The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJuly 10, 2000 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JULY 10,2000 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 #00-048 Andrew and Renee Siebenaler are requesting a variance to permit less than the minimum building separation of 15 feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot for the construction of a deck for the property located at 3842 Pershing Street SW. B. Case #00-049 Alvin E. Miller has requested a variance to vehicular access lower than 907.9 feet, the minimum required 2 feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation. C. Case #00-050 & #00-051 Shamrock Development is requesting rezoning from PUD 9-93 to R-l and a preliminary plat to be known as The Wilds 5th Addition. D. Case #00-002 & #00-003 David Bell & Freedom Development & Consulting are requesting an amendment to the approved plan for the Priorwood Planned Unit Development (PUD 82-12) and for a preliminary plat to be known as Creekside Estates for the property located at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: ...L:\OOfIL~\OOPI,COIj'IM\OOP~OPN\4.Q071000 DOl= 16200 eagle creek Ave. :J.e., J-'rior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 I\N EQUAL OPPORn;NITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000 1. Call to Order: The June 26, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Cramer at 6:34 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego and V onhof, Planning Director Don Rye and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Criego Cramer Atwood Stamson Present Present Absent Present Absent 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the June 12,2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. Vice Chair Vonhofread the public hearing statement and opened the first meeting. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case File #00-040 Consider a proposed Amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan for the property located in Section 22, Township 115, Range 22. Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated June 26, 2000, on file in the office of the City Planner. Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church has filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located on the north side of CSAH 42 and east and west of McKenna Road, about 1/8 mile west of CSAH 21. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current C-BO (Business Office Park) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation on approximately 20 acres of land. This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural) and is designated as C-BO (Business Office Park) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. At this time, the applicant is considering developing this property in conjunction with the property to the west, which is designated as R-HD (High Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. In order to ensure the designation and zoning of this property is consistent with the adjacent property, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN062600.DOC I Planning Commission Minutes June 26. 2000 Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment is approved, the applicant will file an application for a rezoning on this site. Staff recommended approval of the amendment. The proposed R-HD designation is consistent with the stated goals and objectives in that it offers a variety of housing and it provides open space and the preservation of the natural elements of the site. Furthermore, the designation is consistent with the City's Livable Community Goal to p~~yi4.e affordable and life-cycle housing.dd .. Atwood questioned the high density to the east with the business ()ft1Eepl1.\" Rye explained the Comprehensive Plan Map and the subject site. ddd Comments from the public: .......... ... .......... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... ...... ...... . ...... .. ."... ... ...... .... Shepherd ofthe Lake Lutheran Church, Senior Past9F~~tve HaS99!$, introduced .d Shepherd's Path Development Chief Financial OffiEef~twit ~iUUwp and Steve Erickson with BWBR Architects. Mr. Erickson pointed Btl:t:~#:staffh~port was consistent with all the discussions of the applicant and City :.:%nH:primary reason for the request is based on the functions envisioq:~qf9rthe site. He fdf~n~y.:JYere more consistent with the high density residentia;lpse~;::::::Iitif](SOn explaiqi~lhe concept project. The first phase would be a worship facilitY>The.:6t~l$gmponynts:.would be elderly housing, perhaps a social recreational area afiqre!reai ceht~ti::::yhey intend to use the DNR wetland as a focus for t9rI.?r9perty wher'!p1e buildings\vould surround the wetland area. The first phase (chuIgJ.i:taCiH~x~would st~:in approximately one year. ...... ....... ..... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ...... ..... ... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... ...... ............. Criego commented 9P::tl~ parking~ttd the elderly.:~6using. ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ........... ..... ................ ..... .....................- ...... ........................... ...... ...................................... .......................... .... 0" ... ...... .... ... ..... ...... ..... .......... .......................................... Pastor Haschig explained:W!~::ppt1on\V8tttdlM:to sell the present site and move everything oY~rJ9Jpe new prqp%ty or maintain the two sites. Those decisions would be :::~~~~;~~~~:=.g)lths b>Pll'iffiifkrwegation. September of 2002 would be the Ecl8~1~n..distributed th~~!'cePt ~;~chures to the Commissioners. Paul Obetg~.~lw executq;:6fthe estate of Robert Jeffers, stated he supported staffs recommend~at9nen9::~6ped to develop their land in a complementary way to Shepherd of the Lake. Bill Rudnicki, Tribal Administrator for the Shakopee Sioux Community, stated they will oppose the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. One concern is for spot zoning. It was their understanding County Road 21 will develop to the north. Under the current zoning, the area has a business office designation. This area is a major intersection and it is important to retain the present zoning designation. Their other concern is with the realignment of McKenna Road that currently serves their residential area with 60 homes. Rudnicki said there has been a visible increase of traffic and speed. He also felt he City of Prior Lake needs more businesses. 1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn062600.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 Atwood questioned Rudnicki and staff on the traffic on County Roads 42 and 21. Rye explained the County's plan for rerouting and connecting the roads to County Road 18. County Road 42 will be upgraded from McKenna Road to the west. Rye also commented on the rolling topography. Atwood:.:::. . Agreed with Criego on the assets for th~.28-miij~1,t~~K . Does not jeopardize future business offiq~conw.getat.!9.9~{> . Supported amendment. ........... .. The hearing closed at 7:06 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: . Did not oppose the use of the property. . Understood the issues with County Road 21. from the road and the proposed housing. . There is plenty of acreage left to the south of . This project will add to the community. . Agreed with staff s recommendation. ................................... -......... : on=~ar:i:~i:~~~;~~;;l~9t!!~Y~elJj! There is a far better site to the east for a business park...:::.,...<<................ . County R?~.4.~~ will bea:::mejor intersection when completed. : ~~~g~::~!!_;~ arif~\\{l1~;9rdinance at this time. .. ...... ... ... '.. ...... ........" ....... ........ ........ ........ ......... ........ .......... ........ M01!~~~ BY CRIEGO,~rgCOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF T~~QMPREHEN$~VE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION. .......... ..... .........., ...... ........... ...... ........... ..... ........... ..... ........... ...... ........... ...... ........... ...... ........... ...... ........... ...... ........... ...... ..........- ..... ........... ..... Vote taken rfi4~G~te4~yes by all. MOTION CARRIED. .........., ...... ........... ...... ................. This matter sho:q:ld go to the City Council on July 17 or August 7, 2000. B. Case File #00-046 Consider an Amendment to Section 1101.501 ofthe Zoning Ordinance relating to the combination of nonconforming lots divided by a private street but under single ownership. Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated June 26, 2000, on file in the office of the City Planner. 1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin \mn062600.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 16. 1000 The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the treatment of nonconforming lots under common ownership but divided by a private road. The staff brought this issue to the Planning Commission as a result of a request for a garage permit by a property owner of two such lots, where the house sits on one lot, and the garage sits on the other. There are a number of areas in the City, especially in older subdivisions, w~ere this is a common occurrence. Staff felt the proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purp.gf.tFi:ifffie Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan to limit or reduce the number.J;!:rinonconforming lots. It also provides property owners the option of utilizing bot~:9:~HCdn:tg9Ping lots. Comments from the public: . . . . . . . . . . ........ ..... ......... ..... ........... .... ............ .... .......,.... ............... .................. ..............<............... ................ ........ ...~ .......... .. ........ ".. .......... ... .......", .......... .... ....... .......... ..... ....... ........... ...... ....... .................. ...... ................. ...... ................ Jennifer Barncart said she will be closing on the lot in 9P,estion.;:Ms. Barncart quesl.'9rt'ed if the original development was intended for garage~!Jgy'e expiiiWtd the developIri~ht was platted in the 1920's and the lots were probab1Yirit~9yd fqr:Jik.~;:~abins. The private streets also include walkways down to the common watem9nt,~area.13ack then, there were no controls on subdividing land in terms of lot size. .......... . .......... . .......... ... .......... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... ..... .................. ................. Criego questioned Barncart on the garagetBFlqB~n9H~ She respoql,ij(fit was on the street side, not on the lake. . .... ... Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood. ..:{{::::., }}} \:}:::.:.:::{> . Questioned the mj:'f~t~ vs. pubJ~proads whicijalvide properties. .......... ............................. .......... ........................ .......... .................. .......... ............. .......... ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criego: HH.:.::.. . QuestiorW9.::iffuy.re are h6tq~~on the adjacent lots? Could there be a devaluation or ~4f61l~~~~~~~~~1,d~:!~llj:was set between homes? Barncart said there is an .::::J~BRcern for a blanke'efdinariCe like this. It could be a problem for the neighbors. .::' Qij,I~t!pned the lot sii~i~:i~ Rye said approximately 50 foot wide by 75 foot deep. . Agie"i:>>;jth the example but not a city wide ordinance. . AnothetiCQ>>.cern i~Uie deed restrictions and combining lots. ........... ...... ........... ...... .......... ...... ........... ...... ........... ...... ........... ...... ........... ...... ........... ...... ........... ...... .......... ...... .......... ...... V onhof:?:) . If this is allowed, the lot should be combined. There has only been one time when the Commission allowed a lot across a public roadway to be considered with impervious surface. . Ifthis is allowed, it has to be looked at legally as one lot and tied together forever. . No problem with it, but it may need a condition subject to working with contiguous lots and be in character with the neighborhood. There should be requirements. . Private or public streets are not that significant in a residential area. Many of the private streets are almost built to public standards. 1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn062600 .doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 · Change to include "public or private residential streets". Then you eliminate the possibility of collectors and above that qualify. Criego: · Agreed if there is verbiage to fit into the community. Does not want to leave it open- ended where you can put a garage in-between homes. . ........... ................. Rye commented there could be general language then clarify with exaIll,vJek.q Jennifer Bamcart explained the neighborhood layout.<< ...... ....... ..... ...... ...... ..... ...... ....... ..... ............ ............. .......... ,", ...... ...... ..... ... ............ ............ ........... .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... '.... ............ ...... ...... ........... ...... ..... .......... ...... ..... .......... ...... ..... ......... The Commissioner~#I~~ there.~~~uld be langYJge where a person may apply for a garage in a certain situaUqn~~pj.~tt@Q8RP9tmgfi~t ,,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.;, ...-:-:-:.:.... ............. ....... .............. ....... V6tJ::l~~~p indicated aye~>>y all. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: There should be another downtown redevelopment workshop tentatively set for July 10, 2000. The Planner position currently held by Jenni Tovar will not be replaced. I :\OOfi les\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn062600.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 26. 2000 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn062600 .doc 6 .0 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 4A CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO MINIMUM STRUCTURE SEPARATION FOR ANDREW A. & RENEE M. SIEBENALER - Case File #00-048 3842 PERSHING STREET SW STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR _X_ YES NO JULY 10, 2000 The Planning Department received a variance application on June 9, 2000, from Andrew & Renee Siebenaler proposing to construct a deck attached to an existing single family home. The proposed deck dimensions are 8 ft x 58 ft + 12 ft x 14 ft, and totals 632 square feet in area. The applicants have submitted a copy of the certificate of survey (Exhibit A Survey Lot 36) with the proposed structure, and a personal letter to address their reasons for the variance request (Exhibit B). The following variance is being requested: · A 6.66 foot variance to permit an 8.34 foot structure separation instead of the required minimum 15 foot separation between structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot. DISCUSSION: Lot 36, Green Heights, was platted in 1927 and is located within the R-1 District (low density residential) and the Shoreland District (SO). The lot is substandard with a dimension width of fifty five (55) feet. Zoning Ordinance 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8) allows for a sideyard setback of not less than five (5) feet for a nonconforming lot of record if the following criteria are met: a) The sum of the side yards on the nonconforming lot is at least 15 feet; b) No yard encroachments are located within 5 feet of an adjoining lot; c) A minimum separation of 15 feet is maintained between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot. L:\OOFILES\OOVAR\OO-048\OO-048PC.DOC Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTU'iITY C.'PLOYE:R o. As proposed the deck has a 5.71 foot side yard setback and would be considered compliant with the ordinance allowing a minimum 5 foot setback for substandard lots. However, the adjoining Lot 35 has a deck structure that is less than 5 feet to the property line and will be separated by 8.34 feet to the closest point of the applicant's future deck. The applicants are requesting a variance of 6.66 feet to permit the 8.34 foot building separation along the east property line. The adjacent property owners at 3852 Pershing Street (Lot 35) applied for and were granted setback variances for an addition on July 12, 1999, per Resolution #99-016 and Exhibit A Survey dated June 16, 1999 [Exhibit C Survey Lot 35]. The approved variance permitted a side yard setback of 5.82 feet for the new addition along their common property line. When the addition was constructed a deck landing and stairs were placed into the required setback area. This was done in violation of the granted variance resolution, as depicted on the approved certificate of survey [Exhibit A]. In addition, the deck is in violation of City Ordinance Subsection 1101.502: Required Yards/Open Space (8) Nonconforming lots may have side yards of not less than 5 feet. Therefore, the need for a variance in this case was created because of the proximity of the neighbors illegal deck structure. The City has notified the owners of Lot 35 they are in violation of the City Code and we required the deck stairs and landing to be removed on or before June 19, 2000. As of June 30, 2000, the stairs and landing remain. Proposed Requirement to Variance Conditions be Buildable Requested (as a substandard lot) Area 8,093 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. N/A (above 904 ell Lot Width 55 feet 50 feet N/A (measured at setback) Side Yard Setbacks East 05.71 feet 5 feet N/A West 13.20 feet 1 0 feet N/A Sum 18.91 feet 15 feet N/A Separation 08.34 feet 15 feet 6.66 feet VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-048\OO-048PC. DOC Page 2 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. This criteria addresses the lot shape and dimensions and their relation to practical difficulties or undue hardship placed upon the owner for use in a manner customary and permissible. A 55 foot lot is considered substandard and the proposed deck would be compliant ,as is, had the adjacent property owners had not encroached with their deck addition into the minimum 5 foot setback from the side yard line. The setback variance requested along the east property line can be eliminated by downsizing the proposed addition. 2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located. The unique circumstance is the existing structure recently built in violation of City Ordinance and a Variance Resolution prohibits the construction of a the proposed deck without a variance. 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. The proposed deck addition setback is a hardship brought on by a change in the zoning code and not the result of the applicant's actions 4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. The granting of the deck addition separation variance is not contrary to the public interest. 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. Established property values should not be diminished in the surrounding area. The health safety, and comfort should not be impaired with the granting of this variance. 6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-048\OO-048PC. DOC Page 3 ---~--~_._---_. - --- - --- -- - The granting of the proposed Variance to the required building separation does not appear contrary to the intent of the Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. In relation to the structure's position on the lot a variance for the deck addition appears to be a hardship. 8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the property. The hardship, with respect to the building separation variance results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance and the recently constructed deck structure on the adjacent property and not the actions of the current property owner and how the structure was placed at the time of construction. 9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. Economic hardship or construction costs do not appear to apply in this case. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded the requested variance for a building separation of less than 15' between the deck additions along the adjoining east property line meets the above hardship criteria. This provides for a minimum building setback along the east property line of 5.71 and a variance of 6.66 feet to permit a building separation of 8.34 feet instead of the required 15 feet per City Ord. 1101.502(8). Approval of a variance should not be subject to the conditions created by an adjacent property owner in violation of City Ordinance and an approved Variance. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variance requested by the applicant, or any variance the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-048\OO-048PC.DOC Page 4 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. ACTION REQUIRED: Staff recommends Alternative #1. A motion and second adopting the attached Resolution #OO-08PC approving a 6.66 foot variance to permit an 8.34 foot structure separation instead of the required minimum 15 foot separation between structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot. L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-048\OO-048PC. DOC Page 5 RESOLUTION 00-08PC A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 6.66 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN 8.34 FOOT STRUCTURE SEPARATION INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 15 FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN STRUCTURES ON THE NONCONFORMING LOT AND ON THE ADJOINING LOT BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Andrew A. & Renee M. Siebenaler has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an attached deck to an existing single family dwelling located in the R-1 District (low density residential) and Shoreland District (SD) at 3842 Pershing Street SW, and legally described as follows: Lot 36, Green Heights, Scott County, MN 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #00-048PC and held hearings thereon on July 10, 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 the existing structures location on the subject property in relation to an adjoining lots structure location 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 platted lot of record is substandard in width and the proximatey of an adjoining lots structure creates a hardship with respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. 6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the minimum lot width required today and the platted lot of record. Reasonable use of the property does not exist without the 1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-048\appres.doc 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQh\L OPPORTL'c,ITY Ei>-IPLOYER granting of the vanance to permit a deck addition to an existing 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 #00-048PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following variance for the proposed structure as shown in Exhibit A: 1. A 6.66 foot variance to permit an 8.34 foot structure separation instead of the required minimum 15 foot separation between structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot. The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed structure: 1. Final deck plans to be submitted and approved to meet all other city ordinances and regulations, including hardcover surface area no greater than 30 % of lot area. 2. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning Department within 60 days. The resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning Department. 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 July 10, 2000. Mark Cramer, Chair ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director I: \OOti les\OOvar\OO-048\appres.doc 2 Building Permit Survey for: ANDY & RENEE SIEBENALER ~ ~ 0 ~-- \"\ \~\ i' \ -- --- 37 "Tizii" 0'1 " .q. ". 4> ,....... i..!~:~9". \..0 ~~"f~. ) 55.00 ";0 S1Rr- 'Co PERSI-I1NG ~--- ---- t 1 Scale: 1 inch = 30 feel . Denotes Iron Mor.ument Found LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot J6, GREEN HEIGHTS. according to lhe recorded pIal thereof. Scoff County. Minnesola. Area = 8.09J square feet (0.186 acre). 35 34 EXISTING HOUSE ~ / EXISTING ~ / ~ OECK ~ ~ % ~ ~. , , ~ % , , " \ ~ ~ v- I .-rI-lWESl v- SOUl ----- EXHIBIT A I hereby certify lhol this is 0 lrue and correct representation of 0 survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the '"cation of a proposed deck, Doled lhis 12lh day of May. 2000. REHDER & ASSOCIATES. INC. Rehder and CMt (NGINEERS ""0 l-"'O SURVEYORS 34"0 ,,",...01 Drk . sun. 240 . hfOtto "''"''"0111 . Pho"_ (&.51) 452-.50.5' JOB: 004-1370.010 EXHIBIT B Hardship for approval of Variance The lots in the Green Heights housing addition are substandard. Any improvements made to our property are done to enhance the appearance to the community and for our enjoyment. In August of 1999 our neighbors started construction on their home to have additional living space and a garage. We have been without access to the main level of our home since August 1999. We had to remove the deck that served as the main entrance to our home when we changed the grade of our land to accommodate the construction of our neighbors and get maximum usage of our land. Our driveways were paved and connected at the property line and had a steep grade. In order for our property to be of use we had to remove our paved driveway and bring the land to the same grade of our neighbors. If we did not choose this option there would have been at least a 6ft high retaining wall between the property which for safety reasons was not desirable. The connected property was reduced to the same grade. In order to save and protect the trees in our back yard we had to construct a retaining wall to support the area around the trees. That limits our access to our back yard on that side of the house. We had a deck ground level that was attached to the back of the home, .which was removed in August 1999 because it was old and needed replacement. The proposed deck would regain access to our main level, regain access to our back yard and regain enjoyment of the deck area that was in back of the home. Our goal has been to work with our neighbors to get the maximum usage and enjoyment of our properties and the only way we can regain total usage is for the variance to be granted that will allow us to construct the appropriate deck needed to accomplish our goal.~ ~ Building Permit Survey for: BRAD AND MICHELE (EXHIBIT A c,/i7/~ ') ~ ~LA1) ~.~~\< r {5!)r2~ 1 5 ", 55. \ ~ 10 ~ "'.0 J 35 -l \~~\ .' 10.00 ~ o ~ 952.8 '" . ~! """""\ i /'.@ : '''If 36 CX) C"-I 947.9 d · to ..- ~\ ~ "S::;a- ~ EX'STING~ HOUSE ~ 950.J4 - FLoon " \. \ --- -- t '-" PERSHING '-" --- N ---- I Scale: 1 inch 30 feel ~ c:(, c:Y. ;-h; ~ t ~ / LE/N ~ o ----- 34 \ \ jlOL ---- .' SOUTHWEST t:. ---- EXHIBIT C LEGAL OESCRIPTlON I hereby certify that this is 0 true and correct representation of 0 survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the lacalion of o proposed house. Lot 35, GREEN HEIGHTS. according to the recorded plot thereof, Scott County. Minnesota. Doted this 4th day of May, 1999. REHDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~~//./~-- Alvin R. Rehder, Land Surveyor Minnesota Registrotion No. 13295 Revised May 25, 1999 Revised June 10, 1999 Revised June 16. 1999 Rehder and Associates. Inc. CMl ENGINEERS AND ~NO SUnvnORS Goroge Floor [Ievolion = 912.00 First Floor Addition Elevolion = 950.J.1 Basement Floor Elevation = 912.00 Area 8,311 square feet (0,191 acre). JHO redrt'oI ~ . Suo,. 240 . (CP?"". """""0111 . P'hG". (851' "'2-S051 JOB: 991-1139.011 350' Radius Miller Variance #00-049 ....i~..~___ /~ .,'.z.r I '~-ij;tffllltL[; ~WAm=&~~~ ~.--< . ..' .' '\~ ';y]. N -~I~~. ~~ ~ ...-1 E' , ' ~ " ,," I" " ~ ')' , ' , , . J 'I ,~n tJrl ' .....-1 ~ '"'"" : · · · 1: :\'. t '. ,,,,. - --;t::' .... U -..:...... ..:-. . . . I " " 1 : , .1.. _ J.---"" l~ , ~,~~ -D~":' ,# ,6' '5 , \ r-' ~ - . LoS 29 Q ~ l ~o;;"'" ~<;, Sl -:- :;::" '-;R" " " " "\ , " K ' M N Q 'l " ~, , , . , , , _ 1\.J" ..J., 0 '" " 0', sl-I" " " 0 ~ "" ~ MAV ". s " " - RRSTAOONTO 17 2 10 ,,3 'i 4 4 13' 7 2 ~ 14 tl 36 2 L.-- \" ~~,,, ~' , \J " ;l ~~ ~ r ~ 1 , '~~ . 'T ; . r----: ~ ~ " ~ t- CLA'lTPNf' ~ r- PrU/.,Jt:::ILV Location .l':""'. 1ST "IN 1J.. ~ ,- ~ ,",' '...J "i I ARST / I / ./ ~ I ',I, ~ ~ . Jlf-,.; ':;;. r.c.J II] . , '. " . I . I ~ ":.~~. ~(( I;:' . 1}.' ~ - '" " '< .~~\~~. . '~~.. (-...-\"~~. 'f~' \.' ~~ ~ =A ~ 1 h ~ ~'i" '0' ~ "", ~ ." IY' /" ~~~, ;, .~~' ~., '\ ~];, / ~ b \ . . · 0~ .~/ /'\ .,>. / ~ N 700 I o 700 Fe I AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 4B CONSIDER A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW VEHICULAR ACCESS BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIRED ELEVATION OF 907.9 FEET, 2 FEET BELOW THE REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION OF 909.9 FEET, Case File #00-049 ALVIN E. MILLER 15276 FLINT ROAD SE STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR _X_ YES NO JULY 10, 2000 The Planning Department received a variance application from Alvin Miller for the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage. The following variance is being requested: 1. A variance of 4.9 feet to permit a vehicular access to be 903.0 feet rather than the required 907.9 feet, 2 feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) of 909.9 feet [City Code Subsection 1105.203]. DISCUSSION: Lot 12, and part of Lot 13, Maves 1 st Lake Addition were platted in 1952 [Exhibit A Survey]. The subject lot is located within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and the Shoreland District (SO). The property is riparian with 22,459 square feet of area above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of 904 feet. The lots dimensions average 110 feet wide by 219 feet deep. The proposed structure's tota/lmpervious surface area is 6,651 square feet (house 3,823 sq.ft. + driveway 2,252 sq.ft. + stoop 116 sq.ft. + patio 460 sq.ft.), and equals 29.6% hardcover of the total lot area (6,651/22,459). 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 A.\ EQUilL OPPORTUNITY E;VIPLOYER ------------- --- The proposed lakeside setback from the 904 ft. ordinary high water mark is 52 feet, measured to the structure's eaves/overhangs. This setback was determined by averaging the setbacks for the deck on lot 11 (88 ft), and the deck on lot 14 (15 ft) for a setback average of 51.5 feet (88' + 15' = 103"/2 = 51.5'), as permitted by Shoreland Ordinance Subsection 1104.308 (2) Setback Requirements For Residential Structures. The front yard setback is 52.68 feet, and side yards are 12.04 feet and 15.41 feet. The longest building wall is 76 feet and requires a minimum setback of 14.33 feet (76' - 50' = 26' x 2" = 52"/12" = 4.33' + 10" = 14.33'), as required under Subsection 1102.405(6): Dimensional Standards. The proposed lowest floor elevation for the main level is 910.6 feet with the garage floor drain at 909.9 feet. This meets the allowed minimum elevation of 909.9 feet as required under the Flood Plain Regulations Subsection 1105.203: Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. In addition, the applicant shall be required to submit certification by a registered engineer, architect or land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of Subsection 1105.802: Certification. Retaining walls on the north and south property lines will be constructed to maintain the minimum 908.9 foot surrounding grade elevation within 15 feet of the structure (or the nearest property line), as required by the Flood Plain Regulation subsection 1105.401 Permitted Uses. As proposed, the driveway slope will not exceed a 10% grade slope from the garage slab to the street curb, Ordinance Subsection 1107.205 Driveways. The proposed structure is an L shaped Ranch/Rambler with a slab on grade single floor level area of 3,823 square feet, and an attached three car garage of 994 square feet. The floor plan includes a foyer, great room with dining and kitchen area, owners bedroom, guest bedroom, study, 3 baths, porch, mud room and mechanical room [Exhibit B Building Plans]. The electrical easements per Document No. 206761 and Document No. 189142, as surveyed, currently intrudes into the proposed footprint of the house. The grantor, Minnesota Valley Electrical Cooperative shall be required to partially release the easement, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed structure [Exhibit C Easements]. The City Engineering Department has reviewed this Variance request and responded that Flint Road is a public roadway, raising the road would affect a lift station that is located acrosS the street from this property, and would require reconstructing neighboring driveways on this street. Patrick Lynch with the Department of Natural Resources has submitted written comments on this request [Exhibit 0 DNR letter]. In essence, the DNR believes in this particular case, because the entire length of road would need to be raised Page 2 L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-049\OO-049PCo DOC \ OJ ~ significantly, this would not be practical for the individual landowner. The DNR is not opposed to the requested variance with the recommendation that a plan be developed to address access to the property by the owner and emergency vehicles during times of flooding. Attachments to this report: Exhibits A, B, C, D. VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located. The public road elevation and vehicular access is a condition over which the applicant has no control. In addition, raising Flint Road will affect a sanitary lift station, reconstruction of neighboring driveways and may increase potential flooding on neighboring properties. 2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located. The property is an existing platted lot of record with a vehicular access elevation peculiar to this site and surrounding area. 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. As a platted lot of record the variance is necessary for the lot to be buildable and preserve a substantial property right of the owner. 4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. The granting of the requested variances will not impede these stated values nor endanger the public safety provided an emergency management plan is prepared. L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-049\OO-049PC. DOC Page 3 \ 5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area. The granting of the requested variance will not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood, or diminish property values or impair 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. As an existing platted lot of record the granting of the variance is not contrary to the intent of the Ordinances or the Comprehensive plan as long as all other Ordinances and conditions are met. 7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. Without the requested variance the lot is unbuildable for a single family residence. A hardship exists and the variance is required 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. The public road elevation is an existing condition and not a result of the 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. The existing conditions of the subject lot require the need for the requested variance, and financial considerations alone are not grounds for granting of the variances. RECOMMENDATION: The staff believes that all of the hardship criteria have been met with respect to the variance for a vehicular access elevation more than 2 feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation. In addition, staff recommends three conditions be met by the applicant prior to building permit approval and issuance for the subject lot: 1) Year round occupancy of the property be subject to L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-049\OO-049PC. DOC Page 4 submittal of an emergency management plan to be approved by the City Police Chief and Fire Chief; 2) All Resolutions adopted by the Commission shall be recorded and proof of recording be submitted, along with the City Assent Form, to the Planning Department; 3) The electrical easements (Document No. 206761 and Doc. No. 189142) that currently intrude into the proposed footprint of the house shall be partially released by the grantor, Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variance requested by the applicant, or approve any variance the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning ordinance criteria. In this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings denying the variance requests. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second adopting Resolution #00-009PC approving a Variance of 4.9 feet to permit a vehicular access elevation of 903.0 feet rather than 907.9 feet, as required to be not more than two feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation of 909.9 feet. L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-049\OO-049PC.DOC Page 5 RESOLUTION 00-009PC A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 4.9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A VEHICULAR ACCESS ELEVATION OF 903.0 FEET RATHER THAN 907.9 FEET AS REQUIRED TO BE NOT MORE THAN 2 FEET BELOW THE REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION OF 909.9 FEET BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Alvin E. Miller has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling located in the R-I District (low Density Residential) and Shoreland District (SD) at 15276 Flint Road SE, and legally described as follows: Lot 12, "Maves First Lake Addition" in Scott County, Minnesota, and The North 37.00 feet of Lot 13, "Maves First Lake Addition" in Scott County, Minnesota, and that part of Government Lots 1 and 2, Section 36, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the northwest comer of said Lot 13, thence westerly along the westerly extension of said Lot 13, to the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence southwesterly along said shoreline to the intersection with the westerly extension of the south line of the north 37.00 feet of said Lot 13; thence easterly along said westerly extension of the south line of the north 37.00 feet to the west line of said Lot 13; thence northerly along said west line to the point of beginning. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a Variance as contained in Case File #00-049PC and held hearings thereon on July 10, 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 the existing road elevations for access of the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the 1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-049\appres.doc I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 A'\ EQUAL OPPORn:"ITY E'vIPLO'rER 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 platted lot of record does not meet the current Ordinance for minimum vehicular access elevation in the Shoreland District. This situation creates an unbuildable lot and a hardship with respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. 6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the vehicular access elevation of the existing public road and the platted lot of record. Reasonable use of the property does not exist without the granting of the variance to permit the building of 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. 9. The contents of Planning Case File #00-,049PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following variance for the proposed structure as shown in Exhibit A: A 4.9 foot Variance to permit a vehicular access elevation of903.0 feet rather than 907.9 feet as required to be not more than 2 feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation of909.9 feet. The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed structure: 1. Year round occupancy of the property is subject to submittal of an emergency management plan to be approved by the City Police Chief and Fire Chief. 2. The electrical easements per Document No. 206761 and Document No. 189142 that currently intrude into the proposed house footprint, shall be partially released by the grantor, Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative, with proof of release submitted to the Planning Department. 3. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning Department within 60 days. The resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning Department. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant I: \OOfiles\OOvar\OO-049\appres.doc 2 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 July 10,2000. ATTEST: Mmk.Qamer, Chair ~rn V~ I Donald R. Rye, Planning Director I: \OOfi les\00var\00-049\appres.doc 3 --- . ----- t--- _ ~ ~ )~ .-1 ~ 4 K ., I '-, /'~ ... i" " "- " ~~ .. : . i ;.. (", (~ I) : ;.,. .... '.0 I' '\. U ~ In ~ ~ -' ..~ iD 'J ID IT> ;0 ::0 G. I (If ~ rr\ -1 OJ - "''1.71 ~ : /$"."1/ <.r ..~ :....-- . . .,~,", . .~.. I ~ \ ,. ~ \ : . , ", .... I!j ~J': ,.. <0 0 G" " ~ .C '"' 'M '" . <D ?: ~ en rr\ 0> ::0 /('[ . II f V . '--- /! V , 90 '8 / \ .c- (Ji!:./. f....... ~'/~ .-- <D~ -- ,j~; '\ -- .. .... ~.l '-J ..' .~ SH ~ "-' --~fNE: ,,, -- .;; ~ "'N I~.~.s ~o" .- 'p 'u ~'-) ~,~ ~('o -. "t'>. "'~_l:ilI " .~- '" 'l - - -r:-- '. . ,J -~ ,~ .).) I. n ,-'jLl. ., >_~ :s " '~- , " (i.' , ' ~!' ~. .J :') r.... o. f , e,:" \ ,-" '~~t r [lJ J L OJ , \. ------ // Of' (-, en V) Co '-.j ~ Co t\,) \J) 10 1--'--- , , . . '" ,V.{ ~ t; <: '" I ':' t. \ cD o m w !\ Jrlj) n , \ i ' ) ( ~ ; ~ :u" ~I 1 i~ 1 "11 ~ ~ :"-.J I\J -t>.. I <D o .~ ~j 1 t- ...., ~ Cl' c .; <D 8 '''', )..;. <D o 'J ... \ , "" r~ " ~,-~ " /V ..?..9 0 'l:,) JS~" '-, ),.,00__ "'\ ~ <D o '" " 0 7)'<;r C:y . J'..? -1 v". .... ... .... " Yo '\, '" "1Q ....~. >" ~"- ;' o " .......... ..u,u '"-=: u <( //V /' '. m >< J: - 1 . - " aI ceo () .- ~ -t t ~~ .t:,. )> I .~ ~ . ~ \ ~ '" I ~ I " <: <lQ ~ Co '-.j Q .... I\J .... 0) ~ n, \: II P 1m HII i 1111111 iii HI l'lllllillllllllll il~ I III !Ili II! I pi UI .. I h hip II ~ iI i I JUh I II t~11 ill U i j I ~ m I i I i I I 11< i i iln Ii i! ili II Ii II Pi ! I ~ I ! 1 ~ Id! II;~ Ii ii ! p- I p--.. : I ! I I 1..- m >< ~ - gJ - -I m fL -- tL_ j.r- r!J:: I I L-- ~r - I tt..._ ...r- I It.-- I 1 Lr- p--- .1.+- / It= 1 ll=" 11== I I I 1.. L.- I \ 1..- ~~t~ltt1l~::~!: ~ m ~~"~~~~~;!!om~ !!I m",~,,-<>..~g!~iil z d~;;~!::b~~55 c 55~~ ..e~;!~~ ~ ".. ~ m~z l!~~ ~i;j ili Cl ~H -<j!:i 811 z-i:::j Q'> ~ en ~g ~z m ~U) -',:s ~:I;;;:: a ;;;;;:;::: p . . ... . ># .. ..... 1111I iiniii~IU!I~IIIIIIHHH Ul 1 ~~a ~llhHJIH ~hl~ III ~ I l<liUP~ iU!hl H I! I IIII ~.. HUHI ;19- I j! Ii HUg I a.b cOo" Z'OO , - ,~ 1"""'" r:wtlf't $It Utlt ,,1... -'''n''I.. .r,..,...t_~..._......,.,.lr_ .~.I_. .... ttIM I ... .1, lleIhw.l ,,"'_1_1 MllttMt ...... IN '" of tM .w...t.,_t.. A1 ...-;-.:. 'j' ED . JANET SWADDEN RESIDENCE PRIOR LAKE. IIIH ..,,,.. ,STREETER & ASSOCIATES:, l;tHIS-SU9 " I I .JiM'" ....1.1_ -... 1P_1r l<:r Oirl'~'''''_ ~ ,-t... r~ i 1"t- - I r- fb I I I I f~= ., I €I I 1- p-- IF I @I I It:: ~ I , I ~ J Ir;~ I : I I I I It=--= ~, L--- l.r-- It:: ~ i \ I / \ , 19 \ '1 I \ I ri I H IL- \ +- - @ I I I / I "-r- I~ ..,..,. I ~=- tf" = 1.._- I 1.:- .l..r -., I Ilvtb, aertlfy t,..t t~l. ,1.., ...lfl~lh.. or'~", f~_H 1JJ: _ aI1' ....... ., dl,.t ......1.lOiJ. ... tIVt I _ . "1J -.hU"" ,....'...l_1..,.Qllllec;'t........tIM1_a'tlM Shuafllh__.. "-It... ""ltet ED & JANET SWADDEN RESIDENCE : PRIOR IN<E. WI 0,,,.... STREETER & ASSOCIATES: 1111-449-9UI '[ D.t.! '-.2,.00 , TiNSON A!lfCj.j,TECT. A.JA. .~. '3.~'" M OI'<<A&VO. ~V1!N.J"t.4M~ A2 OIIt.---"",,. h._ ~.,z,. ~ SJ;a::;r.. + i i i i i i ilj ui Ii i i i i i! i i i Ii i i i i i i i i i iii i i i i i i Ii i i i Ii i i i j i i i i i i i i i!!~; ~i l! i i i i i i i ni i i i i Ii! i II i . ~.q; p~ ~I r;.! I Will hlllU i1illll Ii il; illl UlllWjlllj; 1IIII,'111UlIIl!llllil I l!h!U ~ i I Iii ~i!! II"' j Ii l!H !ruJ I' U~I g qg UHaiiia !I~ h~ !~ e I I I ~ i I! I! P I - ~ i ~ U =i I ! ~ i n ~ q ;; 0 Ii ;1 i 'c W; D!~ H ~ ! I md ~ ! !~ qi "3 ~ ~ ~ - ~a~ j 3 j I~ gj i a " : !iHHHUPln i iJIHH~! i! ~l ls'~~ '3 ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ 1 j b !~ i ~ ! 5 !~ i ~ 2'; ( t i ~ i , <<Q~ ! : '.~. 2~:a .~;"4~. I:i'-O- a:'.,- 7:". "''5:'~. = d:: i:i j i i . . . ia i I i ~ i I I :!PP ! ~'rl '.1'Q ~~ ljil i~~~ ~~i H !~ !HI H m! iJi~i m~ !~PJlI I " , I . !L~j~~~~ I"" - .fl ill ~H. )-:B w" ~! I~~ 'lra 'I ~ 'g:;: j>Sllli i ~~(~~a iil :1;.(;. ~"'l'~ g'.i' i' h ~.Pi .. ~ "II~;':':J~ ."~:!~!~. J ." l..l~ :~i! ~'I ~f; 1!~~'i; "] ~ . 3i" 'l 11 111'11 ,I! ~'i! ~; , I .'" I '. . :~e 3i:llJ ~ i. ~~. ~ :~ ,Ii! ldl~a ~Ipl !f'1' ~3H! :; J ! 3FJ ~ .~ l~ l' 3. 3' '" J . .1 ~l I i . ~ J ~ . tPI3 IPil ~~ i in ii i ; :i -I j ~ i ~ '~'ll ;; I i. U ,l ,l .al~ ~~~ .: :~~ ~ nj l~ H . 1 ~ ~ ~~~ ~ JiI ,.1 3 ii a ' .,~ ~- 3 ~H : 12 !J . . . , _ l' i I I r~ ~ '-'1 ,"" ffi ie; \VZ '0 !;J Ii) ir !)- IZ i~ ,.. 1-;. c, ;()'- ~- I A3 ""'Jct. ED" JANET SWADDEN RESIDENCE PRIOR LAKE. MN .."... STREETER & ASSOCIATES 01'_"" 1.::# _~s R. STIN~ON ARCo.li TEeT. AJA .:2-A~].~] I ~"'"'" ~.....,r, tJI,ot t"lI ~1... _,'I~\l..... ........, ...."........\I'.ar "",,,w .,dl'Kt ._..hl.........tlo...IM..,.I,....l!Jt.'... ....._,.....' ".dlll_t....... 1M I...~' ~,.. SlIt.IIM_Mn. 1lIIt. .. 2.00 o I- - m - :c >< w I 7:;9/'1 -Z PARTIAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT , , (FORM 1B) KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPER- A 11 VE (hereafter called "Grantor"), an incorporated cooperative association under the laws of the State of Minnesota, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is here- hy acknowledged, hereby releases the following described land located in Scott County, Minnesota, to wit: All of Lot 12, Maves First lake Addition tt/f~& EXCEPT The Southerly 10 feet of the Easterly 70 feet parallel and adjoining the Southerly line of said Lot 12 and also the East 10 teet parallel and adjoining Flint Road. from that certain easement executed on January 14th , 19 38 by lid's. Matilda Anderson, a widow to Grantor, record in the office oC the Register oC Deeds Cor July 19th ,19 39 as Document No. eleven of Misc. its successors and assigns and filed for Scott County on and recorded in Book , on page 620- ~ As to the lands herein excepted, ~l .rights acquired by the Grantor by said easement herein described dated January '14th " 19 38 are hereby expressly retained and '. rcserved to the Grantor, its successors and'aRsigns. As to the lal}d hereby released, the Grantor hereby reserves to itself, its Successors and assigns, the ~ght to cut down or trim any trees or shrubbery located thereon that may Inter- fere with or threaten to endanger Grantor's electric facUities, and the Grantor further re- Dor.,OR to iLoclf, ito cnAUODjl:UZlU..O a.u.c1 oco"'{s-_. 4.s... -lei,," <J~ ......__....__1.1"" intr'J"'DQQ ann ~srrP~R f...^"",\ its easement (being the land herein excepted) over and across the lands hereby released by the most convenient route which will cause the least possible interference or inconvenience to the owner or occupant. Jordan , Minnesota, this 14th day of October " By Ad mUlJ . A.;s'1" .,,) ss. COUNTY OF SCOTT ) On this 14th day of October ,19 82 before me a No- tary Public, within and for Scott County, personally appeared Donald Fradenburgh to me personally known, who, being duly sworn did say that he is the General Manager of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument and that the seal :;,ffixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation and that said instru- ment was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Direc- tors and said" .....Acbic.n. Asst. acknowledged said instrument to be the free .et..~.?",:~~;~ said co'PO"tlon. ~ ~ /-II ..J . . . Nol,,> p",;12~v'/r.': This Instrul11ennvasdarfted by: E~--" f/)ar!l( j. t!JIolf- l\IlNNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERA TIVE /~. .~..~ NO'AIY fUlllC-_A ~ SCOtT COUNTY ,TORDAN, MINNESOTA 55352 My commi..ion ..pires Aug. 22,1986 \\'. O. /' , \ .\l'Ct. ~o. 12-36-72-16A - -~~~; , /". . "., !" Zt?~1&l PARTIAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT (l-'on~1 ID) . - ~'., .:, . . .. -' . - . ~ . ::r'.'!~' .~~~~;~. ~: ~-~":"/;\:}~"\,:~~~f~~:~~~::.'-(~-t.'~_' .7, "\; .~~~~ ;;-t~fF~';'{,'. . K~OW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT5:"iliat'lrniNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPER- A TI VE (he!"Cafter called "Grantor''), an Incorporated cooperative association under the laws or the State or Minnesota, for good and valuable consideration, the' receIpt or which Is here- by acknowledged, hereby releases the following descrlb~ land located In S eo t t County, )flnnesota, to wit: .' ' See the back hereof. ;[iJ7f from that certAin eaum~~ oxocuted on January 14 , 19 38 by ". \ , I d. "". u, ." to O..."tOI'. Ita aut'",aaora and ....IIl". and r1\nl rO\- f-H'l'It,I tl\ \t,' .. nnt~", \\t ,,,,, n"tJ'.\'t':. "11>\'\""~, _..~ h- H.. r~ e" ."l'l\\\"'~' '\1\ ' ',' .. illllt l ~ I' .n. .....A" "''''''''11\'1 ........ ~".\._~_ III .\t~I\n\\ll\ '" \\\\I'~ ~ 01 M I a,~.1 h hll{lIla . un I~llll" (. ;w , Aa 10 I~ landa ht'~ln except..-d, all rl,hta acquired by the Grantor b)' said easement herc:ln de.crlbed dlll'od J~nuary 110 , 19 38 are hereby expressly retAined and re.erv'..~rto Ihe Cr&nlOr, ua suceeSMlra and ...Ips, As 10 the land hereby released, the Cranler hereby reserves to Itself, Its successors and al&lKn., the rlsht 10 cut do"'" or trim an)' trees or shrubbery located thereon that may Inter- f.:re wllh or threaten to cmdanaer Cnnler's electric: racllltles, and the Crantor further rc- aenoes 10 ItseU, Us successora and ..sips, the rlpt or reasonable Ingress and egress from lIS euemcnt (be InK the land herein .rxeeptC!d) over and across the landa hereby released by Ihe mOlt convenient route wblch wltl causct the least po.slble Interferenco or Inconvenience tll the owner or occupant, Dated al 19_~~ ~I: Jordan )lInnt'Mlla, this 10th da)' of Deeember In the presence of:'. ~tt;~ ;~/-/ ~, ~l~-\.- .J .,' V ( , : . .t..........t!.. ~ 1-,t ,,/.k1 (Col1)()rau: Seal)/ )n~SESOTA VALLEY ELECTJUC COOPERATIVE ~(e7~// By A _g. "/ ~~-r-..~~.<_ Ita AdDlnllUUln Aullt t STATE Ot' ~IISSESOTA) )11, COUST\' OF SCOTT ) (lnthll' 10t1l day or Dec..hl' .11~b...lon:m"aSlI- \n~' l'u\)hc, w\\b\n a"" tur lluH CWI\\)', ,..'MmaU)' ""1M"'" Do n a 1 cS C, FracSenb\lUh \0 me ~nonaU)' knoWD, .-bo, belna dul)' ..'Om did sa)' thAt hc 'S the G...neral ManllKcr or the ~rporaUon named In \he rOl'l!&olnllnatrumc.-nt and that the 'h,oal lofflxt'd to >>aId lnetrument 'a the corporate seal or said corporation and that said Inatru- menl W:l1I slgn&.-d and scaled In behAlr of said corporation b)' aUlhorlt)' of Its BCIII ",f Dln.oc- tors and aald AdalDlatraU.e A.shUnt.. -__ acknowledg Id In t m. t b... th&.' (r...... act and d&.'t'd of said corporation, This Instrument was dr.led by: ~Il:'\='E~OT"\ "Al.l.EY ELECTRIC COOPERAll\'E ,I(IIWA=', )I\:\:'\E~(ITA 53:}:>:? @ !An,: j. a..g_ I ~-f.t, 00'''' -.c: --" ',R" ~o" couo<!y M, (~;.a.of'I ...... A.4 21. 19M , .JI,__~ I,'. " n~ ~ ~ r=; 0 \I.n r=:J ~ l lil"11LS \::7 Ls V 1.5 Ii"\' Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ~\~I. _ '.:1/11 h ~ JlJL 5mJ ill! Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 551 i 793 !i U , Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-1 ----.1 f June 30, 2000 EXHIBIT 0 Mr. Steve Horsman Zoning Administrator City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 RE: Variance Application #00-049, Alvin Miller, 15276 Flint Road, Prior Lake Dear Mr. Horsman: I have reviewed the information sent to me relative to the subject zoning matter, and offer the following comments on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: As I understand it, the variance being requested is for vehicular access on a public road at an elevation lower than one foot below the 100-year flood elevation. I assume the setback and impervious surface coverage are in compliance with the provisions of the city's shore1and ordinance. Flint Road at this location is actually below the ordinary high water elevation (904') of Prior Lake. To comply with the required access elevation, the entire length of road would need to be raised significantly. This would not be practical for the individual landowner. As such, DNR is not opposed to the issuance of the variance requested. I do recommend, however, a plan be developed to address access to the property by the owner and emergency vehicles during times of flooding, as the road would be inundated by approximately seven feet during the computed 100-year flood level. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the variance application. If you have any questions, please call me at 651-772-7917. ~~:f Patrick J. Lync~ Area Hydrologist -) DNR Information: 651-296-6157 . 1-888-646-6367 . TrY: 651-296-5484 . 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste PLANNING REPORT SITE: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4C CONSIDER ZONING CHANGE FROM PUD TO R-l, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR "WILDS 5TH ADDITION" COUNTY ROAD 82 AND WILDS P ARKW A Y DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR _X_ YES _NO-N/A JUL Y 10, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: Shamrock Development has applied for a zone change and a preliminary plat for property located on the north side of County Road 82 and west of Wilds Parkway. A portion of the property is currently in the Wilds PUD. The remainder is a large single family lot which is zoned R-l. The applicant is requesting that the zoning on the parcel in the Wilds be changed from PUD to R-1 Low Density Residential. They are also seeking approval of a preliminary plat consisting of 39 lots. BACKGROUND: The site consists of 18+ acres, part of which is presently in the Wilds PUD. This property is also being considered as part of an amendment to the Wilds PUD under a separate application submitted by Wensman Homes. This application will be considered at the July 24 Planning Commission meeting. PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Total site area The total site area is 18.4885 acres. The net site area (total area less wetlands and ROW) is 12.7303 acres. Topoeraphy The site has varied topography with elevations ranging from 972" MSL in the southeast comer of the site to 938"MSL on the northern end of the site. Drainage is predominantly toward the wetland in the west-central portion of the site. There are no slopes on the site greater than 20%. V eeetation PC71000.DOC 16200 IDIgle Creek Ave. S.L, Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-424,5 .".N EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E!:1PLOYER This site is composed of two parcels. One is currently an Outlot in The Wilds and the other is a large lot, single family home site. The property in the Wilds was rough-graded and there are no significant trees on that portion of the site. The homesite has some trees on that part of the site. The developers application states there are no significant trees on the site but this will need to be verified. Wetlands There are two wetlands on the site with a total area of 1.10 acres. One is located in the center of the site while the other is on the northern end. The developer is proposing to fill 6,255 square feet ofthe wetlands and intends to mitigate the wetland loss on the site. Access Access to the site will be from Wilds Parkway to the east. PROPOSED PLAN 2020 Comprehensive Plan Desienation This property is designated Urban LowlMedium density on the Comprehensive Plan map. The property meets the criteria in the Plan ( see page 122) for MUSA designation and, upon approval and recording of a final plat, is eligible for extension of sanitary sewer facilities. Zonine The developer has filed an application to rezone part of this property to R-1, Low/Medium density residential. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. Density The plan proposes 39 units on 18+ acres. Density is based on the net acreage of the site which, in this case, is 12.7303 acres. The overall density in this case is 3.06 units per acre. The R -1 district permits a maximum density of 3.63 units per acre. Lots The preliminary plat shows 39 single family lots and 3 outlots. The lots range in size from 12,061 square feet to 28,388 square feet. The average lot size is 16,618 square feet. The ordinance requires that comer lots have width and area 20% larger than the minimums required in the zoning district. There are nine comer lots in the plat. Of these, only three meet the requirements for comer lots. One does not meet the area requirements and one does meet the width requirement. Four do not meet either width or area requirements. PC71 000. DOC DR ... It also appears that some lots abutting the ponds and wetlands do not meet the requirement that 100% of the minimum lot size be located above the 100 year flood elevation of the pond or wetland. Ground floor area ratio(GFAR) The R-l district allows a maximum GFAR of 0.3. The proposed plan shows a GFAR of 0.21. Streets There are three as yet unnamed new streets in the proposed plat. Street A is an east-west street in the northerly portion of the site which is intended to connect with the adjoining property to the west. Street B connects Street A with Wilds Parkway and street C is an east-west cul-de-sac. All streets will be constructed to City standards. Portions of these streets were originally designated on the preliminary plat of The Wilds and the street locations are consistent with that designation. Sidewalks/trails There is an existing trail located along the west side of Wilds Parkway. No new trail construction is required as part of this plat. Parks No parkland dedication is required for this plat. The portion of the site in the Wilds plat was subject to dedication requirements when the Wilds was platted. Only the remainder ofthis plat is subject to a cash dedication. Sewer/water Sewer and water mains to serve the site are located in Wilds Parkway. Stubs were extended to the right-of-way line of Wilds Parkway and street openings were provided for access to this site. Landscapin~/Tree replacement The subdivision ordinance requires two trees be provided per lot. In this case, 78 trees would be required, at least 25% of which should be coniferous. The landscaping plan shows 77 new deciduous trees, 22 new coniferous trees and 14 coniferous trees already on site to be moved and replanted. The landscaping requirements are met. While it appears no tree replacement will be required, the plans do not provide the location of the existing trees in the form of a tree inventory. Further detail will be necessary. Si~na~e PC71000.DOC DR ; No signage has been identified. ANALYSIS Zone chanee request The applicant is requesting a zone change on a portion of the site from PUD to R-l, Low/Medium density residential. The criteria for granting a zone change include the following: 1. There was a mistake in the original zoning. 2. Conditions have changed significantly since the current zoning was adopted. 3. The Comprehensive Plan has been amended. Any of these criteria may be used to evaluate a request for rezoning. This case is somewhat unique in that part of the site is zoned PUD and part is zoned R-1. Normally, it is desirable to have the same zoning on a development of this nature in order to have consistent regulations over the site. The Comprehensive Plan designation on the site did not change from the 2010 Plan to the 2020 Plan. As noted previously, the Wilds PUD will be the subject of a request to amend the PUD by deleting the subject property from that PUD. It seems reasonable that the subject property should be zoned R-l in it's entirety. Preliminary plat Several conditions need to be met before final plat approval. These are: 1. The lot areas above the 100 year flood elevation need to be determined for those lots abutting the ponds and wetlands. 2. The comments of the Engineering Department (copy attached) need to be reflected in the approved preliminary plat. 3. The need for tree replacement needs to be documented. 4. Lot line easements need to be shown. 5. A copy of the covenants to be recorded on the property need to be submitted. 6. The width and area of the comer lots need to be adjusted to meet ordinance requirements. AL TERNA TIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the 6 conditions listed above. 2. Recommend denial of the preliminary plat for specific reasons. 3. Continue consideration ofthe plat to a date certain. RECOMMENDATION: PC71000.DOC DR Staff recommends Alternative 1. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to recommend Alternative 1 PC71000.DOC DR Memorandum \ \ DATE: June 30, 2000 TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator FROM: Sue McDermott, Assistant City Engineer jt,J RE: The Wilds South (Project #41-00) The Engineering Department has reviewed the preliminary plans for the subject project and we have the following comments: 1. The drainage calculations for Pond 3 (existing conditions) assume a broad-crested weir with an overflow elevation of 938.0. The Wilds grading plan show that the overflow elevation is around 941 or higher. The bituminous path on Wilds Parkway will be the control elevation for this pond. The calculations need to reflect this. 2. For the existing conditions, the Pond 2 outlet should act as a V-shaped broad crested weir with a low point of 945.6,25 feet long, with the end elevations at 946.0. 3. Proposed Subcatchment 9 should be split into 2 areas, such as existing conditions. 4. It appears, as it's designed, that Pond 4 will overflow into Pond 3 during a 100 year event. The piping should be configured so Pond 4 discharges into Pond 3, and Pond 3 discharges into the existing pipe network. 5. Two (2) alternatives need to be provided to avoid the wetland impacts per WCA (Sequencing 8420.0520) for this project. 6. There are still 2.72 acres of wetland mitigation required as part of the original"Wilds" development. A wetland replacement plan should be submitted outlining how the 2.72 acres of wetland mitigation will be created. This mitigation needs to occur concurrently with this project before any further wetlands are impacted due to filling. 7. Lot 6, Block 3 does not meet the 30' setback for the HWL. 8. Lot 5, Block 1 is not 3' above the HWL. 9. Provide a 2' freeboard above the emergency overflow elevation and the low floor of homes adjacent to backyard catchbasins. This applies to Lot 3, Block 2 and Lots 11, 12 & 13 of Block 3. 10. The impervious fraction for Pond 2 in the PONDSIZ spreadsheet should be raised to 0.3 (30%) impervious fraction for Subcatchment 4. 11. Add City Project #41-00 to the plans. G:\PROJECTS\2000\41 WILDSO\REVIEW I.DOC 12. Bubble cul-de-sacs are not allowed. 13. Show the water and sewer services to each lot. 14. Add a note to the plans that the well on the existing property must be abandoned and proper documentation provided to the city. 15. Show all pipe crossings in profile. 16. Show the existing water service to the fountain and median irrigation in Wilds Parkway. 17. Add a catch basin at Street B. 18. Street A must end in a temporary cul-de-sac. 19. Show street and storm profiles on the same sheet. 2 JUN. 13. 2000 3:43PM SHAMROCK COMPANIES NO. 0496 -Po 2 TIlE WILDS 5lH ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL NARRATIVE Subdivision Design Features; Method to which homes shall be designed: · Most homes will be custom designed by homeowner & builder with developer architectural review Architectural Style and range of valuation: · The price range of homes will be $300,000.00 and up and the architectural style shall be custom. Entry features, street lighting, landscaping, neighborhood mailbox locations, fences, etc: · There is a trail along the easterly side of Wilds Parkway and the County has a planned trail along the north side of County Road 82 which will run parallel with our berm; the berm shall be continuous along this parcel and another parcel to be developed. This berm. will have boulder features and plantings. The plat will share the landscaped/water entry with The Wilds, and maintenance of this entry will be shared by The Wilds Homeowners Association and The Wilds Golf Club. This entry wilJ be an Outlot. Street lights !lhall be standard street lights. There will be no fences. No signs are anticipated. Mailboxes shall be the same as The Wilds; cedar boxes in bunches of 2, 3 or 4 as designated by Post office. Location of mailboxes also to be designated by Post office. · Landscaping requirements shall be the same as The Wilds, which are the following: 1 - 1 % inch ornamental tree in front yard, 2 - 2 inch shade trees (one in front yard, one in back yard), 20 - 4 gallon shrubs (area surrounding shrubs shall be rock, not wood chips or sod), Entire front and back yard shall be sodded, not seeded. If landscaping is not done at fmal close of lot (house closing), then Shamrock Development shall escrow funds to be held until satisfactory completion of landscape requirements. · This plat has been laid out to accommodate the existing house currently located on property_ Location of utilities: · Some utilities were installed at the time of Wilds Parkway and provisions were made to accommodate the streets as they are now laid out in this plat. The rest of v JUN. 13. 2000 3:43PM SHAMROCK COMPANIES NO. 0496 P. 3 the utilities will be installed as per City code. Statement of the proposed use of lots in relation to traffic, fire hazards & population: . All 39 lots are single family homes. There should be no undo effects on traffic, fire hazards or population Proposed covenants: . The Wilds 5lh Addition shall be incorporated into the covenants for The Wilds, and shall become a part of The Wilds Homeowners Association. I:l ~ 5 . ~ (f) Z (f) . 0 5 :!~ I:ll:l:::~ ~ F 111 ~~~. .J :5 ~~ o'2~ ~ ::l -8 ~~~~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~~ 0 ~<(~ IO~~ ~ <I: lll~~~~"~i Vi ~ ~~ !i8~'fa. Z <I: ~ .-_. ----.T , I , I ~ I I I I ________J I I I I I -- , I I , ____~-J I I , I l- I I~~ ~,i : ~ h i 3 :I ~!.f~~: d~ o > S..,,<I'I z dq~o!ir w ~~~~.~~~~- o ~ ~'I't H ~. : ':,' f1 ~ ~ :' : ~ 8 i i f y 1 : :, (j) { :~~ I,ti ~ \~ ~ tp~ 11" n f IlliJ * ~ ?.; .'" ,,, ,,:0 -.. ..;- II (f) z o F <I: ..J :J o ..J <I: o w o <I: lL. 0:: :J (f) ~ a o r.~' 5 ~.!3~ ffi ~ti~: 0.. $lll:'ome ~ ~ ; 51'! ~ tl:l ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~lS ~~lS~~~ (f) l!!5~~l!!1ll D 1ll1/1ll.lllo <I: 3:';~~3~ ~ ~ o:ee:~ w ~ ~~l:t~ (f) ~ u i'l ~ " a 0 d z F w . . ~ <I: & 0:: :;; ~ ~ ., <I: 0 '" w .. ?- ~ 0:: ~ il III ~ ;:j <I: (;) ~ ~ .!- 0:: ~ ~ ~...: 0 z z~ 0 ~ 0 . ~ (f) ~.~ ..J N 0 ~..; lL. I Z 5~: < " <I: 0 z ~~z Z '" ~ r=! ~~~ :J ;oj! w :J :;f~ 0 ?: J~~~ 0:: (;) ~~ffi~ e~.rR I (? I I I , I I I I I (/\i I --I I ~~~i:l ~~~g ~3S~ IIII 5 '0:\ ~~ ---g I'!ij z. Il~~ "'~. ; ~ :$0 ~""'.o ~ 3' .i.~. _ I ~ 0:\ t; ~ 0:\ ~I;; ~ ~~ij~ ~~ij~~ ~'Ji~~w~ ~~ 8'" ~~\5 T~ ~il o~~lj';o ~~o~80~~~ ,",1~rfl~Zi~~ ~-~-il-&- , '^ v ~ ~ i It} l<l '" i j'; ::l 0 VI VI 0 ...J ;E W j'; ~ f I- Z W ;,: 0. 0 -' ~ w 0 '" u 0 a: ::l1 <( :x: VI ! z ~ a.. ~ Vi, >- n: <( Z :i ~ ~li! 0"- I ill 011 , I 1 it r! 11 Ii Iii l" II. I!j fl! r'i -" I I II! ! !!l~: ull! .lJ'.' *l! * · ii >> -.. .... ----------------- --, 1 I I \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ I I I I I / / / / / / / / / / I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ "' \ \~ \ " \ \ \ U I- o F ~ ~ (;::u '8~ '8~) l.:r~~~.:.s H~ t..;: a< (l9 'O~ '0:)) 133N1S Hl~C; L "" -;' .. 1 (> . 5.... ~ ~ "'~ "~~ N .... .., '" ":' CD~ . . t' \ .. .-".___.W --/-1 ------+-- /' i \.' " I I~ '.... I " ,,,, .,' ~_- i ~- , -., i ..__ 1 ~ I'" '" I ~ I · I -=~ ~ " " '- '- '\ \ \ '\ \ '\ '- !-" / / / . / ./ I I I i i ;; ~; ~ ~ : ~ 2 ~ ~ - '. . & ~ ~ ri ~ ~ 0 111 1 1 1 1 , ~ , i I \ II I II ! I I \ 1 : ( \ \ \ I! ~. ~ I -~ ~ . ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 9 9 e ~ ! ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ 8 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ _ e e ~ 3 a ~ K ~ :) ," ;! . a", " ,'" '", , ~ .~ ; 0.1 ~ ;! I \ I :: . I I -I ~ - ), f n I n v v I v . , I '( "- .....- I I Is c I I ~I Ii ," f H 2 'I B I. ;1 H ~I J"I !J f;1 II I HI ~ .~-~J: rK ~~~ ;n~CD 61 FE" ,~_ ",~J .n--L .._.- -r- n t ~-7' L 'j f- r~-../"'/ ~ " '" \ ". ~ P ) \ ~ '" ~// n I~/ !~ II .:~--Y ~ v::> 5 ')''8 i1 , I , I ( : ~./ l ~<'( ..'.....~ ---[--. . ~ ,., N 1 "'s , ",' I . , . -~ y-..~r iu.m1. 1..II",n~~--':~.. :::.' .....- ., ^VM)l~Vd SOllM x' ~ ~ ~ '::! ~ ~ 'W o ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ::> 0 Vl o 0 Vl a -' ~ -~ w " j!: f-- Z w ::;; n.. o ~ w o '" u o '" ::; <{ I ~ ! f-- <{ -' n.. >- '" <{ z ;l :J w lr ~Q ~ " . ! r, 0<< V 101lnO 00< , I ; -, - - - 1 ,---. ,----,------1' I, I I I I l' ::, ! H I I I I I I I I I I - ---, I I I I il 11 ~l il j! , I!II Zlll ,ii \1: ,I: -., I'" ,.. ~ ,\ i':'" I.i ~i o. -: . [ :~ ~* : ~ [! ~w .1_{_J . 1 J ~~ -1- - ~ t t_ i~ : it, ~i3 O'i ~ III ~ I I l, w I~" I II l It' 1 111!1 r!: (; .1, a:lil , 11 ."g .. ".11 .... ..' OJ Z . . , o e\ ~ ~ \'i1 ~~. I) .,1) w ~w ~ - ~ . \ AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 4D CONSIDER A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY EAGLE CREEK VILLAS, LLC, AND FREEDOM DEVELOPMENT AND CONSULTING FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 2, 3, & 4, BLOCK 2, HOLLY COURT, AN AMENDMENT TO PUD 82-12 AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 114, RANGE 22 JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES NO-N/ A -- JULY 10, 2000 Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, and Freedom Development and Consulting have filed applications for the development of the property located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street, directly north of Five Hawks School. The applications include a request is to rezone approximately 45,000 square feet of property described as Lots 2, 3 and 4, Holly Court from the R-3 District to the R-4 District, amend the approved plan for PUD 82-12 to include the Holly Court property and to develop the site with 102 units of senior housing, and a request for approval of a preliminary plat for this site, consisting of 12.7 acres to be subdivided into 3 lots and one outlot. BACKGROUND: In 1981, the City Council approved the rezoning of the subject site, which included this property and property to the south, to the R-3 (High Density Residential) District. Under the ordinance in effect at that time, this would have R~n:nitted 210 units on 15.05 acres of land. In 1982, the City Council approved a Schematic PUD plan, called the Priorview PUD, which provided for 106 units, a street connection from Five Hawks Avenue to Cates Street, and the preservation of site amenities. The first phase of the development, consisting of 48 townhomes, was approved in 1983. The second phase, consisting of 20 units, was approved in 1991. In 1997, the Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, filed an application to amend the eXIstmg Priorview PUD (PUD 82-12) to develop this site with an assisted living facility. As part of this PUD amendment, the City Council also approved an amendment to the 1:\OOfiles\OOpuds\creek2\creek2pc.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTL.:NITY ErvIPLOYER Comprehensive Plan, designating this property for R-HD (High Density Residential) uses. Although a preliminary plan for this amendment was approved, the developer never proceeded to the final plan stage. The Council also approved the vacation of the Holly Court right-of-way, subject to the retention of a drainage and utility easement over the right-of-way and approval of a final plat and POO amendment for this site. Earlier this year, the applicants filed applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the Holly Court property from the R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation, and to rezone the existing POO to the R-4 (High Density Residential) District. The City Council approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the condition this property be included in the existing POO. The applicant ultimately withdrew the rezoning application. At this time, the applicant is considering a new development plan for this property as a senior housing campus, consisting of three buildings with 102 units. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Total Site Area: The total area of this site is 12.7 acres. Approximately 3.5 acres of the site is wetlands, for net area of9.2 acres. Existing Use: This site is presently vacant land. The school district has been using a portion of the land as an outdoor learning center. Topography: This site generally drains to the southwest towards the wetland located on the western half of the property. When the original preliminary plat for this site was approved, the developer graded a portion of the site and created a stormwater pond adjacent to this wetland. A small part of the site drains north to the wetland located north ofthis property. Vegetation: The eastern portion of this site was graded in 1997. The western portion of the site is wooded. The project is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted an inventory of the significant trees on the site, which identifies more than 9,108 caliper inches of significant trees. The Tree Preservation Ordinance allows removal of 25% of the total caliper inches for grading and utilities, and removal of an additional 25% of the total caliper inches for building pads without tree replacement. Removal of additional caliper inches requires replacement at a rate of 1/2 caliper inch for each caliper inch removed. Initial calculations indicate 29% of the significant caliper inches will be removed; this calculation does not differentiate between removal for grading and utilities and for building pads. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: The property to the west of this site is zoned R-l (Low Density Residential) and is designated for R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) uses. This property is developed with single family homes. 1 :\OOfi les\OOpuds\creek2\creek2pc.doc Page 2 . I, The property to the east is zoned R-2, and is designated as R-L/MD. This property is developed with townhouses. To the south of this site is Five Hawks School, zoned R-l and designated for R-L/MD uses. Also to the south is the existing portion of the Priorview PUD, zoned PUD 82-12, and designated as R-HD. To the north of this site are single family homes and townhouses, zoned R-3 and designated for R-L/MD uses. Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for R-HD (High Density Residential) uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposed development is consistent with the designation. Access: Access to the site is from Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street. PROPOSED PLAN Density: The plan proposes 102 units on a total of 12.7 acres. Density is based on the buildable acres of the site, or in this case on 9.2 net acres. The overall density proposed in this plan is 11 units per acre. Lots: The preliminary plat consists of3 lots for the multifamily buildings and one outlot. This outlot is 8.19 acres in area and will apparently be deeded or conveyed to the School District for use as a nature trail. Building Styles: The proposed plan calls for one 54-unit congregate senior housing building and two 24-unit senior condominium buildings. The 54-unit building consists of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, a common library and a common party room. This building also includes 54 underground parking stalls. The building is 3 stories in height, and uses jumbo brick and steel siding as the exterior finish. The two 24-unit buildings consist of 2 and 3 bedroom units with exterior decks or patios, as well as 24 underground parking spaces in each building. These buildings are also 3 stories in height and use steel siding as an exterior finish. Section 1107.2200 lists the criteria for architectural design. This section requires that at least 60% of each building face visible from off-site be constructed with Class I materials. Steel siding is a Class I material for buildings with 4 units or less. However, buildings with more than 4 units require Class I materials consisting of brick, marble, granite or other natural stone or textured cement stucco. The back of the 54-unit building meets the 60% requirement; however, the front elevation is only 50% Class I materials. The 24-unit buildings have no Class I materials. Congregate Housing Requirements: In order to qualify as elderly housing, at least 60% of the units in the 54-unit building must be occupied by single persons at least 60 years of age, or by couples with one or both being at least 60 years of age. The property owner must record a covenant to run with the land in a form approved by the City which I: \OOfiles\OOpuds\creek2\creek2pc.doc Page 3 restricts the use of the property to occupancy by the elderly. The development must also provide a lounge or other indoor community rooms in a size equal to 15 square feet per unit. The proposed 54-unit building includes a library and party room equaling 866 square feet in area, which exceeds the minimum requirement. The developer has not provided any covenants for review. Setbacks: The setbacks for a multifamily building are based on the height of the building, as well as the length of the building. The 24-unit building is 31' tall and 193' long. The required and proposed setbacks for this building are as follows: YARD SETBACK PROPOSED Lot 1 Lot 2 Front 31 ' 20' 70' Side Street 31 ' 40' NA Side 15.5' NA 35' & 70' Side Adjacent 38.8' 20' NA to R-3 District Rear 25' NA 22' (31' where adjacent to R-3) Neither of the buildings on Lot 1 or 2 meet all the required setbacks. The Subdivision Ordinance also requires that all building pads be located at least 30' from the 100 year flood elevation of any wetland or NURP pond. Both Lot 1 and Lot 2 seem to include a wetland that is not clearly delineated. The building on Lot 2, especially, is not located 30' from the wetland. The grading plan also indicates a NURP pond on Lot 2. The proposed building is located well within the required 30' setback. Finally, Lot 2 includes the right-of-way for Holly Court. Although the Council approved the vacation of this right-of-way, it is subject to final plat approval and the retention of a drainage and utility easement over the entire right-of-way. As proposed, the building encroaches into this easement. The 54-unit building on Lot 3 appears to be 36' high and is 175' long on the east side and 215' long on the south side. The required and proposed setbacks for this building are as follows: YARD SETBACK PROPOSED Front 36' 25' Side Street 36' 30' Side 16.6' 55' Rear Adjacent 36' 25' to R-2 District 1: \OOfi 1 es \OOpuds \creek2\creek2 pc .doc Page 4 In this case, the building height exceeds the 35' maximum permitted. The Zoning Ordinance allows us to subtract the portion of the height of the underground parking area which contributes to the height of the building; however, the plans do not provide enough information to make this calculation. In any event, the proposed building does not meet the minimum required front, side street or rear yard setbacks. Parking lots are also subject to the required setbacks. None of the proposed parking lots meet the minimum setbacks. Finally, the ordinance also requires the buildings be setback at least 15' from the back of curb of the parking lots or internal drives. The proposed buildings appear to be only 10' from the back of curb. Ground Floor Area Ratio: The maximum ground floor area is 0.35. The ground floor area proposed on Lot 1 is 0.25, on Lot 2 it is 0.22 and on Lot 3 it is 0.33. Usable Open Space: Multifamily dwellings must have a minimum useable open space of 400 square feet per unit, and no more than 50% of the required space can be located in the front yard. Usable open space is defined as "a required ground area or terrace on a lot which is graded, developed, landscaped and equipped and intended and maintained for either active or passive recreation or both, available and accessible to and usable by all person occupying a dwelling unit or a rooming unit on the lot and their guests. Usable open space has a minimum dimension of 30 feet. Roofs, driveways and parking areas do not constitute usable open space." In addition, congregate or elderly housing requires a minimum of 25% of the usable open space be developed as outdoor recreation or garden area. The plan sheets indicate open space meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements; however, these areas must be identified on the plans to determine location and minimum dimensions. Parking: Multifamily dwellings require 2 parking spaces per unit. Elderly (congregate) housing requires 0.5 parking spaces per unit. The proposal provides at least 48 spaces for each of the 24-unit buildings (2 per dwelling unit), which is consistent with the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. There are 96 spaces (1.7 per unit) provided for the 54- unit building. This is also consistent with the minimum ordinance requirements. The Building Official has also noted the Building Code requires 2 parking spaces for commuter vans at each building. Landscaping: Section 11 07.1900 lists the landscaping requirements for this development. There are two different types of landscaping required for this development. First of all, perimeter landscaping is required at a rate of 1 tree per unit. In addition, a Bufferyard Type "C" is required along the east property line. A Bufferyard Type "B" and a 30" berm are required where the parking lots are adjacent to the road. The developer has submitted a landscaping plan that identifies landscaping on this site. However, the plan does not meet the minimum requirements. Finally, the plan does not indicate whether an irrigation system will be provided. If an irrigation system is proposed, an irrigation plan must be provided. 1: \OOli I es \OOpuds\cree k2\cree k2pc. doc Page 5 Tree Replacement: As noted above, the applicant has submitted an inventory identifying 9,108 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. Based on the developer's calculations, a total of 29% of these caliper inches will be removed. The Zoning Ordinance allows the removal of 25% of the significant caliper inches for roads and utilities and 25% for building pads and driveways. The preservation plan does not distinguish the number of caliper inches to be removed for road from those to be removed for building pads and driveways; therefore, we cannot determine if any replacement is required. Signs: This proposal does not include any signs. Lighting: Street lights will be provided on the public streets. The developer must also provide lighting for the parking lots. Streets: This plan proposes one new public street. Creekside Court is a 335' long cul- de-sac located at the intersection ofPriorwood Street and Five Hawks Avenue. The street has a 60' wide right-of-way and a 32' wide surface. This street provides access to all of the proposed lots. It must be noted there is a Creekside Circle within the City of Prior Lake, so the name of the proposed street must be changed. Included in this site is 66' wide road and utility easement extending from Five Hawks Avenue on the south to Five Hawks Avenue on the north. This proposal does not include the extension of this street, but it does maintain the right-of-way. Sidewalks/Trails: The preliminary plan originally approved for this site included a trail connection from Five Hawks Avenue on the south to Five Hawks Avenue on the north. This trail was to be located within the existing easement, and was to include a pedestrian bridge where the trail crossed the creek. This trail is also separate from the nature trails around the pond. A portion of this trail has been graded, although it is not completely within the existing road easement. The developer has not provided any plans for the extension of the trail or the pedestrian bridge to the north. Parks: This proposal does not include any parkland. The parkland dedication requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance will be satisfied by a cash dedication in lieu ofland. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main: Sanitary sewer will be extended from the existing line located along the east property line. Water main will be extended from the existing utilities located in Five Hawks Avenue to the south. Storm Sewer: As noted earlier in this report, a stormwater pond was created adjacent to the wetland in the west half of this site. The plan identifies catch basins and storm sewer within the parking lots to direct runoff to this pond. The grading plan also seems to indicate a stormwater pond on the north end of this site. I: \OOfi I es\OOpuds\cree k2\cree k2pc .doc Page 6 Traffic Study: The developer submitted a traffic study, prepared by Benshoof and Associates, for this development. This study indicates the proposed development will add a total of 334 daily trips to the adjacent streets, with 60% of the trips utilizing Priorwood Street and 40% utilizing Five Hawks Avenue. The study does not anticipate a decrease in the level of service on either of these streets, or at the intersections. The study does recommend the placement of stop signs on the north leg of Five Hawks Avenue and on the south leg of the proposed Creekside Court, and the placement of warning signs on Priorwood Street and Five Hawks Avenue to address safety issues. Phasing: This project is proposed to be completed in one phase, beginning construction in 2000 and ending in 2001. ANALYSIS: Rezoning Request: Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the following policies for amendments to the Official Zoning Map: . The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error, or . The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of the area, or . The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Use District will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood. This proposal meets the first criteria. The City Council and the Metropolitan Council have approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designating the property as R- HD. The proposed R-4 district is also consistent with the underlying zoning of the existing PUD. PUD Preliminary Plan: The PUD must be reviewed based on the criteria found in Section 1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 1106.100 discusses the purpose ofa PUD. These criteria are discussed below. (1) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, materials, construction and land development. The proposed development utilizes underground parking areas to allow more efficient use of the land. The clustering of the structures also allows preservation of the wetlands and wooded areas on the site. However, the developer has failed to utilize the use of Class I materials on the 24-unit buildings and does not meet the minimum 60% on some parts of the 54-unit building. Page 7 I: \OOfi 1 es\OOpuds\creek2\cree k2pc .doc (2) Higher standards of site and building design. The clustering of the buildings allows for the preservation of the natural amenities on this site. (3) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high quality land use development at a lesser cost. This development includes one cul-de-sac providing access to all of the units. The parking areas and internal road systems will be maintained by the property owner. (4) Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space components in the development which may be made more useable and be more suitably located than would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures. The preservation of the western portion of the site and the ultimate conveyance to the school district for use as a nature area provide an amenity which can be utilized by the public. The developer must address the creation of a trail connection from Five Hawks A venue on the south to Five Hawks Avenue on the north. This trail will provide a link to the public park system. (5) Provides a flexible approach to development which allows modifications to the strict application of regulations within the various Use Districts that are in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The use of the PUD allows the higher density to be clustered on the portion of the site previously graded. The density and type of housing units is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals to provide a variety of housing styles. (6) Encourages a more creative and efficient use of land. As noted above, the PUD allows the higher density areas to be clustered, and preserves open space. (7) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics including flora and fauna, scenic views, screening and buffering, and access. Clustering the units does allow the preservation of some of the wooded areas on the site. The plan must address the landscaping and bufferyard requirements of the ordinance. (8) Allows the development to operate in concert with a Redevelopment Plan in certain areas of the City and to insure the redevelopment goals and objectives within the Redevelopment District will be achieved. I :\OOfi les\OOpuds\creek2\creek2pc.doc Page 8 This criteria is not applicable. (9) Provides for flexibility in design and construction of the development in cases where large tracts of land are under single ownership or control and where the users) has the potential to significantly affect adjacent or nearby properties. The use of the PUD allows the clustering of the buildings and the preservation of the natural amenities on the site. (JO)Encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over and above required dedications, by allowing a portion of the density to be transferred to other parts of the site. The plan proposes the conveyance of Outlot A to the School District for use as a nature area. No additional density has been requested. Section 1106.300 states the quality of building and site design proposed by the PUD will enhance the aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied: 1. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified environment within the boundaries of the project by insuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and efficient use and design of utilities. The design of the buildings are similar in nature. The use of Class I materials will increase the value of this design. Revision of the landscaping plan to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance will also enhance this area. 2. The design of a PUD shall optimize compatibility _ between the project and surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. The use of the PUD will preserve the area directly adjacent to the single family homes, and will allow the creation of a trail between the existing streets. 3. If a project for which PUD treatment has been requested involves construction over a period of time in two or more phases, the applicant shall demonstrate that each phase is capable of addressing and meeting each of the criteria independent of the other phases. This project is proposed to be completed in one phase. 1: \OOfi I es\OOp uds\cree k2\cree k2pc. doc Page 9 4. Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one building on a lot. This is not applicable. Each building is proposed on an individual lot. 5. A PUD in a Residential Use District shall conform to the requirements of that Use District unless modified by the following or other provisions of this Ordinance. a) The tract of land for which a project is proposed shall have not less than 200 feet offrontage on a public right-of-way. b) No building shall be nearer than its building height to any property line when the property abutting the subject property is in an "R-j" or "R-2" Use District. c) No building within the project shall be nearer to another building than YJ the sum of the building heights of the two buildings, except for parking ramps which may be directly connected to another building. d) Private roadways within the project site may not be used in calculating required off-street parking spaces. The developer has not requested any modifications. However, staff analysis has indicated the proposal does not met minimum setbacks, and at least one building exceeds the maximum height. Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat is generally consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance requirements. The City Engineering staff have identified several issues which must be addressed prior to approval of the plat. The key issue is the need for identification of the wetlands on the site and the need for submittal of a wetland replacement plan. The developer must also submit runoff calculations for this development. A second issue are the discrepancies between the PUD plan and the preliminary plat. These discrepancies affect the placement of the buildings and the landscaping and must be addressed prior to any approval of the plan. Staff Recommendation: There are several outstanding key issues that remain with this proposal. These include the following: 1. The location of wetlands must be identified on all of the lots. This delineation affects the lot area, the density calculation and the building setbacks. 2. Provide preliminary plans for the trail connection between north and south Five Hawks Avenue, including the pedestrian bridge. 3. The PUD plan and the preliminary plat must be revised so the grading plan, landscaping plan and site plan are consistent with one another. 4. The building location on Lot 2 must be revised so the building does not encroach into the drainage and utility easements on Holly Court. 5. The plans should be revised to meet all ordinance requirements, including building setbacks, parking lot setbacks, building materials, building height, landscaping, and I : \OOfit es\OOpuds\cree k2\creek2pc .doc Page 10 lighting. If the developer proposes modifications to these requirements, a list of the requested modifications must be submitted along with the reasoning behind these requests. 6. Identify the open space on the site plan. 7. Provide covenants for both Outlot A and the congregate housing building. Due to the number of outstanding issues with both the PUD plan and the preliminary plat, it seems reasonable to continue this item. This would allow the developer the time to address these issues. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed rezoning, the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat. In his narrative, the developer has also requested the City endorse an inducement resolution for the sale oftax-exempt revenue bonds. This is not land use issue, and must be addressed separately to the City Council. The Commission should discuss the issues outlined above, and any other issues which occur as a result of the public testimony, and provide the developer with some direction on these matters. Following the discussion, the Commission should table this item to a date specific to allow the developer to modify the plans. The staff would recommend that item be tabled until at least August 14,2000, or later if needed. If the Commission feels the proposal should proceed to the Council as proposed, the staff would request the Commission table the item to July 24, 2000, to allow the staff to prepare a list of appropriate conditions of approval for adoption and forwarding to the City Council. AL TERNA TIVES: 1. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the issues which have been discussed. 2. Recommend approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat and table the item to July 24, 2000, to allow staff to prepare a list of conditions of approval for forwarding to the City Council. 3. Recommend denial of the request. 4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1. I: \OOfi 1 es \OOpuds \cree k2\creek2pc .doc Page 11 ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second to table this item to a date specific. EXHIBITS: 1. Developer's Narrative 2. Reduced Copy ofPUD and Preliminary Plat Plans 3. Engineering Comments 4. Building Official Comments 5. Traffic Study 6. Resolution Approving Vacation of Holly Court I: 100 Ii I es 100puds Icree k21cree k2 pc .doc Page 12 Creekside Estates I D rn@ @ 0' . MAY 2 6 2000 A Planed Unit Development of 102 units 0 r u - Housing in Prior Lake, Minnesota Project Narrative Freedom Development & Consulting LLC would like to present to the city staff: planning commission, city council, and its honorable mayor our proposal for Creekside Estates revised plan for 102 maximum units of housing. The land parcel consists of approximately 12.7 acres +/- of which approximately 12.14 is dividable within the open space Outlot A area and Lot 1-3 of Block 1 where the three buildings we are proposing will be developed. A public use RlO/W for a proposed city pathway and road right-of-way serving the three lots in Block 1 accounts for the balance of the land. The land parcel primarily is within the PUD Zoning District labeled as PUD 82-12 except for a small parcel that lies just North of the PUD, which is known as a portion of the old Holly Court proposal. It is our intent to amend the comprehensive plan to allow this portion of Holly Court to be guided for High Density Residential. then rezone to the high density R-4 Zoning District, and then attach this small parcel to the remaining land within the PUD 82-12 Zoning District and then amend the PUD to include all parcels of land into a PUD application of 102 units of Multi-Housing comprised of three buildings. They will include a 54 plex and two 24 plexes. The clustering of the three structures within the easterly side of the development allows more efficient use of the upland areas, minimizes public improvements, street construction, and ongoing maintenance to a minimum as suggested and referenced in the cities findings and purpose, Section 1106.100 within the section 6 of the PUD guidelines. This also allows the open spaces to be conveyed for public use to be within a larger parcel rather than to be divided by structures within the PUD. The exterior design of the three (3) proposed structures will be three stories in design with underground parking to allow for greater green spaces within the three lots encompassin~ the buildings which all have ingress and egress to the public cul-de-sac extension off the corner of Five Hawks and Priorwood Avenues. The 54 plex senior congregate apartment building is approximately the same length on each side of the L shaped building as the two 24 plex buildings thus creating a feeling of four equally and proportionally sized structures, which aids in the continuity of good design. The lot sizes of lots 1-3 of Block 1 range in size from 1.14 acres net to 1.46 acres net usable. The open areas of Outlot A comprise over 8 acres of area. At present the Nerp Pond, which is to be used as part of our surface run-off filtering and detention pond area, is within Outlot A. The design of the three (3) buildings will as previously mentioned will include underground parking for all residents with elevators reaching all floors of living to allow for greater flexibility and usage for our senior population. The rental units within the 54 congregate facility will include I & 2 bedroom apartments ranging from 750 to 1000 sq. ft. of living space. There are many large common gathering areas also within this complex. The two 24 plex condominium for sale buildings will be comprised of 2 and 3 bedrooms, 2 or more bath units ranging from 1000+ to 1300+ sq. ft. per unit. All for sale units will include an outside patio or elevated deck area The Congregate Rental building has over 1.5 units or parking per unit and the sale condominium buildings have two units or parking per condominium. All of the open spaces of all three buildings will be landscaped (see page LI) and have underground irrigation to sprinkle the grassed areas. The development team comprised of Freedom Development & Consulting LLC, Podawiltz Development Corp, and Lumber One Avon Inc., our general contractor is looking forward to working with the City of Prior Lake in creating a campus like setting multi-family subdivision in your community. The Congregate Care Apartment facility will be funded through tax-exempt housing revenue bonds targeted to both market rate and affordable senior tenants. The Developers are requesting the endorsement by the city of an inducement resolution so the developers can use the rating of the city on the sale of the bonds. The sale of the bonds will be credit enhanced by the developers and at no time will this put the city at any exposure as to the guaranty of the bonds. We hope this will help staff, commissions, and council to better understand our proposal and help speed up the decision making process. Thank you on behalf of the Development Team. Q~~~t\, DavId D. Be 1 Freedom Development & Consulting 2 June 15, 2000 Jane Kansier AICP Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake - Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Ave SE Prior Lake MN 55372-1714 , l' ~ l:: ~::D 'J ;. V 1-- Re: Additional information needed to complete Creekside Estates PUD Plan Amendment and Preliminary Plat re-application for 102 units of Multi-Family Housing. Dear Jane, City Staff, DRC, Commissioners, Council, and Honorable Mayor: In response to your review letter of June 7, 2000 of our re-application of May 26, 2000 for Creekside Estates, we have addressed the 10 topics requested by your office. They are as follows: PUD Plan Amendment 1. At this time we feel, unless staff deems necessary, no modifications are necessary. The three (3) buildings within the development seem to meet all setbacks, parking, green space, etc. within the existing regulations of the underlying zoning classification being used. 2. Phase I of Creekside Estates will include two (2) of the three (3) buildings within the subdivision. The 54 plex senior congregate care facility will be within the first phase of development as well as the first of two 24-plex- condominium buildings. The combination of both structures within the first phase will be 78 units. The location of the structures to be developed within the 1st phase are Lot 3 Blk 1 for the 54 plex congregate care and Lot 2 Blk 1 for the 1st of two matching condominium buiidings. The size of each lot is approximately 1.46 +/- acres net for the 54 plex and 1.35 +/- acres for the 24 plex condominium building. Phase II will be the completion of the second 24 plex condominium building on Lot 1 of Blk 1 consisting of 1.14 +/- acres. Page 2 July 15, 2000 Creekside Estates 3. We have contacted Jim A. Benshoof of Benshoof & Associates Inc. , Transportation Engineers & Planners of Hopkins, Minnesota, to conduct the needed traffic study requirement set forth in your letter. See attached Research and Findings study by Benshoof and Associates Inc. 4. As to the PUD meeting, the stated purposes and objectives of the PUD requirements we will try to address the outlined items with Section 1106.100 Findings and Purpose and Section 1106.300 Building and Site Design. Starting with section 1106.100: FindinQs and Purpose 1. Paragraph 1 of Zoning Ordinance and Paragraph 2 are somewhat the same in that as I described in our Project Narrative our intention is to cluster the three structures within the North and Easterly portion of the property for a number of reasons. It allows more efficient use of the upland areas, reduces length of public streets, and therefore, reduces possible ongoing Public Works maintenance concerns or snow removal. The buildings are also incorporating underground parking, which reduces the percentage of buildings to green space areas even within the clustered area. The length of all three buildings faces are very close in size and all three structures are three stories in height to help address good curb appeal and continuity in design. 2. Paragraph three of the zoning ordinance concerns for efficiency of public facilities is addressed somewhat in the previous paragraph. The clustering of 102 units of housing within three (3) structures on approximately 1/3 of the entire land within the PUD and serving all residents with less than 350 feet of public roadway on a cul-de-sac. This maximizes use with minimum cost of public infrastructure. This quality of land use is obvious on plan sheet CIA noted as grading limits and open space. 3. Paragraph 4 of zoning ordinance in talking about open space components is also very prevalent on plan sheet CIA by representing the large volume of self contained open space both within the wetland areas and also the adjacent uplands. By the clustering of buildings in the NE corner of the parcel, the open areas are not disconnected or divided into a number of smaller parcels but are represented by one larger preserved open area. 4. Paragraph 5 of zoning ordinance reflects on modifications to the use districts within the city's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. We feel there will be no modifications to the city's regulations with our PUD proposal and development. 5. Paragraph 6 of Zoning Ordinance as in paragraph 4 discusses more creative and efficient us of land. By clustering of buildings and larger self contained Page 3 July 15, 2000 Creekside Estates open spaces, less original land area is distributed and provides a more efficient us of the public infrastructure. 6. Paragraph 7 of Zoning Ordinance goes without question in the preserving the larger open area on the west side of the property not only preserves the existing site characteristics and vegetation but improves the screening between neighborhoods to the west and north by greater distances between buildings than needed by the underlying zoning. 7. Paragraph 8 of the Zoning Ordinance refers to redevelopment districts, which this parcel of land is not within any described redevelopment districts. 8. Paragraph 9 refers to larger parcels of land under one ownership impacting adjacent neighborhoods. To begin, the parcel during development will already be split by the 54-unit congregate care facility being owned and operated by the non-profit operator as well as the developer. The two 24 plexes of condominiums, will when fully completed, become all Homesteaded by individual owners who will be part of the Homeowners Association. This will control and manage the two buildings; therefore, the impact should be minor to the surrounding neighbors. 9. Paragraph 10 of the Zoning Ordinance talks about conveyance of property to the public goes also without saying in that the parcel of land that we are giving to the public for use, more than exceeds the required percentage of land dedication. In addressing Section 1106.300: Building and Site Desian 1. The architectural compatibility as previously discussed in our Project Narrative shows all three (3) buildings showing continuity in design by all having underground parking to minimize gross size of structures as well as all being of the same height which is three (3) stories. The vehicular circulation is designed for looping within the parking of the two easterly buildings and fire protection access by use of the cul-de-sac minimizes hard to reach areas. The pedestrian walk areas intersect with both the public street as well to the public easements RO\fl/ area to the west for the future trail connection through the woods. 2. The PUD proposed is all residential in design as is all surrounding neighborhoods. The 54 unit Senior Congregate care is adjacent to a senior only for sale townhome association to the East. The two 24 plex individually owned condominium buildings are buffered by the large open space to the West from the existing single family homes and the city owned lots of the Holly Court old plat separate and buffer the single and multi-family homes to Page 4 July 15, 2000 Creekside Estates the North. The wetlands buffer the school to the South. We feel the adverse impacts to the neighbors are minimal. 3. The project is designed as one project and one phase except for the time needed for the sale of the total 48 condominium units within two buildings. 4. The final and preliminary plats will show only one structure or building per lot. Lots one through three of Blk 1 of Creekside Estates. 5. A. The extension of the public cul-de-sac within Creekside Estates is over 350 lineal feet besides the 300 to 400 feet of the Congregate Care building fronting onto Priowood Avenue. B. All three (3) buildings are laid out on the site plan to meet city standards within the underlying zoning. C. All three (3) structures greatly exceed ~ of the combined heights of the two adjoining buildings. All structures have over 90 to 100 feet separation. D. Paragraph 6 is not applicable to this development. ~ 6. Under your PUD Plan Amendment, paragraph five concerns about identifying open areas graphically. Please see attached Plan Sheet CIA prepared by Brown Herkinhoff Engineering, titled Grading Limits and Open Spaces. Preliminary Plat 1. Addressing your concerns for the Westerly portion of the property for grading, utilities, etc., see attached Plan Sheet CIA for grading, utility, and landscape limits. The bulk of our activity is within the North and Easterly portion of the property as shown on Plan Sheet Cl of 4 prepared by Brown Herkinhoff Engineers and Surveyors. 2. An updated Tree Count for Creekside Estates is also enclosed showing caliper of inches within all sections of land parcel for trees of six inches or greater. The percentage of tree loss within each section is also shown. Note: The percentage of 29 percent of tree loss doesn't reflect tree count of four inch trees and or already dead trees as shown on first overview tree count. There is approximately 100 additional trees counting dead and four- inch Caliper trees. 3. The only future protective covenants will be that all open spaces shown on final plat remain open spaces. Page 5 July 15, 2000 Creekside Estates 4. Erosion control measures are now described on revised Plan Sheet C1 of 4 titled Grading and Erosion Control Plan. 5. The anticipated schedule for construction within the development is to start construction within the development September 2000 for the 54-unit congregate care facility. The first of the two 24 condominium buildings hopefully will start near the same time as the congregate, but due to financial loan obligations, some pre-sales will be needed prior to start of construction. The second condominium building will commence construction when over 75 percent of the first buildings are sold; hopefully this will occur within the year 2001 construction season. We hope this will meet with your satisfaction as to the completion of our application with this additional information. Timing is of essence due to avoiding very expensive winter construction costs so we request your help in executing our application in a timely manner. On behalf of the development team, Thank You! ~~ David D. Bell Freedom Development & Consulting a ~$ '1 ~ " ~ ~g ~ I I 15 , I Z I I L - I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . i \ ~ ~ r-CJ -'" = -~ cg .5 [iiii) I i! II i ....~ : ! I ~ iilHI+=- P:I I ;: i II I") a ~ B ~ -x ~ ~.. Ii qi x _;! ~ ; .1 --.------- I 'i; 'oX '''' ;'"'1 .t>- ;1 ' J,>'ii, , s' '-' ~ < ,40'<,.: .i \ ~ I I ~, s ~'-If: ~~_, .. 2 ... 'w I ....~, - I S )> ~ I t 1d" I \t. I I ,"4-). 1-___ ...~~I :sooooJ~:~: ,.... ~ ~ ~ ~ i I ~ i ~ ~ ~ ! ! ~ ~ ~8!!~ 1~~1 ~ i:i!i j!~ ! l-ll li~ .. I:~~ ~ 3 "I" - '! n ~I i: ga ~~ .1 . ao -~ is ~i ;i ~ ~~ ~ '-M ;~;~i:;m' m ~ ~mi~! i - - Hl.-nm Ib ~~i:;Hl II ~:::':.'~ ".; ~!-'r; ~ "U JI=,.dh' ~. "~f:'r: ~ ~ !. .-. -Hi ; i lliEf" l II (f) ~i~;l;;;! I: n,t,~i~ i ~ ii'.oj;I'!.1 ~i;-H --t di::'.:;l ,,~!k N '~l"+' 1".' ~:;.',: ~ 0 .:.d Il--fl i!fi-l l! z ::,"iil;:~, -~n ~~;:;f ~ Z Fa!loli_ ~,l'm G) ;;:!::;;: .f,,~ ~.'l-" ii!;i;;i;. ~;;;r ' ;'r--..I'.:I.'.; ":_1,'_.1, "U - 1'0.1'-0 ,:j ~;'-l- 8 ;;,!:fi:~ ji: ~l:: 5 'H~:=;;" ~~ li~h. I 1'11'1 ,- ~~ :;0. ~;~~;~W [~ ~ii~ mm~~: $.0[' ~~~m !,;l:mi ~i::~ ~m~im f~ ~mr lil::;;l~, f,!. i"i' ~i ;.:, i;~!f .. ~!!-: :;r~H8!:;' ~~ n ;'I_-j,-8 J~: ;e.ib:j' CD I\) I ~ I\) n '"'0 ::0 ::0 t-<:I t:t:l r:- t:t:l - I ;; ~ E:: ~...I. CR(u ~ m - ~ ....... ~ 0 > t:t:l ::0 t:t:l o-c:: ~ ~ m 'l:l -3 L"' :l> > -3 """3 , t:t:l 0 m '"%j , i i ,-"" '-. ~ :- I" H~'~~UHUU~~ I , !! ' H q ~ ~ ! H ' II " '.1'11'11 I I .~ ~~ i~ ~ \J' \ ';~'~Huaau' ~Is g:a~&Il\j~\j I ~~HH~~HEHiI '""'"~~"~~q~'1 I ~ I ~ ~ I;j n nnnnr I ~~'~n~B~u~' ~~ H~~i~H~ I 11 11111~H~ ~~'U~~~~U~O + ; ~~:~~f=~:~L __ __II. '-----'6~. -..-..-"~..- --~ 'f------- - ,&====-.~=~:=~~i--~----~--~---- .-- -----11 .- ---- ... _~/- /-~;: S .,,------;- _-v ~e, €I /~ ~ C<./:"- / q\ ;. "- -)" ;'-" .../"-- =::;~~~:5~-~~~'---' - (j) n-j o ~nH ~ n ~! ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ j2 88~881~ ;;mt iH ii .;m ~~,,-:,q (") i II I CIlEEI<SlIlE ESTATES : rH~ =~~TA GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN - .- - I ~l$-4l ~CDllQ..lIIoYI.IU ~ f ! 11M if""il I' iil!.! ~!i~-~I+ ~I ill (It. ~!~ '\ .:.oll B- I ,-} i I ; ( ) CD rn ~ ; I : I __J i ~ - ~- ---j ~ I ( : I I I I I I I I I I I I 0(111 if rH~ CREEKSIDE ESTAre; (EAST) - ..- ~'rilltl ile~lI+ I' " 11'-'1 l/\/~~' "'.. -Ill. !.II E:U ~I . il:it. H~~il 'I . _.Il =I. PRIOR W<E. J.lINNESOTA c :::! "'- '- '- '- '- ~ '- "- '- '- .. + ", J // fV.1f=-- .. '-- - - / ~. ,~ / al / /1l'O.,o /,./;1~ / "q,<,~~~~. ////, ~ / +,....-,"". I ... / Q)'~:+....""i- /,/ I ... '- / ~"" ">-/ / ~ I' , ~3 " -. / / , ,: ",-- / ----- ,/:/,/ ',f" T 1/'---- , _/ // ~/~ "''''-~~'~ '" \ / , -- --::::\ \ / I \ / / ' Ill: N ~ \ / / 8 \'\ \ / /.., r~ \ \ \ / / : t=====~ \'-----------. / [ : : ---\ \~ - - - - - - - - / / / : 1;0 \ \ \ / / I :~ \ :"\ \ / ~ I \ \ 0\ / ~/"/ : I N \ \\\ ..\ ~/---- ;, ,: \\\ ''{. ~ &- /, I \'. \ .. h' /, I \ \ \ '-....~ /h _---___...../ / , , \ \ \ ~ ,,~::' ~~ : " \ \- \ , ~;~~--::-_" " , '-\\ \ I -.::~~/i' / l~~~~-- -~~--i\\\\~'\---~\l-'~II:\j ~~-,;: ~N /~I ~~ '\ :::~~qr \\s\ I~J~ \ W~ \\ \ ~~a ~ \ \1 ~ \, Ji,; \ \ 'I '~~I \ 1\ \\~ \, I' ; \ III \\ __--II I I "\..~'\I \\ \, I HO[, : -~, " \\ \\ \ I \ ' CI. I ~ ~ '" \ ;. f~ E' ~ t\' ~ \\ \\ , ,Ie'. ~~=J~ \~\ ~ " \ ~rr\-T--- = ~~ ;L-~ = :81 ~.)) '\\1 \\\11 ~.' / ~' \! 11 _"!!!L~~~....~ -~ 1 ~ -------\i~~ II I \ :~~ / I f.. I r_1 II \ \ ~ / I \'1 \ :(\ III ~ /1 <J>~ //\1\ II II I ... / ~ II / / ~ r,1I II I \ I \ II M-< L J\\I~\ __L~' L , -L____________~---~--J\ ~~~ ~ --H-tt II -L __ ________ --_-------- II ::'~!il ~ N r~/-T\~~ ~~~t=-i--->---q~T:~ ~ ---=-====='='=~==Y.2!!'~~~==t 1::."J: 3: I ,~~ :~ R--rt~r-I la~~,il E~ I ~ '--/ ) 111~ I ~ ." I' ~ f8! ::I:;: . ~ . " I ~ 11;a1~ I ~o.I"I,1 ~ ~E :~~~~~I~Iu~I~~~in~la ~ @ !I !~ Ill! ~;i~ ~;;~ .;~; I ~ '" [M] ~S ~ I I~ ail~ a!~~ '~I Q) = ~~ ~ ~~! ~:B;l~ ~! ; g cS ~~ I ~ ~ h~ ~I;l ~~J J ~ ----=-~ ~i lis:: I;~~ ;~~ ~ " s:: z '. '" opq ;. H~~ CREEKSIDE ESTATES (EAST) UTILITY PLAN """"""" ...."... r~;; f IWI}i ~l~~ll (tl' } oo!"I+ .' It Hi W :I~ iz:it~ ~~~~i .blJ ~~ . ~K PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA ! !!l ~ i - ~ ~ . . . . .", .lJ: .~. . ,,"-. , . . ~. .~. ~ U1 '" tv o '" o --- . , ;.., .. '. .:-:; I.,:;,::,,, ,/ '....... ::_::. : ,:< , , -:':;::.'''':-,:,;.:-- ,":-' .'- " ..' .- """ " . " + _92~,1,o,:::' --< :;...-- . ,,' - ~ Ii , ~l'$.l:"",1 . :u ",,,;,,,,,: " ""i\ '" '~E;;.: ::: ::::>\!. ~ :::~;;~~; ,_,_",:'>__;,,> "'",,: __:l\__''~~:::, / ';".'. ,,-..' ,,".,.' \, #,..,' ........... ........ .!!~ ~~~.',.~I.m,i'.: · ..~::::::.. ...:.. ...."~w\,:..:,!!r:. "--,, ,,- 'j - " ----- '" I' :, It ' -, .- ... ...... :::::: ::.:',: .:.::, -- -- ,!~! -, .. )',,' ,,,_: .",,, ,';. "', ,',:- ",' --..'-.'."" ,,:,::::""',' ,'" ""'" -- " -,,, 11-' ' ; Yl'1,Ek;,.,m,oo" -- ---- "",.' -j"l__'" ...... :-nH-'" ",,,---, "c_;"" ,.,' .., :... " " "" ~;: ,;, '-- ~~l .......... ~~~. ~:::~ --:~:!iiH,;!.::" ," ,;S '" -- \f'''-OO'nt'''' --"N --::\["ii0" HII~ "....... "--C ,--""" , 'l-:" ---- ::,....... ~ , ..." !.. '" + 9~i2":,.",L :"'__,:,"__'" ;.....__.., .:' .' , ',,-' .,.,'" '" . ,,: . .:, ....... 1",,11 "", '. -- -- -- ;,':'---- .;:, ---- " ... . ::." "".' - ,.-:'-:':--- "-, ,- '- . , ,:;.: :;,: ,;" .. " " , --" , ".:.; ..' '" -_:':.'-"": ... " -,.::.,,,:"::.' ,": :..' ",,- ;::; ". ....-. ',: ,--- , ,,,,,-- , " .": - , ",:;:-- -- " --,' -- --->:--;,. - " " . . ",' ,--- "".. '-'. :,-- ': '" --, .': "':'; --, '.:' '" . " .;'::,.: .. . ",::,--::, " C____ ___: . .. - '. ..' -- " :.' ,'" .-; '. -- ".' """ex-"-..::" , IIr --~.> ~ ilL 9~_?2,:;P1,,:, . '.-.'. - il'::m, '", . ~ -,"'-=;.::" . ::::' "'''", --, t~. "trr'" 111 ,..;' Sf, '........; 1 'l-j"O"" ...., , !1}!'''fT1'''''' I ; 1--[6' ': J +I~)I,'~ "GW- ., ;:; , r~ ~I I .-~ -gi Ii .'....,,'fTl ;I~ ii"'''HA' ,',,' ".'" ~ij S~ ..: -, ::. ~ 930,40' r---; ;-;'--"(t'!'-- --, " +,__,,0; -.'..; ~, '.',"'~ ]~ + 9~O,~O,';>,: 6~ ::: :0", ):~ "',., ,., . ,., l::~ Z~ Z,., Mill Vl o ~ -- :::"",c::;" ;,,;':;, ___ "" , ',. , ,,- ,,-- ,.', . . ........ .. "'5: ::'!::::""'-- 1~.~:II:I!:\l::I;!I: :\\'Il'\\:\\':. ::: ::, _:.-,,:, , .. ';, , . " - . '" "" "U"TJ i3~ "TJ ;=~ fTI:e VlA :I: III fTI ~ ," - ",', ,"', :: . .' '~I~.~'~ ,. .:;' .':;;;,~~,~~ , """:::';"::~~~"'''g '-.. ' . '., .--'.!;l~~~i'Ol :::: ;;::.~ . ~~: .. ,.".'''...,.....;.~,.:...g." ;. '. '. ..... "....'" .' + -- -"-: --,,:: ,--" -- ,,- ..' '-. . - ~~e --- ... :::".,.' .:.' '.' n~";;"";.";"":" ........ :- -~ ......., - ,- ,,--' , , .... - ..I""~"__@"--"m'.........' . - - -- -- -'0" WiJ -- - '" U) U) - --;""." :'" i ,~; '::;0 c;, ~..t;; ':5 I! -' ~ . --'/.----":: -, , " , ' , '-"::, ,'. '. -',"'.. '.. " , . .':' '; :::" "",';. .; ;'--';'. ,,-- __. ----- -- .:- :'. -------- '" ,u '" '" '" ... o :-=----;~?J "" ,,," '" f,' 1\lll\i\"H" , ::;:; :HH. ... . ....: ...: ';:: ....... '"',, ,--,,'" , ; . ~ , --,:;\ - " "" . "'" ... ......:: . . ~ <D en 1 3'-0" Mo\l( ii~ 0 .., ~ CD .., . x :::; tJ) -t r C of .., r s:: ;;0 ~ z .' .' 6 -H- z x ~'. ;;0 C'l 0 5 c c . ~ ,i () =I ~~ (/) r () . . ~ .., ~ ~ '. ~ z ;;0 I . 0 c CD ' -t G; . z I" ~ i~ ~l i ~n 1~ I S~r r i~ ~~ !I ~~ . !H -I i ~i ES ~i ~ i ~ ~ I ~ ~I ~i -g .e <:;: 0 0> '" (/) () 1'-11/2. ~ ::< ;;0 I~ c 'ii ;;0 .. " CD .., s:: ?; .., fij ~ Z ~ () " C'l .., I , ~ I I c 0 I =I r 1 '. K .., .., p ~ Jo' I'" . ~ ;;0 0 ;U CD 2 0> '" W () I np CD G~~~I i I ~ir:~'g ~~ i ~iW 1 ~ ~ I ,. tJ) sh! ~ " z ~~~:. I A !I~I SIll; g ~h ~ ~d ~ ~ 8~ I aD Sit e1 U :;: ::< () ::< 0 " " z n ;U .., ,. 0 (/) r :t- o (J) 0 .., 0 (J) < ~ .., ~ ~ ::;; :t- r 6 ^ z i ~ C'l 0 ! J ,. -t + .., 0 I it ~i~ I! ill ~ II ~ ~ 0 ~'< ~ ~ ~!. I! .., '" ~ ;~i~ + i J 0 " 0 '. "1"1 ! I iHil - OJ ~ U ~ - ~hE~E ." ~ i~~H 'ii () .., ~ CD () -t .., I r '"r " 0 ~ .. () II~I 0 ^ Z .., tJ) Z C'l Z .., ~ I ~ 0 0 ." ~ ;;0 ~ f'1 ~t 0 8 j= -t .., .., () Vl ~ -t (5 Ulrtj 6 z z ~ 3: (0) !~ r~~JI~r ~ ~I~ n ~ g~ ill'= Ja~SiiU I ~ I i;P ~ ~ ~~ . 2 . ^ (/) !~i Ill~ il i ~ f"0 fiiJu -t I ~i n la~li i) ~! ; 0 0) = ;u . a II I -~ ~i!;~~ i I ~ ~ s:: i ~ ~~ c? si ~ ~ ~ ~ i :::J UliD I ~ --=- ., '-, --'3V S2PQ """""" 11 Ili~V ~!~P + CREEKSIDE ESTATES DETAILS ...- f { ~ F- -tl.,} ~~III ~ ;. rl' ;I~ PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 4~ jl~it~ ~h.i - .dJ ~ II ~L lfc!l! ~ (fl)! r '" :;U-J m = ~ ~ ~-7) [] .~. . 't,\__~ . ~~~_.__.___n__ ~ '-" ..1 ".. , ~ ~~Y Ii &~ i~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ m~ ~ i ". . I'~~ li 8 ~ ~!! IIi ~I~ 9~1 i :11 ~ill I 1'111 J !i ~ ~iU!i ! !It' i~ 51 ,oli!i . . " ! i I~ .. i~! ~~ ~ !~~ IE~ -: ~ . I'~ . . ~iE E '~E ~ dl! I E lis i , "i E I ~II ~II i;1 I ~ II} II ..} II E "'~ iG I: :Su t: i,' ii': ; ~,_ is i-ll -;j ;~~ i 0;;:- "'~. 0- c~= I i511l~ ;"111I tl~1Cl c:&i "!ill :ai !i5 !lI.lB !iii II " i "-" : ',I \.\1 "L \.\~ . ,> " .', ~ '" ~ \:: .'. ..'" -". '.,-- -- ."., ", f\" I. ' 'If '\ :\ Ii I: I: !: II " " Ii 1\ 1\ " L\ r \ 1\ "'~"''h',,<~__ ""'~< '''... \. ....7 I . I . . . - 1 'I CREEKSIDE E5TATES A PlANNED UNIT DEVElOPMENT I PRJOR l..ME. MINNE50TA I ~ !Ml ~ @ r-CJ !Ml = = ~:-~ cg !Ml ~ --3 ;.'- 11 "\.! Vii \iL.' \~'" - ~ \ . \. " @] ~ RHA AI/t:H1TEr:T'S lHe CREEl\5IDE ESTATES I ~'.'}}').\.'."}."/'.'."'i'."". ..H....]. 0 r / ^~fi/A\ ..."".--. I'UJIRM. ........ A f'LANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ;""""o;:...w...................,".'. I - rail ~ m-= PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA I.:......... ........... ~ ~..;: IGJd! j:': ~,) -<: \J "I ~ ~I \.~=~~ !~ I - amm~n. ~ ~ I- ill i !~ ~ UMI'1 ~ I: I d ~~-- m I ~ "'~>>"an.,.. ro'I nn.'.' ~ f' ;;~ nili ~ .: ..: !~!'" ~ ~~ ~~~ - i 'ii!~ii!~2m ! ! ~"'."."'i ... .. ~ ~ ~iiml~~~l i ~,."",!,,~ !I lIi!1:1~;.1~~~J;:I;.1 A ;1 . ;:1 RHA ARCHITECT'S 1M: l:i.~~.~ r.......... =- - ~ ~ ~ ~ o o '" 'd ~ NEW 54 UNIT 5ENIOR HOU51NG PRlOR LAKE, MINNE50TA ~1*P-] [J] (1) ~" UiIiJ 3:: ~ @ r-v UiIiJ <J) = ~ ~ [iliiJ ~ ~ NEW 54 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA ~- Ii ell . t.z.l ~ (') 0 ~ ~ 0 0 :.l '1:l ~ .- Drl~ Ii] ~.. ~~:- l; ~ r....) 1,j:iJ: C_I\ (..c --..j lMJ ..;) (J; ~ ~ m i~ . RHA ARCHITECT'S INr:. A ~ ILUJIlDf. ....... ..,...---. 1lI"'::: ~ ~ ,::I: ~ :a t:I s o :;a "d ~ NEW 54 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING rRJOR LAKE. MINNESOTA [~DP-] en [[] ;. ~ ~ :::j fTl > Z o fTl 1 ,....,.. ~ c: . z ~ :::j o I Ii c: ,z :::j "Tl ,"-...) J) ~ l~, __ (S~-=~;~~ ~ ~~g~~~IT5ING ! ~~_. p-1D[I~ Ii] PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA ~ J ill ~ ~~I il~ i~ ~o ~~ :;j Ii c: , z ~ :::j > Ii C . Z ~ :::j .m m I CD I !" > z o o I N ~~ '<1>' .. c: .. z ~ :::j () --.l U Cl 01 Ul "Tl ~ ~ c . z ~ =l j1 ~.r) !:.dI:::') ;.r) ~ --/ ffr ~M ~ lii lji ~ I cl i U I I ~r., ~I $~' ~ .. r . ~ ~ ~ ~ > , > ~ -l 0 6 Z z I I . ~l,1~~~ . I ~ ~ q.. '~ o I 0.. . z I I Z ~ RHA AlIt:HlTECT'S INC. Ii ~...........-.... rA...... r::: ~l,1 , r i I ~IQ i i ~ .. , l,1 o r ~ ~ ~ 6 z NEW 54 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA I [~JiP-] D [l]) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '>J ~ ;J :l:l . R . 0 . 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l.>J ~ t::j l.>J l.>J ~ t::j t::j >-l :j ; ~ 0 0 :j :z: :z: 0 0 :z: z ~2-;~1 -- lrlIJI: ~ (fj) . .~ IiUJ G"; = ~ f.iiiiJ 1 ~ ~ @] RHA J.l1t:HITECT'S 1M: b. ~ I"LUIDM. ....... rc&......... =-::::::. NEW 54 UNIT 5ENIOR HOU51NG fRJOR LAKE, MINNESOTA [~~p-] OJ (l] ~ ~ ~ ~ n l.>J ~ o z ~ ===- c:;::::::- ~ ic-': -< " , I. I, ;1', f') 01 = c€ [MJ 7J ~ "1 ~ ~ ~ g ~ ..., e RHA ARCHITJ'CT'S INC A ~.~..~ rc:.=..-=-.. =-.IlllIJT NEW 54 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA ![~~]D[D I 1-0 -11 ~ If) '1 II S8 o ---"-- I'l :::0 -11 :::0 () If) I '1 )>100 -1 I I Z 10 1'10'110 'I 1:::0 10'101 1010 0 I :TJ 0 :::0 I )> o 1-1 I :::0 )> II I II II II I LN i --' --' --' _OJI~~~ 1'0 OJ (jl CD --' I CD OJ LN 1'01 "-J LN 1'0 If) I If) If) If) '11'1 '1 '1 I I I I I I I I -- ~~"-, Ji I,'; ~ (H' ,'" 'r,!: CT;. ~ It:! Ii ! ,-:::-::-- I -1 -1IC I :2:IZ -1 IC:::O C C C 0 I -1 o ZI'lZZZ ~ 1-11'l -1 -1 -1 CD 10 II m I'll)> 101'l~~?~1~ I 0.. 0 I 25 01 ,0 ~I I ~ I NILN ~OJCD ~I C @ @@@ z I --' --' --' --' -11~ LNNO If) I N --' (jl (jl ~ N"-JLN I ~ (jl (jl Ilf) If) If) If) 1'1 'l'1'1 II III II II II 1 ~I~ olN OJI"-J ~I~ (jl(jl I If) I U) U) U) U) '11'1 '1'1'1 I -11 01 ~I II CDI c1 I 01 ZI 01 ~I I I I I II I (jll ---' I ;1 ~l I ~I I I I I (jlOCD - - - NO~ (jlOJ"-J OO"-J 1m 1--1-1IC oOOIt; :2:-1-1/- f'l )>)> z :::01110 r-uC10 ITI C Z I )> <CD-1 -1 rTl I I )> r-()U), '1 C) )> )>AJ AJI'l )>)> o r'j If) '1 U) -rl II II II --' N NCDCD - - - CD--'O LN(jlOJ 1'0--'0 (jl(jl U) --'l If) If) '1'l j~ .~ > r ;;; '" ,. '" -< i~ .~ '0 ~ r i~ .~ .<J i~ .~ .<J ; :1 i ~~:: ---111" :::: , ;!< \ J ( f'0 m L r--., It ~ I Ii ~~: ~ ~ ~ ~ l> ",- \ I ~ c z =i )> o Ul (J.) (Jl 11 28'-2" {)J ()l 1- q ~'" o ~ c . z ~ =i 01 I\,) U1 -...J U1 Ul II r--- I I I I I 3: ~ ,-v m '2:\ :3 12'-8" 32'-2" 18'-0" 34'-8" 4'-0" I\,) ~ ,- ...... ~ ~ I\) ,- (.I.) ...... ~ ~ , ~ ~ ,- ea ~u c z ~ :::j ljl' ~mc-~U' ~ @ "" fiU~ 01 C.::l f~ (~~ i co, ji:',i! ~~: ) I :'-: \:~~ ()l I\) in (Jl 11 34'_8" t 2'-8" 18'-0" 22'-7" 32'_2" 5'-7" 4'-0' 4'_0" ~ ,- q ~ ,- r-.: ~ I\) ,- w -- r-.: I\) ~ ,- -- ~ ~.. , C I Z ~ =i () ~ I\l ~ U1 (II "'l\ :;c: ~ r--> ..p I I S l = \,,- 28'-2" q ~ ~ '~ ! 'l I C ~ a Creekside Estates Tree Count """"" """"" > s:: o .- +-' U Q) r:/) Total Caliper Black Black Blue Cedar Cheny Dead Eastern Elm Fir Green Mountain Oak River Swamp White Total in inches Maple Oak Spruce wood Cedar Birch Ash Birch Oak Pine 6" 270 10 1 34 45 8" 416 13 5 25 7 2 52 10" 540 11 1 30 12 54 12" 324 13 14 27 14" 56 4 4 10' 64 4 4 18" 90 5 5 20" 120 6 6 24" 48 2 2 28" 0 32" 0 30' 0 40" 0 44" 0 48" 0 Total 1928 0 47 0 7 0 0 0 124 0 0 19 2 0 199 """"" """"" 6" 408 39 29 68 8" 184 7 2 5 9 23 10" 280 13 6 9 28 12" 144 5 3 4 12 14" 56 4 4 10' 0 18" 36 2 2 20" 140 1 3 3 7 24" 360 5 9 1 15 28" 0 32" 96 3 3 36" 72 2 2 40" 40 1 1 44" 0 48" 48 1 1 Total 1864 64 0 0 2 0 0 0 19 0 0 50 18 0 13 0 168 a'd """"" c: o .- +-' U Q) r:/) """"" > a'd > " > """"" 0' 834 98 41 139 8" 768 27 3 55 7 4 96 10" 1030 42 9 39 1 12 103 12" 588 23 17 9 49 14" 140 3 6 1 10 10' 176 5 2 4 11 18" 360 2 10 8 20 20" 440 15 7 22 24" 168 7 7 28" 56 2 2 32" 160 5 5 36" 252 7 7 40" 80 2 2 44" 88 2 2 48" 56 0 12' Tall 120 7 7 Total 5316 200 0 0 7 0 0 0 62 0 0 135 53 0 25 0 482 " """"" """"" """"" c: o .- +-' U Q) r:/) TREE COUNT :~rn~@D~@~\l !.~ J! II! ; ,r' .' I I.: : , JUN r 9 2m} ", Section 7 Section 1 & 2 Section 3.4,5,6 Section Total Inches 1928 1864 5316 Save 1 0% Save 50% Save 1 00% Inches Saved 192.80 932.00 5316.00 6440.80 Feet Saved 16.07 77.67 443.00 536.73 Total % of Trees Being Removed is 29% ~ ..> ....... ~=- 0 .J\\...:I- V ~V- en ~ E-i <r: E-i III lfJ. ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I--i lfJ. ~ ~ 0 .... ~ ~ ~ u miiil J --------1 _J .,~ N ':. .. i :-.:: a.: ::.: ~;;! i ~ ""'" ...... ~ i~ \ ~d~ ~ ~g~ ~~a ~~ ~- &~ ., ',.J ~~~j .,~ lt1 j"f:. :-.- (';. if: :."\ :,:; 1"", :~:,':: i, oJ [.:~ ,-: ..( II ----------------~ :::----------------1 : i i~ i~ u ~~~~ ~ :tiN ~~a i I I I --_-___---: ~rOllI! : M ..K,oo.oo s : uuuj\"1q,.;J , , \ ' , , i i tI~ ~~ I; It.~ ~~ ~~ ~ o 10 ~ I I' ,I l:- i. ~ '" ~T~ . BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO / HOPKINS. MN 55343 / (952) 238-1667/ FAX (952) 238-1671 .' '.' "~\\' J" rsEO ~... i'" .. E .................. June 19, 2000 Refer to File: 00-43 ".... --~D~ @5 ~~I -5 O\'V/.::,' '\ ~ . - , '. ~ ---' -- ! r . !, I ... t 9 'VIM :'; \! ,^,,1 LWU t \: , -.!; MEMORANDUM TO: David Bell, Freed~ Devp27~& Consulting James A. Bens~fand Paul D. Klappa FROM: RE: Results of Traffic Study for Creekside Estates Development PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND This memorandum is to address the traffic implications of the proposed Creekside Estates Development in the City of Prior Lake in a manner that fulfills the City Ordinance requirements. The proposed site of the development is just north of the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street. In order to evaluate the traffic implications of this development, we have determined trip generation for the new development, analyzed traffic operations at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street, and reviewed traffic effects at other nearby locations. Development Characteristics The proposed development consists of three buildings. Two of these proposed buildings are to be 24 unit, two and three bedroom condominiums for independent senior living. The other building is to be a congregate facility of 54 one and two bedroom apartments. These congregate units would have some limited care services available to residents. An extension of Five Hawks Avenue to the north and creation of a cul-de-sac is the sole means of access for the development. Existing Conditions In order to understand the existing traffic operations in the vicinity of the proposed development, directional volumes were recorded during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street. This data was collected on Tuesday, June 13,2000 from 4 to 6 p.m. and on Wednesday, June 14,2000 from 7 to 9 a.m. Further, detailed observations were made as to the general condition and operation of the two roads. Mr. David Bell - 2 - June 19,2000 Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street currently meet at a 90-degree angle. Both Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street are two-lane, two-way streets with a number of residential complexes located on them. There is a moderate hill that rises on Five Hawks Avenue a few hundred feet south of the intersection with Priorwood Street. There is also a slight hill on Priorwood Street that rises a few hundred feet east of the intersection with Five Hawks Avenue. The roads at the intersection are relatively level. We noted that a number of vehicles westbound on Priorwood Street approached Five Hawks Avenue at a higher rate of speed than desired. The Five Hawks Elementary School was not in session on the date of our counts. As the school would normally be generating traffic that travels through the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street, it is appropriate to add to the traffic volume that we observed. Through conversations with the principal of the Five Hawks Elementary School and reference to publications of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, additional volumes of traffic were added to the observed volumes to establish existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes including trips to and from the school. TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND ANALYSIS Trip Generation In order to determine the trip generation of the new development, materials published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and April 1999 count data from a similar facility in Burnsville, NfN were consulted. From this information, trip generation rates were developed for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and the average weekday. Below, Table 1 presents the trip generation for the development. Our study anticipates the proposed development will generate 334 new daily trips with 17 a.m. peak hour and 23 p.m. peak hour trips. Table 1 Trip Generation for Creekside Estates Development Land Use Size Weekday Daily Trip AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Ends Rate In Out Rate In Out Rate In Out Senior Congregate 50% 50% 61% 39% 56% 44% Apartments 54 2.97 80 80 0.150 5 3 0.203 6 5 Senior Condominiums 50% 50% 63% 37% 59% 41% 48 3.63 87 87 0.184 6 3 0.248 7 5 Combined 167 167 11 6 13 10 Mr. David Bell - 3 - June 19,2000 Through the use of the existing traffic patterns as observed by our intersection counts and the traffic facilities of the surrounding area, trip distribution percentages by route and direction were determined for the new trips generated by the development. Sixty-percent of the trips are expected to go to/from the east on Priorwood Street. The other 40% are expected to be oriented to/from the south and Five Hawks Avenue. Theses distribution percentages were used to assign the new trips generated by the development to the roadway network. Traffic Volumes The additional traffic that would be present when the school is in session was combined with the observed traffic to give existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes. The new trips created by the development were then added to the existing traffic to give the post- development traffic volumes. Figure 1 illustrates both the existing peak hour traffic volumes and the post development peak hour traffic volumes for each leg of the Priorwood Street and Five Hawks Avenue intersection. Recommended Traffic Signing As the development will be creating aT-intersection by the extension of Five Hawks Avenue north ofPriorwood Street, some form of traffic control or signing will be required. There are three possible options for the modified intersection. First, a three- way stop could be used, stopping traffic from all three directions. However, the use of a three-way stop is not warranted because of the low volumes and unnecessary delay that it would cause. A second option would be to stop traffic on Priorwood Street from the east and allow traffic on Five Hawks Avenue to move freely. The final option available is to stop traffic from both the north and south on Five Hawks Avenue. In order to determine the most desirable traffic control for the intersection, the existing traffic patterns and expected level of service for each of the two remaining options was examined. In order to better understand how the intersection operates from an overall traffic capacity standpoint, capacity analyses were performed using the methodology presented in the Highway Capacity Manual in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for both possible stop conditions. A capacity analysis is a way to determine how well or poorly an intersection is operating. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms oflevel of service, which ranges from A to F. Level of service A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. Level of service F represents the worst intersection operation, with excessive delay. In this instance, all intersection movements for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours were at level of service A for both stop conditions with one exception. The left turn from the north on Five Hawks Avenue was at level of service B when traffic on Five Hawks Avenue was required to stop. A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 00 -~ tv ~ \,~ ~ ~ t, z. ~ ~ 011 ~~I~ ~ Y' S\~€ ~OOQ ~~\Of(J\ \~ o~ ~~ (5') P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 00 -0') ~ ~ \,~ ~ ~ t, z. ~ ~ Ol~ ~ 6A1oA ~ Y' S\~€ ~OOQ ~~\Of(J\ \~ ot; U\- t; N t r=EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME I ,POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK HOUR VOLUME XXIXX FREEDOM DEVELOPMENT & CONSULTING \Xi BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. V TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS NOT TO SCALE TRAFFIC STUDY FOR CREEKSIDE ESTATES DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 1 EXISTING AND POST- DEVELOPMENT PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Mr. David Bell - 5 - June 19,2000 Considering the level of service results and other implications, we recommend that stop signs be placed on the north and south legs of Five Hawks Avenue. Westbound traffic on Priorwood Street would have the right-of-way and would not have to stop. This recommendation is further reinforced by the low volume of traffic on Five Hawks Avenue from the north and guidance from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In addition to the two stop signs, we recommend the placement of two warning signs on the east and south approaches to the intersection and an additional warning sign at the intersection itself Figure 2 shows the recommended traffic control placement for the proposed intersection. Other Potentially Impacted Intersections There are two other intersections that may be impacted by the traffic generated by the proposed development. Most new development trips will travel through either the intersection ofPriorwood Street with Duluth Avenue or the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue with Highway 13. While, it is not possible to determine the level of service at these intersections without full traffic counts and analyses, we have been able to establish a basic sense regarding the extent to which these two intersections would be affected by the proposed development. According to the 1998 Traffic Volumes Map for the Seven County Area as prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the annual average daily traffic (AADT) on Highway 13 near Five Hawks Avenue is 9700 vehicles per day and the AADT on Duluth Street near Priorwood Street is 4500 vehicles per day. The daily trips associated with the proposed the development at the intersection of Five Hawks and Highway 13 represent about 1.4% of the AADT on Highway 13. At the intersection ofPriorwood Street and Duluth Avenue, the daily development trips at the intersection represent about 4.5% of the AADT on Duluth Avenue. Based on this information, it is unlikely that the proposed development will have any significant negative impacts on either of the two intersections. Speed Our observations noted that some motorists were traveling a higher than desired speed on westbound Priorwood Street. We recommend that the city verify existence of speed limit signs on this street and implement periodic enforcement in the area to ensure that speed limits are observed. FREEDOM DEVELOPMENT & CONSULTING \Xi BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. V TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS "'(\ "2- ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ o.~~~ S~p ~OOQ ?~\O~ ~.}.- ~ -() ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .; ~4 R1-1 24" x 24" N t NOT TO SCALE TRAFFIC STUDY FOR CREEKSIDE ESTATES DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 2 RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC SIGNING Mr. David Bell -7- June 19,2000 CONCLUSIONS Based on the information presented in this report, we have made the following conclusions: · The proposed senior housing development is expected to generate 334 daily trips, 17 a.m. peak hour trips, and 23 p.m. peak hour trips. · We recommend that the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street be controlled with stop signs on the north and south legs of Five Hawks Avenue. With this control, a high level of service and safety will be provided. · Three additional warning signs are recommended for the Five Hawks A venue/Priorwood Street intersection. · We recommend that the City staff take the following two steps to ensure compliance with the speed limit on Priorwood Street: a) verify that speed limit signs are presently in place on Priorwood Street and b) provide periodic speed limit enforcement · No significant negative impacts due to the proposed development are expected at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Highway 13 or at the intersection ofPriorwood Street with Duluth Avenue. j ~~ DATE: June 22, 2000 TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator f FROM: Sue McDermott, Assistant City Enginee~ RE: CREEKSIDE ESTATES (Project #42-00) The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject project and have the following comments: Plat 1. In accordance with the City's subdivision ordinance 6-6-2 (K): "Roadways and street intersections shall have right-of-way radii of not less than twenty-five feet (25')." Gradin~ and Erosion Control Plan 1. Show adjacent plats, parcels, property lines, topography etc. 2. Signature of company responsible for erosion and sediment control preparation, implementation and maintenance. 3. Extend existing 2' contour lines and surface features a minimum of200' beyond the property boundary or more as needed to accurately depict the existing drainage patterns. 4. Lot comer elevations. 5. Show all easements on the plan. 6. Submit detailed plans and specifications that show type and height of retaining wall. Retaining walls will not be allowed within the City's ponding easements. 7. Show City of Prior Lake project number 42-00 on the Plan. 8. Show or define access routes for maintenance purposes to all inlets or outlets at ponding areas (must be maximum of8% grade, 2% cross slope and 10' wide). 9. Note for all silt fence to be installed by the contractor and inspected by the City prior to any site work. All silt fence shall be heavy duty. 10. Add a note that wood fiber blanket is to be installed on all 3: 1 slopes. 11. Type of storm sewer pipe shall be Reinforced Concrete Pipe (R.C.P.) from DS 1 to DS 5, DS 5 to DS 6, DS 5 to DS 7, and DS 7 to DS 8. '-, 12. CMP aprons shall be placed at all locations where the stonn sewer outlets a ponding area. All outlet flared end sections from ponding areas shall be furnished with hot dipped galvanized trash guards. 13. Note on Plan that riprap and filter blanket shall be placed at all outlet flared end sections. The minimum class of riprap shall be MnDOT 3601.2 Class III. Design criteria justifying the size and amount of riprap is required. 14. Environmental manholes, 3 foot sumps, shall be constructed as the last structure which is road accessible prior to discharge to any water body. 15. Retaining walls over 4 feet in height are to be designed by a Minnesota Registered Professional Structural Engineer and the retaining wall is to be located on private property . 16. Delineated edges of wetlands are to be shown on the plan. 17. The original plan for this site utilized the existing 30" RCP outlet into the sedimentation basin. Can the stonn sewer be routed to utilize this pipe? 18. The proposed pond on the north side of the site appears to impact an existing wetland. Utility Plan 1. Only outside drops are allowed for drop manholes, MH #1. See City of Prior Lake Plate No. 202. 2. Identify SDR Class for 8" PVC SAN SEW (8' to 16' is SDR 35, 16' to 26' is SDR 26). Identify 6" PVC SEW SERV as SDR 26 per City of Prior Lake Standard Plate Number 204. 3. Note 1 should note for all water mains the depth of cover shall be a minimum of 8' to top of pipe and mcL'dmum of 10' of cover. 4. Identify that materials shall be ductile iron pipe Class 52 for 6" to 12" diameter watennain. 5. Note 2 should note to provide a minimum of 18" vertical separation for all water main crossings with sanitary and stonn sewer. 6. Note 8 should note that cleanouts are required at 100' intervals including the riser on sanitary sewer services. Profile Sheet 1. The profile sheet does not include all of the stonn sewer. 2. MH #1 should show an outside drop. 2 /' " Details 1. The engineer must provide a pavement design. Per City Standard Detail No. 501, the design shall be based on soil borings R-value determined by an independent testing company. 2. Refer to State of Minnesota Department of Highways Standard Plates to verify the accuracy of B618 Concrete Curb & Gutter, Rip Rap at outlets, and Design H Catch Basin details. 3. Refer to City of Prior Lake Public Works Design Manual Standard Plates to verify the accuracy of Details shown and to add additional necessary Details. 4. Use B618 Concrete Curb & Gutter as shown in Typical Road Section within Right- of-Way, not B612. General Reauirements 1. Organize plan sheets in the following order: Title Sheet, Typical Sections and Details Sheet, Grading Plan, Erosion Control Plan, Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Plan & Profile Sheets, and Storm Sewer and Street Plan & Profile Sheets. 2. All parcels shall be properly labeled with lot and block numbers and plat name. Developed parcels shall have their address shown on the plan. 3. All streets shall be clearly labeled. 4. Approximate locations of gas, electric, cable, telephone lines, pipelines, etc. shall be shown. 5. All easements shall be shown on drawings including sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer. 6. Bench marks shall be placed on all sheets. 7. Title Block shall include horizontal and vertical scales. 8. The street construction plans shall show centerline curve data. 9. All easements, permanent and temporary, shall be shown and labeled. Please note that we have not reviewed the hydologic calc's. The review will be complete by 6/28/00. 3 [ ............ .....-..----_...-.._.. ...-- -..... ....... .... .._,,--. . - -..... ...... . ... . ..,... . .. ....,.. . . -'---', ," ... . --..-.-..........._._...-_.-.'_._...- ..'..... ',.,..'...-....'......-,...... '-'- -,' . .. .. .... - ,......-- '. ................e.Ill.Q..t..I.II.I.u............ I DATE: June 29, 2000 TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator / FROM: Sue McDermott, Assistant City Engineer ~ RE: CREEKSIDE ESTATES (Project #42-00) The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject project and have the following comments regarding hydraulic calculations and associated work: 1. Submit a summary of the runoff calculations showing existing and proposed conditions. 2. Follow MPCA's guidelines for sizing the north detention pond. It should be based upon the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) criteria, designed for a 2.5" rainfall event. 3. Pond slopes below the normal water level (NWL) should be 6: 1 or less. 4. Show the wetland boundary and wetland fill areas on the grading plan. 5. Submit a wetland replacement plan. 6. Pipe outlet apron inverts should match the NWL of the corresponding pond. 7. Show additional silt fence on the north side of the property. 8. Show all storm sewer in profile. 9. Rename Creekside Court. 10. Check numbering on drainage structures - there appears to be duplication. 11. Realign the sanitary so that the pipe to manhole #1 is not beneath the retaining wall by moving MH #1 to the north. 12. Provide easements over the 8" sanitary sewer main. 13.Add hydrant at the intersection of the cul-de-sac and Priorwood. Memorandum DATE: June 16,2000 TO: Jane Kansier, Planner FROM: Robert D. Hutchins, Building Official f-D\~ RE: Site plan review for Creekside Apartments Priorwood Ave. Following are the results of the preliminary Site plan review for the Creekside Apartment buildings. Our review was based on the Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) which adopted with amendments the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) with handicap regulations of the Minnesota Accessibility Code Chapter 1341. Also requirements of the 1998 Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) which adopted with amendments the 1997 Uniform Fire Code (UFC). 1. Submit signed architectural, structural plans, and a Certificate of Survey. 2. Complete a Building Code analysis. 3. Sheets C1 and L1 do not match, elevations of units do not match Cl. On 54 unit, indicate underground parking on elevations. 4. Structural engineer to design retaining walls over 4'-0" in height. 5. Are these facilities licensed with the State of Minnesota for care? 6. Provide a description of rental agreement and type of facility and services offered in the apartments. 7. Relocate the four fire hydrants. Place 3 westerly hydrants in green areas across from building entrances. Front of hydrant shall be placed 5' -0" from curb and side of hydrants shall be placed 10'-0" from curb. Place east hydrant approximately 45'-0" north of 54 unit and 20' -0" from east property line. Indicate on plans an access space in front of building entrances in parking lot. 8. Provide a Post Indicator Valve (PIV) on sprinkler supply line into buildings. Locate a minimum distance away the height of the building. 9. Provide 96" clearance height in underground parking for Fire Departments fast response apparatus. 10. Provide fire lanes for fire apparatus response. Signage to read :" No Parking Fire Lane by order of Fire Department". Indicate on a Site plan. Locate by Fire Hydrants. UFC 1001.7.1. 11. Provide accessible route from exterior HDCP parking to the building on west 24 unit. Locate closer to front entrance to building. MSBC 1340.1103 Provide detail sheet of HDCP ramp. 12. 54 Unit: confirm if all units are HDCP Accessible. Two 24 Units: Two percent of Units must be HDCP Accessible. MSBC 1341 Table 16.2 13. Provide HDCP signage details. 14. All Units not HDCP accessible must be HDCP adaptable and on a HDCP accessible route. MSBC 1341 Table 16.2 15. 54 Unit: Door at Area Separation wall in Corridor requires 18" of sidewall on latch side of door. MSBC 1341.0442 16. Provide two parking spaces at each building for commuter van. MSBC 1300.4100. 17. If provided, indicate means of lawn irrigation. May use separate service and metering for billing purposes. This is a preliminary review only on conceptual plans. Other code items will be addressed when the preliminary plans are submitted. The building plans must be reviewed by the Cities Developmental Review Committee (DRC) which consists of representatives of Planning, Engineering, Parks, Finance, and Building Departments. The DRC must approve the plans before a building permit can be issued. 2 ~ RESOLUTION 97-47 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF THE HOLLY CIRCLE RIGHT- OF-WAY Al~D THE PLATTED UTll..ITYEASEMENTS AS PLATTED IN HOLLY COURT MOTION BY:_Kedrowski_ SECOND BY:_Schenck WHEREAS, a petition for the vacation of the Holly Circle right-of-way and the platted utility easements has been duly presented to the City of Prior Lake, signed by a majority of the owners of the property abutting the following described right-of-way situated in the City of Prior Lake, Scott County, Minnesota to wit: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Holly Circle right-of-way adjacent to Lots 1-5, Block 2, Holly Court and the 10' wide utility easement located along Lots 1-5, Block 2, Holly Court. WHEREAS, notice of the hearing on said petition has been duly published and posted in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on said petition on Monday, June 2, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Prior Lake Fire Station #1; and WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said petition and persons interested afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections to the granting of said petition; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Prior Lake has determined that the vacation of said right-of-way and utility easements would be in the public interest. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, that pursuant to Minnesota Statues 412.851, the above described road right-of-way and utility easements situated in the City of Prior Lake, Scott County, lVIinnesota is hereby vacated subject to the following conditions: 1. Lots 2, 3, and 4 must be combined and added to PUD 82-12 (Priorview) through a PUD amendment and replatting of the property. 2. A utility easement covering the entire right-of-way for Holly Circle be granted to the city. 3. A 20' drainage easement along Cates Street be retained by the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution will be fonvarded to the Office of the County Recorder, Scott County, for appropriate action. Passed and adopted this 2nd day of June, 1997. 16200 E~~1~uc:~~~~s~~~:P~.~~:'f1~btl~~~~ Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61:2r~47-424S ,A,Cl EQUAL OPPORTl.JNITY E;v!PLOYER {Seai} r:\counciI\reso I uti\planres\rs97 4 7 cc.doc ANDREN GREENFIELD KEDROWSKI MADER see Frank Boyles, C.t7.! ger City of Prior Lake / I ANDREN GREENFIELD KEDROWSKI MADER SCHENCK YES _X_ X X X X NO ... Page 2