HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 12, 2001
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 12,2001
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 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
subdivided into 78 lots for townhouse units on the property located on the west
side of CSAH 21 approximately 14 mile north of CSAH 82. (Continued from the
February 26, 2001 meeting)
B. Case Files #01-008 and 00-009 Centex Home is requesting a preliminary plat and
Conditional Use Permit for 38.9 acres of vacant land located on the west side ofCSAH
83, 'l4 mile south ofCSAH 42, in the East Y2 of the NW Y4 of Section 28, Township 115
North, Range 22 West. The proposal is to create 54 single family lots and to approve a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a cluster development of 68 townhouses.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. 2000 Annual Variance Report
B. 2000 Annual Complaint Report
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:\Ol files\Olplancomm\OI pcagendalag031201.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Planning Commission Meeting
February 26,2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V onhof called the February 26, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Stamson and Vonhof,
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
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the February 12,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Commissioner Vonhofread the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
The attorney for the first public hearing was not available at the starting time. Therefore,
the agenda changed to Item 5A. (see page 9), followed by Item 4B. (see page 5).
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)
L\Olfiles\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn022601.doc 1
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 26,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
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.
On February 12,2001, the Planning Commission reopened the public hearing to consider
this additional information as well as additional testimony. Following the testimony, the
Planning Commission closed the public hearing and discussed this request.
After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission considered a motion to approve
this request. This motion failed on a 2-2 vote. The Planning Commission also
considered a motion to deny this request. Again, the motion failed on a 2-2 vote. Rather
than send this item to the City Council without a recommendation, the Commission
tabled action on the request until February 26,2001. No new information has been
submi tted.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Have not changed mind since the last meeting.
· Would like to see the Vierlings farm the land as long as they want.
· Do not feel it is appropriate to say the future use ofthe land is going to be rural
density.
Stamson:
· There are a number of land use issues. Is long term agricultural appropriate for
this piece of property? I do not think it is. It is located within the city limits,
served by two major county roads, water and sewer are available to it. The
Metropolitan Council has a procedure to identify permanent agricultural land.
There are a number of items related to soil quality and tests. 1) The land is
agriculture, a situation that is rapidly disappearing; 2) Adjacent land is zoned
agriculture and; 3) the land is outside the future urban area, a designation set by
the Metropolitan Council relating to the MUSA and the land use in 2040. The
property meets none of the criteria that the Metropolitan Council deems
appropriate for long-term agricultural use.
· Talked to people responsible for rural policy at the Metropolitan Council. In their
opinion they did not feel this property would meet their standards for review for
land that qualifies for Agricultural Preserve status.
· Are we saving farmland by protecting this piece of property? Researched a
number of different sites. This action does not preserve farmland. The biggest
threat to farmland is inefficient use of farmland within municipalities. By
stripping off urban areas to development like this, is actually destroying the
farming economy by forcing nonagricultural uses into urban areas.
· This site has sewer and water available to it and is in a municipality. What we are
proposing flies directly in the face of what farm preservationists are advocating.
LIO I fileslOI plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn022601.doc 2
. Why can't this farm exist in a sea of residential, commercial uses 30 years from
now? Because like any industry farming requires the critical mass to support the
infrastructure that it requires to operate efficiently and survive. That
infrastructure is not in this area, it is quickly moving south. If we preserve a small
pattern of farms here and there in developed areas, we are forcing development to
hopscotch. There will be little pockets of developments in between largely
farming areas like Lydia and New Prague. That is the problem it creates.
. This type of action creates more pressure for farmland and better farmland to
disappear.
. The applicant spoke of his fear of eminent domain preventing him from investing
in his operation. The Agricultural Preserve does not prevent eminent domain
procedures but creates a higher standard, which is reviewed by the Metropolitan
Council.
. Agree it would prevent the City taking the land for parks or some public uses.
The City's current designation is business office park clearly stating the City has
no intention of creating parkland. If the City wanted parkland, it would be
designated park.
. Ironically, the business office park designation prevents the school district from
using its power of eminent domain. They also have that power separate from the
City.
. The corresponding district next to the business office park designation is C5 and
schools are not allowed in the C5 district.
. If this is amended to rural residential and the zoning is agriculture, schools are
allowed in the agriculture district. Now you have a flat piece of property with no
schools and has city sewer and water available. It is an ideal location for a school
on that side of the City. It is far more likely to loose the property to the school for
eminent domain than the City. Nothing is solved. There is an increase of eminent
domain.
. The final issue is the proposal from the last meeting for a written agreement with
the applicant to rezone. That is a short-term backhanded way of getting the
applicant's request for Agricultural Preserve approved, but in the long term we
are still reverting back to the original business office park. The way it was
presented was, the idea behind it was to allow the applicant to apply for grant
money that the federal government does not deem him qualified under the current
zoning. To me that is no different than misrepresenting income on your taxes or
misrepresenting your health on an insurance document. It is fraudulently
representing your intentions for a piece of property in order to obtain money from
the government that they wouldn't give you otherwise. The City should not be a
part of that.
. Will not support the amendment.
Patrick J. Kelly, representative for the Vierlings, said he takes issue with Stamson's
statement of misrepresentation of doing the Ag Preserve for some fraudulent means.
Kelly said that was untrue.
L:\OI files\Ol plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn022601.doc 3
Stamson said he did not intend to imply that it was the applicant's intentions. By doing
so, it would be the City being fraudulent by their actions. Stamson said he had no issue
with the applicant and apologized if the applicant felt it was directed at him.
Atwood:
· Appreciate all the research from Commissioner Stamson.
· Has not changed her position from the last meeting.
· The Comp Plan is a fluid document. It can be looked at and amended.
· This is an exceptional case where we can do that comfortably.
· It is the Vierlings property and they should ultimately decide what happens.
· This is an advisory commission. City Council will make the final decision.
Vonhof:
· Appreciate input and obvious reflection the Commissioners spent on this issue.
· Worked extensively on the Comprehensive Plan from 1993 to 1995 and its
ultimate approval in 1996. At that time, the City held a number of public
hearings. In my 8 years on the Commission there has never been so much interest
in a planning issue. The Comprehensive Plan is a guide. It is where we as a
community think we are going to be in 2010 and 2020. This process takes a long
time for everyone to have ample opportunity to be heard. It is a good process.
· Believes the Comprehensive Plan also is a plan based upon information available
at the time decisions are made. There is additional information that was not
available in 1995. This process took almost 2 years.
· We have been told by the Vierlings that they intend to farm for some period of
time.
· The zoning is correct. It is appropriate.
· The Comprehensive Plan should also be consistent with what the projected land
use is going to be.
· A lot of issues brought up have not been directly related to the basic issue.
· In planning there is many time spans. A 20-year time span is a relatively long
period of time.
· In these types of situations, requests for amendments, people are not thinking of
what we are actually looking at. Weare trying to figure out what that land use is
going to be 10 or 20 years down the line.
· The property owners have indicated they plan to farm long term. The zoning is
consistent. But that was not the Commission's understanding back in 1995.
· We have to get back to the basic issue at hand. What is the proj ected land use 10
or 15 years down the line. And we have been told it is going to be farming -
agricultural.
· Regardless of what the surrounding land uses are, it is possible to farm completely
surrounded by residential property.
· Reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and there is an anticipation that it can be
modified. The key is - is there additional information? New information has
been provided. Regardless of what the neighbors think or what the City thinks or
location, the ultimate test in a sense goes back to what the property owner is going
L: \0 I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn02260 I.doc 4
to do. If everyone in the City would come up and tell us what they were going to
do with their property long term then obviously the Plan would be more accurate.
The City's intent is to have as accurate a projection as we can.
. We have someone who has come forward to tell us this is not accurate because it
is not consistent with what our plans are. Very clearly that would justify an
amendment.
. The Comprehensive Plan' intent is to have an accurate projection.
. Fully respect fellow Commissioner's viewpoint on this matter.
. Having been involved in this Plan from the beginning with a lot of time invested
in this document, with the information presented to this Commission, it is
consistent to support the amendment.
Open discussion:
Stamson:
. Felt Vonhofmisrepresented the idea of the Comprehensive Plan. It is not a
document for what property owners intend to use their property for. If it were,
there would be a mismash of uses because everyone would have different ideas of
what their property should be.
. The idea behind the Comp Plan is for a City to lie out what the community should
look like so in years to come as it develops, it will be efficient, manageable and
avoid the appearance of cities that grew before planning. Cities that are a
mismash of industries in the middle of residential neighborhoods. That truly
represented what owners' long term use was. We need an orderly development of
the community so it is an attractive livable community.
Vonhof:
. Gave an analogy of a land use such as a college campus.
. We have information that this is what the use is going to be. That's the difference
in this particular case.
. This use will continue. It is reflecting reality. Let's make it consistent with the
use.
Stamson:
. The college property and farmland use cannot be compared.
. The proposed Rural Residential district does not reflect the correct district use
either. It is intended for areas without city water and sewer and residential lots for
40 acres or more.
. The implication is residential use, not agricultural use. We don't have an
agricultural designation for the Comp Plan to reflect what the Vierlings want.
V onhof:
. The services in this case were driven by other developments off the Vierling
property.
. The Comprehensive Plan is a broad brush, the zoning is a more accurate land use.
L:\OI files\Ol pl an comm\O 1 pcminutes\mn022601.doc 5
· When someone enters into the public record that they intend to use the property in
this particular way and will continue the existing use, we are just responding to it.
The request is a response to that.
· Get back and get focused to the planning document and guideline.
· As planners we take the best information we have at the time and apply the
appropriate land use and designation. It is a pure planning function.
Stamson:
· That is point, this is planning for future uses. By changing it, we say Rural
Residential property. If for some reason Mr. Vierling sells or loses the property,
we have it designated as rural residential property. It is not the intent.
· Understands Mr. Vierling wants to farm. That is great, but for planning, for some
unforeseen circumstances that doesn't happen, we need to designate it for what it
should be and Rural Residential is not what it should be.
Vonhof:
.. Agreed with Stamson on that point.
· Economic conditions can change anything. An economic slowdown could make
multiple family housing become far more desirable than single family housing. If
that happens, the City would have to make adjustments at the time.
· This is the information today.
· The plan tells people coming in what the area is going to be. It is totally
appropriate if you get new information it can change.
· Agreed with Stamson that a two year bandaid is not appropriate. But when
someone comes in and says this is what the land is going to be, we should reflect
that. It is totally appropriate to change with new information.
· Stamson made very compelling arguments regarding the surrounding
infrastructure and the location of the land. The overriding sense is that we now
have information that is unique in the planning sense.
Lemke:
· Concern for people moving into the area. They go to the Comprehensive Plan
and see
· Rural density, then in 10 years when Mr. Vierling sells his property a business
office park comes in. Those people will come back and say "why didn't you tell
me?"
Stamson:
· When Mr. Vierling decides to sell, what do you think the best land use is?
V onhof:
· A lot of different things. We have to deal with the information we have now.
Stamson:
L\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn022601.doc 6
. The Commission has never used that criteria before. What we have is one
landowner's stated intention. There are a number of scenarios that can change
that.
. It should reflect the Community's interest as a whole. What this area should be at
2020 build out.
. Stamson and V oOOof discussed college land uses.
. At 2020 build-out, assuming there will be more development, where that is, we
don't know. The Comprehensive Plan should reflect where market forces are
creating development. And these are the areas that the City thinks these types of
uses fit into the community.
. V oOOof agreed.
. The fact that one particular property owner might have a different intended use
does not change the fact that ifhis property would develop in the next 20 years
that this is what the City would like the guiding vision to be.
. Agree that Mr. Vierling may still be there, but designating the land agriculture
reflects an accurate picture of what the developing community will look like in
the future.
V onhof:
. We do not know what the future will be. But this Plan does not go beyond 2020.
What we are talking about is amending the existing Plan based on the information
provided today.
. If I were buying property around there I would want accurate information for the
surrounding area. It will significantly impact 20 years.
A petition was presented to staff.
Atwood:
· Can the record reflect Commissioner Criego' s previous vote? Kansier said the
City Council will have all the minutes and testimony that occurred.
MOTION BY ST AMSON, TO PASS ALONG THIS ITEM TO COUNCIL WITH NO
RECOMMENDATION.
Motion dies for lack of a second.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE VIERLING PROPERTY LOCATED IN
SECTION 23 AND 24, TOWNSHIP 11, RANGE 22.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Atwood and V oOOof, nays by Stamson and Lemke. Motion
dies.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO PASS THIS ITEM ALONG TO
CITY COUNCIL WITH NO RECOMMENDATION.
L:\OI files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mn022601.doc 7
Atwood:
. Questioned why can't the Motion could not go to the City Council as 2 to 2 vote.
Stamson:
. There should be a record for the City Council. Three Motions have failed. It
doesn't move along until the Commission moves the recommendation forward.
Kansier said this goes before the City Council on March 19, 2001. This matter will not
be a public hearing.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson said the community needs to look at all farm land and take a look at treating it
differently. There is no language to protect farm land in the Ordinance.
A recess was called at 7:21 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:37 p.m. to item 4C.
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 of 25.58 acres to be
subdivided into 78 lots for townhouse units on the property located on the west side
of CSAH 21 approximately 1f4 mile north of CSAH 82. (Continued from the February
12,2001 meeting)
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier stated this meeting was continued from the February
12, 200 l, meeting to allow the developer time to address a number of issues that the staff
felt were outstanding. One of the issues had to do with drainage and the Watershed
District requirement. Kansier was told by the applicant today they had met with the
Watershed District and they need to make some revisions to their plans. For that purpose
the applicant is requesting a continuation to the March 12,2001 meeting.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING
TO MARCH 12,2001.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
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 int0141 single family lots. This property is located on the south side of
Wilds Parkway and the north side of County Road 82.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 26,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
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.
L:\Ol files\OJ pI an comm\O 1 pcminutes\mn022601.doc 8
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.
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 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. Revise the plat so that Lot 9, Block 1 includes at least 12,000 square feet of area
above the lOa-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 signs for this development.
8. All utilities and roads must be constructed in conformance with the Public Works
Design Manual.
Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the above conditions of
approval and forward this recommendation to the City Council.
Stamson questioned roads requiring connections to stub streets, why is the developer not
required? Kansier explained the situation with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community and parkland. There are also significant trees along the area and there has
been some discussion of vacating the area.
There were no comments from the public.
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\mn022601.doc 9
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Concurred with staff. It is consistent with what we have seen for the property.
· Feel comfortable with what is presented.
Atwood:
. Agreed.
Jim Stanton, 2973 Fox Hollow, Shamrock Development, said there is only one thing that
does not comply - the islands in the middle of the cul-de-sacs. It can be covered in items
7 and 8 of the conditions. Islands do not comply with the City's Design Manual. The
rest of The Wilds have islands maintained by the homeowners association. This addition
would also have a homeowners association to maintain the islands.
Lemke:
· How would we handle the islands? McDermott said the City has not allowed
them in the past but they also decrease impervious surface. There were approved
in other plats of The Wilds. As long as their homeowners association agrees to
maintain them, the City really doesn't have a problem. The developer will have a
written agreement document.
Vonhof:
· Questioned the parking lot with the park. McDermott said the parking lot
planned. It is just not shown. The City requires the developer to grade the area
and the City will included it in the CIP. It should be included next year.
· Originally concerned with the access off County Road 82, but the issue was
addressed by staff. There is a sign on County Road 82 stating "No Passing on
Shoulder".
· McDermott said there will be a right turn lane. It will be similar to the Glynwater
access.
· Will there be any bike paths along the property? McDermott said Hennepin
County currently has an easement for a bike path along the north side of County
Road 82.
· Kansier said the idea is for a future trail along County Road 82 but would not be
done until the road is upgraded to four lanes.
· As long as there is a provisions made. McDermott said it is not currently in the
County's CIP. The City has commented on the issue and should be included in
the near future.
· It is a good preliminary plat. Straight forward.
· Support the plan and staff s recommendation.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND APPRO V AL
OF THE PRELINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS AND
FORWARD ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn022601.doc 10
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
D. Public hearing to consider a proposed Subdivision Ordinance for the City of
Prior Lake.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 26,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
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 draft Subdivision Ordinance. Kansier gave an overview of the outline and proposed
changes.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed Subdivision Ordinance to the City Council.
Comments from the public:
Jim Stanton, 2973 Fox Hollow, this is one ofthe better ordinances. It is more practical.
Stanton questioned the buffer around the wetlands. Kansier explained the buffer area is
counted in lot area but not the wetlands. Stanton then commented on page 31 of the
ordinance regarding outlots.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Rye explained outlots. Staff can come up with a modification of the language to
utilize adjacent property or development. The City needs to be a little bit careful
not to just give carte blanche. There is a way to address the issue.
· Like the preliminary plat/final plat under 5 lots.
· Likes the level of detail at the preliminary plat stage.
· Overall it is great.
Lemke:
· Agreed with Atwood, anything we can do to save money in terms of the level of
detail in the preliminary plat. It is great.
· It is a good document.
Stamson:
· Concurred. Staff did an excellent job.
· Questioned center islands in cul-de-sac. McDermott explained the snow removal.
Unless there is a homeowners association to maintain the landscaping the island
can become messy and scraggly. It is also why the City does not allow trees in
the boulevard. It is a maintenance issue.
L\Olfiles\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn022601.doc 11
. There are typically several driveways in a cul-de-sac, it is hard to push the snow
into people's yards without damage or complaints. Typically the snow is stacked
in the center of the cul-de-sac until a later time when trucks can come and remove
it.
. It is more attractive to have a center island in a cul-de-sac.
. Jim Stanton said they have islands in The Wilds, the one in his cul-de-sac is
heavily treed. Snow can still be pushed into the center. They have had no
problems. Provisions made by homeowners to maintain the islands and holding
the City harmless will help.
Atwood:
. Is snow storage a big problem in the City? McDermott said it is this year. It can
become an attractive nuisance for kids.
. With islands you wouldn't have the problem of hauling the snow away and
storage.
. Stanton said everyone has the maximum driveway and there is no storage for
snow. Pushing the snow in the center and hauling it away is better. Stanton
agreed with McDermott that it can be a nuisance with kids. It is easier to haul
away.
Stamson:
. The positives asthectics outweigh the negatives of islands.
V onhof:
. There should be a provision by the homeowners to take care of the cul-de-sac
islands.
. The draft document reflects the experiences ofthe staff. Staffhas done a good
job in all of the ordinance modifications.
. Support sending the draft forward to the City Council.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #00-083 Rock Creek Home Variance Resolution.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented Resolution 01-007PC approving a 2.1
foot variance to permit a front yard structure setback of33.4 feet rather than the 35.5 feet
as required for front setback averaging.
MOTION BY ST AMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
007PC APPROVING A 2.1 FOOT FRONT SETBACK.
L:\OI files\O I planeomm\Ol peminutes\mn02260 l.doe 12
V ote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Island Development Ordinance Review.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated February 26,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
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 February 26,2001 meeting.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Questioned the height exceeding 10 feet for adequate storage. Horsman explained
the process of determining the height. The structure could actually be over 10
feet in height.
· There was a brief discussion on limiting height. They are limited in the general
accessory structure section of the ordinance.
· Rye explained the language presented did not address the issue ofroofline. It
talks about compatibility in terms of the exterior materials.
Stamson:
· Like staff s approach of using water accessory structures. It is appropriate.
· This came from a variance from a resident who wants to build a garage on the
property.
· Homes on the island have no allowable storage facilities at the moment. The
island residents do not have any ability to transfer equipment back and forth.
There should be some storage.
· 250 square feet is larger than the City normally allows.
· The City has been strict with the Island Development to protect the land.
Primary homes are not on the island.
· 250 feet works and allows storage for a large amount of equipment. Garages are
not necessary.
· The other approach for storage of recreational equipment is okay, but there are a
couple of problems in the wording. It is not bad, it just needs a little work.
Atwood:
L\O I files\O I plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn022601 .doc 13
. Agree to Stamson with the water accessory approach.
. Would like more discussion on 250 square feet.
. DNR Hydrologist Lynch's letter comments on storage area.
. I feel if you are on an island, where are you going to take your boat for
maintenance? Not necessary to store a boat.
Stamson:
. The island has been set up as recreational cabins, not primary structure.
. You should have a home off site. Believe boats should not be stored on the island.
The Commissioners briefly discussed pontoons on the island.
Atwood:
. Is 250 feet reasonable for all the storage?
V onhof:
. The majority of island property owners do not own that much land.
. The general cabin.
. Maybe 300 sq feet, 400 feet is too large.
. You don't want to have overwhelming storage spaces over the cabins.
. Rather see material stored inside, than outside off season.
. Agreed with Commissioners, prefer not to limit it just to water structures. It could
be chairs and whatever. Make it a storage structure.
. Question to staffre: Lynch's remark of allowing structures as close as 10 feet
from the water line. Rye explained that pertained to a 20% slope and in many
cases there is not a lot of room between the bottom of the slope and the water so a
10 foot setback is allowed.
. 300 feet would cover the vast majority of storage.
Horsman said there is a definite need for storage. It would only enhance the view from
the lake. Maybe get some idea from the island owners.
Vonhof:
. It is a unique situation. We have to set the perimeters.
Stamson:
. Question to staff - Does this allow an accessory structure to be built on the other
side of a private drive? Horsman said it could be tied in.
. The preference would be to put the structure in the interior of the island.
. Questioned if they agree to over 300 feet which would be over the DNR's
recommendation. Rye said the ordinance had to be written so it applies in every
case.
John Meyer, owner of property at 3313 Twin Island, said their intent was to get a
building permit for a garage to be able to store a vehicle, watercraft, lawnmower and
L:\OJ files\OJ pJancomm\OJpcminutes\mn02260J.doc 14
other storage. They also wanted to store the floats for the dock. Meyer explained the
problems with storage in cabins. They want a secure place for storage. Meyer said his
cabin is the highest elevation on the island.
Atwood questioned Meyer on the size. Meyer said his pontoon is 24 feet long. He
wanted to construct a 24 x 24 structure. He owns the largest interior lots. Residents will
not be able to see his garage.
DNR approved structure is 400 feet used for water accessory structure. Rye said the
DNR has to approve any changes to the Shoreland District. They are also concerned
about impervious surface.
V onhof requested staff to bring back for a public hearing.
Preferred first method - general conditions outlined and them some greater square
footage. 250 is the bottom. Consider garage doors. Maximum width of a boat is 8.6
feet. Pontoons will fit in very few garages. The Shoreland District is a protected area.
The cabins are small 500 to 600 square feet. The Commissioners felt comfortable with
300 square feet.
Horsman questioned what the setbacks would be. Stamson said 50 feet minimum or no
closer than the primary structure, whatever is greater.
Rye said staffwill make every attempt to contact the island homeowners.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
The City Council would like a workshop regarding the downtown and incorporate the
design standards and have asked the staff and Planning Commission to look at the issue.
Rye is working on the ordinance and will hold a work session to include the Planning
Commission. Let staffknow ifmembers will be able to make it on April 2.
V onhof thanked the Commissioners and staff for the last few meetings in dealing with the
Issues.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn02260 I.doc
15
I'
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4A
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
MARCH 12, 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, 'l4 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 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. On February 26, 2001, the applicant
requested this item be tabled until March 12, 2001. Since that time, we have received a
letter from the applicant requesting the item be continued until March 26,2001. The staff
sent notices to owners of property within 500' of this site informing them of the new
hearing date.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second continuing the public hearing to March 26,2001.
1:\0] fiJes\Ol subdivisions\prelim plat\regal crest\regal pc3.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
MAR-05-2001 16:28
COLLEGE CITY HOMES
6124696910 P.01/01
. ~
.,~
o
u
HOMES
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
Prior Lake, Minnesota
Monday, March 05,2001
Dear Jane;
We would like to be added to the Planning Commission agenda for Monday March 26, 2001,
not next weeks meeting. We would like to get together with you and engineering before you
write your final report for the planning commission like we talked on the phone. I will try and
call you tomorrow to set up a time for that meeting. If you could please check your calendar
to see what would be available for early next week and to give everyone proper time to review
the plans.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely;
~~
Darin Pavek
7920 Lakeville Boulevard Lakeville MN 55044-
(952) 469-6900 office (952) 469-6910 fax
Toll Free 877-469-6900
www.coUegecityhomes.com
TOTAL P.01
1)-
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4B
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR THE O'LOUGHLIN PROPERTY
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
--
MARCH 12, 2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
Centex Homes and John O'Loughlin have filed an application to develop the property
located on the west side of CSAH 83, 1/4 mile south of CSAH 42, in the East 12 of the
Northwest 14 of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The request includes
the following:
· Approve a Conditional Use Permit for a cluster development;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a mixed-use development consisting of a total of 122 dwelling
units on 33.87 net acres, for a total density of 3.6 units per acre. The proposed
development includes 54 single family dwellings and 68 dwelling units in 17 four-unit
buildings. The development also includes private open space and a public park.
Centex Homes is the developer of this project. John O'Loughlin, the current property
owner, has also signed the application.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site consists of 40.43 acres. The net area of this site, less
County road right-of-way and wetlands, is 33.87 acres.
Topography: This site has a varied topography, with elevations ranging from 1,000'
MSL at its highest point to 912' MSL at the lowest point. The high point of the site is
located in the southwest comer of the site. The site generally drains south towards the
wetland located at the northwest comer of the site. The property also contains areas with
slopes exceeding 20 percent. Section 1006.605 of the Subdivision Ordinance states that
1:\0] files\Ol cup\centex\centex 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
to
whenever possible, slopes of 20% or greater should not be disturbed and should be
retained as private or public open space.
Ve2etation: This site has been actively farmed over the years. There is a stand of streets
located along the south boundary of the property, and along the west boundary of the
property. The project is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant has submitted an inventory of the significant trees on the site,
which identifies 151 caliper inches of significant trees. The Tree Preservation Ordinance
allows removal of 25% of the total caliper inches for grading and utilities, and removal of
an additional 25% of the total caliper inches for building pads without tree replacement.
Removal of additional caliper inches requires replacement at a rate of 1/2 caliper inch for
each caliper inch removed.
Wetlands: There is a 4.3 acre wetland located at the northwest comer of the site. The
plans do not indicate any disturbance of this wetland.
Adjacent Land Use, Zonin2 and Comprehensive Plan Desi2nation: The property to
the west and south is Shakopee Mdewakanton Trust Land. The land to the south is
developed with residences and businesses, while the land immediately to the west is a
wetland mitigation area. To the north of this property is vacant agricultural land, zoned A
(Agriculture) and planned for Hospitality General Business uses. To the east, across
CSAH 83, is The Wilds golf course and residential development, zoned PUD and planned
for Low to Medium Density Residential uses and Hospitality General Business uses.
Comprehensive Plan Desi2nation: This property is designated for Low to Medium
Density Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property
also meets the criteria for the extension of the MUSA.
Zonin2: The site is presently zoned A (Agricultural). On February 27, 2001, the City
Council considered a request to rezone this property to the R-2 (Low to Medium Density
Residential) district. The Council deferred action on this request until April 2, 2001. The
R-2 district permits a maximum density of7.2 units per acre.
Shoreland District: The southeast comer of the site was also located within the
Shoreland District for Mystic Lake. On February 27, 2001, the Council adopted an
ordinance removing this land from the Shore land District.
Access: This property is accessed from CSAH 83. The access point is located across
from the entrance to The Wilds. It may also be possible to access this property from the
SMDC land to the south.
Utilities: Sewer and water services can be extended to serve this property from the
existing utilities located in Wilds Parkway and CSAH 83.
1:\01 files\Olcup\centex\centex pc. doc
Page 2
,
PROPOSED PLAN
Density: The plan proposes 122 units on a total of 40 acres. Density is based on the
buildable acres of the site, or in this case on 33.87 net acres. The overall density
proposed in this plan is 3.6 units per acre.
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 54 lots for single family dwellings and 68 lots for
the townhouse units. There is also 1 lot for the common open space, a park and one
outlot.
The single family lots are intended to meet the R-2 standards. They range in size from
8,000 square feet to over 24,000 square feet, with lot widths from 62' to 80' at the front
building line. The developer has not identified a purpose for Outlot A, located in the
northwest comer of the site.
Buildine Styles: The proposed plan calls for 2-story single family dwellings, ranging in
size from 1,700 square feet to 2,400 square feet. Each dwelling would also include an
attached 2-car garage. The proposed townhouse units consist of 4-unit buildings. The
townhouses are designed as 2-story, slab-on-grade buildings with double car garages.
The exterior materials are brick and vinyl siding.
Parkine: The proposal provides at least 2 spaces per dwelling unit, which is consistent
with the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. Based on the site plan, each single
family home and townhouse unit will have a two car garage.
Landscapine: Section 1107.1900 lists the landscaping requirements for this
development. There are two different types of landscaping required for this development.
First of all, perimeter landscaping is required for the townhouse portion of the
development with buildings consisting of 3 or more units at a rate of 1 tree per unit or 1
tree per 40' feet of perimeter, whichever is greater. In addition, 2 front yard trees are
required for each single family lot. Our calculations indicate a total of 182 trees are
required for this site.
The developer has submitted a landscaping plan that identifies landscaping for both the
single family and the townhouse portion of the development. Although the landscaping
plan provides the proper number of trees for the development, it does not provide the
minimum number of trees for the single family portion of the development. The plan
also does not indicate whether an irrigation system will be provided.
Tree Replacement: As noted above, the applicant has submitted an inventory
identifying 151 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. Based on the grading plan,
the proposal removes 15.2% for grading purposes. Based on this number, no tree
replacement is required. However, the plan does indicate removal of some trees that are
within the grading limits of the site.
SieDS: This site plan does not include any project monument signs
1:\0] files\O 1 cup\centex\centex pc.doc
Page 3
..
Lh~htin~: Street lights will be provided on the public streets.
Streets: This plan proposes four new public streets. Street "A" is a 1,450' cul-de-sac
extending from CSAH 83 to the west side of the property. Street "B" is a 675' long cul-
de-sac extending from the south side of Street "A" to the southwest. Street "c" is an 850'
long cul-de-sac extending north from Street "A". Finally, Street "c" is a 200' long cul-
de-sac located on the west side of Street "C".
Section 1 006.202 of the Subdivision Ordinance limits the maximum length of a cul-de-
sac to 500 feet. Except for Street "D", all of the cul-de-sacs exceed this length. The
developer has not submitted a request for a variance to this requirement.
In addition, Section 1 006.200 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that streets shall
connect with existing or dedicated streets, or provide for future connections to adjoining
unsubdivided tracts of land. In this case, the land to the west consists of a wetland
mitigation area, so it is not practical to extend a street to the west property boundary.
However, it may be possible to connect a street to the south and the street to the north
must be extended to the north property line.
Sidewalks/Trails: The plan does not provide any sidewalks or trails.
Parks: This plan includes an 8.21 acre park, which includes the wetland and a storm
water pond. The net area of the park, less the wetland and pond, is 3.32 acres. The
grading plan also indicates that much of the parkland will be graded with slopes greater
than 30 percent.
Storm Sewer: The plan proposes a series of storm sewer pipes and catch basins that
direct runoff to a NURP pond located on the north side of the site, east of the existing
wetland.
ANALYSIS:
There are several outstanding issues pertaining to this proposed development. These
include the following:
1. The property has not been rezoned from the A (Agricultural) district. The City
Council will not make a decision on this rezoning until April 2, 2001, at the earliest.
2. The plan does not provide for the extension of streets and utilities to the adjacent
undeveloped properties. As noted earlier, it is not practical to extend a street to the
west; however, the street must be extended to the north. It may also be possible to
provide a connection to the SMDC property to the south.
3. Three of the four proposed cul-de-sacs exceed the maximum length of 500 feet.
1 :\0 1 files\OI cup\centex\centex pc.doc
Page 4
4. The proposed parkland consists primarily of a wetland, a storm water pond and steep
slopes. The remaining area is a narrow strip of land that will not provide a usable
park.
5. The plan does not address the issue of slopes 20% or greater. This plan does not
make any attempt to preserve those slopes.
Staff Recommendation: The outstanding issue pertaining to this development will
require major redesign of the proposal. The current design is not consistent with the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. In addition, the development proposal
is premature until the rezoning issue has been decided by the City Council. The staff
therefore recommends denial of this proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
CUP and Preliminary Plat.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend denial of the request on the basis the proposal is not consistent with the
provisions ofthe Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
2. Recommend approval of the CUP and the Preliminary Plat as proposed or subject to
conditions noted by the Commission.
3. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the
issues that have been discussed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending denial of the following requests:
· Denial of Conditional Use Permit for a cluster townhouse development on the
O'Loughlin property;
· Denial of a Preliminary Plat for the O'Loughlin property.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Reduced Copy of CUP and Preliminary Plat Plans
3. Developer's Narrative
4. Engineering Comments
5. Scott County Engineer Comments
] :\0 I files\O I cup\centex\centex pc.doc
Page 5
Location Map
----.
~L1 /1 hh .'
:~'"
-1(~_~
!~~'~
~~
1-. ~i\ I
\\
j Y -
~1~ll
! i I 'LJ
I I I!,
( . ~ ..1\'. :-
o ;~\-
I-'r~"::
'I.. H \\'2t:
\J
'-il C)y
- -- - l::.... VM'f
~~ ~;'I')~'(, ::=-\- - .~-
j1'~ ~~l~ - "
- ~I-:', fi/ \{\\~b~~:r bx:
:' '- - (~~~... -
-- ~ ~ ~ --Zf: -
c:: - \ ~~'.A\ Y,. .
. - .......":: . .
'I~j ---- ",. - I
I _.' . -/ __/1
- n'I~--
_. '''I 7'"i!,~! \ _.'
iii I_crro~~~ .~JI .,,;:, k
'~, '-:)...~'. ;tt::)' .J /' ~I' i ~I\ ~', (~,...,.7,:,~.~ J - '\.,_1
ihTK~ ~/~ Ri,~...~~'~.&:A~- I
1~1' .j .' , · ('-~1~'" -"~,~~'~ ~
. 1_ .1.j . .. IJ - >...:. ~~~Jll:Dbr--!
T'TI"~ - _ -r
I ~
i i ___ I 1\( !
~i}1~
L
..
~
'--
f--
Property
Location
-
-.~
~
- I
!
!
f--.
I---
N
A
.l!'
1000
o
1000 2000 Feet
I:ENTEX HOMES
Minnesota Division
12400 Whltewater Drive
Suite 120
Minnetonka. MN 55343
.' .,
:-.~ n ~~ .~: r-~.-
.IAN 2 6 2001
Phone: 952-936-7833
Fax: 952-936-7839
January 26, 2001
:1
, 'i
---. - i
I
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
Dear Jane Kansier,
Enclosed is a check in the amount of $2070.00, a property owner's list, location map and a preliminary
plat and a conditional use permit application. I have also attached a copy of each application with Mr.
O'Loughlin's signature as you have requested in the past. Pioneer Engineering should have delivered the
preliminary plat and other pertinent plans to your office on Friday January 26th. Made part of my submittal
are the building plans for the 4-unit row townhome and the foundation-planting plan.
The following is a description of information requested in the application requirements:
Rezoning
An application for rezoning has been submitted to the city for review. The rezoning request consists of
removing the property from the shoreland district and rezoning the property to R-2 (Single Family)
consistent with the city's comprehensive land use plan designation of Low/Medium Density Residential.
Proposed uses. density. lot size. acreage
The preliminary plat subdivides approximately 40 acres into 54 single family homesites and 68 townhomes
homesites. The overall density of the two products is 3.2 units per acre which is well below the allowed
density in the R-2 District of 7.2 units per acre. The single-family lots have an average lot area of 13,225
square feet and the townhomes are at approximately 2397 square feet.
Housing type. design. and architectural style
The single-family homes will all be a 2-story design. Square footages will range from 1700sJ. to 2400s.f.
Rather than having the garage dominate the front of the home, the home is designed with living space
above the garage so the garage becomes part of the home. The architectural style is eclectic with most
homes having front porches. Customers will have a variety of brick and stone to choose from that can be
incorporated into the home by either accenting detail or acting as the primary elevation treatment. Given
the topographical condition of the site a variety of walkout, daylight and full basement lots will be available.
Again, because of the grade change on site, some of the lot conditions will be side walkouts or daylights.
The row townhomes are currently designed as slab on grade buildings. We are researching the possibility
to offer some of the buildings as full basements with walkout conditions next to the pond. Both the single
family and townhome product will include a minimum of a 2-car garage. About half of the single-family
homesites will provide for an optional third stall to be added. Protective convenants and restrictions will be
recorded against the single family homesites and townhomes. I have attached an example of the
document used in another neighborhood and would expect a similar language for the O'Loughlin parcel.
Neiqhborhood amenities. siqnaqe and landscaping
The neighborhood IS designed around a natural wetland feature and dedicated parkland. The combination
of the two provide functional qualities while enjoying the undisturbed natural feature of the site. As a
-2-
January 29, 2001
gateway into the neighborhood, an entrance sign and landscaping will be provided. The exact design has
not been determined at this time. Attention will be given to mitigating any impacts County Road 83 may
present. Wherever possible, berming and landscaping will be utilized to protect the neighborhood from
the roadway. In addition, the change in grade from the county road to the site will be utilized to help in
these efforts. Street lighting and signs will be provided as required by the city. Single family mailbox
locations will be strategically placed to coincide with utility boxes and/or street lights to minimize the
number of structures along the street. Mail box clusters of 2,3 and 4 will be used throughout. The
townhomes will include CBU units or some comparable clustering system.
Based on your review and comments additional information can be provided. Please let me know if there
is anything, you need and I will make sure you receive it so there are no delays to our application.
Sincerely,
~~k
Steve Ach
Land Development Manager
Centex Homes
rrR\:i' ~~~OwrgG0,
i: 1 :-' . ~- 1'1: I
'I' I Ii'
t ~//\ ! I i
i . " I JAN 2 6 7001 I: i
, ,\ I
!; i' i
L Ijl L-/
Preliminary
Engineering Project Summary
for
Centex Homes
O'Lougblin Parcel
in
Prior Lake
I. Description of Project
The site is approximately 40 acres located west of Scott County Road 83 and 1/4 mile south of
County Road 42 directly west of Wilds Parkway, in the City of Prior Lake. The subject site is
in the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott
County, Minnesota. The proposed project will include the grading, utility and street
construction for 54 single family homes and 68 townhomes.
n. Project Manager
The project manager and project engineer shall be responsible for various aspects of the
construction and are as follows:
Proiect Manager
Steve Ach
Centex Homes
12400 Whitewater Drive, Suite 120
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343-9466
952-936-7833
Proiect Engineer
Nicholas Po1ta
Pioneer Engineering
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, Mn 55124
651-681-1914
In.E~tingSneCondniom
The site is actively farmed with a rotation of crops over the years it has been farmed. The low
areas of the site have been used in years as pature. The slopes of the site are relatively steep,
with elevations on the site ranging from 1002 to 912., generally the slope falls from south to
north. Two fields entrances are located along County Road 83, on at the northeast corner of
the site the other directly across from Wilds Parkway.
The site drains to a 4.3 acre wetland on the north boundary of the site.
The Shakopee Mdewaketo Sioux Community owns the property to the south and west of the
site. The use of the south land is primarily single family homes. The property to the north is
still used for agricultural purposes. The Wilds Development lies across County Road 83 to the
east. Although undeveloped at this time the planned unit development has a mixture of
commercial and public uses programed along the county road.
IV. Soils and Slopes
The United States Department of Agricultures Soil Survey identifies the onsite soils as
primarily Hayden, Glencoe and Terril Series of loarns and sandy loams. The Hayden Series
on the uplands are described as good for embankment and foundations with slight erosion
potential. The lowland area running from south to north in the center of the site contains the
Terril Series. These soils are described as good for foundation and embankment after the have
been stripped down to the underlying till. The wetland areas contain the Glencoe Series, which
are deemed poor for construction purposes. These areas have been avoided. Comprehensive
soil testing was performed onsite by Braun Intertec (see soils report), their analysis
substantiates the suitability of the onsite soils for the construction purposes of the development.
Topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled onsite to provide for six (6) inches of repsread across
all turfed areas after grading completion.
The site has 3.94 acres of slopes in excess of 20 percent (%) as defined by ordinance. These
areas and their corresponding slopes have been delineated on the Preliminary Plans.
During construction a geotechnical engineer will be onsite inspecting soil conditions and
providing analysis of the soils.
V. Erosion Control Measures
Approved best management practices (BMP) of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) as stipulated in Protecting Water Ouality in Urban Areas shall be followed. Theile
include but are not limited to the following:
All denuded and stockpile areas shall not have a slope greater than 3: 1
All disturbed area shall receive temporary seed, mulch and disc anchoring if no
significant grading is to occur for 30 days.
All finished grade area shall be seeded mulched and anchored within 14 days after
complete grading.
A seed mixture designed for the soil characteristics and area plantings shall be approved
by the City Engineer.
-
A separate cool seed mixture will be designed for dormant seed planting in the fall.
Peak Discharge from all storm sewers shall not exceed the original peak discharge from
the watershed.
All storm sewer outlets shall have rip rap outlets designed to City Standards.
All Storm Sewer outlets shall not have discharges greater than 4 feet per second.
Gravel construction entrances and a street sweeping program shall be used to ensure
minimal soil is removed from the site.
Inlet protection for storm sewer shall be implemented until streets are paved and turf is
established.
Erosion control fences shall be installed around all wetlands and water quality ponds until area
plantings have been established. At which time the erosion control fence shall be moved to the
edge of the structure setback.
Water quality ponds will be used as temporary sedimentation basin during construction. The
grading contractor is responsible for maintaining drainage to the ponds and between the ponds
and wetlands, by the use of perforated stand pipes.
VII. Storm Water Management
A preliminary hydrology and water quality needs analysis has been performed for the site. A
single water quality pond is proposed for the site. The water quality and hydrology calculations
are attached for review. The pond is designed to meet the water quality needs of the site, as
well as maintaining flow rates offsite to existing conditions. It should be noted that the analysis
did not include any offsite flow from offsite. The City of Prior Lake Storm Water
Management Plan has defined a need for trunk utilities to extend from the south of the site,
northward into the wetland. Scott County has also expressed interest in utilizing a portion of
the site for the upgrade of County road 83. As these needs are defined they will be
incorporated into the
VIII. Wetland Delineation
Melchert Wallky has prepared a Wetland Delineation Report and survey for the subject property. A
copy of this report is attached. No wetland impacts are anticipated for the site.
IX. Traffic Control
The contractor is responsible to provide to the City of Prior Lake and the Scott County Highway
Department a detailed traffic control/sign plan for construction on the site.
XI. Construction Sequencing
The following is a rough schedule for construction, contingent upon the approval of the project by all
pertinent regulatory agencies :
I. Install perimeter erosion control fence, erosion control fence around wetlands and
gravel construction entrances.
May 1, 2001
II. Begin Mass grading
May 3, 2001
III. Finish Grading, Respread topsoil, seed and mulch
June 15, 2001
IV. Begin construction of utilities and streets
June 15, 2001
V. Pave streets, restore site
September 15, 2001
o
>-< ~.!!
.0
"'.
r_' - ~
f-Y 00
> .s
"'"
rv g.c
I-'-i 0'
~ .:8
.-
q;
(f) ~~
z-;i
~ ~~
_N
ON
U ~~
Tn ~ti
V.J 6'"
<r: ;;~
~~~
~ ~~
........ "'-
~ ~!
..-:l .q
<r: I;
j
!
f
t
!
~
~
!
,.
it
i AI ...
- ,. i
t -! ~
i~d
1 ' ~
" i~ ·
I ".will
. H'l'il
I < <.I;
t l]~.,Ai
i ~~alP
~~thll
~~hlf~
, l !!tJj
I Wtl!~l
! i&: .,]
! ." hI
\ fi~~ii!
;; ~jWU
}t i~;~it'i
.'1 f"li' i
'j .Pi' .
to ;:i,l.i
.~ i lhlh
.
~J
..
1<
'i
4, ",.
h /'
r ~ ~-~~~----
(, /
.. 4" l 1/ '\
J1- _ i 1 \ I
! <" i) I!
i~ \ ~ I I
I
11
:,
I
II~
I 4
<"
I
~c -;.; ~__
i-
y
1
~
~
..
t
<
i
i
i !
~! h l
~~ H h
I ~JI J
1 ~ h
, i ~~
1
. .. '
I ~ t 1
1 I I
1 1
l
.1
=~I~
Or!
zl~
....]
-'
<(
u .
Vl -.
u I.
:;: ~t
a.. I -
<(
'"
<.:l
/.--
~
r
.'"
=_J
----~
_C'- .~'=
isi
.iT,..
!i)iii
3 ~i
1.; :i
'::I~
"AI
.~.
. . . ti 0 t
~ I
1>1
~ J !
f:l I
1~lii I
lllfJIJ
I I
~
11:]
~iJ':t
ll: ~~ ~
I ~tH
1"1"'''''''
i ~!U
!
!Ii mI1
d ·
It 1
s.
it =
!l i
J J
I ..
I !
(3AIlI0 3lI\"l 3LLs.ull S 8 "0" .O~ j
-....dtl.....DUlOS "
- --~.... J
~r--~-=1 1lV' a,""'O,..lJ1II'-J ''''--L
.........,,. ....--~ ~ -\/.. -,-
~ . ~'.,:""U8 .:--__~
~~__I-- __-4..M1l. ---4- tr' '\ ·
n..."O,.......~ \ I '
Ai
) <I
;9
J~
4 ~
I
<" I
,
~ I
~ 0
I II
, a
~
i- i I
;
y i
~ ~
4 i
<"
~
~ -.-.
____ _.J.~~-).
t'"t--, 1i iii )
, ! I
· ;. '..............__ 11 .,' <t
" 'I . - · y.
"" t << . (
l\: . j;'
(I
.\ I
).
.,' \
\ .
.
J
,
'i
il :1
1;' I
!~
,
,
~ "-."
1 ' ·
I I
i I .
) ~\
I~.._h.
~I
0,
J<
~i
!!
h
~
)0. ;H
"oJ;!
11l~ ,
IS~I!
~ 'to
lWej
__I
,,'
--sa"'"1
LR,U.QOH --
j
/
/
.--- 'f'x;- - -
(<I
I h
! l~
~I
!I
h
I
1
!
,
A
j
.!
l~u
lH
I..
'j!-,
t!. .
:I: I I J
xx-xxi lJ3rm:ld AlIJ 13J~\fd NnH~nOl.O
Z
<
z~~
z:5~~
<Cl.0<
!Q ~~~~
01- -00
E:5~F!C2z
OCl.en::>0:5
i:S tiS>->->->->-
~ ~()~~~~~
en0ZZZZZ
I- o::~~~~~~
~ ~!!!G:li3i3i3i3
:I: 0 x 0:: 0::0::0::0::
en ()WCl.Cl.Cl.Cl.Cl.
"':Nr<j"':uiwr-:
i ~
!i i
. '-..:::::J
tI-:......~~~.~I:::::J
. ..~ 0-.
. :.. t
"l .", ~ i
71 .
tf)
Z
<t1
~
~ ~<t1
~~ ~b
O~ ~~
:;gP5 ~z
~ 0 ~ z _ _ ~. .-"'. \
Z ~ 0 1-.1 ~ -'rF"::':::'--</':~.
~>z~~--' ",
~~<t1Z<t1~.
00 ~
::J~ g<t1.
O:;g ~ ~ '-,
~z zg
O~ O~
~ o~
~
~
~
~ ~}
I
o
N
i ~ ·
~ . 3 S
!t:~~:a'r -
i.~q~,n~
~HHlnn
I~.t H hi; n~:':
I I I I I I II (l)
! 1'n H 111,*
;t
o
"'~
~.
~~
~~ ~
~~ g
"'Z~
~~=~
o~ig~
~~~i;
:ntf~:i~
Ii I
~ .0
<I ~ I:
':'.:: ='"
-z
. i
Ie i
~ i
1:'10 i
:5" !
u = i
~a:. I
2~! !
.... ;
"', : J'-
1-
x i
~
f ...
i b
x i
~ X
I
x
z X
0 ...
~ >- -'
u
!oj '"
u
0 '"
'" 0(
Q. Q.
~ Z
::;
0 :r
Cl
5
-'
b
]1 j
. I III
'"
::.
0
:r
x
Il!
z
'"
u
u >-
l:l
:r
III
'"
~ ~
0
u
~
,~ :
c 1
~ I
i
I
Ii
II
'I
!,
~l
it!
Ii>
Iii
~'l
Hi
\Ir
I,ll " ,', I
',I ' II l
hlf-i!" If I I II
If II It, f!flPi I I!' l
II rIll . .1 I m -I
'f~~hJ I'll III · I " Ii
I 11,,1 "!l' t
f!I.llf' 'If III ~ I ' ! I
,.,1, f,- fl! irE I
:liti i'f f~fI I ~ :.~t.~
1.ltlll, III' ,In 11 ..a.i:
IU. 1 . !11i I J .It
r;l
U
0:
'"
"-
z
::I
:I:
Cl
:::J
g
b
1 i
~
III
W
~
0
:I:
x
~
z
w
u
i
III
~
F
0
z
0
u
Cl
z
F
III
X
i1w
i
lil
~ n ~
pn~
Odii'
~ Ihd
Cl
w
J
~I !
~d w id ~
~~q~pP~ ~
~ I:. II ~~'rM :
~ ~n[.iU I LJ +
]~ ~ ~
. ~ .....
-:z:~ ~ ~ a!I
I ~ ~ '"
o ~
f\)) I
) \ , l
I \ I
....----,
/<~iijij::~::~~~> .
l'(~:~rr~\\:~\><:>,~' '\,
\ \ \\\\\~\ ) / \ \::;~~,~ \ ',\ ..
\~\~~~-:;--::..../ ~\"\-;~~'~ ~~':\.. '\,
" "", '~--....\ \ \....~ '\' ~\~\ 't.", ....,
) \<~:::~"--~-;~:'..-,::_j \>~<\:'~...
I ',,,, ,....~ - \ \ \ \ ,
/ r~------'::~~>~~~~~-;}) / (
I I _'" ... I II
... \ I I --', ..., '... 1:1
<\ \ \ I, (~,::':::',~>, ') /) \.\
\ \ \ , \ \' '- ... '- -" I .
1 \ (n \ 'S<. \~~:::= _ -::..__ ~
-"-7f.f.-i- ~~ ~ "":... .' . \ \ I
I V. / } " \ I ) /1---, \. \ \\ \ \ \..) l
~~:<.:.__J ) \\'\\(\ \. \t,\\\ \, \ \'1\
...;..<...--:..--....,j \\',\ \\'\\ ',\ \\\
"/~""J '\ (\\\\ ",'\'\\~ \ \" \\\\
. l_....) \,\ \\~~~\ '\..';:""",',,, ,l'"
__.v \ \\\ \
/
,
i
I
\,
C-, ""\,)\ "
',_J t
!
!
!
~ I ./,-'-'.. "--
, ....... / ,.--'"
\ -.... // /,.......... ,...-...
....-....---' ,//
,...--;............-
/<;;~;::jj~=f
I
i
I
I i
II
tl
11
il
'!l
I!
I~~
m
{II
ili
I.
- .
I
--L
I
N i
S
,
r
,
II
<,
~ .
~i
B
I
~ ~
I <
5 ;;
.
t'
t' ~
~ ~
.
g
..
.
!
r
~Ui i
~i :
<I 01-4
"'0 ,
~~ :
~~ _ _l_J
::>< -1- I
~~. :
~m 01-1
~~ :
., !
.
S ·
"~ei
~ 00
!~~~
~\)!~
< !l-
~I~:~
'og~'
.~.~!
~~~~~
~~~~~
~~.n
~
it !<
Ii ~
~ ~
~ "
tj i
~ li~
i'n ~ f
~ ~~ 10
<C: ~ to%.
i ~~!~
-z
]!
. ~
W
. I
.
i
il
i
.~
L
.l
< ,
r <
.. ~ ~
9 a
~ ~
. .
i. b 9 c>
;1 p ~ i
~ z ~ a 01{
-------------
I
-L
i
\3...~~c 3)1'0'.1 ::::':'S::'I"::I ~'B "0'1::1
8Z['l
....., ./'-JlV.".'I....6Jlfonl
(:3MJO 3>1\11 :>11SArI)
re 'O'lJ '0:>
'-LI
, ;
. , I
.., r
. .
;
...., .
r
.! , .
I
j
"
"",
-j'
"
:!: i~, :' II!
!' ,\;
./I...JlV.6J./l._R.....
~
~
"
....
...J
W
U
'"
<(
n.
z
::;
I
Cl
::>
o
...J
'0
t
l
Vl
w
:::;;
o
I
x
~
z
~
>-
<(
...J
n.
>-
'"
<(
z
:E
::;
w
'"
~n.
ii
I
i
I
t
I i
H
rl
f'
if
(!
Itl'
t~
f~:
fl'
fi~
ft~
I I
'I! !
U>>l
u II
I
,I
m~ i
.Z!.l
.. D'i *
""iii:
*.'
!l':~~I~:~;~~
. .. 4)
c . I
~____i
~ . '
/
,.
j
,
.,
III
Z
o
1=
<(
..J
~
U
...J
<(
U
W
U
<(
u..
0::
~
III
III
~
o
5
0::
W
Cl.
~
~
~~ .~ i
0( ~ ........ I
~~ ~ ~~B~
~~~~ ;~~~
~~~~~~~!~
~~U~~~~~~
~ffi~~805l:~
~~~~O~%~~
~-~-~-~-
G
.
i
~
~ 0
~~~~
~~i!;
~ ~
~i;1
<~
i
<.
jg ~
5u.~~V1~
U> ~:~.!i t;
~ ~~~~~~
-< ..-i~ 1~
:5 ;~ ~!
~ 5~ ~:
<C ;ffi ;-~
() ~~ ~~
>- '~lj~!
!::: it:&~~
(f) :l:Z~:g
~:i1~~~~~
o
~~
~:5l
III "
Z
o
1=
<(
..J
~
U
..J
<(
U
<(
W
0::
<(
g~ ~~~R~R
~: o(~~<.c<
~8,. ~:z3~:
. .11..
Ii ~~
'II( VI ....a:cn
~ ~ ;~!~~~
~ --~6 :z:~5~:l
5 ~uo ILCLO
" ]! I i
"-
6 --.E ::z:: ! B r "
" b
~h . I ~ ....
'- ~n i
". r-
ul
u
'"
'"
0-
Z
::l
:I:
CI
=>
0
-'
b
&
III
w
~
:I:
X
~
Z
w
U
o
i
EJ
z
'"
-'
0-
~
in
>-
'"
'"
z
,.
~~
"0-
S
i
I
,U
;
u
~
"
%
&
;J. ~
~ 1:
B ~
~ 9
~
~
~
i3
;
!
~ 8i
: ;~
.. ~~
G'
xi
~!'
~~
i ~i
III ~~
~ ~~
\
i
\
j
I t
II
tl
I.
iI
II
iil
t!
Ih
Iii
III
.Ii
!h
t11
II! !
!Il~!
I
r.\
IIi I
*~i.~
.....*D..~.. .
u
<
z
o
1=
l'~~:S
z N ~
SZ I!! + ~
~~~<3
Cl.1~;!<(
~ ~ :l ~
I..L.. ~ ~ <
ONe ~
o 0::
0:: <(
Cl. Cl.
~
0( ~
..
.
<
~
<
III c
~ ~
<( ~
~ <
~ l?
,
c
C %
I ~
l' c ~
Z ~ IL
~ ~ i
N
2i
~E i\
a:~ ~~~
~; i~~
~~o8o~
III ~!~l?b
~ blob:o~~
U ~o <;!~
~ ~~~&~~
w i.l i.lilg~
III
o
1=
<(
0::
<(
W
0::
<(
Ili
~
;i
.
Ili ~ Ililli ~
~ i Ii :
. . .- I
0:: r; r; !
~ ~ilil~
5 Ili Ili I>>
~ :i1 i ~!
l'
.
'"' ~ ~ 't
>-~~i~~~~
i~~~~i:~~d-
%~E~~~E~>-~~
~...::~..g~;
I; ~'I.t ,\ t ^ . . . . . ·
o T J Y::' . I
I j '" 'V :::: 1'1 [) 0 "'~ .
! ~1'ti i i i ii ~ I.
~!
! ~
~
: I
--...... :z: -.::
-II
~ i
~ ~
I b
on
-'
w
U
It:
<(
Q.
Z
:J
:I:
Cl
::>
o
-'
b
Ul
W
~
:I:
~
Z
~
II
~
I ~
~
I
~
! tt:
_.~,j,j
~" 01.8:
~ii;.!l
~
...J
W
U
'"
..
<I-
Z
:J
:r
"
:>
g
b
'It
.L..
r
~l
.L
r
t
[;
i
III
W
~
:r
x
~
i5
u
t
z
..
...J
<I-
"
z
5
..
'"
"
>-
'"
..
z
:>
~a
0'"
.<1-
i
f.
I
i
j
I i
~
.'
;~
4.,
.~ irJ7,~
I,' ,e.
Iii i~JI
III I,~l
II
al ~.
~ j ~
l' II ~
.:\ II
II. ,-Ill
II
tl
11
P
,I.
t!J
.h
iii
{II
,Ii
" !
jl! ,
lllll~l
I 1~
.1\':1
,,0 "
.. i If
11-.....
~ ~ b
p~
o ~~ ~
~ H ~
(l
W
J
e
B
; ~ ~
c:s u
n. ~
i ~t1i r
In~
,z-]i
~
i
I
,
~
f \
~ ,
II
I \
\ !
d
~
~
H
~i
I
. ;
. \
..
'>t; -( ,,~HO~ \ Hd~ (-='~1-'ie --' ~
N...\. ~ ,I I I ( / I' III
~ ~ ~
:- / ~~7!l~- \ \ ~~I ~ ~ J 1l( \ \f~~' \ ~
"'=E''- 1--"'fr'Uii,- J!!i~7:>cm - \ :) ~ '" \ \ I~ \ ~
.,;;:.... "'" ~ )1-~1-A- ~~~~\'""\ I~-\t ~ -" I I .... \.
~-5 -10-<; 1.,.1 . -~ '-\ \_,,~.~ -4:..... "", I ,--,
-- '" I .-- .. I :--~ ,\.,
/:A?f:< ~~ ~ \--~,j ~ V / ~ ,--;~>"" .... :. \\\.\\ --', L
.~~~~" QI' -- <~-"~~ 4 ~~~.:'" <~~~ ~\\( z
'.:s' 19'6' f... !lJ<V-AW'<')/'\~ ~":::\:....sI: ';J"~ t(. \ II ,.:'i
~~.-- ~. -- i";I~/ ~ ~- ~. '11_ ~'" '~:l~' :- ^ .... ,.... " ~\ \ 1\\ ~wa.a.
.~ lB __ - l!L.l. @ ~--.. ~IU'{~' ''::. ' "' \ ' ," ,\ \ I \ \ ::l!<
_ _ ... .... .~ co ......""--."\ ~............:;roe.' \ ~ \ \ :::Ju
-1'\0: -- -'~u-I ~~ '~~~'~ J 7T;~ .~~" <~~~I\I\\\ ~~
~''i.0, ^i~Vi?6" '1';;l (Ii ~1 .\\\I\\I~I
>Q-\. ~ 1 0 ' FS . // ll- \ \ II I \ I \ I~I ~
~,_ ~! .. -Nil I 0: \ II", II I I I
~ ~).//\ ~ \." . ___ ~ J 11\\ II ,~
I~>/~~ ~.;; '>~~..Y i~JJ/7?/;;~~~<><=--- -~ IT 'i ~r5l/~, '/'),;,';11 i
- . ::;:3. m m ,.~, m ~ '6 I I , I I / /' /" -- -..J.~ iii /' '" I ;:1/;/ / / II
~_/ \,,~~ ~ I;;:..... ..,.... /)/I/I/............-7A - "'~. ~\ "[ /~ / / //I),dl
"'/'''' ... :iQ1'I / I (/11 .</ /'l- ~ / // /'1111
/;; ____.--::: I I I " / ..oo.J- 'VJ.IlJ);. '4'?--"':'~ / /, II
/(,'r-';;':"'~~~~-'" " I / / I I~ / / /~ . ", -~At~""~W//7-/-J 'II
:If/t' ~ ! ~ / / II >-<! Y./" ~><.....' / AD ////1',
/' ~ ?---l If' I // / / / /... , I
," I I ~ I / ,II -- 'v 7~ --_/ / Ir-f, / 1"1 I
I< L. _ '" ,,/ ( ~., .J, I I
~. I .. //./ n/ // /' ~:::::2~!c<:.... - /'J'''/ ~ I ~' I I
\ . W / ~ / ~..",.:."" -' - ~ /' / ~Iw I
1 l v Ii / _~~ ~/ / :/ 7--:::-~ ,,- /0 I I I. I I
I 1.4 2 ~ ? Vj;c. / ~II / ~~ :/ / ./{l- _ ~~-..':::.,\"" v P\';_~ \1/ )-) i
I - . o:~:;;j Z I I ~ /"""'-------*'l /..... :>\\~L..r \l / / J
I I r . ~l) >i- WI,)"I / I~- '" ~/ '~~':\~O) --d...,. _~ . I / ~
/ ......-. Iff.;) ~/)UI z:7/ Z /' _ .!- ~ -- ~~-- :r'-'~ /;
1/ ~ .1 ,/ ~ I' / / --'I'< k" 7""~;~ j- /1, j:
/ I / ,~~. ~/I/I.~~~~ )1I~ ~=- -~;;~m'O- ~:- ~;~ "
I / /' ~ I"" / 7 I(/);\~/l'\- 0--_ ~} - _...,,-- - ~- i
I I I,~ {:./ /" j 7 I l:P['rV::- - ~ - -. n
j/ /~ / ~ / ~ Ir I I ' I, I. 1 'l?S< - \ ~- ^". ~ --I": ;: il
~"I r--/ I ' 10 ~ (~/;ff# / ~ 'I! ,,~ r-~:gJ['~-::;" '.. /. f:i: 'II
I I z I I' I I r; iJ /Q-/ J"'i'+ \ ~ \;;: -" I!<~ /- t
/ / z ZZ~~U 1 I ~ ~:/~'t2 I / I ~/j,]i "'~~\" ' ,~ -:"~"::l-t@'~; :!!
I I 0~ I 17 /1 I I I 1'.:.../ '" I, , ~/-' " - ~,,~ II>
: ~ ' I I~, ~V I 1/ /:;;/11&/ I Z -~ ~- - ',,__Vl /, ~ _ - /" Iii
I ^/ -J.LI I /" I r.. - - /'. {II
I I ' id I / I I '---i---.C- / 7..-. L/ - - ,,~10 :d-- fli
\ I F; I' , I I I 'I I / I ,~ - - ^I II
f-...
III' \ 'tJI'III:: <JIIII/ , _-.::... ~..- \ \ '" '\ I!!
I \~ I I '\, 1III I 'I ~ r../.,I / ,--.\-~7" '_... ' jll:Ji
~1 ~\I ~ \1 ~I ~\ \\,1,1111\ i.~ ~ / ';-c" ~r>~-",./~~_ _: ;fij!jl
~~ \, ,q-111 II I r.-i I ~/ ~ ~ <<-' I
I , \ I I I III \ I ' I I " ........ / D.1\ '".- 1 'I
X \ \ \ 0 \ iJJ II \ :P\-~ "\< I I ( ( I~I
~ I, \ 1& ~ - / " ; .. I
r \ \ \ ~ en \ \ / 1~~-.JlD..4 R ,/ / ~.~ *
.....-....:;--... I\~I\ \ \, 'III R // "I ~ '-a:i.
. - / /___--v/ ',-- .'j"
" -
-
" -
,
~I!IU! ::l,. =1:
-
.- - ~,~_\,,\... . IrI.<';!
~~ / ~~ ~42"~" (2.0 ~_.~ ....l~ ~. ~ ~"'
-- . ~ ~ "
:_ ~:~."3' ~ __ /_ ~
~ a_ -, ~~~-:. / <'-1
-- <:-:- ..... ~...... ~~ ~~
" . ~ ""'....-" ~ r"*'
; ~ -~'" -~.:;~:::, "}.-. - - ~ ~
_<C' ~ .10':.\\\1"') -~ '--"
-g: ~ \W\~~
- . -, ~ '\..~ ,"" ,-\\\\'n-" ~ . d
M''''''UU-U''l'1
~~~~ !!! ~~
~
II Ii !
Ii nl U
II; It
;~ ~~ ;_1
!!~ d
Ul!I.3 lih "~
~ '00
i
i
~
~ ~_+r'---<:
I I -l I ,....
. HO
" I
- -
/ --=;;e-41=~-~_ -- - --=-~
I / I ............er .// // ................................-::---:_--- _
---'
--<1f;
o
~.::-=
.- -
. ~;;:;:-
.~~,
~~
::--0:
'"
,
~\
.\
\ I
l~
I I
1
I
I
/ C 1/
! y
~d~
I!~
~lbt!
!;~
~
.i : 'b y' 111~ I! .. 11.1 ","
S~ ~!I'd !H~;I' ~Jft! ;,P.~y' ~ I i
I,ll". i!lCllIl, ~~.
,I' II.. .~III'iJ!l1
~~!~ll: 11!~9E ~~III:ill!II~1 [
!H !!nL:b ~~31,~ id.fi!!d!! Pell&
i
"
f.-b-
.1
lil
o
0:
<
a.
z
~
:r
Cl
::>
<
-'
b
n
L
of ~
I
~~ t-
o, Z
~~ ::l
~,
., z
r/' ()
i=
I ~
.J w
...I
w
w !
n
ij)
,I ~
t~ 11111
~~ I ! ijii
I
I
Iii J
'r"-,9 ~tI".9
_~1-.9 .,.....
EKW NW~
"" ....
MlJD~DOtZl
6EB.ftK:6"ege :A~
ttil,flttrl96 >>UIll.Id
UOISI^lO SIl0d8.~
SBWDH XB.LNB::S
..YHOHnv..
~,
!~
t~ I
l :
\:
\,
~,
~~ ~
.. ,~
~ lo
I ',,1 I
I -"", I
:.f~~
I. ~
I
I
I
I
l
,/ '
)~
()
i=
~
...I
W
J~
H()
a= i
o(
f ,~!
~L
i.
i,
J
~~
I !I~
' Q') ~
iii. I ~
III ~~;;;~
~I
I I
i I
i I
J I
-:1 J
I.
I
i:!J ~
:D~:I ~
~1i;1 ~
[IJYII_n_
z
()
F
4:
.>
l'w
5...1
W
It
4:~
~,
;.
5
i>
5
mgg NW 'II1lUQlMlUlW
ot~ ....S
~~OO"i!:1
S5IWDH X5I.LN5I::J
fill. 'tt6'l96 =-::1
tQln~arES6 :tlUDl,jd
UO!IIAIQ SllOd88UUIW
i
I
I uYHoHnyul
~~--,
r. '.
~~-~-~===_ __, --~ftW"rb",,,;,,~
, n n ~
9
--4
r--
.,
., ~."
" .
I :
I
.. :
. .
.9 I
"
~ '. ,
"
;,
~ ,
,t
.'
"
" ....~J .'
..
.'
. "
.. ;.'. ~
..
I
C\
C\
..
}-
-'
f
..
IL
a
'.
~-.nrn"~1 ~\;::::
f"="; --1 j
: l:. : g 9
"- :
I
I
--:--u- -"
, ..
hjt~
I
C\
C\
..
\~
Z
z
D
~:~
~:V~-+
I
C\
()
..
<!l
z
:;
::;
~, "
I
()
C\
l>'
<!l
z
z
D
I
C\
()
l>'
<!l
-,~""""",~""A
II'- =::=
f== ~::::-
'--t..:_.:_.T-~---:
~tt
/
I
()
()
Il'
}-
-'
f
..
IL
II
D
~~t;;:~j C> 1:
'!';::r;:::;~f:::U
:: '
~_/-'
=:."::'==-7a~~===E
-----........------.----
N'Vld A3>i
13^31 NI'v'V\1
.0-.10
1-'....
I!,'. ~_._~
cry..
hi. ! ~ 0
..." :,'.,
'....
."n.
. "-~'. ,.~. ~-; -'.. ..
~
I
C\
~
<!l
z
:>
::;
I". '.
N
IL
r=. ^ I~~___ :--)1--n-----...mm----.-------m..'
~' ~: !~:::::: ". .t~ 1
-."""-"""~ rill- ~ I'.',' .'.' '.~.'~'.;'. ..' . ,....;,-..,-.';, ".'
[--- n:-It_..- ':'.0, -4>- "I. '/
~.'.'~-'. ~ '\~.. ~. V
IL.Chi?~ ~ ___..m
_.__nn.n__._______m C\
\G2I~t)
IIN
~J
---..-------------~-------.-----i
<!l
<(
Il'
<(
<!l
I
C\
C\
..
<!l
z
z
D
IH
IH
'$-
I L_-
I L-__
:
I
I P2
~ Ii ~ LI
~lJ>q
w
<!l
<(
Il'
..
-ll
~\J
C\
-------.----------------------------J
~El
~ .J!:
: I>
i p ~~ ~ J
,.;\ ~
2'- ,__.4m.,
po. 1Q1__..i
w
-ll
<(
Il'
<(
<!l
I
()
C\
Il'
-ll
z
z
D
itJ
I~
I ~r:-
I _
, --
r--
c:~
~ :!J, .mm_______.n
w
<!l
<(
Il'
..
-ll
I
C\
C\
Il'
-ll
z
:>
::;
~
t.;;; '.'.:..''-' '.'
lid
,." .-.' .' .
'. . ~'.
':...
,'.
I, .'
,.;
1
--'-
"'"
'1 ~
~ ~
..
..
";'
-LJ
.00-.1: .00-.,"
~
I-
Z
=>
~
.1
}l
I-
Z
=>
.0-.:-1 .0-.' 1
'. :',' ',' .
.~.,!
"",
"
.'",:
.;. '..
EKi5 N...........lW
oz,....
_OJ8lllMlUlM,OOtZI
551WDH X5I.J..N5I:J
&tanKe's :D;l
EEil'8ES'E96 ..oIld
UOIB!^I0 Sllod8"UUl~
1~~OHnvu
JI
N'Vld A3>1
13^31 ~3ddn
~
()
()
Il'
a
w
Ul
Il'
w
t-
If)
<(
~
--------~_.- -------_..~----------------~
t-
LL
()
..J
~
()
()
Il'
a
w
III
Il'
w
t-
If)
<(
l:
N
u
l:
()
()
Il'
a
lU
Ul
t-
IL
()
..J
N
.
l:
()
()
Il'
a
w
Ul
t-
IL
()
..J
-..------..-..---~--.------------~.-H---------------i
<::
()
..J
W
III
()
t-
Z
W
u.
l:
()
()
Il'
D
w
III
Il'
w
t-
<n
<(
L
o
x
"
~
0J
r------,
L..___.J
t-
LL
()
..J
1-
L
()
()
Il'
a
w
Ul
Il'
w
t-
If)
<{
L
N
.
L
()
()
Il'
a
w
Ul
I Il~
-q-N.
Iii. I ~ 0
/
/'
~
1
T
.'J
::
..:.;.
tr
<t:.
!.::..
.~)
:J
J
:)
,)
5
:i
'2
~
u.
~
~
~
P.
I
o
I=-
~
o
I="
~
\.
\\
\.1J
wI/')
e:3
>
~111
/' / / /
/'
,./
/'
/'
/
~
~
al
W ~
~"I~m "C
en U.=: RI
Z =' r::: a. cp ~ >- 0
o al .. en." 1" ~..
~ .~c( ~~~8 ~.~ l!J~~
o E~~n;IIl't:.c""~~e",
u~.3w~g~~ii>J:p~
'Ooti>.-c;6:veB!C:X::
~CJ)!5o..ii'.o(!)cm.!!'t::
E.~E=~-iJ.gmiiljj~
868~::;"'~enl-wen6
>gwu~~mf~~a:~2
~~~~CrlC68~~~~~o
<t
1-
z
=:>
\1}
I-
z
::>
~
~
I
,..
I
-,
o
I-
Z
::)
r"--":C::-=:'TI'
'. .
t.. . _':.'C:- . "-=-.C':'.-::~\
Illll;:'.....-.-.
I g
~
C.."J c.o
:.'.'c. .:....111 C'-.J I
(15) ~ I
[" '),__ -""" !
:~
:r:.
;::)
J
,
r<l
en
w
:::E
o
I
~Z
0<
C:....J
~o...
c:W
<a..
0...<
00
....Jen
wO
-z
ll..<(
C:-J
Wz
Wo
0_
,I-
en<
wO
:::EZ
05
Ill..
x
W
I-
Z
W
()
DATE: February 15, 2001
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
FROM: Sue McDermott, City Engineer~
RE: Q'Loughlin Property (Project #01-32)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the preliminary plans for the subject project
and we have the following comments:
1. Provide a grading plan at a scale 1" = 50' or larger.
2. Show OHWL for DNR wetland #158w.
3. Provide existing hydrologic condition calculations, along with a drainage boundary
map.
4. Coordinate runoff from CR. 83 with Scott County. The County has a NURP pond
shown on the SE corner of the property on their preliminary plans.
5. Provide an access road to the NURP pond for maintenance purposes with a slope
:::: 8%, and a width of 10'.
6. Maximum slope of grading in maintained areas is 4: 1. This affects the entire grading
plan. Redesign to 4:1 slopes or use retaining walls as necessary.
7. The street grade shall not exceed 2.00% for the first 100' approaching the
intersection with C.R. 83.
8. The pads on Lots 38-40, Block 2 need to be 1 foot higher than the E.O.F.
9. Lots 13-16, Block 1 need to be 1 foot above the 939.0 E.O.F. on the west side of
Street 'C'.
10. Route the northwest storm sewer system into the NURP pond. Extend the sewer
. into the backyards between single family Lot 49 and quad Lot 55 to pickup drainage.
11. A street must be extended to the property to the north.
12. Extend a street to the south west corner of the property for a future connection with
SMSC road system.
13. Extend water main along the western part of the property to the north property line
for future looping.
14. We are still in the process of reviewing the sanitary sewer and lift station issues. As
this is a critical issue for the surrounding area, we need additional review time.
G:\PROJECTS\200 1 \3201oughlin\REVIEWl.DOC
. .
SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
(952) 496-8346
, ~)'! /2 (~ [~r~~-." '"
l" / i
, j
,I FEE, 4 2001
ji~' t~L-
-__w___
L_,~w__._.___._._
!
.-.--__1
BRADLEY J. LARSON
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR!
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
February 7,2001
Fax: (952) 496-8365
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Preliminary Plat, O'Loughlin Parcel
West side of CSAH 83, across from Wilds Parkway
Dear Jane:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat as it relates to Highway Department issues and offer the following comments
or concerns:
. We strongly recommend that Street C be platted and constructed to the north property line to allow for a future
connection. This internal street connection will allow residents of the development to travel to the future
commercial property and possibly CSAH 42 without the conflicts of a more highly traveled CSAH 83.
. We have discussed preliminary plans with the city for another access to CSAH 83 just north of this property.
This northerly access to CSAH 83 will likely serve future commercial businesses. This will create two accesses
to CSAH 83 within a Y2 mile of CSAH 42. In the interests of safety and efficiency, optimal spacing between
signals is Y2 mile. If commercial development occurs to the north, the northerly access to CSAH 83 may be
more likely to be signalized. Under this scenario, residents of this development could travel Street C to utilize
the northerly traffic signal.
. All existing field accesses or driveways to the property along CSAH 83 shall be completely removed from the
County right-of-way and graded to match surroundings.
. 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 Street A shall be required. We will coordinate plans for the reconstruction of CSAH 83
with the city and developers as necessary.
. 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.
Sincerely, -
4~$
Transportation Planner
Email: Greg Ilkka, Assistant County Engineer
Brian Sorenson, County Transportation Engineer
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
~RO~CEMEMORMIDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
Ralph Teschner, Finance Director
O'Loughlin Parcel- Preliminary
(assessment/fee review)
January 30, 2001
A 40 acre parcel comprising PIN #25 928 011 0 identified as the O'Loughlin parcel is proposed
to be developed. 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 of 20.62 acres of single family and townhouse
units as provided within the site data summary sheet of the preliminary plat description:
Collector Street Fee:
20.62 acres @ $1500.00/ac = $30,930.00
Storm Water Mana2ement Fee:
20.62 acres @ $2943/ac = $60,685.00
Trunk Sewer & Water Char2e:
20.62 acres @ $3500.00/ac = $72,170.00
Lateral Sewer & Water Charge:
150' @ $60.00/ff= $9,000.00
These charges represent an approximate cost of $1,416.00 per lot for the 122 proposed single
family and townhouse units within the O'Loughlin parcel. 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 currently certified against the property. Also,
the tax status of the property is current with no outstanding delinquencies.
H:ISPLITSIOloughlin.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community
OFFICERS
Stanley R. Crooks
Chairman
Glynn A. Crooks
Vice Chairman
2330 SIOUX TRAIL NW - PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372
TRIBAL OFFICE: 952-445-8900 - FAX: 952-445-8906
12 February 2001
Lori 15. C[owctlild
r: r= r;::::;, -.-1 I :Secretary/Treasurer
Ir~i'3" !;::Jl;..
I;r)~~j '..:::7 :- ~~ ~-
Ii LJ If
~~l FtB IZ ~ ~,
Ms. Jane Kansier, Planner
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.B.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: Comments on the O'Loughlin Proposed Preliminary Plat
Dear Ms. Kansier:
The following constitutes the comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community (SMSC) on the application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and
preliminary plat by Centex homes on the O'Loughlin parcel, PID # 25-928-01-0. The
SMSC, besides being an adjacent land owner, is a sovereign government with reservation
lands abutting the proposed development and downstream along the draining
watercourse. Tribal lands are not in private ownership but are under the direct
jurisdiction of the Tribal Government. They are subject to tribal and federal regulatory
jurisdiction. This includes any negative impacts that may arise off the tribal lands but
travel onto them. Comments in this letter are the official comments of the SMSC Tribal
Government.
Wetlands
Boundary
Based on aerial photography and visits to the property SMSC staff believe the wetland
boundary may be incorrect.
Drain Tile
The SMSC staff observed a drain tile exit near the wetland in the north central portion of
the parcel. The drain tile runs from the southeast, near Mystic Lake, to the northwest,
terminating in the wetland. Water drains from this tile even during dry parts of the year.
The southeastern inlet has never been accurately located by the SMSC. Personal
communications from local residents indicate that the tile entrance is at or near Mystic
Lake. If this is true, removal of this drain may affect the level of Mystic Lake. This
could impact a DNR wetland located on the south end of Mystic Lake, SMSC lands,
Scott County Road 83 and portions of the Wilds Golf Course. The developer should
provide information on the location of this tile and an analysis of potential impacts to the
lake level.
.
~
Final Grading
Slope Erosion
The plat shows areas of very steep slopes, some immediately adjacent to the boundary of
wetlands and tribal lands. These slopes are going to be highly erodible. They also alter
the character of the natural area located on tribal lands west of the proposed plat.
A significant portion of the steep slope area is covered by drainage easements. The CUP
and plat approval should, at a minimum, require that this drainage easement be
maintained in permanent vegetative cover, preferably other than turf grass. Standard turf
grass is not appropriate for this slope area. It is not likely to provide sufficient soil
stabilization to prevent erosion on this slope. Mowing and maintenance of turf grass on
the slope will be difficult and will likely result in a poor appearance.
Water Ouality
On a slope of this gradient, turf grass will provide a very low retention time for storm
water surface flow. Lawn chemicals and other contaminates will reach the wetland areas
very quickly. This has the potential for dramatic negative impacts on the water quality.
Much of the slope area is directly adjacent to a wetland. If this slope is to provide any
buffer for water quality purposes it should be maintained in natural grasses. Turf grass
immediately adjacent to a wetland creates a high potential for negative water quality
impacts.
Storm water
Stormwater management on the proposed plat poses several major issues.
Untreated Stormwater Discharge
The grading plan for the proposed plat shows stormwater drains on the western cuI de
sacs that terminate directly into a wetland without treatment. This is not an acceptable
practice in Minnesota. Regardless of the acceptability in Minnesota, as a government
with downstream receiving waters, the SMSC will not accept the water quality impacts.
These drains must flow into a properly designed stormwater retention and treatment
pond.
Pond Design
The design of the retention and treatment pond shown on the plan is poor and it will not
function as intended. The wetland area immediately adjacent to this pond has a direct
hydrologic connection to the wetland on SMSC land to the west. The average water level
in 1999 for this wetland was 911.9 feet above sea level. . This is based on measurements
from multiple piezometer nests in the area. The pond has a designed Normal Water Level
(NWL) of909.0 above sea level. The designed high water level is 912.5. As designed,
this pond will be at or near its maximum water level nearly all of the year and would be
completely inundated for the wet seasons.
As designed, the pond is completely nonfunctional and merely provides a deep spot in the
overall wetland complex. Residence time of water entering this pond would be near zero.
Biota uptake of nutrients would be nearly zero in the pond. The "pond" would not
provide any energy dissipation to allow settling of sediment. The stormwater and all of
its contaminates would have a direct conduit onto the regional drainage system. This is
an unacceptable impact on water quality.
Federal Permitting
The SMSC is a downstream recipient of waters originating on the proposed development.
Any NPDES permit for discharge will likely require approval of the United States EP A.
The EP A would consult with the SMSC before making any approval. Erosion control
plans and stormwater discharge control plans may also require federal approval.
County Road Upgrade
The SMSC and Scott County are in the process of upgrading Scott County 83 along the
eastern boundary of the project area. The plans for this upgrade require astormwater
treatment pond in the southeast portion of the plat. If this pond is eliminated ponding
provided in the plat must be sufficient to contain and treat the highway runoff. Given that
the pond, as designed, is not . likely to provide any treatment, the potential for additional
stormwater input is a serious issue.
Traffic
There is potential for traffic congestion at the entrance to the proposed development. The
developer should provide a full analysis of the impact of the traffic on the existing and
upgraded county road.
Summary
This development is in an area of steep, highly erodible slopes immediately adjacent to a
wetland. Design of the plat does not appear to recognize these facts. The final grading
design is poorly planned and will, most probably, result in direct introduction of high
levels of contaminates and eroded soil into the wetland. The stormwater drainage system
is completely non-functional. It only serves to move the contaminated stormwater into
the regional drainage system as quickly as possible. Down stream water quality will
probably be impacted. Permits will likely be required through both state and federal
agencies. There is potential to impact the level of Mystic Lake and its associated
wetlands.
Given the problematic design of the proposed development the SMSC requests that the
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission recommend denial of the Conditional Use
Permit and the preliminary plat.
Sincerely,
St . Crooks
Chairman
{
,
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
2000 VARIANCE SUMMARY REPORT
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
YES X NO-N/A
MARCH 12, 2001
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose oftrus report is to provide the Planning Commission with information regarding variance
activity for the year 2000. This report is intended to give the Commission information that will be useful
in evaluating future variance requests.
DISCUSSION:
The following table is a summary of variance activity for 2000, and a comparison of activity for the
previous 4 years.
Number of Applications 16 19 26 17 27
Number of Requests 24 59 43 31 41
Requests Approved 17 44 22 11 24
Requests Denied 12 11 13 10 11
Requests Incomplete 1 4 1 2 0
Requests in Process 0 0 0 5 0
Requests Withdrawn 1 0 7 3 6
Requests Appealed 2 0 3 7 8
Appeals Overturned 0 0 0 2 1
Number Lots in SD 9 19 17 11 20
Number of Riparian Lots 6 14 14 9 14
Note: If an applicant requested a variance and the Planning Commission approved a reduction of the original request, then it
is represented as one approved request and one denied request in the tables.
Table 2 compares the specific types of variance requests in 2000 to the requests for the four preceding
years. It should be noted that a new Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1999, eliminating the need for
some variances and creating the need for others.
I: \OOfiles\OOsummry\OOvarsum.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
.,
,
Structure Setback to OHWM 2 4 5 3 10
Front Yard Setback 4 6 3 8
Side Yard Setback 6 5 3 2 6
County Road Setback 4 6
Impervious Surface Coverage 3 6 3 4 5
Rear Yard Setback 3 1 1 5 2
Accessory Buildings 2 2 2
Lot Size 2 11 2 1 1
Building Height 2 2 1
Lot Width 1 4 5 4
Driveway Setback 1 2 2
Sign 1
Wall Length/Building Height Ratio 1
Parking Stalls 1 1
Bluff Setback 1 8 2 2
BluffImpact Zone 1 2
Cul-de-sac Length 1 1
Grade of Slope 1
Lot Coverage 3
50% Improvements to Nonconforming 1
Roof-top Screening 1
Irrigation 1
Riparian Lot Width 1
50' Side Wall 3
Eave Encroachment (5') 2 2
15' Combined Side Yards 1 1
Driveway Width 2
15' Building Separation 1 2
Road Access Below the RFPE (907') 2 2
Incomplete/PendinglWithdrawn 2 1
The new Zoning Ordinance, effective on May 1, 1999, incorporated several previous ordinance
amendments, such as reduced side yards for nonconforming lots and the reconstruction of existing decks.
These changes may account for the elimination of several variance requests. The new ordinance resulted
in variance requests for building walls greater than 40 feet, eave/gutter encroachments, 15 foot minimum
building separation, accessory structures, and driveway width at the property line. The Planning
Commission addressed some of these requirements with ordinance amendments in the last year.
In 2000, the City adopted five ordinance amendments that affect variance requirements. These
amendments are as follows:
I: \OOfiles\OOsummry\OOvarsum.doc
Page 2
.
1. Ordinance No. 00-11 amending Section 1102.800 (8) to permit one detached accessory structure
designed and used as a garage on riparian lots.
2. Ordinance No. 00-07 amending Section 1101.504 to permit a fence height of four (4) feet and opacity
of 50 percent within the front yard.
3. Ordinance No. 00-14 amending Sections 1101.400, 1101.503, and 1104.308, to specify allowable
encroachments into the bluff and OHW setbacks.
4. Ordinance No. 00-08 amending Sections 1101.400,1102.306,1102.405,1102.505, and 1102.605, to
permit building walls of up to 50 feet long before requiring increased side yard setbacks.
5. Ordinance No. 00-22 amending Section 1101.501, to permit two or more nonconforming lots of
record under single ownership separated by a private road or driveway, may be combined and used as
a single buildable lot.
The staff believes the five ordinance amendments adopted in 2000 helped to reduce the total number of
variance applications for the year. In addition, staff has continued to work with applicants to reduce the
number of variance requests by reviewing submitted documents and eliminating requests through plan
redesign when possible. All of the variances requested in 2000 were on lots within the Shoreland District.
The current Zoning Ordinance (effective May 1999) requires the following criteria to be met:
Issuance. The Board of Adjustment shall consider 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 public safety, the effect on the character and development of the
neighborhood and the values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed
variance upon the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of Adjustment may grant a Variance from
the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance, provided that:
(1) Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
conditions of such lot, the strict application or the terms of this Ordinance would result in
peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such
lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within
the Use District in which said lot is located.
(2) Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or
immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in
the Use District in which the land is located.
(3) The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofa
substantial property right of the owner.
(4) The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to the adjacent property, umeasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
(5) The granting of the Variance will not umeasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, umeasonably diminish or impair established property
I: \OOfiles\OOsummry\OOvarsum.doc
Page 3
"
f
values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of
the area.
(6) The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
(7) The granting of a Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
(8) The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance to the affected
property and does not result from actions of the owners of the property.
(9) Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be
grounds for granting a Variance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the report and direct that it be transmitted to the City Council for
information.
2. Accept the report, direct that the report be transmitted to the City Council for
information, and direct further study of possible ordinance revisions in response to
the report.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion accepting the report, and directing further action revising the report if appropriate.
I: \OOfiles\OOsummry\OOvarsum.doc
Page 4
~
i
"0
.S!?
C
Q)
o
"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0 "0"0"0"0"0 "0"0"0"0"0"0
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
>>>>>>>>>"0"0"0>>>>>"0"0"0"0>>>"0"0>>"0>"0
e e e e e e e e e.S!?S!?S!? e e e e e.S!?S!? .S!?S!? e e e.S!?S!? e e.S!? e.S!?
~~~~~~~~~ccc~~~~~cccc~~~cc~~c~c
~~~~~~~~~Q)Q)Q)~~~~~Q)Q)Q)Q)~~~Q)Q)~~Q)~Q)
<<<<<<<<<000<<<<<0000<<<00<<0<0
-
Q) (/)
Q) Q)"O
...... .......:= C I-
Q) Q) (/) Ctl ...-
Q) ~ Ctl Ctl >.
.... - Q)~ Q) ~
~ Cii (/)?f?~~:Q"Oco C ~
L{) Ctl Ctl ~E ~ ~~ L{)
co C Ol?f? OlQ)r--::J Q)_ E -C""):Q -
~ 0 C ~ ~~C"").o~~e EO-O Ctl ~
Ctl~~ ~~E~~ ~-_Ctl-Ctl-
> ,- ..::: "O:J ~ C"") :J >. 0 >. . :J Ctl E ~ :;::;
~ > >c~"O~.oQ) .ot ~tE':::: (/)Q) P ..:::~
. c...; > 0 Ctl .0 Ctl ~ '0 Ctl Q) Ctl .- Q) 0 C"") .... - S _
~~0l0I~8 - Cii Q)~~=~""C"")TI~Ctl - ~I~
B~~~O~~~~~Ctl~~ ceCtl~e~c...;Ctl ~TI~Ctl~O~
~B~~~~'O~g=ECtl~ ~~~Ctl~~E~~~B~~BQ)~
cQ)UO-(/)c _00Q)- CtlCtlECtl ~(/) :JQ) _Q)S ~
o~E~EOl~Ctl~~~~~~Ctl~~e~E~E~(/)(/)~O(/)oCtl~
~~ID>TI~~E~eTI~~~~~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~~
"0 >'(/)..S!?Q) Ctl:: Q)TI Ol- Ctl (/) &~""-:J U- Ctl U ~ 0 ~.... . >.U - (/)
CtlQ)"O .o:J-Ctlc~B(/)(/)--OoCtlOocQ)u~~U~-Ctl~_
-. --.oQ) _UQ)_ o~__.o_~Q)-._Ctl~....C(/)-.o~~
~iffi~~ (/)B~Ctl(/)5~~~~~ID~~0;BQ)~Q)NaID~~
.- . >. Q) ~ (/) Q) .- .0 .- 0; .::= ~ ~ Q) (/) ~ Q) - Q) ~E .... 0 CO ~ (/) Q) >.
~'::::~8~"",Q)(/),gID~~.~ ~ Q)~(/) .-0. .-....
:J ex:>'- Ctl L{) C"") 8 ~ . (/) L{) Q) C"") ~ ID B E ~ BE> C"") ..-.::= Q) r--: .::= .::= Ctl
.oo(/) . Ctl:J'::::~~~Ctl~(/)Q)-~Q)Q)Ctlco'::::c~> ",,"NCtl~
...: ~ -g ~ co "0 J5 ~. 0 ..-.~ :> C"") . (/) c . (/) > Q) L{) Ctl . Ctl Ctl . . ~
-oCtl~PCtlCCtl-: :> '::=~Ctl~~CtlcC"")~~~Q)_~~Ol~
m_ Ctlo-~...-Ctl~~CtlN - Q)CtlCtl E CE c
N ~ ~ _ _ ._ .... 0 ~ Ctl:!: E ro ~ N ~ 'E Ctl L{) c ~ ~ Ctl .... Ctl Ctl .... Ctl Ctl .- ~
~E-~~~~~~E-~E~E~Og22~:!:E~~~~~E-~:!:E~E~~E~E-~:!:
.... Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) .... E ~ E ~ ~~ Ctl'-'-~....'-'- Q) Q) .... 0........ 0........ E E
w~~~~~ww~ID~BrooEEowEE~~ID"""IDw"""IDm I-
~ooooo~~E~E~>~~~-~~~oo~~~~~~~Ctl~
o-----Eo 0 ....~~~o~~--oCtlooCtloo~
-~~~~~..-~-~>Ctl~Ctloo>Ctl~oo....Ctl.Ctl~~>~~>--~E
~CtlCtlCtlCtlCtl-~Ctl.Ctl >-- ....-- ....~........~~~Q).
Ctl>>>>>~ Ctl>~>~ &. ~~ .Ctl~~>> Ctl CtlCtl CtlCtl ~~
>-:...:...:-:...: >-:>...:. (/).::= Ctl Ctl'::::> Ctl Ctl...:...:> &>> &>> 0>
----- . .- .-O'N""'>>~ .>>-- '(/)"(/)"_
~co~NL{)~'::::'::::""''::::L{)(/)NN ..::= CO~.::= .::=.::::co.::=.::=~~
'" 0 ...-...- '~.~.'" ..... ..... ....: L{). o' ~ ~ N C"") ~ ~ ~ ...- ~ C"") C"") ~ ..-...-
.., ~ .., ,- .., ,., ...- co... co . ....-. Ctl N
L{)ML{)"",C"")~""'N...-...-..-~C"")...-C"")""'L{)NL{)"'-"'-"'-C"")""''''-'''-'''''NN>...-
<n
<Ll
OJ)
o:l
~
........ ...... ........ .........
(/)
Q)
>'E
Q) 0
-t:I
0_
I (/)
c ~
'S; g
Q)
~I
...-"'"
ON
00
, ,
00
00
N
C
Q)
CD
c
:.0
o
c::
~
~
....
Ctl
~
Q)
"0
Ctl
o
>'C
= Ctl
o E
~-
~rs
~t
~Q)
Q).o
(/) 0
~c::
....
Q)
ro
c
Q) ....
-g..S!?
Ci5~
>.c
-g~
<<
~
N
o
,
o
o
co~NO
""''''''L{)~
0000
I I I I
0000
0000
(/)
Jg
:>
~
Q)
~
o
..S!?
Ol
Ctl
W
>.
Q)
~
Ctl
o
.S!?
Ol
C
<
c
.... 0
Q)-
"0 ~
Ctl E
.. 0
to
Q) C
.0 Ctl
o 'C
C::CD
...-
~
o
,
o
o
~
~
o
,
o
o
CO~
~~
00
I ,
00
00
(/)
Q)
E
o
I
~
Q)
Q)
....
o
.:::t::.
U
o
c::
Q5
Ctl
~
.~
~
c
CiS 5l
_ en
o 0
....
~O
~ Q)
:J C
~ Ctl
0..
u
o
"0
E
::l
en
...
o:l
;>
o
o
;;,
E
E
::l
en
o
52
en
<Ll
r:
o
~
C"")
CO
o
,
o
o
CO~
CO ex:>
00
, I
00
00
,
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6B
2000 CODE ENFORCEMENT SUMMARY REPORT
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
YES X NO-N/A
MARCH 12, 2001
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide the Planning Commission with information regarding complaints,
code violations, and code enforcement activity for the year 2000. This report consists of a year-end
summary on the total number of complaints and code violations in order to provide the Commission with
insight that maybe useful in evaluating current resident concerns and future regulatory decisions.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Prior Lake experienced a decrease of thirty-six percent (36%) in complaints for the year 2000,
when compared with 1999. Zoning Ordinance complaints accounted for the highest percentage of
violations this year (32), and included improper recreational vehicle parking, shed location and setbacks,
vehicles parked in required yard areas, and improper signs. Code violations relating to property
appearance and health issues, such as overgrown grass and weeds (25), storage of junk vehicles (24),
improper refuse disposal (21), and storage of junk (11), accounted for almost 50% of all recorded
violations. Most residents have great pride in their neighborhoods and communities, and feel an
obligation to maintain a neat appearance on their respective properties, as well as the adjoining properties.
Also, the unique nature of Prior Lake, Spring Lake and the surrounding Shoreland Districts create
challenging issues regarding land use and code compliance. The main reason for a majority of shoreland
code violations appears to be the resident's lack of knowledge regarding these ordinances including
impervious surface area requirements and excavating/filling on lots within the district.
The following statistics summary begins with the total number of complaints received; the invalid
complaints were then subtracted from the total. Upon inspection, invalid complaints were determined not
to be code violations or were considered to be civil issues. The remaining number consists of the total
apparent violations discovered upon inspection, including multiple or additional violations. The total
number of violations is then displayed as code category subtotals. To date, 114 cases have been closed
and 39 cases are pending. Three (3) of the pending violations have been referred to the Scott Joint
Prosecution Association for court action, with no decisions at this time. In addition, seven (7) more
pending cases appear to be headed for court action this year 2001.
l:\codeenf\OOcodsumpc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNJ1Y EMPLOYER
In 2000 the City received a total of one hundred fifty two (152) complaints. This amounts to a thirty six
percent (36%) decrease when compared with two hundred and thirty eight (238) complaints in 1999. All
complaint/violation categories declined except for animal control complaints, which increased from 8 to
15 in 2000.
It appears the three main reasons for this dramatic decrease in complaints includes: 1) a dryer than normal
rainfall year, and fewer overgrown grass and weed complaints; 2) the City's resolve to enforce the code
on a permanent full time basis; and 3) the City's efforts to increase the residents awareness of the code
enforcement program through the local newspaper and cable TV media.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the report and direct it to be transmitted to the City Council for
information.
2. Accept the report, direct it to be transmitted to the City Council for information,
and direct further study of possible ordinance revisions in response to the report.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second accepting the report and forwarding it to the City Council for information purposes.
1 :\codeenf\OOcodsumpc.doc
Page 2
City of Prior Lake
Code Complaint & Violation Activity Summary Report
I. Total Complaints for 2000:
151
a) Not valid Complaints (undetermined, civil issue)
b) Valid Complaint Violations
c) Additional Violations (discovered at inspection)
(10)
141
31
II. Total Code Violations for 2000: 172 100%
a) Zonin2 Ord. (driveways, vehicle parking, sheds, signs) 32 18%
b) Over2rown Grass & Weeds (over 12" ht.) 25 15%
c) Parkin2 Junk Vehicles (outdoor stora2e) 24 14%
d) Disposal of Garba2e & Refuse (outdoor storage) 21 12%
e) Animal Control (barking, running, waste) 15 9%
1) Stora2e of Junk (outdoor storage) 11 6%
2) Public Nuisance (public welfare, clean sidewalks) 10 6%
h) Screenin2, Fences (height, location, visibility) 8 5%
i) Buildin2 Permit Violations (accessory bldg., decks) 7 4%
n Shoreland District (Excavations, Imp. Surface) 6 3%
k) Home Occupation (permitted uses) 5 3%
l) Erosion Control (soil erosion silt fence) 4 2%
m) Parkin2 Commercial Vehicle (Rl District) 3 2%
n) Subdivision Ordinance (sewer & water, sod & trees) 1 1%
The City received a total of one hundred fifty one (151) complaints in the year 2000.
Upon inspection one hundred seventy two (172) apparent violations were
discovered. This amounts to a thirty six percent (36%) complaint activity decrease
when compared with two hundred and thirty eight (238) total complaints in 1999.
Of the 151 complaints nine (9) were referred to the appropriate city department or
other government agency. Three violations were referred to the Scott Joint
Prosecution Association for court action. Invalid complaints totaled ten (10) and
included undetermined violations or civil matters unrelated to city codes.
''')
TOTAL
0
0
0
m
<
0
r-
)>
-I
'"0 -< 0 (")
III m Z ::T
to ):0 III
CD ::0 )> F3
...... 0
-I
<:
~
.....
U)
U)
en
N
Q
Q
Q