02-17-2005 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

RRRINERD W R W TEL :218-828-6043 Feb 17 '05 9 : 19 No .001 P .02 Tom Woog, Chairman,Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Page 2 "Commercial PUDs also differ from residential PUDs in the way they am planned and used. First, commercial PUDS, such as resorts try to accommodate space needs of different customers. The concept of average unitt arm raging from 200 to 1,500 sgwm feet accommodates this need. Secondly, commercial PUDs involve entrepreneurship. Them is competition involved. Therefore they keep on evolving. and changing. Thirdly, because of the fast and second reasons the standards set for commercial PUDs am, more in tune with current architectural practice. Thus the need for separate standards for Commercial PUDs. The standards for residential PUDs do not allow this flexibility or method to figure out the density. 7base wow some of the reasons behind the separate standard for detenuining the density of residential and commercial PUDS." The above explanation speaks to one of the primary reasons the shorcland rules differentiate between commercial,and residential PUDs,and allow higher unit densities for the commercial projects. Because of the nature of these types of developments, which typically involve common ownership and a high degree of transient use, a higher unit density is necessary in order for the project to function. In essence, a break is given to these types of projects to allow a high unit density in order for the development to maintain economic viability. It does not necessarily mean that these higher densities will not have an impact on the lake, but it was recognized that there is a need to accommodate the specific requirements of this type of development. I have not been given the covenants or other "operation" documents to review. However, it is my understanding that the proposed units will be individually owned, with an option for rental or lease back to a "resort"entity for a portion of the year. When not being rented or leased, they would presumably be used for residential purposes by the individual unit owners. This type of operation is riot rocognized by the DNR as a Commercial PUD, as it is primarily residential in nature and is not czsentially service-oriented. For comparison purposes, note in the above definition,that`timo4ha 'are considered to be a form of residential PUD. Even though such developments can have a Sequent turn over of use on a year-mind basis, they are still considered to be primarily residential in nature. They have a form of individual ownership, and are not primarily scrvice oriented. Calling a project a resort does not by itself qualify it as a resort. It must also look, act, and function, as a resort. Unless it can be documented that this proposal clearly meets the requirements for Commercial PUDs, as discussed above, it is not a Commercial PUD and should, thus, be revicwed by the city as a raidcatial development. Residential PUD standards would allow a density of 16 units in the first tier,and R units in the second tier,which is less than half of what is being proposed. Other areas of concern arc as follows: Docks: Four dock clusters are being proposed, with a total of 48 mooring spaces. Shoruland standards clearly limit mooring spaces to no more than one space for each unit which the city approves in the first tier. This is required for either commercial or residential PUDs. In addition,the location of the dock clusters (as well as other shore facilities such as the launch ramp and beach areas) must be located in areas which are suitable for these uses. Suitability analysis must include factors such as land slope, water depth, soils, aquatic vegetation and other considerations such as fish and wildlife habitat impacts. It is impossible to adequately evaluate such factors during winter conditions especially those involving lake bed areas. �. Roads: A substantial portion of the proposed road system would be located in bluff and shore impact zones. 6120.3300, Subpart 5 of the Shorelands Rules provides guidance for road placement as follows: