HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 10, 2001
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 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:
Norling 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, ~ block north of Colorado Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue and east of
West Avenue.
B. Case #01-093 D. Mark Crouse of 15507 Calmut Avenue, is requesting a variance to
exceed the allowable impervious surface coverage area.
6.
Old Business:
None
7.
New Business:
None
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:IOJ fileslOJplancommlOJ pcagendalAG12J OOJ.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, NOVEMBER 26,2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the November 26,2001, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke and V onhof,
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording
Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
Vonhof
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the November 13, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4.
Consent:
None
5.
Public Hearings:
None
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.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated November 26,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
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 a revised survey with additional information was needed to
make a decision, and continued the public hearing to the next scheduled meeting date.
On November 13,2001, the Planning Commission again continued the public hearing
until the November 26th meeting date because the additional information and revised
survey had not been submitted in time for review by the staff. The new information
required on a revised survey included the existing 15' sanitary sewer easement granted to
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MNl12601.doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes
11/26/01
the City of Prior Lake, and correct information regarding the existing structures
dimensions, setback to the OHWM, and the proposed addition's dimensions.
The revised survey depicts the actual proposed setback of 63' to the OHWM, not 50' as
originally submitted. Therefore, the Variance request for a structure setback to the
OHWM is not required. In addition, the applicant has revised the building plans and
reduced the eave projection from 22-inches to I-foot which reducing the encroachment
Variance request to I-foot. The applicant is now requesting the following Variances:
1. A 4.77-foot variance to permit a 16.53-foot structure setback to a front property
line, rather than 21.3-feet as required by setback averaging.
2. A 1.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 8.5-feet from the side property
line, rather than minimum setback of 10-feet as required for the sum of side yards
on a nonconforming lot 0 f at least 15 - feet.
3. A I-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 4-feet from
a side lot line, rather than the minimum required 5-feet.
4. A 2.6-foot variance to permit a building wall 66-feet in length to be setback 5-feet
from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.66-feet for building walls
over 50-feet.
5. A 256-square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of
2,436 square feet (33.5%), rather than the maximum allowable coverage area of
2,180 square feet (30%).
The staff believed all of the variance criteria had been met with respect to some type of
front setback variance such as a 2.77' variance for an 18.53' front yard setback, which
provides for a 22' deep garage. 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, the staff felt the garage and room additions could be redesigned and reduced
in size to eliminate Variance requests 2 - 5. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria had
not been met with respect to #4 of the variances as proposed by the applicant. Staff
recommended denial of those requested variances.
Criego questioned Horsman on the front setback averaging. Horsman explained 150 foot
front averaging, which is different from the side yard setback averaging of the adjacent
properties.
Comments from the Public:
Applicants David and Rachel Norling, 15235 Fairbanks Trail, were present. Rachel
distributed and read her interpretation of the variance hardships. David submitted a
petition from neighbors in support of their request. David also explained how he has
made sacrifices and reductions in his project to meet city requirements. The Norlings felt
they have met the hardships.
L:\O I files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN 11260 I.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
1l/26/01
The public hearing was closed at 6:58 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. Questioned variance #4 regarding the building wall length. Horsman explained.
. Lemke stated he originally owned this home. The grade of the lot drops well below
the street.
. Explained the entryway and parking problem.
. Agreed with staff that some of the hardships had been met.
. Can't compare other variances but these requests are consistent with the
neighborhood.
. Not sure what the hardship is for the second variance. Believed it is because it is a 50
foot lot.
. If the neighbors did not care about the variances, he didn't either.
. Felt the same about the fourth variance regarding the building wall length; the
hardship is the small lot.
. Supported all five variance requests.
Atwood:
. Appreciated the give and take of the applicant.
. Agreed with Lemke on the first variance request.
. Interested in the side yard request.
. It is a nonconforming lot.
. The mother living with the applicant is a choice made by the applicant.
. Not totally opposed.
. Concerned for the side yard request.
V onhof:
. Staff did a good job. The applicant did a goodjob providing information.
. The lot is narrow and some of the challenges are setup by the streetscape.
. The variance criteria have been met in this case due to the topography of the lot.
. The two adjacent structures will still maintain a 15 foot separation.
. Basically the structure has been modified substantially.
. Explained how each variance request is based on that particular lot. Neighbor's
variances cannot be compared.
Criego:
. Has never seen so many variances on one property.
. Questioned applicant if he was going to remove the side yard deck. The applicant
responded they would and the stairs on the south side would also be removed.
. Questioned staff on removing the deck to decrease the impervious surface. Horsman
said it was not included.
. Questioned why the variances changed from the original request. Horsman said the
survey company revised the information.
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MNI12601.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
11/26/01
,
.
. No problem with the first variance. There is a hardship.
. Problem with the impervious surface above 30%. This expansion brings it beyond.
. If this were a new development would the Commission give all these variances?
. Two car garages have always been accepted.
. Not an adequate reason for a variance.
. Modify the amount of addition.
. Norling explained the 5 foot side yard variance setbacks they received in 1993.
. Okay with variance #3 - Not expanding beyond what exists.
. Opposed to the second variance. It is not necessary. The hardship criteria have not
been met.
. Disagree with approving variances 2 and 5.
Atwood:
. Asked for clarification on impervious surface. Kansier said it would be 32.9%.
Lemke:
. The addition is mostly deck.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED
VARIANCES.
Open Discussion:
Criego:
Make sure the Motion contains the conditions there will be no deck on the north side and
the impervious surface will be reduced per Commissioner discussions.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY VONHOF TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES INCLUDING THE
CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY THE COMMISSION.
Vote indicated ayes by Atwood, Lemke and Vonhof. Criego nay. MOTION CARRIED.
7. New Business:
A. TIF District 3-1 Resolution
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 26,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On October 15, 2001, the City Council adopted aresolution approving in concept the use
of tax increment financing (TIF) to assist in the development of a senior housing proj ect
near Five Hawks School. The project will consist of 54 units of senior housing. Plans for
this project were previously approved as part ofthe Creekside Estates PUD. Subsequent
to that, the Council directed that a TIF District be established and a Tax Increment
Financing Plan be developed.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminules\MN 1 1 2601.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
11/26/01
Staff concluded the Creekside Estates 54 unit building project is consistent with
development goals and policies ofthe City. The TIF Plan proposed for the project is also
consistent with these goals and policies as it provides a means for the project to proceed.
~
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Questioned the 3 buildings on the PUD. The only building included in the TIP is the
54 unit? Kansier explained the TIF statutes and the Commissions' role to decide if
the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
· No problem adopting.
Lemke, Atwood and V onhof agreed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOQD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-
024PC.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Election to fill vacancy in Chair position.
After a brief discussion, Atwood nominated Stamson as Chairman, Lemke seconded.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Lemke nominated Criego as vice-chair, second by V onhof.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Kansier stated the City Council will be presenting awards to outgoing Advisory Councils
at their December 3 meeting.
V onhof thanked the Commissioners and staff for their hard work.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m.
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
Connie Carlson
Planning Secretary
L:\O] files\O] plancomm\O]pcminutes\MN] ]260] .doc
5
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK
LESS THAN 25 FEET, A SUM OF SIDE YARDS LESS
THAN 15 FEET, EAVE ENCROACHMENT INTO 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
YES X NO
DECEMBER 10, 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.
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on 10/22/01, 11/13/01, and
on 11/26/01. Upon review of the applicant's requests with respect to the
variance hardship criteria, the Commission directed staff to draft a Resolution 01-
020PC, approving the following variances:
1. A 4.77-foot variance to permit a 16.53-foot structure setback to a front
property line, rather than 21.3-feet as required by setback averaging.
2. A 1.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 8.5-feet from the side
property line, rather than minimum setback of 10-feet as required for the
sum of side yards on a nonconforming lot of at least 15-feet.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 j Ph. (952) 447-4230 j, Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
t
3. A 1-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 4-
feet from a side lot line, rather than the minimum required 5-feet.
4. A 2.6-foot variance to permit a building wall 66-feet in length to be
setback 5-feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.66-
feet for building walls over 50-feet.
5. A 214-square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage
area of 2,394 square feet (32.9%), rather than the maximum allowable
coverage area of 2,180 square feet (30%).
The following conditions shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. The proposed deck on the north side of the house shall not be constructed.
2. The existing deck/walkway on the south side of the house must be removed.
3. The existing animal kennel on the north side of the house shall be removed.
4. The Impervious Surface calculation worksheet must be revised to be
consistent with the certificate of survey.
5. The variance resolution shall be recorded and proof of recording submitted to
the Planning Department along with an Assent Form signed by the property
owners. Pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Ordinance the variance will
be null and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed
structure within one year after adoption of this resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached Resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction
for approval of the Variances as requested by the applicant. The staff therefore
recommends adoption of Resolution 01-020PC.
ALTERNATIVES:
Adopt the attached Variance Resolution 01-020PC approving the Variances with
conditions that the Planning Commission deemed appropriate under the
circumstances.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-020PC approving the Variances
requested by the applicant with conditions.
L:\O 1 files\01 variances\O 1-080\VarRpt5Cnsnt.doc
Page 2
RESOLUTION OI-020PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 4.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 21.3-
FOOT FRONT SETBACK; A loS-FOOT VARIANCE TO SUM OF SIDE YARDS
OF 13.S FEET; A I-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EA VE/GUTTER
WITHIN 4-FEET OF A SIDE LOT LINE; A 2.6-FOOT VARIANCE FOR A
BUILDING WALL 66-FEET LONG TO BE S-FEET FROM A SIDE LOT LINE;
AND A 32.9% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. David & Rachel Norling (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from the
Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a garage and room additions
to a single family residence on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential)
District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, 15239
Fairbanks Trail NE, and legally described as follows;
Lot 4, Maple Park Shore Acres, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-080PC and held hearings thereon on October 22,2001, November 13, 2001
and November 26,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of 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.
5. A legal building envelope does not exist on the nonconforming subject lot that
eliminates the need for the requested variances for setbacks to front yard, side yard,
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-080\aprvres.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
sum of side yards, eave encroachment, and impervious surface area. The existing
structure is such that the hardship has not been created by the applicant.
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the topography of the lot, the required setbacks
and impervious surface coverage area as reasonable use of the property does not exist
without the granting ofthe variances.
7. The granting of the variances, as requested, is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve
merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable
hardship.
8. The contents of Planning Case 01-080PC 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 variances for a future garage and room additions to a single-family dwelling as
shown in attached Attachment 1 - Revised Certificate of Survey Dated 10/29/01;
1) A 4.77-foot variance to permit a 16.53-foot structure setback to a front property
line, rather than 21.3- feet as required by setback averaging.
2) A 1.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 8.5-feet from the side property
lines, rather than minimum setback of 10- feet as required for the sum of side
yards on a nonconforming lot of at least 15- feet.
3) A I-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 4-feet from
a side lot line, rather than the minimum required 5-feet.
4) A 2.66-foot variance to permit a building wall 66-feet in length to be setback 5-
feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.66-feet for building
walls over 50-feet.
5) A 214-square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of
2,394 square feet (32.9%), rather than the maximum allowable coverage area of
2,180 square feet (30%). .
Approval of this variance is subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed deck on the north side of the house shall not be constructed.
2. The existing deck/walkway on the south side of the house must be removed.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-080\aprvres.doc
2
3. The existing animal kennel on the north side ofthe house shall be removed.
4. The Impervious Surface calculation worksheet must be revised to be consistent with
the certificate of survey.
5. The variance resolution shall be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the
Planning Department along with an Assent Form signed by the property owners.
Pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Ordinance the variance will be null and void
if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed structure within one year
after adoption of this resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on December 10, 2001.
Anthony Stamson, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-080\aprvres.doc
3
~
~
)
o
'"
n
"
(J)
(J)
(J)
o
VJ
N
DECK ~
o
JT\
\
,
:----. ----;- 'G S'I'JR.
(l ~f St\.t'-I..ll' ,;
--
__/::-----~ \3t-l~\'l R g
pRO\1\O~'ll' CD
---- ----
\
\
28
2~
PROpostO .
; AOOIT lOti I~ llr..'
1ST lI'lG ottl< O'l/tR ;
Ht. S\.A8 "()Y/ I"
Act \ . 2~
1916.9\
~!
n'
.~
. ~.
l"\
;Jl
\
",>< \
.. i
.
-----
[t\.SE.tfit.\'li pt.R
:::.---s-' _.-::- - -
UlVey
512026'......
.:.7"
-- - 50.83 ___
.----------
, 8 .8~~
Ol
N
. ~')'O
'"(J - -
o
\ \
\
~\
i>
:>
Ol
N
\ -
\...~
0%
---l~ ~
8 "
.-r -
3
~ \
Ol
t.>I
...
. ooc. Utfit.t'-li
:::.---
~
~
o
:I:
~
Z
-I
---.--.---
,0
IT\
,(")
"
Gl
~
v
~
:t-
o
C.
III
(1\
1)..\
~~
0-
. 0
II'
"'~
:,._,J'.
(f)
CD
(J)
0
VJ
0 -..j
- 0
0 ...
=
[T\
Xli:
, -I"
;%
... '55
0 .r
Cl'"
\ '"
, S
.""
I
I
I
~-::--;. ~?--::::::-
_.:.::- --=---..---
\~
\ S~ORt.U\'lt.
, ~ ---------
,.' -/;~~----
/
...&.
\
\
\
i~-
<
-
(J)
m
C
o
m
~
-
"
-\
~l
~5
m
o
"
(J)
c:
~
m
~
o
--
I\)
CD
--
o
-A.
>
,
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SA
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO 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
--
DECEMBER 10, 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, ~ block north of Colorado
Street, west of Duluth Avenue and east of West 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.
J:\Olfiles\Olpuds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle pc2.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on November 13,
2001. At that meeting, the Planning Commission discussed several concerns raised by
the staff. The Planning Commission also heard testimony from several residents of the
area opposed to this project. The Planning Commission continued this item in order to
allow the developer to address the issues raised at this meeting. A copy of the minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting is attached to this report.
On November 28, 2001, the developer met with City and County staff to discuss the
various issues. The developer subsequently submitted revised plans on Tuesday,
December 4, 2001. These plans, and the developer's narrative, are attached. The
following paragraphs generally describe the revisions to the plan. However, due to the
timing of this submittal, the revised plans have not been reviewed by the City
Engineering staff. A more detailed discussion and review of these revisions will be
available at the meeting.
Following this description, the original concerns and the developer's response to this
issue are listed.
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.
Buildin2 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
townhouses are rambler or two-story lookouts with attached double garages. The exterior
materials are vinyl siding with a brick accents. The building plans also include decks on
some of the units.
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.
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 83,639
square feet, which meets the minimum requirements.
1:\01 files\Olpuds\eagJewood pre pud\eagJe pc2.doc
Page 2
Parking: 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 11 off-street
guest parking spaces. The proposed private streets will not provide anyon-street parking.
Landscaping: 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.
Tree Replacement: The applicant has submitted an inventory identifying 248 caliper
inches of significant trees on the site. The proposal removes 29% for road and utility
purposes and 47% for building pads and driveways. The Ordinance allows removal of
25% of the significant caliper inches for road and utility purposes, and 25% of the
significant caliper inches for building pads. Any removal above this percentage requires
replacement at a rate of 1/2 caliper inch to 1 caliper inch removed. This proposal, then,
requires replacement of at least 13 trees at 2 1/2 caliper inches per tree.
Signs: There are no signs identified on this site plan.
Lighting: 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 West Avenue to Duluth Avenue. This street will be maintained by a
homeowner's association. The proposed private street is 28' wide from curb to curb. A
28' wide street allows 2-way traffic, but does not allow parking on either side of the
street.
The plan also dedicates an additional 10' of right-of-way for CSAH 21 along the north
side of the property. This additional right-of-way is needed for the eventual
improvements to CSAH 21, which include turn lanes and a median.
Sidewalks/Trails: There are no sidewalks or trails proposed in this plan.
Parks: This plan does not include any parkland dedication. The required dedication
would be approximately Y2 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.
1:\01 files\Olpuds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle pc2.doc
Page 3
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main: Sanitary sewer and water main will be extended
from the existing utilities located in West Avenue 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 developer has submitted storm water
calculations, which have been reviewed by the City Engineering staff to ensure the pond
is adequately sized to manage the runoff.
Traffic Impact Report: The developer originally submitted an elementary traffic impact
report (TIR) for this development. A more detailed TIR is being prepared by SRF
consultants, but this study has not been received as of the writing of this report.
Phasin2: The developer is proposing to complete this project in three phases. All of the
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.
ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
In the staff report, the staff raised the following issues:
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.
Following discussions with the County Highway Department staff, the City staff has
concluded some sort of access to Duluth is desirable, in order to provide a second
access to this site. The access has been moved as far to the south side of this site as
possible. The staff recommended that this access be designed as a right-inlright-out
only access. The revised plans do not indicate the design of the intersection.
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.
The developer's narrative indicates this setback has been revised; however, the plans
do not scale to the required setback.
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.
The developer's narrative indicates the height of the building would require a 26'
separation between buildings. This indicates that the height of the buildings is 26
feet. The developer has requested a modification to the building separation
requirement. The Zoning Ordinance allows the Council to approve such
modifications as part of the PUD.
1:\Olfiles\Olpuds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle pe2.doe
Page 4
4. The site plan and the building plans must be revised to show all decks and
porches.
The plan has been modified to include decks. There are no porches identified on the
plans.
5. The 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.
This plan has been modified so the remove the trees located on the County road right-
of-way are not included in the tree inventory.
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.
The plan has been revised to include the proper number, species and sizes of the trees.
The plan also meets the bufferyard requirements.
7. Provide an irrigation plan.
This has not been provided, but may be included at the final plan stage.
8. The calculation of usable open space must be revised to eliminate the area for
new storm water ponds.
The calculations have been revised.
9. A drainage and utility easement must be provided over all of Outlot B.
This has not been provided, but may be included at the final plan stage.
10. The plat must identify the drainage and utility easements over the wetlands and
storm water ponds.
This has not been provided, but may be included at the final plan stage.
11. The items outlined in the memorandum from the City Engineer, dated August 1,
2001, must be addressed prior to the final plat.
This has not been provided, but may be included at the final plan stage.
12. All necessary permits from other agencies must be obtained prior to any grading
on the site or prior to final plat approval.
This has not been provided, but may be included at the final plan stage.
At the meeting on November 13, 2001, the Planning Commission raised the following
concerns:
1. Density: The Commissioners were concerned about the number of units in this
area.
1:\Olfiles\Olpuds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle pe2.doe
Page 5
The density of the site is within the R-3 guidelines. The developer has not reduced
the density.
2. Traffic: The Commissioners requested a more detailed Traffic Impact Report.
SRF, a consultant engineer, has been retained to evaluate the traffic impact of this
development. The report has not been submitted to staff at this time. A
representative of SRF will be available at the meeting to discuss this report.
3. Storm water calculations: The Commissioners requested more information
pertaining to the storm water runoff and the wetlands on the site.
The developer submitted a wetland delineation report, a soils report, and storm water
runoff calculations with the original submittal. This information is attached to this
report.
4. Sidewalks: The Commissioners recommended that sidewalks be included as
part of the proposal.
The plans have not been revised to include sidewalks.
5. CSAH 21 Improvements
The plans have been revised to dedicate an additional 10' of right-of-way for CSAH
21 along the north side of this site.
6. Design: The Commissioners expressed a desire to see a more creative design for
the site.
The overall design ofthe project has not changed.
ANALYSIS:
I
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 listed below.
(1) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, materials, construction
and land development.
(2) Higher standards of site and building design.
(3) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support
high quality land use development at a lesser cost.
(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.
(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.
(6) Encourages a more creative and efficient use of land.
1:\01 files\O 1 puds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle pe2.doe
Page 6
(7) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics including flora and fauna,
scenic views, screening and buffering, and access.
(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.
(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.
(10)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.
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.
(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.
(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.
(4) Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one building on a lot.
(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-oi-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.
c. No building within the project shall be nearer to another building than 'l) 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.
1:\Olfiles\Olpuds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle pc2.doc
Page 7
Staff Recommendation: Due to the timing of the submittal of the revised plans, not all
City staff has had the opportunity to review these plans. The staff will have a more
thorough review available at the Planning Commission meeting.
EXHIBITS:
1. Minutes of November 13,2001 Planning Commission Meeting
2. Reduced Copy of Revised PUD and Preliminary Plat Plans
3. Developer's Narrative
4. Letter from Scott County Highway Department
5. Wetland Delineation Report
6. Soils Report
7. Storm Water Calculations
1:\01 files\O 1 puds\eaglewood pre pud\eagle pc2.doc
Page 8
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V onhof called the November 13, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Stamson and Vonhof,
Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue
McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
Vonhof
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the October 22,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4. Consent:
A. Case #01-082 Koestering Variance Resolution
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier gave a brief overview of the report.
There were no questions from the Commissioners.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-
23PC APPROVING A V ARlANCE TO THE REQUIRED 25' FRONT YARD
SETBACK.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner V onhofread the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
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
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN 11130 l.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13,2001
side ofCSAH 21, 'l2 block north of Colorado Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue
and east of West Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 13,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Merlyn Olson Homes has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Eaglewood East on the property located south of CSAH 21, 'l2 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 of7.1 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 street 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.
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 ofthe 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 the PUD process is appropriate for this development,
the staff would recommend the following conditions be attached:
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 Y2 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.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN 11 1301.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13,2001
4. The site plan and the building plans must be revised to show all decks and porches.
5. The 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. Ifnecessary, 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.
The Planning staff recommended Alternative #2, to table this item to December 10, 2001
and provide the developer with direction on the issues discussed.
Lemke questioned staffs recommendation for a cul-de-sac on the east end of Racine
Street. Kansier responded.
V onhof questioned a right-in right-out access. McDermott stated they could look at it.
Comments from the public:
Merlyn Olson, of Merlyn Olson Development Company, thanked staff for the
presentation and welcomed the neighbors. Olson gave an overview of the project. He
would like to see the proj ect attractive to all. The price range for the townhomes would
be around $160,000. Olson responded to some of staffs issues and stated he would be
in favor of continuing the hearing to the December 10,2001 meeting for additional time
to deal with those concerns.
Bill Bleckwenn, the landscape architect explained he had a complete landscape plan
meeting the requirements.
Bill Jacobson lives on Racine Avenue and felt his residence would be greatly impacted
by the project. Jacobson is an attorney with experience in real estate development and
felt the density was too high for Duluth Avenue and County Road 21, which is extremely
L:\O I files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN 11130 I.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2001
busy and has had many accidents. W est Avenue is also impacted because it is the only
place people can park and fish on Prior Lake. He had concerns for the wetland, drainage
and runoff. Jacobson pointed out there would only be 8 additional visitor parking spaces,
which would not be adequate given the surrounding lack of parking space. He stated he
is not opposed to development or anti-development, but this is too large a development
for the space. Jacobson recommended denial of the development.
Lyaman McPherson, 16282 West Avenue, said he spent time today at the Spring Lake
Prior Lake Watershed District who were not aware of the project. McPherson read a
petition stating opposition to the project that included conditions that it was not consistent
with the surrounding housing development, preservation of the wetland and the existing
drainage problems on W est Avenue and County Road 21 and the increase in traffic will
further complicate the already heavy traffic. The existing church and school have
congested traffic problems. Property values will be affected. McPherson said the
watershed issues must be addressed as well as the parking. There is no play area for the
children. The amounts of units should be reduced. The atmosphere will be greatly
impacted. They would like to allow the development but not the current proposal.
Josie Schmaltz, 16200 West Avenue, across from Racine Street, stated the traffic is
excessive on West Avenue. Weekends, morning and afternoon peak traffic is
unbelievable. People park on both sides of the street to fish on Prior Lake. Residents
have brought petitions for "No Parking" signs to the City only to be denied. She knows
Merlyn builds quality homes, but this project does not fit. There are too many units for
the area. No one wants it. Every spring County Road 21 floods. Schmaltz explained the
proposed park in 1983. She was not against the project, would rather see single-family
housing.
Greg Ilkka, Assistant Scott County Engineer, Scott County Highway Department,
supported staffs recommendation to table the matter. Ilkka explained the request for the
additional right-of-way and widening the roadway. Under Design Standards the County
needs 120 feet minimum right-of-way to build a 4 to 5 lane road and maintain the
existing sidewalks and trails. Ilkka explained they do not have a full plan of the proposed
plan for widening County Road 21. It makes more sense to ask for the land on the south
side of County Road 21 than come in later and impact the residents. They are trying to
avoid that scenario.
Heidi Peterson, 4346 Colorado Street said she was extremely disappointed with this
development. They bought their property last August because it was a quiet established
neighborhood. Some of her concerns are the wetland, the trees, the high traffic and the
small amount of parking allocated for the project. She stated she used to live in
townhomes and did not want more townhome-type people in the area. The proposed
landscaping will change the entire look of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is
opposed to the project.
Julie Bruha, 4190 Colorado Street, noted the parkway was a Hennepin County Park trail.
L:\O I fiJes\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN 11130 I.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13,2001
Dan Willgahs, 4432 Colorado Street, said many residents are hitting on the same points,
but wanted to reinforce the traffic issues. Questioned the County's traffic proposal.
V onhof responded the City Engineering Department can explain some of the traffic
issues. Willgahs pointed out that he lives across from St. Michael's School and many
people are using his driveway to turn-around. Willgahs explained the traffic problems
with the existing parking and the increased traffic.
Anna Mae Ryan, 4296 Colorado Street, questioned the County's painted crosswalk. No
one stops at County Road 21. Many of the residents and homes were present before
County Road 21. She explained the skateboard problems. Another problem is the
increase in parking for fishing and lake usage. Residents have the right to use their own
driveways. Ryan pointed out the growing problem with St. Michael's Church and School.
There should be stoplights on County Road 21. V onhof said the crosswalk problems can
be forwarded to the police department.
Joanne Brandstedter, 4452 Colorado Street, explained situations with the neighborhood
racers and an unknown car parked in her driveway. She felt Prior Lake is not a very
pretty area. She proposed the City purchase the land from the developer and increase the
benefit ofthe area and put in a small parking lot and reduce the drainage problems on
West Avenue and Duluth Street. She explained the drainage problems in her back yard
and suggested other changes and alternatives entering downtown Prior Lake.
The floor was closed at 7 :43 p.m.
Kansier did point out the stop sign proposals and the proposed parking lot at Grainwood
Park. McDermott said they would like to add 6 spaces.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. Questioned the R3 zoning. Kansier responded it was there for several years and used
to be zoned R4.
. What is the Planning Commission's role if a developer meets the requirements and
the Planning Commission does not want it, can the Commission say "No"? Kansier
explained the process pointing out it would be difficult to deny the proposal if it
meets the ordinances.
. What is the market value of the land if the City were to purchase the property?
Kansier said she could not guess. Staff did not have that information.
Stamson:
. Being within the density allowed, given the amount of green space, excluding the
ponding, the zoning is definitely what the City had in mind when it was zoned R3.
Given that, there is a definite problem of increase of traffic and how to deal with it.
. The plan needs to be further reviewed with the traffic in mind.
. Against the cul-de-sac proposal, all the traffic is pushed on to West Avenue, which is
far less than anjdeal street. Duluth Avenue is built to a higher level of traffic.
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MNl 1 1301.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13,2001
· Pointed out the traffic problems for the development turning onto Duluth Avenue.
· Maybe a right-in, right-out access would be a preferable solution.
· The tree preservation proposal meets the requirements.
· Density needs to be looked at.
Atwood:
· Does not like the development. The developer decided to maximize the density.
· The buffers are not adequate.
· The traffic on Racine will not work.
· Does not like the right-in, right-out solution.
· The streets and proj ect will not support the traffic.
· The matter should be tabled.
· No problem as a PUD.
· This is an already overburdened neighborhood and this project would only add fuel to
the fire.
· The additional parking of 8 spaces in the project will not work.
· Would be more agreeable to a lower density.
V onhof:
· Before tabling this issue would like to see a traffic study on Duluth Avenue and West
Avenue and estimate of traffic impact by the proposal done by a traffic engineer.
· Would like to see an Environment Report done by the developer regarding the
wetland.
· The City modified the NURP pond, was it done correctly? McDermott responded the
NURP pond was redeveloped to take some development on this site into account.
Not the entire site, but at least half. The County has addressed the flooding on
County Road 21 by adding a catch basin. It probably alleviated some of the problem.
She hadn't noticed any problems since,
· County Road 21 will be expanded in size. It has shifted the traffic patterns off
Highway 13 to County Road 21. This will impact the site. It will be foolish not to
heed the County's input.
· Would not consider any development without sidewalks.
· The density and size of the buildings acts as a buffer between County Road 21 and
the existing homes. Is it esthetically pleasing? Probably not.
· Would like to see more preservation or something more creative than what is
proposed. This is basically a row of townhomes.
· More buffering is needed.
· The spirit of the PUD is to make homes cluster and fit into that area and maintain as
much natural preservation as possible.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO TABLE THE MATTER TO
DECEMBER 10,2001, TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS AND
THE ISSUES IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN 11130 l.doc 6
~
. ~ I "aat 1 0 0 ~
s 1111 II PI II
~1I1111~.
B IPPIII;
ii i III i
~~
l;:,.
--",-- ~:
. !>J
--- , ~
~ ..
--""-- ~,-'
C1
i.~~~; ~~;
- II...
I. .IN
mi ~iI
fm it
im if
m~& ~~~~&
;~~... ..~~...
i~~i i~~iI
tm un
uu un
im; ~~~~&
;;~;.. ~~~~ u
~ff~~i'
lhi;i
~~~~.~~.
IV~iO;:;!
&.S'S'!7te
g-Cl. g. 2".... ~
i: "< .!i!"".... (I 3
~ 2.2.2.2.~.
~. Wt~~) g
j ~~;3r->e
r ~;i~~
7 ~:.,~~ I
1 ~~~~
~ '..
i
2.g~ I i
3:1:l.!!.-.;> G
lni~
.'h."_ej _I
c Q.~ _--- _
~g~~
~~.~ -II
~3 ~ "tl-~-
:~i~
;~~~
~!!lo
~& -
~//~,.,.",.---_.""
"
, ~!Ug-<i
~~~;) ~
eej;il ..
~hi~
~~l:~~
i:l1'l~
~8
;;I:
W'D
is;''
~:l~!:l~g
!!~i~m
&~~ !;!
i 'le~Sl
;ailBz
o ~~
Z
CO)
~"- :::._--- :'::.-::::",,::::-:.::;
f=:~
I' <;J t
'~I l ~f1mlf Inl t--< ~
I'I il 'lli1nl llll~'"l" 1111 ~ ~
'I "" n tl 1'1 . fll '1 "<
11.,~ fl.!;!. it~!fn III (::);!!
n' ~< lilt il <I.Ulu, (::) It..
M!; ~il~U ~m1ri [f b ~
<I'., l~ III ~"!!r t t--',
!l: 'I digll~ ~~l~.,~; ~
J~! "I~ ~~;!I~~ N!ft!~! U)
!: I I'l'!:! .lhilt!1 '-l
i'l~ l~r!:~ !Ulfl~1 ~CJ
!~ at '~11l~ ,U 'ot 1m
u fb J:_!.i~ il'lh: ~J<
I> 1 1 ~h& hgi~~~ I
II ~ l~li~! ijiR ~H !_
l! r I"l~l~ ~IJ1:d Elen
'r ~ 'I'l"; i-~if' ~m
I, I \",11 lill.:: I; c
"1', :!r~i'r J"lhi II
ii . h. J 181 a
d IH. l
~
~
~
~ 0
~
&
. ~
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I~
__J
~-
~~
"'J!~eo;r::g
~i"<-~~f
I i~A~~-<~
. e~u~z
/ lb!~~i
ili"
~
>
::I
~
...,
()
~~
:~
@3m~
~~m~ ~
..,I.c.o"'- ~
S/l.... bii
"~me
lr-oe ~
[.tm ~
i~Hn
I:
':-CI
)",
c)
~I
~
~
r,.,
I
C')
CJ
en
n
ffl i~ l !ifl~~1 l ~Il~~IIJ liil
IS~ 't ilti!l, ll~~t~l~ '~~5
~l ~II!ffiif l!'llr~l flfl
"l~ i '.htIS Ii II'" 'I
if I E~ ;!f, ~l If~ILr: r
'~l n diglll fr;~Uf li
Ji~ J~I J'!~!hl~ ~;Ilif; ~ ~fi
~'. 'l~S r ~ i~flA I
i~ I~ l~ll~~ t 7illl I
h.t "jl"i~ Hl}f(l ~i
II Jb fa i ~ 'U' t It
i It l"! ~ il'fl~l_f
I l Illl~1 IfKI~~i ~I
~! r !!llia ~lrJ!i I
,r ~ 'fi'"1 ~rJl.~s:r
4- r I ~lf~ i-~f~,!~
,: f '!~115 il!'.f fi
"I alr"1 i !a&l ~
~i J lh"! '~lihl II
~i . rf I I I a I
t 'Q ~
~oc
2.~~
i;!
7."0
~~~
~ .
~~.
~~ ~
02,3
;;i('~
~,,-
3~2
~~e:
;0.- - I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-i
s: 3~
::~ -;:
r'l <-
."
;:-.)
9
-7
/
/
/
/
/
/
-tJ
::IJ
()
::IJ
;iiei
5 ~.~.
m~~
.~ ~ ~ ~
li~i
~....O ...
;i:~
': ~ ti
-'<~ ~
~~.~!
~i~~
C)
',.,
,
NN
~~
. ~ili1!g~-c::;
'C;;ict ~
2~~~ i
~~/.\i ..
H~!i~
~~~~~
NI'l15
~8
;;I:
~:u
.,..
!~~~~~
~~~~l5~
&;~..!Z!
~~~M~
ooi~~
-l_
z
"
~~
b:::.~
~~
!::tj~
d~
Otti
b~
c:>
~~
b:::
C/.)
"'-3
u~~
j{.ll ,.,.
: 5' i ~
O'Q.~~
~<;B
~ a II ~
!ji ~~
."1)-.......
"'~~2
~ftQ;~
~ ~~ci
.. ~~
~~
...
, "
.. '"
-g.
l
\::~ ~
.... ....
Ii i
..
ii ii
i II
;. i
II
~
Il.
IJlto06~~
r1J~z~m
ffi;JllJlrn~..
tpml>-( Z
lJ.lJr to
~~~~?~
m~"~-1"11
.Cl>:I'E~
]!'li~Ptox
Itll~:;;H
l> (p2m~
~ lJQ:i!!-u
lJ-orn
. tol2
rn ... Cl>
Z ;II ~
(p ); r
o 0(
~ ~
... 0
5 to
co
<:::I
rn
"
IIIII ~
I
~.
~~
/ "':!~;~~I
l t. ~(.II<::O,",
' - "',:10
,'-1 i~~~o~,
O ~-l:r"U l'l
.. \. ~f;t:a~~~
A., ~g~~~~~
"'~ ~::f"~n ?P
) !!il
"U
!il
)>
::I
o
z
~~~=;;~
_~iCf F~
8U1r-;Jr'I ~
~:~~ ~?P
~1Ji~
t:~t::;;;
:::fa~F ~
N Z
IflCl
~8
;;I'
~:u
0-,.
;!~!~~g
)( u."..q-z
~~~~~~
t!.-~5!C>
S;~;Z"''''
b~g~ ~
o~=~~
"';0
"'z
Cl
I~
~~-
, ,
~
I
---"'
,..., p:rr! i .
z~ )>
f1~ G) l~il! ~ illi
r
ri~:li ~ ,..., ~'" ~
...... =E '.
en 0 0 I!t!if a -m::EVl
,l!hi r 0 Z"')>)>
lJl 0 n::\JnZ
It..~ 0
m z I . . Cl;>;;Q
'iW ,..., i 'fTlfTl
:t 'J> -<::\Jill
1 C 0
I;lli ;c: 1Il
'" -l
I ~i IJ J1l
f 1:
.
1):11
lP mm
~ =II ~~
m ;:: h 1I;J
m ~ iil~ ~ ~
;J ~:4Io ~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
l;) !!' ~ _ ~
J ...;B
i1l~ i1l:;:!il~ i1l~~
~., ~"'66 ~!I'fi
ii:ll iii1!!;;l;; i1l",ffi
mo mtpoo O~9'
03 Oi.02 ....&
lP ..... ;J!6~0 i1l~
~ .i1lffi H:J:J :::>;:
{) InIQ Ooa G
C.P-f ~m:tz Om-.
~ or jU
:II m'- ~!!:oOJ iSm
~ iS~ ~() .......
lP "'0 ~~ ClJl
~ Cl~ Cl..... s:ll
~ ~~ s~ i!jf
c: r jU -4 r t:::\,m
~ .. - ~ ~ \]f"
s @fi @OJ ~
~ : (P t>>
OJ jf
m m
lP m
m u>
~
o
m
OJ
~
~
~
r-
r-
m
X
iji
...
~
lPZ
m()
m....
0:::
m..
...
~
;=
lP 'f
~ m
m
;; ...
i'i r
~ '"
-.
.... 0
.... :II
i1l :::1
m
u> 1)
.... 0
() I>
r-
~ ~
~
z 0
.... I>
....
() ~
1:
~ 1)
<
m r-
.... ~
:II ...
m ~
m
1) 1)
~ r-
.... ~
m
!:l
0
Z
Z
lP
~
r-
r-
m
1.J I~
u>
m
m
0
m !~
....
~
;= i :
....
0 ..
1:
rn m
C') m
....
r-
J:>, '"
,'"
=
9
a I ~
I Hili
I II III
1'liI;
. i
.......'0=.. .
/,,'
.. -
/ ",
t" . ~
'.' "'\]'
, ,
. .-r
' .
I"". . .. :~
'I I ~ ~ ~
y- t'IH ~
1!""lE:'
". P
':.'~ '. ~ . i,
\', ,L ~
'- " ,
~.
i ~ i HIli
~ ! i H~H
;;B~i
~ ~ I! ~
~~~:;~~i
)(~~U1 ~~~
~~~~5~~
--""-0 ...
N~~~:::O~
~'r~~~{;;'tI
~s~i-t~~
~N cO .
"0
~'ll
o
:0
)>
...
5
z
~~~g:;;~
~~~cq:: ;5j
8~tiJ~~
~:~~ VI'-
~1~~~
~~t:~;;\
_o~,... :::S'
N Z
~()
sa
;;l'
~~
o?>
:~!~~i
~-;a~~E~
~~;o~ 5 ~
~;~:Pl
~~~m ~
~~fI;:~
>,..,
"':0
~z
Cl
:!~~ ~i
)(~'tIP1ZI11
~;~~~t
...-. P1..-uPl
:"'I:~(I)Jo.
~Tz~:E:II
J,.OPml>2
OI.....~,...(');;I
~gg~~~
:0
m
,..,
:0
Cl
r-
:<
Z
:D fTl ~if!! I .
z~ )> li_il
0", C>
< r- ;- t~~~ ~
;;! fTl
:;:
.- 0 0 ;!Igr ~ Z~~!{:
r- 0
en III I ~ O:ooZ
0 D I . . C'l",o
Z rfTlfTl
m :r fTl i -<:Oal
0 )>
s:: VI
0 ,., -I
,Ill
c:>
lTI
C")
~
,",0
=
9
-0
-<
:!
:;;..
~ ~
m
11 ~
~ l
m
o
-l
- 2 ~
~~I i
B-f i
.,~
i~.
-t5
li~
r;
I
..
a ~ ~
H
-om
~~
lil~
~j'1
rl>
11
11
m
o
:;;...
IJ" fJ p~ ,,. ~... .. '" ,. "'.. ~
l.Bl1ili ~g ;~ ~ lill;iUI m ; !~ iiIU;~ ill Iii; Ail p~i ~
li'li~ I~ IJ aliilNsi II I ~l !IEEBlll~i .5 ,gi ad ~
1111~li ! II ! 1~1!;!!I!! !i i! Ill!!!! ill ill'li i~!1 Ii!! ~
ilzelilll i! ~ S ~~~ i9< x~. ~ IIli~li~. ~II r" ~ >>Ia' !!'
1;il!2~ I ~II a~,I~E~~! I i ;Iij~~;~ . Ii ~li i!! ~~~
~!;il!l ! 11!I;i~ ai it ,::t:!I: if I" !~ 2:~
i a F i ~ 1& r . ~o~il' I ti K !I(
il
'0
"2
-l
l>
Z
m
~
~
~
-l
~
o
m
-l
l>
r
JJ
m
~ [ i!i J f IWU z~ fT1 I~fr! i
...- r>", )>
." ,,"( (J) r C) . '. ~
r 1.ln -< , 1!!;1.
> z fT1 ~-:1
I z i. r . !J'~ m 0 :E
::! 'rti r 0 ,.7 -J ~
z lnn I
C'l Pr 1/1 0 rio a z~~~
N ." ( ~fW c 2 0
> tP :r I . 0AlnZ
0 fT1 i Cl"Q
z l:: )> '1Tl1Tl
I '" III -<AlAl
~ I: !" -l III
('
_.
\ I
III
-I)>
-<G)
3: ~ I
f11 () fTl
:::0)>
rl L
-< ill 0
Zc 0
1-1
or 0
rO
(f)1-I
o Z -/
Z C) 0
I ITl "'""
OiL-
3: ITl Z
f11<
(f) ~ I
1-10
. ~ 3:
III
(f)
r-~: .
I :
, I
! I ~
I I N
! I J>>.
",
=
S!
f'}
~
r
c
~
...,
..
I,.
II
II
II
II
II
-01
If" --
.....
-'
., I
I I
-Ii : :
'< I I
I I
I I
---' I
! : \ !I
I I
I I ~
: t-..~, I
.J L --- ., n
I I I
'':-J. I I~
-- -- .: I m I I B
:: ~ I I
I cD: I I ~
I r;j: 'H
1-12f~" ----= -
-- I I
'- -- I I 2
f! : :~J2
- I I 2
____J U
"
.---,
ERLYN
OLSO
H 0 M E
Ucense #3162
6715 Featherstone
DEe 4 2001
_ _':I t P~IJ1r..f---..- "'.
---0. F FIe E - (95 2)- 2 26 - 6 0 2 2
Drive, Savage, MN 55378
December 4, 2001
City of Prior Lake
Planning Commission
16200 Eagle Creek Ave., SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: Proposed Townhome Proiect - Eaalewood East
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Based on the Planning Report dated November 13, the Public Hearing of November 13, and the
meeting with the City, County and Land Owners on November 28, 'f'ie provide this additional
information. ;
Revised Site Plan:
The revised Site Plan incorporates the agreements reached at the meeting of November 28.
1. Setbacks between the buildings and County Road 21 are reduced from 35 feet to 30
feet.
2. The width of the private road is reduced from 32 feet to 28 feet.
3. The private road will be shifted south 1 (one) foot.
We believe these modifications will meet the County's requirement for a 10-foot increase in
right-Of-way along COURty Road 21 for possible road widening at an unspecified date.
The County will be providing a letter outlining it's acceptance of this plan.
Other Changes to Site Plan:
Optional decks are now shown.
11
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com
Revised Grading Plan:
The revised Grading Plan will reflect the changes made to the Site Plan. This plan will be
submitted ASAP but is not included with this letter.
It is our understanding (from the meeting of November 28th) that the infiltration areas used for
runoff collection can be located in the right-of-way requested by the County.
The revised Plan also provides for the minimum 30-foot setback from the lOO-year flood plain
for the Unit identified 'as Lot 1, Block 7.
Building Styles:
Building styles remain the same as the original submission. Optional decks are now shown on
the Site Plan.
This project enhances an existing neighborhood by providing attractive townhomes for first-time
homeowners and empty nesters.
Setbacks:
We request a modification to the minimum required setback between buildings.
The setback between buildings is 20 feet. Without modifying the building height
ordinance, or redesigning the roof, the setback would need to be revised to 26 feet. This
. setback would require the elimination of two units and increase the cost of remaining
units by approximately 7% ($11,300 each unit). Such an increase would have an
adverse impact on many moderate-income families looking to purchase a home in Prior
Lake.
Accommodating the additional right-of-way requested by the County reduced our ability
to, meet the 26-foot setback requirement.
we propose revising the building height to 25 feet by redesigning the roof.
We further request that the building height ordinance be modified by 25% so that our
proposed 20-foot setback between buildings can be maintained.
Our goal for this project is to offer moderately priced housing for young families and
retired persons. A 20-foot setback between buildings will help us achieve this goal.
The scale of building elevations is Y4 inch = 1 foot.
All proposed building pads are located at least 30 feet from the 100-year flood plain, as will be
shown on the revised Grading Plan.
Phasing:
In addition to the phasing schedule provided earlier, we anticipate that this project will be
complete within 2V2 to 3 years from the date of permit, depending on market conditions.
Useable Open Space:
Removing the proposed NURP and infiltration ponds from the open space calculation results in a
total of 83,639.8 square feet of useable open space -more than the required 19,200 sq. ft.
.
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com
j .
Parking:
Jane Kansier recommended that we increase the number of off-street guest parking spaces.
The revised Site Plan shows an additional parking area for 3 more vehicles bringing the total
off-street guest parking spaces to 11. This is in addition to the double-car garages and
driveways, which meet the minimum parking requirements.
Landscaping:
The Landscaping Plan has been further defined in the accompanying revision from the
Landscape Architect.
Tree Replacement:
The Tree Replacement Plan has been further defined in the accompanying revision from the
Landscape Architect.
Signs:
Based on Sue McDermott's recommendation, we will post "No Parking" signs on the entire
private road.
Street Lighting:
Street lighting will be mounted on each building.
Streets:
Based on Bud Osmundson's recommendation, the width of the private road has been 'changed
from 32 feet to 28 feet to accommodate the County's request for a 10-foot right-Of-way along
County Road 21.
Traffic Impact Report:
With the submission of our check for $4800, the City of Prior Lake has hired a traffic ~ngineer to
analyze the traffic impact of this project.
Intersection with Duluth Avenue:
Based on discussions at the November 28th meeting, we request that the intersection of Duluth
Ave. with the new private road be "right in/right out" to minimize stacking both on Duluth and
the new private road.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~. 04"';.
Merlyn J. Olson, President
Merlyn Olson Development Company
.
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com
...
SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST. JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
(952) 496-8346. Fax: (952) 496-8365. wwW.co.scott.mn.us
BRADLEY J. LARSON
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR!
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
December 5, 2001
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Subject:
Eaglewood Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD
SE Corner ofCSAH 21 and Duluth Avenue
Dear Jane:
I am writing to follow up on the November 28th meeting involving the City, County, and the
developer regarding Eaglewood East. Weare willing to allow infiltration areas for the site to be
located on the ten-foot wide strip to be dedicated to the County as part of this plat. We normally do
not allow additional site~related drainage to be handled within the County road rights-of-way, but we
realize there are limited areas available to properly handle the drainage related to this unique site.
We appreciate the City and developer meeting with us in addressing the issues regarding County
State Aid Highway 21. yve would also be willing to become involved earlier in the process with
future developments, if the City feels it is appropriate.
If you have questions or require additional information regarding Eaglewood East, please call me at
496-8060.
Sincerely,
Brian K. Sorenson, P .E.
Transportation Engineer
Email: Brad Larson, Public Works Director
Greg IIkka, Assistant County Engineer
Craig Jenson, Transportation Planner
Sue McDermot, Prior Lake Engineer
W:\ WORD\Review\Plats\O 1 ]lats\Prelim\PL_ eaglewood3.doc.
12~05/2001 16:20 FAX 7634752429
SRFCQN~UI,.TI:NG GROUP
~001
MCONSULTING
GROUP,
I N c.
SRF Number: ~3~
Transportation. Civil. Structural. Bnvironmental . Planning. Traffic. Landscape Architecture. Parking
Suite 150
One Carlson Parkway North
Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443
Telephone Number (763) 475-0010
FAX Number (763) 475-2429
Return to sender
File after faxing
Make copy and
mail original
Discard
From: ~\L~
FAXMITTAL
Pages to Follow: --S.---
Date: 5-"'-. - 0\
Subject: ~ _,.,...),.~~ \r~\.... 9.~
Comments: \.- . '\\.-~ s.:i........ ,.~ ~~~,. ...... '\_~_s
TO THE FOllOWING:
Name: ~_. ~~.L.r" - ~.__ \..L
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
FAX Number: ~~~-AA1-...~l~S
FAX Number:
FAX Number:
FAX Number:
FAX Number:
FAX Number:
FAX Number:
FAX Number:
FAX Number:
FAX Number:
FAX Number:
FAX Number:
12/05/2001 16:20 FAX 7634752429
~~F CO~~U~T!NG~ROUP
141002
..
~CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
Transportation. Civil. Structural. Environmental · Planning · Traffic · Landscape Architecture · Parking
SRF No. 0014384
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
FROM: Patrick Corkle, P.E., P.T.D.E., Associate
DATE: December 5,2001
SUBJECT: EAGLEWOOD EAST RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY
CITY OF PRlOR LAKE, MlNNESOT A
Introduction
As you requested, we have completed a traffic study for the proposed residential development
bordered by CSAH 21, West Avenue, Duluth Avenue and Colorado Street in the City of Prior
Lake (see Figure 1). The purpose of this study is to detennine the traffic impacts on the adjacent
roadway system related to the proposed development traffic and access. This traffic study
includes a traffic operations analysis during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for existing and future
build conditions.
Existing Conditions
Traffic operations for existing conditions were analyzed at the following key intersections:
· CSAH 21 and West Avenue
. CSAH 21 and Duluth Avenue
. Duluth A venue and Colorado Street
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443
Telephone (763) 475-0010 . Fax (763) 475-2429 · http:/ /www.srfconsulting.com
An Equal Opportunity Employer
12105/2001 16:21 FAX 7634752429
SRF CO~~~LTINQ GROUP
~003
AVE.
W
GE
\
~~lf:..
~
o
\l-
--.uI
>::Iuj
~l;c
0'
WIND SONG
ST. i
~I
Ii ~I
i
?- ST. I
S.E.
.n
;!.
'\
92. HORIZON TRAIL
FIGURE
GROUI'. INC.
1
SRF NO. 0014384
EAGLEWOOD EAST TRAFFIC STUDY
12/05/2001 16:21 FAX 7634752429
SRE...90NSULTING GROUP
~004
~
Jane Kansier
- 3 -
December 5, 2001
Current traffic controls at the CSAH 21 intersections with West Avenue and Duluth Avenue are
side-street stop control. The intersection of Duluth A venue and Colorado Street has all-way stop
control. Duluth Street is a collector roadway and CSAH 21 is an "A" minor arterial. SRF
Consulting Group collected a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts in December
2001 at the key intersections. Existing geometries and peak hour traffic volumes for the key
intersections are shown in Figure 2.
A traffic operations analysis was conducted for the a.Ill. and p.m. peak hours at each of the key
intersections to determine how traffic currently operates within the project area. All key
intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Software. Capacity analysis results
identify a Level of Service (LOS), which indicates the quality of traffic flow through an
intersection. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the
best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS F indicates an
intersection where demand exceeds capacity, or a breakdown of traffic flow. LOS A through D
are generally considered acceptable by drivers. LOS E indicates that an intersection is operating
at, or very near, its capacity and that vehicles experience substantial delays.
Results of the analysis shown in Table 1 indicate that the key intersections currently operate at an
acceptable overall LOS A I worst approach LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours,
with existing traffic controls and geometric layout.
Table 1
Existing Capacity Analysis
Level of Service Results
Intersection Level of Service
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
CSAH 211West Avenue* (2-Wav) AlB AlB
CSAH 21/0uluth Avenue* (2-Way) AlB AlB
Duluth Avenue/Colorado Street* (All-Way) AlA AlA
* IndIcates an unslgnalIzed mtersection. The overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS.
12105/2001 16:22 FAX 7634752429
SRE..l:ONSULTING GROUP
141005
()Gt:,
., l(l~
UJ I c:::: I .
)\\\ ~I <ff----J
/ ~)) ~. ~kO~ !:!!
~~ ~______~~~ ---- ---g ~r~ q;
/~, €:.S , DE i C/)r-I 80 ----------- :'l:" r;::- / i.J.J
/'v~ I W ~. -- ~ / it
;[_ [5~ w s I COLORADO_ ST. q;/ ~---/~
I ~ I ~ -GLEAS~NT l S -L
w . I
> w;
\ CATES <( ST. ~
---".~-_..._..-----_.__._.
>-
z
<(
CD
\!'POD ~
\00 ___ G) ST.
?~ IP - -_ l
-+- 505 (476)
.. 18 (30) .
T
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
EXISTING VOLUMES
FIGURE
I
\
\ 81.
LEGEND
XX (XX) = AM PEAK (PM PEAK)
mCONSULTINC GROUP. INC.
2
SRF NO. 0014384
EAGlEWOOD EAST TRAFFIC STUDY
12/05/2001 16:22 FAX 7634752429
SRF. CONSULTING GROUP
~006
Jane Kansier
- 5 -
December 5, 2001
Proposed Development
The proposed residential development is to be constructed on a currently vacant five-acre site
bordered by CSAH 21, West Avenue, Duluth Avenue and Colorado Street in the City of Prior
Lake. The proposed development of 33 townhomes is expected to be constructed by year 2005.
A new residential street (Racine Street) through the proposed development will run parallel to
Colorado Street, intersecting West Avenue and Duluth Avenue. Direct access to/from the
proposed residential development will be along Racine Street. With the construction of Racine
Street, intersection access will then be provided onto West Avenue and Duluth Avenue. The
intersection of West Avenue and Racine Street will be located approximately 350 feet south of
CSAH 21. The intersection of Duluth Avenue and Racine Street will be approximately 150 feet
south of CSAH 21.
Traffic Forecasts
Traffic forecasts were developed for the year 2005. A four-percent yearlygrowth rate was used
to account for growth in background traffic volumes on CSAH 21 and a one-percent yearly
background growth rate was used for Duluth Avenue through traffic.
Trip generation estimates for daily and a.m./p.m. peak hours were calculated for the proposed
development based on land use type and size, and trip generation formulas from the 1997 ITE
Trip Generation Reports. The trip generation results are displayed in Table 2.
Table 2
Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Land Use Size Daily A.M. Peak. P.M. Peak
Type Trips In Out In Out
Residential Townhome 230 33 units 255 4 18 17 8
The directional trip distribution for the proposed site-generated trips was developed based on
existing travel patterns in the area and engineering judgment. It is assumed 55 percent of the
generated trips would be traveling to/from the east on CSAH 21,30 percent traveling to/from the
west on CSAH 21 and 15 percent traveling to/from the south on Duluth Avenue. The
combination of background traffic and trips generated by the proposed developments is shown in
Figure 3 for the year 2005 a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
12/05/2001 16:22 FAX 7634752429
._ . H_
---
00'll:t
...- --
-
...-OM
.....
+
(16) 4.-f.
(863) 510 ..,..
- (22) 6"
~ 1 (6)
~ 747 (604)
.. 2 (24)
+
NO 'lI:t
..... ...-
iOOCD
..... --
-
\ \
//~
;~;/ ~
/ ~//",~S' DE _~
/ ~ ----1-,
.' v -
.' ~. ,
,r' I
LB w
/
I ~ I
J u... I
I -
I (D
I
oeo
::!.-
I'-- ...-
~ L 6 (3)
t ~ + 1 (0)
f.
<0 0
N
co;:"'
...--
-
SRF CONSULTING GROUP
~007
--
CD <0
-'lI:t
~
N'lI:t
C)
.- 568 (537) ++
T 20 (37)
~ (4) 8 -t +t
(1) 3
N"'- .- Lt)
<OM 0
...... N
-- --
C) <0 N ..-
~:!.. -M
......
DAkO-"'/l
---~
PLEASANT
.
W
~
W
::i
q:"
1 (4)
+ + 4 (6)
7 (10)
(1) 1 + +
(2) 2 NI'-N
(4) 7 <0 .....
.....
$E)
.:::>/
r ST. -...1 I
- .:::>'
a
~r- -~-~...
LEGEND
XX (XX) = AM PEAK (PM PEAK)
-T-- .
,W
I>
I <( ST.
>-
z
<(
(D
-'
<(
mCONSULTING GROUP, INC.
SRF NO. 0014384
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
YEAR 2005 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EAGlEWOOD EAST TRAFFIC STUDY
FIGURE
3
12/05/2001 16:23 FAX 763425~429
SRF CONSULTING GROUP
~008
Jane Kansier
-7 -
December 5, 2001
Future Traffic Operations Analysis
To determine how well the existing and proposed roadway system will accommodate the
proposed development, a traffic operations analysis was conducted for the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours for the year 2005.
Similar to the previous analysis, the unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the Highway
Capacity Software. As shown in Table 3, all key intersections are expected to operate at an
acceptable overall LOS A / worst approach LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours
in the year 2005, with existing traffic control and geometric layout.
Table 3
Year 2005 Capacity Analysis
Level of Service Results
Intersection Level of Service
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
CSAH 21/West Avenue* (2-Way) A/B AlB
CSAH 211DuluthAvenue* (2-Way) AlC AlC
Duluth Avenue/Colorado Street* (4-Way) NA AlA
* Indicates an unsignaliz.ed intersection. The overall LOS is shown followed by the worsl approach LOS.
Access Issues
There are two proposed access points for the development along West Avenue and Duluth
A venue. The safe stopping and decision sight distances and queue lengths for each location were
reviewed to determine the impacts of the new access intersections.
The proposed access onto W est Avenue would have adequate decision-sight and safe stopping
distances to allow safe turning movements to and from Racine Street. In addition, queue lengths
along West Avenue are not expected to back-up into the West Avenue and Racine Street
intersection.
The proposed access onto Duluth Avenue is closely spaced to the CSAH 21 intersection.
Adequate safe stopping distance would be provided for motorists turning onto Duluth Avenue
from CSAH 21, since this traffic has slower speeds, thus requiring a shorter safe stopping
distance. The northbound queues forming at CSAH 21 are not expected to block the proposed
access in year 2005. However, this could become an issue under future conditions as volumes on
CSAH 21 continue to increase. The proposed access does not provide adequate decision sight
distance for motorists to turn left from Racine Street onto Duluth A venue, due to the location of
12/05/2001 16:23 FAX 7634752429
.._ SRF CONSULTING GROUP
~009
Jane Kansier
- 8 -
December 5, 2001
the proposed town home located on Block 1, Lot 3. In addition, any landscaping along the west
side of Duluth Avenue would impact the decision sight distance. This situation would cause
some discomfort to the motorist turning onto Duluth A venue.
To improve the safety of the intersection access at Duluth A venue, we offer the following
possible solutions:
. Sight obstructing objects should be relocated from the decision sight distance area,
including the proposed townhome located on Block 1, Lot 3 and any landscaping.
. Limit access to the proposed development tolfrom West Avenue. This would create an
800-900 foot cul-de-sac. The City Fire Chief and City Code should be consulted for the
feasibility of this solution. The relocation of the site-generated trips to the West Avenue
access will not significantly impact the operations of the adjacent street system.
. Restrict the Duluth Avenue and Racine Street intersection access to right-in/right-out
movements, with channelization on Racine Street. However, it may be difficult to
enforce this type of turning movement without a center median on Duluth Avenue.
Drivers trying to violate this restriction will be in a worse situation, since they will
require more time to make a left-turn movement.
. Restrict the Duluth Avenue and Racine Street intersection access to a right-in only and
provide a right-out onto Colorado Street by extending a one-way road from the proposed
residential street to Colorado Street.
. Create a one-way only roadway system with the ingress at Duluth A venue and the egress
at West Avenue.
Summary and Conclusions
A residential development of 33 town homes is proposed on a currently vacant site bordered by
CSAH 21, West Avenue, Duluth Avenue and Colorado Street in the City of Prior Lake. The
purpose of this study is to examine the impacts this development would have on the adjacent
roadway system.
Based on the analysis, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered for your
consideration:
. All key intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS A I worst approach
LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with existing geometries and traffic
control.
12/05/2001 16:24 FAX 7634752429
SRF CONSULTING GROUP
!4I010
Jane Kansier
-9-
December 5,2001
. With the construction of the proposed residential development, all key intersections are
expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS A I worst approach LOS C or better
during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours in the year 2005 with existing geometries and traffic
control.
. The proposed intersection access of West Avenue and Racine Street is expected to
operate adequately with the required safe stopping and decision sight distance.
. The proposed intersection access of Duluth A venue and Racine Street is currently located
(according to the proposed site plan) close to CSAH 21. The safe stopping distance for
traffic on Duluth A venue is adequate. The estimated queues in year 2005 on northbound
Duluth Avenue at CSAH 21 are not expected to block the Racine Street. However, the
decision sight distance is inadequate for motorists to safely and comfortably exit Racine
Street onto Duluth Avenue. Therefore, we recommend that the solutions previously
identified are considered to improve the traffic operations along Duluth Street and CSAH
21 with the proposed development in place.
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5B
A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE FOR MR. D. MARK CROUSE,
(Case File #01-093PC)
LOT 9, AND PART OF LOT 10, NORTH GRAINWOOD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
DECEMBER 10, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from Ms. Allison Gontarek,
Huemoeller & Bates Attorneys At Law, representing Mr. D. Mark Crouse the owner of
the property at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The applicant is submitting a variance request
for an increased impervious surface coverage area. (Attachment 1 - Certificate of
Survey).
On October 8,2001, the applicant was previously granted a variance for an impervious
surface coverage area of 38% by the Planning Commission (Resolution 01-011 PC).
This variance allowed the applicant to keep a portion of an existing driveway to access
his 3 stall garage, while removing the additional parking and rear yard patio areas to
accomplish the 38% coverage area. The applicant has since received an engineer's
report on the need for the lakeside patio area to provide soil stabilization around the
structure foundation.
The applicant therefore requests the following Variance:
1) A 1,260 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coveraQe area of
3,567 square feet (46.4%) rather than the permitted maximum area of 2,307 square
feet (30%) [Ordinance Section 1104.306: Impervious Surface Coverage].
HISTORY:
On June 25, 2001, the Planning Department held a public hearing for two variance
requests from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) on the property located at 15507
Calmut Avenue. The requests included a variance from the ordinary high water mark for
a deck setback, and a variance to the maximum impervious surface area. The Planning
Commission denied the deck variance and continued the public hearing regarding the
L:\01fi1es\01variances\01-093\VarRprt1.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
-.
impervious surface variance to allow the applicant more time to revise the request
because the Commission did not believe the applicant provided proof of hardship for the
requested 4,422 square feet impervious area or 57.5% of the total lot area.
At the public hearing held on July 23, 2001, the Planning Commission again continued
the public hearing to August 27,2001, to allow the applicant time provide new
information. In addition, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to reduce his
variance request for an impervious surface coverage area in the 30-percentile range.
On August 27,2001, the applicant requested an additional continuance of the public
hearing and the Planning Commission continued this item to the next scheduled
meeting. On September 10, 2001, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a
resolution approving a variance to allow an impervious surface area of 36%. On
September 24,2001, the Planning Commission reconsidered their earlier action and
determined a 36% impervious surface area would not allow for a complete driveway to
the existing 3 stall garage. The Commission adopted Variance Resolution 01-011 PC to
allow a 38% impervious surface coverage area for the proposed driveway. The
variance provided a driveway with dimensions of 24' wide at the front lot line, 24' deep
by 36' wide at the garage, and tapering back to the front property line, for a total
impervious coverage area of 792 square feet.
DISCUSSION:
A building permit for the house on this lot was issued in 1995. A condition of approval of
the permit stipulated the impervious surface area was not to exceed 30 percent. Most
of the additional impervious surface area, such as the driveway and patio, were added
after the completion of the existing house without permits.
The applicant now proposes a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area to permit the
existing patio area to remain due to the need for a "cap" over the fill area around the
home's foundation for soil stabilization, as recommended by the engineering firm
Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. (Attachment 2 - Engineers Letter). The
lakeside yard patio area of 539 square feet will add 8.4% to the previously approved
impervious surface coverage area of 38%.
The subject lot has a total area of 7,689 square feet which allows for 2,307 square feet
of impervious surface to equal the 30% coverage area as permitted under the
Ordinance. The area for house and garage totals 2,152 square feet. The area for the
driveway amounts to 792 square feet, plus 84 square feet for the front stoop. When
combined with the patio area of 539 square feet, the total requested impervious surface
coverage area equals 3,567 square feet or 46.4% of the total lot area (Attachment 3 .
Impervious Surface Worksheet).
The applicant also proposes to remove 372 square feet of concrete by modifying the
existing 4 ' concrete sidewalks to a maximum width of 3' as permitted under the City
Ordinance. Sidewalks less than 3' wide are not considered impervious surface by
definition. In addition, the applicant proposes to remove approximately 186 square feet
of existing driveway area in the public right-of-way, and 570 square feet of parking area
along the garage on the subject lot.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-093\VarRprt1.DOC
Page 2
A follow-up inspection of the subject property was conducted on August 6, 2001. The
deck and concrete impervious surface coverage area remain, as documented on the
original certificate of survey. In addition, a metal frame with tarp boat shelter has been
installed on the south side of the property. To my knowledge, this shelter was not
included on the original or proposed impervious surface calculations, and is not depicted
on the certificate of survey submitted for this variance request.
The City Engineering Department reviewed this request, including the engineer's letter
of recommendation to allow the applicant to keep the existing patio (cap) for soil
stability. The Department noted the absence of calculations in the letter to support their
recommendation for the cap. However, without conducting an analysis of the subject
site, the Engineering Department does not support nor dispute the applicants engineer
of record. The Department does suggest there are alternative methods to stabilize the
soils and retaining wall thereby eliminating the patio cap and the impervious surface
coverage area (Attachment 4 - Engineering Department Memo).
The Department Of Natural Resources submitted comments for this report. In short, the
DNR is not convinced by the engineer's letter of recommendation, and suggested the
City Engineer provide an independent review. However, should it be determined the
patio cap is necessary for structural reasons, perhaps other non-essential hard surfaces
can be eliminated in their place.
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 subject property is a nonconforming platted lot of record, but was developed
under the current ownership, who did not meet the conditions spelled out in the
building permit for the principal structure which included a maximum 30% impervious
surface coverage area. However, in review, it appears the applicant could not meet
the required 30% impervious coverage and be able to construct a driveway for the
approved 3 stall garage, as was determined when the applicant was granted a 38%
impervious surface coverage area. The request for a 46.4% coverage area for the
patio area, while recommended by the applicants engineer, has not been supported
with calculations by the engineer. In addition, the City Engineering Department has
suggested an alternative solution to the problem.
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.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-093\VarRprt1.DOC
Page 3
The existing conditions of the lot area and dimensions are peculiar to the property,
and generally do not apply to most other lots within the Shoreland District. However,
when all required conditions are applied, there is an approved variance resolution for
a 38% impervious surface area to allow for the driveway.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The approved legal building site precluded the need for the additional variance
requests. The owner created the hardship when he decided on the building
dimensions and location of the structure, as well as the excessive paving of the
subject lot. The Planning Commission previously determined the need for some
variance to impervious surface; however, the Commission determined a 38%
coverage allowed the applicant reasonable use of the property.
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.
The granting of the requested variances will not impair light and air to adjacent
properties or increase congestion, danger of fire 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 variance for increased impervious surface area will adversely
affect the above stated values by reducing the infiltration/buffer area, which helps to
remove the pollutants and increase the potential for shoreland erosion with
additional upland water runoff into the Prior Lake watershed and floodplain and
thereby affecting the adjacent properties.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variance is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan by allowing excessive impervious surface conditions than were
originally approved by a building permit (30%), and increased by Resolution to 38%.
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 granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the
applicant, since other means are available to provide soil stability around the
structure.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-093\VarRprt1.DOC
Page 4
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 hardship results from the actions of the property owner when he constructed the
dwelling in 1995.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone shall not be grounds for granting this variance
request. The property owner helped to create the need for these variance requests
by not following the approved conditions for the original building permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the applicant's variance request
for 46.4% impervious surface area as the request does not meet all of the hardship
criteria due to existing conditions on the nonconforming lot of record, the approval for a
building permit to construct the existing structure with a 30% impervious surface
coverage area, and the recently approved 38% impervious variance. In addition, the
City Engineering Department suggested another option for shoring up the retaining wall
and stabilizing the soils that would not result in additional impervious surface.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variance as requested by the applicant. In this case, the Planning
Commission should direct staff to draft a Resolution with findings approving the
variance request.
2. Approve a variance as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. In this
case, the Planning Commission should direct the staff to prepare a Resolution
with findings approving the variance request.
3. Deny the variance as requested by the applicant. In this case, the Planning
Commission should adopt the attached Resolution 01-025PC.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends alternative #3.
1. A motion and second to adopt the attached Resolution 01-025PC denying the
applicants request for a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-093\VarRprt1.DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION 01-025PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 16.4% VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 46.4%
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) has applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit an impervious surface area of 46.4% on a single family
residence on property located in the R -1 (Low Density Residential) District and the
SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, legally described as Lot 9, and that part of Lot 10,
North Grainwood, and that part Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township 115,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Lot 10; thence southerly along
the westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of 165.00 feet to
the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly
along the north line of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line of the
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along
said easterly right-of-way line to its intersection with the westerly extension of
the southerly line of the northerly 45.00 feet (as measured at right angles to
the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly along said southerly line to
the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence southerly along said shoreline to the south
line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said Lot 9, to the
southwest comer thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot
8, to the actual point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-093PC and held hearings thereon on December 10,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\Ol-093\dnyrs.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
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. A legal impervious surface area exists that meets the permitted coverage area for the
subject lot, such that the hardship has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use
of the property exists without the requested variances.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the permitted impervious coverage area as
reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure
to be permitted with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case 00-093PC 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 denies the
following variance for an impervious coverage area on an existing single family dwelling,
as shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey;
1. A 1,260 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 3,567
square feet (46.4%) rather than the permitted maximum area of 2,307 square feet
(30%).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on December 10,2001.
Anthony Stamson, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\0 1 files\O 1 variances\O 1-093\dnyrs.doc
2
ATTACHMENT 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
\0
of \.01'
\.\ '" E
",o~1''f\
COfl~\\
,,~ OiT ,0
of I.;
l
~\t\~ ~
~ 1.\fj 0 "-.
. '" 6 'I:
...~. .\\6 te
~O\ 06\ ~.
'0"- ~ ~o..
\'l.~
\.
?c
fI.,e ""
~c.t ~,,!>'-01
~ CJo.~ \.
~O~ ~e#i
~o
~
~
~
",O'T€... ., COtlC:
E/l.. Of"
tt.~ ~E.t-Att.\'"
1'0
rl
...
o
...
'"
\
\
c/l..6\l'l
PROf. ENGR. CONSULT.
4989265
P.81
ATTACHMENT 2 - ENGINEERS LETTER
Z03 LITTLe C^N"D^ IIO^D
SUITE 280
SAINT PAUL
MINNIlSOTA 55l I 7
T!!L: 651-490-9266
PAX: 651-.4\10-9265
~. ~. l ~ ;., 3; .:~. '-: ~ :
~O"'ESSIONAt. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
IN(:ORPORJ,THD
October 4, 2001
Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Ave NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Subj: Grading Review
15507 Calmut Ave NE
Prior Lake, Minnesota - PEe #5091
Dear Mr. Crouse:
This letter concerns our review of the grading and patio
construction for the single fa~ily residential structure at the
above referenced address. We 'understand the structure was built
with a basement floor elevation .lbwer than currently allowed for
residential structures on the,lakeshore. Therefore, the wood framed
portion of the structure wai rai~ed,' four courses of block were
added to the perimeter foundation and fi1~ was added inside of the
structure to support a lower level floor slab. Now the lower level
floor slab complies with current elevation requirements. These
alterations required changes to the exterior grading.
On the lake side of the structure the ~rading changes requir~d the
following engineering considerations:'
1. The exterior grade had to be raised to balance the lateral
soil loadings on the raised section of the rear foundation
wall.
2. The grade required a cap to prevent surface water infil tration
into the backfill region to reduce frost action and provide
erosion control. Erosion .control was required bet.ween the
shoreline and the building',
In addition to the engineering considerations, where the function
and maintenance considerations for the construction. There was a
sliding glass doorway in the lo'wer level and a need to provide
maintenance access for the lake side face of the construction.
These requirements and engineering requirements were accomplished
by constructing a near' level grade with a retaining wall. The
rataining wall also had a requirement to reduce lateral frost
action against the wall. Therefore, the top of the_grade had to be
capped to minimize surface water 'runoff from percolating into the
subgrade soils.
/
Pas" Two
The paved patio 8.'t'ea fulfills the cap requirement over the
backf ill. It minimizes the su'rface water intil tration to reduce
fros~ action in the subgrade soils and it keeps water away from the
foundation. It also provides erosion protection for the subgrade.
Dut'inS our observations on October 1, 2001, we observed a gap
between the foundation wall and the patio slab. This gap Rhould be
sealed with a flexible joint sealant to prevent dirt and water
migration into the gap. The saw joints in the patio also should
be sealed with joint sealant. The patio slab extends to the
outside edge ot the retaining wall. This construction detail
mi.nimizes water infiltration bp.hind the back of the retaining wall.
Ii you have any questions regarding our review, please contact us
at (j51-490~9266.
Respectfully,
T'jrOf~~ss~n~i .E2ginle ing Consultants, Inc.
r ffM Y\.' f --1) ~~.1-t-t
~ hn F. Gislason, r., P.E.
Profe5sional Engineer
JFG/fm
cc:. Allison Gontarek
952-447-5628, Fax
I
I
I
I!
I
!
1
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distri"ct (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address \'t;"So'l ~~\~'"'"'t"'" ~'-S ~~\J(.. N~
Lot Area J, lae ot ..\.e. e~ C\o~.o Sq. Feet x 300/0 = .............. -z. ~o.,
************************************************************************
LENGTH
WIDTH
SQ. FEET
\ \ \.\4
HOUSE
~
,
ATTACHED GARAGE
x
=
x
=
=
x
\ O() CO
TOT ALPRlNCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... "'Z. \ S"2-
DETACI1EDBLDGS
(Garage/Shed)
x
X
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS.......................
~~-e.k
DRIVEWAYIPAVED AREAS X
-c:::.
(Driveway-paved or not) ~C- S~ 6 X
(SidewalkIParking Areas) .' ~X
=~
~'t
=
=
TOT AL P A YED .<\REAS.........................................
Cb"'-rel..e
P A TIOSIPORCHESID ECKS
-
(OpenDecks W' min. opening between
boards, with a pervious surface below,
are not considered to be impervious)
X
=
t;~q
X
=
X
=
T OT.~ DECKS ........................................................
OTIffiR
=
x
X
=
T 0 TAL OTFIER.... .......................... .........................
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDE~
Prepared B:Y1).."e.. ~'1"'~"
company~\\~ ~"~""'\':j G.,) r.~.
I
I
'" Date~z:'Z_1 0 t
;." -
.~t',}.
Phone # '--\\\1-ZS,t)
a"1~
~~~
?ht.--r I
\ 2...\eo' ~ I
~.
~
~
"
:I:
3:
m
z
-I
(,.)
I
-
3:
1:J
m
:IJ
<
-
o
c:
en
en
c:
:IJ
iJ!
o
m
~
:IJ
.~
en
:I:
m
m
...-I
./
~TTACHMENT 4 - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMO
Memo
DATE: December 4, 2001
TO: Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator
FROM: Lani Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator U-
RE: Variance Request for 15507 Calmut Avenue NE
The engineering department has the following comments pertaining to the
letter from Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. regarding the need for
an impervious surface between the home and lakeside retaining wall:
1) No engineering calculations have been provided to support their claim
that, without a "cap" to prevent surface water infiltration, the structure will
be endangered.
2) If the main danger to the structure is the possibility of the retaining wall
failing due to water infiltration, other methods are available to structurally
support the embankment, while at the same time allowing surface water
drainage. Granted, other options would imply additional costs to the
property owner.
Summary:
Engineering does not support variance as requested.
16200 Et<t~It1I$rn:t~~e1,g:>r:jerd-ake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER