05-12-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Michael P. GafTron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator April 18, 1997 (Items V and VI revised 4-21-97) #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - CUP - Discussion and StalT Recommendation on Various Issues ZONING CONFORMITY Should site be rezoaed from RR*1B-1 to RR-IB? Rezoning is not required for the golf course to be approved. Rezoning uould, however, eliminate any ftiturc "study and research center" use of the site. The RR-1 B-l subdistrict was created specifically to accommodate the Spring Hill Conference Center, which will no longer exist If the golf course Is developed. Once a golf course is established at this site, future conversion bock to a conference center use is unlikely. Further, while Spring Hill was generally a *goc- neighbor, it would not be prudent to allow a redevelopment of the site for "study and resoirch center" use due to the lack of municipal sewer and water as well as potential incompatibility with the surrounding rural residential neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the golf course is approved, the easterly portion of the site currently zoned RR-1 B-l should be rezoned to RR-1 B. IK LEGAL COMBINATION The 10 separate tax parcels as currently configured result in zoning Issues as noted in the Fcbrtauy 5 staff memo, namely the need for the maintenance facility to be accessory to the principal use, and the potential impact on setbacks. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All portions of the property in Orono should be legally combined. If Hennepin County will not do so because of the Co. Rd. 6 separation, a Special Lot Combination should be required as a condition of approval. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Bluff Impact Variances (Also See March 13 staff memo, and Exhibits B A C of April 18 staff memo) Applicants have provided a new grading and tree removal/preservalion plan for the area of the bluff. This plan appears to have much less impact than the original plans provided. The cart path #22094-18-97 Page 2 has been slightly relocated. It appears that the barrier of trees to the south of the gravel pit area will remain, so that the impacts of grading will be better screened as viewed from the lake. Applicant's indicated justification for this variance is the layout of the course, the fact that this bluff is in many respects a man-made feature, and that the potential visual Impacts as viewed from off-site have been minimized by narrowing the corridor of grading and tree removal. The proposed accra road has been rnoved further north to reduce its impoct on the bluff, and while still appearing to be within the bluff impact zone, it Is above the top of the bluff and behind a significant ^and of trees which will tend to minimize the visual impact of the driveway. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION: If Planning Commission finds that the proposed changes to the bluff have been minimized to the greatest extent possible, that the proposed visual impacu of the changes are acceptable, and that there is suitable hardship and justification shown, then a recommendation for variance approval would be appropriate, subject to: 1 . Adherence to the plans as propos^. 2. Use of Best Management Practices for erosion control during construction, including but not limited to use of silt fencing and erosion control blankets where slopes exceed 3:1. 3. Any retaining walls exceeding 4' in height must have an engineered design. B. Wetland Impact Variances (Also sec March 13 staff memo, and City Engineer's comments in March 14 memo). Applicants have provided a rationale for the proposed impacts to wetlands #5 and #12. In the cose of #5. the basis for extensive filling of the north half of this wetland is its location at the second-shot landing area of the 5th fairway. For hole #12, the rationale for filling b again based on the need for minimum fairway width at the specified distance from the tee. Applicants indicate the fairway at thb point b at a minimum fuiKtional width of 50 yards. Applicants have also revised the final buffer widths on wetlands #2 and #5 (which are being impacted by grading) and on #4 and #7 (which are not being graded) to meet the City's 26* requirement. Wetland #11 (not a City wetland) will have a 16.5' buffer width. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If Planning Commission determines hat the requested wetland grading/filling \nriances are supported by valid and odeqU iC hardships, suff recommends approval as revised, based on the applicant having p >vided substantial mitigation resulting in a net gain in wetland acreage, and based on appr «priate integration of wTtlands into the stormwater management plan, subject to the follow ig conditions: a. Use of proper erosion control methods during construct' >n.