HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 26, 2001
't
r
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-084 The Vierling property owners are requesting an amendment to
the City of Prior Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan for 320 acres located in
Sections 23 and 24, Township 115, Range 22. The proposal is to amend the Land
Use Map from the current R-HD (High Density Residential) designation and the
C-BO (Business Office Park) designation to Rural Density. (Continuedfrom the
February 12,2001 meeting)
B. Case Files #01-005 & 006 Pavek Family Investments Company/Hodgson Trust is
requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat to be known as Regal
Crest to allow a cluster townhouse development consisting of25.58 acres to be
subdivided into 78 lots for townhouse units on the property located on the west
side of CSAH 21 approximately Y4 mile north of CSAH 82. (Continued from the
February 12,2001 meeting)
C. Case File #01-003 Shamrock Development has submitted an application for a
Preliminary Plat known as The Wilds South consisting of 77.19 acres to be
subdivided into141 single family lots. This property is located on the south side
of Wilds Parkway and the north side of County Road 82.
D. Public hearing to consider a proposed Subdivision Ordinance for the City of Prior
Lake.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #00-083 Rock Creek Home Variance Resolution.
L:IO I fileslO 1 plancommlO I pcagendalag02260 I.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
f'
'"
6. New Business:
A. Island Development Ordinance Review.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:IO I meslO I plancommlO I pcagendalag02260 I.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Acting Chair Stamson called the February 12,2001, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego and Lemke,
Stamson, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer
Sue McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
Vonhof
Absent*
Present
Present
Present
Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the January 16,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
*Commissioner Atwood arrived at 6:32 p.m.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-084 (Continued) The Vierling property owners are requesting
an amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan for 320
acres located in Sections 23 and 24, Township 115, Range 22. The proposal is to
amend the Land Use Map from the current R-HD (High Density Residential)
designation and the C-BO (Business Office Park) designation to Rural Density.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 12,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
Helen, Edward, Michael and Rebecca Vierling filed an application for a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for the property located on the north side of CSAH 42 between Pike
Lake Trail and CSAH 18. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map from the current R-HD (High Density Residential) and the C-BO (Business
Office Park) designations to the Rural Density designation on 320 acres of land.
L\O I files\O I pIancornm\O I pcminutes\mn02I20 I.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12,2001
The Planning Commission considered this item at a public hearing on January 16, 200l.
At that meeting, the applicants' representatives distributed a packet of information. The
Planning Commission continued the public hearing in order to review this information.
The public hearing was closed at that time.
The January 15,2001, letter submitted by the firm of Kelly & Fawcett, P.A.,
representatives of the applicants, contained several reasons they believe the
Comprehensive Plan should be amended. Kansier categorically contested each item
listed in their letter.
In 2000, the property owners requested the City approve a request for this property to be
reenrolled in the Agricultural Preserve program. The City refused this request on the
basis the property no longer qualified for program participation because it failed to meet
the statutory requirements. The current Comprehensive Plan designation of the property
does not preclude the use of this land for agricultural purposes. The City has no
objection to enrollment of this property in the Green Acres program, which provides
some tax protection for existing farmland. The City also has no plans to rezone this
property from its current A (Agricultural) district unless requested to do so by the
property owners.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency submitted a letter dated February 1,2001
indicating a long history with the applicant on water quality runoff issues.
The current designation of this property for use as something other than long-term
agriculture has been in place since 1995. The applicants have not demonstrated any need
to change this designation. Staff recommended denial of the request.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Questioned why only 240 acres out of the 320 acres are being asked to change.
Kansier said the request includes all 320 acres. The 240 acres are what the
Vierlings initiated for removal.
. Why would the remaining acreage have to be requested? Kansier responded it
was still in the Ag Preserve Program. But it no longer meets the statutory
requirements. The City has taken no steps to initiate removal of that property.
. If the City would take action it would probably take 8 years? Kansier said it was
her understanding the City would have to adopt a resolution stating initiation of
removal and it would take 8 years before it actually came out.
. Questioned the tax issues and the City's ability to take over property as well as
enforce ordinances in the area. Kansier explained the public projects relating to
the Ag Preserve Ordinance.
. Criego and Stamson recapped the definition.
. Questioned State regulations from the PCA.
L\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn021201.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12,2001
Comments from the Public:
Jim Sullivan, Enforcement Project Leader for the Southeast District of the State,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, MPCA, 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155,
stated the environmental issues came up in 1996 when the MPCA was first made aware
of the discharge issue. The Agency and Vier lings have made some effort to address some
of the issues. Sullivan said he did not want to make excuses as to why the issue has not
been resolved, but there has been administrative process related to enforcement issues.
They are downsizing government and the Agency has been reorganized. MPCA is
looking for assurance that the discharge from the facility does not exceed State Water
Quality Standards. The other option is a no discharge facility under the Federal Rules.
The agency is currently negotiating with the farm to address the issues and set a
corrective action plan within the next month.
Criego asked if the property was in theAg Preserve Program would the MPCA have the
same rights to impose. Sullivan responded it had no impact on their ability to regulate.
The Ag Program is not a program they administer. He went on to say on the Federal
level, that there are a number of grant program to help farmers. Sullivan said he is not
aware of the affects of the City's Comprehensive Plan; the District Conservationists for
the NRCS could answer that better.
Criego questioned if the land was in Ag Preserve, would the regulations referred to still
apply. Sullivan said "Absolutely, the MPCA regulations still stand". Being in the Ag
Program may not help with the funding.
Commissioner Stamson re-opened the public hearing.
Comments from the Public:
Attorney Patrick Kelly of Kelly & Fawcett Law Firm in St. Paul, representing the
Vierlings, said the key issue is that the City Planners are representing no plans of
rezoning. The Vierlings are asking for purposes of the farm operation to allow them to
go into the Ag Preserve. The Vierlings want to continue farming and have no plans to
rezone. It is important to allow the farming operation to continue. They have an 8 year
plan and the Ag Preserve allows farming without intrusion from local regulations.
Michael Vierling, 13985 Pike Lake Trail, said his farm produces soybeans and milk. In
1976 the State of Minnesota certified the Vierling farm as a century farm. There are
State programs to protect the land from 10 to 30 years. Vierling said he did not want to
put money into the operation and two years later have the City come and take his land.
He has to improve the feedlot. At the last meeting the neighbors said they wanted the
Vierlings to farm. The Constitution said there should be freedom. Vierling felt it was not
fair he should lose out on all the programs just because he lives in Prior Lake. The City
is saying it is ready to develop. He would like to continue farming at least 10 years until
he knows what his kids want to do. Ifhe continues farming for 10 years, the 2020 Plan
will still be 10 years away. That is why his Dad took the land out of Ag Preserve because
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn021201.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12, 2001
you don't know what the future is going to be. Vierling quoted the Prior Lake American
quoted the City, Mayor Wes Mader and a neighbor. He said he felt if the City doesn't let
his family farm with his kids, you might as well get a machine gun and blow everyone
away.
Gary Matson, 4584 Hummingbird Trail, lived in Prior Lake two years, said everyone is
taken away by the beauty of the Vierling farm. He hopes that carries some weight.
Dan Klamm, 4130 140th Street, said his family fought for this Country, it bothers him to
see how this piece of America and history is going down. It bothers him that the Ag
Preserve gives the City the power to stop whatever makes the Vierling farm go. Klamm
told the Commissioners to give it to the Vierlings, turn the cheek and help them farm.
People move to Prior Lake for recreation, quality oflife, quality people, a good time and
a community that cares for one another.
Kimbel R. Raden, 14211 Shore Lane, does not know what Council members like or
dislike the farms. People who like the farm probably had relatives on the farm and
probably had to actually go out and work for a days living. The people who don't like
farms would rather slip a gas station here or there or on somebody else. They're not
really telling anybody what is going on because they know how to make a little more
money for the City. He stated he understands making money for the City. One of the
reasons he moved to the City is because of Mike and Becky's farm. Radin is from a farm
background and military background and comes from a hardworking family. He totally
respects anyone who goes out and works day in and day out. When it is up to a group of
people to decide for a man or woman for their kids' fate not to be able to carry on what
they want to do. He felt every citizen in Prior Lake should know who hates the open
spaces and farms. Then we know who we're up against. It is good for everybody.
Raden felt the Commissioners should side with the farm.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. It is hard to fight the issue of having or not having a farm. I would love to see the
farm another 300 years. It is not the issue. I would love to have open land all
around. Prior Lake is growing. How do we grow sensibly without causing
hardship for individuals? Prior Lake is a small community and limited for
growth.
. The question is, do we want to grow the City any larger than it is now? The 2020
Comprehensive Plan does say that we need to grow and we will grow based on
various input from the citizens of Prior Lake. There have been many meetings on
the Comprehensive Plan and they address all these issues before us tonight. Do
we all agree? Obviously not.
. Would I like to have many more farms? Absolutely.
. Is it possible long term? Probably not.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn021201.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12. 2001
· I would love to slow the process. The one thing that comes back to me. Not
against the Ag Preserve Program ifit has benefits for the Vierling family.
· Concern is that once it goes back to Ag Preserve. It could stay that way for
another 150 years to 300 years. Is that really what the citizens of Prior Lake
want?
. This is an emotional issue.
· Not clear after all the testimony from Mr. Kelly and the City what the true benefit
of the Ag Preserve Program other than it leaves control within the family. Which
we all know in 1993 the family decided to pull out of the Ag Preserve. It was not
the City nor the citizens decision, it was the Vierling's decision.
· I believe there was a logical reason Mr. Vierling did that. We do not know what
Mr. Vierling saw.
· If I could get a guaranty of 8 to 10 years, I would be more than happy to agree.
But the fact is once it goes back to preserve it could be locked up forever.
Stamson:
· Don't come up and point your finger and say you are going to force them offthe
farm after you just moved in to a new house on somebody else's farm. People
have to realize the decisions made affect somebody. It is not the City who is the
bad guy here, the City is responding to what is going on in the community.
· Prior Lake is a growing community and we have these issues before us. The City
is responding not initiating this issue.
· Agreed with Criego, the farm is an asset to the community. The issue is not that
the City wants the farm.
· The Comprehensive Plan is long term. The realty is this community will not be
rural in 2020, regardless of the actions taken today. What the City is saying is if
the Vierlings decide to sell, and someone decides to develop, the City would like
the land use to be Business Office Park and high density. The decision to sell is
entirely up to Mr. Vierling.
· There has to be some type of plan that drives the City in the future to say here is
what we want the City to look like, so it is an efficient and an attractive City at the
time it is built. Otherwise it will end up haphazard like cities out east that develop
without this type of planning.
· I downloaded information from the State and read through Agriculture Preserve
which repeats over and over again, is long-term farm uses. Their idea oflong
term is 8 years to get it out. Their idea of long term is a minimum of 8.
· Mr. Vierling stated he would like to farm 8 to 10 years. He will not be forced out.
The marketing conditions in this area are not going to force him off in that
amount of time. The surrounding cities and suburbs will more likely attract
developers before Prior Lake. It is not in demand.
· The idea of Ag Preserve was not to cut a deal for a few years. The program
stresses long-term farming. Even Mr. Vierling stated it is not his intent. He is
looking at 10 years. That is not the intention of the Ag Preserve program.
· The issue is what the Comp Plan does and what it needs to be. Rural residential
was designed for area where there are no services available to allow agriculture
L:\Ol files\O 1 plancomm\01 pcminutes\mn021201.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12,2001
uses for a longer term, maybe 30 or 40 years. This is not appropriate for this
place.
. The feeling of the Commissioners and Council five years ago and when the
Comprehensive Plan was recently update the idea was this area will develop 15 to
20 years out.
. The uses are appropriate. Cannot support changes.
Lemke:
. Agreed with the comments from the Commissioners. It is an emotional issue.
. What we are talking about is not what the land is going to be used for tomorrow.
It is zoned Agriculture, tomorrow it will be agriculture. Weare talking about
somewhere in the future. If the land is developed what will it look like.
. I wouldn't be truthful or honest to say 20 or 30 years down the road that it will
still be agriculture.
. Anyone else moving out here has the right to look at a Comprehensive Plan and
know what the future of that land will look like.
. Mr. Vierling and his attorney, Mr. Kelly stated the land would be developed some
day.
. Will not support changing the existing designation of the Comprehensive Plan.
Atwood:
. Couldn't agree more on an emotionally charged issue.
. Is rural density appropriate? Kansier explained the designation and the services.
. If the Comprehensive Plan is amended, what is the process and the cost for the
City? Kansier explained the process - two ways it could be amended again. The
City would do an update of the plan. The costs are staff time, publications, public
hearing notices and hearing costs. The other option would be for the property
owner to file an amendment, the process is the same - go before the Planning
Commission and then the final decision is made by the City Council. The filing
fees generally do not cover the full cost of the process. The cost if initiated by the
City is paid by the taxpayers.
. Time frame? Kansier said it could take 45 to 90 days depending on meeting
schedules.
. The Metropolitan Council needs to approve all Comp Plan Amendments.
. The Planning Commission is an advisory committee who makes a
recommendation to the City Council.
. What does it look like to the citizens of Prior Lake ifthe Comp Plan is amended?
Kansier explained it gives residents and others who move here an idea of what the
plan will be through the year 2020. The document can be changed.
. Nobody will come in and take the Vierling farm a minute after 2020. Some
people see this as a threat of taking the farm.
. See no reason not to let them apply for the Ag Preserve program.
. There are two sides to everything. Does not see a burden on the City to change
the Comp Plan.
. Would like to see the Vierlings step up to the plate and pay the costs.
L: \0 I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn02120 I.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12,2001
. If this does not pass, the Commission does not make the final decision; no one is
trying to take away the beautiful farm.
Criego:
. Missing something, a month ago, the taxes were one of the big issues. The
Vierlings claimed it was a tax problem if it was not in Ag Preserve. That is not
so.
. Two things are coming across. One is the fear the City is going to do something
that would inhibit you from farming. The second concern is putting up any
accessory structures because of requests the City might require.
. The MPCA says they are trying to help the Vierlings to not pollute the water and
there is some funding available to help. The only thing I can put my finger on is
fear of the City taking over some of the property.
. Mike Vierling said, "Just look at what the City did to the Mendens and Kops.
Look what they had to do to fight. The Kops lost their farm. I'm the only one
left. The Jeffers farm is going to be developed. The City took their farms away.
The City is always looking for parks, fire stations, whatever. Why should I put in
thousands of dollars into that feedlot and like the MPCA said if! don't get into
the Ag Preserve Program I won't get no funding. Why should I put all the money
in? What is the difference in the Zoning? The City can take it out tomorrow."
. Kansier responded the City could not take it out unless the Comprehensive Plan
was amended.
. Why would the City amend it now then turn around and amend it again? It
doesn't make sense.
. Vierling asked if the City could guarantee 10 years?
. The concern is what could happen is that the kids and their kids want to continue
farming and more power to them. At least in the Comprehensive Plan
. We as citizens have seen what happens when a City tries to take over land. There
is a huge outcry and there should be. There is no intent of takeover of the farm.
It is up to the Vierlings if they want to develop the property.
. Vierling questioned what would happen ifhe guaranteed he would take it out in
10 years.
. Kansier pointed out Mr. Vierling's intentions are good but probably not legal. It
would be provisional contract zoning which is illegal in the State. The City
would have to talk to the City Attorney.
. Mr. Kelly said he was a City Attorney for a number of cities in the metropolitan
area and stated agreements could be made in unique situations like this and amend
the Comprehensive Plan at any time. The City is under the obligation under the
2020 plan to re-look at the Comprehensive Plan. Kelly said the Vierlings could
give the City a guarantee in 10 years they are going to be out farming. They want
the 10 years to allow the farming use based on their land use experts and
engineers. The Ag Preserve gives the Vierlings all the things they want to do.
. Do we (Commissioners) need legal advice on the 10 year agreement? Kansier said
they would.
. Can the Commissioners pass a recommendation to City Council with certain
conditions and let City Council and the legal staff decide if it is appropriate?
L:\Ol files\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\mn021201.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12,2001
Kansier said there is nothing stopping the Commission from making a
recommendation.
Stamson:
. Opposed to that approach, it is bad government. This is a long term planning
document. The idea for government is to treat the community as a whole and
look out for the entire community's best interest. The drive is to direct
development further out. This would happen all over the City if that if that is
agreed to.
. Agree it is a tough decision.
Criego:
. The Comp Plan is known for a long range plan, do not see any problem modifying
the plan.
Stamson:
. It should be modified on situations that are changing to alter the long term plans.
We can't make long term plans reflect short term goals. That is not the way to do
it.
Atwood:
. Questioned Criego why 10 years makes him feel better? Criego responded if there
is no time limit it can be farmed for the next 300 years. That is detrimental to the
City of Prior Lake. To have the City give up that right at this point is not a proper
judgment. The proper judgment would be to give the citizens and the Vierlings
what they need. And if that is 10 years more power to them. That doesn't mean
they have to stop farming, it just comes out of the Ag Preserve.
. Questioned Criego why he felt if the Vierlings farmed another 10 years it would
be detrimental to Prior Lake. Criego felt in the Ag Preserve program it is. The
Green Acre program is fine. At some point a developer will pay an enormous
price to develop that land. If it is in the Ag Preserve it will take 8 years to get out
of the program. By that time the developer will be long gone and find another
piece of property. If it's not in the Ag Preserve, the Vierlings can sell the
property at that point and take advantage of the offer.
. Questioned Criego why he (the City) would be making that decision for the
Vierlings. Criego responded the Vierlings took the land out of the Ag Preserve in
1993, it was not the City.
. The City based their 1995 Comprehensive Plan on the Vierlings taking the land
out of the Ag Preserve. It was done that way because of the Vierlings.
. Criego felt 10 years was a good compromise. The Comprehensive Plan is a 20
year document.
. The Vierlings should be able to decide. Does not have a problem with the
Vierlings staying in Ag Preserve.
. Criego responded that the Comprehensive Plan which was discussed with the
citizens of Prior Lake, the Planning Commission and City Council and because of
the actions of the Vierlings they decided to make the land something different
L:\Olfi1es\Ol plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn021201.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12, 2001
from farming. Now because of financial considerations and a fear of the
government, the Vierlings would like the Ag Program to be re-instituted for a
period of time. I can accept that, but not forever. They can still farm forever; no
one says they can't, just not under the Ag Preserve program.
Stamson:
· The bottom line is there is no financial impact. The real concern is that the City is
going to initiate something that will cease the existence of the farm, which mayor
may not happen.
· Criego felt the Commission is a buffer between the citizens of Prior Lake and the
government. The City mayor may not cease the operation. The chances of
stopping the operation are minute. Understand Vierlings' fear.
· This document has been worked on for a long time and under the scrutiny of the
Met Council and now we're talking about changing. We should not base the
amendment on one family's fear of what is not going to happen. This is not the
way to run a government. It is not good for the balance of the citizens of Prior
Lake.
Kansier explained the Comprehensive Plan and all approvals from the Met Council.
Atwood:
· Does not want to be part of a Commission that anyone can stand up and put a
Superamerica in my next door lot. That's not what we're doing here.
. There is tons of sentiment in this community and this property is a landmark, for
those reasons we should extend a hand for some peace of mind, whether or not we
agree with it. Their fears are real. Why tie their (the Vierlings) hands behind their
back.
Stamson:
· There is no concrete actionable thing the City is doing to stop the farming
operation. The fear something might happen is a less valid reason to re-write the
ordinance.
· This is a primary piece of real estate. It is on the comer to two maj or roads in a
developing community. Is the best use of that land rural residential? It is not
what Mr. Vierling wants to do with is property, that's up to him. From the City's
point of view, is rural residential the best use for that property? It is not, long
term.
· If Mr. Vierling wants to stay in the farm, that's up to him. What the
Comprehensive Plan does is set an instance ifhe decides to quit farming what is
going to happen to it?
· Weare discussing a planning document and what the purpose is.
Atwood:
· Agreed. But felt there are certain circumstances that dictate certain allowances
and this one of the instances.
· Believes the average citizen in Prior Lake would agree.
L\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn021201 ,doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12.2001
Lemke:
. Questioned Mr. Kelly on eminent domain protection. Kelly read the Met
Council's interpretation.
. Understand under eminent domain the land can be condemned in a one year time
frame.
. Kelly said that definition is going on the Ag Preserve Program.
. Kelly responded the Vierlings are concerned that a government agency will come
in and condemn part of the farm. The Ag Preserve will protect them from any
government agency and let them continue farming.
. The authority's right under eminent domain, the 8 years would not be an ironclad
guarantee. If an authority came in to condemn this property even though it is in
Ag Preserve, the EQB would look at it and say no other alternative exists, they
can only delay it for one year if another alternative exist. Kelly said those
procedures are on a high standard of taking the farming operation as a priority for
the purpose of statute. There are a number of hoops. It's not just saying we want
this land for "x" purpose. It has to be balanced out.
. Kansier noted that procedure applies when acquiring land or easement having an
area of 10 acres or more. This procedure is over and above the eminent domain
procedure in the Ag Preserve.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST
FOR CHANGE OF STATUS ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE
CONDITION WITHIN TWO YEARS THE PROCESS TO TAKE IT OUT OF AG
PRESERVE IS UNDERTAKEN BY THE OWNER THEREBY ALLOWING IT TO BE
OUT OF THE AG PRESERVE WITHIN TEN YEARS.
V ote taken indicated ayes by Atwood and Criego, nays by Stamson and Lemke. The
motion fails.
The deadline for the City to take action is in March. It can go the City Council with no
recommendation.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO DENY THE REQUEST.
V ote taken indicated ayes by Stamson and Lemke, nays by Atwood and Criego. The
Motion fails.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO TABLE THE REQUEST TO
THE FEBRUARY 26, 2001, MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 8: 00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8: 11 p.m.
L\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn021201.doc
10
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12,2001
B. Case File #00-083 Rock Creek Homes are requesting variances to minimum
lot area and structure setback to the ordinary high water mark for the construction
of a single family home on the property located at 5690 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE,
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated February 12,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Rock Creek Homes, LLC
(applicant), representing Christopher Rooney (owner), for the construction of a single
family dwelling with attached garage on the property located at 5690 Fairlawn Shores
Trail SE.
The following variances are requested:
. A 418 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 7,082 square feet for the lot to
be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes, rather than the required
minimum 7,500 square feet
. A 2.1- foot variance to allow a structure setback of 51.2 feet from the ordinary
high water mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet, rather than the required setback
of 53.3 feet as determined by setback averaging.
Department of Natural Resources Hydrologist Patrick Lynch submitted comments on this
request. In essence, the DNR is not opposed to the proposed variance provided the
correct setback averaging is utilized, and the applicant is advised that any future requests
for a variance to add a deck will not be viewed favorably by the DNR.
Staff determined a legal alternative building envelope exists, which meets the front yard
set back of 35.5 feet as proposed, and meets the lakeside setback averaging of 53.3 feet.
This provides for a building footprint of approximately 47.9 feet by 34 feet for a total
area of 1,628.6 square feet.
A resident adjacent to the subject lot submitted a letter with views opposed to the
requested variances.
Staff recommended approving the lot area variance and denying the setback variance
request.
Criego questioned if the owners of Lot 33 also owned Lot 32. Horsman said it was his
understanding it was.
Comments from the Public:
Applicant Dan Schafer, of Rock Creek Homes, 16817 Duluth Avenue SE, said they are
proposing a new single family structure. They are utilizing the 150 foot setback
averaging. All the other setbacks have been met. The neighboring properties on
Fairlawn are sitting on a 25 foot setback. They would like to be consistent with the
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn021201.doc 11
Planning Commission Meeting
FebrualJ'12,2001
neighbors. Ifthe 2.1 foot setback against the high water level is not acceptable they
would request the setback variance be to the street side.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Questioned the street setback at 25 feet. Horsman said under the new ordinance
the Code requires a street setback averaging with existing lots of record. In the
new development it would be 25 feet.
Criego:
. Questioned the front setback. Horsman explained the ordinance. The minimum
setback is 25 feet.
. No problem with the first requested variance.
. Did not agree to give the lakeside variance. Move forward.
Stamson:
. Agreed with Criego the lot size variance is need. The house is not oversized.
. The setback in the front is reasonable given the lot area.
Atwood and Lemke:
. Agreed.
Atwood:
. Keep the neighbors in mind regarding the trucks and parking.
Criego:
. The Commission is really strict on impervious surface. Any future request for a
deck would not be agreed to. If this is the size house you want without a deck,
design it that way.
. Question to staff in regards setbacks with the substandard lots - 10 feet on one
side and 5 on the other, what is happening with the air conditioning units?
. Horsman said mechanical equipment are only permitted in the back or front of the
building.
. Asked the developer Schafer what his plans were. Schafer said they discussed the
location of the AC unit and will put it on the lake side.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
005PC GRANTING A 418 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT AREA
OF 7,082 SQUARE FEET FOR A LOT TO BE UTILIZED FOR SINGLE FAMILY
DETACHED DWELLING PURPOSES, RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED
MINIMUM AREA OF 7,500 SQUARE FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn021201.doc 12
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12,2001
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A 2.1 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
C. Case File #01-001 Centex Home is requesting a zone change for 38.9 acres of
vacant land located on the west side of CSAH 83, ~ mile south of CSAH 42, in the
East ~ ofthe NW ~ of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The
proposal is to remove the Shoreland District designation from this property and to
rezone the property from the current A (Agricultural) District to the R-2 (Low to
Medium Density Residential) District.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 12,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
Centex Homes and John O'Loughlin have filed an application for a Zone Change for the
property located on the west side of CSAH 83, l/4 mile south of CSAH 42, in the East Y2
of the Northwest l/4 of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The request is
to rezone the property from the A (Agricultural) District to the R-2 (Low to Medium
Density Residential) District, and to remove the Shoreland District designation from the
site.
The proposed R-2 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designation. The R-2 district allows residential development with densities up to 7.2
units per acre. This would allow townhouse qevelopment, as well as 6,000 square foot
single family residential lots.
The Shoreland District definition and Minnesota Rules allow the reduction of the
Shoreland District if the natural drainage area of the property is away from the water
body. In this case, the property lies outside of the Mystic Lake drainage area and drains
to the northwest. The Planning staff recommended approval of the request. The
proposed R-2 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
designation. In addition, the property lies outside of the practical limits of the Mystic
Lake Shore land District.
Pat Lynch, Area Hydrologist from the DNR has also reviewed this request and has no
objections.
Sue McDermott, City Engineer, said the City received a preliminary grading plan and
there is no drainage going towards Mystic Lake.
Comments from the Public:
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn021201.doc 13
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12.2001
Developer, Steve Ach, Centex, 12400 Whitewater Drive, Minnetonka, said he agreed
with the Planning Report. He reminded the Commission he presented a concept plan
several weeks ago. They have several constraints with the property, i.e. surrounding
zoning and topography. One of the reason they are requesting the R2 zone is to look for
a blend of uses with transitional townhomes to single family homes. The overall density
is around 3.8 units per acre well short of the 7 that R2 allows. Regarding the Shoreland
Ordinance request, their drainage will go to the north. The plan is to berm as much as
possible along County Road 83 and provide an aesthetic buffering and grade change to
further enhance the visual separation from the development and Mystic Lake.
Criego questioned Ach on the existing stand of trees. Ach stated they were going to
preserve as many of the trees as possible. A tree inventory had been sent to the City.
Some will be removed because of the drainage. Overall, the developer will enhance the
buffer.
Julie Cleary, 2920 Pineview Drive said she wanted to preserve the integrity of the
neighborhood. The cost and home values of the residents of The Wilds far exceed the
cost of the proposed units across County Road 83. Cleary stated she was concerned that
every corner has turned into townhomes similar to Savage. The southern border area of
The Wilds has also turned into a number of townhomes as well as the proposed west area
with lower income properties. Cleary is concerned with lowering the value of The Wilds
property.
Stanley Ellison, Land and Natural Resource Director ofthe Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community, 2330 Sioux Trail NW, has no concern for removing the property from
the Shoreland area stating it is clearly not a drainage basin for Mystic Lake. The
Community opposes the rezoning from the R2. First there are many potentials for
environmental issues including high slopes and drainage. The R2 zoning and high
density that comes up with townhomes, will create difficulty given the steep slopes and
the amount of impermeable surface that would have to go in with the townhomes to get
this project, will create wetland impacts and serious potential erosions. The second issue
is that the housing may not be the best use of the property. The Community has
commercial property to the south; the area to the north is guided for commercial. Single
family housing does not generate a lot of cash flow. Ellison's third concern is for the
service area. This project will be going in with the joint City, Council and Tribal project
which is not going in the within the next year.
McDermott said there are existing sewer and water stubs on County Road 83 and The
Wilds, which will not affect the project.
Atwood questioned Ellison on the single family dwelling generating a large cash flow.
Ellison explained how there is no on-going cash flows with single family homes. This
property has extremely steep slopes. A large amount of grading will take place and the
area will still remain steep with a very large potential for runoff into the wetland
damaging water quality. The townhomes make it worse.
L:\Ol files\OI plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn021201.doc 14
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12,2001
Stamson said the majority of the housing will be single family. Stamson asked what
Ellison felt was a better use to alleviate the problems. Ellison said single family from a
purely technical standpoint of water quality is a fairly reasonable use. Because there is
commercial zoning on the surrounding areas, people will not want to pay a lot of money
for a lot when their view will be the back of a 7-11.
Stamson questioned the Community's plan for the surrounding property? Ellison said the
west will be single family housing and the steep slope will be put into native prairie grass
and an oak savannah as a buffer zone for the housing up on the hill and the wetland on
the bottom. The large commercial area will be the City's property to the north.
Lemke questioned the DNR's letter regarding the runoff. Ellison said some of the
project's runoff will go directly into the wetland. There are other issues with downstream
permitting.
Chris Dahl, 15259 Wilds Parkway, said he took a lot of time to find the appropriate site
to live. They came from a townhouse development and it is not what they wanted to
move into. Dahl said he is dismayed they have townhomes outside their front door. Now
the west and east entrances will have townhomes. Hopes the City does not give into the
townhome developments stating he likes the small community.
Kansier clarified the Rl zone does not preclude townhouses at a lower density. The
density for Rl 3.6 units per acre. The difference for the R2 zoning is the smaller single
family lots.
Peter Hennen, 15249 Wilds Parkway, said he is for development. His concerns are for
traffic near the entrances and what is the anticipated price range for the homes. What are
the number of units? Stamson said right now they are looking at the rezoning issue and
do not have a lot of detail on the planning. Kansier said one entrance will be off Wilds
Parkway. The traffic study is going on with the redevelopment on County Road 83.
McDermott said the County would to see the main entrance west of County Road 83 up
further on the north property line with a % entrance off Wilds Parkway.
Tony Firollo, 14504 Wilds Parkway shared the same concern with the traffic. The
existing traffic is heavy on County Road 83. He does not want to see people cutting
through The Wilds as a shortcut. His other concern was the price range of the
development stating he lives in an upper bracket home and felt the proposed development
will lower the value of his home.
Chris Dahl, questioned the developer on the price range of the homes stating if the homes
are going to be $90,000, let him know now so he can sell his house and get out before the
homes are built. Everyone at The Wilds is living in a $400,000 to $700,000 home and
are concerned with this project. Ach said they are looking at two different products
$225,000 to 250,000 for single family homes. Originally the townhomes were going to
L\OI files\OI pJancomm\Olpcminutes\mn021201.doc 15
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12.2001
be in the $150,000 to $160,000 range. Suspects that may go up with the constraints on the
site. Shakopee has smaller lots but the average home is $230,000.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Appreciate the homeowners concern, but there is so much commercial across the
street.
Lemke:
. Initial thought was with Atwood's point indicating the commercial property
across the street.
. The developer is not going to be building $600,000 homes similar to The Wilds.
. The plan is appropriate. Maybe change the mix.
Criego:
. This issue is whether to zone R2, immaterial for what is planned. That is the next
stage. Concern for the topography.
. Part of the process in the next step is to deal with the steep slopes.
. The issue is to rezone to Rl or R2.
. Because of the lay ofthe land, it makes more sense to stack the townhomes in a
confined area leaving the steep slopes and trees. This was never designated as
commercial property in the Comprehensive Plan.
. Rl basically says there will be a lot of single family homes with a lot of acreage.
But those homes would take away most of the slopes and cause a lot of grading.
R2 at least we (the City) has the ability to retain the slopes and condense the
homes to a point where the slopes are not disturbed.
. R2 is the correct zone.
Stamson:
. Agreed with Criego the issue is zoning.
. It has been designated for residential property. High density and Commercial
designations are not appropriate.
. The trouble with Rl and the larger lots is that it spreads out the homes. More
acreage is used. With R2 you can cluster the homes and preserve the natural
features and leave the open spaces. R2 allows a smaller minimum lot size than
Rl. That is the advantage ofR2 in this particular case. In the long run that type
of approach will give a nicer approach. R2 is appropriate. The density in this case
actually meets the Rl.
. There is no concern for the Wilds residents; a development like this does not have
a negative impact. Prior Lake has developments where one has to drive through
an industrial park to get to it. The developer is still building $250,000 and
$300,000 homes. That type of thing has a lot less proven impact than people
imagine it will. It is not an issue.
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\mn021201.doc 16
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12,2001
. There will be traffic problems but would be that way with any development going
m.
· Work with developer to preserve the natural features. The Commission will really
look at preservation when the plat comes in.
MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE ZONE CHANGE FROM THE A (AGRICULTURE) DISTRICT TO THE R-2
(LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND TO REMOVE THE
DESCRIBED PROPRETY FROM THE MYSTIC LAKE SHORELAND DISTRICT.
Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on February 20,2001.
D. Case File #01-004 John and Linda Meyer are appealing the Zoning
Administrator's decision to not allow a 24 foot square detached accessory structure
on Lots 62 and 64, Twin Isles.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated February 12,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received an appeal notice from Attorney Bryce D. Huemoeller
(Applicant), representing John & Linda Meyer (Owners). The appeal regards the
Planning Departments decision to not permit construction of an accessory structure on
two vacant lots on "Twin Isles". The applicant's request to allow the construction was
submitted to the City in a letter dated December 15,2000. On December 28,2000, staff
responded and denied the request with an explanation and the option to appeal the
decision.
This case originated from a complaint in September 1999, regarding the construction of
an accessory building on two vacant lots on "Twin Isles", specifically Lots 62 and 64.
Upon inspection, staff determined the construction had commenced without the necessary
building permits. The property owner was notified of the violation and halted
construction. The owner's first option was to apply for a building permit to construct a
seasonal cabin on the vacant lots because accessory structures are not permitted.
On September 18, 2000, the City adopted Ordinance Amendment 00-22 that permits
accessory structures on two or more nonconforming lots under single ownership that are
separated by a private road or driveway from the lot containing the principal structure.
The owner is now proposing to combine lots 62 and 64, with Lots 43,44, and 45, which
contain the principal structure, and complete construction of the accessory building.
An appeal to the decision of the Zoning Administrator is not site specific and affects the
way in which the ordinance is applied in all situations. In summary, the listed permitted
"Uses" for accessory structures in the general provisions code section are not listed
permitted "Uses" in the special provisions code section for island development. In
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\mn02120J.doc 17
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12.2001
addition, the City staffs long-standing policy has been to interpret the ordinance as not
permitting accessory structures on "Twin Isles". The staff therefore recommends the
Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the
appeal as requested.
Comments from the public:
Jim Bates, attorney for the applicant, 16670 Franklin Trail, stated this is a fairly narrow
legal issue. He disagreed with staff interpretation of the ordinance and felt the Island
ordinance is directed to maintaining uses of the property are on a seasonal basis. It is
reasonable to expect that someone who uses the property on a seasonal basis may have
need for an accessory structure. If you mow the lawn, you do not want to store it in the
cabin residence. The new ordinance which allows combining lots separated by a
driveway and putting an accessory structure that is separated from the main structure is
appropriate to this circumstance. He felt the ordinance gives the opportunity to come
before the Commission and have them determined if it meets the ordinance. Bates felt it
follows the function of the ordinance on a base by base issue. The decision is
interpreting the ordinance. With all due respect to staff, it is up to the Planning
Commission and City Council to make the decision. They do not believe there is a
conflict.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. The concern with Mr. Bates comments is the private road accepts the accessory
structure. Staff is interpreting the ordinance correctly.
. It is very clear that Island uses are not permitted.
. Agreed with staff.
Lemke:
. The way the City interprets the ordinance. The amendment was after the Island
ordinances.
. Stamson explained the ordinance. The Island is not permitted.
. The plain language of the amendment says that if a lot is separated by a road you
can build an accessory structure in an Rl.
. Stamson replied in an Rl district an accessory structure is a permitted use. It is
not permitted on the Island development. The amendment is in a distinct section
of the ordinance.
Criego:
. It is clear the subdivision does not allow garages on Twin Island. It is also very
clear the subdivision supercedes the general provision. Whether it makes sense or
not, you should be able to have a garage on Twin Island. Most homes have
accessory buildings on the Island. The realty is, they are there.
L\OI files\OI plancornrn\Olpcrninutes\nm021201.doc 18
Planning Commission Meeting
February J2, 200J
· The approach should be a change in the ordinance rather than a variance.
. Looking at this for a variance is clearly "No".
. Maybe more willing to change the ordinance.
· If the Commission accepts the variance that means anyone else can come forward
and ask for a variance.
· If the Commission decides the variance is appropriate what is done with the
existing accessory building on the property? Do we allow 2 accessory buildings?
Allow 1, maybe bigger than the applicant requested? Remove one? There are a
number of issues.
Stamson:
· This is not a variance request it is a decision appeal.
· The decision is how the Island ordinance applies. The Island ordinance does not
supercede the general ordinance. In that case it will apply to more than just
accessory structures. It will apply to how they build cabins and the Shoreland
District.
. Rye responded there are two issues: 1) The appeal and 2) Some kind of
amendment to the ordinance. The Commission can agree or disagree with staffs
interpretation. If the Commission wants to pursue something beyond that, you
have an option to look at the ordinance.
Criego:
. Believe the interpretation is correct but need to look at whether or not to change
the ordinance at a later time.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Criego that staff interpreted the ordinance correctly, but need to look
at the ordinance.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
04PC DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION
TO NOT PERMIT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
V ote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO
INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBLITY FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING FOR
STORAGE PURPOSES ON ISLAND DEVELOPMENTS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process.
E. Case Files #01-005 & 006 Pavek Family Investments Company/Hodgson
Trust is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat to be known as
Regal Crest to allow a cluster townhouse development consisting of 25.58 acres to be
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mn021201.doc 19
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12,2001
subdivided into 78 lots for townhouse units on the property located on the west side
of CSAH 21 approximately ~ mile north of CSAH 82.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 12,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
Pavek Family Investments Company and Hodgson Trust have applied for approval of a
development to be known as Regal Crest on the property located on the west side of
CSAH 21, ~ mile north of CSAH 82. The application includes the following requests:
. Approve a Conditional Use Permit for a cluster development;
. Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a cluster townhouse development consisting of a total of 78
dwelling units on 23.81 net acres, for a total density of 3.3 units per acre. The proposed
development includes 20 dwelling units in 6 four-unit buildings, 48 dwelling units in 16
three-unit buildings and 10 dwelling units in 5 two-unit buildings. The development also
includes private open space.
Staff felt the site is suitable for cluster development due to the topography, wetlands and the
existing trees on the site. The proposal attempts to preserve many of the steep slopes by
designating this area as common open space. Some modifications to the plans, however,
will improve the preservation of these slopes and preserve more of the mature trees. These
modifications include the following:
. Eliminate the units identified as Lots 6-8, Block 3, 2nd Addition. This will preserve
slopes exceeding 20% as well as some of the mature trees.
. Eliminate the units identified as Lots 9-11, Block 2, 2nd Addition. This will preserve
several mature trees.
. Limit the buildings on the north side of Street "A", shown as Lots 12-21, Block 2, 2nd
Addition, to 2- and 3-unit buildings. This will enable the buildings to be spaced further
apart and will preserve more mature trees.
. Center the temporary cul-de-sac on the east end of Street "A", and move the building
identified as Lots 1-4, Block 3, 2nd Addition, to the north so it is setback 25' from the
permanent right-of-way. This will preserve additional trees.
The primary issue relating to the preliminary plat is the storm water runoff to the
property to the south. This issue can be mitigated by the acquisition of a drainage
easement. It is the developer's responsibility to obtain this easement. There are also
several engineering issues remaining; however, these issues can be resolved prior to
approval of the final plat.
The major outstanding issue pertaining to this development is the staff recommendation
for the elimination of certain units. This has an effect on the design of the site. However,
it is possible to allow this application to move forward with a specific recommendation to
L\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn021201.doc 20
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12. 2001
the Council. The design issues, including the number of units, the landscaping and tree
preservation plans, and the submittal of building elevations must be addressed prior to
City Council review. On that basis, the staff recommended approval, subject to the
conditions outlined in the Planning Report.
Stamson:
Concern with forwarding and making major modifications. Kansier responded if the
applicants had substantial redesigns the City would recommend a new application and go
before the Planning Commission.
Comments from the public:
Darin Pavek, representing the Pavek Family Investment Company for College City
Homes said they are based out of Lakeville and have been building in the area for 35
years. Regal Crest will be upper level townhomes with prices from $250,000 to
$400,000. Many units will have 3 car garages. They have combined driveway accesses
and third car stalls to increase the curb appeal. These units will have extensive
landscaping, sprinkler system and a homeowners association to take care of all the
exterior maintenance. Over 500 trees will be planted on the site. Upon staffs
recommendation a neighborhood meeting was held. The main concern from the
neighbors would be the traffic and access on County Road 21. Pavek said they are
excited to move the project forward but are concerned with removing some ofthe units.
~,,:.
Peter Knaeb1e, engineer from Terra Engineering, stated most of his comments were
addressed by Kansier. He added the 2020 Comp Plan is currently designated urban low
to medium density residential which allows up to 10 units per acre. Their project with 78
units are under the zoning classification at 3.3 units per acre. This project is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and the adjacent to the western development mix of
townhomes and single family. They are not asking for a rezoning but a conditional use
permit, which is allowable under the Rl district. The proposal meets the zoning
provisions. The neighbor's concern is with the access on County Road 21. There will be
two accesses. Scott County concurred the appropriate connection is at Windsong Circle.
The other access will connect to Wensmann's development at Jeffer's Pass. The stub
roads to the north and south will provide future access to the undeveloped property. The
cluster housing ordinance is specific. They are under the maximum 4 units per building at
2 to 4 units. The development is also three times the maximum open space requirement.
Knaeb1e explained the open space area, protecting the natural environment (trees and
wetland) and trail system. They concurred with Staffs conditions in the Planning Report
and will make the recommended revisions.
Dan Metzger, 4130 Windsong Circle, said two high buck developments have tried to
make it in Prior Lake over the last 10 to 15 years. Windsong and The Wilds
developments still have available lots. What does work is townhome projects. But what
happens is an increase in the population and infrastructure that creates concern for the
surrounding property owners. Metzger's main concern is the proposed road across from
Wind song Circle. There is a significant drop to get to the access. Metzger spoke on the
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn021201.doc 21
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12, 2001
existing casino traffic. A traffic light at the intersection will not work, it is too
dangerous.
Atwood:
. Questioned what Metzger sees as a solution. Metzger said aside from not liking
the development he would like the access to come out at Lord's Street or build a
road along the wetland and come out at Lord's Street. The entrance through
another development is not going to work; residents will use the quickest route.
Kim Crooks, 3839 Eagle Creek Circle, representing her 18 year old daughter said her
concern is with the runoff and cited some of the existing runoff problems. She felt the
plans indicated the grading would run off to her property.
McDermott said the engineering department reviewed the plans and have concerns with
the grading and will continue to work with the engineer. Crooks pointed out a small
spring on the edge of her property. McDermott said she was not aware ofthe spring.
Stanley Ellison, Land and Natural Resource Manager for the Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community, 2330 Sioux Trail, stated the Community agreed with Staffs
recommendation to take care of the larger wetland issues. He also pointed out the
Community was not included in the neighborhood meeting. Ellison felt the wetland
impact was calculated incorrectly. The replacement wetland area does not meet State
law. The Commission needs to make sure they are met. The grading along the north end
is poorly conceived. The eastern most home on the tribal land will have drainage directly
into the swimming pool. The storm water issue is related to this. The runoff is going into
tribal land and needs to be addressed. The traffic issue is major. The woods are one of
the last remaining maple area is Scott County. It is a significant piece of history. Cutting
down and replacing 2" trees will not have the same ecological system performance that
exists today. There are a number of minor issues to be dealt with the City Engineer. The
Community agreed with staff on taking out some of the townhomes along County Road
21. Ellison requested to be included in any neighborhood meeting.
..
Kneable addressed some of the issues. The access to Windsong Circle is appropriate and
acceptable to Scott County and the City. This is the first of a number of developments in
the neighborhood. There will be other connections. Knaeble's felt their calculations off
this existing site will have less runoff than it has today. They meet and exceed the
Wetland Conservation regulations. 100% of street runoff will go into the NURP pond on
site. They are not going to clear cut the trees.
Atwood questioned the access. Knaeble explained the additional access on County Road
21. The County felt the access meets the site distance.
Knaeble pointed out they received the surrounding property list of the neighbors from the
County.
L:\O I files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn02120 I.doc 22
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12. 2001
Dino Howard, 15351 Schroeder Circle, attended the neighborhood meeting and said there
were a lot of concerns. Her concern is for safety on the existing County Road 21 and
explained the site problem coming out ofthe proposed access. It is not appropriate. She
would like to see a cul-de-sac in that area. Consider the safety issues. It sounds like the
proj ect has a number of issues to address. Howard felt the applicant should come back
with the corrected issues.
The public meeting was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. Familiar with the area. There are safety concerns with the access.
. There are no resolutions from the developer as far as removing some of the
buildings.
Atwood:
. This matter should be continued. There is a large list of issues to be discussed.
. Would like to see staffs considerations addressed by the developer.
Stamson:
. Overall the development fits the area. It is a tight area to design. Cluster housing
will preserve the natural environment.
. Agreed with staff on removing some of the units.
. Understands the safety concerns by the neighbors.
. There will be access problems on County Road 21.
. The County is very diligent on what they allow. The County felt the site lines
were well within the norm for what a County considers a safe speed. If they don't
agree they will come back with alternatives. It is closely regulated. Does not see
a problem with the access point.
. Not comfortable sending this to Council.
Criego:
. Kansier explained the Conditional Use Permit.
. The applicant has to use a CUP for cluster housing.
. The approach is right and the plan is good. It is best for the property.
. Concern is the main trees are on the north side and a little bit on the south. It is
very important to maintain the forest of trees and not take out 50% of the trees.
. With any plan that I would agree to, would be to maintain the woods and preserve
the area.
. Would like to see more concrete statements from staff that the runoff is not
exceSSIve.
. Rye addressed the runoff rate control.
. Need to discuss the issue.
L:\0l files\O 1 pI ancomm\O 1 pcminutes\rrm021201.doc 23
Planning Commission Meeting
Febroary 12, 2001
. Safety issue is a concern. The County has looked at it. The problem is the speed
and hill. The City and the County should address the problem and how to resolve
it, not the developer.
. Sidewalks are on each side of the public streets.
. Knaeble addressed the trail by the wetland area.
Stamson:
. Its not just the trees individually that are important, it is the entire stand as a
group. In this case, the tree replacement policy does not replace what exists. That
is why it is important to preserve the existing trees.
Atwood:
. The traffic is a major issue.
. Have the Engineering Department address the spring on the Crooks' property.
Criego:
. The County is not taking into account the speeding and site. People are not
suppose to speed, therefore it is safe.
. Don Pavek said moving the units will be difficult. He agreed there his a problem
with the speed on County Road 21. Something has to be done. But as far as
taking out units, maybe taking 1 or 2 units but not 9. Ifit comes to taking out that
many, they might have to withdraw. The originally started with 80 units and cut
it down to 78 now to 69. Considering the price ofland and development costs it
will be very difficult. Taking out one unit in each building will not make an
impact. Pavek explained the common area has steep slopes and cannot be built
on.
Stamson:
. Questioned Pavek if two weeks would be enough time. Pavek said it would be
tight and asked if the Commission could be present.
Criego:
. How many homes on Jeffer's Pass? Information not available with staff.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO TABLE THIS ISSUE TO
THE FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 11 :01 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11 :06 p.m.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #00-086 St. Michael's Variance Resolution.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansierpresented Resolution 01-003PC.
L\OJ files\OJ plancomm\OJpcminutes\mn02J20J.doc 24
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12,2001
The Commissioners agreed.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Atwood and Lemke, nay by Criego. MOTION
CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Review Subdivision Ordinance.
Kansier said staff will present this at the next meeting.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 11 :09 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn02120 I.doc
25
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
C. Case File #00-084 The Vierling property owners are requesting an amendment
to the City of Prior Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan for 320 acres located in
Sections 23 and 24, Township 115, Range 22. The proposal is to amend the Land Use
Map from the current R-HD (High Density Residential) designation and the C-BO
(Business Office Park) designation to Rural Density.
V onhof stated the Commissioners just received information submitted by the applicant and
will not have time to review. However, testimony would be taken by the public and most
likely the hearing will continue to the next meeting.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 16,2001, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Helen, Edward, Michael and Rebecca Vierling have filed an application for a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for the property located on the north side of CSAH 42 between Pike Lake
Trail and CSAH 18. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
from the current R-HD (High Density Residential) and the C-BO (Business Office Park)
designations to the Rural Density designation on 320 acres of land.
.,.Jlj~
This property is presently zoned A (AgriculturaiJ: The east 160 acres of the site are
designated as C-BO (Business Office Park) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map,
and the west 160 acres of the site is designated as R-HD (High Density Residential). The
applicants have requested these designations be changed to Rural Density.
The total site consists of approximately 320 acres and has been cropland for several years,
although some portions of the site are wooded. The property is used for agricultural purposes.
There is a farmstead and outbuildings located in the southwest comer of the site. Also, the
site is subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act.
.,,.;
In 2000, the property owners requested the City approve a request for this property to be
reenrolled in the Agricultural Preserve program. The City refused this request on the basis
the property no longer qualified for program participation. The City has no objection to
enrollment of this property in the Green Acres program, which provides some tax protection
for existing farmland. The City also has no plans to rezone this property from its current A
(Agricultural) district unless requested to do so by the property owners.
The current designation of this property for use as something other than long-term agriculture
has been in place since 1995. The applicants have not demonstrated any need to change this
designation.
Staff recommended denial of the request.
Comments from the public:
Attorney Patrick Kelly, Kelly & Fawcett Law Firm, 2350 Piper Jaffray Plaza, St. Paul,
representing the applicants, stated the property does not qualify for the Agriculture Preserve
Program is because of the Comprehensive Plan. Kelly said land under the R-HD zoning
equates to 30 units per acre. Kelly believes his calculations would be 4,000 to 5,000 units
with the 160 acre parcel. This is not part of the MUSA. They studied the area dealing with
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\O Ipcminutes\mnO 1 160I.doc
6
l'
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16.2001
well system issues. When and if the Vierlings decide to rezone, the City's infrastructure
would be impacted. The Vierlings have been farming this property for 150 years. As part of
the operation the Vierlings utilize approximately 170 acres on County Roads 42 and 21.
They also have 55 acres on Prior Lake. If the operation is shut down they will have no
choice but to develop.
, Stamson pointed out the City is not asking for the amendment, the Vierlings are.
Kelly felt by amending the Comprehensive Plan the City has knocked out the farming
process. If they are out of the Ag Preserve they will be piece-mealing the development.
Sections of 20 or 30 acres will become office park or commercial. This is a contradiction in
reality, normally developers come in and want to put 4,000 or 5,000 units or 3 story office
buildings. The Vierlings are asking the City to put them back in the Ag Preserve and farm. It
is an 8 year period. With the Ag Preserve Plan they will maintain farming. It is a benefit of
open space for the community. Their farming is a profitable operation.
Stamson pointed out the Vierlings initiated the 240 acres removal out of the Ag Preserve two
years prior to the City changing the Comprehensive Plan. Kelly said at that time, Helen
Vierling's husband Leo was running the farm.~ there were other issues going on in the City
of Prior Lake. Leo chose not to re-enroll butae figured he had this 8 year window to take a
look at it and see what was going on with development. Leo passed away in 1995 and his
wish was to continue farming with his son, Michael. Michael has been successful and this is
the direction the family would like to go. Most cities are striving for open space and the
Vierlings are trying to accomplish that.
Stamson referenced the staff report suggesting the alternative of Green Acres. Kelly said it
does not do what the Ag Preserve does. Kelly then summarized the Ag Preserve definition.
(473H.Ol Minnesota Statutes).
-.
*
Stamson clarified the benefits of the Ag Preserve:
. Better tax advantages
. Protected from eminent domain
. Special Assessments
. Zoning Conflicts
Stamson asked Kelly what Ag Preserve does not do. Kelly responded it involves a tax-type
situation where it allows deferring assessments as soon as the farming operation ends. With
Ag Preserve, the cities can act different ways through the power of zoning. If the farmer is in
the Ag Preserve he does not have to worry about the headaches of conflict with the best
intentions of the city. Green Acres does not protect like the Ag Preserve.
Kelly went on to say there has been correspondence back and forth with the City of Prior
Lake since February of 1999.
Atwood questioned if the remaining 110 acres are part of the Ag Preserve. Kelly responded
it was part of the operation of the farm, but there is a drainage problem with the lake
property. It is zoned office/commercial on the comer of County Roads 41 and 21.
L:\OI files\Ol plancomm\O Ipcminutes\mnO 11601.doc
7
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
Lemke questioned what governmental body approves the Ag Preserve. Kelly responded once
the City okays it, it is reviewed by the County and ultimately approved by the Met Council.
McDermott clarified there is trunk sewer and water along County Road 42 and this area.
When the County Road 42 and Pike Lake construction started a few years ago, there were
crossings put in to the north side of County Road 42. She stated she would be happy to
provide Mr. Kelly with the plans.
Stamson asked if there were any other designations besides Rural Residential that would
allow Ag Preserve. Kansier answered there was not.
Comments from the public:
Mike Vierling, 13985 Pike Lake Trail, thanked his neighbors for the support. Vierling said
people ask him why he just doesn't pack up his bags and go somewhere else. Sometimes
money does not buy happiness. He does not want to flhm anywhere else. It wouldn't be the
same. Vierling explained some of the problems he will have ifhe is not in the Ag Preserve.
He would like to see his sons have the opportunity to farm just like his Dad gave him. The
neighbors love the open spaces. He knows he will eventually be forced out. Pretty soon
there is going to houses everywhere. He wants to run the farm like a business. He can't do
that unless he is in the Ag Preserve program and asks for the City's support. What is 8 years
down the line? Even ifhe wanted to sell it would take years get it right.
Stamson questioned Vierling if 8 years is a long enough period to justify the improvements
he would like to make. Is it enough? Vierling said it was and went on to say he does not
want to put in any improvements until he knows what is going on.
Lucy Vierling Cunningham, stated the family has been farming for many years and are
dedicated to the farm. This is not the time to sell. She has a family, works full time and still
works on the farm.
Dan Klamm, 4130 140th Street NE, has known the Vierlings for 15 years and felt it was great
to see the farm exist for 150 years. Eight years is not long. Maybe the City has had
disagreements with the Vierlings but the community should come together on this issue.
Paul Lindahl, 2560 Muhlenhardt Road, felt the farm is a beautiful setting. The Vierlings are
asking for help. It is hard for a farmer to ask for assistance. It seems like such a minor thing,
at least give them a chance. They have done a lot for the community.
Russ Dunker, 4487 Chestnut Lane, said he does not know the Vierlings well but sees Mike a
few times a year. Mike has a real passion for what he does. Dunker felt it was not
unreasonable for the Vierlings to want the tax advantages. He is in support of the Vierlings
farming for as long as they want. They are very good neighbors.
Rita Baden, 13866 Pike Lake Trail, questioned how farm land is taken out of rural density
when it is being farmed. Why does the community feel they can make these changes? If the
Vierlings are willing to farm, let them make the choice. Weare losing our open space.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
8
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
Kansier explained the zoning is still agriculture and farming is a permitted use. The
Vierlings can continue to farm as long as they like. The Comprehensive Plan is a long term
plan to identify potential uses of property to allow the City, County and the rest ofthe
community to plan for things like municipal services, road systems, the park systems,
including the farm land. The City has no intention of stopping the Vierlings from farming.
The City is required to plan long term. The zoning has not changed and the City is not
requesting the amendment.
Kansier clarified the 8 years in Ag Preserve. Once the property is in the Ag Preserve
Program it does not come out until requested by the property owner. Once they make the
request the 8 year time frame starts. It is not just 8 years, it will go on until the law changes.
Kevin Shadduck, 4841 Beach Street, said the Vierlings have been great neighbors. The only
reason not to help the Vierlings farm is to perceive that the City wants to force them to sell so
the City can get a bigger tax base. It is a terrible motivation not to help a farmer.
,
Joe Zieska, 5316 Hampton, said he has looked out his window the last 14 years to see the
Vierling property and if they desire to farm for the next 100 or 200 years they can. But that
is not the issue. The property is zoned agriculture. He doesn't believe in the history of Prior
Lake (inaudible). To paraphrase Mr. Kelly we have to look at this logically from the facts.
First I would like to straighten out a few facts from Mr. Kelly. He stated the property was
zoned RHD (Rural High Density) - it is not. It is zoned Agriculture. The Comprehensive
Plan is RHD and CBO. He mentioned building 4,500 housing units on the land. The City
only has 3,000 houses. I don't see how he can put 4,500 in that little spot. He talks about
putting manufacturing and industrial in CBO. Those uses are not allowed. It has to be
business office park. Kelly speculated on the needed irifrastructure and traffic on County
Road 42. He talks about the breakdown of County Road 42 in Bumsville. There isn't anyone
here that would tell us that 42 in Bumsville is broke down. That is why we need long range
planning. The City has to look at what the plan could possibly be used for in the future. As
the City Engineer pointed out, they oversized and put trunk sewer and water mains in to get
across County Road 42 to get to Pike Lake trail projects in anticipation of future
developments. It is only right for the homeowners who live adjacent to this property.
Anyone who has been on the Planning Commission for any length of time finds when there is
difficult rezoning problems, it is not from the land owner, it is from the adjacent property
owners. When I bought my house I never knew what was going to be there. The property
owners along County Roads 42 and 18, Pike Lake Trail will sell some day or somebody else
moves in and sees the beautiful farm and all of a sudden an office building goes up they'll
say "What happened? There was a farm before." By leaving it in the Comprehensive Plan as
potential uses somewhere in the future those people who purchase that property will know
potentially what can go in there. These are the reasons the Comprehensive Plan should be
left as is. It has nothing to do with present day land use.
Dave Baden, said the Vierlings are hard workers. The cows are good neighbors too. The
open space in Prior Lake is disappearing, we need less development. He hopes the Vierlings
will be farming for another 80 years, not just 8.
Linda Lehman,13231 Henning Circle, said she has been working with the Vierlings for the
past 5 years on the environmental compliance for their feedlots. Mike Vierling is looking at
spending $35,000 to $65,000 to come into compliance with the feedlot. He needs to know if
L:\OI files\O Iplancomm\Olpcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
9
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
he will be able to farm there for the next 8 to 10 years for that issue alone. Would like the
Commissioners to allow him to continue not only for the cost issue but also for compliance
and whatever protection he needs from the Ag Preserve.
Yvonne Anderson, 13220 Pike Lake, Program Manager for the YMCA Camp and caretaker
since 1982 said the Camp has been on Pike Lake since the 1960's. At some time the YMCA
Camp will be put into a situation of the potential land use. The 80 acres they are on allows
2,500 youth each summer to come and experience the outdoors. Anderson supported the
Vierlings and asked the Commission to remember the green space.
Cindy Stark, 14730 Rosewood Road, enjoys looking over the Vierling property and Prior
Lake. The Vierling farm gives their children the opportunity to see a hard working farm.
Greg Engabos, 4931 Beach Street, appreciates what the City has done in developing the
Comprehensive Plan and understands proper planning. If it is the intent of the City of Prior
Lake to let the Vierlings continue farming, it should be demonstrated they could be put in the
best economic situation possible by allowing the Agricultural designation. Both intentions
would be met.
Jadin Bragg, Carriage Hills Development, said he listened to the Commissioners earlier
determining if there was hardship for a deck. He said it seems ridiculous the Commissioners
are pointing out they cannot change the Comprehensive Plan to let the Vierlings have what
they need. It is causing them economic hardship. Think about the area you live in.
Residents want to drive by a farm not high rise buildings. Bragg said he loves the fact he can
see Jeffers Pond and the cows. Don't change it.
Kenny Landherr, 14612 Rosewood Road, said from his family perspective they feel fortunate
to live next to the Vierling property and was the main reason they moved there. The bigger
issue is that it is a wonderful opportunity for his children to experience the farm.
K.R. Radin, 14211 Shore Lane, enjoys seeing the cows and felt Mike Vierling should have
the opportunity to continue farming.
The hearing was closed to the public.
Commissioner V onhof stated that since the Commissioners received a large packet of
material just before the meeting, they would like to continue the public hearing and give the
Commissioners time to review the information.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO
JANUARY 29,2001.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson asked for a detailed definition of Green Acres and Ag Preserve specifically the tax
details for the next packet.
A recess was called at 8:12 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:19 p.m.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O Ipcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
10
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Acting Chair Stamson called the February 12,2001, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego and Lemke,
Stamson, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer
Sue McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
Vonhof
Absent*
Present
Present
Present
Absent
DRAFT
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the January 16,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
*Commissioner Atwood arrived at 6:32 p.m.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-084 (Continued) The Vierling property owners are requesting
an amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan for 320
acres located in Sections 23 and 24, Township 115, Range 22. The proposal is to
amend the Land Use Map from the current R-HD (High Density Residential)
designation and the C-BO (Business Office Park) designation to Rural Density.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 12,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
Helen, Edward, Michael and Rebecca Vierling filed an application for a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for the property located on the north side of CSAH 42 between Pike
Lake Trail and CSAH 18. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map from the current R-HD (High Density Residential) and the C-BO (Business
Office Park) designations to the Rural Density designation on 320 acres ofland.
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn021201.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12, 2001
The Planning Commission considered this item at a public hearing on January 16,2001.
At that meeting, the applicants' representatives distributed a packet of information. The
Planning Commission continued the public hearing in order to review this information.
The public hearing was closed at that time.
The January 15,2001, letter submitted by the firm of Kelly & Fawcett, P.A.,
representatives of the applicants, contained several reasons they believe the
Comprehensive Plan should be amended. Kansier categorically contested each item
listed in their letter.
In 2000, the property owners requested the City approve a request for this property to be
reenrolled in the Agricultural Preserve program. The City refused this request on the
basis the property no longer qualified for program participation because it failed to meet
the statutory requirements. The current Comprehensive Plan designation of the property
does not preclude the use of this land for agricultural purposes. The City has no
objection to enrollment of this property in the Green Acres program, which provides
some tax protection for existing farmland. The City also has no plans to rezone this
property from its current A (Agricultural) district unless requested to do so by the
property owners.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency submitted a letter dated February 1,2001
indicating a long history with the applicant on water quality runoff issues.
The current designation of this property for use as something other than long-term
agriculture has been in place since 1995. The applicants have not demonstrated any need
to change this designation. Staff recommended denial of the request.
Questions from the Commissioners:
DRAFT
Criego:
. Questioned why only 240 acres out of the 320 acres are being asked to change.
Kansier said the request includes all 320 acres. The 240 acres are what the
Vierlings initiated for removal.
. Why would the remaining acreage have to be requested. Kansier responded it
was still in the Ag Preserve Program. But it no longer meets the statutory
requirements. The City has taken no steps to initiate removal of that property.
. Ifthe City would take action it would probably take 8 years? Kansier said it was
her understanding the City would have to adopt a resolution stating initiation of
removal and it would take 8 years before it actually came out.
. Questioned the tax issues and the City's ability to take over property as well as
enforce ordinances in the area. Kansier explained the public projects relating to
the Ag Preserve Ordinance.
. Criego and Stamson recapped the definition.
· Questioned State regulations from the PCA.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mn021201.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12. 2001
Comments from the Public:
Jim Sullivan, Enforcement Project Leader for the Southeast District ofthe State,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, MPCA, 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155,
stated the environmental issues came up in 1996 when the MPCA was first made aware
of the discharge issue. The Agency and Vierlings have made some effort to address some
of the issues. Sullivan said he did not want to make excuses as to why the issue has not
been resolved, but there has been administrative process related to enforcement issues.
They are downsizing government and the Agency has been reorganized. MPCA is
looking for assurance that the discharge from the facility does not exceed State Water
Quality Standards. The other option is a no discharge facility under the Federal Rules.
The agency is currently negotiating with the farm to address the issues and set a
corrective action plan within the next month.
Criego asked if the property was in the Ag Preserve Program would the MPCA have the
same rights to impose. Sullivan responded that it had no impact on their ability to
regulate. The Ag Program is not a program they administer. He went on to say on the
Federal level, that there are a number of grant program to help farmers. Sullivan said he
is not aware of the affects of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the District Conservationists
for the NRCS could answer that better.
Criego questioned if the land was in Ag Preserve, would the regulations referred to still
apply. Sullivan said "Absolutely, the MPCA regulations still stand". Being in the Ag
Program may not help with the funding.
Commissioner Stamson re-opened the public hearing.
Comments from the Public:
Attorney Patrick Kelly of Kelly & Fawcett Law Firm in St. Paul, representing the
Vierlings, said the key issue is that the City Planners are representing no plans of
rezoning. The Vierlings are asking for purposes of the farm operation to allow them to
go into the Ag Preserve. The Vierlings want to continue farming and have no plans to
rezone. It is important to allow the farming operation to continue. They have an 8 year
plan and the Ag Preserve allows farming without intrusion from local regulations.
Michael Vierling, 13985 Pike Lake Trail, said his farm produces soybeans and milk. In
1976 the State of Minnesota certified the Vierling farm as a century farm. There are
State programs to protect the land from 10 to 30 years. Vierling said he did not want to
put money into the operation and two years later have the City come and take his land.
He has to improve the feedlot. At the last meeting the neighbors said they wanted the
Vierlings to farm. The Constitution said there should be freedom. Vierling felt it was not
fair he should loose out on all the programs just because he lives in Prior Lake. The City
is saying it is ready to develop. He would like to continue farming at least 10 years until
he knows what his kids want to do. Ifhe continues farming for 10 years, the 2020 Plan
will still be 10 years away. That is why his Dad took the land out of Ag Preserve because
L:\Ol files\OI plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn021201.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12,2001
you don't know what the future is going to be. Vierling quoted the Prior Lake American
quoted the City, Mayor Wes Mader and a neighbor. He said he felt if the City doesn't let
his family farm with his kids, you might as well get a machine gun and blow everyone
away.
Gary Matson, 4584 Hummingbird Trail, lived in Prior Lake two years, said everyone is
taken away by the beauty of the Vierling farm. He hopes that carries some weight.
Dan Klamm, 4130 140th Street, said his family fought for this Country, it bothers him to
see how this piece of America and history is goes down. It bothers him that the Ag
Preserve gives the City the power to stop whatever makes the Vierling farm go. Klamm
told the Commissioners to give it to the Vierlings, turn the cheek and help them farm.
People move to Prior Lake for recreation, quality of life, quality people, a good time and
a community that cares for one another.
Kimbel R. Raden, 14211 Shore Lane, does not know what Council members like or
dislike the farms. People who like the farm probably had relatives on the farm and
probably had to actually go out and work for a days living. The people who don't like
farms would rather slip a gas station here or there or on somebody else. They're not
really telling anybody what is going on because they know how to make a little more
money for the City. He stated he understands making money for the City. One of the
reasons he moved to the City is because of Mike and Becky's farm. Radin is from a farm
background and military background and comes from a hardworking family. He totally
respects anyone who goes out and works day in and day out. When it is up to a group of
people to decide to decide for a man or woman for their kids' fate not to be able to carry
on what they want to do. He felt every citizen in Prior Lake should know who hates the
open spaces and farms. Then we know who we're up against. It is good for everybody.
Raden felt the Commissioners should side with the farm.
The public hearing was closed.
~~' A,i~, r '''I'''''c<
f'i:. .~ "" .~~
~" ,. '~~ .
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. It is hard to fight the issue of having or not having a farm. I would love to see the
farm another 300 years. It is not the issue. I would love to have open land all
around. Prior Lake is growing. How do we grow sensibly without causing
hardship for individuals? Prior Lake is a small community and limited for
growth.
. The question is, do we want to grow the City any larger than it is now? The 2020
Comprehenisve Plan does say that we need to grow and we will grow based on
various input from the citizens of Prior Lake. There have been many meetings on
the Comprehensive Plan and they address all these issues before us tonight. Do
we all agree? Obviously not.
. Would I like to have many more farms? Absolutely.
. Is it possible long term? Probably not.
L:\OI files\O 1 plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn021201.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12, 2001
.
I would love to slow the process. The one thing that comes back to me. Not
against the Ag Preserve Program ifit has benefits for the Vierling family.
Concern is that once it goes back to Ag Preserve. It could stay that way for
another 150 years to 300 years. Is that really what the citizens of Prior Lake want.
This is an emotional issue.
Not clear after all the testimony from Mr. Kelly and the City what the true benefit
of the Ag Preserve Program other than it leaves control within the family. Which
we all know in 1993 the family decided to pull out of the Ag Preserve. It was not
the City nor the citizens decision, it was the Vierling's decision.
I believe there was a logical reason Mr. Vierling did that. We do not know what
Mr. Vierling saw.
If I could get a guaranty of 8 to 10 years, I would be more than happy to agree.
But the fact is once it goes back to preserve it could be locked up forever.
.
.
.
.
.
D. ,. r~ 5,'. """"
.; .:' -,I nil /;<:"~ if - --
r,,,\. fF.'!1~~ ~,."
Stamson:
. Don't come up and point your finger and say you are going to force them offthe
farm after you just moved in to a new house on somebody else's farm. People
have to realize the decisions made affect somebody. It is not the City who is the
bad guy here, the City is responding to what is going on in the community.
. Prior Lake is a growing community and we have these issues before us. The City
is responding not initiating this issue.
. Agreed with Criego, the farm is an asset to the community. The issue is not that
the City wants the farm.
. The Comprehensive Plan is long term. The realty is this community will not be
rural in 2020, regardless of the actions taken today. What the City is saying is if
the Vierlings decide to sell, and someone decides to develop, the City would like
the land use to be Business Office Park and high density. The decision to sell is
entirely up to Mr. Vierling.
. There has to be some type of plan that drives the City in the future to say here is
what we want the City to look like, so it is an efficient and an attractive City at the
time it is built. Otherwise it will end up haphazard like cities out east that develop
without this type of planning.
. I downloaded information from the State and read through Agriculture Preserve
which repeats over and over again, is long term farm uses. Their idea of long
term is 8 years to get it out. Their idea of long term is a minimum of 8.
. Mr. Veirling stated he would like to farm 8 to 10 years. He will not be forced out.
The marketing conditions in this area are not going to force him off in that
amount of time. The surrounding cities and suburbs will more likely attract
developers before Prior Lake. It is not in demand.
. The idea of Ag Preserve was not to cut a deal for a few years. The program
stresses long term farming. Even Mr. Vierling stated it is not his intent. He is
looking at 10 years. That is not the intention of the Ag Preserve program.
. The issue is what the Comp Plan does and what it needs to be. Rural residential
was designed for area where there are no services available to allow agriculture
uses for a longer term, maybe 30 or 40 years. This is not appropriate for this
place.
L:\O I files\O I pJancomm\O I pcminutes\mn02120 I.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12, 2001
. The feeling of the Commissioners and Council five years ago and when the
Comprehensive Plan was recently update the idea was this area will develop 15 to
20 years out.
. The uses are appropriate. Cannot support changes.
Lemke:
. Agreed with the comments from the Commissioners. It is an emotional issue.
. What we are talking about is not what the land is going to be used for tomorrow.
It is zoned Agriculture, tomorrow it will be agriculture. Weare talking about
somewhere in the future. If the land is developed what will it look like.
. I wouldn't be truthful or honest to say 20 or 30 years down the road that it will
still be agriculture.
. Anyone else moving out here has the right to look at a Comprehensive Plan and
know what the future of that land will look like.
. Mr. Vierling and his attorney, Mr. Kelly stated the land will be developed some
day.
. Will not support changing the existing designation ofthe Comprehensive Plan.
Atwood:
. Couldn't agree more on an emotionally charged issue.
. Is rural density appropriate? Kansier explained the designation and the services.
. If the Comprehensive Plan is amended, what is the process and the cost for the
City? Kansier explained the process - two ways it could be amended again. The
City would do an update of the plan. The costs are staff time, publications, public
hearing notices, hearing costs and fiscal money costs. The other option would be
for the property owner to file an amendment, the process is the same - go before
the Planning Commission and then the final decision is made by the City Council.
The filing fees generally do not cover the full cost of the process. The cost if
initiated by the City is paid by the taxpayers.
. Time frame? Kansier said it can take 45 to 90 days depending on meeting
schedules.
. The Metropolitan Council needs to approve all Comp Plan Amendments.
. The Planning Commission is an advisory committee who makes a
recommendation to the City Council.
. What does it look like to the citizens of Prior Lake if the Comp Plan is amended?
Kansier explained it gives residents and others who move here an idea of what the
plan will be through the year 2020. The document can be changed.
. Nobody will come in and take the Vierling farm a minute after 2020. Some
people see this as a threat of taking the farm.
. See no reason not to let them apply for the Ag Preserve program.
. There are two sides to everything. Does not see a burden on the City to change
the Comp Plan.
. Would like to see the Vierlings step up to the plate and pay the costs.
. If this does not pass, the Commission does not make the final decision, no one is
trying to take away the beautiful farm.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn02120 I.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12,2001
Criego:
. Missing something, a month ago, the taxes were one of the big issues. The
Vierlings claimed it was a tax problem if it was not in Ag Preserve. That is not
so.
. Two things are coming across. One is the fear the City is going to do something
that would inhibit you from farming. The second concern is putting up any
accessory structures because of requests the City might require.
. The MPCA says they are trying to help the Vierlings to not pollute the water and
there is some funding available to help. The only thing I can put my finger on is
fear ofthe City taking over some ofthe property.
. Mike Vierling said "Just look at what the City did to the Mendens and Kops.
Look what they had to do to fight. The Kops lost their farm. I'm the only one
left. The Jeffers farm is going to be developed. The City took their farms away.
The City is always looking for parks, fire stations, whatever. Why should I put in
thousands of dollars into that feedlot and like the MPCA said if! don't get into
the Ag Preserve Program I won't get no funding. Why should I put all the money
in? What is the difference in the Zoning? The City can take it out tomorrow."
. Kansier responded the City could not take it out unless the Comprehensive Plan
was amended.
. Why would the City amend it now then turn around and amend it again? It
doesn't make sense.
. Vierling asked if the City could guarantee 10 years?
. The concern is what could happen is that the kids and their kids want to continue
farming and more power to them. At least in the Comprehensive Plan
. We as citizens have seen what happens when a City tries to take over land. There
is a huge outcry and there should be. There is no intent of takeover of the farm.
It is up to the Vierlings if they want to develop the property.
. Vierling questioned what would happen ifhe guaranteed he would take it out in
10 years.
. Kansier pointed out Mr. Vierling's intentions are good but probably not legal. It
would be provisional contract zoning which is illegal in the State. The City
would have to talk to the City Attorney.
. Mr. Kelly said he was a City Attorney for a number of cities in the metropolitan
area and stated agreements could be made in unique situations like this and amend
the Comprehensive Plan at any time. The City is under the obligation under the
2020 plan to re-look at the Comprehensive Plan. Kelly said the Vierlings can
give the City a guarantee in 10 years they are going to be out farming. They want
the 10 years to allow the farming use based on their land use experts and
engineers. The Ag Preserve gives the Vierlings all the things they want to do.
. Do we (Commissioners) need legal advice on the 10 year agreement? Kansier said
they would.
. Can the Commissioners pass a recommendation to City Council with certain
conditions and let City Council and the legal staff decide if it is appropriate?
Kansier said there is nothing stopping the Commission from making a
recommendation.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn02120 I.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12, 2001
Stamson:
. Opposed to that approach, it is bad government. This is a long term planning
document. The idea for government is to treat the community as a whole and
look out for the entire community's best interest. The drive is to direct
development further out. This would happen all over the City if that if that is
agreed to.
. Agree it is a tough decision.
Criego:
. The Comp Plan is known for a long range plan, do not see any problem modifying
the plan.
Stamson:
. It should be modified on situations that are changing to alter the long term plans.
We can't make long term plans reflect short term goals. That is not the way to do
it.
Atwood:
. Questioned Criego why 10 years makes him feel better? Criego responded if there
is no time limit it can be farmed for the next 300 years. That is detrimental to the
City of Prior Lake. To have the City give up that right at this point is not a proper
judgment. The proper judgment would be to give the citizens and the Vierlings
what they need. And if that is 10 years more power to them. That doesn't mean
they have to stop farming, it just comes out of the Ag Preserve.
. Questioned Criego why he felt if the Vierlings farmed another 10 years it would
be detrimental to Prior Lake. Criego felt in the Ag Preserve program it is. The
Green Acre program is fine. At some point a developer will pay an enormous
price to develop that land. If it is in the Ag Preserve it will take 8 years to get out
of the program. By that time the developer will be long gone and find another
piece of property. Ifit's not in the Ag Preserve, the Vierlings can sell the
property at that point and take advantage of the offer.
. Questioned Criego why he (the City) would be making that decision for the
Vierlings. Criego responded the Vierlings took the land out of the Ag Preserve in
1993, it was not the City.
. The City based their 1995 Comprehensive Plan on the Vierlings taking the land
out of the Ag Preserve. It was done that way because of the Vierlings.
. Criego felt 10 years was a good compromise. The Comprehensive Plan is a 20
year document.
. The Vierlings should be able to decide. Does not have a problem with the
Vierlings staying in Ag Preserve.
. Criego responded that the Comprehensive Plan which was discussed with the
citizens of Prior Lake, the Planning Commission and City Council and because of
the actions of the Vierlings they decided to make the land something different
from farming. Now because of financial considerations and a fear of the
government, the Vierlings would like the Ag Program to be re-instuted for a
L:\OI files\O 1 plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn02120 I.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12, 2001
period oftime. I can accept that, but not forever. They can still farm forever, no
one says they can't, just not under the Ag Preserve program.
Stamson:
. The bottom line is there is no financial impact. The real concern is that the City is
going to initiate something that will cease the existence of the farm, which mayor
may not happen.
. Criego felt the Commission is a buffer between the citizens of Prior Lake and the
government. The City mayor may not cease the operation. The chances of
stopping the operation are minute. Understand Vierlings' fear.
. This document has been worked on for a long time and under the scrutiny of the
Met Council and now we're talking about changing. We should not base the
amendment on one family's fear of what is not going to happen. This is not the
way to run a government. It is not good for the balance ofthe citizens of Prior
Lake.
Kansier explained the Comprehensive Plan and all approvals from the Met Council.
Atwood:
. Does not want to be part of a Commission that anyone can stand up and put a
Superamerica in my nextdoor lot. That's not what we're doing here.
. There is tons of sentiment in this community and this property is a landmark, for
those reasons we should extend a hand for some piece of mind, whether or not we
agree with it. Their fears are real. Why tie their (the Vierlings) hands behind their
back.
l\ t:T
Stamson: !~L L ~
. There is no concrete actionable thing the City is doing to stop the farming
operation. The fear something might happen is a less valid reason to re-write the
ordinance.
. This is a primary piece of real estate. It is on the comer to two major road in a
developing community. Is the best use of that land rural residential? It is not
what Mr. Vierling wants to do with is property, that's up to him. From the City's
point of view, is rural residential the best use for that property? It is not, long
term.
. If Mr. Vierling wants to stay in the farm, that's up to him. What the
Comprehensive Plan does is set an instance ifhe decides to quit farming what is
going to happen to it?
. Weare discussing a planning document and what the purpose is.
Atwood:
. Agreed. But felt there are certain circumstances that dictate certain allowances
and this one of the instances.
. Believes the average citizen in Prior Lake would agree.
Lemke:
L:\O 1 files\O 1 pIancornm\O 1 pcminutes\mn02I20 I.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
February 12.2001
. Questioned Mr. Kelly on eminent domain protection. Kelly read the Met
Council's interpretation.
. Understand under eminent domain the land can be condemned in a one year time
frame.
. Kelly said that definition is going on the Ag Preserve Program.
. Kelly responded the Vierlings are concerned that a government agency will come
in and condemn part of the farm. The Ag Preserve will protect them from any
government agency and let them continue farming.
. The authority's right under eminent domain, the 8 years would not be an ironclad
guaranty. If an authority came in to condemn this property even though it is in
Ag Preserve, the EQB would look at it and say no other alternative exists, they
can only delay it for one year if another alternative exist. Kelly said those
procedures are on a high standard of taking the farming operation as a priority for
the purpose of statute. There are a number of hoops. Its not just saying we want
this land for "x" purpose. It has to be balanced out.
. Kansier noted that procedure applys when acquiring land or easement having an
area of 10 acres or more. This procedure is over and above the eminent domain
procedure in the Ag Preserve.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST
FOR CHANGE OF STATUS ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE
CONDITION WITHIN TWO YEARS THE PROCESS TO TAKE IT OUT OF AG
PRESERVE IS UNDERTAKEN BY THE OWNER THEREBY ALLOWING IT TO BE
OUT OF THE AG PRESERVE WITHIN TEN YEARS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Atwood and Criego, nays by Stamson and Lemke. The
motion fails.
The deadline for the City to take action is in March. It can go the City Council with no
recommendation.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO DENY THE REQUEST.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson and Lemke, nays by Atwood and Criego. The
Motion fails.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO TABLE THE REQUEST TO
THE FEBRUARY 26, 2001, MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 8:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:11 p.m.
B. Case File #00-083 Rock Creek Homes are requesting variances to minimum
lot area and structure setback to the ordinary high water mark for the construction
of a single family home on the property located at 5690 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE,
L:\OlfiJes\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\mn021201.doc 10
"
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4B
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE
KNOWN AS REGAL CREST
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
-- -
FEBRUARY 26, 2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
Pavek Family Investments Company and Hodgson Trust have applied for approval of a
development to be known as Regal Crest on the property located on the west side of
CSAH 21, l!4 mile north ofCSAH 82. The application includes the following requests:
. Approve a Conditional Use Permit for a cluster development;
. Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The original proposal called for a cluster townhouse development consisting of a total of
78 dwelling units on 23.81 net acres, for a total density of 3.3 units per acre. The
proposed development includes 20 dwelling units in 6 four-unit buildings, 48 dwelling
units in 16 three-unit buildings and 10 dwelling units in 5 two-unit buildings. The
development also includes private open space.
The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on February 12,
2001. The staff and the Planning Commission identified several issues pertaining to this
development. The Planning Commission tabled this item to allow the developer the
opportunity to address the outstanding issues.
ANALYSIS:
The staff and the Planning Commission identified 10 Issues, listed below. The
developer's response to these issues is listed in bold italics
1. The plans must be modified to remove the following units:
a. Eliminate the units identified as Lots 6-8, Block 1, 2nd Addition.
1:\Olfiles\Olcup\regal crest\regal pc2.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~
b. Eliminate the units identified as Lots 9-11, Block 2, 2nd Addition.
c. Limit the buildings on the north side of Street "A", shown as Lots 12-21, Block 2,
2nd Addition, to 2- and 3-unit buildings.
d. Center the temporary cul-de-sac on the east end of Street "A", and move the
building identified as Lots 1-4, Block 3, 2nd Addition, to the north so it is setback
25' from the permanent right-of-way.
The developer has eliminated the units identified as Lots 9-11, Block 2, 2nd Addition
on the north side of the plat, one of the units on the north side of Street "A ", and
shifted the units to preserve additional trees. This saves one stand of significant
trees at that location. The developer has also centered the temporary cul-de-sac
and shifted the units to save trees on the south side of Street "A ".
The units identified as Lots 6-8, Block 1, 2nd Addition, have been shifted to the
north and west to preserve trees. This does not completely address the issue of
preserving the 20% slope in that location.
2. Revise the landscaping plan and tree replacement plan to meet the mmlmum
ordinance requirements. In addition, an irrigation plan must be provided.
A revised plan has not been submitted.
3. Provide building elevations, including all sides of the building, and floor plans for all
proposed building styles.
These elevations have not been submitted.
4. Submit plans in a 50:1 scale to enable staff to verify setbacks.
Plans in a 60:1 scale were submitted to make setback identification easier.
5. Provide street names for the public streets.
This has not been completed.
6. Address the following comments from the City Engineer:
a. Submit a wetland replacement application.
b. Provide a grading plan at a scale 1" = 50' or larger.
c. Provide a map showing existing drainage conditions. (Same scale as proposed
conditions. )
d. Show the 100-year HWL for wetland #1.
e. Storm calculations should be provided for 2, 10 & 100 year-24 hour event storms,
for both existing and proposed conditions (exclude the I-year event).
f. The design storm runoff for sizing the NURP pond for 32% impervious area and
impervious CN = 61 is 0.93 inches of runoff. Resize the NURP pond accordingly.
g. Provide an emergency overflow from wetland #1 such that adjacent units are 2'
above the EOF, or provide a secondary outlet pipe under the entrance road with an
inlet elevation of938.5.
1:\01 files\OI cup\regal crest\regal pc2.doc
Page 2
~
h. Provide an access road to the NURP pond for maintenance purposes with a slope
:S 8%, with a width of 10'.
1. Maximum slope of grading in maintained areas is 4: 1.
J. On street 'A', use DIP - Class 52 sewer pipe for depths 2: 26' .
k. All of the manholes on street 'A' (page 6) are labeled as Manhole 8.
1. Show the plan view of the utilities on the plan/profile sheets.
m. A drop manhole will be required for Manhole 10.
n. Obtain temporary construction easements where off-site grading is occurring.
o. Show hydrant spacing on the utility plans, and show the utility lines as different
line types.
p. The street grade shall not exceed 2.00% for the first 100' approaching the
intersection with C.R. 21.
q. Design the vertical curves according to the Prior Lake Design Manual.
(Sag: K= 36 for 30 mph, Crest: K = 30 for 30 mph)
r. Use SDR 26 pipe for 8" sewer for depths between 16' -26' (street 'B').
s. Refer to the Prior Lake Design Manual for preparation of plans and specifications.
t. Look at alternative ways of connecting to the existing sanitary sewer.
u. Provide sign elevations and greater detail on the location of the proposed
monument signs.
v. Identify the private streets as outlots on the preliminary and final plat.
w. Provide calculations about the useable open space for the townhouse
development.
x. Verify the 100-year flood elevations for the wetlands and NURP ponds and
provide a 30' setback from this elevation for all structures.
The plans have addressed some of these issues. In the meantime, however, the City
staff and the Watershed District staff have identified additional issues with the
storm water drainage calculations. Among these issues is the need to resize the
NURP ponds to nearly twice the current size, provide additional ponding, and
provide drainage easements on the property to the north. The Watershed District
has also indicated the proposed plan does not meet the Watershed District rules.
These issues will require some major redesign of this development.
7. Address the following comments from the Scott County Engineer:
a. Provide a right-turn lane, designed to County standards, on CSAH 21 at Jeffers
Pass.
b. Remove the existing driveway on CSAH 21 and grade to match right-of-way.
c. Obtain permits from the County for any work in the County right-of-way.
] :\0 1 files\O 1 eup\regal erest\regal pe2.doe
Page 3
~
The plans identify a right-turn lane on CSAH 21. Specific plans for that lane must
be submitted prior to final approval.
8. Obtain permit from the Watershed District.
As noted above, the Watershed District has indicated this plan, as proposed, does
not comply with the Watershed District rules.
9. All necessary permits from other agencies must be obtained and submitted to the City
prior to final plat approval, or prior to approval of a grading permit.
10. Provide an access to the open space from Jeffers Pass.
An access to the open space has been provided.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
CUP and Preliminary Plat.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the CUP and the Preliminary Plat subject to the above
conditions.
2. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the
issues that have been discussed.
3. Recommend denial of the request.
RECOMMENDATION:
The storm water drainage issue will require major revisions to the proposed design. Until
that issue has been addressed, this plan should not proceed. At this time, the staff would
recommend that this proposal be, at the very least, deferred. The City has until May 23,
2001, to make a decision on this proposal. In order to provide both the developer time to
address the issues, and to provide the staff the time to review revised plans, the
Commission should defer consideration of this item until April 9, 2001. This will require
the developer submit revised plans by March 19,2001.
If the developer does not wish to defer the item, the staff recommends denial of this
request on the basis it is not consistent with ordinance requirements.
EXHIBITS:
1. Revised Plans, dated February 20,2001
2. Developer's Narrative
l:\Olfiles\OJ eup\regal erest\regal pe2.doe
Page 4
..
, ,'-"
, .".
.:.:.~~........-,,-,~_..,----~....-
-'.,!l
!
TERRA ENGINEERING, INC.
FEB 2 0 2001
; 1!\
: i Ii
;11 !-:
; I . l~
;!.1 n
1\ ),
i,l
CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND PLANNING . CONSULTING
I
6001 Qlilrlwood Ave.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422
Phone: 763-593-9325
Fax: 763-512-0717
February 16, 2000
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave,
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: Revised Preliminary Plat Exhibits
Regal Crest (78 Unit Townhouse Project)
TE #00-108
Dear Ms. Kansier:
Per our meeting with the City Staff yesterday, we are submitting the attached revised
Preliminary Plat exhibits (Sheets 1-4; 6 full size; 6-11xI7) for your review. The plans
were revised per the Staff Report and the comments from the Planning Commission.
The following changes were made:
* Four units were removed on the north edge of the site to save a large contiguous
wooded area in the northwest comer of the project.
* The four unit building in the northeast comer of the site was changed to a three
unit building (Lots 15-17, Block 2, 2nd Addition).
* The temporary cul-de-sac was moved north to be centered on the proposed
street.
* The four unit building (Lots 1-4, Block 3, 2nd Addition) south of the temporary
cul-de-sac was moved northward to save a large area of existing trees.
* The two unit building on Lot 7-8, Block 1, 2nd Addition, was moved to the
northwest to save trees and eliminated the encroachment into the 20% slope area.
* The three unit building on Lots 4-6, Block 1, 2nd Addition, was moved northeast
to save trees and reduce the encroachment into the 20% slope area. Only 530 sq.
ft. is being graded within the 20% slope area.
* The revised plan saves approximately 112 additional trees. The calculated tree
replacement number is now 212 caliper inches.
* The plan was revised to include a access road to the NURP pond.
* The 100-year HWL, and the 30 ft. setback, is shown on the Grading Plan.
* The emergency overflow from Wetland # 1 will be controlled by Pond
Structure #2 (CB2). A secondary outlet pipe will be sized during final design.
* Attached is a drainage map showing existing conditions as requested.
* We have contacted the Prior Lake Watershed District, and the final stormwater
plan will be designed to the District standards.
..
The developer/builder will be submitting a revised landscaping plan and tree replacement
plan to meet the ordinance requirements. He will also submitted additional building
elevations and tloor plans as required.
We understand that this project is rescheduled for the 2/26/01 Planning Commission
meeting and the 3/5101 City Council meeting. If you have any questions, or need
additional information, please call.
Sincerely,
p~ 1 Ji.
Peter 1. Knaeble
TERRA ENGINEERING, INe.
CC: Don and Darin Pavek, College City Homes (wi encl.)
Russell Streetland, attorney (wi encl.)
Steve Nelson, Bridgeland Development (wi encl.)
~~~~~~~ I nmmr ~n~l Ii III iU~
hm~~~M U~f~ia ~~i!r:!~ !l11!~~
~ttii~~~ I~ ~lrlj I ~!~~ ~~ I 'I'lI~~:i
~.. .... EE ~~1 ~ ~A ~ ~ /lj~;;R ~
d~ ~~ ill ~ ~ ~! ,.,.~~z::: ~;::~p~
00 ~~! i~ ~"" IlIl-H~ ..ge:
:~~~;U:l~. I~ ." ~~~.i? ~~~~J
~&;;:~ -~ i[1 ~~I:~ }
~....< o~.... __ ~
...~~ i~! iii ~~ ·
-;;~j' .... ~~:~~i ih ll!
i~T ~.... fii:.m ·
~ i ~ ~ ~ J~! ~ !
~~~~~~ ~ l
:r::r-:r:r:r:r . >
~mm~~~ "e
~lIJ-~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~D WENSMAN 1ST ADDITIDN I PROPOSED WEN~N 1ST ADD. SINGLE FAMILY PLAT
//TOWNHOU"SE--eLAT //1, "-
.j>.VlN~- '.J' ,
'f ~ (...~ '----- ---", ), ,
___~____~_ . "---.:~ ...,..... >a.. I I / I I k> ,--,---,----1
-U -l -U"'O -U I "'- ... _ lD . >>. / It; , I I I
gii~~~ r-- - - ~~~~~---=-\ I --'~-. ~~~i1.. /!/ I I :
C~3. 3_.3_. :1 /. - ...:<::::;~\ ".- N ....., . I! ~ I ~ 1
:J"'V :J:J ,. ~ , · pH 1= ., I I ,:: I
Q. m c c ,. ./ f", i... 0 . .. I I I I
({;~.., .., 'I '\,. 0
4l~ 2.'< '<: '...,..... ~(f... . ,W"'7 I";, L____I___.J___~
~~~.~~ ~ ~___"'J ':L'g:- n__ _~_~~ASS_______'
:: g ;:;:, '(""'" C-=-~-- ---~-~---" o~ @"/#l.. T r "
,~![! I -'">.--.,.....,. '~ o;~ If' /-L:bm-! I 1 1
~ ~g ~ il I ""~~'" ~~ ~ ---- r?;f.. yO!,- ( 'L,J~"I'" ~ ~ : ~ N I - I
goo; of '\,' f',~~ \. )) Ii '" en ..., I IN ~ I ~ : I
3.. !!!O.:J I ~f'~ ~ '~,~ . i l i ... rLN . -l ..... t ! ...,nr. -"'f" I
~ :J ,'J!.b ': IIi '~I \ ~ I == ~I -
~ (') ~ I '-"'"'>.,,- /.:.!) IV If '" ...-. ' . .-'
-U g ~ 1.;-----:::::=--../ "f '\ \ r~ l' -1-,J ,~ ?.- "'.g: L r ,:~>
0''+ ~ I?? - Ii \~ ~vn.IIIII~ ,;s CIt ~ ~ I :!2
:J Q.. ~ Y/ ...~l,. 1 · N J 'og," _ '----J~}- :~.
3! -:::.::.__..._______~____ ...i.~>>_,' l{ - n ' L '",1(\ r, I_::::f 1-- ! I;'
c ---- ~ ~-f- iAJ I' 1 r I ' I
-------- '-_ ;; ..;" --'--'-'\~>/~~"~'~:;i~l ~ 0 ~~=~ ';J-~~;~~
------------------- )~ \ . Ii ~~ f /' ' ~. L -' - · I .1 5
P'O:>5I: ruUIl ~11l[[1 I / .... . ~ ~~ UI ~ / I ~!::: ~ . -.J '-f -LJ...O g li
-------. ~- .i~~..,,~ ~~,f(~~.-~"1.~,r~--'- ~~:\ iO%-'iD;
~ \~---'>K1~ v ~~~~ "I)f_c;....~/~lf ~;;; Ii '" ~ 'I 1Q~' l! ~
.!. ~ ~ ~ "N f' lI-"I!.l i "'.r T. . . ~
'/0'" '-r "" . ~~'( ~/f I ...~~ ,'p-., . I ..,c;."
· f'" 'f C\ > ../#, - ~vtr~!o ~ .. / I ~ ~~I: 'II ~ ·
,I ~.. ~I \:'<. . .Iff~ ~.. / I -:;:-0 ~ 11\ L
'-(p".I--, "'/........ If"" . 0 .. /' I -)> r .... r rr- r....n
'F5 ,~ r "". I ib> ~":::0<' OIl I ;:0 Ii'" 'I-Lrq-
: ~l I 'r r t;:: f' i /~4" ~~ I ~ Q EN r-.' I I-+' Ii
p~ · "'-ru-n 2" i", V/- "~. .." - I ~:::IO · ~- J . [~_.
;p: tell! ~ )Eo ,!". /' "'\] '. I z I: t _
II · Ii'" '-[..., ~ n..~' ! L. -/:-:---:rrr...-- -. - : 'i.. J.
- ~ ~~ ~'-/ /1--- - ,----< I ~;!.J '.
; F,I~N Hi Ii tft,~;/ /) l~}~:l_, : m j j
'" ~- J~ [fl/ 7t-n llf 8: ~io I I ,I
':"':::':.-~_ ._~ J / I ~ . l' I OJ ,';:,'
~-'-. ---=~~-" f~ /1 '(;;~ ;'-l~b:;-jl :' j,/
_) 11 '/' "')> I ill
;1' ~ " cO ;:--------, !!'
~ l! /1 ~2:::1 I : :' ccon.87nD)
------~.~ /, - L-t--, :
.d - -,--=- 11----------~. roo or. - - t::., ~ l=i t'F' i : i
....L.Q.Ci:-ru_~I:.~:..aJD:.JR:AYC~. ---~- -- _-+---~~__ __i~.
...... _~.I ,""",'s.orlllJ"allkl> t I -
"""0 f'\. IU i.L1 1" NlKTJa5 lNI1I.n \ I I
.- ----- r... -__J. __ ~__ h ! EAGLE CREEK AVE. NE (CO. RD. 21)
c_:
c:::::
rn
1'\. :
,->.-'
Inn'
,~ ": .
N
C>
~
I
r
\
\iii:\.~......
~ "
.lJ
.lJ
;,' l~';r ~
ii'''t1.~ tI.
i H~ ~
I ~'9 ,
B~; ;
!'~d ·
!;Hf I
l': ~. j
u;1! l:
lir!
~:e
Ii!;
J ~
~e
:' p!'>o ~
U ~~~: &.~
~ r. n f:
ZONED R-l
'"
~ ~JnTI~~~~l~~~~1
~ 'tJ ~:J' If 't 't'i1"'~.t
<!. ~o ~ ~~I.O ~~I'~
'II 'lll~~u!i t~ ~1 r!
~ lz~b~. ~~ rJ ~!
~ I! ~ J J I
~
!
~
P8fl'9
11-,..:
~mi
II
..
o'
~ .
i
r:
l!!
i
~
I;~..ll\t\
J t
. I
~ ~
. <:
!
!I -
'----' (/>>
~~
ffl
N::J
0'"
Z'"
"'<II
0...
"''''
10
-...
'"
'"
=<.
Ul
!<
o
o
;;;
o
;;
z
...
'"
o
."
!:l
=<
-.J
ZONED R-l
~ 0 ; -. PREl.IAINARY PLAT/SIlE =:z.r"~:: ~ III 1/'1"" _,. QI,_ _______.__ TERRA ENGINEERING. INC.
A 0 ~ PLAN ~-...:..~~- a/Y~ _,. ca,..... _..._____ 6QOI GlMrtOOd ......
..... .!. A ~ .- .._- --- ----,,------ _apoIls, ~ 5-:;4ZZ
~ -~- ~H __ ._..______...___.__._n...____
0 'N.m REGAL CREST -_.-.-_.~--~--_.._-- ~
co -~- --'-'---"."."".,-- ---...----
PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA """ "-9. Mo. 14&44 ...----..-,---- .... ".__. ....--'''''''...--.......-
f>;
~~
~ z'"
= ,.,Ul
= 0...
"''''
ill 1.16
,.,
'"
II .Ef!ERS PASS_ ~
:
T r
I
1& I
I
I w I
I
I I
socn.~7"Ir
.----,
/:.-- ,
//:,Ql ~ '
~V / ~_~ ~ ---",.-r.;;;-~-~
. ~ ;~.5" (" "
........ p' . iii 8'1) I
.' 1:& . l' 0 I'. 1 =
... II .~ I } : l:i :
I ~_ -',_ t I l~iJ:":~ _l I I · I I
, I / ...'..............':...........J....... / I ~ 11!!i Ii;
. I' I 'I.............. ..., If a~'" J I
1 ; ..~ eJ "), I~. : I I
_ i-.........J ! 0 ~~~ ji (I <! I . ~ I ~ I
--'---.--L.",\ F:(.. I I' ):~ -liiiit.PoiiOI- - -l '?:
i '\ l-; '. V<l WldMIIr.-.: o.u,-.) I " ~:
_ .. 1'1 "'):0 I ~ I
J J ~ Ef i i : I cO - - - - - - -, l;a I
'5 . & ,I 'll: ,/" ;1.0 I :!'J I
8 _.=:i-_..!-~~. "E.3 L_l. : CCOtT.I1I8O)
_.::-~_ 11 -,-,-,-,-,-.-,-,-,-'-'-- - - -1 0 ~~T, :.~) I I
.-;;:-...... II ' '\ z : I I
n I I I
~--!~I .r . _ .a..w~-!S< ___~ ..1';1 ..L-__
, v.r--;---r; -r- ~ _..1..~".._- ---
I'" v:o.!~ .. '""-.....- .............0 --
_:::=:;,~~}~~~ __ h ~ ,.."....." ! I
.. +~....:t...~~ -" / .'::"'____ .a : EAGLE CREEK AVE. NE (Co. RD. 21)
,~ro:, r.,,--.----~r~l: rl"F~"\~~ --=--:~~~-~----..'--u~~-~-"\~r-.,~ ,-,
I I ~\ *'\
.lJ
I:
~ ~1~"jB~~~~I~r~jl
q r:"1~hl,Q U~I&.
Ul 'h~~lfl t{ to !y
~ b~i d ~r d iij
P IQ !1 - . -jj -J --; -:
~ PI C) iL ,.
3:: . i ~
~ .. f
~ F
-/j ~ ~
~ ~ l!!
. ~
fA
rl'ROPGS(D WENSMAN 1ST ADDI110N I PROPOSED WEN~N 1ST ADD. SINGLE FAMILY PLAT
/ TOWNHOU~~AT //1 '\
( '-----.J.-/ I I
~~ - - - I ) I
~ SOO'JD'.19"'W m.0l
!r-
R~
::l
o
z
~
.
........ ----
'---
II
~
~
.lJ
Piifi9
F~:li
~'f',
w' .i.
it
i
"1Il\t!t!
I j
J I
! !
L.-.J $
R ·
B
c=:
~
Ul
;::
o
n
Z
o
~
~
.
oi
E
~
...
'"
o
...
,.,
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
~ o ~ , =:-.c--~:: III
~.. PREl.IMARY U1IJTY PLAN ,/,/01__.._0.,__ TERRA ENGINEERING, INC,
A 0" '-
"-> .!.. A <Xl ~-=-~~... I/I'An~~.~.....___ 600J G/.ttn.ood A~.
g- -..- --..-----.--- 1InnnpoI/$, '*' 554et!
0 -<< REGAL CREST ~B ._.._~. n____._ ___.. _.____.
<Xl _ _n___ --------- --.-:D
PRIOR LAKE lAlNNESOTA -~- ---------.-
..... hg......t_ - - CM<--'__-_
PiiFi9
F~:I' ~.
~irg! ~
;1 ""
il
1I1t;;t;11
'i 'i
~ ,
; I
J I 6-
! -
'---' $ ~ ~
, ~ '. ". _~ rOPGSIJl ~I)ISI.lAN 1ST AODITIOIJII PROPC/~SED ~NS~N{ 1S}T ADD, SINGLE fAl.llLY PLAT ,
v~., l . "~~f OWNHOU~plAT / / / \ " \ / f "'\. "", I
'::' . ", <::... "I," <.....'=-::-:-~..,. J ,}-r.: ~ I . ~" -">0 0'," I
. ,......""'" ..'. , '. - - - ~ ,/ / , 1/ Ii , " .....,
~ ,,~ ,l>' -. ""'...........D> -. ~ ---- . /,. /11 / / I~r...'t r::--:l--~-~ _-......
~- ~1 [7\/ ^ /'1 '~7:~~""'-~ ::' ~ <.-----,~ cJ/,,:~~I~'~~(~- --~.:~'<"""'k, <,~~m"
~~\I' I. ::: L. ((~ ~'-~"If3"~J;R~~. 7 ~k: ~/3 1.-' ~-"k,:>~':~'",!"\Si"\
"". ~::, :'~~o" ~r, \\\ /~~~f/f: / I;: ~L--=- _:__~~~~\ ~'\.
'~. ~ <. . <:::\"\~~~.. ~~ Vi?" i r " ";' k.- ~-~~ -\ - -\-\ ~.?'\.
. - I~. C ," ''-....' ~'.:.::?'~ I'-- 9:.\4 -..,. .lC'- --\--J\
~.. ~I- ............"".. ........:-;-.,,'-'-', :--:::-:::~:::--~'..... y" ,- ~ ... x I I \ I
~ I""\.... '- "".'.'>>....;..\:.. ~~ """", ' n '" I~ Y · I
~ - \ ~ 'A.': ~\~~~ ~~ ';,', , ~.l; 1;:' ~ ~ ~ I & H -:
~. "" ~ I \)Pf ',~~r~~~, -~) ~ 11'1 fI "- -L I' :1: ~ II \, ~I \
~l-- '. f) I ~.' ,') " / '-;1 . '-'-I-,.j. .-'1' 1\ ~ .....-
- ---.... " ~ < '- -!i " \ \ "-~~ ~\ n.: -, V. !. ,rl r __-1_' , ,_.~rw -.1\' ,
Wo 00 I \ :~ ~ ~ ------/ ~r--:.,- ~ \\\' ~,~,~:::.... 'l~Z ~ :,,~ '\ I ......,~.,~
~ ) Ii \ b'-\~' - ,.' j \\ ~ l' ~ ~&\f= Ie 'f I~ )!2\~ [
I I^G~~' I/Bi",;~,...l\~~\ V lx' I) ,I 0_
::! / U--'~ / >-- . :-: ",~"--7.~_" ~ '^. -',~ \~,~:. .~ ~, ~ i[t~, i ~ ":
LOa ~ ... . ': :~~r: r)2 ~ '\1') \\\ ~ ~ . /~/ /
~~7r7-,'~""~'" ... -__-~.,..~~'- 7\0 :-. '7/'v ,_~j.~:' W~,L l.-~V)f
/ -tj""'[ .~,ul!> I. '. '/ '" ..:<.{o~ LJ, :11 0 f'> . /, , 4.:.h.. i. SA
I.T\-~-\_' ~~~~. -- '~. ~'~,<~ __ ~iiW\\ ~' / /~~'
"\ ( ".' 1(::: s::.. - ~ . ';'.' ' ~ :\ ~ /- >\. -"(>~\+ ~ ',I':".J fila '. , . W. llAI. . ii./ ~
('1 l x.;,;. · .'); '<~ o~y '...., 'l/),\ r r~' '.,..;;:::.' ..
..... I f,.': .' i '\~'1'.:.>:e.' ~"""l ~ v.' ;- ~. :>:..~~~ ~0 ~~ \\~I. . P\'i~'I: ." ~~. . . /
i :!' ~ I IJ,u \I~' ~,"~\ ~,~ """"'..l<!I: ,'.}J ~ \ \ ':..:. . k- .61 ! /~/:=c/...:;:;,/
( .' \.", !', 1,= ''4.''''' ,~~ ..........~ "7' \ \' -~1P ,}.. II;! ~ _ / .-
,,'~ \ .' If" 'I'n)~>[\ ~ .j' "-." \ i'C ,~ ~~l\/ - _
~".:~"i~.. .'~ 'I' :.I~J:,;'~ VA;j,~~./~ -:# \ :' \ fi-~ l"; . :~I..~ ~~::::
f' ~'--{ ~ .' i-""..:-'~ihL 'II '/ /~ 'if!:)e. u-..:. ! . 11/" 'r ~/. /;~
2\\'~~'}\1. ~1V ( r&~)<,_ ~ .;).;::.' I:' ~;~
:::. \) '~~ S6I I 1f ! ,1,,~ /p' / Q~~ I - ,,",J'H~-,~~r. , y ~ I;': rUll c-l
' '\ (m ~ i.~ 'aet~ -- ,. (' :-,.,~.
-, I U -c Ii 'P n tl -r ~, ~\ ~ ~ -~ J/rY
~~~)..~ , j L..., ~ :~Il !~H~t.':l_l I D ~ J! ('\ \' -,=r.::J)'II/
.. '\ '- 1 .811 - f.,p,;-:-. I~~" I! ~ LJ if [t://./J('
.'0 ' \~ \', {'11' - "'/." ! 'I -' ~ ~ _.::_ _....!/ ,f~ftf {f~ l---~ J
~0 II j; -.~, 'II - ~~ r~ / f't.::.._l.':, 18 ~ ....
~\\\ ^" ~;' ,.Ii... : ;I~~' j ... ~-"1.""'--l! i I . >''',~
~~ .. '~~\I H;i: .t ~__Jl~ J 1+ j~ : '"' ~t:)~\;c,. -~~~~',~ jv) ''1i'hM. ......
0.\]~ . 11 ---------.-c'" ,l "wi "f\"\ :....\~ I" (~/
\' C ':i" ,-~..." "<I'-'~.:~!/; / I ' 'I, h) \\\ '\ 10 5::
1\ (," .~'CO.....--~.___\. ",/ I , . . J ,... -l \..~-
nr I., \ ~ ...-, ii'= =~"'-"'~.ll~",. - -, . --'---- - rl ~r-'
S'II 1 -u -----=<< ---~ __ :J __ ~
. Jlii ~~: J'" ....Qoo..-........... a" ..........f..11I1 ~ '.a. 1 I - .--- ~ .
___ _.... H ~~ .'t"L".t1 t"L '" 1'\ NfXnIl~7 $11..11 f t : ;~: " r
-.::- _=i.;;':: ~" Y', - - ~-- -- r__ll___~ ___ \, ~,crwc "'.... - .,. ,h:':~ E G,;:, CREEK AVE, NE (CO. RD. 21)
-.' .:4--T'-~~~ '1" "..l,- --. ' 'I:;:' <;-. ~ w_, -/'--I J-.=- ----~
- , . ~ I' -.::- '--:;\~] V ';:'-_~ -"-",--..,c=,,=-=. "'. . _ , __.' __ _ I ~ V-
I x~; I y t~~~~-r:'-- l~.' :/~l(. ::~\~~, .-;)--:.~'-.. \'-~'\ (_.~~-~ jf:~~8@- ~~~;~ ~; \(\' ZONED R-l
P 'ZONDI R,..l / 0 ; ~: ~ S\ "0 "" ' /' ZONED ~-1 ( I';:..,~ D.'1 < a \\\\\.
, 0 : H lill!il " ". \J \ \ ~
.lJ
~.-
g~
::1
~ O~ , PRELUNARY ORADm/bRAINAGE PlAN =-:;-.c=-- ~=:;: PI TERRA ENGINEERING, INC.
-. 1/I/f1f__~CII,______.
6 0- ...... EROSION COHTRU. PlAN ~-...:...~~IM ll!"ftIt~JIO!r~CII,r_____ 6lIOl 61",,_ il....,
1. i co -~._-,-_. -~-~ ----- Hlnlwopolls. Wi ~4e2
Vol ...... -..- H~ ------...
0 g ~, REGAL CREST -_. -_._-_._~--. ------ ~
01 -~- _._-------~---- ....._-t..-.........-_
PRIOR LAKE, lAlNNESOTA .... '-0......14&+4
I I!
I ::
I f~ : :
I l~!i J I
I ~l< I OJ ;
< !. I.~: I :
-liiin"....)- - -l !? f
,,*,-,hlG:;D.I:a-.) I : G':
-------, I
I : H,I
ICOtT. fl~) L _ +- -, ! (aRI. 81MO)
Z ~_' 1s-tICa.) : I :
o n, I I I
<;>--!jl m~- -EJU'".1BJ,",YE.yz:. ...J..I L ...J
I"' ';, "-'-I-. .........(11I".,..,) .-+----~_____J...~----~
---4!:!!"!..."L.._ tl i~ I" NOO'In Ml.71 I I -
____ __ __ ==_ w 11 I
_ --4- ,~.::. -- ,["-- ---'!:~--____ _ _ ) : EAGlE CREEK AVE. NE (CO. RD. 21)
1 7!~_______~:J ;'f:Ji:~--==-;- - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ~-- - - - -"'!!- - -' - -J~-~-\--~.!"_"
\, r_ I~lq~. ...~~~ \ g
ZONED R-l '\. 1",' I ~I ....~~~ ~ '!\. ZONED R-l
'\ ..., ZONED R-l c
I I ~ \ F.
.It
~ U~U~illl~n~J~jl
~ t.I~.~~I:. ~"'I&'
'll 'Iii' ~I!~ t~ ~~ ~~
~ ~. u! ~. 2t r.~ 8j
!il - lstli -~ '"'; -.
C) II fl
J
f
P8!1~9
V';\I:=
~;iri
la
ii"
:;~..t\t\
" "
~ ~
t 3
~ .
~ .
! !
i
F
l!!
E!
z
fA
rPROPOSF;P WENSMAN 1ST ADDITION I PROPOSED ~~N 1ST ADO. SINGLE FAMILY PLAT
/ TOWNHOU~~AT ,/" 1 \
( '-___ I ~ / /
~.~ ---1-- / > /
--~
~$
--------
---
o
...
a
~
s ~_t-~
T r
I
IS I
I
I u I
I
I I
........,..
......
POSSOl.C run&: SlUEl
--------
-....
-..._----
:il
fl'l
fl'l
VI
C
:;0
;ii
-<
m
-<
N
o
z
'"
o
:<I
I
.lJ
'-
o
:I:
Z
o
r
~
:;0
~
)>-
VI
VI
o
o
~ .
11
e
~
<...
N~
~~
,.,Ul
0"
",,,,
,0
-"
'"
'"
~:
~
Ie
o
(")
%
o
>:
z
"
'"
!6
!:l
~
~ g~ ,
~. TREE PRESERVA1IONjlm.,ACEt.lENT PlAN :::::: ~~::: III TERRA ENGINEERING, INC.
A "6J 1/I/f1t-~ta)'~
~ .!.. A ~...:....~~- a/I~ _ _ ~_ --.:'~==-===_ 6001 GiBlwood A.....
9- .......- .- ..-- ..----- --
0 ~ REGAL CREST H~ ---- HInrwapoIIs. HN SS41!1!
Ql .-.--.- - ---_._-----.----- ~
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA -~- ._-- .----
0.... ...... Mo. 1tM4 n .--. n -. .-- - CM .....--.... - .__-~ ----
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4C
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR
A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS THE
WILDS SOUTH
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
--
FEBRUARY 26, 2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
Shamrock Development has applied for a Preliminary Plat for the property located on the
north side of CSAH 82, on the south side of Wilds Parkway and west of Orion Road.
The preliminary plat consists of 77 .19 acres to be subdivided into 140 lots for single
family residential development. The plat also includes a 6.6 acre park and a 1.17 acre lot
for the City booster station and well house.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site area consists of77.19 acres.
Topography: This site has a rolling terrain with elevations ranging from 1012' MSL
along the northwest boundary to 954' MSL along the wetland on the east boundary of the
site.
Vegetation: This site has historically been cropland. The western potion of the site
includes several stands of significant trees. Development on this site is subject to the
Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Wetlands: There are three wetlands on the site totaling approximately 1.26 acres. The
developer is proposing to fill a small wetland consisting of 3,892 square feet in order to
build a road. Mitigation of this area will take place on site.
Access: Access to the site will be from CSAH 82 and from Wilds Parkway.
Zoning and Land Use Plan Designation of Adjacent Property:
1:\01 files\OI subdivisions\prelim plat\wiJds south\wilds south pc. doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
North: The property to the north is zoned part of the Wilds Planned Unit Development.
The 2020 Comprehensive Plan designates this property for R-L/MD (Low to Medium
Density Residential) uses. In addition, property to the north is part of the SMDC trust
lands.
South: The property to the south across CSAH 82 is zoned A (Agriculture) and R-2 (Low
to Medium Density Residential). The R-2 property is developed with townhouses. This
property is designated for R-L/MD uses.
East: Directly east of this property is a 10 acre parcel of land with a single family
dwelling. This property is zoned R-l and designated for R-L/MD uses.
West: The property to the west, across Orion Road, is the site of an SMDC
administration building and is part of the SMDC trust land.
PROPOSED PLAN
2020 Comprehensive Plan Desienation: This property is designated for R-L/MD uses
on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Zonine: The property is zoned R-l, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation.
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 77.19 acres to be subdivided into 140 lots for
single family residential development. The proposed lot areas range from 12,002 square
feet to over 50,000 square feet.
The minimum lot area requirements for this site are 12,000 square feet, and the minimum
lot width is 86' at the front building line. Only lot area above the 100 year flood
elevation of a pond or wetland is included. Lot 9, Block 1, does not meet the minimum
lot area. All of the remaining lots are consistent with these requirements.
Streets: This plan proposes nine new public streets. Four of these streets are through
streets, or extend to the property boundaries. The remaining five streets are cul-de-sacs.
The first through street is Wood Duck Trail, which extends approximately 1,600' from
Wilds Parkway to its intersection with Bobcat Trail. Bobcat Trail is a horseshoe-shaped
street extending 3,950' from Wood Duck Trail to CSAH 82. Both of these streets have a
55' wide right-of-way and a 32' wide surface.
Wild Horse Pass extends 800' from Wood Duck Trail to the east property boundary of
this plat. This street will eventually connect to Wild Horse Pass recently platted in The
Wilds 5th Addition. Fox Tail Trail extends 150' from Wood Duck Trail to the east
property boundary. This street will also eventually connect to the segment of Fox Tail
1:\01 files\Olsubdivisions\prelim plat\wilds south\wilds south pc.doc
Page 2
...
Trail platted in The Wilds 5th Addition. Both of these streets are designed with a 50'
wide right-of-way and a 32' wide surface. The future extension of these streets depends
on the development of the 10 acre Christianson parcel located between this preliminary
plat and The Wilds 5th Addition. Until that development occurs, a temporary turn around
is located at the end of each street.
The five cul-de-sacs included within this development include:
· Wild Turkey Court, a 350' long cul-de-sac located on the south side of Wood Duck
Trail and providing access to 9 lots.
· Partridge Place, 180' long cul-de-sac located on the south side of Wood Duck Trail
and providing access to 5 lots.
. Black Bear Circle, a 250' long cul-de-sac located on the south side of Bobcat Trail
and providing access to 6 lots.
. Bobcat Circle, a 150' long cul-de-sac located on the west side of Bobcat Trail and
providing access to 6 lots.
. Eagle Ridge, a 400' long cul-de-sac located on the south side of Bobcat Trail and
providing access to 10 lots.
All of the cul-de-sacs are designed with a 50' wide right-of-way, a 60' radius and a 32'
wide surface. The cul-de-sacs also include an island in the bulb of the street.
Sidewalks/Trails: There is sidewalk located along one side of the entire length of Wood
Duck Trail and Bobcat Trail. There is also a sidewalk located on the north side of Bobcat
Trail, between Lot 43, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2, to provide access to the park.
Parks: This plat includes a 6.6 acre park on the north side of the plat, adjacent to Wilds
Parkway. Because the preliminary plat was submitted prior to approval of the recent
parkland dedication study, this development is subject to the previous dedication
requirement of 10% of the gross land. Since 7.5 acres of this site was previously platted
as part of The Wilds 2nd Addition, the parkland dedication requirements apply to 69.66
gross acres, for a dedication requirement of 6.97 acres. This plat includes a 6.6 acre park,
as well as a 1.17 acre parcel for the City booster station and well house. This satisfies the
parkland dedication requirements. Building permits for each of the new lots will also be
subject to an $850 park support fee.
Sanitary Sewer/Water Main: Sanitary sewer and water main will be extended from the
existing lines located in Wilds Parkway and in CSAH 82. These utilities are extended to
the boundaries of the plat.
Storm Sewer: This site generally drains south and east to the large wetland at the east
side of the site. The plat is designed so runoff drains to a series of catch basins and storm
sewers which then direct water to storm water ponds located on the south side of the site
and on the east side of the site. A portion of the site is designed so the runoff is directed
):\01 files\O) subdivisions\prelim plat\wiJds south\wilds south pc.doc
Page 3
...
to the existing storm water pond located on the north side of the site in The Wilds 4th
Addition.
Tree Replacement: The developer has submitted a Tree Inventory and Removal Plan
that identifies 2,080 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. The Zoning Ordinance
allows a total of 25% of the caliper inches of significant trees to be removed for the
development of roads, utilities and drainageways, and the removal of an additional 25%
of the significant caliper inches for building pads and driveways. The number of
significant inches removed over and above these percentages must be replaced at a rate of
W' for each inch removed. This plan proposes to remove 39.1 % of the caliper inches of
significant trees for roads and utilities and 20.3% for building pads and driveways. This
requires the replacement of 147 caliper inches, or 59 2.5" trees.
Landscape Plan: The Subdivision Ordinance requires two front yard subdivision trees
per lot. Comer lots require at least 4 trees. This plat requires a total of 316 subdivision
trees. The developer has submitted a landscaping plan identifying a total of 397 trees,
including replacement trees. While the plan includes more than the minimum number of
required trees, the plan must be revised to note the location of these trees in the front
yard, and the additional required trees for comer lots. Replacement trees must also be
identified. An irrevocable letter of credit will be required for the replacement trees.
Finance/Assessment Fee Review: This development is subject to a collector street fee, a
storm water management fee, a trunk sewer and water charge, and a lateral sewer and
water charge. These fees are outlined in the attached memorandum from the Finance
Director.
ANALYSIS:
In general, the proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision
Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. The Engineering Department reviewed the original
plans and had several items that must be addressed. These items are listed on the"
attached memorandum from the City Engineer. The developer has submitted revised
plans to address these items, and City staff is reviewing these plans. The Engineering
staffwill have comments available for the Planning Commission at the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
Preliminary Plat.
The proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and
Zoning Ordinance. If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the
following conditions:
1:\01 files\OI subdivisions\prelim plat\wilds south\wilds south pc.doc
Page 4
1. Revise the plat so that Lot 9, Block 1 includes at least 12,000 square feet of area
above the 1 OO-year flood elevation for the storm water pond.
2. Change the name of Partridge Place to a name unique to the Prior Lake street
naming system.
3. Revise the landscape plan to note the location of these trees in the front yard, and
the additional required trees for corner lots. Replacement trees must also be
identified. An irrevocable letter of credit will be required for the replacement trees.
4. Provide a right-turn lane and a bypass lane, constructed to County standards, at
the intersection of CSAH 82 and Bobcat TraiL Plans for these lanes must be
submitted with the final plat application.
5. Submit an access permit and other required permits for work in the County right-
of-way with the final plat application.
6. Submit a wetland replacement application with the final plat application.
7. Provide copies of the Homeowner's Association documents with the final plat
application. These documents should specifically address the maintenance of
monument SigllS for this development.
8. All utilities and roads must be constructed in conformance with the Public Works
Design Manual.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the above conditions of
approval and forward this recommendation to the City Council.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Defer action on this preliminary plat to a date specific to allow the developer to
submit the required information.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the listed
conditions is required.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat of Wilds South
1:\01 files\Olsubdivisions\prelim pJat\wilds south\wilds south pc.doc
Page 5
3. Memo from City Finance Director
4. Memorandum from City Engineer
5. Memorandum from Scott County Highway Department
1:\01 files\OI subdivisions\prelim plat\wilds south\wilds south pc.doc
Page 6
lOO::! OOl ~
009
o
009
~
N
dev\l UO!le:>Dl
.......,....J
.. I! ..1
.If aD.:
OF" i
I'~m j
III t
I- i
If II I
Ii Ii !
i ill :
I I :
I i
i
I
i
I
i
!
i
!
i
!
i
!
Pi
f I
r;~f :~
I Xi 1,1
18 r:
~ I
~ i
i
I
i
1
i !
VI g II
:I: !
,. :
!<: :
'" :
o
o
"
o
~
,...
o
."
'"
'"
z
-<
:~ !! ~!
" 8 ~
;l! Ii.
~ ~
ID ~
!/ !:I
~
II
;r.
~
e
9-] ~2
G) r~
Pl ,,~,
J> 0
1'.. ~tJ
~!. r'l
f-'l rq
(I) ,.
-('j
::.:: rq
r- ..~
;: 2;
~,i ~;
:~
v.~ ~?
n o-
S? <:)
c; <)
~;
J> "
o
un
:~ ~2
~q~
:~
;ti
ill
"II
!jl
i-I
,tl
I!
I!
fl
II
;;:O!!::::;~! ~
ri;;tg~t ~
~~,,~~S! ..
I 'PlS~gl/!:I
t;:o UlZO
8; ~ ~
. ~ ..
! ~
I !II
II::
I
It:
I
l!t
I~
~ i
.
i I
:z: -
I-d
~tJ
OtD ~
~<:I-dt::C
~tD~@
>5tD~
~I-d~~
.jr.l~~~
~tD~tJ
~ZZ~
Z~~O
ZI-dKlC
~~ ~
~~
>
,....,.,.(.
,/
,
'''-,
/// '\ ", /---
, /
/>"t", /r--
1/ ...'...... /'
I, ~.J
........... ...- "-
'".......... l...,j~Y
, )---",~,...
'.,.--1' iJ"
" : t:..')
.. " ...(v
"',,/ t'j'
...... J...
...."'.......... ,r~..)
, "
l .:r)'Y
.../ ... .......
r'-",
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
I
+----.
I
I
I
I
I
~_ N~O~~~~~~~~~
~! -0 -0-0 -0 -0-0-0 -0 -0 -0 FTl n
,', ;U;U;U;U;U;U;U ;U ;U ;U x 0
)> ,,~ ~~E~~~~~~~U)~
~S ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;U
:~ l:;zzzzZZZZZZC'lVl
<~)~ ('))>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)> ~ :I:
, ;U;U;U ;U;U;U;U;U:;o;U 0" FTl
~. -< -<-< -< -<-<-< -< -< -< Z ~
~! il>~ ~~~~ C!!!;2 52
-- FTl z)> )> )>)>)> pi iT! )> ::10
FTloooooo- -l
-o~zzzzz=<;2 ~
;U )> C'l C'l C'>C'l C'> -0 )>
[;l-oo -0-0-0-0' Z
FTlFTlFTl....)>
;U-o-l)>)>)>)>Z
~ >~ zzzz
:lzVl
o
Z
-0
.
)>
z
-~
I
I
,
I
I
r----\\\\~'-~,.--1 m\ I i[ill;-~A' ~
;,-- - - -I\!i: ,.fTl.;....~ rZJ I . i ~ - - - -Ii 11,'-,-0,> ~~"
1Ji Ii \ if- -l:b-I ~:~~,' r'T-.i;;:-r"::i~-. I r,l) :i i;: "'C;" 1#i:T~:
~ IIl- - - - ~11 H ,--.,. rT~-Ef.-T~T~T~T*-+JJ_ Ij ~,,'- -..:. _ {~T~T~:
:i! Q! i 1m WI1liP,
~ ;! ilji il! !iijill
! 21! 1111 II! ""I'hl
B '" II "111' hjl
~ '11!ll.hj::1
I 1-"\'11\'1
~ 9 I \.I Ii Illllll
N I 1'1' 1",1'"
! ::;: ,!I'.J 'lIil
:i!
'"
~
[;
VI
=::-:""
r:::::::-:....-.
m
0>
""
c:::>
c:::>
THE WILDS SOUTH CITY PROJECT #01-35
~-
Vl
:J:
FTl
FTl
-l
z
o
FTl
X
,-,
Jt111t1
. -'
'*It'
r
Ii,
I
ifiji
!~l!!
I I
Iii
!I:
II;
m
;;1
1"1
1,
j,
il
..
f!
f;
I!
11
, g
I
r
T ~~ ~ J1q I g ~ r ~ ! s g
~~ ~ ~ a ~ p~
!="~ n z Sa. ~
~Ot ~() > 2 ~ ~n
~ ~
, ~ . . -
s~ ~ \l , ~ ~ ~ ~
U ~ p i . ~ ~
i \1 , ~
~ ~ 2
" 2
2 ~ ~ "
~ ~ . ~
~ .
0 1. . ~
~ ~
... ----- ~ > ~
I
~ ~ ! '" -
U ~ e
~ ~ ~ ~
~
lJ.l
1(~~,
,.,
H '1~[I
.-< hW
,>
. ilr.: I
~.
f~ i ~~!I
"f :~:if
-~l&.
~ [1"li
~ . u'
b..r
~ r!!l'
~ m~i
~ T!
..~
MIlf
n.~.
Xh~
l h';;
0 I J;[1
1;
() !.~~
-i 1
).
-i
::1]
).
I f' I
I '"
1\
i~ ii
.
'M
t,
<,'
~~:~
~~'"
<:.}
J~'
,.,
';~A
i~ .
.::
'~.,.,p i
~: I c....
..l''''
i", .
,:(.01
\~.
")~:;
. !Xl
o
!Xl
C)
>
...
\:)
<-1
\!.
~
,,~
;;u
,."
c
;::
Z
>
;;u
-<
"0
r
)>
...
i
1/>'
:r
)>
;::
;;u
0 ii
()
"
0
,."
~
r
0
"
;::
,."
z
...
~
~
,."
~
r
0
Ul
Ul
0
C
~
~
9
ig
.?
0
...
" 0
x
:;;
;ID ;j
:I. i~-. ~
iCD ~ .(,.4
.... i";-
i..... I Ill....
_no::::::: I i ~~
---SOl' .. 140
,f1 ~ i~ .
---,------
'--"{;r"'--
.
,...
\\
o
{,
{.
~,
::~
.
('\ 1(.,4.
'(.!:C\~""
H...
..l''''
i~ .
..1
i!::l .
.
)"
o
o
:F"
~)-
.'
,./ ....
<:
::'.. ,
f. 2'
--;
{)
D
/'
./
~
,"'-
/\'.... \...-
/ '6 I
" ./
/-
" I
"" I
)I
fll
!~
."
"
, 0
,~,
;
fl":'J !
il;.I~ '-.0
! ~ ! I
f:li 5 :
If!l J ~ rJ.
if!! :
I. i I I
fhl- i--
J" ! I
I
I
...
~
~O
!<~
;;l~
~:
!:,O
oc:
IE
t~
'"
.i'I
II
I
L___
~~.
~ .
~ I
Y
B i
z: ..
:.i.!..... ,
. D.V
· Z'
';111'
i III
. II
I,':'
I
IJ II
I hI
i ill
I I
rq
~:
~;:~ ~,~
------~:--------------------------
--~--~--_._-----------_._--------_.
F:: 2;
~~
)> ~?
;,
r"
!II
il}
i'll
;;1
Ii:
n
H
f~
II
If
,
I
r
(.')
(,'l ()
r'l ~i
()
S? ~
C5
)>
CJ
~
.
~~
<Il
::l
Z
'"
o
o
z
o
3
o
Z
<Il
,/
:
'-,
\. ';
-, '
t,-:O-r--/
)~ . t
, <:.1 1,
"~1 J~':.
J>~ C.')
,'-,_--......~l t:)
t_~
^,/'/-....'\ }....-- cj
'.,--<"
I I
/' ", ,,(
, ' I
/ ~:,/
(.~=~cml ' l\ II ~
: : ... '~...~ "
: : iii'~1'I
: : ann e iZ
~______ ' ~ ~ ~ D " ~ " 0
: g ~ ~ n
l==1 I n ~
.~~:J .~.:~-...." ".-
m-t~-h_-h--j[
I ..- IE'" :::z:: --
::" " Ii
i---~~-------i ~
N
~
.*. :
(I" Pi
1m:
I II !
Ii, !
1
I
i
i
!
i
I
itj I
ill jl
fl!
"i' l
Iii j
Ii ,:,!
fi i
i
f~ I
II: I
i I
r I
..-f-".
!it in
-$.
i
,
j
i
1
i
~ I
~i I
~ j
~ I
~ I
!
)1
:I:
)>
~
'"
o
o
"
o
~
,...
o
."
~
'"
Z
-t
If II
mhl
i ill
: I
-----------,,--------------Ol--------Ci-------------j>-
isr:: ;0 ~:e~ ~ I'Tl ~~r:: I'Tl -n.onG ~~ ;0
o s,qa "'1 cd Xlc Z ~2"'ZO III JT1
Ul ~ e~~E~ ~ ~g~~ ~ ~~i~: le~ :
i 0 ~Qtqi; ^ ~... -< UI{;)o ~ )::
- r""1 ~a~ ~~ Ul ~;! () ') ili ~
o~Sl~R ~~)> . t' \,,,
~ i~ :~ ~ g ~~~~~ ~~ e
)> ~i a} ~~ 5: &~~Q~~: g
fg -< ~ !s:~:::t UHnUl~ ~ oD Z
)> ~~ ~ ~ (;')
~ ~ (J) ~
~ g
o ~
l!l
!<
III
:i'
'"
~
~
~
<
s 0
~ !
I<l ~
~ 1a
~ ~
i !
~
g
'-
i
:g
~
..
"
o
~
~
!l~,t;a ~
/'~F rJ
i~ii ~
y~~~ (J)
~~i~
~~. ;
..I'.~
:o'.~~i
. ~N
Ii
I"
E
N _ 'il_~_,t;_~ ~l!l!~~~ ~
"'0
~ \;I 0 ~ili2~o,t;,..!:l I'Tl
~ i Z ~'lll'neUs ;i!!~ ;0
~ z ~ 00 0:02 :0;;;
o~~~~eB~lh
i C) 'l'l.s,.~~t1ll8 0
I ~ c
~ n~~ ~t:l~~ Ul
, Hg~ !:i i~ ~ Ul
~ !:II(' ~ ~ ... "'" c
, > ~ . .,..~. E~;~~ ;0
,. ~ ~....:-~~ "Tl
0 --~~~ii )>
. s ~~~~~ ()
!2 [l I'Tl
~ [:i ~~ ~
:l ()
~ )>
g r
~ ()
C
r
g )>
" ~
~ 0
z
Ul
or'
\
'---,
", \----
"
'r--/
,
"
,
, ,
:;
r-'
,/ \
"'r~ ,
/// '...,
/ ",
I
,
''\.-'' ..-- -r;:'
~ ,(f
\ ,--'-"
....,.--('/ ;j''''/
I I .'Y
I '.(J"
" .
':/
/
,
o
,
o
o
I
I
I
+------
I
I
,
I
I
I,
~---
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-..-.-.-
t~'
~ .
~. i
.
~ I
::z:: ar-
"
I
,
I
,-,
I;\;
-nr-- ---- -- - -- "0-- --7
:~ /
L~_______ I
: fI ------7
I -i I
I n I
I" I
i------------1
, '
, '
, '
r-----.-_____../
I ,
I 0
o ,
I ,
,L_________/
I ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
,..-------..,'
o ,
, ,
o ,
.. rilll1ii !,~I
I' ' I t I I I R
. " () ~ ~ ~i i ~ ~ f ~.I~ i i
"'''~~;H~
~nn~~H:i
1~~Fa~~H'
XP.~,~~
F c S e
fl.i
If!
ill
m
~t'
,.,
1.
H
f!
f}
II
!~ ~l !~i _::z:__
!~ ~0 ~
';:!~ r., ;
r'~ rq i I
(,') :;::
_ CJ
'. r.,
F= :~
~.~ ~~
~~
~:i ~:
n--
~: (,'l
c5 ~?
). )(
~5 n
:~ Q
() ~;
;~ ~;
:~
I!I
Ii!
I:l
l::
!t
lli
rCV.
o . ~4
..~~i'
,~.-
~
5
III
III
o
c
=r
---------;
,
,
,
/'
,
,
"'\ -
r
,
,
, ./
'r--
I
I
,
I
,
>'
..-..-'" ~:1'
.".')
---
"
".
",. !! to;.
.. .,.~.'
IU
li~
il'I'
liLd
i ill
, ,
I .
'Ii
!l;
:U
Ell
;,i
lil
11
1<
p
f!
II
if
/
I
r
_,.. ,-t>
!rrl ~=~
t~i in
!
k
~ '
.'
~2~ ~2f ~
;~~. ~~ ~
~~; :~z. ~
e~!O t:~\l ~
ID~~ N~i'
~~ ~~
" . ; I~~~ I ~
~ ~ ~.~'e~',~ ~JJ~1J Q
~ ~ i~~p~RSiP~ii fl1
. 0 O~~.'eKeo o~.oo Z
~ P!~.; np~~~o
~ 11 · ~,0~n2
~ i~ n~'
~ ~ .
~ ~
n n
o 0
~~:
! ;_:z::_
a I
) I \ I
, \ (
1\ e\
~ ~
I(l I(l
..,
~
-o~
"'.
!:!~
"
z
)>
'"
-<
C)
'"
)>
o
Z
C)
-0
'):
Z
" ...... r---;::"-"'P OUROl .---_ - ------..- ---') ~_.-.==-_._--
~:.: ~ ~.....;-':i /,L- , "",_" &"" -'zeli,:<" 7// ,~; "C-r ::.-
j~;'\-~"" \,.c-j,~ \-l__/.-~~~lkl-1II~'I~'h-~~\"-8'\::: ,I 3.~;,~;;-;r-..:<~I//r~\ "
ll"ii ",,,- ""-1- -;-,.:j - I-II ~,~ ",''t' . ~7, .-'j<fJ'u/ / . ( 1
o ~ , '~.;::i:: /' "'1- I - 1- I.... I f-I t- I -\ ~ i i . . . ... ='-!. I i I / )
'>+ ~ / .:ri~ -I-I-I-;{j-I~-I~ II' -,' 15,/""f! \ RWO ~ ',ill, ,0' / ---~
\\,.. ,,~,/ ,,:\1 ~I 1::cJ.....J1:i1-jJ.. .biJ..l~ )~l'l1'/;' w 1,1..::i.~1:1' '"'i y./,// ---'
I ~ /' 1R<-::.- -----~ ..~_--'I~" H:J> \0 .. . 10./ II
I II -.t- ,'". t> . ':--.... ~ ~.:- ',i:'-_/
i 1/ v ~_ to<>'~" 'O~TT1I;~~~':-l- ,\~~.: .~! ~ ~ 0" ~~"~f~hi
Iv I 0; /:;c~i:==- ": ~ -\\\;i t~7 ~~~~.Iff o~ ~ ~,ll:;1 /'
II ill '-(5'- > ~ ~~ !'I M ~. -. (' \ ,~
I 'v " -:::J ''8,'' 7S' 0 ~~: \: ;\ ."-
I 'I '~v/'~ :'-...'>'i ~Y-->7~':~~ -\- --J i"~ . --e :~""
I I ~~ '" - --, ,
It/' ;fA j.)~- ,.. "~~ -~~k~ ~--- - ,~,,}-
ir~~1 :; ,.( 7/i/ ~~ vJj~~ r;;;}': ":~'; ~-~~~ ~---~~~~~~~~ -t - ~~,
\ I ,{ I .I" '\ '1' ::----.: . I o' ~ / 1(: , \ ,
- t -~f/.j e ~ \ .;;---:p- 0-- -.:::. /;::r.... ?~~ 0 ':;..c::: ,II
v --' '1iII--. . .--I '~~ .. ~ 0 -=- I 1
r 1 - ~I' :;:.. ~/ , ~ '. ~ ~- '" '\ 111
II v~ Y}~' , \ \ / /1'- ~\ ~,_\ /;;; I - .'0'2_ ,\1
1 i' J[ r 2 ~F '" 1Sfj1i ~ ~,~. \ ~, 0 i!! ' III I, I
I~ II' ~ . _~~~ l: '" ~ <: \ /'i,u 0; /~ ~- -~~ 00, ~- ~,\
I I ~ .~,y \ 0 I ' t--~ ~\ ..s> 'I
I I \~ I -j- -j ;D. \. ---, :l;C l'
I I v < 'b 0 --- N I I ~ : \.- \\ /
I~\JIII~-- ". v \' i "'( .'. :: --- ~ / ~l J ~'\~' \0'\
IIn ~ \~ \,1 ~,~^'~ ~(o \ \'i ~ ~ l:j/ - V ' - · \, '\\
I ~I ~ ~\~ ~:;/ :~ "'-~ c::: -y, ". ~ \ ~'- : 1"/
I ,,~ '-'"" 'Ii." ~ ~~~ '. < ~ :; ~ \, jli - J' : ~l
, ,~ (II ~,\', ~\ ~lt-o ~<.<::\.(. ~'~ OJ 0 " J ~: - :::: ~l
I N I ~ 1\ ~ ~\\-3 ~~ -.::- '?i''\'0f. ~ 01 __ 0 T.~. ~ ;)
'I : Ir\~~,~---~__ ) ~I ~ ~x\ll,....b7 A - ) a ,,..J ,
I~ ~ /( N 0 I I;; ~ ~ ,~" \0 I, r, ~ :// -
//\v -I--h ,,,\-,, .' 0 j ," ~,~,' 16.,oi:' ~
, Ii '\"~ I Ie: ~,I" ~ ~ I~I I~I. 1'7.' ~ <<
,~\ !jj,: i\1 h~p))\i ~\:>.( -'-----;:1- ~';;jl,\ L.,IU <"" iil IL-
'/,J ril \~~~, \ ~~), ~~\ .- '1--- ~!'" ) ~---~~
,1.2 :~r..,.-,,!jY>:\\ ~'~'C If ",.. ::: ~ 7J / /' o.,:'{'"
/ IJ"~ '~~A\ ~./ .~, 0 \1 J~ \ bJO . \ ~ ~\ 11 4-. \".'C.
I ,t-I ' .~ '" I\l' ml 2 ",. J I. ;; R; I ", 't.
It~ ~ . m'2'U-~"~~&;~ W ~~; ~ ij . ~/ ,t' '<, Ug ~\
/ Pt' J-~~ r.~~ '~ r-::: ~~F '-",,'~ ~ I ~ ~, F ~- . i~ - ~ ;- ,
/ It '~\1F.II~~~r~~~ ~ ~ 0 I ~ ~ 0:: a~' 1"-_ ~r_~ ~
I }(v \U~ \'\ ~\_.\\\..~~--x ~~ \ 5 ~l"J -;-: ~ - '.1~ L- i
III c II \-~~ "~;.}?" ~ ~_::\ ~ ~ J .:, -.."I - 'Ai I--'~
I/JJ, ~ ~,~ .~');~_~o__\. t) ft ~ ~ : J =Ii \. 'i, . (051 i:V
/ ill I ~~~ ~~ j I viBr~ rd ~ ~ . '~ ~ J J
/!VJ;m~~\~~f~~{~~~~)71 ,~~' ;, t-;t/fJ~' "
IJ/r 9j; I(~ '~ lf~w' ,,"0 , ~ ~\~ J~ ~ \~, ',\ ~ ~ L
l~rw1fh r4-ll(4f'~~ Xl ~~ ~ .;;~ ,1; ~~~J~~~~
g
?
~
<>
Vl
:l:
)>
"
'"
o
()
^
o
~
r
o
-0
"
'"
z
....
~
~
~
'"
;!;
5
Vl
Vl
g
....
:l:
~
0>
;;;
~
ISEE SHEET 9 1
ISEE SHEET 8 I
...
:.j!n
" f
I D
I,
I':fI~ I':fli ~
;!lj ;!t ~
10'" 'CI"'~1i
lS"OZ 0l"V% ~
iln~n
~~ ~~
13 13
!'l !'l
III III
!~_z~
gli:
.
~
~
I
II ~ : IIW',lllii I !!) J ) ': r
: . .) ~~~ I ! \ t\ \ J ~
~ ~ qp n ~ HaP n Q
. ~ iR""'2~f '~~~f ~
E ~ !i:~"'~~~~ ;~~c>~ z
~ ~~. ~ i~n~qO
~ H ~ n
. ~
p
'!f!11
li:kl
i ill
I I
~
/--~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
--+------
I
I
I
I
I
I
/-~\
/
/
/
/
^
/ '
'y "
/ ,
/
I
\
"-
"'---....... ///
V
\
\
I
f....
....... ,,// .................
-,---
I
I
1
I
I
I
/'
/
/
/
. /
>:
/ ,
/ ,
/ ,
/ '
I "
I
\
'---
-.....
,
\../
\
I
\ r-- ,,\-
/ ,,' \
'- . "
I - ..-( ('
I I (~,J
I I ./
I !\j
" I ~ ~
'I ('y
')I ../
" ->~
('('...)
,...)
\</
,.)
...-"
,
,
/'
I
\
~
"-
\ -
I-
I
/
'- /
r-/
I
I
I
I
, I
~y
'-
\
"
,
^'v"",Y
" /'>'
!
Vl
:r
)>
l:
:0
o
o
"
o
~
r-
o
"
l:
'"
z
--<
'-
:i'
'"
-i,. --1
--1 -,-
~-
-,- rll
-'-
~
5
Vl
Vl
o
c
:i'
"
J> ::
c:: J ;==
~2 CJ
--1 U)
()
-7
"'--
.:;
(]~~) ~;i_ ;:1 I~ : II ~ ! I~!: ~Ii ! )f t ,,\ ~, r
" mD g~~ ~~ I:i . . . I ! \ 1'1
is~~ li(~ ~. i - :z:: - Cl
Ii, ~o !o t: ~ ~ ~ 1(\ a a 2 ~ ~ it; b 8 J J ~ 9 (T1
I ~ ~ On": ~ ~ ~~ .~. ~i'~~i~ Z
II n ij "n o~ .i~~~o~~.o~
lIll ,0 I ~ ~ .~.~ ..'l ~-:.~ 0
:~m ~ ~ ~ ' l ~ < ~; ~ i V ~ ~ ~
i hi ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~! ~ ~ ~ ~
II ISEESHEET81 e! i ,.
1iI ',/ )dff;:f! :i}jJh) \: i~~ ~~~~N\\i\~ S\\\S }<IF', / ,P,,/_-
1:; ~~~~ffi~~ ~ rd .\L rt~ ~ ~~~~~"" '~t;;; Ai i ~ _; :~;-1f7~--:~
;jl ~I r -~ ~ / i ~ \~\t;\:;; L JI 'If / -~/,/ )t! /1 ~
IiI .;J l)I.::Ol'~.f 71'lil fi ~'\.\~l~ c~ ?/' I R\ m' /:!:.?"~L/ :/,/ // / I (
'11 t;,~ ;,--~/'J) / \~ ~: '\ ''''. · '. ;"'L. I? /. '~L/ J /
; ~ ."" Vi f 111 \; --'), ,\,"0 ") V - ,T...:; ,,--~--' ~;~ I /
I'i ~~ ~\L~ ;~~,:) ~9~ ~ b*-~~_>/:/o/ ~/ /
,i ~~ ~K~\ ~~ /"{,...,..." :--... 't3Z 1:*'~- ~ ~"'~~~~ oJ; ~j<-. () /
~-~...J, ~ ~ IP ~ ~~ [;;.. ;,jJ ':J Z-~--==---- ~ ~ ~?,~Y l'( il ~.
II ~'L- \~ ;/\,:::', ~ ~~ .Q I?(o \~"' Cjj / '~/ ~ 0 ~~,' 0/ ~ I I"~
i ~. ;~ ,~~~ t \~;J ~~ '~2~~~fA :"~ ~ _~~' ~o'~ ~ ~~~" :fi~
If 3" ~'~"'I :\l~?t""Y~~'\=~~''$: ",., ~~"J );;;;?l(~~~ ~ '\;" /0',1 -~--
, ,,~ _' ~::~~'1'3 ~ I--- 0 .'Y// ?I /'rl"- '-~ '9. j\'8 I 0
!~+i iii~.'1''' ~'f"~ ~~~ ~~::~~ ~ ~~~~/ I.~/ /.~'~'~J cr ~~~__ '-~ ~
~.' ;i~" ',~ '''' ";,';.,,'11 ~ ~..&' II: 0'1/:!: ~ -""-L ,. l' 0 /N
-'a:~ ' ;l;' ~ // /,// --~~tj ~n ,)." _"t"
-" ?1 / // "~'/I' \ It} _/~;
'... N ll: "l:~, ~ / / /y.c 1\ ~
~ ," 1>::;0: ,~ \ &\ ''1 ~ " 'l t, / / /~~),.A: Ij ~ \ ij '"
j .. \ \ /'1Y\t.\ ... \ -~/ ~P' / / / ~y//Y.l~V11 r j$.-- -~~:=-!
fl1 >.. ;; -I' '~ \ 1&" ..-r--.. ,I / - f5l // .~ '(U/;'7,,1
~,.~; , I~, ' '/ \ '" ,." '\ "" '/~ /. Y /~: W# ~ ~ ~ r ~~
,," ~ \ I SJ' \ . I / ~I
~ ~ I;. '\ '~\ ,R\, IV"". U /' ,b. ~~'~ ~~~ ~-J---_/.
'U... ~.t ~ ~"' 1.......... I I '/~/,r_~/; .. - -.....9)
i~ ~'<< ~'- ,;:,,;,.. ,-"- I woc 'JcK III :,: . -J::- ~. I~' ~~r /(/\~.~/ ~v, --~
~ ~ {;'r~~, ~:--~~i r-----!h.~..."l-:~ ':y" ~ I ~,,~\ ~~ ~ ~ //: ~\ /(,:~\
~ i If; 7''1- ,f!i; d'" ~ ~ "".~. 0 \ // ~--j I I /; f..y'',./
~ <>> ft "-n\_~ ' '1/\\/ .<9\ '1 .-.. '11 ..... '1\ f-. , ~y ~-, ': I 11 / (',' rJ
" ~ j I l\, \'~ OM!! t--->.,.---..IJ\ 4 ~I I = I II: I "//,, i'('
t; -- -~ ~, . o~ I JI. I Ir I . ,
z V;. .~\ ~ \ ,~ /"- ~ / ~I ~
.. ~ ~ ~,\." I ~ ' '"'.. ",wN ~ A ~ k .' ';' / (-(\1
i \l>V ~ \Y/~ ~ X/~ ~~ ~ 0 = /\;:J.>i '\:;:, ~t:1 i /11'
; ~'\, '/ I:>\' ""'== ~~ 7 ~ :.\"" \':1. \ Ifrl'\
~ ~:kf1~j ?:~IO ;- -~;-i--'::.._ 0- ~.. /D~i ' ,.",~'Pt ~~A \ ~ I o~
~ ~ 'J'.' @' O( ~\- -~ ~\\\0v\j.~ ~,C\~~" \, _,1/
~ ~~ ,C; ~ ~,~ t'\\:\\"' ~\.\:' ~<'\'f~J/~' ~~ .,"". \i~~\} ,
~ ~.ff'~~ ~ y '~:- J:\15:\\\:Th~f\\~~~, ~~~'<>> .~}'h/
~ ~~~ ': I~' _. ~~/.: '\~'~ i:.~ d!Jth. f' "' ';;-l~'
: ~~ :~<~~~,~~~~~~~~;-;~2<~~~~11J~~: ,!~:
~ / -/ ~ ' . \ \ " ,\ -- ~ h ~ . ~';;._
; './ , ..;:-~\y ~ '" os ' / 1- \\"\ ~~.,~ I. . - ---.
/ ""'---~,'\J \ ," ~ j/ ~'~A ~
'" % ,,~,,",_.', \ ".':i .^,/~. I\:~:::~J'\.-" / I ?\~,\/ -... &
i!i ' ..' ~-=-I ~'~"'0...' \ ~~ 'L i~' ~ ~/I /~ V Y\';' ~ i
;>,; ~, 'I -1-1-1 ,,:\"y)!/ \\ ci--P~' ~ ~__-_ \41' / /' Ir'\\ ." I
~ ~- ,- -1~r~t~~I\ ',~~ ~~~,-' ~et"" "';~~ ~"-'
VI ' l~fL -J--~~ - - -:\ ,t:-~~~'S<~~>..JY-?f "-"_ ";/.z:a%..,' .
~ 1--1 [-~~I I'" ~'-> ---. '(?/'/$P"~~~"
... ~\T ~ .0, .!.l.!. i:- \.- -, ~ ;;:;.~~ ~:;~;Z-:~,(fif>?l/ /?< /- ~ ~ /, ~~ :-!'2 ~
( --:1,: I~ 6= r-t -\, ~ ,'/fl// /0 / II '[:-1' I' ,- ~
\ ~l)r'--" -I 1 ,... ~/~J ''''' -<.... n y"
. \ t~ c-. R ...,,::._ H-- - ~/.l ;, ,I' l,'O' ' OUTLOT. --.: ;
T ,,\ I ., " ~ j'i<Pr,;L_.n-~, _ ,,'/, /
~ '~l \(~ __ ---:--:;:--.:C/'_- r ~'--:-';- H'~~:=---"--.4"--1fi:':-;
'" V r" r \ ~\J /c ~':..-:'i-~w J ~I"-'~/"':""''-- :
; I\~\ 'l ) ~ i! rlll\\I~~l\ ~ l C"~' r~-=-I-~~~~~Jt/:.~ ~~~" :~-=~---.:~j :.'
% _ I I It- I "l'_ / r _ -- ,/ ",,11 it ~" ----- ,
~ 'l I I I I d '1:l - ~ // 1 J----~~ ,/ Jj.:1/ /::::!. /--_ --- ,,'
/'
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--+--
I
I
I
,
,
I
~
.-
,-
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
-I- - --
~
... ..
: i~:
'~Z'
I ~=
IZD
I',
I
Iflp'
1If,/I
i id
I I
-
ili ,
,
;IJ ,
,
in I
;;1 ,
1'1 ~Jll
'il : 11,
Ii ,
,
(! ,
,
fJ
II
p
I
f ,
I
""" f'..
~~+ =~
.,. Dr
-.
!
I
01;
~.
~
"ll~
~~
"
z
>
'"
-<
C>
'"
>
0
z
C>
"ll
r-
?Z I
i
~ i~
V>
:I:
>
"
'"
0
n
'"
0
1'1
;Ii ,
r- ,
0
"ll
"
1'1
Z r:-
-l
J ,
I
,
E I
,
t
:r "
1'1 ,
,
;!; ,
6 ,
,-
V> tr~
V>
0
c
:r :t
rf!\
, !\
let
T ~5
,'I
'" -
Q
;:; m
m .1
~ ! I ~ ; ,~~ ! 1 U\ ,
g! ~ HinpHqp~ ~
~ >>0 oq~ig2g" !~.g" Z
~ ~ ~ pp :Rn~~~~~o
~ e ~ .. ~,~~H~
~ l ~ ~n>>
/SEE SHEET . I . ~ ~
If,l ;ttWJ118 ~~\ \~l(~~:!"~ 13 '~.~~ l\~, Iti'l G1~~';" [~~-,
,{~f1 ~/ /'''~\\. ~ /l1l;q".0 ./7. \L~ J~\ _ ~ \J;" '0
J) I rr/r - ~ ~ ~~ ~ . Ie. f-.......I:. \), dl 7:, ~ ~. " /'
'r~ i'v ~8 "',I ~~ ('~~~0.,m~l--~ .~ ~ ~J1 f ~ )f~~~\~~~~' -;1
11: R \ R\ ~~ 'l7 ~!)r('~w0 V')~ / ~ \,~\\~ ~
I~. t. ... ~. >. \~~W ~...;4j.II"/ /1 \ ~~: '0 'f~'" ~f '
2-" ~- _~ '-~ ~:-"jr~>;~;< I \ 1)/ .- ~ -- " '0 ~"-)~' ~
I( fJ~/"'" " ,q\. ~.~~s ,,,,"1:~~ 'Uh ~':;-'" \J IS @~~\A.....~~ ft
&1 . ~~. ,,'~"~::r~"- 1~\I~~~_~~"~\..o '--'~;~~1'~~
~' . \ "of' -j- ~/\:::"\ ~ '..h \ ~.'\ IIf,. (,Jj).
, ~<5: 0 __ ~o ~ Ii,. ,~ ;-;)-><~>. )<"\" ~ f ~'-8/' \ >'; -IIIi!r.AW
I,] g"?l: "~ ~ \ '" \~ ,,'/ -"- -......: . 1./'\;/) ~<"-jlA. '
" L ~ }:-.l ~.,'t N -:t~->--- .... -:..... \. . " '~ ~ '\V--1i::~ ~ ST_rf-r ""
o K L ~\\:--... Cl ....... ....... - ,,\ "'1 'Q, ~ '- f "" ,I..: ~<1 ~
0v ~\\! ,~:: ....~~~~'~ ~~~~~~~
10/1 '" t~\r~~~ ~~ ~~, r~---'/~'~\f~ ~
: VI r-........ / ~ \ ,"~ ~'.:: .... __ ~ ..... 'II Q~' '.1. ~~~
10 r u .--J\\~"\~~ ~o ;" :& n: ,~il:/
I I t / 1:- ,," \. '''1.\: '~' l;: "'1:" ' ../
I tl //~~. ~ \ : ~~_ ~R 1'~ JYl \ & 'A ~ 'Of_ ~ "..,'" #-7
!,1 r ~ ~~~~~~t;~'f~ I/g\ Pj:::. '" ~ \ ;:;::z"'-.,
1111 Ifo~ ~"""",'~~~ -'0 ~ I f/ "':--,,\11 ~" \ t;. '\ ~ I:i
II/v - - ~ VAl>~<fo ~'~.....~~'- I I. \:t\f~: \'-R R\ IV"'':;
'I /, r {\4 w:.~~ . ~~~.~ ~..' '\ \ \ v /
II{ I k' f-~ '\ \~~ -f;~/ Oolt '<< ~h, ~ ~ ,.', ,'},., ~ ... -.: /
i , n\ ~ \ ,\ \.."-- " ,,~ /. ','. . wo ~ TR~ l~ r-/
I' v ~~\ 0 I ~ .v- f/>'... ,~. " ~. rtt. ."::t-:' I
I ~\'.I'~ .. 1'..!\ "h~- (J, ~-I ~j~I~'-'~j.~,~, ~L-". ~~~
I ,"" ~ ~.li'-;l' w:x~~"S~'" .5:...:-.....:.~.....,.----"........
11II ~ ~~ '"I .. ~ ~"\ 1~'fXII /1 ,'/_" ~ N~<:$~~
!1,r~'" :~~\\0-<\.~ Kj~~:\ ",.,' ,0- 'U ~ ."r~~
Ii y ~?~~.,l ~-,,\~~\7;< \ ... L: ,,' N\ ,~~)~
I' I r s~. // ':'.~/ :\"\'\-aff oli."'W. ~ _ , ~ .
, ~.~ /:::: v.' <.~~_ :.<:: ~}/~. ~~
/"rl ! r ,';:f.-;:::"" ~-~- r~ v'~~.:'\JrJ J<~. '-j..-f-J.~ .),,'~'I;R'" _-~
III I I / .,f}? //9'~ ~.,,~ 0 ,-,( -=\ '6 "0
110/V, I /,~/ '.. .:xx,>- /~-.~ ~ ~Yf_ )\'\ _ ....~~_ ~11.]"\ "}..>.....,, .~
'1)\ -1.~ ~~ ,.~9:" ~ ~. -- .f.~'5<f: ~~~ ~~ ~~ '_~j~.)1:'~('-1
lijOv l' I ~// \~ ~" - -#\ ~/- on ~ :- :'( '0 '~7 4;~'T\~' :l;
I ') - . m ~ _' .:.- y. 'jY - l.--'~ ~
/(/ ~ /1.' - .-,-,\ ."'.... -- .~"\ ~. ;><.><;~... " ~\.l,-
1/ 0 I L:1jJ/ ,,-0 ~ ;;;\ .... , 1/..., ~ ~~~':)!l1 >
Inilv ,!@/ \ IJ" I !!t, ~, 0 ","'if>-.~ /~ ~ ~,\, .1~ ~ ~~1 < \ \ i~ \b
I r: ~U1_ _ I '11ft ;' .-iJi "" '.,/ " 'Fe.. ~~\, ,~~ \ ~ ~~~/ I ?,'~~--1;
I,f t:::--=-:: I II. 0/, ,. % ".""---''0 ',' \ . ...... 'T ; --::.--'l
I~lv v"'- t-j-.:: If I'NI .~/ '~<C'~"'" r---t\f- .-~
i\ ;W\;Y~'l\ ~y..\//~0, ~-I=J+~,::\~~q/'~~&~
v \ \ \ ,~= 'r1I..:l; -rJ.-t~~- ~ -"'~ ~
I I 0 \ o\!. I '" : k ~ I -:"\ '~ \ "-.---= ~ x::?;;;P'
I .lJ i \ I I C\ ~ I 0 ~<' ~Ti~rL~~1 - 1,<;' ,,~~~....~ '~~'V~~./.
f^ ')v \.. ",. l::j \ t:. '. ,~< l~.!! .0'-'-1!.1. k- ~ ';;."',;::-__~~,(jjj;
f \ \- ---'0 J.IJ( ~ =\~ lU;.~~,[\p=_I~~ ~I~I""'~.. ~1Jr
/'1 ~, OUTLOT C ~~ ~ ~\., l'~S,\ \, - 'L - m~::I,.t.' "<!-~"7;- - -~;(
;~L '1! '..:<:VI ",( ~ - ....' -,
1-='----- , J;;v. 1 ,- i~"':~;;'~""~_":1 /("1~':.......-~~~~'>~__;2-=:=
\ r-=- - - =-~1' r"-,"I .-'. I' I, IT;'ID ,"': ,,\" \ I (~....\ -, ..::t:.! "'-"
\ ..., Ill' 1'- ) r.r~;.~;l t I \ '- I ~ """" '~-0~~
I I' /1 IV-.!l: I .;';'0. I I I '-. " r--l \111' l ~-J r--I~-" ~/ ;)'1:
I \ \ ,/ ,I .......' I--- -/ 1--1. I I I "I If- 1 ~ ......._ / ,r _. /'_/
~~f ~~f 21
.61 '6t
~ii E~i
oo~~ ""~i!
?(~ ?(~
~ B
~ Il
::: :::
I~:
! I_:Z:_
ij I
lit
il}
~n
;ji
,.,
II
{'
II
H
"
h
II
n'i'l 'I[ '(
I! 5 1'1 I,
II!, h I
, ~ I
I I!
II
R1!l1I '
!n~1 III
!Jl:f!,i !!l
~JCI ,I.
'111~' 1
p
I
,
I
if ~
t I
.
! .
IIi
;g~
"'.
~e
z
>-
"
-<
Cl
"
>-
o
Z
Cl
o
'"
~
r-
III
I
III
:r
~
"
o
()
'"
o
~
o
."
;::
I;]
...
:i'
'"
."
o
z
o
III
'"
()
::l
o
z
:!::
5
III
III
o
c
:i'
~ w".. It
~ ~);' '~
~ '" :5....
aGfr
"f ...
o
,
;;; !
~ ;
~W'
'''h~
~rD-
~
E~~~~ ~
"~f~O ~
1;1:;:"'0,,", -t
~~ !
~w
e~iii
;;;;-0-..1
H
,
'I Ii
:. hI
i id
: .1
'I'
d
;l}
m
;il
r,.,
~I
tl
H
II
"
iI
Ci. @
~~!
i~
IItr II~
i I II I
h1ii iiiiiiii i ~_~lj"_""
! q ljljljlj
::; e t!1!l ;;~::;t! !! !:II;lOCU:$.
! ~ ~
~ ~
~
:Jl9
"'-
~f:
Z
>
;0
-<
r
>
z
a
1Il
o
>
'll
'"
'll
r
>
z
1Il
I
>
l::
;0
a
o
'"
a
g
o
'll
l::
'"
Z
-i
:;J
'"
~
5
1Il
1Il
g
:;'
:::
~~.
~ .
K
~ i
.
,~ I
z-
;;,;
I Iii
I' ~m
~
())
C>
I.f'l
':r.
>;c
o
-Q
~
0'
y
~
0',
0'
~
o
~
y
?
L
~-
'J7
<.,
0'
y;,
(">
o
-Z-
o
y
C
<
If....'"
fiI I'D .
.tliii.
"IZ"
11;1 mmmmmmmm~uumm
1'-: i:\~i1~~q"'i1i1qqGtlq':.:'~'1~:t~q,"\"'tic;~:ti\i\"G:tqtt
II III mmm:nmmm:mnmm;:
l'fltl mmm ummm :i~mHi~~
" hI 811~ fi
I II B. .
l!
<ll
17-
r
~
("
I"~
I.i, 1!1~!~!I!~~~IUUI~rr~~rrr~r~r~rn~
. fi i IViili Ajli.tiiliifliliiliiliotiiliiliiliiliiliiliili,fi
I}
I: nmmummm~ummuum
II ~~q"\Ci~"'C\~~""i\~"~i:\i\c;"iEiG"'i\q'll!tl!i~r;~:t~t:;<\
II nmme mUBiBimu
I! ~immi ~ii~~m~m~i~iIHm
~ i
~
~
Cl
\""
>c,
~.
<Jl
B
~
1:
I
L
f-
~
IU!! !UI~~~~~~~~~ III U!! IU!!!!!!!
Ailii1ijtiifi,iUiili;Ji
il1mmmmUmimm~~mm~
=t!tlt~~ ~~i\~ ~ :tqi\~~~;:;~~ii\~tt"~I(~ l;\~tt GG~G<1i1
nn:ilmiimmUiili:iiniiim
~m ~ m~Hmmmi~ mmm~
Ii
'{:..,
n
o
~
U~~!! IIIU IIIIUUI!~U! IIIIIIII U
H;
9 ~ ~iisia2es;i~iaia~a~;~ii~i
G'i""'!'t'!l\"l\'t,!,,~'t'!"l\;;~l\'t'tllG
imnl:ii:m~n:iu:ni
Iml!~ H ml!H ~li UI
y
C
I
f -
n-
,
,
~ ~~~~~~U!I! !!nr~ r~~ r r r~
U~~~~~ u~u~~~u~
~
--t .
Rl~
'"
;g;g
~~
" "
;;z
5?u
z-<
~
)>
Z
~, ~~;~i!!~~~
II! lIil'lIl1llr;;
l!i "11i:!lj ~
15 1I.:il;1i1
: II!) ",!IIIII
i!i' '111
hill
~~ :,1
i~ I
!
~tt~ ~ ~
S!! ~
g.!:! '"
~ ~
n ~i ~ ~ ~~ ~II ~
~~ !\N ~ ~!~ fi. ~ '"
~~ ,~~ i ~e;; ~ 1;
~a ~~ 11 ; ~~ ~~ 11 ~
~g ~ti ~ ~ ~g r I 6
~ ];I ;;1M ~ a Z
~ ii I i51 11 ~
~ I ~ i al
a ~ ~ a
g .
~
~ ~
~
III
I
)>
'"
"
o
()
^
o
~
r
!6
"
'"
Z
--t
i Ni! ilil: I
I~:'~il! I
! Ill".'
: It ~.I
, 0'111,
Iii'.' .11.
~ I -'"
'11111.:
I~. 0:1
'I: 1111
i !; .
~
U
:i!
'"
;;;
5
III
III
o
c
:i!
a
I~:
~ Ii
.
S I
:::z:: ..
;::;
;::;
~
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PLANNING/ENGINEERING ~
Ralph Teschner, Finance Director
WILDS SOUTH ADDITION - Preliminary
(assessment/fee review)
January 16, 2001
A 77 acre parcel comprising PIN #'s 25 323 025 0 thru 027 0 plus PIN #25-933 0190 and #25
934 008 0 is proposed to be developed as The Wilds South Addition. This area has received no
prior assessments for City municipal utilities.
Since utilities are available to the property site, the cost for the extension of services internally
will be the responsibility of the developer. In addition to these improvement costs, the
subdivision will be subject to the following City charges:
Collector Street Fee
Stormwater Management Fee
Trunk Sewer & Water Fee
Lateral Sewer & Water Charge
$ 1500.00/acre
$2943.00/acre
$3500.00/acre
150' @ $60.00/ff
The application of applicable City development charges would generate the following costs to
the developer based upon a net lot area calculation (includes Outlots A, B & C) of 52.59 acres of
single family units as provided within the site data summary sheet of the preliminary plat
description:
Collector Street Fee:
52.59 acres @ $1500.00/ac = $78,885.00
Storm Water Management Fee:
52.59 acres @ $2943/ac = $154,772.00
Trunk Sewer & Water Charge:
52.59 acres @ $3500.00/ac = $184,065.00
Lateral Sewer & Water Charge:
150' @ $60.00/ff= $9,000.00
These charges represent an approximate cost of $3,026.00 per lot for the 141 proposed single
family units within The Wilds South Addition. Assuming the initial net lot area of the
preliminary plat does not change, the above referenced storm water, collector street, trunk and
lateral sewer and water charges would be determined and collected within the context of a
developer's agreement for the construction of utility improvements at the time of final plat
approval.
There are no other outstanding special assessments cun-ently certified against the property. Also,
the tax status of the property is clln-ent with no outstanding delinquencies.
H:\SPLlTS\ WildsSouth.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DATE: January 30, 2001
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
FROM: Sue McDermott, City Engine~1v\
RE: The Wilds South (Project #01-35)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the preliminary plans for the subject project
and we have the following comments:
1. Do not drain lots across one another without providing easements over these areas.
This applies to Lots 17 & 18, Block 1 and Lot 15, Block 1.
2. The OHWL and HWL elevations in the calculations for the west wetland do not make
sense when compared to the grading plan.
3. The proposed flowrates from subcatchments 1 and 2 combined are higher than the
existing runoff conditions. Additional ponding will be required to meet existing
conditions. Ponding could be added at the southwest corner of Road 1 and Wilds
Parkway.
4. The existing storm sewer on Wilds Parkway is under sized to handle the additional
flow from proposed subcatchment #2, along with the existing NURP pond. This
comment integrates with number 3 above.
(5. /A wetland replacement application should be submitted.
6. The pad on Lot 8, Block 1 needs to be 3 feet above the 1 DO-year HWL.
7. Contours need to be provided 200 feet around the perimeter of the property,
especially north of Outlot E and west of Oaks Drive N.W.
8. It appears that it will not be possible to grade a high point of 955.0 around the NURP
basins in Block 4. The grading plan should be adjusted with a maximum of 3: 1 back
slopes on the ponds to achieve this elevation.
9. A backyard catch basin should be added at the southwest corner of Lot 9, Block4 to
... intercept flow through the backyards and routed to Pond 2.
}/-"\
10. The house pad on Lot 8, Block 1 is <30 feet from the 1 DO-year HWL of Pond 7.
11. Provide an access maintenance path to NURP pond 2.
12. Extend 16" watermain from the new well site (south of Booster Station) between Lots
6 and 7, Block 2 to Road 1 and south to CSAH 82. The 16" trunk watermain must be
extended to the west property line in accordance with the City's comprehensive plan.
G:\PROJECTS\200 1 \35wildsouth\REVIEWl.DOC
13. The parkland is to be graded with this addition in accordance with the City's
subdivision ordinance and development contract. Revise the grading plan to show
this.
I L-/. ~,..,,~::tJ b~.--'C)c c.j6A ~'-
\.-J)~ eO.os ~...:Jr~C
t "). ~ ~~.~~ J \c. - \?-a;0 "2..
\...--, ........ c "
~^-. :;....~.- ~
\~ .
If.
~~ ev.-Q.. LL."'-~ ~",,~,.t.o..-Y-Ot 5
?A~'~ ~ ~ 6~~ pJ~
(2--e. \/l' y ~ Cu. ~ u-v---- ('~
"f3i[f',,:;nJ")>~ +\-e ~ f-o,;, ~
l 8 .
lQ.
?r'"OU\cJ..L H-6J ~~~ c1o~
2
SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
(952) 496-8346
i l., '
: l \ \ !
Ll UL
JAM 24"
lil! ;\..
i; I..
,. .
Ii I
IJ1
BRADLEY J. LARSON
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR!
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
Fax: (952) 496-8365
January 22, 2001
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Preliminary Plat, Wilds South
CSAH 82, West of Wilds Parkway
Dear Jane:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat as it relates to Highway Department issues and offer the
following comments or concerns:
. A right turn lane and bypass lane, designed to County standards, shall be required for the
intersection of CSAH 82 and the proposed Road 2. A detailed plan and profile for the
intersection and improvements to CSAH 82 shall be submitted to the County Engineer for
review and approval before work begins.
. All existing field accesses or driveways to the property shall be completely removed from the
County right-of-way and graded to match the ditch.
. Any change in drainage entering the County right-of-way shall require detailed drainage
calculations to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval.
. An access permit for Road 2 shall be required.
. No berming, landscaping, ponding, or signing shall be allowed in the County right-of-way.
. A utility permit shall be required for any work within the County right-of-way.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me.
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
DATE: February 20,2001
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
FROM: Sue McDermott, City Engineer~
RE: The Wilds South (Project #01-35)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the preliminary plans for the subject project and
we have the following comments:
1. Do not drain lots across one another without providing easements over these areas. This
~-applies to Lots 17, 18 & 19 Block 1 and Lot 15, Block 1.
2. Garage floor elevations shall be a minimum of 1.5 feet above the top of curb elevation.
Check as it appears several lots in Blocks 1 and 3 do not meet this.
3. The proposed f10wrates from subcatchments 1 and 2 combined are higher than the
existing runoff conditions. Additional ponding will be required to meet existing conditions.
Ponding could be added at the southwest corner of Road 1 and Wilds Parkway.
4. The existing storm sewer on Wilds Parkway is under sized to handle the additional flow
from proposed subcatchment #2, along with the existing NURP pond. This comment
integrates with number 2 above.
5. A wetland replacement application should be submitted.
6. Contours need to be provided 200 feet around the perimeter of the property, especially
north of Outlot E and west of Oaks Drive N.W.
7. It appears that it will not be possible to grade a high point of 955.0 around the NURP
basins in Block 4. The grading plan should be adjusted with a maximum of 3: 1 back
slopes on the ponds to achieve this elevation.
8. A backyard catch basin should be added at the southwest corner of Lot 8, Block4 to
intercept flow through the backyards and routed to Pond 2.
9. Provide an access maintenance path to NURP pond 2 (In the final design plans).
10. Extend 16" watermain from the new well site (south of Booster Station) between Lots 6
and 7, Block 2 to Road 1 and south to CSAH 82.
11. Extend storm sewer north along the back property lines in Block 3 from Lot 46 to Lot 43.
.
G:\PROJECTS\200 1 \3 5wildsouth\REVIEW2.DOC
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4D
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF
PRIOR LAKE
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/ A
--
FEBRUARY 26, 2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
The City staff has been working on revising and updating the City Subdivision
Ordinance. The Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed a draft of the
Subdivision Ordinance at a workshop on October 30,2000. At that time, the staff
discussed several issues pertaining to this ordinance and received some guidance from the
City Council and the Planning Commission. These changes have been incorporated into
the attached draft of the Subdivision Ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
The Subdivision Ordinance is primarily a technical document outlining the regulations
and procedures for the subdivision of land. The ordinance looks at every type of
subdivision, from lot line adjustments to new developments with many lots.
The proposed ordinance does not differ substantially from the existing ordinance, except
perhaps in format. The proposed ordinance contains the following elements:
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS: This section outlines the purpose ofthe Subdivision
Ordinance, and the conditions under which it is applicable. This section also includes
definitions for the various terms used in the ordinance. Since the Zoning Ordinance
contains many of the same terms, we have used the same definitions. In some
instances, we may have revised or clarified definitions. In these cases, the Zoning
Ordinance should also be amended to include the same definitions.
2. PROCEDURES: This section includes the application and approval process for
preliminary and final plats. New to the proposed ordinance is a section outlining the
optional procedure for submittal of a concept plan. The ordinance also includes
provisions for determining whether or not a subdivision is premature. This section is
required as a condition of approval of the City's floating MUSA.
l:\newsubd\corresp\pc hearing. doc
Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
3. PLAT AND DATA REQUIREMENTS: This section details the minimum application
requirements for concept plans, preliminary plats, and final plats. One of the changes
proposed is a decreased level of detail required for preliminary plat applications. This
section also outlines a procedure for handling modifications, both major and minor, to
approved final plans.
4. DESIGN STANDARDS: This section details the design standards for a subdivision,
including lot sizes, blocks, streets, utilities, and other public improvements. Some of
the proposed changes include larger lot areas for double frontage lots, and a buffer
zone requirement around wetlands. This section also details the parkland dedication
requirements.
5. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS: This section outlines the improvements required for a
new subdivision, along with the responsibility of the developer and the City.
6. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT: This section outlines procedures for
nonplatted subdivisions, including administrative lot subdivisions and metes and
bounds subdivisions. It also includes the procedures for variances to the provisions of
the Subdivision Ordinance and violations to the provisions of the ordinance.
The Planning Commission should review the proposed ordinance and take testimony
regarding this proposal. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission should
identify any issues or areas of concern with the proposed ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the proposed Subdivision Ordinance as written
or with identified changes.
2. Recommend the City Council deny the proposed Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second to recommend approval of the proposed Subdivision Ordinance as
written or with identified changes.
l:\newsubd\corresp\pc hearing. doc
Page 2
2/22/01
DRAFT
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MN
CHAPTER 1000
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Subj ect............................................................. Chapter
General Subdivision Provisions...................... 1001
Procedures For Filing And Review................. 1002
Plat And Data Requirements........................... 1003
Design Standards ......................... ................... 1004
Required Basic Improvements........................ 1005
Administration And Enforcement................... 1006
1001.100
1001.200
1001.300
1001.400
1001.500
1001.600
1001.700
1001.100
1001.200
SECTION 1001 GENERAL SUBDIVISION PROVISIONS
SHORT TITLE
PURPOSE
ApPROVALS NECESSARY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION PLATS
CONDITIONS FOR RECORDING
BUILDING PERMITS
EXCEPTIONS
DEFINITIONS
SHORT TITLE: This chapter and the regulations set forth herein shall be
known as the SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PRIOR
LAKE and will be referred to herein as the "Subdivision Ordinance".
PURPOSE: In order to safeguard the best interests of the City and to assist
in balancing and harmonizing the interests of the subdivder with those of
the City at large, the following regulations are adopted so that the
adherence to same will bring results beneficial to both parties. It is the
purpose of the Subdivision Ordinance to make certain regulations and
requirements for the platting of land within the City, pursuant to the
authority contained in Minnesota Statutes, which regulations the City
Council deems necessary to promote and protect the health, safety and
general welfare of this community.
Page 1
1001.300
1001.400
1001.500
1001.600
2/22/01
DRAFT
.I
"
ApPROVALS NECESSARY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION PLATS:
Before any plat shall be recorded or be of any validity, it shall be referred
to the City Planning Commission and be approved by the City Council as
having fulfilled the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
CONDITIONS FOR RECORDING: No plat of any subdivision shall be
entitled to record in the County Recorder's office or have any validity until
the plat thereof has been prepared, approved and acknowledged in the
manner prescribed by the Subdivision Ordinance.
BUILDING PERMITS: No building permits shall be considered for issuance
by the City for the construction of any building, structure or improvement
to the land or to any lot in a subdivision as defined herein, until all
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance have been fully complied with.
EXCEPTIONS: The following land divisions are exempted from the
provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance and within 10 days of such a
request, the City shall certify that the Subdivision Ordinance does not
apply to such land divisions:
(1) Divisions ofland where the pumuse is to permit the adding of a parcel
of land to an abutting lot (lot line adjustment) CJr to :::;'cal::: 2 L)~~ ;JJl
:c;j~ci;<<:::;.:;) :::L: ",,'hell the newly created property line will not cause
the land or any structure to be in violation of the Drovisions of the
Subdivision Ordinance or the Zoning Ordinance.
(2) Combinations of 2 or more lots, or combinations of lots and portions
of lots, with continuous frontage, in single ownership, and of record,
are considered to be an individual parcel according to the provisions
Section 1101.501 (3, c) of the Zoning Ordinance.
(3) The combination of 2 or more nonconforming lots of record separated
by a private street as permitted under the provisions of Section
1101.501 (3, d).
(4) The divisiuJ: ;)f a base lot upon which a two-family dwelling,
townhouse or a quadraminium that is a part of a recorded plat where
the division is to permit individual private ownership of a single
dwelling unit within such a structure and the newly created property
lines will not cause any of the unit lots or the structure to be in
violation of the Subdivision Ordinance or the Zoning Ordinance.
Page 2
1001.700
2/22/01
DRAFT
(5) Administrative Land Subdivisions approved under the provisions of
Section i (i( V:. i uO of the Subdivision Ordinance.
DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this Subdivision Ordinance, certain
words and terms are hereby defined as set forth in this Section and in
Section 1101.400 of the Zoning Ordinance:
Alley: A public right of way with a width not exceeding 24 feet nor less
than 12 feet which affords a secondary means of access to property
abutting the alley.
Applicant: The owner of land proposed to be subdivided or the owner's
representative. This term shall also include the subdivider and/or the
developer of a subdivision.
Base Lot: A lot with an existing two-family dwelling unit meeting all the
specifications within its zoning district prior to being divided into a two-
family subdivision.
Block: An area of land within a subdivision that is entirely bounded by
streets, or by streets and the entire boundary or boundaries of the
subdivision, or by a combination of the above with a river or lake.
Block Front: The distance between intersections along one side of a
street.
Boulevard: The portion of the street right of way between the curb line
and the property line.
Bufferyard: An area of land established to protect and screen one type of
land use from another land use that is incompatible, pursuant to the
requirements of Section 1107.2000 of the Zoning Ordinance. Normally,
the area is landscaped and kept in open space use. Screening techniques
include the addition of vertical elements such as fences, walls, hedges,
trees, berms or other features to mitigate the effects of incompatible land
uses.
Building: Any structure having a use which may provide shelter or
enclosure of persons, animals, or chattel.
Comprehensive Plan: The group of maps, charts and texts that make up
the comprehensive long-range plan of the city, including, but not limited
Page 3
2/22/01
DRAFT
to the text of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Plan Map,
Transportation Plan and the Capital Improvements Program.
Design Standards: The specifications for the preparation of plats, both
preliminary and final, indicating among other things, the optimum,
minimum or maximum dimensions of such items as rights of way, blocks,
easements and lots.
Easement: A grant by a property owner for the use of land for the
purpose of constructing and maintaining drives and utilities, including, but
not limited to, wetlands, ponding areas, sanitary sewers, water mains,
iJi\':S, electric lines, cd),~ : LL:. telephone lines, storm sewer or
drainageways.
Final Plat: A drawing or map of a subdivision, meeting all of the
requirements of the City and in such form as required by Minnesota
Statutes and by Scott County for the purpose of recording.
Individual Sewage Treatment System: A septic tank, seepage tile sewage
disposal system, or any other approved sewage treatment device.
Level of Service (LOS): A description of traffic conditions along a given
roadway or at a particular intersection. The level of service ranges from
"A" (free flow of traffic with minimum intersection delays) to "P" (forced
flow, jammed intersections, long delays). It generally reflects factors such
as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions and
delays.
Lot: A parcel of land <3li:hiishul 11, pial, suhcli vision ur otherwise
,,-'C!i)! lh:d Y<]I :!l,e) occupied or used or intended for occupancy or use
by a use permitted in the Zoning Ordinance, abutting on a public or j)rl \:de
street, and of sufficient size to provide the yards required by the Zoning
Ordinance.
Lot Area: The area of a horizontal plane within the lot lines. Only land
above the ordinary high water level of a public water or above the lOO-year water
elevation of a wetland or pond may be used to meet the minimum lot area
requirements.
Lot Area, Minimum: Except as may be otherwise expressly allowed in
the Subdivision Ordinance or the Zoning Ordinance, the area of a
horizontal plane within the lot lines excluding major drainageways,
wetlands, water bodies, road rights of way, and regional utility/pipeline
easements.
Page 4
2/22/01
DRAFT
Lot Buildable: A lot which meets the minimum lot width and area
requirements of the use district in which it is located.
Lot, Corner: A lot situated at the junction of and abutting on two or more
intersecting streets, or a lot at a point of deflection in alignment of a
continuous street, the interior angle of which does not exceed 135 degrees.
Lot Depth: The mean horizontal distance between the front lot line and
the rear lot line of a lot.
Lot, Flag: A large lot not meeting minimum lot width requirements and
where access to the public road is by a narrow, private right-of-way or
driveway.
Lot Improvement: Any building, structure, place, work of art, or other
object, or improvement of the land on which they are situated constituting
a physical betterment of real property, or any part of such betterment.
Lot, Interior: A lot other than a comer lot.
Lot Line: The property line bounding a lot except that where any portion
of a lot extends into the public right-of-way, street easement, or a proposed
public right-of-way, the line of such public right-of-way or street easement
shall be the lot line for applying this Ordinance.
Lot Line, Front: That boundary of a lot which abuts a street. In the case
of a comer lot, the front lot line shall be the shortest frontage on a public
street. If the dimensions of a comer lot are equal, the front lot line shall be
designated by the owner and filed in the office of the Zoning
Administrator. If a parcel has multiple sides on more than two street
frontages, the front lot line shall be determined by the Zoning
Administrator.
Lot Line, Rear: A lot line not intersecting a front lot line that is most
distant from and most closely parallel to the front lot line. For a lot
bounded by only three lot lines, the rear lot line shall be a line 10 feet in
length within the lot, parallel to and at the maximum distance from, the
front lot line.
Lot Line, Side: A lot line which intersects with a front lot line.
Lot, Through: A lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting 2
substantially parallel streets, and which is not a comer lot.
Page 5
2/22/01
DRAFT
Lot Width: The horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at
the required front yard setback line.
Lot of Record: Any lot which is one parcel of a plat heretofore or
hereafter duly approved and filed, or 1 unit of an Auditor's Subdivision or
a Registered Land Surveyor a parcel of land not so platted, subdivided or
registered, for which a Deed, Auditor's Subdivision or Registered Land
Survey has been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds or
Registrar of Titles for Scott County, Minnesota, prior to the effective date
of this Ordinance.
Metes and Bounds: A method of describing the boundaries of land by
direction (bounds) and distances (metes) from a known point of reference.
Lots described by this method are generally unplatted parcels.
Outlot: A lot remnant or parcel of land left over after platting, which is
intended as open space or other use, for which no development is intended
and for which no building permit shall be issued. Outlots may also be
platted for parcels intended as private streets and platted or reserved for
future phases of a development.
Parks and Playgrounds: Public land and open spaces III the City
dedicated or reserved for recreation purposes.
Pedestrian Way (Walkway): A public right-of-way across a block or
within a block to provide access for pedestrians and which may be used
for the installation of utility lines.
Pipeline: A pipe with a nominal diameter of six inches or more, located
in the state, that is used to transport hazardous liquids, but does not
include pipe used to transport a hazardous liquid by gravity, and pipe used
to transport or store a hazardous liquid within a refining, storage, or
manufacturing facility; or a pipe operated at a pressure of more than 275
pounds per square inch that carries gas.
Pipeline easement: The existing easement or a subsequent easement
resulting from the negotiation of a change in the boundaries of the existing
easement.
Place of public assembly: A site that is occupied by 20 or more persons
on at least five days a week for ten weeks in any 12-month period. The
days and weeks need not be consecutive.
Planning Commission: The Planning Commission of the City.
Page 6
2/22/0 I
DRAFT
Plat: A map of a subdivision showing the boundaries and location of
individual lots, outlots, easements, streets and other rights-of-way.
Plat, CIC: A Common Interest Community Plat as described and defined
by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 515B.
Plat, Final: A map of all or, in the case of a phased or staged
development a portion of a subdivision, presented to the City Council for
final approval.
Plat, Preliminary: A map indicating the proposed layout of the
subdivision submitted to the City Council for preliminary approval.
Protective Covenants: A recorded contract made between private parties
as to the manner in which land may be used, with the view to protecting
and preserving the physical and economic integrity of any given area.
Public Improvement: Any ~,'al1i~<;:'y :"~''.\'8r :':/::lcm, \':aler :'Y::;~8m, storn'}
C','.c:' '.",:.:[:':11',. :;~r':.:'~:::'. c:c:l1:.:rc!c ::u:t anJ h;utt~;r. .::11'8(;:1 ligh::;, jJoncli'l;.
:mJcrgrCJu:d u:ij;li:,:. i:'C)IJ rnJliUilL:nL., ::icL:'.":l:L::, trail::. L~ccl::cJping or
~facility for which the City may ultimately assume the responsibility
for maintenance and operation, or which may affect an improvement for
which local government responsibility is established.
Public Works Design Manual: A policy manual adopted by the City of
Prior Lake for developers, builders and their engineers as well as City
engineers and consulting engineering personnel regulating and identifying
the minimum standards for the design, construction, and connection to
public infrastructure facilities within the City.
Replat: The subdivision of land in accordance with the Subdivision
Ordinance which has previously been platted and which is of record with
the County pursuant to Minnesota Statute, chapter 505.
Right-of-Way: An area or strip ofland, either public or private, acquired by
dedication, reservation, prescription or condemnation, occupied or intended
to be occupied by a road, crosswalk, utility line, railroad, electric
transmission line or other similar use and on which a right-of-passage has
been recorded for the use of pedestrians and vehicles, including trains, or
pedestrians or both.
Page 7
2/22/01
DRAFT
! I
!o ic:? I
I . .
~--L. I
. .
~ ............................................... J.ood
......................... I'
......................................,.........
D. l-r"l ~. !
i L.r i I
Setback: See Yard
Sidewalk/Trail: A paved path provided for pedestrian or bicycle use and
usually located at the side of a road within a right-of-way.
Concept Plan: A concept plan or informal map of a proposed subdivision
of sufficient accuracy to be used for the purpose of discussion and
classification of City ordinances with the City staff.
Street. A public or private thoroughfare that is used, or intended to be
used, for passage or travel by pedestrians and vehicles. Streets are further
classified in the Comprehensive Plan by the functions they perform.
Local Street: Roadways typically having lowest traffic volumes,
containing one lane of traffic in each direction whose primary
function is to provide access to and from property, and from
neighborhoods to minor collectors.
Cul-De-Sac: A local street with only one outlet and having an
appropriate terminal for the safe and convenient reversal of traffic
movement.
Minor Collector: Roadways containing one lane of traffic in each
direction. The primary function is to provide access to and from
neighborhoods and the local street system.
Major Collector: Roadways containing one or two lanes of traffic
in each direction with controlled intersections whose function is to
serve long trips within the City and access to and from collector
streets and to and from minor and major arterials.
Minor Arterials: Interregional roads containing one or two lanes
in each direction with limited access and controlled intersections at
other arterials and collector streets. Minor arterials convey traffic
between towns or other urban centers and are used to reduce tl;1e
Page 8
2/22/01
DRAFT
number of trips on the regional system. Efficient movement is the
primary function of a minor arterial road.
Principal Arterials: Limited access interregional arterial routes
containing two or more lanes in each direction. They are designed
exclusively for unrestricted movement, have no private access, and
intersect only with selected arterial highways or major streets by
means of interchanges engineered for free-flowing movement.
Subdivider: Any individual, firm, association, syndicate, partnership,
corporation, trust or other legal entity having sufficient proprietary interest
in the land sought to be subdivided to commence and maintain
proceedings to subdivide the same under the Subdivision Ordinance.
Subdivision: The division of an area, lot, parcel or tract of land into two
(2) or more parcels, tracts, lots or long-term leasehold interests by any
means including, but not limited to, preliminary and final plats, CIC plats
registered land surveys, administrative subdivisions and conveyance by
metes and bounds.
Unit Lots: A lot created from the subdivision of an existing building with
more than two dwelling units having different minimum lot size
requirements than the conventional base lot within the Zoning Use
District.
Yard: A required open space on a lot, which is unoccupied and
unobstructed by a structure from its lowest ground level to the sky except as
expressly permitted in this Ordinance. The yard shall extend along a lot line
and at right angles to the lot line to a depth or width specified in the yard
regulations for the district in which the lot is located.
Page 9
1002.100
1002.200
1002.300
1002.400
1002.500
1002.600
1002.700
1002.100
1002.101
1002.200
2/22/01
DRAFT
SECTION 1002
PROCEDURES FOR FILING AND REVIEW OF SUBDIVISIONS
CONCEPT PLAN
PRELIMINARY PLAT
FINAL PLAT
COMBINING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS
EFFECT OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
PREMATURE SUBDIVISIONS
REGIONAL SYSTEM SERVICE INADEQUACIES
CONCEPT PLAN: in urder to inform the applicant of the procedural
requirements and minimum standards of the Subdivision Ordinance, and
the requirements or limitations imposed by other City ordinances, plans
and/or policies, prior to the preparation of a preliminary plat. a11 applicani
mav su!)mlt ~! concern plan to tIle PlauninQ, Department prior to fiLiJ1S'. an
,1PDliunioll for a prelilninarv Dial. The Planning staff, along with other
City staff, will review the concept plan and discuss any foreseeable
problems or issues with the applicant. These discussions of the concept
plan shall bc' ach Isurv anu not ~onsidered binding in regard to
subsequent plat review. The Planning Department, notably in the case of
multi-phased plats, shall have the authority to refer the concept plan to the
Planning Commission and/or City Council for review and comment.
An application for review of a concept plan shall include, but not be
limited to the following:
(1) A completed application on the form provided by the City which shall
include the name, address and telephone number of the applicant and
the fee owner of the property, the location of the property, a
description of the proposed development and a working name for the
proposed development.
(2) Six (6) copies of the concept plan at a scale not less than one inch
equals one hundred feet (1' = 100').
(3) An eleven inch by seventeen inch (11" x 17") reduction of each sheet
of the concept plan.
(4) The information required III Section 1003.100 of this Subdivision
Ordinance.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Page 1 0
2/22/01
DRAFT
(1) FILING: An application for a preliminary plat, signed by the applicant
and the fee owner of the property, shall be submitted to the Planning
Department. This application shall be accompanied by the following:
a. Ten (10) full-scale copies and one 11" by 17" reduction of the
preliminary plat
b. All of the information required in Section 1003.200.
c. A radius map and a list and labels of the names and addresses of
owners of property located within five hundred feet (500') of the
subject property. These shall be obtained from and certified by an
abstract company or the Scott County Auditor's Office.
d. The required filing fee(s) as established by the City Council.
e. Any necessary applications for variances from the provisions of the
Subdivision Ordinance shall be submitted with the required fee.
(2) In accordance with Minnesota Statutes 9 15.99, the City shall review
the application and notify the applicant within 10 business days of
submittal whether or not the application is complete. The DrcJi rn inarv
plat ilDnlicatloJ! shall not be officially submitted and considered
complete until all the information requirements are complied with.
(3) HEARING: The Planning Department, upon receipt of a complete
application, shall set a public hearing date for public review of the
preliminary plat. 'Ij;:~:::JTir::; ::]}:1:I:1('( be hetel [mIll :~t~lff h:l~.: b~l::1
JdC~;~:i;:~' :i:;:~: ::. :<:\::..:\\ :::lci;rl'cp::rc :i r:..:Jy;rl ll! Lll:' !}lannint;
(,u;:~:;:~:CiJ ,:::; ::u1)(!:'i:'iil] appiiciit:O:l. Notice of the hearing
shall consist of the date, time and place of the hearing, a legal
description of the property, a description of the property reasonably
calculated to inform a person of the location, and description of the
preliminary plat request and where and when information pertaining to
the preliminary plat may be obtained. The hearing notice shall be
published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the
hearing. Notice of the hearing shall also be posted on the site at least
10 days prior to the hearing date. Written notification of the hearing
shall be mailed to all owners of land within five hundred feet (500') of
the boundary of the property in question at least ten (10) days prior to
the hearing. Any omission or defect, which I:; ftlLlnc: has not [0 h:1':'
impaired the ability of a surrounding property owner to participate in
the proceedings, shall in no way impair the validity of the proceedings
on the proposed application.
(4) REVIEW BY OTHER COMMISSIONS OR JURISDICTIONS: The Plannin2.
staff shall refer copies of the preliminary plat to County, Metropolitan,
Page 11
2/22/01
DRAFT
State or other public entities for their review and comment, where
appropriate.
(5) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission shall
conduct a public hearing in accordance with Section 1109.200 of the
Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission may continue the
public hearing and shall report its findings and make a
recommendation to the City Council within 60 days of the date a
complete application was received by the City. If the Planning
Commission has not acted upon the preliminary plat within sixty (60)
days following delivery of a subdivision application completed in
compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance, the Council may act on
the preliminary plat without the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
(6) CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
a. Pllrsuanl to iVliiillcsola Statutes 015,09, the City' Council shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny the preliminary plat
within one hundred twenty (120) days following delivery of a
complete application unless the applicant has agreed, in writing, to
an extension of the statutory review period.
b. In considering a preliminary plat application, the City Council may
impose reasonable conditions and restrictions as part of the
preliminary plat approval that are deemed necessary and
appropriate to protect the public health, safety, l~eneraj welfare and
COll\'c!1ic:ncc' uf(he C'itv.
c. If the preliminary plat is not approved by the City Council, the
C l '. v Council shall adopt written findings regarding the basis and
rationale for denying the application. The reasons for such action
shall be recorded in the minutes of the ('it v Council proceedings.
d. If the preliminary plat is approved, such approval shall not
constitute final acceptance of the plat. Subsequent approval will be
required for the engineering proposals and other features and
requirements as specified by the Subdivision Ordinance to be
indicated on the final plat. The City Council may require such
revisions in the preliminary plat and final plat as it deems
necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of
the City.
e. Once a preliminary plat is approved by the City Council, the
subdivider must submit an application for a final plat within twelve
Page 12
1002.300
2/22/01
DRAFT
(12) months after approval of the preliminary plat. If an applicant
fails to submit an application for a final plat within the specified 12
month period, the preliminary plat shall be considered void, unless
a request for time extension is submitted in writing and approved
by the City Council at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the
12 month period. Such extensions of time shall not exceed six (6)
months.
FINAL PLAT
(1) FILING: After the preliminary plat has been approved, the final plat
shall be submitted for review as set forth in the subsections which
follow. A final plat application, signed by the applicant and the fee
owner of the property shall be submitted to the Planning Department
accompanied by the following information.
a. Ten (10) full-scale copies and one 11" by 17" reduction of the final
plat.
b. All information required in Section 1003.300.
c. The required filing fee(s) as established by the City Council.
(2) In accordance with Minnesota Statutes S 15.99, the City shall review
the application and notify the applicant within 10 business days of
submittal whether or not the application is complete. The final plat
almliul[ioJ1 shall not be officially submitted and considered complete
until all the information requirements are complied with.
(3) APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL: The final plat and a signed
Development Contract shall be submitted to the City Council for
approval. The City Council shall adopt a resolution approving the
final plat and development contract. The resolution shall provide for
the acceptance of all agreements for basic improvements, public
dedication, payment of fees and other requirements as indicated by the
City Council. If the City Council denies the final plat, the Citv
Council shall adopt a resolution with written findings supporting the
basis for the denial. The findings for any refusal to approve a plat
shall be set forth in the minutes of the C j tv Council proceedings and
reported i lJ \iri i j n ~~ to the person or persons applying for such
approval.
(4) SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: When any eXIstmg special assessments
which have been levied against the property described shall be divided
Page 13
1002.400
2/22/01
DRAFT
and allocated to the respective lots in the proposed plat, the City
Finance Director shall distribute the remaining assessment balance on
a per equal unit basis, prepare a revised assessment roll, filing the same
with the County Auditor. If the per lot unit assessment is less than
$1,000.00, ~;;~:;: the entire assessment balance shall be paid before the
final plat is released.
(5) RECORDING FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT:
a. If the final plat and development contract are approved by the City
Council, the subdivider shall record both documents with the
County Recorder within sixty (60) days after said approval. The
subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City with
a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence
of the recording. The subdivider shall also furnish a copy of the
recorded final plat in an electronic format as prescribed by the
City. No building permits shall be approved for construction of
any structure on any lot in said plat until the City has received
evidence the final plat and devcloDmcnl contract have been
recorded with the County.
b. The final plat shall be considered void if not recorded within the 60
days provided for herein unless a request for ~ time extension is
submitted in writing and approved by the City Council prior to the
expiration of the 60 day period.
(6) RECORDING FINAL PLATS OF MULTI-PHASED PLATS: If a subdivider
plans to develop a subdivision in stages over a period of time, the City
Council must approve a staging plan for the development of the
subdi\i:;ion. The staging plan must be submitted as part of the final
plat application. The approved staging plan will be incorporated into
the Development Contract. Future phases of the development must be
platted as outlots on the final plat. If a p:..:: i r;i i r;~lr:, p iJ~ clcvcJopmcnt is
final platted in stages, all stages must be final platted into lots and
blocks, not outlots, within two (2) years after the approval of the
preliminary plat unless otherwise provided in the Development
Contract. Failure to obtain final plat approval for all phases of the
development within the two (2) year period or within the timelines of
the approved staging plan shall render the remaining stages of the
preliminary plat void.
COMBINATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
APPROV AL. In some instances, due to the simplicity of the proposed
subdivision, i: i::;;:;~:~: :~::::;~' the (it\ stein" 1m], a~rcc to combine the
.1-
Page 14
1002.401
2/22/01
DRAFT
preliminary and final plat process. The process may be combined only
when a proposed subdivision meets aU elf the following requirements:
(1) The resulting subdivision contains no more than _' 5 lots.
(2) The proposed subdivision is located in an area where streets and
utilities are in place and capable of serving the subdivision.
(3) The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication or
construction of future streets, and will not interfere with the pr:';)c:'
development of adjacent properties.
(4) The resulting parcels shall conform with all provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance.
PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERING COMBINED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
PLATS.
(1) FILING: An application for a combined preliminary and final plat,
signed by the applicant and the fee owner of the property, shall be
submitted to the Planning Department. This application shall be
accompanied by the following:
a. Ten (10) full-scale copies and one 11" by 17" reduction of the
preliminary plat
b. All of the information required in Section 1003.200 and in Section
1003.300.
c. A radius map and a list and labels of the names and addresses of
owners of property located within five hundred feet (500') of the
subject property. These shall be obtained from and certified by an
abstract company or the Scott County Auditor's Office.
d. The required filing fee(s) as established by the City CounciL
(2) In accordance with Minnesota Statutes S 15.99, the City shall review
the application and notify the applicant within 10 business days of
submittal whether or not the application is complete. The plat
application shall not be officially submitted and considered complete
until all the information requirements are complied with.
(3) HEARING: The Planning Department, upon receipt of a complete
application, shall set a public hearing date for public review of the
combined preliminary and final plat. Notice of the hearing shall
consist of the date, time and place of the hearing, a legal description of
the property, a description of the property reasonably calculated to
inform a person of the location, and description of the preliminary plat
Page 15
2/22/01
DRAFT
request and where and when information pertaining to the preliminary
plat may be obtained. The hearing notice shall be published in the
official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Notice of
the hearing shall also be posted on the site at least 10 days prior to the
hearing date. Written notification of the hearing shall be mailed to all
owners of land within five hundred feet (500') of the boundary of the
property in question at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Any
omission or defect, which has not impaired the ability of a surrounding
property owner to participate in the proceedings, shall in no way
impair the validity of the proceedings on the proposed application.
(4) REVIEW BY OTHER COMMISSIONS OR JURISDICTIONS: The staff
shall refer copies ofthe preliminary plat to County, Metropolitan, State
or other public entities for their review and comment, where
appropriate.
(5) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission shall
conduct a public hearing in accordance with Section 1109.200 of the
Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission may continue the
public hearing and shall report its findings and make a
recommendation to the City Council within 60 days of the date a
complete application was received by the City. If the Planning
Commission has not acted upon the preliminary plat within sixty (60)
days following delivery of a subdivision application completed in
compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance, the CilY Council may act
on the preliminary plat without the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
(6) CITY COUNCIL ACTION: The combined preliminary and final plat and
a signed Development Contract shall be submitted to the City Council
for approval. The City Council shall adopt a resolution approving the
final plat and development contract within 120 days following delivery
of a complete application unless the applicant has agreed, in writing, to
an extension of the statutory review period. The resolution shall
provide for the acceptance of all agreements for basic improvements,
public dedication, payment of fees and other requirements as indicated
by the City Council. If the City Council denies the final plat, the Cil\
Council shall adopt a resolution with written findings supporting the
basis for Li it' denial. The findings for any refusal to approve a plat
shall be set forth in the minutes of the Ci I \ Council proceedings and
reported in \Vritiii~' to the person or persons applying for such
approval.
(7) SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: When any eXIstmg special assessments
which have been levied against the property described shall be divided
Page 16
1002.500
1002.600
2/22/01
DRAFT
and allocated to the respective lots in the proposed plat, the City
Finance Director shall distribute the remaining assessment balance on
a per equal unit basis, prepare a revised assessment roll, filing the same
with the County Auditor. If the per lot unit assessment is less than
$1,000.00, ~ 1; c;; the entire assessment balance shall be paid before the
final plat is released.
(8) RECORDING FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT:
a. If the final plat and Development Contract are approved by the
City Council, the subdivider shall record both documents with the
County Recorder within sixty (60) days after said approval. The
subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City with
a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence
of the recording. The subdivider shall also furnish a copy of the
recorded final plat in an electronic format as prescribed by the
City. No building permits shall be approved for construction of
any structure on any lot in said plat until the City has received
evidence the plat and development contract have been recorded
with the County.
b. The final plat shall be considered void if not recorded within the 60
days provided for herein unless a request for time extension is
submitted in writing and approved by the City Council prior to the
expiration of the 60 day period.
EFFECT OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL: For one Qlyear following
preliminary plat approval and for two (2) years following final plat
approval, unless the subdivider and the City agree otherwise, no
amendment to the City of Prior Lake's Comprehensive Plan. Zoni n9.
()rdirwrlcc or Subdivision Ordinance shall apply to or affect the use,
development density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication required or
permitted by the approved plat. Thereafter, upon resolution of the City
Council, the City may extend the period by agreement with the subdivider,
or it may require submission of a new plat unless substantial physical
activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the
approved plat and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage
as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new plat.
PREMATURE SUBDIVISIONS: Any preliminary plat/final plat and/or
development
~...' ':_.)~\,' I} I'-r .:-:.~.. ~'::;:_:'r,,',:; :_~: ~_.; :-l-~ > :<..; .~> ~-~_;: :",'; ,,\ 'l't!I':~.~ 2~~ :_: t~): -~.' I:.:! t:;' ::.; : ,A,;. :~ ~::_~ do; \::~-:,: :___'~':-:
may be determined to be premature should any of the provisions which
follow exist:
Page 17
2/22/01
DRAFT
(1) LACK OF ADEQUATE DRAINAGE: A condition of inadequate drainage
exists if any of the following provisions exist:
a. Surface or subsurface water retention and runoff is such that it
constitutes a danger to the structural integrity of the proposed
structures.
L The proposed site grading and development will cause pollution of
water sources or damage from erosion and siltation on downhill or
downstream land.
c. Siun;, lrunk L,c1!nic' ;md/or rCQional Dondin~ facilities that \\ill
<:>~'r'\",:,' ll~c pn.."Jpos(<{f -p]~,lt j'la\(; not \'(:1 L)('Cn C()nSlfuctCc!.
{;.;-d , Factors to be considered in making the* determinations rc~,ar(li Ii ~
,J. h ;JilCl C :il,,;vc may include, but are not limited to: average
rainfall for the area; the relation of the land to flood plains; and the
nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support
surface water runoff.
(2) LACK OF ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY: A proposed subdivision lacks
an adequate water supply if the proposed subdivision does not have
adequate sources of water to serve the proposed subdivision when
developed to its maximum permissible density without causing an
unreasonable depletion of existing water supplies for surrounding
areas.
(3) LACK OF ADEQUATE ROADS OR HIGHWAYS To SERVE THE
SUBDIVISION: A proposed subdivision lacks adequate roads or
highways to serve the subdivision when any of the following
provisions exist:
a. Roads which serve the proposed subdivision are of such a width,
grade, stability, vertical and horizontal alignment, site distance and
surface condition that the increase in traffic volume generated by
the proposed subdivision would be detrimental to the City's
interest in promoting and protecting the public safety and general
welfare, or seriously aggravate an already dangerous or hazardous
condition, or when, with due regard to the advice of Scott County
and/or the Minnesota Department of Transportation, said roads are
inadequate for the intended j I1crcascd use.
b. The traffic volume generated by the proposed subdivision would
decrease the level of service on highways existing at the time of the
application or proposed for completion within the next two (2)
years.
Page 18
1002.602
1002.603
2/22/01
DRAFT
(4) LACK OF ADEQUATE WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS: A proposed
subdivision lacks adequate waste disposal systems if, in subdivisions
for which sewer lines are proposed, there is inadequate sewer capacity
in the existing system to support the subdivision if developed to its
maximum permissible density after reasonable sewer capacity is
reserved for schools, planned public facilities, and commercial and
industrial development projected for the next five (5) years.
(5) INCONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: A proposed
subdivision is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan when
the subdivision is inconsistent with the purposes, objectives and
recommendations of the adopted Comprehensive Plan of Prior Lake,
as may be amended. Subdivisions that are not proposed in areas
consistent with the criteria for allocation of MUSA reserve shall be
deemed inconsistent.
(6) PUBLIC SERVICE CAPACITY: A proposed subdivision lacks necessary
public service capacity when services such as recreational facilities,
schools, police and fire protection and other public facilities, which
must be provided at public expense, cannot reasonably be provided for
within the next two (2) years.
(7) INCONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS: A proposed
subdivision is inconsistent with capital improvement plans when
improvements and/or services necessary to accommodate the proposed
subdivision have not been programmed in the Prior Lake, Scott
County or other regional Capital Improvement Plans. The City
Council may waive this criteria when it can be demonstrated that a
revision to the City Capital Improvement Plancan be accommodated.
BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING: The burden shall be upon the applicant to
show that the proposed subdivision or development is not premature.
PROCESS USED TO DEFINE A PREMATURE SUBDIVISION.
(1) ApPLICATION. Upon receipt of an application for a preliminary plat or
a final plat, the City staff will review the application based on the
criteria listed in Section 1002.601 of the Subdivision Ordinance to
determine if the proposed subdivision is premature.
(2) NOTIFICATION. If the staff finds a subdivision premature under the
criteria listed in Section 1002.601, the applicant will be notified of the
staffs findings in writing within 10 business days of receipt of a
complete application. This notification shall constitute denial of the
application.
Page 19
1002.700
2/22/01
DRAFT
(3) ApPEAL. Any owner of affected property or any applicant may appeal
the staff finding of a premature subdivision to the City Council. The
appeal must be in writing and must be filed with the Planning
Department within 5 calendar days after the date of the written
notification of the decision. The required fee shall be paid when the
appeal request is filed. When an appeal is received by the City, the
applicant will be notified of the date and time the City Council will
hear the appeal. No appeal will be heard until all owners of property
within 500 feet of the subject property are notified of the date
scheduled for the appeal hearing. Notice shall be provided in the
manner set out in subsection 1109.200 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
City Council shall hear the appeal within 30 days of the filing of the
appeal unless that period is extended with consent of the appellant.
The City Council shall render a decision within 30 days of the
conclusion of the appeal hearing.
REGIONAL SYSTEM SERVICE INADEQUACIES
(1) EXISTING CONDITIONS: An approved preliminary plat or building
permit within an approved final plat may be deemed as premature
development if any of the following conditions set forth are found to
exist:
a. The regionally controlled metropolitan sanitary sewer interceptors
or waste water treatment facilities are classified as having
inadequate capacity to provide service within the standards of
recognized public health and safety.
b. Responsible metropolitan units of government prohibit the City
from issuing building permits.
c. Regional transportation systems are deemed as inadequate to
provide service levels within standards of recognized public safety.
d. Storm drainage systems under the jurisdiction of regional
watershed districts, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, or other such responsible
jurisdictions are inadequate to provide service levels within
standards of recognized public health and safety.
(2) CITY LIABILITY EXEMPTION: All preliminary and final plat
approvals and related formal development contracts shall stipulate and
shall exempt the City from any liability associated with platting or
Page 20
2/22/01
DRAFT
building permit denial based upon factors and conditions related to
regional governmental agency and unit jurisdictions and related service
inadequacies.
Page 21
1003.100
1003.200
1003.300
1003.400
1003.500
1003.100
1003.200
1003.201
2/22/01
DRAFT
1003 PLAT AND DATA REQUIREMENTS
CONCEPT PLAN
PRELIMINARY PLAT
FINAL PLAT
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED
MODIFICATIONS TO ApPROVED FINAL PLANS
CONCEPT PLAN: Concept plans shall contain, at a minimum, the
following information:
(1) Plat boundary.
(2) North arrow
(3) Scale.
(4) Street layout on and adjacent to plat.
(5) Designation of land use and current or proposed zoning.
(6) Significant topographical or physical features.
(7) General lot locations and layout.
(8) Preliminary evaluation by the applicant that the subdivision is not
classified as premature based upon criteria established in Section
1 ()()2. 600 of this Subdivision Ordinance.
(9) The eitv rnav rcquest anv other information deelned nccessarv to
determine theirnDacr of the nroposed subdivision on the health. safety
iHld wclLlrc of the Pl'opcnvin the ('itv and City residents.
PRELIMINARY PLAT: The subdivider shall prepare and submit a
preliminary plat application together with any necessary supplementary
information, a preliminary grading. street and ]J;:il: ;;;~d ;: p:.c;:rni;;::,>
utility plan. The plans shall contain the information set forth in the
subsections which follow.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUIREMENTS:
(1) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
a. Proposed name of subdivision; names shall not duplicate or too
closely resemble names of existing subdivisions.
Page 22
2/22/01
DRAFT
b. Location of boundary lines in relation to a known section, quarter
section or quarter-quarter section lines comprising a legal
description of the property.
c. Names and addresses of all persons having an interest ill Lhe
property, the developer, designer and surveyor together with his
registration number.
d. Graphic scale or plat, not less than one inch to one hundred feet (1 "
= 100')
e. Date and north arrow.
f. Identify portions of property that are registered (Torrens).
(2) EXISTING CONDITIONS:
a. Boundary line and total acreage of proposed plat, clearly indicated.
b. Existing Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning
classifications for land within and abutting the subdivision,
including shoreland district boundaries.
c. Location, widths and names of all existing or previously platted
streets or other public ways, showing type, width and condition of
improvements, if any, railroad and utility rights of way, parks and
other public open spaces, permanent buildings and structures,
easements and section and corporate lines within the tract and to a
distance of two hundred feet (200') beyond the tract.
d. Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land,
within two hundred feet (200'), identified by name and ownership,
including all contiguous land owned or controlled by the
subdivider.
e. Any other information the City finds necessary to determine the
impact the proposed subdivision will have on the health, safety and
welfare of property in the City and ('jlV residents.
(3) PROPOSED DESIGN FEATURES:
a. Layout of proposed streets showing the right-of-way widths, center
line gradients, typical street sections, and proposed names of
streets. The name of any street heretofore used in the City or its
environs shall not be used unless the proposed street is a logical
extension of an already named street, in which event the same
name shall be used.
b. Locations and widths of proposed alleys and pedestrian ways.
Page 23
2/22/01
DRAFT
c. Location, dimension and purpose of all easements.
d. Layout, numbers, lot areas and preliminary dimensions of lots and
blocks.
.-"~<':j i()) dJ',~'~L i,:\CiUS-l\'\.:.' elf )'!,laCJ n:..;iU-(11-\Va\ d.nd \\:cTlanc! ;:~i-!c!
(\1';"\ l 11 :J~~!_ (.-' ,~~~t:::',(~lIl c]] ts.
f. Minimum front and side street building setback lines. When lots
are located on a curve, the width of the lot at the required front
yard setback must be identified.
g. Areas, other than streets, alleys, pedestrian ways, and utility
easements, intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use,
including the size of such area or areas in acres.
h. Any other information the City finds necessary to determine the
impact the proposed subdivision will have on the health, safety and
welfare of property in the City and City residents.
(4) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any or all of the supplementary
information requirements set forth in this subsection shall be submitted
when deemed necessary by the City staff, City Attorney, consultants to
the City, advisory bodies 01'111(' Cih and/or City Council.
a. Proposed restrictive covenants.
b. An accurate soil survey of the subdivision prepared by a qualified
person.
c. Statement of the proposed use of lots stating type of buildings with
number of proposed dwelling units or type of business or industry,
so as to reveal the effect of the development on traffic, fire hazards
and congestion of population.
d. If any zoning changes are contemplated, the proposed zoning plan
for the areas, including dimensions, shall be shown. Such proposed
zoning plan shall be for informational pumoses only and shall not
vest any right in the applicants.
e. The subdivider shall be required to submit a concept plan of
adjacent properties so as to show the possible relationships
between the proposed subdivision and future subdivisions. All
subdivisions shall be required to relate well with existing or
potential adjacent subdivisions.
f. Where structures are to be placed on lots which are subject to
potential replat, the preliminary plat shall indicate a logical way in
which the lots could possibly be resubdivided in the future.
Page 24
1003.202
2/22/01
DRAFT
g. Where irregular shaped lots have been proposed, house plans shall
be submitted which demonstrate such lots are buildable and the
resulting structure compatible in size and character to the
surrounding area.
h. A comprehensive screening plan which identifies all proposed
buffering and screening in both plan and sectional view.
1. Any other information the City finds necessary to determine the
impact the proposed subdivision will have on the health, safety and
welfare of property in the City and ('il\ residents.
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN: The developer shall submit a preliminary
grading, drainage and erosion control plan, prepared by a registered
professional engineer in accordance with Minnesota State Rules, including
the following information:
(1) North arrow, scale (not less than l' = 100') and legend.
(2) Lot and block numbers, house pad location, home style and proposed
building pad elevations at garage slab and lowest floor for each lot.
(3) Topography in two foot (2') contour intervals with existing contours
shown as dashed lines and proposed contours as solid lines. Existing
topography shall extend a minimum of two hundred feet (200')
outside of the tract to be subdivided or outside of the contributing
drainage area, whichever is greater.
(4) Location of all natural features on the property. Natural features -8f.B
~:'::::,L':'2C: ::' include, but are not limited to, the following: tree lines,
wetlands, ponds, lakes, streams, drainage channels, bluffs, steep
slopes, etc.
(5) Location of all existing storm sewer facilities, including pipes,
manholes, catch basins, ponds, swales, and drainage channels within
two hundred feet (200') of the tract. Existing and proposed pipe
grades, rim and invert elevations, and normal and high water
elevations must be included.
(6) UUle plat is located within or adjacent to a 100-year flood plain, flood
elevations and locations must be clearly shown on the plan.
(7) Spot elevations at drainage break points and directional arrows
indicating site, swale and lot drainage.
(8) Locations, grades, rim and invert elevations of all storm sewer
facilities, including ponds, proposed to serve the tract.
(9) Locations and elevations of all street high and low points.
Page 25
1003.203
2/22/01
DRAFT
(10) Street grades, with a maximum permissible grade of eight percent
(8%) and a minimum of f,,' "x:':, ~ercent C',5l%) 0: iF
C)-UjCT\\'is'~ Drovided bv the; '- Ii \.
(11) Phasing of grading.
(12) The location of all easements and right-of-way.
(13) All soil erosion and sediment control measures to be incorporated
during and after construction must be shown. Locations and standard
detail plates for each measure must be included on the plan.
(14)All revegetation measures proposed for the Drupert\', including seed
and mulch types and application rates must be included on the plan.
(15) A Tree Preservation Plan as required by Section 11 07.2100 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
(16) Any other information the City finds necessary to determine the
impact the proposed subdivision will have on the health, safety and
welfare of property in the City and Cit v residents.
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN: The developer shall subnlit a prclilTLirlarv
utiiitv r,!dn ('ontainins' the location mId silt: of all existing ,lIld proposed
C'dSCU1C:ilS Dius ai! uvedlead :!!lei u'lc!cn:rouncl t~lCili1ies vvithin the prODenv
:ine! to a minimum distance o]'t\\O hundred feet (2Ui)'i beyond the propenv
b()undaries. including the fOUOW1IW:
(1) EASEMENTS: Location, dimension and purpose of all easements.
(2) UNDERGROUND FACILITIES: LO:::ltion and :'i;~,e of e::i::tin.; ::::\\CL.
":Il~'r ;',11::::. :::11, crt:l. or other unckr:;round Llcililies 'xithin the lraci
I:I:! l...... I, :i'::,:::'lI::1 I:l::an:':' 1-1"'.'.0 hllDd,"I'd feel (2C!()') h::yoncl rh'c tract
,./~~~,. ,~!~:~;~~ ::,:,~ ;:-:.:'~:',,:'~_';. ~:;'.!~T~ (:;-~::"<:~::'11~:'.'. ~.~,:)~! :~')S~:t;:->:.J c~:F c~_Jc-J; b~~,~.;ir,;;.~.
::';:::1'\ !~': 11:<: !!"j:',li1l::!1:l!] :11:<) 1:':hC'\','Ii.
<-1, \\' \'rER: _/\ilrnai_ns. l')vdrants. \.al\-(:~ and ~c'rvjccs.
b SAc~rL\J.I.\ SEVn:n.: :.\1] fClClliucs includiJH2 mains. rnanholcs. iij\
, " . I ' , '1'
;-:.a,(lLIC'lns~ ~:lTlci sc>r'\'lCCS \\'It') invert ::tl1e Lcrj) C-~lStlnv~ c CvallOnS.
C STOlFvI DfC\I\.\GE: AU L1Cililics includinL' (Ii! piping, cuivcns.
calc!: h:JsiliS. rnluJllcllcs.lifl stations and Doncls with invert and lOp
'--, f c asri 1'1~!. (; 1 c;~v a tio n.s.
!'Rl\!\IT tTIUTIES: /\:1 ,,',IS. ,.;lcclric. cable. telephone. '-me!
l CL:C()TrirnUl'l jc~tLi (}L'iS 1'(:\(j 1 i 1 i cs.
e. \\:(_'l!.s al1d ~>:l)LiC s\/Slcrns.
(3)"J'V"T"1' F"I'Plv,
. ~ .. -, ... ~..' .' . .
\^J~_~~2r li~~~i~_-::~;
DC pr:l'id:d Ie) :.:cr'."c thc
c'c:nnlunit\ ::'.::ICG1, See,ice
,""nll
..-',.1.......1
~'~;~:~:~-~_;"~~:i:--.l.: ~_ l :.'\-~~:':'; _~~:'.1~ ...': :J:~ ',.:~'::~-~-~::_:l:;
Page 26
"
1003.300
2/22/01
DRAFT
'''''',..1.,
..,,,.IJ-' to')
1:':"~-'-:'."-;J~: r'~Jl);:'~'- ',' '~:~l',>: d.'
:- ',;"::'; ,:,,; l'~ ',-"
! ' " ~, " , '-'" , ..j
'd'~, ,..::.:,l,J ....'-,
; ','; '.'1;',
:' ~ ~'.' 1 ",
~~.:~'::'~:'::-:::~:;:'-:~'~\, \\':t!-'_: '~::_':~' -~),~:~;::<~ \),.r',':,;;'L~.; _['l':'~. :~~,;'-~ t\/L~_-:_J~.'~~.;_1 J2:'::i;~": ~.~'::l~':_d:lr~::,~ ~;,:':
a;,p:u'_'~: C,',' ['l:,'::>'En:;inc.:::' ane! :ll a::::")]"CUIlce ",it!; Ute C:",';;
l:n!J:'Cj)~'rL :'c \\':,.:1'::: PLI::,
(;J):::::".\cr DL'PO:<,\l: ";:u::u:-, ,~:""';;.T J:L:ur :f;d :"5\ie.:: :'::In:L:::::::):k
';': ::!'I';' il:':: a! Lxii:: ::cc:c:':!u:J:::: ,,'.'i~l1 the Pa b lie \^.' c:'L:.'Dc::; ':::J1~..1:ulu:d
". ~:. : _: ',.. ;"" i : \, .
El:.\(1, ~",>f'p A F'1\' ';';;,' ~'\\:'~"l,l- ~~'.;.",."'t. ..~.lr'T't r.....,l..,.,..
-;:J7....J'~, .... ~,~_<". ,_..I.,," ...~.. ::.. ..'~.". t'~. -.
L:":~i:~~in~;, ~;raclc;;. run :u:~! ;:1\ ;;T~
,~<~,:,::::..:i~>n:.~.. ~:I:~~: :.:L~<~-:: :. f' ~~~.: j>r:';-~)c:'~~'c.! ;'_:~;:'lil~::~.> L.:C\\.':;:~:- L~c>iLt'j'2:; t~; ~';~:T\:C-
~j;(; Ir:I:::t.
(6)STon~1 Sn'TH: :cLI1'IJ) ~;c\\er LI)'OUl ane: ~;Upp0l1il:S calculation;: :t~:
outiim:(l if: the-Pub;!:::' '-\lor!:: De-:.i;;r: Ma:maL
(7)1.1."1'1"'"''1''' ,,~", ""'l'Ti"
. ..< .-' ..., ~;' ....' ..,.....,'~) ''- .. ..J' ___ _n' .
[':;C:1tI(il1 of aU propo::::d bydr:1n:~: ~tl1Ci
, r, ., , _
.:':\':';; t;ir We });"'I'<:::::(1":11(>:- n~;Hn:;.
f&}(3) Any other information the City finds necessary to determine the
impact the proposed subdivision will have on the health, safety and
welfare of property in the City and its residents.
FINAL PLAT: The owner or subdivider shall submit a final plat, final
grading, development, and erosion control plans, and final streeT and
utility plans, together with any necessary supplementary information. -rhe
final construction Dians shall be prepared by a professional ci1l!incer
rc,~istcr(:d in the State of Minnesota. The final plat, prepared for recording
purposes, shall be prepared in accordance with provisions of State statutes
and County regulations, and such final plat shall contain the following
information:
(1) Name of the subdivision.
(2) Location by section, township, range, County and State, and including
descriptive boundaries of the subdivision, based on an accurate
traverse, giving angular and linear dimensions which must
mathematically close.
(3) The location of monuments shall be shown and described on the final
plat. Locations of such monuments shall be shown in reference to
existing official monuments on the nearest established street lines,
including true angles and distances to such reference points or
monuments.
Page 27
1003 .400
2/22/01
DRAFT
(4) Location of lots, streets, public highways, alleys, parks and other
features, with accurate dimensions in feet and decimals of feet, with
the length of radii and/or arcs of all curves, and with all other
information necessary to reproduce the plat on the ground shall be
shown. Dimensions shall be shown from all angle points of curve to
lot lines.
(5) Lots and outlots shall be numbered clearly. Blocks are to be
numbered, with numbers shown clearly in the center of the block.
(6) The exact locations, widths and names of all streets to be dedicated.
(7) Location and width of all easements to be dedicated.
(8) Name and address of the registered land surveyor preparing the plat.
(9) Scale of the plat shall be 100 scale with the scale shown graphically
on a bar scale along with the date and north arrow.
(10) A Statement dedicating all easements as follows: "Easements for
installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are
reserved over, under and along the strips marked drainage and utility
easements".
(11) A Statement dedicating all streets, alleys and other public areas not
previously dedicated as follows: "Streets, alleys, and other public
areas shown on this plat and not heretofore dedicated to public use are
hereby so dedicated".
(12) The final grading,_:~'\::(;>ni~T~ ;:!~: erosion control and street and
uuk,. plans must be prepared in accordance with the current City
Public Works Design Manual and Sectiuns j OU3,202 and j 003.203.
(13) A title report prepared by a title company indicating owners and
encumbrances on the property and a statement as to which parts of the
property are registered (Torrens).
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED:
(1) Certification by a registered surveyor in the form required by
Minnesota Statutes, section 505.03, as amended from time to time.
(2) Execution by all owners of any interest in the land, any holders of a
mortgage thereon, of the certificates required by Minnesota Statutes,
section 505.03, as amended, and which certificate shall include a
dedication of the utility easements and other public areas in such form
as approved by the City.
(3) Space for certificates of approval and review to be filled in by the
signatures of the Mayor and City Manager.
Page 28
1003.500
1003.501
1003.502
2/22/01
DRAFT
MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED FINAL PLANS. Any
modifications to approved final plans must be reviewed and approved by
the City. Changes may be classified as minor or major changes, and shall
be approved according to the following procedures.
MINOR MODIFICATIONS. Minor modifications are changes that do not
substantially affect the design of the approved plat. Minor modifications
include: changes to the grading plans thaT do nol aft;:;cl adiaccnt properties,
changes to tree preservation plans That do not increase the number of trees
to be removed, changes to the landscaping plan, and engineering design
changes to streets or utilities required as a result of previously unknown
field conditions. Requests for minor modifications must be submitted to
City staff for review and approval prior to the commencement of any
work.
MAJOR MODIFICATIONS. Major modifications are changes substantially
affecting the design of the subdivision. Major modifications include:
increase in the number of approved lots, realignment of roads outside of
the dedicated right-of-way, placement of utilities outside of dedicated
easements, and changes in parkland dedication. Major modifications shall
require approval of the City Council. The (:i1\ Council may choose to
refer major modifications to the Planning Commission for a public hearing
Drior to JnakTl1Q a decisiol1.
Page 29
1004.100
1004.200
1004.300
1004.400
1004.500
1004.600
1004.700
1004.800
1004.900
1004.1000
1004.11 00
1004.1200
1004.100
1004.200
1004.201
1004.202
1004.300
1004.301
2/22/01
DRAFT
1004 DESIGN STANDARDS
PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN MANUAL
BLOCKS
LOTS
STREETS AND ALLEYS
SIDEWALKS AND MULTI-PURPOSE TRAILS
EASEMENTS
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
STORM DRAINAGE
PROTECTED AREAS
DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM DESIGN FEATURES
ZONING ORDINANCE CONSISTENCY
PLHHJ( ';VORkS Dr:SIGf\ :\L\NlL\L. The design standards outlined
in the City Public Works Design Manual are hereby adopted and
incorporated into this Sllbdi\.isiun Ordinance by reference.
BLOCKS:
BLOCK LENGTH: In general, intersecting streets, determining block
lengths, shall be provided at such intervals so as to serve cross-traffic
adequately and to meet existing streets. Where no existing plats control,
the blocks in residential subdivisions should not exceed one thousand
three hundred twenty five feet (1,325') nor be less than four hundred feet
(400') in length, except where topography or other conditions justify a
departure from this these dimensions. In blocks longer than eight hundred
feet (800'), the City may require pedestrian ways and/or easements through
the block near the center of the block.
BLOCK WIDTH: The width of the block shall normally be sufficient to
allow two (2) tiers of lots of appropriate depth. Blocks intended for
business or industrial use shall be of such width as to be considered most
suitable for their respective use, including adequate space for off-street
parking and deliveries.
LOTS:
AREA: The minimum lot area, width and depth shall not be less than that
established by the City Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time.
Page 30
1004.302
1004.303
1004.304
1004.305
1004.306
1004.307
1004.308
1004.309
2/22/01
DRAFT
CORNER LOTS: Comer lots for residential use shall exceed the minimum
width and area requirements in the Zoning Use District by twenty percent
(20%) to permit appropriate building setback from both streets as required
in the Zoning Ordinance.
SIDE LOT LINES: Side lines of lots shall be approximately at right angles
to street lines or radial to curved street lines.
FRONTAGE: Every lot must have frontage on an approved street other than
an alley. All lots, with the exception of townhouse lots, must meet the
minimum lot width requirements of the Use District as required in the City
Zoning Ordinance.
SETBACK LINES: Setback or building lines shall be shown on all lots
intended for residential use and shall not be less than the setback required
by the City Zoning Ordinance, as may be amended.
FEATURES: In the subdividing of any land, due r~gard shall be shown for
all natural features, such as tree growth, watercourses, historic spots or
similar conditions which, if preserved, will add attractiveness and stability
to the proposed development.
LOT REMNANTS: All remnants of lots below minimum lot size left over
after subdividing of a larger tract must be added to adjacent lots, rather
than allowed to remain as unusable parcels.
POLITICAL BOUNDARIES: No singular plat shall extend over a political
boundary or school district line without written notification 10 dnc!
approval bv the +B-affected units of government.
FRONT AGE ON Two STREETS: Double frontage, or lots with frontage on
two (2) parallel streets shall not be permitted except where lots back on
collector or arterial streets, County or State highways, or where
topographic or other conditions render subdividing otherwise
unreasonable. Such double frontage lots shall adhere to, the following
requirements:
(1) Lot Depth: Double frontage lots shall have an additional depth of at
least twenty feet (20') in order to allow space for screen plantings
and/or buffering along the back lot line. To ensure adequate depth for
such buffering, the following minimum depth requirements shall be
required for double frontage lots:
District Minimum Lot Depth
R-l 160 feet
R-2 120 feet
(2) Buffering/Screening: All bufferyard requirements as regulated by the
Zoning Ordinance must be satisfactorily met.
Page 31
1004.310
1004.311
1004.312
1004.400
1004.401
1004.402
1004.403
1004.404
2/22/01
DRAFT
TURN-AROUND ACCESS: Where proposed residential lots abut a collector
or arterial street, they shall be platted in such a manner as to provide turn-
around access and egress on each lot. This access and egress must be
identified on the grading plan for the subdivision.
BUFFER SIDE YARDS:
(1) In the case of side yards involving single-family residential lots
abutting :n::.; ;'r c,.! k:::~;;')r arterial streets, lot widths shall be
increased at least ten feet (10') above the minimum lot width for the
purpose of establishing buffers along the lot line bordering such
streets.
(2) Buffering or side yards bordering major collector or arterial streets
shall comply with the requirements as established by the Zoning
Ordinance.
IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOTS: On single-family residential lots
determined to be irregular in shape (e.g., triangular), the developer shall
demonstrate to the City an ability to properly place principal buildings and
accessory structures upon the site that are compatible in size and character
to the surrounding area.
STREETS AND ALLEYS:
CONTINUOUS STREETS: Except for cul-de-sacs, streets shall connect with
streets already dedicated in adjoining or adjacent subdivisions, or provide
for future connections to adjoining unsubdivided tracts, or shall be a
reasonable projection of streets in the nearest subdivided tracts. The
arrangement of thoroughfares and collector streets shall be provided in a
manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Dedicated streets shall
be constructed to the property boundary of the subdivision.
LOCAL STREETS: Local streets should be designed so as to discourage
their use by nonlocal traffic.
STREET PLANS FOR FUTURE SUBDIVISIONS: Where the plat to be
submitted includes only part of the tract owned or intended for
development by the subdivider a tentative plan of a proposed future street
system for the unsubdivided portion shall be prepared and submitted by
the subdivider.
TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC: In those instances where a street is
terminated pending future extension in conjunction with a future
subdivision and there is more than two hundred feet (200') between the
Page 32
1004.405
1004.406
1004.407
1004.408
1004.409
2/22/01
DRAFT
dead end and the nearest intersection, a temporary turn around facility
shall be provided at the closed end. This temporary cul-de-sac must be
desl'gned ;", ",;"f'I"""""""" ,,,;,1, ",,,1 "1" ,,,,,- ,"",,,;,.,,,,"",,'],, "j" -'I'I)l")\"~['J 1)\, '11,t"
l.'.,l ...........L,..".JJLU",._'.J....'-.- ., .l..i, ,...........: _....... >.~...l..... -,-.....~.I.,.UJ ....-.~.,..l.....,~.~...' (..;1 {.t..) , 1.... '......'\... _,.1..
(j 1 V ELI ~!j ne:c!' and must be placed inside a temporary roadway easement if
located outside a street right of way. The subdivider shall be required to
provide ;:':'C' ~:rl;:' ail liTe I, (lea b l c !cHer (l f crcdi! in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney for removal or restoration of the temporary cul-de-sac as
determined by the City.
PROVISIONS FOR RESUBDIVISION OF LARGE LOTS AND PARCELS:
When a tract is subdivided into larger than normal building lots or parcels,
such lots or parcels shall be so arranged as to permit the logical location
and openings of future streets and appropriate resubdivision, with
provision for adequate utility connections for such resubdivision.
STREET INTERSECTIONS: Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as
nearly as possible at right angles, except where topography or other
conditions justify variations. The minimum angle of intersection of streets
shall be eighty (80) degrees. Local street intersections must have a
centerline offset of at least 280 feet. Local streets intersecting with a
collector or higher order street must have a centerline offset of at least 660
feet unless topographic or other conditions render the requirements of this
provision unreasonable.
SUBDIVISIONS ABUTTING MAJOR RrGHTS-OF- WAY: Wherever the
proposed subdivision contains or is adjacent to the right-of-way of a State
highway or thoroughfare, provision may be made for a marginal access
street approximately parallel and adjacent to the boundary of such right-of-
way, provided that eLle ,Ij)j)]()j)!'imc consideration is given to circulation
design, or provision may be made for a street at a distance suitable for the
appropriate use of land between such street and right-of-way. Such
distance shall be determined by the City with due consideration of the
minimum distance required for approach connections to future grade
separations, or for lot depths.
HALF-STREETS: Dedication of half-streets shall not be allowed unless
they are essential to the reasonable development of the subdivision and the
construction of half-streets shall conform with the requirements of these
regulations, or where it is found that it will be practical to require the
dedication of the other half when the adjoining property is subdivided.
RESERVE STRIPS: Reserve strips controlling access to streets are
prohibited.
Page 33
1004.410
1004.411
1004.412
1004.413
1004.414
2/22/01
DRAFT
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SURFACE WIDTHS: Street right-of-way
and surface widths shall conform to the following standards:
STREET DESIGN
Classifications Right-of-way (ROW) Street Widths in feet
(measured face of curb to face
of curb)
Principal or minor arterial As required by state or As required by state or county
county
Collector 80 - 100 feet 36-52 feet
Local 50-60 feet 28-32 feet
(1) Right-of-Way dedications, excluding turnaround area, may be reduced
from 60 to 50 feet, and pJ'iem::G~ street widths may be reduced from
32 feet to not less than 28 feet in areas determined by the City to be
environmentally sensitive due to topography, forestation, wetlands
and/or proximity to the Shoreland District. The reduction in width
shall be made at the sole discretion of the City. pcr Section 1004.414.
STREET SECTIONS: The street section shall comply with design standards
as set forth in the Public Works Design Manual. All street designs are
subject to the review and approval of the City.
DEAD-END STREETS PROHIBITED: Dead-end streets (temporary or
permanent) without cul-de-sac turnarounds are prohibited unless otherwise
provided t\:,r in this Subdivision Ordinance.
CUL-DE-SACS:
(1) Criteria For Construction. Permanent cul-de-sacs are allowed only
where one or more of the following criteria have been met:
a. Area topography or other physical site conditions warrant a cu1-de-
sac.
b. A through street is not physically feasible or desirable due to
environmental considerations.
(2) REQUIREMENTS: Permanent cul-de-sacs shall not be longer than five
hundred feet (500') measured to the centerline of the intersection and
including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed
end, with a right-of-way radius not less than sixty feet (60').
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA EXCEPTIONS: In areas determined
by the City to be environmentally sensitive due to topography, forestation
and/or wetlands, deviations to the design standards outlined in this Section
Page 34
1004.415
1004.416
1004.500
1004.501
2/22/01
DRAFT
may be allowed, provided that such deviations are limited to the
following:
El ~ D" '''';'''';
" l-<" '.,".< , '~..J... ,
\ \' -i ,~:;t! -; L:, ;":-': ~_: ,,'
;':::>,'.!;-;<<~~,': -!'~:':'):~'~Uiirr:/ T"','C' ~::~e-~ ~~~.~') -~<.., :j<,;!:_~:~:.~
{2}( I) The following standards are met:
a. All lots shall meet or exceed the minimum standards for the
applicable zoning district.
b. The curb cut opening on the street shall meet established
standards.
(2) Street \viclths Inn\' be reduced 1j"orn thirl\'-two 1(;et (32') 10 no less
1 hall t\Vcnty-cj~~hl feel (28'),
PRIVATE STREETS: Private streets shall only be permitted in Planned Unit
Developments, which have homeowner associations approved by the City.
Private streets shall be platted as outlots, and shall be designed and
constructed in the same manner as public streets; provided, the street
pavement may be contained within the outlot and the balance of the street
right-of-way may be contained within adjacent easements, provided that the
combined width of outlots and easements shall not be less than the right-of-
way, pavement width and easement requirements for public streets.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Streets within the City shall be dedicated
in accordance with their functional classification as designated within the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
SIDEWALKS AND MULTI-PURPOSE TRAILWAYS:
REQUIRED SIDEW ALKS/TRAILS.
(1) Sidewalks or trails shall be required for all new projects where a means of
pedestrian access from the development to schools, parks, churches,
business or industrial developments, adjacent neighborhoods, transportation
facilities, or for unusually long blocks is necessary in order to meet the
purpose and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and of this Section.
Section 1004.503 contains the guidelines for the location, installation and
maintenance of sidewalks within the City. The City Council shall make the
final determination of the type and location of sidewalks to be installed.
(2) Paved or concrete sidewalks or trails that may not strictly follow the street
may be permitted by the City Council. Eilurnin:Jw: rru~::'I'i~d nl:::: nUL b~~
Page 35
1004.502
2/22/01
DRAFT
,_">),".,,,~f i' :-~-(~;':'" ~':;;" ",- :,;~~;;::' 1 -. i:>~:':L',<..:~-;L~'~'! \\';rh:-:~: :~~:~.: f:.(:-;-:~_l ~:r~'~.rd~': ~,-_'f ;"2:~_:jC~!~:'1::~1;
(3) Sidewalks or trails in common area or other locations away from streets
which are typically found in Planned Unit Developments or cluster
developments generally should be integrated into the detailed area plan or
layout permitting visual surveillance of the path from the street or nearby
houses.
STANDARDS:
(1) Sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete, five feet (5') wide, An eight foot
(8') concrete sidewalk will be required in high density areas where safety is
a concern, including but not limited to, commercial and industrial areas,
multi-family areas and school zones,
(2) Sidewalks shall be located within a public right-of-way, public easement, or
common area, or at least one foot (1 ') inside of the right-of-way line. A
border area or grass strip located between the street edge of the sidewalk and
curb face shall be installed to provide a visual break between the paved
surface of the street and sidewalk, a suitable location for rl;intin~; ',j
;")"1,"":"': '1""""i'lT';""'''-'''' snow storage and 110') n rovl'de pedestn'an satiety
~ ~_;_,"-" t .. .. ...~ .... "-'~'''''J''l .~, .<. ...,...J...,Io.',}_.. .....~ , ~
by further moving the sidewalk from the road surface in accordance with the
Public Works Design Manual.
(3) A continuous sidewalk, without a grass stripwill be required where the City
determines that turf maintenance will likely be a problem and pedestrian
traffic is considerable.
(4) Sidewalk street crossings shall be located at a point along the road that
offers adequate sight distance as determined by the City.
(5) Barrier curbs (vertical curbs) six inches (6") high shall be provided along
collector streets or streets located in commercial or industrial areas adjacent
to sidewalks to helD prevent vehicles from leaving the roadway, control
drainage, protect pavements edges and protect sidewalks, lawns, utilities
signs and street trees from encroachment by vehicles. unless other\.\ isc
reCluired bv Fc:dlTdL S\dk' or (\HUll\, !c':uidclincs.
(6) Curb cuts and ramps shall be installed in accordance with the Public Works
Design Manual.
(7) When sidewalks cross streets, a treatment such as striping, landscaping
medians, colored or stamped concrete or signs to identify the crosswalk as
approved by the City, shall be installed by the Developer.
(8) In development projects that contain hills or steep topography, the sidewalk
pattern shall conform as closely as possible to the standards found herein
and to connecting walkways.
Page 36
1004.503
2/22/01
DRAFT
(9) ":i<l('<",:d!:: ':J~l:: be r::::TC,"i;"l!'Lm ('ti:<'!''.'.i:;C' rc:qulr';.d te: fit 11);; l~:':T;jn ....1;:::1
:lPIYO','CC' h:, :11:, (>';I:,W11(:1'e Dossiblc. nc'.-\' sidewalks shall be n IOQicaJ
eXTension of the exisljn~~ sidewalks in adjeJcent developments.
GUIDELINES FOR LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF
SIDEW ALKS/TRAlLS IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
Local
M~M X
Collector
M~M X
Collector
Minor X
Arterial
M~M X
Arterial
Principal X
Arterial
* Other jurisdictions such as MN DOT or Scott County
1004.504
1004.600
1004.601
Developer 1 City
/*
Developer 1 City
1*
Developer 1 City
1*
Developer 1 City
1*
Owner 1 City
Owner 1 City
Owner / City
Owner 1 City
ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES.
(2) If a publje improvement is not listed in the City's CIP, the developer
will be responsible for cost and installation of sidewalk system.
(3) The City may require that sidewalks be installed on local streets or on
one side of a minor collector when a trail also serves the street or where
topographical or traffic conditions warrant.
EASEMENTS:
WIDTH AND LOCATION: An easement for utilities at least ten feet (10')
wide shall be provided along all lot lines. If necessary for the extension of
watermain, sewer lines, stormwater sewer lines, drainage, and other
utilities, easements of greater width may be required along lot lines or
across lots.
Page 37
1004.602
1004.603
1004.604
1004.700
1004.800
1004.900
1004.901
2/22/01
DRAFT
CONTINUOUS UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATIONS: The design and location
of utility easements shall connect with easements established in adjoining
properties. These easements, when approved, shall not thereafter be
changed without the \\'ri l ten approval of the City Council after a public
hearing.
EXCLUSION FROM MINIMUM LOT AREA: Easements established over
major drainageways, wetlands, waterbodies, r<;lad right-of-ways, and
regional utility/pipeline easements shall be excluded from the calculation
of minimum lot areas as defined by the Subdivision Ordinance and by the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
OUTLOT ALTERNATIVE: The City may require outlots rather than
easements for wetlands, drainage areas, temporary cul-de-sacs and other
features, when these features will be owned and maintained by the City.
The subdivider.is responsible for providing the City with a recorded
warranty deed, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the outlot and
for pavrncnl of all taxes on the outlot. A recorded copy ofthis deed shall
be delivered to the City immediately upon recording of the final plat.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL: The design of erosion and
sediment control structures and procedures shall be in conformance with
the provisions of the Public Works Design Manual and in accordance with
other SLate rc,,~uLltions.
STORM DRAINAGE: All subdivision design shall incorporate
provisions for storm water runoff consistent with the Public Works Design
Manual and the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan.
PROTECTED AREAS: Where land proposed for subdivision is deemed
environmentally sensitive by the City due to the existence of features
including, but not limited to, wetlands, drainageways, watercourses, areas
subject to flooding, significant trees, steep slopes or wooded areas, the
design of said subdivision shall clearly reflect all necessary measures of
protection to ensure against adverse environmental impacts.
Based upon the necessity to control and maintain certain sensitive areas,
the City shall determine whether said protection will be accomplished
through lot enlargement and redesign or dedication to the ('iTI' of those
sensitive areas in the form of outlots.
Page 38
1004.902
1004.903
2/22/01
DRAFT
" ~:~:i i 2':":::. ;n tvteasures intended to protect the areas designated ttfeft&-dS
Cl1VlrOLL:l1ClnaJl\:;cnsill\C shall include design solutions which allow for
construction and grading involving a minimum of alteration to sensitive
areas. Such measures, when deemed appropriate by the City, may include,
but shall not be limited to, the following:
(1) The establishment of easements and/or outlots over wetlands,
drainageways and watercourses.
(2) The implementation of flood control measures.
(3) The enlargement of lots or redesign of the subdivision.
(4) The utilization of appropriate erosion control measures subject to
approval by the City.
(5) Soil testing to determine the ability of the proposed subdivision to
support development.
(6) The limitation of development on slopes steeper than thirty (30)
percent.
(7) Structureii Ilut conform::ncc to the natural limitations presented by the
topography and soil so as to rninil1l17C to the creates! extent feasible
C;"(::1l2 the k~,::lpotential B-f-l~}1 soil erosion.
(8) The implementation of slope stabilization measures.
(9) The establishment of a buffer zone around wetlands as outlined in
Section 1004.903.
BUFFER ZONE REQUIREMENT.
(1) A twenty (20) foot buffer zone shall be required around the dcJineak:d
cdc.c cd a wetland;:; in new subdivisions. No grading will be allowed
within the required buffer zone except as follows:
a. When a water quality/stormwater detention pond is constructed
adjacent to the wetland.
b. When grading is necessary to enhance or improve the quality of
the wetland.
(2) In the event the buffer zone area is graded, it shall be seeded or
planted with native wetland vegetation.
Page 39
1004.1000
1004.1001
2/22/01
DRAFT
PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS: The owners of any
land being subdivided for residential, commercial, industrial or other uses or
as a Planned Unit Development shall dedicate a reasonable portion of the
subclivickcl land to the public for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails Gf
,"ct!~:;JJ; or public open space ;, r:::~L:~)na~)L';)orjjon ~lf t~JC :;ubcli\i'~~cc: 1,~!l1d.
The City has determined the land dedication requirement to be equivalent to
ten percent (10%) of the gross area of a subdivision. The amount of credit
given for land to be dedicated shall be based upon the land characteristics
and in accordance with the following schedule:
DEDICATION SCHEDULE
Land Characteristic Dedication Credit
\\} Clotted area::: Ul" ""1 upland with undisturbed 100%
=::,ry
topsoil and slopes not exceeding 10%
Land which the Developer has provided a 100%
mInImum of 4" of topsoil, graded and does not
exceed 10% slopes
< .. ,.,j \"!-f ,> -;{'< :lIJd , :1 c,[ ')/::0;,
',..,: ;) ~-'~ ;:::' " '''' ':..... , "~,I ;,( . ~'. '..' ,-, :_)P~~::
'-',," i(;
,.--, .. - .....,. " ,
\ . . >,~,:CJ(~,~-' :, '"!, ~;]q;e::; !~::;s ~han /-'\0_, ':;00(,
, ::';:;] , , .-.. .,
\ lir;;':L ''','c~ ~:-I J:: .11 ['j :;:e:r~':; ""ilich arc' ;r:;~l \ cr than 2Y'~,
.
~
r-'~1' ~_ ~ ; ::1 :, : ; -'j:.: .. ;..1.. i.:;') j:~;~:.:;L'::d cc'r: ,"::! n ,-, ,~'f .elope:; 25(~<,
'.._.',l Ill, "1.11,,.
.f' [ "}( \i),'
(,
: ~-; ; ~'_;,,:'jJ ,"Ier::; ;_.::~(!_:::. 0%
L" ._..,t__ . , ...., .- "'.' , , '.' -
!i ';:, \\ etlands, N.D.R.P. ponds, and
" ; ~.,. .,. ,
water retention areas. . :; ;~.; ~.., ...- J~; " :1';'.: :_: ~-; ~
-
....~:iU~... ,... i'.-,-':" ;)~,:'ie P~::'P'.';;;::.
LAND PREPARATION.
(1) Dedicated land shall be made suitable by the developer for its intended
use as parks and playgrounds, trails, or public open space. The City
shall determine the final condition of the land that is to be dedicated and
the developer shall be responsible for grading, topsoil, turf
establishment, and construction of any trails unless otherwise directed
by the City.
(2) The City further reserves the right not to accept land that in its
discretion is not useable for the aforedescribed purposes, does not
Page 40
1004.1002
1004.1003
1004.1 004
[ i H L UU:'i
1004.1006
2/22/01
DRAFT
provide park facilities in the locations set forth in the City's
Comprehensive Plan, or land that would require extensive expenditures
on the part ofthe ;d:i:~ C'in to make them useable.
At the City's option, the subdivider shall contribute an equivalent amount in
cash, or in cash and land, in lieu of all or a portion of the land which the City
may require such owner to dedicate pursuant to subsection 1004. I 000
above. The cash amount shall be based on an amount determined annualIv
by the C']IV CourlCJl as parl1)ftlie acloDtJon urtbe City fee scbecluk.t!l':; i~,jr
rl~i:']:::'l '.aLl::: O1'Li)c::,rLl:-c:,~;o::ably rcqu:L:d 10 be dedicated, '."i1b caid \'aluc
1).:;i:;~' Cl::l::";ain:'c::;:' L:t",; :::::r; :1: !b:: 61"n(: or-tina! plat appJW,'~lJ.
Whenever the term "dedicate" is used in this Section, it shall mean a
dedication to the City of land or cash, or some combination thereof,
whichever the City, at its option, shall require. The dedication shall be made
prior to the City's release of the final plat for filing.
In instances where cash is required in lieu of land, payments as required by
this Section shall be made prior to the release of the final plat to the
subdivider. The ::'a::b ;>';"::0]: :)1' 1]:(' cakubticm ::h~dJ be IlIad;:: :t:" j()llu'.':::
11\":, (;1' (Ii:: ',<due c:f t::: !a;id per ,:C';'::; :1:: detc:rmin..xl b:,' th:: City. tin::::; the:
:;1"(':::: ::C"~':':;~'J.':iL' pLL
\\,j::::'c~:::: :;11:::[;',:(:.':' ro',,; ,:Ie:; :i(';;!J!;crh:yd r:;r]: ~i:i1e'nitie:: ::c:::h ;;:;. 1,:1: ,1[
iinlitt..::l to. l'::Ul1;: ('our!::, bed! Eclcl::, O;)e11 ::p:lCe or other r(:creation:d
h;::jli\ie::.!()r u::e b:! lk putJie. (he City may rcJuc'e the :ll1JOUI1( of !:ine! t~) be'
:Jc~i;C,:lc:l'; the ::::.:b c'i;\ribl:l:'JIJ il: lie:: :.if ~:u~;h ~~~'dic:lti()n b:! :m :W]o:lal
2<:I~l~'.'~~!,(:',ct ~'() th.:: ~!',,}2U~-:-;~'rJ~;~: ~~)~..t ;.':f ~-h~\ r~:,l~:i~.i.t:e~,': I;r'J'.'ij~~c'!._''\.nl'2njlie~: t!'l~r~
err: prcl'.idcc! b::~L.::h::jj'.icL': l:.;u.:;(:r:eCl~hc q)CcjflC:llion:: ()fth'e' City :mcl
,)the::' :::::ndJi'd: :1: the -::(/ n~:l/ rcqui:"C, If (hiE pro\i:;iJJJ Ctpplic:::. lh~' Ci~y
::]]all c;e(c';':;jir:c IliC: \:;!uc cft!:e a:w:'nit:, ill]:! ad,ill::t ~h:' clccliCJti'Jt} :CJ ref1cct
:::lid ',:::::',,;,
LJrllcss other,vise rm'\:l1t:d bv tbe ('it\.. :ill land :0 be dedicated t()r park
Durposes shali be dedicated 10 the: DlIblic and idcntifkd as "Park" 01] the
tinal Dial.
Prior to the dedication of such land for public use, the subdivider shall
deliver to the City a title opinion addressed to the City, and in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney, as to the condition of the title of such
property, or in lieu of a title opinion, a title insurance policy from a title
company acceptable to the City insuring the required public interest in the
dedication therein.
Page 41
1004.1007
1004.11 00
1004.1200
2/22/01
DRAFT
';;JrLLJl'Jc i'\\ ;:l J~.-".>~; l-:-irhcr tlt'_l,n ~','k>,Jl(,~Hi(\n CQ1 the -DjaJ~ the subdlvdc.r sh:.tlL
~mmediately upon filing of the final plat or other appropriate subdivision
documents,~',,:.,:,_,"::..., file for recording all easements, deeds or
other conveyances of property required as a condition to the subdivision plat
approval, and provide evidence to the City. No building permits shall be
issued to any lot or parcel in said plat until all such documents have been
executed and filed.
MINIMUM DESIGN FEATURES: The design features set forth in the
Subdivision Ordinance are minimum requirements. The City may impose
additional or more stringent requirements concerning lot size, streets and
overall design as deemed appropriate considering the property being
subdivided.
ZONING ORDINANCE CONSISTENCY: Preliminary and final plats
shall only be approved if they are consistent with the City's Zoning
Ordinance. Preliminary plats shall not be approved prior to adoption of
any pending rezoning application, any pending rezoning initiated by the
City or any other Zoning Ordinance changes necessary for final plat
approval.
Page 42
1005.100
1005.200
1005.300
1005.400
1005.500
1005.600
1005.700
1005.800
1005.900
005.10.00
005~1100
2/22/01
DRAFT
1005 REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS
GENERAL PROVISIONS
MONUMENTS
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
FUTURE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
SANITARY SEWER AND WATER DISTRIBUTION IMPROVEMENTS
STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT CHARGE
EXCEPTIONS
PUBLIC UTILITIES
ELECTION BY CITY To INSTALL IMPROVEMENTS
'fREESREQU!HEf) Fcm ."~E'\\ SUBDIVISIONS
TOPSC1IL AND SOmllNG
1005.100
1005.101
1005.102
1005.103
1005.104
GENERAL PROVISIONS
ASSESSMENT POLICY: The City of Prior Lake Assessment Policy is
hereby adopted and incorporated into this ordinance by reference.
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT: Before a final plat is signed by the City, the
subdivider shall pay all applicable fees and enter into the City's
standardized development contract setting forth the conditions under
which the plat is approved.
SECURITY: Before a final plat is signed by the City, the subdivider shall
also furnish the City financial security in the form of an irrevocable letter
of credit. The irrevocable letter of credit shall be from a Minnesota
institution and in a form approved by the City Attorney. If the subdivider
fails to perform any obligations under the development contract, the City
may apply the security to cure the default.
DEVELOPER INSTALLED" IMPROVEMENTS: If the developer is going to
install the public improvements, the required security shall be one hundred
and twenty-five percent (125%) of the sum of the following fixed or
estimated costs:
(1) Utilities.
(2) Streets.
(3) Erosion control.
(4) Landscaping.
(5) Storm sewer
Page 43
\ L ;.--\ 1 [}':':,
2/22/01
DRAFT
(6) Monumentation
(7) As-built/Record drawings
GR\D1V; t\lI'HI\Ef\iEN'f-;:
1005.106
1005.106
1005.107
1005.108
CITY INSTALLED IMPROVEMENTS: If the City is going to install the public
improvements, the required security shall be one hundred and twenty-five
percent (125%) of the sum of the following fixed or estimated costs:
(1) Principal amount of special assessments for public improvements to be
installed.
(2) Street lights.
(3) Erosion control.
(4) Landscaping.
(5) Monumentation
WARRANTy/MAINTENANCE BOND: The City shall require the subdivider
to submit a warranty bond in the amount equal to the original cost of the
improvements. The required warranty period for materials and
workmanship for public utilities shall be two (2) years from the date of
final acceptance. The required warranty period for materials and
workmanship for streets shall be one (1) year following final acceptance of
the final bituminous wearing surface. The required warranty period for
sod, trees and landscaping is one (1) year following acceptance of the
landscaping.
REPRODUCIBLE DRAWINGS: Reproducible as-built drawings of all
required improvements shall be furnished to the City by the subdivider.
Such as-built drawings shall be certified to be true and accurate by the
registered engineer responsible for the installation of the improvements.
The subdivider shall also furnish such plans in an electronic format
acceptable to the City. TIle size and ['orl1'1;[t for reproducible dnmiu",s
shall be in accordance with the standards ill the Public \Vorks Desi~J]
Manll,I!,
IMPROVEMENTS: All of the required public improvements to be installed
under the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance shall be approved by
and subject to inspection by the City. All of the City's expenses incurred
:n ('ullIlceLio}) wilt) the installation ,~:~ elL;' n:';;t:i: of the required public
improvements shall be paid either directly to the C'jtv's consuhants or by
reimbursement to the City by the subdivider.
Page 44
1005.200
1005.201
1005.202
! (ic-\e ")1\1
1005.300
1005.400
2/22/01
DRAFT
MONUMENTS:
OFFICIAL MONUMENTS: Official monuments, as designated and adopted
by the County Surveyor's office and approved by the County District
Court for use as judicial monuments, shall be set at each comer or angle
on the outside boundary of the final plat or in accordance with a plan as
approved by the City. The boundary line of the property to be included
~~ the plat shall be fully dimensioned, all angles of the boundary
excepting the closing angle shall be indicated and all monuments and
surveyor's irons shall be indicated. Each angle point of the boundary
perimeter shall be so monumented.
PLACEMENT: Survey monuments shall be placed at all block and lot
comers, angle points, points of curves in streets or at intermediate points
as shall be required by the City. The monuments shall be of such material,
size and length as required by the City. It shall be the subdivider's
responsibility to ensure the survey monuments are maintained in good
order during construction and development. Pr()of of Ihe monulnenlarion
:;hail he in the }clIm ofa surveyor's ccrtiflcate and this I"equirement shall be
a cC}jldition of;;: (,c!"litjcalc of occupan('v as lJrovidecl for in the ('it\! Zemin0:
Ordinance,
SECI'f:IT'/: 're :'llEurc :1:1 cur'.'c'y monunlcn~:.: a:T 2'c)JTCC~ly ::1 p!JCC
!~~lI:)','/iri~~:h~'Ejn::1 :;r::din; "1':: ;~i;;;t iine! con:;tr;;]ct;;Y:1 cC u~iliti..;.,::, flnanc;:lJ
:;;:;cu:'itJ ,-"j!I ~).c ;';;qt:i;-ccLPrc:.f of the :':::concl mcnu;11::;:lUti::m ::haU b::: ie
i]I::: [(:-:1'; of :: ::[1;-"::::.<;1"':' (':...T'ifJcJtc and Ihi:; rcc;uir:...'mcnt ::hall be :;
c:;;mc!itic:1 TC :::'cT:jii::'iilC ;;If DCC':I;;-;il1C:' a:: pn)','iclce! for in Ihe Cily lenin;
lire! i 1.1:1 1:':: C:,
STREET IMPROVEMENTS: All streets shall be improved in
accordance with the standards and specifications for street construction as
required by the Public Works Design Manual.
FUTURE STREET IMPROVEMENTS: As a condition of plat approval, when
property being platted is adjacent to an existing collector street, highway,
or substandard streets which need improvement, the developer shall
dedicate land for the widening or improvement of said collector street,
highway or substandard street. In accordance with the City's Assessment
Policy, an acreage fee for the collector street system is to be collected as
part of the Development Contract on all new subdivisions. The fees are
dedicated to the Collector Street Fund and are to be used for the purpose of
;<>L;-;J~~'~;:':':'~~Jr:~>:-;: ;.d ,.>~',:::~'~.':-' r::_~~L~ ~rf' \"'::;.~,'., pavin~ for collector street
Page 45
1005.500
1005.600
1005.700
1005.800
2/22/01
DRAFT
improvements and pedestrian trail improvements associated with state aid
streets and the City share of county road related trail improvements. The
charge shall be based upon the gross acreage of the subdivision less the
area to be dedicated to the City for ponding, parks, wetlands, and public
rights-of-way. The fee shall be set ann ua i]l, by the City Council and paid
to the City prior to the release of the final plat.
SANITARY SEWER AND WATER DISTRIBUTION
IMPROVEMENTS: Sanitary sewers and water facilities shall be
installed in accordance with the standards and specifications as required by
the City Council and subject to the approval of the City. In accordance
with the City's Assessment Policy, an acreage charge, dedicated to the
Trunk System Reserve Fund, will be collected as part of the Development
Contract on all new subdivisions. The purpose of this fund is to pay for
central system improvements essential for the functional operation of the
entire municipal sewer and water system. The charge shall be based upon
the gross acreage of the subdivision less the IITC:! acrca!!c to be dedicated to
the City for ponding, parks, wetlands, and public rights-of-way. The fee
shall be set llnrw:t! \ by the City Council and paid to the City prior to the
release of the final plat.
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT CHARGE: In accordance with
the City's Assessment Policy, a charge for trunk storm water
improvements, either constructed or to be constructed for trunk facilities
serving the subject property, will be collected as part of the Development
Contract for all new subdivisions. The charge shall be based upon the
gross acreage of the subdivision less the ~acrcaL!C to be dedicated to the
City for ponding, parks, wetlands, and public rights-of-way. The f("c 811:111
iil;C;(:tt1ll11li:dlv 11\ the ('d\' Councl] lincJ Pltid to the ('it\! prior to the release
"f [he ;':;w! plitt, The subdivision will be given a credit for anyon-site
storm water improvement that has been oversized to serve property outside
the subdivision. 'T'!1C C'~;ll;':~eJ::::~ b~' p:licl:u ~!iC {='i~J' ;J]'ior tu the rc1cac:e of
~h(:: iLl: r:1il,
EXCEPTIONS: Property being replatted shall be exempt from the
requirements of Sections 1005.400,1005.500 and 1005.600 if the charges
were paid or assessed in conjunction with the initial platting of the
property.
PUBLIC UTILITIES: All public utilities, including, but not limited to,
telephone, electric, cable and/or gas service lines shall be placed
Page 46
':.,itJ>" .,)( .Ji"
lun5.JOliO
{j( j{:; 1 ()() )
2/22/01
DRAFT
underground III accordance with the provlSlons of all applicable City
ordinances.
ELECTION BY CITY TO INSTALL IMPROVEMENTS: It is the
subdivider's responsibility to install all required public improvements
except that the City reserves the right to design and/or install all or any
part of the n lit) 1 i C improvements, including trunk facilities, required under
the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended. If the City elects to install the
improvements the City shall require the developer to post an irrevocable
letter of credit guaranteeing payment of the assessments.
'fREES REQUIRED FC}I{ NEW SUBDl\'ISlONS: In n(;\\' subdivisions. trees
shall he plamcd en) each lot. Permittee! tree species shaU be in accordance
\vith Section it 07.2 i (Ie) ()t'thc iODinC2 Ordinance, i\1I required tTees shall be
nLlnicd i;\ the: huilder prior to issuance of certificate of oecupanc\'. 'rhe
lo!lowi!iQ tTee SDec!iJcations shall anD!" to each platted Jot in the proposed
;ubd!VISJC>I),
Required Subdivision Trees:
(J) Required: One hailed and burJapped street tree "viiI be required per lot
ti()nt:t~ce and one balled and burlapp(;d liont \lard tree will be required
peril'Onl yard.
(2) (almer: /\ nlTlmmlilJ of [Wo and one-haLf inches (2 1/2") in trunk
d.J.::tr:l1c~tcr rncasu red :::u S!rt.-,Hll1<J lc\'"cL
(3) Localicm: Street trces shall be pianted inside the 110nt prc)pertv line;il a
distance of ill Ieasl [clUr fc:el (4') ii'om th(' ti-Onl propert\! line and not
more than teu feet I I 0') fl"om the nODt DrOperl\l Ii 11e. Front \lard trees
shal J be ph!!1Led in tbe ll"ont \'ard but at a distarlee of at least fe)ur feel (4')
[iOLi) the propcrtv line.
(4) No rUiuJJ\,'d subdivis]ell1 tree shall be planted inside of anv drainage or
utility casement or within a [cmv fc)ot (40') clear view lriaDdc on corner
lots The cleal' VJCW triamde is the area established for visihiJitv
clearance ,H Intersections. The' area of the clear view trian~Jc 1S deflned
as ic)J1ows:Bc'.o'Oinnin;! at the intersection oft11e proiected lot Jines of the
('(yrner Jot. tlience: fCJrtv feet (.'!-cn alon~: one ]ot line. r]lence diai:onaJlv to
a lloim !C)rlv feet (40') n'om the Doint of beginrilnL', on the opposite line.
Location reqUirenlerlls shall applv to rear vards oflakeshorc lots.
Page 47
2/22/01
DRAFT
t.....;;,
<C/o,
'['OPSO!!. ,\"\D SOilOL'\G:
l lll.' hu i Ider shaU snrc,td J
. . '"" ",
nlillnrH.lrn of tour
Inches (4111 \)f tt.)DSi)iJ (!'v(?,;-UOi',," h()L! lC\'(:lrd. 11~()rlt aJld sidC' \':Jrds, J\ 1-1
boulevard. IJ-c)]l\ and side vctrCl areas shall he sodded except Those areas That
arc hmdsc:ancd Such IODsoii ,uJd sodclin!! shall be installed [1\ the builder
Drior!Cl tile i~;sual1cc (if;: c\:niiicaic of occuuancv,
Page 48
1006.100
1006.200
1006.300
1006.100
.< V ; .;.~
~)\;\ )
2/22/01
DRAFT
1006 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
N ONPLA TTED SUBDIVISIONS
VARIANCES, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, STANDARDS
VIOLATIONS AND PENALTY
NONPLATTED SUBDIVISIONS
/\J)\Tli\I('~:-;'nu,.rl\TL.\'\lJ SLBD!\!SIONS: I'he City n.1<1V adnlinistrativelv
r(') J..! () \\' iJ 1 ;~< c'ri 1 cri (0( :
1006.102
,Jpnro\'c ,.'1 :,:;ubdi\'islon of an c>.,:istirli,2 platted Darcel \vhcrJ it niccts th,c
(I ) The divisioDS win not result in more than three (3) parcels.
(2) ;\!i ne\vi', created lots mLlst meet the mininluUl standards of the Zoning
[listrict in \\]JidlUJCV arc located and the resultilW parcels .must
9.cnera!lv COl1T()rm to [he shape and area of existing or anticipated land
subdivisions in the surroLUldimr areas.
(3) 'lite diVi:;j(Yli 1,'1 iI I not causc an) structure on the land iobe in VicJ!;ilion of
L!J(' ~;!(;:nini!~ ()rdinaucc.
(4) Anv casements which mav be reCluired by the Cily mUST be granted.
.ADMINIS'fRA.T1V'E LA",,\!) SC'BD1VISIONPHOCEDUH.E:
(I) An application for an administrative land subdivision. signed bv the
auplicant and the rc:e ovvncr of the propertv, shall be submitted [0 the
P!,\mtlng DepannlCnL. The aDpIicati()J1 shall be accolYlpanicc! by thc
f() l:l \) \Ai in.~, :
Vq Tcn i! 0) fuJI scale copies and one (]) ] J" byl T reduction of d
ccrlifJcate of survev identifying the exislinu ami proposed jot Lines,
as IveLI dS an v ('xiSl111;2 stniclures on the Jot and the setbacks fiom
IIle currenT (-u:Jcl pruposed ]()lLirlCs,
i). The n.:quircd fjjlJl~.) fcc as establishcd bv the Citv Council
121 F,)llCI';\jjE: !c'ceu}! of:\ c()lnp]cle applicaliolL!he ('i!\! slaiJwiLl review
Uk' ,11mijuliion fur conj()rrnanec with the Dr(wision of the Zc)nlns:
()rdinmic\;.'. tile SUi,c!iyislOL Ordinance dJlcl all other applicable ellV
ordinances.
Page 49
1006.103
1006.104
2/22/01
DRAFT
'tl \' {:-: LLJ;] i dl.;c ~J( (leHi
':'; Ci'lJlcr ,Jl)Dl"O\:C :.)1" dcn\
all ;'ldIl1.:i nlstral1 \:('
subdi\ lSlun (.uid J.hYLif\; th_c ~'tDPI.icanl ~n \\Tjtin~~ of' thi~; dCC1S:l.CHl \\'l-rtlin
," . ," ,,-,.,
u~:';, i ;. i ,) L! \: ~.:; ITi_(~SS Ci21" ~'":: () j (!,:,',( :~~.U:) ~ c'!T ;:t \.._~()fi1 rd eleCj ,HYL'J II ca.U 0 Ll.
) ..-t.} '-1 nc' U\.:Cl:~l()-!; (If li'l',,' ::~~L(J,fr
. -, " ,
~,) ~-l:T1jr(,;\.'c Cq~ denv a-I) ,id_i11i1T1Slratlvc ]::.\1}("1
;:)UDCU\ l~:h)rj IT},;\ l)C' ~XP\.:~l(:-~ucd b\; an tiTfc.',ctcd part\! \\lithin fi\"c (5) cL.\\'s
(if [he dcci:;IOil" /\1: ,lpncaJ sha]] be processed aceordill\2 to Lhe
DL\)\:;::ion: \)f SCCili)n 1 J ()9"?OO oftlie Zoninc.r ()rdiJl,mcc"
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYS: All registered land surveys in the City
shall be processed in the same manner as a combined preliminary and final
plat application. In accordance with the standards set forth in the
Subdivision Ordinance for combined preliminary plat and final plat
applications, the Planning Commission shall first approve the
arrangement, sizes and relationships of proposed tracts' in such registered
land surveys, and tracts to be used as easements or roads should be so
indicated. Unless a recommendation and approval have been obtained
from the Planning Commission and City Council respectively, in
accordance with the standards set forth in the Subdivision Ordinance,
building permits will be withheld for buildings on tracts which have been
so subdivided by registered land surveys and the City may refuse to take
over tracts as streets or roads or to improve, repair or maintain any such
tracts unless so approved.
CONVEY ANCE BY METES AND BOUNDS: No division of one or more
parcels in which the land conveyed is described by metes and bounds shall
be recorded if the division is a subdivision, as defined by the Subdivision
Ordinance. Building permits will be withheld for buildings or tracts that
have been subdivided and conveyed by this method without Cit\-' ;mprovai
and the City may refuse to take over tracts as streets or roads or to
improve, repair or maintain any such tracts.
1006.1031006.105 EXCEPTIONS: The provisions of Section 1 006.1 Oi~ do not apply
\\11(']( :di liJc lesultiuc.' narcel::.. [.ract:;. lots. or interests will be [went" (20)
,Kilo::; (II JaL2er in SilT and five hundred feel (SOU') in width for residential
uses dlid If ;:,i~ L~i:::;.L,::..':"::)::d in ~h;: ;,'ou\'cyancc is :'1 rarecJ of bile! at least
i~ \"". ! 5 ' acres \11" ],t'I"(''''I" 1"1"1 ""1/" " '."' ""; 1, T'j'l" " ","j ,""t h "j" ,,' 1''''''"'' h ,',,,"., i. u''': ,"(,,;
~.l.. .J ,,-__...;._.\.., .... ,,--......:1..-- ~.l...'.~. .1... I L::- ..... ........1.. ~,.... ....,.,. ,-".._~_,-,L '-, ......""'-... ~.l....... \".l
1006.106
'.<,' { ,
".-'''''.
" ",,"" I
:,ii.1j" Cl)rnlr\CrCl~-Ll ~-.LUC LllC1l1stn::l uses.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION WAIVING REQUIREMENTS: In any case in which
compliance with the foregoing restrictions will create an unnecessary
hardship and failure to comply will not interfere with the purpose of this
Section, the Council may waive such compliance by the adoption of a
resolution to that effect and the conveyance may then be filed.
Page 50
1006.200
1006.201
1006.202
1006.203
2/22/01
DRAFT
VARIANCES, PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATIONS, STANDARDS:
FINDINGS: The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from
the minimum standards of the Subdivision Ordinance (not the procedural
provisions) when, in its opinion, undue hardship may result from strict
compliance. In recommending any variance, the Commission shall
prescribe any conditions that it deems necessary to or desirable j;~'r :h~'
r"~-:L'!:~' :;-_:.~,':":"2~-,'-~tC) Of()'LCCl aJ.ld !)l"'C(:;Clh\"C tllC IJcalll-J. \\'elfa!~c a,i"lei safety oJ" 111e
public and DrODcrtv values. In making its recommendations, the Planning
Commission shall take into account the nature of the proposed use of land
and the existing use ofland in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside
or work in the proposed subdivision and the probable effect of the
proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. A variance
shall only be recommended when the Planning Commission finds:
(1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property such that the strict application of the provisions of the
Subdivision Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable
use of his land.
(2) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory
in which property is situated.
(3) That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from aJl (;\lLT:;~' I
physical hardship such as topography.
(4) After considerations of the Planning Commission recommendations,
the City Council may grant variances, subject to subsections (1), (2),
and (3) ;"""'''''1:"",;,. ,..i""''''')!''I'lll'" "'ll)S'C"'ll'{'ll'
..J_,_..1..1".......",\-,\-\-......./ ".L'.J'-._ ,....-, . ',. ~-' .:)c ... L' V..i.
The provisions of Section 1006.201 apply only to variances to the
provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. Variances to the provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance including, but not limited to, setbacks, lot area and
lot width, must be processed according to the provisions of Section
1108.400 of the Zoning Ordinance.
PROCEDURES:
(1) Requests for a variance or appeal shall be filed with the City on an
official application form provided by the City. Such application shall
be accompanied by a fee as established by the City Council rC:Jlut:Jn.
Such application shall also be accompanied by ten (10) copies of
Page 51
1006.300
1006.301
2/22/01
DRAFT
detailed written and graphic materials necessary for the explanation of
the request.
(2) Upon receiving said application, the application, along with all related
information, shall be referred to the City Planning Commission for a
report and recommendation to the City Council.
(3) The Planning Department shall set a date for a public hearing. Notice
of such hearing shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten
(10) days prior to said hearing, and individual property notices shall be
mailed not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior
to the hearing to all owners of property within five hundred feet (500')
of the parcel included in the request.
(4) Failure of a property owner to receive said notice shall not invalidate
any such proceedings as set forth within the Subdivision Ordinance.
(5) The Planning Commission shall make a finding of fact and
recommend such actions or conditions to the City Council relating to
the request as it deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of
the Subdivision Ordinance.
(6) The City Council shall not grant a variance until it has received a
report and recommendation from the Planning Commission and the
City staff or until sixty (60) days after the first regular Planning
Commission meeting at which the request was considered.
(7) Upon receiving the report and recommendation of the Planning
Commission, the City Council shall make findings of fact and impose
any conditions it considers necessary to protect the public health,
safety and welfare.
(8) The City Council shall decide whether to approve or deny a request for
a variance or an appeal within thirty (30) days after the public hearing
on said request.
(9) A variance of the Subdivision Ordinance shall be by majority vote of
the full City Council.
VIOLATIONS AND PENALTY:
PENALTY: A violation of any ~)j' I!:.:: provlSlon of the Subdivision
Ordinance ,.1:~J! l< ,,'[:::::1 :;f~a misdemeanor. Each month during which
compliance is delayed shall constitute a separate offense.
Page 52
l006.302
l006.303
l006.304
2/22/0 1
DRAFT
SALE OF LOTS FROM UNRECORDED PLATS: It shall be a misdemeanor to
sell, trade, or otherwise convey any lot or parcel of land as a part of, or in
conformity with any plan, plat or replat of any subdivision or area located
within the jurisdiction of the Subdivision Ordinance unless said plan, plat
or replat shall have first been recorded in the Office of the Recorder of
Scott County.
RECEIVING OR RECORDING UNAPPROVED PLATS: It shall be unlawful
for a private individual to receive or record in any public office any plans,
plats of land laid out in building lots and streets, alleys or other portions of
the same intended to be dedicated to public or private use, or for the use of
purchasers or owners of lots fronting on or adjacent thereto, and located
within the jurisdiction of the Subdivision Ordinance, unless the same shall
bear thereon, by endorsement or otherwise, the approval of the City
Council.
MISREPRESENTATIONS: It shall be a misdemeanor for any person owning
an addition or subdivision of land within the City to represent that any
improvement upon any of the streets, alleys or avenues of said addition or
subdivision or any sewer. \\dtCi' and S!()lTIl sewer utility in said addition or
subdivision has been constructed according to the plans and specifications
approved by the City Council, or has been supervised or inspected by the
City, when such improvements have not been so constructed, supervised
or inspected.
Page 53
If
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5A
CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION #01-007PC
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR ROCK CREEK HOMES, LLC., FILE
#00-083
5690 FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
FEBRUARY 26, 2001
On February 12, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding
the requested Variances on the subject property. After reviewing the proposal
with respect to the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to
draft a Resolution approving a Variance to the front yard setback.
The following Variance is included in Resolution 01-007PC:
1. A 2.1 foot Variance to permit a 33.4 foot structure setback to the front
property line rather than 35.5 feet as required by front yard setback
averaging [Ordinance Subsection 1102.405: Dimensional Standards: (4)].
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 01-007PC approving the front yard
setback Variance as directed by the Planning Commission on February 12,
2001.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution 01-007PC approving the front setback variance as directed
by the Planning Commission at the public hearing on February 12, 2001.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
"
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-007PC approving a 2.1 foot front
setback Variance.
L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-083\V ARRPT2.DOC
Page 2
RESOLUTION 01-007PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 2.1 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT
YARD STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 33.4 FEET RATHER THAN 35.5 FEET AS
REQUIRED FOR FRONT SETBACK AVERAGING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Rock Creek Homes, LLC, has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in
order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling located in the Rl (Low
Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at 5690 Fairlawn Shores Trail,
Prior Lake, MN, and legally described as follows:
Lot 34, Fairlawn Shores, Scott County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case File #00-083PC and held hearings thereon on February 12,2001.
3. 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.
4. Because of existing lot conditions on the subject property and the existing structure
setbacks 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 pre-existing lot of record does not meet the current Ordinance for minimum lot
dimensions in the Rl District. This situation creates an unbuildable lot and a
hardship with respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the owner.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-083\aprvrs2.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-.
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the minimum lot area required today and the
platted lot of record. Reasonable use of the property does not exist without the
granting of the variance to permit a buildable lot for a single family dwelling.
7. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant,
and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
9. The contents of Planning Case File #00-083PC are hereby entered into and made a
part of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following variance for the proposed structure as shown in the certificate of survey labeled
Exhibit A Survey:
1. A 2.1 foot variance to permit a 33.4 foot structure setback to the front property line
rather than 35.5 feet as required by front yard setback averaging for construction of a
single family detached dwelling.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. The permit is subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable agency
regulations.
2. The resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department pursuant to Section 1108.400 of City Code. An Assent Form must be
signed pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null
and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed structure
within one year after adoption of this resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on February 12,2001.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
I: \OOfiles\OOvar\OO-083 \aprvrs2.doc
2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
" - - _ _ - , 50.74
-904 FOOrCONrro_1. ~::::'-:Tf - ~oa05'74"W
VVI1 ~,."O --
- - :::-..
I --..c~
- --!l~y w.,C
6000 --
. S,8.J6.,J].;-____
---
11'7.8.
l-=+~
I -~"'-
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I ..\
j i
:J I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
r P.OH'fco I
I
9~~., : I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
LOT 34
-
-
-
...... -----
-.....- ---
-..... -......
---
---
f
.~
f<)
,"l-
f<)
a-
"-
?;;
8
o.
:!:.:r
on
I
I
I
I
It
..
l"
I I AT -;:::
I L.VI ...,...'
I
- I
---L-
--.
EXHIBIT A SURVEY
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
CONSIDER LANGUAGE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES ON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT (Case
File #01-010)
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
_YES -LNO
FEBRUARY 26, 2001
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this staff report is to consider proposed language for a potential
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow accessory structures to be
located on island lots. This proposal was initiated by a directive from the
Planning Commission at the public hearing on February 12, 2001. An Appeal
was filed with the Planning Department regarding the staffs' denial for a
proposed accessory structure on "Twin Isles". The Commission adopted
Resolution 01-04PC upholding the Planning staffs' interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance that does not permit accessory structures on the islands. However,
the Commission requested staff to research the issue and present a report at the
next scheduled meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Section 1104.309: Island Development, currently reads, in part, as follows:
1) Permitted uses on islands are limited to seasonal cabins, public parks and
open space. Year-round residences are not permitted. Recreational
facilities, such as a pavilion or picnic facilities for a homeowners'
association, may also be permitted by conditional use permit as set forth
in subsection 1108.200 (Attachment 1).
Currently, the ordinance on island development does not allow for accessory
structures because accessory structures are considered a "Use", and "Accessory
Uses" are not a listed permitted use under this ordinance section. The question
the Planning Commission should consider is whether or not accessory structures
are to be permitted on the island, and if so what type of conditions should apply
to these structures.
1:\01 files\01 ordamend\zoning\acesstrcislnd2.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ANAL YSIS:
Whether or not an accessory structure should be allowed on island lots is
basically a policy issue. The current ordinance provision, which does not allow
an accessory structure on the islands, is generally for aesthetic purposes. Island
lots tend to have smaller dimensions and with less total area than is required for
lots today. In addition, the unique circumstances pertaining to island lots warrant
limitations on the number of structures and the amount of impervious surface.
Section 1102.800 of the Zoning Ordinance lists the standard conditions for
general residential accessory structures with setback requirements similar to
principal structures, includinq a minimum 75 foot setback to the OHWM. Section
1104.308 lists the conditions for water-oriented accessory structures which
provides for a 10 foot setback to the OHWM for lots with slopes exceedinq 20%.
Overall, when the comparison is made between the code for general residential
accessory structures and the more limited water-oriented accessory structures, a
number of differences are present. The code for water-oriented accessory
structures may be a more appropriate guide for island development. Some
suggested language with underlined modifications are as follows:
In the development of island lots on general development waterbodies, one
water-oriented accessory structure is permitted per lot provided the lot meets the
minimum area and dimensional requirements under Section 1104.309. In
addition, the structure shall comply with required yard setbacks, and is subject to
the issuance of a building permit and the following conditions:
. The structure shall not occupy an area greater than 250 square feet, and
the maximum height of the structure must not exceed 10 feet, including
the roof; and
. The structure shall be located in the most visually inconspicuous portion
of the lot as viewed from the surface of the lake, assuming summer, leaf-
on conditions. The minimum setback requirement shall be at least 50 feet
from the ordinary hiGh water mark and must meet all other applicable yard
setbacks.
. The structure shall not be designed or used for human habitation and
shall not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities. However,
the structure may contain an electrical system, with the proper permits.
. The structure shall be constructed of treated wood and/or block, with
exterior sidinG and roofinG materials that are compatible with the principal
structure (seasonal cabin). In addition, the design shall reduce visibility as
viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation,
1:\01 files\01 ordamend\zoning\acesstrcislnd2.doc
Page 2
topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on
conditions; and
. If the proposed structure will be located below the regulatory flood plain
elevation, the structure shall be built compliant with applicable flood-
proofing requirements of the Building Code and Section 1105 of this
Ordinance; and
. Trees that are 6 inches in caliper or larger should not be removed for the
erection of a water-oriented accessory structure. If removal is necessary,
replacement with like trees shall be made with the approval of the Zoning
Administrator. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and all
disturbed vegetation replaced with sod or suitable landscaping materials;
and
. The structure shall be attached to a permanent foundation so as to be
immovable from its approved location.
Another option would be to limit the application of this provision to the storage of
water recreational equipment on island lots, as the staff has shown in the
following language:
. One water-oriented accessory structure designed and used solely as a
storage building for watercraft and related recreational equipment, may
occupy an area up to 250 square feet provided the maximum width of the
structure is 20 feet as measured parallel to the configuration of the
shoreline. The structure shall be located as to meet a minimum structure
setback of 50 feet to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), and shall
meet all other setbacks to front, side and rear properly boundaries as
provided in the code. In addition, the City shall require a building permit
for all accessory structures on island development.
Hydrologist Pat Lynch with the Department of Natural Resources submitted the
Minnesota State Shoreland Zoning Regulations and comments for this report
(Attachment 4 - DNR Comments and State Regulations).
The above provisions are intended to limit the number, size and use of
accessory structures on an island. The Planning Commission should consider
the options and provide staff with some direction on this matter.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Provide staff with direction on this issue.
1:\01 files\O 1 ordamend\zoning\acesstrcislnd2.doc
Page 3
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance Subsection 1104.309 Island Development.
2. Ordinance Subsection 1102.800 (8) Accessory Structures.
3. Ordinance Subsection 1104.308 (4) Water-Oriented Accessory Structures.
4. DNR Comments and State Regulations.
1:\01 files\O 1 ordamend\zoning\acesstrcislnd2.doc
Page 4
Zoning Ordinance
(7)
,/\ /\ ~
Steep Slopes: Tl1e City Engineer ,~all ev~luate po~;:)ib'f soil e~ion imlJacts
and'! dev~lopm7nt visib~ity from/public w ters befor7 ,ssuir;9 a\ per~ for
constr~ctlon ,0, r sewage \treatm~ht systems, road~, drJvewa~s,. ~t~ct,we~1 ,or
othet Improv~ments on st7ep lopes. Wh n cessary~ c9ndltlo s u~lbe
attached tOi Issued per Its 0 prevent er on and te/prese eXisting
vegetation/screening of ctures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed
from t~urface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation.
I
I
1104.309 Island Development: Development on islands without municipal sewer and
water shall be subject to the following conditions:
(1) Permitted uses on islands are limited to seasonal cabins, public parks and
open space. Year-round residences are not permitted. Recreational facilities,
such as a pavilion or picnic facilities for a homeowners' association, may also
be permitted by conditional use permit as set forth in subsection 1108.200.
(2) Any structure built on an island must contain an enclosed septic system or
incinerator toilet facilities.
(3) An application for a building permit or variance must include a signed lease
arrangement that indicates that the owner has two (2), on-land parking
spaces for vehicles. In addition, the owner is required to provide proof of
residency, at some location other than the island, at the time of building
permit application.
(4) The minimum lot size for all islands without municipal sewer and water is one
acre. On Twin Island, the minimum lot size requirement is 15,000 square feet
or 2 contiguous (side by side) lakeshore lots, whichever is less.
(5) The minimum lot width at OHWM is seventy five feet (75').
(6) Setbacks for structures on islands shall comply with the following:
~ Structure setback from OHWM 100 feet
~ Side yard 10 feet
~ Gray Water System from OHWM 75 feet
(7) Clear cutting of natural vegetation is prohibited. Natural vegetation shall be
restored insofar as feasible immediately after any construction project is
completed to retard surface runoff and soil erosion.
(8) Any removal of vegetation in conjunction with any construction project shall
require a restoration plan to be submitted and reviewed by the City to ensure
that natural vegetation is retained insofar as possible to screen seasonal
structures and other buildings on site.
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Prior Lake
May 1, 1999
l104/p13
;
"
"
\
\
\
Zoning Ordinance" "
/\ C.
\
(8) Accessory structures shall comply with all of the following regulations:
a. No accessory structure or use will be permitted on a lot without an
established principal use.
b. No accessory building shall be erected or located within a yard other than
the rear yard, except that a detached accessory building, designed and
used as a garage, may be located within a side yard unless is abuts a
street. No accessory building shall be located between the front building
wall and the front lot line.
c. No accessory building erected in the rear yard of a comer lot shall be
located within 25 feet of any property line abutting a street.
d. All detached garages and other accessory structures shall be compatible in
design and materials with the principal structure on the parcel as per
subsection 1107.2200.
e. A detached garage located 60 feet or more from the front lot line shall be a'
minimum of 10 feet from any lot lines.
f. The total ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 25%
of the area between the principal structure and rear lot line and in the R-1,
R-2 or R-3 Use Districts, it shall not exceed 832 sq. ft.
g. The height of an accessory building shall not exceed 15 feet.
h. No accessory building shall be located within 10 feet of any lot line abutting
lots in an "R" Use District.
i. Accessory buildings located less than 6 feet from a prinCipal building on the
same lot shall be considered part of the principal building for the purpose of
applying provisions of this Ordinance including, but not limited to, setbacks
and other dimensional requirements.
j. Where the natural grade of a lot at the building line of a house is 8 feet or
more above the established curb level, a private garage may be erected
within any yard provided 1/2 or more of its height is below grade level and it
is located a minimum of 10 feet from any street line and 5 feet from any
side lot line.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Prior Lake
May 22. 1999
l102/p38
,'\
,.._-.._.._-----~
Zoning Ordinance
~,.,..,..,.
,.,.,.,...-.....
. ~~~!...9LbydrOIOgist consls en .
governing the management of flood plain areas. an one
approach is used, the highest flood prote . n determined
must be used for placin s and other facilities; and
------
c. W -oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed
lowe n e ermined in t IS su 'on if the structure
is constructed of flood-resistance materi e flood elevation;
electrical and mechanical e' are placed above the elevation
and, if long dur' ooding is anticipated, the structure is built to
withstand' action and wind-driven waves and debris.
(4) Water-Oriented Accessory Structures: One water-oriented accessory
structure may be allowed per lot on General Development (GO) lakes that
have Municipal sewer and water, provided a building permit is obtained from
the City and the following criteria are met:
.--
~)
.~/
a. The lot contains a slope equal to or greater than 20% measured from
the front of the principal structure to the ordinary high water mark; and
b. The structure shall not occupy an area greater than 120 square feet,
and the maximum height of the structure must not exceed 10 feet,
including the roof; and
c.
The structure shall be located in the most visually inconspicuous
portion of the lot as viewed from the surface of the lake, assuming
summer, leaf-on conditions. The minimum setback requirement must
be at least 10 feet from the ordinary high water mark and must meet
the other applicable side yard setbacks. The slope shall be verified by
a certificate of survey prepared by a registered surveyor; and
d.
The structure shall not be designed or used for human habitation and
shall not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities.
However, the structure may contain electrical and mechanical
systems; and
e.
The structure shall be constructed of treated wood and/or block that is
compatible with the principal structure and designed to reduce visibility
as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation,
topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on
conditions; and
f.
If the proposed structure will be located below the regulatory flood
plain elevation, the structure shall be built compliant with applicable
flood-proofing requirements of the Building Code and Section 1105 of
this Ordinance; and
ATTACHMENT 3
May 1, 1999
l104/pll
City of Prior Lake
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us)
Tuesday, February 20,2001 1 :30 PM
Shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com
accessory structures in shoreland areas
Thanks for calling today regarding accessory structures in shoreland areas. I faxed you
over excepts from Minnesota State Shore land Zoning Regulations. In particular, I faxed
part of Minnesota Rules, part 6123.3300, subpart 3.H. This section pertains to Water
oriented accessory structures. Note that all accessory structures, except water-oriented
accessory structures, must meet structure setback from the OHW. Your ordinance defines
what a water-oriented accessory structure is. In state rule, examples of water-oriented
accessory structures include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, detached decks, and fish
houses.
The city of Prior Lake adopted language more restrictive than that required by law, with
respect to water-oriented accessory structures. I supported such restrictive language.
The city could consider amending the ordinance to relax its position. Consistent with the
materials I faxed you, the city could allow, per lot, a single water oriented accessory
structure, 250 square feet or less, as close as 10 feet from the ordinary high water
elevation, and up to ten feet high.
On RD and GD lakes a water oriented accessory structure used solely for boat storage and
related water-based recreational equipment, may be increased up to total of 400 square
feet in size, and no more than 20 feet wide parallel to shore.
Any accessory structure not meeting the criteria in Minnesota Rules 6123.3300, subpart
3.H., would have to meet the required structure setback from the ordinary high water mark.
DNR would not oppose adoption of language consistent with what is in rule. My experience
has been that on lakes where the number and size of water oriented accessory structures is
minimized, the visual impacts of shoreline development are also minimized. I would
encourage the city to consider this if it is contemplating amendment of its current
ordinance language regarding same.
Please call me at 651-772-7917 if you have any questions.
Pat Lynch
DNR South Metro Area Hydrologist
phone 651.772.7917
fax 651.772.7977
pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us
ATTACHMENT 4
1
-
SENT BY: DNR METROj
2-20- 1 1 :3BPMj 6517727573 ->
6124474245;
#2/3
I oJ
.--......,
anticipated, the structure is built to ~ichstancl ice act:on a~c
wind-driven ~aveS and debris.
c. Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory
facLlities, except stair~ays and land~ngs, must not be placed
within bluff ~mpact 20ne5.
D. Steep slope~. Local ;over;.ment of:icials ~~St
evaluate possible soil erosi~n i~pacts and develo?me~:
visibility from<public waters be~ore iss~ing a pe~~it for
conscruction of sewage treatme~t systems, roads, drive~ay~,
structures, or other improvements on ste~p slopes. When
determined necessary, conditions ~ust be attac~ed to issued
permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetat~o~
screening of structures. vehicles, and othe~ facilities as
viewed from ~he surface of public waters, assuminq su~~er,
leaf-on vegetation.
E. Proximity to unplatted ceme~eries a~d significan:
historic sites. No structure may be placed ~ea~e: than 50 feet
from the boundary of ~n unplatted cemete~y protec~ed under
Minnesota Statutes, section 307.08. unless necessa=y approval is
obtained from the Minnesota State Archaeo:ogis~~s OfEice. No
5~ructure may be placed on a significant Mistorlc site in a
manner that affects the val~es of the site unless adequate
information about the site has been re~oved and dOC~ill~nted in a
public repository.
F. Proximity to road3 and high.ays. No st:~c~~,e ~aJ
be placed nearer than 50 fee~ from ~he ri9ht-of-~ay line o~ 3ny
federal. state. or county hi9h~aYi or 20 feet from the
ri9ht-of-~ay line of any co~n roae, pub:ic s~reet, O~ othe=s ~o~
classi~ied.
G. Height. All st=uctures in res~dential distr~c~s
in cities, except churches and nonresidential agric~lt~rai
structures, must not exceed 25 Eee~ in height.
-*
H. Accessory structures and facilities. All
accessory structures and facilities, except those that are
water-oriented, m~st meet or exceed 5truct~re setbac~
standat'ds. If allowed by local gove::n.c;ant controk's, each
residential lot may have one water-oriented accessory struC~ure
or facility located close: to publiC ~ate:s than the 5tructu~e
setback if all of the follo~ing sta~ca=ds are met:
(1) The strucc~re ~r Eac~lity must ~ot excee~ te~
feet in height. exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an
area greater than 250 square feet. Detached ~eckS ~ust not
exceed eight feet above grade a~ any point.
(2) The setback of the s~=uc:ure or facility from
the ordinary nigh ~ater level ~ust be at least ten :ee:.
~
,
~\
A-1.25
'.
SENT BY: DNR METRO;
#3/3
J>
I: ,
6124474245;
2-20- 1 1:a9PM; 651772757a => ~
(3) The Struct"re or facility must be treated ::~~=) ·
reduce visLbility as viewed from public waters and adjacent
shorelands by veGetation, topography, increased setbac~s, c~~o~,
or other means acceptable to the local unit of government,
assuming summer, leaf-on conditions.
(4) The ~oof may be used as a deck with safeey
rai2s. but mus~ ~Ct be enclosed or used as a storage area.
"
!
i
/
j
(5) The structure or facility must~not be
des~9ned or used fOr h~man habitation and must not contain wate~
supply or sewage treatment f3Cilities.
(6) As an alternative for general development and
recreational developmen~ waterbodies, water-oriented accessory
structures used solely for watercraft storage, and including
storage of related boating and water-oriented sporting
equipme~t~ may occupy an area up to 400 square feet provided the
maximum width of the structure is 20 feet as measured parallel
to the configuration of the shoreline.
J
i
i
I
. ~_..--.....,......,....-.......,..". ,'.
(7) Any acce$so~y structures or facilities ~ot
mee:ing the abo~e criteria, or any additional accessory
structures or facilities must meet or exceed structure setback
standards.
I. St~irways, lifts, and landings. Stairways and
lifts a:e the preferred alte:native to major topographic
alterations for achievin; access up and down bluffs and stee?
slooes to shore areas. Stair~ay~ and- lifts must meet the .
Eolio~in9 desiqri requirements:
(1) Stair~ays and lifts must not exceed four fee~
~n ~idth On residential lots. Wide~ stairways may be used fer
Comrr.ercial properties, public open-space rec::e~tional
properties, and planned unit developments.
(2) Landings for stairways and lifts on
residential lots must not exceed 32 square feet in area.
Landings larger than 32 square feet may be used for commercial
properties. p~blic ope~-space rec~eatiqapl properties, and
planned unit developments.
(3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on
stairways, lifts., or landings.
(4) Stair~ays, lifts, and landings may be eithe~
constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into
the ground, provided they are designed and b~lt in" a manner.
that ensures control of soil erosion.
(5) Stair~ays, lifts, and landings mus~ be
located in th~ most visually inconspicuous portions of lots. as
vie~ed from the surEace of the public ~ater assumi~g summe~,
A-1.26