HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 13, 2001
.'
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13,2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda:
A. Case #01-082 Koestering Variance Resolution
5. Public Hearings:
A. Cases #01-062 & #01-063 Merlyn Olson Development is requesting consideration
for a preliminary PUD Plan and a preliminary plat consisting of 5.003 acres to be
subdivided into 32 townhouse lots on the property located on the south side of
CSAH 21, V2 block north of Colorado Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue and
east of West Avenue.
6. Old Business:
A. #01-080 David and Rachel Norling are requesting variances for setback to the
Ordinary High Water Mark; front yard; side yards; eave encroachment; building
wall to side yard and impervious surface to construct an addition on the property
located at 15239 Fairbanks Trail.
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
LIOI fileslOlplancommlOlpcagendalAG111301.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 MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22,2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V onhof called the October 22, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer
Sue McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Kelly
Meyer.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
Vonhof
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented.
4. Consent:
A. #01-081 Cutaia Variance Resolution 01-019PC
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-
019PC .
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. #01-045 Consideran Amendment to Section 1102.1100 of the Zoning Ordinance.creating
a new downtown zoning district and establishing design review criteria and standards.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report on file in the office of the City
Planning Department. Koegler Group prepared the Downtown Redevelopment Guide in
June 2000. This report had been commissioned by the Economic Development Authority
to serve as a guide to the redevelopment of the Downtown area. While no official action
was taken on the report, it nevertheless contained a number of ideas and concepts for
Downtown development and redevelopment.
Subsequent to that, the City Council determined that it was necessary to incorporate some
of the design criteria and standards from the consultants report into the zoning ordinance
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN 10220 I.doc 1
.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
to provide clear guidance to those persons developing or redeveloping property in the
Downtown area. The Council then directed staff to draft an ordinance that met this
objective. The City retained URS Consultants to assist in the creation of a new zoning
district for the Downtown area as well as a streetscape plan for Main Avenue.
There are several features of the draft ordinance that are different from the current
ordinance. The section on permitted uses and uses permitted with conditions has been
modified to be more limiting on the types of land uses allowed in the Downtown area.
Specific kinds of retail uses, for example, are permitted rather than allowing all retail
uses. The size of retail uses is also limited to fit in with the scale of the Downtown area.
Larger retail uses may be allowed by conditional use permit. Certain mixed uses are
encouraged, including multiple family dwellings, retail, offices, services, studios and
coffee shops or restaurants.
The dimensional standards such as lot sizes and setbacks remain basically the same. The
primary difference is the establishment of a build-to line along Main Avenue. This
requires that at least 70% of the width of a building fayade must be within 5 feet of the
street right-of-way.
The most significant difference from the current ordinance is the addition of Design
Standards in the Downtown area. These design standards apply to:
. . All new construction.
. Any renovation or other exterior changes to existing nonresidential or multiple
family dwellings, including repainting.
. Any development or expansion of parking areas.
. Any other exterior alteration requiring a building permit.
The standards apply only to the site or building element being altered. For example, a
fayade renovation would not require changes in a related parking lot.
The Design Standards are comprehensive in scope. They cover architectural and site
design elements such as building orientation, fac;ade treatments, entrances, windows and
doors, awnings, mechanical equipment screening, colors, signs, building materials,
lighting and parking lots. These standards are consistent with recommendations from the
Downtown Redevelopment Guide and the Streetscape Design elements developed by
URS Consultants. Noted that an addendum to the staff report had been distributed
regarding the standards and their relationship to the documents that have been prepared.
Atwood: Asked for clarification why the automobile type businesses along TH13 were
not included in the proposed Downtown District, and if that was based on the amount of
their investment alone.
Rye: Advised that the intent is to promote uses in the Downtown District with a
pedestrian orientation and automotive type businesses are probably incompatible with
those types of uses. Under the proposed ordinance, the other automotive businesses that
front on Main Avenue would be non-conforming.
L\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN 1 0220 I.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
Lemke: Asked if the automobile businesses that front on Highway 13 would be C-4
zonmg.
Rye: Advised that they would be consistent with the other uses for C-4 zoning.
Lemke: Asked for clarification as to the different requirements for adult day care
facilities, group day care facilities, and elderly housing relative to open space
requirements.
Rye: Believes the intents are consistent and sensible given the uses, even though the
square footage requirement of 40 and 50 feet respectively probably bears no significant
difference. Screening also addresses the level of activity given the uses.
Comments from the public:
Tom Flink (Owner of Amoco Station)(4805 Dakota St.): Admitted that he did not
understand all of the effects an ordinance of this type would have on his business.
Concerned with limiting his ability to sell, modify or expand his current business, and
would oppose any ordinance that would limit his ability to do so.
Rye: Clarified that if the Amoco site was not included in the Downtown District which is
what is proposed, the Amoco station as it exists would not be affected.
Stamson: Noted that any expansion into the Downtown District would not allow
automotive uses.
Randy Simpson (R & K Sales): Referred to the Lakefront Plaza project and discussed the
language relating to multiple-family dwellings and some of the limitations compared to
the current zoning ordinance. Further discussed parking requirements and green space
calculations, as well as how they are restrictive when considered with the new DNR and
Watershed requirements for ponding. Also commented on building facade width and
breaks in connection with 50 foot lots, screening of mechanicals (suggested a smaller
requirement for smaller mechanicals such as air conditioners and gas meters), and
restrictions for internally illuminated signs (believed it would limit franchise-type
business uses).
Karen Fisher (Little Lakers Montessori School): Advised that 75 sq. ft. per child for
outside play surface is the state standard, and 35 sq. ft. per child interior space. Also
noted that to not permit day care facilities to front on Dakota Street or CSAH 21 is very
prohibitive and renders her business as a non-conforming use. Advised that they are
currently licensed for 49 children and believes her business brings people to the
Downtown area.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN I 0220 I.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22. 2001
Stamson: Noted that the requirement for 40 sq. ft. per child proposed in the ordinance is
regardless of whether the child is inside or outside. So, it is a slightly different standard
than defined by the state standards.
Jennifer Scheda (Integra Telecom): Asked what it means if a business is non-
conforming, what is going to be required of Downtown businesses, and what type of
assistance, if any, will be provided by the City.
Rye: Advised that existing businesses would only be affected if some remodeling took
place and the standards would be applicable to that remodel. The ordinance would not
require remodeling. Noted that the staff has been directed to research the means by which
the City can provide some type of assistance for businesses that do wish to improve
facades, and that that effort is underway. Non-conforming status means that the
designation no longer exists in the current standards, however, businesses can continue
their existing operations uninterrupted until such time as improvements take place or the
business is moved or destroyed.
Terry Crawford (Integra): Concerned that if a property is damaged in excess of 50%
and the structure is a non-conforming use, businesses such as Integra that have a
substantial infrastructure built into the building are financial punished because the cost of
the infrastructure exceeds the cost of the building.
Rye: Advised that in the ordinance Integra is classified as an essential service which is
permitted in any zoning district, and the business is conforming under the proposed
Downtown ordinance.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke: Concerned with the issues raised with respect to parking as it relates to green
space. Asked staff to comment. Agreed that the screening requirement may be excessive
in some cases. Further is concerned about eliminating franchise stores by not allowing
internally illuminated signage. Believes the ordinance may need some additional review.
Rye: Advised that any space devoted to green space or parking may impact the
economics of the site, but that it becomes a question of aesthetics. A 6 ft. screening
standards for mechanicals is not burdensome, and lower screening may not block
mechanicals from line of sight which is the intent.
Stamson: Believes there is substantial public benefit by adopting the ordinance and is
happy to see the redevelopment of Downtown moving forward. Agrees with removing
the automobile businesses fronting on Highway 13 from the proposed Downtown district.
Suggested removing or adjusting the standard for day care facility open space to be in
line with the state standards. Favors the proposed standards for parking, signage and
screening. Recommended approval.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN I 0220 I.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
Atwood: Commented that she is excited to see the project moving forward and
appreciated the comments from some of the area business owners. Believes there are
many positive items in the zoning ordinance including mixed-use zoning, size of floor
area for showrooms, and consistency with the streetscape plan. Suggested that there are
several items that needed clarification, including the screening requirement, parking and
landscaping, and the impacts the ordinance will have on the day care facility. Noted that
day care facility traffic, while currently drop-off and pick-up traffic, which is not a use
desired in Downtown, that fact may change dependent upon the future uses in the
Downtown area.
V onHof: Believes the proposed ordinance does move the Downtown redevelopment
forward in a positive manner. Agreed with making an adjustment for the nursery school
open space to coordinate with the state standard. Added that in a Downtown area where
buildings are typically side by side, the open space needed for a day care facility is
prohibitive to uses of that type. Liked the addition of mixed-use facilities and believes it
is consistent with the objectives for Downtown. Commented that the screening
requirement should be flexible, and that the parking requirement for 15% of green space
is reasonable. Supports moving the ordinance forward.
Lemke: Noted that the 15% green space requirement for parking appears only to impact
elderly housing.
Rye: Suggested that one possibility would be to say that in calculating the 15% a certain
amount of the adjoining lawns or open space can be considered. Added that elderly
housing is a residential use and the intent is to allow some type of separation from
commercial uses.
Kansier: Clarified that the 15 feet separation is intended as a buffer for any type of
residential housing against noise and lighting glare.
McDermott: Commented that in the case of Lakefront Plaza, the City will need to
upgrade the roads in that area. Staff has been looking for an area for the ponding that is
required for the site, including working with the DNR to use a part of the pond within
Lakefront Park. A variance from the Watershed will probably be appropriate for the
Lakefront Plaza site.
Lemke: Asked if, with respect to an articulation of the building fayade at 40 feet, the City
is encouraging that part of the property be undeveloped.
Rye: Commented that that is not the intention. With the opportunity to go to a zero lot
line, the additional costs of adding some type of feature to the front of the building is
probably offset. The standard is encouraged and not required.
Stamson: Suggested that with respect to the addendum, that page 10, item 5 be clarified
to reference the Main Street design guidelines.
L\O] files\O] plancomm\O] pcminutes\MN] 0220] .doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22,2001
Rye: Clarified that all of those elements have been included in the hardscape and
softscape design elements.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD TO APPROVE THE REVISED
LANGUAGE PROPOSED BY STAFF FOR SECTION 1102.1107.
Ayes by all, the MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WITH THE
FOLLOWING LANGUAGE REVISIONS (1) SCREENING SUFFICIENT TO
SCREEN FROM VIEW AT THE LOT LINE, (2) THE LANGUAGE FOR REQUIRING
AN EXTERIOR CHILD CARE SPACE BE ELIMINATED AND THAT THE STATE
GUIDELINES SHALL APPLY, AND (3) PARKING WITH RESPECT TO THE 15
FEET BE CLARIFIED TO STATE THAT ANY LAWN, LANDSCAPING OR OPEN
SPACE ADJACENT TO AND AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PARKING LOT
FOR A DISTANCE OF 10 FEET BY INCLUDED IN THE 15% LANDSCAPING
CALCULATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
V onHof: Advised that the Downtown businesses will be notified when the item will go
before the City Council.
The Commission took a brief recess.
V onHof: Advised that the public hearing was being re-opened in order to consider
adoption of the Downtown Zoning Map.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD TO ADOPT THE DOWNTOWN
ZONING MAP AS PROPOSED BY STAFF.
Ayes by all, the MOTION CARRIED.
B. #01-080 David and Rachel Norling are requesting variances for setback to the Ordinary
High Water Mark; front yard; side yards; eave encroachment; building wall to side yard
and impervious surface to construct an addition on the property located at 15239
Fairbanks Trail.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report on file in the office
of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from the property owners for
the construction of an attached garage, a second story addition, and a main level room
addition to an existing single-family dwelling on a nonconforming platted lot of record
located at 15239 Fairbanks Trail (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey). The applicant is
requesting the following Variances:
L\O I files\O I planeomm\O I peminutes\MN I 0220 I.doe 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22,2001
A 4.77-foot variance to permit a 16.53-foot structure setback to a front property line, a
12-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 48-feet from the Ordinary High Water
Elevation (OHWM), a 1.41-foot variance to permit a structure setback of8.59-feet from
the side property line, a 2-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to
within 3-feet from a side lot line, a 2.6-foot variance to permit a building wall 66-feet in
length to be setback 5-feet to a side lot line, a 256-square foot variance to permit an
impervious surface coverage area of2,436 square feet (33.5%).
The City Engineering Department has determined there is a sanitary sewer easement that
should be depicted on the survey in order to verify the proposed building addition does
not encroach. In addition, the Department submitted comments for this report stating in
essence, approval ofthe requested variances is contrary to the goals of the
Comprehensive Lake Management Plan, which is to "minimize the transport of nutrients,
sediment and runoff from city streets and lands which impact the Prior Lake watershed,
and promotes lake creep, the encroachment of buildings and impervious areas towards
the lakeshore".
The Department of Natural Resources has not responded to this variance request.
The staff believes that all ofthe Variance criteria have been met with respect to some
type of front setback variance such as a 2.77' variance for an 18.53' front yard setback.
A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot to allow for a garage
addition because of the location of the existing structure on the nonconforming platted lot
of record.
In addition, staff feels the garage and room additions may be redesigned and reduced in
size to eliminate Variance requests 2 - 6. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria have
not been met with respect to 5 of the variances as proposed by the applicant and staff
recommends denial of these requested variances.
Staff recommends the following conditions be included with approval of any variances
deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
1. The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the
acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised survey to show all easements and the proposed
grades with drainage and an erosion control plan.
Comments from the public:
Norling: (J 5239 Fairbanks Trail NE): Commented that he has the support of the
neighborhood and that he intends on staying in the house long-term. Further discussed the
project plans in detail, the rationale for requesting each of the variances, the comparison
of his property to neighboring properties, and his family's need for the additional space.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN I 0220 I.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22.2001
Commissioner V onHof closed the public hearing.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke: Commented that he believed that the garage is necessary and eliminating 4 feet
from the garage would mean it could no longer be used as a three-car garage.
Atwood: Asked if the Commissioners are going to be comfortable acting on the
application without a current survey. Suggested tabling the item until there is a final
survey.
Stamson: Agreed that in dealing with the lake side of the home it would be necessary to
see a final survey. On the balance of the structure, he did believe that the side yard set
back could be met and still provide for a 32-foot garage and concurred with the staff
recommendation.
Atwood: Agreed with Commissioner Stamson and noted she was uncomfortable m
making any further decision without a final survey.
V onHof: Believed that due to the slope of the lot some variances are probably warranted,
but was not willing to make further determinations until an updated survey was received.
Lemke: Most concerned with the 16.5 foot driveway, but noted that the neighbors garage
is only 12.5 feet from the road.
Stamson: Commented that the each property is unique and the circumstances vary, so
comparisons are inappropriate.
Horsman: Advised that Fairbanks Trail is very small to begin with because it was
originally platted as a private road.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL
NOVEMBER 13,2001 SO THAT A FULL-SIZED UPDATED SURVEY CAN BE
REVIEWED.
VOTE: Ayes by all, the motion carried.
C. #01-084 John and Jennifer Barncard are requesting approval of a site plan to allow a
detached accessory structure on a nonconforming lot of record separated by a private
road from a lot with the principal structure for the property at 16558 Inguadona Beach
Circle.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report on file in the office
of the City Planning Department.
L:\OJ files\OI pJancomm\OJpcminutes\MNJ0220J.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22,2001
The Planning Department received a site plan application from property owners John &
Jennifer Bamcard for the construction of a detached accessory structure on one of two
existing platted lots of record located at 16658 Inguadona Beach Circle. There is an
existing single-family dwelling located on the other lot, but is separated from the subject
lot by a private road. The applicant is requesting approval of a site plan for a detached
accessory structure to be built on one of two nonconforming lots of record under single
ownership separated by a private road or driveway from a lot with the principal structure.
The applicant proposes to build a detached garage on Lot 25. The topography and
location of the principal structure on Lot 10, preclude the ability to construct a garage,
with a front setback of24.6 feet to the exterior wall and 12.5 feet to the deck. However,
Lot 25 is relatively flat and will accommodate the proposed structure with setbacks of
42.25' front, 12.69' side, 15' rear, and 12.85' side yard.
The proposed structure is 34' deep by 24' wide for a total area of 816 square feet, and is
less than the maximum allowed 832 square feet for a detached accessory structure. The
proposed building height is 13', as determined by the mean distance of the highest gable
on a pitched roof and the grade elevation having frontage on a public right-of-way. The
exterior finish material is an 8" lap cedar siding with asphalt/fiberglass shingles, and is
compatible in design and materials with the principal structure (Attachment 2 - Building
Plans, 3 pages).
The City Engineering Department has recommended approval without comments. The
Department of Natural Resources has not submitted comments on this request.
The staff has determined that all of the conditions, except # 2, have been met with respect
to the applicants requested site plan and Zoning Ordinance 1101.501: Lot Provisions: (3)
Lots of Record - Buildable. A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on
the lots because of topography and the existing principal structures location.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Resolution 01-022PC with the
following conditions:
1. The property owner must file a deed restriction or covenants with the Scott
County Recorder in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This deed restriction
or covenant must include provisions that restrict the resubdivision of the lot. This
condition shall be met prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the
acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Comments from the public:
There were no comments from the public.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MNl 0220 I.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson: Believed that having a garage was a necessity and that the proposal, given
staff s conditions, was appropriate.
Commissioners Atwood, Lemke and V onHof agreed with the comments
from Commissioner Stamson.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
01-022PC APPROVING A SITE PLAN TO PERMIT A DETACHED ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE ON ONE OF THE TWO NON-CONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD
UNDER SINGLE OWNERSHIP SEPARATED BY A PRIVATE ROAD OR
DRIVEWAY.
VOTE: Ayes by all, the MOTION CARRIED.
D. #01-082 Jim Koestering Homes is requesting variances to a front setback from a road
easement and to a setback from a rear property line for the construction of a single family
dwelling for the property at 14934 Pixie Point Circle.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report on file in the office of
the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application for the construction of a single
family dwelling with an attached garage, as shown on the attached survey, on the
property located at 14934 Pixie Point Road, and legally described as Lot 4, Block 1,
Eastwood 2nd addition. The following variances are being requested: a 10' variance to
the front yard setback requirement to allow the structure to be setback 15' from the front
property line and from the road easement, and a 10' variance to the rear yard setback to
permit the structure to be setback 15' from the rear lot line.
The survey submitted by the applicant also shows a 34.38' wide driveway access onto the
road; however, this survey was revised after the application was submitted and the
hearing notice published. The applicant has not requested a variance to the maximum
driveway width of 24 feet.
The applicant is proposing to place the structure on the lot so it is located 26.92' from the
front property line, 15' from the roadway easement, 15' from the rear lot line, 23.71'
from the south side lot line and 33' from the north side lot line. It must be noted that the
proposed structure is encroaching into the 40' wide easement on the north property line.
The applicant has filed a petition to vacate a portion of this easement. The Planning
Commission will also consider this petition at this meeting. As noted earlier in this
report, the attached survey also shows a 34.38' wide driveway access onto the road;
however, this survey was revised after the application was submitted and the hearing
notice published. The applicant has not requested a variance to the maximum driveway
width of 24 feet.
L:\O 1 fi1es\O 1 plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN 1 0220 l.doc 1 0
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22,2001
The DNR had no comments on this request. The City Engineering Department
comments are attached. The Engineering Department comments primarily concern the
vacation of the existing easement until the design for the reconstruction of the street is
completed. Also attached to this report is a letter from the owner ofthe property to the
south of this lot, objecting to the requested variance.
Based on the above findings, the staff finds that this request does not meet the nine
hardship criteria. The staff recommendation of the original application was denial of the
requested variances. There is a legal alternative for the construction of a house on this lot.
Advised that the developer has submitted a total of three additional surveys with different
building footprints. Staffhas not had an opportunity to review any of the surveys and
until such time as the applicant determines which survey we are dealing with, the staff
would recommend tabling the item at this point.
Lemke: Asked about the location of the road on the west side of the property.
Kansier: Advised that staff believes that Pixie Point is either within the roadway
easement or very close to the roadway easement identified in the survey.
Atwood: Asked about the reconstruction of Pixie Point.
McDermott: Advised that the surveying for the reconstruction of Pixie Point is starting
this week, and until the staff can determine why the 40 foot easement was acquired in the
first place, it is probably premature to vacate any portion of it at this time. The staff does
not want to put the City is the position of vacating easements we may have to go back
and pay for as temporary construction or permanent roadway easements in connection
with the project.
Comments from the public:
Jim Koesterine (Builder): Advised that the Outlot A is owned by Jerry Hein. Discussed
the topography of the lot and its 24 foot grade change. Advised that in addition to
topography, they are attempting to save as many trees as possible as well as comply with
impervious surface restrictions. Also believed that the City ordinance definition of a front
lot line could be interpreted so that the front lot line was the one facing the lake. Advised
that Pixie Point Road utilities are underneath the road, and that they had been located and
identified a month ago. The road was built to the edge of the easement. Because the road
is too close to the lot line, the City required an additional 10 foot of easement. Each foot
the house is moved back from the street, the higher the house is out of the ground.
Discussed the location of the force main, and that both the manhole and force main had
been identified and marked. Believed there was adequate easement area available even
with the variance. Believes the City made a mistake in placing the street and now the
property owner has to suffer. A 25 foot set back, rather than 30 foot, would be adequate.
Further discussed the timing on the construction and the need to move forward. Believes
the application meets the nine requirements.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\MNI02201.doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
Stamson: Asked if the back was left at 25 feet, what was needed on the front.
Koesterin~: Explained that the house could be rotated one way another, but cannot fit
within both the front and rear yard setbacks. More trees can be saved if the variance is to
the front. Believes that the easement in the front should go back to the property owner.
Kansier: Advised that the staff has never seen a tree survey.
Rye: Noted that vegetation on the property is not germane to the consideration of
approving or denying a variance.
McDermott: Advised that the 40 foot easement has been platted as a drainage and utility
easement, not a roadway easement. A survey was not provided with the field location of
the force main until tonight. Staff also requested that Mr. Koestering pothole that force
main so staff could be verified the depth and as-built features. A few feet from the
easement can be considered, but with four surveys, staff needs to know which one we are
considering. Staff has pointed out to Mr. Koestering that it is likely that not all of the
easement will be needed, but at this time, it is premature. Had Mr. Koestering provided
this information previously, we probably have enough information to make a
determination. The roadway easement along Pixie Point Circle are the small utilities.
V onHof: Suggested that the Commissioners give the staff an opportunity to review the
information provided and offer a revised recommendation.
Koesterin~: Noted that he had not been told ahead of time about the pothole and that is
staffs fault. Requested approval of the variance subject to the Engineering staff stating
how much room is needed beyond the force main for workability.
Lemke: Asked whether the Commission is being asked to consider the driveway.
Kansier: Noted that based on Mr. Koestering's request, he doesn't want the Commission
to consider the driveway.
Koesterin~: Advised that the surveyor drawn a 20 foot driveway.
McDermott: Advised that it would be helpful, if the surveyor is going to revise it
anyway, if the survey showed the edge of the bituminous roadway, which you will need
anyway for the building permit.
Jerry Hein (Property Owner): Appreciated the Commissioners' time and patience.
Clarified that Outlot A is owned by four parties, and they are making the best effort to
build a home that fits into the neighborhood, preserve the view for the neighbors, and
save as many trees as possible.
Marilyn Koeker (5994 - 15dh St.): Advised that the rear of this lot abuts her side lot.
Her only concern was that the rear setback remain at 25 feet.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN102201 ,doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22,2001
Carter Christy (6002 15dh St.): Noted that his home is directly to the northeast of the
property. His concern was also that the rear lot line setback remain at 25 feet.
Commissioner V onHof closed the public hearing.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood: Despite the inconvenience to the applicant and the builder, believed it was
important to give the staff an opportunity to verify the information received and make a
recommendation.
Kansier: Clarified that there are two issues. The first is -the front and rear yard setback.
The second part is the vacation of some portion of the easement.
McDermott: Advised that if the survey had originally shown the edge of bituminous, it
appears that a vacation of the easement is probable.
Stamson: Suggested that a 3 foot variance could be recommended.
V onHof: Advised that the Commission can recommend a variance as long as it is not
more than what was identified in the public hearing notice. Suggested moving forward
with a recommendation to the City Council.
Kansier: Asked if the variance included overhangs.
Rye: Suggested setting a distance, and the builder would need to work within that
parameter.
Koesterine: Suggested allowing building within 20 feet of the existing asphalt on the
property and verified by the surveyor.
V onHof: Noted that staff has advised that is not appropriate.
10 Foot Variance to the Rear Yard Setback to Allow the Structure to be Set Back 15 feet
from the Rear Lot Line rather than the minimum required setback of 25 feet.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSOM TO DIRECT STAFF TO
PREP ARE A RESOLUTION DENYING THE 1 O-FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO
THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
VOTE: Ayes by all, MOTION CARRlED.
10 Foot Variance to the Front Yard Setback to Allow the Structure to be Set Back 15 Feet
from the Front Property Line and from the Road Easement Rather than the Minimum
Requirements of 25 Feet.
L:\OI files\Olplancomm\Ol pcminutes\MNI02201.doc 13
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22,2001
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DIRECT STAFF TO
PREP ARE A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 5 FOOT EASEMENT AND A 20 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE ROAD EASEMENT AS DEPICTED IN SURVEY #4.
Rye: Asked if the findings in support of the resolution was due to the topography on the
site.
Stamson: Clarified that the 24% grade as well as the force main field and other
easements on the property create a difficult situation.
VOTE: Ayes by all, the MOTION CARRIED.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
A. #01-083 Jim Koestering Homes is requesting a vacation to a portion of the drainage and
utility easement located on the north side of Lot 4, Block 1, Eastwood 2nd Addition
(14934 Pixie Point Circle) for the construction of a single family dwelling.
[The Planning report was given in connection with the previous agenda item.]
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report on file in the office of
the City Planning Department.
Jim Koestering is requesting the vacation ofa portion of the 40' wide drainage and utility
easement located on the north side of the property legally described as Lot 4, Block 1,
Eastwood 2nd Addition. This request also includes the vacation of a portion of the 10'
wide road and utility easement located along the west property line of this lot. This
easement was dedicated to the City in 1984 when Eastwood 2nd Addition was platted.
The applicant is proposing to construct a house on this lot. As presently designed, the
house would encroach into the existing easement.
The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of the
existing easement comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public need or
anticipated future need for the dedicated property? The Comprehensive Plan does not
specifically discuss utility easements, other than as a function of ensuring access to public
utilities. There are existing utilities, including storm sewer and sanitary sewer, located
within the 40' wide easement. The Engineering Department has noted that it may be
possible to vacate a portion of this easement; however, the location of the existing
utilities must be field surveyed and shown on the certificate of survey before staff can
determine how much of the easement may be vacated. A portion or all of the easement
may also be required for the 2002 Pixie Point reconstruction project.
The 10' wide easement located along the west property line is for both utilities and the
existing road. The Engineering Department has noted that Pixie Point Road, along with
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MNl02201.doc 14
.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22,2001
the storm sewer, is scheduled for reconstruction in 2002. It is not in the best interest to
vacate any of this easement until those plans are completed.
Based on the information submitted thus far, there appears to be a public need for these
easements. The Planning staff therefore recommends denial of this request. It may be
possible to vacate some portion ofthe 40' wide easement; however, in order to make this
determination, the applicant must submit a certificate of survey that identifies all of the
existing utilities, including sanitary sewer and storm sewer, as located in the field. In
addition, no part of this easement should be vacated until the Pixie Point project has been
designed and constructed, so any future need for the easement can be determined.
Comments from the public:
Comments from the public were received in connection with the previous agenda item.
Comments from the Commissioners:
McDermott: Discussed the description of the easement.
Kansier: Suggested that staff provide the applicant and the Council a drawing of the
recommended easement area, and the applicant will need to provide the description.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL V ACA TION OF A PORTION OF THE 40 FOOT EASEMENT
BEGINNING 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE CONTINUOUSLY TO
THE REAR PROPERTY LINE 5 FEET FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
EASEMENT.
VOTE: Ayes by all, the MOTION CARRIED.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The Commissioners discussed that there would be no meeting in December, and staff also
asked if Commissioners would contact them with respect to the November meeting to be
sure there is a quorum.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 10pm.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Kelly Meyer
Recording Secretary
L:\01 files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutesIMN I 0220 I.doc
15
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT, Case File #01-082
14934 PIXIE POINT ROAD
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES -L NO
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
On October 22, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider a variance application for the construction of a single family dwelling
with an attached garage on the property located at 14934 Pixie Point Road, and
legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, Eastwood 2nd Addition.
At the hearing, the applicant submitted a "Sketch and Description" map (attached
Exhibit A) that identified the existing sanitary sewer force main on the northern
side of the easement. The sketch map also showed the proposed house
encroaching approximately 3 feet into the existing easement. Based on this
information, the Planning Commission approved a variance to allow the
proposed dwelling to be located 20.06' from the road easement, and directed
staff to prepare a resolution to that effect.
On Friday, October 26, 2001, the applicant had a survey crew locate the existing
sanitary sewer force main on the site, as requested earlier by the staff. The field
location of the existing utilities places the utilities on the south edge of the 40'
wide easement rather than on the north side of the easement as shown on the
"Sketch and Description" map. Based on the actual field location, the proposed
house would be located on top of the existing force main, which is different than
the information the petitioner submitted to the Planning Commission. The actual
location is identified on attached Exhibit B. This exhibit also identifies the
location of the existing road.
The City Council held a public hearing on the requested vacation of this
easement on November 5,2001. Based on the actual field location of the force
main, the City Council denied the vacation request.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-082\pc report2.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
On November 5,2001, the applicant submitted a revised survey identifying a
new house location (attached Exhibit C). On this plan, the house has been
shifted to the south so it will no longer encroach on the existing easement. It
must be noted that no part of the house, including eaves and overhangs, may
encroach on the easement. This proposal sets the house l' south of the existing
easement, which would allow a l' overhang, 25' from the rear property line, 10'
from the south property line and 21.7' from the front lot line.
The proposed front yard setback is less than the setback approved by the
Planning Commission on October 22,2001. The applicant also submitted
information identifying the front yard setbacks for lots within 150' of the site.
Utilizing setback averaging, a 24.1' setback would be allowed on this lot;
however, the proposed 21.7' setback does not meet this requirement.
The applicant is asking the Planning Commission to revisit the front yard setback
for this house, based on the new information.
DISCUSSION:
The existing easement on the north side of this lot significantly reduces the
buildable area on the site. Although there is a substantial buildable area
available, the topography of the lot also limits the placement of the house on this
site.
The proposed house includes a 32' wide by 24' deep garage. Narrowing the
width of this garage to 24' by 24' garage might increase the front yard setback,
but most likely it would not eliminate the need for a front yard variance.
Based on the most recent information, there appears to be some justification for
a variance to the front yard setback requirement. The Planning staff suggests
the following findings:
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
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 of 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.
The 40' wide drainage and utility easement location on the north side of this
lot restricts the buildable area of the lot. In addition, there is 24' of relief from
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-082\pc report2.DOC
Page 2
the street to the rear property line that limits the placement of a house on the
lot.
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.
The easement on this lot is peculiar to this property.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
Granting a variance to the front yard setback is necessary for the
preservation of a substantial property right.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
In staffs opinion, the granting of the variances would not impair light and air,
increase congestion in the streets or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the requested variances would probably not unreasonably
impact the character of the neighborhood.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Granting the variances will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
The existing easement and the topography of the lot create a demonstrable
hardship in this case.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 variances\01-082\pc report2.DOC
Page 3
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.
The location of the easement and the topography of the lot are not a result of
the actions of the owner.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
The applicant has not stated a need for the variance based on increased
costs or economic hardship.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above findings, the staff finds that the request for a variance to the
front yard setback meets the nine hardship criteria. The staff therefore
recommends approval of the requested variance, as shown on the certificate of
survey identified as Exhibit C.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variance requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Ordinance criteria. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
denying the variance request.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends Alternative #1. This action requires the following motion:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-023PC approving the requested
variance to the front yard setback requirement.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-082\pc report2.DOC
Page 4
-.' ,
PIXIE POINT CIRCLE
~"""",,,,.....,. --y
. J_
/O/th OJ
SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION
For: Jim Koestering
Homes
I
EXHIBIT A
I
I
-, I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
k -DRAINlGE & UTILITY"" I
I' EASEMENT PER PLAT \
I \
I -1- . \
I -< (' I
~ ,-<,()'
("~ ,v
\\- 01
'\ 137.27 S89038'30"W
DRAINAGE & UTILITY
EASEMENT PER PLAT~
. ~
NORTHWEST CORNER LOT_ "
4, BLOCK 1, EASTWOOD I \ "
SECOND ADDITION / \
~ _2~ _
'=..-',->::-" ^ r'\r'\ITIr\I\ I
I I I \.....:: I r, LJ LJ I I I V I 'I
'r\
IV
r' ^ ::-"IAIr\r\r'\
L_'-'''''':: I v V V V LJ
,...'....
- ~ ~- - -1"0
o - - -.:!l....\- R/ MAIN-FIELD LOc I
o - - ;- '_ A TED
o \ "'I - --
~ ~ ----~
\ '5.12
I,Kj
Ws:
-1 =
om
n:::!.'J
_ O"l
OfJ
o
1-0
ZZ
- cog
o .t,')"
I 0... N S?
I")
W
X
0...1 " "
I I "...
10
o
....Oz
3:0
......-
OU1~
-J<O-
wo:
W <(
z,..:
:i 0
~z
...uo
If) ou
~~~
25
Scale:
1"=30'
o
o
c:i
f\
-1....'----
'-,
_]<LOE>
----
/28.08
I"' ~
"' .
'0
(" lO
0> .
.,.
o
U)
I
I
I
)?~~
~.,,{ .f: '-
-r:~;)
~
N
( - NORTHEAST CORNER lOT
4, BLOCK I, EASTWOOD
\ SECONU ADDITION
\
o
o
ci
".
-SOUTH LINE OF THE :
\ NORTH 40.0Q, FEET
-L _'11>-'"
LOT 4 ~~
II~~
'-'~,
~3
<( u1
Ir
>-...
1-- <(
_ ...J
...Ja.
;::
::>0:
w
"dla.
w'"
C)~
<(::;
Zw
," <<u)
...." 0:<(
"" Ow
I "::::-/
138.83 N89058'41"W
-
'\1.37/
/
.- --SOUTH UNELOT 4,
BLOCK 1, EASTWOOD
SECOND ADDI liON
...
Z
LL' ...
::;z
ww
Ul::;
<( ::> 0>
l.&.JuN
~g~
2~o
::>n.z
I r\,
L.V I
~,
,....
Page 2 of 2
James
I
I
R.
; \
:..
w
o
~
(j)
o
o
C:J
()
()
>
>
1-- .~..
(,')
<(
LIJ
()
1--
-7
L._
()
1--
C)
C)
<(
1--
C') ~
ij:::: Cl
.....
LI- t>-
r}
--:
~
9
I\;:
Cl
01
Ci
o
(f)
N
n
n
n
Hill,
Inc.
SKETCH AND
For: . Jim Koestering
. EXHJBlf ~Oi
I
\ !
I
\ ;
!
\
~
~
~
,
o
r:.- Ii:) ::-- ' ^ r-. r-. I' I r\ 1\ I
I I I "....:; I ,-\ LJ LJ I I I \J I 'I
,r\
IV
PIXIE Ppll~l CIRCLE
DESCRIPTION
Homes
I
DRAINAGE & 1I11UTY
EASEMENT PER PLAT
...
'\'
<,
" ... ',' .' .
I ,i 4
, ~ ~ .; ""l :1)1'. . I !'
'~j\~~ .
'0:::' '.::5':'1
_I. Q)
OS ",.g'l
~', i/~ ~
z. .,....
-',roo
0" .1")
,';.\ ........
;r~"
(l-
I
;t
I" ~
" .
Cl
,,, &f)
0..
"
o
VI
,..0-
0-"
--'
-'0.
i=
:J1l:
Cd
o'll (1
..,0-
'I' ~~
" - 14.1
"-.. " ~ ~~
................ OlA.J
~~~ ~
--5433 -
-
'\1.37
25
Scale:
1"=30'
Page
I A.-
en
N
- 01
927.3'
o
o
o
...
CJ
()
()
>-
>-
.- ~-
0 (,')
U1 <C
N L.J
I")
I") '() .
n ~-
-7
"c,_
()
--
~ -
10 CJ
'" Cj
0- ...;
z ..., <C
W 1-" 0"
:<z
ww
VI::>
<( ,01 ~-
WuN
,.. o~ (,')
0-0_
~ lr ' -/
o-wO lJ_
::>lLZ L'_
935.7
-,1\
/0 ~~~
:< (,1 ...
...Ol
:1: 0 II
U :>
3~~
J 1000W
/ I r\'
L.V I
2J,of 2
"
'-/
N
~
......~,..
---. .'
"', .
~
....
1;.
--;
~
!7:l
I\:
c::o
~
Cl:
Hill, Inc. I
o
-..,.,..o,;,~..~,... c_
- ... EXHIBIT C
..----'.-'.--....;:..--.-'~.-4--..'.---.~.~-..;.--.._.,____._____J....__.,.~... ._.__.._._.._..~.
/-
I
I
I
I
~l
, ~
T
I
I
I
I
I t~ I
J_ _ _ _ -L _
~-
b
-~
.5
~...~.,
.. ."",-,",
Lot 4, Block 1, EASTWOOD SECOND ADDmON
cERTiFICATE 'OF "'SURVEY
JD,{ KOESTERmG HOMES
- Cl&NT ADl>>las _
--
z~'!a.i!.s,..fril~IlP!~=- f~l .g' ~ ~;H:'
lf~~ll~aiif::=l!-iff. u: ="1 a..~ l;"=r
I!l j-.g. ~!i ~-8 ""'5l g'[i fl-:;;:!" sea S:~SlO,...;.~
Z U U:l:x:1a n""' u4'a. a' =-. CI CI
. ~ ~~!~=~ ~g~~~~ itli I: -G.a ...~
'- ? ~,. n s-G"< crS"- N.aClCD"
WI!! "l ~[~2P~af.lt~!t !i~f~~53~~~~
i!.~ t: ~cra.:tit"l u!!l[! un~("'P =<--Cl:::
!::J f~ !"< Sit a s:g.. ~~.I'a !r ii:!fll g. Ejlih.:<'
t= P h!i 9-; ;O~3" lY &.Ri -: tT II 0 - '..; Er
Q~ -: ~i~~i.! ~ ~;~ sa. - (I ::1-:,,_
.~ "lill:c:1.tJ~
a. l~ 1 ~Pf!f8 hi 2.~ ~. _ g.-
r~ P.tlG_-
Ii- If 1fi\~~ ll-~""g- ~2. - 0 =i=-r~
Il
- 10 i" --8:r- 1[- "< s- ;0_:.
~ it il.>llll ~8~a CT II Fa-
lSl'l ~i il!s a;r~!i ~... ~2: ~ " 8,.
~ _Y I . 0 M'b!_ . a
~ r+ ... S:~~1.
-- z - CIl :x: lD
lS z V ..........~ ~...I~..O~UJll :; ;:~8-~ 0"
;:l .. .. .. ... \. i;} + 00 o;~ .. 2- n
0m !~'!t ~ :.~. ~ .. 0;-01 Q. ~;;fia~ ,..
- "'...
: : : : I _01 P ~~ e 1~
~~~~f 7 .
ig~~?r Cl 0 OOOOOOc:x:JQOOO [ 8 ~. crl; P!
>:
::.ll.llJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~!!!~~~!~! .g CI '..; Do'..; _ Ul
~ - ~. 2. 2. 2. 2.!t 2.2.2.2.2.2.2-2.2- h::08. ~
'" ~ii':!J, ::: I:::::::::: . CI". E;
· r.... ......-.. o.if~if 0
.2.01 g . oaiiia.ga~2:.:. 0
- I a -g. ..:I 1ilI 'O.~ :r~~ ~ ~
fm SI2.~f3;2.22;:~i-3 1II
""ca- P!
~! .. -1'< 38.e&&':l r 0
~~~ . Hpn[3~ 3!;~~i 0
"''&''8. z
'- .... 2.. It .8z.g~ 3 0
~;l_,<cr
"". ..g i! _ =r 0
... o. if
r:F~ST
""'I""\I'T."..,
nUVIIIV''t
T^
IV
r-" C"'T'UI"^,",
Co..r\"';:;"rvvu
'I! ..
S ~~ ~~
~ a~;;
p
~g ~! S~
~::l;P ~;!
Iii z "
p '"
~ ~~ ~ i
6 ~P1...!
z g .
.. ...
'OS(ZOO, 11141121 zos,.
~ James R. Hill, Inc.
PLIHNERS I EIIGIIEERS I SUllIElalS
..... CIt... 41..... ...... IUD
- (101_ ,.. (tU)IIO.QM
RESOLUTION Ol-023PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REQUIRED 25' FRONT
YARD SETBACK
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Jim Koestering, on behalf of the Kathy Allegrezza and Jerry Hein, has applied for
variances from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a single family home to be constructed
on property zoned R-ISD (Low Density Residential Shoreland District), located at
14934 Pixie Point Road, and legally described as follows:
Lot 4, Block 1, Eastwood Second Addition, Scott County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment reviewed the application for a variance to the front yard as
contained in Case #01-082 and held hearings thereon on October 22,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment continued consideration of the variance request to
November 13,2001.
4. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
5. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or
impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the
Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
6. There is a justifiable hardship caused by the existing 40' wide easement on the north
side of the lot and the topography of the lot, so reasonable use of the property is not
possible without the granting of the variance.
1:\01 files\O] variances\O 1-082\pcres 01-023pc.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
7. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
8. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is necessary
to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
9. The contents of Planning Case File #0-082 are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following requested variance:
1. A 3.3' variance to the front yard setback to permit the structure to be setback
21.7' from the front lot line rather than the minimum required setback of 25 feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on November 13, 2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\0 I files\O I variances\O 1-082\pcres 01-023pc.doc
2
..~
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SA
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY
PLAN AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN
AS EAGLEWOOD EAST
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
Merlyn Olson Homes has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Eaglewood East on the property located south of CSAH 21, Y2 block north of Colorado
Street, west of Duluth Avenue and east of W est Avenue. The application includes the
following requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
. Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of a total of 32 dwelling units
on 4.536 net acres, for a total density of 7.1 units per acre. The proposed development
includes 28 dwelling units 7 four-unit buildings, and 4 dwelling units in 2 two-unit
buildings. The development also includes a private streets and private open space.
Merlyn Olson Homes is the developer of this project. The application has also been
signed by the current property owners, Lee Klingberg and Gary Staber.
BACKGROUND:
This site consists of a total of 5.003 acres of unplatted, vacant land. In July, 2001, the
Planning Commission approved an exception to the minimum 10-acre requirement for a
PUD in order to allow the developer to move forward with this application. This action
does not guarantee approval of the PUD plan, in whole or in part.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
1:\01 files\OI puds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle 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
~r-
Total Site Area: The total site consists of 5.003 acres. The net area of this site, less
wetlands and existing storm water ponds, is 4.536 acres.
Topography: The topography of this site rises 34' from the low point (the wetland) on
the west side to the highest elevation, 964.6' MSL, at the center ofthe site. The property
then slopes to the east to with an elevation of936' at Duluth Avenue.
Vegetation: This site includes several trees. A tree inventory, however, identified a total
of 297 caliper inches of significant trees, located mostly along the north side and at the
center of the site. This indicates that the species of the trees along the west side of the
property are not on the significant tree list. The project is subject to the Tree Preservation
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. Initial calculations indicate tree replacement is required.
Wetlands: There is a 12,737 square foot wetland located at the northwest comer of the
site. The plans do not indicate any disturbance of this wetland. There is also an existing
7,601 square foot NURP pond located along West Avenue on the west side of the
property. This pond will be expanded to handle additional runoff from the site.
Access: Access to the site is from West Avenue on the west side of the property. There
is an existing private street, Racine Street, which provides access to two houses at the
southwest comer of the site.
2020 Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for Urban Low to
Medium Density Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Zoning: The property is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The western half of
the property is located within the Shoreland District for Prior Lake.
PROPOSED PLAN
Density: The plan proposes 32 units on a total of 5.003 acres. Density is based on the
buildable acres of the site, or in this case on 4.536 net acres. The overall density
proposed in this plan is 7.1 units per acre. The maximum density allowed in the R-3
district is 7.2 units per acre.
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 32 lots for the townhouse units. The proposal also
includes three outlots. Outlot A and Outlot C are the common areas for the townhouse
lots. Outlot B is the private street.
Building Styles: The proposed plan calls for a townhouse style development consisting
of 2- and 4-unit buildings. Sample floor plans of these buildings are attached to this
report. The plan includes 2 two-unit buildings and 7 four-unit buildings. The
1:\01 files\Olpuds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle pc.doc
Page 2
-<
townhouses are rambler or two-story lookouts with attached double garages. The exterior
materials are vinyl siding with a brick accents. The building plans include decks on some
of the units, but these decks are not shown on the site plan.
Setbacks: The plan proposes a 20' setback from the private street, a minimum 25' rear
yard setback, and a minimum 20' building separation (foundation to foundation) between
the townhouses.
The proposed setbacks are generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements,
with the exception of the front yard. The minimum front yard setback in the R-3 district
is 25 feet. The plan proposes a 20' setback, but the developer has not requested a specific
modification to the setback requirements. The PUD provisions also requires the
minimum setback between buildings be at least 1/2 the sum of the building heights. The
developer must verify whether or not the proposed 20' separation meets this requirement.
The building elevations submitted do not include a scale. The Subdivision Ordinance
also requires that all building pads be located at least 30' from the 100 year flood
elevation of any wetland or NURP pond. The unit identified on the plans as Lot 1, Block
7 does not meet this requirement.
Lot Coveraf!e: The R-3 district allows a maximum ground floor area of 0.35. The
ground floor area proposed in this plan is 0.20.
Useable Open Space: The R-3 district also requires 600 square feet of useable open
space per unit for cluster developments, which in this case would equal a minimum of
19,200 square feet. The proposed common area provides open space for this
development; the calculations submitted by the developer indicate a total of 85, 372
square feet, which meets the minimum requirements. However, the proposed NURP
pond and infiltration ponds must be removed from this calculation.
Parkinf!: The proposal provides at least 2 spaces per dwelling unit, which is consistent
with the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. Each the units have two car garages,
which provide the minimum parking requirement. The plan also provides 8 off-street
guest parking spaces. The proposed private streets will not provide any on-street parking.
Landscapinf!: Section 1107.1900 lists the landscaping requirements for this
development. There are two types of landscaping required in this development. First,
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. Our calculations indicate a total of 68 trees are required
for this site. Second, the developer must provide a landscape buffer along the south
property boundary, and along the north property boundary. The bufferyard requirements
on the south side of the property include a total of 16 canopy trees, 32 understory trees,
and 48 shrubs. The bufferyard requirements on the north side of the property require 9
canopy trees, 18 understory trees, and 26 shrubs.
1 :\0 1 files\OI puds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle pc.doc
Page 3
""
..
The developer has submitted a landscaping plan that identifies 158 new trees. However,
the plan does not provide enough information to determine whether it is consistent with
ordinance requirements for size and species of the plantings. The ordinance requires at
least 25% of the trees must be deciduous and 25% coniferous to maintain a mix of plant
types. The ordinance also requires at least 20% of the plants must exceed the minimum
sizes of 2 1/2 caliper inches for deciduous and 6' for coniferous. This requires deciduous
trees be at least 3 1/2 caliper inches and coniferous trees be at least 8' high. 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 297 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. Based on the developer's
calculations, the proposal removes 24% for road and utility purposes and 39% for
building pads and driveways. The plan seems to include significant trees located on the
right-of-way for CSAH 21. If these trees are in fact on the right-of-way, they should not
be included in the tree inventory. The actual location of these trees must be verified.
In any case, it appears some tree replacement will be required. Since replacement is
required at a rate of 1/2 caliper inch to 1 caliper inch removed, at least 9 trees at 2 1/2
caliper inches per tree will be required for replacement. The landscaping plan includes
enough trees to meet this requirement.
Si~ns: There are no signs identified on this site plan.
Li~htin~: There is no lighting plans included with this proposal. The developer should
be required to provide streetlights on the private street.
Streets: This plan proposes one new private street, which is an extension of Racine
Street from W est Avenue to Duluth Avenue. This street will be maintained by a
homeowner's association.
Section 1004.415 lists the design criteria for private streets as follows:
Private streets shall only be permitted in Planned Unit Developments, which have
homeowner associations approved by the City. Private streets shall be platted as outlots,
and shall be designed and constructed in the same manner as public streets; provided,
the street pavement may be contained within the outlot and the balance of the street right-
of-way may be contained within adjacent easements, provided that the combined width of
outlots and easements shall not be less than the right-of-way, pavement width and
easement requirements for public streets.
The proposed private street is 32' in width. The preliminary plat does not identify
easements adjacent to this street, but there a 20' setback between the buildings and the
street, which would allow a 9' easement. In the attached narrative, the applicant has
suggested the private street should be narrowed to 30 feet.
Sidewalks/Trails: There are no sidewalks or trails proposed in this plan.
1 :\0 1 files\O I puds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle pc.doc
Page 4
Parks: This plan does not include any parkland dedication. The required dedication
would be approximately 12 acre, which is not large enough for any kind of public park.
Dedication requirements will be satisfied by a cash dedication equal to $1,685.00 per
unit.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main: Sanitary sewer and water main will be extended
from the existing utilities located in West A venue and in Duluth Avenue. The extension
of these lines is primarily within the proposed private street.
Storm Sewer: The plan proposes to manage storm water runoff through a storm sewer
pipe located within the private street. This storm sewer directs runoff to the NURP pond
located on the west side of the property. The City Engineering staff is reviewing the
storm water calculations to ensure the pond is adequately sized to manage the runoff.
, Traffic Impact Report: The developer has submitted an elementary traffic impact
report (TIR) for this development. This study indicates the proposed development will
add a total of 280 daily trips to the adjacent streets. The report states that the trips will be
equally distributed to the streets adjacent to the east and west side of this site. A copy of
the TIR is attached to this report.
.."
Phasing: The developer is proposing to complete this project in three phases. All ofthe
infrastructure will be completed in the first phase. The individual townhouses will then
be constructed starting on the east side and working to the west. The developer has not
submitted an anticipated completion date.
ANALYSIS:
PUD Preliminary Plan: The PUD must be reviewed based on the criteria found in
Section 1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 1106.100 discusses the
purpose of a PUD. These criteria are discussed below.
(1) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, materials, construction
and land development.
The developer is utilizing standard construction and design practices for the
townhomes. The lookout style of the buildings utilizes the natural grades of the site
where possible.
(2) Higher standards of site and building design.
Same as above.
(3) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support
high quality land use development at a lesser cost.
1 :\01 fiJes\O I puds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle pc.doc
Page 5
A homeowner's association will be responsible for the maintenance of the private
street, including plowing and future repairs. This reduces City costs in providing
services to these homes.
(4) Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space components in the
development which may be made more useable and be more suitably located than
would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures.
The common open space on the site will be available to all residents of the
development as passive open space.
(5) Provides a flexible approach to development which allows modifications to the strict
application of regulations within the various Use Districts that are in harmony with
the purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The density and variety of housing units is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
goals to provide a variety of housing styles.
(6) Encourages a more creative and efficient use of land.
The PUD allows a narrower street right-of-way, which in turn, reduces setbacks and
preserves open space.
(7) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics including flora and fauna,
scenic views, screening and buffering, and access.
The plan provides screening from the adjacent single family homes and the adjacent
County road.
(8) Allows the development to operate in concert with a Redevelopment Plan in certain
areas of the City and to insure the redevelopment goals and objectives within the
Redevelopment District will be achieved.
This criteria is not applicable.
(9) Provides for flexibility in design and construction of the development in cases where
large tracts of land are under single ownership or control and where the users) has
the potential to significantly affect adjacent or nearby properties.
The use of the PUD allows the use of private streets.
(IO)Encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over and above required
dedications, by allowing a portion of the density to be transferred to other parts of
the site.
1:\01 files\O 1 puds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle pc.doc
Page 6
There is no public park dedication proposed within this development. The
developer's narrative states walking paths and a small playground are part of this
proposal, although these elements are not shown on the site plan.
Section 1106.300 states the quality of building and site design proposed by the PUD will
enhance the aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied:
(1) The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified
environment within the boundaries of the project by insuring architectural
compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation,
aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and efficient use and design of
utilities.
The design creates a unified environment in that all of the buildings will be
constructed of similar materials. The extension of the existing private street allows
for efficient movement of traffic. The landscaping plan, meeting the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance, will also enhance this area.
(2) The design of a PUD shall optimize compatibility between the project and
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential
adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse
effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD.
The landscaping on the site will minimize the impact of the use on the adjacent
properties.
(3) If a project for which PUD treatment has been requested involves construction over a
period of time in two or more phases, the applicant shall demonstrate that each phase
is capable of addressing and meeting each of the criteria independent of the other
phases.
The infrastructure, including the roads and the utilities, will be constructed with the
first phase. The remaining phases will consist of construction of the buildings.
(4) Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one building on a lot.
This is not applicable.
(5) A PUD in a Residential Use District shall conform to the requirements of that Use
District unless modified by the following or other provisions of this Ordinance.
a. The tract of land for which a project is proposed shall have not less than 200 feet
offrontage on a public right-ol-way.
b. No building shall be nearer than its building height to any property line when the
property abutting the subject property is in an "R-l" or "R-2" Use District.
1:\01 files\O 1 puds\eaglewood pre pud\eagJe pc.doc
Page 7
c. No building within the project shall be nearer to another building than ~ the sum
of the building heights of the two buildings, except for parking ramps which may
be directly connected to another building.
d. Private roadways within the project site may not be used in calculating required
off-street parking spaces.
The modification requested by the developer include the following:
. The use of private streets
. Reduced front yard setbacks on the private streets.
These modifications are permitted under the PUD provisions at the discretion of the
CounciL
Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat generally meets the standards of the Subdivision
Ordinance. However, there are two major issues relating the preliminary plat. The first
issue is the dedication of additional right-of-way for CSAH 21. The Scott County
Highway Department has requested an additional 15' of right-of-way along the north
boundary of this property for future highway improvements. The attached letter from
Bryce Huemoeller, the attorney for the developer, addresses this request. The City
Attorney has also reviewed this request and the letter from Mr. Huemoeller and has
commented, via the attached e-mail, that any dedication requirements must have a
rational nexus to the project, and must be roughly proportional to the benefit received.
The City Attorney has suggested the County buy the right-of-way at this time, or enter
into a dialog with the interested parties to facilitate an equitable solution.
A second issue is the intersection of the private street (Racine Street) and Duluth Avenue.
This intersection is too close to the intersection of Duluth Avenue and CSAH 21 to allow
for stacking and future CSAH 21 widening, so this access should be eliminated. The
developer can provide a cul-de-sac or a turn-around on the east side of the property. .
Staff Recommendation: There are several outstanding issues, which must be addressed.
The first major issue is the need for additional right-of-way as discussed above. Whether
or not this right-of-way is dedicated affects the design of the development. This issue
should be resolved before the Council approves a preliminary plat. The second major
issue is whether the PUD process is appropriate for this development. The primary
justification for a PUD appears to be the use of the private streets. A cluster development
of this type is permitted with conditions in the R-3 district, so a similar development with
public streets could be done without a PUD. Finally, the third issue is the extension of
Racine Street to Duluth Avenue. This intersection should be eliminated as recommended
by staff. This issue, as well as the remaining issues, are primarily design issues that can
be addressed with the final PUD plan and the final plat.
If the Planning Commission finds that the PUD process is appropriate for this
development, the staff would recommend the following conditions be attached:
1:\01 files\OI puds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle pc.doc
Page 8
1. The access to Colorado Street must be eliminated and Racine Street must be designed
with a cul-de-sac or a turn-around on the east end.
'2. The unit identified as Lot 1, Block 7, must be located at least 30' from the 100-year
flood elevation of the NURP pond, or it must be eliminated.
3. The setback between the townhouse buildings must be at least ~ the sum of the
building heights of the two buildings. The building elevations must be submitted to
scale to identify the height of the buildings, and the site plan must identify the
setbacks.
4. The site plan and the building plans must be revised to show all decks and porches.
5. Th7 tree inventory and preservation plan must be refined to indicate whether the trees
along the north side of the property are located on the property or on the County road
right-of-way. If necessary, the plan must be revised to include any additional tree
replacement required.
6. Revise the landscaping plan to meet the requirements of Section 1107.1900, and
specifically to identify the size of the proposed plantings: The plan must also identify
how the bufferyard requirements are being met. The landscaping plan must also
identify the necessary replacement trees.
7. Provide an irrigation plan.
8. The calculation of usable open space must be revised to eliminate the area for new
storm water ponds.
9. A drainage and utility easement must be provided over all of Outlot B.
10. The plat must identify the drainage and utility easements over the wetlands and storm
water ponds.
11. The items outlined in the memorandum from the City Engineer, dated August 1,
2001, must be addressed prior to the final plat.
12. All necessary permits from other agencies must be obtained prior to any grading on
the site or prior to final plat approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat subject
to the above conditions.
2. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the
issues that have been discussed.
3. Recommend denial of the request.
1:\01 files\O 1 puds\eaglewood pre pud\eagJe pc.doc
Page 9
4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #2, in order to allow time to discuss the
CSAH 21 right-of-way issue. If the Planning Commission feels the item can proceed at
this time, a condition requiring this discussion prior to the City Council meeting should
be included.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second continuing the public hearing to December 10, 2001.
EXHIBITS:
1. Reduced Copy of PUD and Preliminary Plat Plans
2. Developer's Narrative
3. Letter from Scott County Highway Department
4. Letter from Bryce Huemoeller and Response from the City Attorney
5. Engineering Comments
6. Finance Director Comments
7. TIR
1:\01 files\Olpuds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle pc.doc
Page 10
t..,
V)
~
'. r:q
~
!-,~
~a
ll.;a
~~
~k:l
~o-.:j
;.iG
~~
-I
C>
z
mg
~u~~
is.. '~i
F~.
~ C> 11'I "N'N
..Z"'",.,,,,
"'3C'\l~0I~
Z "'Kl~
~~~Wf~
~~
: to!
8iii
~:,j
r. -,N
~~~~~
~~jH
~ ~ hS?~
~ Ii! ~!l~
0: '" .
~ > ~Q.f:
.....----./
o4,!i
n: ~ itll
~=6:iE
.~ E':'Q
~~:i
1-0.-, ~,~ ~
b :~::
i. .: ~F~---- 5 ~E ~
ri---fi! ~,~
, ,I::::=' ~ ~~ H
$ l,{ ~li"~v~
! ,- ~ ~ !.so
r
08 i
~N !
8H l
~N ~ ~ "I
e~ii 1
.~~~ .t
~~~~ ~
....ov'r'
1m
::tOtra::
I
ro 8
<'-,
'""'
N
CL
Lu
V)
I
R
.
J'
.J
m:1
iJ un
II un
~~ m~
i~~ m~~
~ . i, ~ @
I II If'l
f!. I IS, · ~
luuun ~ ~
111111111 ~ ~
ooHQQ@/~ 0 ~ ~
M ~
~
:I \ \
.::1 '~~~~~:~!~F~F::~f-r' ;f-Mif ;:g~s.-..
r-:-:',.. '. .,.. '. '. '. r I ,noM' .... 1"""1' ~n. '<.
/ .-;-......:... ". "'. '. r -" . I" .../' I II ~'~~:~....,
I .
E-,
V:l
~
f:::\
r;.;Q
o~
~~
t-..4
~~
~~
r--
~I
Vii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I If . I
- e I 114 .,
II litt I!' Jioo!! f fg
" eel &1 l~Ute t.
~~ 'U I~ ~uti! a:1
~J \~e'~- ~zt'IU 1-'
III 1'_I.I~ I~\~h .. I'
h 1;'1~1'~ e:t';1 I \1'
U 8~~ t\ ~nrl ~ ~
I~ !.... ~z f,t !_
~'J i~II~11 w\lt~1 I) I~
· C \ u~ ~ -I q II
i~ ~lllf'l ~~,I~~ f' I,
. Ii IH!H~ ;~fhl ~I ig
i' ..tl..t; IJI~I t . _~
z~ i ~ ruh ~\f'~~i II ~~I
\! \~t~I.\ \~i!I~\ .. 1
iI ~ I ,~:~~ l:l1d1 u ';i
la 11(1;1: 1~1~ti~ }l ~~l
~ I!" ,t ! hi" t _'0
~zil ill!ltf 1!!1zotl Ii ill
Q\I~ ;"l"lt '10.' I ~l;lsl
~hl t~~.iIIJ IUtj'" \IIH
~~ii ill~~tJ~ ~ ~~i.11 ~:, 11
L,
c5
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
I
I
iJ~ I
-oJ ~~ I
::s iJ~
<: 0- I
(:3
--
~ I
- ~.:-:: T - - ...J
"3A V~! ~i H..t/17/1ff
tI:'AYo~1~~~ I'i~ i
- St'ltl ': M lO 60.10$ - L
----,
/
/
/
/
/
/
L_
LIJ
;:> '"...
....- -,
::::: ~~
C) -oJ
f-_
cV
Cl
Z
-In
~~
ZI:j;1OS!
(; ~$la7
Z ,_
lIJ~i~~
"~:lP(~~
~=lN~e~
g~~if~
L SO'OSI
I ~
M.~I,60,IOS -- 8~ ~
'~ ~
~il
i~U.6o.lON - Z c:::)
~
G
~.
~
~
",,,,
...",
.1;~
-m
z
/
/
/
L-)
<0
O:~
. I!!
8~
~bI
~~~~~
.. ~i~~!
~~e:~~8
~ f!~e-
a:>~ff~ .
L"
...,
Q~
c)
"C
0:
c)
"
Z
o
F
<
l!i
t~
015 /
I5Zu l:l'"
~o~~~r~ /
~a~~ ,~~
z15F!~~ /
:-~i&l~di!
wffiG:;lOlC--
~::EO ~~l~
/
~
~
L'J
::::
"3A V =1,zS'3A1
I
- - - - - - _ _ -L _ _ _ -,- --;"__
I . ..0......
I ..'ol......~
, ...')..., ~t,~~'-
I --"',~~~~'-
I . ,
~ .
~ ~
D..l!
it e ~~
ft~.:
~~:i
n.c !il
~;~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L__
E~Et
~.~
~ I: ti
ttf;i
~ ~ ts~
~
r
i
~ t
"l ~ J.
~l t
2j: i
}'" /
j~, ~
=~
~~
:.:;-
..
i;
.~ ~
2c
~
S
~
V)
:'t:
..~
~
~~
~C)
~~
i:lk:l
~tS
~:'t:
~~
IJ };llf~: IJ~:}, f' II
," Ih j' I, I\~~r: ,~
\~ '_lit \jilt! a ,I
~j \~~'I'- 3'111' I l!1
!If I'WIX 1'\. \ .. It
'I :i~il!~ @~Pil I \~
!~ !i..iitr I~!f,l i I,
If i,ll"} ~Ilf,i 11 II
t l' U' ~! i ~, ~ u
I~ ~uttti ~~1!, I' a,
It 11I!!1: ;~fJit ~I;~
, l!i'...... -,Id.t .. it!
,~ I~Ur,j ~~m:i JI !l}
\\ \'l!" \' ~ 8, .. 1\
I) ~f:~~~t l:ltlii Ii l:~
la ,Ifl;i} }, 'ri~ \j !l}
~i\ I~II'.' ttf~ " ){ ~f,
~lll ill,~ ,i~11'1 I' ili
G'u 'n-U't,Iti) al,~
~m H~:"J IHlil U 'h
t~U tll~\fl~ ~ I\lm ~ h In
Cl
z
m3
zilll02
t5 ~~7
is ..li
Cli!'i~_
~ 3 ~I'~~
~<~ ;i
w:J;,.., a.~
v)
<0
o.:~
: I!!
8iii
~l!I
~~~~~
.~i:H
15~e:s~~
~ ~15ee.
~>:;U:~'
I
I..IJ
lJ.:-
\)
"(
LI_
C)
/ '> ~IJ
< ,~
,- -,
=::: "~
/ ~~ -..,
/ IJ:
/ -.., C)
::~ '-
iJ-
/ < 0-
--
r"
'....
:::.-
~t;!i
~~iVl
P!:,s
.'i e>--
!~:i
~~~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L__
op;~
:~.: ~
~"E fi ~.d
~l;;8f~
>.ihJ~
~ ~~1)~
~ i ~.3o
i
g
~ t
Cli .
o ~ '1
'bl ;
!~ ~
j~
i~
.~~
20
r--
~ I
Vi I
I
I
I
I
I
I ;;
~
I un;!
I ~ IIUil
~ 1!5!~i
I ~-~.ras
~ .."
~ _N.....t:'
I 1;3 iiiii~
I m~f~
Iii
I ~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~::
~ ~
~ ~
. ~
~
o ~ a
~
~
96' 91: .ot,;Z.OON
"JA IT ~..lS'3.J(
-------_-1_
- - --r- -4 - -
I "'''q......,
: .."> C?::?o~"--
f "'q"....."c.
I \,.'..;..,~
, p .-'-;,
.. ......... .. ......... ...... ............... .......... ...... ...... .....".... .... ...... ..... .. .... ..
~B
I -I ill SS~~U J
o igl;!i~I!11 IIIII;!!IIII
~ 1II1I1I1I1U!UuUUlul
I I ~ I I! I I I I I I I 1 ,I
...~... Illol . ."L';""'-~ I
· 'I'" I I I I I I I I I '
. I
~ 'I
,~D^ \,-/ ~.
Sf-! v ~;~ I
',' 0.1 '
'<
..J
Q.
<5 lU
g: ~
~Cl-'
uOQ:; U
z~21-
~~&: lj
0'"",,- :J:
e:i L;jo Vl
"<l ~
<.:> i3
z
cs
'<
~
i
p
i.:.~
't:I
<l>
:J
II)
.!!
..-; ill
Ip ·
-l
l~ J
t~S J
!If. I
!in:
1"~I I
1m!
! ~ i~ ~
! '- ~--- I :/,/
--~,--,-" ,~-'-r-i
.--J':; ,
... ~! I I ,\ 0
~ l~~S oW\\ \ \ \ ~, .:r
, l" \\ \ \ I 'j ,
I) ~ (\ \, \~\\\ i I <:, ~ J
I '~\ r, \",I\\\iW\l;; <,' dl
1\(\: I',lll c:=J' .
'> '1\"'< IT I
.I " (~\i!::\:\') ~II!
I \:i1:\\L~ ~
'( II'I\\\~ "
~', 0" ,1\1~,\\\r ~~~, ,\'"
__n ~'l'-..."~
~\- L,- I~"II~. < i:1 I i ( ~!
~ ( , i 'ij. ~: :~~ ~ " ~~, ~ ~ i
I / H~~~ Ig h~ ~ , h ~ I~ ~ ~. !~
~ I:~I;;~ d ~!. ~ ~ . E. ~~hh !~
"~~~ u .~, ~~~! ~ · ~ n~~ ~!IU .~
;^~i:~ h~ lci~~ i : ~~~oh ~5 .~~
~h~~t ~n ~.f" .; !i ~e;'~~!Ir, 'ia
5 :~~.i! h~~:Ui g ~ 'h~Uf~!1 li~
". ~h~.s ~~~'~"~~, ~ l; i~O.g~8~~~~ L
~ ~~~~~~;d~~ ~~p · ~ ~~h ..~ ~~:
~ ~~I.,~~.-,.h~~1 ! g 0 >Ii>~.!.l~ ..>
~i ~p,~~"5'~~~O! ~ ~ ~ ~~:.".~ e;~ "e.
I l' ~~~~~!'h.fL ~ ~ "e'.~~i ~~'" I'?:
.~. Jl ~e .i~ !;~i 'i~~! , d E'~l\!'!'~.:'i B!
s !.> ~ >.h~ .p , ""~~'H~ ~ '!
~g ~> ~~~~:~"!;~I,: i gi ~:~~.~.~.~-, ~~i,
i~ ,,~ '~'~~~i.rS,~"';~ ~.a ~i~H.~. F'
.~ ~ih ~~~ ;i~n!~l!~~~i ~ ;~Ig~ ~um ~ ~~!
~~ ~:j~:~;h:~2:-":l~~l!~; ~~ ~\i~@~~~~ ;~~;
., ;~'~~~lh~mh,i~,~! Uh:m~;~ ~m~h'
w! h~~nl!Si h
01 d n! n ~ I h In q
~IIII! 1I11 i III ~! i i i; i
........,I!G[J: ~ I: .11 tq
1'1.... :~ I II T.
~
-
z
.
. ;;
~
~
~~
~~
i~
~i
;!
~~
."
~~
i~
~i
~~
~
:l:l~
~ 0(0(0(
I
I
/
/
I;;
I
/
/
I .
. ,
;
)...
f-
<
~
o
()
~
~~
rIl~
~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
:~~
ffi~:
~~~
".x
!~ I
I. ~. ~ In
15 hm
T ~~! ~r~
. ..1
~ ~ ~I . ~
a" F
:-~~;I '-' w
~~t!.~ w:::.::
Ia~~I~=S
~III ~~
===:J (f) R:
0"-
0:0
C!i>-
z!:::
<'-'
l-
V)
.. I
Ii::
I:!:'<!:
~ 51-\:!
J..;.:" Q.~:3
~ eJ~Q: '"
i!: ~oo u
u) ~8g: ~
, ~ ....,
~ &~~ iJj
<I: <1:<.:>
~I ~ ~~~
L_-1--1-__L_-1__1-__L_;1__1-__L_-1 ::; t:i u
I I I 1 I I I iJi 1 1 I ~
I I I 1 I I I ~I 1 I I Cl.
~-4--+--~-4--+--~-~--+--~-4Z
1 1 1 I I 1 I ~I.~ I 1 I~ ~
I 1 1 I 1 1 1.5 I" I I, . ,I ~ . ~
r-~--T--r-~-- -~r ~~-T--r~~~ ~ ~
I ~ < .~ ~
1 I I 1 31 Iii 1 1 z .~ H _
L - -1_ - 1- - - L - -1_ _.I _..JL - 11- 1- - - L - -1 ~ ~ i:~ I
1 I I 1 I I ~I 1 I 1 10: . ~
1 1 I 1 I 1 I. I I I ~ .~ !~
~ ~ -. c: 02
~-4--+--~--1- (' : --~. 01-+--~-"!!!j~ w ~7
I 1 1 I I ~ I ! 1 i I' 1 I I "~g H
I I 1 1 I ~ I . I ~ I I 1 I ~~
-r-i--T--i-i-r I-~cr- ,--T--i-i ~ ~i
~-~__1-__L_-1_~1-__L_ __1-__L~~
""0
"
]
"ii ~I
h; ~
:h. '
j!il }
f tf' ~I
t!!~ ·
~U~ i
~~
~~
~~
~~
~8
~~
911ln
~. n
"3^ '<:/ lS3M ~
~H
un w~~
~ ; B~n~Pi~
!U i i~~UUh!h~
~UIIU~:BIUhn~
-' I t I d l. II qOOO
T I I [J I,' I I I I Ii. uu
e I .
I
I
I
I,
J'
/ I
r' I
I
- I
I
I
I
--
~~
~~
i~
!;
.'
~~
~~
~!
~~
~e
w
~
z
o
<(
o
0::
..
."
...
>-
I-
Z
:J
o
o
NOI.L/cc
011,(:
JC/s_~;Y/T7
~~
t~ If: ;.-
~" 0'
z w
:s ~
>-0..0-',..,
~ Ck:8~ (,)
z ~~a: I--
. ~ w~o.. t:J
U1 -J (f)Cl.&... :t:
r'. N ~ ~<o V)
t. 0\ go... ~LaJt
+ I-- _
M V"l U
.
c
<>
...
In lil
~ '"
I
I <>
<>
+
'"
I "0
"
~
I II
<>
I <>
+
<Xl
I I ., iii ~
II
.. t i
~ <> I.il .I
<> iiI, }
+
....
llh \
t\~i t
g t h! ~
~ ~ r ~o
..-
"--I ;~i! <>
<>
+
II' Ill' on
I" 0
" Z
.
~
~e ~
..~ o4J
g' li r1
.C i.r!. i
g IU;
.!. c: is' 2
w !7 _
g'~ 1~ ~
== ~~ ~
~ Hi 6
~L I!
Ii I
<>
<>
+
!l!
<>
<>
S
<>
<>
+
..
<>
<>
+
M
<>
<>
+
N
!
<>
<>
+
<>
<>
<>
;!:.
<>
<>
,
In
N
'"
ie~ ! ~ .,; ~
I&J
~ aa. ~
fI)~gs~ ia~1 Q :J: ~ ~
~ ~ I t t ~
. VI
c5 I ~d ~~ F=l
;nj~ ..J ~ ; I J J ~ ~
~ ffio .;.. ,J
::;;!; ~
J 1111 i
E-.
~ "Vi! --JJ1f((jjbR ~
Ii" ~ ~ ~~ ~~-
~o QI ~ '
~ 1>> "SA IT ,luLl
I~ -I u/~/), ~ ~ aa
~ ~ I/-- h t~:; ~cr
~.. ~ 'I ~" 01 /J ~;\
( ~ ~ 1:2{ Fh r-
h 'I J ~ ~ ~ji ~ h.. \: -
~~ ~f4 C'\ ":
~N ~~ V
8~ j ~ 1\ ~ Nj/l J ~.,-/ J\j
~:N ~ t q; ~ ~'" . (ti~ r
!!i~iiZ 'f'.,. IJ#. -}. ~l IyJ Hp" ~
~~h;; I Jjl7)~('j.~ ,h / 'I'~..'t 0, l~~ ~ I J ~~
~::ll<l'lee l ,;" j -}. 0, :::: '-'"' nl
l~!f;; '-P : ; · ~ ~/j~" ",' L, ~,-=
f->:U ;; r:: ~ ~~-l -JJQ] .l1::~
~ rJ/7 r~ #~fji"~~" ., ll~~~
Q: 'Sf /, '-.) ~ .-, i'\ Cl;) ~r--.
~ ~ 'I j.....k I. V<\!j . t
gt5~:~s~ 5f: t r/JV ~'f\'r ~ ) '"
~~~~h.1 a/I. ,II. I ~~, ~ ,,'( 7-'
.. a.~z~~ II '1/ ,f 1 E-,,' \... T ''""'''-
i~~~i~~ /' A 7J~:' /) r J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~un~
::EO..;u~ 1) 1/ 'll ~ ~ \~' l.....!
~~ ~ fi ~ ~ ~ on
~ "~'" ~ ~ >>-' '''''' tS n (n L
f y-'-'( ~ ' \- -I ~ ~
.~"" ~~ f. ~
· .. ~~'-\ --l/IP
--= A 'to _~... \'\.1
-- ~
: 'iTA v ~rt~u I ,
T T ---t'i 1/ I 7 T
T ~r-r ,,/ 1/
IA
""'= ~
~
~
~
~
I' ~
~1.1I1 I
,.Ir'll ,:
~a f
-::I
~l ~ I
~
h;~ I l.~'"
c.-'
("',J
$1 -=::t
!~lil!ll~ , N
i~~;i I: 0-
.J"X: \..LI
~....!r.
ji~m V)
t~~t=
~ i
'"
I ----~I
~ri"
.!; ~:\l "
..- I
. I l!j~
Jl ~::: i-.
~ ~ ~rl
I I ~ !
i ~ ~ JH~
,,~
~Mtl
.. ..
.!;
i
~
I
1
~
;
- -
I Eo< vi '"
... ~ '" ....
-1 ::Ii ~
~ . 0 ~
i ~ljl Q :I: I :.! t
~~ ~ z eN!
0
~ I I ~
I-II ~ ~ ::- J J J
,I 5 Illi
, ' -' .... J
~dm fficJ tlill i
::Ii;!;
~ fill h p/ / / . '\ U I.J
1111111 W pi ~((~ ~~~.
1)1~ ~ 'I ;fAr fn1l1iQq
-, N f ~+fP1f~
~ , .P
~'\ / ~
6
~
-'
Cl
a:
UJ
m
a::
'::UJ .
~O~~-i
~~!2:l~,!.
-< (SZNca
W(l):::I2NN
!ld51:! ..r=-ii
~cki:i~
~z ..
~~~liil~
~
Cl ~
~3 ~.
~~!~; ~I 1-\ \~~
. ~ ~ ~N'N' \7'\\ I
:J NPlfl~ (" \ ~/J
~\' /,
~$l \ \ ~~ fl
~N _ '/
,~...- '\.
8iil ~ / ~ 7
~ll!N ~ / ~/j . "I!
~g~~~ tfJAtlJ '1ItJ :\ f~
~~i'!'~ \ 'I ~ fJ
5 (I) h;~ if/I ~ i I ~ ~ ~ .
i~ni~ ~j t r-;J~ ~ ~
~~ , t::
~ "rry L ~
g ~ ~&/'/
ll:~ ~j r/(I
~~~;~~i 7) ~ 1 It
~6~15~~~G l/; ~ {...--., ~
zoj!;,,~- /, ./ '
~~~~~~1 '/r '0 ')
~~~~h~ / ~ 'IJ
~ ~7!!R1fI
'"
-====
tf"r3.
~~~~
~ tf~ ~
\
-;:~
-,
E..
fI1
~
,1i.Q
:
~
'A;J ~ I
~ ::..-.:= ='--.....;;::
~ fi.....~~
'. 1'-..1 ..:::.;.::.:::::.......'.....,...............................
, ..... I
"
lI;
~-~
). .
\'-1
1~~
2~
"I Q (
I
/
L.... ~
VlJ
I-
~-~
-
fi
~ .. 1...= ,
'I ( v
~ r--::
/(",y~
,_nX'~
:1f)(JV / " \
I ~ / / I.; /
I ;JA;-~
~. ~;rc
SL~
....
1\\ ~'--
h ]d f-
~r6-
l-<:: t I:J'~
~").
x-"<; I
l,C~
~~~\
I r1=?
;~~
~ \\~rJl
Dn.-S
--
L
I J;:::~' \.
I J
~hllll
111111
111111
nQQ~
~l
~
~
Iii
~
..'
-I
~
W
g
-I
;oJ
i
(S
~ I
~ m
~ ~
~ :r
I ~
~ !
- I-
~ gj
~ ~
~ ~
o
i I
::; ~
~ lii
~~ ~
C3
c:::>
C'-I
oo:::t
N
a...
w
U)
:l
~
i I I
It: .- r
.. -
~ g ~
~ 1001 :;
~ ~~~ ~
~ !::!::!l i
m~ ~~i l\
~~ ~~~ I
~ r~ ~~~ ,-
~" -~ -
~ ~E lD
! j ~~ ~ ,
- ~ ~i I w
~ ~.
~ll::>- I ,,; ~~ ~
... f!l~ '" ~
f;1B~ ~ ~
~ Ie. i~nl CI :r J t f ~
~r.l~ ~ z :IIP' u~ i
"'~IQ 0 I ~
d fint ~ J J
..J ~ ~. tJ
I :ij~ ~ ..J f'-I .c- j Il, i
ffio J IJI
::l~ - II
~
~ a 8 5- ~ i I!'d. I d I 51 I ~ t d
1:1 i." ~:! II !I';hft II i. ;t~i;dll f I dil'i!
!;~, ! Ii' ill' ~W~!~i: ~ !~ IS,b;51! ,. J .~ill"
i Iii! Iii 11!1 I!. fiij!~ I ! Ii I~i~l~ i jl i Ijl!ill
! 111116 il!1 fill!llI.~ 111111 ~di!ll ~ II hl~l
- .... ~ .. 011 ....". .. II II .
't
....
~
. w
o
~
~
~
r:
!!!
~a
c..;
c::,
C,.I
""'-t
N
0-
W
(/)
....~
I;
~~
~~a
"~
('",
C5
<=->
c~
"'"
N
0-
UJ
V)
i
--, j
z
o
~
~
Cf)
Wz
2:0
o ~ (f)
I <{ W
Z > L
Wo
::3: cd I
o CJ z
I- z 0
I-f(f)
0-'
0-,0
I-f
o :::> Z
o m >-
-;7 -' -.J
~ <{ 0::
W uW
~ (L L
0>-
<.(f-
W
f '
J
Z
I ~::s
~
.-l
~
,
,~ I! I
c
t- . .~
l' ~ I ! i ,/ ~ D ~
~ ,Cl
L T i.
1=l~~.-L.J~
...-.1
~
II:
o
OJ
.. l
e
~
r-
~
I ~
~
r:
c .
~
~
rI)
~
~\
~
~ j
J
~
Z
D
~
~
II:
Cl
l:
I:
~.,
l
~ S
!-p'
~
II:
Cl
l:~
l
e
~
ct-'
l:
Cl
z
Z
D
I \
------- ....:1
~
o
;:,
X
~
'"
H-l .
~ .-j
'0
,0
,0:
I an
',W .
'lIJ
;' ("')
.
; o.
~l
o c
,0 .
0:
a
W
lIJ
..,n.
.
~
;;
U
I-
Z C
> =!\d1~1
> ~ 8 --i
>~"ol' .. L-+ .
~ -f I
. -~-l--l-. ·
-t
c
OJ
"
~
;;
~
o
o
15- ·
W
lIJ
M
~
~
~ i
. ! ~ 1
-----+~l
G
11"' ·
" M
.
i 4:.
~j--,
j .
,
~
'"
"
~
i
I
u
____n.... .m..n J
~~~~1--
t-
r,f1I:=========U~~~J-=====: fl
~ -: : d ~i ~I "I --; - - --
, I ,L_ ~'===,] I
~H i====:=m=i -~===:
. , , :~ , I
~I I ~ = :Qo I ~ I
II "'I ::~ ~ E I
I I ~ Q. :'IL::::::J I ::\!} Ii; I
ell oL..~,: - -- 9 :: 0 I
f-l-'= = === =:;--;: - ==- ==~'-:-12-~~= ==
, I I I - (:, :: I
L--.. I':: _..-.rl: I
\ ' I ,/ :: 2: l"-"L': <!:) I
I I h'IL::S.Q. 0:: _ 01
c I I U _ ,..-Jr --lL, ':_
I I 1 .. - ! \ -- I
----~~ =-=- --.-.\ ~-
I r---- --- ----r
C I I I
j i : :
Iii
t I 1 ..-
I I I
1 L__________________~
I -1
, I
I I
I I
, I
I .. ,
..
~
I '" I
..
I 1
, 1
1 ,
1____- - -1
I
I
,
I
,
,
I
I
I
,
,
"-- !---
,- -_~-=-~_J .
r----------- --- - - ---,f------------I '
: >' ,-"---] .
I Ii - -;- - - - - -1---
~=~-=~ 000 =--- ~ j
"-;i==" ~ , a
1 ~= 1I:: 01 I
I !!if :: CD' I
1:1_ :: I ,
In: I ,
L_____~I ,
I '
c I ' ~
H : i ~
ell I a i=
, : .-------- L=r=== ill
l' H 1I U (1--------0:..
, I I I __ I , I .
I L________-' 1[__:::11 L______, U
_c----~-----c~ --~,=_=J'
I
,--- --,
I I
1 ,
I ,
I j ,
I .. = I
I U I
'" c
1 ..2 I
I I
, ,
,-- I
i
c
I
,
-
.
~
OJ
~
'"
---1
I.!'l
()
J
OFFICE (952) 226-6022
6715 Featherstone Drive, Savage, MN 55378
June 28, 2001
City of Prior Lake
Planning Commission
16200 Eagle Creek Ave., SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We respectfully submit, attached with this letter, our Preliminary PUD Application for a proposed
town home development.
Since 1984, Merlyn Olson has been building custom single family, twin homes, and townhomes.
While the majority of our work is local, we are also currently building twin homes and recently
completed low income, 6-plex townhomes in Blooming Prairie, Minnesota. We are a small
company, which prides itself on quality and meeting the needs of the homebuyer.
The property we propose to develop (5.003 acres, including wetland area) is currently zoned R3
therefore, no rezoning is necessary. It is located on the South side of County Road 21 between
Duluth Ave. SE on the East and West St. SE on the West (Section 3). : Due to the size of the
plat, we have requested an exception to the 10-acre requirement (Sectidn 4).
We believe this property is ideally suited for moderately priced town homes appealing to young
families and empty nesters. It's close proximity to downtown Prior Lake and the lake itself
provides recreation, library, restaurants, and a variety of other shops - all within walking
distance.
Our preliminary plan includes:
1. Eight 4-plex buildings, and one 3-plex building of between one and four bedrooms
each (35 units total).
a. Units can be either 2-story or one level, rambler style.
b. Many units will have walkout lower levels.
c. Each unit will have it's own 2-car garage.
d. Front elevations and interior floor plans are attached as Section 6.
e. Units will be marketed at between $165,000 and $195,000.
2. Buildings will be located along a gently curved, private road.
3. The plan includes guest parking for 8 vehicles (noted on the Survey),. and a
playground located near the guest parking area.
4. The neighborhood closest to the development is to the South, along the North side of
Colorado Ave. SE. The plan includes a natural buffer between this property and
these neighbors (see Landscape Plan, Section 10).
5. The property will be developed in four phases. Construction will begin on the East
side and proceed Westward as units are sold. The first phase includes construction of
the private road, infrastructure, and buildings 1 and 2. The first building will be used
for model homes. We estimate Phase I to be complete in 8 to 9 months after the
permit is issued. Subsequent phases will be developed under separate PUD's as units
are sold and, depending upon market conditions, should be complete within 24 to 36
months.
6. Construction will begin as soon as the PUD is approved and building permits have
been issued. We anticipate construction will begin in September 2001.
7. A Townhome Association will maintain common areas (Section 13).
8. Proposed Covenants are included with this application (Section 12).
9. The roadway inside the development will be private and maintained by the
Townhome Association. It will exit onto Duluth Street and West Avenue.
10. Mailboxes will be grouped in sets of 8 and located along the North side of the road
between buildings.
11. Most of the drainage and storm water will be directed to the storm water pond area.
12. Sewer and water will tie in with existing lines on Racine Street SE, and/or Colorado.
13. Grading will conform to most adjacent topographies to minimize the need for
retaining walls.
14. An inventory of significant trees on the site is included with the application. We plan
to remove 30% of the caliper inches of significant trees for the street "and
infrastructure, and 27% of the caliper inches of significant trees for the construction
of town homes (see Section 11).
15. A list of neighbors within 600 feet of this proposed development is included as
Section 14. We will hold a public meeting with the neighbors to discuss the project.
We welcome open discussion with our project neighbors and hope to gain their
support through positive dialogue.
The following information is referenced throughout the attached Land Use Application Form.
We invite your questions and suggestions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
1Y+-7/~
Merlyn Olson, President
Merlyn Olson Homes, Inc.
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com 2
City of Prior Lake
Land Use Application
Subdivision Name (proposed) "Eaqlewood East"
Developer Merlyn Olson Development Company, Inc.
6715 Featherstone Drive
Savage, MN 55372
Current Land Owners Lee Klingberg, 952/447-2557
17833 Panama, Prior Lake
Gary Staber, 952/461-2356
25275 Verqus Ave., New Prague
Surveyor Valley Survey
SEmON 5 16670 Franklin Trail, Suite 230, Prior Lake
Building Designer Merlyn Olson Homes, Inc.
SEmON 6 6715 Featherstone Drive, Savaqe, MN 55378
Site Engineer Halling Engineering, Webster
SEmON 7
.
Soil Testing Instant Testing Company, Eagan
SEmON 8
Wetland Delineation Report Aquatic EcoSolutions, Golden Valley
SEmON 9
Landscape Designer Gerten's Greenhouses, Inver Grove Heights
SEmON 10
General Contractor Merlvn Olson Townhomes, LLC
Construction Financinq Prior Lake State Bank
Existinq Zoninq Classification R3
.
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com 3
Total Acreaqe 5.003 acres
10-Acre Exception Request Due to the size of this plat, we've included
with this application a request for an exception
SECTION 4 to the 10-acre requirement.
Wetland Area 0.2924 acres
Watershed District Permit Application filed June 20.2001
Number of proposed townhomes 35
Number of proposed buildings 9
Number of parking spaces 4 per unit
2 inside each garage, 2 in each driveway
Number of proposed guest oarkinq spaces 8
Proposed Private Road Name Racine Street SE
Usable Opell Space 89,647 square feet
(600 Sq. ft. per unit required) (excludinq pond and wetland areas)
Unit Price Ranqe $165,000 to $195,000
Finished Sauare feet per unit 925 to 1770 square feet
;
Proposed Protective Covenants Developed by Huemoeller & Bates,
SECTION 12 Attorneys at Law, Prior Lake
Utility Location Underground within a 10-foot easement along
the private road.
Erosion Control - Site Development . See SHEET C1, ENGINEERING REPORT
. Site improvements will begin at the time
the Preliminary PUD is approved - ideally
about August 1st.
. Erosion will be controlled with the use of
silt fencing along all areas disturbed.
. Integrity of the silt fence to be inspected
and repaired, if necessary, by Merlyn Olson
SECTION 7 Townhomes personnel dailv.
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com 4
Erosion Control - Building Construction . See SHEET C1, ENGINEERING REPORT
. Foundations for the first two buildings will
be started as soon as permits are issued -
ideally September 1st.
. Areas disturbed by construction will be
fenced off using silt fence.
. Additional foundations will be started as
the first two buildings are completed and
sold - one at a time. We expect
construction to proceed at a rate of one
SEmON 7 building approximately every 10 weeks.
Temporary Soil Storage . Soil and dirt stockpiles resulting from
excavation will be stored on site to be used
for back-filling and final grading.
. Erosion control measures will be used as
described below.
Tree Preservation Plan By Merlyn Olson Homes, Inc.
SEmON 11
Tree Replacement . The Landscape Plan calls for the addition of
24 trees to replace those removed for
construction. i
. Tree species and location are identified on
the Landscape Plan.
. The size of replacement trees will be as
SEmON 10 required.
!
Townhome Association . Structure and registration by Huemoeller &
Bates, Attorneys at Law, Prior Lake
. The Association will be in place before
SEmON 13 occupancy beqins.
Neighbors within 600 feet List compiled by Scott County Abstract & Title
SEmON 14 Shakopee
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com 5
...._... .._.~._...._......d~....._...""...._.., ......._,._.._~-'. ... '__
ERLYN
OLSO
H 0 M E
Ucense #3162
6715 Featherstone Dr ve,
SEP 2 4 2001
.--' ' -._..~ .....---- ----,.-... --." :
OFFICE (9 5 2 )-22 6-6 0 2 2
Savage, MN 55378
September 24, 2001
City of Prior Lake
Planning Commission
16200 Eagle Creek Ave., SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: Additional Comments: Prooosed Townhome Proiect - Eaalewood East
Dear Planning Commission Members:
To the best of our knowledge, three issues remain with respect to the proposed town home project referenced
above. Please consider these additional comments as part of our total application.
1. Proximity of exit onto Duluth to County Road 21.
We believe the best use of the private road inside the project is to have an exit at both ends. If proximity to
County Road 21 is a concern, we could limit traffic to a right turn only in, right turn only out at that
intersection.
Alternately, if the Oty and County reject any exit onto Duluth from the private road, we offer as an option to
dead-end the private road at Duluth providing a "T" turnaround South of the building on the East end of the
project. '
2. Width of orivate road and watershed district comments.
Recent comments suggest that the private road be reduced in width to 30 feet. This would reduce storm
water runoff and would prohibit on-street parking, thus improving safety by eliminating obstructions caused by
street parking for those backing out of townhome parking spaces.
We ask that this change be considered as part of our application.
3. Increased right-of-way for future exoansion of County Road 21.
We acknowledge the Oty's suggestion that we provide for an increased right-of-way along County Road 21 and
will be discussing this request with our attorney.
We will respond to this request by week's end.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
r11~O~6b
Merlyn J. Olson, President
Merlyn Olson Development Company
"
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com
.J
ERLYN
OlSO
H 0 M E
Ucense #3162
6715 Featherstone Dr ve,
"~..," -~..-::--.__._-
11; ..!;
1:1:--
Ii SCP 18,2001
H
:;.j ~.
. L_. _.. __.
OFFICE (952) 226-6022
Savage, MN 55378
September 19, 2001
Oty of Prior lake
Planning Commission
16200 Eagle Creek Ave., SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: Prooosed Townhome Proiect - Eaalewood East
Dear Planning Commission Member:
This letter, and the accompanying materials, addresses the omissions (identified by Jane Kansier in her letter of
July 10) to our Application for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans for Eaglewoocl East
STATEMENT SHOWING HOW THE PUD WILL MEET THE STATED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PUD
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
(SEmONS 1106.100 AND 1106.300).
Watershed Requirements:
As designed, this development meets the NEW Watershed District requirements for collection and retention
of run off.
Effident Use of Streets and Utilities:
This proposed townhome project utilizes existing services effidently with minimal infrastructure
construction and neighborhood disruption. The private street inside the development joins and uses the
existing section of Radne Street; utilities will tie into stubs located on Racine and Colorado; storm water
will be diverted to an existing collection pond.
Creative and Efficient Use of Land:
The project is a creative use of 3 separate parcels of land now owned by unrelated individuals. Combining
these parcels and developing a town home community is a positive and beneficial project for the people of
Prior lake.
This project enhances an existing neighborhood by providing attractive townhomes for first-time
homeowners and empty nesters.
Preservation of Desirable Site Characteristics:
The attractive nature of the buildings, the clean look of the development and the integration of natural
beauty already on the site compliment the park across the street and provide a pleasing "welcome" to
those traveling east into town on County Road 21.
The design and landscaping of this project create moderately priced residences and an aesthetically
pleasing place for people to live dose to the Oty.
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com
,.
Construction Phases:
Since the project involves multiple phases (as shown on the MAP), we have decided it will be more cost
effective and less disruptive to construct infrastructure elements in their entirety before construction of
buildings commences. Each phase involves the complete construction of buildings within that phase, one
building at a time. As units are sold, additional buildings within that phase will be started and completed
before subsequent phases are begun.
Unified Environment:
All structures will be constructed using the same materials building to building. Design of individual
buildings is somewhat dependent on whether the buyer contracts for a rambler style or 2-story style
townhome. The architectural drawings clearly show the elevations of each type of structure.
The townhome community concept includes all elements in a single block. The private road (Radne
Street) will extend from its current location eastward to Duluth Avenue. Buildings will be located on either
side of Radne. Parking, walking paths and a small playground are all part of the Proposal.
Neiahborhood Impact:
Since this project is on a relatively isolated piece of property, impact on the surrounding neighborhoods will
be minimal. Construction activities will be confined to the job site. Buffering (see Landscape Plan) will
provide a natural barrier between the new development and the existing neighborhood to the South.
Residential Use District Requirements:
We believe this project meets all the requirements of the Residential Use District for R-3 development.
Access for Existing Homes alone Radne Street:
Access to Racine Street for the existing homes will be provided via easement.
i
We are hopeful that this additional information completes our application and that your review can proceed
without delay.
Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
~
Merlyn J. Ison, President
Merlyn Olson Development Company
(
'-'
.....i ""-. ._.
,
i
.__ ,~_~_u
-..--.._-1
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com
Land Surveyors
Planners
Valley Surveying Co., P. A.
(612) 447-2570
Suite 230
16670 Franklin Trail S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
October 17, 2001
Area calculations prepared for:
EAGLEWOODEAST
City of Prior Lake
Scott County, Minnesota
PLAT AREA DENSITY:
Gross plat area
Proposed units = 32
Total wet land area
Net plat area
5.003 acres = 217,937 sq. ft
Gross Density = 32/5.003 ac =
0.4669 acres = 20.338 sq. ft
4.5361 acres = 197,592 sq. ft
Net Density = 32/4.5361 ac =
6.3962 D\U ac.
7.0545 D\U ac
FIRST FLOOR AREA RATIO:
Total First floor area = 39,316 sq. ft. = 0.9026 ac./5.003ac. = 0.1804 percent
Net First floor ratio = 0.9026 ac./4.5361ac. = 0.1990 percent
IMPERVIOUS COVE~iRATIO:
Area impervious cover = Roadway, Driveways, Parking Lots and Buildings.
Impervious area = 81,447 sq. ft. = 1.8698ac./5.003ac. = 0.3737 percent
Area calculations prepared by:
Ronald A. Swanson, Land Surveyor
Minnesota License Number 10183
Our file no. 9286
0-
-
o
~
~\
r
~
t
;: 'r;!:....:;:.:::
~ ':i i :;H;i:; ~~l';.
I '! ',:!l' I 'I ~ : ~: I; t \
~. ~>,tdlni:f:I;;~
. ' '~!,.!: ~:~.. j;' :'~ i
.'1.,':' 1!II'lld',
. '. :' I~:: '1 f!: ~ .: i~;
:<l::i :!i:/~!l
I ~~ I~ :.; \ / 1. ::
, "l~ .11,.. I.,',l
. .... ..!'
.... .,or fill",\!
~; ~::: ;;~;r;
,
:~J:~!I~~:i~I.:~'f. ::
'j" I "./I'J'Jl"
J' <',1 j'!r!j/l.r ,/.
"f. ,~. - .' , .
!: I ~ II:' ii' ll~'~J I
.' (. '1:,"11\,J .jl
I: ! 'Ii I' 1!1"111
; I 1\: Ill. !./ ·
~ . ~ "l""~ r~ ,i~
.. ,-, "I,ll '"
, , ! 1,Ia J' .~ ,;'(
: :i ,j~~~! H ';1'
;', 'l,,!"l i.~ "1
( , .. :t~' 111 ,~ 1 i.
, , I, ,'/ ~ 'I " '.'
i. dl,i 'I: l'ilt~
. : ; .. ,f ' . ~ ~
I .. ,.J ! - ~
. ~ ~H ~; ;:!!~
, !>. .: \~i!
~:~ . ..
Q~ :.~
0" ~i L.__ 7C) Va)
..__/) r~ ----,'
,j' [..:..);" !, ,;r
,.':.~:,; 4 .' '__'_ t;"._
T~' U..al
. :.: ~~~.
..;"
.;:-.
~-'.'
5 :'\6 So 1'1
.. ..,~ ."..
c
.l
~ Ii
~
C"-
O
r
;1 i
I! i
I
.
;
,~
,~
l
~ "U-
. i"!
: jJli
I "tJ~
Ii .1
. ~!,
: 'Hi
, 1'1
I i!l
,II
I:,
~
~
:~
:~
i
~
\J
c
1-
;~
.
Co
"""': -"
-:-
~
-0
Q
~
--
\
"'"
1'- .
..~
~l
, ,
.,'
"
I
rf
, '-/
f.)
'. .............-
~
, .
.;----
.\
\ --,.
()
~; ,~
~,;- :~
;~i~
Sl; -;
d~3
;i:j 8. ( !;::::rnll
~ p P 11"-i
'j I ~,-- '.;=. 1\,'
'\ fl I '-.. I'
;>: ~!!!il:' '. \ !
~~ . ~ no' II; ~
_ : l~' : . f ~ -
~ ' -" - ~
..._._.....! II'
it-"""', ----~
..,~~,K- I
- ~I ~
. .:~ .:~_'. .::....:.. ~ ~" U :
" ~.)I~; ;.r .
~. ':~ ,: ~
;l'1 11
l. - .....,.
1.--->~'.~< ".
;~~ "" :<~ .
'"10 iN :;i~,~:'
..; 'i~-: '"," \
/"./~:I:: ~
/./,1 -~
/0 0 ": ~-=--,--- .. 01
I
I
i
!
,
~
\)
VI
~
:'x'
'I;
I I . . I . I. . I .. \ .
..... 'I I .I.....~
lll~lll\jll;;!!!!I!I!!!! i
iii'll l\\!ll!:\il
_ \ \ ;. i' I
:.'
p~~g~~fK~R~~~Jm ..: ~.:~:~~r~
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT II; ", AUG - 6 200/ .
600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST ! U U,-_
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 t
(952) 496-8346 '_._
Fax: (952) 496-8365
BRADLEY J. LARSON
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR!
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
July 26, 2001
Jane Kansier
City Planner
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Subject:
Eaglewood Preliminary Plat and Preliminary POO
SE Corner ofCSAH 21 and Duluth Avenue
Dear Jane:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the Eaglewood development and offer the following
comments:
. The plat does not reflect two recorded highway easements for CSAH 21 on the existing western two
lots that are a part of this plat. The easements should be shown on the plat, per document number,
before it is recorded.
. The right-of-way along CSAH 21 should be increased to accommodate future improvements to
CSAH 21, such as turn lanes and median. Please keep in mind that any road expansion would affect
the south side of CSAH 21 more than the north side because of topography and curve of the road.
Therefore, we are requesting a minimum 60 feet of right of way from centerline be dedicated along
CSAH 21. We would also accept the additional 10 feet in the form o~ a County highway easement to
be recorded with the County.
This request for additional right-of-way conforms to the County's 2020 Transportation plan. In the
plan traffic forecasts show CSAH 21 betw~en CSAH 82 and TH 13 will be congested under the
current design within 20 years. To alleviate the congestion, the plan recommends that CSAH 21 be
improved to a four-lane divided road. The 60 feet of right-of-way from centerline is the absolute
minimum to accommodate a four-lane divided road with turn lanes. It may not accommodate
sidewalks, utilities, or trails successfully
If additional right-of-way is not planned for now and obtained with this development, the County will
be approaching property owners in the future about acquiring parts of their backyards not long after
this development has been established. Anyone purchasing these homes should be made fully aware
of what will happen in the future with CSAH 21 and all the related effects it could have on their
homes.
. The proposed road for the development will exit onto Duluth A venue approximately 100 feet south of
the intersection with CSAH 21. Duluth Avenue is classified as a collector road, and we expect
conflicts with stacking on Duluth Avenue as traffic volumes increase. There would also be conflicts
if the intersection of Duluth Avenue and CSAH 21 were to be signalized in the future. To reduce the
potential conflicts with the intersection of CSAH 21 and Duluth Avenue, we would recorinnend that
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
Eaglewood
Page 2
the proposed road at Duluth Avenue be designed as a right-inlright-out only at this time, or as a future
right-inlright-out when intersection improvements are made. This would require a center median
along Duluth Avenue. Another recommendation would be using the property that extends to
Colorado Street for a one way road designed as an exit only. The access on Duluth Avenue then
could be designed as an entrance only.
+ No berming, landscaping, signage, or ponding shall be permitted in the County right-of-way.
+ Any work in the County right-of-way shall require a County utility permit.
+ Any increase in drainage entering the County right-of-way shall require a detailed stormwater
analysis to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval.
Would it be possible for us to be involved during the concept plan process for developments adjacent to
County roads? We believe early involvement is key to good communication and timely resolution of
issues related to developments such as this. The more open communication will not only promote a
smoother development review process it will build a stronger partnership between the City of Prior Lake
and Scott County.
Sincerely,
4!:P
Transportation Planner
Email: Sue McDermot, Prior Lake Engineer
-
ERLYN
OLSO
H 0 M E
Ucense #3162
6715 Featherstone Dr ve,
OFFICE (952) 226-6022
Savage, MN 55378
October 16, 2001
City of Prior Lake
Planning Commission
16200 Eagle Creek Ave., SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: Prooosed Townhome Proiect - Eaalewood East
EXPLANATION OF ACCESS TO PARCELS ADJACENT TO SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PROJECT
Racine Avenue is a 16.5-foot private road that runs along the south line of the project for a distance of 250 feet
from West Avenue. The easement that established Radne Avenue as a private road is contained in a quit daim
deed that was filed for record in 1977 as document 16362.
Racine provides access to two properties - a single family house owned by Ronald Anderson at 16215 West
Avenue, and a duplex owned by Gerald Senechal at 4351 and 4353 West Avenue. Although the Anderson house
lies adjacent to the easement, it also has a driveway access onto West Avenue and does not appear to' regularly
use the private easement.
The 16.5-foot strip that is subject to the private road easement will be part of the common elements of the project
and will be owned in fee by the Eaglewood Homeowners Association. The transfer of the common elements to the
association will be subject to the existing easement rights in deed 16362.
The preliminary plat shows that the private street running through the project from West Avenue to Duluth Avenue
crosses over the private road easement. This street will be paved and appropriate curb cuts will be provided for
, access to the house and duplex. There will be no interference or restriction on the right of the house and duplex
to use the easement for access purposes. In fact, the easement to the house and duplex will be enhanced since
the street will be paved with proper storm drainage, and the association will be responsible for repair and
maintenance.
In summary, the design of the project is consistent with and preserves the private easement, known as Racine
Avenue, that provides access to the house and duplex.
Respectfully submitted,
~~o~
Merlyn J. Olson, President
Merlyn Olson Development Company
.
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
Telephone: 952.447.2131
Facsimile: 952.447.5628
E-mail: huemoellerbates{@.aol.com
OCT I 2 200/
__ uO..__ __._._.._~_
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
JAMES D. BATES
ALLISON J. GONTAREK
OF COUNSEL:
CHARLESC.HALBERG
October 12, 2001
Ms. Jane Kansier
Prior Lake Planning Coordinator
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Eaglewood East
Dear Ms. Kansier:
I am writing at the request of Merlyn Olson Development Corporation ("MODC")
concerning two issues that have arisen in connection with the pending application for
preliminary plat and PUD approval that is scheduled to be considered by the Prior Lake
Planning Commission on November 13, 2001.
BACKGROUND
Eaglewood is a planned community containing 32 townhomes on a site consisting
of 5.003 acres. The project is being reviewed as a planned unit development under the
Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance.
The site abuts the south right-of-way line ofCSAH 21 between West and Duluth
Avenues. The site is a consolidation of 4 separately owned parcels of record. The
underlying zoning of the parcels is R-3, Medium Density Residential.
ISSUES
The issues that I would like to address in this letter are as follows:
1. The extent to which MODC can be required to dedicate 15 or more feet of
additional right of way for CSAH 21 to accommodate anticipated increases in traffic
volume that are unrelated to the impact of the proposed development.
..
Ms. Jane Kansier
Page 2
October 12, 2001
2. Alternatives for dealing with the access of the development onto Duluth
A venue.
DEDICATION OF ADDITIONAL CSAH 21 RlGHT OF WAY
It is our understanding that the Scott County Highway Department has
commented on the proposed development pursuant to Minn.Stat. S505.03, Subd. 2(b), as
follows:
"The Scott County Transportation Plan forecasts this segment of CSAH 21 to be
congested by 2020 and recommends a capacity improvement from 4 lane
undivided to 4 lane divided. Additional right of way should be dedicated for a
total of 65 feet from the center of CSAH 21."
Implementation of the recommendation of the Scott County Highway Department
will have the following impact on the project and the 2 easterly parcels within the
project:
1. The setbacks from the modified right of way will substantially reduce or
eliminate the building pads for up to 2 buildings.
2. The loss of the right of way will materially reduce the density of the entire
project.
3. The expanded right of way will cause a loss of infiltration areas needed to
implement the stormwater management plan for the project.
In general, the expansion of the right of way 15 or more feet into the property is
financially devastating for the project as a whole, and for at least 2 of the separate parcels
that comprise the project. Accordingly, we request that the City consider the following
in response to the recommendations of the Scott County Highway Department:
1. The comments of the Scott County Highway Department are made pursuant to
Minn.Stat. S505.03, Subd. 2(b), which provides as follows:
"The county engineer's review shall be limited to factors of county significance in
conformance with adopted county guidelines developed through a public hearing
or a comprehensive planning process with comment by the cities and towns. The
guidelines must provide for development and redevelopment scenarios, allow for
variances, and reflect consideration of city or town adopted guidelines."
Ms. Jane Kansier
Page 3
October 12,2001
We would ask the City to consider the following with respect to the County's
comments:
A. While the traffic issues on CSAH 21 are generally referred to in the Scott
County Transportation Plan, there is not a specific timetable set out in either the plan or
any other document, such as the 5 year capital improvement plan, for actually expanding
CSAH 21. Accordingly, it does not appear that there is in fact an "adopted county
guideline developed through a public hearing or a comprehensive planning process" that
is being implemented in this instance. Furthermore, if the Scott County Transportation
Plan were to be construed as such a "guideline", it does not provide for "development
and redevelopment scenarios" or "allow for variances" so as to prevent one parcel, such
as this project, from bearing an inequitable portion of the cost of dealing with the
increased traffic.
B. It is also not mandated or required that the City conform to the
recommendations of the Scott County Highway Department. In Minn.Stat. 9505.3,
Subd. 2( c), it simply requires that City and County representatives "meet to discuss the
differences and determine whether changes to the plat are appropriate prior to [mal
approval." Under the circumstances, it would appear that the City should reject the
recommendation of the Scott County Highway Department with respect to the expanded
right of way, and provide the reasoning at the meeting called for by the statute.
2. The recommendation of the Scott County Highway Department raises a
significant constitutional concern. Both the federal and state constitutions require that
plat dedications pass a two part test. First, ihere must be a connection between the
dedication and the project. Second, the dedication must bear a "rough proportionality"
or "reasonable relationship" to the proposed development's impact.
In this case, the dedication is neither connected to the project, nor is it
proportional to the impact of the project on the public road system. The only connection
between the project and CSAH 21 is fortuitous timing, in that the project is being
constructed before Scott County began condemnation to expand the CSAH 21 right of
way. The dedication is "disproportionate" because the apparent need for the additional
right of way has already been established without regard to any impact at all from this
project.
If Scott County wants additional right of way from this land, it should buy it, and
the cost of the additional right of way should reflect the impact on the parcels from
which the right of way is being taken. However, to demand the additional right of way
now irrespective of the actual impact of the project on the projected traffic for CSAH 21
is unlawful.
-
Ms. Jane Kansier
Page 4
October 12,2001
3. The recommendation does not consider other options, such as the following:
A. Table 4.1 of the Scott County Transportation Plan states that the width of a 4
lane divided highway with a "minimum urban section" is 120 feet (not 130 feet as stated
in its comments). This would reduce the taking to 10 feet rather than 15 feet.
B. The recommendation does not consider other scenarios such as taking more
right of way from the north side of CSAH 21 where the impact on the land will be less.
(C) The recommendation does not consider using the PUD process or variances to
mitigate the negative impact of the dedication on the project and underlying parcels.
Reduced setbacks, increased density, permitting the use of dedicated right of way for
screening and stormwater infiltration areas, and similar ideas, should be included in the
recommendation to comply with Minn.Stat. 9505.03, Subd. 2(c).
Based on the foregoing, MODC requests that the City disregard the
recommendation.ofthe Scott County Transportation Department and not require the
dedication of any additional right of way for the expansion of CSAH 21.
ACCESS TO DULUTH AVENUE
In response to the concern expressed with respect to the access from the project
onto Duluth Avenue, MODC intends to retain a consulting traffic engineer to evaluate
the recommendation and to suggest alternatives that could include the following:
1. A "right in, "right out" access onto Duluth Avenue.
2. An entrance into the project from Duluth A venue with the easterly exit from
the project being via the strip running south to Colorado Street.
SUMMARY
In summary, MODC requests that the City Planning Staff recommend to the
Planning Commission and City Council as follows:
1. The recommendation of the Scott County Highway Department with respect to
the expanded right of way for CSAH 21 is excessive and will constitute an
unconstitutional taking ofland that should not and need not, pursuant to Minn.Stat.
9505.03, Subd. 2(c), be followed.
..
. ,
Ms. Jane Kansier
Page 5
October 12, 2001
2. The project can be approved with minor alterations to the easterly access that
will avoid the traffic concerns raised in the report of the Prior Lake City Engineer.
Sincerely yours,
BDH:jd
cc: Merlyn Olson Development Corporation
Jane Kansier
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jane Kansier
Wednesday, November 07,2001 8:37 AM
Bud Osmundson; Don Rye; Sue McDermott
FW: Eaglewood East
For your information on the Eaglewood East development. Please let me know if you have
any comments. I am writing my agenda report today. Thanks, Jane
-----Original Message-----
From: Suesan Pace [mailto:space@halleland.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 5:41 PM
To: smcnellis@co.scott.mn.us
Cc: DRye@cityofpriorlake.com; FBoyles@cityofpriorlake.com;
JKansier@cityofprior1ake.com
Subject: RE: Cell tower jt. pwrs.
You're welcome. Sue, I have another matter that hopefully you can help me with. The City
has received an application for a plat and CUP. The City sent a copy of the plat
application to the Scott County Engineer for review and comment. The comments the City
received back indicated that the County would like the City to require the developer to
dedicate an additional 15' easement for future roadway improvements. I do not have any
information about whether the improvements are in your CIP or if there has been any
preliminary design or engineering work done that justifies the need for the additional 15
feet.
In light of the County's comments to the subdivision application, the developers retained
Bryce Huemoeller, as counsel to assist them in this matter.
I'd like to suggest that we arrange a meeting between the developer and the Scott County
and Prior Lake staff to discuss what the actual amount of land needed for the future
project will be. I will send you a copy of Mr. Huemoeller's letter to City Planning
Coordinator Jane Kansier.
~It is my opinion that if the County is going to need property for a project sometime in
~ the future, it is better to get the land now, before it is developed. But any dedication
requirements requested by the City must have a rational nexus to the project and the
amount of the request must be roughly proportional to the benefit received. If the City
requests the developer to dedicate an additional 15 foot easement, the City exposes itself
to a takings claim. Obviously, we need to avoid the possibility of that occurring.
Hopefully an active dialogue among the interested parties will facilitate some equitable
resolution. One possibility is the County acquire the ROW. As you will see when I
transmit Bryce's letter, he comes up with several creative
1
~
. .1\
.'--- .",......,... ''';-, - .". .-.:---".
'd" .
,..."......-..:... '. ,--.,. -, ...,- .,........--..-..:...::,..,
~:.,::'_: ,,: :,': """':"".', .'._' ::", ::',',-___: ': ": -:-' -.-: '::','-,' -:C',::"'" ',_,',. _.....
n ,". ulll
DATE: August 1, 2001
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
FROM: Sue McDermott, City Engineer)' it.Q
RE: Eaglewood East (Project #01-42)
The Engineering and Public Works Departments have reviewed the preliminary plans for
the subject project and we have the following comments:
1. The east intersection at Duluth is too close to CSAH 21 to allow for stacking, future
CSAH 21 widening, etc.
2. Drainage and utility easements must be provided for the water and sanitary sewer
mains.
3. The Scott County Transportation Plan forecasts this segment of CSAH 21 to be
congested by 2020 and recommends a capacity improvement from 4 lane undivided
to 4 lane divided. Additional right of way should be dedicated for a total of 65 feet
from the center of CSAH 21.
4. The utility plan is difficult to read. Use design standards as outlined in the Public
Works Design Manual.
5. Maintain a minimum of 10' of horizontal $eparation between sanitary sewer and
water main.
6. Add 8" gate valves and hydrants per the Public Works Design Manual.
7. Add a manhole to the storm sewer to maintain the alignment within the street.
8. Sewer and water services are to be located outside of the driveways. Curb boxes
are to be located 10' behind the curb or right of way line.
9. Provide a pavement section design. The typical section shown is the City's minimum
requirement.
10. Add a manhole to the sanitary sewer to maintain the alignment in the center of the
street.
11. If the watermain extension is to be constructed as shown on the plans, an easement
will be required from the property to the west for both construction and maintenance
purposes.
12. All 1" x 6" water services shall have saddles.
..
G:\PROJECTS\200 1 \42eaglewood\REVIEWl.DOC
~
I
f /
~ .
13. Maximum driveway width at the right of way line is 24 feet.
14. Provide a drainage and utility easement around the pond at the northwest corner of
the site.
15. A retaining wall is needed on the south side of the street where it connects to Duluth
Avenue. There appears to be a 4 ft. drop to the existing grade.
16. Change the storm apron invert to match the NWL of the pond (929.64).
17. The storm pipe section from the street to the pond should be moved west to provide
10ft. separation between the pipe and the building.
18. Show a more defined swale to drain water from the backsides of the buildings on
Block 8 (east side) and Block 9 (west side).
19. Add a 3 ft. sump to CB 1.
20. A temporary construction easement is required for off-site grading of the road (south
side) on the west end of the project.
21. Change the watermain depth to a minimum of 8 ft. cover over the top of the pipe.
22. Add Class 52 to the watermain pipe on the profile view.
2
DATE: October 10,2001
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
/
FROM: Sue McDermott, City Engineer r
RE: Eaglewood East (Project #01-42)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject preliminary plat and has the
following comments:
1. Hydrology: The existing drainage area on the east side of the project is drawn
incorrectly. It should extend further to the south through the existing homes.
2. Grading Plan: The proposed 938 & 940 contours need to be shown on the west end of
the project.
3. Grading Plan:. The 940 contour needs to be tied off along the south property line, east
side.
f
4. Grading Plan: The back of units on Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 and Lots 3 &4 of Block 2
should be raised to 942.0 to provide a 2-foot freeboard above the adjacent 940
contour.
5. Grading: Maximum driveway width at the right of way line is ~4 feet.
6. Utilities: Add 6" gate valves and hydrants per the Public Works Design Manual.
7. Utilities: Add a manhole to the storm sewer to maintain the alignment within the street.
8. Utilities: Change all class of RCP storm sewer, 18" diameter and less, to Class V.
9. Utilities: Change the storm apron invert to match the NWL of the pond (929.64).
10. Utilities: The utility plan is difficult to read. Use design standards as outlined in the
Public Works Design Manual (stationing, etc).
11. Utilities: Call out 8" sanitary sewer on profile view.
12. Utilities: Add a structure between CB2 and MH3 for 400' maximum spacing between
structures.
13. Plat: A temporary construction easement is required for off-site grading of the road
(south side) on the west end of the project.
14. Plat: Provide a drainage and utility easement around the pond at the northwest corner
of the site.
.
G; \PROJECTS\200 1 \42eaglewood\REVIEW2.DOC
~
15, Scott County has issues with the spacing between the access onto Duluth Avenue and
CSAH 21. I will forward the comments as soon as I receive them.
-
2
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE:
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
Ralph Teschner, Finance Director
EAGLEWOOD EAST - preliminary
(assessment/fee review)
July 11,2001
TO:
FROM:
RE:
A 5.0 acre parcel in 2-114-22 (PIN #250050270 & #25902 1210 thru 123 & 25902 1250 thru
127) is proposed to be platted into Eaglewood East. The property was initially served with sewer
and water utilities in 1972 under Project 72-7. Under the original assessment roll this property
was assessed 100% for sewer and water trunk acreage and lateral charges.
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:
Park Dedication
Collector Street Fee
Stormwater Management Fee
$1685.00/unit
$1500.00/acre
$2943.00/acre
The application of these City charges would generate the following costs to the developer based
upon a net lot area calculation of 3.85 acres of townhouse units (includes net deduction of 1.15
acres for ponding, wetland & road right of way.) as provided within the site data summary sheet
of the preliminary plat description.
Cash Park Dedication:
35 units @ $1685.00/unit = $58,975.00
Collector Street Fee:
3.85 acres @ $1500.00/ac = $5,775.00
Storm Water Mana2ement Fee:
3.85 acres @ $2943/ac = $11,331.00
These charges represent an approximate cost of $2,174.00 per lot for the 35 proposed townhouse
units within Eaglewood East Addition. Assuming the initial net lot area of the preliminary plat
does not change, the above referenced cash park dedication, collector street and stormwater
charges would be determined and collected within the context of a developer's agreement for the
construction of utility improvements at the time of final plat approval.
There are no other outstanding special assessments currently certified against the property. Also,
the tax status of the property is current with no outstanding delinquencies.
-
16200 E3g1e Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
H: IS PLlTSIEaglewood.doc
@{f;:ng
inee~i1tlJ
3727 255th Street E. Webster, MN 55088 ~ Phone (612) 461.3320 ~ (PAX.,b("$'),d
bl' r:;/1p date'~ subject ~k ~oJ. (i..,,..J.o,....r sheet uo I ofL
vby datez ~~~ flc,.~-S' job DO
. -~.
i
-,
~
--. .. 't-... -:. .
--- ......--.......--.. .!. _.!... ..
.
.1.
. - .
.- I
I
:.. ~. ~.
.. ~.
I I
. .. ...
- 1-'
.. .. . J.
L.
t. l.
.'. l'
,
, ., - , '1 i
, -,
I
t "1" - , .. _... .
, .
I
, '
'r.,J"f -r
.~ - ;.1
I
. ,
. I . J. . _.~ I .. . i
I
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
6A
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
VARIANCES TO A STRUCTURE SETBACK LESS
THAN 75' FROM THE OHWM, A FRONT YARD
SETBACK LESS THAN 25', A SUM OF SIDE YARDS
LESS THAN 15' , EAVE ENCROACHMENT LESS THAN
5' TO SIDE YARD, A 66' BUILDING WALL SETBACK,
AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA GREATER THAN
30%, Case file #01-080PC
DAVID & RACHEL NORLING
15239 FAIRBANKS TRAIL NE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from the property
owners for the construction of an attached garage, a second story addition, and
a main level room addition to an existing single-family dwelling on a
nonconforming platted lot of record located at 15239 Fairbanks Trail.
At the October 22,2001, public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the
staff report, heard comments from the applicant, and discussed the Variances
requested. The Commission determined that a revised survey with additional
correct information was needed to make a decision, and continued the public
hearing to the next scheduled meeting date of November 13, 2001. The
additional information required includes the existence of a 15' sanitary sewer
easement granted to the City of Prior Lake that was not depicted on the survey,
and correct information regarding the existing and proposed structures as
submitted with the Variance request.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DISCUSSION:
As of the date of this report, November 6,2001, the applicant has not submitted
the additional information with a revised survey. Staff contacted the applicant for
a progress report and was told the survey contractor had not completed their
research on this project. The applicant requested additional time to acquire the
requested information. The applicant has been notified that the new information
must be received no later than November 16th, in order to be on the agenda for
November 26,2001.
The Planning Commissions deadline to take action on this request is January 4,
2002, or 120 days from the date of submittal of a complete application. The last
scheduled public hearing date before January 4th is December 10, 2001.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the public hearing
until the next scheduled meeting date of November 26,2001, to allow the
applicant time to acquire the additional information and revised certificate of
survey.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends alternative # 2, table or continue discussion of the item for
specific purpose to allow the applicant time to provide the additional information.
This requires the following motion:
1. Motion and second to continue the public hearing until the next scheduled
date of November 26,2001.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 variances\01-080\VR5.doc
Page 2