Atwood, 16292 Crimson Court, moved out to this area and would like to see it remain the way it is. Atwood contacted the PCA on the wetland and talked to several members of the Metropolitan Council stating ifit comes down to it, they will get an EA W study. He also talked to the Watershed and Scott County Soil and Conservation who told him the neighbors should protect and do what they can to protect the environment. There is no pond for runoff. All the experts say the runoffwill kill the wetland. Criego pointed out this is not a proposal. There are a number of other steps before any approval is given to the developer. This is a zoning change only. The design layout is not the gospel. The City has many controls not to create runoff and pollution. What the Commissioners are looking at is high density or low density. Wendy Roepke, 16923 Crimson Court, said she was at the information meeting and was told the developer wanted to start the project in July. She was glad to hear there are some other controls. Stamson explained the amendment was for land use only. Thomas Robeck, 16974 Wilderness Trail, concurred with the opinion of neighbors, they were under the impression the street would be a cul-de-sac. Industry is a good neighbor for single family homes and had no objections. He has upwards of $300,000 invested in his home and is against the high density. There is already traffic on his dead-end street with many children in the neighborhood. The matter ofthe wildlife protection is very important. Terry Hagelberger, 16940 Crimson Court, stated the zoning lays the foundation of what will follow. I: \99fiJes\99plcomm\pcmin \mn042699 .doc 12 JeffElasky, 16951 Wilderness Trail, said he spoke at a meeting several years ago. The biggest concern is the density. He was told 2 years ago by Scott County, Spring Lake Township and City the density was 2.5 acres. The hearing was closed at 10: 10 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: . Agreed with neighbors the zoning should stay low density. . Kansier explained the industrial park density and zoning. . Proposed to keep low density except for a small piece by the industrial park which would be R2. . Kansier explained the R1 and R2 District densities. In both cases townhomes are allowed as a conditional use. Also a PUD is allowed which would be more units per acre. . Recommended most of the acres in question be zoned R1 with a conditional use permit. . Recommended the small strip next the industrial park be labeled R2 with a slightly higher density. Kuykendall: . Agreed with Criego comments. . Questioned the rental property. Kansier explained the definitions. . The zoning is the foundation. . When there is a transitional change as this, there should be a buffer area. The vast majority should be R1 but there could be more R2. . This is also guided by Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Act which the City has to comply with. If it becomes rental property so be it. . The plan concept is good. Stamson: . The City Council looked at this issue a year and a half ago. They felt it would be zoned low to medium density. Nothing changed in the year and a half. High density was originally looked at and turned down. . Familiar with the developer and does a nice job. Would like to see a development like this in Prior Lake, but this is not the area. . Fish Point Road beyond the High School is not the primary road. This development should have a better road access. . Some townhomes would be okay. . Propose to do the entire development R1. Cramer: . Stamson summed up his concerns. 1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn042699 .doc 13 ,f · To change to high density, the development would have to be near a major arterial road. This will not work. · Has a difficult time rezoning without seeing the schematics of a plan. · Shared Criego and Kuykendall's recommendation that this should be R1 with a percentage ofR2 for transition. It is the only fit with the neighborhood. · Most ofthe eastern portion should be Rl except the northeast quadrant. Criego said one ofthe affordable housing sites was set out on County Road 42. Not this area. Cramer pointed out Scott County HRA basically commended Prior Lake on their response to affordable housing. Kuykendall and Criego felt the developer did a great job with housing developments in other communities. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION. V ote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Patton pointed out an original proposed high density. Mark Roepke, 16923 Crimson Court, does not agree with the preliminary drawing and questioned the R2 density. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO TABLE THE HEARING TO MAY 10, 1999, FOR THE DEVELOPER AND STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A NEW PROPOSAL. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 10:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:44 p.m. D. CASE FILE #99-018 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 1102,1300 AND 1102.1600 OF THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 26, 1999 on file in the office of the City Planner. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the new Zoning Ordinance (effective May 1, 1999) relating to the setback requirements for nonresidential structures and parking lots adjacent to Residential Use Districts. I :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin \mn042699 .doc 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 5/10/99 Vote taken signified ayes by Stamson, Criego, Cramer, nay by Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. ,,' MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRlEGO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-02PC GRANTING A 9.7 FOOT V;\RIANCE TO PERMIT A 15.3 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE, REQUIRED 25 FOOT SETBACK TO PERMIT A WATER ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON AN OUTLOT. .:::r~{{{:~:~::::::.:.. . :.;.;.;.:...........;.;.:.:.;.;.;. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRAMER TO DENY ....... Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. ..::::)jjjji/::::::::::::::j:(/': * . ....... " ...... ..' ...... B, Case Files #99-01.3 and #99-014 (Continue.g):\\\U.,R, Hri~(P'>> requesting air::: amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 201 OJ:jC614pn~he9.itv.ijij\r,Ian and a zone change request fo~lie property known as Deerfield ld'iihf.::'ioutlt'and west of ~:::;':;I::~C~::. of Fish Point R;;~~:lderne~d east of the Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier present~4.:.the:pf.p':g::l~~ep9.rfidated May 10, 1999 on file in the office of the City Planner..:...... ...... ..::::::.:..:.::::...... :::::::::, ,.::::::::.' ..... :.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.',;.:-" ... " D.R. Horton and Deerfielq:JgeVe1B.pm~nt filed '~tapplication for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zon~v~:lhange fo~::tl.ie propertyjj),p.9.:et.ed south and west of CSAH 21, south of Fish Point gg!~::..and Wil4fhess Pond Triifand east of the Ponds Athletic Facility. The prop6gariij~~Mde4::j@\l;::j!:ml!A4mf:p~Jhe Land Use Plan Map from the current R-LIMD (Low to MediuiriAt\!:&deiiililf)":Mid4jJBO (Business Office Park) designations to the R-HD (Hjgh:J?:~p.sity Resiqmtial) designation on 62.92 acres on the west side of this property\:::::*fH@15f6pg~~talso iri6ti19~q::9.;rezoning from the current A (Agricultural) and C-5 (l:,}}i.$1hess Parkfat~IRt to thetliiif(High Density Residential) district for the 62.92 acr.~~i::~n the west side ot:!Rt site, and from the A (Agricultural) district to the R-2 (Low to Mein~rr.tPensity Reside~!~il) district for the residual 101.31 acres. The PI~~t'g::~ommis~iPh considered this proposal at a public hearing on Apri126, 1999. After considef~1!U~ t~~pinony and discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend derltil)it'the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment. There seemed to be some consensusihat some R-2 zoning should be permitted on the property. The Commission decided to table action on this item to allow the applicant to submit a revised description of the R-2 location. Staff recommended approval ofthe R-l and R-2 district as presented by the applicant. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRlEGO TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn051 099 .doc 4 Comments from the public: Bob Wiegert, Paramount, representing the applicant, stated he was in full support of staffs report as it addressed the concerned issues from the last public meeting. Margi Atwood, 16992 Crimson Court, was disappointed with large R-2 dismgtand felt the neighbor's quality of life will be affected. The wildlife and wetland~d~reVefY. important to the area. Her impression from the last meeting was theryY.lQ~ld be less R-2 district than the new proposal. n.... ....... ... .. .. ..... Criego questioned what she thought would be a good numbe[~;tM\.Y9.od respdHij~she would like only single family homes and felt there is mon;:;:f{i2"tHMfiast meeting?:'::.:.::,> Kansier stated the City's recommendation was to zone.ii!'~PR.-2..B.--1 is not an exchi~~y(:r single family district. Also, the original proposal wM.~n~o R-4..:Wp'~s plan is signifi2antly 10wer.Nn .nnnn .n. .......... ...... ....... .......... ..... ...... .......... ..... ..... .......... ..... .... .......... ..... ... .......... ..... .. .......... ..... . .......... ..... Duane Hoffinan, 16936 Wilderness Trail, said according ton\$hJ.lmbers, there is more R- 2 district coming over the R-1 district. ~OO~~Krexplained the deijiKY~t#offinan felt it was wrong to rezone something without s~ilrlg':g::pmposal. Crieg.q.p6inted out it was the Commissioners who directed the developeN!9. briHglR~:8~}:y proposal, Stamson eXplained the process. Hoffinan would liketg,reggte the'a~$tr.i8t to whatever the MUSA allows. nnnn...:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... .................... .-................................. ......- .......... ..... ...... .......... ..... ...... ......... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ......... ..... Rye responded approvi.p$:ille zoniri~.phange bas~~t9B a specific plan is contract zoning which is not permitt~I9p.der stateJiw. nnn .... .. .... .... ..... ...... ... .... .......... .......................................... .......... .......................................... Matt Krueger, 16945 CrilH~g1,}:.:~oiirt::Uhd~*tM1ds what everyone is saying. He feels the zoning shouI4p~sha.nged tcr1{,Sh, Krueger questioned what will happen with the sewer. McDerm9tti'sM'dth~f#::,Me 2 sewq:::~tHg~to this development. The Capital Improvement Plan 1ffi~mddressed t1ie;:~i~y'e. Kni~$~Wquestioned what would happen if another parcel wa.~::lPexed in to Prioi:liice. MdDermott explained sewer would then have to connect tolfi~:!~.c:::tropolitan Couri~~l interceptro at a different location. .. ..... ............. ..................... ........ ........ "';':':':':':':';':';'. :......... ........... ...... ...................... ........... Mike AM~99t} 6992 Qpfuson Court, said after leaving the last meeting, his understanding!:!~ t.,g~buffer would surround the industrial parks. This looks like something to gefJ~}f\vith. The homeowners agreed with the Commissioners that there was going to be#fhousing buffer to move along to fit townhomes and the industrial and future industrial park. There would be a flow. This proposal is not where the neighbors want it to be. Atwood questioned if this is the normal process for a builder to come in and chip away at the process. Criego said responded. David Edwards, 16966 Crimson Court, questioned staff: He sensed a great deal of lack of support for the developer's plan at the last meeting, what changed staffs mind? Kansier said staffs recommendation was to rezone the entire proposal to R-2. The last proposal also contained 60 acres ofR-4 and the staff recommended denial of the R-4 district. The 1 :\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin \rnn051 099 .doc 5 staff recommended approval of this proposal since both the R-1 and R-2 districts are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Franke Forstner, 5170 Lexington Court, said the Commissioners should be aware there are a great number of special needs children in the area. If the Commissioners allow the numbers of the proposal, the school district will be over burdened. She is concerned for the special needs children's education. She felt if you increase the number~:xmt... increase the numbers of something going wrong. Forstner said she feels townhm:n,s:'d(flibt belong in the development because they deteriorate rapidly and attract a cert~ip':::~y'pe of people who create vandalism. She feels the adjoining businesses are cor~S~p1e(r:(9f~xandals. Forstner stated "If there were more single family homes there wdql.g be ni6f!:::twop1e like us. Normal. Less police would be called in." She feels the ~~rY!~e,:::f.alls from\pglj~e will be kept down. She would like to recommend to the de:,:~;~p.bFl::::f6hn an assoda'~lii.:::~::~::i>' Kuykendall questioned Franke if she participated in.::B9.y::;:pf the n~~gpborhood meetings? She responded she did not. .::::>.:.::,,::::::~,} . :.:.:::..:. Dan Broderick, 16993 Wilderness Trail, questioned when the::rq~pways would be designed. Kansier responded when the cL~Y~l9per submits a prelim~n.f:l,fY plat, maybe sometime in June. There would be anothe~:ir,ea.:qij~:~~t::~.:~~tificati~;';?}: ..... ';:'::::::":':'::"':';':':':';", . Bryce Huemoeller, attorney for the develope~~:p~:~fffeid:::Dlit6pment. Huemoeller has worked with the property sin9~t~tw~s annexeq::~i.h::.. This prqperty was originally submitted with low to medium densi.!y~and:!PPfpved by tl1~Met Council, City Council and the Comprehensive Plan. It:~~ai transiti9P'~1 district.::::::::::::::.:"::.::::::::. Matt Krueger, 16945:C~pn g9RfM~9::l,i!:ftKPpearing Huemoeller say the Comprehensive Plan state~:::th.~::t1isincfSHotlIdihe zoned R-1 and R-2. Krueger remembers the Commis~i9ng;~::.:~tating th~f~~~~p.ould be a small buffer ofR-2 between the industry and ~i;:~~1t:~,~:~;~";';~t ~oR;.; ;~tC;o~~~t~:::~l:e amount nei.ggq:6rhood? He is sul::FortorI'does a good job. Krueger said he lived in a townhouse ann'p!lBle who live on tqpomes are great. It is a fun community. A great starter for families~::::::!ttyt, do we wa;i,l::lhis broad of an area on this piece of property? We don't need this area as:::i.~~eher d~p!~ty. Mike Atwood;)i.~~~?i:Crimson Court, said the Commissioners designated an area north of County Road 42i't6r high density and would like to see these townhomes moved to that area. The hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: . The issue of district fairness has been addressed. 1:\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn051 099 .doc 6 · The capacity, sewer and traffic have been handled. · Accept what is presented here. · The Commissioners agreed the principals have been addressed. · Commend the developer. Stamson: · Concurred with Kuykendall, the developer addressed most of their co9:8.~,:::. · Last meeting expressed the area should be all R-1; however, he fee.!~r~His is a'good compromise. He probably will not suppor total buildout in R-2~..;:::::::!::!::,::!.!!\,,: · There are a lot of natural features in the area desiganted as R~:M::}Vhil~':tlj.~portion desiganted as R-2 is primarily open land.:'U' .. U · The proposed zoning arrangement is appropriate. :..u . U CrIego: .,.;:,::::::: "::),::::,::.. <,:i=' · Opinion has not changed, the majority should q~rRt:~::tn'ith a:~~f{~r zone ofR-i · Feels both R-1 and R-2 are consistent with the Comp::~ffi&::)(:' . · There should be a smaller buffer area."u:::,:,:: · Suggest the area be totally R-l with ~.99.Hgitional use pemHtf!!\, .... Cramer: .... . n. .", . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · Not the perfect zoning request but it does'falljp:t6utheU~~9roprehensive Plan. The Commissioners said everyfu~n.s.:.west ofFi~h:::P6int Roa.g!:t,'e zoned R-1 and that is the new proposal. This ne.:wpMh:qQW address:',~~t. There will be no R -4 district. · This development '.Y~JFhappen l~..rrior Lake::::;.::::..,:. · Horton's developm~4.t in SavagWls very go04,~nd has no concerns with R-2. ................ . ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... .................... ..................... .................... ................. Kuykendall: "::::.'.'.':':'::::" · ~::c.~~0i1~~~!=.;'0:~.;~:,~re gt4I::.:~/~tate Law - questioned the rationale for the new · B9piWiegert, wiiH:~i~mount~.#.xplained the concept came from the surrounding ...;::A:~~~gns, etc. TransiUgpfll hOli'slng from the north/south east/west. The City wanted a ':hQIM~outh major coq~ptor, so that was the dividing line. The north was zoned busi#~~~Jeaving our.:~?st area with a transitional buffer ofR-2. It is a standard design?:'!I!:~ Poin!:,~Oad is the dividing line. · Tovar said:Fi$b.Bpint Road has been laid out in the Comp Plan. · Would like tq!$ee less R-2. Stamson: · Would also like to see less R-2 · The developer has to hit the density. The R-1 has a lot oflake and wetlands, R-2 is largely open. In order for the developer to make this development work the R-1 will be crammed. Allowing R-2 will give a better density for both districts. The advantage to having more R-2 gives the flexibility. Criego: I :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin \mn051 099 .doc 7 . Ifthe Commissioners allocate some of it as R-2, the maximum would be 580 units. . The developer can't use all this land, if we call everything R-1 and maximize is only to the land being able to use, you might not be able to put 580 homes. . The road is a reasonable partition point between R-l and R-2. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST AS PRESENTJIlR~W:}'HE STAFF REPORT,. ..:::::(:)::::::.:...........:.::::::::::: Kansier explained the division ofFish Point Road. :~,. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. .. ........ ... ..... ............... .... ..................... ................... ................... .............:..................... ...... ........ "::::::::::::::::.:.:-:.' This will go to the City Council on May 17, 1999. A recess was called at 8:10 p.m. The meeting recoH~'~rl~!.~~~::::~:,;~:~:9:~:~~j~~. C, Case file #99-024 Mary Gorshe, 4230 Grainwood C~tt,l~ requesting variances for bluff setback, a front yard setback~:::~ij!:~!!~.a and imperVn~i!~~:!,tface, Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Plannirtg:::tt@pq~;t:98!~d May 10..:::]:999 on file in the office of the City Planner.':'::;:;:::"'::::':':'::::::???:;::::::..:.. :.:::. The Planning Department received a varianc~~~:~pp~i6atiorr::rqt:~Jlie construction of a single family dwelling with attach~q::~.a.P.. The eXl~~ihg structuNtwas more than 50% destroyed by a fire in Janqwy:onhi.~~~~year. This.::~pplication was received prior to the effective date of the ne.wfZ'oning O#lhance (MaY~:~'L/~.999) and is therefore being ~;~~::::1: under th~iP:tti:~:~:~~ ~:::i~~;;~\~:~~~~::~~:1~;{;~'''he following variances are being A 9.75 foot variance to thInlblr.r setback't8::permit a structure to be setback 15.25 feet from the to.:g:gt:~B~~tl:Eather tH~::~: minimum requirement of25 feet [City Code 5-8-3 (A)]..........::.. .. ... '::/"::::.:.:..:.., A 5.Q,Qif6ot variance"18:::I@ front y:Wd'setback to permit the structure to be setback 20 feet f:3ffiill,l: front lot line nUil than the minimum required setback of 25 feet (City Code 5- 4"':!) '.::::::::::::::::::.:. ..... A 5%':~~:~lJ,pe to allow .'~ervious surface of 35% rather than the maximum impervious surface c6V~t~gf of39~?tCity Code 5-8-3 (B)]. A 1,070 squi&~::i92kyaRance to permit lot area to be 6,430 square feet rather than the minimum lot aie~:required to be buildable of7,500 square feet [City Code 5-8-12 (B)]. The DNR had no objection to the front yard setback or the lot area variances and suggested the need for the remaining variances could be eliminated by redesigning the house. Staff felt hardships were met with respect to the required minimum lot area. A condition of the variance allows the applicant to maintain a 5-foot side yard setback on one side with a minimum building separation of 10 feet and a setback of 25 feet from the top of bluff as written under the previous zoning ordinance. The variance to impervious surface 1 :\99fi1es\99p1comm\pcmin\mn051 099 .doc 8 - - , . -~/t ..-.J- 1= ~ ~'~1~' - i "' f ~ 'Lo&Al1oN : 01= ,If .JJ . -::,,' \.' . I: '--MfiO-N -'-Ji~'~:- -~ (/C'-"'lE~ARY / _u . .' .----1.., '. . i r-;o 1 i, - . \. \\._.-\,/ . I i I i j ~ ! i, \. I '~~" --j' -..... , . ,I lLAKE ~J _<>~:-=U! i f'; ~~~ - 11 ~ I ~-'~l ,1'. ""'10..:11" --- , _ I. :.' '.... :~-z--(" '~~ -------'r- ,.' ;' " ' I l ---:~ : - -- - - ; . i~:..~(::.--==!--L __~'::""J ~ CJ'l~' \ ~/-\ . H *18 ~\. : ::.:r~,b : ~ ' I -frn . . ~\~ :,':,". );;~ ",3'" :: : <if' I ,~ I ~ ' ?iJ:- I~ ~ <~s . --.....y. <>,...... ,'''\ ~f;;;,;.;.,!.i-.i.-,7',-., Y' i, '1' ':c""!":':-'"" "',:"li:L;~----'", '. ~'t.:..rl::\' --~~. 'I .....~ ..- t ,~ \"~ /...:"/ '--.,. I I i.~ i I I -, LOWER PRIOR LAKE 41 I I i! I ,---I I Tl ! i : I I , i .1' i-I r r-- ,E.ll~l1Nr. ..: ~ ~-tN1Nb -$- CITY OF PRIOR LAKE BASE MAP SEPTEMBER 1. 1998 SCALE ~ ~ 800 1600