HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 27, 2000
).:
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2000
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-017 Bernard Carlson is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for
the project known as Carlson's First Addition, located at the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of Main Avenue and Eagle Creek Avenue.
B. Case #00-010 Affordable Housing Solutions is requesting a Conditional Use Permit
for Stonegate, a 43 unit multiple family dwelling, for the property located in the
southeast comer of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue.
C. Case #00-021 Northwood Oaks LLC is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for
the project known as Northwood Oaks Estates 2nd Addition, for the property located
on the west side of North wood Road north of Hawk Ridge Road.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #00-024 Hillcrest Homes variance resolution approval.
B. 2001 - 2005 Capital Improvement Program review.
6. New Business:
A. Annual Variance Report.
B. Annual Complaint Report.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
162 EL:\oqFIL.ES\OOP"COMM\OO~MiENv..G032700.DOC .
00 agle ueeK J-we. ;:).t:., t'nor LaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
\
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 13,2000
1. Call to Order:
The March 13, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Cramer at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Cramer, Criego,
Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier,
Planner Jenni Tovar, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman, Assistant City Engineer Sue
McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
V onhof
Criego
Cramer
Atwood
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the February 28, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Cramer read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the first meeting.
A. Case #00-010 Affordable Housing Solutions is requesting a Conditional Use
Permit for Stonegate, a 43 unit multiple family dwelling, for the property located in
the southeast corner of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue.
Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated March 13, 2000, on file in the office of
the Planning Department.
On January 23, 2000 a Conditional Use Permit application was received to allow a Multi-
family dwelling on the property located at the southeast comer of Tower Street and
Toronto Avenue. The proposed building will have 43 units with underground parking.
No variances are needed.
The applicant had asked the item be continued to March 13, 2000 to address site plan
issues prior to Planning Commission review. On March 2,2000, the City received a
petition protesting the project. Staff suggested a neighborhood meeting be held to answer
any development questions and identify neighborhood concerns. On March 7, 2000, the
City received a request from the applicant to continue the hearing until March 27, 2000 to
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN031300,DOC 1
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13. 2000
I
allow adequate time for a neighborhood meeting. The City also received a waiver to the
60/120 day timeline for a decision on the CUP to be made by the City.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO MARCH 27, 2000.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
..::::/if!!itIt~:!::::::::
..::::::;:::.;.... .....:.::::.
B. Case #99-100 Hillcrest Homes, Inc. is requesting a setbac~ft.iriance to
permit side yard setbacks of 9 feet and 6.08 feet to construct ~..:Wiglgtim.ily dwelling
for the property located at 16340 Park Avenue. ~,,,
Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator presented the Plaryy#g:'lte}jo'rt dated Matdij!!i!liB:~,,;,:(}.
2000, on file in the office of the Planning Departm~ .~ T
On December 17, 1999, the Planning Department tecetv'Jft:~ va~*::f.lpplication from
Hillcrest Homes, Inc., proposing to construct a single fariit~*i!pp'me with attached garage
on an existing substandard lot of record. A public hearing wiiiiii2nducted on January 10,
2000, and after reviewing the variance regY!~W...with respect to.':hI9~WP criteria, the
Planning Commission directed staff to dr~~t:ifif.t~JHt~?n approvin~i:fhf setback variances,
but denied the variance for the eaves to endtBach:.:':':'.iiilIi!PH~ ?4f'2000, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution #OO-OIPC.~:~)jpg:"th~::::~aYii!,hcroachment, and adopted
Resolution 00-03PC, gran~ varian~ '
A revised survey was sYQmitted depiiting 6.08 tQ9..t~d 9 foot side yard setbacks along
with the original bu~J41:li. permit. ..,:J$e applicant .!~~".notified the survey did not match
~~~:ft:~v;~e::~~~!'r~!!'iii_ilii!rtibn February 23, 2000, the applicant
.'......................
.................................
Staff cOz:t:21ya~dqH~i!.Hested ,hit!!nF~~,.did not meet all ofthe required hardship criteria.
A legahiffemative eXlimho redesiJI!!ine structure to meet the setbacks as provided for in
Re~lltion #00-03PC~I!iirlimin~t~. the need for the variances requested.
C~mthe~e:
Jim Albers, 1494.:3 N4Rhwood Road, stood for questions. His understanding was because
of the length ot,;JIMiCiewalk, the home will have to be shifted to one foot.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Questioned staff if the setback measurement is from the eaves or foundation. Kansier
responded from the foundation but there is a provision in the ordinance stating how
wide the over-hang can be. Specifically, it cannot be less than 5 feet from the lot line.
1;\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nm031300.doc
2
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13. 2000
. Supported the variance, as that is what was intended.
Criego:
. Abstained.
Cramer:
. Originally felt there was a hardship but after going out to the site founq::g!:m8re
general concern with the side yard setbacks of the adjacent home to.Jb~ffi6rllE:
. Horsman explained the neighboring side yard setbacks and futUJ]tPI~;ptial problems.
~on~~~~:~O~:::~ns::~::::e::::~mal m';: ,,~
:tw::~dShiP criteria was met. "'_ ,~
. No comment. "::"""':":""'::"
"::::~:~:~:~:~:r:::..
~Y~l~~~o~E~=~i;~::~~BY
Vote taken indicated ayes 1:>"W:$_p, V onho~:::l\twood aiN!' Cramer. Criego abstained.
MOTION CARRIED. ..::(/:::::~~~:::r::::'" ":::\:'::'1':'.:: '\:::'l:~!::\:::::(}:,
,,:::::::::::' :::::::::::::;:.'
5. 0 Id BusinCf$:F::::::::::~:t~:,::.. ..::;:::::::::::::;;;::::::::::::::::::::::,::::::::::.:.:.:.:., ....::::::::::..
. :.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:. . ..<:~::::::::::::::;::::::::::::~::"::""':':::;~:::::;::::' ~ ~ :.; '.. . .:.
Rye suggested hearing It~dr:::I:'b:~fore It~~'A't~ecause most of the audience was present
:~~:X~u::7n:::l::::::~~:e:oa:.::.
P'taniil~g:::h:oordinator Jmi~i:kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 13,2000,
on file iflt'1!::i:~:~e O~~~~j,:::Planning Department.
On February 2'S:~:::*~:' the Planning Commission discussed the Zoning Ordinance
provision requitjjg::"an additional side yard setback in Residential Districts when the
building wall exceeds 40' in length. The purpose of the additional setback requirement is
to reduce the effect ofthe bulk of a long wall on the adjacent property. This is especially
important on nonconforming lots, where the side yard setback may be reduced to 5 feet.
The Planning Commission discussed several alternatives to this requirement.
Several examples of houses exceeding the 40' wall length were discussed. The examples
included both substandard and conventional lots. The plans also presented different
breaks in the building, as well as continuous walls.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nm031300.doc
3
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2000
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Questioned staff s recommendation. Kansier said staff really does not have one. The
City is hearing from builders who are concerned. It does not appear to be a problem
with the newer lots. It is a problem on the substandard lots. Houses are getting
bigger, people are building setback to setback. Staff is willing to work Wi~p.:::Fhatever
the Commission feels is appropriate. ..::::::~:::::::~):::::::::::::::::::f{:::
. Felt 50, 60 and 70 feet is too long. There has to be some level o~J~tINt.
. Retain 18 feet, but have it in multiple phases. A house woulq,::lspk Ihqi':J~asonable
:t.::~l~~: ~::d~:::;::;eO:~:'ig break.~ '"
. Clarified the 18 foot break. Kansier said the re.~&nlf.9.r the prqy!:~ion was to re"<luce
. ~:e7:ts:n~:~e n~j:~::~ ~;:~~ square foot~:e. ..::::t::::::::::II.::I!!!::::.::::::.....:~::r~~~~:::::::::~:t::::::::.
. 18 feet might still be a problem with a.:::~p'?-aller house. ..::::t::::~:~:~::::t:::.. ..:
:o::~:~s:tt~;::;:::~~ack. ~y
..... .... .....
. Look at the 50 foot lot~::~ip.nH~:::!Mpreland d~mrct and s~tbacks.
: ~I~liE=~)t A smndard is needed so tbe are no
Chris Deanov~s.~.:.J..2091 Nortnl99.d Road, agreed with the assessment that it appears most
of the pro:b.J_~%ifg::Ul~Jong wall)m tb~ smaller lots. The standard lots will be okay to
work wiJH::::...Deanovid::lggested ~tilhg focused on the lake lots which seem to have
mor~::ptoblems. He feiFilu,ercentN>fthe time the City will be in the 40 to 50 foot range.
L@.n.j~ all that is left o=q::the 50 foot lots after setbacks. Keep the break around a 4 or 5
::::X:P:!
. Reduce to T~:::!~irfor breaks.
. Strongly wa6Fio keep this to substandard lots and not apply to standard lots.
. It might complicate enforcement. But it is a huge issue on the substandards.
. Would like to see the staggering for all lots, but to a greater degree to substandard.
V onhof:
. The Commission has be strong on impervious surface. Something is going to have to
gIve.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nm031300.doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13. 2000
Rye breught up anether appreach. If the tetal distance frent te back efthe building is 40
te 50 feet, the City ceuld require a particular dimensien in breaks. It ceuld be dene in a 5
and 3 .or 4's .or 6 and a 2. Then fer 50 te 60 feet length a requirement ceuld be a little
greater. Se that the lenger the wall require cumulatively mere .offsets .or breaks. Apply te
all lets.
After a discussien, the Cemmissieners felt a 20% break in the length .of th~:J?w.lding
weuld be apprepriate. The break weuld be 20% efthe frent (widest) wiqr~fB:tth:e:heuse.
Kansier gave examples .of the breaks.:....::)[}:::::[:::::[::\:\\.:\\\\i.\::::t):::.
Chris Deanevic said the building cede separates between the starl~rd lets':::aqq\::::..
substandard lets and questiened ifthere is much .of a problelv{wit~::[:~~e lets. "::'l:;pUhof
respended there was and the petential is there fer preblenw;:::::tffUfeny does not W'ijptJ9yg
walls in a crewded area. Deanevic said in his experien.:B~r:it weH!d be better to app1.w[:nfe
requirement after 60 feet. ..::/i\::::\::::::';;\:::.. "::::\::.[:::::::\:::.. .:f?:'
..... ........... ............
'.:::.' "'::;:;:;:;:;:;:;::::" ,'::::::::;:::;:::::::;:;:;:;::"
.......... ....... .......
.......... ...... .......
.......... ..... ......
.......... ..... .....
.
..... ..... ......
.... ..... .....
................... ..........
V onhof: ..::::::i\(::::::tt::::::::::\::\:::::\:[::::t:::t::..;.;':: .::{::.,
..... ........ .....
. Suggested to ad~{{;,t one 'on a SUbS"d lot can be allowed up to 50 feet.
Kelly Murray, Wertihn~::tl()ITI:fi.WP2.~Rt~9.:::Pyt:[:~::fuck-under garage cannet be shifted.
.......... ..... -........................
............... ....................
............... ................
.............. ....~......
............. ......
............ ..
. Substand:at~l!d9t$f..One wall at 40 feet, one wall at 60 feet, one side the sum of 10
feet and th~.:::9Jtier side between 40 and 60 feet with a 1 foot offset.
. Standard lilfs: Remain two 40 foot walls, with the sum of 10 foot breaks.
Kansier said they will werk up the language and ceme back te the Commissieners.
6. New Business:
A. Case #99-095 Review request to vacate lake access and right-of-way for
Kneafsey's Street adjacent to Lots 4 through 15, Kneafsey's Cove.
I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn031300.doc
5
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13. 2000
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 13,2000,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
Kneafsey's Cove was platted in September 1946 dedicating the roadways and waterfront
to the public including a 30-foot wide roadway located between Lots 5 and 6. In
September, 1999, the City received a petition from the property owners of Lots 5 and 6,
William and Margaret Righeimer and James and Nancy Samec, requesting..Ji~t:yacation
of a 30-foot wide lake access and roadway located along the waterfront W#We8fftots 5
and 6. The reason for this petition was to allow the adjacent owners t~it!l$.ume ownership
for maintenance purposes and to reduce a hazardous vehicle situ8;!!9!f'wni:it~:~pect to
parlring and vehicles entering the lake. ~1 "
On December 13, 1999, the applicants requested this iterrLBJfae'f~f.ied to allow th~i:!::::::t:::::::::::::t::.
petitioners to amend the original petition to include th~.::~ptire w.,-l;!erfront. On FebrqlY::'9,
2000, the City received an amended application sigI}~::~:Y Stevdijii:fWd Linda Erick$6Ii
(Lots 12 and 13), Raymond and Kathryn Comforthi:{tS,iiil1: anq:::f$il!:Wd C. Richard and
Patricia Kuykendall (Lots 9 and 10), in addition to the odgm~r:p'etitiohers, William and
Margaret Righeimer and James and Nancy Samec. These p'~qE9p'ers constitute more than
50% ofthe property owners, so the petiti9R!:m8:!~des the entire'\VIe:89nt adjacent to Lots
4 through 15, Kneafsey's Cove. '::::::i::'i;i'::~:~::i:irI!!iiii::i!ii:iii:i!:::I::iiii:!i:i:t\::::::::::::... . .;;;:II'i:::::::::::::::"
Staff recommended approval of the vacatiori:::~ft~~f:f6adWiyi:!pit"waterfront as it is
consis~e~t with the recomm:2:ge~gg~ in the IJ'F::Access study adopted by the City
Councll In 1995. ..::::/itti:::::::::.:.........:.::::tiii;i:::l.ii:::\!i:!::::}
The Department ofN~;1 Resour~J:~ and Assis~lti:~ttomey General's office objected to
~~~~oposed vacati8h:Biq~I::!;:i:~:~.i!1I1i:ll:j:Jifuited access opportunities on Prior
":::;:::::::;:;:;::::"
...;.::.:;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:;::.:....
~:~~. !(ansier said it was not. Aclually it was
.:::i:::::::::Qq"$.tioned if the propifty started at the 904. Kansier said at the time this area was
pla:tt~I::~e 904 had l1g!::been established as the ordinary high water mark. There is no
indicaH&:tl::et the 9.gf,F::
· QuestiOIi"~a;::!t!mt::pie distance would be at the narrowest point. Kansier said it was
probably 2S:::!!:::g:b feet. But it may not necessary reflect the 904.
.:{~:::;.,
Stamson:
· Questioned ifthe road was used as a winter access. Kansier said it was not.
Atwood:
· Questioned the DNR's letter opposing the vacation as it provides access to the second
and third tier homes.
· Has the DNR ever come forward opposing this. Kansier said the City has no record
of opposition. The plats have been developed for so long that people are not even
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn031300.doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2000
aware of the access. Residents have landscaped the area and you could not tell it was
a public access. Ifthis was a new development, the City would have a different
recommendation.
. Questioned the DNR's mention of future public access on paper as they talk of Prior
Lake being under accessed. Kansier said there was no specific requirement she was
aware of. Rye said the DNR had some general standards and rules of thumb applied.
If there is so many acres there should be so much access and parking. ~xJ~::l{plained
some ofthe other areas around the lake where there is public and ne.igpbbfh6bd
accesses. The DNR is very definite on their position for keepin~:::~I::~:~~lic accesses.
.;:;:;:;:;:)mr:" ..::::~~~trt~::::..
::::::~::::yP:::~nting fue property owners ~~n said~
the Planning Commission is faced with has already be91.:tfeteTI1l!ped. The City Co'liPiI
already made the decision. This petition should ha~~t!~~ brou:!lh,forward in 1995::::or
1996. The property owners did not understand the'::p'idp.:.di(liJh~$pome vacated
through Council actions. Both the Council and Lake AdV1~9tY:'h~coniinended vacation.
These kinds of actions can be brought by property owners. T~~:J~roperty owners have
already vacated their properties and now:!n~::J.;~$.t ofthe neighbd~:::k;:Jl.i$king to vacate the
entire stretch. The City has never maintalq~tf:tij,i::~!:If~:~~ and there..:~~:::ti6 parking available
to the publl'c :::::::::: ...:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.... .:::::::::.,
'-:;::::i:::::::.. ... :.:::::r::(((:::::::::i:::i:i:i:::::::::::::::::::::::' '.'
Stamson: ...:{(i?!:it:!,:::::::::::.. :\::::::::/::.. .'::::::::"
. Questioned ifCade re.,8t1Ved':'lr~RRY of the tiler from the Attorney General's office.
. Cade responded he.:::t~R it was a 'f.qtm letter aril:Jh~ DNR sends that letter out in every
case there is S01m~:::pn~.. attempBpg to take puggiif'property. He did not think anyone
~~; ::.~= hi~:~_'~d looked at it or asked anyone at the
.....:::::;:::;:;:;:::;:::::::::;:::.::.:.. .,' ..
Criego: ..:::::::{/:):::):::::::::::):::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::t:::::.. ":'::\::::::~:i.::::::::::(:::::::::::r:'
QuestiQrt~d Cade if h&:::iI~:w wher~::lh~ 904 elevation is. Cade said they did not do a
sUn{$}t:'and did not know::ti~ elev&Hons. The access is not used for winter access. The
mim~',~:::::crew piles ~JJli:snow on the easement from Cove Avenue.
Nancy Sarli'=ei,::14777 X,Ve Avenue, said she owns the property right up to the easement
and has had w~tl~:::M,::l(r her deck as her house is very close to the easement.
Comments frotj?ihe Commissioners:
Criego:
. It is obvious in 1994 and 1995 the City Council decided there was not a public need.
. Had reservations regarding the road vacation to allow winter access.
. Agreed to vacate the lots.
Cramer:
. Agreed with Criego, the vacation in front of the homes is appropriate.
1:\OOfiles\OOp1comm\OOpcmin\mn031300.doc
7
Planning Commission Minutes
March /3, 1000
. Had reservations on the access.
. Questioned the City Attorney's opinion on the State Attorney General's letter.
Kansier responded the City Attorney felt the DNR quoted the wrong case.
. Supported the vacation area surrounding the homes.
V onhor:
. Sympathized with the residents but disagreed with the Commissioner~.?::::::i:i:::I::tt=::::::.,.
. Prior Lake has a number of these accesses addressed by the City CqWieil....fRere are
also a number of private accesses owned by common neighbor~g~Rltt:::..
. The issue is this is public land not private land. As a public l?:Jmnnng::(fgmmission
there is a responsibility to the residents of Prior Lake. .':"'.. ::t::::::i::. ..::::t:::::::::::::}:==::..
. It is not good public policy to give away public land. 1.:8tii::m::q;ned by ev~gn~. .':.
. If there was any other public property, vehicles, fire.Jrucks or anything else, ilii,:::it:::::::)}:
statute is very clear on how to dispose of it. It is HB~::legal oii::ylowed to give a1:Y.i~':
. There is a process of vacating public property. .:==:::=:::::::tt:::::i:=:t:=::::...::;::i:::::i:i:i::It:::.. ...
. The letter from the Attorney General clearly address~:::tm%:::~ssue":8iting 4 cases.
. Would rather see a legal opinion from the City AttorneY;:::::::wb.~re are 4 cases from
Minnesota Courts clearly stating Min.a'~R!.a Law prohibitS':'iij,i:x.ac.l!tion dedicated to
the public use unless the persons requl~Ui:::~':'yacation prov~:ihirthe property is
useless both now and in the future for i..~ pl1fPdi~::[w;=::)Yhich it:was laid out.
. The plat was originally laid out for pUbiiq}lse.<tiilem=::m::!mJ1ting in the application that
talks about what the origit:l.l.;~l:igt~nt was. an~,ft:an only ~stime that it was laid out for
the public with the int~Hf.::ii:r:~:::.d by the:=,yblic. '.:..
. M~y neighborhoo.2~:::lfound th!:::~e are set'\w::::1Yith a private access for just the
ghb h d............ .......... .................
. ~~s is o:a:;er~u~=:::.qi~ fq,t::~~;;:i!2!fq=JR:gS:::~~:ing away public land. There is no
compelling reason in."fh~lilp.HcaH8h'll:r:Sfipport that this should be done at this time.
.................
....................
.....................
........ .............
. Strongly1igr,,~:g:;:}Vnh Vonhofs comments. This is not in the public's interest.
. The basic a.ilJrl'ent of "not being used now" is not what the statute intends.
. No one has'C6me forward with an argument that this is good for the City. The closest
is ''we've had cars go into the lake." Did not see how changing the ownership effects
that at all. The City should take some action with the road.
. How does changing the property to private hands change the scenario?
. Form letter or not from the Attorney General, the cases cited are specific ~xamples
identical to what we are looking at. In all four cases the Courts specifically said that
there is no current use for them now was irrelevant and that the important thing was
need to prove was that there is no potential use. There has been no good argument.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn031300.doc
8
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13. 2000
· The City's study said there is no current use and they did not see a use. The study
does not address this issue.
· It is the Attorney General's opinion that is the standard the City needs to meet citing
court documents to back them up.
. The standards have not been met.
. The statute has come forward that this is good for the City of Prior Lake.:
· How will it change being private? ..:::(:i:i:i:::::i:i)m:~~\:::::
. The c~ses cited b~ the Attorney General are relevant. The import~~i:~~ing is'lo prove
there IS no potential use. ..::::)f::"''''!'i=m(:':"",
· A ware previous studies do not address future uses'{r:i~:iiii:?'" ";':::::::::::i::::::::\:::;"
:ra::r:tIDdards have not been met. ~) ~
. Quest~oned vacation for Lots 2 and 3. Kansier s~~g:i~tot 2 wi~:::;i.acated in 1984,;~a
Lot 3 III 1985, before the lake study. ';::?};;:;:;:::~:::::f:::::::::",..;;::f:tt::l~~::;;"
· Asked for clarification from Stamson on his positiori?i:::~mm:i6n responded he was
strongly opposed to vacating the road. As far as the resF~I:lhe property, did not see
any argument proving it was in the P,~~:i:'::]:i:~::,::;:est to vadlt~l:ii:::::::i:::::::::ii:f:::;
Criego :\:::ii:,::: "';";;':::::::~r:i:i:::::::::i:::~r~~\:::::;;;;,;", ,;(i)::;;'
· Why did the engineering department cori,91ud~;:,pi:;1;99.$,:::l!l~::this access should be
vacated. McDermott said..~A~:::}Y.as not on';:~!'ilff"at the tim~!fhor anyone else on staff.
The study does not go ,mlP;lm*::If:~ai1 on tlii~:i~parce1. McDermott said it did not even
identify every publiy4~Etess as 'lpooof indidij,@d:,;"
· What is the foota.:~:!@td any fu!M,b use? Certi~~dy there is no past or current use.
· The only use is';1ff~~y~y t2:J!~iiil:msim~~:~}y,8ff.e:;would they park?
· Strongly believe to va6a.t~jfre'arei{:stfrfBtlfiding the homes, not the ro~dway.
Stamso'S,~kl:h ~
· D9!~~'hot believe"nm~~:lP.e Conlj,lssion's position to make those decisions. If the
,.;GQ.hunissions can't'lliUlk ofart:ything at this moment, it is not right to vacate it.
..;::::::i}WI!h~e the specific'~~j':ii
· It sd~q~;}ike the enwpeering department didn't even look at this access. The report
was aiNi~~'it:~~:,,~:0~:::~fthe lake.
McDermott polRt@~f:'Out the lack of access in the winter. The streets are narrow and there
is no on-street pifking.
Atwood:
. It is not public friendly.
. By vacating it closes any options for future thoughts.
. Agreed with Stamson, the Commissioners can scratch their heads trying to think of a
reason.
. It puts the burden on the Commissioners and it is not our jurisdiction.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\rrm031300.doc
9
Planning Commission Minutes
March J 3. 2000
V onhof:
. Right now the Commissioners are just thinking of parking.
. Access is also on the lake side. The lake is a public body of water.
. Don't forget there is a significant access point from the lake.
Stamson:
. Nearby homes could use the access and would not necessarily have t~::~g.~t::r~::
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMENdliE~TY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE V ACA TION AS REQUESTED EX:,g'T"::F'.:::!'HE
ROADWAY. ..::::j::::::::jj:jjt:::::;:!!!lill~i "::::~~:j::::::i:i:i:::::I:i::::t\::..
Vote taken indicated ayes by Cramer and Criego, nays bXj~hvoo(CV oOOof, Stairliifit~~~{t::.
MOTION FAILS. ..::::j}):::" ..:~::::r:r::"
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMS6~::j!:iI~:::r%9P6~AL IS .\::::.'
INCONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF THE CITY 11't.l1ARDS TO VACATION
OF PROPERTY AS IT DOES NOT MEEI THE STAND~!::2f VACATION AND
RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL DEmt::ltii:,v ACATION AS:::~lJESTED.
~=~twood, Vonhof and Stamson, n~eC MOTION
....:::tJt:~tIttt:::. ..... .
This will go before thr,n April~0 as a ;;::blic bearing.
B. Discuss co~:~~~lliil!~:;:: :::t::::~]~:~~:;:;j~;~::~jj:~9f"Foxtail Trail property.
Planning Coordinator.Jane:~:til:~ier pres'ente'cf'ihe Planning Report dated March 13,2000,
on file i::::~%:;~~:glii::~i::~~:~ Pl~'j:::~:~:artment.
Wen.~mm realty, In2%::'~:::f.onsid~wg:"development of the property located on the north
sig!::9t:,~SAH 82, abouf~~tft mile West ofCSAH 21 and directly east of Wilds Parkway.
CHrr&if.::~4.9cess to this prop!fty is via Foxtail Trail, a private street. This property is
presend}{y;w.,ant land. VlWproperty is designated for Low to Medium Density
ResidentiiiFi~~ on th~t~d20 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and is presently zoned
R-l (Low DeH~l'LR,$idential). Four different concept plans were submitted for the
development ot'jpk::site, along with an explanation of how each of these concepts was
derived. The purpose of this item was to discuss the concept development of the site, and
to allow the Planning Commission to voice any particular concerns or ideas about the
proposed development. This discussion is for informational purposes only.
Kelly Murray from Wensmann Homes addressed each of the concept plans. Her
concerns for clarification from the Commissioners were the definition of a driveway,
shared driveways, PUD, CUP.
1:\00files\00p1comm\00pcmin\nm031300.doc
10
Planning Commission Minutes
March J 3, 2000
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Felt a PUD would be appropriate.
V onhof:
. Private streets have to be built the same. as public streets. ... ....... ....... ......
· What a~out street replacements in private areas? Rye responded ~.~:t:::t-is'8cnlir6ns are
responsIble. ":::':::::::::::::::::::::::::::"
· Move road to the east north. Murray explained the process O\::.ping::~I!:::~~affic off
County Road 82 ............ ....................
Stamson:' ~ ."
. Concern for the inner private street connecting to.J~{rpubliq:::j!I"eet. .::::;::!::::{}'.
Cramer: .:t:::::::r::::::llll::II:::I:::!:::t:::::.. ..::::::::=;I!:::::::::::::t::::::::::. '.:.'
· Asked staffto explain a PUD. Kansier explained the 26ij,IUons.
· Liked the single family to the north. !t:iY..as primarily an R:~::::~p'e. .':::.
: ~~~:~~:e~~~;:~ ~~~uced'\:!i;:II'll::;;:::::::::;:::::::::III::!:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:....:::::::;ll/I/..I./:::::::r::::::'
'::;::::::. .:;:;:;}:;:;:::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::::..... ,':', .
Atwood: ...:.:::::::::::::::::::::.....::::::i:.i.;::::::::::::::::;;::::::/::. "':::::;::::::m:::!!IIIIIII..ii::::r:r:'
· Questioned staffifther.~iwere::iP~KProbleIrii,:::}Vith a PUD. Kansier said there were no
problems. There a 1J!@'Y desighj::~hat preserylit th.~ site. Kansier went on to explain
7.
· ..::il!f'Criego and C~t~p'e Walslfhave been appointed to the EDA board.
:~:::'anIDng Comnrission~ pro~
The meetin~~t 8:47 p.m.
Don Rye
Planning Director
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nm031300.doc
11
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS CARLSONS
FIRST ADDITION
JENNITOVAR,PLANNER
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
MARCH 27, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an application for a preliminary plat for
the 0.35 acre site located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Eagle Creek
Avenue (CR 21) and Main Avenue. The plat will combine four existing lots into one lot,
which will allow for a future building addition. A building permit cannot be issued over lot
lines or on properties described as an outlot. The preliminary plat, to be known as
Carlsons First Addition, is the site of a commercial building at 16281 Main Avenue.
ANALYSIS:
Applicant:
Bernie Carlson
16281 Main Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Project Engineer:
Valley Surveying Co., PA
16670 Franklin Trail SE
Suite 230
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Location of Property:
This property is located on the east side of Main
Avenue and on the south side of Eagle Creek
Avenue.
Existing Site Conditions:
A commercial building sits over one of the four lots
to be combined. There are no wetlands on the site.
There are no trees on the lot.
Zoning and land Use
Designation:
The property is zoned C-3 (Specialty Business).
The 2020 Comprehensive Plan identifies this
property as C-TC (Commercial Town Center).
Adjacent land Use and
To the north and west of this property is right-of-
f:\dept~lannin9\OOfile5\005ubdiv\preplat\carI5on\carl5onpc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Zoning:
way. To the east is a commercial building and to the
south are commercial buildings. Adjacent properties
are zoned C-3 and guided C- TC.
Proposed Development:
The proposed plat consists of 0.35 acres to be
platted into one lot.
The proposed lot meets or exceeds the minimum lot
area and frontage requirements for the C-3 district.
The lot will be 119.45 feet wide and contain
15,191.10 square feet.
Streets/ Access/Circu lation:
There are no new streets located within this plat.
Access to the existing building is from Main Avenue.
Grading/Erosion Control:
There is no grading proposed on the site. Storm
sewer and utilities are existing.
Sanitary Sewer and
Watermain:
Sanitary sewer service and water service are
located in Main Avenue. No new sewer and water
connections are proposed.
Landscaping:
This development is not subject to the requirements
of the Landscape Ordinance or plantings required
under the Subdivision Ordinance. The building is
existing and no new or vacant lots for future
development are being created.
Parkland Dedication:
The property has been previously platted. Park
dedication requirements for this subdivision do not
apply.
Finance/Assessment Fee
Review:
This subdivision is not subject to any additional fees.
The property has previously been assessed for
street ant utility improvements. There are no
outstanding special assessments. Tax status is
current.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and
Zoning Ordinance. If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the
following condition:
1. A utility easement must be granted as per request of NSP over the south 5 feet
of the east 15 feet of Lot 1.
f:\dept\planning\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\carlson\carlsonpc.doc
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the preliminary plat of Carlsons First Addition as
presented and subject to the condition listed above, or with specific changes
directed by the Planning Commission.
2. Table or continue the public hearing to a date and time certain and provide the
developer with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future
Planning Commission review.
3. Recommend denial of the application based upon specific findings of fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat of Carlsons First Addition is
required.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat of Carlsons First Addition
3. Memo from NSP
f:\dept\planning\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\carlson\carlsonpc.doc
Page 3
III II q11lillll rlU:1 U
rP I~ I ~ I 1 II ~8 1 ~
!I .1 ';;IP H !lm~ ~ I
h ~I Irhrll! b'h( ~
jl jl l!!~ll i! t;!'I'h j
IJ II Ilf~ll~-I jl ~I" ill
I ill" _ II l{l[~ ~
, f 11111., p~ ltl," il i
I I II' i II ~ r; ~
1 1 ii!~il J~ J!111r I
{ { Ill." 1 '~1f!.
S I i!irilll ~&llq--
t . ,f _f (I ~~l.l I
1 1 "'~l~l' Ir-i, f
, , IJ!!U' u.
I I ;~rl!) "I ;m!
. . lllul f n.,r
f , '~'i I dill
I f JUI.I ~fh"
Iftl~f! Ili~
I r ~l."t
j\\ f~1
~~
"
_ :ll
i- i!U
-2 ::t:
~ i -0 ~
;:..... a ~
f;j
~
--
----
---
--- --J..
/ ----
---....
----
e , r u;;. ...:.. ':.~..f f....;.
AI ... :?!
, IV 0 u. s
.::.:..../ ~.~/.)::./.
I/r,,-cc
....,
5
C1
5
~
.f1
'"
co
'"
...
~
o
'"
L
"
~
"
,0.0 --
(). ,'o::r
~~....~
1;~!
g~~ 1
Q.Vj.Q =.:.
(/) o' Q '<
'E.~:lg:
~ R~:
~:r~~
,0
a.-0'O
~~:~
~ 3 ~~.
_o"",g
~ u.. 3-"':
tII~"'<
l
r
I
i
I i
I
~
;;;.
."
n1
OJ
I
-oJ
I't:'::':
r, ~ ~!!
"
~
2,
~
N
"
"
"
cJ :g~
~!6lh
~ ~~
-< N"
>- !H
~ z"
" I
· · ID
Y. If ~
~ ~C5"
o ~~
~ ~~
? ~ ID
..... l!!1ii
o Illffl
~ ~~
D ~-
P
~ .....
; /::::
~ ;.:..
o :.:
co
'"
. ..
'0.:
:"
()!
'"
co
'"
f[?
"TJ-o-o~<-o
~;C~~)>~
..--"-- ~ <5 r ~
0"l0"l r :0
NN~"TJITI!;l
'-" '-" ^ ~ -<
rrl :> lD
tt ~(f)~
'-l'-l3::rC
I I Z-Z
NN. :;0
~ UlO" g: ;a r?i
~ ("I:>
;j r= -<
(/)Z
(TIG)
(/)()
~O
;:;1':
tl:U
0)>
-0 "U -0 m III -0
;c;c~NfT1~
o (Xl :::0 -0
0l0l~ ~ z ?O
~N~3::)>!;l
'-" '-" ^ ~ ;0 ...,
-I"-I"rrlZOO
(Xl-l"' :>c..~
t1~;ii'
'-IN. zO
~~UlC)>
lO 0 (]I rrl :::0
:::c::;:~!fl ~
001->['10
~~ Z
I
I
\
\
,
,
,
....,
Q
~
~
a~
~~
"-l~
~~
~~
~
~~
s~
tj ..
~
~
~
---- '
\----
, ----
"
---
--
--
---
--__ I
---1 ,/
L_"..."/
........-:-r-....
/. . .. '}~,
.. .. ,
. ..,
: }
'/
, i
.,/
..'/
. ,
../
1
J
"
. /
.. I' ;.:..
., ~ .:..j...:.'
/ q ..:
! ".J
...,
, ./
/ ." 1
I ~ .',/
I I:
.' I
I
<1'
P./
""
:0'/
/ ",/
, ..../
,0 .../
: j."'/
/ ./
/ J
, ../
:q.~t
: I:~:
I ,....J
, .",/
, . /
'0 ",
, .. .... I
--! I "
"f
, .,
, . /
, . "
, .,
/ .,
'1
./
. .:
.,
I
./
/
.. /
,
../
"/
"/
....---
~
/
/
I
I
/
I
I
I
,
I
,
,
I
I
,
,
,
I
I
I
/
/
I
/
I
I
/
I
I
I
,
I
,
,
/
/
I
/
/
/
,
/
,
/
/
/
I
,
/
,
/
,
,
,
,
,
,
/
,
,
/
/
/
I
/
,
,
,
,
/
,
,
,
I
'~
\jJ{.~;z~r~_'~;::~:.I5;" .' .
11 J:~~l~'~t:~;eFile N~~';}DO - f) LL
pe,!iY Identification No.':"'"
Prior Lake. 'H~1J;,:,:;\}~tt;<:)~Y. .' ....;;....;.>S
,<,.,,,:"'.'~''''', . '.' .."'~,"';'~-:~, ._-~. -'.;f"",;.,<>r;~./:.,: :'\- ,~-":>, ,,:. _." ';'-T-~""'; ,_,~_.,,_- .,_', .
l\PPDIGATION '~~~~~~et~
'~~~:':;~~~~t~ {.\::'-:~<'}:-:~_j~:~~~'f:~~:";,:~ L' ;,:':; ,- ,~~
6200 Eagle Creek AvenueS.E. j Prior Lake, Minnesoul55372-1714/Phone (612) 447-4230, FaX (612) 447-4245
". , Type of Appli,cation:lJ; Y'; J, \j 4f X L. .t \...n~1.. f/ . Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
::~-"",.p.,-' ,~".. \..:-..
o Rezo;btg, from sheets/narrative if desired)
fu ~;i':"'~l::,~~a'-';t~\j>-<;;.r~~~:~':t:#~!7t>,,#*;;J;.o,~..,~~~~~1>;':;./'; icy, N,;L.,., ,,~,
. ..:'", '.' :1~,<~~Plt~.<;!ty.PJld~fg~P:,,,~>..~!~Pr~.j~~~~):$,;;/;.~.;...:._'s:.,'~. c,,:j~.,'~.'.'... tH.7J~..~~.'. '0.:". '~'-. 0.. '., ~::,'''. ;.....~.c.!.."".;,f." '.~, .',',-,;.
. s~ba;vt~io?~;f L~n~'"litf r!JJ#t'P/t2Pf\' '''\'2;~'~' ;'.,". ,:;m,'Q .~~ 00 I ~ I i) 7 - D.. l'.: '. , '.' ",'K. 't '"
o xa:Gt1s~t\~e(~~b~i~iii~rilR~iAf!. ~ S- j 41';'00 '-/-D
o Conditional Use Permit
o ~:r;~~: .;;.:,
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
::'C n~~:{"'~.'
Appli~~~i(~): ' Bd~ tv
H.~~" ~~*).~~ J_' I ,~;~ I ". '~:'.:..
Address: .. ,"'.. (p~ ~ -.' . N '.... ",($
H~:rti~'Phone: . ",'.' '~s-I -"/84 ;",1' iD 1
r'J.11,~l~Ff,.<:r:!,'", ..;:.... ........ ....... .. .... ..' .' .'. .
Pr()perty'Owner(s) [If different"from'Applicimts): '114.' f\LL)';'L). fUeff-t Ole.sy,; Y;af
Address:b::..j,u/q 3~ 'n& (\bo'l,'l..A(IJ~ l".' v& A iJ A G-(;5~,'~i,k tJ :;,~,-!;'~.3 ,.g
Home Phone:' '''~G,/2-'''~ Lt 7 -;''Z.. ~q t L~ Work Phorie:i{fd'..t~'~'\'i:<'i
Type of Ownership: Fee ~,Con~~c.~ fo~'p.e.ed . ~ Purchase Agreement----...
,.:. '~'~,' ...~).:.." -'J',"" ",,'l~_.,.~ ,l:_"""_'I.,l,..:_~..__ T "--"'''.''';. ,'" _.~"'" ~;,~"~_'
Legal Description' of PropertY (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
;J
. 'j '_~ t ., r'.,
~ . .
f~.P'f.JCA 'f~~."'1;\~ C\;"','l'Ulf{'nfT',,}I;::: .
To the best of my knowledge the information prodded in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the re t sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
applic . s will not b ess u'ntil deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
2.-~-~
Date
:;2, '7 - ':2 tJ~CJ
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
5lo~s '^~ Ld-.
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
Date
. ;. h.:.<-':" ',,; ,l/~. '~, _, :.
02/24/00 THU 13:39 FAX 3306590
NSP.DEL SYS CONST
141001
,.
~
Facsimile Cover Sheet
Northern States Power Company
To: Jennie Tovar
Company: City of Prior Lake
Phone: 612 447-981"3
Fax: 612447-4245
From: Diane Ablan
Address: NSP 414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 330-2943
Fax: (612) 330-6590
Date: February 24, 2000
Number of pages
including this
cover sheet:
Comments:
Jennie:
Re. proposed plat of Carlson First Addition
Enclosed: NSP map indicating location of its underground facilities encumbering the
southeast corner of Outlot C, Langhorst First Addition.
NSP is reQuestina that the Dlat indicate an easement for NSP over the south 5 feet of
the east 15 feet of this Outlot.
Please call me once you've had a chance to review.
0~/24/00 THU 13:39 FAX 330 6590
- u'~
fl''';!i' .
NSP.DEL SYS CONST
. t
. ( .
~
-\L:iTI ~!
7\1V~ i"t>
~"V' l
~ -\ 0' &:
~~. r t
c, -~
1') p
~ f
in ..,..
fO ,
:-a
e
.;(.
..:,
f
~
b'
1':1
~
m
7'J
~
~
(~
~
~
h.
I~
~002
o r r-\ ~ "=7
~LQ:C:r-\~
o~~ % ~
~ ~rl -
- 1\
01 f\ -
7- v J ('11
g ~\I'~G
:I~~~Q
E ~ :1 ~
--. Lr -~"\'11 7:....
IT\ ..f'
\\ Q).
U('f>
~ .~ r:
-t.@-\
.:t: '\
In r"
.~ ...::...
LANC:HORSTylttT ADDITION
l ~ .'
~ . ..
;-~
I ' I:."~
,":..1
....-
c ~,,::"
,~ ~....-"
'f' '....... '-.....
----
----
--
--
_4
':' .",,-
.---,-,~- -
~.,~"': ,... R:;',:!o...~-..'
.;,. w~ ~:: ...7 .
~
'8 B
t"
't (.
II
,,~L-~
"
"!.
.~
..
NOTe:;,
~.A'-E ON~ 1...c.....I!:OV.....'-~ !'oO FE:ET
eE.AIIl!:INC..... 0.... A1;.&UMED ~I"l;.
- 0- OE.Nc:rrE~ llii:.ON MONUMEt.rT"5.
~l
,...,
... ~._:"" -f....' -::. 'Z.....,:...
t,
y....;";. !..--'...t.
QItw. " c..-.. --........ ,
"tf '-"r'
.... ."
/1"l ~
~_....... .
J: ,:J~, tY...
f
I / {;'~2.t9 .'
'/~ ~. t.!-, .....~ F~~ "
.. ---'--- .._--- ._- .....
_li.o-.
KilO',", 'Al.L~:r.K IT ~II ;,F, p"
the following du~cribud
;:=c.;:..'~,.c."5
That part or Lot J.
Northeast Quarter of
said Lot J, Block 11.
Block 14. a distance
thence South 15 <Ie~'
seconds West ~ di~t
:.~
J~ seconds ~st alo.
TO pnIOI! LAKE, 'J dl,
of the Southeast cor
.'
or 111.30 reet more
Rad1us or 451. JE f.,.
Dllnute~ 51 second" ~
z
Northwesterly lllone
I ~
-r..z.... N7S$80?::'L.~o ~ ".fl-.'':.'': ~
OUTN~~-:~W B'h ta ~ . w~ ':8:"~:'" ,'\'.
.~.: I.~ ~ ~'t ~ ~'. '. ' ^
'f '" ~ ~ t" tl .. ~I .~. '. ..' '.
~ 2ttao" SID 2' ~~, !.. ~ ~..,', _~;-; ..Uelores Lan~ho~st., hu~
.~'...m .J _'11..."" ~+~ .~._..~:;.....;~:5:"'.::: :~.;.~~~:,:- .': .:: ........ . . . ~ .
() '!> .H <( :~,~~ ..:.',.},:~.t-<~~~{.t~~:<t':E~IG~~~,; ~J~
o ';). ~ At~;~'!~'~.~?~l~~t~~:~~~~t'I';j~:'~;;;:i:t~:~.~,~c.
.J ..l .....~ ~"i.' '" OIl, .').,f;;.c,;,.;.. STATE Of MINM:SO.AJ""
III
. ,,., - -~" ~ . --", v!;-l.,~:"~-~,.L ,.."~..~,~~..,
'~~:.....:-:"~~-";i}~:~~&:~!~\~i~ffi;~:.w~~~q(;~~:~;}~~~::.:
,." .... :~t~;'~:. ,I:. ~,',;;:. or public h1gh""y'
.. .......:,...l~;:. -:','
......-. ',",
.. .... .., ~ - , -.
Chicsgo, ~11waukee.
Southerly r1~ht of .
. Have caused the same to
public use rorev@r the ,
-_...:. .
S-:'Al'E Of l':IN:P.'.sOTA
COU"TT OF SCOTT
. .::~'
--..-, -.
. .....~.
/~'f~.
~ ~.~.:~~~.
was ""proved
\,:
1977~.
t.,::,...
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
J.fe
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MULTI-FAMILY
DWELLING IN THE R-4 ZONING DISTRICT (CASE
FILE #00-010)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS
SE CORNER OF TOWER AVENUE AND TORONTO
STREET
JENNITOVAR,PLANNER
--X-YES _NO-N/A
MARCH 27, 2000
On February 14, 2000, the City received a complete application for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a multi-family dwelling on property located in the SE comer of Tower
Avenue and Toronto Street. The property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential) and is
guided as R-HD (Urban High Density) on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map.
Multi-family dwellings require a CUP within the R-4 Zoning District. The public hearing
was originally scheduled for February 28, 2000. The item was continued at the request of
the developer to allow for recommended plan changes and to allow the developer time to
hold a neighborhood meeting. Notices were mailed to property owners within 350 feet
for the February 28, March 13, and March 27 public hearings.
SITE ANALYSIS:
The property was originally purchased by the City as part of the road improvement
project to extend Toronto Avenue to 170th Street. The remainder ofthe property was sold
to the applicant on November 15, 1999. The property has been zoned for multi-family
residential since 1975.
The subject site consists of 1.7 acres. The proposed building will include 43 units and
will be three stories with underground parking. Access will be from Toronto Avenue
with a one way exit to Tower Street. There are a number of significant retaining walls
proposed on the east property line due to the 25-foot existing grade difference from east
to west.
f:\dept'Elanning\OOfiIes\OOeli~OO-O 1 0\00-0 1 Ope2.doe I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
"
REVIEW PROCESS:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit should be reviewed in accordance with the criteria
found in Section 1108 of the City Code and Section 1102.703. Section 1102.703 is the
provision within the R-4 requirements relating to specific conditions for multi-family
dwellings. The criteria are discussed on the following pages.
City Code 1102.703 Uses Permitted With A Conditional Use Permit
(1) Multiple Family Dwellings. Conditions:
a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan
as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access
can be provided without generating significant traffic on local
residential streets.
Proposed access is from Tower Street and Toronto Avenue. Neither of
these roads is designated as an arterial or collector road. Average annual
daily traffic for Toronto Avenue near Tower Street in 1997 was 2,300 and
on Tower Avenue near Panama Avenue was 860. In 1999, those counts
were 2,300 and 1,400 respectively. Utilizing the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation book, the total trips per day expected from
the proposed building will be 278. Peak a.m. hour will be 24 vehicles and
peak p.m. hour will be 26 vehicles. The remaining 228 trips are averaged
to be 10 per hour (22 hours of day remaining). This is not significant traffic.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, two-lane urban streets are designed
to carry 8,000-9,000 cars per day. The existing counts with estimated trips
generated from Busse Park and this project will result in approximately
2,886 trips per day on Toronto Avenue.
b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable
open space per dwelling unit and no more than 1/2 can be located in
the front yard.
Forty-three dwelling units are proposed requiring 17,200 square feet of
usable open space. The site plan indicates 5,860 square feet located in
front yards and 11,340 square feet located in the side yard. This
requirement is met.
c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average
heights of the buildings.
This provision is not applicable, as there is only one building proposed.
d. Side and rear yards may be reduced to zero feet where dwellings
are designed to share common walls.
This provision is not applicable, as there is only one building proposed.
f:\dept\planning\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-O 1 0\00-0 1 Opc2.doc
2
e. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back
of the curb line of internal private roadways or parking lots.
The building is setback 15 feet from the garage entrance, 17 feet from the
parking lot facing Toronto Avenue and 21 feet from the parking area facing
Tower Street. This requirement is met.
f. No portion of the required 20-foot road system may be used to
satisfy the off-street parking requirements.
The proposed internal drives are not being used for proposed parking. This
requirement has been met.
Zoninl: Code analysis (Performance Standards):
Height- Maximum height is 35 feet or 3 stories, whichever is less.
Building height is defined in the Ordinance as follows: A distance measured from the
mean curb level along the front lot line or from the finished grade level for all that
portion of the structure having frontage on a public right-of-way, whichever is higher to
the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof This lot has three front
lot lines. The mean curb levels are :170th 990.0, Tower Street 985.0', Toronto Avenue
977.0'. The grades adjacent to the structure havingfrontage on a public street vary from
983.6 to 993.5; the average grade is 988.6. The mean roof elevation is 1024.15'. The
highest mean curb level is 990.0. Utilizing the mean curb level as the base, the height is
34.15 feet.
A story is defined in the ordinance as that portion of a building included between the
surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above; or if there is not a floor
above, the space between the floor and the ceiling next above. A basement shall not be
counted as a story.
A basement is defined as that portion of the building having more than ~ of the ground
floor-to-ceiling height below the average grade of the adjoining ground. The grades of
the adjoining ground (all sides) is 997.0 highest at the grade and 983.6 at the lowest grade
resulting in an average grade of 990.3. The ground to ceiling height ofthe garage is 10
feet, ~ the height is 5 feet. Therefore, 6.7 feet of the garage is below the average grade.
The result is that more than ~ of the height is below the average grade, making the
garage a basement by definition and not a story.
The height requirement is met.
Density- Maximum density allowed is 30 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project
has 25.3 units per acre. This requirement is met.
f:\dept\planning\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-O I 0\00-0 I Opc2.doc
3
Ground Floor Ratio- Maximum coverage is .35. The footprint of the building is 19,051
square feet. The result is 26% coverage. This requirement is met.
Setbacks- The required setbacks are as follows: Front yard is the height of the building or
30 feet, whichever is greater. For the purpose of determining setbacks, a bonus is given
for underground parking. The height of the garage is not counted as building height for
determining required setbacks. The height of the structure from the first floor to the mean
peak of the roof is 30.5 feet. Therefore, the required setback is 30.5 feet. The lot has
three fronts and one side. The side yard setback is 15 feet. Side yard setbacks are
increased 2 inches for every foot over 50 feet in building wall length. A building wall
ends with a 210-degree separation of at least 18 feet in length and separation. The
longest building wall is 134 feet resulting in an additional setback of 14 feet on the side
(29-foot setback required). The proposed setback for this portion of the structure is
approximately 45 feet. All other sidewalls are shorter in length, and meet setbacks. All
structure setbacks have been met.
Li~htin~- Zero foot-candles at the property line are proposed. A maximum of 0.5 foot-
candles on the property line abutting residential and 1.0-foot candles abutting right-of-
way is permitted. Lighting requirements are met.
LandscapiDl!- One tree per unit is required. Fifty-seven trees are proposed. Ten percent
are oversized, and 25% coniferous/deciduous mix is proposed. All disturbed areas will
be sodded and landscaped areas are to be irrigated. The irrigation plan must be submitted
later (condition of approval). A Letter of Credit (LaC) is needed prior to issuance of
building permit (condition of approval). As a part of a required Bufferyard, 4 shrubs
facing 170th Street are required and not shown on the plans. (condition of approval).
Landscaping requirements have been met, with the changes required.
Tree Preservation- There are 238 total caliper inches (C.I.) of significant inches on site.
All significant trees will be removed. 25% can be removed without replacement (59.5
C.I.). Therefore 178.5 CI must be replaced at ~:1. Replacement is 89.25 caliper inches.
14 trees or 47 caliper inches are being planted as replacement. 42.25 CI are to be planted
on City property. The location/species will be determined by the City at a later date. A
LaC will ensure compliance with replanting requirements. This requirement has been
met.
Parkin2:- Two stalls per unit are required plus one for the office. Eight-seven stalls are
required. The plan indicates eighty-six stalls and one stall in front of the mechanical
room. Parking lot screening is required on 60% of the parking areas where views could
originate. Screening includes a combination of materials. The plan indicates a 30" berm
with plantings along the entire length of the parking area facing Toronto Avenue.
Parking requirements have been met.
Architectural Materials- The ordinance requires a minimum of 60% Class 1 materials
on all faces visible from off-site. The proposed building has a minimum of 63% of Class
f:\dept\planning\OOfiles\OOeup\OO-o I 0\00-0 1 Ope2.doe
4
I materials (brick and glass). The remainder of building materials are Class II (stucco).
No Class III materials are proposed. This requirement has been met.
OTHER ISSUES
Traffic- According to ITE trip generation manual, 278 trips per day will be generated.
The estimated a.m. peak hour will be 24 trips and the p.m. peak hour will be 26 trips.
This leaves 228 trips, when averaged throughout the day, resulting in 10 trips per hour.
Two-lane urban streets are designed to carry 8,000-9,000 cars per day. The total cars per
day, 1999 count, on Toronto Avenue was 2,300. There will be an increase in trips per
day of 10%; however, the road is designed to handle this amount of trips and more.
Busse Park Traffic- Attached is a portion of the traffic study conducted for the Busse
Park. Traffic will be routed along Toronto Avenue. The estimates are 690 cars per day to
the Busse Park. Not all of these trips will occur on Toronto Avenue, and trips will vary
during peak park usage in the summer and specifically during events. The study
estimates 308 trips per day generated from Busse Park on Toronto Avenue.
Fire Protection- The building and site layout provide appropriate fire department access.
The plans need to indicate locations of existing hydrants and provide hydrants to provide
protection within 300' hydrant radius (condition of approval).
ExistinwproDosed run-off storm sewer- The existing run-off from the site is 4.05 cubic
feet per second (c.f.s.). Without on site ponding, the run-off would be 6.04 c.f.s. The
applicant is proposing to provide ponding within the parking lot. This results in run-off
of 4.17 c.f.s. The increased run-off of 0.12 c.f.s. is negligible. There is no storm sewer
serving the area. The current water from the area collects at the intersection of Tower
Street and Toronto Avenue. Staff anticipates a system to be constructed with the future
construction of the ring road. There is no requirement for on-site ponding. There is
limited room on site to provide for ponding, other than proposed in parking lot. The
plans indicated construction of storm sewer pipe to the right-of-way to be connected to
future city storm sewer system. The storm water issues will be addressed in conjunction
with future development such as the post office and ring road.
Ene:ineerin~ issues-Attached is a memo dated March 1, 2000 from Assistant City
Engineer Sue McDermott. There are three items remaining to be addressed. These are 1.
Traffic control plan to be implemented during utility construction. 2. Indicate rock
construction entrance on plans. 3. Storm sewer plan changes. Run-off calculations have
been provided and are acceptable. These have been made a condition of approval.
Crime- Staff has been asked to provide information about crime in the area as it relates
to multi-family dwellings and single family neighborhoods. The following depicts police
calls taken in 1999 in three multi-family dwellings and two single-family neighborhoods
of similar size.
f:\dept\planning\OOfiles\OOeup\OO-O I 0\00-0 1 Ope2.doe
5
1999 #police calls #units/lots Calls per unit per year
Brooksville Apts. 18 36 .5
Tower Hill East 34 68 .5
Tower Hill West 40 51 .78
Willow Beach Neighborhood 18 42 .43
Oak Ridge Neighborhood 16 44 .36
Property Values/Taxes- With respect to impact on City servIces, the following
information is being provided.
The 2000 Taxes payable for existing multi-family rental are as follows:
Locations 2000 Valuation 2000 Taxes and Special #units
Assessments
Tower Hill West $1,164,100 $34,012 51
Tower Hill East $1,705,200 $55,252 68
Brooksville Apts. $ 948,000 $30,720 36
The 2000 Taxes payable for a single-family neighborhood with homestead status and
similar taxable valuation in Prior Lake is as follows:
SamDle $950.000 sin2le family homesteaded nei2hborhood
(similar to valuation of Brooksville Apartments)
Valuation # units 2000 taxes Total
$100,000 1 $1706 $1706
$150,000 3 $2868 $8604
$200,000 2 $4030 $8060
$18,370
SamDle $1.700.000 nei~hborhood
(similar to valuation of Tower Hill East)
Valuation # units 2000 taxes Total
$150,000 6 $2868 $17,208
$200,000 4 $4030 $16,120
$33,328
Multi-family residential buildings with 4 or more units are in the tax class rate of 2.5%,
while a homesteaded single family dwelling is taxed at 1 % for the first $76,000 of value
and 1.65% for value over $76,000. The multi-family dwellings pay more for each dollar
of valuation than single family dwellings.
f:\dept\planning\OOfiles\OOeup\OO-O 1 0\00-0 lOpe2.doe
6
Petition of orotest (attached)- On March 2, 2000 a petition, signed by 75 people, of
protest was received. The petition states increased road traffic will decrease safety
in the neighborhood, water run-off is already a problem, loss of trees and proposed
construction will lose neighborhood character for Woodridge Estates, and that
property values for the adjacent dwellings may decrease.
Traffic and water run-off has been addressed in this report. Loss of trees affecting the
character of the neighborhood is a legitimate concern. The tree preservation ordinance
addresses such concern by requiring replacement trees. The applicant is proposing to
plant 66 trees on site and additional trees off-site to satisfy tree replacement. The
speculation of decreasing property values is not supported by any factual information.
Low-income rentals- The applicant has verbally stated the rental units will be market
rate. Attached is a letter from the applicant stating they provide market rate rental.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) ANALYSIS:
Section 1108.200 of the City Code sets forth the criteria for approval ofa CUP.
(1) The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Objective #1 of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide opportunities for a variety
of affordable high quality housing.
Objective #2 is to maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality
residential developments.
Attached are the policies related to these two objectives. The policies and
objectives are met as the policies are met with buffering requirements located in
the Zoning Ordinance.
Page 101 of the Comprehensive Plan addresses housing analysis. The analysis
specifically states there is a gap in Prior Lake's housing in the area of newer
apartment units. Similar type communities are expected to maintain 25-30% of
the housing stock in apartments or multi-family dwellings. Prior Lake currently
has 12.85% classified as apartments or multi-family dwellings. The addition of
the proposed units would complement the goal of providing opportunities for
diverse housing.
(2) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community as a whole.
The proposed multi-family dwelling will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
morals and general welfare of the community as a whole. The site plan meets
criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. The streets accessing the property can
f:\dept\planning\OOfiles\OOeup\OO-O I 0\00-0 I Ope2.doe
7
support the anticipated traffic. The proposed on-site ponding contains storm
water run-off as much as possible without the presence of a public storm sewer
system in place.
(3) The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Use District in which the Conditional Use is located.
The use requires a CUP within the zoning district. The property is zoned R-4
Multi-family residential. The proposed site layout complies with all
requirements and performance standards of the Zoning District with minor plan
changes (landscaping) as made conditions of the CUP.
(4) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
services, or improvements, which are either existing or proposed.
The proposed use as an apartment building will not have adverse impacts on
governmental facilities or improvements. The site is designed to connect to
future storm sewer. All other public improvements (street, water, and sewer)
are existing and capable of supporting the proposed building and site
improvements.
(5) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties in close proximity to the conditional use.
The use is located adjacent to three public streets and a townhouse development
to the east. The proposed use will not have adverse impacts on the use and
enjoyment of properties in close proximity.
(6) The use is subject to the design and other requirements of site and
landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional
landscape architect, or civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota,
approved by the City Council and incorporated as part of the conditions
imposed on the use by the City Council.
The landscaping plans were prepared by a registered landscape architect and
meet the planting requirements with the exception of additional shrubs required
along 170th Street as part of bufferyard plantings. This has been made a
condition of approval.
(7) The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared by a professional
civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota which illustrate locations
of city water, city sewer, fire hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and
cable lines, natural gas mains, and other service facilities. The plans shall
be included as part of the conditions set forth in the CUP approved by the
City Council.
f:\dept\planning\OOfiles\OOeup\OO-O I 0\00-0 I Ope2.doe
8
The drainage and utility plans were prepared by a professional registered
engineer. Additional information is needed such as fire hydrant locations and
the items listed on the attached engineering memo. These are conditions of
approval.
(8) The use is subject to such other additional conditions which the City
Council may find necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety
and neighborhood character. Such additional conditions may be imposed
in those situations where the other dimensional standards, performance
standards, conditions or requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to
achieve the objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these
circumstances, the City Council may impose restrictions and conditions on
the CUP which are more stringent than those set forth in the Ordinance
and which are consistent with the general conditions above. The additional
conditions shall be set forth in the CUP approved by the City Council.
Staff does not recommend any additional conditions as all ordinance criteria
have been met or will be met with conditions imposed.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the CUP with the following conditions:
1. Four additional shrubs are required to be planted in the bufferyard required along
170th Street.
2. Irrigation Plan to be submitte~.
3. Issues in engineering memo dated March 1,2000 must be addressed.
4. Hydrant locations indicated and 300' foot hydrant radius to be provided.
5. A letter of credit must be submitted. The LOC will be for 125% of landscaping costs,
tree preservation requirements, Estimates or bids must be submitted for the required
landscaping
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the CUP with conditions as recommended or
any other conditions the Planning Commission feels are warranted.
2. Recommend denial ofthe request. In this case, the Planning Commission should be
specific about findings of fact.
3. Continue the request. In this case, staff should be directed with specific information
to bring back to the Planning Commission for further review.
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative #1.
f:\dept\planning\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-O 1 0\00-0 1 Opc2.doc
9
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approved the CUP with the five
conditions as listed in the staff report.
f:\dept\planning\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-O I 0\00-0 I Opc2.doc
10
~~.
-n
Gl
f'.)
(JI
~
~~~~-::?/ \
~~
a~
~
~
~~~~~
:~~~~
~~~~~
;!:~!il;:z
r;~nm~
~o t'i~
f ~~
~ ~~
m z
~ .3
..
!il
..
z
fll
~
..
(j) II
~ ~
~ l3
::U'I~
~~~
l3l3~
:!I:!IgJ
8"!,"08"
'I
II ~II~ I~
~~~~~ > ;'P'~lIl () ~~~:82 )>
X~~lS$! z xiliQ ~ <: ~~~~ ~
m~E~ 0 ~~~~ r= m"lJ)>Jn I
CIl i:::OJJ m ~~~ :::j
2l2ls:: () zm.. Z
&i~" )> ..$!ln G'l JJ-<' m
i:::>~ " ~~~ Z ffi<$! ()
m i:::ffio -I
0>0>ziii8 )> 0>0> 13;!! Q m ~~Z~5
....-tnZ :II ~~ rfi~ m "''''~JJ'''
NN~C_ :II
~~ ~~ 0 ~.. m U ~:'
:I: ",I(J ,,"" .......... 0>
-c...
....N OW :::j ~g mz .._ JJ
i5~ ~2 m "'0 ~~ !!l~
() ..,- ~.
" m-<
-I .m
!!l "'0
m g:-<
8
en
-f
-10
~Z
~m
dG>
)>)>
~-f
~m
m)>
-0-0
6)>
:o:D
~-f
^~
.fT1m
~z
-f
en
-0
:0
o
-0
o
en
m
o
)>
-0
)>
:0
-I
s:
m
z
-I
CD
C
r
o
Z
G>
'1llZ
~~~
alO ":0
~~ >9
~~ ~~
~~ i
~
~~!;~:!;; 0
xozg." :E
?fiffiiR~ z
oo~ m
zo'" :II
~~1Ti Z
~JJ::!: -n
0>0>za2 0
--U'IC>CI)
:~~m~
~mUl en
&l2l ~
<Del ~
5
Z
en
r
n
I ~~c~~!;~TlJ: ~~~<!!T
..,. "'.Ll("",'IW 'AD 1ft!
",.".."..''''1...111.... __
VOICIIIIII'.'"",
'....1.,11..'.".3
~~
S9
~~
!~
~z
0'"
ffi~
"'CIl
~=i
~m
!::II
-)>
,,-I
~5
mCll
.
~ C ~~~~ ~
!i =! >>>>:II
~ r i!l:ll:Dll"
-:3 fi~~~ z
F6 m ~ZO~ Gl
i en ~~~~ Z
~ ~~ a C9
~ 5 ~
t'i a a
c
z
~
~
ti
:ll:ll N
SP" 0
~x Z
i:i _
~~ ~
m~ 0
~~ (j'j
!ii -I
:ll :II
~ 0
-I
~
!f t;
iiJ I!
~ iiJ
m 9
x ~
i>
~
:!I
!
C
~~tn 2:
. .. -I
~~~ Z
"'Nt.l'T1
:;~~ 0
!j1N'"
mSH'l
"'!ill!
~~~
"'
I
--fR OJ
i1
U1 r
0
0 -<
c;; (')
-I I ,
Ei I ^
I~
0 ....,
~ ;et
H
:I:
I I\J
loon
l~-?
I~h/li:
I-ii 1/
:v: .-
I ~ ,.' !:
'. .1! 1/, .
· f ! J!
'" -~i...
i ~! ' ~tl --;
.. /:' :: .
I
z~
~
gJ ~~
o c~
~ !~
;II ~~
8 ~~
::D ~"
> ijit;
~ 3~
~
~ ~
m
.
"''''
",w
~~
l3l3
:!I~
~~
N
Nil
iI"
~~
s"
~~
i~
5i~
..
~
l'l
:!I
"
III
.,.
N
~
~ :;1
I I
LOT
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - FOR CITY REVIEW ONLY
SITE PLAN
STOHEGATE
APARTMENTS
SCALE: 1M a 3O'.Q"
PRlOAl/cKE, MN
"'r
0_
~G)
:';:1:
II' -i
l!l-
62
'G)
"1J
~
2
N
i
'C-'-I ~
i '.. ,0< ".' ~
~ ,.,~ II :;!
, ..
, m
- >
t ..., .., r.... 1
~ t'~~' .~ i I :!l
~ I' u ~
I Lrt' q~ 21)\ ~
~ . I II e ) ill
,. v; II! ~ to
, ~
IIi I
~i
!~-,~
!"
i
.~
ill
o
8
. .- ~ -- E'
8 __ -.._
_--0'1. ._~_ .-
l! t r ~
_.__ -(1!! !~
7 ~~.,-
g ::j ~I
;J '10 I L
~ :t ! n1 ~
I CJ) i ~
i:xl I ~
la~1 .
ii
~I
![
<II
r-
o
, ., .....w" ~.i ~-. r fl, :.: k :'_
- -.::': =-;:~'?;\ ' ~~.~'p.
~ ;=ji'H I
- .--- - '--T-'''' ~,: I, ....1--
~iTOR;NTO A~~~"- : ------::. "h ;r.,' ,.-T!~,'_
I _ - -:::::=~:.;~~~~~-~: IJII ~ Ilr
!;Il~ ~: ~
~~di!l I~i
;II" I-+-
r~ ~ p! m ;r~ I
. ~ r 1 .
<, 111- ,
~ I : I I I j. :
If" l i j. I
I dN~ 1:1(:
'.....__________________________________________,,- r il ij I
...,1I'2S1'E -S;;y~:;z:~:::=-:::f.f.{:::ii::::=-:=-::::::.:.:' r_~}l l~L;
~~ ~\. /.... r!; '{L
!I~., /' /'6 \ {c/_"'_~ V\. .r,: 1
'd,\" ~ ~ I.!: ~.~
"" : ({ :
H'
N
LOT
EXlSTlNQ BULDINO
~IT'
III
r
o ~
(')
^
~!
,
:
,
,
,
:
j_ I--i-
,.! /
9<'
r : !~~
. I b!
~ ~l9
z ---..
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION . FOR CITY REVIEW ONLY
~ jl<;~~~!~~,r~~~!~!f LIGHTING PLAN
I . =' - ::1!~~l...L:,':.t:''':.H''D=
1'\);: ,",Ole!!l."'''' "" SCALE:1-.3Q'.()"
!: ' ill. llI' II.... ~1':
.......
AFFORDABLE IlDU91NO
SOL\1T1ONS UC
fJOI.8I9)QMIIIXE
.......:TClN<A,....
I FlDi'.,,"-..
! i ~~ "
,kit
I,
ii
il
i
i
i
ii
i! I
4!:"",'"
i &" 20'.'; -.
_~:.o- '.-2"..... _~_
. ,
1, """
r /! l, "t-<"
% Iii \""
oil \ \,
I , '. \ 'c' ''\
l!'~\,\\
'i ),,-,....\ \ '
:'l "t-.. " ,
i . v....... '"
:...."
I '~,
!'~"""",>,
i '
~~~'"-ll~
~~;~-.:~..=t=i-"'_. ~~l~--
/ ---L I
r/ !:
.' ,I., ~
it
ii~i
IT i,~ I,';
'\f" ,/ i
'~ .
-r---' 'I
"'l:l~ './ I ~ I
''''-, '~'- , !
, ~-r
~~ !
ii
,i
"'-"
~~
':0
~)>
G>
m
-0
r
)>
Z
~
~
~
i
31'-0"
:1
!
i
i
T
~
~
N
en
~
~
!!l
~
fi
1
A8
I ~~
~.~
p
~~
! I~
,i
Ii
1\
-----1
------- - ~
..~
I'
I
,ii
,....
-.---i.
I
;:;
+-
en
-.
t<:
L/
I
. . ",-":
'..''"'" "'-~".....~'~.-'",'
t<:
I
J
'., i/i
'.~
-.
'..(f'-'~--
I
I
~ I~
," J
L-
r
3r...
.'t
I ~
t--.
! :
.
I
I
~ I
a ;
i
(tJ1 ~I~~"~!~~'.': .~~.~~~~
. 5! - r~!aL,.l..ff~:':;-:N'''\:~
,.."\;;: vO'C~ ("" 1" .,,,
~ n '....I8.J."..'lO?
PRIOR LAKE. MN
AffORDABLE HOUSING
SOLU110NS LLC
41011 FlED OAK RIDGE
MWHETOMCA, UN S6345
.
.
......
mG>
r)>
m:D
<)>
~G>
O~
Zr
"'8
~:D
5!::;;
<
m
r
.i
.
11
tl
..
a
..
-l'"
0-
-lCil
)>"0
r)>
-0
Zm
~Cil
:D
~
m
.,----
I ~
L-.
.-
I....
'"
jll[!l
~s:
"'z
n
"
~:
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
':
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
:1
"
"
"
:1
II
"
:1
"
"
"
:\ :1
:!\ ;f
:: \1 I
:: ~~I
:! mla
:' iQ:;
CD': r~~1il
1"51, 1ft
"'I, "11
~.t
I:
.~.
~{i
"'to':
I
-/
i..-
.....L
i
..
Ii
~ !!
i ! i
l jl
"~I,
I """~""
i
i
=~",~. : t ~ :='
i ! ~
i !
/,~==+==+"l==--' .,
:"~ . : SIDEWALK
i i
~"
j;;-
~:D
~Cf)
~-i
"
r
o
o
:D
"1J
s;:
Z
31'-0"
~
i
\'.0"
I
"l~
~~I
i;1
LT l\
~~
g;~ '
~r
_~,:<rmi
~
~
i
i
i
j"
i ~ ".
: I
! i
I",
.l '--..,
ii' "
ii"
I ..~.
.1 =i~ ",
II ~i "
II '
il
i
i
i
i
Ii'
il
i
i
".
1
AB
il
,I
'I
!i~
'" il ~
!!.l
~ 1\
II
,
~~ 1
>'"
~i!i 11
~~
Ii II
I
ij, I n
I
"': I ..
I
'I I,
!I ~i ,
11
11 ,
15'.(1' 'r<r 1
dj !I
II
11
II
"
L
I
,'.r
"'.cr
'_.~'-~
I
I
I:
II
1,1 I
I 5<
#t II i
V 'I ~ I'
I Jj j "-
~~ ,~~ ~~
I I :
I,
~I
II
I
I
I
I
I
,
11
,
11
..
"
"r.(J"
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - FOR CITY REVIEW ONLY
FIRST FLOOR
PLAN
cu ~I<;~'~~!;~'.J: ~~.~\~~f
I ~ - - r:e~~L,."...!,~.YI:::'.."O,,=
"'-;: \lc'er ('12)"'."'1
~ n ''''I(llU)''',~H~
STONEGA TE APTS.
SCALE till". "-0"
45'-r
i
~
I' " " "
I II " "
I' II " ,I
::::..-_.~-
"1: :..:
'1- II ,I',
II II It
II ,",
I:: ::::
II ,I I,
I II " I,
I II ,.',
II " I,
II ,",
It ,I 'I
II ,'I,
It "
" "
I' "
" "
,I I,
,I I,
,I I,
,I I,
, "
, "
, "
, "
, "
, "
, "
, I,
, "
, "
, "
, "
, "
: :,
" II
I' 'f
,I "
I: :1
" I,
,I 'I
" 't
" 't
:: :t
" 'I
" ,
.' ,
,I I,
.' I,
.' I,
" 'I
I~, :
:1 \. I,
II "I,
:: \. I
:: ~~ I
:: !i~
:: g!~
cnl:~~~
~ll lii'"
-<:. "lI
)0,
ll;\
"I":
" "
II ,s;
II .:':
= R~
:;~{',:
:(~f~:
li~;.::
.f~~I.
"y
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
::
"
"
"
"
::
"
"
"
"
::
"
"
::
"
::
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
::
"
::
::
"
"
"
"
"
::
"
::
"
"
"
"
~
I
r
..'"
~(f)
.m
~O
~ 0
Z
0
:=::t
:r: . ~
, ...
-
::0
0 ~I
1 l
" lIB 1
r
0
0
::0
I
""U ~ I !I
I
~ I "
I,
:l;Z :i .
iOO II II
I
i I
~ I ~I
I
I II
1
I !I
I
I II
I
I
I
1,
II !I
'. l
II
I
I
I !I
I
I "
,
!,
I'
" " 'I ,"
,f5'-r II H I. ,I
~~~~~
II R It ,I
~- T n : :: ::.
,
tI . .: :. i
i :: : :: .:
:: : ::
3(1.73/4' :: : :: ~
' "
, "
"
" "
" '.
:: "
"
" I,
" ~
::
"
"
"
"
::
" .:
" ,
, " ,
:: , "
, "
" , :'
" ,
" ,
" , :1
" ,
" , :1
:: " ::
:: "
" :'
:: "
" :1
:: "
.'
" " "
:: " "
~ " 'I
" "
" " I,
!i ,I II
it\. :i
"
" .' \11
" .1 "
:: " .
" :: ~~
" :: m~~
"
" .; o~'"
" It 1!~A:
" :: E~
"
:
~
n
::
"
"
::
"
::
_-_-_-l.-_..I.,!
5T"
I
I
I
I
I' ,~lll
. II i I :
I I.' !I -' " :: 1\
,-----11: J
: 18'-0" ! 2T-41/B"
!~~-- i~II'
r
I !
lL_~_~~~~~~~~-__~___l
- - - -,- - - - ----,,...
I ::
I ~
I ~
I .'\
I tI :: '\
I l'.t .'::D-
: :: J<<~~
I :: Q~;:
I II S~A:
I :: ,..~~
I_~_ 4.-'1'1J
.' 11
-J L-~~ J
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - FOR CITY REVIEW ONLY ::
"
;1
li
11
l
I
1:1
"il
I
I
1
)
/1
/ I
,
( :
2~~i :
~a~:;! I
! 2 1 I
""--I
;1
II
11T.(J"
~
__.._.. ~ -,->0 ~
~"W":RlJlrR., I!:> (,.' ..I:p.~' ....
~~ _.::... ,.' __ 00.01
MINNf!101A I. ~t c~...' ~ CJR
~1~~C~~!~~TlJ: ~~~~~!f
a . r:.~~'..U'l~tJ;~.~"DM~
:;
lit VOte~"'J\ 'H.""
n "....(ft.n... 'I&n
SECONDITHIRD STONEGATE APTS.
f!"QOR PLAN~
02.".2lIOQ AEVISfO 'CRarY AEVlEW
9CALE lIS. '"' 1'-0"
PRIOA lAKE. MN.
j
I I ~ I m
~ ,};o,
.~
'%:;' '1,
;'
m ~ !!l !:! ~ !!l
" " 0
g in "
in " ~ ..
~
e ~ ~ ~ " ! I
fri I!l i
!il 0 !il ~
~ = ,. ~
~ ~ :>
" ;;!
0 :D ~
:D ~
~ ~ ,. ~
~ ~ ~ :D
:D ~
;;! ~ ;;!
;!!
:D /"
~
~ ~ ~ '" ,
:1 ~
!il 0 !il ~ !il !il I
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ :S!
~ ~ ~ 14
~ ~ :> :> ~
~ ~ 0
"'
:> :> ~ ~ ~ :>
:D
ill :D :D ~ ~ ~
:> ~ ~
m II ~ -l-
)> m
en en
-f -f
m m
r
r m I
m ! <
< f )> I
)> -f
-f
0 ~ 0
Z Z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~~
.p,
l!lg
8lp>
z
0
-l
-n
0
:D
0
0 ._-1
z
en I
-l f
i1 :D
C
'i 0
-l
is
z
-n
0 i i
:D
0 , ,
~
:D II I
m
< 1'1
ffi
:E
0 'I
z
r
-< I
J.
I
I
I I I
I l-
I
I
I
I
I
~.!
I . I
I I
I I
I I
r I
I I I I
· 'S II : '" I 53' I d J
~J~ I!~ I ~ Ii~~ 4~ ~
~~~. '!J'5 ~ ~~~!i1 ~
!ra II ~ il!~ ~~ ~
",'ll "'l" I I ,
EAST & WEST STONEGATE
ELEVATIONS APARTMENTS
~ =ICharleS J.Radloff
)> n "'''eHI'l!'eT~.''l.H''I!'III'
I at ~ ::t~~e.,.L.I!,~!\"':,-:'..''''.'::
~ lit YOICI'''''"",,~,
""'''!:: ,.. I.""" "."
-'"""-,":::; - ",'~ "~
..~~-- it' :.J,a. I'l<> f..J ....
~~ "",0tJ/SA--:- _...O).4)t
....,SOTA '7J-';~;'iif/..',,-j. 9CS CJR
11W'..1'~
PRIOR LAKE, MN
(J)
0
C
-l
~ I ~ I
.1l:.~
;;(1 m
r
m g 'll m
:n ~
f'> " <
~ ..
~ ~ ~ )>
III !Z -l
I: II e 0
~ " !!l Z
10 ~ ~
;;l
I '"
IE
IE
~ " lil
.. ~
0 ~ !i1
."
~ ~ ~
." ~ ~
~ I
m
,. ,. ,. I:
~ " ~ I~
~
I
I
Ii!
m~
~Iii
~f!'
!llB
8!f"
I
I
I
I
I
lDL
~~
~
1'"
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!l Z i:l
;a~ . ~ ,,~
~~~~~
8!iii "l~ Il\~
I I I
I
I
I
"'
r;;..,
~rc:
S!'
~
~
I <;~c~~!;U. ~~~ !~rf
- ..... V~Cl'Y VlfW 1\0 ~
l!Of""'UIII'MI,... "')0.
VO';...!! Jr' ~', 2,\::: - ~ ~~ ~
NORTH & SOUT
ELEVATIONS
STONEGATE
APARTMENTS
'/8"=1'~
PRIOR LAKE, MH.
I I ~~~
K
"
m ~ !ll
." !l
'"
~ ..
p " G>
~ a ~
~ S ~
'" ~
10 I:
'" ~
~ 10
'"
~
~ .. ~
!i1 !i1 ~
a ~ a
~ ~ ~
f,1 f,1
,. ?D ~
'"
~ ~
z
o
--l
"T1
o
:0
()
o
z
CJl
iJ
c
()
--l
5
z
"T1
o
:0
()
~
:0
m
<
fii
:E
o
z
r
-<
"""'
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SOLUTIONS LLC
41011 REDOAIl' AIDOE
UIHNETOHKA, ..... SM4S
z
o
:n
-l
I
m
r
m
<
)>
-l
o
Z
i
--L
G>
,.
m'"
~,.
mG>
"m
Be>
..8
"""
l:).~~
,~~~~j
I ~UI'
I I- ~i I
I ~.. I
, _. ~J I
I "5 S I
I 5 I
I ~m1
21- ~
~e
~e> ~
g ~
'? "'r'"
~.
, I
I I I
I I I
: ~UI i :
I ~ I: ~ I
I I Q I
I I I I
I I I~ /
"' J!l ~~!'l
~ ~~ s~ ~~
.." g~a.;::R:::.1;;
~ iO. ~r '"'l"
8!1" il!~ "1~ ~
I I
(J) en
()
)> -i
r 0
m
...... Z
~ m
" G)
q ~
m
)>
-u
)>
:IJ
-i
$:
m
z
-i
en
en
m
0
-i
0
Z
-i
I
:0
0
C
G)
I
en
-i
m
o
~
~
c.>
"2
(J)
()
)>
r
m
CD
::;
....
~
r
()
c
;IJ
CD
m
r
m
<
"'
-..J
'"
<'i
TORONTO AVENUE
....- ._-- - -- --- - - ------.- -- ---
F'AOP'EIlTVllNE
~
<!i
."
r;;
z
-<
m
o
CD
m
;IJ
;::
'-;
~ __ _._ _____._ .__ ..___ ._____.__-'L.~:.sE1:.6ACIS,.___.
2'.6" HTG
'"
::D6
m
-l7
)>G)
Z~
Z'"
G)m
:E~
)>-<
F~
m
."
)>
;IJ
'"
Z
G)
~
~.~
m':n
~8
Ci~
~PJ
-;",
U1j<
'"
'"
a:
~
<!i
10'.0.
90"
CLEAR
"
jj
rn
....
~
;IJ
rn
m
Cl
o
z
o
"
8
;IJ
....
:I:
jj
o
"
6
o
;IJ
Gl
)>
~
Gl
m
Ul
I I ~J
-1 --- -1- - -----,----- - -. - - -- ~- - --
040'.0. SET BACK
'"
0,
0;1
"'I
ill 1
I
I~
.. _ +'m-"~~'~_
----r---
1
1
1
1
Gl
)>
'JJ 1 1
)> m~ N '",
Gl mZ m~ ml m
mm rO fnP rl fn:E
hi::!! fnrn m." ~~
<- ::~ <0
:<iZ :<IZ -Z ~~
8;J! -;'<
"',." ~E g~ ~m
CD.r Nm
"'.0 NO ~g ",r !"!I
~i~ ~~ 0>0 mZ 8lf.2
UJ'JJ UJ:D U!m
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - CITY REVIEW ONLY
r
_ ...... "",,,,, AEY>EW
~I ~lc.~~~I;.S,,!. ~~!~!!
I ~ ~ - ~!:j.\L.!,~:*:t:..."tl,=
00;: "o'el!.l"~I'" ,eel
n ..... !fI12"'- '~.3
STONEGATE
APARTMENTS
1I1Jn-:1'.()"
PRIOR LME. MN
J -.-.-. -" .
.......'" 5ii' .--' '1" -: 'YJO
~::.: ~;{'I':L
, I,
I .... 'i1l,' .:C-'._.- _.-.... :~.
~/\i;: ",,', '. '_~\'
;<;': _.~:' -.: -"-:
", ~\... - :,
I
I
f;
It.. ."~
~,.... '.~
'f!
,.._~_....='=.."..->.""",'
-~--"" ,- i ~
I".~
J i
! <1. <; ".~
~_. 1 ,.,
, " - ~ I .;, i
,~iil i~\_ i _ '
"",-,. - ,.i\,'
--- -o~--T"::'" : ) ~!~
- ,."r. ,'~ , I ~.
~~~ ~'~ . ~), , ' :-- \ ~
,~...,-,,-~~~,I;)Q),;. \ I [l!..
T'-"""'-'
11:;
..
~
I
I.
~i
\
1
\
'''---llPn'1...{,....,
.~
, '.'~ I
, .,~
.+
i'i,
!Ii'
~i
~,
~i
,
,
" ,",
- ',f~~:
, . ~\' I 1.
.. . ~ ) i
~u - ';""'" - ":---'-',::"'7, I
I ' r
?i:.~.' ]
i : ~ut \ :<'
:c
./~
GV <:--,,,\,,^,, &'"
<: 0,~\;J
I
I
~I
, ,
. !
_.~_..#- ~
'1
z . z
" 11 ... . . ~ .. .. ~ m ..
. ~tHH il~ m .
;; i i i 0 o~ n ~
; ~ a.!. ~ U .. . l1 .
. . ! l ~ . ' . ~
! : o, ~ 0 : .
li,.l~it ~=lS ~ . . ~3 i % ~! ~! ; ~ l'
i !H .. ! ~- ~ ~
~:;~i!: z ~ ~ ~~ . 0 E o. ~ iO: ~
~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~ i ~ ~i ~ .,
~ i i,l:!~i: " 3: ~ ~3 , . ~ 0 1 ~~ ~~ =
~.. .. . . ~~ . ~ ! ~ 0
!~4 .0 . . n .. o ~ ~ : . .
, ;"1 :! ~ ;: S . ~ i 0
, ii 0 ~ : . ~ ~ ;:
a '11: a i ~H . ~ 0 . n . " ~ q z
~ !.r ::' . !l ~'! ~ ! ~ .. ~ . ~ . . "
3: . 1 . . ~ ! ! % . . ~
i ; .
& f; !! :~g a ~ ~i ~ !l E ~ i 0 ~
~ ~
. ~ % . 5 ~ ~ =
i nn ~;i ~ -~ . . . . .
c m
~I~ . i ~ ~
~ ~
;] ~; ~ ~~' e g * : N" ~ ~ = :: = = = ~.
0
i ~ ;;I ~ < "
. !' i;~ .~
~ ; I ~I~ ~ ~ ~ " .~
~. !; ! w w . ow ~
t. w. . .. .
3: ~. ~ ~ . .
n !& . . . .
~ n'
I ; ~ .. . ! ~ z !~
g g ~i ~ ~ :
. ~ " o. f:~
~' ~ Q: g ~
~'I
;: - u - u ~ - u .. '~ ~
Hp ~i $ $ $ $ $ ~ ~ 00 i
H ~ 3 . n ~ ~ ~
0
Ii ~ ~. .. if 1 '" ..
! 0 '"
Q. :-.p ~ z ill
H~~ l! ~
~ili ~ iii ~
"
i.' 0 '"
i ;:13 i l
- ..~
. . ~~
i:= .. Iii;: ~
. . o ~ ~ ~ ;: ~ .
, ~
HI!
:0.. 1it'1
U'I
~n
il [I
a-I' ..
r
~
, l}~I!U.!I
~~. ~. c5 i . filii
'" !!t J ~IH~
~. rlPI
I & 'I.
Stonegate Apartments
Prior Lake, Minnesota
Landscape Plan
Tree Preservation Plan
,B:'-'W)'...4
'~,~",.,~,t.tI
26!!9~A_Soulh
M"'-"'" _ 55'08
p: 6121317.2!iOO t3T7.1010
-~,...
~
o
o
t7
~
o
Ci) ". "" .;.... ,. ,
- .!!' - - +":"~::~::~c:::~::~;--_:-_: ---:
- --......
[JJ\
~ 1-
I~
j1i ~
cd,
I
~ :~
I
I
I
I
I
),.
t:J
S!
=:::!
o
<:
/
cJI
r
~
1:>
o
o
7-
cJI
~
./ 0
<< Cl
~ ;:..
I:tl
r
LOT
EX/SnNG BUILDING
:0 ~,;:;'') J, "..~. --. ~
\ '0' [. ,I, ".,.; ..' Y
-. . ,\ L.., . J:.~l: ~"I__''''.
..' -f, , \, , ". r '.); ,-
"'.', ,\, < '''-'''',J "., '. "
,- "'. ..... ", ',\', 0 ~ .C -y' //'-"0",', ....' ;Y
---, """ """" "",\'~-----f--~\9/' ,'_'., \ "'()'/'O/>"
"', ", \ ',(C,--._~-', <> '--/ 3 ~,~" /. .
:,!i>5i~~~-}~!~l~mt!~~-~-~~,
"" ,'" "" ',f , ./ , " ,/,1-.:., ",J, to J'., , ' )>".\,
',. -" ," rY.>, .... /' /, , . ~-T"', -.J..,., i' '\ "-",
;/.'/" \''''o~..., '0;". /"//' "", C:>!-/.""'Q!! \!{-O,j: "'~l'
'I ". , Vi ...... r -- // .' ,', '/ , . _ \~
'i:.' '." ',' Ht102'Sr-E / ", /i& ~:OI'_~", ';5,' : I'"
'i"'" '. / 1,/ ',( 'I.......:
! , : 1:1' --"./ ~ ~.. :. ' . -~
/:. ,~~cJ' I ',. j
, 'c/ _ ""
I, iJ;')'lf I
I ' I
txJ
r-
r-
o
o ...
o
~
I\)
~
~
r
~
1:>
nl!W
il if 4
libl1i
iii i'
.ih;ri Is
f~fhli ~
II i."d
If!lil'
11;1'1(
h[~h
laHhi
II !rf]
fihiiJ
~ .
~
lllno. ,.dU
IIlu ."rodIIIO.
ir[!lf"r{I~llrJiii~
i."fl. .~f f ihfi ~
ii d1h .L
f I Ii r{
s.
z _
[ :!
fl. C/)jp
j tl!i flit! :tfi~!; ~ os
i ::1J "(, <:8-
CD 'i;: t!'l~
[ ::r I Ii !I m ! ~ lllf !Jl ~f
Q. j111 ~~
! ~ ~ 1;1 1[:rl -liidfl I
no ; d Ii ~rl J I ii']ii II~ i=rh
!!; i t S'_ f .:S ;;! :tal
. ~ ::J :itl !~ ~i~!flfJ : ~
a Q.
n~ ~iS J rf I I PI r- I :o~
8~1 II f ~~ -Ji~P · ~~
pw [; I ; i~! . ~ J f~ I
~ : i g. fiJ ~~
f i it ~! ~ !!~ ~ !:T1~
" S- f; I ! il 110 ~ ~~
- - w
~ ~ ..
., II
:;- .j
fl
~ Ill!
" Illl
i~ I!!
C)~~
~~z
VI o~C) ;g f ·
ili "';:;j Roo f!J
!:::l ;g ~ S'
~ ~~3 ~ 1 .
c~~ ~
S;;"'"t!
"'~i
~
~
I
a
~
I
-"..
~~
~;::
~~
jg
lii
Co
!{~~gmol~IAI+"
IUIIUUUUU
5 nnuqli1p
q i 8
I ~
o
, I I
. : I i I I: ! i:
· I" .. . I 0 I ' I I
. f ; j I I I ! ! I
uuunn;pu
UUUnp i I
HiP! i i
i i i i
C) '" II
~ If
'" II
~ If
&l f1-
~ ;;j 1'~ .
~g
'll 11
: II
~ II
.. '
~...
z -
~
II!
;l! lal
; ~ I!i
~ ol;
z III
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS, LLC
13141 Holasek Lane
Eden Prairi~. MN 55346
Tel (611)- 949-2667
Cell (612)-710-7174
March 3, 2000
MS. Jenni Tovar, Pbnner
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave, S,E.
Prior Lake, MN' 55372-1714
Dear Ms. Tovar,
Your department has inquired as to the message we want to convey with the name of our L.L. C.
We feel that our housing is "affordable" for ~ery market we build in. We have purchased sevc:ral market
rate or senior apartment sites, and are developing mid range market rate apartment rental buildings. We arc
not in the high end or executive luxuIY rate :market; nOI are we in the low end of the roarl<et. We have not
considered the subsidized market either, as this is an entirely di1!erent set of management regulations and
controlled restrictions that we are not set up to do.
You can see from our proposed plans that the size of the units and building amenities are for the mid range
of market rate aparancnts; which we will do a very professional job of designing, constrUCting and
managing. .
We feel a tenant will have an easier time preparing a rental payment to an "affordable" entity rather than an
entity that might be (:(Insidered as .'unatfordable".
Please call if there arc any other clari1ications that your department needs.
LB HOUSING SOLlITIONS. liC
',D)0 f~7Tj:J~-
':\ MM 3_
. \ .
I \
\':\\\: ----~-,/'
'GU'-
I
\
l . d
llt9'oN
A1IlV3H snld lVI1N30nHd
~V8l:ll OOOl '8 'JE~
, ).,
Planning Commission
City Hall
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S,E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
,;,,\1 MAR 2 'lnM
1'1\\; l.WU
[iUUL " j'
_ --1 L;-/
Subject:
Protest for the Conditional Use Permit for Stonegate Apartments
Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition
Prior Lake, Minnesota
Planning Commission:
I would formally like to be placed on the Agenda for the Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for March 13, 2000. I protest the request for a conditional use permit for the
Stonegate apartments located at the intersection of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue.
My concerns for the proposed construction of a 43 unit multiple family complex consist of
several items.
Increase road traffic will decrease safety in our neighborhood. Toronto Avenue is already
under heavy use, and with the addition of the Busse property Youth Athletic Complex
located on Mushtown Road and the proposed construction of a new Post Office located
on Toronto Avenue, traffic will increase even more.
Water run-off on the intersection of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue is already a
problem.
The loss of trees on the property and the construction of a apartment complex will lose
neighborhood character for Woodridge Estates.
And finally, property values for family dwellings located adjacent to the proposed
apartment complex will more than likely decrease in value.
Sincerely,
tiHldlAtv
Andy ~ing
17057 Toronto Avenue
W oodridge Estates
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
(612) 447-7092
15" <');c..j<"j
c(,
PETITION AGAINST BROOKSVILLE CENTER 1st ADDITION
STONEGATEAPARTMENTS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
~
~
We the undersigned, protest the conditional use permit request for the construction of a
43 unit multiple family dwelling located on Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st
Addition, Prior Lake, Minnesota.
Reasons for the petition is based on the following items.
· Road traffic on Toronto Avenue will increase. Road traffic on Toronto is already
high, and with the addition of the Busse Property Youth Athletic Complex and the
addition of the proposed post office on Toronto Avenue, traffic will increase even
more.
· More traffic on Toronto means unsafe conditions for children at play;
· Water run-off is already a problem on that intersection;
· The loss of trees on the lot will ruin an aesthetic pleasing view;
· The addition of another apartment complex near the W oodridge Estates will decrease
property values, and;
· An apartment complex on Toronto Avenue close to Woodridge Estate will lose
neighborhood character.
Name ~ \ 1\ $~ reX-
Name: -;;:Sij ~~
Name: Ct"a'< .t 2--
Address~lo-n O~Ztl)OC(l CA'/,:
Address ,/,.,5'1 OAKLJODJJ
Address I 7 cJ 7 7 ~ tf tJ V7 to
Address J} lJ ') ') lOr Dv,+u
~(( .
. 14 t/ L,
/k
Name: Address
Name: Address
Name: Address
Name: Address
Name: Address
Name: Address
Name: Address
~
~
\)
~~
PETITION AGAINST BROOKSVILLE CENTER 1st ADDITION
STONEGA TE APARTMENTS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
We the undersigned, protest the conditional use permit request for the construction of a
43 unit multiple family dwelling located on Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st
Addition, Prior Lake, Minnesota.
Reasons for the petition is based on the following items.
. Road traffic on Toronto Avenue will increase. Road traffic on Toronto is already
high, and with the addition of the Busse Property Youth Athletic Complex and the
addition of the proposed post office on Toronto Avenue, traffic will increase even
more.
. More traffic on Toronto means unsafe conditions for children at play;
. Water run-off is already a problem on that intersection;
. The loss of trees on the lot will ruin an aesthetic pleasing view;
. The addition of another apartment complex near the W oodridge Estates will decrease
property values, and;
. An apartment complex on Toronto Avenue close to Woodridge Estate will lose
neighborhood character.
Na
Na
Name:
Name:
Nam -:
Name:
Address~",1)II'~ I "-'- S~_
Address ~4L // PcY/<JI u'~~ / f:
Address q S' 71 f 0/IrA 0 ~/I ).~. c; ~ _
Address L/sdS H~~.~ rJ
t
Address YftI'7 ~ cL L/ I ew 1?q I ~~
Address '16 j.S- /t dJv/eJ ~/ 'L
Address l\~L)~~\l\U;J \(~
Address C/67tJ (J14,( u.."rAJd CI r
Address LflJ{) ~ (( LV 6 oJ
Address -f'73o M,cwod> ~~1~ /
Address '17/1 f)akid{tJiJ C IfI~ jb
\\
.
~\J
~\
PETITION AGAINST BROOKSVILLE CENTER 1st ADDITION
STONE GATE APARTMENTS
CONDITIONAL USE PERNnT REQUEST
We the undersigned, protest the conditional use permit request for the construction of a
43 unit multiple family dwelling located on Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st
Addition, Prior Lake, Minnesota.
Reasons for the petition is based on the following items.
. Road traffic on Toronto Avenue will increase. Road traffic on Toronto is already
high, and with the addition of the Busse Property Youth Athletic Complex and the
addition of the proposed post office on Toronto Avenue, traffic will increase even
more.
. More traffic on Toronto means unsafe conditions for children at play;
. Water run-off is already a problem on that intersection;
. The loss of trees on the lot will ruin an aesthetic pleasing view;
. The addition of another apartment complex near the W oodridge Estates will decrease
property values, and;
. An apartment complex on Toronto Avenue close to Woodridge Estate will lose
neighborhood character.
Name: -ofl./pmA-5 HE (5tJN
Name: D~' ulttvv
Address
'ICftlt /11t//1 /lJ{1v JIt~L $. C,
W3t ~u~7MlJ6.
Address
Name:~ f\
Address L/'I/r;'J ~l\clvl'c..,J IrJ,'{
Address 14ft) f?JrrJ1/U i j ) ---rr at /
Address 1JtJ2 (' }]y,(AJ /~)7YL
AddressjY1- ~ fDf\d 0\ tW T r '
Address 44 2cr POnrlll1'etU 7r & ('&.
Address 1/1/'11 'PoNdr.J/ E w.1/< 5 E
Name~
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:J~ ~
Name:
Address 4'-1& ; IZ.'1 J~ {4v };.... S. r: -
Address i.jt/~3~/JeaJT J~ F /
Address c(~o ( &pt;'u-J;. 5, E
Nam .
Name:
\\
~
, 0
~\ \ \0
PETITION AGAINST BROOKSVILLE CENTER 1st ADDITION
STONEGA TE APARTMENTS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
We the undersigned, protest the conditional use permit request for the construction of a
43 unit multiple family dwelling located onLot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st
Addition, Prior Lake, Minnesota.
Reasons for the petition is based on the following items.
. Road traffic on Toronto Avenue will increase. Road traffic on Toronto is already
high, and with the addition of the Busse Property Youth AtWetic Complex and the
addition of the proposed post office on Toronto Avenue, traffic will increase even
more.
. More traffic on Toronto means unsafe conditions for children at play;
. Water run-off is already a problem on that intersection;
. The loss of trees on the lot will ruin an aesthetic pleasing view;
. The addition of another apartment complex near the W oodridge Estates will decrease
property values, and;
. An apartment complex on Toronto Avenue close to Woodridge Estate will lose
neighb hood characte .
:=#:~~
Address L/5~-:;- Po wi vi t()J U 2.
Address L} s'-i4 Pc rtl.v j-ttt) Tv L Sf L
Address '1(;26 ;g1'J/c/t;/~i-J/ 7;-. t)L:-
Address I!J)~ p(rrrWieliJ L1cf SC
Address 4 IS I 0 ?~w T1-. S t;
Address"-\ '-- \ ({ ~V() \ , (~ ~j \ 'T \. < '\r . ~f.
Address iirc P61'd}v,'ettJ TI< SF
Address -sI.-:/P6 ;?$/Jc/tlJe t.d .~ ~6-'
Address -f'47rr 16# Dt.lltftl 7; < j;e-
AddressL-fl-fCo6 PD\,J.~;, e...u T f!- ~ z..
Addressi(~-f :?IJII(~;f~u) .7?z. 5Ef
\\
9,hq/tJo
.
PETITION AGAINST BROOKSVILLE CENTER 1st ADDITION
STONEGA TE APARTMENTS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
We the undersigned, protest the conditional use permit request for the construction of a
43 unit multiple family dwelling located on Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1 st
Addition, Prior Lake, Minnesota.
Reasons for the petition is based on the following items.
· Road traffic on Toronto Avenue will increase. Road traffic on Toronto is already
high, and with the addition of the Busse Property Youth Athletic Complex and the
addition of the proposed post office on Toronto Avenue, traffic will increase even
more.
· More traffic on Toronto means unsafe conditions for children at play;
· Water run-off is already a problem on that intersection;
· The loss of trees on the lot will ruin an aesthetic pleasing view;
· The addition of another apartment complex near the W oodridge Estates will decrease
property values, and; (.)/tl, \cse
· An apartment complex on Toronto Avenue close to Woodridge Estate.~
neighborhood character.
Name:
Address t70,57 IcypCJ.P70 Tlt/€.
Address /1 (}5'! 1arcrrfo auf!,
Name:
, Z
NamejOJ/f1L;;'/tlt NJji-vr-
Address 17o~ { 7Cr'<.0IV'1c A-c.rc
Address~1104(T orurdt> frll.e
Address 11oZS1dlon1n V1ve S,t:.;
Address 1720(00 (otw.-O =?f.
Address n00()T;Yw,ia C&L 5t:~
Name:
Address
Name:
Address
Name:
Address
Name:
Address
1\
,
Qh q /00
PETITION AGAINST BROOKSVlLLE CENTER 1st ADDITION
STONEGATEAPARTMENtS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
We the undersigned, protest the conditional use permit request for the construction of a
43 unit multiple family dwelling located on Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st
Addition, Prior Lake, Minnesota.
Reasons for the petition is based on the following items.
. Road traffic on Toronto Avenue will increase. Road traffic on Toronto is already
high, and with the addition of the Busse Property Youth Athletic Complex and the
addition of the proposed post office on Toronto Avenue, traffic will increase even
more.
. More traffic on Toronto means unsafe conditions for children at play;
. Water run-off is already a problem on that intersection;
. The loss of trees on the lot will ruin an aesthetic pleasing view;
. The addition of another apartment complex near the W oodridge Estates will decrease
property values, and; wlt l.
. An apartment complex on Toronto Avenue close to Woodridge Estate ~ lose
neighborhood character.
Name()~'~ ftJ ~.
t/
Namej;tl)iJVl !Pi Vi~5-R@
Name11-~
Name::iLiY~ 6D.Al flY)
NameC ~ ..\
Name ~\Zi- - ~.J
:::~.tt
Name:
Address /70 ~ 6'T~ ~ ~~ ..j,E-
Address i 7 0/0 7avvYI.-fo./J.J.e s-6:
Address / 707~ 'W61l.Jo Ik SF
Address /IOl~ IOrowto Ave/Sf"
Address ,\\O'X \bCO\\\o ~ X
Address \7l L ~ 10(",\{.0 AVrL- ~f;".
Address \l\lJL --r0\0J-0~~
Address J 71fX:J tJtxiJVlEe..:> cT
AddressJ 'c I oc) W~ {~..( AJ d
<
Address /7/ Z- 0 W cr-zrzfVI@~ CI ~
Address )1/ J.O WObJU(PtJ r!t >E
\\
8-bq/oo
,
PETITION AGAINST BROOKSVILLE CENTER 1st ADDITION
STONEGA TE APARTMENTS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
We the undersigned, protest the conditional use permit request for the construction of a
43 unit multiple family dwelling located on Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st
Addition, Prior Lake, Minnesota.
Reasons for the petition is based on the following items.
· Road traffic on Toronto Avenue will increase. Road traffic on Toronto is already
high, and with the addition of the Busse Property Youth Athletic Complex and the
addition of the proposed post office on Toronto Avenue, traffic will increase even
more.
· More traffic on Toronto means unsafe conditions for children at play;
· Water run-off is already a problem on that intersection;
· The loss of trees on the lot will ruin an aesthetic pleasing view;
· The addition of another apartment complex near the W oodridge Estates will decrease
property values, and; WIt.{,
· An apartment complex on Toronto Avenue close to Woodridge Estate~lose
neighborhood character.
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name: ~
Name: v;. ~?
I 9..,
NCWle:~/J-;?~
\. I . /
Name~.'3-v
~~ej16r
,~e:/1l d; ,,--' '~'--d! ~
. I. " ...-:;?
~:'"~:~--- ~~----
N~~
.: ,'tk/fj'<' Au~
Address / 7/3~ 140oh/{u/ {f5~
(
Address 17/3'/ W{)u~ () I~ ~ ~6..
'Address 17 /'lo, - 000J l)}~,J ~E.
Address II 'J.ol VJ~'()JiJ" f vJ (-J. YZ.
Address 1'72 oj c..y ?iCY VIE tV C r"~ E
Address)7;Z;/ WdtJOVICf-i Cr. 2E..
. W. -'7
Address /7..2./1 J t: Q V I t:-1AJ D. ~
Address /7--:;.:J?Wp,:-//i/;:: C t:
Address/7d?r tJ(r~~ f!;/.
Address (7 J W (~-{\ ~ er-"
-
Address / 71. 10 U/ cy-o.1:/ t/ 1/ e ~
\\
.,
9-~ Cf/oO
PETITION AGAINST BROOKSVILLE CENTER Ist ADDITION
STONEGATEAPARTMENTS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
We the undersigned, protest the conditional use permit request for the construction of a
43 unit multiple family dwelling located on Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st
Addition, Prior Lake, Minnesota.
Reasons for the petition is based on the following items.
· Road traffic on Toronto Avenue will increase. Road traffic on Toronto is already
high, and with the addition of the Busse Property Youth Athletic Complex and the
addition of the proposed post office on Toronto Avenue, traffic will increase even
more.
· More traffic on Toronto means unsafe conditions for children at play;
· Water run-off is already a problem on that intersection;
· The loss of trees on the lot will ruin an aesthetic pleasing view;
· The addition of another apartment complex near the Woodridge Estates will decrease
property values, and; tJ I t.t.,
· An apartment complex on Toronto Avenue close to Woodridge Estate wiHt lose
neighborhood character.
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Address \\ \\\ II MU\UA:J Co. A re-
Address tlr\\ ( }-. rrr\ lJ\(N~ CnU tr
Address 4b,-\0 OoJ-wouul c....t vLle..-
I luJ. (J O~J:_t. \TV, I C'icJe- 5.S.
AddresSl '{J"\ V...J '-Va.
Address ytsl/ {)q}CWiJoJ Ci{c,/e Sf
Address 'Yf~0 C)~!~ (' / S {: r
Address 'db!; ~JaILll/1m d Yh
Address 41.:.7 ~ OAI~l.Vooi (,:.-.s F-.
Address~Lo1<6 {)~a:x:t uv SL
Address
Address
~
MAR-10-00 10:39 AM PLASSEMBLY
6124472796
P.01
..
Fax f# 447.4245
Prior Lake City Council
Planning Commission ...
Attention: Jenni T9var. Planner
This is to inform you that I am opposed to the building of a 43 unit multiple family dwelling at Lot 2,
Block 3. Brookvi1\c Center 1st. Addtion at the SE corner of Tower Street & Toronto Avenue in Prior
Lake.
My name is Jane Hagen and I live at 4660 Tower Str~et in #113, on the ground level. I feellhal this
building will cause the value of my condo to be lowered considerably.
Sincerely,
Jane lIagcn
4660 Tower Street SE.
Prior LClke. MN 55372
Phone # 447-623g
- ----- - - - - - -
I'
,,~
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
j"" .,..........
_~ A.
-7
GOAL: SUITABLE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT
Encourage the development of suitable housing in a desirahle environment
OBJECTIVE No.1: Provide opPOrtunities for a variety of affordahle high quality
housing.
POLICIES:
.. Codes and ordinances relating to development, redevelopment, and
maintenance of housing shall be adopted and periodically reviewed to
ensure specific direction is provided regarding affordahle uses in eacl1
district and regarding minimum development standards.
b. Review lU1IllI011Y the current and pJanned programs of the Scott County
Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
c. Maintain development standards and housing policies that allow for low
and moderate cost housing opportunities.
d. Develop and cousider for adoption a code enforcement program for
existing housing.
e. Develop and maintain regulations that permit a mix of housing types,
sizes and price ranges to be provided throughout the City.
(:
OBJECTIVE No.2: Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality
residential environments.
POLICIES:
a. Maintain a variety of residential densities (dwelling units per acre).
b. Ensure that public services and on-site improvements are completed at
the time of residential development.
c. The burden of a satisfactory transition from one density or dwelling type
to another is the rests with the developer seeking development plan
approval.
d. Discourage new residential subdivisions in isolated areas that have little
or no potential to either develop into a viable neighborhood or to
assimilate with an established neighborhood.
e. consideration of development plans for multiple dwellings in areas so
designated on the Land Use Guide Plan should include the fonowing
design-related items:
(1) New developments should not isolate existing single family
dwellings by inhibiting pedestrian and/or vehicular access.
Page 2S
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 2
-- - - -- --- -'--
- --- ---.----.----
~
(2) New development completely surrounded by single family
dwellings, should be discouraged in favor of large scale planned unit
developments which are more conducive to a mix of housing styles
with shared amenities.
(3) There should be convenient access to collector and arterial streets
. and to available transit so to not unduly contribute to congestion on
local residential streets.
(4) Large common open areas may provide an effective transitional Use
to other uses.
(5) Location near pennonent public and private open spaces may
compensate for the impact of the higher density.
f. Create and enhance neighborhOOds that provide paries and open spaces,
public access to natural amenities located on and adjacent to the site, and
pedestrian linkages throughout and among adjacent neighborhoods.
g. Incorporate historical and natural features to the maximum feasible
extent.
h. Provide pedestrian access 10 commercial and industrial centers, public
lands, and schools.
1. Avoid designs that isolate neighborhoods. Provide traffic or pedestrian
circulation within and between developments.
J. Avoid or mitigate encroachment by incompatible land uses which can
have a negative impact on the residential living environment. Mitigation
measures include, but are not limited to, the USe of open space, berms,
dense landscaping vegetation, and ~imilar buffers.
k. Allow higher density multiple dwelling housing in areas within close
proximity of existing support services and facilities, and where there is
adequate access to collector and arterial streets.
I. Ensure new development includes design features such as buffering,
screening, and spatial separation from collector and arterial streets; and
from anticipated adverse environmental impacts including, but not
limited to, noise and air pollution.
m. Link neighborhoods to each other, and to parks, schools and commercial
centers via local streets or pedestrian trails.
n. Ensure subdivisions are designed to avoid direct private drive access
from and to major collector and arterial streets.
o. Promote innovative subdivision design and housing products through
the use of the planned unit development process and similar techniques.
p. A void locating high density housing to Primarily serve as a buffer or as
a land use suited for absorbing negative impacts of adjacent land uses.
f'..
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 2
Page 26
High density housing should only be developed in those areas near
support and commercial services.
q. Support development designs that are tailored to environmentally
sensitive areas containing rugged topography, wetlands, and woodlands.
r. Code enforcement shall be used to keep illegal uses and physical
deterioration from compromising the value and integrity of the housing
stock within the community.
s. Parking lots shall be screened to reduce the impact upon adjacent uses.
t. Privatization of natural and historic features should be regulated to
promote neighborhood identity and to allow the community to share the
inherent value of prominent features.
u. Neighborhoods and other land uses should be planned and developed in
accordance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Development
proposals shall be thoroughly reviewed and evaluated to determine
consistency with City plans and policies.
v. Proposed revisions to the Land Use Guide Plan and requests for major
extensions of public services or utilities to accommodate the proposed
development and land uses shall be considered only after a thorough
review and analysis of the City public facilities plans, potential
environmental impacts, and merits of the changes.
w. Development shall be conducted in a manner that is sensitive to the
impact upon natural features and to environmental constraints, including
but not limited to surface water, wetlands, slopes, woodlands,
vegetation, drainage ways, shorelands, and flood plain areas.
x. City policies and official controls shall provide opportunities for
development of housing for all segments of the population.
OBJECTIVE No.3: Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of
the natural environment and the enjoYment of residents.
POLICIES:
a. Retain natural ponding areas and wetlands, as appropriate.
b. Promote platting oflarge planned unit developments.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 2
Page 27
I~'."
C::.
HOUSING ANALYSIS. ISSUES AND NEEDS
In general, the City's housing supply is adequate. The new luxury and move-up housing
adds an important element to the City's supply and gives it diversity, not typically experienced in
the past except for the houses and properties on the lake. The lake itself probably adds 10 to 20
percent of the market value to the houses which abut the lake and for those with access rights
through a nearby marina. The percentage of lower cost or affordable housing is likely to drop
because: 1) many of these units are being remodeled, expanded or demolished and 2) the volume
and cost of new construction. Within the next 10 to 15 years, virtually all the cottages or
summer homes are likely to be eliminated. However, the actual number of affordable units could
increase if low cost housing is included in some new subdivisions.
A reasonable supply of single family, duplex, and townhouse rentals exist in the
community. These categories total approximately 258 rental units, which amounts to 6 percent
of the total single family, duplex, and townhouse housing stock.
One apparent gap in the housing supply appears to be the inadequate supply of newer
apartment units. A freestanding growth community or a mature suburban community could be
expected to have from 25 to 30 percent of its housing stock in apartments or multiple family
developments. Only 12.85 percent of Prior Lake's housing supply is classified as multiple family
or apartment. This percent is likely to continue to decrease based on the market demand for
single family housing. The vacancy rate could be an indicator that there is an adequate amount
of multiple family and rental units in the community. However, Prior Lake does not have any
new or modem apartment developments which incOIporate amenities such as underground
parking, swimming pool, community room, etc. This need and consideration of families who
would occupy such units has been neglected primarily because the City's focus has been on
family units abutting the lake and the absence of high employment centers has not created the
demand. In addition, lack of direct freeway access also affects this housing type. The new river
crossing and State Highway 169 bypass along with the attraction of more industry to Prior Lake
and increases in empty-nesters will justify construction of this type of housing.
Housing conditions are excellent and benefit substantially by the amenity and
opportunities provided by Prior Lake and Spring Lake. The lakes contribute to some minor
problems since recreational opportunities place additional burden on garages and houses relative
to storing and maintaining recreational equipment. Too often the yards serve as areas for storage
beyond a reasonable amount. Listed below are some of the assets and problems related to the
lakes and the recreational opportunities:
Assets
1. The lake's shape with its many bays provides a substantial shoreline which allows
many properties to have access to the lake.
2. Lake marinas tend to spread the beneficial value of the lake impact beyond the lake.
3. Steep topography and wooded areas add interest and provide scenic views.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 101
4. The lake prevents through traffic from using the residential streets.
Problems
1. Fifteen percent of the yards were categorized as inadequate because of outside storage
of boats, trailers, inoperable vehicles or other conditions.
2. Lake cabins and seasonal houses create some minor problems because they affect the
visual conditions _ but most are likely to be removed because of land values.
3. Some site development problems are related to setbacks, hills, slopes and the lakes.
For example, less than minimum front yard setbacks exist in some locations and
garages are sometimes located directly adjacent to the road. (Special setbacks may be
required when a road abuts a lake and when the lot is affected by a shoreland setback
of7S feet.)
4. Certain locations have an obsolete platting layout with dirt roads and a poor lot
configuration.
5. In some cases a lot is split by a street.
6. Because some residential areas are faced with inappropriate on-street parking of
trailers, some streets are signed prohibiting such parking, but the signs are often
ignored.
Other observations not necessarily attributed to the lake include the following:
1. Parking of trucks, cars and other vehicles in front yards (grasSy area) is quite
common.
2. Inadequate yard conditions often times appears in pairs or more, suggesting that the
manner in which one owner uses property affects how others use property.
3. The size of the lot and the intensity of the yard deficiencies impact the impression of
the neighbomood. For example, more deficiencies on smaller lots tends to establish a
more blighting condition than would be the case with the same number of deficiencies
on larger lots. If the house and garage are small, it can canse the owner to use the
yard for activities and functions that might otherwise be conducted inside.
4. There is a correlation between dirt roads and house and yard conditions.
5. A substantial amount of infrastructure improvement and new housing is underway in
the Shakopee Mdewankanton Sioux community. In some locations conditions are
spotty because of older and obsolete dwellings, the number of dumpsters in the area
and yard conditions. Housing is quite mixed in termS of type and size, ranging from
mobile homes to large neW hoUses. Some units have attaChed garages as well as
detached garages.
From a demographic stand point Prior Lake is becoming more diversified in terms of
family size, age, and income. Housing costs are accelerating primarily because new subdivisions
are offering substantial amenity, relatively large lots and construction of more housing for the
move-up market. However, a significant amount of affordable and moderate cost housing
remains available.
Page 102
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
- -..- ----- -----_._--------~~-----_._----
- ---._.-._~--._--
As the population grows and the community becomes more diverse with respect to
employment oPPOrtunities and growth in retail and service functions, more need for housing
assistance will probably be evident. More housing for empty-nesters and young single
individuals without children may become a growing need within the next 15 years. An adequate
land supply should be available based on the amount of vacant residential land in the community
and in the Orderly Annexation area.
Housing Issues and Needs (not listed in order of priority);
1. Lack of new and well designed apartment developments.
2. Yard Conditions.
3. Pockets of blight.
4. Escalating land cost.
5. Escalating cost of new single family housing.
6. Lack of code enforcement or a need for code enfurcement with respect to housing
and yard conditions.
7. Inadequate improvement and aesthetics of certain residential streets.
8. Too much focus is on the lake, to the extent that other issues are neglected.
9. Neighborhood fragmentation caused by lake and wetlands, steep slopes and
topography.
10. Lack of easy access to the metropolitan transportation system.
11. Continued preservation of neighborhood areas.
12; Multi-family apartment design standards may be lacking or may need to be
established to ensure quality design and a heaIthfulliving environment when this
market reemerges.
13. Can Prior Lake keep up with the pace of residential growth including the need for
more parks, recreation beyond the lake, trails and need for connecting links such as
to the schoolslparlcs? (Currently residential development is elongated generally
along the alignment of Prior Lake. Residential areas do not have a lot of depth, but
as the community expands and fills in, e.g. from Mystic Lake to Prior Lake, open
space links to public facilities become important.)
14. Retail sales and services areas to serve the residents as well as Mystic Lake Casino
could cause some conflicts - traffic pattern issues and the types ofuses that might be
targeted for the market.
15. Need for single family rehabilitation program. For example: smaller older housing
in Town Center area, spot locations along the lake - Some 54 units Were found in the
survey. Without code enforcement and/or a rehabilitation program the number of
deteriorating units could grow and blighting influences could spread.
16. Public access to the lake.
17. Trails for pedestrians and bikes.
18. City Center tie to all of Prior Lake?
19. Is the subdivision ordinance adequate or serve the PlDpose intended in tenus of the
future?
20. More senior citizen housing and empty-nester housing will be needed.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 103
"
.
21. Preventing adverse impacts from the casino and the sales and service facilities likely
to be provided adjacent to the casino area.
22. Multiple family rehabilitation - modernization (many cities are facing the need for
major renovation of such buildings and in a few cases, buildings 30 years old or so
are being tom down if they were of minimal design and construction originally and if
they have experienced heavy wear and tear.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 104
.
HOUSING GOAL, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
The City has five Goals. The first Goal deals with housing and the environment. The
Goal is stated below.
HOUSING GOAL: Encourage the development and maintenance of suitable housing in a
desirable environment.
To achieve the housing goal, Prior Lake's neighborhoods and diverse housing supply
must be maintained. Older units may need to be rehabilitated. Quality building and excellent
site design are important to insure new multiple family housing and other housing meets the
needs of the residents and to be positive additions to the neighborhoods. Adherence to the
housing objectives and policies which follow will result in achieving the housing goal.
Objectives and policies in support of this goal are listed below.
OBJECTIVE 1 - Mrordable Quality Housing: Provide opportunities for a variety
of affordable quality housing.
POLICIES:
a. Codes and Ordinances - Codes and ordinances relating to development,
redevelopment, and maintenance of housing shall be adopted and periodically
reviewed to ensure specific direction is provided regarding affordable uses in
each district and regarding minimum development standards.
b. Scott County HRA - Review annually the current and planned programs of
the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
c. Allow for Low and Moderate Cost Housing - Maintain development
standards and housing policies that allow for low and moderate cost housing
opportunities.
d. Housing Mix - Develop and maintain regulations that permit a mix of
housing types, sizes and price ranges to be provided through the City.
OBJECTIVE 2 - Quality Residential Environments: Maintain a choice of and
encourage development of quality residential environments.
POLICIES:
a. Density - Maintain a variety of residential densities (units per acre).
b. Community Structure Concept - Utilize a community structure concept
that is focused upon neighborhoods as the framework for developing and
redeveloping residential areas.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 105
c. Residential Development - Ensure that public services and on-site
improvements are completed at the time of residential development.
d. Industrial I Commercial Encroachment - Protect residential areas from
industrial and commercial encroachment to the maximum practicable extent;
recognizing that the degree of encroachment may vary with isolated single
family developments, which are part of an urban neighborhood.
e. Developer's Burden - The burden of a satisfactory transition from one
density or dwelling type to another rests with the developer seeking
development plan approval.
f. Viable Neighborhoods - Discourage new residential subdivisions in isolated
areas that have little or no potential to either develop into a viable neighborhood or to
assimilate with an established neighborhood.
g. Multiple family Development - Consideration of development plans for
multiple family dwellings in areas so designated on the Land Use Guide Plan,
should include the following design-related items:
1) New developments should not isolate existing single family dwellings
by inhibiting pedestrian and/or vehicular access.
2) New development completely surrounded by single family dwellings,
should be discouraged in favor of large scale planned unit developments which
are more conducive to a mix of housing styles with shared amenities.
3) There should be convenient access to collector and arterial streets
and to available transit so to not unduly contribute to congestion on local
residential streets.
4) Large common open areas may provide an effective transitional use
to other uses.
h. Code Enforcement Program - Develop and consider for adoption a code
enforcement program for existing housing.
OBJECTIVE 3 - Open Space Preservation: Provide suitable passive open space for
the preservation of the natural environment and the enjoyment of residents.
POLICIES:
a. Ponding and Wetlands - Retain natural ponding areas and, as applicable
per state law, wetlands.
b. Large Planned Unit Developments - Promote platting oflarge planned unit
developments.
"
,"-,.-
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 106
METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
BACKGROUND
In 1995, the Minnesota legislature passed the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act.
The Act is a new effort toward developing regional solutions to the problems of the declining tax
base in older communities, urban sprawl, and affordable housing in suburbs. The Act created
three funds administered by the Metropolitan Council to assist communities in cleaning up
polluted land (Tax Base Revitalization Account), developing innovative projects to revitalize
neighborhoods and encourage efficient development (Livable Communities Demonstration
Account), and to develop affordable and life-cycle housing in the suburbs (Local Housing
Incentive Account).
Affordable housing for the metropolitan area is based on 80 percent of the median family
income and with no more than 30 percent of the gross family income spent on housing. Using the
1994 incomes, the Metropolitan Council has calculated this to be $500 per month for rent and
$115,000 for the purchase price of a home.
The Metropolitan Council has evaluated cities in the metropolitan area and established
"benchmarks" for clusters of communities. An "index" which shows how each City compares
with the benchmark was also computed, Table 26, Prior Lake Index and Benchmark, is the
Metropolitan Council's computation for Prior Lake. The GOAL column will be completed by the
City, prior to preparation of the Action Plan. The estimated Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing
Opportunities Amount (ALHOA) for Prior Lake in 1997 is $26,557.
Prior Lake has passed a resolution electing to participate the Local Housing Incentives
Account Program which is under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act.
'-
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 107
IMPLEMENTATION
Introduction
This section of the Plan is intended to provide a detailed listing of the measures the City
intends to take in achieving the Housing goals listed in this Plan. These measures take a variety
of forms and require action by different groups and agencies. As a result, some of these goals
may be readily achieved in a short period of time while others may be difficult to achieve or may
take a considerable length of time before they are realized. Where possible, specific time frames
for action have been identified, with the idea that these dates are not hard ~d fast commitments
but rather are targets which the City hopes to meet.
The format of this section is based on the Housing goals, objectives and policies
contained in the Goals section of this plan. Specific actions will be linked to the adopted
objectives and policies and, as indicated, potential time frames will be identified.
Steps to achieve specific goals. objectives and policies
The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies five (5) major goals, the first of which deals
with housing and the environment. This goal is as follows:
HOUSING GOAL: Encourage the development and maintenance of suitable
housing in a desirable environment.
The remaining four (4) goals relate to economic vitality, security, access and human
development. This Implementation section deals only with the Housing goal noted above.
In order to achieve this goal, Prior Lake's neighborhoods and diverse housing supply
must be maintained. Older housing units may require rehabilitation. Quality building and
excellent site design are important to insure that new multiple family and other housing meets the
needs of the residents and is a positive addition to the neighborhood. Adherence to the following
objectives and policies by means of the action steps listed will assist the City in achieving its'
stated goal.
OBJECTIVE 1 - Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable quality housing
Policies
a. Codes and ordinances: Codes and ordinances relating to development, redevelopment and
maintenance of housing shall be adopted and periodically reviewed to insure specific
direction is provided regarding affordable housing in each district and minimum development
standards.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 108
ACTION STEPS
During the remainder of 1996 and into early 1997, the City will focus on the review and
amendment of its' zoning and subdivision ordinances. Both ordinances are several years old and
do not adequately deal with housing and development issues currently facing the city. The
review will focus on development and perfonnance standards. The goal is to adopt amended
ordinances by March of 1997.
b. Scott County BRA: Review annually the current and planned programs of the Scott County
Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
ACTION STEPS
In addition to the annual review, the City endorses the 5 year action plan developed by
the HRA because of the close tie between the goals of the County program and the housing goals
adopted by the City as part of the Livable Communities program.
:" ::::: ::::: :::::: :::: .. '.;::.:.:.:.::::::::.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.;.:.:.:.:. .. ::::::::::::':::::?::::::TAlJJJ:g::!J;;;;24::::::::::::::. .. ....:.. ....:::.. .... .
::::':::::::::::::::::':::: :::LmABLE:C~~TntSpIitjb_:::tlOALS:::::::.:' .. .....
":::""FFO":"RD'" "'::A.::'Drt::::l'~::::::':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:,:::::: ::::""I"m"l':::I' 'N>>: 'E'.:v:::::::::::::::::::::::> ::::B" 'E" ':N.'hUJ(;t.::ii':'tiV::::::::::::::::::
::n .:- .<' " - - .a:u:.I.:.Li:l.>';I'::;:I:::;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:::;:;::: :;:;:,U, ::J.,::;:;J;;::;' ,". .: "'A>;::;::;:;:::::;:::;:.::::: .;:;:: "', :.U;.J:l.J;'~:::::::::::::::::
..'..;.,:-:.'.::-.;.'.:..-::.;.,.;....:.:.;<.;.:.:-:.;.:.;.;.;.;.;.;.....-.............-...-.-........................................... .... . ................,...,......,..........,......,..-....-...................... :-:.:.:.;.:.:-:-:.;.:-:.;.;.;.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:-:.:....-:.'...........-,......'.............._......
Ownership 71 % 64% - 69%
Rental 39% 32% - 53%
LU~~~fPl'fPJPg::: . ..... ..... .Gf:-f:}fUmE~::::)n~I~IJ~::::::::
Type (Non-single family 20% 35% - 38%
detached)
Owner/renter IIllX
...........,..... ......
..-.................. .
........................
.......................
....................
..:.:.:...:..; ::"ii .
..... :
GOAL;:::}:;::
.. ...........................
...........................
50%
32%
:GOAU'i...............
..........-...... ............
.. ...-....-....-............
.. .. ... .. ....
35%
81 % / 19%
70-75% / 25-30%
75%-
25%
GPAL
1.9/acre
l1/acre
...[I)~N$!OC~:::::::: .. ........:..........:............
Single family detached
lVI11ltifamil)'
..... ..... .(Ji!'J'~JNJJE~.{}~~IJ}!~:::::
1 8/acre 1.9 - 2.3 acres
9/acre 10 - 11 acres
Source: lVIetropolitan Council
In terms of number of units, the percentages above reveal the following:
In 1995, there were 4,958 housing units in the City. Of these, 3,072 were defined as
affordable by Livable Communities criteria. By 2010, it is estimated there will be 7,700 housing
units in the City, or an increase of 2,742 units. Applying the goals to these numbers indicates
that 3,445 of these units must fall within the definition of affordable. Consequently, of the 2,742
units to be added, 373 units must fall within the limits of affordability in order for the City to
achieve its' goals. This breaks down to 206 owner-occupied units and 167 rental units, or 14
owner-occupied and 12 rental units per year for the next 14 years.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 109
The affordability will be partially addressed by the ordinance review to be undertaken by
the City, but much of the progress toward the affordability goals will be the result of action by
the Scott County BRA. The details of the County program are listed below.
The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires that participating communities
adopt housing agreements and establish an action plan for housing activities to be undertaken. In
Scott County, there exists a county wide housing and redevelopment authority which addresses
the public sector affordable housing concerns in communities throughout the county.
The plan herein outlines the" programs currently offered as well as the efforts anticipated
to be undertaken by the Scott county Housing and Redevelopment authority and the City of Prior
Lake. A five (5) year time frame was selected to coincide with the results of a county-wide
rental housing market analysis and demand estimate prepared by Maxfield Research Group, Inc.,
in November 1995. The results of this program will be reviewed by the City annually and input
provided to the BRA as necessary. The City will also provide information and assistance to the
HRA in the development of the next 5 year lIRA program.
In compiling the attached document, it is assumed that the private sector will ensure the
development of adequate numbers of market rate and upper scale housing units. The programs
noted herein focus exclusively on the development and/or preservation of affordable housing.
Thus, each program plays a part in the provision of affordable and life cycle housing in the City
of Prior Lake.
The following denotes those activities that will be undertaken by the Scott County
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (SC-lIRA) in an effort to achieve the affordable housing
goals.
HOME OWNERSHIP
Affordable Financing
. It is anticipated that 30 units of housing will be purchased through first time homebuyer
programs funded by mortgage revenue bonds from the SCS-HRA's bonding allocation and
refunded bonds. Tax forfeiture land resources will also assist first time homebuyers on new
construction.
Downpayment Assistance
. The SC-HRA will work with those lenders who have participated in past first time
homebuyer programs for downpayment assistance to 15 units of affordable housing.
Home Rehabilitation
. The SC-HRA will apply for 10 home energy loans through MHFA.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 11 0
· MHF A low interest loans will be utilized to fund home owner rehabilitation for 10 units of
affordable housing.
The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority currently owns and administers
the following affordable housing programs in the City of Prior Lake.
· Forty-two (42) Section 8 Rental Assistance Certificates serving 42 low/moderate income
families.
· Forty (40) units of elderly public housing through the department of housing and urban
development (HUD).
· Four (4) units of family housing through the department of housing and urban development
(HUD).
· Four (4) units of transitional housing.
Subtotal = 90 units
Privately Owned/Subsidized Housing
· Highwood Townhomes, 36 general occupancy units.
· Kestrel Village Apartments, 48 general occupancy units.
Subtotal = 84 units
Total units = 174.
Project household total by the year 2000 = 269.
RENT AL HOUSING
New Construction
· The SC-RRA intends to build 20-30 moderate rent general occupancy family townhomes in a
two site development. Essential Function Bonds, Tax Forfeiture Land Resources and SC-
RRA Special Benefits Tax Levy will be the primary source of funding.
Tenant Based Subsidy
· The SC-RRA will prepare and submit applications for Section 8 Rental Assistance
Certificates.
Subtotal = 95 units
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 111
c. Allow for low and moderate cost housing: Maintain development standards and policies
that allow for low and moderate cost housing opportunities.
ACTION STEPS
The 5 year program outlined by Scott County will assist the City in meeting this policy.
In addition, the Comprehensive Plan has designated significant areas for high density residential
development, which will be reflected in the zoning ordinance update discussed above. In
addition, the ordinance review will focus on development and performance standards, with
particular attention paid to the following:
. Minimum.lot sizes
. Densities
. Development fees
. Setbacks
. Street design standards
The current ordinance provides for density increases through the PUD process, either by
allowing smaller lot sizes or more units per acre. The ordinance also allows for zero lot lines and
cluster development in single family districts where appropriate.
The City recently adopted a tree preservation ordinance with significant input from the
development community. As a result, the City adopted a replacement ratio for lost trees which is
lower than that generally applied in the metropolitan area.
As indicated, the recently adopted and approved Comprehensive Plan designated a
significant acreage for medium and high density residential development. Approximately 220
additional acres of high density residential land was added in the current Plan.
d. Housing mix- Develop and maintain regulations that permit a mix of housing types, sizes
and price ranges to be provided throughout the City.
ACTION STEPS
The zoning ordinance currently allows for a range of housing types, including single
family, duplex, townhouses and multiple family dwellings. This variety of housing types will be
maintained in the new zoning ordinance scheduled for adoption by March of 1997.
As noted above, the review of development standards will consider a number of areas
which affect housing prices and will also be reflected in the new ordinance.
OBJECTIVE 2- Quality residential environments: Maintain a choice of and encourage
development of quality residential environments.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 112
Policies
a. Density: Maintain a variety of residential densities (units per acre)
ACTION STEPS
As noted previously, the Comprehef!.sive Plan has increased the range of permitted
densities in the City from the previous high of 18 units per acre to 30 units per acre. The zoning
ordinance expected to be adopted by March, 1997 will reflect this increase in maximum
densities.
b. Community structure concept: Utilize a community structure concept that is focused upon
neighborhoods as the framework for developing and redeveloping residential areas.
ACTION STEPS
The Comprehensive Plan contains a section of specific objectives for each neighborhood
in the City. These objectives cover virtually every aspect of community development, including
land use, transportation, parks and open space, aesthetics, housing and capital impr9vr,ments.
These objectives will be addressed in the zoning ordinance amendments to the extenfpossible.
Other items which are not zoning-related will serve as input to the City Capital Improvement
Program. It is not possible to attach a time frame to this policy as most items will be
accomplished incrementally on a year to year basis.
c. Residential Development: Insure that public services and on-site improvements are
completed at the time of residential development.
ACTION STEPS
The subdivision ordinance requires that public utilities and on-site improvements be
installed before building permits or certificates of occupancy are issued. This process will be
refined during the review of the subdivision ordinance which will be completed by March, 1997.
d. Industrial/Commercial: Protect residential areas from industrial and commercial
encroachment to the maximum practicable extent, recognizing that the degree of
encroachment may vary with isolated single family developments which are part of an urban
neighborhood.
ACTION STEPS
The Comprehensive Plan proposes new commercial and industrial development in areas
which are either remote from existing residential areas or where natural buffers such as wetlands
are available. The new zoning ordinance will strengthen the requirements for screening and
buffering between residential and non-residential land uses.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 113
.
..
e. Developers responsibilitY: The burden of a satisfactory transition from one density or
dwelling type to another rests with the developer seeking development plan approval.
ACTION STEPS
The new zoning ordinance to be developed will provide definitive rules covering the
transition in addition to current regulations dealing with screening and landscaping.
f. Viable Neighborhoods: Discourage new residential subdivisions in isolated areas that have
little or no potential to either develop into a viable neighborhood or to assimilate with an
existing neighborhood.
ACTION STEPS
The Comprehensive Plan identifies areas for new residential development. These areas
are intended to be large enough to allow the kind of development which will result in viable
neighborhood areas, either as free-standing areas or as connections to existing areas. Plan
policies encourage the connection of neighborhoods, either by streets or pedestrian trails and the
current subdivision ordinance requires new developments to connect with existing streets that
exist at the boundary of a new subdivision.
g. Multiple family Development: Consideration of development plans for multiple family
dwellings in areas so designated on the Land Use Guide Plan should include the following
design-related items:
1. New developments should not isolate existing single family dwellings by inhibiting
pedestrian or vehicular access.
2. New development completely surrounded by single family dwellings should be
discouraged in favor of large scale planned unit developments which are more conducive
to a mix of housing styles with shared amenities.
3. There should be convenient access to collector and arterial streets and to available transit
so as not to unduly contribute to congestion on local residential streets.
4. Large common open spaces may provide an effective transitional us to other land uses.
ACTION STEPS
The Plan establishes significant areas which satisfy the above criteria. The new zoning
ordinance will translate these criteria into regulations with which new development will have to
comply.
h. Code Enforcement: Develop and consider for adoption a code enforcement program for
existing housing.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 114
.
-.-
ACTION STEPS
This program will be developed during late 1999 and early 2000 for consideration by the
City Council.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 115
I
I
I
[
Traffic Impact Study
The Busse Property Park Development
City of Prior Lake
Spring Lake Township
BMI Project No. TC9.90151
November, 1999
A. Background
The City of Prior lake has proposed a new youth athletic park, including soccer and baseball
fields along Mushtown Road, directly across from the southerly access road of Ponds
ParklMangan Fields. See Figure 1. The proposed park, at full development, will contain 4
soccer fields, 4 youth baseball/softball fields on 38 acres. The anticipated schedule of the soccer
and baseball/softball fields is located in Appendix A.
Representatives of the City of Prior Lake and Spring Lake Township have had numerous
meetings to discuss this development and to review the local residents concerns with this park
development. One of these concerns is the traffic impact of this park development onto the
adjacent roadways, specifically Mushtown Road, Toronto Avenue, 180th Street East and Revere
Way (Co. Rd 87).
Officials from the City of Prior Lake, Spring Lake Township and Scott County met on July 7,
1999 to discuss the goals of this study. These goals are as follows:
1. Determine the trip generation potential of the Busse property park development,
and review the impacts to Mushtown Road, Toronto Avenue, 180th Street E. and
Revere Way (Co. Rd. 87). The impacts to be reviewed will include the existing and
projected traffic, and the roadway capacity (based upon Met Council guidelines).
2. Determine the traveling speed of the existing vehicles presently using Mushtown
Road.
3. Review the pedestrian and bicycle access at Mushtown Road and the park access
intersection and make the appropriate recommendations.
F:\PLAK\TC~90 \51 \BUSSERPT.929.wpd
-1-
't
.~:-
~".:
\riP Geoeratioo aDd Tra1lic Impacts ofthe Bosse property park Developmeot
tField Data
. er to detennine the trip generation potential of the Busse property park, the following data
acquired for this study. Copies of this data are located in Appendix B.
t
The County staff has acquired 48 hour traffic counts at the two entrances to the
Ponds Park.
b. The County staffhas acquired 48 hour traffic counts along Mushtown Road both
easterly and westerly (2 locations) of the proposed park access point, as well as on
Toronto Avenue and 180tb Street.
c. Acreage of parks and usage schedules were furnished by City staff.
:N:.
Sfug Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation and distribution methods, and the
ehicle volumes from Ponds Park (Item 1. above), traffic generated by the Busse property park
~... distributed onto the existing roadway, and impacts to Mushtown Road, Toronto Avenue and
I80Ch Street were reviewed.
Trip Generation Analysis
onds Park contains four soccer fields, nine basebalVsoftball fields and covers 70 acres. The
-.field counts on July 7th and July 8th indicate that there were 1,246 vehicles using the 170th
~eotraoce/exit and 21 vehicles using the southerly entrance/exit at Mushtown Road. There were
~ix (6) ballfields in use during the Count period. Therefore, it is estimated the trip generation
basis is 18.1 average vehicles per day (vpd) per acre.
This compares with the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual of 16 to 96
,~cles per day (vpd) per acre, depending upoo the park usage. This ranged from camping,
Swimming, boating, picnic sites and hal1 fields. The 18.1 vehicles per day per acre estimated
)iom Ponds Park faUs within the ITE nonnal range for park property. The proposed use on the
.IlUSSe property park wiU be very similar; thus, it is concluded that this rate can be used as the trip
generation basis for this site.
~' .
~ attempt was made to acquire traffic generation data from other sports facilities in the
,(,~opolitan area. This data was inconclusive as few, if any, cities have actually taken a traffic
l1!\'D'l on their entrances. Also, the data would not be directly applicable for this study as it was
. ,,*u.nd that the facilities and schedules were widely varied.
-;;,~
..~;i~'l
~ore, based upon the applicable trip generation rate from Ponds Park of 18.1 vehicles per
""r.per acre, the trip generation estimated for the Busse property park, based on 38 acres, is 690
. ~"cles per day. This is for those peak days when tournaments are in progress, typically on
kends (when locallraflic is lower), and would not be an everyday occurrence. See Park
-'<Ii;::.
,. TC990IS1\BUSSERPTo929.WPd -2-
-""""':'""":~:"":~:o.,~~"';::.',:,,:~:~,,,-~:...."":.~__,,_, . __. _'_....~~ ~
t
l
,----,:;.:::... ,:.-..
..:'~~.~: ~.
\'" ,.' )
,', ". >. /'
......L ..--..'
...... 0 "', ,
Q)'~/
0\'
('....'....
....-..
I
. ~~t:5
:d)
SUEl
~
I
\ ,
'. \ :t:
\ \. ~ g
. \al
'JAV aOOM31IHM
~. :~.:.:: . ,'-' '" ~
......
\
I
\ _.'~
I
WM
I
ci
<3
I
~
a
'"
~
;;;. N ..,
... ...
.... ~ ....
.... ....
a a :l
0
0: 0: a:
II
~
t
>-
I-
We::::::s::::
(()we:::
(()o...<t:
"-"1 ffi ~ 0...
j 0..
~
~
;:
N
0:
""I~ ~
~~~
-f-'
/ ;:
. '"
'"
cr:
-?~
y~~
\
,..;
'"
'..
...................
.,....
",
..................
-~
~
<5
co
'JA V N01~NI113M
,/'" -. . ............ ,
,-' : \..
.-.._...._f....) \. M'-_"_
w
,.,,..---------.-
,..;
VI
,
@
-".~~ 'JAV
,.:
VI
~ ~
0 t' <~
,...
I , "
i ,
, /0
I
t ........(1)
\ \ ~
j ~o
U..J
....
ffi...
- -
2 '!?
VI'IVNVd
u
-
-
co
co '0
~ 6
CIa;
c-
0"-'
..J .. ,.
~i
!!!~
c: '}
'j !
~...
i
i
''0/1 OOOM3~03M
~
-
-
',., j;~.."....".,'-.~.,,~a'
_..._....~, _ .."V"'- !
I...:
"
~
~\l
I
!3^'
-g~
''''.D~
.... 'tl
c:
'"
co
'O~ 3JI~
'JA V 3~IHS )I~C
,..;
VI
0)
.. 0)
wi
~O)
eN
I
0)
w
~
5N
ii:
>-
0
:)
l-
(/)
()
l.J...
l.J...
(/) <( Z
0::
W I- ~
I-
::> ~ W
0
0:: 0:: ~
<( ~
0-
>- ~ e:::
0
::> 0
I- W e:::
(/) 0- 0-
0
0::
0-
W
(/)
(/)
::>
CD
.~\,)
iF
/" z
:2
~ 'd
-- w
,..
0-
W
~
U ~
111 vi
Z '" w
0 ~
...... ,..
~
'" z
::>
~ 111 "
0 ~
Z :ii ..
~ .... '"
'0 ~
~ c :2
0
111 z
'" :2
~ w
'" ~
z
G
z S
Z ... ~
" "'
0 z ::>
;:: lD
E-t ....
::> z
~ lI1
$ ::t
0 <..' ,.:
o:l ~
'"
<
...
~
ein Appendix A. For comparison, if this parcel was developed as residential, using the
)' density of 2.1 units per acre and an estimated trip generation rate of 9.5 trips per unit,
;;~u1d generate 760 vehicles per day, a 10 % increase over the proposed development.
.,is!, using the township density of 1 unit per 2.5 acres and an estimated trip generation
r:5 trips per unit, this site would generate 145 vehicles per day.
~~Lf'
. '. Distribution
"'" e routes were reviewed as possible access routes for the Busse property park. For
of this study, all of these routes begin at the intersection of Trunk Highway 13 and
~land end at the intersection of the proposed park entrance on Mushtown Road. All of
l1tes were driven to determine the travel time for each route. This analysis takes into
. 'the impacts of street width, parking, stop signs and signals on the travel times along each
."".'s data was used as a basis for distributing the traffic generated by The Busse property
. onto the three identified access routes. The routes and the respective travel times are listed
.~~ee Figure 2 for an illustration of each of these routes.
TH 13 and CSAH 21 to Duluth Avenue to Tower Avenue to Toronto Avenue to
Mushtown Road to Park entrance. Travel time is 3 minutes. 20 seconds.
TH 13 and CSAH 21 to Co. Rd 23 to Mushtown Road to park entrance. Travel
time is 3 minutes. 35 seconds.
TH 13 and CSAH 21 to Co. Rd. 21 to Co. Rd. 87 to 180th Street to Mushtown
Road to park entrance. Travel time is 6 minutes 30 seconds.
ions with the City of Prior Lake Parks Department indicated that the access route
Wlated to visiting teams will be the route described in (a) above, along Toronto Avenue. The
.tJfMushtown Road will be discouraged by City staff. In addition, as it is human nature to
"the shortest, least restrictive route, the routes were prorated based upon the travel times
,Jished above.
..upon the above data, the estimated trips generated by the proposed park development of
· :)s per acre, or a total of 690 trips, was then distributed among the three identified routes.
It of the existing traffic counts and the additional park traffic is shown on Figure 3.
adway Capacity
phase in this traffic impact study is a review of the roadway capacity of the three
.,..routes, with the park generated traffic. According to the Metropolitan Council
. . on Guidelines (See Appendix C) the estimated capacity for these collector types of
i>! IS 1,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day for urban and 250 to 2,500 for rural. The estimated
. c for all three routes falls well into this range. Therefore, it is concluded that the
ays as reviewed in this study will have the roadway capacity to carry the additional
-3-
~~
_ ~ J~I~
:: _ N
I- ~
~
N
N
e::
~I
a
I
~L~a_
'"
~
J...'t/M
o^~ ..Y<y~
l.{') Nll)Ol
~ 1"')"1"')
V
~
(f)
"
,
,
,
~
.....
0
co
~
N
~*N
Z N :
"<t ~
~
~
o
o
l.LJ
I-
<
0::
l.LJcn
Zl.LJ
l.LJ;:E
zcne,,::>
Q~~5
1-::>0:::>
<0<
uUQ.u
o -
..Ju>-~
1-.:;:1-<
zu.O::o::
::><~I-
og:oo
u 0::l.LJ
, - -- ---"(.?-Cl. I-
, ~ z-o..
~~lil~
<~cno
o::x::>o::
l-l.LJmQ.
cncncncn
l.LJl.LJl.LJl.LJ
1-1-1-1-
0000
ZZZZ
l.LJl.LJl.LJl.LJ
0000
@
O"<t~@]
1"),,0
IOVID
'3^'t/
't/V'l't/N't/d
3>i03nl
/ w
~ ~
N (f)
N ill
e:: ~ ~ W "0
,..,
(]I
(]I
wi
~~
<to
01
W
0::
51"')
G:
>-
0
::)
I-
U1
u
G:
lL.
U1 ~ Z
I- 0::
Z I- ~
::) ~
0 w
U 0:: ~
<( :5
u a..
G: ~ 0::
lL.
~ 0:: Q
0:: w 0::
I- a.. a..
0
0::
a..
w
U1
U1
::)
III
~ z
,.
~ ~
.......... ,.
i:;
~
'"
~
u '" vi
Z '" ....
~ ,.
- <
~
'" z
:::>
~ '" ,.
0 g
z z
~ <
~ '"
"0 Z
~ <
c ,.
0
'" z
'" ,.
c(S ....
.... ':I
z
G ~
z
Z .... '"
z
" a:
0 Z :::>
~ III
E-< :::> z
.....:l '"
z ,.
0 0
u ~
Q:l z
0
,.
'"
<
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
= t..wl.:.'-1.;...: ..r_'........-.~~..:u...,.,.:;<.,~.;'~.-~ aJ" ~&~~ ow
traffic generated by the Busse property park as well as additional capacity for future development
anticipated to occur.
One concern raised by adjacent property owners along Mushtown Road is the segment which
lies within the Township, bounded by municipal boundaries. With pavement widths of
approximately 22 feet and side ditches, local residents indicate that it is very uncomfortable
walking on this segment of roadway, sharing it with the existing traffic. Therefore, it is
encouraged that a method be agreed upon for payment and location of a new sidewalk matching
the municipal sidewalk at either end.
F:\PLAK\ TC990 151 \BUSSERPT.nOl. wpd
-4-
- .'.~,.;:' '.:...: '.~' '."~'..:~' "
" '0""" "" , ", ", ",,' """., ,~""""'.~.",,"' '"-';":"""'_"""'_ "~<~~...__.;...,;. ... ......-<-...:. _.,,-;="".;...."~~,.""".;"'''''.....i;-.::..; .~;:."';,;c.:
-'",,"~A~OO:..'-';'.;;':.......iti.1...~~..,;..;..~.....~~... -" ~ .~ -. ~ '"' I
)
c. Travel Speed 00 Mushtowo Road
1. Existing Travel Speeds
Travel speed data was acquired by the City and Police Department's Park patrol officer using a
City police radar gun, the data was taken at the proposed driveway access point for The Busse
property park. To the west of this point, Mushtown Road is a paved urban section, with a 30
mph speed limit. To the east ofthis point, Mushtown Road is a gravel, rural section, with a 55
mph speed limit, regulated by the safe travel speed of the gravel surface conditions. The data
acquired for this speed study is located in Appendix B.
Analysis of this data concludes that the posted speed, versus the average speed of drivers to the
east and west of the proposed park driveway location is as follows:
Spot Location
West of Driveway (eastbound)
East of Driveway (westbound)
Posted
Speed Limit
30 mph
45 - 55 mph
Low Speed
Observed
12 mph
34 mph
High Speed
Observed
36 mph
56 mph
Average
Traveling Speed
19 mph
38 mph
In conclusion, the existing vehicles traveling westbound (coming from the east of the proposed
entrance) are traveling above the posted speed limit of 30 mph once they pass the proposed park
entrance, exiting a 55 mph zone and traveling into a 30 mph zone. This condition was observed
in about every case for the existing westbound vehicles. It is anticipated that the future park
traffic will not add to this speed issue, as they will be driving from both directions to conduct a
turn into the park property.
2. Recommendations to Induce Speed Reduction
The potential for westbound vehicles traveling through the intersection of Mush town Road and
the park entrance at speeds above 30 mph is highly probable based upon existing observations.
To help induce slowing of the westbound vehicles as they approach this intersection, and reduce
speed in this immediate area, the following recommendations are presented:
a. Periodic patrolling and enforcement of the regulatory speed limit in this area.
b. Install additional signage indicating the two speed zones of 30 mph and the 55
mph in accordance with the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MMUTCD).
c. Additional signage for the trail crossing in accordance with MMUTCD.
d. Request MnlDOT to conduct a formal speed study to determine the
appropriateness of moving the 30 mph speed zone to the east, taking into account
the park property and crossing.
F:\PLAK\ TC990 151 \BUSSERPT.929. wpd
-5-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
\.-
D. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing
The as built drawings of Mush town Road (furnished by City staff) and the proposed park
entrance layout (furnished by Brauer and Associates) was reviewed for a proposed crossing
location for the bike/ped trail from Ponds Park to the proposed the Busse property park. The
crossing location is proposed to be at the intersection of the park entrance / south entrance of
Ponds Park, and Mushtown Road. It is anticipated that a future trail may follow along
Mushtown Road, and tie into this crossing.
The recommended crossing layout, location, striping, and signage is shown on Figure 4. These
recommendations include aligning the crossing with the existing bike/ped trail coming from
Ponds Park, striping the existing roadway for the crossing and installing advanced warning
signage. This work should meet all MMUTCD criteria on sign size and location, as well as
striping layout. In addition, overhead lighting should be added to this intersection for pedestrian
safety and awareness to drivers. Warning flashers can be considered ifit is determined that the
30 mph speed zone is not shifted to the east and the periodic patrolling does not give the desired
results. This installation would serve as a supplement to the patrolling effort.
F:\PLAK\TC990151\BUSSERPT.929.wpd ,
-6-
I,
I
I
w"""
lD-
:;:
Ow
"""U
()z
z<:
-0
Zo::
20
(/)U
U
0<:
Z
<:z
()o
Zw
ii""" '
-wo
O:::-JU
"""0..."""
HI ~ ~ ~
(/) -JU:2
~ <:
o
Z 8
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
Z'
()(/)
_0::
(/)0
-J
0::0
ou
l.L..
o
Oz
x<:
O(/)
zz
wO
0...-
o...Vl
<:~
w~
wo
Vl
w
>
0::
::>
U
00...
z:2
::><:
00::
0::.
<:0
w
-Jo...
<"""
g:u
.........::>
~o::
-Jf-
<:(/)
:;:z
o
OU
Zo
~z
x<:
w
6
(3~.J.ns SnoNI""lISl
GVOCl SS3JJV
>lVd SONOd
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
, J
,
I
11't'w. ~NU.SIX3
Ol
Ol
wi
~;;
01
w
Q:
::J-q-
(;)
c;:
w >-
<..:) 0
<( :J
Z I-
<..:) (/)
(/) U
0 u....
Z u....
<( <( Z
0:::
<..:) I- ~
Z y: w
0.... 0::: y:
0::: <( ::i
I- 0....
(/) ~
0:::
<..:) 0:::' 0
Z w 0:::
(/) 0.... 0....
(/) 0
0 0:::
0::: 0....
U
W
-l (/)
~~ <( (/)
0::: :J
?- m
o
r'1
x
'0
r'1z
()2
ZVl
i=o...
~o
Xf-
wVl
()
z
~
0::
~ z
"
~~
-- ,.
~
'"
.-J ~
w I--:::J U
u -(f) V1 :1
z <:y: 0<: Z a: "
f--l 0 <
< o=> - ,.
I- w<( C z ~
(/) 0:;: :2<( a: z
:J
j 0: :::E ~ V1 "
01 Ci(f) l.L..e.::> 0 g
z(f) Z z
Oz 5 <
,~~ - 0 . ~ "
~O:::CJ'! vii "0 z
z- <
_a... O:::ul- N w ~ ~ "
c
:::EE <( . . w
:2zZ I'z V1 Z
I- a: "
- (/) ~ w
~z f-~ we.::> w w
O:::Z z -'
;.., ~::JC C3 -'
zo::: ::JW z 5
V1
11l~~II~i~ wI- e.::> Z w z
:2(f) -u " 0:
u..._ C z ::>
WW u... ;:: en
Wu... E-< -'
r<") c.o >0 w<( :J z
~ V1
<(w (/)0:: z "
Cl..Cl.. 0 0
'--' I- u ,.:
z
P=l 0
"
a:
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E. Future Roadways
A review of the City of Prior Lake's Comprehensive Transportation Plan indicates a future
roadway along Fish Point Road (Co. Rd. 87). The alignment for this roadway is shown in
Figure 5.
The addition of this roadway will have a significant impact to the overall travel routes for
persons living along Mushtown Road east of the park entrance, including the Busse property
park area. Along this additional roadway, the estimated travel time from the intersection ofTH
13 and Co. Rd. 21 to the proposed the Busse property park entrance is approximately four
minutes based upon an average travel speed along Fish Point Road of 40 mph. This roadway
will have the potential to attract all of the non-local traffic whose destination is the Busse
property park, as well as most of the local traffic south of the intersection of Mushtown Road and
Fish Point Road. The capacity of the future Fish Point Road section will be more than adequate
to handle the trips generated by the Busse property park development, as well as future
development in this area.
In conclusion, the future Fish Point Road, while not programmed, will further improve the
access/egress to the Busse property park, as well as provide additional roadway capacity for
future development in this area.
F:\PLAK\TC9901S1 \BUSSERPT.929.wpd
-7-
.....'~~ -._~::..o.,~~'
.. ..~.~ ~~..""~ ..~~...., -'~" ~~_. -- .-. ..~w ....... ..u:;"~""'.Jr.<:'~~'!io..._';,:;.,'\:" .....f'...
~.
I,
I
I
I
F. Conclusions
This project analyzed the impacts of the proposed the Busse property park improvement on three
key existing roadways. The proposed trips generated by the Busse property park improvement
were allocated onto the three identified access routes based upon existing travel times. The
projected traffic volumes were compared to the available capacity of these roadways using the
guidelines of the Metropolitan Council Transportation Guidelines. The travel speeds of
Mushtown Road, near the proposed entrance of the Busse property park were acquired and
reviewed. The westbound traffic was found to exceed the posted speed limit of 30 mph west of
the proposed park entrance. Recommendations were provided to help induce a lower traveling
speed, and to provide a safer bike and ped crossing. The intersection of Mush town Road and the
proposed entrance was reviewed for marking and signing. Finally, the impacts of the future Fish
Point Road extension were discussed.
I
I
Having analyzed the data, a summary of the conclusions is as follows:
1. The Busse property park, as proposed, is estimated to generate 690 vehicles per
day during scheduled events, depending upon the type of activity occurring within
the facility.
2. The most likely route to be used by those traveling to and from the park will be
along Toronto Avenue.
3. The three existing access routes all have sufficient roadway capacity to handle the
additional traffic generated by the Busse property park.
4. The westbound traveling speed of the existing traffic were all above the posted
speed limit of30 mph (west of the park entrance).
5. In order to reduce speeds and improve the safety of the proposed crossing at
Mushtown Road, the improvements sited herein include:
a. Increased enforcement of the existing speed limits;
b. Additional signage of speed zones;
c. Additional advanced warning signage for trail crossing;
d. Request from Mn/DOT to conduct a formal speed study to determine the
appropriateness of shifting the 30 mph speed zone to the east; and
F:\PLAK\ TC990 I 5 I \BUSSERPT.929. wpd
-8-
I
;
I
I
I
I
I
: I
I
I
I
6.
The recommended bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Mushtown Road and the
Busse property park entrance includes signing and striping which meet the
requirements ofMMUTCD, and are shown on Figure 4.
7.
The future Fish Point Road, while not programmed, will further improve
access/egress to the Busse property park as well as provide additional roadway I
capacity for future development in this area.
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
,
1
F:\PLAK\ TC990 151 \BUSSERPT.929. wpd
-9-
,
."""'..---.......-.-.-------...'....--..'.-.',.',.'..........----.........--..',.. ""....-...,...... ...--.'....-..,."'...."....--..'...,','....-.-.-.-.-...',",-,-""
.'.....................,__-_-.-_._..._............,......---.._-.'.-.-....,','..,.........' '.:'..'.','..,....',..','.',-.-.-.-.-.-,.,..,-.......,-_-.:.__._._..'.',.......,.......-,.',..,',',-.-.-,.-,-_-_-,_....",,',','.,'.'c.'.,"_--_-.-_-:...'"."..___,.;--."
...........-.---.........-................................'.'........'.................................._-.....'.....-_...............-..'..._----....................................................--......-...........,.......-... .
......--_..............-.. - ... ----... ... . . -- ---- --- -. .. .. .. ...... .... .', .
.,.".,.,.""....".,.,..,..,.."...,.:..:,.,:..::.:..'..'..:.'.......1:"...............""":.'.:.'.
,.......----........... ---... .",.".."""...".,.-.--..,.,.,.-.--- .....,......,_..,',..._-.-. -. ....-.........'--..-...
.,."-..-.--.-.........-- ...... ,..""""",.-..,..---. -...'-.-.---.....'.'."".....-.'.--.- '.','" ...-.---.......---.' ,'"
.,..----.-......-.-..... ,.... .,....","",.-..,.,.-----.--,....,----.-., """"""-'---"---. ','.-.' ---..-...--...-...-.--...........-.--.-.......-,.-.
..'.....:..:.:..:...................:.......:...........:.................:...:.....................,..........."...............'...::..::....................:......:.....,::.......:.....................',.,.,..,..............................::.........:..........................
"':".:.:. .:."':e.'...... ..:::.:0....:..18. ..0...::0.... .:"'0........... ..:.
....,.......".".... . - ,.-. '.'" . . ... .,.. .. ,.- ". " ,.' . --- . .' "
..:...."....'...-.---',',...,.,......_-_.- ,'.'.'.- ,. . ,', ... .'. "- -,_.'.,' ,'.'. .. '-- .-. . ,'.' ,"'-- - ......
.....,.........,'",.,..... . " .- ',', .' , '.' ... -. ..... " " -'. - '.', ..... .. .... -. -:. .',',-'
...... .-.""".-' ,. ,.. ....,.. ",,"" " - . " ,'.' ... .. .
....""",,- -.. .. " ",' " " . -" " ,"'''' ".. -- .'. .' .. -" " ," .'.-."
. "..---.. ..... ...... .. .. .. -......" ,,- - . '. .' . ... " ..
.. .. - ". . " . - . ".. , .. .. ". .." ,,- " . ".
."...... -., ,.. ,.. ..-..... .. " .. -. '.', .".. , .,. - . ','.' .. . -..
.... ... " ." . .. . -- '. ...... " .. -- " .. ... -- -- " ... ...
.. ,..... ....... .. -- . ..." .,. -. .".....".
......... ... -. . .. .. . '" '.'" , " '.- " .. '." , .. " .
." ......... -- ..
... .. .. , . ....... .".
.... .... ...... ........ .....
."...."......- ....."".. -"".... """....".....,,""""--- ".. ,,,.,,,,..
.....,...... ----.-....,.". ..."..-.--.-...,......,........."..------.---...'...'...,.".....
...... ..... . . I
'jlll::
1m ..
..."",..."----,..,,..
.....",,,.....,,,..
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.. " ..
.".,.."....".....",..
..,.".,.,..--.....",...
.""""....-..--..,.
""..,..,,-,,-_.....,..
....,,,,..-,,....,,,,....-..
.-.--..,.--.........
..."'''........--..,..
.",..............,
DATE: March 1, 2000
TO: Jenni Tovar, Planner
FROM: Sue McDermott, Assistant City Enginedu-O
RE: Stonegate Apartments (Project #34-00)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans for the subject project and we have
the following comments:
1. Provide a detailed traffic control plan to be implemented during utility construction
on Tower Street prior to utility construction. There are a lot of apartments to the east
of this site and Tower is a dead end street.
2. Show the location of the rock construction entrance on the plan.
3. Storm sewer is needed at this site. Install catch basins in the driveway entrance at
Tower Street. Extend pipe to the comer of Tower and Toronto for future connection
by City. (see attached sketch) Provide runoff calculations for existing and developed
conditions.
g:\projects\2000\34stone\review2.doc
I
1 Si\~~G
~~ ~~~\\vQ'\
if, '0
~~
:z:
~~
/
--/.'
.........- ./'
....... ----
- ----
--
- ~l
':2
~
~
,)
~~ II
"l.i
~-J
n ~~~
D. C>
~ j
~~
I ~d
~~
~-
.---
.~
...
o
::!,g
it
l~
-5
-~
o
c:'6
'0
<eg'
'-'~
~"Q
--
!"
E~
en
..
.s..
Ej
c3l5
HiVd snONlr
---
--
j
3
~<:?...::>
OP-~
~
Demand for Apartments
Is Growing
New demographic and economic choices are redefining
the American home, and an increasing number of households
now prefer apartment living, even though they could afford to
buy a home. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's
Current Population Survey, the fastest growth in apartment
renters in 1999 occurred in househalds with incomes over
$50,000 a year. The same survey reports that the number of
apartment renters grew despite a rising homeownership rate.
Almost a third of apartment renters surveyed in 1999 by
Fannie Mae reported that they could buy a home, but choose
to rent instead, and fully 40 percent said that buying a home
was not an important priority.
Why is this happening? For some, renting is the right eco-
nomic choice. Others appreciate the benefits of aportment
living, including access to amenities and technologies not
available in single-family housing, and still others want the
flexibility to respond to job and lifestyle changes. Changes
in apartments are also fueling the new interest in apartment
living. Dramatic advances in apartment design and man-
agement have occurred in the last few years. Now, it is not
uncommon for an apartment home to include such features
as private entries and attached garages, nine-foot ceilings
Apartments are no longer housing
primarily for the young. From 1985 to 1995,
the number of apartment residents aged 35-44
and 45-54 each grew substanti3.lly, while the
percentage of under 35 year olds fell.
:.:.::
:)
z 20
<::
a 10
~ 0
CHANGE IN APARTMENT HOUSEHOLDS BY
AGE GROUP (1985-1995)
50
40
30
36.5%
~{.
-10 -7.9%
-20
-30
Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Over
SOURa, u.s. aNSUS BURfAU, ANNUAl HOUSING SURVEY FOR 1985 AND 1995
_._..__<...___........>_._,..~"'--...... ... .&Mo _._...._____....."'..."'-~_
"
+
I
I
!
_ ~ __ _.n_____._..._____._~__. _.....~~ ____n_..__"........_____~."
- ",'-'-' _.-- -_. -,._--_._.._--~---_._.._,---- -"-'_'~'---".-
"Renters by choice" are increasing. In
1998, the fastest growing segment of
apartment renters was those making
$50,000 or more a year.
ANNuAL GROWTH IN APARTMENTS BY INCOME
14
12
co
a- 10
I '"
i ....
i ~ 8
i ~
I 0 6
:Z
1<
l:t 4
,u
"3- 2
0 -3.0%
-2
11.6%
4.2%
,W1~i~,,~f~~'R{%
;\'j;;"l~~_
:;.~j:~':i:;.' 'tF.f":~ :'~ i ..
-4
Less than $20,000 $20,000-$49,999 $50,000 & Over
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
SOURCE, NMHC TABULATIONS OF CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY OF MARCH 1998 AND MARCH 1999
with crown molding, double-sided fireplaces and bay win-
dows. Private alarm systems, computer workstations with
high speed Internet access, and units pre-wired for surround
sound are also becoming commonplace amenities.
Outside of the individual apartment home, new apartment
community amenities include nature trails, sand volleyball
courts, resident gardens or communal herb gardens, mini
movie theaters and pubs, and services including plant water-
ing, dog walking, dry cleaning delivery and even grocery
shopping.
And this trend is just beginning. Apartment demand should
continue to expand in the future thanks to a projected boom
in the groups most prone to seek these lifestyle options -
young adults, one-person households, and married couples
without children. Noted urban analyst J. Thomas Black esti-
mates that childless households will account for all of the net
increase in households heading into the next century. And
as more of the baby boomers become empty nesters, the
number of households trading large suburban homes and
yards for an apartment within walking distance to shops and
entertainment will increase.
Well-planned communities with strategies for accommodating
changing lifestyles and housing preferences will prosper and
continue to attract both new residents and new employers.
.>. ... __..',.__ .~._. __'-......~___,_~_~_--.4-:-:..<:__~'"'"'"'~--___~;.e.:-~~~~~~~......
+
Apartments Put Fewer Claims on Schools and Help Reduce
Traffic and Congestion
Public schools are generally the single largest expense for
local governments, so the persistent misconception that
apartments contribute to school overcrowding is particular-
ly damaging to sound urban planning. Contrary to con-
ventional wisdom, apartments contribute fewer children per
household to school systems than single family homes.
According to the Census Bureau's Current Population
Survey, in 1999 only 20 percent of all occupied apartments
had one or more school-aged (5-18) children, compared to
33 percent of owner-occupied single-family homes.
Additionally, the overage apartment household has 0.5
children, while single family homes have 0.7
Misguided officials often think they can reduce traffic and
congestion by limiting apartment construction. In reality,
exactly the opposite is true because apartment residents are
more likely than single-family residents to use public trans-
portation. The 1997 American Housing Survey estimates
that apartment residents average 1.0 motor vehicles per
household, while owner-occupied houses overage 2.1.
Data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers indicate
that an apartment in properties of two or more stories gen-
erates 30 to 40 percent fewer v~hicle trips than single-fam-
ily units.
With fewer children and automobiles
than single-family households, apartment
households' residents place less burden on
local infrastructure and schools.
NUMBER OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN
AND AUTOMOBILES BY HOUSING TYPE
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
o
Apartments Single Family
I_ Cars ~: Children I
SOURCE, NMHC TABULATIONS OF 1997 AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY DATA AND 1999 CURRENT
POPULATION SURVEY DATA
Apartments Contribute to a Community's Economic Vitality
New apartment development has an immediate and
long-lasting effect on 0 community's prosperity.
Construction of 100 new apartments in the average city
results in 122 new jobs, $579,000 in local taxes and fees,
and $5.2 million in local income generated by workers and
businesses. The ongoing, annual effect of 100 new apart-
ment households in a local economy is 46 local jobs,
$308,000 in local taxes and fees, and $1.8 million in local
wages and business receipts.
More importantly, communities that preclude or limit renters
squeeze out 0 segment of the population that is vital to local
businesses os both customers and employees. In today's
tight labor market, communities that offer a diversified work
force and a wide range of housing options ore more likely
to attract top employers to their areas. An adequate supply
of affordable housing, therefore, can be essential to a
municipality's labor supply and its economic growth.
The construction of 100 apartment
homes in a typical metropolitan area
benefits the local economy with new
income, jobs, government revenues
and property taxes.
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
100 NEW APARTMENT HOMES
Initial Impact Ongoing Impact
Locollncome*
$5,234,000
$1,798,000
~~'~'-ln._~..",-- - -." 'c
~J.~~~~~- ~ :~, '"~ ".~~~;'~" :~<-~ ~ l~~'~ ~~~~
Local taxes**
$579,000
$308,000
Income generoted by wocke", and businesses, and the ripple effect of wocke",
and businesses spending this added income in the locol economy,
.. Revenues generated by local taxes, from traditional sources such as property
taxes, fees ond revenue from local, government-owned enterprises.
SOURCE, NATIONAl ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS lOCAl ECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL
+
u_.___,___.~-____..-,.......c.:.:.;.'~' , .......-~....~~__~.a..:..~.:....:..
Apartment Households' Property Taxes Rates are Higher
than Single-Family Residents
One of the most common, yet incorrect, objections to
apartments is that apartment residents do not pay for the
public services they use because they do not pay local real
estate taxes. This point of view often appears in letters to the
editor opposing some proposed opartment development.
Evidence from national surveys, however, shows that proper-
ty taxes are one of the largest expense items for apartment
communities and that they pay property taxes at a much
higher rate than do single-family homes. That means that
apartment residents, who ultimately pay for those taxes
through their rent, face a higher property tax rate than house
owners. When combined with the fact that apartment resi-
dents make fewer claims on schools, roads and other infra-
structure, it appears that in many jurisdictions apartment res-
idents are actually subsidizing their single-family neighbors
and not vice versa.
Apartments are taxed at a significantly
higher rate than single-family structures.
Indeed, the national average reveals that
apartments are taxed roughly twice as
heavily for each dollar of market v~ue
than single-family homes.
RAno OF EFFECTIVE TAX RATES (ETR) FOR APARTMENTS
TO ETR FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
State Apartments DR/
Single-Family ETR
New York 5.96
Minnesota 3.49
South Carolina 2.87
Florida 1.80
Texas 1.67
National Average 1.97
SOURCE, 1998 STATE PtlOfERTY TAX COMPARISON STUDY BY THE MINNESOTA TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION.
Apartments Decrease Local
Infrastructure Costs
The per unit cost of providing public services decreases as
the density of development increases. low-density, single
family development requires more miles of roads, sewers,
and water lines. Additionally, as the number of single fami-
ly developments in an area grows, public services, such as
police and fire protection, must be spread over a larger geo-
graphic area. For those reasons, the clustering of apartment
homes makes them substantially less expensive to service
than single-family homes.
Homes Near Apartments
Maintain Their Values
In many American suburbs, zoning codes limit or even
preclude apartment construction to supposedly protect
property values. But recent evidence indicates that single-
family homes located near apartments do not lose their
value. The Urban land Institute reports that between 1987
and 1995 single-family detached dwellings located near
(within 300 feet oij multifamily communities appreciated at
roughly the same rate as those not near an aportment prop-
erty, 3.12 percent compared to 3.19 percent. That finding
is corroborated by an NMHC analysis using more recent
data. Further research published in the Journal of the
American Planning Association (Winter 1999) indicates
that the presence of publicly-assisted housing also does not
adversely affect neighborhood property values or communi-
ty cohesion. Examining sales records from 1985 to 1996,
the authors found that locating public housing units in pre-
dominately White, middle income neighborhoods had no
discernable effects on surrounding property values.
Additionally, a comparison of homeowners living near the
public housing and those living elsewhere reported similar
levels of satisfaction with their neighborhoods.
Progressive communities have seen first-hand that a modern
apartment community, through environmental planning and
exterior landscaping, is fully compatible with surrounding
single-family neighborhoods.
. ____...._:_....~__".J~..........,......""'"_......_~~:.:..O;-~....:...~, ..
+
Homeownership is Not Required for Good Citizenship and
Strong Neighborhoods
The benefits of homeownership to communities are over-
stated and the disadvantages tend to get swept under the
rug. Moreover, advocates of homeownership often allude to
the greater community involvement that ownership is alleged
to promote. The implication is that apartment renting is bad
for those communities. But the reality is that the differences
in involvement of apartment residents and house owners are
typically small and often not statistically significant. Data
from the University of Chicago's General Social Survey indi-
cate that compared to house owners, apartment residents
are more socially engaged, equally involved in community
groups, and similarly attached to their communities and reli-
gious institutions. Apartment residents are also comparably
interested in national affairs and active in local politics.
Despite misperceptions to the contrary, apart-
ment residents are more socially engaged and
similarly attached to their communities and reli-
gious institutions.
APARTMENT RESIDENT CHARACTERISTICS
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
o
Interaction with Church Identification
Neighbors. Attendance" with Town-
I_ Apartment Residents _ House Owners I
. Percent who spend about one evening 0 week with someone who lives in their neighborhood.
.. Percent who attend religious services 'at least once 0 month.'
... Percent who feel dose or very dose to their city or town.
SOURCE, NMHC TABULATIONS OF GENERAl SOCIAl SURVEY DATA FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO'S NATlONAl OPINION
RESEARCH CENTER
Additionally, the federal government's single-minded pursuit
of increased homeownership rates aside, we should recog-
nize that homeownership is not the right choice for everyone.
Research conducted in 1997 shows that when all the costs
of owning and renting housing are considered, a majority of
households who bought a home in the mid-1980s would
have saved money by renting comparable housing. The
average homebuyer in 1985 paid six percent more as own-
ers than they would have paid as renters. Buyers who sold
within four years paid 19 percent more.
Smart growth strategies can help revitalize the nation's cities
and inner suburbs, build attractive and livable communities,
and create an even more prosperous America. But without
a fuller public acceptance of apartments as an integral part
of any community development plan, the goals of smart
growth will be unrealizable. Equally important for the suc-
cess of many of these projects is more flexible local zoning
and planning policies that recognize the value of compact
development, mixed use neighborhoods and the role of
apartments within their communities. Federal obstacles to
the redevelopment of existing, but unproductive buildings
need to be removed.
Apartments Help Create
Safe and Secure
Neighborhoods
A common concern that apartments bring crime into
neighborhoods is based primarily on faulty perceptions of
who lives in today's apartment communities. When ana-
lyzed on a per-unit basis, there is little evidence that the rate
of police activity is higher in apartment communities than in
single-family residences. In fact, apartment owners, sensi-
tive to neighborhood fears, are concentrating more efforts
on crime prevention and risk management. Indeed, one of
the fastest growing segments of the apartment industry is the
luxury property sector which attracts residents, in part,
because of amenities such as built-in alarms and controlled
access systems, similar to those found in single family houses.
As America renews its focus on strong,
healthy communities, the apartment indus-
try is poised to play an enhanced role in
those communities.
, . i i 1'1': Ii j I I 'I; II I'i:j' : l ,I I ' ,I." i I. ,;i ,: ; i,: .
, ': I' I; , I: I 'I i : I, : i 11 t I'.I! "1' I I I 1'1 l' 'I:!', 1 : i; ~ '
I,t \ I " t I '10' t . I \ . I I I ,. , I'
: < . Iii::, 1: , J : i I :111 ~I : 1;1: : i, I : :1' J :11" :,' :1' ~ i ,j
, .; ,I .1," 1'1 :: ", I 'i "Ii I'll I, I',' I, !I":' ,
, " , II I:, , I I" I ' " "', I I" '
, :I::'.:',!i II i ,', 'II; '11'1' I I : I, ' : j' ' : "I I ii" " , '
I' II II'; 1: 1 I l'll .1 'Il' , 1'1' I I ,11,1! I I I ,
i Ap3i~~~rt;~~Yi~g'I~~e~s IG~tti~g '~e~~r ::::, "
Innovattve, Amen.tttes flnd I?~~tgn Features Of the t'l~w !1par~ment Home
CO~~ENhlE51 : 'ii ii! ;. ~ 'i 1 I': I' i \ .:. 'Buili-in; pre~~ired entertainment centers with theater-
.:. Personal garden plots' and c6mmunit-{ .~erbgard~ns:; quality surround sound
.:. Indoor basketball courts, putting greens, picnic pavilions ::.Stereo speakers and wiring in every room
and sand volleyball courts ' . ':.Six line phone capacity
Outdoor fireplaces with seating Integrated telephone, cable TV and high-speed Internet
Resort-style swimming pools with pool-side food and bever- service
age service ;. Video libraries and video-on-demand service
:. Fitness centers, including virtual reality exercise equip-
. :. ',Virt, ual aPartment tours a, nd online,apartment applications
ment, spa facilities and tanning beds
.:. Media/theater 'rooms with theater-style seating ; .:. Automated rent payments
., On-site'pubs featuring billiards and games tables ,i, Keyless entry systems
.:. Fully equipped business centers with video conferencing APARTMENT HOME AMENITIES
centers .:. Attached direct-access garages and private entries
., After-school programs for children .:. Nine foot and vaulted ceilings
.~ Comprehensive concierge services, including errand
.;. Bay windows and skylights
running, dog walking and plant watering
.;. Oversized oval bathtubs
.;. On-site personal services, such as caterers, after-hours
doctors and dentists, and personal trainers .:. Wood-burning and gas fireplaces
TECHNOLOGY AMENITIES: 'I' Island kitchens with pot racks and built-in wine racks
.:. Water purification systems and programmable thermostats
.:. Private in-unit alarm systems that allow residents to view
entry gates, pools and play areas via closed-circuit' .:. Crown molding, man~es, chair rails and other interior finishes
television
The U.S. Apartment Market
APARTMENT REsIDENTS (%)
I I 1 I I I I
AGE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD .
;J5;6~{Y~~"~
o 25% 50%
SOURCE, U,5. CENSUS BUREAU. MARCH 199B CURRENT POPULATlON SURVEY
75%
100>,.0
-.,-.--
U.S. HOUSEHOLDS: RENTERS & OWNERS
Number of Households % of U.S. Total
I
i I
'11;
, ,
; : I
; i ."
Age of Household Head
Under 30 29.1
30 to 44 years old 33.7
45 to 64 years old 20.6
65+ 16.6
Household Type
Single Male 21 .7
Single Female 25.5
Husband/Wife Only 9.2
Husband/Wife/Kid(s) 12.0
Single Parent 14.3
Roommates/Other 17.3
Household Members
One 47.4
Two 26.4
Three 12.8
Four 13.4
Marital Status
Single 64.6
Married 24.4
Widowed 11 .0
Renter Occupied Housing 34,896,000 33.7%
'h~~~rQc:~M)lecr}i~usiHg~':6~;g.~~;oP(e'-, :"~p6;~%~f
Total 103,534,000 100%
Data Resources and References
provided on hack cover.
SOURCE, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 1998 HOU~NG VAONCf SURVEY
-.. .......w..-u............__.__A:......... or .._,.....................":'"'..... ro" .~..~._............'_ .__..>..-~ - ~..-..~.-..-..--._... '-~ ,"-- "--- .--. ~-, ---.-'-
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4C
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR
A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS
NORTHWOOD OAKS ESTATES 2ND ADDITION
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
MARCH 27, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
Northwood Oaks, LLC., has applied for a Preliminary Plat for the property located on the
west side of Northwood Road, north of Hawk Ridge Road and south of Arctic Lake. The
preliminary plat consists of 23.96 acres to be subdivided into 33 lots for single family
residential development.
BACKGROUND:
In 1997, the City Council approved a preliminary plat for the development known as
Northwood Oaks Estates. The approved preliminary plat consisted of 34.15 acres
subdivided into 46 lots for single family dwellings.
In April, 1998, the City Council approved a final plat for the first phase of this
development (the area south of Hawk Ridge Road). The final plat included 18 lots and
one outlot. The outlot, which was to be Phase 2 of the project, is 23.96 acres, and was
originally to be subdivided into 28 lots for single family development.
This preliminary plat consists of Outlot A of Northwood Oaks Estates 1st Addition. By
reconfigurlng the lots, the developer has removed four of the lots from the Arctic Lake
Shoreland District, thereby reducing the required lot area. This also enabled the
developer to increase the number oflots in Phase 2 to 33. Since the number of lots is
greater than that approved by the original preliminary plat, a new preliminary plat is
required.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site area consists of23.96 acres.
16200 Eta'BPJiet~~bA~~.ng~~~~fM~~~C~nesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612jaff47-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Topography: This site has a rolling terrain with elevations ranging from 980' MSL
along Northwood Road to 910' MSL along the wetland. The site also includes about 11
acres of steep slope (20% or greater) in the northwest comer of the site.
Vegetation: The northwest comer of the site is very wooded. The area directly adjacent
to Northwood road has historically been cropland. Development on this site is subject to
the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Wetlands: There are two wetlands on the site totaling approximately 2.33 acres. The
largest wetland is 2.06 acres in area and is located in the northwest comer of the site, just
south of Arctic Lake. The 0.3 acre wetland is also located in the northwest comer of the
site directly south of the larger wetland. The developer is not proposing to fill or disturb
the wetlands on the site.
Access: Access to the site will be from Northwood Road and from Hawk Ridge Road.
Zoning and Land Use Plan Designation of Adjacent Property:
North: The property to the north is zoned both A (Agriculture) and R-l (Low Density
Residential). This property is also located within the Arctic Lake Shoreland District.
The 2020 Comprehensive Plan designates this property for R-LIMD (Low to Medium
Density Residential) uses.
South: The property to the south is zoned R-l and is developed with single family lots.
This property is designated for R-LIMD uses.
East: Across Northwood Road are single family dwellings, zoned R-lSD and
designated for R-LIMD uses.
West: The property to the west is developed with large lots single family dwellings, and
is located outside of the Prior Lake city limits. This property is zoned "Infill" on the
Scott County Zoning Map for Spring Lake Township and is designated as "Urban
Transition" on the Scott County Comprehensive Plan.
PROPOSED PLAN
2020 Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for R-LIMD uses
on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Zoning: The property is zoned R-l, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation. The property is also located within both the Prior Lake Shoreland District
and the Arctic Lake Shoreland District.
I: \OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\nortoak2\noak2pc.doc
Page 2
L.nt1:. The preliminary plat consists of23.96 acres to be subdivided into 33 lots for single
family residential development. The proposed lot areas range from 12,746 square feet to
over 100,000 square feet.
Lots 1-4 are located in the Prior Lake Shore land District. The minimum lot area for these
lots is 12,000 square feet, and the minimum lot width is 86' at the front building line. All
ofthese lots meet the minimum requirements.
The remaining lots are located within the Arctic Lake Shoreland District. Arctic Lake is
a Natural Environment Lake, so the minimum lot area is 20,000 square feet, and the
minimum lot width is 100' at the front building line. In addition, the comer lots must
exceed the minimum lot area and lot width by at least 20 percent. Comer lots therefore
must be at least 24,000 square feet in area and 120' wide at the front building line.
Most of the lots appear to meet the minimum lot area and width requirements. However,
Lot 14, Lot 26, and Lot 32 are comer lots which may not meet the minimum lot area. If
these lots were a complete rectangle, they would meet the minimum lot area; however,
the lots have a comer radius which will decrease the lot area. The developer must verify
the lot areas on these lots. In addition, lot areas less wetlands and drainage ponds must be
provided.
Streets: This plan proposes three new public streets. Lake Bluff Circle is a 320' long
cul-de-sac providing access to 6 lots on the north end of the plat. This street is designed
with a 50' wide right-of-way and a 32' wide surface The street also has a 5.7% grade.
Shady Cove Point is a 560' long cul-de-sac located to the south of Lake Bluff Circle.
This street provides access to 12 of the lots. It also has a 50' wide right-of-way and a 32'
side surface, and a 7% grade. This street exceeds the maximum length of a cul-de-sac
(500') required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
Lake Haven Court is located south of Lake Bluff Circle and is a 360' long cul-de-sac
providing access to 9 of the proposed lots. This street is designed with a 50' wide right-
of-way, a 32' wide surface, and a 2% grade.
Finally, four of the proposed lots have access from Hawk Ridge Road, and one lot, Lot
33, has access from Northwood Road.
SidewalkslTrails: There is a sidewalk located on Northwood Road adjacent to this
property. In addition, the plan provides an 8' wide paved access to the stormwater pond
located in the northwest comer of the property. This access is intended for maintenance
of this stormwater pond.
Parks: There are no parks located within this site. At the first preliminary plat, it was
determined that parkland dedication for this development would be a cash dedication in
I: \OOfi les\OOsu bdiv\prep lat\nortoak2\noak2pc.doc
Page 3
lieu of land. The dedication requirements for this site were paid at the time the first final
plat was approved.
Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewer will be extended from the existing sewer located on the
north side of this plat. The sewer line will be extended through this property to each cul-
de-sac.
Water Main : Water main will be extended from the existing water main located in
Northwood Road. The water main will be extended in each of the cul-de-sac.
Storm Sewer: This site generally drains north and west to the large wetland at the
northwest comer of the site. Shady Cove Point and Lake Bluff Circle are designed so
runoff drains to catch basins located at the end of each cul-de-sac. Storm sewer then
directs the runoff to a stormwater pond located along the east edge of the larger wetland.
Runoff on Lake Haven Court drains to a catch basin at the end of the cul-de-sac. Storm
sewer then carries the runoffto a sediment trap located adjacent to the smaller wetland.
The staff has had several discussion with the developer about the drainage calculations
for this plat. These calculations are necessary to determine the proper design of the storm
sewer and stormwater ponds. To date, we have not received the calculations that will
enable us to make these determinations.
Tree Replacement: The developer has submitted a Tree Inventory and Removal Plan
which identifies on number of significant trees on the site. However, this plan was
prepared for the original preliminary plat. The tree removal on this plan does not
coincide with the removal on the grading plan. Furthermore, the number of significant
caliper inches to be removed identified on either the tree removal plan or the grading plan
do not coincide with the staffs count. The Zoning Ordinance allows a total of25% ofthe
caliper inches of significant trees to be removed for the development of roads, utilities
and drainageways. The ordinance also allows an additional 25% of the significant caliper
inches to be removed for building pads and driveways. The plan must be revised to
include a specific inventory of the trees, identify the trees to be removed for initial
development and for building site development, and indicate any necessary replacement.
This plan must be prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor.
Landscape Plan: The Subdivision Ordinance requires two subdivision trees per lot. The
developer has submitted a landscaping plan identifying these trees.
Finance! Assessment Fee Review: This development is subject to a stormwater
management fee and a collector street fee. In addition, there are outstanding assessments
for the Northwood Road paving project in the amount of $1,298.48 per lot. The
stormwater management fee and collector street fee are collected prior to recording of a
final plat. The special assessments are collected at the time each lot is sold.
I :\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\nortoak2\noak2pc.doc
Page 4
ANALYSIS:
In general, the proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision
Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. However, there are some engineering and ordinance
requirements which still must be addressed prior to approval of this preliminary plat.
One of the outstanding issues which must be addressed is the disturbance of the slopes on
this site. Section 1006.605 of the Subdivision Ordinance states "whenever possible,
slopes of twenty percent (20%) or greater should not be disturbed and should be retained
as private or public open space." This plat has several locations in which slopes of 20%
or greater are disturbed, either for the placement of roads and utilities or the placement of
homes. This issue was also addressed with the original preliminary plat. At that time, the
developer submitted additional design options for this property, including a "strip lot"
concept, a "loop" road concept and a townhouse concept. The Planning Commission and
the City Council both determined the proposed cul-de-sac design had the least impact on
slopes and on Northwood Road. In its recommendation to the Council, the Planning
Commission should address the impact of the development on the natural features of the
site.
Another issue which must be addressed is the length of the cul-de-sac for Shady Cove
Point. The maximum length of a cul-de-sac is 500', based on Section 1006.202 of the
Subdivision Ordinance. A variance to this provision may be granted if it meets the
criteria listed in Section 1009.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance. This section states
"[TJhe Council may grant a variance from these regulations upon receiving a report
from the Planning Commission in any particular case where the subdivider can show by
reason of exceptional topography or any other physical conditions that strict compliance
with these regulations would cause exceptional and undue hardship, provided such relief
may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without impairing the intent
and purpose of these regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend variances
from the requirements of this Chapter in specific cases which, in its opinion, would not
affect the intent of the Comprehensive Plan or this Section. Any variance thus
recommended shall be entered into the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting,
setting forth the reasons which justified the variance." This issue was also considered as
part of the original preliminary plat. The Planning Commission and the Council both
agreed the impact on the steep slopes is less with the longer cul-de-sac, since not as much
of the slope will be disturbed by placing the wider portion of the cul-de-sac bulb further
north. In its recommendation to the Council, the Planning Commission must also include
a statement ofthe findings with respect to the cul-de-sac length.
Finally, as noted earlier in this report, the staff has not received the necessary information
to determine whether or not the stormwater drainage system is appropriate for this
development. The staff feels this information is critical in determining whether or not
this preliminary plat should proceed.
1: \OOfiles\OOsu bdiv\prep Iat\nortoak2\noak2pc.doc
Page 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
cul-de-sac length variance and on the Preliminary Plat.
Variance: The variance to the length of the cul-de-sac appears to be justified. This cul-
de-sac will not be extended to the north Or west property lines due to the slope and the
wetlands. In addition, the length of the cul-de-sac appears to lessen the disturbance of the
steep slopes.
Preliminary Plat: The staff believes critical information necessary to make a decision
on the proposed preliminary plat is missing at this time. This information includes the
proper tree inventory and replacement plan and the necessary drainage calculations. This
preliminary plat should not proceed until this information is submitted and reviewed by
staff.
Ifthe Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit a new Tree Inventory and PreservationlRemoval Plan. The inventory must
include a list of the significant trees and caliper inches on the site and it must
identify the trees to be removed for initial development and for building site
development. This plan must also identify the need for any replacement trees.
2. Show the 100 year flood elevations for each of the wetlands and storm water ponds
and identify the required 30' structure setback.
3. Provide lot areas for each of the lots. Lots containing wetlands and/or storm water
ponds must also include a net lot area (less wetlands and storm water ponds).
4. Identify driveways and garage locations on the grading plan.
5. A complete set of drainage calculations meeting the specifications of the City
Engineering Department must be submitted. The NWL and 100 year elevations in
these calculations must match the plan.
6. Revise the plans to include the following Engineering changes and requirements:
a) The Proposed NWL on the plans for the south wetland, on Lot 9, is shown as
915.9. The outlet pipe invertfor this wetland is shown as 916.87. These two
elevation must match each other!
b) The outlet pipe elevation for the above wetland is called out on sheet 5 of 5 as
the overflow elevation, this should be called the inlet elevation.
c) The plans callout to "Cut Swale To Adjacent Wetland" from the small wetland.
The plans need to show this swale being stabilized with riprap underlain with
erosion control fabric.
I :\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\nortoak2\noak2pc.doc
Page 6
d) The outflow hydrograph and associated water elevations for the south wetland
are incorrect. The numbers should form a smooth curve instead erratically
going up and down as shown. Check the outlet pipe used in the calculation, it
shows as 0.1 inch diameter pipe. The spillway is shown as 916.91, but the
grading plan shows 920.0 contours around the wetland. This needs to be
resubmitted correctly.
e) The Pond Outlet Elevation on the hydrograph file for the south wetland must
match the NWL for the pond, these two numbers currently don't match.
f) The above comments, 4 and 5, also apply to the NURP pond hydrograph file
calculation.
g) The outlet invert of the pipe coming into the NURP pond on Lot 19 needs to
match the NWL of915.5. Move ST MH 2 accordingly to make this work.
h) Show a plan & profile for the outlet pipe from the NURP pond.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the above conditions of
approval and forward this recommendation to the City Council. This
recommendation must also include a recommendation on the variance to the cul-de-
sac length.
2. Recommend denial ofthe request.
3. Defer action on this preliminary plat to a date specific to allow the developer to
submit the required information.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative 3#. The date is dependent on the amount of
time the developer needs to submit the required information. The City Council must
consider this preliminary plat no later than June 19, 2000. This means the Planning
Commission must take action no later than May 22,2000.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second deferring this item to a specific date.
I: \OOfiles\OOsubd iv\preplat\nortoak2\noak2pc.doc
Page 7
) "'- I
:::-r- L
-
-
III
~
N
Northwood Oaks Estates
2nd Addition
TT
-
-
f--
-
c;rm ":: ~
~ ~JJ~ "-J~::.
~ _2~~.&7 <
~ '- !!!.'~~#~
I '\. ~ (7'~ ~ /I
~ .c,~W v
~ \ ,d~t-
~ ~~ 'x .
"\:::y lrl_-t~ _
~ 17 ~~~ -
4- ~r.--p:~ I ~
~ II I Y
\ ~'\~ S/
, ~~." ~
\' ~n ... V
)2
I Site Location I
~\
'\.'
~ \,\. \
.'\. W
~
:"""~7
""- - ~
j
\J
N
lLl
\1 .--. ~
11 \~/L~Y
-z:::::..,~~
'\ .,..~
~ ~
I,
o
,
~ ~
~ if ;;''''i
4r"
- ~\X"t
r ~~/~
~ ~U,.. ~~
.J '1III1lTn,-....;...,
-
~
1000
I
o
1000
2000 Feet
I
.:;-
".
'i':.
\'
.~:~
, ,
r //'
////
/'",//
,. ///
/
/
/,//
. ,
,- .
N
,',
, ,
11:1
. lli
i ~
.
- .
'.'
,
.,.
, >
< .
.
1o" \" ~
\ .
,',
'.'
,',
'.'
t^,
'.'
~ 11 ~IU
I~~~
" II ~~~~
... I I
I :!:! . -- z
~ · JIlt-
s iR~~ 0 ~
.........
"'i;::Z:!;:':~~;f"':'~''::'', ~~~~ ::0
(/)-1
, (T1:I: t11
-a a o:E t
../'i
~.... i 0 0
Z 0 ~
~ ~i 0 0
~
~ ~.. )> 0
""II!-cn en "Vcnat"V z: i; I 0 )>
a~~i c a~~!i! ~~a ~ ~ ~'
c:::::" - ~og ~ ~~- ~ ~-i% .[8 0 ^ ~
c:::=:~ ~l!~ ~ o;::E z '"'1 P1
;:>'CD~O ;::iz !:l ~'" g::a - en
~ ~18li :a 'if lil~ ::a ~z lila -4 ~
!. i~ !~~~ T~~ -
, 0
IV ~~~~ g~~~ ~~~r i--' (T1 ~
'-'"' ~gyt (lII~~ 8c.cr Z
~ g: li ~p ~
g 8
~:==-~: ~ ~
(T1 ~
en
j _.~ C"_[HT[ltUHl
PI .
i>
~ ~
~
15
Z
-I"lJ 0
;0;0 :::u
MO -4
:I:
M;o~~
"lJrOO
rl>OO
l>"ZO
ZMC
-Iw 0
Z3::~~
G1-C^
ZCen
"lJZ-
rM:::!1"1
l>(J)oen
ZOZ-4
-I ~
)> 1"1
en
N
1
%C1.....r1t:fOtd. ><
'"
-<
~N~~:i~li'::j 0
-.
:<
"ll
(l)C'ljOZ..,"''''';u n r
~~~~~i~~ c J>
:I: Z
:I: -l
'ZZ:iO~j!:;;Q~ C Z
Z
r1~td-<'" ::&:t:I Z Cl
a~~J l;~r- J> VI
:I:
~ :r~ x~~ '" n
-< '" '" :I:
b Z 1"1
t:::t
n C
c: r
'" 1"1
NNNf\}NNruN !!l
~~~,,~,~ N
'"
.. .. .ryn.! ..~ .. ..
=:=:==:= '"
c
c
-.
r;l~
!fl;J ;:j~'" ~~:"'
IN F"
lill !:l z "i~
..ilo
f Nl ....-. o Z
ffll ~CH~ ;lIo!:!
Otel 50:!!
i!..~ '"q:
-or
:SF On.. Z
<> . ..
~ .:E 6:'", 0
~;n; -''''1;
... '" ~d"V nil -4
6"- 1"1
~ ~ z..~ ....z
... Ul !"',.,pt ll~el en
~ ,., ...0
<> . ~n
.. g:!! <'"
"0
'" ~g z:E
-< OZ ~!!!
...1" ..
,? ..
..
_!IE z
0
';z ,
o
::v'
i!,
:~
'0 """''''
o "tIt
::v
o
)0.,
'0,
I/JJI+'> Pfht
//'- ",- -- --,
/ I
( I
\
\
\
\
>
/
/
/
"
"
;;
Ul
%
,.,
!:I
o
...
\
Ul
%
a
i,e' ..\
.~; u I.J
'J;; \,::.;-,
:z II U
N \:1:;\
tf. C~_]
~
c?
-oJ
l,-;tJ
_~c ~"
~f.. (/1',0(:1
0"'1\[
i
f
f
(,
"-
"-
'-',
=J ii!ili!!!mmiimmllii!iilli!lmlliIHlilliiil!llIiillimmUlm!ili!111iI l
() mmmllmmmmmmmmmm' nmmmmn w ~
~ i'ijiilil"ij'I;~IIi;;'ii'iiii;'i':'i'ii'~iit;ii;:m~mrl'll"!':il~i'~I~I~I:'~'I~I'I:~I'I"I'I=""I'I'iim~I;I':li:I';i I~l
~. ! · 1 n'II~II. 'IU,C.', ....ull,'un I' I n: I' II;", ~..
. . " '.... t' II.. ....'....c nil: I, j
o it
1
.
\ "
. "'.
N'
o. "-
i .. \\
IJmmu
lIi11llir
lim,!lIm IIHUlUlJmlllllllUl nJlulmlJlmm
t. !em IllI1 1II1111llUllmmmu III 'UlI!llUlIIil
"1, ~:'i~:':'~:';~~:';';';'2:=:'~22:'~;';':~:~! ~~,!,~~~!.!t~~'~'i'~m2~~2~2;o;.:timrliiii'iimiiiiirl'i'iiiiji
;it iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'isiiiii;iii1i iiiiiiiiiiii;;iiiiiiiiiisiiisi .. ~I:."':
N' .
=
o
o
o
s;
CPo
~.
.S>
"'.
1I"l.13M 01l mUG
I
I
I
I
.....- t
\ .z ~
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
It 0 ^ "\J
8 OC;;o
C;orrl
~ C) -I '1J
r )>-
h ~~~
; mO""
~ZO
~ ;0
~I"
::I:
i !;! !
(> ~
- ..
,z: .,'
~p '" ...
.., ..
~ ; ."
~ ~ ~ I ill
."
I ~ ,... ~
~ ! ~ ~ ~ s
ir '"
I~I ~ ~ '" :I'
c::
i f S :<l
.U ..,
in !
~.~
'I!
~:t
~~i
,~.
Ii:
,
.
.., r..
o
II
d
if
" 0 ..
i I I
~ ; i
i i i
; 'U III :u Jij Ii: lil'li 111m II
III if IiI I!: II i~i li!l; Illln iI .
1,1'11),1 III!, 'li,'1 Ildl)l! .1
11,1 I( '':1' II' ,,1 (II
. II' I' !l ;'1 r!'fI Iii:" I!
. IJI It I! '1' ,II', J;.IIII!
! .J II 'I J.l rII" ",II I
I 11 II Ii !I' f!.11 II:~I I
1 il I. n, riM I.., .
1- i 6------------- !
I 4 I
: . i
i '. I
I II IIPl
11I~ I~ 1111 W '(1 UHf I
I' ! II' II' III.
J' , 'f'
I I II . ,
.."--'
':
-I
:::::0
rrl
rrJ
I]
:::::0
rrl
(j)
rrl
:::::0
<
z)>
0-1
~o
~z
~
~~
0)>
oz
t::l"-.
01]
:J> '1-
~)>
Ul~
z
MC)
UlO
~o
>z
~o
Mrrl
Ull]
-l
I]
I
)>
~ Z
~
I ~
~ ~
\) -;
~
~
~
~
~
l;J
r
fT1
G)
fT1
Z
o
~
./
\\\:''''
i ~
I[
r
~,-
!M
if~
. ~
Ii'
tli
h,
'11
1- ;~Iiii;i;\i
~~
B~ ' ..
a
!I i.~~ r:
I ~<
....". ",.1
ci ~ ,;,. .:u r..~ 011 -, Q;, 0.1:> C'I
I~ ~ . N~: '" Ii
,.
Ii ."
i5
n
- ..I - ~ ~ I~~; ~ -
,.
~ ., .. ,. 0 t.. . . r~.' ,... i
.. ,\ r~. ,.,
III ~ij~
~
!l li~
~I.l! u ~ ~ ~~ .
. 1l~
~
N Ii!!!
!s~.I@HI@
:i~ il
l~1 i ~ ~~~I!ml! I
~~Iil :!l
n ~~~~allm
lil:~ ,.
r
~~I ,... ~ I i~
~f !:I i
: ~I to
!:l
,.
!Ii P
I~
J
!I-
i=!
-.
.
,
I
i
~
I ~~~I~
~.~jft
II'
! fl
t:l
M
--t
:I>
P
-
~
.
It
e
--.... \. \
t
Cl
t 8
:>:
n
..
n
:I>
M ~
...
8
...
~
l'l
7",
~I
il
~
--t
~
n
~
r
c
--t
t:l
M
--t
:I>
F'
,
"
',\\\
,\ \'1,\
" ~\
1\ II
\' II
,lI \\
I"~. I,
d\ 'I
\\ \ \ \
\\1\\
,1.\'
\".,
ll:'ll
'11/1
t\~,l\ l, \
\:,>''-\,
,\','
,,:.\
<:,:::}\
-
g
!!
a
~ : \))
~.\ :~~~ ~{\~
\ ~<'il""11"1!
~~cl~ Je
=~~:Oa 5i ~
~~~!:lAi~~~~ 8
'< -< eee~1
. i i~
,
~~.
I
~1--.~.. 7. ~. ' 11'
ifJ (j'~)
N rf'.J-;~1
Q:)/ Ie.,' ~.'. ~ '.:
~ ,/ i
8 ..~.I
~- .
I
I
..,.
II~
I~I I~
;~~ CI
~~I
~I
i
2
itl_'I:~": ",
fl~z
m HtlfitHHH
11111!1;llli;11111
II II... I
I II
I
~
~
:b! ~
=tJ ~O
""< ::::-i=i
~ ~~-<
~ Bc:s 0
~ ;:tg"TI
~ ~
~ ~~;g
~~~O
~ ~~ :;0
~ <:~ r;:
~ ::::-i~
:tJ ~fT1
:IS:
~
~
$>I;Oos..",=--
;t!:i~~::i
jj~~F;;
~~~~~ B
~~SS I
~I~~
II
OJ
-..j
rr1
<0
(J)
~z
.' )>0
IlIsat
~ ~ ~ ~
N ~ 0 ;0
rr1
~
(J)
:c
:E
N
(Jl ~ 0
(]'I
).(M4S
-
N
o
OJ
il
;~iilimj!
I! Illi!!j!
..~ SJ h~~~
Ii! ~;;l e~QIi~
~ Ii h'-:
!l ...!~
~ n
Ii
N
o
~
...
~
I
"ll
e
6
z
?
-
en NZ
. :JO
~ --'--/R Q.. ;0
~"'h' !t ~
~ h'_h'__,____ !fI --,
.. I
d' ~)>~
00
......,~OO
---10
_ 0
OJ ZO
)>
^
(f)
r'1
(f)
~
---1
r'1
(f)
~ ==--..
lD ~:',.<
-1!
"T\ I
a:.I I' ~
N
_ij
r;:==:-' - -,
~::"I
il
;1
J
............. .'
;":'1"""':"'1
"
1
,
,
I. ~ U1
,8
I
I
3 .
I '+ I
.
S
~
N
U1
/
/
I~~i!i
ll~!;!hill
~5~!e=
Il"nll
iaiB;
~~Bll~:;!
\~l;!'li
;;ll!li ~
ill DiIi=llai
n ""'"':;:: \II
~ ~ ~: ~
!> '~l z
~ S ,. !S
~ .
. I
I I
!l.
iJ
.
.'
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5A
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 00-06PC
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD
SETBACKS FOR HILLCREST HOMES, INC. - #00-024
16340 PARK AVENUE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES L- NO
MARCH 27, 2000
On March 13, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding
the requested Variances on this property. After reviewing the proposal with
respect to the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a
Resolution approving the Variance to the side yard setbacks.
The following Variances are included in Resolution 00-06PC:
1. A 3.08 foot Variance to permit a side yard setback of 6.08 feet instead of
the required 9.16 foot side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in
length.
2. A 5.16 foot Variance to permit a 9 foot side yard setback instead of the
required 14.16 foot side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in length.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 00-06PC approving the side yard
setback Variance as directed by the Planning Commission on March 13, 2000.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution 00-06PC approving the variances requested by the
applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems
appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 00-06PC approving the side yard
setback Variances.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-024\V ARRPT2.DOC
.
'.
Page 2
RESOLUTION 00-06PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 3.08 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 6.08
FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 9.16; AND A 5.16
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 9 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD
OF THE REQUIRED 14.16 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR BUILDING
WALLS 65 FEET IN LENGTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Hillcrest Homes, Inc. has applied for a Variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order
to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the R-1
(Low Density Residential) District and SD (Shoreland) District at 16340 Park Avenue
Prior Lake, MN, and legally described as follows:
Lot 7, Lakeside Park, Scott County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case File #00-024PC and held hearings thereon on March 13, 2000.
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, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The pre-existing lot of record does not meet the current Ordinance for minimum lot
size in the R-1 and SD Districts. Because of substandard lot width and substantial
grade elevations, this situation creates an unbuildable lot and a hardship with respect
for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-024\appres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the minimum lot area required today and the
platted lot of record. Reasonable use of the property does not exist without the
granting of the variance to permit a buildable lot for a single family dwelling.
7. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant,
and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
9. The contents of Planning Case File #00-024 are hereby entered into and made a part
ofthe public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following variance for the proposed structure as shown in Exhibit B:
1. A 3.08 foot Variance to permit a 6.08 foot side yard setback instead of the required
9.16 foot side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in length.
2. A 5.16 foot Variance to permit a 9 foot side yard setback instead of the required 14.16
foot side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in length.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant to Section
1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null and void if the necessary permits
are not obtained for the proposed structure within one year after adoption of this
resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 27,2000.
ATTEST:
Mark Cramer, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
I: \OOfiles\OOvar\OO-024 \appres.doc
2
Vl
;. ~
r
!:1
-'
.
II
'"
q
~~
r.1"8
In
o
("I-lO>ZSg'Qa.
o a :J. ~ g ... = a ~
~C~r+l/)na.oc
o::eg." na.~
-3~"n~g!.~
". Q. --.
[o:eC'l:-,,~g!-l
< 0 0 ~ 01 _. 0
~ o. ;;:: a <0 - g ~
"C:-IQOtn!llno
o l/) " " tnfl ct 0 _
ng'~Hfl.....~~~
("I:!.::rOl.....:+-8" ~
u.g~CO:+......gCl
.., " I'.) !=> It"8 co
("Io"tn ~-:: c...
tn-~fl c...g.P- 0.
flSo..... >~o
"""'II~ ~.s=
:+.., "a.~
~ g g>
o ::J Q ..,
go_~
< C . CI
.. 01 !:!. :!l
-oS:'!.o
;- i ~. s:
o .
:g!:!.~ co
.JI.. ~ a ~
C')~ lIE t..
o . OJ
;, a.
o CD
c: ;,
.., 2. ~
CD OJ
0.0
:r ~
a;!.
g' :!l
o
o 0
-.,
" it-
("II'.)
c...Vl
l11.o
.... .
tn;::l
fl.
~
i
i
r--
., -
.e.;
OJ .,
Cig.
~'<
a.n
-ct
g 2:
0.-<-
OJ r+
c: ::r
~ ~
'< -
o ::r
.., ii"
~ ~
~<
., ct
-'<
ii~
oOJ
~'Sl
CD
~"'8
.,
-ct
::rOo
ct
cr
lIl,<
[3
ct ct
\~ 0 0
\<q--~ ~
~ s ~;, ~
:J .., UI ..,
i-< -3
III P,<
o~ ~9:
c:g ;-~
gc 0._
;, .,
In ct
ct -
~~~
!'o{ij
ZlIlO
OCZ
~~~
~oQ
......::O~
(DlIl{ij
(D 0
cr ~
....
g z
~ 0
a.
a co
:i" ....
o ....
4Q i-.>
!"
-0
co
co
!"
o .
li' li'
:> ~
~ it
OJ .
[ g
~ ~
~ g
~ ~
~ a-
lii 0'
~ c
~
o
ITJ
(J)
()
::0
=0
-i
o
Z
r
o
r+
'"
~
^
ITJ
~
o
ITJ
~
::0
^
::0::0
o 0
< <
iir Ii.
o 0
~~
- -
,-
~~
''t
....10
gco
o
Prior Lake
z
I. .. 901.95
Water Elevo Ion
Token Feb. 25th 1999
--~
-
/ ----
--
I- - -go. Conlou~ _
~- - _;06-
- ...
- - '"
-10
1+
--
--
'"
'"
b
1+
--
---
---
---
---
--- .......--
..---N ~2'52" ~ ./ I
~ --50.J72::./ -<i"
- ~ ...c::::..,,?- ~
___ Survey Line ~
./ ./
./ . 0\0 ~'i' /
./r../ ,../ ~ /
y ,../ ,../ ~,../ J
/ .. <".../ ,../,../
/ ~l!t/ :.j.. ,../ ./
"'~:,-. ./ /"
////// /
/ / / / / ~.~ /" /"./"'
/,../ ./"' /./ /"
./ / / ./"'./"' ./r.\0 y ,../
./ / ,../ /'./"' I~ ./
/ ./"' /' .I/"
,../ ,../ /'. ...:1
--- ,../ /" ./"'
-./ ./"'
- .......--
-
---
-
-
--
..J
----
~
;J-/
-4
~ltn---1:-
~'Q) ~
.... OJ 5-
~~-i-
~,.,j en
"""co ~
I :~
F'1
....--1
I
.---t
1
---l
I
-t-
-I
--l
I
-
'"
..
-0
*
"'-
."\
:,."
~
,~
J .
r-
I en
... .
~ I-
~
O!
g,
-I
- I
I
I
I
I
I
-- I
I
1-
-,-
..
l;:
..
-
!
.......
9J2.8
. -50.28--
S 0'07'54" E
(J)
c:
:2
~
-..
0
:1
~ m
r- ><
r-
0 J:
;;U
fT1 -
(J) OJ
-l
I -
0 -f
3:
fT1
(J) OJ
()
rrt
:::0
--i
2J
()
)>
-f
I'T1
o
,.,
(J)
C
:::0
<
~
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
1999 VARIANCE SUMMARY REPORT
JENNITOVAR,PLANNER
YES -1LNO-N/A
MARCH 27, 2000
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this item is to provide the Planning Commission with information regarding 1999 variance
activity. It is hoped this information will give the Commission information which will be useful in
evaluating new variance requests.
DISCUSSION:
The following table is a summary of variance activity for 1999 and a comparison of the previous year's
acti vi ty.
Number of,Applications
Number of Requests
Requests Approved
Requests Denied
Requests Incomplete
Requests in Process
Requests Withdrawn
Requests Appealed
Appeals Overturned
Number Lots in SD
Number of Riparian Lots
19
59
44
11
4
o
o
o
o
19
14
26
43
22
13
1
o
7
3
o
17
14
17
31
11
10
2
5
3
7
2
11
9
27
41
24
11
o
o
6
8
1
20
14
43
88
61
24
o
o
3
2
o
31
22
Note: If an applicant requested a variance and the Planning Commission approved a reduction
of the original request, then it is represented as one approved request and one denied
request in the tables. In 1995, there were 6 requests the Planning Commission approved
as less than what the applicant had originally asked for; In 1996 there was 1, in 1997
there were 3, in 1998 there were 3, and in 1999 there were 3.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
OHW Setback 4 7% 5 12% 3 10% 10 24% 14 18%
Front yard setback 6 10% 3 7% 0 8 20% 16 20%
Side yard setback 5 8% 3 7% 2 7% 6 15% 23 29%
County road setback 0 4 10% 0 6 15% 0
Impervious surface 6 10% 3 7% 4 13% 5 12% 10 13%
Rear yard setback 1 2% 1 2% 5 16% 2 5% 3 4%
Accessory buildings 0 2 5% 0 2 5% 1 1%
Lot size 11 19% 2 5% 1 3% 1 2% 5 6%
Height 0 2 5% 2 7% 1 2% 0
Lot width 4 7% 5 12% 4 13% 0 4 5%
Driveway setback 1 2% 2 5% 2 7% 0 2 2%
Sign 0 1 2% 0 0 1 1%
Temporary building 0 0 0 0 1 1%
# Parking stalls 0 1 2% 1 3% 0 0
Bluff setback 8 14% 2 5% 2 6% 0 0
BluffImpact Zone 0 0 2 6% 0 0
Cul-de-sac length 0 1 2% 1 3% 0 0
Grade of slope 0 0 1 3% 0 0
Lot Coverage 0 3 7% 0 0 0
50% Nonconforming 0 1 2% 0 0 0
Roof-top Screening 0 1 2%
Irrigation 0 1 2%
OHW Lot Width 0 0 1 3% 0 0
40' Side Wall 3 5%
Eave Encroachment 2 3%
15' Combined Sideyard 1 2%
Driveway Width 2 3%
15' Building Separation 2 3%
RFPE Flood 2 3%
Incomp1ete/Pending 1 2%
The nature ofthe requests for variance is probably very familiar to the Commission, and similar to
previous years. Ordinance number 96-12, approved 5-20-96, permits a 5' side yard setback on
substandard lots, and also allows for reconstruction of existing decks without variances. Many of the
requests in 1995 were for side yard setbacks on substandard lots or involved an OHW setback variance to
replace a deck. These changes to the ordinance greatly reduced the number of variances requested in
1996.
Ordinance 97-06, approved 2/3/97 changed the setback from Collector Streets to be from "Major"
Collector Streets. Ordinance 97-12, approved 5/5/97, reduces the OHW setback on General Development
Lakes to 50 feet rather than 75 feet with setback averaging. Both of these changes significantly reduced
the number of variance requests in 1997. The changes of the ordinances have allowed for development
that may have not occurred otherwise, without a variance. The process for the general
public has been made more accommodating.
The only ordinance amendment in 1998 relating to variance applications pertains to the bluff ordinance.
The City modified the bluff ordinance to be clearer in identifying the top of bluff and changing the
setback to a minimum of 25 feet and on slopes less than 18%. This ordinance amendment reduced the
setback in some cases, as the previous 50' segments used in determining the top of bluff were eliminated.
Minor ordinance amendments were addressed in the new Zoning Ordinance recently approved by
Planning Commission and City Council. Such amendments included eliminating the setback from the
centerline of a county road and allowing combined side yard setback of 15 feet.
A majority of the variance requests cam after the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance (May 1, 1999).
All of the variances requested in 1999 were on lots within the Shoreland District. New ordinances
resulting in variances include 40-foot sidewall, eave/gutter overhangs, 15 foot building separation and
driveway width measured at property line. The Planning Commission is already addressing some of these
issues, such as the 40' sidewall setback requirement.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
Prior to May 1, 1999, the variance criteria were as follows:
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the
property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance is literally
enforced. The hardship resulting from literal enforcement of the ordinance is identified.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property.
Unique circumstances consider conditions of the property and not the owner. Conditions such as lot
size, lot dimensions (length, width,. and shape), topography, wetlands, trees, lakes, and other factors
specifically related to the property itself are considered.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons
presently having an interest in the property.
Hardship created by the applicant is not grounds for granting a variance (such as design ofthe
proposed structure or changes to the topography). The shape and width ofthe lot and location of the
existing structures may be hardships over which the applicant had no control. It is common, that the
lot and dwelling may have been existing prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is
not contrary to the public interest.
The intent of the ordinance is examined, and considered in relation to the request. Also, adjacent
properties may be considered as not be contrary to the existing conditions of the neighborhood or
public interest.
The current Zoning Ordinance (effective May 1999) requires the following criteria to be met:
Issuance. The Board of Adjustment shall consider the effect of the proposed Variance upon the health,
safety and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and
air, danger of fire, risk to public safety, the effect on the character and development of the
neighborhood and the values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed
variance upon the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of Adjustment may grant a Variance from
the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance, provided that:
(1) Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
conditions of such lot, the strict application or the terms of this Ordinance would result in
peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such
lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within
the Use District in which said lot is located.
(2) Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or
immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in
the Use District in which the land is located.
(3) The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofa
substantial property right of the owner.
(4) The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply oflight and air
to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the 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.
(6) The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
(7) The granting of a Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
(8) The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance to the affected
property and does not result from actions of the owners of the property.
(9) Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be
grounds for granting a Variance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the report and direct that it be transmitted to the City Council for
information.
2. Accept the report, direct that the report be transmitted to the City Council for
information, and direct further study of possible ordinance revisions in response to
the report.
ACTION REOUIRED:
A motion accepting the report, and directing further action revising the report if appropriate.
"0"0"0"0"0
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
> > > > >
eeeee
0.0.0.0.0.
0.0.0.0.0.
<(<(<(<(<(
- +-'
"0"0"0 "0 "0"0"0"0 "O"O"O"O"O"OO~
Q)Q)Q) Q) Q)Q)Q)Q) Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)t~
o~~~ii~i~~~~ii~~~~~~&~
~ ~ ~ ~ .-.- ~.- ~ ~ ~ ~ .-.- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"O
<(<(<(<(OO<(O<(<(<(<(OO<(<(<(<(<(<(Z<(
"0
Q)
c:
~:o
..ll::roE
u.oo
roCi)u
.0 en '0
+-'+-'0
~~ Q)o_ LO
~~ ~.EC\I>- ~
..ll:: ..ll::.o.o OC\l-.:t~ cO
~O 0 (.) cueD $2CC!,..- ij) ~
~ :: :S :S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.E; '0 3:
.oOQ) Q)ooro:>:>-"O +-'.c0
Q) .E en en .E .E .0 0:> 0 (ij Q) 0 +-' =
en +-' +-' Q) "0 0 "0 ro
+-' ci- 0 0 ~ I'- en = ro 0._ 0 - 'S; 0
o en .E .E C\I ..... ro 0 +-' 3: c.::: 0- :> +-'
000 :>:>'Og~..ll::u+-,O>.,^+-'ow
__ OOLOO:>~:>O-""" 0 VI
+-,_('I')C\lc.:::C\I _..ll::Uro LO -~
o ,.~ ~ LO' ...., U ro ,Q .E ('I') ~ +-'0 LL
o oeo Ol('l')LO ro ro,,, - ,..;
"": C\I eo .~ Ol"'- 0 0 3: ~ ~ Q) C\I 3: ~ 0 u..
crOlOl3:c:Ol+-'+-'o+-,Q)C/)('I')Oeo~3:
en c: c: 0 '-.~ Q) Q) - Q) C/)"O 3: = 3: . 0
___=3::>uu(ijC/)_~OroOLO-
m3:3:roo~c:c: (ij =O=LOQ)
o>og..ll::ro=~~Si3:>ro;ro3:OO
LO(ijro~Q)ro~~~:>Q)Q)OuOoC:
'" '" '" u Q)"o"O +-' '" +-' = 0
3:..ll::ro.ou~>>ro"O-~.c~roro~
O~~Ci)~ro~~~~~~~~~o~
ro.o<(C/)~~roroQ)"O~m-C/)<(+-'Q)
OQ)+-,"OC/)Q)~~C/)~roc:~en+-'=m
+-' C/) ~ ~ '^ C/) Q) Q) ""-- ro > .- ""-- ~ 0 "0
-' '" VI ro > .0 ro 0 ..J .- "0
~~+-'>~~C/)C/)3: Q)E3:-+-'~ro
~~8+-'~~~~Q)~~0Q)~8+-'0
<(m_c:~m~2>-C/)U>Q)_00::
+-' +-' . e Q) +-' 00 00 .t: C/) +-' +-' .t: a. ....J +-'
00 cru. 0.0 O+-' 0 00 E cr+-' 0
..Joen+-'E.E'O'O+-'8.E.E+-,-en8.E
C\lU.OO-LOOOO-cocoO~C\I-LO
o 1'-0 --0 0 CO
LO~O-~~('I')O-~~~-~LO~~
.....~...-LOLOO>('I')~('I')eoLOOcoLO...-..........
"0"0"0"0"0 "0"0"0"0"0"0"0
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
>>>>>"0>>>>>>>
e e e e e.~ e e e e e e e
a. 0.0. o.o.c: 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.
0.0.0.0.0.Q) 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.
<( <( <( <( <( 0 <( <( <( <( <( <( .<(
~
U ..ll::
ro u x
.0 ro u
Ci) ~ ro
~+-,~'O ~ :S
:5oou- +-,+-' ~
"O.E::;~'O ..ll::Og.c+-'~
'3 LO 8 Ci) .E .c ~ .E '0 ~ 8 ~
+-' C\I "": en 0- =0 ~ ..... 0 'S; - .0
o c: cr'O en'- 0 Q)~- :>O+-'
.E ro en 0 en 3: c.::: en cO 0-'0 C\I ~
O>';::C\I-I'-'OO+-'3:en-3:+-'
C")~eo~~-~80LOO.Q8
3:Q)~3:"'-L03:-=coO-;;:;-
.f;0> 0.....1'-. 01'- roo- '"
.Q- 1'-0>0"'-
(ij~~ro~~ro3:S3: '+-'3:
o+-'- - 0.Q..ll::0~..ll::0
c:-o-:> -u "IU-
+-'Q)ro+-,ro:>+-'rororo3:roro
.cES~So~S~oo.9o
~.crororororo Q)+-,-Q)+-'
.~- ~ Q) .0 Q) 0 't: ~ en ro ro en..ll::
"'" '- ......, '- ..... ~ Q) 0 "0 U
..ll:: 0 ro Q) ro .c en .oro "E ~ +-' ~ ro
u>-t5+-,en+-,+-, +-,roro.cro.o
ro ro c: 0"0 0 ~ ~ Q) >-......+-' >-Ci)
.o:>Q)-~-:> C/) o"O+-'
+-' il) +-' ro +-' :> 0 Q) - 'S; c: en
Q) ~ 0 >- 0 +-' 'S; ~ "0 ..... :> 0 ~
C/) .E; ~ .E Q) .E .Q fu ~ 'w 8 0 .;: 2
3:000 0-:2 0-0 o.E m '0""::: 'Om
J:+-'+-'eneneno +-'ocrOO+-'
000 +-' _.-o-eno-o
.E.Ecoo.....LO~.Eo> -LO.E
_ ('I') 0 C\I ...., 0 LO LO .
0> LO LO LO - LO ''! 0 en ....-...- LO LO
~...-('I')LOeo('l')('I')...-.....C\I~('I').....C\I
Q)
Ol
~
ro
<.9
"0
c: ..ll:: Q)
.Q ~ "5
+-'.0 ro
.....~~~..ll::~
Q) a. +-' ro u ~
~~o.oro..Q
v, 0 +-' .0 _
.....('I')+-'-Q)+-'c:
Q)LOOC\lenQ)0
~ N .E 0 ..... 'en ~
. ...- I'- Lri 8 '0 ~
g3:~ 3:~.E ro
eo .Q 3: 0 -.:t ('I') g-
~(ij.Qro('l')3:en
~ S (ij S 3: 0 .~
3:..ll::0..ll::oro
OU+-'U=O+-'
=roc:roro.....,g
ro.oO.oo+-'+-,
OQ)+:;+-'+-'C:c:
+-,C/)roQ)..ll::Q)0
ro ~C/)uE~
Q) "0 0."0 ro .c LL
~~Q)~~UO
~ > C/) ~ C/)Q) ~ +-'
0.....0l~ ~g>
..J g .~ ro 3: g 32.-_
'O~"OQ)J:Q)
0u.=0:::0Q)~
_+-'~+-' >.0
.omo+-,ro+-'
cr.E +-'.E 0 Q) 0
':1'-8co.E+-'.E
~-O>C\lOLO
~N~aiO.E~
('I')...-I'-.....~C\lLO
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ c:
Q) '05
.0 ..J
E~
.3Ci5
.c
~ .5:2
E~
Q;~
(;)"0
Q) ~
3:00
t
ro
.c
~
~
~
00
c:
ro
.t:
00
Q)
.c
u
~
Q)
"0
ro
....,
t
Q)
.0
o
0::
I'-
N
o
I
en
0>
N ...-
('I')~
00
I I
0>0>
0>0>
C\I
~
o
I
en
0>
~
N
o
I
en
en
~
.c
Q)
o
0:::
Q)
=
o
i::
ro
.c
U
en
ro
ro
o
Q)
:i:
u
ro
....,
~
~
Q)
....,
('I')
~
o
I
en
en
0>
~
o
I
en
en
c:
>-
e
ro
U
~
.cC:
o.ro
Q)2'
en 0
~~
('I')
LO
o
I
en
en
ro
c:
o
E
ro
0:::
~
"0
c:
:::i
E
~
~
c:
.!Q 0
c: en
c: c:
Q).c
o~
CO
LO
o
I
en
en
N
eo
o
I
en
en
z
o
i=
o
<C
o
o
z
o
i=
o
<C
o
c..
'0'0'0'0'0'0'0
0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
> > > > > > >
e e e e e e e
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.
<(<(<(<(<(<(<(
c
W
t-
en
w
::J
a
w
~
w
o
z
<C
~
~
~ -
(,) u.Q
Cll ~ ~ Cll
- :8(,)(,).0"0
.Q O)CllCll-9
_ f/).o.oO)~
o _-"Q)f/)~
O 00)#^_~
.... Of/)wOw
, --"OOco
C'"..c 0 0 .... C\/
f/)~C\/0..e0)~
~ .~ 3: ~ LO oi '<t
o-.Qci3:3:('I)
I'.Qro......Q.Q3:
3:"0 0 3:roro.Q
~..e~O.s.9ro
=co(,)Cll~~.9
Cll'<t~O(,)(,)Cll
O::>.....-CllCll
-;>"Q)~.o.o~
Cll.Qf/)(,)"Q)"Q)<(
~ro"O~f/)f/)"O
<(oro"Q)"E"E-J
"0 - >- f/) Cll Cll -
-J:6c~ >->-g
-:20;:]0)0)....
g 3:~:O:2:2 C'"
~"O"O"O~~f/)
C'" - ..e ..e 0 0 co
f/)"O('1)LO..e..e~
LO 0 . '('I)'<t ~
o .... LO '<t ' . C\/
'<t'<t..........C\/C\/LO
. . . . . . .
I-
Z
<C
o
:J
c..
a..
<C
~
c
co
....
u..
>-
E
<C
~
(,)
'1::
W
('I)
co
o
I
0)
0)
"0
0)
'2
0)
o
-
o
t::ro
Clla..
a.c
~~
Z<(
-
o _
..e 0
..e
?F. g- ?F. ~
C\/LOLC')O)
. co ......
r---LOo::>
('I) ~ ('I) ;>
3:('I)3:.Q
o.....oro
-3:-
rooro.9
o=o~
-Cll_(,)
~.s~~
~~~"Q)
;:]....;:]en
en<(en"E
f/)-f/)Cll
;:]0;:],,-
o-Jo.......
.~ "O'~ C
C1> ..e 0) e
a. .a.u..
EC'"E_
-en-o
?F.LO?F...e
C\/('I)IO'<t
,'<t . .
r---.....OLO
0)
~"Q)
> a.
e E
0.8
~c
-
.Q
~
(,)
Cll
.0
-
0)
f/)
"0 '0'0'0
C1> 0) 0) 0)
>'0>>>'0
e.S!2 e e e.S!2
a. c. a. a. a. c
a. 0) a. a. a. 0)
<(O<(<(<(Q
~
(,)
Cll
.0
..l<:: u"Q)
(,) Cll f/)
Cll :8"0
:$ ~..e
f/) -co
- 00
o ..eM
..e
O - 03:
o ..... 0
M......e"03:Cll
~gco..eoo
=c;:::oCOCll-
Cllt)LO~oc
00).....0)-0)
;:3:3:3:UE
>.Q 0 OClli3
I-Cll=.oCll
00 0 Cll"Q)O
E..e-.9ent;
o('l)~..l<::=c
....ci~(,)CllW
~3::8~~~
....00)-"0
~Cllen~cn&l
0)"Q)0"E1J'C1J
(,)f/)-Cll-....-
~~~~~~~
~;:].aLLCO)O)O)
~~ (,)20:: e:2:2:2
.0;:] ou..enenen
Cllf/)"Q)Ot)-----
0) U en ,- - 0 0 0 0
....Cll ~oo..e..e..e..e
<(.o~O)..e..e'<tcocoC\/
OQ)IEa.O":~C!~~
-JenO-r---C\/O)'<t'<t.....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....
0)
c
f/)
0)
::J
~
Cll
~
c
c
Cll
E
x
c::
~
Cll
~
r---
co
o
I
0)
0)
,...
r---
o
I
0)
0)
....
C1>
'1::
....
0)
a..
c
~
..c Cll
(,)~
.~ ~
~ f/)
~ '~
Cll 0)
~Q
0.....
coco
00
I I
0)0)
0)0)
....
C1>
C
f/)
C1>
:J
..l<::
....
Cll
~
....
~
;:]
o
C f/)
en 0)
>-E
..c 0
roI
~-
f/)
~ ~
~~
I-I
co
co
o
I
0)
0)
0)0
coo
0.....
I I
0)0)
0)0)
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6B
1999 CODE ENFORCEMENT SUMMARY REPORT
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
_YES -LNO-N/A
MARCH 27, 2000
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose ofthis report is to provide the Planning Commission with information regarding the 1999
code enforcement activity. This information consists of a year end summary on the total number of
complaints and code violations to provide the Commission with insight that maybe useful in evaluating
current resident concerns and future regulatory decisions.
DISCUSSION:
Zoning Ordinance violations were the highest percentage of violations this year and included improper
recreational vehicle parking, shed location and setbacks, vehicles parked in required yard areas and signs
erected without permits. In addition, property appearance and health issue codes such as overgrown grass,
refuse disposal and junk cars were of a concern to residents. As a result, a majority ofthe complaints
received by the City staff regarded these issues. Most residep.ts have great pride in their neighborhoods
and communities, and feel an obligation to maintain a neat appearance on their
respective properties as well as the adjacent properties.
Also, the unique nature of Prior Lake, Spring Lake and the surrounding Shoreland district creates
challenging issues regarding land use and code compliance. The main reason for a majority of shoreland
code violations appears to be the residents lack of knowledge regarding these ordinances including
impervious surface area requirements and excavating/filling on lots within the district.
The following summary report begins with the total number of complaints received. I then subtracted the
invalid complaints, of those that upon inspection, were not determined to be code violations or were
considered to be civil issues. The remaining number consists of the total apparent violations discovered
upon inspection, including multiple or additional violations. The total number of violations are then
displayed as code category subtotals. Also included is a color coded graph depicting the code
enforcement activity over a six (6) year period from 1994 through 1999. To date 210 cases have been
closed and 28 cases are pending. The average time required to close a file is approximately 26 days.
In 1999 the city received a total of two hundred and thirty eight (238) complaints. This amounts to a one
hundred and eighty seven percent (187%) increase over the past six years (6) when compared with eighty
three (83) complaints in 1994. It appears the three main reasons for this dramatic increase include: 1) the
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
growing population from 12,559 in 1994 to 14,687 in 1998; 2) the City's resolve to enforce the code on a
permanent full time basis; and 3) the City's efforts to increase the residents awareness of the code
enforcement program through the local newspaper and cable TV media.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the report and direct it to be transmitted to the City Council for
information.
2. Accept the report, direct it to be transmitted to the City Council for information,
and direct further study of possible ordinance revisions in response to the report.
ACTION REOUIRED:
A motion and second accepting the report and forwarding it to the City Council for information purposes.
...... 0
CO
CO
.I:lo.
01
o
......
o
o
I\J
o
o
I\J
01
o
0
0
c
m
...... :s;
co 0
co r-
CJ) >
:j
0
'1J Z 0
l>> > :::r
lC l>>
CD 0 ::l.
-I I\J
<:
~
..a.
...... CD
co CD
co ,.
-...J
..a.
CD
CD
CD
......
01
o
......
CO
CO
01
......
CO
CO
OCI
......
CO
CO
CO