Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-08 Joint Board Case 2007-09wa t r IV e -r H E 0+ A I N F t A ': E 0 F Ni I N NES 0! A Memo Community Development Department To: Town/ City of Stillwater Joint Planning Board From: Michel Pogge, City Planner o!1 Date: Thursday, February 22, 2007 Re: Legacy on Long Lake Message: Attached is a copy of the staff report on the Legacy on Long Lake development that was presented to the City of Stillwater Planning Commission on February 12, 2007. As of the date of this memo staff is still waiting on completion of DNR's review of the PUD worksheet for the development; therefore, city staff recommends that the Joint Planning Board table action on this request until your March 28, 2007 meeting. The review deadline for this application is currently set for April 4, 2007 which would allow the board the opportunity to take action on the development plan at your March 28, 2007 meeting and still meet the review deadline. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Board needs to open the public hearing since notices were mailed to adjoining property owners. The board should also review and discuss the proposed Legacy on Long Lake development plan and provide feedback/ comments. 2. The Minnesota DNR is still reviewing the development plan and since this review could impact the layout of the development city staff recommends that the Board table action until your March 28, 2007 meeting. From the desk of... Michel Pogge, AICP • City Planner - City of Stillwater • 216 N. 41h Street • Stillwater, MN 55082 651.430-8822 • Fax: 651.430-8810 • email: mpogge@ci.stillwater.mn.us �. wa ter 6'.4 fil Fl aCt U! n!l N NFSOI.n Planning Commission DATE: February 8, 2007 CASE NO.: 07-09 APPLICANT: Elite Development REQUEST: 1) Rezoning to TR/PUD and LR, - 2) R;2) Preliminary Plat approval for a 50 lot Residential Subdivision; 3) Concept Planned Unit Development approval; 4) Vacation of excess 72nd Street right-of-way; and 5) Variance to the fence height requirements LOCATION: Between Co. Rd. 12 and 72nd Street on north end of Long Lake COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: SFSL, Single Family Small Lot PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2007 ZONING: AP, Agricultural Preservation REVIEWERS: Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Fire Chief, City Forester PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Plannerj" BACKGROUND Elite Development is proposing a single-family development to be known as Legacy on Long Lake. The project site on County Road 12 is currently owned by four groups: the McKenzies, the Meisterlings, the Huebschers and Grace Baptist Church. (See Exhibit C) The total project site is 25.38 acre site (23.16 of which are above the water level of Long Lake). Though, as seen in Exhibit D about 6.17 acres (4.1 acres above the water level of Long Lake) are not being sold to the developer. This unsold property will be platted as Block 5. The five potential lots in Block 5 would be retained by two of the current landowners, the Meisterlings and the McKenzies. The site is proposed to be developed into 50 single family lots, including the 5 lots in Block 5. Sizes of the lots would range from 9,595 square feet to 106,858 square feet. The Legacy on Long Lake February 8, 2007 Page 2 largest lots are in the tiers closest to Long Lake. Three outlots are proposed: one for future development by Grace Baptist Church, one for stormwater ponding, and one for the development of a pool, handball court, and gazebo for private use by the neighborhood. Currently the site has three homes and a church on it. Two of the homes would be removed, leaving only the Meisterling home. The church property would be left as it is except that land will be traded so that the access road to County Road 12 can cross it. Improvements to be dedicated to the public are proposed to include relocation of 72nd Street away from the shoreline of Long Lake; a north -south street connection between County Road 12 and 72nd Street; a trail in place of the old 72nd Street alignment; one small parks. The land development is proposed to be completed during the 2007 construction season. Building permits for the first homes are anticipated to be issued yet this year. SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to develop the property as proposed, Elite Development has requested the following: 1. Approval of a rezoning of the off -lake portion of the site from AP, Agricultural Preservation to TR/PUD (Traditional Residential Planned Unit Development); 2. Approval of a rezoning of the lakeshore portion of the site from AP, Agricultural Preservation to LR, Lakeshore Residential; 3. Approval of a Preliminary Plat for a 50 lot single family residential development; 4. Approval of Concept PUD plans; 5. Approval of a vacation of the excess 72nd Street right-of-way; and 6. Approval of a variance request to exceed the maximum height limits for a fence along 751h Street N. EVALUATION OF REQUEST I. REZONING Nexghhorhood Laii { else Existing and planned land uses in the neighborhood are as follows: North Stillwater Township; guided for Single Family Large Lot development South Long Lake; classified as a Recreational Development Lake East DNR owned permanent open space Legacy on Long Lake February 8, 2007 Page 3 West Rutherford School and a Traditional Residential zoned neighborhood of Liberty on the Lake Land Use CompatibilitL One of the principle issues to be considered for a rezoning is whether the proposed change would be compatible with existing and planned uses within the surrounding neighborhood. As mentioned above the site is buffered on two sides by permanent open space uses, which include the DNR property and Long Lake. On the north side of the site separated by an arterial roadway is an existing large lot single-family neighborhood in Stillwater Township. To the west are both an elementary school and a neighborhood in Liberty on the Lake that is zoned TR, Traditional Residential. The proposed rezoning to TR/PUD for the non-lakeshore property would be compatible with these uses. Moreover, even though the lots in Stillwater Township are larger that the proposed lots in Legacy on Long Lake, the two neighborhoods would be separated by an arterial road which provides a definitive physical barrier. The lakeshore properties meet the standards for both the LR, Lakeshore Residential zoning district and the Recreational Development Shoreland Overlay District. The purpose for the proposed PUD classification is to allow flexibility in lot sizes for the lots furthest away from Long Lake similar to the pattern developed with the single- family pattern developed with Liberty. Most of the lots further away from the lake do not meet the minimum dimensional standards of an RA, Single Family Residential zoning district nor the Recreational Development Shoreland Overlay District. They do however meet the standards for a TR, Traditional Residential zoning district. Since the proposed TR zoning for the bulk of the site represents a logical continuation of the neighboring zoning in Liberty on the Lake, staff finds the proposed TR/PUD and LR rezonings to be acceptable. II. PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The preliminary plat and conceptual PUD plans will be reviewed together in this section of the report. A. Minimum Dimensional Standards Lot size and width In the TR Zoning District, the average lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet. The average lot size of the 45 lots to be zoned TR is 11,486 square feet. The minimum lot width in the TR district is 65 feet, measured at the midway point between the front and rear lot lines. All 45 lots exceed this standard. Legacy on Long Lake February 8, 2007 Page 4 Lakeshore Standards The minimum standards for LR zoned lakeshore lots include a 20,000 square foot area; an 80 foot width; and a 170 foot depth. As mentioned above, the preliminary plat shows five lakeshore lots in Block 5. They all exceed these standards. In addition to the LR zoning standards. The majority of the subdivision lies within the Shoreland Overlay District for Long Lake. This triggers an entire body of separate regulations. Generally speaking, the regulations require lots closest to the lake to be the largest with a greater amount of open space. All proposed lots meet or exceed the shoreland standards. B. Civil Engineering The proposed street layout would reroute 72nd Street by moving it away from Long Lake. A connection to County Road 12 would also be provided. The County will therefore need to review the proposal. They will more than likely require turn lane improvements. The City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary street plans and offers the following comments: • The portion of public road that crosses the church property should be platted as part of the Legacy on Long Lake plat. Also, underground utility stubs should also be improved with this development to the future cul-de-sac south of the existing church. • 72nd Street should be upgraded by the developer from a gravel surface to a bituminous surface all the way to Mid Oaks Avenue. The pastor for Grace Baptist Church has stated that the church is not interested in immediate development of the cul-de-sac or lots. He therefore does not want the future cul-de-sac platted or improved now. In order to protect the new road underground utility should be extended to the future cul-de-sac so that the road will not need to be disturbed in the future. Another note of interest is that there is no formal right-of-way for 72nd Street. None the less, according to State statute, since the public uses and maintains the street a prescriptive easement exists. The width of the Legacy on Long Lake February 8, 2007 Page 5 easement includes the road surface proper and whatever ditch and shoulder sections are necessary to support the road. The weir on 72nd Street has a similar situation. It does not have a formal easement, but according to State statute the flowage and dam structure have an associated prescriptive easement. Attached is a memo from the Public Works Director regarding various other civil engineering issues. The highlights are: • A future city well site (not including a reservoir or tower of any type) needs to be dedicated on the plat. It will have to be 110 feet square. It could be located in the rear of oversized Lots 6-8, Block 1. • The stormwater plan must be submitted by the developer to Brown's Creek Watershed District and approved prior to final plat approval by the City. C. Tree Preservation In order to determine the number of replacement trees, a canopy removal plan must be submitted. This should be done well in advance of a final plat application, so that the appropriate tree protection and replacement plans can be submitted together with the final plat application materials. The grades for Lots 6-11, Block 3 should be adjusted to save more trees along the proposed stormwater pond. D. Park and Trail Dedication The development plans include construction of a bituminous trail generally following the existing 72nd Street roadbed along Long Lake. Sidewalks will also be constructed along each street. These sidewalks will connect to the trail along the County Road to the trail along 72nd Street. In addition to trails, the preliminary plat shows a passive park area in the southeast corner of the development. The proposed lot of 15,391 square feet. Before this plan is considered by the City Parks Board. In addition to trails, the preliminary plat shows a passive park area in the southeast corner of the development (Outlot D). The total proposed land dedication is 15,391 square feet. Given the project's 23.16 acres above the water level of the lake, a total of 2.32 acres of parkland could be required. The 0.35 acre proposed park site would have to be increased to satisfy park Legacy on Long Lake February 8, 2007 Page 6 dedication requirements. The developer is requesting the ability to do cash -in -lieu of land dedication for the remaining portion of the required dedication. When a developer has dedicated property that could not be used as an active park site the City has in the past required the developers' to provide cash -in -lieu for the subdivision's total required parkland dedication. For this development the total required cash -in -lieu of land dedication is $100,000 ($2,000 per single-family lot * 50 lots). Staff feels that a better parkland dedication package would be to make as much of the lakeshore public as possible. However, the vast majority of the lakeshore is not being sold to the developers by the McKenzie and Meisterling families. So, the developers can not include it in their park dedication proposal. (See Exhibits C and D) Consequently, the McKenzies and Meisterlings would have to agree to allow part of their land to be dedicated as public along the lakeshore. They have made it clear at the May 8, 2006 public hearing that they are not interested in giving up their lakeshore property. At the very least, staff believes that the property on either side of the weir should be publicly owned to provide a potential site for a fishing pier and perhaps a spot to put in a canoe. Moreover, since both the Meisterlings and the McKenzies will gain land unencumbered by the prescriptive easement for 72nd Street, it may be equitable to require more public lakeshore from them in return. E. Miscellaneous Slopes Along the lake bluff area, there is a ribbon of slopes in excess of 24%. No development or vegetation removal is proposed in these bluff areas. They should be protected with a conservation easement. Fire Safety Deputy Fire Chief Tom Ballis has reviewed the preliminary plat and made specific comments about fire hydrant locations. His comments will be made a condition of approval. III. `1ACATION OF 72ND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY The developer has requested that excess right-of-way along 72nd Street be vacated. Actually, since only a prescriptive easement exists, it would Legacy on Long Lake February 8, 2007 Page 7 automatically disappear if the road is converted to a trail and a trail easement is filed in chain of title. IV. VARIANCE TO THE CITY'S MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found: 1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. The property is similar to other sites and developments in the area along 75t" Street N. The request to install a fence taller than 8 feet is not seen elsewhere along the corridor. Financial justification for a variance is not sufficient grounds for granting a variance. 2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors. Without the approval of a variance the applicant could develop the proposed single-family development, if the plans for it are approved. 3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to prevent obstructions that would impede clear vision along the roadway. If an opaque fence is allowed to be installed this could effect the look and feel of the corridor. Findings • That the hardship is not peculiar to the property. ■ That a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity; and that a variance, if granted, would constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. • That the authorizing of the variance will be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. Without a positive finding the variance request needs to be denied. Legacy on Long Lake February 8, 2007 Page 8 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternatives. A. Table Since the Minnesota DNR is still reviewing the PUD worksheet staff recommends that you table action of this request. If the Planning Commission chooses to table the request it could be tabled until your March 12, 2007, The 60 day decision deadline for the request is March 18, 2007. B. Approve in part. Staff finds that the applicant has not provided sufficient justification for a variance to the fence height requirement and recommends the commission deny the request. If the proposed rezonings, preliminary plat and Concept PUD are found to be acceptable to the Planning Commission, it should recommend approval those to the City Council with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the following plans on file with the Planning Department except as may be modified by the conditions herein: • Preliminary Plat dated 2/7/2007 • Preliminary Grading & Erosion Control Plan dated 2/7/2007 2. The rezoning will not become effective until the applicants receive Final Plat and Final PUD plan approval from the City Council. 3. Final engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction. The final plat application materials shall contain the engineering changes suggested in the attached memo from Shawn Sanders dated April 28, 2006, and the engineering changes suggested in the attached memo from Tom Ballis dated April 20, 2006. 4. In order to determine the required number of replacement trees, a canopy removal plan must be submitted and found satisfactory by the Community Development Director. This should be done well in advance of a final plat application, so that the appropriate tree protection and replacement plans can be submitted together with the final plat application package. 5. A conservation easement in form and content found satisfactory to the City Attorney shall encumber the steep slopes facing Long Lake. The easements shall be executed prior to release of the final plat from City offices. 6. A trail easement in form and content found satisfactory to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director shall encumber the trail along Long Lake. The easement shall be executed prior to release of the final plat from City Offices. Legacy on Long Lake February 8, 2007 Page 9 7. With the final plat application, the proposed lots in Block 5 must be addressed. One of the following options should be pursued by the developer: a. Final plat everything in Block 5 as an outlot (unbuildable until resubdivided) except the one home site on Lots 2-3. This will require park dedication on 17.65 acres of land. When the outlots are replatted, they will be responsible for park dedication. b. Final plat all of Block 5 as lots. This will require park dedication on all 23.16 acres of land now. This option could include any number of configurations for the five preliminary platted lots. For example, Lots 1- 3 could be platted as a single lot. Or they could be platted as two lots: Lot 1, and a combination of Lots 2 and 3 (they could be replatted later if the current home and/or swimming pool are removed). 8. The Parks & Recreation Board shall make a recommendation on the park dedication prior to City Council consideration of the proposal. 9. The City shall receive a letter from the Minnesota DNR approving the PUD worksheet prior to release of the final plat from City Offices. C. Approve in full. If the proposed rezonings, preliminary plat, Concept PUD, and variance are found to be acceptable to the Planning Commission, it should recommend approval to the City Council with the following conditions: 1. All of the conditions listed above in Alternative B. 2. The fence along 75th Street North shall be no taller than 8 feet in height. D. Denial If the Planning Commission finds that the development proposal is not advisable, it could recommend denial. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. RECOMMENDATION The Minnesota DNR is still reviewing the applicant's PUD worksheet and has raised questions related to open space on the site. Since this review could impact the layout of the development staff recommends that the Commission table action on the request until the DNR finishes their review.. cc: Bob Weigert Pastor Huebscher The Meisterling Family The McKenzie Family attachments: Location Map Zoning Map Legacy on Long Lake February 8, 2007 Page 10 Ownership Map Exception area Developer's Narrative Memo from Shawn Sanders Memo from Tom Ballis Tree Protection Memo from Forester Preliminary Plat Preliminary Grading Plan Preliminary Utility Plan r7 Sim Legacy on Long Lake a� CL O L ,q Q. / •.rte O C `i a V Q O 0 CL • r O d H o SZ. tl1 Q. L t+ O 0 X O � i+ +'' L 0 i i W L N O Q. x w > -o CL '0 4) O .u) w W Z i2 N I (Lf)